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...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
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 |