Health Technology Assessment: Global Advocacy and Local Realities Comment on "Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness"

Factors Influencing the Institutionalization of Health Technology Assessment: A Scoping Literature Review

There is global interest in institutionalizing Health Technology Assessment (HTA) to inform resource allocation decisions. However, institutionalization of HTA remains limited particularly in low- and lower-middle-income countries. We conducted this scoping review to synthesize evidence on factors that influence the institutionalization of HTA at the macro (national)-level across countries globally. We searched for relevant literature in six databases namely PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, EconLit, and Google Scholar. We conducted the last search on December 31, 2021. We identified 77 articles that described factors that influence institutionalization of HTA across 135 high-, middle-, and low-income countries. We analyzed these articles thematically. We identified five sets of factors that influence the institutionalization of HTA across countries of different income levels. These factors include: (1) organizational resources such as organizational structures, and skilled human, financial, and information resources; (2) legal frameworks, policies, and guidelines for HTA; (3) learning and advocacy for HTA; (4) stakeholder-related factors such as stakeholders' interests, awareness, and understanding; and (5) collaborative support for HTA through international networks and non-governmental and multi-lateral organizations. Countries seeking to institutionalize HTA should map the availability of the factors identified in this review. Developing these factors wherever necessary can influence a country's capacity to institutionalize the conduct and use of HTA.

Evolution of Health Technology Assessment in Indonesia: Supply Landscape, Implementation, and Future Directions

In 2014, Indonesia's Ministry of Health established the Indonesian Health Technology Assessment Committee (InaHTAC) to prioritize evidence-based health care technology for inclusion in the national health insurance benefits package. This commentary provides an overview of the current state of the health care technology supply landscape in Indonesia, as well as the impact of HTA studies on priority-setting decisions. Indonesia's decision-making process for health care technology approval and patient access involves multiple stakeholders and follows several evaluation principles. The licensing, inclusion, and evaluation of health care technology is complex and time consuming, however, requiring input from stakeholders with different roles and interests. Although efforts have been made to establish an HTA ecosystem by, for example, engaging in capacity-building activities and issuing guidelines, challenges remain, including a lack of infrastructure, financial resources, and technical capacity and inadequate stakeholder involvement. Additionally, the current position of the HTA unit, which is connected to the Ministry of Health (MOH), and political pressures from the pharmaceutical industry can result in delayed or ignored HTA recommendations. Therefore, the establishment of an independent and robust HTA body that can inform policy makers about health technology development, licensing, dissemination, and use, along with strong regulations to ensure harmonization and coordination among stakeholders, is necessary. This requires a step-by-step approach to address inadequate overall HTA resources.

The Full Value of Vaccine Assessments (FVVA): a framework for assessing and communicating the value of vaccines for investment and introduction decision-making

BACKGROUND

Several economic obstacles can deter the development and use of vaccines. This can lead to limited product options for some diseases, delays in new product development, and inequitable access to vaccines. Although seemingly distinct, these obstacles are actually interrelated and therefore need to be addressed through a single over-arching strategy encompassing all stakeholders.

METHODS

To help overcome these obstacles, we propose a new approach, the Full Value of Vaccines Assessments (FVVA) framework, to guide the assessment and communication of the value of a vaccine. The FVVA framework is designed to facilitate alignment across key stakeholders and to enhance decision-making around investment in vaccine development, policy-making, procurement, and introduction, particularly for vaccines intended for use in low- and middle-income countries.

RESULTS

The FVVA framework has three key elements. First, to enhance assessment, existing value-assessment methods and tools are adapted to include broader benefits of vaccines as well as opportunity costs borne by stakeholders. Second, to improve decision-making, a deliberative process is required to recognize the agency of stakeholders and to ensure country ownership of decision-making and priority setting. Third, the FVVA framework provides a consistent and evidence-based approach that facilitates communication about the full value of vaccines, helping to enhance alignment and coordination across diverse stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

The FVVA framework provides guidance for stakeholders organizing global-level efforts to promote investment in vaccines that are priorities for LMICs. By providing a more holistic view of the benefits of vaccines, its application also has the potential to encourage greater take-up by countries, thereby leading to more sustainable and equitable impacts of vaccines and immunization programmes.

Factors influencing institutionalization of health technology assessment in Kenya

BACKGROUND

There is a global interest in institutionalizing health technology assessment (HTA) as an approach for explicit healthcare priority-setting. Institutionalization of HTA refers to the process of conducting and utilizing HTA as a normative practice for guiding resource allocation decisions within the health system. In this study, we aimed to examine the factors that were influencing institutionalization of HTA in Kenya.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative case study using document reviews and in-depth interviews with 30 participants involved in the HTA institutionalization process in Kenya. We used a thematic approach to analyze the data.

RESULTS

We found that institutionalization of HTA in Kenya was being supported by factors such as establishment of organizational structures for HTA; availability of legal frameworks and policies on HTA; increasing availability of awareness creation and capacity-building initiatives for HTA; policymakers' interests in universal health coverage and optimal allocation of resources; technocrats' interests in evidence-based processes; presence of international collaboration for HTA; and lastly, involvement of bilateral agencies. On the other hand, institutionalization of HTA was being undermined by limited availability of skilled human resources, financial resources, and information resources for HTA; lack of HTA guidelines and decision-making frameworks; limited HTA awareness among subnational stakeholders; and industries' interests in safeguarding their revenue.

CONCLUSIONS

Kenya's Ministry of Health can facilitate institutionalization of HTA by adopting a systemic approach that involves: - (a) introducing long-term capacity-building initiatives to strengthen human and technical capacity for HTA; (b) earmarking national health budgets to ensure adequate financial resources for HTA; (c) introducing a cost database and promoting timely data collection to ensure availability of data for HTA; (d) developing context specific HTA guidelines and decision-making frameworks to facilitate HTA processes; (e) conducting deeper advocacy to strengthen HTA awareness among subnational stakeholders; and (f) managing stakeholders' interests to minimize opposition to institutionalization of HTA.

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Legitimate Health Benefit Package Design - Part I: Conceptual Framework

BACKGROUND

Countries around the world are increasingly rethinking the design of their health benefit packages to achieve universal health coverage (UHC). Health technology assessment (HTA) bodies support governments in these decisions, but employ value frameworks that do not sufficiently account for the intrinsically complex and value-laden political reality of benefit package design.

METHODS

Several years ago, evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were developed to address this issue. An EDP is a practical and stepwise approach for HTA bodies to enhance legitimate health benefit package design based on deliberation between stakeholders to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, and to interpret available evidence on these values. We further developed the conceptual framework and initial 2019 guidance based on academic knowledge exchange, analysing practices of HTA bodies, surveying HTA bodies and experts around the globe, and implementation of EDPs in several countries around the world.

RESULTS

EDPs stem from the general concept of legitimacy, which is translated into four elements - stakeholder involvement ideally operationalised through stakeholder participation with deliberation; evidence-informed evaluation; transparency; and appeal. The 2021 practical guidance distinguishes six practical steps of a HTA process and provides recommendations on how these elements can be implemented in each of these steps.

CONCLUSION

There is an increased attention for legitimacy, deliberative processes for HTA and health benefit package design, but the development of theories and methods for such processes remain behind. The added value of EDPs lies in the operationalisation of the general concept of legitimacy into practical guidance for HTA bodies.

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide

BACKGROUND

Countries around the world are using health technology assessment (HTA) for health benefit package design. Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) are a practical and stepwise approach to enhance legitimate health benefit package design based on deliberation between stakeholders to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values. This paper reports on the development of practical guidance on EDPs, while the conceptual framework of EDPs is described in a companion paper.

METHODS

The first guide on EDPs (2019) is further developed based on academic knowledge exchange, surveying 27 HTA bodies and 66 experts around the globe, and the implementation of EDPs in several countries. We present the revised steps of EDPs and how selected HTA bodies (in Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Scotland, Thailand and the United Kingdom) organize key issues of legitimacy in their processes. This is based on a review of literature via PubMed and HTA bodies' websites.

RESULTS

HTA bodies around the globe vary considerable in how they address legitimacy (stakeholder involvement ideally through participation with deliberation; evidence-informed evaluation; transparency; and appeal) in their processes. While there is increased attention for improving legitimacy in decision-making processes, we found that the selected HTA bodies are still lacking or just starting to develop activities in this area. We provide recommendations on how HTA bodies can improve on this.

CONCLUSION

The design and implementation of EDPs is in its infancy. We call for a systematic analysis of experiences of a variety of countries, from which general principles on EDPs might subsequently be inferred.

Organising Research and Development for evidence-informed health care: some universal characteristics and a case study from the UK

Research and Development (R&D) in health and health care has several intriguing characteristics which, separately and in combination, have significant implications for the ways in which it is organised, funded and managed. We review the characteristics, some of which apply under most circumstances and others of which may be context-specific, explore their implications for the organisation and management of health-related R&D, and illustrate the main features from the UK experience in the 1990s.

Health technology assessment in sub-Saharan Africa: a descriptive analysis and narrative synthesis

Background

Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are moving towards universal health coverage. The process of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) can support decisions relating to benefit package design and service coverage. HTA involves institutional cooperation with agreed methods and procedural standards. We systematically reviewed the literature on policies and capacity building to support HTA institutionalisation in SSA.

Methods

We systematically reviewed the literature by searching major databases (PubMed, Embase, etc.) until June 2019 using terms considering three aspects: HTA; health policy, decision making; and SSA. We quantitatively extracted and descriptively analysed content and conducted a narrative synthesis eliciting themes from the selected literature, which varied in study type and apporach.

Results

Half of the 49 papers identified were primary research studies and mostly qualitative. Five countries were represented in six of ten studies; South Africa, Ghana, Uganda, Cameroon, and Ethiopia. Half of first authors were from SSA. Most informants were policy makers. Five themes emerged: (1) use of HTA; (2) decision-making in HTA; (3) values and criteria for setting priority areas in HTA; (4) involving stakeholders in HTA; and (5) specific examples of progress in HTA in SSA. The first one was the main theme where there was little use of evidence and research in making policy. The awareness of HTA and economic evaluation was low, with inadequate expertise and a lack of local data and tools.

Conclusions

Despite growing interest in HTA in SSA countries, awareness remains low and HTA-related activities are uncoordinated and often disconnected from policy. Further training and skills development are needed, firmly linked to a strategy focusing on strengthening within-country partnerships, particularly among researchers and policy makers. The international community has an important role here by supporting policy- relevant technical assistance, highlighting that sustainable financing demands evidence-based processes for effective resource allocation, and catalysing knowledge-sharing opportunities among countries facing similar challenges.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12962-021-00293-5.

What next after GDP-based cost-effectiveness thresholds?

Public payers around the world are increasingly using cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) to assess the value-for-money of an intervention and make coverage decisions. However, there is still much confusion about the meaning and uses of the CET, how it should be calculated, and what constitutes an adequate evidence base for its formulation. One widely referenced and used threshold in the last decade has been the 1-3 GDP per capita, which is often attributed to the Commission on Macroeconomics and  WHO guidelines on Choosing Interventions that are Cost Effective (WHO-CHOICE). For many reasons, however, this threshold has been widely criticised; which has led experts across the world, including the WHO, to discourage its use. This has left a vacuum for policy-makers and technical staff at a time when countries are wanting to move towards Universal Health Coverage .

This article seeks to address this gap by offering five practical options for decision-makers in low- and middle-income countries that can be used instead of the 1-3 GDP rule, to combine existing evidence with fair decision-rules or develop locally relevant CETs. It builds on existing literature as well as an engagement with a group of experts and decision-makers working in low, middle and high income countries.

Health technology assessment and judicial deference to priority-setting decisions in healthcare: Quasi-experimental analysis of right-to-health litigation in Brazil

The constitutional right to health in Brazil has entitled patients to litigate against the government-funded national health system (SUS), claiming access to various health treatments including those excluded from the health system's benefits package. Courts have tended to rely on a single medical prescription to judge these cases in favor of individual patients and against the health system. The large volume of cases has had a substantial financial impact on the government's health budget and has created unfairness in accessing healthcare. To change courts' behavior, a new health technology assessment (HTA) body - CONITEC - was created in 2011. Its creation was accompanied by an administrative procedure that made decisions about the health system's benefits package more transparent, accountable, participative and evidence-informed. It was expected that this HTA system would bring more legitimacy to the government's priority-setting decisions and promote deference from the courts. This study tests whether Brazil's new HTA system succeeded in encouraging judicial deference by analyzing a stratified random sample of 13,263 court decisions for whether the existence of a CONITEC report resulted in less frequent court orders to provide treatment for individual litigants. The results show that the creation of CONITEC did not change courts' behavior; courts still decide in favor of patients in most cases. Indeed, even when there was a CONITEC report recommending against government funding for a particular healthcare treatment, the vast majority of the relatively few patients who were unsuccessful in obtaining a health benefit at their first court hearing later obtained a favorable decision after appealing to a higher court. This finding was confirmed through an interrupted time-series analysis that did not find an impact of having a CONITEC report on courts' willingness to override a government priority-setting decision. In fact, CONITEC was rarely cited in court decisions, even when litigants mentioned the existence of a CONITEC report.

History of Health Technology Assessment in Iran

This article describes the characteristics of the health system and reviews the history of health technology assessment (HTA) in Iran, including its inception, processes, challenges, and lessons learned. This study was conducted by analyzing existing documents, reports, and guidelines related to HTA and published articles in the field. HTA in Iran has been established since the late 2000s and was first introduced as a secretariat by the Deputy of Health at the Ministry of Health and Medical Education. The mission of the HTA office is to systematically assess technologies to improve evidence-informed decision making. Despite its 10 years of existence, HTA in Iran still faces some challenges. The most pressing problems currently facing HTA in Iran include conflicts of interest among researchers performing the HTAs, the absence of a systematic structure for identifying and introducing new technologies, the lack of interest in HTA results among high-level policy makers, and the lack of external oversight for HTA projects.

Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe

Background: Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were recently introduced to guide health technology assessment (HTA) agencies to improve their processes towards more legitimate decision-making. The EDP framework provides guidance that covers the HTA process, ie, contextual factors, installation of an appraisal committee, selecting health technologies and criteria, assessment, appraisal, and communication and appeal. The aims of this study were to identify the level of use of EDPs by HTA agencies, identify their needs for guidance, and to learn about best practices.

Methods: A questionnaire for an online survey was developed based on the EDP framework, consisting of elements that reflect each part of the framework. The survey was sent to members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Two weeks following the invitation, a reminder was sent. The data collection took place between September-December 2018.

Results: Contact persons from 27 member agencies filled out the survey (response rate: 54%), of which 25 completed all questions. We found that contextual factors to support HTA development and the critical elements regarding conducting and reporting on HTA are overall in place. Respondents indicated that guidance was needed for specific elements related to selecting technologies and criteria, appraisal, and communication and appeal. With regard to best practices, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, UK) were most often mentioned.

Conclusion: This is the first survey among HTA agencies regarding the use of EDPs and provides useful information for further developing a practical guide for HTA agencies around the globe. The results could support HTA agencies in improving their processes towards more legitimate decision-making, as they could serve as a baseline measurement for future monitoring and evaluation.

Expanding HTA – Correcting a Misattribution, Clarifying the Scope of HTA and CEA Comment on "Ethics in HTA: Examining the ‘Need for Expansion’"

Abrishami, Oortwijn, and Hofman (AOH) attribute to me a position I do not hold and an argument I did not make. The purpose of this note is make clear what my position actually is and to clarify the main differences between health technology assessment (HTA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA).

Disease Control Priorities Third Edition: Time to Put a Theory of Change Into Practice Comment on "Disease Control Priorities Third Edition Is Published: A Theory of Change Is Needed for Translating Evidence to Health Policy"

The Disease Control Priorities program (DCP) has pioneered the use of economic evidence in health. The theory of change (ToC) put forward by Norheim is a further welcome and necessary step towards translating DCP evidence into better priority setting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We also agree that institutionalising evidence for informed priority-setting processes is crucial. Unfortunately, there have been missed opportunities for the DCP program to challenge ill-judged global norms about opportunity costs and too little respect has been shown for the wider set of local circumstances that may enable, or disable, the productive application of the DCP evidence base. We suggest that the best way forward for the global health community is a new platform that integrates the many existing development initiatives and that is driven by countries’ asks.

Addressing the information deficit in global health: lessons from a digital acute care platform in Sri Lanka

Lack of investment in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) in systems capturing continuous information regarding care of the acutely unwell patient is hindering global efforts to address inequalities, both at facility and national level. Furthermore, this of lack of data is disempowering frontline staff and those seeking to support them, from progressing setting-relevant research and quality improvement. In contrast to high-income country (HIC) settings, where electronic surveillance has boosted the capability of governments, clinicians and researchers to engage in service-wide healthcare evaluation, healthcare information in resource-limited settings remains almost exclusively paper based. In this practice paper, we describe the efforts of a collaboration of clinicians, administrators, researchers and healthcare informaticians working in South Asia, in addressing the inequality in access to patient information in acute care. Harnessing a clinician-led collaborative approach to design and evaluation, we have implemented a national acute care information platform in Sri Lanka that is tailored to priorities of frontline staff. Iterative adaptation has ensured the platform has the flexibility to integrate with legacy paper systems, support junior team members in advocating for acutely unwell patients and has made information captured accessible to diverse stakeholders to improve service delivery. The same platform is now empowering clinicians to participate in international research and drive forwards improvements in care. During this journey, we have also gained insights on how to overcome well-described barriers to implementation of digital information tools in LMIC. We anticipate that this north-south collaborative approach to addressing the challenges of health system implementation in acute care may provide learning and inspiration to other partnerships seeking to engage in similar work.

Decisions of Value: Going Backstage Comment on "Contextual Factors Influencing Cost and Quality Decisions in Health and Care: A Structured Evidence Review and Narrative Synthesis"

This commentary expands on two of the key themes briefly raised in the paper involving analysis of the evidence about key contextual influences on decisions of value. The first theme focuses on the need to explore in more detail what is called backstage decision-making looking at how actual decisions are made drawing on evidence from ethnographies about decision-making. These studies point to less of an emphasis on instrumental and calculative forms of decision-making with more of an emphasis on more pragmatic rationality. The second related theme picks up on the issue of sources of information as a contextual influence particularly highlighting the salience of uncertainty or information deficits. It is argued that there are a range of different types of uncertainties, not only associated with information deficits, which are found particularly in allocative types of decisions of value. This means that the decision-making process although attempting to be linear and rational, tends to be characterised by a form of navigation where the decision-makers navigate their way through the uncertainties inherent and overtly manifested in the decision-making process.

Assessing capacity and readiness to manage NCDs in primary care setting: Gaps and opportunities based on adapted WHO PEN tool in Zambia

Introduction

Sub-Saharan Africa is experiencing an epidemiological transition as the burden of NCDs overtake communicable diseases. However, it is unknown what capacity and gaps exist at primary care level to address the growing burden of NCDs. This study aimed to assess the Zambian health system’s capacity to address in NCDs, using an adapted WHO Essential Non Communicable Disease Interventions (WHO PEN) tool.

Methodology

This was a cross-sectional facility survey in the three districts conducted from September 2017 to October 2017. We defined facility readiness along five domains: basic equipment, essential services, diagnostic capacity, counseling services, and essential medicines. For each domain, we calculated an index as the mean score of items expressed as percentage. These indices were compared to an agreed cutoff at 70%, meaning that a facility index or district index below 70% off was considered as ‘not ready’ to manage NCDs at that level. All analysis were performed using Stata 15 MP.

Results

There appeared to be wide heterogeneity between facilities in respect of readiness to manage NCDs. Only 6 (including the three 1^st level hospitals) out of the 46 facilities were deemed ready to manage NCDs. Only the first level hospitals scored a mean index higher than the 70% cut off; With regard to medications needed to manage NCDs, urban and rural health facilities were comparably equipped. However, there was evidence that calcium channel blockers (p = 0.013) and insulin (p = 0.022) were more likely to be available in urban and semi-urban health facilities compared to rural facilities.

Conclusion

Our study revealed gaps in primary health care capacity to manage NCDs in Zambia, with almost all health facilities failing to reach the minimum threshold. These results could be generalized to other similar districts in Zambia and the sub-region, where health systems remain focused on infectious rather than non-communicable Disease. These results should attract policy attention and potentially form the basis to review current approach to NCD care at the primary care level in Zambia and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Strengthening health technology assessment systems in the global south: a comparative analysis of the HTA journeys of China, India and South Africa

BACKGROUND

Resource allocation in health is universally challenging, but especially so in resource-constrained contexts in the Global South. Pursuing a strategy of evidence-based decision-making and using tools such as Health Technology Assessment (HTA), can help address issues relating to both affordability and equity when allocating resources. Three BRICS and Global South countries, China, India and South Africa have committed to strengthening HTA capacity and developing their domestic HTA systems, with the goal of getting evidence translated into policy. Through assessing and comparing the HTA journey of each country it may be possible to identify common problems and shareable insights.

OBJECTIVES

This collaborative paper aimed to share knowledge on strengthening HTA systems to enable enhanced evidence-based decision-making in the Global South by: Identifying common barriers and enablers in three BRICS countries in the Global South; and Exploring how South-South collaboration can strengthen HTA capacity and utilisation for better healthcare decision-making.

METHODS

A descriptive and explorative comparative analysis was conducted comprising a Within-Case analysis to produce a narrative of the HTA journey in each country and an Across-Case analysis to explore both knowledge that could be shared and any potential knowledge gaps.

RESULTS

Analyses revealed that China, India and South Africa share many barriers to strengthening and developing HTA systems such as: (1) Minimal HTA expertise; (2) Weak health data infrastructure; (3) Rising healthcare costs; (4) Fragmented healthcare systems; and (5) Significant growth in non-communicable diseases. Stakeholder engagement and institutionalisation of HTA were identified as two conducive factors for strengthening HTA systems.

CONCLUSION

China, India and South Africa have all committed to establishing robust HTA systems to inform evidence-based priority setting and have experienced similar challenges. Engagement among countries of the Global South can provide a supportive platform to share knowledge that is more applicable and pragmatic.

INTEGRATE-HTA: A LOW- AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE

OBJECTIVES

The INTEGRATE-HTA project recommends that complexity be taken into account when conducting health technology assessments (HTAs) and suggests a five-step process for doing that. This study examines whether the approach suggested by INTEGRATE-HTA could be useful, appropriate, and feasible in the context of low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) given some of the typical challenges that healthcare systems face in those countries.

METHODS

A nonexhaustive literature review was performed on the implementation in low and middle income countries of the five aspects recommended by the INTEGRATE-HTA project, using the following search terms: national health planning, health sector strategy, health sector performance, assessment criteria, health (management) information, complexity, context, stakeholder consultation.

RESULTS

HTA is being practiced in LMIC in various ways and through different mechanisms, for example in health sector reviews, even though it is usually not referred to as HTA. It does not necessarily follow the five steps distinguished in the INTEGRATE-HTA model (scoping; defining the initial logic model; providing concepts and methods to identify, collect, and synthesize evidence in relation to various dimensions; extracting and presenting evidence in respect of agreed assessment criteria; providing guidance to draw conclusions and formulate recommendations).

CONCLUSIONS

The conditions for functional HTA are not always fulfilled in LMICs. At least four aspects would require special attention: (a) the scope and quality of routine health information that can support and be fed into health technology assessments and strategic planning; (b) consensus on health system performance assessment frameworks and their main criteria, in particular the inclusion of social disparities/equity and sustainability;

We need a NICE for global development spending

With aid budgets shrinking in richer countries and more money for healthcare becoming available from domestic sources in poorer ones, the rhetoric of value for money or improved efficiency of aid spending is increasing. Taking healthcare as one example, we discuss the need for and potential benefits of (and obstacles to) the establishment of a national institute for aid effectiveness. In the case of the UK, such an institute would help improve development spending decisions made by DFID, the country's aid agency, as well as by the various multilaterals, such as the Global Fund, through which British aid monies is channelled. It could and should also help countries becoming increasingly independent from aid build their own capacity to make sure their own resources go further in terms of health outcomes and more equitable distribution. Such an undertaking will not be easy given deep suspicion amongst development experts towards economists and arguments for improving efficiency. We argue that it is exactly because needs matter that those who make spending decisions must consider the needs not being met when a priority requires that finite resources are diverted elsewhere. These chosen unmet needs are the true costs; they are lost health. They must be considered, and should be minimised and must therefore be measured. Such exposition of the trade-offs of competing investment options can help inform an array of old and newer development tools, from strategic purchasing and pricing negotiations for healthcare products to performance based contracts and innovative financing tools for programmatic interventions.

Evidence-informed capacity building for setting health priorities in low- and middle-income countries: A framework and recommendations for further research

Priority-setting in health is risky and challenging, particularly in resource-constrained settings. It is not simply a narrow technical exercise, and involves the mobilisation of a wide range of capacities among stakeholders - not only the technical capacity to "do" research in economic evaluations. Using the Individuals, Nodes, Networks and Environment (INNE) framework, we identify those stakeholders, whose capacity needs will vary along the evidence-to-policy continuum. Policymakers and healthcare managers require the capacity to commission and use relevant evidence (including evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness, and of social values); academics need to understand and respond to decision-makers' needs to produce relevant research. The health system at all levels will need institutional capacity building to incentivise routine generation and use of evidence. Knowledge brokers, including priority-setting agencies (such as England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Health Interventions and Technology Assessment Program, Thailand) and the media can play an important role in facilitating engagement and knowledge transfer between the various actors. Especially at the outset but at every step, it is critical that patients and the public understand that trade-offs are inherent in priority-setting, and careful efforts should be made to engage them, and to hear their views throughout the process. There is thus no single approach to capacity building; rather a spectrum of activities that recognises the roles and skills of all stakeholders. A range of methods, including formal and informal training, networking and engagement, and support through collaboration on projects, should be flexibly employed (and tailored to specific needs of each country) to support institutionalisation of evidence-informed priority-setting. Finally, capacity building should be a two-way process; those who build capacity should also attend to their own capacity development in order to sustain and improve impact.