Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness

Was priority setting considered in COVID-19 response planning? A global comparative analysis

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic forced governments across the world to consider how to prioritize resource allocation. Most countries produced pandemic preparedness plans that guide and coordinate healthcare, including how to allocate scarce resources such as ventilators, human resources, and therapeutics. The objective of this study was to compare and contrast the extent to which established parameters for effective priority setting (PS) were incorporated into COVID-19 pandemic response planning in several countries around the world.

Methods

We used the Kapriri and Martin framework for effective priority setting and performed a quantitative descriptive analysis to explore whether and how countries' type of health system, political, and economic contexts impacted the inclusion of those parameters in their COVID-19 pandemic plans. We analyzed 86 country plans across six regions of the World Health Organization.

Results

The countries sampled represent 40% of nations in AFRO, 54.5% of EMRO, 45% of EURO, 46% of PAHO, 64% of SEARO, and 41% of WPRO. They also represent 39% of all HICs in the world, 39% of Upper-Middle, 54% of Lower-Middle, and 48% of LICs. No pattern in attention to parameters of PS emerged by WHO region or country income levels. The parameters: evidence of political will, stakeholder participation, and use of scientific evidence/ adoption of WHO recommendations were each found in over 80% of plans. We identified a description of a specific PS process in 7% of the plans; explicit criteria for PS in 36.5%; inclusion of publicity strategies in 65%; mention of mechanisms for appealing decisions or implementing procedures to improve internal accountability and reduce corruption in 20%; explicit reference to public values in 15%; and a description of means for enhancing compliance with the decisions in 5%.

Conclusion

The findings provide a basis for policymakers to reflect on their prioritization plans and identify areas that need to be strengthened. Overall, there is little consideration for explicit prioritization processes and tools and restricted attention to equity considerations; this may be a starting point for policymakers interested in improving future preparedness and response planning. Although the study focused on the COVID-19 pandemic, priority setting remains one of the policymakers' most prominent challenges. Policymakers should consider integrating systematic priority setting in their routine decision-making processes.

Public value judgments about the criteria for reimbursement of medicines in South Korea

OBJECTIVES

This study quantified the public value (PV) of the criteria and sub-criteria in the current drug reimbursement systems in South Korea and examined sociodemographic factors that associated with PV.

METHODS

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to quantify the PVs of criteria and sub-criteria. We developed a questionnaire to generate pairwise comparison matrices among criteria and sub-criteria. From 27 March to 1 April 2023, we recruited 1,000 study participants using a quota sampling method stratified by age, sex, and region based on Korean census data.

RESULTS

The PVs for the criteria were highest for clinical usefulness (28.5%), followed by cost-effectiveness (27.1%), budget impact (24.3%), and reimbursement in other countries (20.1%). The sociodemographic characteristics of the participants had a significant impact on the PVs of the criteria. Willingness to pay additional premiums for national health insurance was negatively associated with PV for clinical usefulness and cost-effectiveness and positively associated with PV for reimbursement in other countries.

CONCLUSIONS

The public prioritized clinical usefulness and cost-effectiveness as the main criteria. However, the PVs of the criteria were divergent and associated with sociodemographic factors. Divergent public interests require an evidence-informed deliberative process for reimbursement decisions.

Priority setting in times of crises: an analysis of priority setting for the COVID-19 response in the Western Pacific Region

BACKGROUND

While priority setting is recognized as critical for promoting accountability and transparency in health system planning, its role in supporting rational, equitable and fair pandemic planning and responses is less well understood. This study aims to describe how priority setting was used to support planning in the initial stage of the pandemic response in a subset of countries in the Western Pacific Region (WPR).

METHODS

We purposively sampled a subset of countries from WPR and undertook a critical document review of the initial national COVID-19 pandemic response plans. A pre-specified tool guided data extraction and the analysis examined the use of quality parameters of priority setting, and equity considerations.

RESULTS

Nine plans were included in this analysis, from the following countries: Papua New Guinea, Tonga, The Philippines, Fiji, China, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Taiwan. Most commonly the plans described strong political will to respond swiftly, resource needs, stakeholder engagement, and defined the roles of institutions that guided COVID-19 response decision-making. The initial plans did not reflect strong evidence of public engagement or considerations of equity informing the early responses to the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

This study advances an understanding of how priority setting and equity considerations were integrated to support the development of the initial COVID-19 responses in nine countries in WPR and contributes to the literature on health system planning during emergencies. This baseline assessment reveals evidence of the common priority setting parameters that were deployed in the initial responses, the prioritized resources and equity considerations and reinforces the importance of strengthening health system capacity for priority setting to support future pandemic preparedness.

Moving towards social inclusion: Engaging rural voices in priority setting for health

BACKGROUND

Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) in the context of limited resources will require prioritising the most vulnerable and ensuring health policies and services are responsive to their needs. One way of addressing this is through the engagement of marginalised voices in the priority setting process. Public engagement approaches that enable group level deliberation as well as individual level preference capturing might be valuable in this regard, but there are limited examples of their practical application, and gaps in understanding their outcomes, especially with rural populations.

OBJECTIVE

To address this gap, we implemented a modified priority setting tool (Choosing All Together-CHAT) that enables individuals and groups to make trade-offs to demonstrate the type of health services packages that may be acceptable to a rural population. The paper presents the findings from the individual choices as compared to the group choices, as well as the differences among the individual choices using this tool.

METHODS

Participants worked in groups and as individuals to allocate stickers representing the available budget to different health topics and interventions using the CHAT tool. The allocations were recorded at each stage of the study. We calculated the median and interquartile range across study participants for the topic totals. To examine differences in individual choices, we performed Wilcoxon rank sum tests.

RESULTS

The results show that individual interests were mostly aligned with societal ones, and there were no statistically significant differences between the individual and group choices. However, there were some statistically significant differences between individual priorities based on demographic characteristics like age.

DISCUSSION

The study demonstrates that giving individuals greater control and agency in designing health services packages can increase their participation in the priority setting process, align individual and community priorities, and potentially enhance the legitimacy and acceptability of priority setting. Methods that enable group level deliberation and individual level priority setting may be necessary to reconcile plurality. The paper also highlights the importance of capturing the details of public engagement processes and transparently reporting on these details to ensure valuable outcomes.

PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The facilitator of the CHAT groups was a member from the community and underwent training from the research team. The fieldworkers were also from the community and were trained and paid to capture the data. The participants were all members of the rural community- the study represents their priorities.

The use of cost-effectiveness analysis for health benefit package design - should countries follow a sectoral, incremental or hybrid approach?

BACKGROUND

Countries around the world are increasingly rethinking the design of their health benefit package to achieve universal health coverage. Countries can periodically revise their packages on the basis of sectoral cost-effectiveness analyses, i.e. by evaluating a broad set of services against a 'doing nothing' scenario using a budget constraint. Alternatively, they can use incremental cost-effectiveness analyses, i.e. to evaluate specific services against current practice using a threshold. In addition, countries may employ hybrid approaches which combines elements of sectoral and incremental cost-effectiveness analysis - a country may e.g. not evaluate the comprehensive set of all services but rather relatively small sets of services targeting a certain condition. However, there is little practical guidance for countries as to which kind of approach they should follow.

METHODS

The present study was based on expert consultation. We refined the typology of approaches of cost-effectiveness analysis for benefit package design, identified factors that should be considered in the choice of approach, and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among experts over the course of several review rounds.

RESULTS

Sectoral cost-effectiveness analysis is especially suited in contexts with large allocative inefficiencies in current service provision and can, in theory, realize large efficiency gains. However, it may be challenging to implement a comprehensive redesign of the package in practice. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis is especially relevant in contexts where specific new services may impact the sustainability of the health system. It may potentially support efficiency improvement, but its focus has typically been on new services while existing inefficiencies remain unchallenged. The use of hybrid approach may be a way forward to address the strengths and weaknesses of sectoral and incremental analysis areas. Such analysis may be especially useful to target disease areas with suspected high inefficiencies in service provision, and would then make good use of the available research capacity and be politically rewarding. However, disease-specific analyses bear the risk of not addressing resource allocation inefficiencies across disease areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Countries should carefully select their approach of cost-effectiveness analyses for benefit package design, based on their decision-making context.

Evaluation framework study assessing the role, applicability and adherence to good practice of planning support tools for allocation of development aid for health in low-income and middle-income countries

OBJECTIVES

Allocation of development aid for health is controversial and challenging. In recent years, several planning-software tools have promised to help decision-makers align resource allocation with their objectives, more clearly connect prioritisation to evidence and local circumstances, and increase transparency and comparability. We aim to explore these tools to provide insight into their fitness for purpose and suggest future directions to fulfil that promise.

DESIGN

We identified seven tools that met the inclusion criteria and developed an evaluation framework to compare them along two dimensions for assessing fitness for purpose: ability to produce analyses adhering to principles laid out in the International Decisions Support Initiative (iDSI) Reference Case for health economic evaluations; and resources required, including expertise and time. We extracted information from documentation and tool use and sent this information to tool developers for confirmation.

RESULTS

We categorise the tools into evidence-generating ones, evidence-syntheses ones and process support ones. Tools' fitness for purpose varies by the context, technical capacity and time limitation. The tools adhere to several reference case principles but often not to all of them. The source and underlying assumptions of prepopulated data are often opaque. Comparing vertical interventions across diseases and health system strengthening ones remains challenging.

CONCLUSIONS

The plethora of tools that aid priority setting in different ways is encouraging. Developers and users should place further emphasis on their ability to produce analyses that adhere to prioritisation principles. Opportunities for further development include using evidence-generating tools and multicriteria decision analysis approaches complimentarily. However, maintaining tool simplicity should also be considered to allow wider access.

An ethical analysis of policy dialogues

BACKGROUND

A policy dialogue is a tool which promotes evidence-informed policy-making. It involves deliberation about a high-priority issue, informed by a synthesis of the best-available evidence, where potential policy interventions are discussed by stakeholders. We offer an ethical analysis of policy dialogues - an argument about how policy dialogues ought to be conceived and executed - to guide those organizing and participating in policy dialogues. Our analysis focuses on the deliberative dialogues themselves, rather than ethical issues in the broader policy context within which they are situated.

METHODS

We conduct a philosophical conceptual analysis of policy dialogues, informed by a formal and an interpretative literature review.

RESULTS

We identify the objectives of policy dialogues, and consider the procedural and substantive values that should govern them. As knowledge translation tools, the chief objective of policy dialogues is to ensure that prospective evidence-informed health policies are appropriate for and likely to support evidence-informed decision-making in a particular context. We identify five core characteristics which serve this objective: policy dialogues are (i) focused on a high-priority issue, (ii) evidence-informed, (iii) deliberative, (iv) participatory and (v) action-oriented. In contrast to dominant ethical frameworks for policy-making, we argue that transparency and accountability are not central procedural values for policy dialogues, as they are liable to inhibit the open deliberation that is necessary for successful policy dialogues. Instead, policy dialogues are legitimate insofar as they pursue the objectives and embody the core characteristics identified above. Finally, we argue that good policy dialogues need to actively consider a range of substantive values other than health benefit and equity.

CONCLUSIONS

Policy dialogues should recognize the limits of effectiveness as a guiding value for policy-making, and operate with an expansive conception of successful outcomes. We offer a set of questions to support those organizing and participating in policy dialogues.

Decision-making processes for essential packages of health services: experience from six countries

Many countries around the world strive for universal health coverage, and an essential packages of health services (EPHS) is a central policy instrument for countries to achieve this. It defines the coverage of services that are made available, as well as the proportion of the costs that are covered from different financial schemes and who can receive these services. This paper reports on the development of an analytical framework on the decision-making process of EPHS revision, and the review of practices of six countries (Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and Zanzibar-Tanzania).The analytical framework distinguishes the practical organisation, fairness and institutionalisation of decision-making processes. The review shows that countries: (1) largely follow a similar practical stepwise process but differ in their implementation of some steps, such as the choice of decision criteria; (2) promote fairness in their EPHS process by involving a range of stakeholders, which in the case of Zanzibar included patients and community members; (3) are transparent in terms of at least some of the steps of their decision-making process and (4) in terms of institutionalisation, express a high degree of political will for ongoing EPHS revision with almost all countries having a designated governing institute for EPHS revision.We advise countries to organise meaningful stakeholder involvement and foster the transparency of the decision-making process, as these are key to fairness in decision-making. We also recommend countries to take steps towards the institutionalisation of their EPHS revision process.

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.

Access to infertility care services towards Universal Health Coverage is a right and not an option

Background

In Morocco, the national health plan 2025 was developed to promote Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) services for all. The principal aim was to achieve the Universal Health Coverage of SRH by 2030. For many years, health authorities’ efforts had focused on reducing maternal mortality through a widespread access to antenatal and obstetric care and family planning services. This has resulted in a significant gap between the availability of SRH components, namely obstetric and family planning care, and access to infertility services including Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART). The objective of this study is to answer two important questions. First, why some SRH programs and services are given priority by international and national political leaders while infertility care receives little attention; second, what are the factors that influence this prioritization?

Methods

We used Shiffman and Smith’s framework composed of four elements: the strength of the actors involved in the initiative, the power of the ideas they use to represent the health problem, the nature of the political contexts in which they operate and the characteristics of the services. We added a fifth element to the framework, the outcome. We applied this framework to the case of infertility services in Morocco. We conducted a desk review and interviews with actors involved in SRH and infertility care advocates as well as with decision makers involved in implementing Universal Health Coverage (UHC).

Results

Our results showed that despite the efforts made by the advocates of infertility care; the enactment in 2019 of a law regulating infertility care services; and the presence of two Assisted Reproductive Technology Units in the public sector, infertility services remain at an early stage of development hampered by multiple challenges. Among others, a lack of political entrepreneurs to ensure a strong leadership; the political windows were often missed; community members lacked consensus on a coherent public positioning of the problem, and advocates' perception and power of the idea lacked evidence and precise indicators of the problem.

Conclusion

To ensure the convergence and alignment of all stakeholders, it is recommended to translate the regulation of infertility into measurable activities with defined human and financial resources, equitable fertility health coverage, and quality fertility care to respond to women and infertile couples’ needs, rights and dignity.

The development of Afghanistan's Integrated Package of Essential Health Services: Evidence, expertise and ethics in a priority setting process

Health systems in fragile states need to respond to shifting demographics, burden of disease and socio-economic circumstances in the revision of their health service packages. This entails making difficult decisions about what is and is not included therein, especially in resource-constrained settings offering or striving for universal health coverage. In this paper we turn the lens on the 2017-2021 development of Afghanistan's Integrated Package of Essential Health Services (IPEHS) to analyse the dynamics of the priority setting process and the role and value of evidence. Using participant observation of meetings and interviews with 25 expert participants, we conducted a qualitative study of the consultation process aimed at examining the characteristics of its technical, socio-cultural and organisational aspects, in particular data use and expert input, and how they influenced how evidence was discussed, taken up, and used (or not used) in the process. Our analysis proposes that the particular dynamics shaped by the context, information landscape and expert input shaped and operationalized knowledge sharing and its application in such a way to constitute a sort of "vernacular evidence". Our findings underline the importance of paying attention to the constellation of the priority setting processes in order to contribute to an ethical allocation of resources, particularly in contexts of resource scarcity and humanitarian need.

Under careful construction: combining findings, arguments, and values into robust health care coverage decisions

Background

Health care coverage decisions deal with health care technology provision or reimbursement at a national level. The coverage decision report, i.e., the publicly available document giving reasons for the decision, may contain various elements: quantitative calculations like cost and clinical effectiveness analyses and formalised and non-formalised qualitative considerations. We know little about the process of combining these heterogeneous elements into robust decisions.

Methods

This study describes a model for combining different elements in coverage decisions. We build on two qualitative cases of coverage appraisals at the Dutch National Health Care Institute, for which we analysed observations at committee meetings (n = 2, with field notes taken) and the corresponding audio files (n = 3), interviews with appraisal committee members (n = 10 in seven interviews) and with Institute employees (n = 5 in three interviews), and relevant documents (n = 4).

Results

We conceptualise decisions as combinations of elements, specifically (quantitative) findings and (qualitative) arguments and values. Our model contains three steps: 1) identifying elements; 2) designing the combinations of elements, which entails articulating links, broadening the scope of designed combinations, and black-boxing links; and 3) testing these combinations and choosing one as the final decision.

Conclusions

Based on the proposed model, we suggest actively identifying a wider variety of elements and stepping up in terms of engaging patients and the public, including facilitating appeals. Future research could explore how different actors perceive the robustness of decisions and how this relates to their perceived legitimacy.

An analysis of how health systems integrated priority-setting in the pandemic planning in a sample of Latin America and the Caribbean countries

BACKGROUND

Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) are among those regions most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic has strained health systems in the region. In this context of severe healthcare resource constraints, there is a need for systematic priority-setting to support decision-making which ensures the best use of resources while considering the needs of the most vulnerable groups. The aim of this paper was to provide a critical description and analysis of how health systems considered priority-setting in the COVID-19 response and preparedness plans of a sample of 14 LAC countries; and to identify the associated research gaps.

METHODS

A documentary analysis of COVID-19 preparedness and response plans was performed in a sample of 14 countries in the LAC region. We assessed the degree to which the documented priority-setting processes adhered to established quality indicators of effective priority-setting included in the Kapiriri and Martin framework. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the degree to which the reports addressed the quality parameters for each individual country, as well as a cross-country comparison to explore whether parameters varied according to independent variables.

RESULTS

While all plans were led and supported by the national governments, most included only a limited number of quality indicators for effective priority-setting. There was no systematic pattern between the number of quality indicators and the country's health system and political contexts; however, the countries that had the least number of quality indicators tended to be economically disadvantaged.

CONCLUSION

This study adds to the literature by providing the first descriptive analysis of the inclusion of priority-setting during a pandemic, using the case of COVID-19 response and preparedness plans in the LAC region. The analysis found that despite the strong evidence of political will and stakeholder participation, none of the plans presented a clear priority-setting process, or used a formal priority-setting framework, to define interventions, populations, geographical regions, healthcare setting or resources prioritized. There is need for case studies that analyse how priority-setting actually occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic and the degree to which the implementation reflected the plans and the parameters of effective priority-setting, as well as the impact of the prioritization processes on population health, with a focus on the most vulnerable groups.

Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating cancer treatments in hospital-based health technology assessment: The Paraconsistent Value Framework

Background

In recent years, the potential of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in the health field has been discussed widely. However, most MCDA methodologies have given little attention to the aggregation of different stakeholder individual perspectives.

Objective

To illustrate how a paraconsistent theory-based MCDA reusable framework, designed to aid hospital-based Health Technology Assessment (HTA), could be used to aggregate individual expert perspectives when valuing cancer treatments.

Methods

An MCDA methodological process was adopted based on paraconsistent theory and following ISPOR recommended steps in conducting an MCDA study. A proof-of-concept exercise focusing on identifying and assessing the global value of first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was conducted to foster the development of the MCDA framework.

Results

On consultation with hospital-based HTA committee members, 11 perspectives were considered in an expert panel: medical oncology, oncologic surgery, radiotherapy, palliative care, pharmacist, health economist, epidemiologist, public health expert, health media expert, pharmaceutical industry, and patient advocate. The highest weights were assigned to the criteria “overall survival” (mean 0.22), “burden of disease” (mean 0.21) and “adverse events” (mean 0.20), and the lowest weights were given to “progression-free survival” and “cost of treatment” (mean 0.18 for both). FOLFIRI and mFlox scored the highest global value score of 0.75, followed by mFOLFOX6 with a global value score of 0.71. mIFL was ranked last with a global value score of 0.62. The paraconsistent analysis (para-analysis) of 6 first-line treatments for mCRC indicated that FOLFIRI and mFlox were the appropriate options for reimbursement in the context of this study.

Conclusion

The Paraconsistent Value Framework is proposed as a step beyond the current MCDA practices, in order to improve means of dealing with individual expert perspectives in hospital-based HTA of cancer treatments.

Integrating health technology assessment and the right to health: a qualitative content analysis of procedural values in South African judicial decisions

South Africa's move towards implementing National Health Insurance includes a commitment to establish a health technology assessment (HTA) body to inform health priority-setting decisions. This study sought to analyse health rights cases in South Africa to inform the identification of country-specific procedural values related to health priority-setting and their implementation in a South African HTA body. The focus on health rights cases is motivated in part by the fact that case law can be an important source of insight into the values of a particular country. This focus is further motivated by a desire to mitigate the potential tension between a rights-based approach to healthcare access and national efforts to set health priorities. A qualitative content analysis of eight South African court cases related to the right to health was conducted. Cases were identified through a LexisNexis search and supplemented with expert judgement. Procedural values identified from the health priority-setting literature, including those comprising Accountability for Reasonableness (A4R), structured the thematic analysis. The importance of transparency and revision-two elements of A4R-is evident in our findings, suggesting that the courts can help to enforce elements of A4R. Yet our findings also indicate that A4R is likely to be insufficient for ensuring that HTA in South Africa meets the procedural demands of a constitutional rights-based approach to healthcare access. Accordingly, we also suggest that a South African HTA body ought to consider more demanding considerations related to transparency and revisions as well as explicit considerations related to inclusivity.

Economic evaluations of health system strengthening activities in low-income and middle-income country settings: a methodological systematic review

Objective

Health system strengthening (HSS) activities should accompany disease-targeting interventions in low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Economic evaluations provide information on how these types of investment might best be balanced but can be challenging. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate how researchers address these economic evaluation challenges.

Methods

We identified studies about economic evaluation of HSS activities in LMICs using a two-stage approach. First, we conducted a broad search to identify areas where economic evaluations of HSS activities were being conducted. Next, we selected specific interventions for more targeted literature review. We extracted study characteristics using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Finally, we summarised authors’ modelling decisions using a framework that examines how models are developed to emphasise generalisability, precision, or realism.

Findings

Our searches produced 1978 studies, out of which we included 36. Most studies used data from prospective trials and calculated cost-effectiveness directly from these trial inputs, rather than using simulation methods. As a group, these studies primarily emphasised precision and realism over generalisability, meaning that their results were best suited to specific settings.

Conclusions

The number of included studies was small. Our findings suggest that most economic evaluations of HSS do not leverage methods like sensitivity analyses or inputs from literature review that would produce more generalisable (but potentially less precise) results. More research into how decision-makers would use economic evaluations to define the expansion path to strengthening health systems would allow for conceptualising impactful work on the economic value of HSS.

Citizens' opinions and experiences related to costs and reimbursements for medications in times of retrenchment: cross-sectional population surveys in 2015 and 2017

BACKGROUND

Finland has universal coverage for prescription medications under the National Health Insurance. Eligibility schemes target higher reimbursements to individuals with chronic illness. Nevertheless, co-payments always apply, and austerity reforms implemented in 2016 and 2017 led to further increases in co-payments. We examined the extent to which people with chronic illness experienced financial difficulties in purchasing medications, how perceptions of fairness regarding the national reimbursements differs by exposure to policies and medicine use, and in what way do these experiences and opinions vary between surveys collected before and after the reforms.

METHODS

We used two waves of Medicines Barometer (2015 and 2017, pooled n = 10,801), a national, biennial, cross-sectional population survey. Logistic regression analyses were performed with experiences of financial difficulties and perceptions of fairness as dependent variables. We compared people with and without prescription medication use, eligibilities, and/or diabetes (exposure groups), controlling for age, gender, survey type and geographic area (NUTS2). To examine the modifying effect of study year, we fitted models with an interaction term between group and year.

RESULTS

Respondents with diabetes or eligibility based on chronic illness had a notably higher risk than other respondents with at least some prescription medication use to have experienced financial difficulties in affording medications. The share of respondents experiencing difficulties increased the most among people with diabetes. Three-quarters of respondents were either critical or unsure of whether the reimbursements for medications were fair and just. People with recent prescription medication use tended to be more sceptical than people without. Overall, scepticism tended to be more prevalent in 2017 than in 2015.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the protective policies in place, individuals with chronic illness were disproportionately burdened by costs of medications already before the reforms. Among individuals with diabetes, financial difficulties were even more prevalent in 2017 than in 2015, which is likely attributed to the particularly high co-payment increases targeted to type 2 diabetes medicines. Perceived fairness of the processes and outcomes of policies and regulations is a key dimension of trust in public policy. Thus, increasing scepticism implies that retrenchment may also have implications in terms of public legitimacy.

Priority setting of vaccine introduction in Bangladesh: a multicriteria decision analysis study

OBJECTIVE

To prioritise vaccines for introduction in Bangladesh.

METHODS

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) process was used to prioritise potential vaccines for introduction in Bangladesh. A set of criteria were identified, weighted and assigned scores by relevant stakeholders (n=14) during workshop A. The performance matrix of the data of vaccines against the criteria set was constructed and validated with the experts (n=6) in workshop B. The vaccines were ranked and appraised by another group of stakeholders (n=10) in workshop C, and the final workshop D involved the dissemination of the findings to decision-makers (n=28).

RESULTS

Five criteria including incidence rate, case fatality rate, vaccine efficacy, size of the population at risk and type of population at risk were used quantitatively to evaluate and to score the vaccines. Two other criteria, cost-effectiveness and outbreak potentiality, were considered qualitatively. On deliberation, the Japanese encephalitis (JE) vaccine was ranked top to be recommended for introduction in Bangladesh.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the MCDA results, JE vaccine is planned to be recommended to the decision-makers for introduction into the national vaccine benefit package. The policymakers support the use of systematic evidence-based decision-making processes such as MCDA for vaccine introduction in Bangladesh, and to prioritise health interventions in the country.

Where National Medicines Policies Have Taken Us With Patient Involvement and Health Technology Assessment in Africa

The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted global knowledge about, but lack of equitable access to, life-changing medicines, and other innovative medical products by populations in African low and middle income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) and other international non-profit foundations and organizations are constantly striving to address inequity. In the 1970s, WHO initiated a regularly updated essential medicines list, together with the concept of national medicines policies (NMPs) to ensure access and availability, affordability, rational, and effective use of medicines which are considered essential in addressing predominant population health issues and disease burden. We studied the NMPs of Ghana, South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe to highlight some of the important issues that these countries experience in the safe and effective use of medical products. Thailand is an example of how health technology assessment (HTA) can provide a country with an internationally supported, clearly defined and transparent process to broaden access to medicines and services. These medical services can add considerable value in accordance with local values and priorities. Involvement of civil society adds democratic legitimacy to such processes. Community health workers and patient advocacy groups are important in raising awareness and knowledge of safety issues and the effective use of quality medicines. They can apply pressure for increased funding to improve access to healthcare. Medicines and services that contribute to supported self-care are of benefit in any setting. Joint efforts across African countries such as with the African Medicines Agency are important in addressing some of the major health issues.

Decision-making in the midst of uncertainty: appraising expensive medicines in England

Decisions need to be made about which services or technologies should be prioritized for provision in the NHS in England .The analysis focuses specifically on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and on how they appraise expensive medicines. This analysis takes a sociological perspective on decision-making in relation to uncertainty and how uncertainties are managed, drawing on evidence from a scoping study and an ethnographic study. Uncertainties were central to these rationing decisions. Three types of layers of uncertainty -epistemic, procedural and interpersonal - were shown to be salient. Another form of uncertainty was associated with the complexity of the science and that included the level of technicality of the information provided. The analysis highlighted the salience of uncertainties associated with interpersonal relations and the relations between the committees and the drug industry, clinical and patient experts. A key element in these relationships was trust. Decision makers adopted a mixture of formal and informal, collective and individual strategies in making decisions and a need to exercise pragmatism within a more formal institutional framework. The paper concludes by considering more recent policy developments in relation to appraising expensive medicines.

Modular literature review: a novel systematic search and review method to support priority setting in health policy and practice

BACKGROUND

There is an unmet need for review methods to support priority-setting, policy-making and strategic planning when a wide variety of interventions from differing disciplines may have the potential to impact a health outcome of interest. This article describes a Modular Literature Review, a novel systematic search and review method that employs systematic search strategies together with a hierarchy-based appraisal and synthesis of the resulting evidence.

METHODS

We designed the Modular Review to examine the effects of 43 interventions on a health problem of global significance. Using the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study design) framework, we developed a single four-module search template in which population, comparison and outcome modules were the same for each search and the intervention module was different for each of the 43 interventions. A series of literature searches were performed in five databases, followed by screening, extraction and analysis of data. "ES documents", source documents for effect size (ES) estimates, were systematically identified based on a hierarchy of evidence. The evidence was categorised according to the likely effect on the outcome and presented in a standardised format with quantitative effect estimates, meta-analyses and narrative reporting. We compared the Modular Review to other review methods in health research for its strengths and limitations.

RESULTS

The Modular Review method was used to review the impact of 46 antenatal interventions on four specified birth outcomes within 12 months. A total of 61,279 records were found; 35,244 were screened by title-abstract. Six thousand two hundred seventy-two full articles were reviewed against the inclusion criteria resulting in 365 eligible articles.

CONCLUSIONS

The Modular Review preserves principles that have traditionally been important to systematic reviews but can address multiple research questions simultaneously. The result is an accessible, reliable answer to the question of "what works?". Thus, it is a well-suited literature review method to support prioritisation, decisions and planning to implement an agenda for health improvement.

Manufacturers’ perceptions of the decision-making process for new drug reimbursement in South Korea

This study aimed to evaluate manufacturers’ perceptions of the decision-making process for new drug reimbursement and to formulate implications in operating a health technology assessment system. In 2019, we conducted a questionnaire survey and a semistructured group interview for domestic (n = 6) and foreign manufacturers (n = 9) who had vast experience in introducing new medicines into the market through a health technology assessment. Representatives of manufacturers indicated that disease severity, budget impact, existence of alternative treatment, and health-related quality of life were relevant criteria when assessing reimbursement decisions. Compared with domestic manufacturers, foreign manufacturers were risk takers when making reimbursement decisions in terms of adopting a new drug and managing pharmaceutical expenditure. However, foreign manufacturers were risk-averse when evaluating new drugs with uncertainties based on real-world data such as clinical effectiveness. Based on manufacturers’ perceptions of the decision-making process for new drug reimbursement, there is room for improvement in health technology assessment systems. Explaining the underlying reasons behind their decisions, unbiased participation by various stakeholders and their embedded roles in the decision-making process need to be emphasized. However, the measures suggested in this study should be introduced with cautions. The process of health technology assessment might be a target for those who undermine the system in pursuit of their private interests.

Priorities for sexual and reproductive health in Morocco as part of universal health coverage: maternal health as a national priority

Maternal health (MH) is a national priority of Morocco. Factors influencing the agenda set by the reproductive and maternal health policy process at the national level were evaluated using the Shiffman and Smith framework. This framework included the influence of the actors, the power of the ideas used, the nature of the political context, and the characteristics of the issue itself. Factors were evaluated by a review of documents and interviews with policy-makers, partners and individuals in the private sector, civil society and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) involved in MH, and decision-makers responsible for implementing health-financing strategies in Morocco. Evaluations showed that maternal mortality in Morocco was considered human rights and social development as well as a public health problem. The actors responsible for MH, including members of the government, researchers, national technical experts, members of the private sector, United Nations partners and NGOs, agreed on progress made in MH and universal health care (UHC). Stakeholders also agreed on the prioritisation process for MH and its inclusion in the health benefits package. Prioritisation of MH was found to depend on national health priorities set by the government and its close partners, as well as on the availability of human and financial resources. Interventions at the operational level were based on evidence, best practices, allocation of adequate financial and human resources, and rigorous monitoring and accountability. However, MH and health financing are experiencing difficulties in many areas, related to social and economic and health disparities, and gender inequality, and quality of care.

Budgeting for comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights under universal health coverage

Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) for sexual and reproductive health (SRH) requires informed budgeting that is aligned with UHC objectives. We draw data from Adding It Up 2019 (AIU-2019) to provide critical new country-level and regional, intervention-specific costs for the provision of SRH services. AIU-2019 is a cost-outcomes analysis, undertaken from the health system perspective, which estimates the costs and impacts of offering SRH care in low- and middle-income countries. We present direct cost estimates for 109 SRH interventions and find that human resources comprise the largest category of direct SRH service costs and that the most expensive services in the model are largely preventable. We use scenario analysis to explore the synergistic costs and impacts of providing SRH interventions in clusters, focussing on chlamydia and gonorrhoea treatment, provision of safe abortion and post-abortion care services, and safe childbirth services. When costs are considered for the preventive and impacted services in these three clusters, there are cost savings for some of the impacted services in the packages and for the abortion-related package overall. The direct cost estimates from our analysis can be used to guide UHC budgeting and planning efforts. Having these cost estimates and understanding the potential for cost savings when providing comprehensive SRH services are critical for efforts to fulfil the rights and needs of all individuals, including the most marginalised, to access this essential care.

Rethinking Universal Health Coverage: A qualitative study of patient organisation perspectives on the Turkish health-care system

Universal health coverage (UHC) has been elevated to the status of a global policy target, but this was at the expense of losing its aspirational meaning. As a case in point, Turkey has been one of the countries that has achieved UHC, according to the technocratic definition. This article employs a combination of deductive and inductive thematic analysis methods to explore patient organisation (PO) perspectives on the Turkish health-care system based on 26 respondent interviews from 19 POs in Istanbul. Highlighting the inadequacy of the technocratic definition of UHC, the article maintains that an analysis of PO perspectives opens the way for a nuanced and bottom-up assessment of essential service coverage and financial protection by identifying elusive gaps in both dimensions that would otherwise be lost in generalist evaluations. The findings also underline the importance of keeping intact the UHC's aspirational element to enable POs to participate in the politics of priority setting in health care.

Priority Setting as an Ethical Imperative in Managing Global Dialysis Access and Improving Kidney Care

Priority-setting dilemmas arise when trade-offs must be made regarding the kinds of services that should be provided and to whom, thereby withholding other services from individuals or groups that could benefit from them. Currently, it is practically impossible for lower-income countries to provide dialysis for all patients with kidney failure; however, the fundamental premise of the human right to health, while acknowledging the current resource constraints, is the progressive realization of access to care for all. In this article we outline the rationale for priority setting, starting with the global goal of achieving universal health coverage, the prerequisites for fair and transparent priority setting, and discuss how these may apply to expensive care such as dialysis. Priority is inherently a value-laden process, and cannot be whittled down to technical considerations of clinical or cost effectiveness alone. Fair and transparent priority setting should originate from population health needs, be based on evidence, and be associated with ethical values or principles. This requires effective engagement with relevant stakeholders. Once policies are developed and implemented, good oversight is crucial to ensure accountability and to provide iterative feedback such that the goals of universal health coverage may be progressively realized.

Cost-effectiveness of Xpert®MTB/RIF in the diagnosis of tuberculosis: pragmatic study

INTRODUCTION

The intensification of research and innovation with the creation of networks of rapid and effective molecular tests as strategies for the end of tuberculosis are essential to avoid late diagnosis and for the eradication of the disease. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Xpert®MTB/RIF (Xpert) in the diagnosis of drug-resistant tuberculosis in reference units, in scenarios with and without subsidies, and the respective cost adjustment for today.

METHODS

The analyses were performed considering as criterion of effectiveness, negative culture or clinical improvement in the sixth month of follow-up. The comparison was performed using two diagnostic strategies for the drug susceptibility test (DST), BactecTMMGITTM960 System, versus Xpert. The cost effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated and dollar-corrected for American inflation (US$ 1.00 = R$ 5,29).

RESULTS

Subsidized Xpert had the lowest cost of US$ 33.48 (R$67,52) and the highest incremental average efficiency (13.57), thus being a dominated analysis. After the inflation was calculated, the mean cost was DST-MGIT=US$ 74.85 (R$ 396,73) and Xpert = US$ 37.33 (R$197,86) with subsidies.

CONCLUSIONS

The Xpert in the diagnosis of TB-DR in these reference units was cost-effective with subsidies. In the absence of a subsidy, Xpert in TB-DR is not characterized as cost effective. This factor reveals the vulnerability of countries dependent on international organizations' subsidy policies.

WICID framework version 1.0: criteria and considerations to guide evidence-informed decision-making on non-pharmacological interventions targeting COVID-19

Introduction

Public health decision-making requires the balancing of numerous, often conflicting factors. However, participatory, evidence-informed decision-making processes to identify and weigh these factors are often not possible- especially, in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. While evidence-to-decision frameworks are not able or intended to replace stakeholder participation, they can serve as a tool to approach relevancy and comprehensiveness of the criteria considered.

Objective

To develop a decision-making framework adapted to the challenges of decision-making on non-pharmacological interventions to contain the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Methods

We employed the ‘best fit’ framework synthesis technique and used the WHO-INTEGRATE framework as a starting point. First, we adapted the framework through brainstorming exercises and application to case studies. Next, we conducted a content analysis of comprehensive strategy documents intended to guide policymakers on the phasing out of applied lockdown measures in Germany. Based on factors and criteria identified in this process, we developed the WICID (WHO-INTEGRATE COVID-19) framework version 1.0.

Results

Twelve comprehensive strategy documents were analysed. The revised framework consists of 11+1 criteria, supported by 48 aspects, and embraces a complex systems perspective. The criteria cover implications for the health of individuals and populations due to and beyond COVID-19, infringement on liberties and fundamental human rights, acceptability and equity considerations, societal, environmental and economic implications, as well as implementation, resource and feasibility considerations.

Discussion

The proposed framework will be expanded through a comprehensive document analysis focusing on key stakeholder groups across the society. The WICID framework can be a tool to support comprehensive evidence-informed decision-making processes.

The challenges of implementing low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries

Lung cancer accounts for an alarming human and economic burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Recent landmark trials from high-income countries (HICs) by demonstrating that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening effectively reduces lung cancer mortality have engendered enthusiasm for this approach. Here we examine the effectiveness and affordability of LDCT screening from the viewpoint of LMICs. We consider resource-restricted perspectives and discuss implementation challenges and strategies to enhance the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening in LMICs.

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.

Budgeting challenges on the path towards universal health coverage: the case of Benin

BACKGROUND

In its pursuance of universal health coverage (UHC), the government of Benin is piloting a project of mandatory social insurance for health entitled "ARCH".

METHODS

We analysed budget data and ARCH documents, and conducted four observation missions in Benin between March 2018 and January 2020. Results are presented in terms of the three classical objectives of public expenditure management.

RESULTS

The government of Benin faces important budgeting challenges when it comes to implementing the ARCH social insurance project: (i) the fiscal space is quite limited, there is a limited potential for new taxes and these may not benefit the ARCH funding, hence the need to prioritise fiscal resources without jeopardising other areas; (ii) the purchasing of health services should be more strategic so as to increase allocative efficiency and equity; (iii) the efficiency of the expenditure process needs to be improved, and more autonomy needs to be devoted to the operational level, so as to ensure that health facilities are reimbursed in a timely fashion in order to meet insured people's health costs, in such a way as to avoid jeopardizing the financial equilibrium of these facilities.

CONCLUSION

The important budgeting challenges faced by Benin when it comes to implementing its UHC policy are also faced by many other African countries. It is important to avoid a situation in which the resources dedicated by the government to the social health insurance system are at the expense of a reduction in the financing of preventive and promotional primary healthcare services.

Around the Tables - Contextual Factors in Healthcare Coverage Decisions Across Western Europe

Background: Across Western Europe, procedures and formalised criteria for taking decisions on the coverage (inclusion in the benefits basket or equivalent) of healthcare technologies vary substantially. In the decision documents, which display the justification of, the rationale for, these decisions, national healthcare institutes may employ ‘contextual factors,’ defined here as situation-specific considerations. Little is known about how the use of such contextual factors compares across countries. We describe and compare contextual factors as used in coverage decisions generally and 4 decision documents specifically in Belgium, England, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Methods: Four group interviews with 3 experts from the national healthcare institute of each country, document and web site analysis, and a workshop with 1 to 2 of these experts per country were followed by the examination of the documents of 4 specific decisions taken in each of the 4 countries, sampled to vary widely in type of technology and decision outcome.

Results: From the available decision documents, we conclude that in every country studied, contextual factors are established ‘around the table,’ ie, in deliberation. All documents examined feature contextual factors, with similar contextual factor patterns leading to similar decisions in different countries. The Dutch decisions employ the widest variety of factors, with the exception of the societal functioning of the patient, which is relatively common in Belgium, England, and Germany. Half of the final decisions were taken in another setting, with the consequence that no documentation was retrievable for 2 decisions.

Conclusion: First, we conclude that in these countries, contextual factors are actively integrated in the decision document, and that this is achieved in deliberation. Conceptualising contextual factors as both situation-specific and actively-integrated affords insight into practices of contextualisation and provides an encouragement for exchange between decision-makers on more qualitative aspects of decisions. Second, the decisions that lacked a publicly accessible justification of the final decision document raised questions on the decisions’ legitimacy. Further research could address patterning of contextual factors, elucidate why some factors may remain implicit, and how decisions without a publicly available decision document may enable or restrain decision-making practice.

Im/moral healthcare: HIV and universal health coverage in Indonesia

In 2014, Indonesia reinvigorated its commitment to the provision of a universal health care system by introducing the National Health Insurance Program (Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional, JKN), with the aim of increasing access to health care for all sectors of society. A key question that emerges in the current climate is: how can Indonesia ensure people can access HIV health care? This question is critically important given Indonesia is on the verge of passing a law criminalising all sex outside of marriage. If passed, anyone presenting with HIV will be suspected ipso facto of involvement in criminal activity (e.g. them or their partner having sex outside of marriage and/or using intravenous drugs). In this environment, preventing transmission of HIV from mother to child becomes more difficult. In exploring these issues, we argue that, in a time of populist morality, Indonesia must give significant attention to how universal health coverage can prevent HIV transmission, particularly from mother to child. We offer three key strategies for Indonesia to implement in this regard: removing health care provision from a moral framework; de-idealising the category of woman; and repositioning shame and stigma around HIV.

Policy learning and Universal Health Coverage in low- and middle-income countries

Learning is increasingly seen as an essential component to spur progress towards universal health coverage (UHC) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, learning remains an elusive concept, with different understandings and uses that vary from one person or organisation to another. Specifically, it appears that 'learning for UHC' is dominated by the teacher mode - notably scientists and experts as 'teachers' conveying to local decision/policy-makers as 'learners' what to do. This article shows that, to meet countries' needs, it is important to acknowledge that UHC learning situations are not restricted to the most visible epistemic learning approach practiced today. This article draws on an analytical framework proposed by Dunlop and Radaelli, whereby they identified four learning modes that can emerge according to the specific characteristics of the policy process: epistemic learning, learning in the shadow of hierarchy, learning through bargaining and reflexive learning. These learning modes look relevant to help widen the learning prospects that LMICs need to advance their UHC agenda. Actually, they open up new perspectives in a research field that, until now, has appeared scattered and relatively blurry.

Health technology assessment and priority setting for universal health coverage: a qualitative study of stakeholders' capacity, needs, policy areas of demand and perspectives in Nigeria

INTRODUCTION

Health technology assessment (HTA) is an effective tool to support priority setting and generate evidence for decision making especially en route to achieving universal health coverage (UHC). We assessed the capacity needs, policy areas of demand, and perspectives of key stakeholders for evidence-informed decision making in Nigeria where HTA is still new.

METHODS

We surveyed 31 participants including decision makers, policy makers, academic researchers, civil society organizations, community-based organizations, development partners, health professional organizations. We revised an existing survey to qualitatively examine the need, policy areas of demand, and perspectives of stakeholders on HTA. We then analyzed responses and explored key themes.

RESULTS

Most respondents were associated with organizations that generated or facilitated health services research. Research institutes highlighted their ability to provide expertise and skills for HTA research but some respondents noted a lack of human capacity for HTA. HTA was considered an important and valuable priority-setting tool with a key role in the design of health benefits packages, clinical guideline development, and service improvement. Public health programs, medicines and vaccines were the three main technology types that would especially benefit from the application of HTA. The perceived availability and accessibility of suitable local data to support HTA varied widely but was mostly considered inadequate and limited. Respondents needed evidence on health system financing, health service provision, burden of disease and noted a need for training support in research methodology, HTA and data management.

CONCLUSION

The use of HTA by policymakers and communities in Nigeria is very limited mainly due to inadequate and insufficient capacity to produce and use HTA. Developing sustainable and institutionalized HTA systems requires in-country expertise and active participation from a range of stakeholders. Stakeholder participation in identifying HTA topics and conducting relevant research will enhance the use of HTA evidence produced for decision making. Therefore, the identified training needs for HTA and possible research topics should be considered a priority in establishing HTA for evidence-informed policy making for achieving UHC particularly among the most vulnerable people in Nigeria.

Beyond the numbers: a critique of quantitative multi-criteria decision analysis

When setting priorities for health, there is broad agreement that a range of social values and ethical principles beyond clinical and cost-effectiveness matter, but exactly how health technology assessment (HTA) should account for a broader set of criteria remains an area of ongoing debate. In light of this, we welcome a recent review paper by Baltussen et al. evaluating the potential of different multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approaches to enable HTA agencies to incorporate a broader set of values in their appraisals. The authors describe three approaches to MCDA-qualitative MCDA, quantitative MCDA, and MCDA with decision rules-laying out their relative advantages and disadvantages and providing recommendations for how they can best be implemented. While we endorse many of the authors' assessments and conclusions, including the critical role of deliberation in any MCDA approach and the undertaking of qualitative MCDA at a minimum, we take a stronger position regarding the flaws of quantitative MCDA and strongly caution against it. We find quantitative MCDA antithetical to at least two of the ways MCDA is intended to improve HTA recommendations: (i) enhancing quality and (ii) promoting transparency. Quantitative MCDA may mask the complex tradeoffs that exist within and between decision criteria and remain generally inaccessible to those who are not well-versed in its technical methods of appraisal. We advocate for a predominantly qualitative approach to MCDA appraisal centered around deliberation and supplemented with decision aids to help account for health opportunity costs.

Priority setting for health system strengthening in low income countries. A qualitative case study illustrating the complexities

Health systems are critical to the realisation of Universal Health Coverage. There has been insufficient attention to the evaluation of priority setting for health system strengthening within low income countries, including evaluation of the local capacity to implement priorities. This study evaluated the extent to which health system strengthening was prioritized in Uganda. The Kapiriri & Martin framework was used to evaluate health system priority setting from 2005-2015. A document analysis was triangulated with interview data (n = 67) from global, national and subnational stakeholders and analysed using content analysis. Health system strengthening was perceived to be circumvented by a lack of resources as well as influential actors with disease focused, rather than system-oriented, interests. There were defined processes with explicit criteria for identifying priorities and evidence was highly valued. But sub-optimal transparency and weak accountability often compromised the integrity of priority setting and contributed to stalling progress on health system strengthening and achieving health system outcomes. The strengths in the current planning processes should be harnessed. In addition, a systematic approach to priority setting, potentially through the establishment of an independent body, and stronger oversight mechanisms, would strengthen health system planning in this setting.

Integrating public preferences into national reimbursement decisions: a descriptive comparison of approaches in Belgium and New Zealand

Background

Public health care payer organizations face increasing pressures to make transparent and sustainable coverage decisions about ever more expensive prescription drugs, suggesting a need for public engagement in coverage decisions. However, little is known about countries’ approaches to integrating public preferences in existing funding decisions. The aim of this study was to describe how Belgium and New Zealand used deliberative processes to engage the public and to identify lessons learned from these countries’ approaches.

Methods

To describe two countries’ deliberative processes, we first reviewed key country policy documents and then conducted semi-structured interviews with five leaders of the processes from Belgium and New Zealand. We assessed each country’s rationales for and approaches to engaging the public in pharmaceutical coverage decisions and identified lessons learned. We used qualitative content analysis of the interviews to describe key themes and subthemes.

Results

In both countries, the national public payer organization initiated and led the process of integrating public preferences into national coverage decision making. Reimbursement criteria considered outdated and changing societal expectations prompted the change. Both countries chose a deliberative process of public engagement with a multi-year commitment of many stakeholders to develop new reimbursement processes. Both countries’ new reimbursement processes put a stronger emphasis on quality of life, the separation of individual versus societal perspectives, and the importance of final reimbursement decisions being taken in context rather than based largely on cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Conclusions

To face the growing financial pressure of sustainable funding of medicines, Belgium’s and New Zealand’s public payers have developed processes to engage the public in defining the reimbursement system’s priorities. Although these countries differ in context and geographic location, they came up with overlapping lessons learnt which include the need for 1) political commitment to initiate change, 2) broad involvement of all stakeholders, and 3) commitment of all to engage in a long-term process. To evaluate these changes, further research is required to understand how coverage decisions in systems with and without public engagement differ.

Policy levers and priority-setting in universal health coverage: a qualitative analysis of healthcare financing agenda setting in Kenya

BACKGROUND

Competing priorities in health systems necessitate difficult choices on which health actions and investments to fund: decisions that are complex, value-based, and highly political. In light of the centrality of universal health coverage (UHC) in driving current health policy, we sought to examine the value interests that influence agenda setting in the country's health financing space. Given the plurality of Kenya's health policy levers, we aimed to examine how the perspectives of stakeholders involved in policy decision-making and implementation shape discussions on health financing within the UHC framework.

METHODS

A series of in-depth key informant interviews were conducted at national and county level (n = 13) between April and May 2018. Final thematic analysis using the Framework Method was conducted to identify similarities and differences amongst stakeholders on the challenges hindering Kenya's achievement of UHC in terms of its the optimisation of health service coverage; expansion of the population that benefits from essential healthcare services; and the minimisation of out-of-pocket costs associated with health-seeking behaviour.

RESULTS

Our findings indicate that the perceived lack of strategic leadership from Kenya's national government has led to a lack of agreement on stakeholders' interpretation of what is to be understood by UHC, its contextual values and priorities. We observe material differences between and within policy networks on the country's priorities for population coverage, healthcare service provision, and cost-sharing under the UHC dispensation. In spite of this, we note that progressive universalism is considered as the preferred approach towards UHC in Kenya, with most interviewees prioritising an equity-based approach that prioritises better access to healthcare services and financial risk protection. However, the conflicting priorities of key stakeholders risk derailing progress towards the expansion of access to health services and financial risk protection.

CONCLUSIONS

This study adds to existing knowledge of UHC in Kenya by contextualising the competing and evolving priorities that should be taken into consideration as the country strategises over its UHC process. We suggest that clear policy action is required from national government and county governments in order to develop a logical and consistent approach towards UHC in Kenya.

Implementing evidence-informed deliberative processes in health technology assessment: a low income country perspective

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the potential feasibility and utility of evidence-informed deliberative processes (EPDs) in low income country (LIC) contexts. EDPs are implemented in high and middle income countries and thought to improve the quality, consistency, and transparency of decisions informed by health technology assessment (HTA). Together these would ultimately improve the legitimacy of any decision making process. We argue-based on our previous work and in light of the priority setting literature-that EDPs are relevant and feasible within LICs. The extreme lack of resources necessitates making tough decisions which may mean depriving populations of potentially valuable health technologies. It is critical that the decisions and the decision making bodies are perceived as fair and legitimate by the people that are most affected by the decisions. EDPs are well aligned with the political infrastructure in some LICs, which encourages public participation in decision making. Furthermore, many countries are committed to evidence-informed decision making. However, the application of EDPs may be hampered by the limited availability of evidence of good quality, lack of interest in transparency and accountability (in some LICs), limited capacity to conduct HTA, as well as limited time and financial resources to invest in a deliberative process. While EDPs would potentially benefit many LICs, mitigating the identified potential barriers would strengthen their applicability. We believe that implementation studies in LICs, documenting the contextualized enablers and barriers will facilitate the development of context specific improvement strategies for EDPs.

Criteria Used for Priority-Setting for Public Health Resource Allocation in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to identify criteria being used for priority setting for resource allocation decisions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Furthermore, the included studies were analyzed from a policy perspective to understand priority setting processes in these countries.

METHODS

Searches were carried out in PubMed, Embase, Econlit, and Cochrane databases, supplemented with pre-identified Web sites and bibliographic searches of relevant papers. Quality appraisal of included studies was undertaken. The review protocol is registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO CRD42017068371.

RESULTS

Of 16,412 records screened by title and abstract, 112 papers were identified for full text screening and 44 studies were included in the final analysis. At an overall level, cost-effectiveness 52 percent (n = 22) and health benefits 45 percent (n = 19) were the most cited criteria used for priority setting for public health resource allocation. Inter-region (LMICs) and between various approaches (like health technology assessment, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), accountability for reasonableness (AFR) variations among criteria were also noted. Our review found that MCDA approach was more frequently used in upper middle-income countries and AFR in lower-income countries for priority setting in health. Policy makers were the most frequently consulted stakeholders in all regions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Priority-setting criteria for health resource allocation decisions in LMICs largely comprised of cost-effectiveness and health benefits criteria at overall level. Other criteria like legal and regulatory framework conducive for implementation, fairness/ethics, and political considerations were infrequently reported and should be considered.

Measuring financial risk protection in health benefits packages: scoping review protocol to inform allocative efficiency studies

INTRODUCTION

To progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC), countries will need to define a health benefits package of services free at the point of use. Financial risk protection is a core component of UHC and should therefore be considered a key dimension of health benefits packages. Allocative efficiency modelling tools can support national analytical capacity to inform an evidence-based selection of services, but none are currently able to estimate financial risk protection. A review of existing methods used to measure financial risk protection can facilitate their inclusion in modelling tools so that the latter can become more relevant to national decision making in light of UHC.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol proposes to conduct a scoping review of existing methods used to measure financial risk protection and assess their potential to inform the selection of services in a health benefits package. The proposed review will follow the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and the subsequent recommendations made by Levac et al. Several databases will be systematically searched including: (1) PubMed; (2) Scopus; (3) Web of Science and (4) Google Scholar. Grey literature will also be scanned, and the bibliography of all selected studies will be hand searched. Following the selection of studies according to defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, key characteristics will be collected from the studies using a data extraction tool. Key characteristics will include the type of method used, geographical region of focus and application to specific services or packages. The extracted data will then be charted, collated, reported and summarised using descriptive statistics, a thematic analysis and graphical presentations.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The scoping review proposed in this protocol does not require ethical approval. The final results will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and shared with key stakeholders.

Addressing Health System Values in Health Technology Assessment: The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes

Health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly used around the globe to inform resource allocation decisions. Furthermore, the importance of using explicit and transparent criteria for coverage decision making in line with health system values has been acknowledged. However, the values of a health system are often not explicitly taken into account in the HTA process. This situation influences the allocation of scarce resources and could lead to a discord between the HTA outcome and the values of the health system. We describe how evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) can help to improve this situation. EDPs are integrating two theoretical frameworks; multi-criteria decision-analysis and accountability for reasonableness. Through the use of EDPs, HTA agencies can ensure that health system values are more explicitly and consistently taken into account in the HTA process, enhancing the legitimacy of coverage decisions.

Determining Value in Health Technology Assessment: Stay the Course or Tack Away?

The economic evaluation of new health technologies to assess whether the value of the expected health benefits warrants the proposed additional costs has become an essential step in making novel interventions available to patients. This assessment of value is problematic because there exists no natural means to measure it. One approach is to assume that society wishes to maximize aggregate health, measured in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Commonly, a single 'cost-effectiveness' threshold is used to gauge whether the intervention is sufficiently efficient in doing so. This approach has come under fire for failing to account for societal values that favor treating more severe illness and ensuring equal access to resources, regardless of pre-existing conditions or capacity to benefit. Alternatives involving expansion of the measure of benefit or adjusting the threshold have been proposed and some have advocated tacking away from the cost per QALY entirely to implement therapeutic area-specific efficiency frontiers, multicriteria decision analysis or other approaches that keep the dimensions of benefit distinct and value them separately. In this paper, each of these alternative courses is considered, based on the experiences of the authors, with a view to clarifying their implications.

The WHO-INTEGRATE evidence to decision framework version 1.0: integrating WHO norms and values and a complexity perspective

INTRODUCTION

Evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks intend to ensure that all criteria of relevance to a health decision are systematically considered. This paper, part of a series commissioned by the WHO, reports on the development of an EtD framework that is rooted in WHO norms and values, reflective of the changing global health landscape, and suitable for a range of interventions and complexity features. We also sought to assess the value of this framework to decision-makers at global and national levels, and to facilitate uptake through suggestions on how to prioritise criteria and methods to collect evidence.

METHODS

In an iterative, principles-based approach, we developed the framework structure from WHO norms and values. Preliminary criteria were derived from key documents and supplemented with comprehensive subcriteria obtained through an overview of systematic reviews of criteria employed in health decision-making. We assessed to what extent the framework can accommodate features of complexity, and conducted key informant interviews among WHO guideline developers. Suggestions on methods were drawn from the literature and expert consultation.

RESULTS

The new WHO-INTEGRATE (INTEGRATe Evidence) framework comprises six substantive criteria-balance of health benefits and harms, human rights and sociocultural acceptability, health equity, equality and non-discrimination, societal implications, financial and economic considerations, and feasibility and health system considerations-and the meta-criterion quality of evidence. It is intended to facilitate a structured process of reflection and discussion in a problem-specific and context-specific manner from the start of a guideline development or other health decision-making process. For each criterion, the framework offers a definition, subcriteria and example questions; it also suggests relevant primary research and evidence synthesis methods and approaches to assessing quality of evidence.

CONCLUSION

The framework is deliberately labelled version 1.0. We expect further modifications based on focus group discussions in four countries, example applications and input across concerned disciplines.

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.