Asked by: Lord Bradley (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Merron on 30 January (HL13777), when they will publish the results of the consultation on proposals to extend the medicines responsibilities of four professions.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The consultation for proposals to extend medicines responsibilities for paramedics, physiotherapists, operating department practitioners, and diagnostic radiographers closed on 28 October 2025. Our team is currently analysing the large number of respondents received and a Government response detailing next steps will be published in due course.
Non-medical prescribing remains a keen area of interest since the Government took office in 2024, and we support the expansion of professional groups being able to use legal mechanisms to supply, administer, and prescribe medicines to patients, where it is safe to do so, within their scope of practice.
Feb. 16 2026
Source Page: New technology to help combat drug and alcohol addictionFeb. 16 2026
Source Page: Parents urged to protect children through vaccination campaignAsked by: Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what evidence, analysis or expert advice Ministers relied on in concluding that broadening the scope of health technology assessments for vaccines to include wider economic and societal impacts is unnecessary; and whether this conclusion was informed by any assessment of the capability and remit of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation in areas beyond pure health system cost-effectiveness, such as macro-economics, public finance, and social and welfare analysis.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
We are proud to have one of the most comprehensive vaccination programmes in the world. Our approach to evaluating vaccination programmes, underpinned by recommendations and advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), is grounded in rigorous and evidence-led cost-effectiveness analysis, and ensures that decisions are objective, consistent, and based on high-quality data on health benefits and costs.
Basing our approach on these factors avoids the uncertainty of less direct benefits, where the evidence and therefore the decision is likely to be less defensible. This approach is also informed by previous work on this topic.
For example, earlier work by the independent Cost-Effectiveness Methodology for Immunisation Programmes and Procurement (CEMIPP) considered, amongst other things, whether wider socio-economic impacts should be included in the framework used to assess the cost-effectiveness of vaccines. CEMIPP conducted a consultation as part of their wider work and drew upon a broad body of expert opinion. The group concluded that wider socio-economic impacts should not be included in vaccine cost-effectiveness assessments unless doing so becomes standard practice across all health technology assessments.
Additionally, in 2022, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) undertook a detailed appraisal of whether it should broaden the perspective it uses in its economic evaluations, including consideration of wider societal impacts. Following this review, and after examining both international comparisons, and the significant methodological and ethical challenges involved, NICE’s Board concluded that it should retain its current approach of using a health-sector perspective routinely, but with the flexibility to include wider societal benefits when they are especially relevant.
Whilst the expertise of the JCVI rightly centres on disease burden, vaccine efficacy, health outcomes and health-related costs, as outlined this is not a key reason for why the cost-effectiveness methodology for vaccines does not formally take into consideration wider socio-economic benefits.
Asked by: Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the quantified economic and societal benefits omitted from vaccine appraisals under the existing health technology assessment framework, including impacts on economic inactivity, workforce participation, productivity and long-term growth.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government recognises the value in improving our understanding of the impact that vaccines have on wider society. Demonstrating the impact that childhood vaccines can have on the number of days of education that children may miss, for example, could encourage greater uptake of childhood vaccination. We have recently been able to say that childhood chickenpox costs the United Kingdom’s economy £24 million every year in lost income and productivity, and the chickenpox vaccination programme launched last month is expected to reduce that loss.
Vaccine appraisals play a particular role within the process of understanding that value, using the best robust evidence available across all vaccination programmes to focus investment of the health budget on programmes that deliver the greatest health benefit to the greatest number of people. Focusing our appraisal process on health benefits and costs, which have better evidence than socio-economic impacts, follows the process used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
If this process were to change, and wider socio-economic benefits were to be formally included, this could have unintended consequences. For example, it could have the effect of prioritising investment in vaccines for working populations over those who are not or will not be economically active. Additionally, the available data on socio-economic benefits is robust for only a small number of vaccines. Factoring this data into appraisals for only a small number of vaccines would create a bias for these programmes with better quality data. Conversely, if this data on wider benefits were to be factored into appraisals for all vaccination programmes, the use of lower quality data risks increasing uncertainty in appraisals and reduces our ability to ensure responsible and effective spending of public funds.
Asked by: Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to strengthen the evidence base for assessing the wider economic and societal impacts of vaccination; and what assessment they have made of the potential benefits for evidence generation of explicitly incorporating such impacts into health technology assessment frameworks.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government recognises the value in improving our understanding of the impact that vaccines have on wider society. Demonstrating the impact that childhood vaccines can have on the number of days of education that children may miss, for example, could encourage greater uptake of childhood vaccination. We have recently been able to say that childhood chickenpox costs the United Kingdom’s economy £24 million every year in lost income and productivity, and the chickenpox vaccination programme launched last month is expected to reduce that loss.
Vaccine appraisals play a particular role within the process of understanding that value, using the best robust evidence available across all vaccination programmes to focus investment of the health budget on programmes that deliver the greatest health benefit to the greatest number of people. Focusing our appraisal process on health benefits and costs, which have better evidence than socio-economic impacts, follows the process used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
If this process were to change, and wider socio-economic benefits were to be formally included, this could have unintended consequences. For example, it could have the effect of prioritising investment in vaccines for working populations over those who are not or will not be economically active. Additionally, the available data on socio-economic benefits is robust for only a small number of vaccines. Factoring this data into appraisals for only a small number of vaccines would create a bias for these programmes with better quality data. Conversely, if this data on wider benefits were to be factored into appraisals for all vaccination programmes, the use of lower quality data risks increasing uncertainty in appraisals and reduces our ability to ensure responsible and effective spending of public funds.
Asked by: Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the economic and societal costs of maintaining a health technology assessment framework for vaccines that does not explicitly account for wider impacts beyond the health system, including potential losses to productivity.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government recognises the value in improving our understanding of the impact that vaccines have on wider society. Demonstrating the impact that childhood vaccines can have on the number of days of education that children may miss, for example, could encourage greater uptake of childhood vaccination. We have recently been able to say that childhood chickenpox costs the United Kingdom’s economy £24 million every year in lost income and productivity, and the chickenpox vaccination programme launched last month is expected to reduce that loss.
Vaccine appraisals play a particular role within the process of understanding that value, using the best robust evidence available across all vaccination programmes to focus investment of the health budget on programmes that deliver the greatest health benefit to the greatest number of people. Focusing our appraisal process on health benefits and costs, which have better evidence than socio-economic impacts, follows the process used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
If this process were to change, and wider socio-economic benefits were to be formally included, this could have unintended consequences. For example, it could have the effect of prioritising investment in vaccines for working populations over those who are not or will not be economically active. Additionally, the available data on socio-economic benefits is robust for only a small number of vaccines. Factoring this data into appraisals for only a small number of vaccines would create a bias for these programmes with better quality data. Conversely, if this data on wider benefits were to be factored into appraisals for all vaccination programmes, the use of lower quality data risks increasing uncertainty in appraisals and reduces our ability to ensure responsible and effective spending of public funds.
Asked by: Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the potential benefits of incorporating wider societal impacts into health technology assessments on the assessment of value for money and long term return on investment for vaccination programmes.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government recognises the value in improving our understanding of the impact that vaccines have on wider society. Demonstrating the impact that childhood vaccines can have on the number of days of education that children may miss, for example, could encourage greater uptake of childhood vaccination. We have recently been able to say that childhood chickenpox costs the United Kingdom’s economy £24 million every year in lost income and productivity, and the chickenpox vaccination programme launched last month is expected to reduce that loss.
Vaccine appraisals play a particular role within the process of understanding that value, using the best robust evidence available across all vaccination programmes to focus investment of the health budget on programmes that deliver the greatest health benefit to the greatest number of people. Focusing our appraisal process on health benefits and costs, which have better evidence than socio-economic impacts, follows the process used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
If this process were to change, and wider socio-economic benefits were to be formally included, this could have unintended consequences. For example, it could have the effect of prioritising investment in vaccines for working populations over those who are not or will not be economically active. Additionally, the available data on socio-economic benefits is robust for only a small number of vaccines. Factoring this data into appraisals for only a small number of vaccines would create a bias for these programmes with better quality data. Conversely, if this data on wider benefits were to be factored into appraisals for all vaccination programmes, the use of lower quality data risks increasing uncertainty in appraisals and reduces our ability to ensure responsible and effective spending of public funds.
Asked by: Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what action they are taking to promote best practice in data collection and service standards for early identification and treatment of patients with cardiovascular disease.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government is strengthening best practice in cardiovascular disease prevention through CVDPREVENT, a national primary care audit that enables general practices (GPs) and primary care networks (PCNs) to extract data held by GPs to identify gaps in diagnosis, and management of people who are at risk of cardiovascular disease. The aim is to improve patient care, reduce inequalities, and optimise treatment.
Furthermore, this year, we will publish a new cardiovascular disease modern service framework (CVD MSF). The Department and NHS England are engaging widely with stakeholders to co-produce the CVD MSF, ensuring that experts, people, and communities are at the heart of its development. The CVD MSF will support evidence-led, consistent, high quality and equitable care whilst fostering innovation across the cardiovascular disease pathway.