Three Approaches to Improve a Practical Guide on 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"
- PMID: 36086853
- PMCID: PMC10125080
- DOI: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7502
Three Approaches to Improve a Practical Guide on 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"
Abstract
As countries around the world seek to deliver universal health coverage, they must prioritize which services to pay for with public funds, to whom, and at what cost. Countries are increasingly using health technology assessment (HTA) to identify which interventions provide the best value for money and merit inclusion in their health benefit packages (HBPs)-the explicit lists of health services provided using public funds. Oortwijn et al understand the importance of providing practical guidance on the foundation of HBP design, and their article, "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide," provides recommendations for HTA bodies to improve the legitimacy of their decision-making by incorporating four elements in their HBP procedures: stakeholder involvement, evidence-informed evaluation, transparency, and appeal. This article proposes three approaches to enhance the value of the guide: moving from structure to compliance and performance, prioritizing key issues of legitimacy within HBP processes, and acknowledging potential the costs and risks associated with the use of this framework.
Keywords: Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes; Health Benefit Package; Health Technology Assessment; Legitimacy.
© 2023 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.
Conflict of interest statement
I was employed by the Colombian HTA Agency between 2013 and 2015. I also participated in a paid training session sponsored by a pharmaceutical industry in 2020.
Comment on
-
Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide.Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022 Oct 19;11(10):2327-2336. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.159. Epub 2021 Nov 10. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022. PMID: 34923809 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Bertram M, Dhaene G, Tan-Torres Edejer T. Institutionalizing Health Technology Assessment Mechanisms: A How to Guide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.
-
- Global benchmarking tool. World Health Organization website. https://www.who.int/tools/global-benchmarking-tools. Accessed August 4, 2022.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous