Equitable Prioritization of Health Interventions by Incorporating Financial Risk Protection Weights Into Economic Evaluations

Health Interventions May Have Divergent Impacts on Health and Economic Equity: A Case Study of the Community-Based Hypertension Improvement Project in Ghana

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Improving health and economic equity are key objectives in priority setting, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. This study aims to assess the distributional impacts of the Community-based Hypertension Improvement Project (ComHIP) on health and economic outcomes across wealth quintiles in Ghana.

METHODS

We developed a decision analytical model to simulate a 30 million cohort of Ghanaians aged 15-49 years. The study specified health outcomes as the prevention of stroke cases and averting deaths among those with hypertension. Furthermore, we explored economic impacts, including savings in out-of-pocket costs for stroke patients and government spending. Financial risk protection against catastrophic and impoverishing health expenditures was also examined. We assessed these outcomes across wealth quintiles, and the corresponding concentration indexes (CIXs) were determined.

RESULTS

It was estimated that ComHIP could prevent 1450 stroke cases and 564 related deaths annually. Health benefits were observed to be more significant among the wealthier quintiles (CIX 0.217), mainly attributed to a higher occurrence of hypertension within these groups. ComHIP was also projected to result in an annual saving of USD 49,885 in individuals' out-of-pocket costs (CIX 0.262) and USD 37,578 in government spending (CIX 0.146). These savings correspond to the prevention of 335 catastrophic health expenditure cases (CIX - 0.239) and 11 impoverishing health expenditure cases (CIX - 0.600).

CONCLUSIONS

While ComHIP provides greater health benefits to wealthier groups, it offers substantial financial risk protection for the less wealthy. This study highlights the importance of considering equity in both health and financial risk when making priority-setting decisions.

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.