Fair Processes for Priority Setting: Putting Theory into Practice Comment on "Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy"
- PMID: 28005541
- PMCID: PMC5193505
- DOI: 10.15171/ijhpm.2016.85
Fair Processes for Priority Setting: Putting Theory into Practice Comment on "Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy"
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.
© 2017 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Comment on
- Int J Health Policy Manag. 5:1. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.187
References
-
- 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
-
- Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage; 1989.
-
- Cohen J, Sabel CF. Directly-deliberative polyarchy. Eur Law J. 1997;3(4):313–340.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources