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
. 2023:12:7541.
doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7541. Epub 2023 Feb 13.

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for UHC: Progress, Potential and Prudence Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide"

Affiliations
Comment

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for UHC: Progress, Potential and Prudence Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide"

Unni Gopinathan. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023.

Abstract

In their recent article on evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) for health benefit package decisions, Oortwijn et al examine how the different steps of EDP play out in eight countries with relatively mature institutions for using health technology assessment (HTA). This commentary examines how EDP addresses stakeholder involvement in decision-making for equitable progress towards universal health coverage (UHC). It focuses on the value of inclusiveness, the need to pay attention to trade-offs between desirable features of EDP and the need to broaden the scope of processes examined beyond those specifically tied to producing and using HTAs . It concludes that EDPs have contributed to significant progress for health benefit design decisions worldwide and holds much potential in further application. At the same time, this commentary calls for prudence: investments in EDPs should be efficiently deployed to enhance the pre-existing legislative, institutional and political framework that exist to promote fair and legitimate healthcare decisions.

Keywords: Deliberation; Fairness; Health Technology Assessment; Inclusiveness; Legitimacy; Priority-Setting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Author declares that he has no competing interests.

Comment on

References

    1. Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Aff. 1997;26(4):303–350. doi: 10.1111/j.1088-4963.1997.tb00082.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Daniels N. Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly. Cambridge University Press; 2007.
    1. Rumbold B, Weale A, Rid A, Wilson J, Littlejohns P. Public reasoning and health-care priority setting: the case of NICE. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2017;27(1):107–134. doi: 10.1353/ken.2017.0005. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Maluka S, Kamuzora P, San Sebastián M, Byskov J, Ndawi B, Hurtig AK. Improving district level health planning and priority setting in Tanzania through implementing accountability for reasonableness framework: perceptions of stakeholders. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:322. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-322. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kapiriri L, Martin DK. Successful priority setting in low and middle income countries: a framework for evaluation. Health Care Anal. 2010;18(2):129–147. doi: 10.1007/s10728-009-0115-2. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources