Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Universal Health Coverage: Broadening the Scope; Comment on “Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness”

Document Type : Commentary

Authors

1 Oslo Group on Global Health Policy, Department of Community Medicine and Global Health and Centre for Global Health, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

2 Department of International Public Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway

Abstract

Universal health coverage (UHC) is high on the global health agenda, and priority setting is fundamental to the fair and efficient pursuit of this goal. In a recent editorial, Rob Baltussen and colleagues point to the need to go beyond evidence on cost-effectiveness and call for evidence-informed deliberative processes when setting priorities for UHC. Such processes are crucial at every step on the path to UHC, and hopefully we will see intensified efforts to develop and implement processes of this kind in the coming years. However, if this does happen, it will be essential to ensure a sufficiently broad scope in at least two respects. First, the design of evidence-informed priority-setting processes needs to go beyond a simple view on the relationship between evidence and policy and adapt to a diverse set of factors shaping this relationship. Second, these processes should go beyond a focus on clinical services to accommodate also public health interventions. Together, this can help strengthen priority-setting processes and bolster progress towards UHC and the Sustainable Development Goals.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. 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(11):615-618. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2016.83
  2. World Health Organization (WHO). Making fair choices on the path to universal health coverage. Final report of the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage. Geneva: WHO; 2014. http://www.who.int/choice/documents/making_fair_choices/en/. Accessed September 1, 2016.
  3. Norheim OF. Ethical priority setting for universal health coverage: challenges in deciding upon fair distribution of health services. BMC Med. 2016;14:75. doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0624-4
  4. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ. 2000;321(7272):1300-1301.
  5. Lavis J. Supporting evidence-informed priority-setting. Report prepared for the International Decision Support Initiative. http://www.idsihealth.org/knowledge_base/supporting-evidence-informed-priority-setting/. Accessed September 1, 2016. Published February 2016.
  6. Catallo C, Lavin J. What past research tells us about knowledge brokering: A systematic review and a scoping review. In: Lavis JN, Catallo C, eds. Bridging the Worlds of Research and Policy in European Health Systems. Brussels, Belgium: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2013.
  7. Bernier NF, Clavier C. Public health policy research: making the case for a political science approach. Health Promot Int. 2011;26(1):109-116. doi:10.1093/heapro/daq079
  8. Fafard P. Beyond the usual suspects: using political science to enhance public health policy making. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;69(11):1129-1132.
  9. Smith KE. Beyond evidence-based policy in public health: the interplay of ideas. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2013:251. Palgrave studies in science, knowledge and policy.
  10. Smith KE. The politics of ideas: the complex interplay of health inequalities research and policy. Sci Public Policy. 2013. doi:10.1093/scipol/sct085
  11. Kieslich K, Bump JB, Norheim OF, Tantivess S, Littlejohns P. Accounting for technical, ethical, and political factors in priority setting. Health Systems & Reform. 2016;2(1):51-60. doi:10.1080/23288604.2016.1124169
  12. Smith N, Mitton C, Davidson A, Williams I. A politics of priority setting: Ideas, interests and institutions in healthcare resource allocation. Public Policy Adm. 2014;29(4):331-347.
  13. Hauck K, Smith PC. The Politics of Priority Setting in Health: A Political Economy Perspective. Washington DC: Center for Global Development; 2015. http://www.cgdev.org/publication/politics-priority-setting-health-political-economy-perspective-working-paper-414. Accessed September 1, 2016.
  14. Shiffman J, Smith S. Generation of political priority for global health initiatives: a framework and case study of maternal mortality. Lancet. 2007;370(9595):1370-1379. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61579-7
  15. Glassman A, Chalkidou K, Giedion U, et al. Priority-setting institutions in health: recommendations from a center for global development working group. Glob Heart. 2012;7(1):13-34.
  16. International Decision Support Initiative. Better decisions. Better Health. http://www.idsihealth.org/. Accessed November 1, 2016.
  17. Youngkong S, Baltussen R, Tantivess S, Mohara A, Teerawattananon Y. Multicriteria decision analysis for including health interventions in the universal health coverage benefit package in Thailand. Value Health. 2012;15(6):961-970.
  18. Youngkong S, Teerawattananon Y, Tantivess S, Baltussen R. Multi-criteria decision analysis for setting priorities on HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10:6. doi:10.1186/1478-4505-10-6
  19. Schmidt H, Gostin LO, Emanuel EJ. Public health, universal health coverage, and Sustainable Development Goals: can they coexist? Lancet. 2015;386(9996):928-930. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60244-6
  20. Ottersen T, Schmidt H. Universal health coverage and public health: ensuring parity and complementarity. Am J Public Health. In press.
  21. Jomaa LH, McDonnell E, Probart C. School feeding programs in developing countries: impacts on children’s health and educational outcomes. Nutr Rev. 2011;69(2):83-98.
  22. McQueen DV, ed. Intersectoral governance for health in all policies: structures, actions and experiences. Copenhagen: WHO, Regional Offivcce for Europe; 2012:206. Observatory studies series.
  23. Hill S, Amos A, Clifford D, Platt S. Impact of tobacco control interventions on socioeconomic inequalities in smoking: review of the evidence. Tob Control. 2014;23(e2):e89-97. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051110.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 02 October 2016
  • Revise Date: 20 November 2016
  • Accept Date: 21 November 2016
  • First Publish Date: 01 August 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics