Affordability--the forgotten criterion in health-care priority setting

Framework for determining the optimal course of action when efficiency and affordability measures differ by perspective in cost-effectiveness analysis-with an illustrative case of HIV treatment in Mozambique

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a standard tool for evaluating health programs and informing decisions about resource allocation and prioritization. Most CEAs evaluating health interventions in low- and middle-income countries adopt a health sector perspective, accounting for resources funded by international donors and country governments, while often excluding out-of-pocket expenditures and time costs borne by program beneficiaries. Even when patients' costs are included, a companion analysis focused on the patient perspective is rarely performed. We view this as a missed opportunity.

METHODS

We developed methods for assessing intervention affordability and evaluating whether optimal interventions from the health sector perspective also represent efficient and affordable options for patients. We mapped the five different patterns that a comparison of the perspective results can yield into a practical framework, and we provided guidance for researchers and decision-makers on how to use results from multiple perspectives. To illustrate the methodology, we conducted a CEA of six HIV treatment delivery models in Mozambique. We conducted a Monte Carlo microsimulation with probabilistic sensitivity analysis from both patient and health sector perspectives, generating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the treatment approaches. We also calculated annualized patient costs for the treatment approaches, comparing the costs with an affordability threshold. We then compared the cost-effectiveness and affordability results from the two perspectives using the framework we developed.

RESULTS

In this case, the two perspectives did not produce a shared optimal approach for HIV treatment at the willingness-to-pay threshold of 0.3 × Mozambique's annual GDP per capita per DALY averted. However, the clinical 6-month antiretroviral drug distribution strategy, which is optimal from the health sector perspective, is efficient and affordable from the patient perspective. All treatment approaches, except clinical 1-month distributions of antiretroviral drugs which were standard before Covid-19, had an annual cost to patients less than the country's annual average for out-of-pocket health expenditures.

CONCLUSION

Including a patient perspective in CEAs and explicitly considering affordability offers decision-makers additional insights either by confirming that the optimal strategy from the health sector perspective is also efficient and affordable from the patient perspective or by identifying incongruencies in value or affordability that could affect patient participation.

Financing structural interventions: going beyond HIV-only value for money assessments

OBJECTIVE

Structural interventions can reduce HIV vulnerability. However, HIV-specific budgeting, based on HIV-specific outcomes alone, could lead to the undervaluation of investments in such interventions and suboptimal resource allocation. We investigate this hypothesis by examining the consequences of alternative financing approaches.

METHODS

We compare three approaches for deciding whether to finance a structural intervention to keep adolescent girls in school in Malawi. In the first, HIV and non-HIV budget holders participate in a cross-sectoral cost-benefit analysis and fund the intervention if the benefits outweigh the costs. In the second silo approach, each budget holder considers the cost-effectiveness of the intervention in terms of their own objectives and funds the intervention on the basis of their sector-specific thresholds of what is cost-effective or not. In the third cofinancing approach, budget holders use cost-effectiveness analysis to determine how much they would be willing to contribute towards the intervention, provided that other sectors are willing to pay for the remaining costs. In addition, we explore approaches for determining the HIV share in the cofinancing scenario.

RESULTS

We find that efficient structural interventions may be less likely to be prioritized, financed and taken to scale where sectors evaluate their options in isolation. A cofinancing approach minimizes welfare loss and could be incorporated in a sector budgeting perspective.

CONCLUSION

Structural interventions may be underimplemented and their cross-sectoral benefits foregone. Cofinancing provides an opportunity for multiple HIV, health and development objectives to be achieved simultaneously, but will require effective cross-sectoral coordination mechanisms for planning, implementation and financing.

The state of health economic research in South Africa: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Economic factors are a limiting factor toward the implementation of many health programmes and interventions. Economic evaluation has a great potential to contribute toward cost-effective healthcare delivery in South Africa. Little is known about the characteristics and quality of health economic (including pharmacoeconomic) research in South Africa.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS

This study assessed the state of health economic (including pharmacoeconomic) research in South Africa. PUBMED, MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, EconLit and PsycINFO databases were searched to identify health economic articles pertaining to South Africa published between 1 January 1977 and 30 April 2010. The searches used the following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and text words alone and in combination: 'costs', 'health' and 'South Africa'. Our study included only original economic studies/analyses that pertained to South Africa, addressed a health-related topic, and had a statement or word in the title, abstract or keywords that indicated that an economic (including cost) analysis had been conducted. The study only included complete peer-reviewed publications (e.g. abstracts were excluded) that were reported in the English language. Two reviewers independently scored each article in the final sample using the data collection form designed for the study.

RESULTS

In total, 108 studies investigating a wide variety of diseases were included in the study. These articles were published in 39 different journals mostly based outside of South Africa between 1977 and 2010. On average, each article was written by three authors. Most first authors had medical/clinical training and resided in South Africa at the time of publication of their study. Based on a 1-10 scale, with 10 indicating the highest quality, the mean quality score for all studies was 7.59 (SD 1.42) and half of the articles were of good quality (score 8-10) The quality of studies was related to the country in which the journal publishing the article was based (outside South Africa = higher); current residence of the primary author (outside South Africa = higher); method of economic analysis (economic evaluations higher than cost studies); type of data used (secondary higher than primary); primary training of the first author (health economics/pharmacoeconomics = higher); type of medical function (diagnosis = higher); study perspective (societal = higher); primary health intervention (pharmaceuticals = higher); study design (modelling = higher); number of authors (more = higher); and year of publication (more recent = higher) [p ≤ 0.05].

CONCLUSION

Half of the articles were of poor or fair quality. Measures are needed to promote the commissioning of more and better quality health economic and pharmacoeconomic studies in South Africa.

Treatment of cancer in adolescents and young adults: is affordability a concern?

Progress in the treatment of cancers in young people has resulted in an increasing success rate in curing the different forms of malignant diseases. The mission of the CPAC/C(17) Task Force on Adolescents and Young Adults (AYA) with cancer is to ensure prompt, equitable access to the best care; establish research priorities to optimize health outcomes and health-related quality of life; and mitigate current disparities of care through advances in treatment, education, and research. Although these goals are important, the mission statement seems to ignore an important factor: "affordability," or the ability to achieve these goals due to scarcity of resources. In this article, the role of economics in helping decision makers decide on resource allocation is discussed. Also described is the economic basis for the healthcare problem; the inability of the current methodology of cost-effectiveness to provide information that can help improve resource allocation in health; and how economics should be used to promote efficient use of healthcare resources. The author argued that "affordability" should be recognized in the mission statement. Recognizing "affordability" means recognizing the need to justify the transfer (or allocation) of additional resources to AYA cancer, which requires demonstration that the value of what is gained from the use of these resources in AYA cancer exceeds the value of what is forgone by using them elsewhere. This will also require making explicit the values or equity criteria to which society subscribes.

Claims on health care: a decision-making framework for equity, with application to treatment for HIV/AIDS in South Africa

Trying to determine how best to allocate resources in health care is especially difficult when resources are severely constrained, as is the case in all developing countries. This is particularly true in South Africa currently where the HIV epidemic adds significantly to a health service already overstretched by the demands made upon it.

This paper proposes a framework for determining how best to allocate scarce health care resources in such circumstances. This is based on communitarian claims. The basis of possible claims considered include: the need for health care, specified both as illness and capacity to benefit; whether or not claimants have personal responsibility in the conditions that have generated their health care need; relative deprivation or disadvantage; and the impact of services on the health of society and on the social fabric. Ways of determining these different claims in practice and the weights to be attached to them are also discussed.

The implications for the treatment of HIV/AIDS in South Africa are spelt out.

Financing equitable access to antiretroviral treatment in South Africa

Background

While South Africa spends approximately 7.4% of GDP on healthcare, only 43% of these funds are spent in the public system, which is tasked with the provision of care to the majority of the population including a large proportion of those in need of antiretroviral treatment (ART). South Africa is currently debating the introduction of a National Health Insurance (NHI) system. Because such a universal health system could mean increased public healthcare funding and improved access to human resources, it could improve the sustainability of ART provision. This paper considers the minimum resources that would be required to achieve the proposed universal health system and contrasts these with the costs of scaled up access to ART between 2010 and 2020.

Methods

The costs of ART and universal coverage (UC) are assessed through multiplying unit costs, utilization and estimates of the population in need during each year of the planning cycle. Costs are from the provider’s perspective reflected in real 2007 prices.

Results

The annual costs of providing ART increase from US$1 billion in 2010 to US$3.6 billion in 2020. If increases in funding to public healthcare only keep pace with projected real GDP growth, then close to 30% of these resources would be required for ART by 2020. However, an increase in the public healthcare resource envelope from 3.2% to 5%-6% of GDP would be sufficient to finance both ART and other services under a universal system (if based on a largely public sector model) and the annual costs of ART would not exceed 15% of the universal health system budget.

Conclusions

Responding to the HIV-epidemic is one of the many challenges currently facing South Africa. Whether this response becomes a “resource for democracy” or whether it undermines social cohesiveness within poor communities and between rich and poor communities will be partially determined by the steps that are taken during the next ten years. While the introduction of a universal system will be complex, it could generate a health system responsive to the needs of all South Africans.

Improving the evidence base of Markov models used to estimate the costs of scaling up antiretroviral programmes in resource-limited settings

BACKGROUND

Despite concerns about affordability and sustainability, many models of the lifetime costs of antiretroviral therapy (ART) used in resource limited settings are based on data from small research cohorts, together with pragmatic assumptions about life-expectancy. This paper revisits these modelling assumptions in order to provide input to future attempts to model the lifetime costs and the costs of scaling up ART.

METHODS

We analysed the determinants of costs and outcomes in patients receiving ART in line with standard World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for resource poor settings in a private sector managed ART programme in South Africa. The cohort included over 5,000 patients with up to 4 years (median 19 months) on ART. Generalized linear and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to establish cost and outcome determinants respectively.

RESULTS

The key variables associated with changes in mean monthly costs were: being on the second line regimen; receiving ART from 4 months prior to 4 months post treatment initiation; having a recent or current CD4 count <50 cells/microL or 50-199 cells/microl; having mean ART adherence <75% as determined by monthly pharmacy refill data; and having a current or recent viral load >100,000 copies/mL. In terms of the likelihood of dying, the key variables were: baseline CD4 count<50 cells/microl (particularly during the first 4 months on treatment); current CD4 count <50 cells/microl and 50-199 cells/microl (particularly during later periods on treatment); and being on the second line regimen. Being poorly adherent and having an unsuppressed viral load was also associated with a higher likelihood of dying.

CONCLUSIONS

While there are many unknowns associated with modelling the resources needed to scale-up ART, our analysis has suggested a number of key variables which can be used to improve the state of the art of modelling ART. While the magnitude of the effects associated with these variables would be likely to differ in other settings, the variables influencing costs and survival are likely to be generalizable. This is of direct relevance to those concerned about assessing the long-term costs and sustainability of expanded access to ART.

Global report on preterm birth and stillbirth (4 of 7): delivery of interventions

BACKGROUND

The efficacious interventions identified in the previous article of this report will fail unless they are delivered at high and equitable coverage. This article discusses critical delivery constraints and strategies.

BARRIERS TO SCALING UP INTERVENTIONS

Achieving universal coverage entails addressing major barriers at many levels. An overarching constraint is the lack of political will, resulting from the dearth of preterm birth and stillbirth data and the lack of visibility. Other barriers exist at the household and community levels, such as insufficient demand for interventions or sociocultural barriers; at the health services level, such as a lack of resources and trained healthcare providers; and at the health sector policy and management level, such as poorly functioning, centralized systems. Additional constraints involve weak governance and accountability, political instability, and challenges in the physical environment.

STRATEGIES AND EXAMPLES

Scaling up maternal, newborn and child health interventions requires strengthening health systems, but there is also a role for focused, targeted interventions. Choosing a strategy involves identifying appropriate channels for reaching high coverage, which depends on many factors such as access to and attendance at healthcare facilities. Delivery channels vary, and may include facility- and community-based healthcare providers, mass media campaigns, and community-based approaches and marketing strategies. Issues related to scaling up are discussed in the context of four interventions that may be given to mothers at different stages throughout pregnancy or to newborns: (1) detection and treatment of syphilis; (2) emergency Cesarean section; (3) newborn resuscitation; and (4) kangaroo mother care. Systematic reviews of the literature and large-scale implementation studies are analyzed for each intervention.

CONCLUSION

Equitable and successful scale-up of preterm birth and stillbirth interventions will require addressing multiple barriers, and utilizing multiple delivery approaches and channels. Another important need is developing strategies to discontinue ineffective or harmful interventions. Preterm birth and stillbirth interventions must also be placed in the broader maternal, newborn and child health context to identify and prioritize those that will help improve several outcomes at the same time. The next article discusses advocacy challenges and opportunities.