• All Topics
  • Health Technology Assessment (HTA)
  • Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)
OHE OHE
Newsletter SignupSubscribe

News & Insights
  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin
  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin

News & Insights

  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin
Newsletter SignupSubscribe
  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin

Close
OHE OHE
  • Research & Publications
  • News & Insights
  • Education
  • Innovation Policy Prize
  • Events
  • About Us
  • OHE Experts
  • Contact Us
Newsletter SignupSubscribe

Research & Publications

All Publications

Filter by:
  • Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)
  • Biosimilars
  • Cell and Gene Therapies
  • Chronic Diseases
  • Combination Therapies
  • COVID-19 Research
  • Digital Health
  • Drug Development/R&D
  • Emerging Markets
  • EQ-5D and PROMs
  • Health Care Systems
  • Health Data and Statistics
  • Health Technology Assessment
  • Precision Medicine
  • Real-World Evidence
  • Use of Medicines
  • Value-Based Pricing
  • Vaccine Research
  • Economics of Innovation
  • Measuring and Valuing Outcomes
  • Policy, Organisation and Incentives in Health Systems
  • Value, Affordability and Decision Making

News & Insights

  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin

Education

  • Education Hub
  • OHE Graduate School
  • EVIA Programme
  • IRA Programme

Innovation Policy Prize

  • The Prize Fund
  • 2022 Prize Fund

Latest Research & Publications

  • Health Technology Assessment…
  • Israel

NICE enough? Do NICE’s Decision Outcomes Impact International HTA Decision-making?

andrew-butler-aUu8tZFNgfM-unsplash
Read more
  • Health Technology Assessment…
  • Value, Affordability, and…
  • Gene therapies

Are Recommendations for HTA of Gene Therapies Being Achieved?

cover 3
Read more
  • Chronic Diseases
  • Value, Affordability, and…
  • Dermatology

The Burden of Hidradenitis Suppurativa on Patients, the NHS and Society

jakob-braun-HfOOKAPsE28-unsplash
Read more
  • Digital Health
  • Economics of Innovation
  • Mental Health

Dementia in the UK: Estimating the Potential Future Impact and Return on Research Investment

image option 1
Read more
  • Precision Medicine
  • Economics of Innovation

The Case for Expanding Uptake of Next-Generation Sequencing for Lung Cancer in Europe

NGS report_AdobeStock_406823942_portrait
Read more
  • Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)
  • Economics of Innovation

A Novel Incentive Model for Uptake of Diagnostics to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance

Roche AMR diangostics_national-cancer-institute-2fyeLhUeYpg-unsplash_portrait
Read more
  • Health Technology Assessment…
  • Value, Affordability, and…
  • Pricing and Reimbursement

Real-World Evidence: Current Best Practice for Reimbursement Decision-Making

RWE_clay-banks-b5S4FrJb7yQ-unsplash_portrait
Read more
  • Value-Based Pricing
  • Economics of Innovation
  • Pricing and Reimbursement

Delivering the Triple Win: A Value-Based Approach to Pricing

Triple_Win_AdobeStock_249059909_portrait_v2
Read more
Close
OHE
  • All Publications

    Filter by:
    • Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)
    • Biosimilars
    • Cell and Gene Therapies
    • Chronic Diseases
    • Combination Therapies
    • COVID-19 Research
    • Digital Health
    • Drug Development/R&D
    • Emerging Markets
    • EQ-5D and PROMs
    • Health Care Systems
    • Health Data and Statistics
    • Health Technology Assessment
    • Precision Medicine
    • Real-World Evidence
    • Use of Medicines
    • Value-Based Pricing
    • Vaccine Research
    • Economics of Innovation
    • Measuring and Valuing Outcomes
    • Policy, Organisation and Incentives in Health Systems
    • Value, Affordability and Decision Making
    • News
    • Events
    • Insights
    • Bulletin
    • Education Hub
    • OHE Graduate School
    • EVIA Programme
    • IRA Programme
    • The Prize Fund
    • 2022 Prize Fund
  • Events
  • About Us
  • OHE Experts
  • Contact Us
Newsletter SignupSubscribe
Back
  • News
11 min read 17th January 2012

NICE’s Social Value Judgments about Equity in Health and Health Care

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) routinely publishes details of the evidence and reasoning underpinning its recommendations, including its social value judgments. To date, however, although the principles related to cost-effectiveness are relatively explicit, those covering equity…

Share:
  •  Twitter
  •  LinkedIn
  •  Facebook
  • has-icon Email
Koonal Shah

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) routinely publishes details of the evidence and reasoning underpinning its recommendations, including its social value judgments. To date, however, although the principles related to cost-effectiveness are relatively explicit, those covering equity concerns generally are less specific.

Koonal Shah

Koonal Shah

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) routinely publishes details of the evidence and reasoning underpinning its recommendations, including its social value judgments. To date, however, although the principles related to cost-effectiveness are relatively explicit, those covering equity concerns generally are less specific. NICE takes a pragmatic, case-based approach to developing its principles of social value judgment, drawing on the cumulative experience of its advisory bodies in making decisions that command respect among its broad and diverse range of stakeholders.

In a University of York CHE Research Paper, OHE’s Koonal Shah collaborated with Richard Cookson, Tony Culyer and Peter Littlejohns to examine the inclusion of social value judgments in NICE guidance decisions and describe the social value judgments about equity in health and health care that NICE has used to guide its decision making to date.  Reviewed are both information on general social value judgments included in NICE guidance on methodology and case-specific social value judgments contained in NICE guidance about specific health care technologies and public health interventions.

The paper provides a brief overview of why NICE has implemented a policy of transparency for social value judgments, and why its social value judgments about cost-effectiveness are more specific than those about equity. It describes NICE’s social value judgments about three different types of equity concerns: (1) that health services be distributed according to need, (2) that health service recipients not experience discrimination based on personal or social characteristics, and (3) that unfair health inequalities be reduced.

For each of these three equity concerns, the authors have sought out both statements and suggestions in NICE guidance where social value judgments may have been applied. Although specific cases are identified for the first of these – need – they are largely absent for discrimination and health inequalities for reasons detailed in the paper.

According to the authors, “Our central finding is that, although NICE advisory bodies are authorised to depart from the social value judgment that ‘a QALY is a QALY is a QALY’ on grounds of equity, they have in practice been extremely reluctant to do so explicitly except in the special case of life-extending end of life treatments.” They note, however, that advisory bodies implicitly have taken into account a range of equity considerations, without explicitly affecting the weighting of QALY gains.

It remains to be seen, according to the authors, whether NICE’s advisory bodies will take decisions on equity grounds in the future that explicitly imply a special additional weight on QALY gains for any population subgroup. The authors believe that the reluctance of advisory bodies to do so is “understandable, given the complex and politically controversial nature of equity concerns. An explicit decision that departs from current practice by giving explicit additional weight to QALY gains for a particular population group carries substantial risks of intense media attention, protracted legal appeals, and the setting of unhelpful precedents.”

As the authors note, giving “special additional weight to QALY gains” for any one subgroup – however determined – also logically implies a lower weight for those outside that subgroup.  For example: giving greater weight to QALY gains for socio-economically disadvantaged populations implies that QALY gains for socio-economically advantaged populations should be lower; and greater weight for the severely ill implies lower weight for those not severely ill.

In theory, the authors note, it should be possible to avoid such potentially uncomfortable implications by developing a “nuanced and context-sensitive set of general QALY weighting principles”.  In practice, however, several practical considerations mitigate against that, producing for NICE a “pragmatic, incremental approach in which social value judgments are developed in an iterative process through cumulative case-based experience and only later (if at all) codified into general principles”.  Nevertheless, they conclude, the fact that “NICE has explicitly identified so many of the issues and opened them up for research and public discussion must be counted as remarkable pioneering achievements not to be found elsewhere in decision making, in the UK or anywhere else, about public investments. It is surely an experience from which similar agencies elsewhere might usefully learn”.

Shah, K.K., Cookson, R., Culyer, A. and Littlejohns, P. (2011) NICE’s social value judgments about equity in health and health care. CHE Research Paper 70. York: University of York.  Available for download from the University of York website.

Related OHE research

Download: Shah, K.K., Wailoo, A. and Tsuchiya, A. (2011) Valuing health at the end of life: An exploratory preference elicitation study. OHE Research Paper 11/06. London: Office of Health Economics.

Download: Shah, K.K., Praet, C., Devlin, N.J., Sussex, J.M., Appleby, J. and Parkin, D. (2011) Is the aim of the health care system to maximise QALYs? An investigation of ‘what else matters’ in the NHS. OHE Research Paper 11/03. London: Office of Health Economics.

  • Health Technology Assessment…
  • Value, Affordability, and…
  • External Publications

Related News

  • News
  • September 2020

Assessing the Productivity Value of Vaccines in Health Technology Assessment: Worth a Shot?

Read more
  • News
  • September 2020

Establishing a Reasonable Price for an Orphan Drug

Read more
  • News
  • August 2020

Are Discount Rates Used in UK Vaccine Economic Evaluations Jeopardising Investment in Immunisation Programmes?

Read more
  • News
  • July 2020

NICE ‘Optimised’ Recommendations: What Do They Mean for Patient Access?

Read more
footer_ohe_logo

Leading intellectual authority on global health economics

Sign Up for OHE Insights, Events & News Bulletin

Newsletter SignupStart Sign Up

Research & Publications

News & Insights

Innovation Policy Prize

Education

Events

About Us

OHE Experts

Contact Us

Sign Up for OHE Insights, Events & News Bulletin

Newsletter SignupStart Sign Up

The Office of Health Economics (OHE) is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales (registered number 09848965) and its registered office is at 2nd Floor Goldings House, Hay’s Galleria, 2 Hay’s Lane, London, SE1 2HB.

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookies Policy

© 2023 Website Design

An error has occurred, please try again later.An error has occurred, please try again later.

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

You can find out more about which cookies we are using or switch them off in .

 Twitter
 Facebook
 LinkedIn
 Copy
 Email
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

3rd Party Cookies

This website uses Google Analytics to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.

Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.

Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!