3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Decision-making processes for essential packages of health services: experience from six countries

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Many countries around the world strive for universal health coverage, and an essential packages of health services (EPHS) is a central policy instrument for countries to achieve this. It defines the coverage of services that are made available, as well as the proportion of the costs that are covered from different financial schemes and who can receive these services. This paper reports on the development of an analytical framework on the decision-making process of EPHS revision, and the review of practices of six countries (Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and Zanzibar-Tanzania).

          The analytical framework distinguishes the practical organisation, fairness and institutionalisation of decision-making processes. The review shows that countries: (1) largely follow a similar practical stepwise process but differ in their implementation of some steps, such as the choice of decision criteria; (2) promote fairness in their EPHS process by involving a range of stakeholders, which in the case of Zanzibar included patients and community members; (3) are transparent in terms of at least some of the steps of their decision-making process and (4) in terms of institutionalisation, express a high degree of political will for ongoing EPHS revision with almost all countries having a designated governing institute for EPHS revision.

          We advise countries to organise meaningful stakeholder involvement and foster the transparency of the decision-making process, as these are key to fairness in decision-making. We also recommend countries to take steps towards the institutionalisation of their EPHS revision process.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Priority-setting for achieving universal health coverage

          Abstract Governments in low- and middle-income countries are legitimizing the implementation of universal health coverage (UHC), following a United Nation’s resolution on UHC in 2012 and its reinforcement in the sustainable development goals set in 2015. UHC will differ in each country depending on country contexts and needs, as well as demand and supply in health care. Therefore, fundamental issues such as objectives, users and cost–effectiveness of UHC have been raised by policy-makers and stakeholders. While priority-setting is done on a daily basis by health authorities – implicitly or explicitly – it has not been made clear how priority-setting for UHC should be conducted. We provide justification for explicit health priority-setting and guidance to countries on how to set priorities for UHC.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            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.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Accountability for reasonableness

              N Daniels (2000)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Glob Health
                BMJ Glob Health
                bmjgh
                bmjgh
                BMJ Global Health
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2059-7908
                2023
                18 January 2023
                : 8
                : Suppl 1
                : e010704
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentDepartment of Health Evidence , Radboudumc , Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [2 ] departmentDepartment of Global Public Health and Primary Care , University of Bergen , Bergen, Norway
                [3 ] departmentGlobal Health Development , University of Geneva Faculty of Medicine , Geneve, Switzerland
                [4 ] International Centre for Migration and Health , Geneva, Switzerland
                [5 ] departmentDepartment of Global Public Health and Primary care , University of Bergen Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry , Bergen, Norway
                [6 ] Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health , Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                [7 ] departmentDepartment of Community Health Sciences , Aga Khan University Hospital , Karachi, Pakistan
                [8 ] Federal Government of Somalia , Mogadishu, Somalia
                [9 ] departmentDepartment of Integrated Health Services , World Health Organization , Geneva, Switzerland
                [10 ] departmentCentre for Health Economics , University of York , York, UK
                [11 ] EconomicsbyDesign , London, UK
                [12 ] departmentSchool of Health and Social Care , University of Essex , Colchester, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Rob Baltussen; rob.baltussen@ 123456radboudumc.nl
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0498-8020
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8912-8710
                Article
                bmjgh-2022-010704
                10.1136/bmjgh-2022-010704
                9853142
                36657809
                9061fe9b-9605-4fdf-9c83-a682a090052a
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 15 September 2022
                : 02 December 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000865, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation;
                Award ID: OPP1201812
                Categories
                Analysis
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                public health
                public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article