Priority-setting for achieving universal health coverage.

Governments in low- and middle-income countries are legitimizing the implementation of universal health coverage (UHC), following a United Nation's resolution on UHC in 2012 and its reinforcement in the sustainable development goals set in 2015. UHC will differ in each country depending on country contexts and needs, as well as demand and supply in health care. Therefore, fundamental issues such as objectives, users and cost-effectiveness of UHC have been raised by policy-makers and stakeholders. While priority-setting is done on a daily basis by health authorities - implicitly or explicitly - it has not been made clear how priority-setting for UHC should be conducted. We provide justification for explicit health priority-setting and guidance to countries on how to set priorities for UHC.

Les gouvernements des pays à revenu faible et intermédiaire sont en train de légitimer la mise en place de la couverture sanitaire universelle (CSU), suite à une résolution des Nations Unies de 2012 sur la CSU et à son entérinement dans les objectifs de développement durable fixés en 2015. La CSU variera selon les pays, en fonction de leur contexte et de leurs besoins, ainsi qu'en fonction de la demande et de l'offre de soins. Des questions fondamentales ont ainsi été soulevées par les responsables politiques et les parties prenantes, portant notamment sur les objectifs, les utilisateurs et le rapport coût-efficacité de la CSU. Si les autorités sanitaires déterminent quotidiennement des priorités, de façon implicite ou explicite, la marche à suivre pour définir les priorités en matière de CSU n'a pas été clairement établie. Nous justifions ici la nécessité de définir explicitement les priorités dans le domaine de la santé tout en donnant des orientations aux pays pour définir les priorités en matière de CSU.

Los gobiernos de países con ingresos bajos y medios están legitimando la implementación de una cobertura sanitaria universal (CSU) tras un acuerdo de las Naciones Unidas acerca de la cobertura sanitaria universal en 2012 y su consolidación en los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible establecidos en 2015. Cada país tendrá una cobertura sanitaria universal distinta, según el contexto y las necesidades de cada uno, así como la oferta y la demanda de atención sanitaria. Por tanto, los responsables políticos y partes interesadas han abordado los asuntos fundamentales como los objetivos, los usuarios y la rentabilidad de la cobertura sanitaria universal. A pesar de que las autoridades sanitarias han establecido prioridades diarias (de forma implícita o explícita), no se ha aclarado cómo se debería gestionar el establecimiento de prioridades para la cobertura sanitaria universal. Se ofrece una justificación para el establecimiento de prioridades sanitarias explícitas y orientación a los países en la definición de prioridades para la cobertura sanitaria universal.

Development of a Health Screening Package Under the Universal Health Coverage: The Role of Health Technology Assessment.

This study reports the systematic development of a population-based health screening package for all Thai people under the universal health coverage (UHC). To determine major disease areas and health problems for which health screening could mitigate health burden, a consultation process was conducted in a systematic, participatory, and evidence-based manner that involved 41 stakeholders in a half-day workshop. Twelve diseases/health problems were identified during the discussion. Subsequently, health technology assessments, including systematic review and meta-analysis of health benefits as well as economic evaluations and budget impact analyses of corresponding population-based screening interventions, were completed. The results led to advice against elements of current clinical practice, such as annual chest X-rays and particular blood tests (e.g. kidney function test), and indicated that the introduction of certain new population-based health screening programs, such as for chronic hepatitis B, would provide substantial health and economic benefits to the Thais. The final results were presented to a wide group of stakeholders, including decision-makers at the Ministry of Public Health and the public health insurance schemes, to verify and validate the findings and policy recommendations. The package has been endorsed by the Thai UHC Benefit Package Committee for implementation in fiscal year 2016.

Maternal and child health voucher scheme in Myanmar: a review of early stage implementation.

BACKGROUND: The Maternal and Child Health Voucher Scheme (MCHVS) was introduced in Myanmar to address the high rate of maternal and infant mortalities. It aimed to increase access to maternal and child health (MCH) services by skilled birth attendants (SBAs) and improve the health of pregnant women and their babies. A study to pilot a voucher scheme was implemented in May 2013 in Yedarshey Township. This paper provides a report on a mid-term review of the programme after 7 months of implementation to determine the outcomes of the programme and its impediments. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative approaches were used. Secondary quantitative data were analysed in order to measure the coverage and utilisation of the programme. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in groups and individually with 79 key informants to explore qualitative information on voucher communication, beneficiary's identification, voucher distribution, and challenges for beneficiaries and providers under the MCHVS. RESULTS: The results showed that 63 % of eligible pregnant women who registered to the programme received voucher booklets, while the utilisation of most of the MCH services increased over time; in particular, delivery by SBAs increased significantly (P < 0.01) after implementing MCHVS. Overall, the programme was implemented well in terms of promoting and communicating the programme to people in Yedarshey Township. Although a number of targeted poor pregnant women were included in the programme, some beneficiaries were overlooked for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, both providers and beneficiaries who experienced the MCHVS service utilisation were satisfied with the programme. The evaluation indicated several programme challenges, i.e. external and internal programme communication, voluntary voucher distributor recruitment, incentive and support for voucher distributors, beneficiary screening criteria, and approaches to increase access of services for pregnant women living in remote areas. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, the MCHVS pilot programme is a promising initiative to increase access to and utilisation of the MCH services for pregnant women and their babies in Myanmar. However, increasing coverage of the programme and overcoming the barriers should be considered as high-priority issues that need to be addressed.

The influence of cost-per-DALY information in health prioritisation and desirable features for a registry: a survey of health policy experts in Vietnam, India and Bangladesh.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluation has been implemented to inform policy in many areas, including coverage decisions, technology pricing, and the development of clinical practice guidelines. However, there are barriers to evidence-based policy in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that include limited stakeholder awareness, resources and data availability, as well as the lack of capacity to conduct country-specific economic evaluations. This study aims to survey health policy experts' opinions on barriers to use of cost-effectiveness data in these settings and to obtain their advice on how to make a new cost-per-DALY database being developed by Tufts Medical Center more relevant to LMICs. It also identifies the factors influencing transferability. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with 32 participants, including policymakers, technical advisors, and researchers in Health Ministries, universities and non-governmental organisations in Bangladesh, India (New Delhi, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka) and Vietnam. RESULTS: The survey revealed that, in all settings, the use of cost-effectiveness information in policy development is lacking, owing to limited knowledge among policymakers and inadequate human resources with health economics expertise in the government sector. Furthermore, researchers in universities do not have close connections with health authorities. In India and Vietnam, the demand for evidence to inform coverage decisions tends to increase as the countries are moving towards universal health coverage. The informants in all countries argue that cost-effectiveness data are useful for decision-makers; however, most of them do not perform data searches by themselves but rely on the information provided by the technical advisor counterparts. Most interviewees were familiar with using evidence from other countries and were also aware of the influences of contextual elements as a limitation of transferability. Finally, strategies to promote the newly developed database include training on basic economic evaluation for policymakers and researchers, and effective communication programs, with support from reputable global agencies. CONCLUSIONS: Although cost-effectiveness information is recognised as essential in resource allocation, there are several impediments in the generation and use of such evidence to inform priority setting in LMICs. As such, the Cost-per-DALY database should be well-designed and introduced with appropriate promotion strategies so that it will be helpful in real-world policymaking.

How to meet the demand for good quality renal dialysis as part of universal health coverage in resource-limited settings?

BACKGROUND: It is very challenging for resource-limited settings to introduce universal health coverage (UHC), particularly regarding the inclusion of high-cost renal dialysis as part of the UHC benefit package. This paper addresses three issues: (1) whether a setting commits to include renal dialysis in its UHC benefit package and if so, why and how; (2) how to ensure quality of renal dialysis services; and (3) how to improve the quality of life of patients using psychosocial and community interventions. DISCUSSION: This article reviews experiences of renal dialysis programs in seven settings based on presentations and discussions during the International Forum on Peritoneal Dialysis as a Priority Health Policy in Asia. A literature review was conducted to verify and validate the data as well as to fill information gaps presented in the forum. Five out of the seven settings implemented renal dialysis as part of their benefits package, while the other two have pilots or programs in their nascent stage. Renal replacement therapy has become part of the universal access package because these governments recognize the rising number of chronic kidney disease (CKD) cases, the catastrophically high costs of treatment, and that this is the only life-saving treatment available to patients. The recommendations are as follows: Governments should have a holistic approach to CKD interventions, including primary prevention as well as psychosocial interventions. Governments should consider subsidizing CKD treatment costs depending on their resources. Multi-stakeholder cooperation should be facilitated to enact these policies and conduct research and development for all aspects of interventions. International collaboration should be initiated to share experiences, good practices, and joint activities (e.g. capacity building and multinational procurement of medical supplies). CONCLUSION: This study provides practical recommendations to country governments as well as the international community on how to meet the demand for good quality renal dialysis as part of UHC in resource-limited settings.

Health Technology Assessment capacity development in low- and middle-income countries: Experiences from the international units of HITAP and NICE.

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is policy research that aims to inform priority setting and resource allocation. HTA is increasingly recognized as a useful policy tool in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where there is a substantial need for evidence to guide Universal Health Coverage policies, such as benefit coverage, quality improvement interventions and quality standards, all of which aim at improving the efficiency and equity of the healthcare system. The Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Thailand, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), UK, are national HTA organizations providing technical support to governments in LMICs to build up their priority setting capacity. This paper draws lessons from their capacity building programs in India, Colombia, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Vietnam. Such experiences suggest that it is not only technical capacity, for example analytical techniques for conducting economic evaluation, but also management, coordination and communication capacity that support the generation and use of HTA evidence in the respective settings. The learned lessons may help guide the development of HTA capacity in other LMICs.

The use of economic evaluation for guiding the pharmaceutical reimbursement list in Thailand.

Medicines expenditure consumes a significant proportion of public health expenditure in Thailand, where Universal Health Coverage has been in place since 2002. The National List of Essential Medicines has been successfully used as a pharmaceutical benefits package for all public health plans. All patients are eligible for all medicines included in the list free of charge by law. Health economic evaluation has been employed as a tool for the development of this list, including price negotiation of medicines before inclusion, especially of high-cost medicines or medicines with high budget implications. This paper illustrates the current process, mechanisms, and impact and informs of seven success factors that have contributed to the successful use of health economic evaluation in Thailand. These include strong political commitment, development of individual and institutional capacity, participation of all relevant stakeholders, establishment of standard methodological and process guidelines, consideration of several elements in the decision-making process, using evidence as a starting point rather than a deciding factor, and strong enforcement. The lessons learned from this study are likely to be applicable to other settings committed to evidence-based decision making.