Health: evidence and policy appraisals

Provisional single-reviewer assessments from the 6 October 2026 review; not approved business cases, and not government policy.

• Introduce minimum unit pricing for alcohol in England▲Delivery risk: Amber

  Funded now

  Not government policy: ministers said in June 2026 that they “do not currently have any plans” to introduce MUP in England, and the 10 Year Health Plan (July 2025) does not include it. England would need legislation, as Scotland and Wales did.

  The change assessed

  An English minimum unit price, by primary legislation.

  Range if completed: 20.0–23.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co))

• Build family hubs around what worked▲Delivery risk: Amber

  Funded now

  Best Start Family Hubs are being rolled out to every local authority in England from April 2026, “backed by over £500 million”, with up to 1,000 hubs by the end of 2028 (DfE, July 2025); by March 2026 the stated backing was £900m over three years, including £200m for Healthy Babies services, and on 30 September 2026 the Burnham government said the Healthy Babies programme would reach every hub. They are not automatically equivalent to the 2000s Sure Start centres that were evaluated. The proposal is to hold the hubs to the features that were tested, start where access is weakest, and phase the roll-out so it can be evaluated.

  The change assessed

  Evaluated Sure Start features, weakest-access areas first, and a phased, evaluable roll-out of the family hubs.

  Range if completed: 17.0–20.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co))

• Test mental-health support in schools▲Delivery risk: Amber

  Funded now

  Teams covered 60% of pupils and learners in 2025–26, and the Spending Review 2025 commits to every school by 2029–30. The proposal is to make the remaining roll-out evaluable and to fill the needs gap, not to start a new service.

  The change assessed

  A comparison-based evaluation and a route for greater needs.

  Range if completed: 15.0–21.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))

• Get effective depression treatment to adults missing out▲Delivery risk: Amber

  Funded now

  Funded baseline: NHS Talking Therapies (1.81m referrals and 674,683 finished courses in England in 2025–26), with ring-fenced funding and a planning target of 805,000 courses by the end of 2026/27 and 915,000 by 2028/29. Targeting extra capacity at the areas with the lowest completion and recovery is a UK Facts proposal, not government policy.

  The change assessed

  Close a verified access gap for clinically appropriate NICE-recommended adult depression treatment, with supervision and an escalation route.

  Range if completed: 19.0–22.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co))

• Make effective smoking treatment reach more people▲Delivery risk: Amber

  Funded now

  Funded baseline: the 2026–27 public health grant ring-fences £152.8m for smoking cessation (absorbing the extra £70m a year and Swap to Stop); the generational age-of-sale law starts on 1 January 2027; NHS trusts offer tobacco dependence treatment. Targeted outreach to routine and manual workers is a UK Facts proposal, not government policy.

  The change assessed

  Expand access to established behavioural support plus suitable cessation treatment for a defined underserved adult group; cardiovascular prevention is a separate, unscored option.

  Range if completed: 21.0–24.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co))

Alternatives already on record: 34 options listed under the points in the position today (22 without an action record), and 4 earlier options under other options compared. They have not been scored in the review.

Which quadrant a point sits in is our analytical judgement, not a statistical category. Each point says whether it is a measured fact, our synthesis or a risk.

Provisional single-reviewer assessments from the 6 October 2026 review; not approved business cases, and not government policy.

• A49▲Delivery risk: AmberGate: pending

  Introduce minimum unit pricing for alcohol in England

  Existing action A49, assessed at the same scope.

  Provisional single-reviewer assessment; not an approved business case.

  Who and where

  Adults in England who drink heavily, and the communities where alcohol harm is concentrated. (from the action record) Jurisdiction: England.

  Result so far

  Range if completed: 20.0–23.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co))

  Funded now (baseline)

  Not government policy: ministers said in June 2026 that they “do not currently have any plans” to introduce MUP in England, and the 10 Year Health Plan (July 2025) does not include it. England would need legislation, as Scotland and Wales did. (from the action record)

  The change assessed (marginal)

  An English minimum unit price, by primary legislation. (from the superseded 4 October selection table)

  • Domain home: Health
  • In the national plan: Wellbeing list
  • Previous version: NP7: Set a minimum price per unit of alcohol in England (4 October 2026 slate, superseded 7 October 2026).
  • The evidence trail for this option →

  What the evidence supports—and the next decision

  Scottish evaluation supports examining alcohol pricing; an English design still needs its own price, population and distributional appraisal.

  AI-assisted analytical follow-up · 8 October 2026. Proposed appraisal design; the attributed scores below are unchanged. No funding or delivery agreement is implied.

  Define the change

  Specify an English minimum price and uprating rule, with treatment access and a pre-specified evaluation against suitable comparison trends.

  Test whether it works

  Alcohol-specific deaths, admissions, purchasing and hardship, including heavy drinkers and low-income households. Report uncertainty and concurrent policy changes.

  Establish the cost

  Enforcement, evaluation and treatment capacity plus consumer and retailer effects. A price transfer to retailers is not government revenue.

  Protect against harm

  Monitor substitution and hardship among dependent drinkers; do not treat Scotland’s estimated percentage change as a guaranteed English result.

  • Public Health Scotland: final MUP evaluation →

  Read with the outcome evidence and sources in the full assessment. Monitoring proposals are not existing baseline measurements. A numerical benefit or cost score needs evidence for the defined increment, not just the scale of the problem.

  Full assessment of Introduce minimum unit pricing for alcohol in England: ten criteria, scenarios, delivery, costs and monitoring

  The ten criteria (0–3)

  Each criterion is scored 0 to 3 by the reviewer. “Not yet assessed” means unknown: it is never counted as zero.

  1. Scale and severity (Sc)3 of 3 — Severe harm across a broad population

     Reviewer’s reason: Provisional problem-importance judgement from linked site pages; not the scale of achievable benefit.

  2. Increment beyond baseline (Ad)3 of 3 — Substantial clearly distinct increment; not novelty alone

     Reviewer’s reason: Choose price/indexation; consult; legislate; arrange enforcement and support for dependent drinkers; predefine evaluation. A missing rating requires a defined marginal change.

  3. Confidence in the proposed action (Ev)2 of 3 — Relevant evaluated evidence with limitations

     Reviewer’s reason: Controlled Scottish evaluation supports mortality effects; English transfer and design need assessment. Admission reduction was not statistically significant.

  4. Expected incremental benefit (Bn)3 of 3 — Large for the target population; no multi-domain bonus

     Reviewer’s reason: Unknown unless a reasonably defined target-population benefit can be judged; no bonus merely for spanning domains.

     ! Reason and score disagree — under review

  5. Residual harms (Hm)1 of 3 — Material harm/unresolved mitigation

     Reviewer’s reason: Dependence-related hardship; distribution of increased retail receipts.

  6. Incremental affordability (Co)Not yet assessed

     Reviewer’s reason: Enforcement, treatment support and evaluation plus household burdens and retailer effects; low fiscal cost is not full costing.

  7. Delivery capacity (Ca)3 of 3 — Little scarce capacity required

     Reviewer’s reason: Choose price/indexation; consult; legislate; arrange enforcement and support for dependent drinkers; predefine evaluation.

  8. Distribution (Fa)2 of 3 — Mixed or broadly neutral with safeguards

     Reviewer’s reason: Provisional distribution judgement for the stated target; verify who pays, who gains and excluded groups.

  9. Meaningful first outcome (Ti)2 of 3 — More than one and up to three years

     Reviewer’s reason: First meaningful outcome, not announcement: Alcohol-attributable deaths and harm, consumption and household hardship.

  10. Readiness (Rd)1 of 3 — Legislation/external agreement or major enabling work

      Reviewer’s reason: DHSC, Parliament, public health and enforcement bodies; Legislative and distributional appraisal

  Four weightings

  Normalised as 10 × weighted sum ÷ sum of weights, on a 0–30 scale. Where a criterion is not yet assessed, the range is the lowest and highest result if it were later scored 0 or 3 — not a score, a confidence interval or a rank.

  • Equal weights: Range if completed: 20.0–23.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Evidence doubled: Range if completed: 20.0–22.7 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Scale doubled: Range if completed: 20.9–23.6 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Cost ignored (the funding gate still applies): Range if completed: 22.2–22.2 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). The missing criteria carry no weight here, so the ends meet; the record is still incomplete. Funding gate: not passed.

  Funding gate: Not passed — the cost is not yet assessed or no allocation is committed for this scope. Ignoring cost in a weighting never removes the gate.

  Delivery risk and gate

  ▲Delivery risk shown: AmberReview’s claim: Amber. Best the recorded evidence allows: Amber.

  Review’s reason: Enforcement, treatment support and evaluation plus household burdens and retailer effects; low fiscal cost is not full costing.

  Why it is not Green yet

  • Scope (population, place and increment) not verified against the delivery baseline.
  • No verified owner with the powers in place.
  • Delivery capacity not verified.
  • Lifetime incremental costs not complete.
  • No credible funding (a committed allocation for the scope).
  • Safeguards not specified.
  • Monitoring lacks a metric, a data source or a baseline.

  Green needs verified scope, a verified owner with the powers, verified capacity, complete lifetime costs with credible funding, specified safeguards and monitoring with a metric, source and baseline. Amber means appraisal gaps remain; Red means a material delivery obstacle. Red does not mean unimportant.

  Gate: Pending — appraisal incomplete (review label: “Pending: incomplete appraisal”).

  Why: Scores incomplete; Funding gate not passed (cost unknown or no credible funding).

  The gate is separate from national list membership: being listed does not make an option eligible, and an eligible option need not be listed.

  Cost and funding

  Lifetime costing: Not established. Review: “Full incremental costing not established in reviewed material”.

  • Legislation, guidance, licensing enforcement and evaluation of a minimum unit price in England (not costed; C-A49-ADMIN)

  Still to cost: Enforcement, treatment support and evaluation plus household burdens and retailer effects; low fiscal cost is not full costing.

  Funding status: not a spending proposal.

  Owner, powers and capacity

  Proposed owner: DHSC, Parliament, public health and enforcement bodies (proposed, unverified).

  Powers: needs legislation or external agreement. Capacity: unverified.

  Powers and capacity read from the review’s Rd and Ca anchors; no proposed owner has agreed to act (the review: “Proposed owners have not agreed to act”).

  England:

  UK government (Home Office and DHSC) and Parliament, with councils enforcing through licensing (action record)

  Scotland:

  not assessed

  Wales:

  not assessed

  Northern Ireland:

  not assessed

  Scotland has had MUP since May 2018 (65p since 30 September 2024) and Wales since March 2020 (65p since 1 October 2026). Northern Ireland has no MUP; its current position was not confirmed from a primary source.

  Dependencies, safeguards and risks

  Depends on: None recorded.

  Safeguards

  None specified yet.

  Risks and residual harms: Dependence-related hardship; distribution of increased retail receipts.

  Monitoring and measured results

  Metric: Alcohol-attributable deaths and harm, consumption and household hardship.

  Data source: Not yet named. Baseline: Not yet established.

  Measures already on the domain page

  • Alcohol-specific deaths: latest 13.8 (2024); baseline not published (England).

  A page measure is not necessarily the review’s metric; linking the two is an editorial decision still to be made.

  Evidence for the outcome

  Outcome: Alcohol-attributable deaths and harm, consumption and household hardship.

  Controlled Scottish evaluation supports mortality effects; English transfer and design need assessment. Admission reduction was not statistically significant.

  Sources: publichealthscotland.scot (not yet in the source register)

  Effect records for this action

  • Deaths wholly attributable to alcohol: −13.4% (about 156 deaths a year averted in Scotland) (evaluated, moderate confidence; Scotland (England as control))
  • Hospital admissions wholly attributable to alcohol: −4.1% (not statistically significant) (evaluated, limited confidence; Scotland (England as control))
  • Financial strain for some people with alcohol dependence on low incomes: size not established (evaluated, limited confidence; Scotland)

  SWOT points it addresses

  • Alcohol-specific deaths in England were 13.8 per 100,000 people in 2024. The rate fell on 2023, but across the UK it was still 14.8 against 11.8 in 2019, and within England it ranged from 10.9 in London to 21.1 in the North East.
  • A prevention policy has been evaluated inside the UK: after Scotland set a minimum price per unit of alcohol, deaths wholly attributable to alcohol fell 13.4% relative to England.
  • Prevention with tested evidence — a floor price for alcohol, early-years help where access is weakest — could reach deprived areas most: in Scotland the largest estimated falls in alcohol deaths were in the 40% most deprived areas, an exploratory result. Neither has been shown to close the wider gap in early deaths.

  Review record

  Assessment status: Provisional single-reviewer assessment; not an approved business case.

  Reviewer: Original assessment author (name not supplied). Reviewed: 6 October 2026.

  Scored in the working review of 6 October 2026 on the shared ten-criterion scale (one reviewer); not independently calibrated.

  First 90 days (review): Produce a signed scope and current-delivery baseline; Choose price/indexation; consult; legislate; arrange enforcement and support for dependent drinkers; predefine evaluation. Obtain incremental costs and an accountable decision before expansion.

  Decision route: Legislative and distributional appraisal

  An earlier assessment exists on the 4 October 2026 selection table (nine H/M/L bands; superseded 7 October 2026). Its bands are kept, not converted into these scores.

  An editorial screening framework by one reviewer, not a formal appraisal or business case. Proposed owners have not agreed to act.

• A13▲Delivery risk: AmberGate: pending

  Build family hubs around what worked

  Existing action A13, assessed at the same scope.

  Provisional single-reviewer assessment; not an approved business case.

  Who and where

  Children under five and their families in areas with weak access, in England. (from the action record) Jurisdiction: England.

  Result so far

  Range if completed: 17.0–20.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co))

  Funded now (baseline)

  Best Start Family Hubs are being rolled out to every local authority in England from April 2026, “backed by over £500 million”, with up to 1,000 hubs by the end of 2028 (DfE, July 2025); by March 2026 the stated backing was £900m over three years, including £200m for Healthy Babies services, and on 30 September 2026 the Burnham government said the Healthy Babies programme would reach every hub. They are not automatically equivalent to the 2000s Sure Start centres that were evaluated. The proposal is to hold the hubs to the features that were tested, start where access is weakest, and phase the roll-out so it can be evaluated. (from the action record)

  The change assessed (marginal)

  Evaluated Sure Start features, weakest-access areas first, and a phased, evaluable roll-out of the family hubs. (from the superseded 4 October selection table)

  • Domain home: Health
  • In the national plan: Wellbeing list
  • Previous version: NP2: Hold the new family hubs to what worked in Sure Start, starting where access is weakest (4 October 2026 slate, superseded 7 October 2026).
  • The evidence trail for this option →

  What the evidence supports—and the next decision

  Sure Start findings do not automatically transfer to every family-hub model. Process evaluation establishes implementation, not an effect size.

  AI-assisted analytical follow-up · 8 October 2026. Proposed appraisal design; the attributed scores below are unchanged. No funding or delivery agreement is implied.

  Define the change

  Specify the services, intensity and outreach features to reproduce in low-access areas, net of current family-hub funding.

  Test whether it works

  Reach among eligible families, child and parent outcomes and later service use through a phased comparison design.

  Establish the cost

  Premises, trained staff, outreach, supervision and recurring services; analyse per eligible family and per participant separately.

  Protect against harm

  Avoid judging hubs solely on attendance; test whether families facing the greatest barriers actually benefit.

  • DfE: family hubs transformation fund process evaluation →

  Read with the outcome evidence and sources in the full assessment. Monitoring proposals are not existing baseline measurements. A numerical benefit or cost score needs evidence for the defined increment, not just the scale of the problem.

  Full assessment of Build family hubs around what worked: ten criteria, scenarios, delivery, costs and monitoring

  The ten criteria (0–3)

  Each criterion is scored 0 to 3 by the reviewer. “Not yet assessed” means unknown: it is never counted as zero.

  1. Scale and severity (Sc)2 of 3 — Serious harm to a defined group or widespread moderate harm

     Reviewer’s reason: Provisional problem-importance judgement from linked site pages; not the scale of achievable benefit.

  2. Increment beyond baseline (Ad)2 of 3 — Specific material change to existing delivery

     Reviewer’s reason: Specify service intensity and target reach; staff health/family services; measure uptake, fidelity and long-term outcomes. A missing rating requires a defined marginal change.

  3. Confidence in the proposed action (Ev)2 of 3 — Relevant evaluated evidence with limitations

     Reviewer’s reason: Sure Start evidence supports defined features; it does not validate all current hub models or immediate benefits.

  4. Expected incremental benefit (Bn)2 of 3 — Material for the target population

     Reviewer’s reason: Unknown unless a reasonably defined target-population benefit can be judged; no bonus merely for spanning domains.

     ! Reason and score disagree — under review

  5. Residual harms (Hm)2 of 3 — Manageable harm with specified safeguards

     Reviewer’s reason: Thin provision; failure to reach families most in need; long benefit horizon.

  6. Incremental affordability (Co)Not yet assessed

     Reviewer’s reason: Premises, staffing, outreach, recurring services and evaluation beyond existing allocations.

  7. Delivery capacity (Ca)1 of 3 — Binding scarce resource

     Reviewer’s reason: Specify service intensity and target reach; staff health/family services; measure uptake, fidelity and long-term outcomes.

  8. Distribution (Fa)3 of 3 — Benefits concentrated on disadvantaged people with assessed burdens

     Reviewer’s reason: Provisional distribution judgement for the stated target; verify who pays, who gains and excluded groups.

  9. Meaningful first outcome (Ti)1 of 3 — More than three but less than ten years

     Reviewer’s reason: First meaningful outcome, not announcement: Child development, family outcomes and later health/attainment.

  10. Readiness (Rd)2 of 3 — Named commissioning/allocation/coordination step

      Reviewer’s reason: DfE, councils and health partners in England; Phased implementation with transfer evaluation

  Four weightings

  Normalised as 10 × weighted sum ÷ sum of weights, on a 0–30 scale. Where a criterion is not yet assessed, the range is the lowest and highest result if it were later scored 0 or 3 — not a score, a confidence interval or a rank.

  • Equal weights: Range if completed: 17.0–20.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Evidence doubled: Range if completed: 17.3–20.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Scale doubled: Range if completed: 17.3–20.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Cost ignored (the funding gate still applies): Range if completed: 18.9–18.9 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). The missing criteria carry no weight here, so the ends meet; the record is still incomplete. Funding gate: not passed.

  Funding gate: Not passed — the cost is not yet assessed or no allocation is committed for this scope. Ignoring cost in a weighting never removes the gate.

  Delivery risk and gate

  ▲Delivery risk shown: AmberReview’s claim: Amber. Best the recorded evidence allows: Amber.

  Review’s reason: Premises, staffing, outreach, recurring services and evaluation beyond existing allocations.

  Why it is not Green yet

  • Scope (population, place and increment) not verified against the delivery baseline.
  • No verified owner with the powers in place.
  • Delivery capacity not verified.
  • Lifetime incremental costs not complete.
  • No credible funding (a committed allocation for the scope).
  • Safeguards not specified.
  • Monitoring lacks a metric, a data source or a baseline.

  Green needs verified scope, a verified owner with the powers, verified capacity, complete lifetime costs with credible funding, specified safeguards and monitoring with a metric, source and baseline. Amber means appraisal gaps remain; Red means a material delivery obstacle. Red does not mean unimportant.

  Gate: Pending — appraisal incomplete (review label: “Pending: incomplete appraisal”).

  Why: Scores incomplete; Funding gate not passed (cost unknown or no credible funding).

  The gate is separate from national list membership: being listed does not make an option eligible, and an eligible option need not be listed.

  Cost and funding

  Lifetime costing: Partial — some lines costed, no whole-life total. Review: “Full incremental costing not established in reviewed material”.

  • Best Start Family Hubs roll-out (programme envelope) (published programme envelope; C-BSFH-2025)
  • Integrated early-years service package and workforce (not costed; C-A13-SERVICE)

  Still to cost: Premises, staffing, outreach, recurring services and evaluation beyond existing allocations.

  Funding status: programme route, not allocated.

  Owner, powers and capacity

  Proposed owner: DfE, councils and health partners in England (proposed, unverified).

  Powers: needs a decision or allocation. Capacity: binding constraint.

  Powers and capacity read from the review’s Rd and Ca anchors; no proposed owner has agreed to act (the review: “Proposed owners have not agreed to act”).

  England:

  DfE, DHSC and councils (action record)

  Scotland:

  not assessed

  Wales:

  not assessed

  Northern Ireland:

  not assessed

  Sure Start was an England programme; devolved nations run separate early-years services.

  Dependencies, safeguards and risks

  Depends on: None recorded.

  Safeguards

  None specified yet.

  Risks and residual harms: Thin provision; failure to reach families most in need; long benefit horizon.

  Monitoring and measured results

  Metric: Child development, family outcomes and later health/attainment.

  Data source: Not yet named. Baseline: Not yet established.

  Measures already on the domain page

  • Gap in healthy life expectancy, least vs most deprived areas (men): latest 19.4 years (2022–2024); baseline not published (England).

  A page measure is not necessarily the review’s metric; linking the two is an editorial decision still to be made.

  Evidence for the outcome

  Outcome: Child development, family outcomes and later health/attainment.

  Sure Start evidence supports defined features; it does not validate all current hub models or immediate benefits.

  Effect records for this action

  • Five GCSEs at A*–C (or equivalent) at 16: +0.9 percentage points (about 2%) (evaluated, moderate confidence; England)
  • Hospital admissions by age 15: −8.5% by age 15 (evaluated, moderate confidence; England)
  • Criminal record by age 16: size not established (evaluated, moderate confidence; England)

  SWOT points it addresses

  • Prevention with tested evidence — a floor price for alcohol, early-years help where access is weakest — could reach deprived areas most: in Scotland the largest estimated falls in alcohol deaths were in the 40% most deprived areas, an exploratory result. Neither has been shown to close the wider gap in early deaths.
  • Healthy life expectancy in England’s most deprived areas is 19.4 years lower for men and 20.3 years lower for women than in the least deprived. (Inequality)

  Review record

  Assessment status: Provisional single-reviewer assessment; not an approved business case.

  Reviewer: Original assessment author (name not supplied). Reviewed: 6 October 2026.

  Scored in the working review of 6 October 2026 on the shared ten-criterion scale (one reviewer); not independently calibrated.

  First 90 days (review): Produce a signed scope and current-delivery baseline; Specify service intensity and target reach; staff health/family services; measure uptake, fidelity and long-term outcomes. Obtain incremental costs and an accountable decision before expansion.

  Decision route: Phased implementation with transfer evaluation

  An earlier assessment exists on the 4 October 2026 selection table (nine H/M/L bands; superseded 7 October 2026). Its bands are kept, not converted into these scores.

  An editorial screening framework by one reviewer, not a formal appraisal or business case. Proposed owners have not agreed to act.

• A50▲Delivery risk: AmberGate: pending

  Test mental-health support in schools

  Existing action A50, assessed at the same scope.

  Provisional single-reviewer assessment; not an approved business case.

  Who and where

  Children and young people in schools and colleges in England, especially those not yet covered and those whose needs are more than mild to moderate. (from the action record) Jurisdiction: England.

  Result so far

  Range if completed: 15.0–21.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))

  Funded now (baseline)

  Teams covered 60% of pupils and learners in 2025–26, and the Spending Review 2025 commits to every school by 2029–30. The proposal is to make the remaining roll-out evaluable and to fill the needs gap, not to start a new service. (from the action record)

  The change assessed (marginal)

  A comparison-based evaluation and a route for greater needs. (from the superseded 4 October selection table)

  • Domain home: Health
  • In the national plan: Wellbeing list
  • The evidence trail for this option →

  What the evidence supports—and the next decision

  More school mental-health coverage is not itself evidence of improved health or timely specialist care.

  AI-assisted analytical follow-up · 8 October 2026. Proposed appraisal design; the attributed scores below are unchanged. No funding or delivery agreement is implied.

  Define the change

  Specify the practitioner offer, schools and referral gap beyond commissioned provision; establish an escalation agreement before expanding access.

  Test whether it works

  Validated symptom and functioning measures, waiting time, deterioration and referral completion against comparison schools or phased rollout.

  Establish the cost

  Practitioner time, clinical supervision, teacher time, referral capacity and follow-up. Cost displaced specialist activity.

  Protect against harm

  Safeguarding, consent and specialist escalation must remain available; screen for unequal access and unmet severe need.

  Read with the outcome evidence and sources in the full assessment. Monitoring proposals are not existing baseline measurements. A numerical benefit or cost score needs evidence for the defined increment, not just the scale of the problem.

  Full assessment of Test mental-health support in schools: ten criteria, scenarios, delivery, costs and monitoring

  The ten criteria (0–3)

  Each criterion is scored 0 to 3 by the reviewer. “Not yet assessed” means unknown: it is never counted as zero.

  1. Scale and severity (Sc)2 of 3 — Serious harm to a defined group or widespread moderate harm

     Reviewer’s reason: Provisional problem-importance judgement from linked site pages; not the scale of achievable benefit.

  2. Increment beyond baseline (Ad)2 of 3 — Specific material change to existing delivery

     Reviewer’s reason: Specify intervention and referral threshold; secure qualified staff and escalation to specialist care; evaluate outcomes. A missing rating requires a defined marginal change.

  3. Confidence in the proposed action (Ev)1 of 3 — Indirect, mixed, modelled or weak causal support

     Reviewer’s reason: Artifact describes early implementation evidence without a comparator; universal classroom programmes and targeted treatment differ.

  4. Expected incremental benefit (Bn)Not yet assessed

     Reviewer’s reason: Unknown unless a reasonably defined target-population benefit can be judged; no bonus merely for spanning domains.

  5. Residual harms (Hm)2 of 3 — Manageable harm with specified safeguards

     Reviewer’s reason: Over-referral, unmet specialist demand and inappropriate intervention.

  6. Incremental affordability (Co)Not yet assessed

     Reviewer’s reason: Practitioner time, supervision, specialist referrals, school time and follow-up.

  7. Delivery capacity (Ca)1 of 3 — Binding scarce resource

     Reviewer’s reason: Specify intervention and referral threshold; secure qualified staff and escalation to specialist care; evaluate outcomes.

  8. Distribution (Fa)3 of 3 — Benefits concentrated on disadvantaged people with assessed burdens

     Reviewer’s reason: Provisional distribution judgement for the stated target; verify who pays, who gains and excluded groups.

  9. Meaningful first outcome (Ti)2 of 3 — More than one and up to three years

     Reviewer’s reason: First meaningful outcome, not announcement: Symptoms, functioning, attendance and equitable access; unmet severe need.

  10. Readiness (Rd)2 of 3 — Named commissioning/allocation/coordination step

      Reviewer’s reason: Education and health commissioners, schools and providers; Evaluate defined care pathway

  Four weightings

  Normalised as 10 × weighted sum ÷ sum of weights, on a 0–30 scale. Where a criterion is not yet assessed, the range is the lowest and highest result if it were later scored 0 or 3 — not a score, a confidence interval or a rank.

  • Equal weights: Range if completed: 15.0–21.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Evidence doubled: Range if completed: 14.5–20.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Scale doubled: Range if completed: 15.5–20.9 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Cost ignored (the funding gate still applies): Range if completed: 16.7–20.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.

  Funding gate: Not passed — the cost is not yet assessed or no allocation is committed for this scope. Ignoring cost in a weighting never removes the gate.

  Delivery risk and gate

  ▲Delivery risk shown: AmberReview’s claim: Amber. Best the recorded evidence allows: Amber.

  Review’s reason: Practitioner time, supervision, specialist referrals, school time and follow-up.

  Why it is not Green yet

  • Scope (population, place and increment) not verified against the delivery baseline.
  • No verified owner with the powers in place.
  • Delivery capacity not verified.
  • Lifetime incremental costs not complete.
  • No credible funding (a committed allocation for the scope).
  • Safeguards not specified.
  • Monitoring lacks a metric, a data source or a baseline.

  Green needs verified scope, a verified owner with the powers, verified capacity, complete lifetime costs with credible funding, specified safeguards and monitoring with a metric, source and baseline. Amber means appraisal gaps remain; Red means a material delivery obstacle. Red does not mean unimportant.

  Gate: Pending — appraisal incomplete (review label: “Pending: incomplete appraisal”).

  Why: Scores incomplete; Funding gate not passed (cost unknown or no credible funding).

  The gate is separate from national list membership: being listed does not make an option eligible, and an eligible option need not be listed.

  Cost and funding

  Lifetime costing: Not established. Review: “Full incremental costing not established in reviewed material”.

  • Mental Health Support Teams: roll-out to every school and college in England by 2029–30 (not costed; C-MHST-ROLLOUT)
  • Comparison-based outcome evaluation of the remaining roll-out, and specialist support for needs beyond “mild to moderate” (not costed; C-A50-EVAL)

  Still to cost: Practitioner time, supervision, specialist referrals, school time and follow-up.

  Funding status: programme route, not allocated.

  Owner, powers and capacity

  Proposed owner: Education and health commissioners, schools and providers (proposed, unverified).

  Powers: needs a decision or allocation. Capacity: binding constraint.

  Powers and capacity read from the review’s Rd and Ca anchors; no proposed owner has agreed to act (the review: “Proposed owners have not agreed to act”).

  England:

  NHS England and integrated care boards with DfE, schools and colleges (action record)

  Scotland:

  not assessed

  Wales:

  not assessed

  Northern Ireland:

  not assessed

  Mental Health Support Teams are an England programme; Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland run their own school counselling and wellbeing services, not assessed here.

  Dependencies, safeguards and risks

  Depends on: None recorded.

  Safeguards

  None specified yet.

  Risks and residual harms: Over-referral, unmet specialist demand and inappropriate intervention.

  Monitoring and measured results

  Metric: Symptoms, functioning, attendance and equitable access; unmet severe need.

  Data source: Not yet named. Baseline: Not yet established.

  Measures already on the domain page

  • 16–24-year-olds with a common mental health condition: latest 25.8% (2023/4); baseline 17.5% (2007) (England).

  A page measure is not necessarily the review’s metric; linking the two is an editorial decision still to be made.

  Evidence for the outcome

  Outcome: Symptoms, functioning, attendance and equitable access; unmet severe need.

  Artifact describes early implementation evidence without a comparator; universal classroom programmes and targeted treatment differ.

  Effect records for this action

  • Children’s mental health and timely access to support: size not established (plausible spillover, limited confidence; England)

  SWOT points it addresses

  • 25.8% of 16–24-year-olds had a common mental health condition in 2023/4, against 17.5% in 2007.
  • School mental health teams are being rolled out to every school by 2029–30 without a published measure of what they change for children, so a national service could be complete before anyone knows whether it works.

  Review record

  Assessment status: Provisional single-reviewer assessment; not an approved business case.

  Reviewer: Original assessment author (name not supplied). Reviewed: 6 October 2026.

  Scored in the working review of 6 October 2026 on the shared ten-criterion scale (one reviewer); not independently calibrated.

  First 90 days (review): Produce a signed scope and current-delivery baseline; Specify intervention and referral threshold; secure qualified staff and escalation to specialist care; evaluate outcomes. Obtain incremental costs and an accountable decision before expansion.

  Decision route: Evaluate defined care pathway

  An earlier assessment exists on the 4 October 2026 selection table (nine H/M/L bands; superseded 7 October 2026). Its bands are kept, not converted into these scores.

  An editorial screening framework by one reviewer, not a formal appraisal or business case. Proposed owners have not agreed to act.

• A70▲Delivery risk: AmberGate: pending

  Get effective depression treatment to adults missing out

  Existing action A70, assessed at the same scope.

  Not stated in the review record; treated as a provisional single-reviewer assessment, not an approved business case.

  Who and where

  Adults in England with depression for whom NICE recommends psychological therapy, starting with integrated care boards covering the most deprived tenth of areas, where reliable recovery is lowest. (from the action record) Jurisdiction: England.

  Result so far

  Range if completed: 19.0–22.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co))

  Funded now (baseline)

  Funded baseline: NHS Talking Therapies (1.81m referrals and 674,683 finished courses in England in 2025–26), with ring-fenced funding and a planning target of 805,000 courses by the end of 2026/27 and 915,000 by 2028/29. Targeting extra capacity at the areas with the lowest completion and recovery is a UK Facts proposal, not government policy. (from the action record)

  The change assessed (marginal)

  Close a verified access gap for clinically appropriate NICE-recommended adult depression treatment, with supervision and an escalation route. (from the 6 October review)

  • Domain home: Health
  • In the national plan: Wellbeing list
  • The evidence trail for this option →

  What the evidence supports—and the next decision

  NICE supports clinically appropriate treatments; that evidence does not quantify the effect or budget of expanding a particular local service.

  AI-assisted analytical follow-up · 8 October 2026. Proposed appraisal design; the attributed scores below are unchanged. No funding or delivery agreement is implied.

  Define the change

  Identify an underserved adult depression cohort and a specified NICE-consistent treatment pathway with supervision and escalation.

  Test whether it works

  Symptoms, functioning, recovery, deterioration and access against commissioned care, with follow-up and appropriate clinical oversight.

  Establish the cost

  Triage, treatment sessions, supervision, follow-up and escalation × realistic caseloads; cost-effectiveness is distinct from the available budget.

  Protect against harm

  Use shared decisions, safeguard patients and protect provision for severe or complex needs.

  • NICE: adult depression recommendations →

  Read with the outcome evidence and sources in the full assessment. Monitoring proposals are not existing baseline measurements. A numerical benefit or cost score needs evidence for the defined increment, not just the scale of the problem.

  Full assessment of Get effective depression treatment to adults missing out: ten criteria, scenarios, delivery, costs and monitoring

  The ten criteria (0–3)

  Each criterion is scored 0 to 3 by the reviewer. “Not yet assessed” means unknown: it is never counted as zero.

  1. Scale and severity (Sc)3 of 3 — Severe harm across a broad population

  2. Increment beyond baseline (Ad)2 of 3 — Specific material change to existing delivery

  3. Confidence in the proposed action (Ev)2 of 3 — Relevant evaluated evidence with limitations

  4. Expected incremental benefit (Bn)2 of 3 — Material for the target population

  5. Residual harms (Hm)2 of 3 — Manageable harm with specified safeguards

  6. Incremental affordability (Co)Not yet assessed

  7. Delivery capacity (Ca)1 of 3 — Binding scarce resource

  8. Distribution (Fa)3 of 3 — Benefits concentrated on disadvantaged people with assessed burdens

  9. Meaningful first outcome (Ti)2 of 3 — More than one and up to three years

  10. Readiness (Rd)2 of 3 — Named commissioning/allocation/coordination step

  Four weightings

  Normalised as 10 × weighted sum ÷ sum of weights, on a 0–30 scale. Where a criterion is not yet assessed, the range is the lowest and highest result if it were later scored 0 or 3 — not a score, a confidence interval or a rank.

  • Equal weights: Range if completed: 19.0–22.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Evidence doubled: Range if completed: 19.1–21.8 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Scale doubled: Range if completed: 20.0–22.7 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Cost ignored (the funding gate still applies): Range if completed: 21.1–21.1 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). The missing criteria carry no weight here, so the ends meet; the record is still incomplete. Funding gate: not passed.

  Funding gate: Not passed — the cost is not yet assessed or no allocation is committed for this scope. Ignoring cost in a weighting never removes the gate.

  Delivery risk and gate

  ▲Delivery risk shown: AmberReview’s claim: Amber. Best the recorded evidence allows: Amber.

  Review’s reason: Verify unmet clinical need and commissioned care; cost therapists, supervision, triage, follow-up and escalation; monitor symptoms, functioning, deterioration and access. Proposed owners: NHS commissioners and providers; jurisdiction-specific.

  Why it is not Green yet

  • Scope (population, place and increment) not verified against the delivery baseline.
  • No verified owner with the powers in place.
  • Delivery capacity not verified.
  • Lifetime incremental costs not complete.
  • No credible funding (a committed allocation for the scope).
  • Safeguards not specified.
  • Monitoring lacks a metric, a data source or a baseline.

  Green needs verified scope, a verified owner with the powers, verified capacity, complete lifetime costs with credible funding, specified safeguards and monitoring with a metric, source and baseline. Amber means appraisal gaps remain; Red means a material delivery obstacle. Red does not mean unimportant.

  Gate: Pending — appraisal incomplete (review label: “Pending baseline verification, incremental costing and funding; not a rollout approval”).

  Why: Scores incomplete; Funding gate not passed (cost unknown or no credible funding).

  The gate is separate from national list membership: being listed does not make an option eligible, and an eligible option need not be listed.

  Cost and funding

  Lifetime costing: Not established. Review: “Not fully costed in this review”.

  Still to cost: Verify unmet clinical need and commissioned care; cost therapists, supervision, triage, follow-up and escalation; monitor symptoms, functioning, deterioration and access. Proposed owners: NHS commissioners and providers; jurisdiction-specific.

  Funding status: not identified.

  Owner, powers and capacity

  Proposed owner: NHS commissioners and providers; jurisdiction-specific (proposed, unverified).

  Powers: needs a decision or allocation. Capacity: binding constraint.

  Powers and capacity read from the review’s Rd and Ca anchors; no proposed owner has agreed to act (the review: “Proposed owners have not agreed to act”).

  England:

  NHS England and integrated care boards, with NHS Talking Therapies providers (action record)

  Scotland:

  not assessed

  Wales:

  not assessed

  Northern Ireland:

  not assessed

  Scotland reports psychological therapies against an 18-week standard (80.7% started within 18 weeks, quarter ending June 2026, against 90%); Wales provides primary-care mental health services under the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010; Northern Ireland was not checked. Not comparable with NHS Talking Therapies.

  Dependencies, safeguards and risks

  Depends on: None recorded.

  Safeguards

  None specified yet.

  Monitoring and measured results

  Metric: Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.

  Data source: Not yet named. Baseline: Not yet established.

  Measures already on the domain page

  • Reliable recovery in Talking Therapies, most deprived tenth of areas: latest 40.7% (least deprived 52.7%) (2025–26); baseline not published (England).
  • NHS Talking Therapies courses finished: latest 674,683 (2025–26); baseline 670,419 (2024–25) (England).

  A page measure is not necessarily the review’s metric; linking the two is an editorial decision still to be made.

  Evidence for the outcome

  Outcome: Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.

  NICE provides treatment evidence and clinical recommendations. They do not establish that a new access pathway reaches additional patients or that sufficient therapists are available.

  Sources: nice.org.uk (P-GC-NICE-NG222)

  SWOT points it addresses

  • About half of adults with symptoms of a common mental health condition were receiving any treatment in 2023/4 (47.7% of 16–74-year-olds; 17.9% psychological therapy). In NHS Talking Therapies, 40.7% of people finishing treatment in the most deprived tenth of areas reliably recovered in 2025–26, against 52.7% in the least deprived.

  Review record

  Assessment status: Not stated in the review record; treated as a provisional single-reviewer assessment, not an approved business case.

  Reviewer: Original assessment author (name not supplied). Reviewed: 6 October 2026.

  Scored in the working review of 6 October 2026 on the shared ten-criterion scale (one reviewer); not independently calibrated.

  An editorial screening framework by one reviewer, not a formal appraisal or business case. Proposed owners have not agreed to act.

• A72▲Delivery risk: AmberGate: pending

  Make effective smoking treatment reach more people

  Existing action A72, assessed at the same scope.

  Not stated in the review record; treated as a provisional single-reviewer assessment, not an approved business case.

  Who and where

  Adults aged 18–64 in routine and manual occupations in England who smoke (16.6% smoked in 2025; about 1.2 million people on ONS weighted counts). (from the action record) Jurisdiction: England.

  Result so far

  Range if completed: 21.0–24.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co))

  Funded now (baseline)

  Funded baseline: the 2026–27 public health grant ring-fences £152.8m for smoking cessation (absorbing the extra £70m a year and Swap to Stop); the generational age-of-sale law starts on 1 January 2027; NHS trusts offer tobacco dependence treatment. Targeted outreach to routine and manual workers is a UK Facts proposal, not government policy. (from the action record)

  The change assessed (marginal)

  Expand access to established behavioural support plus suitable cessation treatment for a defined underserved adult group; cardiovascular prevention is a separate, unscored option. (from the 6 October review)

  • Domain home: Health
  • In the national plan: Wellbeing list
  • The evidence trail for this option →

  What the evidence supports—and the next decision

  Established cessation treatment provides a stronger basis than a generic prevention promise; reach and sustained quits still determine additional benefit.

  AI-assisted analytical follow-up · 8 October 2026. Proposed appraisal design; the attributed scores below are unchanged. No funding or delivery agreement is implied.

  Define the change

  Expand access for a defined underserved adult group using suitable NICE-recommended support and treatment beyond current provision.

  Test whether it works

  Sustained quits, relapse and adverse effects by deprivation and other relevant groups; distinguish quit attempts from lasting outcomes.

  Establish the cost

  Adviser time, treatment, referral and follow-up; estimate health gains separately from cashable NHS savings.

  Protect against harm

  Use clinically appropriate choices and informed consent; this assessment does not include an uncosted cardiovascular-prevention package.

  • NICE: treating tobacco dependence →

  Read with the outcome evidence and sources in the full assessment. Monitoring proposals are not existing baseline measurements. A numerical benefit or cost score needs evidence for the defined increment, not just the scale of the problem.

  Full assessment of Make effective smoking treatment reach more people: ten criteria, scenarios, delivery, costs and monitoring

  The ten criteria (0–3)

  Each criterion is scored 0 to 3 by the reviewer. “Not yet assessed” means unknown: it is never counted as zero.

  1. Scale and severity (Sc)3 of 3 — Severe harm across a broad population

  2. Increment beyond baseline (Ad)2 of 3 — Specific material change to existing delivery

  3. Confidence in the proposed action (Ev)2 of 3 — Relevant evaluated evidence with limitations

  4. Expected incremental benefit (Bn)2 of 3 — Material for the target population

  5. Residual harms (Hm)2 of 3 — Manageable harm with specified safeguards

  6. Incremental affordability (Co)Not yet assessed

  7. Delivery capacity (Ca)2 of 3 — Stretched but plausibly obtainable

  8. Distribution (Fa)3 of 3 — Benefits concentrated on disadvantaged people with assessed burdens

  9. Meaningful first outcome (Ti)3 of 3 — Within one year

  10. Readiness (Rd)2 of 3 — Named commissioning/allocation/coordination step

  Four weightings

  Normalised as 10 × weighted sum ÷ sum of weights, on a 0–30 scale. Where a criterion is not yet assessed, the range is the lowest and highest result if it were later scored 0 or 3 — not a score, a confidence interval or a rank.

  • Equal weights: Range if completed: 21.0–24.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Evidence doubled: Range if completed: 20.9–23.6 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Scale doubled: Range if completed: 21.8–24.5 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Cost ignored (the funding gate still applies): Range if completed: 23.3–23.3 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). The missing criteria carry no weight here, so the ends meet; the record is still incomplete. Funding gate: not passed.

  Funding gate: Not passed — the cost is not yet assessed or no allocation is committed for this scope. Ignoring cost in a weighting never removes the gate.

  Delivery risk and gate

  ▲Delivery risk shown: AmberReview’s claim: Amber. Best the recorded evidence allows: Amber.

  Review’s reason: Verify service gap and current funding; cost adviser time, treatment, referral and follow-up. Measure sustained quits and inequalities, with adverse effects monitored. Proposed owners: public-health commissioners and health providers.

  Why it is not Green yet

  • Scope (population, place and increment) not verified against the delivery baseline.
  • No verified owner with the powers in place.
  • Delivery capacity not verified.
  • Lifetime incremental costs not complete.
  • No credible funding (a committed allocation for the scope).
  • Safeguards not specified.
  • Monitoring lacks a metric, a data source or a baseline.

  Green needs verified scope, a verified owner with the powers, verified capacity, complete lifetime costs with credible funding, specified safeguards and monitoring with a metric, source and baseline. Amber means appraisal gaps remain; Red means a material delivery obstacle. Red does not mean unimportant.

  Gate: Pending — appraisal incomplete (review label: “Pending baseline verification, incremental costing and funding; not a rollout approval”).

  Why: Scores incomplete; Funding gate not passed (cost unknown or no credible funding).

  The gate is separate from national list membership: being listed does not make an option eligible, and an eligible option need not be listed.

  Cost and funding

  Lifetime costing: Not established. Review: “Not fully costed in this review”.

  Still to cost: Verify service gap and current funding; cost adviser time, treatment, referral and follow-up. Measure sustained quits and inequalities, with adverse effects monitored. Proposed owners: public-health commissioners and health providers.

  Funding status: not identified.

  Owner, powers and capacity

  Proposed owner: public-health commissioners and health providers (proposed, unverified).

  Powers: needs a decision or allocation. Capacity: unverified.

  Powers and capacity read from the review’s Rd and Ca anchors; no proposed owner has agreed to act (the review: “Proposed owners have not agreed to act”).

  England:

  Councils (public health duty, Health and Social Care Act 2012 s.12) with integrated care boards and the Department of Health and Social Care (action record)

  Scotland:

  not assessed

  Wales:

  not assessed

  Northern Ireland:

  not assessed

  Stop smoking services are devolved: Quit Your Way Scotland, Help Me Quit (Wales) and Stop Smoking NI. The Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 applies UK-wide.

  Dependencies, safeguards and risks

  Depends on: None recorded.

  Safeguards

  None specified yet.

  Monitoring and measured results

  Metric: Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.

  Data source: Not yet named. Baseline: Not yet established.

  Measures already on the domain page

  • Quit dates set with local stop smoking services: latest 265,502 (2025–26); baseline 238,166 (2024–25) (England).
  • Adults aged 18–64 in routine and manual occupations who smoke: latest 16.6% (95% CI 15.9–17.3) (2025); baseline not published (England).

  A page measure is not necessarily the review’s metric; linking the two is an editorial decision still to be made.

  Evidence for the outcome

  Outcome: Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.

  NICE supports effective treatment combinations. Evidence is stronger for treatment than for this exact outreach/access increment; no national impact total is claimed.

  Sources: nice.org.uk (P-GC-NICE-NG209-TREAT)

  SWOT points it addresses

  • Smoking is concentrated in routine and manual work: 16.6% of adults aged 18–64 in routine and manual occupations smoked in 2025, against 5.9% in managerial and professional jobs. Stop smoking services recorded 265,502 quit dates in 2025–26, below the around 360,000 a year the 2023 plan expected.

  Review record

  Assessment status: Not stated in the review record; treated as a provisional single-reviewer assessment, not an approved business case.

  Reviewer: Original assessment author (name not supplied). Reviewed: 6 October 2026.

  Scored in the working review of 6 October 2026 on the shared ten-criterion scale (one reviewer); not independently calibrated.

  An editorial screening framework by one reviewer, not a formal appraisal or business case. Proposed owners have not agreed to act.

The leading option set out as a decision someone could take: who decides, who benefits, the best evidence, cost and funding, and the main trade-off. The full research record is one click away.

The outcome measures to watch. A baseline is where we start, not a target; where there is no official target we say so.

• Introduce minimum unit pricing for alcohol in England

  Judged on: Alcohol-attributable deaths and harm, consumption and household hardship.

  Data source: not yet named; baseline: not yet established.

  • Alcohol-specific deathsLatest: 13.8 (2024). Baseline: not published. England.

  ↑ National plan: Wellbeing list

• Build family hubs around what worked

  Judged on: Child development, family outcomes and later health/attainment.

  Data source: not yet named; baseline: not yet established.

  • Gap in healthy life expectancy, least vs most deprived areas (men)Latest: 19.4 years (2022–2024). Baseline: not published. England.

  ↑ National plan: Wellbeing list

• Test mental-health support in schools

  Judged on: Symptoms, functioning, attendance and equitable access; unmet severe need.

  Data source: not yet named; baseline: not yet established.

  • 16–24-year-olds with a common mental health conditionLatest: 25.8% (2023/4). Baseline: 17.5% (2007). England.

  ↑ National plan: Wellbeing list

• Get effective depression treatment to adults missing out

  Judged on: Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.

  Data source: not yet named; baseline: not yet established.

  • Reliable recovery in Talking Therapies, most deprived tenth of areasLatest: 40.7% (least deprived 52.7%) (2025–26). Baseline: not published. England.
  • NHS Talking Therapies courses finishedLatest: 674,683 (2025–26). Baseline: 670,419 (2024–25). England.

  ↑ National plan: Wellbeing list

• Make effective smoking treatment reach more people

  Judged on: Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.

  Data source: not yet named; baseline: not yet established.

  • Quit dates set with local stop smoking servicesLatest: 265,502 (2025–26). Baseline: 238,166 (2024–25). England.
  • Adults aged 18–64 in routine and manual occupations who smokeLatest: 16.6% (95% CI 15.9–17.3) (2025). Baseline: not published. England.

  ↑ National plan: Wellbeing list