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
. 2023 Jan;8(Suppl 1):e010704.
doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-010704.

Decision-making processes for essential packages of health services: experience from six countries

Affiliations
Review

Decision-making processes for essential packages of health services: experience from six countries

Rob Baltussen et al. BMJ Glob Health. 2023 Jan.

Abstract

Many countries around the world strive for universal health coverage, and an essential packages of health services (EPHS) is a central policy instrument for countries to achieve this. It defines the coverage of services that are made available, as well as the proportion of the costs that are covered from different financial schemes and who can receive these services. This paper reports on the development of an analytical framework on the decision-making process of EPHS revision, and the review of practices of six countries (Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and Zanzibar-Tanzania).The analytical framework distinguishes the practical organisation, fairness and institutionalisation of decision-making processes. The review shows that countries: (1) largely follow a similar practical stepwise process but differ in their implementation of some steps, such as the choice of decision criteria; (2) promote fairness in their EPHS process by involving a range of stakeholders, which in the case of Zanzibar included patients and community members; (3) are transparent in terms of at least some of the steps of their decision-making process and (4) in terms of institutionalisation, express a high degree of political will for ongoing EPHS revision with almost all countries having a designated governing institute for EPHS revision.We advise countries to organise meaningful stakeholder involvement and foster the transparency of the decision-making process, as these are key to fairness in decision-making. We also recommend countries to take steps towards the institutionalisation of their EPHS revision process.

Keywords: Public Health.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. The stepwise EPHS revision process. EPHS, essential packages of health services.

References

    1. Glassman A, Giedion U, Smith PC. What's in, what's out: designing benefits for universal health coverage. Brookings Institution Press; 2017.
    1. Chalkidou K, Glassman A, Marten R, et al. Priority-setting for achieving universal health coverage. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94:462–7. doi: 10.2471/BLT.15.155721. - DOI - 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;5:615–8. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2016.83. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Evidence-Informed deliberative processes. 2019. Step-by-step practical guide for HTA agencies to enhance legitimate decision-making.
    1. Glassman A, Giedion U, Smith PC. What's in, what's out: designing benefits for universal health coverage. Washington DC, United States: Published by: Brookings Institution Press, Center for Global Development; 2017.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources