South London Community Education Provider Networks : evaluation report

Community Education Provider Networks (CEPNs) are innovative network organisations designed to support workforce transformation, through education and training, for a primary and community orientated National Health Service . In developing CEPNs, Health Education England (HEE) has been a pathfinder for innovation in primary care workforce development across a diverse health care system which covers a population of approximately three and quarter million people. This final evaluation report, following on from the interim report of 2015, offers a system wide assessment. It also identifies key issues and learning points for the development of such education and training network organisations

Costs and Outcomes of Increasing Access to Bariatric Surgery: Cohort Study and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Electronic Health Records

Objectives: To estimate costs and outcomes of increasing access to bariatric surgery in obese adults and in population subgroups of age, sex, deprivation, comorbidity, and obesity category. Methods: A cohort study was conducted using primary care electronic health records, with linked hospital utilization data, for 3,045 participants who underwent bariatric surgery and 247,537 participants who did not undergo bariatric surgery. Epidemiological analyses informed a probabilistic Markov model to compare bariatric surgery, including equal proportions with adjustable gastric banding, gastric bypass, and sleeve gastrectomy, with standard nonsurgical management of obesity. Outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and net monetary benefits at a threshold of £30,000 per QALY. Results: In a UK population of 250,000 adults, there may be 7,163 people with morbid obesity including 1,406 with diabetes. The immediate cost of 1,000 bariatric surgical procedures is £9.16 million, with incremental discounted lifetime health care costs of £15.26 million (95% confidence interval £15.18–£15.36 million). Patient-years with diabetes mellitus will decrease by 8,320 (range 8,123–8,502). Incremental QALYs will increase by 2,142 (range 2,032–2,256). The estimated cost per QALY gained is £7,129 (range £6,775–£7,506). Net monetary benefits will be £49.02 million (range £45.72–£52.41 million). Estimates are similar for subgroups of age, sex, and deprivation. Bariatric surgery remains cost-effective if the procedure is twice as costly, or if intervention effect declines over time. Conclusions: Diverse obese individuals may benefit from bariatric surgery at acceptable cost. Bariatric surgery is not cost-saving, but increased health care costs are exceeded by health benefits to obese individuals

Public Reasoning and Health-Care Priority Setting: The Case of NICE

Health systems that aim to secure universal patient access through a scheme of prepayments—whether through taxes, social insurance, or a combination of the two—need to make decisions on the scope of coverage that they guarantee: such tasks often falling to a priority-setting agency. This article analyzes the decision-making processes at one such agency in particular—the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)—and appraises their ethical justifiability. In particular, we consider the extent to which NICE’s model can be justified on the basis of Rawls’s conception of “reasonableness.” This test shares certain features with the well-known Accountability for Reasonableness (AfR) model but also offers an alternative to it, being concerned with how far the values used by priority-setting agencies such as NICE meet substantive conditions of reasonableness irrespective of their procedural virtues. We find that while there are areas in which NICE’s processes may be improved, NICE’s overall approach to evaluating health technologies and setting priorities for health-care coverage is a reasonable one, making it an exemplar for other health-care systems facing similar coverage dilemmas. In so doing we offer both a framework for analysing the ethical justifiability of NICE’s processes and one that might be used to evaluate others

Depoliticisation, Resilience and the Herceptin Post-code Lottery Crisis: Holding Back the Tide

This article: Covers new empirical terrain in the study of depoliticisation, with an in-depth case study of health technology regulation; Analyses depoliticisation from a novel analytical perspective, examining how depoliticised institutions are resilient to external pressure for politicisation; Posits a distinctive framework for analysing resilience, drawing on cognate literatures on policy networks and agencification; Raises interesting and distinctive questions about the nature of depoliticisation in advanced liberal democracies, arguing it is more contested than commonly acknowledged. Depoliticisation as a concept offers distinctive insights into how governments attempt to relieve political pressures in liberal democracies. Analysis has examined the effects of depoliticisation tactics on the public, but not how those tactics are sustained during moments of political tension. Drawing on policy networks and agencification literatures, this article examines how these tactics are resilient against pressure for politicisation. Using an in-depth case study of the controversial appraisal of cancer drug Herceptin in 2005/6 by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), the article examines how ‘resilient’ NICE was to external politicisation. It is argued that NICE was resilient because it was effectively ‘insulated’ by formal procedures and informal norms of deference to scientific expertise. This mechanism is termed ‘institutional double glazing’. The conclusion suggests developments to the conceptual and methodological framework of depoliticisation, and highlights theoretical insights into the nature of ‘anti-politics’ in contemporary democracies