> You're confusing two different things. When NICE decides not to fund something they have clear evidence that it is worse than current treatment, not just tha

> You're confusing two different things. When NICE decides not to fund something they have clear evidence that it is worse than current treatment, not just that it is more expensive than current treatment. No, I'm not confusing two different things, and I'm glad you picked cancer as an example. Even if NICE has approved a treatment as "cost-effective", that doesn't mean that any specific patient will actually be eligible to receive it. For cancer treatments, there is a separate panel which reviews individual cases and provides the options available to that patient. It is not done on the aggregate; it's determined on the individual level. And, to make matters worse, if the patient decides to deviate sufficiently from the treatment plan (perhaps by delaying chemotherapy, or seeking treatment abroad first), those options can be rescinded, at which point the patient is required to pay out-of-pocket on the private market. > It's incorrect to say that NICE has a profit motive. They very clearly - and this is the point of transparency - don't. Every agency in every country, public or private, has a profit motive, and the DH is no exception. Transparency doesn't eliminate the profit motive; it just provides visibility into both the inputs and the outputs.