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

Document Type: Editorial

Authors

1 Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

2 Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

3 Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA

4 Africa Centre for Population Health, Mtubatuba, South Africa

Abstract

Priority setting of health interventions is generally considered as a valuable approach to support low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in their strive for universal health coverage (UHC). However, present initiatives on priority setting are mainly geared towards the development of more cost-effectiveness information, and this evidence does not sufficiently support countries to make optimal choices. The reason is that priority setting is in reality a value-laden political process in which multiple criteria beyond cost-effectiveness are important, and stakeholders often justifiably disagree about the relative importance of these criteria. Here, we propose the use of ‘evidence-informed deliberative processes’ as an approach that does explicitly recognise priority setting as a political process and an intrinsically complex task. In these processes, deliberation between stakeholders is crucial to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values. Such processes then result in the use of a broader range of explicit criteria that can be seen as the product of both international learning (‘core’ criteria, which include eg, cost-effectiveness, priority to the worse off, and financial protection) and learning among local stakeholders (‘contextual’ criteria). We believe that, with these evidence-informed deliberative processes in place, priority setting can provide a more meaningful contribution to achieving UHC.

Highlights

Commentaries Published on this Paper

  • 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”

          Abstract | PDF

  • Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Universal Health Coverage: Broadening the Scope; Comment on “Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness”

          Abstract | PDF

  • Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need to Focus Both on Substance and on Process; Comment on “Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness”

          Abstract | PDF

  • Don’t Discount Societal Value in Cost-Effectiveness; Comment on “Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness”

          Abstract | PDF

 

Authors' Response to the Commentaries

  • Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes – Early Dialogue, Broad Focus and Relevance: A Response to Recent Commentaries

          Abstract | PDF

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. Teerawattananon Y, Luz A, Kanchanachitra C, Tantivess S, Prince Mahidol Award Conference s. Role of priority setting in implementing universal health coverage. BMJ. 2016;532:i244. doi:10.1136/bmj.i244
  2. World Health Organization (WHO). Universal health coverage: Global coalition calls for acceleration of access to universal health coverage. http://www.who.int/universal_health_coverage/en/. Accessed June 10, 2016. Published 2016.
  3. Jamison DT. Disease Control Priorities Project, 3rd edition: Improving health and reducing poverty. Lancet. 2015. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60097-6
  4. World Health Organisation (WHO). WHO-CHOICE database on cost-effectiveness.  http://www.who.int/choice/en/. Accessed March 30, 2016.
  5. World Health Organisation (WHO). Guidelines on when to start antiretroviral therapy and on pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV.  Geneva: WHO; 2015.
  6. Holm S. The second phase of priority setting. Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second phase of priority setting in health care. BMJ. 1998;317(7164):1000-1002.
  7. Mitton C, Donaldson C. Health care priority setting: principles, practice and challenges. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2004;2(1):3. doi:10.1186/1478-7547-2-3
  8. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ. 2000;321(7272):1300-1301.
  9. Kapiriri L, Martin DK. A strategy to improve priority setting in developing countries. Health Care Anal. 2007;15(3):159-167. doi:10.1007/s10728-006-0037-1
  10. Daniels N, Sabin JE. Accountability for reasonableness: an update. BMJ. 2008;337:a1850. doi:10.1136/bmj.a1850
  11. Martin DK, Hollenberg D, MacRae S, Madden S, Singer P. Priority setting in a hospital drug formulary: a qualitative case study and evaluation. Health Policy. 2003;66(3):295-303.
  12. Holmstrom S. Sweden and priority setting. In: Foundation SAHC, ed. 1997.
  13. Golan O, Hansen P, Kaplan G, Tal O. Health technology prioritization: which criteria for prioritizing new technologies and what are their relative weights? Health Policy. 2011;102(2-3):126-135. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.10.012
  14. Guindo LA, Wagner M, Baltussen R, et al. From efficacy to equity: Literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012;10(1):9. doi:10.1186/1478-7547-10-9
  15. Johri M, Norheim OF. Can cost-effectiveness analysis integrate concerns for equity? Systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(2):125-132. doi:10.1017/S0266462312000050
  16. Norheim OF, Baltussen R, Johri M, et al. Guidance on priority setting in health care (GPS-Health): the inclusion of equity criteria not captured by cost-effectiveness analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014;12:18. doi:10.1186/1478-7547-12-18
  17. Tromp N, Baltussen R. Mapping of multiple criteria for priority setting of health interventions: an aid for decision makers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:454. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-454
  18. World Health Organisation (WHO). WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage. Making fair choices on the path to UHC. Geneva: Who; 2016.
  19. Nevo I, Slonim-Nevo, V. The Myth of Evidence-Based Practice: Towards Evidence-Informed Practice. British Journal of Social Work. 2011. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq149
  20. Baltussen R, Mikkelsen E, Tromp N, et al. Balancing efficiency, equity and feasibility of HIV treatment in South Africa - development of programmatic guidance. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2013;11(1):26. doi:10.1186/1478-7547-11-26
  21. Tromp N, Prawiranegara R, Subhan Riparev H, Siregar A, Sunjaya D, Baltussen R. Priority setting in HIV/AIDS control in West Java Indonesia: an evaluation based on the accountability for reasonableness framework. Health Policy Plan. 2015;30(3):345-355. doi:10.1093/heapol/czu020
  22. Tromp N, Prawiranegara R, Siregar A, Jansen MP, Baltussen R. Time to recognise countries' preferences in HIV control. Lancet. 2016:1053-1054. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00659-0
  23. Tromp N, Prawiranega, R, Siregar A, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Towards participatory and evidence-based resource allocation decisions for AIDS funding in Indonesia. Nijmegen; 2016.
  24. Ottersen T, Norheim OF. Making fair choices on the path to universal health coverage. Bull World Health Organ. 2014;92(6):389. doi:10.2471/BLT.14.139139
  25. International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI).  http://www.idsihealth.org/. Accessed March 30, 2016.
  26. Zorginstituut Nederland (Netherlands Health Care Institute). Kosteneffectiviteit in de praktijk (Cost-effectiveness analysis in practice). Diemen; 2015.
  27. Youngkong S, Baltussen R, Tantivess S, Mohara A, Teerawattananon Y. Multicriteria decision analysis for including health interventions in the universal health coverage benefit package in Thailand. Value Health. 2012;15(6):961-970. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.006
  28. Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, et al. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making-An Introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(1):1-13. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.003
  29. Mitton C, Peacock S, Donaldson C, Bate A. Using PBMA in health care priority setting: description, challenges and experience. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(3):121-127.
  30. Gibson J, Mitton C, Martin D, Donaldson C, Singer P. Ethics and economics: does programme budgeting and marginal analysis contribute to fair priority setting? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2006;11(1):32-37. doi:10.1258/135581906775094280
  31. Byskov J, Marchal B, Maluka S, et al. The accountability for reasonableness approach to guide priority setting in health systems within limited resources--findings from action research at district level in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12:49. doi:10.1186/1478-4505-12-49
  32. Youngkong S, Kapiriri L, Baltussen R. Setting priorities for health interventions in developing countries: a review of empirical studies. Trop Med Int Health. 2009;14(8):930-939. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02311.x
  33. Miot J, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Goetghebeur MM. Field testing of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for coverage of a screening test for cervical cancer in South Africa. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012;10(1):2. doi:10.1186/1478-7547-10-2
  34. Adunlin G, Diaby V, Xiao H. Application of multicriteria decision analysis in health care: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Health Expect. 2015;18(6):1894-1905. doi:10.1111/hex.12287
  35. Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, Orfanos P, Caro J. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(4):345-365. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0135-0
  36. Tsourapas A, Frew E. Evaluating 'success' in programme budgeting and marginal analysis: a literature review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2011;16(3):177-183. doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2010.009053
  37. Norheim OF. Ethical priority setting for universal health coverage: challenges in deciding upon fair distribution of health services. BMC Med. 2016;14(1):75.
  38. Pecenka CJ, Johansson KA, Memirie ST, Jamison DT, Verguet S. Health gains and financial risk protection: an extended cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment and prevention of diarrhoea in Ethiopia. BMJ Open. 2015;5(4):e006402.
  39. Nijmegen International Center for Health Systems Research and Education (NICHE).  http://www.niche1.nl/. Published March 30, 2016.
  40. Jansen MPM, Helderman JK, Boer B, Baltussen R. Fair processes for priority setting: putting theory into practice. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016; forthcoming.
  41. MacCoun R. Voice, control and belonging: The double-edged sword of procedural fairness. Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 2005;1:171-201.
  42. Esaiasson P, Gilljam, M., Persson M. Which decision-making arrangements generate the strongest legitimacy beliefs? Eur J Polit Res. 2012;51(6):785-808.