Cargando…

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for UHC: Progress, Potential and Prudence: Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide"

In their recent article on evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) for health benefit package decisions, Oortwijn et al examine how the different steps of EDP play out in eight countries with relatively mature institutions for using health technology assessment (HTA). This commentary examine...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Gopinathan, Unni
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Kerman University of Medical Sciences 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10125249/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37579471
http://dx.doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7541
_version_ 1785029995102470144
author Gopinathan, Unni
author_facet Gopinathan, Unni
author_sort Gopinathan, Unni
collection PubMed
description In their recent article on evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) for health benefit package decisions, Oortwijn et al examine how the different steps of EDP play out in eight countries with relatively mature institutions for using health technology assessment (HTA). This commentary examines how EDP addresses stakeholder involvement in decision-making for equitable progress towards universal health coverage (UHC). It focuses on the value of inclusiveness, the need to pay attention to trade-offs between desirable features of EDP and the need to broaden the scope of processes examined beyond those specifically tied to producing and using HTAs. It concludes that EDPs have contributed to significant progress for health benefit design decisions worldwide and holds much potential in further application. At the same time, this commentary calls for prudence: investments in EDPs should be efficiently deployed to enhance the pre-existing legislative, institutional and political framework that exist to promote fair and legitimate healthcare decisions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10125249
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Kerman University of Medical Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101252492023-04-25 Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for UHC: Progress, Potential and Prudence: Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide" Gopinathan, Unni Int J Health Policy Manag Commentary In their recent article on evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) for health benefit package decisions, Oortwijn et al examine how the different steps of EDP play out in eight countries with relatively mature institutions for using health technology assessment (HTA). This commentary examines how EDP addresses stakeholder involvement in decision-making for equitable progress towards universal health coverage (UHC). It focuses on the value of inclusiveness, the need to pay attention to trade-offs between desirable features of EDP and the need to broaden the scope of processes examined beyond those specifically tied to producing and using HTAs. It concludes that EDPs have contributed to significant progress for health benefit design decisions worldwide and holds much potential in further application. At the same time, this commentary calls for prudence: investments in EDPs should be efficiently deployed to enhance the pre-existing legislative, institutional and political framework that exist to promote fair and legitimate healthcare decisions. Kerman University of Medical Sciences 2023-02-13 /pmc/articles/PMC10125249/ /pubmed/37579471 http://dx.doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7541 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
Gopinathan, Unni
Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for UHC: Progress, Potential and Prudence: Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide"
title Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for UHC: Progress, Potential and Prudence: Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide"
title_full Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for UHC: Progress, Potential and Prudence: Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide"
title_fullStr Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for UHC: Progress, Potential and Prudence: Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide"
title_full_unstemmed Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for UHC: Progress, Potential and Prudence: Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide"
title_short Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for UHC: Progress, Potential and Prudence: Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide"
title_sort evidence-informed deliberative processes for uhc: progress, potential and prudence: 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/PMC10125249/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37579471
http://dx.doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7541
work_keys_str_mv AT gopinathanunni evidenceinformeddeliberativeprocessesforuhcprogresspotentialandprudencecommentonevidenceinformeddeliberativeprocessesforhealthbenefitpackagedesignpartiiapracticalguide