OBJECTIVES : The value framework adopted by payers around the world varies significantly. This study aimed to identify other benefits/contextual considerations not included in clinical/cost-effectiveness or budget assessments across ICER (US) and NICE (UK) for second-line treatment of NSCLC. METHODS : A review of HTAs identified from searches of the ICER and NICE websites was conducted (7^th January 2019) on PD-1 inhibitors for second-line treatment of EGFR-negative, locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC. RESULTS : A single HTA report for NSCLC was identified from ICER, including three PD-1 inhibitors: nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab. Nivolumab and atezolizumab received 8/10 votes by the advisory panel for demonstration of a greater net health benefit than the comparator, and pembrolizumab received 10/10 votes. Corresponding single technology appraisals for the three treatments were identified from NICE, which received positive recommendations. ICER/NICE assessed clinical/cost-effectiveness data as key determinants. Poor prognosis and limited treatment options were emphasised by clinical experts in the NICE HTAs, and by ICER to describe the context of NSCLC. ICER considered geographical discrepancy in patient management; rural/low-income community clinics may not offer the same treatment as major hospitals. Although these considerations were not discussed in NICE guidance, they were assessed and summarised within equalities/social value judgements. Patient distress caused by cancer treatment costs was considered by ICER, but not by NICE. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab were considered life-extending end-of-life treatments by the NICE committee. While the ICER report does not explicitly discuss end-of-life, the factors defined by NICE end-of-life criteria (life expectancy and clinical-effectiveness) are considered elsewhere in the ICER report. Additionally, NICE regarded nivolumab an innovative treatment, offering a novel mechanism of action. CONCLUSIONS : Although the ICER/NICE appraisals led to positive recommendations, weighting given to other benefits/contextual considerations across the appraisals differed. ICER considered geographic/socio-economic factors. While the NICE appraisals did capture these, disease burden and treatment impacts at the end-of-life were emphasised.