PERSPECTIVE: Health Economic Interests at NIMH and NIDA to Improve Delivery of Behavioral Health Services.

BACKGROUND: Effective financing mechanisms are essential to ensuring that people can access and utilize effective treatments and services. Financing mechanisms are needed not only to pay for the delivery of those treatments and services, but also ancillary costs, while also keeping care affordable. AIMS: This article highlights key areas of the interest of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) in supporting applied health economics and health care financing research. Specifically, this article discusses the long-range impact of NIH's earlier investments in applied health economics research, and NIH's ongoing efforts to communicate its interests in health economics research. We discuss the 2023 NIMH-NIDA-sponsored health economics conference, and the ideas presented there for developing and assessing innovative behavioral health care financing models; three of the presented papers were recently published in the Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics. METHODS: We describe the history and impact of NIMH- and NIDA-sponsored economic research and identify current research interests as identified in the NIMH and NIDA Strategic Plans and recent funding announcements. We examine themes presented at the NIMH-NIDA Health Economics conference. The conference included over 300 participants from 20 countries, from six continents. RESULTS: The topics highlighted at the conference highlight the ways in which NIH-funded research has promoted the development of innovative health care financing methods, both from the supply side (e.g., providers and payers) and demand side (e.g., service users and families). Invited speakers discussed the findings from NIH-supported research in the topic areas of payment and financing, behavioral economics and social determinants of health. Keynote speakers highlighted emerging topics in the field, including the economics of health equity, biases in mental health models in health care, and value-based insurance design. DISCUSSION: We demonstrate a resurgence of and explicit interest in health economics and policy research at NIMH and NIDA. However, more work is needed in order to design funding mechanisms that fully provide access to and facilitate use of effective evidence-based practices to improve mental health outcomes. For example, it is important that policy and health economic research projects include decision makers who will be the end users of data and study results, to ensure that results can be meaningfully put into practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE: Designing effective and efficient funding mechanisms can help ensure that service users have access to effective treatments and that clinicians and provider organizations are adequately compensated for their work. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: Federal, state, and local policies, as well as policies of payers and health care organizations, can influence the type of care that is supported and incentivized. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: As demonstrated by the research interests as outlined in their respective Strategic Plans and funding announcements, NIMH and NIDA continue to fund health economic and policy research that aims to improve health care access, quality and outcomes for people with or at risk of developing behavioral health conditions in the US and around the world.

Prioritization of strategies to approach the judicialization of health in Latin America and the Caribbean / Priorización de estrategias para el abordaje de la judicialización en salud en América Latina y el Caribe

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To describe strategies that contribute to the comprehensive approach to the judicialization of health in countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. METHODS A search was structured to identify articles presenting strategies to approach the judicialization of health. A survey was designed, which included actors of the health system and judiciary sector. We prioritized the strategies qualified by more than the 50.0% of the participants as "very relevant". Strategies were categorized according to: governance, provision of services, human resources, information systems, financing, and medical products. RESULTS We included 64 studies, which identified 50 strategies, related to the sub-functions and components of health systems. Of the 165 people who answered the survey, 80.0% were aged 35-64 years. The distribution of men and women was homogeneous. Half of the respondents were from Colombia (20.0%), Uruguay (16.9%), and Argentina (12.7%). We prioritized strategies that addressed aspects of generation of useful scientific evidence for decision making according to the health needs of the population, empowerment for the society, and creating spaces for discussion of measures of inclusion or exclusion of health technologies. The executive and judiciary decision makers prioritized questions that dealt with strategies that would ensure accountability. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study contribute to the identification of effective strategies to approach the phenomenon of judicialization of health, guaranteeing the right to health.

RESUMEN OBJETIVO Describir estrategias que contribuyan al abordaje integral de la judicialización de la salud en países de América Latina y El Caribe. MÉTODOS Se estructuró una búsqueda para identificar artículos que presentaran estrategias para el abordaje de la judicialización en salud. Se diseñó una encuesta, en donde se incluyeron actores del sistema de salud y del sector judicial. Se priorizaron las estrategias calificadas por más del 50,0% de los participantes como "muy relevantes". Se categorizaron las estrategias según: gobernanza, prestación de servicios, recursos humanos, sistemas de información, financiación y productos médicos. RESULTADOS Se incluyeron 64 estudios en los cuales se identificaron 50 estrategias, relacionadas con las sub-funciones y componentes de los sistemas de salud. De las 165 personas que respondieron la encuesta, el 80,0% tenían entre 35-64 años. La distribución de hombres y mujeres fue homogénea. La mitad de los respondientes fue de Colombia (20,0%), Uruguay (16,9%) y Argentina (12,7%). Se priorizaron mayormente las estrategias que abordaron los aspectos de generación de evidencia científica útil para toma de decisión según las necesidades de salud de la población, el empoderamiento para la sociedad, y la generación de espacios de discusión de las medidas de inclusión o exclusión de tecnologías de salud. Los tomadores de decisión de la rama ejecutiva y judicial priorizaron las preguntas que abordaron las estrategias que garantizaran la rendición de cuentas. CONCLUSIONES Los resultados de este estudio contribuyen a la identificación de estrategias efectivas para el abordaje del fenómeno de la judicialización en salud, garantizando el derecho a la salud.