Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

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.

Keywords

comparison competition National Institute for Health and Care Excellence neoliberalism social relations

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albrow

(1990) Max Weber’s Construction of Social Theory. London: Macmillan.

Appleby

(2016) What’s in and what’s out? The thorny issue of the threshold. In: Timmins

Rawlins

Appleby

(eds) A Terrible Beauty: A Short History of NICE, pp. 154–169. Available at: http://www.idsihealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/A-TERRIBLE-BEAUTY_resize.pdf (accessed 5 September 2018).

Arnesen TM and Norheim OF (2003) Quantifying quality of life for economic analysis: Time out for time trade off. Medical Humanities 29(2): 81–86.

Claxton

Culyer

(2006) Wickedness or folly? The ethics of NICE’s decisions. Journal of Medical Ethics 32(7): 373–377.

Claxton

Culyer

(2007) Rights, responsibilities and NICE: A rejoinder to Harris. Journal of Medical Ethics 33(8): 462–464.

Claxton

Culyer

(2008) Not a NICE fallacy: A reply to Dr Quigley. Journal of Medical Ethics 34(8): 598–601.

Crinson

(2004) The politics of regulation within the ‘modernized’ NHS: The case of beta interferon and the ‘cost-effective’ treatment of multiple sclerosis. Critical Social Policy 24(1): 30–49.

Davies

(2014) The Limits of Neoliberalism: Authority, Sovereignty and the Logic of Competition. London: SAGE.

Dempsey

(2017) Screening for cancer risk: Esposito’s immunization paradigm, capitalism and the logic of fantasy. Annual Review of Critical Psychology 13.

10.

Department of Health (2015) The NHS constitution for England. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-nhs-constitution-for-england/the-nhs-constitution-for-england (accessed 6 September 2018)

11.

Dew

Davis

(2014) Limits to neoliberal reforms in the health sector: The case of pharmaceutical management in New Zealand. International Journal of Health Services 44(1): 137–153.

12.

Faulkner

Mahalatchimy

(2018) The politics of valuation and payment for regenerative medicine products in the UK. New Genetics and Society 37(3): 227–247.

13.

Foucault

(2010) The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978-79. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

14.

Frisby

(1981) Sociological Impressionism: A Reassessment of Georg Simmel’s Social Theory. London: Heinemann.

15.

Frisby

(2002) Georg Simmel. Revised ed. London: Routledge.

16.

Gudmand-Høyer

Lopdrup Hjorth

(2009) Review essay: Liberal biopolitics reborn. Foucault Studies 7: 99–130.

17.

Hamann

(2009) Neoliberalism, governmentality, and ethics. Foucault Studies 6: 37–59.

18.

Harris

(2005a) It’s not NICE to discriminate. Journal of Medical Ethics 31(7): 373–375.

19.

Harris

(2005b) Nice and not so nice. Journal of Medical Ethics 31(12): 685–688.

20.

Harris

(2006) NICE is not cost effective. Journal of Medical Ethics 32(7): 378–380.

21.

Harris

(2007) NICE rejoinder. Journal of Medical Ethics 33(8): 467.

22.

Käsler

(1988) Max Weber: An Introduction to His Life and Work. Cambridge: Polity.

23.

Lopes

Carter

Street

(2015) Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia. Social Science & Medicine 135: 84–91.

24.

May

(2006) Mobilising modern facts: Health technology assessment and the politics of evidence. Sociology of Health & Illness 28(5): 513–532.

25.

Mehrpouya

Samiolo

(2016) Performance measurement in global governance: Ranking and the politics of variability. Accounting, Organizations and Society 55: 12–31.

26.

Milewa

(2006) Health technology adoption and the politics of governance in the UK. Social Science & Medicine 63(12): 3102–3112.

27.

Milewa

Barry

(2005) Health policy and the politics of evidence. Social Policy & Administration 39(5): 498–512.

28.

Moreira

(2011) Health care rationing in an age of uncertainty: A conceptual model. Social Science & Medicine 72(8): 1333–1341.

29.

Moreira

(2012a) Health care standards and the politics of singularities: Shifting in and out of context. Science, Technology, & Human Values 37(4): 307–331.

30.

Moreira

(2012b) The Transformation of Contemporary Health Care: The Market, the Laboratory, and the Forum. Oxon: Routledge.

31.

Moreira

(2016) When are trials not enough? Clinical versus cost-effectiveness in the controversy over access to dementia drugs in the NHS. In: Will

Moreira

(eds) Medical Proofs, Social Experiments: Clinical Trials in Shifting Contexts. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 85–100.

32.

NHS (n.d.) About the NHS. Available at: https://www.nhs.uk/using-the-nhs/about-the-nhs/the-nhs/ (accessed 5 September 2018).

33.

NICE (2008) Social Value Judgements: Principles for the Development of NICE Guidance. 2nd ed. London: NICE.

34.

NICE (2013) Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. London: NICE.

35.

NICE (2014) Citizens Council meeting report: 8-9 May 2014. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/Get-involved/Citizens-Council/Reports/cc-report17-equity-efficiency.pdf (accessed 11 February 2019).

36.

NICE (2016) NICE’s equality objectives and equality programme 2016-2020. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/Who-we-are/Policies-and-procedures/NICE-equality-scheme/equality-objectives-and-equality-programme-16.pdf (accessed 11 February 2019).

37.

NICE (2018) NICE Charter 2018. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/Who-we-are/NICE_Charter.pdf (accessed 11 February 2019).

38.

NICE (2019a) Citizens Council. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/get-involved/citizens-council (accessed 11 February 2019).

39.

NICE (2019b) NICE guidance. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/About/What-we-do/Our-Programmes/NICE-guidance (accessed 11 February 2019).

40.

NICE (2019c) NICE guidelines. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/About/What-we-do/Our-Programmes/NICE-guidance/NICE-guidelines (accessed 11 February 2019).

41.

NICE (2019d) NICE technology appraisal guidance. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/About/What-we-do/Our-Programmes/NICE-guidance/NICE-technology-appraisal-guidance (accessed 11 February 2019).

42.

NICE (2019e) Who we are. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/About/Who-we-are (accessed 11 February 2019).

43.

Oxford English Dictionary (2018). Available at: www.oed.com (accessed 9 July 2018).

44.

Quigley

(2007) A NICE fallacy. Journal of Medical Ethics 33(8): 465–466.

45.

Rawlins

(2005) Pharmacopolitics and deliberative democracy. Clinical Medicine 5(5): 471–475.

46.

Rawlins

Dillon

(2005) NICE discrimination. Journal of Medical Ethics 31(12): 683–684.

47.

Read

(2009) A genealogy of homo-economicus: Neoliberalism and the production of subjectivity. Foucault Studies 6: 25–36.

48.

Ringer

(1997) Max Weber’s Methodology: The Unification of the Cultural and Social Sciences. London: Harvard University Press.

49.

Shah

Cookson

Culyer

, et al. (2013) NICE’s social value judgements about equity in health and health care. Health Economics, Policy and Law 8(2): 145–165.

50.

Simmel

(1909) The problem of sociology. American Journal of Sociology 15(3): 289–320.

51.

Sjögren

Helgesson

C-F

(2007) The Q(u)ALYfying hand: Health economics and medicine in the shaping of Swedish markets for subsidized pharmaceuticals. Sociological Review 55(Suppl. 2): 215–240.

52.

Soares

(2012) Is the QALY blind, deaf and dumb to equity? NICE’s considerations over equity. British Medical Bulletin 101(1): 17–31.

53.

Wahlberg

Rose

(2015) The governmentalization of living: Calculating global health. Economy and Society 44(1): 60–90.

54.

Weber

(1978) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.

55.

Weber

(1980) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriß der Verstehenden Soziologie. 5th rev ed. Tübingen: Mohr.

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

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References