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.

Public health programmes tend to be complex and may combine social strategies with aspects of empowerment, capacity building and knowledge across sectors. The nature of the programmes means that some effects are likely to occur outside the healthcare sector; this breadth impacts on the choice of health and non‐health outcomes to measure and value in an economic evaluation.Employing conventional outcome measures in evaluations of public health has been questioned. There are concerns that such measures are too narrow, overlook important dimensions of programme effect and, thus, lead to such interventions being undervalued. This issue is of particular importance for low‐income and middle‐income countries, which face considerable budget constraints, yet deliver a large proportion of health activities within public health programmes.The need to develop outcome measures, which include broader measures of quality of life, has given impetus to the development of a variety of new, holistic approaches, including Sen's capability framework and measures of subjective wellbeing. Despite their promise, these approaches have not yet been widely applied, perhaps because they present significant methodological challenges. This paper outlines the methodological challenges for the identification and measurement of broader outcomes of public health interventions in economic evaluation in low‐income and middle‐income countries.

This paper attempts to describe and analyse the policy processes that led to the granting and implementation of the government use licenses to enable the import and production of generic versions of medicines patented in Thailand. The decision to grant the series of government use licenses was taken despite much domestic and international controversy. The paper demonstrates that the policy processes leading to the granting of government use licenses are a successful application of the concept of "the triangle that moves the mountain". This is a well-known conceptualisation of a philosophical and strategic approach to public policy advocacy in Thailand, which propounds that the effective bridging of three powers; a.) Knowledge and evidence generated by research and analysis, b.) Civil society movements and public support, and c.) Leadership of policy makers and politicians; in a synergistic "triangle" can move "mountains", meaning the resolution of seemingly insurmountable problems. The paper provides insights into the policy context for the decision and analyses the roles of key actors, their motivations and the policy processes in the country.