Title of article :
Health Technology Assessment: Global Advocacy and Local Realities; Comment on “Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness”
Author/Authors :
Chalkidou، Kalipso نويسنده Institute of Global Health Innovation,Imperial College London,London,UK , , Li، Ryan نويسنده Institute of Global Health Innovation,Imperial College London,London,UK , , Culyer، Anthony J. نويسنده Centre for Health Economics,Department of Economics & Related Studies,University of York,York,UK , , Glassman، Amanda نويسنده Center for Global Development,Washington,USA , , Hofman، Karen J. نويسنده School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences,University
of the Witwatersrand,Johannesburg,South Africa , , Teerawattananon، Yot نويسنده Health Intervention and
Technology Assessment Program (HITAP),Nonthaburi,Thailand ,
Abstract :
Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) can help countries attain and sustain universal health coverage (UHC), as long as it is context-specific and considered within deliberative processes at the country level. Institutionalising robust deliberative processes requires significant time and resources, however, and countries often begin by demanding evidence (including local CEA evidence as well as evidence about local values), whilst striving to strengthen the governance structures and technical capacities with which to generate, consider and act on such evidence. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), such capacities could be developed initially around a small technical unit in the health ministry or health insurer. The role of networks, development partners, and global norm setting organisations is crucial in supporting the necessary capacities.
Keywords :
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) , Deliberation , efficiency , Universal Coverage , governance
