IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i18p11412-d911977.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design in Kazakhstan

Author

Listed:
  • Wija Oortwijn

    (Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

  • Gavin Surgey

    (Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

  • Tanja Novakovic

    (ZEM Solutions, 11010 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Rob Baltussen

    (Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

  • Lyazzat Kosherbayeva

    (Department of Health Politics and Management, School of Public Health, Asfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical University, Almaty 050000, Kazakhstan)

Abstract

Kazakhstan strives to obtain Universal Health Coverage (UHC) by using health technology assessment (HTA) for determining their health benefit package. This paper reports on employing evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs), a practical and stepwise approach to enhance legitimate health benefit package design in Kazakhstan. Methods: The Ministry of Health of Kazakhstan approved the operationalization and application of EDPs during March 2019 and December 2020. We used a combination of desk research, conducting HTA, online surveys as well as a face-to-face workshop in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan, and two online workshops to prioritize 25 selected health technologies. During the latter, we tested two alternative approaches to prioritization: quantitative multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and the use of decision rules. Results: For each of the HTA reports, evidence summaries were developed according to the decision criteria (safety, social priority disease, severity of disease, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, level of evidence, financial risk protection and budget impact). When appraising the evidence, the advisory committee preferred using quantitative MCDA, and only when this would result in any controversy could decision rules be applied. Conclusions: Despite several challenges, including a partial disruption because of the COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of the process will likely play a key role in determining an evidence-informed and transparent health benefit package.

Suggested Citation

  • Wija Oortwijn & Gavin Surgey & Tanja Novakovic & Rob Baltussen & Lyazzat Kosherbayeva, 2022. "The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design in Kazakhstan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-14, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:18:p:11412-:d:911977
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/18/11412/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/18/11412/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicolas Martelli & Capucine Devaux & Hélène van den Brink & Judith Pineau & Patrice Prognon & Isabelle Borget, 2015. "A Systematic Review of the Level of Evidence in Economic Evaluations of Medical Devices: The Example of Vertebroplasty and Kyphoplasty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Virginia Wiseman & Craig Mitton & Mary M. Doyle‐Waters & Tom Drake & Lesong Conteh & Anthony T. Newall & Obinna Onwujekwe & Stephen Jan, 2016. "Using Economic Evidence to Set Healthcare Priorities in Low‐Income and Lower‐Middle‐Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Methodological Frameworks," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25, pages 140-161, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    2. Ahumada-Canale, Antonio & Jeet, Varinder & Bilgrami, Anam & Seil, Elizabeth & Gu, Yuanyuan & Cutler, Henry, 2023. "Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting and resource allocation tools in hospital decisions: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 322(C).
    3. Elias Asfaw Zegeye & Josue Mbonigaba & Sylvia Blanche Kaye & Thomas Wilkinson, 2017. "Economic Evaluation in Ethiopian Healthcare Sector Decision Making: Perception, Practice and Barriers," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 33-43, February.
    4. Catherine Pitt & Catherine Goodman & Kara Hanson, 2016. "Economic Evaluation in Global Perspective: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Recent Literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 9-28, February.
    5. Catherine Pitt & Anna Vassall & Yot Teerawattananon & Ulla K. Griffiths & Lorna Guinness & Damian Walker & Nicola Foster & Kara Hanson, 2016. "Foreword: Health Economic Evaluations in Low‐ and Middle‐income Countries: Methodological Issues and Challenges for Priority Setting," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 1-5, February.
    6. Mhlengi V. Ncube & Innocent T. Mutero & Moses J. Chimbari, 2020. "Unmet Needs to Treat Schistosomiasis in Children Under Five Years Old in uMkhanyakude District of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(4), pages 127-127, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:18:p:11412-:d:911977. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.