Examining priority setting in the national COVID-19 pandemic plans: A case study from countries in the WHO- South-East Asia Region (WHO-SEARO).

Background: The World Health Organization- South-East Asia Region (WHO-SEARO) accounted for almost 17% of all the confirmed cases and deaths of COVID-19 worldwide. While the literature has documented a weak COVID-19 response in the WHO-SEARO, there has been no discussion of the degree to which this could have been influenced/ mitigated with the integration of priority setting (PS) in the region's COVID-19 response. The purpose of this paper is to describe the degree to which the COVID-19 plans from a sample of WHO-SEARO countries included priority setting. Methods: The study was based on an analysis of national COVID-19 pandemic response and preparedness planning documents from a sample of seven (of the eleven) countries in WHO-SEARO. We described the degree to which the documented priority setting processes adhered to twenty established quality indicators of effective PS and conducted a cross-country comparison. Results: All of the reviewed plans described the required resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most, but not all of the plans demonstrated political will, and described stakeholder involvement. However, none of the plans presented a clear description of the PS process including a formal PS framework, and PS criteria. Overall, most of the plans included only a limited number of quality indicators for effective PS. Discussion and conclusion: There was wide variation in the parameters of effective PS in the reviewed plans. However, there were no systematic variations between the parameters presented in the plans and the country's economic, health system and pandemic and PS context and experiences. The political nature of the pandemic, and its high resource demands could have influenced the inclusion of the parameters that were apparent in all the plans. The finding that the plans did not include most of the evidence-based parameters of effective PS highlights the need for further research on how countries operationalize priority setting in their respective contexts as well as deeper understanding of the parameters that are deemed relevant. Further research should explore and describe the experiences of implementing defined priorities and the impact of this decision-making on the pandemic outcomes in each country.

An analysis of how health systems integrated priority-setting in the pandemic planning in a sample of Latin America and the Caribbean countries.

BACKGROUND: Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) are among those regions most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic has strained health systems in the region. In this context of severe healthcare resource constraints, there is a need for systematic priority-setting to support decision-making which ensures the best use of resources while considering the needs of the most vulnerable groups. The aim of this paper was to provide a critical description and analysis of how health systems considered priority-setting in the COVID-19 response and preparedness plans of a sample of 14 LAC countries; and to identify the associated research gaps. METHODS: A documentary analysis of COVID-19 preparedness and response plans was performed in a sample of 14 countries in the LAC region. We assessed the degree to which the documented priority-setting processes adhered to established quality indicators of effective priority-setting included in the Kapiriri and Martin framework. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the degree to which the reports addressed the quality parameters for each individual country, as well as a cross-country comparison to explore whether parameters varied according to independent variables. RESULTS: While all plans were led and supported by the national governments, most included only a limited number of quality indicators for effective priority-setting. There was no systematic pattern between the number of quality indicators and the country's health system and political contexts; however, the countries that had the least number of quality indicators tended to be economically disadvantaged. CONCLUSION: This study adds to the literature by providing the first descriptive analysis of the inclusion of priority-setting during a pandemic, using the case of COVID-19 response and preparedness plans in the LAC region. The analysis found that despite the strong evidence of political will and stakeholder participation, none of the plans presented a clear priority-setting process, or used a formal priority-setting framework, to define interventions, populations, geographical regions, healthcare setting or resources prioritized. There is need for case studies that analyse how priority-setting actually occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic and the degree to which the implementation reflected the plans and the parameters of effective priority-setting, as well as the impact of the prioritization processes on population health, with a focus on the most vulnerable groups.

Ethical allocation of scarce health care resources in the context of the COVID-19 crisis. / Asignación ética de recursos sanitarios escasos en el contexto de crisis por COVID-19.

The current COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to overwhelm the capacity of hospitals and Intensive Care Units in Chile and Latin America. Thus local authorities have an ethical obligation to be prepared by implementing pertinent measures to prevent a situation of rationing of scarce healthcare resources, and by defining ethically acceptable and socially legitimate criteria for the allocation of these resources. This paper responds to recent ethical guidelines issued by a Chilean academic institution and discusses the main moral principles for the ethical foundations of criteria for rationing during the present crisis. It argues that under exceptional circumstances such as the current pandemic, the traditional patient-centered morality of medicine needs to be balanced with ethical principles formulated from a public health perspective, including the principles of social utility, social justice and equity, among others. The paper concludes with some recommendations regarding how to reach an agreement about rationing criteria and about their implementation in clinical practice.

La actual pandemia por COVID-19 tiene el potencial de sobrepasar la capacidad de hospitales y unidades de cuidados intensivos en Chile y América Latina. Por lo tanto, las autoridades locales tienen la obligación ética de estar preparadas mediante la implementación de medidas tendientes a evitar una situación de racionamiento de recursos sanitarios escasos, y a través de la definición de criterios éticamente aceptables y socialmente legítimos para la asignación de estos recursos. Este artículo presenta una respuesta a orientaciones éticas recientes emitidas por una institución académica chilena y analiza los principios éticos relevantes para la fundamentación ética de criterios de racionamiento. Se argumenta que, frente a circunstancias excepcionales como la actual pandemia, la moral centrada en el paciente de la medicina tradicional necesita ser ponderada con principios éticos formulados desde una perspectiva de salud pública, incluyendo los principios de utilidad social, justicia social y equidad, entre otros. Se concluye con algunas recomendaciones sobre cómo llegar a acuerdo sobre criterios de racionamiento y sobre la implementación de estos en la práctica clínica.