Three Approaches to Improve a Practical Guide on Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design; Comment on “Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide”

Document Type : Commentary

Author

Center for Global Development, Washington, DC, USA

Abstract

As countries around the world seek to deliver universal health coverage, they must prioritize which services to pay for with public funds, to whom, and at what cost. Countries are increasingly using health technology assessment (HTA) to identify which interventions provide the best value for money and merit inclusion in their health benefit packages (HBPs)—the explicit lists of health services provided using public funds. Oortwijn et al understand the importance of providing practical guidance on the foundation of HBP design, and their article, “Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide,” provides recommendations for HTA bodies to improve the legitimacy of their decision-making by incorporating four elements in their HBP procedures: stakeholder involvement, evidence-informed evaluation, transparency, and appeal. This article proposes three approaches to enhance the value of the guide: moving from structure to compliance and performance, prioritizing key issues of legitimacy within HBP processes, and acknowledging potential the costs and risks associated with the use of this framework.

Keywords


  1. Glassman A, Giedion U, Sakuma Y, Smith PC. Defining a health benefits package: what are the necessary processes? Health Syst Reform. 2016;2(1):39-50. doi:1080/23288604.2016.1124171
  2. Bertram M, Dhaene G, Tan-Torres Edejer T. Institutionalizing Health Technology Assessment Mechanisms: A How to Guide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.
  3. Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Evidence-informed deliberative processes for health benefit package design-part II: a practical guide. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021. doi:34172/ijhpm.2021.159
  4. Oortwijn W, Husereau D, Abelson J, et al. Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2022;38(1):e37. doi:1017/s0266462322000198
  5. Global benchmarking tool. World Health Organization website. https://www.who.int/tools/global-benchmarking-tools. Accessed August 4, 2022.
  6. Giedion U, Guzmán J. Defining the rules of the game: good governance principles for the design and revision of the health benefits package. In: Glassman A, Giedion U, Smith P, eds. What's In, What's Out: Designing Benefits for Universal Health Coverage. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development; 2017. p. 30-60.
  7. Greer SL, Wismar M, Figueras J. Strengthening Health System Governance: Better Policies, Stronger Performance. New York: Open University Press; 2016.
  8. Fabbri A, Parker L, Colombo C, et al. Industry funding of patient and health consumer organisations: systematic review with meta-analysis. BMJ. 2020;368:l6925. doi:1136/bmj.l6925

Articles in Press, Corrected Proof
Available Online from 14 August 2022
  • Receive Date: 30 June 2022
  • Revise Date: 07 August 2022
  • Accept Date: 13 August 2022
  • First Publish Date: 14 August 2022