fair processes for priority setting: putting theory into practice; comment on “expanded hta: enhancing fairness and legitimacy”
Authors
abstract
embedding health technology assessment (hta) in a fair process has great potential to capture societal values relevant to public reimbursement decisions on health technologies. however, the development of such processes for priority setting has largely been theoretical. in this paper, we provide further practical lead ways on how these processes can be implemented. we first present the misconception about the relation between facts and values that is since long misleading the conduct of hta and underlies the current assessmentappraisal split. we then argue that hta should instead be explicitly organized as an ongoing evidenceinformed deliberative process, that facilitates learning among stakeholders. this has important consequences for whose values to consider, how to deal with vested interests, how to consider all values in the decisionmaking process, and how to communicate decisions. this is in stark contrast to how hta processes are implemented now. it is time to set the stage for hta as learning.
similar resources
Fair Processes for Priority Setting: Putting Theory into Practice; Comment on “Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy”
Embedding health technology assessment (HTA) in a fair process has great potential to capture societal values relevant to public reimbursement decisions on health technologies. However, the development of such processes for priority setting has largely been theoretical. In this paper, we provide further practical lead ways on how these processes can be implemented. We first present the misconce...
full textFair Processes for Priority Setting: Putting Theory into Practice Comment on “Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy”
Embedding health technology assessment (HTA) in a fair process has great potential to capture societal values relevant to public reimbursement decisions on health technologies. However, the development of such processes for priority setting has largely been theoretical. In this paper, we provide further practical lead ways on how these processes can be implemented. We first present the misconce...
full textExpanded HTA, Legitimacy and Independence; Comment on “Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy”
This brief commentary seeks to develop the analysis of Daniels, Porteny and Urrutia of the implications of expansion of the scope of health technology assessment (HTA) beyond issues of safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness. Drawing in particular on experience in the United Kingdom, it suggests that such expansion can be understood not only as a response to the problem of insufficiency of evi...
full textExpanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy
All societies face the need to make judgments about what interventions (both public health and personal medical) to provide to their populations under reasonable resource constraints. Their decisions should be informed by good evidence and arguments from health technology assessment (HTA). But if HTA restricts itself to evaluations of safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness, it risks being vie...
full textHTA – Algorithm or Process?; Comment on “Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy”
Daniels, Porteny and Urrutia et al make a good case for the idea that that public decisions ought to be made not only “in the light of” evidence but also “on the basis of” budget impact, financial protection and equity. Health technology assessment (HTA) should, they say, be accordingly expanded to consider matters additional to safety and cost-effectiveness. They also complain that most HTA re...
full textMy Resources
Save resource for easier access later
Journal title:
international journal of health policy and managementجلد ۶، شماره ۱، صفحات ۴۳-۴۷
Hosted on Doprax cloud platform doprax.com
copyright © 2015-2023