Mapping priority setting in health in 17 countries across Asia, Latin America, and sub-Saharan Africa

Health Systems and Reform

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 71-83

  Li, Ryan ^a   Hernandez Villafuerte, Karla ^b   Towse, Adrian ^b   Vlad, Ioana ^c   Chalkidou, Kalipso ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE   (United Kingdom)

^b The Office of Health Economics   (United Kingdom)

^c LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evidence informed priority setting; Health technology assessment; LMICs; Resource allocation; Universal coverage

Indexed keywords

EID: 84983536891     PISSN: 23288604     EISSN: 23288620     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/23288604.2015.1123338     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Glassman A, Chalkidou K. Priority-setting institutions in health. Building institutions for smarter public spending. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development; 2012.
2. Dittrich R, Cubillos L, Gostin L, Chalkidou K, Li R. The international right to health: what does it mean in legal practice and how can it affect priority setting for universal health coverage? Health Sys Ref, this issue.
3. Chalkidou K, Marten R, Cutler D, Culyer T, Smith R, Teerawattananon Y, Cluzeau F, Li R, Sullivan R, Huang Y, et al. Health technology assessment in universal health coverage. Lancet 2013; 382(9910): e48-e49.
4. World Health Organization. Sixty-seventh World Health Assembly. WHA67.23. Agenda item 15.7. 24 May 2014. Health intervention and technology assessment in support of universal health coverage. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014. Available at http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA67/A67_R23-en.pdf?ua=1
5. Keohane R. International institutions: two approaches. Int Stud Q 1988; 32(4): 379-396.
6. Forss K, Venson P. An evaluation of the capacity building efforts of United Nations operational activities in Zimbabwe: 1980–1995. Geneva: United Nations; 2002.
7. Willems S, Baumert K. Institutional capacity and climate actions. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; 2003.
8. Towse A, Devlin N, Hawe E, Garrison L. Consulting report. The evolution of HTA in emerging markets health care systems: analysis to support a policy response. London: Office of Health Economics; 2011.
9. Garrison L, Babigumira J, Bartlein R, Nguyen H. Health technology assessment in low-and middle-income countries: findings from a survey and case studies. Arlington, VA: Management Sciences for Health; 2012.
10. Health Interventions and Technology Assessment Program, NICE International. Situation analysis of HTA Introduction at national level, version 2.0.2013. Bangkok, Thailand: Health Interventions and Technology Assessment Program.
11. Hauck K, Smith P. The politics of priority setting in health: a political economy perspective. Working Paper 414. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development; 2015.
12. Kingdon JW, Thurber JA. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown; 1984.
13. Zahariadis N. Ambiguity and multiple streams. In: Theories of the policy process (3rd ed.), Sabatier P, Weible C, eds. Boulder: Westview Press; 2014; 25–58.
14. Fox AM, Balarajan Y, Cheng C, Reich MR. Measuring political commitment and opportunities to advance food and nutrition security: piloting a rapid assessment tool. Health Policy Plan 2015; 30(5): 566-578.
15. Shiffman J, Smith S. Generation of political priority for global health initiatives: a framework and case study of maternal mortality. Lancet 2007; 370(9595): 1370-1379.
16. Guldbrandsson K, Fossum B. An exploration of the theoretical concepts policy windows and policy entrepreneurs at the Swedish public health arena. Health Promot Int 2009; 24(4): 434-444.
17. Fox AM, Goldberg AB, Gore RJ, Bäarnighausen T. Conceptual and methodological challenges to measuring political commitment to respond to HIV. J Int AIDS Soc 2011; 14(Suppl 2):S5.
18. Delvaux B, Mangez E. Towards a sociology of the knowl-edge–policy relation. Louvain-la-Neuve: Universite Catholi-que de Louvain; 2008.
19. Hernandez-Villafuerte K, Li R, Hofman K. Author linkages in economic evaluations: tendencies in Southern Africa. Presentation by Adrian Towse to the World Health Organization, “Consultation on using health technology assessment in for universal health coverage and reimbursement systems,” 3 November 2015, WHO, Geneva.
20. Wilkinson T. Economic evaluation: a tool for priority setting in the context UHC—learning from the international experience. Presented at the African Health Economics and Policy Association Conference, 13 March 2014, Nairobi, Kenya.
21. Hernandez-Villafuerte K, Li R, Towse A, Chalkidou K. International decision support initiative: mapping of priority-setting in health for 17 low and middle countries across Asia, Latin America and Africa. Occasional Paper 2015/01. London: Office of Health Economics; 2015. Available at https://www.ohe.org/system/files/private/publications/413%20-% 20International%20Decision%20Support%20Initiative% 20Country%20selection%20report.pdf?download=1
22. Grundy J. Myanmar: key issues and feasible options for accelerating progress to UHC.Bangkok, Thailand: WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia; 2012.
23. World Bank Open Data. Free and open access to data about development in countries around the globe the world bank. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2014.
24. National Department of Health (South Africa). National health insurance in South Africa: policy paper. Pretoria: National Department of Health (South Africa); 2011.
25. Garrison LP, Babigumira J, Bartlein R, Nguyen H. Health technology assessment in low-and middle-income countries: finding from a survey and case studies. Arlington, VA: Management Sciences for Health; 2012.
26. Rattanavipapong W, Luz ACG, Kumluang S, Kusumawardani N, Teerawattananon Y, Indriani D, Primastuti PA, Rivai LB, Idiani S, Adhie U, et al. One step back, two steps forward: an economic evaluation of the PEN program in Indonesia. Health Sys Ref, this issue.
27. Itad, NICE International. Report on NICE International’s engagement in India. Hove, UK: ITAD; 2015.
28. Chootipongchaivat S, Tritasavit N, Luz A, Teerawattananon Y, Tantivess S. Policy brief and working paper. Conducive factors to the development of health technology assessment in Asia. Bangkok, Thailand: Prince Mahidol Award Foundation; 2016.
29. World Health Organization. World health statistics 2013. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.
30. Boerma T, Eozenou P, Evans D, Evans T, Kieny M-P, Wagstaff A. Monitoring progress towards universal health coverage at country and global levels. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.
31. World Health Organization. Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2010. Geneva: World Health Organ ization; 2011.
32. Gakidou E, Nordhagen S, Obermeyer Z. Coverage of cervical cancer screening in 57 countries: low average levels and large inequalities. PLOS Med 2008; 5(6): e132.
33. World Health Organization. Health system response and capacity: NCD-related tests. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.
34. World Health Organization. Mortality: risk of premature death from target NCDs. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.
35. Saksena P, Xu K, Durairaj V. The drivers of catastrophic expenditure: outpatient services, hospitalization or medicines? Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.
36. World Health Organization. The selection and use of essential medicines report of the WHO Expert Committee, 2013 (includ-ing the 18th WHO model list of essential medicines and the 4th WHO model list of essential medicines for children). WHO Report Series 985. 2013. Available at http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/112729/1/WHO_TRS_985_eng.pdf
37. United States Agency International Development (USAID), U. S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) & AIDS Free. Treatment guidance database: HIV treatment guidance database. n.d. Available at https://aidsfree.usaid.gov/resources/guidance-data/treatment
38. International Osteoporosis Foundation. National & regional osteoporosis guidelines. Nyon: International Osteoporosis Foundation; 2014. Available at http://www.iofbonehealth.org/national-regional-osteoporosis-guidelines
39. The World Bank. The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2013. Available at http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home
40. Cornell University, Institut europeen d’administration des affaires, World Intellectual Property Organization. Global Innovation Index 2013: the local dynamics of innovation. Geneva; Ithaca, NY; and Fontainebleau, France: Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO; 2013.
41. The World Bank. Statistical capacity indicator. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2011.
42. Transparency International. Corruption Perceptions Index 2013. Berlin: Transparency International; 2014. Available at https://www.transparency.org/cpi2013
43. World Health Organization. Recipient countries: commitments and disbursements to recipient countries, 2000–2010. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013. Available at http://www.who.int/gho/governance:aid_effectiveness/country/en/
44. The World Bank. World development indicators. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2014. Available at http://data.world-bank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators
45. The Global Fund. Grant portfolio. Geneva: The Global Fund; 2013. Available at http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/portfolio/
46. United Nations Statistics Division. UNdata: country profile: Myanmar. n.d. Available at http://data.un.org/CountryProfile. aspx?crName=MYANMAR