Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for UHC: Progress, Potential and Prudence; Comment on “Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide”

Document Type : Commentary

Author

Cluster for Global Health, Division for Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Trondheim, Norway

Abstract

In their recent article on evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDP) for health benefit package decisions, Oortwijn et. al. examine how the different steps of EDP play out in eight countries with relatively mature institutions for HTA-informed processes. This commentary addresses how EDP approaches stakeholder involvement in decision-making for equitable progress towards universal health coverage. It focuses on the value of inclusiveness, the need to pay attention to trade-offs between desirable features of EDP and the need to broaden the scope of processes examined beyond those specifically tied to producing and using HTAs . It concludes that EDPs have contributed to significant progress for health benefit design decisions worldwide and holds much potential in further application. At the same time, this commentary calls for prudence: investments in EDPs should be efficiently deployed to enhance the pre-existing legislative, institutional and political framework that exist to promote fair and legitimate health care decisions.

Keywords


  1. Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy & public affairs. 1997;26(4):303–50.
  2. Daniels N. Just health: meeting health needs fairly. Cambridge University Press; 2007.
  3. Rumbold B, Weale A, Rid A, Wilson J, Littlejohns P. Public reasoning and health-care priority setting: The case of NICE. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 2017;27(1):107.
  4. Maluka S, Kamuzora P, San Sebastián M, Byskov J, Ndawi B, Hurtig AK. Improving district level health planning and priority setting in Tanzania through implementing accountability for reasonableness framework: perceptions of stakeholders. BMC Health Services Research. 2010;10(1):1–13.
  5. Kapiriri L, Martin DK. Successful priority setting in low and middle income countries: a framework for evaluation. Health care analysis. 2010;18(2):129–47.
  6. Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Evidence-informed deliberative processes for health benefit package design–part II: A practical guide. International Journal of Health Policy and Management. 2022;11(10):2327–36.
  7. Mansbridge J, Bohman J, Chambers S, Christiano T, Fung A, Parkinson J, et al. A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale. 2012;1–26.
  8. Dryzek JS, Niemeyer S. Discursive representation. American political science review. 2008;102(4):481–93.
  9. Greer SL, Méndez CA. Universal health coverage: a political struggle and governance challenge. American journal of public health. 2015;105(S5):S637–9.
  10. Razavi SD, Kapiriri L, Abelson J, Wilson M. Barriers to equitable public participation in health-system priority setting within the context of decentralization: the case of vulnerable women in a Ugandan District. International Journal of Health Policy and Management. 2022;11(7):1047–57.
  11. Fredriksson M, Tritter JQ. Disentangling patient and public involvement in healthcare decisions: why the difference matters. Sociology of health & illness. 2017;39(1):95–111.
  12. Dryzek JS, Bächtiger A, Chambers S, Cohen J, Druckman JN, Felicetti A, et al. The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science. 2019;363(6432):1144–6.
  13. Bijlmakers L, Jansen M, Boer B, van Dijk W, Groenewoud S, Zwaap J, et al. Increasing the legitimacy of tough choices in healthcare reimbursement: approach and results of a citizen forum in the Netherlands. Value in Health. 2020;23(1):32–8.
  14. Kapiriri L, Baltussen R, Oortwijn W. Implementing evidence-informed deliberative processes in health technology assessment: a low income country perspective. International journal of technology assessment in health care. 2020;36(1):29–33.
  15. Kantamaturapoj K, Kulthanmanusorn A, Witthayapipopsakul W, Viriyathorn S, Patcharanarumol W, Kanchanachitra C, et al. Legislating for public accountability in universal health coverage, Thailand. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2020;98(2):117.

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 01 January 2023
  • Receive Date: 16 July 2022
  • Revise Date: 28 December 2022
  • Accept Date: 31 December 2022
  • First Publish Date: 01 January 2023