Tag: Stephen O’Brien

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen O’Brien on 2014-04-10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) assesses the cost-effectiveness of an intervention when the data available are uncertain; what assessment NICE has made of the average range around the most-plausible cost-per-QALY in its technology appraisals; and if he will make a statement.

Norman Lamb

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) follows a rigorous process in the appraisal of technologies to ensure that judgements regarding the cost-effective use of NHS resources are consistently applied. This includes consideration of the uncertainty generated where available data have serious limitations.

When making judgements on cost effectiveness, the NICE appraisal committee will consider a number of factors including the strength of the clinical-effectiveness evidence, the innovative nature of the technology, the robustness and plausibility of the economic models, the degree of certainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), the range and plausibility of the ICERs and the likelihood of decision error and its consequences. Full details of how the Committee takes uncertainty into account is contained within sections 5.8, 6.3 and 6.4 of NICE’s Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013, which is available at:

http://publications.nice.org.uk/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pmg9

NICE advises that it has not carried out an assessment of the average range around the most plausible cost-per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) in its technology appraisals. We understand that although NICE usually specifies the most plausible cost-per-QALY for each technology appraisal, it does not normally specify a range for this assessment.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen O’Brien on 2014-04-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what estimate he has made of changes in passenger numbers on the West Coast Main Line over the next 10 years.

Stephen Hammond

I refer my Hon Friend to my answer of 28 April 2014, Official Report, columns 517-518W (UIN 196423).

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen O’Brien on 2014-04-10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 24 March 2014, Official Report, column 120W, on haemolytic uraemic syndrome, for what reasons it was felt that further advice was needed on the overall cost implications, benefits and affordability of eculizumab; when it was first concluded that such further advice was needed; for what reasons the seeking of that advice was delayed until the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence took on responsibility for assessing highly specialised technologies; and if he will make a statement.

Norman Lamb

Ministers concluded that further advice was needed on the overall cost implications, benefits and affordability of eculizumab as, while Advisory Group for National Specialised Services (AGNSS) members were convinced of the clinical effectiveness of the drug, they noted the very high costs of the drug and the increasing cost profile for the National Health Service.

AGNSS was informed of this decision on 17 January 2013. On 7 February 2013, the Department conveyed its decision to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) so that NICE could begin preparatory work in advance of taking on formal responsibility for evaluating highly specialised technologies on 1 April 2013.

While NICE carries out its evaluation, the current interim commissioning arrangements by NHS England in line with the ‘Clinical Commissioning Policy Statement: Eculizumab for atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome’ will remain in place. The policy statement is available at:

www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/e03-hss-a.pdf

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen O’Brien on 2014-04-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, in which circumstances he uses a calculation of the (a) value of preventing a fatality, (b) willingness to pay and (c) cost-per-quality adjusted life year approach to quantify the value of a policy intervention; what other tools he uses to quantify the benefit of a policy intervention; and if he will make a statement.

Mr Robert Goodwill

The Green Book and associated supplementary guidance is publicly available on the Treasury web site. It sets out a range of approaches and methods that may be appropriate in a number of different appraisal circumstances.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen O’Brien on 2014-04-10.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in what circumstances she uses a calculation of the (a) value of preventing a fatality, (b) willingness to pay and (c) cost-per-quality adjusted life year approach to quantify the value of a policy intervention; what other tools she uses to quantify the benefit of a policy intervention; and if she will make a statement.

Karen Bradley

The Green Book and associated supplementary guidance is publicly available on
the Treasury web site. It sets out a range of approaches and methods that may
be appropriate in a number of different appraisal circumstances.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen O’Brien on 2014-04-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in which circumstances he uses a calculation of the (a) value of preventing a fatality, (b) willingness to pay and (c) cost-per-quality adjusted life year approach to quantify the value of a policy intervention; what other tools he uses to quantify the benefit of a policy intervention; and if he will make a statement.

Esther McVey

The Green Book and associated supplementary guidance is publicly available on the Treasury web site. It sets out a range of approaches and methods that may be appropriate in a number of different appraisal circumstances.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen O’Brien on 2014-04-10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, in what circumstances he uses a calculation of the (a) value of preventing a fatality, (b) willingness to pay and (c) cost-per-quality adjusted life year approach to quantify the value of a policy intervention; what other tools he uses to quantify the benefit of a policy intervention; and if he will make a statement.

Mr Shailesh Vara

The Ministry of Justice does not use calculations of (a) the value of preventing a fatality, (b) willingness to pay and (c) cost-per-quality adjusted life year approach to quantify the value of a policy intervention.

The Ministry of Justice uses a range of analytical approaches to assess and evaluate policies, including quantifying the benefits, in line with guidance provided by HM Treasury:

• “The Green Book: appraisal and evaluation in central government”
• “The Magenta Book” on designing an evaluation.

These are published on the HM Treasury website:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-magenta-book

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen O’Brien on 2014-04-10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, in what circumstances he uses a calculation of the (a) value of preventing a fatality, (b) willingness to pay and (c) cost-per-quality adjusted life year approach to quantify the value of a policy intervention; what other tools he uses to quantify the benefit of a policy intervention; and if he will make a statement.

Jenny Willott

The Green Book and associated supplementary guidance is publicly available on the Treasury web site. It sets out a range of approaches and methods that may be appropriate in a number of different appraisal circumstances.