Decision Making and Priority Setting: The Evolving Path Towards Universal Health Coverage
- 176 Downloads
Health technology assessment (HTA) is widely viewed as an essential component in good universal health coverage (UHC) decision-making in any country. Various HTA tools and metrics have been developed and refined over the years, including systematic literature reviews (Cochrane), economic modelling, and cost-effectiveness ratios and acceptability curves. However, while the cost-effectiveness ratio is faithfully reported in most full economic evaluations, it is viewed by many as an insufficient basis for reimbursement decisions. Emotional debates about the reimbursement of cancer drugs, orphan drugs, and end-of-life treatments have revealed fundamental disagreements about what should and should not be considered in reimbursement decisions. Part of this disagreement seems related to the equity-efficiency tradeoff, which reflects fundamental differences in priorities. All in all, it is clear that countries aiming to improve UHC policies will have to go beyond the capacity building needed to utilize the available HTA toolbox. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) offers a more comprehensive tool for reimbursement decisions where different weights of different factors/attributes can give policymakers important insights to consider. Sooner or later, every country will have to develop their own way to carefully combine the results of those tools with their own priorities. In the end, all policymaking is based on a mix of facts and values.
Francesco Paolucci, Ken Redekop, Ayman Fouda, and Gianluca Fiorentini equally contributed to the conception and development of the theoretical framework, contributed to the writing of the manuscript, and contributed to the editing of the subsequent drafts of the manuscript in light of the comments made by the reviewers for this journal. All authors gave final approval of the version to be submitted.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
Francesco Paolucci, Ken Redekop, Ayman Fouda, and Gianluca Fiorentini declare they have no conflicts of interest.
No funding was received for the paper.
- 1.Colombo F, Tapay N. Private health insurance in OECD countries: the benefits and costs for individuals and health systems. OECD Health Working Papers. 2004;15:265–319.Google Scholar
- 3.Hurst J. The reform of health care systems in seven OECD countries. Paper presented at the Second World Congress of Health Economics, Zurich (Switzerland). OECD; 1990 September.Google Scholar
- 4.OECD. Health at a glance 2013: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing; 2013. p. 153–66.Google Scholar
- 5.Kotlikoff LJ, Hagist C. Who’s going broke? Comparing growth in healthcare costs in ten OECD countries. NBER Working Paper 2005(w11833)Google Scholar
- 7.EUnetHTA Work Package 8. EUnetHTA Handbook on Health Technology Assessment Capacity Building. Barcelona (Spain): Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research. Catalan Health Service. Department of Health Autonomous Government of Catalonia; 2008. Google Scholar
- 11.Paolucci F. Economic rationales for the design of health care financing schemes. In: Health care financing and insurance: options for design. Berlin: Springer; 2011. p. 13–32.Google Scholar
- 15.Paolucci F, Schut E, van de Ven, WPMM. Economic rationales for the design of health care financing schemes. iHEA 2007 6th World Congress: Explorations in Health Economics Paper; 2007.Google Scholar
- 16.Cutler DM, Zeckhauser RJ. The anatomy of health insurance. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP, editors. Handbook of health economics, vol. 1A. Elsevier: Amsterdam; 2000. p. 563–644.Google Scholar
- 20.Angelis A, Kanavos P. Value-Based assessment of new medical technologies: towards a robust methodological framework for the application of multiple criteria decision analysis in the context of health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(5):435–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 22.Mirelman A, Mentzakis E, Kinter E, Paolucci F, Fordham R, Ozawa S, Ferraz M, Baltussen R, Niessen L. Decision-making criteria among national policymakers in five countries: a discrete choice experiment eliciting relative preferences for equity and efficiency. Val Health. 2012;15(3):534–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Keane MP, Wasi N. The structure of consumer taste heterogeneity in revealed vs. stated preference data. Economics Papers 2013-W10. Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford; 2013.Google Scholar
- 25.Schroeder DA. Discrete choice models. In: Accounting and causal effects: econometric challenges. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 77–95.Google Scholar
- 28.Dakin H, Devlin N, Feng Y, Rice N, ONeill P, Parkin D. The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions. HERC research paper 01/13. Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford; 2014.Google Scholar
- 29.de Groot S, Rijnsburger AJ, Versteegh MM, Heymans JM, Kleijnen S, Redekop WK, Verstijnen IM. Which factors may determine the necessary and feasible type of effectiveness evidence? A mixed methods approach to develop an instrument to help coverage decision-makers. BMJ Open. 2015;5(7):e007241.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 30.Piniazhkho O, Németh B. An analysis of the criteria used in existing or proposed MCDA models PRM202. ISPOR 21st Annual International Meeting. May 2016.Google Scholar
- 32.Redekop WK. Navigating the waters of economic evaluations of medical devices. ISPOR. Presentation at the annual meeting of the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Dublin, November 2013.Google Scholar