Examining the characteristics of social and behavior change communication intervention costs in low- and middle-income countries: A hedonic method approach

Understanding the costs of health interventions is critical for generating budgets, planning and managing programs, and conducting economic evaluations to use when allocating scarce resources. Here, we utilize techniques from the hedonic pricing literature to estimate the characteristics of the costs of social and behavior change communication (SBCC) interventions, which aim to improve health-seeking behaviors and important intermediate determinants to behavior change. SBCC encompasses a wide range of interventions including mass media (e.g., radio, television), mid media (e.g., community announcements, live dramas), digital media (e.g., short message service/phone reminders, social media), interpersonal communication (e.g., individual or group counseling), and provider-based SBCC interventions focused on improving provider attitudes and provider-client communication. While studies have reported on the costs of specific SBCC interventions in low- and middle-income countries, little has been done to examine SBCC costs across multiple studies and interventions. We use compiled data across multiple SBCC intervention types, health areas, and low- and middle-income countries to explore the characteristics of the costs of SBCC interventions. Despite the wide variation seen in the unit cost data, we can explain between 63 and 97 percent of total variance and identify a statistically significant set of characteristics (e.g., health area) for media and interpersonal communication interventions. Intervention intensity is an important determinant for both media and interpersonal communication, with costs increasing as intervention intensity increases; other important characteristics for media interventions include intervention subtype, target population group, and country income as measured by per capita Gross National Income. Important characteristics for interpersonal communication interventions include health area, intervention subtype, target population group and geographic scope.

Unit cost repositories for health program planning and evaluation: a report on research in practice with lessons learned

BACKGROUND

Most low- and middle-income countries have limited access to cost data that meets the needs of health policy-makers and researchers in health intervention areas including HIV, tuberculosis, and immunization. Unit cost repositories (UCRs)-searchable databases that systematically codify evidence from costing studies-have been developed to reduce the effort required to access and use existing costing information. These repositories serve as public resources and standard references, which can improve the consistency and quality of resource needs projections used for strategic planning and resource mobilization. UCRs also enable analysis of cost determinants and more informed imputation of missing cost data. This report examines our experiences developing and using seven UCRs (two global, five country-level) for cost projection and research purposes.

DISCUSSION

We identify advances, challenges, enablers, and lessons learned that might inform future work related to UCRs. Our lessons learned include: (1) UCRs do not replace the need for costing expertise; (2) tradeoffs are required between the degree of data complexity and the useability of the UCR; (3) streamlining data extraction makes populating the UCR with new data easier; (4) immediate reporting and planning needs often drive stakeholder interest in cost data; (5) developing and maintaining UCRs requires dedicated staff time; (6) matching decision-maker needs with appropriate cost data can be challenging; (7) UCRs must have data quality control systems; (8) data in UCRs can become obsolete; and (9) there is often a time lag between the identification of a cost and its inclusion in UCRs.

CONCLUSIONS

UCRs have the potential to be a valuable public good if kept up-to-date with active quality control and adequate support available to end-users. Global UCR collaboration networks and greater control by local stakeholders over global UCRs may increase active, sustained use of global repositories and yield higher quality results for strategic planning and resource mobilization.

Moving away from the "unit cost". Predicting country-specific average cost curves of VMMC services accounting for variations in service delivery platforms in sub-Saharan Africa

BACKGROUND

One critical element to optimize funding decisions involves the cost and efficiency implications of implementing alternative program components and configurations. Program planners, policy makers and funders alike are in need of relevant, strategic data and analyses to help them plan and implement effective and efficient programs. Contrary to widely accepted conceptions in both policy and academic arenas, average costs per service (so-called "unit costs") vary considerably across implementation settings and facilities. The objective of this work is twofold: 1) to estimate the variation of VMMC unit costs across service delivery platforms (SDP) in Sub-Saharan countries, and 2) to develop and validate a strategy to extrapolate unit costs to settings for which no data exists.

METHODS

We identified high-quality VMMC cost studies through a literature review. Authors were contacted to request the facility-level datasets (primary data) underlying their results. We standardized the disparate datasets into an aggregated database which included 228 facilities in eight countries. We estimated multivariate models to assess the correlation between VMMC unit costs and scale, while simultaneously accounting for the influence of the SDP (which we defined as all possible combinations of type of facility, ownership, urbanicity, and country), on the unit cost variation. We defined SDP as any combination of such four characteristics. Finally, we extrapolated VMMC unit costs for all SDPs in 13 countries, including those not contained in our dataset.

RESULTS

The average unit cost was 73 USD (IQR: 28.3, 100.7). South Africa showed the highest within-country cost variation, as well as the highest mean unit cost (135 USD). Uganda and Namibia had minimal within-country cost variation, and Uganda had the lowest mean VMMC unit cost (22 USD). Our results showed evidence consistent with economies of scale. Private ownership and Hospitals were significant determinants of higher unit costs. By identifying key cost drivers, including country- and facility-level characteristics, as well as the effects of scale we developed econometric models to estimate unit cost curves for VMMC services in a variety of clinical and geographical settings.

CONCLUSION

While our study did not produce new empirical data, our results did increase by a tenfold the availability of unit costs estimates for 128 SDPs in 14 priority countries for VMMC. It is to our knowledge, the most comprehensive analysis of VMMC unit costs to date. Furthermore, we provide a proof of concept of the ability to generate predictive cost estimates for settings where empirical data does not exist.

Twenty Years Of Antiretroviral Therapy For People Living With HIV: Global Costs, Health Achievements, Economic Benefits

Since the introduction of azidothymidine in 1987, significant improvements in treatment for people living with HIV have yielded substantial improvements in global health as a result of the unique benefits of antiretroviral therapy (ART). ART averted 9.5 million deaths worldwide in 1995-2015, with global economic benefits of $1.05 trillion. For every $1 spent on ART, $3.50 in benefits accrued globally. If treatment scale-up achieves the global 90-90-90 targets of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, a total of 34.9 million deaths are projected to be averted between 1995 and 2030. Approximately 40.2 million new HIV infections could also be averted by ART, and economic gains could reach $4.02 trillion in 2030. Having provided ART to 19.5 million people represents a major human achievement. However, 15.2 million infected people are currently not receiving treatment, which represents a significant lost opportunity. Further treatment scale-up could yield even greater health and economic benefits.

The state of costing research for HIV interventions in sub-Saharan Africa

The past decade has seen a growing emphasis on the production of high-quality costing data to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of global health interventions. The need for such data is especially important for decision making and priority setting across HIV services from prevention and testing to treatment and care. To help address this critical need, the Global Health Cost Consortium was created in 2016, in part to conduct a systematic search and screening of the costing literature for HIV and TB interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). The purpose of this portion of the remit was to compile, standardise, and make publicly available published cost data (peer-reviewed and gray) for public use. We limit our analysis to a review of the quantity and characteristics of published cost data from HIV interventions in sub-Saharan Africa. First, we document the production of cost data over 25 years, including density over time, geography, publication venue, authorship and type of intervention. Second, we explore key methods and reporting for characteristics including urbanicity, platform type, ownership and scale. Although the volume of HIV costing data has increased substantially on the continent, cost reporting is lacking across several dimensions. We find a dearth of cost estimates from HIV interventions in west Africa, as well as inconsistent reporting of key dimensions of cost including platform type, ownership and urbanicity. Further, we find clear evidence of a need for renewed focus on the consistent reporting of scale by authors of costing and cost-effectiveness analyses.

Developing the Global Health Cost Consortium Unit Cost Study Repository for HIV and TB: methodology and lessons learned

Consistently defined, accurate, and easily accessible cost data are a valuable resource to inform efficiency analyses, budget preparation, and sustainability planning in global health. The Global Health Cost Consortium (GHCC) designed the Unit Cost Study Repository (UCSR) to be a resource for standardised HIV and TB intervention cost data displayed by key characteristics such as intervention type, country, and target population. To develop the UCSR, the GHCC defined a typology of interventions for each disease; aligned interventions according to the standardised principles, methods, and cost and activity categories from the GHCC Reference Case for Estimating the Costs of Global Health Services and Interventions; completed a systematic literature review; conducted extensive data extraction; performed quality assurance; grappled with complex methodological issues such as the proper approach to the inflation and conversion of costs; developed and implemented a study quality rating system; and designed a web-based user interface that flexibly displays large amounts of data in a user-friendly way. Key lessons learned from the extraction process include the importance of assessing the multiple uses of extracted data; the critical role of standardising definitions (particularly units of measurement); using appropriate classifications of interventions and components of costs; the efficiency derived from programming data checks; and the necessity of extraction quality monitoring by senior analysts. For the web interface, lessons were: understanding the target audiences, including consulting them regarding critical characteristics; designing the display of data in "levels"; and incorporating alert and unique trait descriptions to further clarify differences in the data.

Lives Saved Tool (LiST) costing: a module to examine costs and prioritize interventions

Background

Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals will require careful allocation of resources in order to achieve the highest impact. The Lives Saved Tool (LiST) has been used widely to calculate the impact of maternal, neonatal and child health (MNCH) interventions for program planning and multi-country estimation in several Lancet Series commissions. As use of the LiST model increases, many have expressed a desire to cost interventions within the model, in order to support budgeting and prioritization of interventions by countries. A limited LiST costing module was introduced several years ago, but with gaps in cost types. Updates to inputs have now been added to make the module fully functional for a range of uses.

Methods

This paper builds on previous work that developed an initial version of the LiST costing module to provide costs for MNCH interventions using an ingredients-based costing approach. Here, we update in 2016 the previous econometric estimates from 2013 with newly-available data and also include above-facility level costs such as program management. The updated econometric estimates inform percentages of intervention-level costs for some direct costs and indirect costs. These estimates add to existing values for direct cost requirements for items such as drugs and supplies and required provider time which were already available in LiST Costing.

Results

Results generated by the LiST costing module include costs for each intervention, as well as disaggregated costs by intervention including drug and supply costs, labor costs, other recurrent costs, capital costs, and above-service delivery costs. These results can be combined with mortality estimates to support prioritization of interventions by countries.

Conclusions

The LiST costing module provides an option for countries to identify resource requirements for scaling up a maternal, neonatal, and child health program, and to examine the financial impact of different resource allocation strategies. It can be a useful tool for countries as they seek to identify the best investments for scarce resources. The purpose of the LiST model is to provide a tool to make resource allocation decisions in a strategic planning process through prioritizing interventions based on resulting impact on maternal and child mortality and morbidity.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-017-4738-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Estimating the cost-savings associated with bundling maternal and child health interventions: a proposed methodology

BACKGROUND

There is a pressing need to include cost data in the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). This paper proposes a method that combines data from both the WHO CHOosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective (CHOICE) database and the OneHealth Tool (OHT) to develop unit costs for delivering child and maternal health services, both alone and bundled.

METHODS

First, a translog cost function is estimated to calculate factor shares of personnel, consumables, other direct (variable or recurrent costs excluding personnel and consumables) and indirect (capital or investment) costs. Primary source facility level data from Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe are utilized, with separate analyses for hospitals and health centres. Second, the resulting other-direct and indirect factor shares are applied to country unit costs from the WHO CHOICE unit cost database to calculate those portions of unit cost. Third, the remainder of the costs is calculated using default data from the OHT. Fourth, we calculate the effect of bundling services by assuming that a LiST intervention visit takes an average of 20 minutes when delivered alone but only incremental time in addition to the basic visit when delivered in a bundle.

RESULTS

Personnel costs account for the greatest share of costs for both hospitals and health centres at 50% and 38%, respectively. The percentages differ between hospitals and health centres for consumables (21% versus 17%), other direct (7.5% versus 6.75%), and indirect (22% versus 23%) costs. Combining the other-direct and indirect factor shares with the WHO CHOICE database and the other costs from OHT provides a comprehensive cost estimate of LiST interventions. Finally, the cost of six recommended antenatal care (ANC) interventions is $69.76 when delivered alone, but $61.18 when delivered as a bundle, a savings of $8.58 (12.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

This paper proposes a method for estimating a comprehensive cost of providing child and maternal health interventions by combining labor, consumables and drug costs from OHT with indirect and other-direct proportional costs from WHO CHOICE. In addition, we demonstrate the potential cost savings that can be achieved from bundling the delivery of essential antenatal care interventions rather than delivering the same interventions alone.