Integrating health technology assessment and the right to health: a qualitative content analysis of procedural values in South African judicial decisions

Author:

DiStefano Michael J12ORCID,Abdool Karim Safura3,Krubiner Carleigh B24

Affiliation:

1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA

2. Berman Institute of Bioethics, 1809 Ashland Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA

3. SAMRC/WITS Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science (PRICELESS SA), Office 233, 2nd floor, Wits Education Campus, 27 St Andrews Road, Parktown, Johannesburg 2193, South Africa

4. Center for Global Development, 2055 L St., Washington, DC 20036, USA

Abstract

Abstract South Africa’s move towards implementing National Health Insurance includes a commitment to establish a health technology assessment (HTA) body to inform health priority-setting decisions. This study sought to analyse health rights cases in South Africa to inform the identification of country-specific procedural values related to health priority-setting and their implementation in a South African HTA body. The focus on health rights cases is motivated in part by the fact that case law can be an important source of insight into the values of a particular country. This focus is further motivated by a desire to mitigate the potential tension between a rights-based approach to healthcare access and national efforts to set health priorities. A qualitative content analysis of eight South African court cases related to the right to health was conducted. Cases were identified through a LexisNexis search and supplemented with expert judgement. Procedural values identified from the health priority-setting literature, including those comprising Accountability for Reasonableness (A4R), structured the thematic analysis. The importance of transparency and revision—two elements of A4R—is evident in our findings, suggesting that the courts can help to enforce elements of A4R. Yet our findings also indicate that A4R is likely to be insufficient for ensuring that HTA in South Africa meets the procedural demands of a constitutional rights-based approach to healthcare access. Accordingly, we also suggest that a South African HTA body ought to consider more demanding considerations related to transparency and revisions as well as explicit considerations related to inclusivity.

Funder

Wellcome

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Health Policy

Reference82 articles.

1. Is the judicialization of health care bad for equity? A scoping review;Andia;International Journal for Equity in Health,2019

2. Priority setting for Universal Health Coverage: we need evidence-informed deliberative processes, not just more evidence on cost-effectiveness;Baltussen;International Journal of Health Policy and Management,2016

3. Making doctrinal work more rigorous: lessons from systematic reviews;Baude,2016

4. Judicialization 2.0: understanding right-to-health litigation in real time;Biehl;Global Public Health,2019

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