Article Text
Abstract
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is 10 years old and has now issued a number of technology appraisals for new treatments for neurological disorders. Those for multiple sclerosis and dementia have been controversial and have attracted particular media attention, to say nothing of strong feelings within British neurology. Some of its other activities, which include both appraisals of interventions and clinical guidelines, have attracted less notice but form an important part of its remit. There is no doubt that NICE has had an impact on neurological care in the UK which for the most part has been beneficial. It has a vital role in managing the relationship between the NHS and pharma, and helps ensure equity in access to new and potentially expensive treatments.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Linked Articles
- Editor’s choice
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Research ethics and evidence based medicine
- The use of cost-effectiveness by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): no(t yet an) exemplar of a deliberative process
- NICE is dead; long live NICE
- NICE’s new methods: putting innovation first, but at what cost?
- NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies
- The UK Risk-Sharing Scheme for interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate in multiple sclerosis. Outcome of the year-6 analysis
- The unintended consequences of NICE
- Multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme: two year results of clinical cohort study with historical comparator
- National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments
- Wickedness or folly? The ethics of NICE’s decisions