Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need to Focus Both on Substance and on Process Comment on "Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness".

Jeremy A Lauer,Dheepa Rajan,Melanie Y Bertram

doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2017.06

Jeremy A Lauer, Dheepa Rajan + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2017.06

Copy DOI

Abstract

In an editorial published in this journal, Baltussen et al argue that information on cost-effectiveness is not sufficient for priority setting for universal health coverage (UHC), a claim which is correct as far as it goes. However, their focus on the procedural legitimacy of ‘micro’ priority setting processes (eg, decisions concerning the reimbursement of specific interventions), and their related assumption that values for priority setting are determined only at this level, leads them to ignore the relevance of higher level, ‘macro’ priority setting processes, for example, consultations held by World Health Organization (WHO) Member States and other global stakeholders that have resulted in widespread consensus on the principles of UHC. Priority setting is not merely about discrete choices, nor should the focus be exclusively (or even mainly) on improving the procedural elements of micro priority setting processes. Systemic activities that shape the health system environment, such as strategic planning, as well as the substantive content of global policy instruments, are critical elements for priority setting for UHC.

Highlights

While we endorse the call in the editorial by Baltussen et al[1] for evidence-informed deliberative processes in priority setting for universal health coverage (UHC), we believe that the authors have unnecessarily confused certain questions while leaving others unnecessarily open
Leaving aside here a detailed discussion of DCP3, and focusing primarily on World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) role, in the first proposition Baltussen et al seem to be restricting their attention only to “WHO-CHOICE”4, while neglecting the broader scope of WHO’s policies, guidance, recommendations, and programmes related to priority setting in health
To the extent that Baltussen et al subscribe to the first proposition, in our view they would be making the error of conflating technical methods, which contribute to the evidence base for priority setting, with the values and principles underpinning a priority setting process

Summary

Introduction

While we endorse the call in the editorial by Baltussen et al[1] for evidence-informed deliberative processes in priority setting for universal health coverage (UHC), we believe that the authors have unnecessarily confused certain questions while leaving others unnecessarily open.

Results

Conclusion