Moral and Social Values in 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


1 Department of Health Policy & Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

2 Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA


An evidence-informed deliberative process (EDP) is defined as “a practical and stepwise approach for health technology assessment (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, informed by evidence on these values.” In this commentary, I discuss some considerations for EDPs that arise from acknowledging the difference between social and moral values. First, the best practices for implementing EDPs may differ depending on whether the approach is grounded in moral versus social values. Second, the goals of deliberation may differ when focused on moral versus social values. I conclude by offering some considerations for future research to support the use of EDPs in practice, including the need to assess how different approaches to appraisal (eg, more quantitative versus qualitative) impact perceptions of the value of deliberation itself.


  1. 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
  2. Hofmann B, Bond K, Sandman L. Evaluating facts and facting evaluations: on the fact-value relationship in HTA. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24(5):957-965. doi:1111/jep.12920
  3. Clark S, Weale A. Social values in health priority setting: a conceptual framework. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26(3):293-316. doi:1108/14777261211238954
  4. Whitty JA, Littlejohns P. Social values and health priority setting in Australia: an analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2015;119(2):127-136. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2014.09.003
  5. Johnson AP, Sikich NJ, Evans G, et al. Health technology assessment: a comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(2):141-150. doi:1017/s0266462309090199
  6. Krubiner CB, Tugendhaft A, DiStefano MJ, et al. The Value of Explicit, Deliberative, and Context-Specified Ethics Analysis for Health Technology Assessment: Evidence From a Novel Approach Piloted in South Africa. Value Health Reg Issues. 2023;34:23-30. doi:1016/j.vhri.2022.10.003
  7. 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
  8. The Principles That Guide the Development of NICE Guidance and Standards. 2021. Accessed January 5, 2020.
  9. Whitty JA, Lancsar E, Rixon K, Golenko X, Ratcliffe J. A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting. Patient. 2014;7(4):365-386. doi:1007/s40271-014-0063-2
  10. Ahola-Launonen J. The evolving idea of social responsibility in bioethics: a welcome trend. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2015;24(2):204-213. doi:1017/s0963180114000516
  11. Friesen P. Personal responsibility within health policy: unethical and ineffective. J Med Ethics. 2018;44(1):53-58. doi:1136/medethics-2016-103478
  12. Johri M, Damschroder LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Kim SY, Ubel PA. Can a moral reasoning exercise improve response quality to surveys of healthcare priorities? J Med Ethics. 2009;35(1):57-64. doi:1136/jme.2008.024810
  13. Denburg AE, Ungar WJ, Chen S, Hurley J, Abelson J. Does moral reasoning influence public values for health care priority setting?: A population-based randomized stated preference survey. Health Policy. 2020;124(6):647-658. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2020.04.007
  14. Reckers-Droog V, Jansen M, Bijlmakers L, Baltussen R, Brouwer W, van Exel J. How does participating in a deliberative citizens panel on healthcare priority setting influence the views of participants? Health Policy. 2020;124(2):143-151. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2019.11.011
  15. Jansen M, Baltussen R, Bijlmakers L, Tummers M. The Dutch Citizen Forum on public reimbursement of healthcare: a qualitative analysis of opinion change. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(2):118-127. doi:34172/ijhpm.2020.81
  16. Hurst SA, Schindler M, Goold SD, Danis M. Swiss-CHAT: citizens discuss priorities for Swiss health insurance coverage. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(8):746-754. doi:15171/ijhpm.2018.15
  17. Stafinski T, Menon D, Yasui Y. Assessing the impact of deliberative processes on the views of participants: is it 'in one ear and out the other'? Health Expect. 2014;17(2):278-290. doi:1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00749.x
  18. Carman KL, Mallery C, Maurer M, et al. Effectiveness of public deliberation methods for gathering input on issues in healthcare: results from a randomized trial. Soc Sci Med. 2015;133:11-20. doi:1016/j.socscimed.2015.03.024
  19. Krubiner C, Ollendorf D. The Dynamics of Health Technology Assessment: Is it Just About the Evidence? Center for Global Development. Accessed November 18, 2020. Published 2019.
  20. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness and priority setting in health. In: Nagel E, Lauerer M, eds. Prioritization in Medicine: An International Dialogue. New York: Springer; 2016: 47-56. doi:1007/978-3-319-21112-1
  21. de Fine Licht J. Policy area as a potential moderator of transparency effects: an experiment. Public Adm Rev. 2014;74(3):361-371. doi:1111/puar.12194
  • Receive Date: 18 June 2022
  • Revise Date: 23 November 2022
  • Accept Date: 27 November 2022
  • First Publish Date: 30 November 2022