A study analyzed drugs approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England (2000–2020) and found a tough trade-off: while new treatments helped individual patients, the overall health benefit for the population didn’t justify the cost.
📊 Key Findings:
New drugs provided 3.75 million QALYs (Quality-Adjusted Life Years), but the same money spent on NHS services could have delivered 5 million QALYs, resulting in a net health loss of 1.25 million QALYs.
The median ICER (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) for these drugs rose over time, meaning they became more expensive for the health benefits provided.
Cancer drugs had the highest ICERs and the smallest population health gains, while anti-infective treatments offered better value.
💡 Takeaway: Balancing NHS spending is critical. By ensuring new treatments meet stricter ICER thresholds and align with the opportunity costs of healthcare budgets, we can maximize health benefits for the population.
Naci, H., Murphy, P., Woods, B., Lomas, J., Wei, J., & Papanicolas, I. (2024). Population-health impact of new drugs recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England during 2000–20: a retrospective analysis. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)02352-3
Comments