Model-based evaluations are a valuable resource for health-care decision makers. It is the responsibility of model developers to conduct modeling studies according to the best practicable standards of quality and to communicate results with adequate disclosure of assumptions and with the caveat that conclusions are conditional upon the assumptions and data on which the model is built.

SummaryRecently the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) updated its methods guidance for technology assessment. One aspect of the new guidance is to require the use of probabilistic sensitivity analysis with all costeffectiveness models submitted to the Institute. The purpose of this paper is to place the NICE guidance on dealing with uncertainty into a broader context of the requirements for decision making; to explain the general approach that was taken in its development; and to address each of the issues which have been raised in the debate about the role of probabilistic sensitivity analysis in general. The most appropriate starting point for developing guidance is to establish what is required for decision making. On the basis of these requirements, the methods and framework of analysis which can best meet these needs can then be identified. It will be argued that the guidance on dealing with uncertainty and, in particular, the requirement for probabilistic sensitivity analysis, is justified by the requirements of the type of decisions that NICE is asked to make. Given this foundation, the main issues and criticisms raised during and after the consultation process are reviewed. Finally, some of the methodological challenges posed by the need fully to characterise decision uncertainty and to inform the research agenda will be identified and discussed.

The randomised controlled trial (RCT) has developed a central role in applied cost-effectiveness studies in health care as the vehicle for analysis. This paper considers the role of trial-based economic evaluation in this era of explicit decision making. It is argued that any framework for economic analysis can only be judged insofar as it can inform two key decisions and be consistent with the objectives of a health care system subject to its resource constraints. The two decisions are, firstly, whether to adopt a health technology given existing evidence and, secondly, an assessment of whether more evidence is required to support this decision in the future. It is argued that a framework of economic analysis is needed which can estimate costs and effects, based on all the available evidence, relating to the full range of possible alternative interventions and clinical strategies, over an appropriate time horizon and for specific patient groups. It must also enable the accumulated evidence to be synthesised in an explicit and transparent way in order to fully represent the decision uncertainty. These requirements suggest that, in most circumstances, the use of a single RCT as a vehicle for economic analysis will be an inadequate and partial basis for decision making. It is argued that RCT evidence, with or without economic content, should be viewed as simply one of the sources of evidence, which must be placed in a broader framework of evidence synthesis and decision analysis.

No abstract

Currently, health state values are usually obtained from members of the general public trying to imagine what the state would be like rather than by patients who are actually in the various states of health. Valuations of a health state by patients tend to vary from those of the general population, and this seems to be due to a range of factors including errors in the descriptive system, adaptation to the state and changes in internal standards. The question of whose values are used in cost-effectiveness analysis is ultimately a normative one, but the decision should be informed by evidence on the reasons for the differences. There is a case for obtaining better informed general population preferences by providing more information on what it is like for patients (including the process of adaptation).