Global Developments in Priority Setting in Health

Document Type : Editorial


1 Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

2 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

3 National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

4 University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

5 New York Academy of Medicine, New York City, NY, USA

6 City College, New York City, NY, USA


Countries around the world are experiencing an ever-increasing need to make choices in investments in health and healthcare. This makes it incumbent upon them to have formal processes in place to optimize the legitimacy of eventual decisions. There is now growing experience among countries of the implementation of stakeholder participation, and a developing convergence of methods to support decision-makers within health authorities in making tough decisions when faced with the stark reality of limited resources. We call for further interaction among health authorities, and the research community to develop best practices in order to confront the difficult choices that need to be made.


Commentary Published on this Paper

  • Priority Setting: Right Answer to a Far Too Narrow Question?; Comment on “Global Developments in Priority Setting in Health”

          Abstract | PDF


Authors' Response to the Commentary

  • Should Priority Setting Also Be Concerned About Profound Socio-Economic Transformations? A Response to Recent Commentary

          Abstract | PDF


Main Subjects

  1. Chhatwal J, Kanwal F, Roberts MS, Dunn MA. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of hepatitis C virus treatment with sofosbuvir and ledipasvir in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(6):397-406. doi:10.7326/M14-1336
  2. Ottersen T, Norheim OF, Chitah BM, et al. Making fair choices on the path to universal health coverage. Bull World Health Organiz. 2014;92(6):389.
  3. World Health Organisation (WHO). 2015 Global Survey on Health Technology Assessment by National Authorities.  Published 2015.
  4. 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 Sys Ref. 2015;1(3):229-234.
  5. Williams I. Institutions, cost-effectiveness analysis and healthcare rationing: the example of healthcare coverage in the English National Health Service. Policy Polit. 2013;41(2):223-239.
  6. International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI) website. Accessed  September 16, 2016.
  7. European Network on Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) website. Accessed  September 16, 2016.
  8. Baltussen R, Jansen MP, Mikkelsen E, et al. Priority setting for universal health coverage: we need evidence-informed deliberative processes, not just more evidence on cost-effectiveness. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(11):615-618. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2016.83
  9. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ. 2000;321(7272):1300-1301.
  10. Baroe K, Baltussen R. Legitimate healthcare limit setting in a real-world setting: integrating accountability for reasonableness and multi-criteria decision analysis. Public Health Ethics. 2014;7(2):98-111. doi:10.1093/phe/phu006
  11. 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
  12. Glassman A, Chalkidou K. Priority-Setting in Health: Building Institutions for Smarter Public Spending, 2014.
  13. Hauck K, Smith PC. The Politics of Priority Setting in Health: A Political Economy Perspective. Ceneter for Global Development Working Paper 414, 2015.
  • Receive Date: 21 December 2016
  • Revise Date: 19 January 2017
  • Accept Date: 21 January 2017
  • First Publish Date: 01 March 2017