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
Comment
. 2023:12:7502.
doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7502. Epub 2022 Aug 31.

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"

Affiliations
Comment

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"

Javier Guzman. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

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

References

    1. Glassman A, Giedion U, Sakuma Y, Smith PC. Defining a health benefits package: what are the necessary processes? Health Syst Reform. 2016;2(1):39–50. doi: 10.1080/23288604.2016.1124171. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bertram M, Dhaene G, Tan-Torres Edejer T. Institutionalizing Health Technology Assessment Mechanisms: A How to Guide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.
    1. Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Evidence-informed deliberative processes for health benefit package design-part II: a practical guide. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(10):2327–2336. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.159. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Oortwijn W, Husereau D, Abelson J, et al. Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2022;38(1):e37. doi: 10.1017/s0266462322000198. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Global benchmarking tool. World Health Organization website. https://www.who.int/tools/global-benchmarking-tools. Accessed August 4, 2022.

LinkOut - more resources