NICE Appraisals by the Numbers (2026): 1,172 Appraisals, 85% Recommended

A European launch or market-access lead planning a UK launch must navigate the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), one of the world's most closely-watched health technology assessment (HTA) bodies. Unlike marketing authorization bodies such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA) or the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which assess clinical safety and efficacy, NICE appraises clinical and cost-effectiveness. A registry-quantified scan answers the scale question directly: since its first appraisal on 1 March 2000, NICE has published 1,172 technology appraisals producing 1,522 individual recommendations, of which 85% have been positive.

But raw cumulative figures hide the operational reality of the NHS market. A scan of NICE's currently published guidance list (snapshot taken 10 June 2026) shows 898 active technology appraisals, with TA1163 the highest reference number in the snapshot. The gap between the 1,172 ever published and the 898 still active is superseded, replaced, or withdrawn guidance. Within that active universe, cancer dominates: 431 of the 898 active TAs (48%) are cancer-related by title, and NICE's cumulative registry records 588 cancer appraisals producing 658 recommendations at an 81% positive rate. The pace of NICE's work has grown from a single appraisal in 2000 to a peak of 90 in 2025.

The most consequential number for 2026 planning is none of the above. On 1 December 2025 the UK government announced — and NICE confirmed — that the standard cost-effectiveness threshold rises for the first time in NICE's history, from £20,000–£30,000 to £25,000–£35,000 per QALY, applying to medicines considered from April 2026. NICE's own analysis estimates this will allow it to recommend an additional 3 to 5 medicines or indications per year. If your product was rejected on cost-effectiveness grounds under the old threshold, the arithmetic of your resubmission changed this year.

This piece puts defensible numbers on the registry, separates the three very different outcomes that NICE's 85% "positive" rate lumps together, and works through what the April 2026 threshold change, the severity modifier, and the new National HealthTech Access Programme mean for a live launch plan.

---

How many technology appraisals has NICE published, and how many are still active?

Understanding the difference between cumulative and active NICE appraisals is crucial for mapping the reimbursement landscape. NICE has published 1,172 technology appraisals since March 2000. The active guidance list tells a different story.

A reproducible scan of NICE's published guidance list (snapshot 10 June 2026) identifies 898 active technology appraisals, with reference numbers running to TA1163. The gap of 274 between the cumulative and active counts is guidance that has been superseded by newer clinical evidence, consolidated into wider guidelines, or withdrawn after product discontinuation.

Two things follow that are easy to miss. First, the highest reference number (1163) exceeds the active count (898) by 265 — reference numbers are never reused, so the numbering itself records the attrition. Second, the retired 274 skew heavily toward the 2000s: much of NICE's early multi-technology output has been replaced by later single-technology appraisals, which is why the year-by-year table further down shows such small early-year counts.

In addition to standard technology appraisals, NICE operates a separate programme for very rare conditions: the Highly Specialised Technologies (HST) pathway. The active snapshot holds 30 HST appraisals, numbered HST1 through HST35 — five retired out of 35 ever issued — reflecting how narrow the routing criteria for this high-threshold pathway are.

The active life-sciences guidance base is distributed as follows:

The five guidance types sum to the 1,648 active guidance items in the snapshot. Technology appraisals are the primary route for pharmaceutical access at 898 items, while the 30 HST appraisals underline how narrow that pathway is: HST accounts for 3.2% of NICE's medicines-facing guidance base, despite attracting most of the attention in rare-disease access commentary because of its far higher cost-effectiveness threshold.

For access teams, the operational check is whether a therapy area is covered by an active stand-alone TA, has been folded into a broader clinical guideline, or has been superseded by a class-wide review. A superseded TA still appears in search results and in older competitor decks; it no longer carries a funding mandate.

---

What share of NICE recommendations are positive, and what does 'positive' mean?

A common misconception among US-centric launch teams is that NICE is a "refusal engine" designed to block access to high-cost medicines. The registry data contradicts this: of the 1,522 individual recommendations issued across all technology appraisals since March 2000, 85% have been positive.

However, a "positive" recommendation is rarely a simple, unrestricted approval. The categories below are the legacy recommendation types that NICE's historical data pages still use to report the 85% figure — see the 2024 vocabulary change further down, which matters if you are reading guidance published from 2024 onwards:

1. Recommended (Simple Positive): The drug is recommended for use in line with its licensed indication. This represents unrestricted access for the approved patient population. NHS commissioners in England — NHS England or integrated care boards — are legally required to fund it, normally within 3 months (90 days) of publication of the final guidance, unless the guidance specifies otherwise.
2. Optimised (Restricted Positive): The drug is recommended only for a specific subpopulation of the licensed indication (e.g., patients with higher disease severity, or those who have failed specific prior therapies). Access teams must model a smaller target population than the full label.
3. Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) / Managed Access: The drug is recommended with temporary funding while additional real-world evidence is collected to resolve clinical uncertainties. This is a crucial access vector for oncology therapeutics.
4. Not Recommended (Negative): The drug is not cost-effective at its current price. NHS trusts are not required to fund it, effectively blocking commercial access unless a company resubmits with a larger discount.
5. Non-Submission: The company chooses not to submit evidence, resulting in a default negative recommendation.

NICE itself does not publish the recommended-vs-optimised-vs-CDF split on its summary page, but it does confirm the headline aggregate that matters commercially: of the 1,522 individual recommendations made across submitted appraisals, 85% were positive (the sum of recommended, optimised, and Cancer Drugs Fund outcomes) and 15% were not recommended. A further 172 appraisals ended without a recommendation because the company made no submission.

Note: NICE reports its 85% positive recommendation rate based on appraisals where a recommendation was possible, excluding the 172 non-submissions. If non-submissions are included in the denominator, the raw positive rate across all 1,694 appraised topics drops to approximately 76%.

Why NICE says 91% and this page says 85%

Both figures are current and correct, and they answer different questions. When NICE stated in December 2025 that "we currently recommend 91% of the medicines we evaluate, around 70 a year," that is a recent-cohort, per-medicine rate. The 85% on this page is the all-time, per-recommendation rate since March 2000. The 6-point gap is the clearest single measure of how much more permissive NICE has become — driven by the Cancer Drugs Fund route after 2016, managed-access agreements, the severity modifier replacing end-of-life criteria in 2022, and increasingly sophisticated commercial arrangements.

If you are benchmarking your own probability of success, use the recent rate. If you are describing the institution's historical record, use the all-time rate. Quoting one as the other is the most common error in NICE commentary.

The 2024 recommendation-vocabulary change

One more currency check, because most published explainers of NICE have not caught up with it. The "recommended / optimised / CDF / only in research / not recommended" vocabulary described above is the legacy categorisation, and it is what NICE's historical data pages still use to report the 85% figure.

In 2024, NICE consolidated what had grown into 33 different recommendation wordings across its programmes into 4 standard recommendation types, applied consistently across medicines and HealthTech guidance:

The practical consequence: "optimised" is no longer a distinct recommendation type. A restricted recommendation now reads as "can be used" with the restriction expressed in the recommendation text itself. If your internal tracker or competitive-intelligence template still buckets NICE outcomes into five legacy categories, it will mis-file everything published from 2024 onwards — and the restriction that used to be visible in the category label is now only visible in the recommendation wording. Screening on the category field alone will now over-count unrestricted wins.

Why the 85% figure is the wrong thing to plan against

For commercial leads, the positive column is the real battleground, because "positive" lumps together three very different commercial outcomes: full-label unrestricted funding, a restricted subpopulation, and temporary managed-access funding contingent on future evidence. Only the first gives you the addressable population in your forecast.

NICE does not publish the split between them on its summary pages, so anyone quoting a precise recommended-versus-optimised breakdown is estimating rather than citing. What can be said from the published data is that 85% positive is an aggregate across all three, and that the commercially meaningful question — which kind of positive — is not answerable from the headline rate at all. Model the restricted case as your base case.

This stands in contrast to the regulatory approval process: while what the EU approves or what Health Canada approves defines the legal prescribing boundary, NICE determines the actual reimbursement boundary. If a drug receives a restricted recommendation, clinical access teams must align local NHS formulary efforts with the restricted criteria rather than the broader licensed label.

---

How dominant is cancer in NICE technology appraisals?

Oncology is the single largest therapeutic area appraised by NICE, reflecting both the global drug development pipeline and the political priority placed on cancer care in the UK.

According to NICE's primary registry data, the agency has published 588 cancer technology appraisals since 2000, producing 658 individual recommendations, with a positive rate of 81%.

That 81% is lower than the 85% all-programme rate, and the implied non-cancer rate is higher still. Subtracting the cancer figures from the all-programme totals gives roughly 864 non-cancer recommendations at about an 88% positive rate — a 7-point cancer penalty. NICE does not publish that non-cancer figure directly, so treat it as a derived estimate sensitive to the rounding in NICE's published percentages, but the direction is unambiguous: oncology is the harder programme to clear, reflecting higher clinical uncertainty and higher cost-per-QALY profiles in novel oncology therapeutics.

Looking at the active guidance database reinforces this concentration. Of the 898 currently active technology appraisals, 431 (48%) are cancer-related by title keyword. This means nearly half of all active TAs in the NHS landscape are focused on oncology, dominating the administrative capacity of NICE and local NHS formularies.

There is a specific policy reason for that share, and it is not simply that oncology has more molecules in development. As part of the new Cancer Drugs Fund arrangements agreed in 2016, all new cancer drugs and all significant new licensed indications for cancer drugs are now referred automatically to NICE for appraisal. No equivalent automatic-referral rule exists in other therapy areas, where topic selection is discretionary. So the 48% figure measures a referral policy at least as much as it measures the pipeline — and it means an oncology sponsor should plan for a NICE appraisal on every indication as a certainty, while a non-oncology sponsor cannot assume one will be triggered at all.

The non-submission data reinforces the point from the opposite direction. Of the 172 appraisals across all therapy areas that ended without a recommendation because no company submission was made, 96 were cancer appraisals — 56% of all non-submissions, in a programme that accounts for half the register. Automatic referral guarantees the appraisal happens; it does not guarantee the sponsor turns up.

Within this cancer cohort, the recommendation mix differs structurally from general medicines:

Oncology's positive column carries an extra route that other therapy areas gained only later: the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF), relaunched in July 2016 so that NICE committees can recommend a drug for temporary managed-access funding while clinical trials mature or real-world evidence is gathered. NICE explicitly credits the reformed CDF with allowing its committees to recommend more cancer drugs than ever before, and its own published analysis separates positive cancer recommendations into before-and-after-relaunch cohorts for exactly this reason.

A correction worth making, because a great deal of market-access commentary still gets it wrong: managed access is no longer cancer-only. The Innovative Medicines Fund (IMF), launched in June 2022, provides the equivalent managed-access route for any non-cancer medicine NICE recommends with managed access. The two funds each carry a ringfenced £340 million annual budget — £680 million in total — and NICE's 2024 recommendation vocabulary treats both under the single "can be used during the managed access period" category. A managed access agreement runs for the shortest period needed to resolve the uncertainty, to a maximum of 5 years, after which NICE re-evaluates for routine use.

For launch teams, the practical implication is that a new oncology asset has three plausible positive landing zones — unrestricted, restricted to a narrower line or biomarker-defined subpopulation, or managed access — and NICE does not publish how the 81% splits across them. Plan the forecast against the restricted case and treat unrestricted status as upside. The same three-way logic now applies outside oncology through the IMF, though against a much shorter track record: the reformed CDF has run since 2016 and funded 96 medicines across 218 cancers for more than 80,000 patients, while the IMF has been operating only since 2022. An asset in a field like the severe asthma biologic access landscape can now route through managed access in principle, but the precedent base a committee can reason from is far thinner, so pricing should still be built to fit conventional cost-effectiveness boundaries from day one.

---

How has the NICE appraisal publication pace changed since 2000?

The volume of technology appraisals published by NICE has accelerated dramatically over the past two decades. In its first year of operation (2000), NICE published only a single technology appraisal. By 2025, the annual output reached 90 technology appraisals, reflecting both the expansion of the biopharma pipeline and NICE's transition to "single technology appraisals" (STAs) where each drug-indication combination is evaluated individually rather than in multi-drug group reviews.

Drawing from the active registry snapshot, the complete annual publication series of currently active TAs shows the trajectory:

Counts are of appraisals still active in the 10 June 2026 snapshot, by publication year — not of all appraisals published in each year. Superseded and withdrawn guidance is excluded, which is why early years appear small: much of NICE's 2000s output has since been replaced. Milestones are dated independently of the registry.

That caveat matters for interpretation. The apparent surge after 2015 partly reflects genuine growth in NICE's output and partly reflects survivorship — recent guidance has had less time to be superseded. The reliable signal is the recent plateau: 87, 82, 79, and 90 appraisals in 2022 through 2025 respectively, with 46 in the first half of 2026, which is a programme running at capacity rather than one still accelerating.

Three structural drivers explain the step change between the mid-2010s and today:

• Automatic cancer referral. From 2016, every new cancer drug and every significant new licensed cancer indication is referred to NICE automatically. This alone converts a discretionary pipeline into a mandatory one across the largest therapy area.
• Indication expansion. Blockbuster biologics such as pembrolizumab and dupilumab undergo a separate technology appraisal for each new indication, multiplying appraisals per molecule rather than per product.
• Compressed approval-to-funding timelines. As the MHRA speeds up approvals, NICE has had to shrink the "appraisal gap" between marketing authorization and NHS funding — culminating in the parallel regulatory and HTA assessment route that opened on 1 April 2026.

For launch planners, this crowded pipeline means committee time is the binding constraint. Submission dossiers must be ready months before the expected regulatory approval date, and under parallel assessment the economic model now has to be ready at regulatory filing rather than after it.

---

What do the 2026 threshold and methods changes mean for launch planning?

NICE's core economic evaluation relies on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which measures the additional cost required to gain one Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY). For over 25 years the acceptable range was £20,000–£30,000 per QALY, set by deliberative judgement in NICE's early years and never formally increased since the institute's establishment in 1999.

The April 2026 threshold increase

That changed in 2026. On 1 December 2025 the UK government announced, and NICE confirmed, a 25% uplift:

Four points that materially affect a launch plan:

1. It applies to live appraisals, not just new ones. The change applies to medicines being considered from April 2026, including appraisals already in progress.
2. The expected volume effect is modest. NICE's own estimate is 3 to 5 additional medicines or indications recommended per year, against roughly 70 medicines evaluated annually. This is a threshold adjustment, not a liberalisation of the process.
3. HST is out of scope. NICE confirmed it was not aware of proposals to change the thresholds used for Highly Specialised Technologies. An ultra-rare asset gains nothing here.
4. It arrived through trade policy, not methods review. The uplift was announced alongside the UK–US Economic Prosperity Deal, which set a 0% tariff on UK pharmaceutical exports to the United States, and required a change in regulations giving the government power to direct NICE on the threshold. It was not the output of NICE's normal methods-consultation cycle. Health economists writing in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy have criticised it directly, noting that the change was not justified by evidence that NHS opportunity cost has risen, and contrasting it with the severity modifier, which followed extensive methodological review and public deliberation. Treat it as a policy variable that can move again, not as a permanent methodological settlement.

NICE also announced it will adopt a new EQ-5D-5L UK value set, developed by asking 1,200 members of the public to judge health states. That change follows NICE's standard modular-update route, including public consultation, so its timing is separate from the threshold change — but it will alter the utility values feeding every economic model, and access teams should not assume the two changes land together.

The severity modifier

Introduced in NICE's 2022 methods manual to replace the older "end-of-life" criteria, the severity modifier applies a weight to QALYs gained in conditions with high absolute or proportional shortfall. Meeting the moderate criterion multiplies QALYs by 1.2; meeting the severe criterion multiplies them by 1.7.

Instead of assuming all QALYs are valued equally, NICE places a premium on health gains for patients facing the most severe burden. Combined with the April 2026 threshold, a severe-criterion asset can now clear an unweighted ICER approaching £59,500 per QALY — territory that would have been an automatic rejection two years ago.

The practical submission implication: the disease-severity model is now worth more than the price concession it can replace. Moving from no modifier to the 1.7 weight is worth £24,500 per QALY of headroom under the new threshold, and unlike a Patient Access Scheme discount it does not depress your international reference price.

Highly Specialised Technologies (HST)

For very rare conditions assessed under the HST pathway, the threshold is £100,000 per QALY, rising on a weighted scale up to £300,000 per QALY where the incremental QALY gain is large enough (a gain of 30 or more attracts the maximum weighting). The snapshot holds 30 active HST appraisals.

The scale of that concession is worth stating plainly, because it is the single largest divergence in NICE's methods. Published analysis in BMJ journals notes that with empirical estimates of the NHS's own cost per QALY between roughly £5,000 and £15,000, every QALY bought at £100,000–£300,000 displaces somewhere between 6 and 60 QALYs elsewhere in the health service — and that NICE had, as of that analysis, never rejected an HST. For a rare-disease sponsor, that is the strongest argument for routing into HST and the reason the routing criteria are policed as tightly as they are.

Routing into HST is the hard part, and it is decided on NICE's published criteria rather than a headcount rule:

• the target patient group in the licensed indication is so small that treatment will usually be concentrated in very few NHS centres;
• the target patient group is distinct for clinical reasons;
• the condition is chronic and severely disabling;
• the technology is expected to be used exclusively within a highly specialised service;
• the technology is likely to have a very high acquisition cost;
• the technology has the potential for lifelong use;
• there is a significant need for national commissioning.

Note what is not on that list: a fixed patient-number cut-off. Numeric prevalence thresholds circulate widely in market-access commentary, but NICE's routing criteria are qualitative and considered together, and the concentration-of-treatment criterion is the one that most often decides borderline cases. With only 30 active HSTs against 898 active TAs, plan for the standard TA route unless your product clearly satisfies the criteria as a set.

The National HealthTech Access Programme

On 9 February 2026 NICE launched the National HealthTech Access Programme (NHAP) — developed with the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England, the MHRA, and the Office for Life Sciences, and previously known as the Rules-Based Pathway for MedTech. It extends NICE's technology appraisal programme to a small number of high-impact medical devices, diagnostics, and digital tools.

The significance is the funding mandate, not the evaluation. Under the previous arrangements, health technologies had to be purchased by individual NHS organisations, producing the postcode variation the government's 10 Year Health Plan set out to fix. A technology recommended through NHAP receives national NHS funding on the same footing as a medicine.

Two practical markers for anyone tracking this pathway: the initial topics centre on early diagnosis of oesophageal, prostate and breast cancer (including capsule sponge testing and AI-based diagnostic tools), and NICE's published goal is to evaluate the first two technologies and publish final guidance in Q1 of financial year 2027–28. NHAP is a real pathway with real referrals, but it is deliberately narrow, and the first guidance is still more than a year out.

The parallel regulatory and HTA pathway

The change most likely to affect a 2026 launch timetable is easy to miss because it is procedural rather than economic. From 1 April 2026, suitable products can run MHRA regulatory assessment and NICE HTA assessment in parallel. Following that implementation, NICE's stated goal is to cut the average gap between MHRA approval and NICE guidance by at least 3 months, with a stretch goal of 6 months.

A separate published target sets the pace inside the appraisal itself: NICE aims to complete 60% of medicines technology appraisals within 240 working days of the invitation to participate, for new topics started from April 2025, up from 40% in financial year 2024–25.

For a launch team, these two targets combine into a dossier-readiness problem rather than a scheduling win. Parallel assessment only compresses the timeline if the economic model and evidence package are ready at the point of regulatory filing rather than after it — and a 240-working-day clock that starts at the invitation to participate leaves no room to begin model development once the appraisal is underway.

Strategic implications for launch teams

The 2026 changes create a specific resubmission opportunity. An asset previously rejected with an ICER between £30,000 and £35,000 per QALY — or between £51,000 and £59,500 with the severe modifier — now sits inside the acceptable range on the threshold change alone. NICE has been explicit that new substantial evidence is still required to reopen an appraisal, so the threshold is not a free pass, but the price concession needed to close the gap is materially smaller than it was in 2025.

---

What happens when a company makes no submission to NICE?

A significant but often overlooked category in the NICE registry is the non-submission. Since 2000, 172 technology appraisals have ended without a recommendation because the manufacturer chose not to submit evidence.

A non-submission is rarely an administrative oversight; it is a calculated commercial decision. When NICE selects a topic for appraisal, the manufacturer is required to submit a clinical and economic dossier. If the company fails to do so, NICE issues a formal document stating that it cannot recommend the drug because no evidence was provided. This results in a default "Not Recommended" status, and the NHS is not permitted to fund the drug.

Manufacturers choose the non-submission path under specific strategic scenarios:

• Negative Cost-Effectiveness Expected: If the manufacturer’s global pricing floor exceeds the maximum discount they can offer to fit within the £20,000–£30,000 QALY threshold, submitting a dossier is seen as a waste of resources that will only result in a public rejection.
• Small UK Addressable Market: For niche indications with low patient numbers, the cost of preparing a complex HTA dossier and participating in committee hearings may exceed the potential UK revenue.
• Reference Pricing Risks: Because the UK is a key reference pricing market for other European and international jurisdictions, accepting a steep discount in the UK to clear NICE could trigger downward pricing pressure globally. In such cases, companies choose to forego the UK public market entirely to protect their price in larger markets.

For market access teams, tracking non-submissions in competitor portfolios provides valuable competitive intelligence. A competitor's non-submission indicates either a pricing mismatch or an economic assessment that the UK market does not justify HTA investment, leaving a potential clinical gap that a more flexible competitor can exploit.

---

HTA Alignment: Comparing NICE to the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC)

While NICE serves NHS England, the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) conducts independent HTA evaluations for NHS Scotland. For global launch teams, coordinating submissions between these two bodies is a critical operational task.

Although NICE and the SMC evaluate the same clinical trial packages, their methodologies, meeting timelines, and recommendation decisions can diverge. The SMC uses a rapid "health board" system designed to reach reimbursement decisions within months of marketing authorization. Unlike NICE, which frequently utilizes independent academic groups to run complex economic models, the SMC relies heavily on the manufacturer's submitted pharmacoeconomic model, reviewed by an internal committee.

This structural difference can lead to divergent access timelines:

• Timeline Mismatches: The SMC may publish a recommendation several months before NICE, creating a temporary access gap where a medicine is funded in Scotland but not yet in England.
• Decision Divergence: Because the SMC applies different definitions of clinical severity and rare-disease pathways, a drug can receive an unrestricted recommendation in Scotland while securing only an "optimised" (restricted) recommendation from NICE.
• Formulary Differences: NHS Scotland utilizes a single national formulary template, whereas England relies on local integrated care board (ICB) formularies to implement NICE guidance, meaning clinical access implementation requires distinct regional strategies.

Access leads must track these divergent pathways, ensuring that Patient Access Schemes and pricing structures are aligned across both jurisdictions to prevent cross-border reference pricing distortions within the UK market.

---

FAQ

Is a NICE technology appraisal the same as an FDA or EMA approval?

No. An FDA or EMA approval (marketing authorization) determines whether a drug is safe and effective to be legally sold. A NICE technology appraisal determines whether the drug is cost-effective enough to be routinely funded by the NHS. NICE's recommendations apply in England, where the funding requirement is statutory. A drug can be regulatory-approved but rejected by NICE, meaning it remains legal to prescribe but is not routinely NHS-funded, so patients would pay privately.

What is the difference between recommended, optimised, and Cancer Drugs Fund recommendations?

• Recommended means the drug is funded for its full licensed indication.
• Optimised restricts funding to a narrower patient subpopulation (e.g., severe cases only).
• Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) provides temporary funding for oncology drugs while additional clinical or real-world evidence is gathered to resolve cost-effectiveness uncertainties.

Does a NICE recommendation apply across the whole of the UK?

No. NICE's recommendations apply in England, where NHS commissioners carry the statutory duty to fund a recommended medicine, normally within 3 months. They are normally adopted by the NHS in Wales and Northern Ireland, but through their own routes: in Wales a medicine is funded when recommended by NICE, or when recommended by the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group and ratified by the Welsh Government. Scotland operates a separate HTA body, the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), with its own submission process, and it can reach different conclusions. Plan the UK as three access processes, not one.

Why does NICE publish fewer active technology appraisals than it has ever published?

The gap between cumulative appraisals (1,172) and active appraisals (898) is due to guidance retirement. As clinical practice evolves, older appraisals are superseded by class-wide reviews, consolidated into NICE's clinical guidelines, or withdrawn when drugs are discontinued by their manufacturers.

---

Sources

• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). "Technology appraisal data: appraisal recommendations." Accessed July 2026. nice.org.uk
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). "Technology appraisal data: cancer appraisal recommendations." Page last updated 7 July 2026. nice.org.uk
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). "Changes to NICE's cost-effectiveness thresholds confirmed." News, 1 December 2025. nice.org.uk
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). "Faster, fairer access to HealthTech under new national programme." News, 9 February 2026. nice.org.uk
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). "Types of recommendation NICE can make." Accessed July 2026. nice.org.uk
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). "What is technology appraisal guidance?" Accessed July 2026. nice.org.uk
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). "NICE technology appraisal and highly specialised technologies guidance: the manual [PMG36]." Last reviewed 31 March 2026. nice.org.uk
• Department of Health and Social Care. "Introducing new medicines in the NHS in the UK: pathway." Accessed July 2026. gov.uk
• Department of Health and Social Care. "National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) economic growth goals." Accessed July 2026. gov.uk
• The Pharmaceutical Journal. "NICE cost-effectiveness thresholds increased as UK strikes trade deal with United States." Accessed July 2026. pharmaceutical-journal.com
• NHS England. "Innovative Medicines Fund." Accessed July 2026. england.nhs.uk
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). "Managed access." Accessed July 2026. nice.org.uk
• Charlton, V. et al. "Politicised Changes to the NICE Threshold Risk Making Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Performative, Not Informative." Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2026. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
• Charlton, V., Littlejohns, P. "Does NICE apply the rule of rescue in its approach to highly specialised technologies?" Journal of Medical Ethics. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
• Office of Health Economics (OHE). "NICE at 25: The Technology Appraisals - Faster Access to Modern Treatment?" Accessed July 2026. ohe.org
• Carnall Farrar. "NICE 2026: the goalposts have moved." Accessed July 2026. carnallfarrar.com