Biodiversity and monthly density fluctuations of water mites in Khankra gad, a spring-fed tributary of river Alaknanda, Pauri Garhwal in Uttarakhand, India

Hydrachnidia is an important group of aquatic invertebrates. They play an important role in regulating other invertebrate populations, thus influencing the composition and functionality of river ecosystems. The present study aims to assess the habitat ecology, density and diversity of aquatic mites in the Khankra gad, Rudraprayag district for a period of two year on a monthly basis, from July 2018 to June 2020. The Khankra gad is a perennial spring-fed stream originating from the Bansoun peak in district-Rudraprayag of Garhwal Himalaya (800 m asl). A total of 2537 Hydrachnidia samples were collected, belonging to 6 families viz, Torrenticolidae, Sperchontidae, Feltriidae, Hygrobatidae, Lebertiidae and Aturidae. Sperchontidae, Torrenticolidae and Hygrobatidae were the common families recorded in both spots, whereas Feltriidae was recorded in Spot-1, Lebertiidae and Aturidae were recorded in Spot-2. The highest numbers (1842) of Hydrachnidia were collected from Spot-2.  A total of 19 aquatic mite species were recorded in Spot-1 and 25 species in Spot-2 throughout the study period. Aquatic mites showed maximum density (177 units.m-2 in Spot-1 and 274units.m-2 in Spot-2) in December and minimum (11 units.m-2 in Spot-1 and 17 units.m-2 in Spot-2) in July. Various ecological parameters of our study indicated that Khankra gad is a good habitat for aquatic mites

Drug adherence to anti-tubercular treatment during COVID-19 lockdown in Haldwani block of Nainital district

Background: India saw one of the stringent lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the wake of this period, the normal functioning of medical services was affected. People were reluctant to seek medical attention and notification of Tuberculosis dipped. The aim of the study was to estimate the proportion of non-adherence to anti-tubercular treatment and to identify the factors affecting the non-adherence to treatment. Methods: A retrospective community-based study was conducted among 284 tuberculosis patients. They were interviewed using a pre-designed questionnaire consisting of WHO dimensions of non-adherence and lockdown related questions. Results: The proportion of non-adherence to treatment was found to be 5.3%. Factors like chronic diseases, depression, without knowledge on how the disease is transmitted and that medication can be discontinued once the symptoms subsided, alcohol consumption, and trouble accessing medicine were found to be the determining factors in non-adherence to the treatment. Conclusions: Non-adherence to anti-tuberculosis treatment in our study was low but the various dimensions of adherence along with lockdown related factors had significant impact on it. To further minimize non-adherence during emergency like the lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic, corrective measures must be explored and implemented

Development of the Indian Reference Case for undertaking economic evaluation for health technology assessment

Background: Health technology assessment (HTA) is globally recognised as an important tool to guide evidence-based decision-making. However, heterogeneity in methods limits the use of any such evidence. The current research was undertaken to develop a set of standards for conduct of economic evaluations for HTA in India, referred to as the Indian Reference Case. Methods: Development of the reference case comprised of a four-step process: (i) review of existing international HTA guidelines; (ii) systematic review of economic evaluations for three countries to assess adherence with pre-existing country-specific HTA guidelines; (iii) empirical analysis to assess the impact of alternate assumptions for key principles of economic evaluation on the results of cost-effectiveness analysis; (iv) stakeholder consultations to assess appropriateness of the recommendations. Based on the inferences drawn from the first three processes, a preliminary draft of the reference case was developed, which was finalised based on stakeholder consultations. Findings: The Indian Reference Case provides twelve recommendations on eleven key principles of economic evaluation: decision problem, comparator, perspective, source of effectiveness evidence, measure of costs, health outcomes, time-horizon, discounting, heterogeneity, uncertainty analysis and equity analysis, and for presentation of results. The recommendations are user-friendly and have scope to allow for context-specific flexibility. Interpretation: The Indian Reference Case is expected to provide guidance in planning, conducting, and reporting of economic evaluations. It is anticipated that adherence to the Reference Case would increase the quality and policy utilisation of future evaluations. However, with advancement in the field of health economics efforts aimed at refining the Indian Reference Case would be needed. Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The research was undertaken as part of doctoral thesis of Sharma D, who received scholarship from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), New Delhi, India

Estimating the Return on Investment of Health Technology Assessment India (HTAIn)

No abstract available

Refining the provider payment system of India’s government-funded health insurance programme: an econometric analysis

Objectives: Reimbursement rates in national health insurance schemes are frequently weighted to account for differences in the costs of service provision. To determine weights for a differential case-based payment system under India’s publicly financed national health insurance scheme, the Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY), by exploring and quantifying the influence of supply-side factors on the costs of inpatient admissions and surgical procedures. Design: Exploratory analysis using regression-based cost function on data from a multisite health facility costing study—the Cost of Health Services in India (CHSI) Study. Setting: The CHSI Study sample included 11 public sector tertiary care hospitals, 27 public sector district hospitals providing secondary care and 16 private hospitals, from 11 Indian states. Participants: 521 sites from 57 healthcare facilities in 11 states of India. Interventions: Medical and surgical packages of PM-JAY. Primary and secondary outcome measures: The cost per bed-day and cost per surgical procedure were regressed against a range of factors to be considered as weights including hospital location, presence of a teaching function and ownership. In addition, capacity utilisation, number of beds, specialist mix, state gross domestic product, State Health Index ranking and volume of patients across the sample were included as variables in the models. Given the skewed data, cost variables were log-transformed for some models. Results: The estimated mean costs per inpatient bed-day and per procedure were 2307 and 10 686 Indian rupees, respectively. Teaching status, annual hospitalisation, bed size, location of hospital and average length of hospitalisation significantly determine the inpatient bed-day cost, while location of hospital and teaching status determine the procedure costs. Cost per bed-day of teaching hospitals was 38–143.4% higher than in non-teaching hospitals. Similarly, cost per bed-day was 1.3–89.7% higher in tier 1 cities, and 19.5–77.3% higher in tier 2 cities relative to tier 3 cities, respectively. Finally, cost per surgical procedure was higher by 10.6–144.6% in teaching hospitals than non-teaching hospitals; 12.9–171.7% higher in tier 1 cities; and 33.4–140.9% higher in tier 2 cities compared with tier 3 cities, respectively. Conclusion: Our study findings support and validate the recently introduced differential provider payment system under the PM-JAY. While our results are indicative of heterogeneity in hospital costs, other considerations of how these weights will affect coverage, quality, cost containment, as well as create incentives and disincentives for provider and consumer behaviour, and integrate with existing price mark-ups for other factors, should be considered to determine the future revisions in the differential pricing scheme

Impact of India's publicly financed health insurance scheme on public sector district hospitals: a health financing perspective

Background: Districts hospitals in India play a pivotal role in delivering health care services in the public sector and are empanelled under India's national health insurance scheme i.e. Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Aarogya Yojana (PMJAY). In this paper, we evaluate the extent to which the PMJAY impacts the district hospitals from a financing perspective. Methods: We used cost data from India's nationally representative costing study—‘Costing of Health Services in India’ (CHSI) to determine the incremental cost of treating PMJAY patients, after adjusting for resources that are paid through supply-side government financing route. Second, we used data on number and claim value paid to public district and sub-district hospitals during 2019, to determine the additional revenue generated through PMJAY. The annual net financial gain per district hospital was estimated as the difference between payments under PMJAY, and the incremental cost of delivering the services. Findings: At current levels of utilisation, the district hospitals in India gain a net annual financial benefit of $26.1 (₹ 1839.3) million, which can potentially increase up to$ 41.8 (₹ 2942.9) million with an increase in the share of patient volume. For an average district hospital, we estimate net annual financial gain of $169,607 (₹ 11.9 million), increasing up to$ 271,372 (₹ 19.1 million) per hospital with increased utilisation. Interpretation: Demand-side financing mechanisms can be used to strengthen the public sector. Increasing utilisation of district hospitals, by either gatekeeping or improving availability of services will enhance financial gains for district hospitals and strengthen public sector. Funding: Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India

Cost of hospital services in India: a multi-site study to inform provider payment rates and Health Technology Assessment

The 'Cost of Health Services in India (CHSI)' is the first large scale multi-site facility costing study to incorporate evidence from a national sample of both private and public sectors at different levels of the health system in India. This paper provides an overview of the extent of heterogeneity in costs caused by various supply-side factors. A total of 38 public (11 tertiary care and 27 secondary care) and 16 private hospitals were sampled from 11 states of India. From the sampled facilities, a total of 327 specialties were included, with 48, 79 and 200 specialties covered in tertiary, private and district hospitals respectively. A mixed methodology consisting of both bottom-up and top-down costing was used for data collection. Unit costs per service output were calculated at the cost centre level (outpatient, inpatient, operating theatre, and ICU) and compared across provider type and geographical location. The unadjusted cost per admission was highest for tertiary facilities (₹ 5690, 75 USD) followed by private facilities (₹ 4839, 64 USD) and district hospitals (₹ 3447, 45 USD). Differences in unit costs were found across types of providers, resulting from both variations in capacity utilisation, length of stay and the scale of activity. In addition, significant differences in costs were found associated with geographical location (city classification). The reliance on cost information from single sites or small samples ignores the issue of heterogeneity driven by both demand and supply-side factors. The CHSI cost data set provides a unique insight into cost variability across different types of providers in India. The present analysis shows that both geographical location and the scale of activity are important determinants for deriving the cost of a health service and should be accounted for in healthcare decision making from budgeting to economic evaluation and price-setting

Cost-effectiveness of population-based screening for oral cancer in India: an economic modelling study

Background: Oral cancer screening reduces mortality associated with oral cancer. The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of commonly used screening techniques, namely conventional oral examination (COE), toluidine blue staining (TBS), oral cytology (OC), and light-based detection (LBD) in the Indian scenario. Methods: The study used a Markov modelling approach to estimate the cost and health outcomes of four different approaches (COE, TBS, OC, and LBD) for screening oral cancer over time from a societal perspective. The discount rate was assumed as 3%. The outcomes estimated were oral cancer incident cases, deaths averted, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). To address the high burden of risk factors (tobacco and/or alcohol) in India, two Markov models were developed: Model A adopted a mass-screening strategy, whereas Model B adopted a high-risk screening strategy versus no screening. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was undertaken to address any parameter uncertainty. Findings: Mass-screening using LBD at three years had the least incident cases (3271.68) and averted the maximum number of oral cancer deaths (459.76). High-risk screening using COE at ten years interval incurred the least lifetime cost of 2,292,816.21 US$(182,794,468.26 INR). The high-risk strategies (US$/QALY), namely COE 5 years (−29.21), COE 10 years (−90.68), TBS 10 years (−60.54), and LBD 10 years (−13.51), were dominant over no-screening. Interpretation: The most cost-saving approach was the conventional oral examination at an interval of 10 years for oral screening in high-risk populations above 30 years of age. Funding: Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India

Cost-effectiveness of therapeutic use of safety-engineered syringes in healthcare facilities in India

Background: Globally, 16 billion injections are administered each year of which 95% are for curative care. India contributes 25–30% of the global injection load. Over 63% of these injections are reportedly unsafe or deemed unnecessary. Objectives: To assess the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with the introduction of safety-engineered syringes (SES) as compared to disposable syringes for therapeutic care in India. Methods: A decision tree was used to compute the volume of needle-stick injuries (NSIs) and reuse episodes among healthcare professionals and the patient population. Subsequently, three separate Markov models were used to compute lifetime costs and QALYs for individuals infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Three SES were evaluated—reuse prevention syringe (RUP), sharp injury prevention (SIP) syringe, and syringes with features of both RUP and SIP. A lifetime study horizon starting from a base year of 2017 was considered appropriate to cover all costs and consequences comprehensively. A systematic review was undertaken to assess the SES effects in terms of reduction in NSIs and reuse episodes. These were then modelled in terms of reduction in transmission of blood-borne infections, life-years and QALYs gained. Future costs and consequences were discounted at the rate of 3%. Incremental cost per QALY gained was computed to assess the cost-effectiveness. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to account for parameter uncertainties. Results: The introduction of RUP, SIP and RUP + SIP syringes in India is estimated to incur an incremental cost of Indian National Rupee (INR) 61,028 (US$939), INR 7,768,215 (US$119,511) and INR 196,135 (US$3017) per QALY gained, respectively. A total of 96,296 HBV, 44,082 HCV and 5632 HIV deaths are estimated to be averted due to RUP in 20 years. RUP has an 84% probability to be cost-effective at a threshold of per capita gross domestic product (GDP). The RUP syringe can become cost saving at a unit price of INR 1.9. Similarly, SIP and RUP + SIP syringes can be cost-effective at a unit price of less than INR 1.2 and INR 5.9, respectively. Conclusion: RUP syringes are estimated to be cost-effective in the Indian context. SIP and RUP + SIP syringes are not cost-effective at the current unit prices. Efforts should be made to bring down the price of SES to improve its cost-effectiveness

Study protocol for economic evaluation of probiotic intervention for prevention of neonatal sepsis in 0-2-month old low-birth weight infants in India: the ProSPoNS trial

Introduction: The ProSPoNS trial is a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the role of probiotics in prevention of neonatal sepsis. The present protocol describes the data and methodology for the cost utility of the probiotic intervention alongside the controlled trial. Methods and analysis: A societal perspective will be adopted in the economic evaluation. Direct medical and non-medical costs associated with neonatal sepsis and its treatment would be ascertained in both the intervention and the control arm. Intervention costs will be facilitated through primary data collection and programme budgetary records. Treatment cost for neonatal sepsis and associated conditions will be accessed from Indian national costing database estimating healthcare system costs. A cost–utility design will be employed with outcome as incremental cost per disability-adjusted life year averted. Considering a time-horizon of 6 months, trial estimates will be extrapolated to model the cost and consequences among high-risk neonatal population in India. A discount rate of 3% will be used. Impact of uncertainties present in analysis will be addressed through both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Ethics and dissemination: Has been obtained from EC of the six participating sites (MGIMS Wardha, KEM Pune, JIPMER Puducherry, AIPH, Bhubaneswar, LHMC New Delhi, SMC Meerut) as well as from the ERC of LSTM, UK. A peer-reviewed article will be published after completion of the study. Findings will be disseminated to the community of the study sites, with academic bodies and policymakers. Registration: The protocol has been approved by the regulatory authority (Central Drugs Standards Control Organisation; CDSCO) in India (CT-NOC No. CT/NOC/17/2019 dated 1 March 2019). The ProSPoNS trial is registered at the Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI). Registered on 16 May 2019. Trial registration number: CTRI/2019/05/019197; Clinical Trial Registry