To the Editor:
Professor Gabbay says he is dismayed that our article on the history of HTA in a recent special issue makes so little mention of the NHS HTA Programme, He calls this “a puzzling oversight,” which “would both surprise and disappoint the thousands . . . who have been involved in some way or another.” It was not our intention to underplay the role of the program, nor to disappoint the thousands of participants. Rather, there was a considerable amount of material to cover and a limited amount of space to do it in. Any history of HTA in the United Kingdom is inevitably a personal reflection, and it is understandable that Professor Gabbay's own account would put the program more center-stage, given his role as former director.
We did acknowledge the central role of the NCCHTA in coordinating HTA efforts in the United Kingdom in recent years and its support for the work of NICE. The number and quality of HTA reports produced by the NHS HTA Programme is indeed impressive and probably surpasses the performance of most, if not all, comparable programs in other jurisdictions. However, the production of reports does not, of itself, guarantee impact. It was our judgment that, in commenting on the past 10 years in the United Kingdom, we should emphasize the role of NICE in using HTAs to issue guidance on the use of health technologies in the NHS. Of course, this is merely our judgment, but one which we believe is consistent with the international view of the recent developments in HTA in the United Kingdom.
