health technology assessment: global advocacy and local realities; comment on “priority setting for universal health coverage: we need evidence-informed deliberative processes, not just more evidence on cost-effectiveness”

Authors

kalipso chalkidou

institute of global health innovation, imperial college london, london, uk ryan li

institute of global health innovation, imperial college london, london, uk anthony j. culyer

department of economics & related studies and centre for health economics, university of york, york, uk amanda glassman

center for global development, washington, dc, usa karen j. hofman

abstract

cost-effectiveness analysis (cea) can help countries attain and sustain universal health coverage (uhc), as long as it is context-specific and considered within deliberative processes at the country level. institutionalising robust deliberative processes requires significant time and resources, however, and countries often begin by demanding evidence (including local cea evidence as well as evidence about local values), whilst striving to strengthen the governance structures and technical capacities with which to generate, consider and act on such evidence. in low- and middle-income countries (lmics), such capacities could be developed initially around a small technical unit in the health ministry or health insurer. the role of networks, development partners, and global norm setting organisations is crucial in supporting the necessary capacities.

Upgrade to premium to download articles

Sign up to access the full text

Already have an account?login

similar resources

Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness

Priority setting of health interventions is generally considered as a valuable approach to support low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in their strive for universal health coverage (UHC). However, present initiatives on priority setting are mainly geared towards the development of more cost-effectiveness information, and this evidence does not sufficiently support countries to make optimal...

full text

Health Technology Assessment: Global Advocacy and Local Realities; Comment on “Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness”

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) can help countries attain and sustain universal health coverage (UHC), as long as it is context-specific and considered within deliberative processes at the country level. Institutionalising robust deliberative processes requires significant time and resources, however, and countries often begin by demanding evidence (including local CEA evidence as well as evi...

full text

Don’t Discount Societal Value in Cost-Effectiveness; Comment on “Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness”

As healthcare resources become increasingly scarce due to growing demand and stagnating budgets, the need for effective priority setting and resource allocation will become ever more critical to providing sustainable care to patients. While societal values should certainly play a part in guiding these processes, the methodology used to capture these values need not necessarily be limited to mul...

full text

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Universal Health Coverage: Broadening the Scope; Comment on “Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness”

Universal health coverage (UHC) is high on the global health agenda, and priority setting is fundamental to the fair and efficient pursuit of this goal. In a recent editorial, Rob Baltussen and colleagues point to the need to go beyond evidence on cost-effectiveness and call for evidence-informed deliberative processes when setting priorities for UHC. Such processes are crucial at every step on...

full text

priority setting for universal health coverage: we need evidence-informed deliberative processes, not just more evidence on cost-effectiveness

priority setting of health interventions is generally considered as a valuable approach to support low- and middle-income countries (lmics) in their strive for universal health coverage (uhc). however, present initiatives on priority setting are mainly geared towards the development of more cost-effectiveness information, and this evidence does not sufficiently support countries to make optimal...

full text

Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness

Priority setting of health interventions is generally considered as a valuable approach to support low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in their strive for universal health coverage (UHC). However, present initiatives on priority setting are mainly geared towards the development of more cost-effectiveness information, and this evidence does not sufficiently support countries to make optimal...

full text

My Resources

Save resource for easier access later


Journal title:
international journal of health policy and management

جلد ۶، شماره ۴، صفحات ۲۳۳-۲۳۶

Hosted on Doprax cloud platform doprax.com

copyright © 2015-2023