Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jan 1;6(1):43-47.
doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2016.85.

Fair Processes for Priority Setting: Putting Theory into Practice Comment on "Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy"

Affiliations

Fair Processes for Priority Setting: Putting Theory into Practice Comment on "Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy"

Maarten P Jansen et al. Int J Health Policy Manag. .

Abstract

Embedding health technology assessment (HTA) in a fair process has great potential to capture societal values relevant to public reimbursement decisions on health technologies. However, the development of such processes for priority setting has largely been theoretical. In this paper, we provide further practical lead ways on how these processes can be implemented. We first present the misconception about the relation between facts and values that is since long misleading the conduct of HTA and underlies the current assessment-appraisal split. We then argue that HTA should instead be explicitly organized as an ongoing evidence-informed deliberative process, that facilitates learning among stakeholders. This has important consequences for whose values to consider, how to deal with vested interests, how to consider all values in the decision-making process, and how to communicate decisions. This is in stark contrast to how HTA processes are implemented now. It is time to set the stage for HTA as learning.

Keywords: Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes; Fair Processes; HTA as Learning; Healthcare Technology Assessment (HTA); Priority Setting; Values.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment on

  • Int J Health Policy Manag. 5:1.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Daniels N, Porteny T, Urrutia J [correction of Urritia J] . Expanded HTA: enhancing fairness and legitimacy [published correction appears in Int J Health Policy Manag 2016;5(5):347] Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(1):1–3. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.187. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ. 2000;321(7272):1300–1301. - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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: Forthcoming. 10.15171/ijhpm.2016.83 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage; 1989.
    1. Cohen J, Sabel CF. Directly-deliberative polyarchy. Eur Law J. 1997;3(4):313–340.

LinkOut - more resources