Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies: A Reflection on Legitimacy, Values and Patient and Public Involvement; Comment on “Use of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe”

Document Type : Commentary

Authors

1 Department of Management, Evaluation and Health Policy, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

2 Research Center, University Hospital Center Ste Justine, Montreal, QC, Canada

Abstract

Legitimacy of deliberation processes leading to recommendations for public financing or clinical practice depends on the data considered, stakeholders involved and the process by which both of these are selected and organised. Oortwijn et al provides an interesting exploration of processes currently in place in health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. However, agencies are struggling with core issues central to their legitimacy that goes beyond the procedural exploration of Oortwijn et al, such as: how processes reflect the mission and values of the agencies? How they ensure that recommendations are fair and reasonable? Which role should be given to public and patient involvement? Do agencies have a positive impact on the healthcare system and the populations served? What are the drivers of their evolution? We concur with Culyer commentary on the need of learning from doing what works best and that a reflection is indeed needed to “enhance the fairness and legitimacy of HTA.”

Keywords

References

  1. Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Use of evidence-informed deliberative processes by health technology assessment agencies around the globe. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020;9(1):27-33. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2019.72
  2. Kristensen FB, Husereau D, Huić M, et al. Identifying the need for good practices in health technology assessment: summary of the ISPOR HTA council working group report on good practices in HTA. Value Health. 2019;22(1):13-20. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2018.08.010
  3. Culyer AJ. HTA - Algorithm or Process? Comment on "Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(8):501-505. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2016.59
  4. Culyer AJ. Use of evidence-informed deliberative processes – learning by doing: Comment on "Use of evidence-informed deliberative processes by health technology assessment agencies around the globe.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020; In Press. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2019.116
  5. Baltussen R, Jansen MPM, Bijlmakers L, et al. Value assessment frameworks for HTA agencies: the organization of evidence-informed deliberative processes. Value Health. 2017;20(2):256-260. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.019
  6. Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Aff. 1997;26(4):303-350. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.1997.tb00082.x
  7. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Samaha D, et al. Exploring values of health technology assessment agencies using reflective multicriteria and rare disease case. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(4):504-520. doi:10.1017/s0266462317000915
  8. Habermas J. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1996.
  9. Alami H, Gagnon MP, Fortin JP. Some multidimensional unintended consequences of telehealth utilization: a multi-project evaluation synthesis. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019;8(6):337-352. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2019.12
  10. Heaven D. Why deep-learning AIs are so easy to fool. Nature. 2019;574(7777):163-166. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03013-5
  11. Goetghebeur M, Castro-Jaramillo H, Baltussen R, Daniels N. The art of priority setting. Lancet. 2017;389(10087):2368-2369. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)31573-8
  12. Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The triple aim: care, health, and cost. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(3):759-769. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.27.3.759
  13. Goetghebeur MM, Cellier MS. Can reflective multicriteria be the new paradigm for healthcare decision-making? the EVIDEM journey. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2018;16(suppl 1):54. doi:10.1186/s12962-018-0116-9
  14. Goetghebeur M, Wagner M. Identifying value(s): a reflection on the ethical aspects of MCDA in healthcare decisionmaking. In: Marsh K, Goetghebeur M, Thokala P, Baltussen R, eds. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Support Healthcare Decisions. Cham: Spinger; 2017. p. 29-46. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47540-0_3
  15. Bégin P, Chan ES, Kim H, et al. CSACI guidelines for the ethical, evidence-based and patient-oriented clinical practice of oral immunotherapy in IgE-mediated food allergy. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2020;16(1):20. doi:10.1186/s13223-020-0413-7
  16. Young AM. The Theory of Process. http://www.arthuryoung.com/barr.html.
  17. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 9001:2015  Quality management systems Requirements 2015. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:std:iso:9001:ed-5:v1:en.
  18. Richards T, Montori VM, Godlee F, Lapsley P, Paul D. Let the patient revolution begin. BMJ. 2013;346:f2614. doi:10.1136/bmj.f2614
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume 10, Issue 4
April 2021
Pages 228-231

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 21 December 2019
  • Revise Date: 18 March 2020
  • Accept Date: 24 March 2020
  • First Publish Date: 01 April 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics