Talk:Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Except for the formula for ICER, this article is about cost-effectiveness analysis in general, and does not explain the uses or rationale of ICER in particular whatsoever. I'd fix it if I could, but I came looking for the answer myself. (Danacland (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed on point above on ICER. This needs fleshing out. Also in the controversies section there is a statement that thresholds have not been developed for cost per qaly. This is demonstrably false as this page from NICE shows: https://www.nice.org.uk/advice/lgb10/chapter/judging-the-cost-effectiveness-of-public-health-activities For NICE/the NHS, < £20,000 per QALY is considered cost effective and, as they say, 'Those costing between £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained may also be deemed cost effective, if certain conditions are satisfied'. Also... I would take issue with this article being of low importance. ICER and cost effectiveness are key topics for many health systems and has considerable wider impact on patients with rare and expensive to treat conditions, or where new biologic therapies will be effective.--Benwhalley (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Acland here. I agree with the above points. ICER is very importantly, poorly understood, and relevant to a lot of policy issues. I'd edit the page if someone wanted me to. [email protected]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.139.211 (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]