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.

Highlights

  • 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

  • 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.[1]

  • We agree that processes of this kind are crucial at every step on the path to UHC, and hopefully the years ahead will bring intensified efforts to develop and implement such processes

Read more

Summary

Introduction

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.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call