TY - JOUR
T1 - The Use of Evidence to Design an Essential Package of Health Services in Pakistan
T2 - A Review and Analysis of Prioritisation Decisions at Different Stages of the Appraisal Process
AU - Torres-Rueda, Sergio
AU - Vassall, Anna
AU - Zaidi, Raza
AU - Kitson, Nichola
AU - Khalid, Muhammad
AU - Zulfiqar, Wahaj
AU - Jansen, Maarten
AU - Raza, Wajeeha
AU - Huda, Maryam
AU - Sandmann, Frank
AU - Baltussen, Rob
AU - Siddiqi, Sameen
AU - Alwan, Ala
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Background: Pakistan embarked on a process of designing an essential package of health services (EPHS) as a pathway towards universal health coverage (UHC). The EPHS design followed an evidence-informed deliberative process; evidence on 170 interventions was introduced along multiple stages of appraisal engaging different stakeholders tasked with prioritising interventions for inclusion. We report on the composition of the package at different stages, analyse trends of prioritised and deprioritised interventions and reflect on the trade-offs made. Methods: Quantitative evidence on cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and avoidable burden of disease was presented to stakeholders in stages. We recorded which interventions were prioritised and deprioritised at each stage and carried out three analyses: (1) a review of total number of interventions prioritised at each stage, along with associated costs per capita and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, to understand changes in affordability and efficiency in the package, (2) an analysis of interventions broken down by decision criteria and intervention characteristics to analyse prioritisation trends across different stages, and (3) a description of the trajectory of interventions broken down by current coverage and cost-effectiveness. Results: Value for money generally increased throughout the process, although not uniformly. Stakeholders largely prioritised interventions with low budget impact and those preventing a high burden of disease. Highly cost-effective interventions were also prioritised, but less consistently throughout the stages of the process. Interventions with high current coverage were overwhelmingly prioritised for inclusion. Conclusion: Evidence-informed deliberative processes can produce actionable and affordable health benefit packages. While cost-effective interventions are generally preferred, other factors play a role and limit efficiency.
AB - Background: Pakistan embarked on a process of designing an essential package of health services (EPHS) as a pathway towards universal health coverage (UHC). The EPHS design followed an evidence-informed deliberative process; evidence on 170 interventions was introduced along multiple stages of appraisal engaging different stakeholders tasked with prioritising interventions for inclusion. We report on the composition of the package at different stages, analyse trends of prioritised and deprioritised interventions and reflect on the trade-offs made. Methods: Quantitative evidence on cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and avoidable burden of disease was presented to stakeholders in stages. We recorded which interventions were prioritised and deprioritised at each stage and carried out three analyses: (1) a review of total number of interventions prioritised at each stage, along with associated costs per capita and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, to understand changes in affordability and efficiency in the package, (2) an analysis of interventions broken down by decision criteria and intervention characteristics to analyse prioritisation trends across different stages, and (3) a description of the trajectory of interventions broken down by current coverage and cost-effectiveness. Results: Value for money generally increased throughout the process, although not uniformly. Stakeholders largely prioritised interventions with low budget impact and those preventing a high burden of disease. Highly cost-effective interventions were also prioritised, but less consistently throughout the stages of the process. Interventions with high current coverage were overwhelmingly prioritised for inclusion. Conclusion: Evidence-informed deliberative processes can produce actionable and affordable health benefit packages. While cost-effective interventions are generally preferred, other factors play a role and limit efficiency.
KW - Cost-Effectiveness
KW - Decision Criteria
KW - Essential Packages of Health Services
KW - Health Benefit Packages
KW - Pakistan
KW - Priority Setting
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85194244535&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.34172/ijhpm.2024.8043
DO - 10.34172/ijhpm.2024.8043
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85194244535
SN - 2322-5939
VL - 13
JO - International Journal of Health Policy and Management
JF - International Journal of Health Policy and Management
IS - Special issue
M1 - 8043
ER -