What changes to NICE cost-effectiveness thresholds for new drugs could mean for people with cancer in Yorkshire

Yorkshire Cancer Research responds to proposals to change NICE regulations on cost effectiveness thresholds.

What is the cost-effectiveness threshold?

When the NHS considers paying for a new treatment, it needs to decide if the treatment offers good value for money compared to existing care. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) does this by using a benchmark called the cost-effectiveness threshold. This threshold looks at how much the NHS should spend for each extra year of life lived in good health. To measure this, NICE uses something called a Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY). One QALY means one year of life lived in perfect health. If a treatment costs more than the benchmark amount for each year of life lived in perfect health projected to be gained, it’s not considered a good use of NHS resources.

What has changed?

Until recently, this threshold hadn’t changed since 1999. It was set at £20,000–£30,000 per QALY. In December 2025, NICE announced an increase to £25,000–£35,000 per QALY, an increase of 25% on the current thresholds.

Is this positive news?  

Yes, Yorkshire Cancer Research welcomes this announcement. The increased threshold could mean that more patients have access to new, life-saving treatments.  

What will happen next?  

This consultation now proposes giving Ministers the power to set this threshold for all NICE guidance on health spending. It also proposes removing NICE’s requirement to consult experts when changes are made because of this ministerial direction.  

What is the charity’s response to the change in who sets the threshold and how could this affect people with cancer?

In Yorkshire Cancer Research’s response, the charity sets out concerns regarding these proposals. The overarching concern is that these proposals threaten the independence of decision-making. Placing these decisions under ministerial direction removes the need for neutral experts and risks introducing political or commercial influences into decisions that have significant implications for patients. Removing consultation means less scrutiny and fewer voices from patients, academics, clinicians and charities. This could lead to decisions that benefit short-term priorities but harm NHS financial sustainability and widen health inequalities.