Background - It is a familiar story. A promising Multiple Sclerosis (MS) treatment
clears the three regulatory hurdles of safety, quality and efficacy, only to fall at the
fourth: cost-effectiveness. This has led to concerns about the validity of the
measures typically used to quantify treatment effects in cost-effectiveness ...
Background - It is a familiar story. A promising Multiple Sclerosis (MS) treatment
clears the three regulatory hurdles of safety, quality and efficacy, only to fall at the
fourth: cost-effectiveness. This has led to concerns about the validity of the
measures typically used to quantify treatment effects in cost-effectiveness analyses
and in 2012, in the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Care
Excellence called for an improvement in the cost-effectiveness framework for
assessing MS treatments.
Objective and Methods - This review describes what is meant by cost-effectiveness
in health/social care funding decision-making, and usual practice for assessing
treatment benefits.
Results - We detail the use of the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in resource
allocation decisions, and set out limitations of this approach in the context of MS.
Conclusion - We conclude by highlighting methodological and policy developments
which should aid addressing these limitations.