IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/hecopl/v16y2021i4p505-511_9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exorcising the positivist ghost in the priority-setting machine: NICE and the demise of the ‘social value judgement’

Author

Listed:
  • Charlton, Victoria
  • Weale, Albert

Abstract

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the UK's primary health care priority-setting body, has traditionally described its decisions as being informed by ‘social value judgements’ about how resources should be allocated across society. This paper traces the intellectual history of this term and suggests that, in NICE's adoption of the idea of the ‘social value judgement’, we are hearing the echoes of welfare economics at a particular stage of its development, when logical positivism provided the basis for thinking about public policy choice. As such, it is argued that the term offers an overly simplistic conceptualisation of NICE's normative approach and contributes to a situation in which NICE finds itself without the necessary language fully and accurately to articulate its basis for decision-making. It is suggested that the notion of practical public reasoning, based on reflection about coherent principles of action, might provide a better characterisation of the enterprise in which NICE is, or hopes to be, engaged.

Suggested Citation

  • Charlton, Victoria & Weale, Albert, 2021. "Exorcising the positivist ghost in the priority-setting machine: NICE and the demise of the ‘social value judgement’," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 505-511, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:16:y:2021:i:4:p:505-511_9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744133121000049/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:16:y:2021:i:4:p:505-511_9. 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.