IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

NICE's Social Value Judgements about Equity in Health and Health Care


  • Koonal K Shah

    (Office of Health Economics, London, UK)

  • Richard Cookson

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK)

  • Anthony J Culyer

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK and Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Canada)

  • Peter Littlejohns

    (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, UK)


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. To date, however, NICE?s social value judgements 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 sum total population health. NICE takes a pragmatic, case-based approach to developing its principles of social value judgement, 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 social value judgements 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 social value judgements reported in NICE guidance on methodology and the case-specific social value judgements reported in NICE guidance about particular health care technologies and public health interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Koonal K Shah & Richard Cookson & Anthony J Culyer & Peter Littlejohns, 2011. "NICE's Social Value Judgements about Equity in Health and Health Care," Working Papers 070cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
  • Handle: RePEc:chy:respap:70cherp

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: First version, 2011
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:


    Blog mentions

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

    Cited by:

    1. Richard Cookson & Andrew Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin, 2016. "Fairer decisions, better health for all: Health equity and cost-effectiveness analysis," Working Papers 135cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    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. 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.
    4. Rejon-Parrilla, J.C & Hernandez-Villafuerte, K. & Shah, K. & Mestre-Ferrandiz, J. & Garrison, L. & Towse, A., 2014. "The Expanding Value Footprint of Oncology Treatments," Consulting Reports 000050, Office of Health Economics.
    5. 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.
    6. 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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:chy:respap:70cherp. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Gill Forder). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.