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 choices. The reason is that priority setting is in reality a value-laden political process in which multiple criteria beyond cost-effectiveness are important, and stakeholders often justifiably disagree about the relative importance of these criteria. Here, we propose the use of ‘evidence-informed deliberative processes’ as an approach that does explicitly recognise priority setting as a political process and an intrinsically complex task. In these processes, deliberation between stakeholders is crucial to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values. Such processes then result in the use of a broader range of explicit criteria that can be seen as the product of both international learning (‘core’ criteria, which include eg, cost-effectiveness, priority to the worse off, and financial protection) and learning among local stakeholders (‘contextual’ criteria). We believe that, with these evidence-informed deliberative processes in place, priority setting can provide a more meaningful contribution to achieving UHC

Translating international HIV treatment guidelines into local priorities in Indonesia

Objective: International guidelines recommend countries to expand antiretroviral therapy (ART) to all HIV-infected individuals and establish local-level priorities in relation to other treatment, prevention and mitigation interventions through fair processes. However, no practical guidance is provided for such priority-setting processes. Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) fill this gap and combine stakeholder deliberation to incorporate relevant social values with rational decision-making informed by evidence on these values. This study reports on the first-time implementation and evaluation of an EDP in HIV control, organised to support the AIDS Commission in West Java province, Indonesia, in the development of its strategic plan for 2014–2018. Methods: Under the responsibility of the provincial AIDS Commission, an EDP was implemented to select priority interventions using six steps: (i) situational analysis; (ii) formation of a multistakeholder Consultation Panel; (iii) selection of criteria; (iv) identification and assessment of interventions’ performance; (v) deliberation; and (vi) selection of funding and implementing institutions. An independent researcher conducted in-depth interviews (n = 21) with panel members to evaluate the process. Results: The Consultation Pa

Increasing the Legitimacy of Tough Choices in Healthcare Reimbursement: Approach and Results of a Citizen Forum in The Netherlands

Background: Some studies in the Netherlands have gauged public views on principles for health care priority setting, but they fall short of comprehensively explaining the public disapproval of several recent reimbursement decisions. Objective: To obtain insight into citizens’ preferences and identify the criteria they would propose for decisions pertaining to the benefits package of basic health insurance. Methods: Twenty-four Dutch citizens were selected for participation in a Citizen Forum, which involved 3 weekends. Deliberations took place in small groups and in plenary, guided by 2 moderators, on the basis of 8 preselected case studies, which participants later compared and prioritized under the premise that not all treatments can or need to be reimbursed. Participants received opportunities to inform themselves through written brochures and live interactions with 3 experts. Results: The Citizen Forum identified 16 criteria for inclusion or exclusion of treatments in the benefits package; they relate to the condition (2 criteria), treatment (11 criteria), and individual characteristics of those affected by the condition (3 criteria). In most case studies, it was a combination of criteria that determined whether or not participants favored inclusion of the treatment under consideration in the benefits package. Participants differed in their opinion about the relative importance of criteria, and they had difficulty in operationalizing and trading off criteria to provide a recommendation. Conclusions: Informed citizens are prepared to make and, to a certain extent, capable of making reasoned choices about the reimbursement of health services. They realize that choices are both necessary and possible. Broad public support and understanding for making tough choices regarding the benefits package of basic health insurance is not automatic: it requires an investment

Translating international HIV treatment guidelines into local priorities in Indonesia

Contains fulltext : 189873.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

How does participating in a deliberative citizens panel on healthcare priority setting influence the views of participants?

A deliberative citizens panel was held to obtain insight into criteria considered relevant for healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands. Our aim was to examine whether and how panel participation influenced participants’ views on this topic. Participants (n = 24) deliberated on eight reimbursement cases in September and October, 2017. Using Q methodology, we identified three distinct viewpoints before (T0) and after (T1) panel participation. At T0, viewpoint 1 emphasised that access to healthcare is a right and that prioritisation should be based solely on patients’ needs. Viewpoint 2 acknowledged scarcity of resources and emphasised the importance of treatment-related health gains. Viewpoint 3 focused on helping those in need, favouring younger patients, patients with a family, and treating diseases that heavily burden the families of patients. At T1, viewpoint 1 had become less opposed to prioritisation and more considerate of costs. Viewpoint 2 supported out-of-pocket payments more strongly. A new viewpoint 3 emerged that emphasised the importance of cost-effectiveness and that prioritisation should consider patient characteristics, such as their age. Participants’ views partly remained stable, specifically regarding equal access and prioritisation based on need and health gains. Notable changes concerned increased support for prioritisation, consideration of costs, and cost-effectiveness. Further research into the effects of deliberative methods is required to better understand how they may contribute to the legitimacy of and public support for allocation decisions in healthcare