IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/hecopl/v8y2013i02p145-165_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

NICE's social value judgements about equity in health and health care

Author

Listed:
  • Shah, Koonal K.
  • Cookson, Richard
  • Culyer, Anthony J.
  • Littlejohns, Peter

Abstract

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) routinely publishes details of the evidence and reasoning underpinning its recommendations, including its social value judgements (SVJs). To date, however, NICE's SVJs relating to equity in the distribution of health and health care have been less specific and systematic than those relating to cost-effectiveness in the pursuit of improved total population health. NICE takes a pragmatic, case-based approach to developing its principles of SVJ, drawing on the cumulative experience of its advisory bodies in making decisions that command respect among its broad range of stakeholders. This paper aims to describe the SVJs about equity in health and health care that NICE has hitherto used to guide its decision making. To do this, we review both the general SVJs reported in NICE guidance on methodology and the case-specific SVJs reported in NICE guidance about particular health care technologies and public health interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Shah, Koonal K. & Cookson, Richard & Culyer, Anthony J. & Littlejohns, Peter, 2013. "NICE's social value judgements about equity in health and health care," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 145-165, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:8:y:2013:i:02:p:145-165_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744133112000096/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Some reflections on the new NICE Principles
      by koonalkiritshah in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-02-27 07:00:00

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Mason, Helen & van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Brouwer, Werner & Donaldson, Cam, 2016. "From representing views to representativeness of views: Illustrating a new (Q2S) approach in the context of health care priority setting in nine European countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 205-213.
    3. Shehzad Ali & Aki Tsuchiya & Miqdad Asaria & Richard Cookson, 2017. "How Robust Are Value Judgments of Health Inequality Aversion? Testing for Framing and Cognitive Effects," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 635-646, August.
    4. Matthias Benzer, 2020. "NICE and Society: Health Technology Appraisal and the Cultivation of Social Relations," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 25(2), pages 165-183, June.
    5. Vageesh Jain & Lara Schwarz & Paula Lorgelly, 2021. "A Rapid Review of COVID-19 Vaccine Prioritization in the U.S.: Alignment between Federal Guidance and State Practice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-10, March.
    6. Francesco Paolucci & Ken Redekop & Ayman Fouda & Gianluca Fiorentini, 2017. "Decision Making and Priority Setting: The Evolving Path Towards Universal Health Coverage," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 697-706, December.
    7. Aris Angelis & Ansgar Lange & Panos Kanavos, 2018. "Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 123-152, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:8:y:2013:i:02:p:145-165_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/hep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.