Written question AQW 47897/22-27
Written question by Mrs Linda Dillon on .
- MLA
- Mrs Linda Dillon
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 4 June 2026
- Type
- Written question
- Assembly reference
- AQW 47897/22-27
- Department
- Department of Health
- Business
- To the Minister of Health
- Assembly identifier
- Document 488460
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
To ask the Minister of Health, given the recent decision by NHS England and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to make mirvetuximab soravtansine available for patients with folate receptor-alpha-positive platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancers, to detail (i) whether this treatment will be made available to patients in the North; (ii) whether any assessment has been undertaken by his Department and the Health and Social Care Board in relation to the clinical and cost effectiveness of the treatment; (iii) the anticipated timescale for any decision on routine commissioning; and (iv) any steps that are being taken to ensure that women in the North not disadvantaged in accessing innovative cancer treatments available elsewhere in these islands.
121 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.47 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.40 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.12 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 07:05 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.