National hospital costing systems matter for universal healthcare: the India PM-JAY experience

India envisions achieving universal health coverage to provide its people with access to affordable quality health services. A breakthrough effort in this direction has been the launch of the world's largest health assurance scheme Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana, the implementation of which resides with the National Health Authority. Appropriate provider payment systems and reimbursement rates are an important element for the success of PM-JAY, which in turn relies on robust cost evidence to support pricing decisions. Since the launch of PM-JAY, the health benefits package and provider payment rates have undergone a series of revisions. At the outset, there was a relative lack of cost data. Later revisions relied on health facility costing studies, and now there is an initiative to establish a national hospital costing system relying on provider-generated data. Lessons from PM-JAY experience show that the success of such cost systems to ensure regular and routine generation of evidence is contingent on integrating with existing billing or patient information systems or management information systems, which digitise similar information on resource consumption without any additional data entry effort. Therefore, there is a need to focus on building sustainable mechanisms for setting up systems for generating accurate cost data rather than relying on resource-intensive studies for cost data collection

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of facility-based screening and treatment of hepatitis C in Punjab state of India

Objective Despite treatment availability, chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) public health burden is rising in India due to lack of timely diagnosis. Therefore, we aim to assess incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for one-time universal screening followed by treatment of people infected with HCV as compared with a no screening policy in Punjab, India.Study design Decision tree integrated with Markov model was developed to simulate disease progression. A societal perspective and a 3% annual discount rate were considered to assess incremental cost per QALY gained. In addition, budgetary impact was also assessed with a payer’s perspective and time horizon of 5 years.Study setting Screening services were assumed to be delivered as a facility-based intervention where active screening for HCV cases would be performed at 22 district hospitals in the state of Punjab, which will act as integrated testing as well as treatment sites for HCV.Intervention Two intervention scenarios were compared with no universal screening and treatment (routine care). Scenario I—screening with ELISA followed by confirmatory HCV-RNA quantification and treatment. Scenario II—screening with rapid diagnostic test (RDT) kit followed by confirmatory HCV-RNA quantification and treatment.Primary and secondary outcome measures Lifetime costs; life years and QALY gained; and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for each of the above-mentioned intervention scenario as compared with the routine care.Results Screening with ELISA and RDT, respectively, results in a gain of 0.028 (0.008 to 0.06) and 0.027 (0.008 to 0.061) QALY per person with costs decreased by −1810 Indian rupees (−3376 to –867) and −1812 Indian rupees (−3468 to −850) when compared with no screening. One-time universal screening of all those ≥18 years at a base coverage of 30%, with ELISA and RDT, would cost 8.5 and 8.3 times more, respectively, when compared with screening the age group of the cohort 40–45 years old.Conclusion One-time universal screening followed by HCV treatment is a dominant strategy as compared with no screening. However, budget impact of screening of all ≥18-year-old people seems unsustainable. Thus, in view of findings from both cost-effectiveness and budget impact, we recommend beginning with screening the age cohort with RDT around mean age of disease presentation, that is, 40–45 years, instead of all ≥18-year-old people

Development of a Health Technology Assessment Quality Appraisal Checklist (HTA-QAC) for India

Objective: We aim to develop a comprehensive checklist for evaluating Health Technology Assessment (HTA) studies commissioned in India. The primary objective of this work is to capture all vital aspects of an HTA study in terms of conduct, reporting and quality. Methodology: The development of a quality appraisal checklist included 3 steps. First, a targeted review of the literature was done to gather information on existing HTA checklists. After reviewing these checklists, an initial draft of the HTA quality appraisal checklist (HTA-QAC) for India was prepared with discussion amongst the authors. Second, the draft checklist was reviewed by the members of the Technical Appraisal Committee (TAC) and their feedback was incorporated. Subsequently, the revised checklist was presented at a virtual meeting of the TAC. Finally, a pilot phase was undertaken to apply HTA-QAC for the approved HTA study reports. Three rounds of virtual discussions were held with the researchers who were involved in the conduct of these HTA studies to resolve any discordance in opinion or develop solutions for the problems in the use of the HTA-QAC followed by a further revision of the checklist. Results: The HTA-QAC is divided into two parts: a self-reporting section to be completed by the author, and the other to be completed by the reviewer. The reviewer checklist has two sections: one to review the report and the other to review the model. The author section is in a self-reporting format, which includes details of basic study information, the rationale for the study, policy relevance, study description, study methods, reporting of model parameters, and results. The reviewer section of the checklist focuses on the quality aspect of the conducted study. The domains included in the report review include details on study methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. The second part of the reviewer section of HTA-QAC constitutes a review of the model in terms of model assumptions, functionality, model inputs, calculations, uncertainty analysis, model output, and model validation. Conclusion: We recommend a standardised process of quality appraisal to ensure the high quality of HTA evidence for policy use in the Indian context. The proposed HTA-QAC will help authors to ensure standardised reporting, as well as allow reviewers to assess the quality of analysis

Real-world cost-effectiveness of pan-genotypic Sofosbuvir-Velpatasvir combination versus genotype dependent directly acting anti-viral drugs for treatment of hepatitis C patients in the universal coverage scheme of Punjab state in India.

BackgroundWe undertook this study to assess the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained with the use of pan-genotypic sofosbuvir (SOF) + velpatasvir (VEL) for HCV patients, as compared to the current treatment regimen under the universal free treatment scheme in Punjab state.MethodologyA Markov model depicting natural history of HCV was developed to simulate the progression of disease. Three scenarios were compared: I (Current Regimen)-use of SOF + daclatasvir (DCV) for non-cirrhotic patients and ledipasvir (LDV) or DCV with SOF ± ribavirin (RBV) according to the genotype for cirrhotic patients; II-use of SOF + DCV for non-cirrhotic patients and use of SOF+VEL for compensated cirrhotic patients (with RBV in decompensated cirrhosis patients) and III-use of SOF+VEL for both non-cirrhotic and compensated cirrhotic patients (with RBV in decompensated cirrhosis patients). The lifetime costs, life-years and QALYs were assessed for each scenario, using a societal perspective. All the future costs and health outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 3%. Finally, the incremental cost per QALY gained was computed for each of scenario II and III, as compared to scenario I and for scenario III as compared to II. In addition, we evaluated the lifetime costs and QALYs among HCV patients for each of scenario I, II and III against the counterfactual of 'no universal free treatment scheme' scenario which involves patients purchasing care in routine setting of from public and private sector.ResultsEach of the scenarios I, II and III dominate over the no universal free treatment scheme scenario, i.e. have greater QALYs and lesser costs. The use of SOF+VEL only for cirrhotic patients (scenario II) increases QALYs by 0.28 (0.03 to 0.71) per person, and decreases the cost by ₹ 5,946 (₹ 1,198 to ₹ 14,174) per patient, when compared to scenario I. Compared to scenario I, scenario III leads to an increase in QALYs by 0.44 (0.14 to 1.01) per person, and is cost-neutral. While the mean cost difference between scenario III and I is-₹ 2,676 per patient, it ranges from a cost saving of ₹ 14,835 to incurring an extra cost of ₹ 3,456 per patient. For scenario III as compared II, QALYs increase by 0.16 (0.03 to 0.36) per person as well as costs by ₹ 3,086 per patient which ranges from a cost saving of ₹ 1,264 to incurring an extra cost of ₹ 6,344. Shift to scenario II and III increases the program budget by 5.5% and 60% respectively.ConclusionOverall, the use of SOF+VEL is highly recommended for the treatment of HCV infection. In comparison to the current practice (scenario I), scenario II is a dominant option. Scenario III is cost-effective as compared to scenario II at a threshold of one-time GDP per capita. If budget is an important constraint, velpatasvir should be given to HCV infected cirrhotic patients. However, if no budget constraint, universal use of velpatasvir for HCV treatment is recommended

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of facility-based screening and treatment of hepatitis C in Punjab state of India

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042280BMJ Open112e04228