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

BACKGROUND: Countries 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. METHODS: The 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. RESULTS: Sectoral 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. CONCLUSIONS: Countries should carefully select their approach of cost-effectiveness analyses for benefit package design, based on their decision-making context.

The CAPACITI Decision-Support Tool for National Immunization Programs.

OBJECTIVES: Immunization programs in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are faced with an ever-growing number of vaccines of public health importance recommended by the World Health Organization, while also financing a greater proportion of the program through domestic resources. More than ever, national immunization programs must be equipped to contextualize global guidance and make choices that are best suited to their setting. The CAPACITI decision-support tool has been developed in collaboration with national immunization program decision makers in LMICs to structure and document an evidence-based, context-specific process for prioritizing or selecting among multiple vaccination products, services, or strategies. METHODS: The CAPACITI decision-support tool is based on multi-criteria decision analysis, as a structured way to incorporate multiple sources of evidence and stakeholder perspectives. The tool has been developed iteratively in consultation with 12 countries across Africa, Asia, and the Americas. RESULTS: The tool is flexible to existing country processes and can follow any type of multi-criteria decision analysis or a hybrid approach. It is structured into 5 sections: decision question, criteria for decision making, evidence assessment, appraisal, and recommendation. The Excel-based tool guides the user through the steps and document discussions in a transparent manner, with an emphasis on stakeholder engagement and country ownership. CONCLUSIONS: Pilot countries valued the CAPACITI decision-support tool as a means to consider multiple criteria and stakeholder perspectives and to evaluate trade-offs and the impact of data quality. With use, it is expected that LMICs will tailor steps to their context and streamline the tool for decision making.

Increasing the Legitimacy of Tough Choices in Healthcare Reimbursement: Approach and Results of a Citizen Forum in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Some studies in the Netherlands have gauged public views on principles for healthcare priority setting, but they fall short of comprehensively explaining the public disapproval of several recent reimbursement decisions. OBJECTIVE: To obtain insight into citizens' preferences and identify the criteria they would propose for decisions pertaining to the benefits package of basic health insurance. METHODS: Twenty-four Dutch citizens were selected for participation in a Citizen Forum, which involved 3 weekends. Deliberations took place in small groups and in plenary, guided by 2 moderators, on the basis of 8 preselected case studies, which participants later compared and prioritized under the premise that not all treatments can or need to be reimbursed. Participants received opportunities to inform themselves through written brochures and live interactions with 3 experts. RESULTS: The Citizen Forum identified 16 criteria for inclusion or exclusion of treatments in the benefits package; they relate to the condition (2 criteria), treatment (11 criteria), and individual characteristics of those affected by the condition (3 criteria). In most case studies, it was a combination of criteria that determined whether or not participants favored inclusion of the treatment under consideration in the benefits package. Participants differed in their opinion about the relative importance of criteria, and they had difficulty in operationalizing and trading off criteria to provide a recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Informed citizens are prepared to make and, to a certain extent, capable of making reasoned choices about the reimbursement of health services. They realize that choices are both necessary and possible. Broad public support and understanding for making tough choices regarding the benefits package of basic health insurance is not automatic: it requires an investment.

Implementing evidence-informed deliberative processes in health technology assessment: a low income country perspective.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the potential feasibility and utility of evidence-informed deliberative processes (EPDs) in low income country (LIC) contexts. EDPs are implemented in high and middle income countries and thought to improve the quality, consistency, and transparency of decisions informed by health technology assessment (HTA). Together these would ultimately improve the legitimacy of any decision making process. We argue-based on our previous work and in light of the priority setting literature-that EDPs are relevant and feasible within LICs. The extreme lack of resources necessitates making tough decisions which may mean depriving populations of potentially valuable health technologies. It is critical that the decisions and the decision making bodies are perceived as fair and legitimate by the people that are most affected by the decisions. EDPs are well aligned with the political infrastructure in some LICs, which encourages public participation in decision making. Furthermore, many countries are committed to evidence-informed decision making. However, the application of EDPs may be hampered by the limited availability of evidence of good quality, lack of interest in transparency and accountability (in some LICs), limited capacity to conduct HTA, as well as limited time and financial resources to invest in a deliberative process. While EDPs would potentially benefit many LICs, mitigating the identified potential barriers would strengthen their applicability. We believe that implementation studies in LICs, documenting the contextualized enablers and barriers will facilitate the development of context specific improvement strategies for EDPs.

Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Health Technology Assessment Agencies: Benefits, Limitations, and the Way Forward.

OBJECTIVE: Recent years have witnessed an increased interest in the use of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support health technology assessment (HTA) agencies for setting healthcare priorities. However, its implementation to date has been criticized for being "entirely mechanistic," ignoring opportunity costs, and not following best practice guidelines. This article provides guidance on the use of MCDA in this context. METHODS: The present study was based on a systematic review and consensus development. We developed a typology of MCDA studies and good implementation practice. We reviewed 36 studies over the period 1990 to 2018 on their compliance with good practice and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among authors over the course of several review rounds. RESULTS: We identified 3 MCDA study types: qualitative MCDA, quantitative MCDA, and MCDA with decision rules. The types perform differently in terms of quality, consistency, and transparency of recommendations on healthcare priorities. We advise HTA agencies to always include a deliberative component. Agencies should, at a minimum, undertake qualitative MCDA. The use of quantitative MCDA has additional benefits but also poses design challenges. MCDA with decision rules, used by HTA agencies in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom and typically referred to as structured deliberation, has the potential to further improve the formulation of recommendations but has not yet been subjected to broad experimentation and evaluation. CONCLUSION: MCDA holds large potential to support HTA agencies in setting healthcare priorities, but its implementation needs to be improved.

Translating international HIV treatment guidelines into local priorities in Indonesia.

OBJECTIVE: International guidelines recommend countries to expand antiretroviral therapy (ART) to all HIV-infected individuals and establish local-level priorities in relation to other treatment, prevention and mitigation interventions through fair processes. However, no practical guidance is provided for such priority-setting processes. Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) fill this gap and combine stakeholder deliberation to incorporate relevant social values with rational decision-making informed by evidence on these values. This study reports on the first-time implementation and evaluation of an EDP in HIV control, organised to support the AIDS Commission in West Java province, Indonesia, in the development of its strategic plan for 2014-2018. METHODS: Under the responsibility of the provincial AIDS Commission, an EDP was implemented to select priority interventions using six steps: (i) situational analysis; (ii) formation of a multistakeholder Consultation Panel; (iii) selection of criteria; (iv) identification and assessment of interventions' performance; (v) deliberation; and (vi) selection of funding and implementing institutions. An independent researcher conducted in-depth interviews (n = 21) with panel members to evaluate the process. RESULTS: The Consultation Panel included 23 stakeholders. They identified 50 interventions and these were evaluated against four criteria: impact on the epidemic, stigma reduction, cost-effectiveness and universal coverage. After a deliberative discussion, the Consultation Panel prioritised a combination of several treatment, prevention and mitigation interventions. CONCLUSION: The EDP improved both stakeholder involvement and the evidence base for the strategic planning process. EDPs fill an important gap which international guidelines and current tools for strategic planning in HIV control leave unaddressed.

Evidence for scaling up HIV treatment in sub-Saharan Africa: A call for incorporating health system constraints.

Jan Hontelez and colleagues argue that the cost-effectiveness studies of HIV treatment scale-up need to include health system constraints to be more informative.

Value Assessment Frameworks for HTA Agencies: The Organization of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes.

Priority setting in health care has been long recognized as an intrinsically complex and value-laden process. Yet, health technology assessment agencies (HTAs) presently employ value assessment frameworks that are ill fitted to capture the range and diversity of stakeholder values and thereby risk compromising the legitimacy of their recommendations. We propose "evidence-informed deliberative processes" as an alternative framework with the aim to enhance this legitimacy. This framework integrates two increasingly popular and complementary frameworks for priority setting: multicriteria decision analysis and accountability for reasonableness. Evidence-informed deliberative processes are, on one hand, based on early, continued stakeholder deliberation to learn about the importance of relevant social values. On the other hand, they are based on rational decision-making through evidence-informed evaluation of the identified values. The framework has important implications for how HTA agencies should ideally organize their processes. First, HTA agencies should take the responsibility of organizing stakeholder involvement. Second, agencies are advised to integrate their assessment and appraisal phases, allowing for the timely collection of evidence on values that are considered relevant. Third, HTA agencies should subject their decision-making criteria to public scrutiny. Fourth, agencies are advised to use a checklist of potentially relevant criteria and to provide argumentation for how each criterion affected the recommendation. Fifth, HTA agencies must publish their argumentation and install options for appeal. The framework should not be considered a blueprint for HTA agencies but rather an aspirational goal-agencies can take incremental steps toward achieving this goal.

Comparative Cost Analysis of Four Interventions to Prevent HIV Transmission in Bandung, Indonesia.

BACKGROUND: the costs of HIV/AIDS interventions in Indonesia are largely unknown. Knowing these costs is an important input for policy makers in the decision-making of setting priorities among HIV/AIDS interventions. The aim of this analysis is to determine the costs of four HIV/AIDS interventions in Bandung, Indonesia in 2015, to inform the local AIDS commission. METHODS: data on utilization and costs of the different interventions were collected in a sexual transmitted infections (STI)-clinic and the KPA, the local HIV/AIDS commission, for the period of January 2015-December 2015. The costs were estimated from a societal perspective, using a micro-costing approach. RESULTS: the total annualized costs for condom distribution, mobile voluntary counselling and testing (VCT), religious based information, communication, and education (IEC) and STI services equalled US$56,926, US$2,985, US$1,963 and US$5,865, respectively. CONCLUSION: this analysis has provided cost estimates of four different HIV/AIDS interventions in Bandung, Indonesia. Additionally, it has estimated the costs of scaling up these interventions. Together, this provides important information for policy makers vis-à-vis the implementation of these interventions. However, an evaluation of the effectiveness of these interventions is needed to estimate the cost-effectiveness.

Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making--An Introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force.

Health care decisions are complex and involve confronting trade-offs between multiple, often conflicting, objectives. Using structured, explicit approaches to decisions involving multiple criteria can improve the quality of decision making and a set of techniques, known under the collective heading multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA), are useful for this purpose. MCDA methods are widely used in other sectors, and recently there has been an increase in health care applications. In 2014, ISPOR established an MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. It was charged with establishing a common definition for MCDA in health care decision making and developing good practice guidelines for conducting MCDA to aid health care decision making. This initial ISPOR MCDA task force report provides an introduction to MCDA - it defines MCDA; provides examples of its use in different kinds of decision making in health care (including benefit risk analysis, health technology assessment, resource allocation, portfolio decision analysis, shared patient clinician decision making and prioritizing patients' access to services); provides an overview of the principal methods of MCDA; and describes the key steps involved. Upon reviewing this report, readers should have a solid overview of MCDA methods and their potential for supporting health care decision making.

Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making--Emerging Good Practices: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force.

Health care decisions are complex and involve confronting trade-offs between multiple, often conflicting objectives. Using structured, explicit approaches to decisions involving multiple criteria can improve the quality of decision making. A set of techniques, known under the collective heading, multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA), are useful for this purpose. In 2014, ISPOR established an Emerging Good Practices Task Force. The task force's first report defined MCDA, provided examples of its use in health care, described the key steps, and provided an overview of the principal methods of MCDA. This second task force report provides emerging good-practice guidance on the implementation of MCDA to support health care decisions. The report includes: a checklist to support the design, implementation and review of an MCDA; guidance to support the implementation of the checklist; the order in which the steps should be implemented; illustrates how to incorporate budget constraints into an MCDA; provides an overview of the skills and resources, including available software, required to implement MCDA; and future research directions.

Can health insurance protect against out-of-pocket and catastrophic expenditures and also support poverty reduction? Evidence from Ghana's National Health Insurance Scheme.

BACKGROUND: Ghana since 2004, begun implementation of a National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) to minimize financial barriers to health care at point of use of service. Usually health insurance is expected to offer financial protection to households. This study aims to analyze the effect health insurance on household out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE), catastrophic expenditure (CE) and poverty. METHODS: We conducted two repeated household surveys in two regions of Ghana in 2009 and 2011. We first analyzed the effect of OOPE on poverty by estimating poverty headcount before and after OOPE were incurred. We also employed probit models and use of instrumental variables to analyze the effect of health insurance on OOPE, CE and poverty. RESULTS: Our findings showed that between 7-18 % of insured households incurred CE as a result of OOPE whereas this was between 29-36 % for uninsured households. In addition, between 3-5 % of both insured and uninsured households fell into poverty due to OOPE. Our regression analyses revealed that health insurance enrolment reduced OOPE by 86 % and protected households against CE and poverty by 3.0 % and 7.5 % respectively. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that high OOPE leads to CE and poverty in Ghana but enrolment into the NHIS reduces OOPE, provides financial protection against CE and reduces poverty. These findings support the pro-poor policy objective of Ghana's National Health Insurance Scheme and holds relevance to other low and middle income countries implementing or aiming to implement insurance schemes.

Costs of HIV/AIDS treatment in Indonesia by time of treatment and stage of disease.

BACKGROUND: We report an economic analysis of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) care and treatment in Indonesia to assess the options and limitations of costs reduction, improving access, and scaling up services. METHODS: We calculated the cost of providing HIV care and treatment in a main referral hospital in West Java, Indonesia from 2008 to 2010, differentiated by initiation of treatment at different CD4 cell count levels (0-50, 50-100, 100-150, 150-200, and >200 cells/mm(3)); time of treatment; HIV care and opportunistic infections cost components; and the costs of patients for seeking and undergoing care. DISCUSSION: Before antiretroviral treatment (ART) initiation, costs were dominated by laboratory tests (>65 %), and after initiation, by antiretroviral drugs (≥60 %). Average treatment costs per patient decreased with time on treatment (e.g. from US$580 per patient in the first 6 month to US$473 per patient in months 19-24 for those with CD4 cell counts under 50 cells/mm(3)). Higher CD4 cell counts at initiation resulted in lower laboratory and opportunistic infection treatment costs. Transportation cost dominated the costs of patients for seeking and undergoing care (>40 %). CONCLUSIONS: Costs of providing ART are highest during the early phase of treatment. Costs reductions can potentially be realized by early treatment initiation and applying alternative laboratory tests with caution. Scaling up ART at the community level in certain high prevalence settings may improve early uptake, adherence, and reduce transportation costs.

IMPORTANCE OF MULTIPLE CRITERIA FOR PRIORITY SETTING OF HIV/AIDS INTERVENTIONS.

OBJECTIVES: This study describes the views of various stakeholders on the importance of different criteria for priority setting of HIV/AIDS interventions in Indonesia. METHODS: Based on a general list of criteria and a focus group discussion with stakeholders (n = 6), a list was developed of thirty-two criteria that play a role in priority setting in HIV/AIDS control in West-Java province. Criteria were categorized according to the World Health Organization's health system goals and building block frameworks. People living with HIV/AIDS (n = 49), healthcare workers (HCW) (n = 41), the general population (n = 43), and policy makers (n = 22) rated the importance of thirty-two criteria on a 5-point Likert-scale. Thereafter, respondents ranked the highest rated criteria to express more detailed preferences. RESULTS: Stakeholders valued the following criteria as most important for the priority setting of HIV/AIDS interventions: an intervention's impact on the HIV/AIDS epidemic, reduction of stigma, quality of care, effectiveness on individual level, and feasibility in terms of current capacity of the health system (i.e., HCW, product, information, and service requirements), financial sustainability, and acceptance by donors. Overall, stakeholders' preferences for the importance of criteria are similar. CONCLUSIONS: Our study design outlines an approach for other settings to identify which criteria are important for priority setting of health interventions. For Indonesia, these study results may be used in priority setting processes for HIV/AIDS control and may contribute to more transparent and systematic allocation of resources.

Equity in utilization of antiretroviral therapy for HIV-infected people in South Africa: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: About half a million people in South Africa are deprived of antiretroviral therapy (ART), and there is little systematic knowledge on who they are - e.g. by severity of disease, sex, or socio-economic status (SES). We performed a systematic review to determine the current quantitative evidence-base on equity in utilization of ART among HIV-infected people in South Africa. METHOD: We conducted a literature search based on the Cochrane guidelines. A study was included if it compared for different groups of HIV infected people (by sex, age, severity of disease, area of living, SES, marital status, ethnicity, religion and/or sexual orientation (i.e. equity criteria)) the number initiating/adhering to ART with the number who did not. We considered ART utilization inequitable for a certain criterion (e.g. sex) if between groups (e.g. men versus women) significant differences were reported in ART initiation/adherence. RESULTS: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. For sex, 2 out of 10 studies that investigated this criterion found that men are less likely than women to utilize ART, while the other 8 found no differences. For age, 4 out of 8 studies found inequities and reported less utilization for younger people. For area of living, 3 out of 4 studies showed that those living in rural areas or certain provinces have less access and 2 out of 6 studies looking at SES found that people with lower SES have less access. One study which looked at the marital status found that those who are married are less likely to utilize ART. For severity of disease, 5 out of 6 studies used more than one outcome measure for disease stage and reported within their study contradicting results. One of the studies reported inconclusive findings for ethnicity and no study had looked at religion and sexual orientation. CONCLUSION: It seems that men, young people, those living in certain provinces or rural areas, people who are unemployed or with a low educational level, and those being unmarried have less access to ART. As studies stem from different contexts and use different methods conclusions should be taken with caution.

Ownership and technical efficiency of hospitals: evidence from Ghana using data envelopment analysis.

BACKGROUND: In order to measure and analyse the technical efficiency of district hospitals in Ghana, the specific objectives of this study were to (a) estimate the relative technical and scale efficiency of government, mission, private and quasi-government district hospitals in Ghana in 2005; (b) estimate the magnitudes of output increases and/or input reductions that would have been required to make relatively inefficient hospitals more efficient; and (c) use Tobit regression analysis to estimate the impact of ownership on hospital efficiency. METHODS: In the first stage, we used data envelopment analysis (DEA) to estimate the efficiency of 128 hospitals comprising of 73 government hospitals, 42 mission hospitals, 7 quasi-government hospitals and 6 private hospitals. In the second stage, the estimated DEA efficiency scores are regressed against hospital ownership variable using a Tobit model. This was a retrospective study. RESULTS: In our DEA analysis, using the variable returns to scale model, out of 128 district hospitals, 31 (24.0%) were 100% efficient, 25 (19.5%) were very close to being efficient with efficiency scores ranging from 70% to 99.9% and 71 (56.2%) had efficiency scores below 50%. The lowest-performing hospitals had efficiency scores ranging from 21% to 30%.Quasi-government hospitals had the highest mean efficiency score (83.9%) followed by public hospitals (70.4%), mission hospitals (68.6%) and private hospitals (55.8%). However, public hospitals also got the lowest mean technical efficiency scores (27.4%), implying they have some of the most inefficient hospitals.Regarding regional performance, Northern region hospitals had the highest mean efficiency score (83.0%) and Volta Region hospitals had the lowest mean score (43.0%).From our Tobit regression, we found out that while quasi-government ownership is positively associated with hospital technical efficiency, private ownership negatively affects hospital efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: It would be prudent for policy-makers to examine the least efficient hospitals to correct widespread inefficiency. This would include reconsidering the number of hospitals and their distribution, improving efficiency and reducing duplication by closing or scaling down hospitals with efficiency scores below a certain threshold. For private hospitals with inefficiency related to large size, there is a need to break down such hospitals into manageable sizes.

Guidance on priority setting in health care (GPS-Health): the inclusion of equity criteria not captured by cost-effectiveness analysis.

This Guidance for Priority Setting in Health Care (GPS-Health), initiated by the World Health Organization, offers a comprehensive map of equity criteria that are relevant to health care priority setting and should be considered in addition to cost-effectiveness analysis. The guidance, in the form of a checklist, is especially targeted at decision makers who set priorities at national and sub-national levels, and those who interpret findings from cost-effectiveness analysis. It is also targeted at researchers conducting cost-effectiveness analysis to improve reporting of their results in the light of these other criteria. THE GUIDANCE WAS DEVELOP THROUGH A SERIES OF EXPERT CONSULTATION MEETINGS AND INVOLVED THREE STEPS: i) methods and normative concepts were identified through a systematic review; ii) the review findings were critically assessed in the expert consultation meetings which resulted in a draft checklist of normative criteria; iii) the checklist was validated though an extensive hearing process with input from a range of relevant stakeholders. The GPS-Health incorporates criteria related to the disease an intervention targets (severity of disease, capacity to benefit, and past health loss); characteristics of social groups an intervention targets (socioeconomic status, area of living, gender; race, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation); and non-health consequences of an intervention (financial protection, economic productivity, and care for others).

Assessing Global Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness to Inform Development of Pakistan's Essential Package of Health Services.

BACKGROUND: Countries designing a health benefit package (HBP) to support progress towards universal health coverage (UHC) require robust cost-effectiveness evidence. This paper reports on Pakistan's approach to assessing the applicability of global cost-effectiveness evidence to country context as part of a HBP design process. METHODS: A seven-step process was developed and implemented with Disease Control Priority 3 (DCP3) project partners to assess the applicability of global incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to Pakistan. First, the scope of the interventions to be assessed was defined and an independent, interdisciplinary team was formed. Second, the team familiarized itself with intervention descriptions. Third, the team identified studies from the Tufts Medical School Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GH-CEA) registry. Fourth, the team applied specific knock-out criteria to match identified studies to local intervention descriptions. Matches were then cross-checked across reviewers and further selection was made where there were multiple ICER matches. Sixth, a quality scoring system was applied to ICER values. Finally, a database was created containing all the ICER results with a justification for each decision, which was made available to decision-makers during HBP deliberation. RESULTS: We found that less than 50% of the interventions in DCP3 could be supported with evidence of cost-effectiveness applicable to the country context. Out of 78 ICERs identified as applicable to Pakistan from the Tufts GH-CEA registry, only 20 ICERs were exact matches of the DCP3 Pakistan intervention descriptions and 58 were partial matches. CONCLUSION: This paper presents the first attempt globally to use the main public GH-CEA database to estimate cost-effectiveness in the context of HBPs at a country level. This approach is a useful learning for all countries trying to develop essential packages informed by the global database on ICERs, and it will support the design of future evidence and further development of methods.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.