Your biweekly update on health economics, policy, and impact
This Bulletin looks at how inflation affects incremental costs in HTA and cost-effectiveness, how climate-health valuation can be made comparable across sectors, and how recent changes to cost-effectiveness thresholds reflect on decision-making.
That’s your Bulletin summary, or read on for the full stories below.
Chris Sampson, Senior Principal Economist
The disputed calculus of life
Much of what we do in health economics involves a calculus of life. Coverage decisions are grounded in a set of numbers that determine who gets what, and we routinely disagree about them. How much should we spend on health improvements? What should we take into account? What is a unit of health worth in different contexts?
Disagreement is healthy. It improves our thinking and exposes hidden assumptions. But disagreement is only productive if we come together to understand our differences and seek out the best way forward. That is where research has the greatest impact, and where we play our part at OHE, bringing people together and producing the evidence that pushes the conversation forward.
The impact of inflation on incremental costs in HTA
Healthcare costs have increased steadily over time, but cost-effectiveness thresholds have largely remained unchanged. This creates a challenge for new treatments, particularly those that improve survival. The analysis shows how inflation can reshape value assessments and raises important questions about the future of HTA decision-making.
Two numbers, one decision: making climate-health valuation usable across sectors
Improved health is one of the strongest economic arguments for climate action, but translating that into budget decisions is not straightforward. Different valuation methods answer different questions, yet are often used as if they are interchangeable. This creates inconsistent signals across sectors and risks weakening the case for coordinated investment in health and climate action. The key issue is not missing evidence, but mismatched decision frameworks.
Cost-effectiveness thresholds: theory, pragmatism, and NICE's new number
After 20 years without change, NICE has increased its cost-effectiveness threshold. On the surface, the shift is small, but it raises bigger questions about how thresholds are set, what they represent, and what has changed in the wider policy environment to justify the update. The discussion looks at how this move fits into long-standing debates in health economics and what it signals for future decisions.
