Rapid cost-effectiveness analysis: hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis for patients with acute kidney injury in Rwanda.

BACKGROUND: To ensure the long-term sustainability of its Community-Based Health Insurance scheme, the Government of Rwanda is working on using Health Technology Assessment (HTA) to prioritize its resources for health. The objectives of the study were to rapidly assess (1) the cost-effectiveness and (2) the budget impact of providing PD versus HD for patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) in the tertiary care setting in Rwanda. METHODS: A rapid cost-effectiveness analysis for patients with AKI was conducted to support prioritization. An 'adaptive' HTA approach was undertaken by adjusting the international Decision Support Initiative reference case for time and data constraints. Available local and international data were used to analyze the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of peritoneal dialysis (PD) compared with hemodialysis (HD) in the tertiary hospital setting. RESULTS: The analysis found that HD was slightly more effective and slightly more expensive in the payer perspective for most patients with AKI (aged 15-49). HD appeared to be cost-effective when only comparing these two dialysis strategies with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 378,174 Rwandan francs (RWF) or 367 United States dollars (US$), at a threshold of 0.5 × gross domestic product per capita (RWF 444,074 or US$431). Sensitivity analysis found that reducing the cost of HD kits would make HD even more cost-effective. Uncertainty regarding PD costs remains. Budget impact analysis demonstrated that reducing the cost of the biggest cost driver, HD kits, could produce significantly more savings in five years than switching to PD. Thus, price negotiations could significantly improve the efficiency of HD provision. CONCLUSION: Dialysis is costly and covered by insurance in many countries for the financial protection of patients. This analysis enabled policymakers to make evidence-based decisions to improve the efficiency of dialysis provision.

The Evolving Nature of Health Technology Assessment: A Critical Appraisal of NICE's New Methods Manual.

OBJECTIVES: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recently completed a review of its methods for health technology assessment, involving a 2-stage public consultation. We appraise proposed methodological changes and analyze key decisions. METHODS: We categorize all changes proposed in the first consultation as "critical," "moderate" or "limited" updates, considering the importance of the topic and the degree of change or the level of reinforcement. Proposals were followed through the review process, for their inclusion, exclusion, or amendment in the second consultation and the new manual. RESULTS: The end-of-life value modifier was replaced with a new "disease severity" modifier and other potential modifiers were rejected. The usefulness of a comprehensive evidence base was emphasized, clarifying when nonrandomized studies can be used, with further guidance on "real-world" evidence developed separately. A greater degree of uncertainty was accepted in circumstances when evidence generation raised challenges, in particular for children, rare diseases, and innovative technologies. For some topics, such as health inequality, discounting, unrelated healthcare costs, and value of information, significant changes were possibly warranted, but NICE decided not to make any revisions at present. CONCLUSION: Most of the changes to NICE's health technology assessment methods are appropriate and modest in impact. Nevertheless, some decisions were not well justified and further research is needed on several topics, including investigation of societal preferences. Ultimately, NICE's role of protecting National Health Services resources for valuable interventions that can contribute toward improving overall population health must be safeguarded, without accepting weaker evidence.

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 Use of Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds for Evaluating Health Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries From 2015 to 2020: A Review.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence-informed priority setting, in particular cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), can help target resources better to achieve universal health coverage. Central to the application of CEA is the use of a cost-effectiveness threshold. We add to the literature by looking at what thresholds have been used in published CEA and the proportion of interventions found to be cost-effective, by type of threshold. METHODS: We identified CEA studies in low- and middle-income countries from the Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry that were published between January 1, 2015, and January 6, 2020. We extracted data on the country of focus, type of interventions under consideration, funder, threshold used, and recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 230 studies with a total 713 interventions were included in this review; 1 to 3× gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was the most common type of threshold used in judging cost-effectiveness (84.3%). Approximately a third of studies (34.2%) using 1 to 3× GDP per capita applied a threshold at 3× GDP per capita. We have found that no study used locally developed thresholds. We found that 79.3% of interventions received a recommendation as "cost-effective" and that 85.9% of studies had at least 1 intervention that was considered cost-effective. The use of 1 to 3× GDP per capita led to a higher proportion of study interventions being judged as cost-effective compared with other types of thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the wide concerns about the use of 1 to 3× GDP per capita, this threshold is still widely used in the literature. Using this threshold leads to more interventions being recommended as "cost-effective." This study further explore alternatives to the 1 to 3× GDP as a decision rule.

What is the value of explicit priority setting for health interventions? A simulation study.

Many countries seek to secure efficiency in health spending through establishing explicit priority setting institutions (PSIs). Since such institutions divert resources from frontline services which benefit patients directly, it is legitimate and reasonable to ask whether they are worth the money. We address this question by comparing, through simulation, the health benefits and costs from implementing two alternative funding approaches - one scenario in which an active PSI enables cost-effectiveness-threshold based funding decisions, and a counterfactual scenario where there is no PSI. We present indicative results for one dataset from the United Kingdom (published in 2015) and one from Malawi (published in 2018), which show that the threshold rule reliably resulted in decreased health system costs, improved health benefits, or both. Our model is implemented in Microsoft Excel and designed to be user-friendly, and both the model and a user guide are made publicly available, in order to enable others to parameterise the model based on the local setting. Although inevitably stylised, we believe that our modelling and results offer a valid perspective on the added value of explicit PSIs.

Developing and piloting a context-specified ethics framework for health technology assessment: the South African Values and Ethics for Universal Health Coverage approach.

OBJECTIVES: While ethics has been identified as a core component of health technology assessment (HTA), there are few examples of practical, systematic inclusion of ethics analysis in HTA. Some attribute the scarcity of ethics analysis in HTA to debates about appropriate methodology and the need for ethics frameworks that are relevant to local social values. The "South African Values and Ethics for Universal Health Coverage" (SAVE-UHC) project models an approach that countries can use to develop HTA ethics frameworks that are specific to their national contexts. METHODS: The SAVE-UHC approach consisted of two phases. In Phase I, the research team convened and facilitated a national multistakeholder working group to develop a provisional ethics framework through a collaborative, engagement-driven process. In Phase II, the research team refined the model framework by piloting it through three simulated HTA appraisal committee meetings. Each simulated committee reviewed two case studies of sample health interventions: opioid substitution therapy and either a novel contraceptive implant or seasonal influenza immunization for children under five. RESULTS: The methodology was fit-for-purpose, resulting in a context-specified ethics framework and producing relevant findings to inform application of the framework for the given HTA context. CONCLUSIONS: The SAVE-UHC approach provides a model for developing, piloting, and refining an ethics framework for health priority-setting that is responsive to national social values. This approach also helps identify key facilitators and challenges for integrating ethics analysis into HTA processes.

Ending AIDS as a public health threat by 2030: Time to reset targets for 2025.

Paul De Lay and co-authors introduce a Collection on the design of targets for ending the AIDS epidemic.

How Should the World Pay for a Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Vaccine?

The potential health and economic value of a vaccine for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is self-evident given nearly 2 million deaths, "collateral" loss of life as other conditions go untreated, and massive economic damage. Results from the first licensed products are very encouraging; however, there are important reasons why we will likely need second and third generation vaccines. Dedicated incentives and funding focused explicitly on nurturing and advancing competing second and third generation vaccines are essential. This article proposes a collaborative, market-based financing mechanism for the world to incentivize and pay for the development of, and provide equitable access to, second and third generation COVID-19 vaccines. Specifically, we propose consideration of a Benefit-Based Advance Market Commitment (BBAMC). The BBAMC uses health technology assessment to determine value-based prices to guarantee overall market revenues, not revenue for any specific product or company. The poorest countries would not pay a value-based price but a discounted "tail-price." Innovators must agree to supply them at this tail price or to facilitate technology transfer to local licensees at low or zero cost to enable them to supply at this price. We expect these purchases to be paid for in full or large part by global donors. The BBAMC therefore sets prices in relation to value, protects intellectual property rights, encourages competition, and ensures all populations get access to vaccines, subject to agreed priority allocation rules.

Antimicrobial Resistance: Is Health Technology Assessment Part of the Solution or Part of the Problem?

Antimicrobial resistance is a serious challenge to the success and sustainability of our healthcare systems. There has been increasing policy attention given to antimicrobial resistance in the last few years, and increased amounts of funding have been channeled into funding for research and development of antimicrobial agents. Nevertheless, manufacturers doubt whether there will be a market for new antimicrobial technologies sufficient to enable them to recoup their investment. Health technology assessment (HTA) has a critical role in creating confidence that if valuable technologies can be developed they will be reimbursed at a level that captures their true value. We identify 3 deficiencies of current HTA processes for appraising antimicrobial agents: a methods-centric approach rather than problem-centric approach for dealing with new challenges, a lack of tools for thinking about changing patterns of infection, and the absence of an approach to epidemiological risks. We argue that, to play their role more effectively, HTA agencies need to broaden their methodological tool kit, design and communicate their analysis to a wider set of users, and incorporate long-term policy goals, such as containing resistance, as part of their evaluation criteria alongside immediate health gains.

Health technology assessment in sub-Saharan Africa: a descriptive analysis and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are moving towards universal health coverage. The process of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) can support decisions relating to benefit package design and service coverage. HTA involves institutional cooperation with agreed methods and procedural standards. We systematically reviewed the literature on policies and capacity building to support HTA institutionalisation in SSA. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the literature by searching major databases (PubMed, Embase, etc.) until June 2019 using terms considering three aspects: HTA; health policy, decision making; and SSA. We quantitatively extracted and descriptively analysed content and conducted a narrative synthesis eliciting themes from the selected literature, which varied in study type and apporach. RESULTS: Half of the 49 papers identified were primary research studies and mostly qualitative. Five countries were represented in six of ten studies; South Africa, Ghana, Uganda, Cameroon, and Ethiopia. Half of first authors were from SSA. Most informants were policy makers. Five themes emerged: (1) use of HTA; (2) decision-making in HTA; (3) values and criteria for setting priority areas in HTA; (4) involving stakeholders in HTA; and (5) specific examples of progress in HTA in SSA. The first one was the main theme where there was little use of evidence and research in making policy. The awareness of HTA and economic evaluation was low, with inadequate expertise and a lack of local data and tools. CONCLUSIONS: Despite growing interest in HTA in SSA countries, awareness remains low and HTA-related activities are uncoordinated and often disconnected from policy. Further training and skills development are needed, firmly linked to a strategy focusing on strengthening within-country partnerships, particularly among researchers and policy makers. The international community has an important role here by supporting policy- relevant technical assistance, highlighting that sustainable financing demands evidence-based processes for effective resource allocation, and catalysing knowledge-sharing opportunities among countries facing similar challenges.

Assessing the performance of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies: developing a multi-country, multi-stakeholder, and multi-dimensional framework to explore mechanisms of impact.

BACKGROUND: Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have an important role to play in managing the rising demands on health systems. However, creating and running such agencies potentially diverts resources from frontline services. A large number of studies address the question of 'what is the impact of HTA?'. Several points of heterogeneity in this literature include: purpose of the study, definition of HTA, definition of impact, and scope and rigour of evaluations. Our study seeks to address several limitations in this literature. This study aims to explore the mechanisms of impact of an HTA agency. In doing so, we consider HTA as an institution rather than a knowledge product to build an impact evaluation framework from an international, multi-stakeholder and multi-dimensional perspective. METHODS: We conducted 9 key informant interviews with experts from the international HTA community. We addressed several questions, informed by existing frameworks of impact within the literature, to understand their perspectives on the mechanisms of impact of an HTA agency. We analyse data using logic modelling and impact mapping, as tools to understand and visualise mechanisms of change. FINDINGS: Our impact mapping highlights several distinct, but not necessarily mutually exclusive, mechanisms through which the overall impact of an HTA agency is achieved. These are: the effective conduct of HTA studies; effective use of HTA in agenda-setting and policy formulation processes; effective engagement and external communications; good institutional reputation and fit within the healthcare and policy-making system; effective use of HTA as a tool for the negotiation of health technology prices; and the effective implementation of policy change regarding health technologies. We also identify indicators of these effects. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings and resulting evaluation framework complement and add to existing literature by offering a new perspective on the mechanisms by which HTA agencies generate impact. This new perspective considers HTA as an institution rather than a knowledge product, is international, multi-dimensional, and includes multi-stakeholder views. We hope the analysis will be useful to countries interested in managing HTA performance.

Avoiding health technology assessment: a global survey of reasons for not using health technology assessment in decision making.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the documented benefits of using health technology assessments (HTA) to inform resource allocation in health care systems, HTA remains underused, especially in low- and middle-income countries. A survey of global health practitioners was conducted to reveal the top reasons ("excuses") that they had heard from colleagues, policymakers or other stakeholders for not using HTA in their settings. METHODS: There were 193 respondents to the survey. Most responses were from individuals in research organisations (37%), ministries of health (27%) and other government agencies (14%). Participants came from Southeast Asia (40%), the Western Pacific (30%), Africa (15%), Europe (7%), the Americas (7%) and the Eastern Mediterranean region (2%). RESULTS: The top five reasons encountered by respondents related to lack of data, lack of technical skills for HTA, the technocratic nature of the work, the lack of explicit decision rules and the perception that HTA puts a "price on life". CONCLUSIONS: This study aimed to understand and address the top reasons for not using HTA. They fall into three categories: (1) misconceptions about HTA; (2) feasibility issues; and (3) values, attitudes and politics. Previous literature has shown that these reasons can be addressed when identified, and even imperfect HTA analyses can provide useful information to a decision-maker.

The economic burden of cancer care for Syrian refugees: a population-based modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer represents a substantial health burden for refugees and host countries. However, no reliable data on the costs of cancer care for refugees are available, which limits the planning of official development assistance in humanitarian settings. We aimed to model the direct costs of cancer care among Syrian refugee populations residing in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. METHODS: In this population-based modelling study, direct cost per capita and per incident case for cancer care were estimated using generalised linear models, informed by a representative dataset of cancer costs drawn from 27 EU countries. A range of regression specifications were tested, in which cancer costs were modelled using different independent variables: gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, crude or age-standardised incidence, crude or age-standardised mortality, and total host country population size. Models were compared using the Akaike information criterion. Total cancer care costs for Syrian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey were calculated by multiplying the estimated direct cancer care costs (per capita) by the total number of Syrian refugees, or by multiplying the estimated direct cancer costs (per incident case [crude or age-standardised]) by the number of incident cancer cases in Syrian refugee populations. All costs are expressed in 2017 euros (€). FINDINGS: Total cancer care costs for all 4·74 million Syrian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey in 2017 were estimated to be €140·23 million using the cost per capita approach, €79·02 million using the age-standardised incidence approach, and €33·68 million using the crude incidence approach. Under the lowest estimation, and with GDP and total country population as model predictors, the financial burden of cancer care was highest for Turkey (€25·18 million), followed by Lebanon (€6·40 million), and then Jordan (€2·09 million). INTERPRETATION: Cancer among the Syrian refugee population represents a substantial financial burden for host countries and humanitarian agencies, such as the UN Refugee Agency. New ways to provide financial assistance need to be found and must be coupled with clear, prioritised pathways and models of care for refugees with cancer. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation Global Challenges Research Fund: Research for Health in Conflict-Middle East and North Africa region (R4HC-MENA).

Charging for the use of survey instruments on population health: the case of quality-adjusted life years.

A trend towards charging for access to research findings, tools and databases is becoming more prominent globally. But charging for the use of research tools and databases that are vital to research supporting national and international policy development might be unjustified. Financial barriers to accessing these tools and databases disproportionately affect low- and middle-income countries, who may have greater need for information that fuels research in their areas of concern. However, changing this trend is potentially possible. One example is the experience with the EuroQol-five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D), a generic measure of health status used in economic evaluations for resource allocation decisions. Increasingly, governments and health-care providers are using the EQ-5D tool in patient-reported outcome measures to monitor quality of health-care provision, diagnose and track disease progression, and involve patients in their health care. The EuroQol Group, which owns the intellectual property rights to the EQ-5D, recently terminated their policy of charging for noncommercial, nonresearch uses of the tool. We share a brief history of this development and examine these charging policies in the context of the EQ-5D's use in national health-care research and policies, reflecting the trends and developments in the use of survey instruments on population health.

On observe à l'échelle mondiale une tendance de plus en plus marquée à la tarification de l'accès aux résultats, aux outils et aux bases de données de recherche. Cependant, la tarification de l'utilisation d'outils et de bases de données essentiels aux recherches appuyant l'élaboration de politiques nationales et internationales n'est pas toujours justifiée. Les obstacles financiers qui entravent l'accès à ces outils et bases de données affectent de manière disproportionnée les pays à revenu faible et intermédiaire, qui peuvent avoir davantage besoin d'informations pour alimenter des recherches sur leurs sujets de préoccupation. Il est toutefois possible d'infléchir cette tendance. Le questionnaire EuroQol-five-dimensions (EQ-5D), une mesure générale de l'état de santé utilisée dans les évaluations économiques pour les décisions relatives à l'affectation des ressources, constitue un exemple. Les gouvernements et les prestataires de soins de santé utilisent de plus en plus l'outil EQ-5D dans les mesures des résultats notifiés par les patients pour surveiller la qualité de la prestation des soins de santé, diagnostiquer et suivre l'évolution d'une maladie, et associer les patients à leurs soins de santé. Le groupe EuroQol, qui détient les droits de propriété intellectuelle relatifs à l'EQ-5D, a récemment mis fin à sa politique de tarification pour l'utilisation de l'outil à des fins non commerciales et dans un contexte autre que celui de la recherche. Nous retraçons brièvement ce cheminement et examinons ces politiques de tarification dans le contexte de l'utilisation de l'EQ-5D dans les recherches et politiques nationales sur les soins de santé, en rendant compte de l'évolution de l'utilisation du matériel d'enquête sur la santé de la population.

La tendencia a cobrar por el acceso a los resultados de las investigaciones, las herramientas y las bases de datos está cobrando cada vez más importancia en todo el mundo. Sin embargo, puede que no esté justificado cobrar por el uso de herramientas de investigación y bases de datos que son vitales para la investigación en apoyo del desarrollo de políticas nacionales e internacionales. Las barreras financieras para acceder a estas herramientas y bases de datos afectan desproporcionadamente a los países de ingresos bajos y medios, que pueden tener una mayor necesidad de información que impulse la investigación en sus áreas de interés. Sin embargo, es posible cambiar esta tendencia. Un ejemplo es la experiencia con el cuestionario de cinco dimensiones EuroQol (EQ-5D), una medida genérica del estado de salud utilizada en las evaluaciones económicas para las decisiones de asignación de recursos. Cada vez más, los gobiernos y los proveedores de la atención de la salud están utilizando la herramienta EQ-5D en las medidas de resultado informadas por el paciente para supervisar la calidad de la prestación de la atención de la salud, diagnosticar y hacer un seguimiento de la progresión de la enfermedad e involucrar a los pacientes en su cuidado de la salud. El Grupo EuroQol, propietario de los derechos de propiedad intelectual de EQ-5D, puso fin recientemente a su política de cobrar por los usos no comerciales y no relacionados con la investigación de la herramienta. En este artículo se presenta una breve historia de este desarrollo y se examinan estas políticas de cobro en el contexto del uso de EQ-5D en la investigación y las políticas nacionales de atención de la salud, reflejando las tendencias y los avances en el uso de los instrumentos de las encuestas sobre la salud de la población.

Supporting the Development of Evidence-Informed Policy Options: An Economic Evaluation of Hypertension Management in Ghana.

OBJECTIVES: Universal healthcare coverage in low- and middle-income countries requires challenging resource allocation decisions. Health technology assessment is one important tool to support such decision making. The International Decision Support Initiative worked with the Ghanaian Ministry of Health to strengthen health technology assessment capacity building, identifying hypertension as a priority topic area for a relevant case study. METHODS: Based on guidance from a national technical working group of researchers and policy makers, an economic evaluation and budget impact analysis were undertaken for the main antihypertensive medicines used for uncomplicated, essential hypertension. The analysis aimed to address specific policy questions relevant to the National Health Insurance Scheme. RESULTS: The evaluation found that first-line management of essential hypertension with diuretics has an incremental cost per disability-adjusted life-year avoided of GH¢ 276 ($179 in 2017, 4% of gross national income per capita) compared with no treatment. Calcium channel blockers were more effective than diuretics but at a higher incremental cost: GH¢ 11 061 per disability-adjusted life-year avoided ($7189 in 2017; 160% of gross national income per capita). Diuretics provide better health outcomes at a lower cost than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or beta-blockers. Budget impact analysis highlighted the potential for cost saving through enhanced price negotiation and increased use of better-value drugs. We also illustrate how savings could be reinvested to improve population health. CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluation enabled decision makers to assess hypertension medicines in a Ghanaian context and estimate the impact of using such evidence to change policy. This study contributes to addressing challenges associated with the drive for universal healthcare coverage in the context of constrained budgets.

Medical training for universal health coverage: a review of Cuba-South Africa collaboration.

Achieving improvements in Universal Health Coverage will require a re-orientation of medical education towards a stronger focus on primary health care. Innovative medical curricula have been implemented in some countries, but in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the emphasis remains focused on hospital and speciality services. Cuba has a long history of supporting LMICs and has made major contributions to African health care and medical training. A scheme for training South African students in Cuba was established 20 years ago and expanded more recently, with around 700 Cuban-trained graduates returning to South Africa each year from 2018 to 2022. The current strategy is to re-orientate and re-train these graduates in South African medical schools for up to 3 years as they are perceived to have inadequate skills. This negative narrative on Cuban-trained doctors in South Africa could be changed dramatically. They have highly appropriate skills in primary care and prevention and could provide much needed services to rural and urban under-served populations whilst gaining an orientation to the health problems of South Africa and strengthening their skills. Bilateral arrangements between South Africa and the United Kingdom are providing mechanisms to support such schemes. The Cuban approach to medical education may have lessons for many countries attempting to meet the challenges of Universal Health Coverage.

Introducing health technology assessment in Tanzania.

OBJECTIVES: Health technology assessment (HTA) is a cost-effective resource allocation tool in healthcare decision-making processes; however, its use is limited in low-income settings where countries fall short on both absorptive and technical capacity. This paper describes the journey of the introduction of HTA into decision-making processes through a case study revising the National Essential Medicines List (NEMLIT) in Tanzania. It draws lessons on establishing and strengthening transparent priority-setting processes, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: The concept of HTA was introduced in Tanzania through revision of the NEMLIT by identifying a process for using HTA criteria and evidence-informed decision making. Training was given on using economic evidence for decision making, which was then put into practice for medicine selection for the NEMLIT. During the revision process, capacity-building workshops were held with reinforcing messages on HTA. RESULTS: Between the period 2014 and 2018, HTA was introduced in Tanzania with a formal HTA committee being established and inaugurated followed by the successful completion and adoption of HTA into the NEMLIT revision process by the end of 2017. Consequently, the country is in the process of institutionalizing HTA for decision making and priority setting. CONCLUSION: While the introduction of HTA process is country-specific, key lessons emerge that can provide an example to stakeholders in other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) wishing to introduce priority-setting processes into health decision making.

Implementing health technology assessment in Ghana to support universal health coverage: building relationships that focus on people, policy, and process.

Ghana is one of the few African countries to enact legislation and earmark significant funding to establish universal health coverage (UHC) through the National Health Insurance Scheme, although donor funds have declined recently. Given a disproportionate level of spending on medicines, health technology assessment (HTA) can support resource allocation decisions in the face of highly constrained budgets, as commonly found in low-resource settings. The Ghanaian Ministry of Health, supported by the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI), initiated a HTA study in 2016 to examine the cost-effectiveness of antihypertensive medicines. We aimed to summarize key insights from this work that highlights success factors beyond producing purely technical outputs. These include the need for capacity building, academic collaboration, and ongoing partnerships with a broad range of experts and stakeholders. By building on this HTA study, and with ongoing interactions with iDSI, HTAi, WHO, and others, Ghana will be well positioned to institutionalize HTA in resource allocation decisions and support progress toward UHC.

Capacity for health economics research and practice in Jordan, Lebanon, the occupied Palestinian territories and Turkey: needs assessment and options for development.

BACKGROUND: Capacity for health economics analysis and research is indispensable for evidence-informed allocations of scarce health resources; however, little is known about the experience and capacity strengthening preferences of academics and practitioners in the Eastern Mediterranean region. This study aimed to assess the needs for strengthening health economics capacity in Jordan, Lebanon, the occupied Palestinian territories and Turkey as part of the Research for Health in Conflict in the Middle East and North Africa (R4HC) project. METHODS: We combined a bibliometric analysis of health economics outputs based on a literature search conducted across seven databases with an online survey of academic researchers and non-academic practitioners. The records included in the bibliometric analysis were original studies and reviews with an explicit economic outcome related to health, disease or disability, had at least one author in Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine or Turkey, and were published between January 2014 and December 2018. Two types of analyses were conducted using VOSviewer software, namely keyword co-occurrence and co-publication networks across countries and organisations. The online survey asked academic researchers, analysts and decision-makers - identified through the bibliometric analysis and regional professional networks - about previous exposure to and priorities for capacity development in health economics. RESULTS: Of 15,185 records returned by the literature search, 566 were included in the bibliometric analysis. Organisations in Turkey contributed more than 80% of records and had the broadest and most diverse network of collaborators, nationally and internationally. Only 1% (n = 7) of studies were collaborations between researchers in two or more different jurisdictions. Cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis and health system economics were the main health economics topics across the included studies. Economic evaluations, measuring the economic burden of disease and health equity, were reported by survey respondents (n = 80) as the most important areas to develop in. Short courses, learn-by-doing and mentoring from an experienced professional were, in aggregate, the most preferred learning styles. CONCLUSIONS: Existing pockets of health economic expertise in the region can constitute the base of future capacity development efforts. Building confidence toward applying specific methods and trust toward stimulating cross-jurisdiction collaborations appear essential components for sustainably developing health economics capacity.

What do we need to know? Data sources to support evidence-based decisions using health technology assessment in Ghana.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based decision-making for prioritising health is assisted by health technology assessment (HTA) to integrate data on effectiveness, costs and equity to support transparent decisions. Ghana is moving towards universal health coverage, facilitated mainly by the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) established in 2003. The Government of Ghana is committed to institutionalising HTA for priority-setting. We aimed to identify and describe the sources of accessible data to support HTA in Ghana. METHODS: We identified and described data sources encompassing six main domains using an existing framework. The domains were epidemiology, clinical efficacy, costs, health service use and consumption, quality of life, and equity. We used existing knowledge, views of stakeholders, and searches of the literature and internet. RESULTS: The data sources for each of the six domains vary in extent and quality. Ghana has several large data sources to support HTA (e.g. Demographic Health Surveys) that have rigorous quality assurance processes. Few accessible data sources were available for costs and resource utilisation. The NHIS is a potentially rich source of data on resource use and costs but there are some limits on access. There are some data on equity but data on quality of life are limited. CONCLUSIONS: A small number of quality data sources are available in Ghana but there are some gaps with respect to HTA based on greater use of local and contextualised information. Although more data are becoming available for monitoring, challenges remain in terms of their usefulness for HTA, and some information may not be available in disaggregated form to enable specific analyses. We support recent initiatives for the routine collection of comprehensive and reliable data that is easily accessible for HTA users. A commitment to HTA will require concerted efforts to leverage existing data sources, for example, from the NHIS, and develop and maintain new data (e.g. local health utility estimates). It will be critical that an overarching strategic and mandatory approach to the collection and use of health information is developed for Ghana in parallel to, and informed by, the development of HTA approaches to support resource allocation decisions. The key to HTA is to use the best available data while being open about its limitations and the impact on uncertainty.