Aligning values and outcomes in priority–setting for health

Sustainable care for children with cancer: a Lancet Oncology Commission

“…Multiple factors must be taken into account when setting priorities in health systems, including, the values of citizens and policymakers, the burden of disease and risk, the expected goals and outcomes, equity, the efficiency effectiveness and responsiveness of services to deliver services, and the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions. 128 However, whatever the criteria used for priority setting, a clear, transparent and deliberative process should inform decision-making. 129…”

Does SDG 3 have an adequate theory of change for improving health systems performance?

“…A strong PHC system can serve as the basis for achieving universal health coverage and a stronger health system overall [ 16 ]. Given that PHC can address 90% of health care demands, and many “good buys” for combatting diseases can be integrated into PHC systems, prioritizing hospital access over PHC access can lead to inefficiency and misallocation of resources in the health system [ 10 , 17 ]. However, SDG 3 places very little focus on PHC.…”

Do changes to supply chains and procurement processes yield cost savings and improve availability of pharmaceuticals, vaccines or health products? A systematic review of evidence from low-income and middle-income countries

“…Health systems performance along key outputs, such as equity, efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness, has important implications for population health. 1 2 Specifically, maximising ‘technical efficiency’ of the health system, or the amount of outputs generated by a given cost (or other input), can increase total fiscal space for health in a country, thereby freeing up resources for additional programmes or activities. 1–3 Improving the effectiveness of the health system in its delivery of services can improve population health and build trust in the health system.…”