Progressive realisation of universal health coverage: what are the required processes and evidence?

Topic identification, selection, and prioritization for health technology assessment in selected countries: a mixed study design

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence-informed guidance on TISP processes for countries where health technology assessment (HTA) is in a nascent phase. We aimed to explore the range of topic identification, selection and prioritization (TISP) processes and practices for HTA in selected countries and identify aspects relevant to emerging HTA systems.

METHODS

This mixed design study included a systematic literature review, an electronic survey, and individual interviews. We conducted a systematic literature review with criteria that were developed a priori to identify countries deemed to have a recently formalized HTA system. Based on the literature review, a twenty-three item online survey was shared with the identified countries, we completed follow-up interviews with ten participants who have experience with HTA. We analyzed documents, survey responses and interview transcripts thematically to identify lessons related to TISP processes and practices.

RESULTS

The literature review identified 29 nine candidate countries as having a "potential" recently formalized HTA system. Twenty-one survey responses were analyzed and supplemented with ten individual interviews. We found variation in countries' approaches to TISP - particularly between pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions. Results indicate that TISP is heavily driven by policy makers, expert involvement, and to a lesser extent, relevant stakeholders. The use of horizon-scanning and early warning systems is uncommon. Interviewee participants provided further insight to the survey data, reporting that political awareness and an institutional framework were important to support TISP. TISP can be optimized by stronger national regulations and legislative structures, in addition to education and advocacy about HTA among politicians and decision-makers. In some settings regional networks have been useful, particularly in the development of TISP guidelines and methodologies. Additionally, the technical capacity to conduct TISP, and access to relevant local data were factors limiting TISP in national settings. Increased network collaboration and capacity building were reported as future needs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides current insights into a topic where there is limited published peer reviewed literature. TISP is an important first step of HTA, and topics should be selected and prioritized based on local need and relevance. The limited capacity for TISP in settings where HTA is emerging may be supported by local and international collaboration to increase capacity and knowledge. To succeed, both TISP and HTA need to be embedded within national health care priority setting and decision-making. More in-depth understanding of where countries are situtated in formalizing the TISP process may help others to overcome factors that facilitate or hinder progress.

Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review

Due to constraints on institutional capacity and financial resources, the road to universal health coverage (UHC) involves difficult policy choices. To assist with these choices, scholars and policy makers have done extensive work on criteria to assess the substantive fairness of health financing policies: their impact on the distribution of rights, duties, benefits and burdens on the path towards UHC. However, less attention has been paid to the procedural fairness of health financing decisions. The Accountability for Reasonableness Framework (A4R), which is widely applied to assess procedural fairness, has primarily been used in priority-setting for purchasing decisions, with revenue mobilization and pooling receiving limited attention. Furthermore, the sufficiency of the A4R framework's four criteria (publicity, relevance, revisions and appeals, and enforcement) has been questioned. Moreover, research in political theory and public administration (including deliberative democracy), public finance, environmental management, psychology, and health financing has examined the key features of procedural fairness, but these insights have not been synthesized into a comprehensive set of criteria for fair decision-making processes in health financing. A systematic study of how these criteria have been applied in decision-making situations related to health financing and in other areas is also lacking. This paper addresses these gaps through a scoping review. It argues that the literature across many disciplines can be synthesized into 10 core criteria with common philosophical foundations. These go beyond A4R and encompass equality, impartiality, consistency over time, reason-giving, transparency, accuracy of information, participation, inclusiveness, revisability and enforcement. These criteria can be used to evaluate and guide decision-making processes for financing UHC across different country income levels and health financing arrangements. The review also presents examples of how these criteria have been applied to decisions in health financing and other sectors.

Procedural fairness in benefit package design: inclusion of pre-exposure prophylaxis of HIV in Universal Coverage Scheme in Thailand

Since 2002, Thailand's Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) has adopted a comprehensive benefits package with few exclusions. A positive-list approach has gradually been applied, with pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) of HIV recently being included. Disagreements resulting from competing values and diverging interests necessitate an emphasis on procedural fairness when making any decisions. This qualitative study analyses agenda setting, policy formulation and early implementation of PrEP from a procedural fairness lens. Literature reviews and in-depth interviews with 13 key stakeholders involved in PrEP policy processes were conducted. Civil society organizations (CSOs) and academia piloted PrEP service models and co-produced evidence on programmatic feasibility and outcomes. Through a broad stakeholder representation process, the Department of Disease Control proposed PrEP for inclusion in UCS benefits package in 2017. PrEP was shown to be cost-effective and affordable through rigorous health technology assessment, peer review, use of up-to-date evidence and safe-guards against conflicts of interest. In 2021, Thailand's National Health Security Board decided to include PrEP as a prevention and promotion package, free of charge, for the populations at risk. Favourable conditions for procedural fairness were created by Thailand's legislative provisions that enable responsive governance, notably inclusiveness, transparency, safeguarding public interest and accountable budget allocations; longstanding institutional capacity to generate local evidence; and implementation capacity for realisation of procedural fairness criteria. Multiple stakeholders including CSOs, academia and the government deliberated in the policy process through working groups and sub-committees. However, a key lesson from Thailand's deliberative process concerns a possible 'over interpretation' of conflicts of interest, intended to promote impartial decision-making, which inadvertently limited the voices of key populations represented in the decision processes. Finally, this case study underscores the value of examining the full policy cycle when assessing procedural fairness, since some stages of the process may be more amenable to certain procedural criteria than others.

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Legitimate Health Benefit Package Design - Part I: Conceptual Framework

BACKGROUND

Countries around the world are increasingly rethinking the design of their health benefit packages to achieve universal health coverage (UHC). Health technology assessment (HTA) bodies support governments in these decisions, but employ value frameworks that do not sufficiently account for the intrinsically complex and value-laden political reality of benefit package design.

METHODS

Several years ago, evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were developed to address this issue. An EDP is a practical and stepwise approach for HTA bodies to enhance legitimate health benefit package design based on deliberation between stakeholders to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, and to interpret available evidence on these values. We further developed the conceptual framework and initial 2019 guidance based on academic knowledge exchange, analysing practices of HTA bodies, surveying HTA bodies and experts around the globe, and implementation of EDPs in several countries around the world.

RESULTS

EDPs stem from the general concept of legitimacy, which is translated into four elements - stakeholder involvement ideally operationalised through stakeholder participation with deliberation; evidence-informed evaluation; transparency; and appeal. The 2021 practical guidance distinguishes six practical steps of a HTA process and provides recommendations on how these elements can be implemented in each of these steps.

CONCLUSION

There is an increased attention for legitimacy, deliberative processes for HTA and health benefit package design, but the development of theories and methods for such processes remain behind. The added value of EDPs lies in the operationalisation of the general concept of legitimacy into practical guidance for HTA bodies.

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide

BACKGROUND

Countries around the world are using health technology assessment (HTA) for health benefit package design. Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) are a practical and stepwise approach to enhance legitimate health benefit package design based on deliberation between stakeholders to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values. This paper reports on the development of practical guidance on EDPs, while the conceptual framework of EDPs is described in a companion paper.

METHODS

The first guide on EDPs (2019) is further developed based on academic knowledge exchange, surveying 27 HTA bodies and 66 experts around the globe, and the implementation of EDPs in several countries. We present the revised steps of EDPs and how selected HTA bodies (in Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Scotland, Thailand and the United Kingdom) organize key issues of legitimacy in their processes. This is based on a review of literature via PubMed and HTA bodies' websites.

RESULTS

HTA bodies around the globe vary considerable in how they address legitimacy (stakeholder involvement ideally through participation with deliberation; evidence-informed evaluation; transparency; and appeal) in their processes. While there is increased attention for improving legitimacy in decision-making processes, we found that the selected HTA bodies are still lacking or just starting to develop activities in this area. We provide recommendations on how HTA bodies can improve on this.

CONCLUSION

The design and implementation of EDPs is in its infancy. We call for a systematic analysis of experiences of a variety of countries, from which general principles on EDPs might subsequently be inferred.

The journey to UHC: how well are vertical programmes integrated in the health benefits package? A scoping review

Background

Countries are recommended to progressively work towards universal health coverage (UHC), and to make explicit choices regarding the expansion of priority services. However, there is little guidance on how to manage the inclusion of vertical programmes, funded by external partners, in health benefits packages (HBP) in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Objective

We conducted a scoping review to map the inclusion of six vertical programmes (HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, maternal and child health, contraceptives, immunisation) in 26 LMICs.

Methods

We identified 26 LMICs with an HBP that was not aspirational (eg, with evidence of implementation or funding). For each HBP, we collected information on the corresponding UHC scheme, health financing at the time of establishment, revisions since inception and entitlements. For each vertical programme, we developed a list of tracer interventions based on the Disease Control Priorities 3 and the 100 Core Health Indicators List. We then used this list of tracer interventions to map the coverage of the six vertical programmes.

Results

The review shows that there is no common starting point for countries embarking into UHC. Some HBPs were almost three decades old. Whole package revisions are rare. The inclusion of vertical programme does not follow a given pattern based on health financing indicators or country’s income group. Maternal child health services are the most often included and family planning the least. Six countries in our sample covered all vertical programmes, while one covered only one of six.

Conclusions

This review has shown that there has been a long history of countries facing this question and we have provided the first mapping of inclusion of vertical programmes in UHC. The results of the mapping can inform decisions in countries embarking in UHC.

Policy learning and Universal Health Coverage in low- and middle-income countries

Learning is increasingly seen as an essential component to spur progress towards universal health coverage (UHC) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, learning remains an elusive concept, with different understandings and uses that vary from one person or organisation to another. Specifically, it appears that 'learning for UHC' is dominated by the teacher mode - notably scientists and experts as 'teachers' conveying to local decision/policy-makers as 'learners' what to do. This article shows that, to meet countries' needs, it is important to acknowledge that UHC learning situations are not restricted to the most visible epistemic learning approach practiced today. This article draws on an analytical framework proposed by Dunlop and Radaelli, whereby they identified four learning modes that can emerge according to the specific characteristics of the policy process: epistemic learning, learning in the shadow of hierarchy, learning through bargaining and reflexive learning. These learning modes look relevant to help widen the learning prospects that LMICs need to advance their UHC agenda. Actually, they open up new perspectives in a research field that, until now, has appeared scattered and relatively blurry.

Neglected Tropical Diseases as a 'litmus test' for Universal Health Coverage? Understanding who is left behind and why in Mass Drug Administration: Lessons from four country contexts

Introduction

Individuals and communities affected by NTDs are often the poorest and most marginalised; ensuring a gender and equity lens is centre stage will be critical for the NTD community to reach elimination goals and inform Universal Health Coverage (UHC). NTDs amenable to preventive chemotherapy have been described as a ‘litmus test’ for UHC due to the high mass drug administration (MDA) coverage rates needed to be effective and their model of community engagement. However, until now highly aggregated coverage data may have masked inequities in availability, accessibility and acceptability of medicines, slowing down the equitable achievement of elimination goals.

Methods

We conducted qualitative programmatic analysis across different country contexts through the novel application of the Tanahashi Coverage Framework enhanced by gendered intersectional theory to interrogate different components of programme coverage: availability, accessibility, acceptability, contact and effective. Drawing on communities and health implementers perspectives (using focus groups, interviews, and participatory methods) from varying levels of the health system, across four African country contexts (Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia and Nigeria), we show who is left behind and provide recommendations for programmes to respond.

Findings

We have unmasked inequities in programme delivery that repeatedly leave vulnerable populations underserved in relation to the prevention and treatment of PC NTDs across all components of coverage explored within the Tanahashi framework. Inequities are influenced by health systems challenges and limitations, due to lack of consideration of gender, power and equity issues. Effective treatment for individuals and communities is shaped by individual identities and the intersecting axes of inequity that converge to shape these positions including gender, age, disability, and geography. Health systems are inherently social and gendered thus they become mediators in managing the impact that social and structural processes have on individual health outcomes.

Significance

To our knowledge this is the only paper which has combined a comprehensive equity framework with intersectional feminist theory, to establish a fuller understanding of who is left behind and why in MDA across countries and contexts. Ensuring the most vulnerable have continued access to future treatment options will contribute to the progressive realisation of UHC, allowing the NTD community to continue to support their vision of being a true ‘litmus test’.

Individuals and communities affected by Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) are often the poorest and most marginalised. Some NTDs (lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, soil transmitted helminths, schistosomiasis and trachoma) have been given specific targets for control and elimination by the year 2020. Reaching these goals is important for the attainment of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) as well as the Sustainable Development Goals and has been described as a litmus test. However, few studies have considered how fair progress toward attainment of these goals has been to date. We used qualitative research methods to explore the equity of progress toward these targets across four countries (Ghana, Cameroon, Liberia and Ghana). We used a framework for assessing health services coverage (The Tanahashi Framework) and combined it with gendered intersectional theory (a theory that helps us think about how individuals position of power and privilege shape their experience) to understand who is left behind and why in NTD programme delivery. We found that health systems challenges and limitations due to lack of consideration of gender and equity issues have left vulnerable populations underserved in relation to the prevention and treatment of PC NTDs. Key steps need to be taken at different health system levels to ensure the most vulnerable have continued access to future treatment options. This will contribute to the attainment of UHC, allowing the NTD community to continue to support their vision of being a true ‘litmus test’.

Guide posts for investment in primary health care and projected resource needs in 67 low-income and middle-income countries: a modelling study

Background

Primary health care (PHC) is a driving force for advancing towards universal health coverage (UHC). PHC-oriented health systems bring enormous benefits but require substantial financial investments. Here, we aim to present measures for PHC investments and project the associated resource needs.

Methods

This modelling study analysed data from 67 low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Recognising the variation in PHC services among countries, we propose three measures for PHC, with different scope for included interventions and system strengthening. Measure 1 is centred on public health interventions and outpatient care; measure 2 adds general inpatient care; and measure 3 further adds cross-sectoral activities. Cost components included in each measure were based on the Declaration of Astana, informed by work delineating PHC within health accounts, and finalised through an expert and country validation meeting. We extracted the subset of PHC costs for each measure from WHO's Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) price tag for the 67 LMICs, and projected the associated health impact. Estimates of financial resource need, health workforce, and outpatient visits are presented as PHC investment guide posts for LMICs.

Findings

An estimated additional US$200–328 billion per year is required for the various measures of PHC from 2020 to 2030. For measure 1, an additional $32 is needed per capita across the countries. Needs are greatest in low-income countries where PHC spending per capita needs to increase from $25 to $65. Overall health workforces would need to increase from 5·6 workers per 1000 population to 6·7 per 1000 population, delivering an average of 5·9 outpatient visits per capita per year. Increasing coverage of PHC interventions would avert an estimated 60·1 million deaths and increase average life expectancy by 3·7 years. By 2030, these incremental PHC costs would be about 3·3% of projected gross domestic product (GDP; median 1·7%, range 0·1–20·2). In a business-as-usual financing scenario, 25 of 67 countries will have funding gaps in 2030. If funding for PHC was increased by 1–2% of GDP across all countries, as few as 16 countries would see a funding gap by 2030.

Interpretation

The resources required to strengthen PHC vary across countries, depending on demographic trends, disease burden, and health system capacity. The proposed PHC investment guide posts advance discussions around the budgetary implications of strengthening PHC, including relevant system investment needs and achievable health outcomes. Preliminary findings suggest that low-income and lower-middle-income countries would need to at least double current spending on PHC to strengthen their systems and universally provide essential PHC services. Investing in PHC will bring substantial health benefits and build human capital. At country level, PHC interventions need to be explicitly identified, and plans should be made for how to most appropriately reorient the health system towards PHC as a key lever towards achieving UHC and the health-related SDGs.

Funding

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Unique challenges for health equity in Latin America: situating the roles of priority-setting and judicial enforcement

Overcoming continuing polarization regarding judicial enforcement of health rights in Latin America requires clarifying divergent normative and political premises, addressing the lack of reliable empirical data, and establishing the conditions for fruitful inter-sectoral, inter-disciplinary dialogue.

Monitoring Frameworks for Universal Health Coverage: What About High-Income Countries?

Implementing universal health coverage (UHC) is widely perceived to be central to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and is a work program priority of the World Health Organization (WHO). Much has already been written about how low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) can monitor progress towards UHC, with various UHC monitoring frameworks available in the literature. However, we suggest that these frameworks are largely irrelevant in high-income contexts and that the international community still needs to develop UHC monitoring framework meaningful for high-income countries (HICs). As a first step, this short communication presents preliminary findings from a literature review and document analysis on how various countries monitor their own progress towards achieving UHC. It furthermore offers considerations to guide meaningful UHC monitoring and reflects on pertinent challenges and tensions to inform future research on UHC implementation in HIC settings.

The WHO-INTEGRATE evidence to decision framework version 1.0: integrating WHO norms and values and a complexity perspective

INTRODUCTION

Evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks intend to ensure that all criteria of relevance to a health decision are systematically considered. This paper, part of a series commissioned by the WHO, reports on the development of an EtD framework that is rooted in WHO norms and values, reflective of the changing global health landscape, and suitable for a range of interventions and complexity features. We also sought to assess the value of this framework to decision-makers at global and national levels, and to facilitate uptake through suggestions on how to prioritise criteria and methods to collect evidence.

METHODS

In an iterative, principles-based approach, we developed the framework structure from WHO norms and values. Preliminary criteria were derived from key documents and supplemented with comprehensive subcriteria obtained through an overview of systematic reviews of criteria employed in health decision-making. We assessed to what extent the framework can accommodate features of complexity, and conducted key informant interviews among WHO guideline developers. Suggestions on methods were drawn from the literature and expert consultation.

RESULTS

The new WHO-INTEGRATE (INTEGRATe Evidence) framework comprises six substantive criteria-balance of health benefits and harms, human rights and sociocultural acceptability, health equity, equality and non-discrimination, societal implications, financial and economic considerations, and feasibility and health system considerations-and the meta-criterion quality of evidence. It is intended to facilitate a structured process of reflection and discussion in a problem-specific and context-specific manner from the start of a guideline development or other health decision-making process. For each criterion, the framework offers a definition, subcriteria and example questions; it also suggests relevant primary research and evidence synthesis methods and approaches to assessing quality of evidence.

CONCLUSION

The framework is deliberately labelled version 1.0. We expect further modifications based on focus group discussions in four countries, example applications and input across concerned disciplines.

Universal Health Coverage in Francophone Sub-Saharan Africa: Assessment of Global Health Experts' Confidence in Policy Options

Many countries rely on standard recipes for accelerating progress toward universal health coverage (UHC). With limited generalizable empirical evidence, expert confidence and consensus plays a major role in shaping country policy choices. This article presents an exploratory attempt conducted between April and September 2016 to measure confidence and consensus among a panel of global health experts in terms of the effectiveness and feasibility of a number of policy options commonly proposed for achieving UHC in low- and middle-income countries, such as fee exemptions for certain groups of people, ring-fenced domestic health budgets, and public-private partnerships. To ensure a relative homogeneity of contexts, we focused on French-speaking sub-Saharan Africa. We initially used the Delphi method to arrive at expert consensus, but since no consensus emerged after 2 rounds, we adjusted our approach to a statistical analysis of the results from our questionnaire by measuring the degree of consensus on each policy option through 100 (signifying total consensus) minus the size of the interquartile range of the individual scores. Seventeen global health experts from various backgrounds, but with at least 20 years' experience in the broad region, participated in the 2 rounds of the study. The results provide an initial "mapping" of the opinions of a group of experts and suggest interesting lessons. For the 18 policy options proposed, consensus emerged only on strengthening the supply of quality primary health care services (judged as being effective with a confidence score of 79 and consensus score of 90), and on fee exemptions for the poorest (judged as being fairly easy to implement with a confidence score of 66 and consensus score of 85). For none of the 18 common policy options was there consensus on both potential effectiveness and feasibility, with very diverging opinions concerning 5 policy options. The lack of confidence and consensus within the panel seems to reflect the lack of consistent evidence on the proposed policy options. This suggests that experts' opinions should be framed within strengthened inclusive and "evidence-informed deliberative processes" where the trade-offs along the 3 dimensions of UHC-extending the population covered against health hazards, expanding the range of services and benefits covered, and reducing out-of-pocket expenditures-can be discussed in a transparent and contextualized setting.