RedArets (Red Argentina Pública de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias), Neuquén, Argentina.
Instituto Patagónico de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales (IPEHCS, CONICET/UNComa), Neuquen, Argentina.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2024 Nov 4;40(1):e42. doi: 10.1017/S0266462324000473.
The decision-making (DM) process in public administration is the subject of research from different perspectives and disciplines. Evidence-based policies, such as health technology assessment (HTA), are not the only support on which public policies are designed. During the COVID-19 pandemic WHO, national and subnational institutions developed HTA reports to guide DM. Despite this, inadequate variability was observed in the health technologies recommended and reimbursed by different provincial Health Ministries in a federally organized developing country like Argentina. The processes and results of DM on health technologies for COVID-19 in Health Ministries of Argentina were inquired.
A retrospective research design was developed, with triangulation of quantitative and qualitative methods. We retrieved information for the years 2020-2021 through document review of official webpages, surveys, and interviews with decision-makers of the 25 Argentinian Ministries of Health. We analyzed the recommendations and reimbursement policies of seven health technologies.
In contradiction with WHO's policies, ivermectine, inhaled ibuprofen, convalescent plasma and equine serum were widely recommended by most of Argentina's health ministries outside a clinical trial context, with risks for patients and a huge opportunity cost.
Despite an important HTA institutional capacity, the impact of HTA organizations and their technical reports was limited. Health Ministries with institutionalized HTA units had more adherence to WHO recommendations, but the influence of different technical and political criteria was identified. Power relations within and outside the administration, the pharmaceutical industry and academics, the media, social pressure, the judicial and legislative powers, and the political context strongly influenced DM.
公共行政中的决策(DM)过程是从不同视角和学科进行研究的主题。循证政策,如卫生技术评估(HTA),并不是设计公共政策所仅有的依据。在 COVID-19 大流行期间,世界卫生组织、国家和次国家机构制定了 HTA 报告,以指导 DM。尽管如此,在像阿根廷这样的联邦制发展中国家,不同省级卫生部门推荐和报销的卫生技术仍存在明显的差异。本研究调查了阿根廷卫生部在 COVID-19 卫生技术方面的 DM 流程和结果。
采用回顾性研究设计,结合定量和定性方法的三角测量。我们通过对官方网页、调查和 25 个阿根廷卫生部决策者的访谈的文件审查,检索了 2020 年至 2021 年的数据。我们分析了七种卫生技术的推荐和报销政策。
与世界卫生组织的政策相悖的是,伊维菌素、吸入布洛芬、恢复期血浆和马血清在阿根廷大部分卫生部的临床试验之外被广泛推荐,这对患者有风险,并造成了巨大的机会成本。
尽管 HTA 机构能力较强,但 HTA 组织及其技术报告的影响有限。具有制度化 HTA 部门的卫生部更遵循世界卫生组织的建议,但也确定了不同技术和政治标准的影响。行政部门内部和外部、制药行业和学术界、媒体、社会压力、司法和立法权力以及政治背景的权力关系强烈影响了 DM。