{"id":32222,"date":"2014-08-29T10:38:23","date_gmt":"2014-08-29T09:38:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/?p=32222"},"modified":"2014-08-29T10:38:38","modified_gmt":"2014-08-29T09:38:38","slug":"james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2014\/08\/29\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\/","title":{"rendered":"James Raftery: NICE: \u201cinconsistent,\u201d \u201cin large part arbitrary and opaque,\u201d according to friends"},"content":{"rendered":"

A strong critique just published<\/a> points to logical inconsistencies in NICE\u2019s consideration of social values, specifically in how it handles quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Since these are key to many of the most controversial decisions made by NICE\u2019s appraisal committees, this matters. It matters all the more that the authors include Tony Culyer, who was \u201cthe founding vice chair of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and is a member of the NICE Citizens Council Committee and the NICE International Advisory Committee.\u201d<\/a> Besides being a leading health economist, he pioneered NICE\u2019s approach to economic evaluation. Chris McCabe, another prominent health economist, has long advised NICE, notably through its decision support unit, which specialises in difficult cases.<\/p>\n

The article shows that NICE\u2019s proposed amendments to its methods would increase the upper range of its cost per QALY threshold from \u00a330k to \u00a350k on the basis of the four \u201cspecial considerations,\u201d but at the cost of being inconsistent in how these would apply. They also describe the proposed criteria as: \u201cin large part arbitrary and opaque.\u201d Since the paper is dense and relies on examples to illustrate inconsistencies, the following paragraphs provide a summary overview.<\/p>\n

The background is that for NICE, up to 2009 every QALY was valued the same, regardless of age, gender, severity, or the like. This was the meaning of \u201cA QALY is a QALY is a QALY.\u201d Economic evaluation for NICE aimed at maximising QALYs. In theory, every service and technology should be used in the NHS to a level that the marginal cost per QALY was the same for all. Any special value attached to particular QALYs (such as for severity) has implications for all other QALYs.<\/p>\n

In 2009 the first special consideration was introduced to deal with the problem of patients close to the end of their lives being denied drugs, usually for cancer (read more<\/a>). Treatments could qualify for what was in effect an \u201cend of life\u201d premium if they met three criteria: short life expectancy, normally less than 24 months, the treatment offers an extension to life of at least three months and applies to a small population. NICE in practice interpreted this as allowing a cost per QALY threshold of \u00a350k or a maximum weight of 2.5 from a starting point of \u00a320k per QALY. The recent critique points to several inconsistencies, to do with the higher weight applying to unadjusted life expectancy and the arbitrariness of the cut-off points of 24 and three months. Examples are provided of how this could lead to similar cases being treated differently.<\/p>\n

The second special consideration has to do with discounting. This refers to estimating the present value of future costs and benefits. NICE introduced another special consideration in 2011 to deal with its appraisal of mifamurtide for osteocarcinoma, a rare disease of children and young adults. Using the standard 3.5% discount rate would have led to NICE recommending against this drug. But using a lower 1.5% for benefits enabled NICE to recommend it (read more here <\/a>and here<\/a>).\u00a0 NICE amended its guidance to allow for the lower discount rate in selective cases, where \u201ctreatment effects are both substantial … and sustained (normally over 30 years).\u201d This creates problems again because of the arbitrary cut-off of 30 years. Examples are provided to illustrate the impact on two different diseases straddling the 30 years cut off.<\/p>\n

The proposed use of absolute QALY shortfall is the third special consideration. This is proposed by NICE as a measure of wider social impact<\/a>, part of value based assessment. This is criticised first for breaching the NHS commitment as outlined in its constitution that \u201caccess to NHS services is based on clinical need, not an individual\u2019s ability to pay.\u201d Further, the authors show it provides a poor proxy for severity.<\/p>\n

Proportional QALY loss constitutes the fourth special consideration, again linked to value based assessment. Intended to replace the end of life weighting, the authors query whether and how it might do so.<\/p>\n

The crunch is that any special considerations should apply not only to the technology being appraised but also to the technologies that might be displaced. The key idea here is that for the fixed budget NHS to fund a technology recommended by NICE, it must spend less money on some other technology. The cost per QALY of that technology foregone constitutes the opportunity cost<\/a>.
\nHowever, applying special considerations to the technology being appraised means that the same consideration should be applied to the technology being foregone. Otherwise \u201cNICE\u2019s proposals will harm the health of unidentifiable patients, while privileging the identifiable beneficiaries of new health technologies\u201d and \u201cwe show it is not possible for NICE to prioritise some patients without deprioritising others, and that this deprioritisation is not obvious.\u201d<\/p>\n

The article recommends that NICE should eliminate the arbitrary cut-off in the application of value weights and research and consult on the proposed revisions. It also recommends that NICE should specify how it would include the effect of any special considerations on opportunity costs.<\/p>\n

Until then, the authors recommend sticking with \u201cA QALY is a QALY is a QALY.\u201d<\/p>\n

James Raftery<\/strong> is a health economist with several decades experience of the NHS. He is professor of Health Technology Assessment at Southampton University. A keen \u201cNICE-watcher,\u201d he has provided economic input to technical assessment reports for NICE, but has never been a member of any of its committees. The opinions expressed here are his personal views.<\/em><\/p>\n

Competing interests: The author has no further interests to declare.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A strong critique just published points to logical inconsistencies in NICE\u2019s consideration of social values, specifically in how it handles quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Since these are key to […]<\/p>\n

More…<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[915],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32222","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-james-rafterys-nice-blogs"],"yoast_head":"\nJames Raftery: NICE: \u201cinconsistent,\u201d \u201cin large part arbitrary and opaque,\u201d according to friends - The BMJ<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2014\/08\/29\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"James Raftery: NICE: \u201cinconsistent,\u201d \u201cin large part arbitrary and opaque,\u201d according to friends - The BMJ\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A strong critique just published points to logical inconsistencies in NICE\u2019s consideration of social values, specifically in how it handles quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Since these are key to [...]More...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2014\/08\/29\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The BMJ\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/bmjdotcom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2014-08-29T09:38:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-29T09:38:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"BMJ\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@bmj_latest\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@bmj_latest\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"BMJ\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2014\\\/08\\\/29\\\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2014\\\/08\\\/29\\\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"BMJ\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ba3da426ed20e8f1d933ca367d8216fe\"},\"headline\":\"James Raftery: NICE: \u201cinconsistent,\u201d \u201cin large part arbitrary and opaque,\u201d according to friends\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-08-29T09:38:23+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-29T09:38:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2014\\\/08\\\/29\\\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":924,\"commentCount\":1,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"James Raftery's NICE blogs\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2014\\\/08\\\/29\\\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2014\\\/08\\\/29\\\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2014\\\/08\\\/29\\\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\\\/\",\"name\":\"James Raftery: NICE: \u201cinconsistent,\u201d \u201cin large part arbitrary and opaque,\u201d according to friends - The BMJ\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2014-08-29T09:38:23+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-29T09:38:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2014\\\/08\\\/29\\\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2014\\\/08\\\/29\\\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2014\\\/08\\\/29\\\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"James Raftery: NICE: \u201cinconsistent,\u201d \u201cin large part arbitrary and opaque,\u201d according to friends\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/\",\"name\":\"The BMJ\",\"description\":\"Helping doctors make better decisions.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"The BMJ\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/files\\\/2018\\\/05\\\/The-BMJ-logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/files\\\/2018\\\/05\\\/The-BMJ-logo.jpg\",\"width\":852,\"height\":568,\"caption\":\"The BMJ\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/bmjdotcom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/bmj_latest\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ba3da426ed20e8f1d933ca367d8216fe\",\"name\":\"BMJ\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b4d8f39281bcae118348a1c027347b8e53b82d42520e774a8b50dd9a6ac6c01d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b4d8f39281bcae118348a1c027347b8e53b82d42520e774a8b50dd9a6ac6c01d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b4d8f39281bcae118348a1c027347b8e53b82d42520e774a8b50dd9a6ac6c01d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"BMJ\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/author\\\/admin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"James Raftery: NICE: \u201cinconsistent,\u201d \u201cin large part arbitrary and opaque,\u201d according to friends - The BMJ","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2014\/08\/29\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"James Raftery: NICE: \u201cinconsistent,\u201d \u201cin large part arbitrary and opaque,\u201d according to friends - The BMJ","og_description":"A strong critique just published points to logical inconsistencies in NICE\u2019s consideration of social values, specifically in how it handles quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Since these are key to [...]More...","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2014\/08\/29\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\/","og_site_name":"The BMJ","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/bmjdotcom\/","article_published_time":"2014-08-29T09:38:23+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-29T09:38:38+00:00","author":"BMJ","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@bmj_latest","twitter_site":"@bmj_latest","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"BMJ","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2014\/08\/29\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2014\/08\/29\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\/"},"author":{"name":"BMJ","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#\/schema\/person\/ba3da426ed20e8f1d933ca367d8216fe"},"headline":"James Raftery: NICE: \u201cinconsistent,\u201d \u201cin large part arbitrary and opaque,\u201d according to friends","datePublished":"2014-08-29T09:38:23+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-29T09:38:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2014\/08\/29\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\/"},"wordCount":924,"commentCount":1,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#organization"},"articleSection":["James Raftery's NICE blogs"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2014\/08\/29\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2014\/08\/29\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2014\/08\/29\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\/","name":"James Raftery: NICE: \u201cinconsistent,\u201d \u201cin large part arbitrary and opaque,\u201d according to friends - The BMJ","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#website"},"datePublished":"2014-08-29T09:38:23+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-29T09:38:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2014\/08\/29\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2014\/08\/29\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2014\/08\/29\/james-raftery-nice-inconsistent-in-large-part-arbitrary-and-opaque-according-to-friends\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"James Raftery: NICE: \u201cinconsistent,\u201d \u201cin large part arbitrary and opaque,\u201d according to friends"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/","name":"The BMJ","description":"Helping doctors make better decisions.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#organization","name":"The BMJ","url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/files\/2018\/05\/The-BMJ-logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/files\/2018\/05\/The-BMJ-logo.jpg","width":852,"height":568,"caption":"The BMJ"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/bmjdotcom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/bmj_latest"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#\/schema\/person\/ba3da426ed20e8f1d933ca367d8216fe","name":"BMJ","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b4d8f39281bcae118348a1c027347b8e53b82d42520e774a8b50dd9a6ac6c01d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b4d8f39281bcae118348a1c027347b8e53b82d42520e774a8b50dd9a6ac6c01d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b4d8f39281bcae118348a1c027347b8e53b82d42520e774a8b50dd9a6ac6c01d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"BMJ"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/"],"url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32222","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32222"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32222\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32222"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32222"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32222"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}