Design Of Benefit Packages Research Articles

The Role of HTA for Essential Health Benefit Package Design in Low or Middle-Income Countries

ABSTRACT This Commentary explores the relationship between Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Health Benefits Package (HBP) design to achieve Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in low- and middle-income countries. It emphasizes that while HTA evaluates individual healthcare interventions, HBP reform aims to create comprehensive service sets considering overall population health needs and available resources. Challenges in LMICs include limited local data and technical capacity, leading to reliance on cost-effectiveness estimates from other settings. We suggest a practical approach by combining HTA and HBP elements through a hybrid or compartmentalized method. This approach sets differentiated cost-effectiveness thresholds for specific healthcare platforms or programs (e.g., primary care or essential surgery), aligning priority-setting with organizational considerations, ethics, and implementation strategies. Strong institutions and academic support are vital for evidence-informed priority-setting processes. In summary, HTA can play a pivotal role in designing HBPs for UHC in LMICs, and a compartmentalized approach can enhance priority-setting while considering budget constraints and equity.

The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Designing the Essential Package of Health Services in Pakistan.

The Disease Control Priorities 3 (DCP3) project provides long-term support to Pakistan in the development and implementation of its universal health coverage essential package of health services (UHC-EPHS). This paper reports on the priority setting process used in the design of the EPHS during the period 2019-2020, employing the framework of evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs), a tool for priority setting with the explicit aim of optimising the legitimacy of decision-making in the development of health benefit packages. We planned the six steps of the framework during two workshops in the Netherlands with participants from all DCP3 Pakistan partners (October 2019 and February 2020), who implemented these at the country level in Pakistan in 2019 and 2020. Following implementation, we conducted a semi-structured online survey to collect the views of participants in the UHC benefit package design about the prioritisation process. The key steps in the EDP framework were the installation of advisory committees (involving more than 150 members in several Technical Working Groups [TWGs] and a National Advisory Committee [NAC]), definition of decision criteria (effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, avoidable burden of disease, equity, financial risk protection, budget impact, socio-economic impact and feasibility), selection of interventions for evaluation (a total of 170), and assessment and appraisal (across the three dimensions of the UHC cube) of these interventions. Survey respondents were generally positive across several aspects of the priority setting process. Despite several challenges, including a partial disruption because of the COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of the priority setting process may have improved the legitimacy of decision-making by involving stakeholders through participation with deliberation, and being evidence-informed and transparent. Important lessons were learned that can be beneficial for other countries designing their own health benefit package such as on the options and limitations of broad stakeholder involvement.

The use of cost-effectiveness analysis for health benefit package design – should countries follow a sectoral, incremental or hybrid approach?

BackgroundCountries around the world are increasingly rethinking the design of their health benefit package to achieve universal health coverage. Countries can periodically revise their packages on the basis of sectoral cost-effectiveness analyses, i.e. by evaluating a broad set of services against a ‘doing nothing’ scenario using a budget constraint. Alternatively, they can use incremental cost-effectiveness analyses, i.e. to evaluate specific services against current practice using a threshold. In addition, countries may employ hybrid approaches which combines elements of sectoral and incremental cost-effectiveness analysis - a country may e.g. not evaluate the comprehensive set of all services but rather relatively small sets of services targeting a certain condition. However, there is little practical guidance for countries as to which kind of approach they should follow.MethodsThe present study was based on expert consultation. We refined the typology of approaches of cost-effectiveness analysis for benefit package design, identified factors that should be considered in the choice of approach, and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among experts over the course of several review rounds.ResultsSectoral cost-effectiveness analysis is especially suited in contexts with large allocative inefficiencies in current service provision and can, in theory, realize large efficiency gains. However, it may be challenging to implement a comprehensive redesign of the package in practice. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis is especially relevant in contexts where specific new services may impact the sustainability of the health system. It may potentially support efficiency improvement, but its focus has typically been on new services while existing inefficiencies remain unchallenged. The use of hybrid approach may be a way forward to address the strengths and weaknesses of sectoral and incremental analysis areas. Such analysis may be especially useful to target disease areas with suspected high inefficiencies in service provision, and would then make good use of the available research capacity and be politically rewarding. However, disease-specific analyses bear the risk of not addressing resource allocation inefficiencies across disease areas.ConclusionsCountries should carefully select their approach of cost-effectiveness analyses for benefit package design, based on their decision-making context.

Harnessing Country Experiences for Health Benefit Package Design: Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes and Experiences From the Joint Learning Network Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide".

Amidst competing priorities for allocating finite health resources, using evidence-informed priority setting is a valuable tool for achieving population-level health goals. The paper by Baltussen et al comprehensively reports on the development of practical guidance for evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) which will help with sustainability of programs aimed at universal health coverage (UHC). The authors' experience with the Joint Learning Network for UHC's (JLN) peer-to-peer learning platform on evidence-informed priority setting offers insights on the practical challenges faced by countries in health benefits package (HBP) design, especially to draw in actors to advocate for the priorities and values across the health system. Lessons harvested from JLN countries that have established such advisory committees can provide practical insights for countries in earlier stages of establishing a systematic process for HBP design. Peer-to-peer learning modalities among countries offer viable and effective approaches to institutionalizing EDPs and systematic priority setting.

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for UHC: Progress, Potential and Prudence Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide"

In their recent article on evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) for health benefit package decisions, Oortwijn et al examine how the different steps of EDP play out in eight countries with relatively mature institutions for using health technology assessment (HTA). This commentary examines how EDP addresses stakeholder involvement in decision-making for equitable progress towards universal health coverage (UHC). It focuses on the value of inclusiveness, the need to pay attention to trade-offs between desirable features of EDP and the need to broaden the scope of processes examined beyond those specifically tied to producing and using HTAs . It concludes that EDPs have contributed to significant progress for health benefit design decisions worldwide and holds much potential in further application. At the same time, this commentary calls for prudence: investments in EDPs should be efficiently deployed to enhance the pre-existing legislative, institutional and political framework that exist to promote fair and legitimate healthcare decisions.

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for UHC: Progress, Potential and Prudence Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide".

In their recent article on evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) for health benefit package decisions, Oortwijn et al examine how the different steps of EDP play out in eight countries with relatively mature institutions for using health technology assessment (HTA). This commentary examines how EDP addresses stakeholder involvement in decision-making for equitable progress towards universal health coverage (UHC). It focuses on the value of inclusiveness, the need to pay attention to trade-offs between desirable features of EDP and the need to broaden the scope of processes examined beyond those specifically tied to producing and using HTAs . It concludes that EDPs have contributed to significant progress for health benefit design decisions worldwide and holds much potential in further application. At the same time, this commentary calls for prudence: investments in EDPs should be efficiently deployed to enhance the pre-existing legislative, institutional and political framework that exist to promote fair and legitimate healthcare decisions.

Deliberative processes in health technology assessment of medicines: the case of Spain.

Spain incorporated in 2020 changes in its health technology assessment (HTA), pricing, and reimbursement system for medicines including publishing reports, development of networks of experts, or consultation with stakeholders. Despite these changes, it is unclear how deliberative frameworks are applied and the process has been criticized for not being sufficiently transparent. This study analyses the level of implementation of deliberative processes in HTA for medicines in Spain. We review the grey literature and summarize the Spanish HTA, pricing, and reimbursement process of medicines. We apply the deliberative processes for HTA checklist, developed to assess the overall context of the deliberative process, and identify the stakeholders involved and type of involvement following the framework for evidence-informed deliberative processes, a framework for benefit package design that aims to optimize the legitimacy of decision making. In the Spanish HTA, pricing, and reimbursement process deliberation takes place in order to exchange viewpoints and reach common ground, mainly during the prioritization, assessment, and appraisal steps. It is closed to the public, not clearly summarized in published documents and limited to the Ministry of Health, the regulatory agency, other Ministries, and experts with mostly clinical and/or pharmaceutical background. The views of stakeholders are only represented through consultation. Communication is the most commonly used form of stakeholder engagement. Despite improvements in transparency of the Spanish HTA process for evaluating medicines, aspects related to stakeholder involvement and implementation of deliberative frameworks need further attention in order to achieve further legitimacy of the process.

Moral and Social Values in Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide".

An evidence-informed deliberative process (EDP) is defined as "a practical and stepwise approach for health technology assessment (HTA) bodies to enhance legitimate health benefit package design based on deliberation between stakeholders to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values." In this commentary, I discuss some considerations for EDPs that arise from acknowledging the difference between social and moral values. First, the best practices for implementing EDPs may differ depending on whether the approach is grounded in moral versus social values. Second, the goals of deliberation may differ when focused on moral versus social values. I conclude by offering some considerations for future research to support the use of EDPs in practice, including the need to assess how different approaches to appraisal (eg, more quantitative versus qualitative) impact perceptions of the value of deliberation itself.

The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design in Kazakhstan.

Kazakhstan strives to obtain Universal Health Coverage (UHC) by using health technology assessment (HTA) for determining their health benefit package. This paper reports on employing evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs), a practical and stepwise approach to enhance legitimate health benefit package design in Kazakhstan. Methods: The Ministry of Health of Kazakhstan approved the operationalization and application of EDPs during March 2019 and December 2020. We used a combination of desk research, conducting HTA, online surveys as well as a face-to-face workshop in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan, and two online workshops to prioritize 25 selected health technologies. During the latter, we tested two alternative approaches to prioritization: quantitative multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and the use of decision rules. Results: For each of the HTA reports, evidence summaries were developed according to the decision criteria (safety, social priority disease, severity of disease, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, level of evidence, financial risk protection and budget impact). When appraising the evidence, the advisory committee preferred using quantitative MCDA, and only when this would result in any controversy could decision rules be applied. Conclusions: Despite several challenges, including a partial disruption because of the COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of the process will likely play a key role in determining an evidence-informed and transparent health benefit package.

Three Approaches to Improve a Practical Guide on Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide".

As countries around the world seek to deliver universal health coverage, they must prioritize which services to pay for with public funds, to whom, and at what cost. Countries are increasingly using health technology assessment (HTA) to identify which interventions provide the best value for money and merit inclusion in their health benefit packages (HBPs)-the explicit lists of health services provided using public funds. Oortwijn et al understand the importance of providing practical guidance on the foundation of HBP design, and their article, "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide," provides recommendations for HTA bodies to improve the legitimacy of their decision-making by incorporating four elements in their HBP procedures: stakeholder involvement, evidence-informed evaluation, transparency, and appeal. This article proposes three approaches to enhance the value of the guide: moving from structure to compliance and performance, prioritizing key issues of legitimacy within HBP processes, and acknowledging potential the costs and risks associated with the use of this framework.

Challenges and Opportunities for Deliberative Processes for Healthcare Decision-Making Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide".

The second edition of the practical guide for evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) is an important addition to the growing guidance on deliberative processes supporting priority setting in healthcare. While the practical guide draws on an extensive amount of information collected on established and developing processes within a range of countries, EDPs present health technology assessment (HTA) bodies with several challenges. (1) Basing recommendations on current processes that have not been well-evaluated and that have changed over time may lead to weaker legitimacy than desired. (2) The requirement for social learning among stakeholders may require increased resourcing and blur the boundary between moral deliberation and political negotiation. (3) Robust evaluation should be based on an explicit theory of change, and some process outcomes may be poor guides to overall improvement of EDPs. This comment clarifies and reinforces the recommendations provided in the practical guide.

Reinforcing Science and Policy, With Suggestions for Future Research Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide".

Oortwijn et al continue their guide to good practice in the use of deliberative processes in health technology assessment (HTA) based on a survey of international practice. This is useful, and I applaud their care in maintaining objectivity, especially regarding the treatment of moral and politically controversial issues, in reporting how jurisdictions have handled such matters in designing HTA procedures and in their execution. To their suggestions for future research, I add: the historical development of deliberation in healthcare decision-making and in other fields of public choice, with comparisons of methods, successes and failures; development of guidance on the design and use of deliberative processes that enhance decision-making when there is no consensus amongst the decision-makers; ways of identifying and managing context-free and context-sensitive evidence; and a review of high-level capacity building to raise awareness of HTA and the use of knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) and deliberation amongst policy makers, especially in low and middle-income countries.

Systems Science and Evidence-Informed Deliberation to Mitigate Dilemmas in Situations of Dual Agency at the Hospital Level Comment on "Dual Agency in Hospitals: What Strategies Do Managers and Physicians Apply to Reconcile Dilemmas Between Clinical and Economic Considerations".

The article by Waitzberg et al on dual agency in hospitals reports on three strategies to mitigate dilemmas arising from conflicting clinical and economic considerations. This could be further explored by using systems science methods that allow in-depth analyses of (health) system dynamics, networks, and agent-based modelling, and that take into account local context, incentives and how institutions work. Future studies may also draw on the literature of multi-criteria decision-making and evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) that are increasingly being used to optimise legitimate health benefit package design. Toolkits to assist hospital professionals in improving their decision-making need to be practical, with ample attention for the process of decision-making, including transparency, use of evidence, and opportunities for health professionals (and possibly others stakeholders) to contest or formally appeal against certain decisions.

The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Insurance Benefit Package Revision in Iran.

Iran considers the revision of its health insurance benefit package (HIBP) as a means to achieve universal health coverage (UHC). Yet, its decision-making process has been criticised for being weak in terms of accountability and transparency. This paper reports on the development and implementation of the HIBP revision in Iran in the period 2019-2021, employing evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs), a framework for benefit package design with the explicit aim of optimising the legitimacy of decision-making. The High Council for Health Insurance (HCHI) is coordinating the HIBP revision: it planned the six steps of the EDP framework with support from World Health Organization (WHO) and Radboudumc in 2019, and conducted a pilot project on multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis and treatment in 2020. Implementation of the MS pilot project concerned the installation of advisory committees (involving some 60 stakeholders in supportive task forces, a technical working group [TWG] and a national advisory committee [NAC]), the selection of decision criteria (relating to quality of care, necessity, and sustainability), the inclusion of services for evaluation (nine in total), and the assessment and appraisal of these services. Implementation of the priority setting process for MS diagnosis and treatment services has likely improved the legitimacy of decision-making by involving stakeholders who engaged in deliberation based on available evidence in a stepwise, transparent process. It is expected to improve the quality of care for MS patients as well as its financial accessibility, at a zero net budget impact. The pilot project has served to help Iran's health system move faster toward UHC for a broader range of essential health services.

Strategic Health Purchasing in Nigeria: Investigating Governance and Institutional Capacities within Federal Tax-Funded Health Schemes and the Formal Sector Social Health Insurance Programme

ABSTRACT For Nigeria to make progress on its commitment to universal health coverage, additional public funding will be required. But more resources alone will not be enough. Government health spending must be more efficient and effective, through more strategic purchasing—a critical policy tool. Studies on health purchasing in Nigeria’s health financing schemes are limited, however. This study examines the purchasing arrangements in schemes funded by the federal budget and in the Formal Sector Social Health Insurance Programme (FSSHIP) within the National Health Insurance Scheme. We adopted a qualitative, descriptive case-study approach and collected data through document reviews and key informant interviews based on the Strategic Health Purchasing Progress Tracking Framework. Our analysis used a thematic framework approach. Our findings reveal that legal frameworks and governance structures for strategic purchasing are in place for both schemes. Steps toward strategic purchasing are more advanced in FSSHIP, particularly in the design of benefit packages, accreditation and monitoring of health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and providers, and provider payment mechanisms. The limited share of health funding flowing through these mechanisms, and further fragmentation of that funding, impede strategic purchasing. Strategic purchasing is also hampered by weak regulation and monitoring of providers and purchasers, delays in provider payment, and corrupt practices by HMOs. Improving strategic purchasing in Nigeria will require a concerted effort to reduce fragmentation of health spending, significant investment in human resources, technical know-how, and information systems of purchasing institutions, and actions to improve the accountability of all actors in the system.

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Legitimate Health Benefit Package Design - Part I: Conceptual Framework.

Countries around the world are increasingly rethinking the design of their health benefit packages to achieve universal health coverage (UHC). Health technology assessment (HTA) bodies support governments in these decisions, but employ value frameworks that do not sufficiently account for the intrinsically complex and value-laden political reality of benefit package design. Several years ago, evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were developed to address this issue. An EDP is a practical and stepwise approach for HTA bodies to enhance legitimate health benefit package design based on deliberation between stakeholders to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, and to interpret available evidence on these values. We further developed the conceptual framework and initial 2019 guidance based on academic knowledge exchange, analysing practices of HTA bodies, surveying HTA bodies and experts around the globe, and implementation of EDPs in several countries around the world. EDPs stem from the general concept of legitimacy, which is translated into four elements - stakeholder involvement ideally operationalised through stakeholder participation with deliberation; evidence-informed evaluation; transparency; and appeal. The 2021 practical guidance distinguishes six practical steps of a HTA process and provides recommendations on how these elements can be implemented in each of these steps. There is an increased attention for legitimacy, deliberative processes for HTA and health benefit package design, but the development of theories and methods for such processes remain behind. The added value of EDPs lies in the operationalisation of the general concept of legitimacy into practical guidance for HTA bodies.

Balancing health and financial protection in health benefit package design.

Policymakers face difficult choices over which health interventions to publicly finance. We developed an approach to health benefits package design that accommodates explicit tradeoffs between improvements in health and provision of financial risk protection (FRP). We designed a mathematical optimization model to balance gains in health and FRP across candidate interventions when publicly financed. The optimal subset of interventions selected for inclusion was determined with bi‐criterion integer programming conditional on a budget constraint. The optimal set of interventions to publicly finance in a health benefits package varied according to whether the objective for optimization was population health benefits or FRP. When both objectives were considered jointly, the resulting optimal essential benefits package depended on the weights placed on the two objectives. In the Sustainable Development Goals era, smart spending toward universal health coverage is essential. Mathematical optimization provides a quantitative framework for policymakers to design health policies and select interventions that jointly prioritize multiple objectives with explicit financial constraints.

Health technology assessment in sub-Saharan Africa: a descriptive analysis and narrative synthesis

BackgroundCountries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are moving towards universal health coverage. The process of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) can support decisions relating to benefit package design and service coverage. HTA involves institutional cooperation with agreed methods and procedural standards. We systematically reviewed the literature on policies and capacity building to support HTA institutionalisation in SSA.MethodsWe systematically reviewed the literature by searching major databases (PubMed, Embase, etc.) until June 2019 using terms considering three aspects: HTA; health policy, decision making; and SSA. We quantitatively extracted and descriptively analysed content and conducted a narrative synthesis eliciting themes from the selected literature, which varied in study type and apporach.ResultsHalf of the 49 papers identified were primary research studies and mostly qualitative. Five countries were represented in six of ten studies; South Africa, Ghana, Uganda, Cameroon, and Ethiopia. Half of first authors were from SSA. Most informants were policy makers. Five themes emerged: (1) use of HTA; (2) decision-making in HTA; (3) values and criteria for setting priority areas in HTA; (4) involving stakeholders in HTA; and (5) specific examples of progress in HTA in SSA. The first one was the main theme where there was little use of evidence and research in making policy. The awareness of HTA and economic evaluation was low, with inadequate expertise and a lack of local data and tools.ConclusionsDespite growing interest in HTA in SSA countries, awareness remains low and HTA-related activities are uncoordinated and often disconnected from policy. Further training and skills development are needed, firmly linked to a strategy focusing on strengthening within-country partnerships, particularly among researchers and policy makers. The international community has an important role here by supporting policy- relevant technical assistance, highlighting that sustainable financing demands evidence-based processes for effective resource allocation, and catalysing knowledge-sharing opportunities among countries facing similar challenges.

Determinants analysis of outpatient service utilisation in Georgia: can the approach help inform benefit package design?

BackgroundThe healthcare financing reforms initiated by the Government of Georgia in 2007 have positively affected inpatient service utilisation and enhanced financial protection, especially for the poor, but they have failed to facilitate outpatient service use among chronic patients. Non-communicable diseases significantly affect Georgia’s ageing population. Consequently, in this paper, we look at the evidence emerging from determinants analysis of outpatient service utilisation and if the finding can help identify possible policy choices in Georgia, especially regarding benefit package design for individuals with chronic conditions.MethodsWe used Andersen’s behavioural model of health service utilisation to identify the critical determinants that affect outpatient service use. A multinomial logistic regression was carried out with complex survey design using the data from two nationally representative cross-sectional population-based health utilisation and expenditure surveys conducted in Georgia in 2007 and 2010, which allowed us to assess the relationship between the determinants and outpatient service use.ResultsThe study revealed the determinants that significantly impede outpatient service use. Low income, 45- to 64-year-old Georgian males with low educational attainment and suffering from a chronic health problem have the lowest odds for service use compared to the rest of the population.ConclusionsUsing Andersen’s behavioural model and assessing the determinants of outpatient service use has the potential to inform possible policy responses, especially those driving services use among chronic patients. The possible policy responses include reducing financial access barriers with the help of public subsidies for sub-groups of the population with the lowest access to care; focusing/expanding state-funded benefits for the most prevalent chronic conditions, which are responsible for the greatest disease burden; or supporting chronic disease management programs for the most prevalent chronic diseases and for special age groups aimed at the timely detection, education and management of chronic patients.

State budget transfers to Health Insurance to expand coverage to people outside formal sector work in Latin America

BackgroundContributory social health insurance for formal sector employees only has proven challenging for moving towards universal health coverage (UHC). This is because the informally employed and the poor usually remain excluded. One way to expand UHC is to fully or partially subsidize health insurance contributions for excluded population groups through government budget transfers. This paper analyses the institutional design features of such government subsidization arrangements in Latin America and assesses their performance with respect to UHC progress. The aim is to identify UHC conducive institutional design features of such arrangements.MethodsA literature search provided the information to analyse institutional design features, with a focus on the following aspects: eligibility/enrolment rules, financing and pooling arrangements, and purchasing and benefit package design. Based on secondary data analysis, UHC progress is assessed in terms of improved population coverage, financial protection and access to needed health care services.ResultsSuch government subsidization arrangements currently exist in eight countries of Latin America (Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay). Institutional design features and UHC related performance vary significantly. Notably, countries with a universalist approach or indirect targeting have higher population coverage rates. Separate pools for the subsidized maintain inequitable access. The relatively large scopes of the benefit packages had a positive impact on financial protection and access to care.Discussion and ConclusionIn the long term, merging different schemes into one integrated health financing system without opt-out options for the better-off is desirable, while equally expanding eligibility to cover those so far excluded. In the short and medium term, the harmonization of benefit packages could be a priority. UHC progress also depends on substantial supply side investments to ensure the availability of quality services, particularly in rural areas. Future research should generate more evidence on the implementation process and impact of subsidization arrangements on UHC progress.