Considering equity in priority setting using transmission models: Recommendations and data needs.

OBJECTIVES: Disease transmission models are used in impact assessment and economic evaluations of infectious disease prevention and treatment strategies, prominently so in the COVID-19 response. These models rarely consider dimensions of equity relating to the differential health burden between individuals and groups. We describe concepts and approaches which are useful when considering equity in the priority setting process, and outline the technical choices concerning model structure, outputs, and data requirements needed to use transmission models in analyses of health equity. METHODS: We reviewed the literature on equity concepts and approaches to their application in economic evaluation and undertook a technical consultation on how equity can be incorporated in priority setting for infectious disease control. The technical consultation brought together health economists with an interest in equity-informative economic evaluation, ethicists specialising in public health, mathematical modellers from various disease backgrounds, and representatives of global health funding and technical assistance organisations, to formulate key areas of consensus and recommendations. RESULTS: We provide a series of recommendations for applying the Reference Case for Economic Evaluation in Global Health to infectious disease interventions, comprising guidance on 1) the specification of equity concepts; 2) choice of evaluation framework; 3) model structure; and 4) data needs. We present available conceptual and analytical choices, for example how correlation between different equity- and disease-relevant strata should be considered dependent on available data, and outline how assumptions and data limitations can be reported transparently by noting key factors for consideration. CONCLUSIONS: Current developments in economic evaluations in global health provide a wide range of methodologies to incorporate equity into economic evaluations. Those employing infectious disease models need to use these frameworks more in priority setting to accurately represent health inequities. We provide guidance on the technical approaches to support this goal and ultimately, to achieve more equitable health policies.

Introducing an Ethics Framework for health priority-setting in South Africa on the path to universal health coverage.

BACKGROUND: South Africa (SA) has embarked on a process to implement universal health coverage (UHC) funded by National Health Insurance (NHI). The 2019 NHI Bill proposes creation of a health technology assessment (HTA) body to inform decisions about which interventions NHI funds will cover under UHC. In practice, HTA often relies mainly on economic evaluations of cost-effectiveness and budget impact, with less attention to the systematic, specific consideration of important social, organisational and ethical impacts of the health technology in question. In this context, the South African Values and Ethics for Universal Health Coverage (SAVE-UHC) research project recognised an opportunity to help shape the health priority-setting process by providing a way to take account of multiple, ethically relevant considerations that reflect SA values. The SAVE-UHC Research Team developed and tested an SA-specific Ethics Framework for HTA assessment and analysis. OBJECTIVES: To develop and test an Ethics Framework for use in the SA context for health priority-setting. METHODS: The Framework was developed iteratively by the authors and a multidisciplinary panel (18 participants) over a period of 18 months, using the principles outlined in the 2015 NHI White Paper as a starting point. The provisional Ethics Framework was then tested with multi-stakeholder simulated appraisal committees (SACs) in three provinces. The membership of each SAC roughly reflected the composition of a potential SA HTA committee. The deliberations and dedicated focus group discussions after each SAC meeting were recorded, analysed and used to refine the Framework, which was presented to the Working Group for review, comment and final approval. RESULTS: This article describes the 12 domains of the Framework. The first four (Burden of the Health Condition, Expected Health Benefits and Harms, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, and Budget Impact) are commonly used in HTA assessments, and a further eight cover the other ethical domains. These are Equity, Respect and Dignity, Impacts on Personal Financial Situation, Forming and Maintaining Important Personal Relationships, Ease of Suffering, Impact on Safety and Security, Solidarity and Social Cohesion, and Systems Factors and Constraints. In each domain are questions and prompts to enable use of the Framework by both analysts and assessors. Issues that arose, such as weighting of the domains and the availability of SA evidence, were discussed by the SACs. CONCLUSIONS: The Ethics Framework is intended for use in priority-setting within an HTA process. The Framework was well accepted by a diverse group of stakeholders. The final version will be a useful tool not only for HTA and other priority-setting processes in SA, but also for future efforts to create HTA methods in SA and elsewhere.

Building Capacity for Evidence-Informed Priority Setting in the Indian Health System: An International Collaborative Experience.

India's rapid economic growth has been accompanied by slower improvements in population health. Given the need to reconcile the ambitious goal of achieving Universal Coverage with limited resources, a robust priority-setting mechanism is required to ensure that the right trade-offs are made and the impact on health is maximised. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is endorsed by the World Health Assembly as the gold standard approach to synthesizing evidence systematically for evidence-informed priority setting (EIPS). India is formally committed to institutionalising HTA as an integral component of the EIPS process. The effective conduct and uptake of HTA depends on a well-functioning ecosystem of stakeholders adept at commissioning and generating policy-relevant HTA research, developing and utilising rigorous technical, transparent, and inclusive methods and processes, and a strong multisectoral and transnational appetite for the use of evidence to inform policy. These all require myriad complex and complementary capacities to be built at each level of the health system . In this paper we describe how a framework for targeted and locally-tailored capacity building for EIPS, and specifically HTA, was collaboratively developed and implemented by an international network of priority-setting expertise, and the Government of India.

How can we evaluate the cost-effectiveness of health system strengthening? A typology and illustrations.

Health interventions often depend on a complex system of human and capital infrastructure that is shared with other interventions, in the form of service delivery platforms, such as healthcare facilities, hospitals, or community services. Most forms of health system strengthening seek to improve the efficiency or effectiveness of such delivery platforms. This paper presents a typology of ways in which health system strengthening can improve the economic efficiency of health services. Three types of health system strengthening are identified and modelled: (1) investment in the efficiency of an existing shared platform that generates positive benefits across a range of existing interventions; (2) relaxing a capacity constraint of an existing shared platform that inhibits the optimization of existing interventions; (3) providing an entirely new shared platform that supports a number of existing or new interventions. Theoretical models are illustrated with examples, and illustrate the importance of considering the portfolio of interventions using a platform, and not just piecemeal individual analysis of those interventions. They show how it is possible to extend principles of conventional cost-effectiveness analysis to identify an optimal balance between investing in health system strengthening and expenditure on specific interventions. The models developed in this paper provide a conceptual framework for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of investments in strengthening healthcare systems and, more broadly, shed light on the role that platforms play in promoting the cost-effectiveness of different interventions.

Correction to: Recommendations from Two Citizens' Juries on the Surgical Management of Obesity.

The spelling of the name of author K. Chalkidou was incorrect in the original article. It is correct here.

Recommendations from Two Citizens' Juries on the Surgical Management of Obesity.

BACKGROUND: It is important that guidelines and criteria used to prioritise access to bariatric surgery are informed by the values of the tax-paying public in combination with the expertise of healthcare professionals. Citizens' juries are increasingly used around the world to engage the public in healthcare decision-making. This study investigated citizens' juries about prioritising patient access to bariatric surgery in two Australian cities. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to examine public priorities for government expenditure on the surgical management of obesity developed through either a one or three-day citizen jury. SUBJECTS/METHODS: A three-day jury was held in Brisbane and a one-day jury in Adelaide. Jurors were selected in Brisbane (n = 18) and in Adelaide (n = 12) according to pre-specified criteria. Expert witnesses from various medical disciplines and consumers were cross-examined by jurors. RESULTS: The verdicts of the juries were similar in that both juries agreed bariatric surgery was an important option in the management of obesity and related comorbidities. Recommendations about who should receive treatment differed slightly across the juries. Both juries rejected the use of age as a rationing tool, but managed their objections in different ways. Participants' experiences of the jury process were positive, but our observations suggested that many variables may influence the nature of the final verdict. CONCLUSIONS: Citizen's juries, even when shorter in duration, can be an effective tool to guide the development of health policy and priorities. However, our study has identified a range of variables that should be considered when designing and running a jury and when interpreting the verdict.

Improving access to innovative medicines in emerging markets: evidence and diplomacy as alternatives to the unsustainable status quo

Introduction: Access to medicines is a substantial component of universal health coverage. However, the current dynamics between the innovative pharmaceuticals industry and governments in emerging markets are adversarial and may be counterproductive to sustainably increasing access to current and future patented medicines. Methods: This work is a review of public sources including white papers, news and peer-reviewed literature with a focus on mainstream approaches used by the pharmaceutical industry (such as unaffordable price premiums for innovative medicines) and governments (such as denial of intellectual property rights) to support their interests. We assess the need for consensus-based approaches as alternatives to the above policies and review country cases with supporting evidence. We also explore the implications of possible approaches on pharmaceutical policy in the context of global health diplomacy. The latter is a requirement for universal health coverage given the increasing power of state and non-state actors in emerging markets. Results: We conclude that evidence and due processes, through inclusive and transparent priority-setting mechanisms, offer a reconciliatory way forward for both parties. Value-based pricing, underpinned by Health Technology Assessment (HTA), could leverage global health diplomacy to set priorities and resolve the perhaps unsustainable status quo. HTA is itself a diplomatic, consensus building and evidence-based approach that can help diffuse the current tension, enhance mutual understanding and perhaps help strengthen (or even mend) the current model of product development. Discussion: Value-based pricing and HTA offer a potential priority setting mechanism that can serve as a transparent, non-adversarial platform for governments and the pharmaceutical industry to engage with each other and work towards enhancing access to medicines. Further quantitative research, exploring the impact of different policy-setting approaches by governments on medicine access using HTA, would strengthen this discourse.

The NHS: assessing new technologies, NICE and value for money.

The healthcare system in the UK, essentially the NHS, is an open economic system subject to the same pressures as any other economic system. The pressures concern limited resources coupled with powerful drivers for increasing spending: invention, demography and inflation. There have only ever been three types of economic system: steady state (everything, as in a feudal system, stays as it was the year before), market capitalism (supply and demand are allowed to find their own equilibrium) and some version of central planning. In healthcare, most advanced countries favour the last of the three. This is for three reasons: distribution (not only are the poor less able to pay for sickness, but sickness exacerbates poverty), information (markets operate poorly when providers can easily outsmart customers) and externalities (it is in the interest of everyone that infectious diseases and the other knock-on consequences of ill health are ameliorated). So in the UK, the state, with a good deal of cross-party consensus, directs most of health service supply. This system has become more complex over the decades since the formation of the NHS in 1948. A notable element of the complexity is the regulation of the introduction of new technologies. A key element of the regulatory system has been the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), and a key aspect of NICE's decisions has been not just value, but also value for money. This has not been without controversy.

The (possible) impact of comparative effectiveness research on pharmaceutical industry decision making.

Public and private payers in rich and emerging economies are becoming increasingly interested in using evidence to inform health-care resource allocation decisions. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom has been doing so on behalf of the National Health Service (NHS) for more than 10 years. To some, NICE-type entities are barriers to access and innovation. Increasingly, however, even NICE's critics appreciate that evidence-informed decision making, carried out in a fair, inclusive, and transparent way, is better than arbitrary government-imposed price cuts. For health-care systems in developed and developing countries around the world, faced with limited budgets, there may be no third option.