Health systems and reform最新文献

{"title":"Institutionalizing Health Technology Assessment in Ghana: Enablers, Constraints, and Lessons.","authors":"Augustina Koduah, Jessica Anim Boadi, Joycelyn Naa Korkoi Azeez, Brian Adu Asare, Saviour Yevutsey, Martha Gyansa-Lutterodt, Justice Nonvignon","doi":"10.1080/23288604.2024.2314519","DOIUrl":"10.1080/23288604.2024.2314519","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Health Technology Assessment (HTA) has been institutionalized in Ghana with structures, processes, and methods. This paper identifies and analyzes the policy players involved; the way in which issues were framed; and the manner in which administrative structures were used to set the agenda for, adopt, and implement HTA. It shows that the Ministry of Health, supported by other players, led HTA agenda-setting through training activities and discussions on evidence of selection pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other health-related technologies. HTA was then captured in a health sector <i>aide memoire</i> that summarized the decisions made at a national health summit. In implementing the HTA policy, technical working groups and a steering committee were constituted to provide recommendations to the minister of health on high-level decisions. The ability of agenda influencers to maneuver existing administrative and bureaucratic structures, align them with national strategic goals, and sustain HTA implementation enabled Ghana to institutionalize HTA. Limited financial support and a dearth of in-country expertise are being addressed through capacity building and funding. To ensure early national buy-in and uptake, policy makers and agenda influencers need to understand each country's health system and align HTA with national policy decision-making processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":73218,"journal":{"name":"Health systems and reform","volume":"9 3","pages":"2314519"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140878092","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Introduction to the Special Issue on \"Building Institutions for Priority Setting in Health\".","authors":"Victoria Y Fan, Javier Guzman, Pete Baker","doi":"10.1080/23288604.2024.2377891","DOIUrl":"10.1080/23288604.2024.2377891","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the pursuit of universal health coverage, countries are invariably confronted with questions about which services to pay with public funds, to whom, and at what cost. Such priority-setting processes have major ramifications for the costs and benefits of care delivered. These processes are not just technical, but also highly political and organizational in nature and expressions of social values. This special issue focuses on building institutions for priority setting in health. These institutions serve a public purpose and are primarily concerned with conducting or using health technology assessment (HTA) to inform resource allocation decisions. We first define the concept of institutions for priority setting in health and the methodological considerations of assessing and evaluating these institutions. Next, we present key common themes and summarize key messages across the articles, including lessons learned and future challenges in building these institutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":73218,"journal":{"name":"Health systems and reform","volume":"9 3","pages":"2377891"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141891164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fifteen Lessons from Fifteen Years of the Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program in Thailand.","authors":"Yot Teerawattananon, Saudamini Vishwanath Dabak, Anthony Culyer, Anne Mills, Pritaporn Kingkaew, Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai","doi":"10.1080/23288604.2024.2330974","DOIUrl":"10.1080/23288604.2024.2330974","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP) was established in 2007. This article highlights 15 lessons from over 15 years of experience, noting five achievements about what HITAP has done well, five areas that it is currently working on, and five aims for work in the future. HITAP built capacity for HTA and linked research to policy and practice in Thailand. With collaborators from academic and policy spheres, HITAP has mobilized regional and global support, and developed global public goods to enhance the field of HTA. HITAP's semi-autonomous structure has facilitated these changes, though they have not been without their challenges. HITAP aims to continue its work on HTA for public health interventions and disinvestments, effectively engaging with stakeholders and strategically managing its human resources. Moving forward, HITAP will develop and update global public goods on HTA, work on emerging topics such as early HTA, address issues in digital health, real-world evidence and equity, support HTA development globally, particularly in low-income settings, and seek to engage more effectively with the public. HITAP seeks to learn from its experience and invest in the areas identified so that it can grow sustainably. Its journey may be relevant to other countries and institutions that are interested in developing HTA programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":73218,"journal":{"name":"Health systems and reform","volume":"9 3","pages":"2330974"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140878088","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Institutionalizing Health Technology Assessment and Priority Setting in South Korea's Universal Health Coverage Journey.","authors":"Juhwan Oh, Min-Jeong Kim, Sujeong Hur, Juyeon Oh, Dong-Sook Kim","doi":"10.1080/23288604.2024.2338308","DOIUrl":"10.1080/23288604.2024.2338308","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study charts the chronological developments of the three institutions that were established in South Korea for priority setting in health. In 2007, the Evidence-based Medicine Team and the Center for New Health Technology Assessment (CnHTA) were established and nested in the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA). In December 2008, the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) was launched, to which the CnHTA was transferred in 2010. Since then, non-drug technologies have been reviewed by NECA and drugs have been reviewed by HIRA. Political debates about how to embrace expensive but important health technologies that were not on the benefits list led to the creation of the Participatory Priority Setting Committee (PPSC) in 2012. The PPSC, led by the general public, has played a key role in advancing the path toward universal health coverage by revitalizing the list of essential, yet previously overlooked, medical technologies. PPSC offers these technologies a second chance at coverage. HIRA and NECA served to strengthen evidence-based and efficiency-based decision-making in the health system via CnHTA, and PPSC served to strengthen social value-based decision making via priority setting in Korea. The reassessment by PPSC may be relevant in countries where the economy is growing and citizens want to rapidly expand the benefits list.</p>","PeriodicalId":73218,"journal":{"name":"Health systems and reform","volume":"9 3","pages":"2338308"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140878091","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Factors Influencing the Institutionalization of Health Technology Assessment: A Scoping Literature Review.","authors":"Rahab Mbau, Anna Vassall, Lucy Gilson, Edwine Barasa","doi":"10.1080/23288604.2024.2360315","DOIUrl":"10.1080/23288604.2024.2360315","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is global interest in institutionalizing Health Technology Assessment (HTA) to inform resource allocation decisions. However, institutionalization of HTA remains limited particularly in low- and lower-middle-income countries. We conducted this scoping review to synthesize evidence on factors that influence the institutionalization of HTA at the macro (national)-level across countries globally. We searched for relevant literature in six databases namely PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, EconLit, and Google Scholar. We conducted the last search on December 31, 2021. We identified 77 articles that described factors that influence institutionalization of HTA across 135 high-, middle-, and low-income countries. We analyzed these articles thematically. We identified five sets of factors that influence the institutionalization of HTA across countries of different income levels. These factors include: (1) organizational resources such as organizational structures, and skilled human, financial, and information resources; (2) legal frameworks, policies, and guidelines for HTA; (3) learning and advocacy for HTA; (4) stakeholder-related factors such as stakeholders' interests, awareness, and understanding; and (5) collaborative support for HTA through international networks and non-governmental and multi-lateral organizations. Countries seeking to institutionalize HTA should map the availability of the factors identified in this review. Developing these factors wherever necessary can influence a country's capacity to institutionalize the conduct and use of HTA.</p>","PeriodicalId":73218,"journal":{"name":"Health systems and reform","volume":"9 3","pages":"2360315"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142001493","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"International Partnerships to Develop Evidence-informed Priority Setting Institutions: Ten Years of Experience from the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI).","authors":"Peter Baker, Edwine Barasa, Kalipso Chalkidou, Lumbwe Chola, Anthony Culyer, Saudamini Dabak, Victoria Y Fan, Katrine Frønsdal, Lieke Fleur Heupink, Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai, Rahab Mbau, Abha Mehndiratta, Justice Nonvignon, Francis Ruiz, Yot Teerawattananon, Anna Vassall, Javier Guzman","doi":"10.1080/23288604.2024.2330112","DOIUrl":"10.1080/23288604.2024.2330112","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>All health systems must set priorities. Evidence-informed priority-setting (EIPS) is a specific form of systematic priority-setting which involves explicit consideration of evidence to determine the healthcare interventions to be provided. The international Decision Support Initiative (iDSI) was established in 2013 as a collaborative platform to catalyze faster progress on EIPS, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. This article summarizes the successes, challenges, and lessons learned from ten years of iDSI partnering with countries to develop EIPS institutions and processes. This is a thematic documentary analysis, structured by iDSI's theory of change, extracting successes, challenges, and lessons from three external evaluations and 19 internal reports to funders. We identified three phases of iDSI's work-inception (2013-15), scale-up (2016-2019), and focus on Africa (2019-2023). iDSI has established a global platform for coordinating EIPS, advanced the field, and supported regional networks in Asia and Africa. It has facilitated progress in securing high-level commitment to EIPS, strengthened EIPS institutions, and developed capacity for health technology assessments. This has resulted in improved decisions on service provision, procurement, and clinical care. Major lessons learned include the importance of sustained political will to develop EIPS; a clear EIPS mandate; inclusive governance structures appropriate to health financing context; politically sensitive and country-led support to EIPS, taking advantage of policy windows for EIPS reforms; regional networks for peer support and long-term sustainability; utilization of context appropriate methods such as adaptive HTA; and crucially, donor-funded global health initiatives supporting and integrating with national EIPS systems, not undermining them.</p>","PeriodicalId":73218,"journal":{"name":"Health systems and reform","volume":"9 3","pages":"2330112"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140878094","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Is it the Right Topic? An Overlooked Stage in the Institutionalization of Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"Elizabeth F Peacocke, Lieke Fleur Heupink, Aparna Ananthakrishnan, Katrine B Frønsdal","doi":"10.1080/23288604.2024.2329082","DOIUrl":"10.1080/23288604.2024.2329082","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Producing a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is resource intensive, therefore, an explicit process for Topic Identification, Selection, and Prioritization (TISP) can optimize the use of limited resources to those HTA topics of national importance. TISP does not have to be complicated, however, a formalized process facilitates HTA recommendations that better align with local priorities. The comprehensiveness of TISP processes varies according to countries' needs and to the types of decisions HTA supports. There may be many relevant considerations for TISP, such as the resources available for allocation within the health system, the number of dedicated personnel to complete HTA, and the number of stakeholders and institutions involved in the decision-making process. In countries where HTA-supported decision-making is well-established, the process for TISP is usually formalized. In settings where HTA is emerging, relatively new, or where there may not be the necessary supporting institutional mechanisms, there is limited normative guidance on how to implement TISP. We argue that developing a clear process for TISP is key when institutionalizing HTA. Moreover, insights and experiences from more formalized HTA systems can provide valuable lessons. In this commentary we discuss three institutional aspects that we believe are vital to TISP: 1) Begin topic selection with a clear link to health system feasibility, 2) Ensure legitimacy and impact through transparent TISP processes, and 3) Include the public from the start to embed patient and public engagement throughout HTA.</p>","PeriodicalId":73218,"journal":{"name":"Health systems and reform","volume":"9 3","pages":"2329082"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140878095","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Development of Health Technology Assessment in Taiwan: Perspectives and Analysis.","authors":"Raoh-Fang Pwu, Yen-Shu Cheng, Wen-Wen Yang, Grace Hui-Min Wu","doi":"10.1080/23288604.2024.2330396","DOIUrl":"10.1080/23288604.2024.2330396","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Efforts to advance health technology assessment (HTA) in Taiwan have aimed to optimize the allocation of National Health Insurance (NHI) resources. This study documents and analyzes the historical timeline of Taiwan's efforts in HTA, identifying areas to advance the HTA system, such as gaining broad stakeholder acceptance. We document ambitious plans to establish a larger, independent HTA center and how these plans did not materialize. The historical timeline also describes the primary focus of HTA shifting to serve the needs of decision-making authorities and committees. We argue that these changes resulted in growth of the HTA system, but also led to significant external criticism and potential compromise of its foundational principles. The inability to create a national HTA center can be attributed to several factors, including an immature ecosystem of HTA-Policy-Patient-Provider-Academic collaboration, a lack of a supportive culture, and challenging political and economic conditions. Nevertheless, if effectively managed, Taiwan's current HTA system could play a crucial role in rational decision-making, informed choices, and efficient NHI resource management. We argue that greater autonomy is crucial for enhancing financial sustainability and protecting against external influences to ensure objective and credible assessments. Additionally, we emphasize the importance of fostering a conducive learning environment to improve methodological expertise.</p>","PeriodicalId":73218,"journal":{"name":"Health systems and reform","volume":"9 3","pages":"2330396"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140878097","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Lessons Learned in Using Mathematical Modeling for Priority Setting in Health.","authors":"David Wilson, Marelize Gorgens","doi":"10.1080/23288604.2024.2357113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23288604.2024.2357113","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for priority setting in health financing and resource allocation, spotlighting the limitations of traditional health financing strategies. This commentary explores the relevance of mathematical modeling in enhancing allocative efficiency within the health sector, especially in the aftermath of the pandemic. We draw from the World Bank's experiences in supporting over 20 countries to employ mathematical optimization models for priority setting, aiming to achieve optimal health outcomes within constrained budgets. The pandemic's impact on economic growth, revenue collection, debt stress, and the overall fiscal space available for health financing has necessitated a paradigm shift toward prioritizing efficiency improvements in health service delivery. We outline lessons learned from such modeling and chart future directions to enhance efficiency gains, including for integrated, patient-centered approaches to health service delivery. We advocate for flexible and effective localized priority-setting, leveraging data-driven insights to navigate the complexities of health financing in a post-COVID era.</p>","PeriodicalId":73218,"journal":{"name":"Health systems and reform","volume":"9 3","pages":"2357113"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142302589","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Role of HTA for Essential Health Benefit Package Design in Low or Middle-Income Countries.","authors":"Ole F Norheim, David A Watkins","doi":"10.1080/23288604.2023.2273051","DOIUrl":"10.1080/23288604.2023.2273051","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":73218,"journal":{"name":"Health systems and reform","volume":"9 3","pages":"2273051"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72212187","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}