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
Review
. 2022 Oct 19;11(10):2327-2336.
doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.159. Epub 2021 Nov 10.

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide

Wija Oortwijn  1 , Maarten Jansen  1 , Rob Baltussen  1
Affiliations
Review

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide

Wija Oortwijn et al. Int J Health Policy Manag. .

Abstract

Background: Countries around the world are using health technology assessment (HTA) for health benefit package design. Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) are a practical and stepwise approach 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. This paper reports on the development of practical guidance on EDPs, while the conceptual framework of EDPs is described in a companion paper.

Methods: The first guide on EDPs (2019) is further developed based on academic knowledge exchange, surveying 27 HTA bodies and 66 experts around the globe, and the implementation of EDPs in several countries. We present the revised steps of EDPs and how selected HTA bodies (in Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Scotland, Thailand and the United Kingdom) organize key issues of legitimacy in their processes. This is based on a review of literature via PubMed and HTA bodies' websites.

Results: HTA bodies around the globe vary considerable in how they address legitimacy (stakeholder involvement ideally through participation with deliberation; evidence-informed evaluation; transparency; and appeal) in their processes. While there is increased attention for improving legitimacy in decision-making processes, we found that the selected HTA bodies are still lacking or just starting to develop activities in this area. We provide recommendations on how HTA bodies can improve on this.

Conclusion: The design and implementation of EDPs is in its infancy. We call for a systematic analysis of experiences of a variety of countries, from which general principles on EDPs might subsequently be inferred.

Keywords: Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes; Health Benefit Package; Health Technology Assessment; Legitimacy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Chalkidou K, Glassman A, Marten R, et al. Priority-setting for achieving universal health coverage. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94(6):462–467. doi: 10.2471/blt.15.155721. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Verguet S, Hailu A, Eregata GT, Memirie ST, Johansson KA, Norheim OF. Toward universal health coverage in the post-COVID-19 era. Nat Med. 2021;27(3):380–387. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01268-y. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Glassman A, Giedion U, Smith PC. What’s In, What’s Out: Designing Benefits for Universal Health Coverage. Washington, DC, United States: Brookings Institution Press, Center for Global Development; 2017.
    1. World Health Organization (WHO). Global Survey on Health Technology Assessment by National Authorities. WHO; 2015.
    1. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ. 2000;321:1300–1301. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7272.1300. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources