No abstract

health outcomes. However, this study demonstrates that with the same budget currently invested in the program, the changes proposed will result in improvements on the current low uptake and poor coverage, thus yielding cost savings for the government and a possibility to reallocate resources to the country's priority health concerns, consequently leading to better health outcomes.

BackgroundThe use of economic evaluation in healthcare policies and decision-making, which is limited in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), might be promoted through the improvement of the conduct and reporting of studies. Although the literature indicates that there are many issues affecting the conduct, reporting and use of this evidence, it is unclear which factors should be prioritised in finding solutions. This study aims to identify the top priority issues that impede the conduct, reporting and use of economic evaluation as well as potential solutions as an input for future research topics by the international Decision Support Initiative and other movements.MethodsA survey on issues regarding the conduct, reporting and use of economic evaluation as well as on potential solutions was conducted using an online questionnaire among researchers who have experience in conducting economic evaluations in LMICs. The respondents were requested to consider the list of issues provided, rank the most important ones and propose solutions. A scoring system was applied to derive the ranking of difficulties according to researchers’ responses. Issues were grouped into technical and context-specific difficulties and analysed separately as a whole and by region.ResultsResearchers considered the lack of quality local clinical data, poor reporting and insufficient data to conduct the analysis from the chosen perspective as the most important technical difficulties. On the other hand, the non-integration of economic evaluations into decision-making was considered the most important context-specific issue. Finally, context-specific issues were considered the larger barrier to the use of economic evaluation.ConclusionThe technical issues that were considered most important were closely linked with the lack of an appropriately functioning information system as well as the capacity to generate essential contextual information (e.g. data and locally relevant utility values), especially when the methodology is complex. To overcome this, simpler approaches to collect data that yields information of comparable quality to more rigorous methods should be developed. The international community can play a major role through research on methodologies feasible for LMIC settings as well as in building research capacity in countries. Context-specific issues, which were recognised as larger barriers, should be improved in parallel.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0280-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundIt is very challenging for resource-limited settings to introduce universal health coverage (UHC), particularly regarding the inclusion of high-cost renal dialysis as part of the UHC benefit package. This paper addresses three issues: (1) whether a setting commits to include renal dialysis in its UHC benefit package and if so, why and how; (2) how to ensure quality of renal dialysis services; and (3) how to improve the quality of life of patients using psychosocial and community interventions.DiscussionThis article reviews experiences of renal dialysis programs in seven settings based on presentations and discussions during the International Forum on Peritoneal Dialysis as a Priority Health Policy in Asia. A literature review was conducted to verify and validate the data as well as to fill information gaps presented in the forum.Five out of the seven settings implemented renal dialysis as part of their benefits package, while the other two have pilots or programs in their nascent stage. Renal replacement therapy has become part of the universal access package because these governments recognize the rising number of chronic kidney disease (CKD) cases, the catastrophically high costs of treatment, and that this is the only life-saving treatment available to patients. The recommendations are as follows: Governments should have a holistic approach to CKD interventions, including primary prevention as well as psychosocial interventions. Governments should consider subsidizing CKD treatment costs depending on their resources. Multi-stakeholder cooperation should be facilitated to enact these policies and conduct research and development for all aspects of interventions. International collaboration should be initiated to share experiences, good practices, and joint activities (e.g. capacity building and multinational procurement of medical supplies).ConclusionThis study provides practical recommendations to country governments as well as the international community on how to meet the demand for good quality renal dialysis as part of UHC in resource-limited settings.

Planning and administering Universal Health Coverage (UHC) policies involve complex and critical decisions, especially in resource-scarce and densely populated settings such as Indonesia. Increasing investments alone do not ensure success and sustainability of UHC, and defining priorities is imperative. In 2013, Indonesia formally embarked on its journey of institutionalizing priority setting with technical assistance from the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI), which is a global network of organizations in pursuit of evidence-based priority setting. This article provides a perspective for countries in pursuit of institutionalization of evidence-informed policy setting systems and sheds light on the factors conducive to the development of health technology assessment (HTA). It explores the main actors and the context of priority setting in Indonesia and articulates strategies and key outcomes and impact using the theory of change (ToC).

This article is part of a series commissioned by The BMJ. Open access fees are paid for by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which had no involvement in the commissioning, peer review, or decision to publish.

BackgroundIndia recently launched the largest universal health coverage scheme in the world to address the gaps in providing healthcare to its population. Health technology assessment (HTA) has been recognised as a tool for setting priorities as the government seeks to increase public health expenditure. This study aims to understand the current situation for healthcare decision-making in India and deliberate on the opportunities for introducing HTA in the country.MethodsA paper-based questionnaire, adapted from a survey developed by the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI), was administered on the second day of the Topic Selection Workshop that was conducted as part of the HTA Awareness Raising Workshop held in New Delhi on 25–27 July, 2016. Participants were invited to respond to questions covering the need, demand and supply for HTA in their context as well as the role of their organisation vis-à-vis HTA. The response rate for the survey was about 68% with 41 participants having completed the survey.ResultsThree quarters of the respondents (71%) stated that the government allocated healthcare resources on the basis of expert opinion. Most respondents indicated reimbursement of individual health technologies and designing a basic health benefit package (93% each) were important health policy areas while medical devices and screening programmes were cited as important technologies (98% and 92%, respectively). More than half of the respondents noted that relevant local data was either not available or was limited. Finally, technical capacity was seen as a strength and a constraint facing organisations.ConclusionThe findings from this study shed light on the current situation, the opportunities, including potential topics, and challenges in conducting HTA in India. There are limitations to the study and further studies may need to be conducted to inform the role that HTA will play in the design or implementation of universal health coverage in India.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0378-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aim Kidney failure patients in the Philippines have free choice on their kidney replacement therapy (KRT), with a majority choosing haemodialysis (HD) over peritoneal dialysis (PD) and transplantation despite the inadequate coverage of HD. Although national health insurance coverage is limited, KRT remains to be one of the top benefits pay‐outs in the country. The study aims to identify the most cost‐effective policy strategy for financing KRT in the Philippines, in the context of a universal healthcare policy. Methods A Markov model was developed to estimate and compare the costs and benefits of different policy options with the comparator being partial HD coverage. Direct medical, non‐medical and indirect costs were measured, while outcomes were reported through quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs). Parameters were derived from the kidney disease registry, hospital statistics from a tertiary hospital and a patient survey. Results The results of the cost‐effectiveness analysis showed that shifting to a PD‐First policy provides better value‐for‐money with an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 570 029 Philippine Pesos (PHP) per QALY gained, compared with the ICER of the PD‐First combined with pre‐emptive transplant option of 577 989 PHP per QALY gained. Expanding existing HD coverage to 156 sessions was the least cost‐effective policy (1 522 437 PHP per QALY gained). Conclusion Government should consider shifting to a PD‐First strategy and support policies that promote kidney transplants among existing PD and HD patients. This study also highlights the need for proper evaluation of partial coverage policies to ensure that government investments represent good value‐for‐money and patients receive optimal care.