In health technology assessment (HTA), the societal perspective HTA approach weighs broad impacts beyond clinical outcomes. This method considers economic productivity, education gains, and justice system savings. Yet, the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) chose to keep its health sector focus in 2022. Such decisions shape resource allocation in the National Health Service (NHS). This article reviews the debate, key reasons, and effects on policy and market access. Readers will gain clear views on trends and options for leaders.

Context and Background

HTA bodies like NICE evaluate treatments to ensure value for the NHS budget. They use a health sector perspective, which targets direct health costs and benefits. This setup compares interventions against a threshold of £20,000 to £30,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The NHS spent £284 billion in 2022, or 2.9% of GDP, amid pressures from ageing populations and recovery needs.

Calls for societal perspective HTA grew as evidence showed wider effects. For example, Australia’s advisory committee sometimes adds productivity gains. Sweden’s agency dropped them in 2015 over fairness issues. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research supports broader views when non-health gains matter, such as in gene therapies for rare conditions. In the UK, NICE allows exceptions for cases like employer-funded workplace programs. This flexibility handles about 5-10% of reviews.

Key Analysis and Insights

The societal perspective HTA draws strong support because it values full intervention benefits. Health actions often yield gains outside clinics. Treatments for child epilepsy boost school performance and future earnings by 10-20%, per 2019 Lancet studies. Mental health care cuts crime costs; a NICE hepatitis guideline estimated £1,000-£5,000 savings per case through expert input.

Moreover, this view spots cost shifts. Gene therapies for spinal muscular atrophy ease public burdens but add family care expenses. A basic diagram shows these links across sectors.

Table 1: Societal Impacts of Health Interventions (Adapted from NICE 2022). Note: Values draw from UK data; they vary by case.

Without societal perspective HTA, useful technologies face rejection. Debates on CAR-T therapies highlight how young patient productivity could sway cost ratios.

However, NICE kept the health sector view to match NHS goals. The budget aims to improve health and wellbeing. Broad views would mix health and non-health measures, which suits wider welfare aims but not NHS focus. Each appraisal costs £500,000-£2 million and takes months. Adding societal elements risks delays of 6-12 months, with 7.5 million on NHS lists in 2023.

Costly approvals displace other services. NICE’s threshold covers lost health gains, like 0.2-0.3 QALYs per £20,000. Full societal analysis needs complex models for non-health losses, a challenge per 2021 Health Economics research. Productivity favours working-age groups, raising ethics issues. Sweden noted a 20% shift to younger people before changes. Evidence for societal effects often comes from expert views, not trials, as in cochlear implant reviews for children.

Implications and Recommendations

NICE’s choice supports NHS equity and speed. It aids market access for drugs, as wider views might raise prices in UK pricing talks.

Leaders can act as follows:

• Refine exception rules with pilots; aim for 10-20% more societal inclusions where evidence hits 80% confidence, using RCTs.
• Fund data links, like NHS with school records, to sharpen estimates by 30-50%.
• Add equity weights from WHO to offset age biases.
• Track global shifts, such as Canada’s caregiver effects, for NICE updates.

These steps build on current flexibility without full change.

Conclusion

NICE’s health sector stance weighs societal perspective HTA benefits against evidence gaps, ethics, and delays. It ensures fair health focus with room for key cases. Ongoing method advances will test if broader views improve guidance quality.

Source