Decision-making processes for essential packages of health services: experience from six countries

Author:

Baltussen Rob,Mwalim Omar,Blanchet KarlORCID,Carballo Manuel,Eregata Getachew Teshome,Hailu Alemayehu,Huda Maryam,Jama Mohamed,Johansson Kjell ArneORCID,Reynolds Teri,Raza Wajeeha,Mallender Jacque,Majdzadeh Reza

Abstract

Many countries around the world strive for universal health coverage, and an essential packages of health services (EPHS) is a central policy instrument for countries to achieve this. It defines the coverage of services that are made available, as well as the proportion of the costs that are covered from different financial schemes and who can receive these services. This paper reports on the development of an analytical framework on the decision-making process of EPHS revision, and the review of practices of six countries (Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and Zanzibar-Tanzania).The analytical framework distinguishes the practical organisation, fairness and institutionalisation of decision-making processes. The review shows that countries: (1) largely follow a similar practical stepwise process but differ in their implementation of some steps, such as the choice of decision criteria; (2) promote fairness in their EPHS process by involving a range of stakeholders, which in the case of Zanzibar included patients and community members; (3) are transparent in terms of at least some of the steps of their decision-making process and (4) in terms of institutionalisation, express a high degree of political will for ongoing EPHS revision with almost all countries having a designated governing institute for EPHS revision.We advise countries to organise meaningful stakeholder involvement and foster the transparency of the decision-making process, as these are key to fairness in decision-making. We also recommend countries to take steps towards the institutionalisation of their EPHS revision process.

Funder

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy

Reference24 articles.

1. Glassman A , Giedion U , Smith PC . What's in, what's out: designing benefits for universal health coverage. Brookings Institution Press, 2017.

2. Priority-setting for achieving universal health coverage;Chalkidou;Bull World Health Organ,2016

3. Priority setting for universal health coverage: we need evidence-informed deliberative processes, not just more evidence on cost-effectiveness;Baltussen;Int J Health Policy Manag,2016

4. Oortwijn W , Jansen M , Baltussen R . Step-by-step practical guide for HTA agencies to enhance legitimate decision-making. In: Evidence-Informed deliberative processes, 2019.

5. Glassman A , Giedion U , Smith PC . What's in, what's out: designing benefits for universal health coverage. Washington DC, United States: Published by: Brookings Institution Press, Center for Global Development, 2017.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3