Table 5.

Examples of factors to support priority setting and the use of economic evidence in LMICs

• Greater encouragement of empirical studies that systematically evaluate real‐world priority setting. Most studies are small‐scale exploratory exercises that are not embedded in local policy and planning context and that rely on regional estimates of costs and effects.

• Interventions are cost‐effective in some settings and not others. Greater effort is needed to derive country and context specific data for priority setting.

• Develop local capacity to conduct evaluations (including economic analysis) and empower local decision‐makers to make decisions based on this evidence.

• Participation of all stakeholders in priority setting from community representatives to high‐level policy makers. Priorities are frequently based on a small group of mid‐level policy makers.

• Greater attention must be paid to identifying areas for the redeployment of resources because many countries are currently funding high‐cost, ineffective interventions, and thereby missing opportunities for health improvement.

• At the country level, budget allocation is typically the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance (MoF) that relies on historical funding priorities. Greater ‘buy‐in’ by the MoF is required if evidence‐based priorities are to be established.

• Health system strengthening needs greater recognition in priority setting. The expected costs and effects of priority health interventions depend heavily on accompanying investments in health systems.