Many health technology assessment (HTA) agencies limit their assessments of vaccines to the health benefits for the vaccinated individual, the costs associated with vaccine administration and the disease avoided. However, because the value of vaccines tends to accrue to a large extent beyond the vaccinated individual, they are systematically undervalued in many current HTA processes. This is also the case in the UK, where the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is in charge of assessing preventative vaccines, while therapeutic vaccines fall in the realm of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE).

The objectives of this research were to produce a macro-level overview of the global COVID-19 burden and estimate the value of access to COVID-19 vaccines. A targeted literature review collated evidence of the burden. Linear modelling and data analysis estimated the health and economic effects of COVID-19 vaccines delivered in 2021, and whether additional value could have been achieved with broader and more equitable access. By 1 December 2020, there had been an estimated 17 million excess deaths due to COVID-19. Low-income countries allocated more than 30% of their healthcare budgets to COVID-19, compared to 8% in high-income countries. All country income groups experienced gross domestic product (GDP) growth lower than predicted in 2020. If all 92 countries eligible for COVAX Advance Market Committee (AMC), access had reached 40% vaccination coverage in 2021, 120% more excess deaths would have been averted, equivalent to USD 5 billion (10⁹) in savings to healthcare systems. Every USD spent by advanced economies on vaccinations for less advanced economies averted USD 28 of economic losses in advanced economies and USD 29 in less advanced economies. The cost to high-income countries when not all countries are vaccinated far outweighs the cost of manufacturing and distributing vaccines globally.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the major threats to global population health, and the antimicrobial market requires substantial reimbursement reform and/or significant financial incentives to function properly. To address these challenges, England piloted a new health technology evaluation process in conjunction with a new payment model in 2019. The value assessment was performed using a dedicated broader value framework for antibiotics for the first time. This so-called STEDI framework is an acronym based on the five value elements it covers (Spectrum, Transmission, Enablement, Diversity, and Insurance value). Learnings from the pilot show that there are important considerations when implementing this value framework: The STEDI value profile of an antibiotic strongly depends on the local context and is impacted by trade-offs between individual value elements. Decision makers should therefore act carefully when applying STEDI to avoid distorting the overall evaluation result. Considering the STEDI value profile of an antibiotic is an important part of its value assessment as it allows for distinguishing between higher- and lower-value products. However, given the complexities surrounding its value assessment, further research must be undertaken to improve the overall STEDI evaluation process.

Hospitals in England experience extremely high levels of bed occupancy in the winter. In these circumstances, vaccine-preventable hospitalisations due to seasonal respiratory infections have a high cost because of the missed opportunity to treat other patients on the waiting list. This paper estimates the number of hospitalisations that current vaccines against influenza, pneumococcal disease (PD), COVID-19, and a hypothetical Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) vaccine, could prevent in the winter among older adults in England. Their costs were quantified using a conventional reference costing method and a novel opportunity costing approach considering the net monetary benefit (NMB) obtained from alternative uses of the hospital beds freed-up by vaccines. The influenza, PD and RSV vaccines could collectively prevent 72,813 bed days and save over £45 million in hospitalisation costs. The COVID-19 vaccine could prevent over 2 million bed days and save £1.3 billion. However, the value of hospital beds freed up by vaccination is likely to be 1.1–2 times larger (£48–93 million for flu, PD and RSV; £1.4–2.8 billion for COVID-19) when quantified in opportunity cost terms. Considering opportunity costs is key to ensuring maximum value is obtained from preventative budgets, as reference costing may significantly underestimate the true value of vaccines.

X-linked retinitis pigmentosa (XLRP) is a rare inherited retinal disease with no available treatment. Gene therapies in clinical trials will pose challenges for HTA if found to be safe and effective. We examine two of these challenges, namely acceptability and difficulties in assessing value beyond short-term patient health and healthcare savings, and discounting in economic evaluation. We conducted a narrative literature review on the socioeconomic burden of XLRP to identify relevant components of value for a hypothetical gene therapy from a societal perspective, and to assess their relative importance. We compared the resulting value profile against the value frameworks of three European HTA agencies. We also reviewed their guidelines on discounting and potential discounting issues specific to XLRP. Much of the societal value of an XLRP gene therapy is likely to originate from productivity effects, carer spillovers, and value elements related to patient uncertainty. However, the evidence on these effects is often limited, making it difficult for HTA agencies to assess them. Cost-effectiveness results are likely to be highly sensitive to the discount rate, and discounting will compound the effects of omitting important sources of value. We have identified and detailed important components of societal value, key evidence gaps, and potential discounting issues for an XLRP gene therapy which can inform future value assessments. Many of these may apply to gene therapies in other disease areas. Revisiting existing HTA approaches is recommended to ensure these are fit for purpose for such new classes of treatment.