Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T06:53:04.338Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The link between health technology assessment and decision making for the allocation of health resources in Latin America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2020

Andrés Pichon-Riviere*
Affiliation:
Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS‐CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
Federico Augustovski
Affiliation:
Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS‐CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
Sebastián García Martí
Affiliation:
Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS‐CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
Verónica Alfie
Affiliation:
Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS‐CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
Laura Sampietro-Colom
Affiliation:
Unidad de Evaluación Innovaciones y Nuevas Tecnologías, Dirección Investigación & Innovación, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
*
Author for correspondence: Andrés Pichon-Riviere, E-mail: apichon@iecs.org.ar

Abstract

Objective

One of the good practice principles for health technology assessment (HTA) is having a clear link between the assessment and decision making. The objective of the 2019 Latin American Policy Forum (LatamPF) of Health Technology Assessment International was to explore different models of connection between HTA and decision making and to discuss the potential applicability of such models in Latin America.

Methods

This paper is based on a background document and the deliberations of the members of the LatamPF (fifty-four participants from twelve countries) where a design-thinking methodology was used.

Results

The participants agreed that insufficient links between HTA and decision making undermine the legitimacy of decisions, expose the HTA process to excessive political and judicial influence, and promote the exclusion of some stakeholders from participating in the assessment process and decision making. High priority aspects of the HTA process that could feasibly be improved and which hold the greatest potential to generate positive changes in the health systems in the region were identified. The majority of these aspects were associated with the appropriate institutionalization of HTA, a greater degree of participation by different stakeholders, and improved transparency in the HTA process.

Conclusions

The LatamPF identified barriers and recommended actions to strengthen the link between HTA and decision making. Participants emphasized that there is now a window of opportunity in the region as many societal actors see this as a priority. For this reason, health system stakeholders must take this opportunity to increase efforts toward strengthening the link between HTA and decision making.

Type
Policy
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dmytraczenko, T, Almeida, G (2015) Toward Universal Health Coverage and Equity in Latin America and the Caribbean: Evidence from Selected Countries. Directions in Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0454-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atun, R, De Andrade, LOM, Almeida, G et al. (2015) Health-system reform and universal health coverage in Latin America. Lancet. 385, 12301247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cotlear, D, Gómez-Dantés, O, Knaul, F et al. (2015) Overcoming social segregation in health care in Latin America. Lancet. 385, 12481259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) (2019) HTA Glossary 2019. Available at: http://htaglossary.net/HomePage. (Accessed 12 July 2019).Google Scholar
Velasco, M, Finn, G, Kristensen, B et al. (2008) Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe: Current status, challenges and potential. No. 14. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office Europe.Google Scholar
Drummond, MF, Schwartz, JS, Jönsson, B et al. (2008) Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 24, 244258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (WHO) (2015) Using health technology assessment for universal health coverage and reimbursement systems. Available at: https://www.who.int/health-technology-assessment/HTA_November_meeting_report_Final.pdf. (Accessed 12 July 2019).Google Scholar
Rotstein, D, Laupacis, A (2004) Differences between systematic reviews and health technology assessments: A trade-off between the ideals of scientific rigor and the realities of policy making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 20, 177183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eichler, H-G, Bloechl-Daum, B, Abadie, E et al. (2010) Relative efficacy of drugs: An emerging issue between regulatory agencies and third-party payers. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 9, 277291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pichon-Riviere, A, Augustovski, F, Rubinstein, A et al. (2010) Health technology assessment for resource allocation decisions: Are key principles relevant for Latin America? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 26, 421427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pichon-Riviere, A, Soto, NC, Augustovski, FA, García Martí, S, Sampietro-Colom, L (2018) Health technology assessment for decision making in Latin America: Good practice principles. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 34, 241247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) (2019) Global Policy Forum. Available at: https://htai.org/policy-forum/global-policy-forum/. (Accessed 14 June 2019).Google Scholar
Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) (2019) Latin America Policy Forum. Available at: https://htai.org/policy-forum/latin-america-policy-forum/. (Accessed 14 June 2019).Google Scholar
Pichon-Riviere, A, Garcia Martí, S, Alfie, V, Augustovski, F, Sampietro-Colom, L (2019) The link between health technology assessment and decision making for resource allocation. Latin America Policy Forum, Background paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson-Sköldberg, U, Woodilla, J, Çetinkaya, M (2013) Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures. Creat Innov Manag. 22, 121146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, T (2008) Design thinking. Harv Bus Rev. 86, 84.Google ScholarPubMed
Chatham House. Chatham House Rule. https://www.chathamhouse.org/chatham-house-rule. (Accessed 15 June 2019).Google Scholar
Daniels, N, Sabin, JE (2008) Accountability for reasonableness: An update. BMJ. 337, a1850a1850.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Pichon-Riviere et al. Supplementary Materials

Pichon-Riviere et al. Supplementary Materials 1

Download Pichon-Riviere et al. Supplementary Materials(File)
File 55 KB
Supplementary material: File

Pichon-Riviere et al. Supplementary Materials

Pichon-Riviere et al. Supplementary Materials 2

Download Pichon-Riviere et al. Supplementary Materials(File)
File 38.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Pichon-Riviere et al. Supplementary Materials

Pichon-Riviere et al. Supplementary Materials 3

Download Pichon-Riviere et al. Supplementary Materials(File)
File 40.6 KB