IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v25y2020i2p165-183.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

NICE and Society: Health Technology Appraisal and the Cultivation of Social Relations

Author

Listed:
  • Matthias Benzer

Abstract

This article presents a sociological inquiry into the politics of the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s (NICE) approach to health technology appraisals. It is based on analyses of documents published by NICE and of a 2005–2008 interdisciplinary debate about the ethics of its activities. Simultaneously, the article brings further perspectives to this debate by clarifying that NICE, through the comparisons central to its approach, arranges a competition in producing health between different treatments applied to their respective particular patient groups. In fostering competition for differentiation, NICE’s approach resembles objectives for shaping social relationships often attributed to neoliberal politics. Yet closer scrutiny reveals that NICE’s creation of positions for, and relations between, patients is simultaneously more problematic. A comparison between NICE’s work and long-standing sociological conceptions of the social relationship offers insight into the quality of the social relations NICE’s approach supports in more general terms.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:25:y:2020:i:2:p:165-183
    DOI: 10.1177/1360780419860857
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1360780419860857
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1360780419860857?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Milewa, Timothy, 2006. "Health technology adoption and the politics of governance in the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(12), pages 3102-3112, December.
    3. Moreira, Tiago, 2011. "Health care rationing in an age of uncertainty: A conceptual model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1333-1341, April.
    4. Mehrpouya, Afshin & Samiolo, Rita, 2016. "Performance measurement in global governance: Ranking and the politics of variability," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 12-31.
    5. Lopes, Edilene & Carter, Drew & Street, Jackie, 2015. "Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 84-91.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    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. Gunn, Callum J. & Bertelsen, Neil & Regeer, Barbara J. & Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan, 2021. "Valuing patient engagement: Reflexive learning in evidence generation practices for health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    3. Faulconbridge, James R. & Muzio, Daniel, 2021. "Valuation devices and the dynamic legitimacy-performativity nexus: The case of PEP in the English legal profession," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Steffensen, Mette B. & Matzen, Christina L. & Wadmann, Sarah, 2022. "Patient participation in priority setting: Co-existing participant roles," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    6. Wranik, Wiesława Dominika & Zielińska, Dorota Anna & Gambold, Liesl & Sevgur, Serperi, 2019. "Threats to the value of Health Technology Assessment: Qualitative evidence from Canada and Poland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 191-202.
    7. Mennicken, Andrea & Kornberger, Martin, 2021. "Von performativität zu generativität: Bewertung und ihre Folgen im Kontext der Digitalisierung," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110925, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. 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.
    9. Shilpa Surendran & Chuan De Foo & Chen Hee Tam & Elaine Qiao Ying Ho & David Bruce Matchar & Josip Car & Gerald Choon Huat Koh, 2021. "The Missed Opportunity of Patient-Centered Medical Homes to Thrive in an Asian Context," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-11, February.
    10. Milewa, Timothy, 2008. "Representation and legitimacy in health policy formulation at a national level: Perspectives from a study of health technology eligibility procedures in the United Kingdom," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 356-362, March.
    11. Afshin Mehrpouya & Rita Samiolo, 2019. "Numbers in regulatory intermediation: Exploring the role of performance measurement between legitimacy and compliance," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 220-239, June.
    12. Hoon Chuah, Fiona Leh & Srivastava, Aastha & Singh, Shweta Rajkumar & Haldane, Victoria & Huat Koh, Gerald Choon & Seng, Chia Kee & McCoy, David & Legido-Quigley, Helena, 2018. "Community participation in general health initiatives in high and upper-middle income countries: A systematic review exploring the nature of participation, use of theories, contextual drivers and powe," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 106-122.
    13. Rajak, Manindra & Shaw, Krishnendu, 2019. "Evaluation and selection of mobile health (mHealth) applications using AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Alexander E. Kentikelenis & Leonard Seabrooke, 2022. "Governing and Measuring Health Security: The Global Push for Pandemic Preparedness Indicators," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(4), pages 571-578, September.
    16. Palermo, Tommaso & Power, Michael & Ashby, Simon, 2022. "How accounting ends: self-undermining repetition in accounting lifecycles," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115278, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Clune, Conor & O’Dwyer, Brendan, 2020. "Organizing dissonance through institutional work: The embedding of social and environmental accountability in an investment field," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    18. Baxter, Jane & Carlsson-Wall, Martin & Chua, Wai Fong & Kraus, Kalle, 2019. "Accounting and passionate interests: The case of a Swedish football club," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 21-40.
    19. Justyna Bandola-Gill, 2022. "Statistical entrepreneurs: the political work of infrastructuring the SDG indicators [The legitimacy of experts in policy: navigating technocratic and political accountability in the case of global," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(4), pages 498-512.
    20. Leopold Ringel & Jelena Brankovic & Tobias Werron, 2020. "The Organizational Engine of Rankings: Connecting “New” and “Old” Institutionalism," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 36-47.

    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:sae:socres:v:25:y:2020:i:2:p:165-183. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.