The Value of Explicit, Deliberative, and Context-Specified Ethics Analysis for Health Technology Assessment: Evidence From a Novel Approach Piloted in South Africa [Editor's Choice]

Abstract

Objectives

This article explores the perceived value, including associated strengths and challenges, of using a context-specified ethics framework to guide deliberative health technology appraisals.

Methods

The South African Values and Ethics for Universal Health Coverage (SAVE-UHC) approach, piloted in South Africa, consisted of 2 phases: (1) convening a national multistakeholder working group to develop a provisional ethics framework and (2) testing the provisional ethics framework through simulated health technology assessment appraisal committee meetings (SACs). Three SACs each reviewed 2 case studies of sample health interventions using the framework. Participants completed postappraisal questionnaires and engaged in focus group discussions.

Results

The SACs involved 27 participants across 3 provinces. Findings from the postappraisal questionnaires demonstrated general support for the SAVE-UHC approach and content of the framework, high levels of satisfaction with the recommendations produced, and general sentiment that participants were able to actively contribute to appraisals. Qualitative data showed participants perceived using a context-specified ethics framework in deliberative decision making: (1) supported wider consideration of and deliberation about morally relevant features of the health coverage decisions, thereby contributing to quality of appraisals; (2) could improve transparency; and (3) offered benefits to those directly involved in the priority-setting process. Participants also identified some challenges and concerns associated with the approach.

Conclusions

The SAVE-UHC approach presents a novel way to develop and pilot a locally contextualized, explicit ethics framework for health priority setting. This work highlights how the combination of a context-specified ethics framework and structured deliberative appraisals can contribute to the quality of health technology appraisals and transparency of health priority setting.

Authors

Carleigh B. Krubiner Aviva Tugendhaft Michael J. DiStefano Nicola W. Barsdorf Maria W. Merritt Susan J. Goldstein Atiya Mosam Sunita Potgieter Karen J. Hofman Ruth R. Faden

Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×