In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> It's a terrible predicament but if NICE don't approve something there will be a good reason for it - and it won't just be money, despite what the press say and US Republicans say. NICE primarily try to look objectively at how effective any given treatment is; they review the published papers and their recommendations are based on whether treatments actually work or not; plenty don't.
Up to a point. NICE is about getting value for money, the best 'bang for your buck', so they consider both effectiveness and cost. As healthcare resources are finite, irrespective of source of funding, it has to be this way: paying for hyperexpensive new treatments means less money for existing less 'sexy' care which would lead to an overall reduction in the quality of care. NICE, or a health insurer, has to make a decision about which new treatments to fund and which not, leading to the headline grabbing scenarios where very costly and unproven or marginal benefit treatments are not supported.
In reply to CantClimbTom:
You are wrong about NICE guidelines on acetabular impingement. NICE supports the use of both arthroscopic and open surgery: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/conditions-and-diseases/musculoskeletal-co...
I don't know what you mean about NICE not recommending hernia operations. The only relevant guidelines I can find is Laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernias which is supported: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta83/chapter/1-Guidance
Other hernia repairs have no guidelines; this is not the same as NICE not supporting them.
Your point about sleep apnea is too vague to be answerable. Some treatments are supported as they are cost-effective and others are not, which is as it should be. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean here?
You are wrong about the effect of pressure to recommend short-term savings. It may be true that NICEs recommendations are not implemented in order to make short-term cost savings but this is a different question.