By Rachel
With the continuing criticism of NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence), it seems to me that we should be looking for new ways to address healthcare funding in the UK. This is particularly relevant as the population ages and increasingly expensive therapies are coming on to the market, such as the cancer drugs.
Perhaps we need to move on and engage the public in a new dialogue. A recent report entitled ‘Making the NHS the best insurance policy in the world’, issued by the UK think tank Reform, poses an interesting concept. The report calls for a National Health Protection System whereby healthcare systems would compete to insure patients. The aim is to create competition between private firms and primary care trusts, resulting in driving down costs and improving choice. Is this the debate we should be having rather than continuing the rage against NICE?
September 17th, 2008
By Rachel
The UK drug watchdog, NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence), was under fire again recently, this time from the Daily Mail (one of the UK’s most influential national newspapers). This time it’s not the guidance given on prescription drugs that are ‘too expensive’ for the NHS, but rather how much NICE spends on ‘spin’: “fury over drug watchdog’s £4.5m PR budget”. The article states that NICE spends £4.5m on ‘communications’ and £3.4m on assessing new medicines. However, a breakdown on what is included in the communications category is not divulged.
NICE is a hugely influential organisation. In 2006/7 it produced 21 technology appraisals, 50 interventional procedure reviews, 13 clinical guidelines and 2 sets of public health advice, all of which required extensive communication and collaboration with a large number of stakeholders, ranging from patients to healthcare professionals, public health experts and health economists. In addition to engaging stakeholders in the review processes, NICE reaches out to target audiences through a number of other communications channels to ensure there is a two-way dialogue between stakeholders and partner organisations.
It seems to me that the issue here is the balance of spend – as a public body, NICE cannot make recommendations without due consultation. It has a duty to communicate clearly and transparently with patient groups and healthcare professionals. This communication requirement cannot realistically be achieved on a shoestring budget, but neither should it be profligate in its spend.
September 12th, 2008
