Dataset Information

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".

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.

SUBMITTER: Chalkidou K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5384986 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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".

Chalkidou Kalipso K Li Ryan R Culyer Anthony J AJ Glassman Amanda A Hofman Karen J KJ Teerawattananon Yot Y

International journal of health policy and management 20170401 4

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 capaci ...[more]

PMID: 28812807

Similar Datasets

Project description:This article is the Introduction to a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Knowing how to find and use research evidence can help policymakers and those who support them to do their jobs better and more efficiently. Each article in this series presents a proposed tool that can be used by those involved in finding and using research evidence to support evidence-informed health policymaking. The series addresses four broad areas: 1. Supporting evidence-informed policymaking 2. Identifying needs for research evidence in relation to three steps in policymaking processes, namely problem clarification, options framing, and implementation planning 3. Finding and assessing both systematic reviews and other types of evidence to inform these steps, and 4. Going from research evidence to decisions. Each article begins with between one and three typical scenarios relating to the topic. These scenarios are designed to help readers decide on the level of detail relevant to them when applying the tools described. Most articles in this series are structured using a set of questions that guide readers through the proposed tools and show how to undertake activities to support evidence-informed policymaking efficiently and effectively. These activities include, for example, using research evidence to clarify problems, assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review about the effects of options selected to address problems, organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking, and planning policy monitoring and evaluation. In several articles, the set of questions presented offers more general guidance on how to support evidence-informed policymaking. Additional information resources are listed and described in every article. The evaluation of ways to support evidence-informed health policymaking is a developing field and feedback about how to improve the series is welcome.

Project description:In responses to Norheim's editorial, this commentary offers reflections from Thailand, how the five unacceptable trade-offs were applied to the universal health coverage (UHC) reforms between 1975 and 2002 when the whole 64 million people were covered by one of the three public health insurance systems. This commentary aims to generate global discussions on how best UHC can be gradually achieved. Not only the proposed five discrete trade-offs within each dimension, there are also trade-offs between the three dimensions of UHC such as population coverage, service coverage and cost coverage. Findings from Thai UHC show that equity is applied for the population coverage extension, when the low income households and the informal sector were the priority population groups for coverage extension by different prepayment schemes in 1975 and 1984, respectively. With an exception of public sector employees who were historically covered as part of fringe benefits were covered well before the poor. The private sector employees were covered last in 1990. Historically, Thailand applied a comprehensive benefit package where a few items are excluded using the negative list; until there was improved capacities on technology assessment that cost-effectiveness are used for the inclusion of new interventions into the benefit package. Not only cost-effectiveness, but long term budget impact, equity and ethical considerations are taken into account. Cost coverage is mostly determined by the fiscal capacities. Close ended budget with mix of provider payment methods are used as a tool for trade-off service coverage and financial risk protection. Introducing copayment in the context of fee-for-service can be harmful to beneficiaries due to supplier induced demands, inefficiency and unpredictable out of pocket payment by households. UHC achieves favorable outcomes as it was implemented when there was a full geographical coverage of primary healthcare coverage in all districts and sub-districts after three decade of health infrastructure investment and health workforce development since 1980s. The legacy of targeting population group by different prepayment mechanisms, leading to fragmentation, discrepancies and inequity across schemes, can be rectified by harmonization at the early phase when these schemes were introduced. Robust public accountability and participation mechanisms are recommended when deciding the UHC strategy.

Project description:BackgroundPublic health professionals are increasingly expected to engage in evidence-informed decision making to inform practice and policy decisions. Evidence-informed decision making involves the use of research evidence along with expertise, existing public health resources, knowledge about community health issues, the local context and community, and the political climate. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools has identified a seven step process for evidence-informed decision making. Tools have been developed to support public health professionals as they work through each of these steps. This paper provides an overview of tools used in three Canadian public health departments involved in a study to develop capacity for evidence-informed decision making.MethodsAs part of a knowledge translation and exchange intervention, a Knowledge Broker worked with public health professionals to identify and apply tools for use with each of the steps of evidence-informed decision making. The Knowledge Broker maintained a reflective journal and interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of decision makers and public health professionals. This paper presents qualitative analysis of the perceived usefulness and usability of the tools.ResultsTools were used in the health departments to assist in: question identification and clarification; searching for the best available research evidence; assessing the research evidence for quality through critical appraisal; deciphering the 'actionable message(s)' from the research evidence; tailoring messages to the local context to ensure their relevance and suitability; deciding whether and planning how to implement research evidence in the local context; and evaluating the effectiveness of implementation efforts. Decision makers provided descriptions of how the tools were used within the health departments and made suggestions for improvement. Overall, the tools were perceived as valuable for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making.ConclusionTools are available to support the process of evidence-informed decision making among public health professionals. The usability and usefulness of these tools for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making are discussed, including recommendations for the tools' application in other public health settings beyond this study. Knowledge and awareness of these tools may assist other health professionals in their efforts to implement evidence-informed practice.

Dataset Information

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".

Publications

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".

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets