The direct cost of dialysis supported by families for patients with chronic renal failure in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso)

Capacity for the management of kidney failure in the International Society of Nephrology Africa region: report from the 2023 ISN Global Kidney Atlas (ISN-GKHA)

The burden of chronic kidney disease and associated risk of kidney failure are increasing in Africa. The management of people with chronic kidney disease is fraught with numerous challenges because of limitations in health systems and infrastructures for care delivery. From the third iteration of the International Society of Nephrology Global Kidney Health Atlas, we describe the status of kidney care in the ISN Africa region using the World Health Organization building blocks for health systems. We identified limited government health spending, which in turn led to increased out-of-pocket costs for people with kidney disease at the point of service delivery. The health care workforce across Africa was suboptimal and further challenged by the exodus of trained health care workers out of the continent. Medical products, technologies, and services for the management of people with nondialysis chronic kidney disease and for kidney replacement therapy were scarce due to limitations in health infrastructure, which was inequitably distributed. There were few kidney registries and advocacy groups championing kidney disease management in Africa compared with the rest of the world. Strategies for ensuring improved kidney care in Africa include focusing on chronic kidney disease prevention and early detection, improving the effectiveness of the available health care workforce (e.g., multidisciplinary teams, task substitution, and telemedicine), augmenting kidney care financing, providing quality, up-to-date health information data, and improving the accessibility, affordability, and delivery of quality treatment (kidney replacement therapy or conservative kidney management) for all people living with kidney failure.

Willingness to pay for haemodialysis among patients with chronic kidney disease in Abuja, Nigeria

BACKGROUND

Evidence of willingness to pay for kidney replacement therapy is scarce in low-middle-income countries, including Nigeria's Formal Sector Social Health Insurance Programme. The study, therefore, assessed the willingness to pay for haemodialysis among chronic kidney disease patients in Abuja, Nigeria.

METHODS

The study adopted a cross-sectional survey design. We used the contingent valuation method to estimate the maximum stated willingness to pay (WTP) for haemodialysis among end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients. We obtained informed written consent from respondents before data collection. The socio-demographic characteristics and willingness to pay data were summarized using descriptive statistics. We evaluated the mean differences in respondents' WTP using Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests. All variables that had p < 0.25 in the bivariate analysis were included in the Generalized Linear Model (gamma with link function) to determine the predictors of the WTP for one's and another's haemodialysis. The level of significance in the final model was ρ < 0.05.

RESULTS

About 88.3% and 64.8% of ESKD patients were willing to pay for personal and altruistic haemodialysis, correspondingly. The mean annual WTP for haemodialysis for one's and altruistic haemodialysis was USD25,999.06 and USD 1539.89, respectively. Private hospital patients were likelier to pay for their haemodialysis (β = 0.39, 95%CI: 0.21 to 0.57, p < 0.001). Patients attending public-private partnership hospitals were less likely to pay for altruistic haemodialysis than those attending public hospitals (β = -1.65, 95%CI: -2.51 to -0.79, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The willingness to pay for haemodialysis for themselves and others was high. The type of facility ESKD patients attended influenced their willingness to pay for haemodialysis. The findings highlight the need for policies to enhance affordable and equitable access to haemodialysis in Nigeria through pre-payment mechanisms and altruistic financing strategies.

Cost analysis of the management of end-stage renal disease patients in Abuja, Nigeria

BACKGROUND

Although the treatment for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) under Nigeria's National Health Insurance Authority is haemodialysis (HD), the cost of managing ESRD is understudied in Nigeria. Therefore, this study estimated the provider and patient direct costs of haemodialysis and managing ESRD in Abuja, Nigeria.

METHOD

The study was a cross-sectional survey from both healthcare provider and consumer perspectives. We collected data from public and private tertiary hospitals (n = 6) and ESRD patients (n = 230) receiving haemodialysis in the selected hospitals. We estimated the direct providers' costs using fixed and variable costs. Patients' direct costs included drugs, laboratory services, transportation, feeding, and comorbidities. Additionally, data on the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients were collected. The costs were summarized in descriptive statistics using means and percentages. A generalized linear model (gamma with log link) was used to predict the patient characteristics associated with patients' cost of haemodialysis.

RESULTS

The mean direct cost of haemodialysis was $152.20 per session (providers: $123.69; and patients: $28.51) and $23,742.96 annually (providers: $19,295.64; and patients: $4,447.32). Additionally, patients spent an average of $2,968.23 managing comorbidities. The drivers of providers' haemodialysis costs were personnel and supplies. Residing in other towns (HD:β = 0.55, ρ = 0.001; ESRD:β = 0.59, ρ = 0.004), lacking health insurance (HD:β = 0.24, ρ = 0.038), attending private health facility (HD:β = 0.46, ρ < 0.001; ESRD: β = 0.75, ρ < 0.001), and greater than six haemodialysis sessions per month (HD:β = 0.79, ρ < 0.001; ESRD: β = 0.99, ρ < 0.001) significantly increased the patient's out-of-pocket spending on haemodialysis and ESRD.

CONCLUSION

The costs of haemodialysis and managing ESRD patients are high. Providing public subsidies for dialysis and expanding social health insurance coverage for ESRD patients might reduce the costs.