Patients' views of explicit rationing: what are the implications for health service decision-making?

Abstract

Patient groups in England and Wales have expressed concerns about the decision-making processes of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), the body responsible for explicit rationing. Five key issues were identified by the Multiple Sclerosis Society regarding NICE appraisals and guidance: they focus too narrowly on costs to the National Health Service; quality-adjusted life-years are an inadequate measure of health gain, particularly for long-term conditions; NICE takes too conservative a view of long-term benefits; NICE's cost-effectiveness threshold is inappropriate; and NICE evaluations fail to capture patients' personal experiences of their condition and treatments. We question the veracity of some of these arguments and, where appropriate, suggest ways in which NICE's processes might be strengthened.