Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy

Document Type : Editorial


1 Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

2 Interfaculty Initiative in Health Policy, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA


All societies face the need to make judgments about what interventions (both public health and personal medical) to provide to their populations under reasonable resource constraints. Their decisions should be informed by good evidence and arguments from health technology assessment (HTA). But if HTA restricts itself to evaluations of safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness, it risks being viewed as insufficient to guide health decision-makers; if it addresses other issues, such as budget impact, equity, and financial protection, it may be accused of overreaching. But the risk of overreaching can be reduced by embedding HTA in a fair, deliberative process that meets the conditions required by accountability for reasonableness.


Commentaries Published on this Paper

  • Beyond the Black Box Approach to Ethics!; Comment on “Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy”

          Abstract | PDF

  • HTA – Algorithm or Process?; Comment on “Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy”

          Abstract | PDF

  • Expanded HTA, Legitimacy and Independence; Comment on “Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy”

          Abstract | PDF

  • Fair Processes for Priority Setting: Putting Theory into Practice; Comment on “Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy”

          Abstract | PDF

  • The Need for Global Application of the Accountability for Reasonableness Approach to Support Sustainable Outcomes; Comment on “Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy”

          Abstract | PDF


Main Subjects

* The authors would like to correct the name of the third author in this paper to Julian Urrutia.

** The Correction of this article was published in Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(5):347

  1. Daniels N. Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly. Cambridge University Press; 2008.
  2. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2003;63(2):121-132.
  3. Hoffman B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment.Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(3):312-318.
  4. Hoffman B. Why not integrate ethics in HTA: identification and assessment of the reasons.GMS Health Technol Assess. 2014;10:Doc04. doi:10.3205/hta000120
  5. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA. 1996;276(16):1339-1341. doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540160061034
  6. Daniels N, Sabin JE. Setting Limits Fairly: Learning to Share Resources for Health. Oxford University Press; 2008.
  7. Norheim OF, Ottersen T, Voorhoeve A, et al. Making Fair Choices on the Path to Universal Health Coverage. Geneva: WHO; 2014.
  8. Daniels N, Charvel S, Gelpi AH, Porteny T, Urrutia J. Role of the courts in the progressive realization of the right to health: between the threat and the promise of judicialization in Mexico. Health Systems & Reform. 2015;1:229-234. doi:10.1080/23288604.2014.1002705