Introduction: Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the leading cause of mortality in Kazakhstan. In the last decade, Kazakhstan has carried out a number of reforms in the healthcare sector, in particular, to reduce mortality from significant diseases, including CVD. This study aimed to provide the trend of avoidable mortality from CVD in Kazakhstan. Methods: We extracted data from the Bureau of National Statistics of the Agency for Strategic Planning and Reforms of the Republic of Kazakhstan on population by age; mortality rates from chronic rheumatic heart disease (I05-I09); hypertensive diseases (I10-I15); ischaemic heart disease (I20-I25); cerebrovascular diseases (I60-I69) from 2011 to 2021, by gender and 5-year age group (0, 1– 4, 5– 9, 74). We applied join point regression to calculate the average annual percentage change (AAPC). In addition, crude mortality and trends were calculated per 100,000 population. Results: The avoidable mortality rates, including treatable and preventable mortality decreased between 2011 and 2019 and then increased in the last two years (2020 and 2021) in all four studied disease groups. The AAPC showed that total avoidable mortality rates decreased between 2011 and 2021– 6.0 points (− 10.6 to – 1.1) (p = 0.017), whereas in males − 4.2 (− 8.3 to 0.1) and females – 5.1 (− 8.8 to − 1.3) (p = 0.009). Avoidable mortality rates from ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular and hypertensive disease has been reduced stronger in male compared to female. The crude mortality declined over the period given; however, among young people mortality is still high. Discussion: Our findings showed that avoidable mortality from CVD decreased over the last years, which could be related to the policy on strengthening the primary care on early diagnosis and detection of CVD and its risk factors. However, primary healthcare facilities need to improve activities on health literacy (drug adherence, risk factors) of the population, including the prevention of CVD.

Background: The health system performance assessment is a challenging process for decision-makers. In case of Kazakhstan's healthcare system, the calculation of avoidable mortality, which has been underutilized to date, could serve as an additional tool to prioritize areas for improvement. Therefore, the aim of the study is to analyse avoidable mortality in Kazakhstan. Methods: The data was retrieved from the Bureau of National Statistics, Kazakhstan. It covers population data by age, mortality rates from disease groups based on the Joint OECD/Eurostat classification of preventable and treatable causes of mortality. The data spans from 2015 to 2021, categorized by gender and 5-year age groups (0, 1–4, 5–9, ..., 70–74). Standardization was performed using the 2015 OECD standard population. We used joinpoint regression analysis to calculate the average annual percentage change. Results: From 2015 to 2019, the annual percentage change in avoidable mortality per 100000 population was -3.8 (-5.7 to -1.8), and from 2019 to 2021 it increased by 17.6 (11.3 to 24.3). Males exhibited higher avoidable mortality rates compared to females. The preventable mortality rate was consistently higher than the treatable mortality. Both preventable and treatable mortality decreased from 2015 to 2019, with preventable mortality reaching 272.17 before rising to 379.23 per 100000 population in 2021. Between 2015 and 2021, treatable mortality rates increased from 179.3 (176.93- 181.67) to 205.45 (203.08-207.81) per 100000 population. Conclusion: In Kazakhstan, the leading causes of avoidable mortality were circulatory diseases, respiratory diseases, and cancer. To achieve the goals of Universal Health Coverage and improve the overall population health, there is an urgent need to amend the healthcare system and reduce avoidable mortality. While it is important to acknowledge the influence of COVID-19 on these trends, our study's focus on avoidable mortality provides valuable insights that complement the understanding of pandemic-related effects.

Kazakhstan strives to obtain Universal Health Coverage (UHC) by using health technology assessment (HTA) for determining their health benefit package. This paper reports on employing evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs), a practical and stepwise approach to enhance legitimate health benefit package design in Kazakhstan. Methods: The Ministry of Health of Kazakhstan approved the operationalization and application of EDPs during March 2019 and December 2020. We used a combination of desk research, conducting HTA, online surveys as well as a face-to-face workshop in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan, and two online workshops to prioritize 25 selected health technologies. During the latter, we tested two alternative approaches to prioritization: quantitative multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and the use of decision rules. Results: For each of the HTA reports, evidence summaries were developed according to the decision criteria (safety, social priority disease, severity of disease, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, level of evidence, financial risk protection and budget impact). When appraising the evidence, the advisory committee preferred using quantitative MCDA, and only when this would result in any controversy could decision rules be applied. Conclusions: Despite several challenges, including a partial disruption because of the COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of the process will likely play a key role in determining an evidence-informed and transparent health benefit package.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to implement health technology assessment (HA) in the First General City Hospital in Astana, Kazakhstan. Methods: We organized trainings to familiarize hospital staff with the purpose and details of HTA. An HTA committee was established, with representation from hospital physicians and managers, and criteria for prioritization of health technologies determined. Clinical departments of the hospital were asked to prepare applications for new technologies for their services. Results: The HTA committee reviewed five applications and selected a technology from one of these, on single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), for assessment. A short HTA report on SILS was prepared, covering its safety, clinical effectiveness, and cost effectiveness. The report was used to support a request to the Department of Health for additional funding to implement this technology within the hospital. This funding was approved and SILS was established in several hospital departments. Conclusions: This successful initial experience with HTA has paved the way for its routine use by the hospital for informing decisions on the procurement and use of new health technologies.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop criteria for the prioritization of topics for health technology assessment (HTA) in the healthcare system of Kazakhstan.Methods: Initial proposals for criteria were suggested through consultation with Ministry of Health (MoH) policy areas. These were refined through a workshop attended by HTA department staff, persons from medical universities and research institutes, and MoH policy makers. The workshop included discussion on methods used in international HTA practice. Opinions of participants on selection of criteria from those specified in a review of prioritization processes were used to define a list for inclusion in an instrument for routine use. A scoring system was established in later discussion.Results: Selected criteria for HTA prioritization were burden of disease, availability of alternative technology, clinical effectiveness, economic efficiency, budget impact, and ethical, legal, and/or psychosocial aspects. For each criterion, a health technology under consideration is given a score from 3 (High) to 1 (Low). The total score determines whether the technology is of high to medium priority or of low priority. Determination of priorities for assessment, using the instrument, should be carried out by an expert group appointed by the MoH. The process was applied in 2014 to a selection of topics, and three health technologies were chosen for full assessments.Conclusions: Criteria for prioritization have evolved with development of the HTA program in Kazakhstan. A method for HTA prioritization has been developed that is easy to apply, requires comparatively few resources, and is compatible with processes required by the MoH.