Cargando…

Three Approaches to Improve a Practical Guide on Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design: Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide"

As countries around the world seek to deliver universal health coverage, they must prioritize which services to pay for with public funds, to whom, and at what cost. Countries are increasingly using health technology assessment (HTA) to identify which interventions provide the best value for money a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Guzman, Javier
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Kerman University of Medical Sciences 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10125080/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36086853
http://dx.doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7502
_version_ 1785029960268775424
author Guzman, Javier
author_facet Guzman, Javier
author_sort Guzman, Javier
collection PubMed
description As countries around the world seek to deliver universal health coverage, they must prioritize which services to pay for with public funds, to whom, and at what cost. Countries are increasingly using health technology assessment (HTA) to identify which interventions provide the best value for money and merit inclusion in their health benefit packages (HBPs)—the explicit lists of health services provided using public funds. Oortwijn et al understand the importance of providing practical guidance on the foundation of HBP design, and their article, "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide," provides recommendations for HTA bodies to improve the legitimacy of their decision-making by incorporating four elements in their HBP procedures: stakeholder involvement, evidence-informed evaluation, transparency, and appeal. This article proposes three approaches to enhance the value of the guide: moving from structure to compliance and performance, prioritizing key issues of legitimacy within HBP processes, and acknowledging potential the costs and risks associated with the use of this framework.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10125080
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Kerman University of Medical Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101250802023-04-25 Three Approaches to Improve a Practical Guide on Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design: Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide" Guzman, Javier Int J Health Policy Manag Commentary As countries around the world seek to deliver universal health coverage, they must prioritize which services to pay for with public funds, to whom, and at what cost. Countries are increasingly using health technology assessment (HTA) to identify which interventions provide the best value for money and merit inclusion in their health benefit packages (HBPs)—the explicit lists of health services provided using public funds. Oortwijn et al understand the importance of providing practical guidance on the foundation of HBP design, and their article, "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide," provides recommendations for HTA bodies to improve the legitimacy of their decision-making by incorporating four elements in their HBP procedures: stakeholder involvement, evidence-informed evaluation, transparency, and appeal. This article proposes three approaches to enhance the value of the guide: moving from structure to compliance and performance, prioritizing key issues of legitimacy within HBP processes, and acknowledging potential the costs and risks associated with the use of this framework. Kerman University of Medical Sciences 2022-08-31 /pmc/articles/PMC10125080/ /pubmed/36086853 http://dx.doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7502 Text en © 2023 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Commentary
Guzman, Javier
Three Approaches to Improve a Practical Guide on Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design: Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide"
title Three Approaches to Improve a Practical Guide on Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design: Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide"
title_full Three Approaches to Improve a Practical Guide on Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design: Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide"
title_fullStr Three Approaches to Improve a Practical Guide on Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design: Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide"
title_full_unstemmed Three Approaches to Improve a Practical Guide on Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design: Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide"
title_short Three Approaches to Improve a Practical Guide on Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design: Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide"
title_sort three approaches to improve a practical guide on evidence-informed deliberative processes for health benefit package design: comment on "evidence-informed deliberative processes for health benefit package design – part ii: a practical guide"
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10125080/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36086853
http://dx.doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7502
work_keys_str_mv AT guzmanjavier threeapproachestoimproveapracticalguideonevidenceinformeddeliberativeprocessesforhealthbenefitpackagedesigncommentonevidenceinformeddeliberativeprocessesforhealthbenefitpackagedesignpartiiapracticalguide