Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Legitimate Health Benefit Package Design − Part I: Conceptual Framework

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

References

  1. Chalkidou K, Glassman A, Marten R, et al. Priority-setting for achieving universal health coverage. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94(6):462-467. doi:2471/blt.15.155721
  2. Verguet S, Hailu A, Eregata GT, Memirie ST, Johansson KA, Norheim OF. Toward universal health coverage in the post-COVID-19 era. Nat Med. 2021;27(3):380-387. doi:1038/s41591-021-01268-y
  3. Glassman A, Giedion U, Smith PC. What's In, What's Out: Designing Benefits for Universal Health Coverage. Washington, DC, United States: Brookings Institution Press, Center for Global Development; 2017.
  4. World Health Organization (WHO). Global Survey on Health Technology Assessment by National Authorities. WHO; 2015.
  5. 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.
  6. Mitton C, Donaldson C. Health care priority setting: principles, practice and challenges. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2004;2(1):3. doi:1186/1478-7547-2-3
  7. Kapiriri L, Martin DK. A strategy to improve priority setting in developing countries. Health Care Anal. 2007;15(3):159-167. doi:1007/s10728-006-0037-1
  8. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ. 2000;321(7272):1300-1301. doi:1136/bmj.321.7272.1300
  9. Abelson J, Giacomini M, Lehoux P, Gauvin FP. Bringing 'the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Health Policy. 2007;82(1):37-50. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2006.07.009
  10. Daniels N, Porteny T, Urritia J. Expanded HTA: enhancing fairness and legitimacy. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;5(1):1-3. doi:15171/ijhpm.2015.187
  11. Daniels N, van der Wilt GJ. Health technology assessment, deliberative process, and ethically contested issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32(1-2):10-15. doi:1017/s0266462316000155
  12. Baltussen R, Jansen MP, Bijlmakers L, et al. Value assessment frameworks for HTA agencies: the organization of evidence-informed deliberative processes. Value Health. 2017;20(2):256-260. doi:1016/j.jval.2016.11.019
  13. Baltussen R, Jansen M, Bijlmakers L. Stakeholder participation on the path to universal health coverage: the use of evidence-informed deliberative processes. Trop Med Int Health. 2018;23(10):1071-1074. doi:1111/tmi.13138
  14. Baltussen R, Jansen MP, Bijlmakers L, Tromp N, Yamin AE, Norheim OF. Progressive realisation of universal health coverage: what are the required processes and evidence? BMJ Glob Health. 2017;2(3):e000342. doi:1136/bmjgh-2017-000342
  15. Baltussen R, Mitton C, Danis M, Williams I, Gold M. Global developments in priority setting in health. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(3):127-128. doi:15171/ijhpm.2017.10
  16. Jansen MP, Baltussen R, Mikkelsen E, et al. Evidence-informed deliberative processes - early dialogue, broad focus and relevance: a response to recent commentaries. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(1):96-97. doi:15171/ijhpm.2017.88
  17. Jansen MP, Helderman JK, Boer B, Baltussen R. Fair processes for priority setting: putting theory into practice comment on "expanded HTA: enhancing fairness and legitimacy.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(1):43-47. doi:15171/ijhpm.2016.85
  18. Jansen MP, Baltussen R, Bærøe K. Stakeholder participation for legitimate priority setting: a checklist. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(11):973-976. doi:15171/ijhpm.2018.57
  19. Jansen MP, Bijlmakers L, Baltussen R, Rouwette EA, Broekhuizen H. A sustainable approach to universal health coverage. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(8):e1013. doi:1016/s2214-109x(19)30252-9
  20. Kapiriri L, Baltussen R, Oortwijn W. Implementing evidence-informed deliberative processes in health technology assessment: a low income country perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36(1):29-33. doi:1017/s0266462319003398
  21. Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Use of evidence-informed deliberative processes by health technology assessment agencies around the globe. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020;9(1):27-33. doi:15171/ijhpm.2019.72
  22. Seixas BV, Mitton C, Danis M, Williams I, Gold M, Baltussen R. Should priority setting also be concerned about profound socio-economic transformations? a response to recent commentary. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(12):733-734. doi:15171/ijhpm.2017.85
  23. Tromp N, Prawiranegara R, Siregar A, et al. Translating international HIV treatment guidelines into local priorities in Indonesia. Trop Med Int Health. 2018;23(3):279-294. doi:1111/tmi.13031
  24. Chalkidou K, Li R, Culyer AJ, Glassman A, Hofman KJ, Teerawattananon Y. 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.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(4):233-236. doi:15171/ijhpm.2016.118
  25. Lauer JA, Rajan D, Bertram MY. 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.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(10):601-603. doi:15171/ijhpm.2017.06
  26. Culyer AJ. Use of evidence-informed deliberative processes - learning by doing comment on "use of evidence-informed deliberative processes by health technology assessment agencies around the globe.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020;9(6):263-265. doi:15171/ijhpm.2019.116
  27. Goetghebeur M, Cellier M. Deliberative processes by health technology assessment agencies: a reflection on legitimacy, values and patient and public involvement comment on "use of evidence-informed deliberative processes by health technology assessment agencies around the globe.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021;10(4):228-231. doi:34172/ijhpm.2020.46
  28. Gopinathan U, Ottersen T. 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.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(8):473-475. doi:15171/ijhpm.2016.148
  29. Hall W. 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.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(9):543-545. doi:15171/ijhpm.2017.03
  30. Schlander M. HTA agencies need evidence-informed deliberative processes comment on "use of evidence-informed deliberative processes by health technology assessment agencies around the globe.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021;10(3):158-161. doi:34172/ijhpm.2020.22
  31. 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
  32. Oortwijn W, van Oosterhout S, Kapiriri L. Application of evidence-informed deliberative processes in health technology assessment in low- and middle-income countries. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020:1-5. doi:1017/s0266462320000549
  33. Radboud University Medical center: Global Health Priorities. Country applications of evidence-informed deliberative processes. https://www.radboudumc.nl/global-health-priorities. Accessed March 31, 2021.
  34. 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:1016/j.jval.2012.06.006
  35. Zorginstituut Nederland. Pakketadvies in de praktijk: wikken en wegen voor een rechtvaardig pakket. Zorginstituut Nederland; 2017.
  36. Bærøe 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:1093/phe/phu006
  37. Peter F. Political Legitimacy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legitimacy/. Accessed March 28, 2021. Published 2010.
  38. Concannon TW, Meissner P, Grunbaum JA, et al. A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(8):985-991. doi:1007/s11606-012-2037-1
  39. Street J, Stafinski T, Lopes E, Menon D. Defining the role of the public in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and HTA-informed decision-making processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36(2):87-95. doi:1017/s0266462320000094
  40. Grin J, van de Graaf H, Hoppe R. Technology Assessment Through Interaction. A Guide. The Hague, the Netherlands: Rathenau Institute; 1997.
  41. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ. 2000;321(7272):1300-1301. doi:1136/bmj.321.7272.1300
  42. Oortwijn W, Determann D, Schiffers K, Tan SS, van der Tuin J. Towards integrated health technology assessment for improving decision making in selected countries. Value Health. 2017;20(8):1121-1130. doi:1016/j.jval.2017.03.011
  43. Deverka PA, Lavallee DC, Desai PJ, et al. Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. J Comp Eff Res. 2012;1(2):181-194. doi:2217/cer.12.7
  44. Abelson J, Wagner F, DeJean D, et al. Public and patient involvement in health technology assessment: a framework for action. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32(4):256-264. doi:1017/s0266462316000362
  45. Gauvin FP. Factsheet What is a deliberative process? Publication No. 1193. The National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy; 2008. http://www.ncchpp.ca/docs/DeliberativeDoc1_EN_pdf.pdf.
  46. INVOLVE UK. The impact of deliberation on participants’ opinions. https://www.involve.org.uk/resources/knowledge-base/what-are-affects-deliberation/impact-deliberation-participants-opinions.
  47. Dunham, Randall. Nominal Group Technique: A User’s Guide. University of Wisconsin. https://www.sswm.info/sites/default/files/reference_attachments/DUNHAM%201998%20Nominal%20Group%20Technique%20-%20A%20Users%27%20Guide.pdf.
  48. Bond K, Stiffell R, Ollendorf DA. Principles for deliberative processes in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020:1-8. doi:1017/s0266462320000550
  49. Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Evidence-Informed Deliberative Process: A Practical Guide for HTA Bodies for Legitimate Benefit Package Design. Nijmegen: Radboud University Medical Center; 2021. https://www.radboudumc.nl/global-health-priorities.
  50. 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:15171/ijhpm.2016.83
  51. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi). Joint HTAi-ISPOR Task Force on Deliberative Processes for HTA. https://htai.org/deliberative-processes-for-hta-joint-task-force/.
  52. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage. Making Fair Choices on the Path to UHC. Geneva: WHO; 2016.
  53. Terwindt F, Rajan D, Soucat A. Priority-setting for national health policies, strategies and plans. In: Strategizing National Health in the 21st Century: A Handbook. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.
  54. International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI). The HTA Toolkit, 2018. http://www.idsihealth.org/HTATOOLKIT/.
  55. Castro H, Suharlim C, Kumar R. Moving LMICs Toward Self-Reliance: A Roadmap for Systematic Priority Setting for Resource Allocation. Management Sciences for Health; 2020.
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume 11, Issue 10
October 2022
Pages 2319-2326

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 09 April 2021
  • Revise Date: 03 November 2021
  • Accept Date: 09 November 2021
  • First Publish Date: 10 November 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics