BackgroundSome practitioners and researchers have advocated for greater attention to extreme health disadvantages associated with experiences of social exclusion (eg, homelessness, substance use, or imprisonment), which are not captured by conventional measures of socioeconomic position. It is therefore timely to examine whether such so-called inclusion health concerns feature in health inequalities policy in the UK. We analysed how flagship reviews on health inequalities described, explained, and made recommendations relating to these experiences. MethodsOur purposive sample comprised the five most recent health inequalities policy reviews from different levels of governance in the UK (ie, devolved, national, and international), spanning 2008–14. We undertook thematic analysis using the framework method. The results of line-by-line coding were summarised into framework matrices using NVivo 11 and interpreted using mind-mapping, cross-comparison, and discussion among the project team. FindingsDocuments differed in which experiences were featured and who was constructed as “excluded” or “vulnerable”. Documents proposed various explanations for health inequalities associated with these experiences, from micro (eg, individual behaviours) through meso factors (eg, access to services), to macro forces (eg, globalisation and climate change). Concepts of the life course and so-called intergenerational transmission were also important explanatory themes. Although recommendations spanned all levels from individual to structural, unifying themes included partnership working; early years intervention; and access to health care. Acknowledgement of intersectional aspects of inequalities was largely limited to descriptions and explanations and was less often reflected in recommendations. InterpretationUnderstanding how health inequalities are framed is important, because such framings reflect and shape what the problem is perceived to be, what solutions are proposed, and how success is defined. Although these flagship policy reviews of health inequalities did acknowledge some inclusion health experiences, they used concepts of inclusion, vulnerability, and disadvantage ambiguously. Focus on health care was disproportionate in both explanations and recommendations. To address potential tensions between different framings of health inequalities, policy making in this area would benefit from a clear conceptual framework encompassing diverse forms of social stratification, advantage, and disadvantage. FundingEJT, SVK, and FP are funded by the Medical Research Council grant MC_UU_12017/13 and by the Chief Scientist Office grant SPHSU13. EJT, SVK, and HT are funded by the Medical Research Council grant MC_UU_12017/15 and by the Chief Scientist Office grant SPHSU15. In addition, EJT is funded by a Chief Scientist Office Clinical Academic Fellowship (CAF/17/11) and SVK by an NRS Scottish Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02).