The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s Advice on Extending Human Papillomavirus Vaccination to Boys: Were Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines Bent to Achieve a Politically Acceptable Decision?

Abstract

In July 2018, the UK Minister of Public Health announced that human papillomavirus vaccination would be extended to 12-year-old boys. This decision was informed by updated evidence from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) published earlier that month. Vaccination of boys had been found not to be cost-effective in a series of analyses conducted for the JCVI, including the most recent assessment prior to the minister’s announcement. These analyses were conducted under the standard methods for cost-effectiveness analysis recommended by the JCVI, which are primarily based on guidelines from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Although the JCVI concluded they were unable to advise extending vaccination on the basis of standard appraisal methods, their most recent round of assessment also considered analyses using nonstandard appraisal methods. In particular, the JCVI noted that vaccination of boys was likely to be cost-effective when a lower discount rate of 1.5% is applied to costs and health effects, as opposed to the 3.5% rate usually employed. The JCVI stated that they were supportive of applying such alternative methods, and on this basis, they would advise extending vaccination to boys. This commentary explains the JCVI’s application of nonstandard appraisal methods and considers whether it was justified. We conclude that the JCVI was not justified in applying the lower discount rate. We voice concerns that a willingness to endorse a politically popular intervention may have driven the JCVI to depart from a fair and consistent application of healthcare rationing.