Challenges and Opportunities for Deliberative Processes for Healthcare Decision-Making Comment on “Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide”

Document Type : Commentary

Author

Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, AB, Canada

Abstract

The second edition of the practical guide for evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) is an important addition to the growing guidance on deliberative processes supporting priority setting in healthcare. While the practical guide draws on an extensive amount of information collected on established and developing processes within a range of countries, EDPs present health technology assessment (HTA) bodies with several challenges. (1) Basing recommendations on current processes that have not been well-evaluated and that have changed over time may lead to weaker legitimacy than desired. (2) The requirement for social learning among stakeholders may require increased resourcing and blur the boundary between moral deliberation and political negotiation. (3) Robust evaluation should be based on an explicit theory of change, and some process outcomes may be poor guides to overall improvement of EDPs. This comment clarifies and reinforces the recommendations provided in the practical guide.

Keywords


  1. 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
  2. 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
  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. Baltussen R, Jansen M, Oortwijn W. Evidence-informed deliberative processes for legitimate health benefit package design - part I: conceptual framework. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021. doi:34172/ijhpm.2021.158
  5. Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Evidence-informed deliberative processes. A practical guide for HTA bodies for legitimate benefit package design. Version 2.0. Nijmegen: Radboud University Medical Center; 2021. https://www.radboudumc.nl/getmedia/17a96fdb-553b-4e68-81ab-4d8d9a7f9ff1/UMCRadboud_Guide_17x24_inside_DEF_WEB.aspx. Accessed June 11, 2022.
  6. Ollendorf D, Krubiner C. The dynamics of health technology assessment: Is it just about the evidence? Centre for Global Development Blog. Washington, DC: Centre for Global Development. https://www.cgdev.org/blog/dynamics-health-technology-assessment-it-just-about-evidence. Updated November 5, 2019. Accessed June 9, 2022.
  7. 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
  8. Littlejohns P, Chalkidou K, Culyer AJ, et al. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, social values and healthcare priority setting. J R Soc Med. 2019;112(5):173-179. doi:1177/0141076819842846
  9. Charlton V. NICE and fair? Health technology assessment policy under the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 1999-2018. Health Care Anal. 2020;28(3):193-227. doi:1007/s10728-019-00381-x
  10. Common drug review reimbursement recommendations options and deliberative framework — effective November 21, 2012, CDR update – issue 83. In: CADTH drug program updates archive: May 2003-July 2020. Available: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/CADTH-Archived-Updates.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2022.
  11. Bhattacharyya O, Wu D, Mossman K, et al. Criteria to assess potential reverse innovations: opportunities for shared learning between high- and low-income countries. Global Health. 2017;13(1):4. doi:1186/s12992-016-0225-1
  12. Cantrill JA, Sibbald B, Buetow S. The Delphi and nominal group techniques in health services research. Int J Pharm Pract. 1996;4(2):67-74. doi:1111/j.2042-7174.1996.tb00844.x
  13. Rumbold B, Weale A, Rid A, Wilson J, Littlejohns P. Public reasoning and health-care priority setting: the case of NICE. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2017;27(1):107-134. doi:1353/ken.2017.0005
  14. Moreno JD. Ethics by committee: the moral authority of consensus. J Med Philos. 1988;13(4):411-432. doi:1093/jmp/13.4.411
  15. 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

Articles in Press, Corrected Proof
Available Online from 01 August 2022
  • Receive Date: 12 June 2022
  • Revise Date: 25 July 2022
  • Accept Date: 31 July 2022
  • First Publish Date: 01 August 2022