Fair Processes for Priority Setting: Putting Theory into Practice; Comment on “Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy”

Document Type : Commentary

Authors

1 Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

2 Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

3 Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract

Embedding health technology assessment (HTA) in a fair process has great potential to capture societal values relevant to public reimbursement decisions on health technologies. However, the development of such processes for priority setting has largely been theoretical. In this paper, we provide further practical lead ways on how these processes can be implemented. We first present the misconception about the relation between facts and values that is since long misleading the conduct of HTA and underlies the current assessmentappraisal split. We then argue that HTA should instead be explicitly organized as an ongoing evidenceinformed deliberative process, that facilitates learning among stakeholders. This has important consequences for whose values to consider, how to deal with vested interests, how to consider all values in the decisionmaking process, and how to communicate decisions. This is in stark contrast to how HTA processes are implemented now. It is time to set the stage for HTA as learning.

Highlights

 

 

Watch the Video Summary here. 

 

Keywords

Main Subjects

Full Text

 

 

References

  1. Daniels N, Porteny T, Urrutia J [correction of Urritia J]. Expanded HTA: enhancing fairness and legitimacy [published correction appears in Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(5):347]. Int J Health Policy Manag.2016;5(1):1–3. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2015.187
  2. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ. 2000; 321(7272):1300-1301.
  3. Baltussen R, Jansen MP, Mikkelsen E, et al. Priority setting for universal health coverage: We need evidence-informed deliberative processes, not just more evidence on cost-effectiveness. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016:5(x):1-4.
  4. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage; 1989.
  5. Cohen J, Sabel CF. Directly-Deliberative Polyarchy. Eur Law J. 1997;3(4):313-340.
  6. Majone G. Evidence, Argument & Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1989.
  7. Holm S. The second phase of priority setting. Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second phase of priority setting in health care. BMJ. 1998;317(7164):1000-1002. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7164.1000
  8. Mitton C, Donaldson C. Health care priority setting: principles, practice and challenges. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2004;2(1):3.
  9. Kapiriri L, Martin DK. A strategy to improve priority setting in developing countries. Health Care Anal. 2007;15(3):159-167.
  10. van der Wilt GJ. Healthcare Technology Assessment. In: Have HT, ed. Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics. Dordrecht: Springer; 2015:1-13. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_416-1
  11. Helderman JK. Reflecting on The evaluation of lifestyle interventions in the Netherlands.  Health Economics, Policy and Law. 2015;10(4):461-465. doi:10.1017/S1744133115000225
  12. Grin J, van de Graaf H, Hoppe R. Technology Assessment Through Interaction. A Guide. Den Haag: SDU (working document Rathenau Institute, W57); 1997.
  13. van der Wilt GJ, Reuzel RP, Grin J. Technology, Design, and Human Values in Healthcare. In: Hoven J, Vermaas PE, Poel I, eds. Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design. Dordrecht : Springer; 2014:717-738. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6994-6_36-1
  14. Helderman JK, De Kruijf J, Verhey J, van Thiel S. De Dijkgraaf van de Zorgpolder. Diemen: Zorginstituut Nederland; 2014.
  15. Zorginstituut Nederland. Report of expert meeting ACP on Multi Criteria Decision Analysis. Diemen: Zorginstituut Nederland; 2015.
  16. Reuzel RP. Health technology assessment and interactive evaluation: different perspectives [PhD Dissertation]. Nijmegen: Radboud University; 2002.
  17. van der Wilt GJ, Smit C, Boer B. How beneficial is the benefit package? International Innovation. April, 2013:111-113.
  18. Sabel CF. Beyond principal-agent governance: experimentalist organization, learning and accountability. In: Engelen ER, Sie Dhian Ho M, eds. De Staat van de Democratie. Democratie voorbij de staat. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press; 2004:173-196.
  19. Bærøe K, Baltussen R. Legitimate healthcare limit setting in a real-world setting: integrating accountability for reasonableness and multi-criteria decision analysis. Public Health Ethics. 2014;7(2):98-111. doi:10.1093/phe/phu006
  20. Zorginstituut Nederland. Richtlijn voor het uitvoeren van economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Diemen: Zorginstituut Nederland; 2015.
  21. Daniels N, Sabin JE. Accountability for reasonableness: an update. BMJ. 2008;337:a1850. doi:10.1136/bmj.a1850
  22. Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making-an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(1):1-13. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.003
  23. Mitton C, Peacock S, Donaldson C, Bate A. Using PBMA in health care priority setting: description, challenges and experience. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(3):121-127.
  24. Gibson J, Mitton C, Martin D, Donaldson C, Singer P. Ethics and economics: does programme budgeting and marginal analysis contribute to fair priority setting? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2006;11(1):32-37.
  25. Held D. Models of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2006.
  26. Baltussen R, Mikkelsen E, Tromp N, et al. Balancing efficiency, equity and feasibility of HIV treatment in South Africa - development of programmatic guidance. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2013;11(1):26. doi:10.1186/1478-7547-11-26
  27. Tromp N, Jansen MP, Baltussen R. Time to recognise countries' preferences in HIV control. Lancet. 2016;387(10023):1053-1054. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00659-0
  28. Tromp N, Prawiranegara R, Subhan Riparev H, Siregar A, Sunjaya D, Baltussen R. Priority setting in HIV/AIDS control in West Java Indonesia: an evaluation based on the accountability for reasonableness framework. Health Policy Plan. 2015;30(3):345-355. doi:10.1093/heapol/czu020
  29. Tromp N, Prawiranega, R, Siregar, A, Jansen MP, Baltussen R. Towards participatory and evidence-based resource allocation decisions for AIDS funding in Indonesia. Nijmegen: 2016.30.                
  30. Gauvin FP, Abelson J, Giacomini M, Eyles J, Lavis JN. “It all depends”: Conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(10):1518-1526. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.036
  31. EUnetHTA Joint Action 2, Work Package 8. HTA Core Model ® version 3.0. http://meka.thl.fi/htacore/BrowseModel.aspx. Published 2016.
  32. Tromp N, Baltussen R. Mapping of multiple criteria for priority setting of health interventions: an aid for decision makers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:454. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-454
  33. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking – the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:270. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-270

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 May 2016
  • Revise Date: 03 July 2016
  • Accept Date: 22 June 2016
  • First Publish Date: 01 January 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics