International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Year:2019 | Volume:8 | Issue:7|Papers Count:10

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.

Background: There is limited evidence detailing the cost-effectiveness of psoriasis treatments in the Asian region. Therefore, this study is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 3 psoriasis treatments tailored for moderate to severe psoriasis, namely topical and phototherapy (TP), topical and systemic (TS), and topical and biologic (TB) regimens, respectively. Methods: This has been achieved by the participation of a prospective cohort involving a total of 90 moderate to severe psoriasis patients, which has been conducted at 5 public hospitals in Malaysia. The main outcome measures have been evaluated via cost and effectiveness psoriasis area severity index (PASI)-75 and/or body surface area (BSA) <5 and/or dermatology life quality index (DLQI) ≤ 5), estimated from the societal perspective over a 6-months duration. All costs are based on 2015’ s recorded Malaysian Ringgit (RM) currency. Results: Consequently, TS has been found to be the most cost-effective treatment with the lowest cost/PASI-75/and/or BSA <5 and/or DLQI ≤ 5, valued at RM9034. 56 (US$2582. 55). This is followed by TP, which is valued at RM28 080. 71 (US$8026. 93) and TB, valued at RM54 287. 02 (US$15 518. 06). Furthermore, one-way sensitivity analysis has highlighted the cost of medication as the most sensitive parameter. Conclusion: Thus, the input from this study is helpful for policy-makers in determining the first line treatment for moderate to severe psoriasis with consideration of the costs and its effectiveness in Malaysia. This will consequently allow hospitals to justify and provide the essential resources for further research and development, as well as the adoption of better treatment options.

Background: Disinvestment from inefficient health services may be a potential solution to rising healthcare costs, but there has been poor uptake of disinvestment recommendations. This Australian study aims to understand how health professionals react when confronted with a plan to disinvest from a health service they previously provided to their patients. Methods: This qualitative study took place prior to the disinvestment phase of a trial which removed weekend allied health services from acute hospital wards, to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the service. Observations and focus groups were used to collect data from 156 participants which was analysed thematically. Results: Initial reactions to the disinvestment were almost universally negative, with staff extremely concerned about the impact on the safety and quality of patient care and planning ways to circumvent the trial. Removal of existing services was perceived as a loss and created a direct threat to some clinicians’ professional identity. With time, discussion, and understanding of the project’ s context, some staff moved towards acceptance and perceived the trial as an opportunity, particularly given the service was to be reinstated after the disinvestment. Conclusion: Clinicians and health service managers are protective of the services they deliver and can create barriers to disinvestment. Even when services are removed to ascertain their value, health professionals may continue to provide services to their patients. Measuring the impact of the disinvestment may assist staff to accept the removal of a service.

Background: While evidence-based practice is a familiar concept to allied health clinicians, knowledge translation (KT) is less well known and understood. The need for a framework that enables allied health clinicians to access and engage with KT was identified. The aim of this paper is to describe the development of the Translating Allied Health Knowledge (TAHK) Framework. Methods: An iterative and collaborative process involving clinician and academic knowledge partners was utilised to develop the TAHK Framework. Multiple methods were utilised during this process, including a systematic literature review, steering committee consultation, mixed methods survey, benchmarking and measurement property analysis. Results: The TAHK Framework has now been finalised, and is described in detail. The framework is structured around four domains – Doing Knowledge Translation, Social Capital for Knowledge Translation, Sustaining Knowledge Translation and Inclusive Knowledge Translation – under which 14 factors known to influence allied health KT are classified. The formulation of the framework to date has laid a rigorous foundation for further developments, including clinician support and outcome measurement. Conclusion: The method of development adopted for the TAHK Framework has ensured it is both evidence and practice based, and further amendments and modifications are anticipated as new knowledge becomes available. The Framework will enable allied health clinicians to build on their existing capacities for KT, and approach this complex process in a rigorous and systematic manner. The TAHK Framework offers a unique focus on how knowledge is translated by allied health clinicians in multidisciplinary settings.

Background: The accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework defines 4 conditions for legitimate healthcare coverage decision processes: Relevance, Publicity, Appeals, and Enforcement. The aim of this study was to reflect on how the diverse features of decision-making processes can be aligned with A4R conditions to guide decision-making towards legitimacy. Rare disease and regenerative therapies (RDRTs) pose special decision-making challenges and offer therefore a useful case study. Methods: Features operationalizing each A4R condition as well as three different approaches to address these features (cost-per-QALY-focused and multicriteria-based) were defined and organized into a matrix. Seven experts explored these features during a panel run under the Chatham House Rule and provided general and RDRT-specific recommendations. Responses were analyzed to identify converging and diverging recommendations. Results: Regarding Relevance, recommendations included supporting deliberation, stakeholder participation and grounding coverage decision criteria in normative and societal objectives. Thirteen of 17 proposed decision criteria were recommended by a majority of panelists. The usefulness of universal cost-effectiveness thresholds to inform allocative efficiency was challenged, particularly in the RDRT context. RDRTs raise specific issues that need to be considered; however, rarity should be viewed in relation to other aspects, such as disease severity and budget impact. Regarding Publicity, panelists recommended transparency about the values underlying a decision and value judgements used in selecting evidence. For Appeals, recommendations included a life-cycle approach with clear provisions for re-evaluations. For Enforcement, external quality reviews of decisions were recommended. Conclusion: Moving coverage decision-making processes towards enhanced legitimacy in general and in the RDRT context involves designing and refining approaches to support participation and deliberation, enhancing transparency, and allowing explicit consideration of multiple decision criteria that reflect normative and societal objectives.

Lehoux and colleagues plea for a health systems perspective to evaluate innovations. Since many innovations and their scale-up strategies emerge from processes that are not (centrally) steered, we plea for any assessment with a dynamic, instead of a sequential, approach. We provide further guidance on how to adopt such dynamic approach, in order to better un-derstand and steer innovations for better health systems. A systems-level challenge is constituted by interactions and feedback loops between different actors and components of the health system. It is therefore essential to explore both the entry-point of innovation and the interactions with other components. If innovation is regarded as an injection of resources and opportunities into a health system, this system needs to have the capacity to transform these into desired outputs, the ‘ absorption capacity. ’ The highly organic diffusion of innovation in complex adapative systems cannot be easily controlled, but the system behaviours can be analysed, with occurance of phenomena such as path dependence, feedback loops, scale-free networks, emergent behaviour and phase transitions. This helps to anticipate unintended consequences, and to engage key actors in ongoing problem-solving and adaptation. By adopting a prospective approach, responsible innovation could set in motion prospective policy evaluations, which on the basis of iterative learning would allow decisionmakers to continuously adapt their policies and programmes. Priority-setting for innovation is an essentially political process that is geared towards consensus-building and grounded in values.

Responsible innovation in health (RIH) takes the ideas of responsible research and innovation (RRI) and applies them to the health sector. This comment takes its point of departure from Lehoux et al which describes a structured literature review to determine the system-level challenges that health systems in countries at different levels of human development face. This approach offers interesting insights from the perspective of RRI, but it also raises the question whether and how RRI can be steered and achieved across healthcare systems. This includes the question who, if anybody, is responsible for responsible innovation and which insights can be drawn from the systemic nature RIH.

The food, tobacco and alcohol industries have penetrated markets in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), with a significant impact on these countries’ burden of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). Tangcharoensathien and colleagues describe the aggressive marketing of unhealthy food, alcohol and tobacco in LMICs, as well as key tactics used by these industries to resist laws and policies designed to reduce behavioural risk factors for NCDs. This commentary expands on the recommendations made by Tangcharoensathien and colleagues for preventing or managing conflicts of interest and reducing undue industry influence on NCD prevention policies and laws, focusing on the needs of LMICs. A growing body of research proposes ways to design voluntary industry initiatives to make them more effective, transparent and accountable, but governments should also consider whether collaboration with health-harming industries is ever appropriate. More fundamentally, mechanisms for identifying, managing and mitigating conflicts of interest and reducing industry influence must be woven into – and supported by – broader governance and regulatory structures at both national and international levels.

As a group of Health System Impact (HSI) postdoctoral fellows, Sim and colleagues offer their reflections on ‘ driving change’ within the health system and present a framework for understanding the HSI fellow as an embedded researcher. Our commentary offers a different perspective of the fellow’ s role by highlighting the integrated knowledge translation (IKT) approach we consider to be foundational to the fellowship experience. Further, we provide several recommendations to enhance Sim and colleagues’ framework to ensure we capture the full value of the fellowship program to the HSI fellow, health system organization, and academic institution.

We are grateful that our article on the first five years of the Human Resources for Health Program (HRH Program) in Rwanda was followed by two very thoughtful and insightful commentaries. 1, 2 The points made and questions raised by the commentaries are very important ones and deserve comprehensive and detailed answers. We hope that the authors of the commentaries and the readers of this journal will find our answers satisfactory and we look forward to additional fruitful and constructive discussions in the future. ...