OP230 How Legitimate Is The Process Of Updating the Benefits Package In Israel? A 20 Year Overview

Abstract

IntroductionThe National Health Insurance Law enacted in 1995 stipulates a minimum list of health services (benefits package) that the four health plans in Israel have to provide to their members. The recommendations on which new technologies or new indications for existing ones should be added every year to the benefits package, subject to a predetermined budget, are made by a public committee that evaluates and prioritizes candidate technologies according to their clinical merit, economic (mainly budget impact), social, ethical and other aspects. We assessed the legitimacy of this coverage decision process over the past 20 years.MethodsThe legitimacy of the process was assessed by adherence to the conditions outlined in the accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework. A4R defines four conditions for legitimate and fair healthcare coverage decision processes: relevance, publicity, appeals/reversibility, and enforcement. We reviewed the changes made in the coverage decision process over the past 20 years and examined whether these changes have changed its legitimacy.ResultsOur analysis suggests that despite several changes made over the years in the process for updating the benefits package, for example, increase in transparency, introducing a structured appeal process, it only partially fulfills the four A4R conditions. In order to accomplish these goals more fully, several widely used considerations such as cost-effectiveness analysis and incorporating views from patients should be included. Additionally, this decision-making process should become even more transparent than it currently is.ConclusionsThe annual process of updating the benefits package in Israel where hundreds of technologies are “competing” with each other for coverage under a pre-defined budget is unique and not without merit. This process has been operating in the same pattern with only minor changes made since 1999. The main barriers for fulfilling all A4R conditions may relate in part to the large number of technologies assessed each year within a short time frame. Several changes in the process including the assessment of societal values, involvement of diverse stakeholders including patient advocate groups should be made to improve its legitimacy.