Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-12T12:50:17.251Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Putting National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance into practice: A cost minimization model of a national roll-out of liquid based cytology in England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

Boyka Stoykova ,
Georgi Kuzmanov  and
Robin Dowie
Boyka Stoykova
Affiliation:
Brunel University and WyethUK
Georgi Kuzmanov
Affiliation:
University of Surrey
Robin Dowie
Affiliation:
Brunel University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: In 2003, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) advised that liquid based cytology (LBC) should be adopted for cervical screening in England. The aim of this study was to explore the cost implications of implementing the NICE guidance in cytology laboratories. The ThinPrep® technology was used as the case study.

Methods: An optimization model was developed to analyze options for leasing alternative LBC processing machines with different capacities. Variables entered in the model included: the cost of the contract with the supplier, the laboratory labor cost, and inter-laboratory transport costs. All costs referred to the 2005–06 financial year. A simulation program calculated mileages within laboratory networks. Alternative strategies for contracting by laboratories acting independently and by Quality Assessment Regional Centres (QARC) were analyzed.

Results: Centralizing the processing of specimens in “hub and spoke” laboratory networks was the least costly strategy. Total annual costs for England using existing transport links were £14,807,000 for 5-year contracts. If all laboratories installed processors, the annual cost for 5-year contracts placed by QARCs was £14,941,000 compared with £16,359,000 if the laboratories placed their own contracts. Three-year contracts averaged an additional £1 million: £15,912,000 for networks and £17,304,000 for independent laboratory contracts.

Conclusions: Deciding on the mode of implementation of a NICE guidance can be challenging for decision makers. These cost minimization appraisal techniques are equally applicable to national screening programs in general and to other health technologies for which there are significant cost implications associated with innovative policy directives.

Keywords

Cervical screeningLBCCost minimizationCytology laboratoriesGuidelines
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 391 - 398
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Audit Commission. Managing the financial implications of NICE guidance. Wetherby: Audit-Commission Publications; 2005. http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/Products/NATIONAL-REPORT/CC53DDFE-42C8-49c7-BB53-9F648-5262718/ManagingTheFinancialImplicationsOfNiceGuidan-ce08Sep05REP.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2008.Google Scholar
2. Department of Health. Directions to primary care trusts and NHS trusts in England concerning arrangements for the funding of technology appraisal guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). London: Department of Health; 2003. http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/07/56/86/04075686.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2008.Google Scholar
3. Department of Health. Modernising the NHS Cervical Screening Programme: NICE Appraisal on Liquid Based Cytology. Advice to the Service. London: Department of Health; 2003. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4081380. Accessed 9 July 2008.Google Scholar
4. Kitchener, HC, Almonte, M, Wheeler, P et al. . HPV testing in routine cervical screening: Cross sectional data from the ARTISTIC trial. Br J Cancer. 2006;95:56–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Monahan, GE. Management decision making: Spreadsheet modeling, analysis, and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.Google Scholar
6. Moss, SM, Gray, A, Legood, R, Henstock, E. Evaluation of HPV/LBC cervical screening pilot studies. First report to the Department of Health on evaluation of LBC. London: Institute of Cancer Research; 2003.Google Scholar
7. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of liquid-based cytology for cervical screening. Technology Appraisal 69. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; October 2003. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/TA69_LBC_review_FullGuidance.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2008.Google Scholar
8. NHS Cervical Screening Programme. Quality assurance guidelines for the cervical screening programme: Report of a working party convened by the NHS Cervical Screening Programme and chaired by John Pritchard. Sheffield: NHS CSP; 1996.Google Scholar
9. NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre. Cervical screening programme, England: 2004–05. London: NHS HSCIC; 2005. http://www.ic.nhs.uk. Accessed 9 July 2008.Google Scholar
10. Weisstein, EW. Set partition. MathWorld–A Wolfram web resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SetPartition.html. Accessed 9 July 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Stoykova supplementary material

Stoykova supplementary material

Download Stoykova supplementary material(File)
File 159.2 KB