Common Goods for Health : Economic Rationale and Tools for Prioritization

This paper presents the economic rationale for treating Common Goods for Health (CGH) as priorities for public intervention. We use the concept of market failure as a central argument for identifying CGH and apply cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) as a normative tool to prioritize CGH interventions in public finance decisions. We show that CGH are consistent with traditional lists of public health core functions but cannot be identified separately from non-CGH activities in such lists. We propose a public finance decision tree, adapted from existing health economics tools, to identify CGH activities within the set of cost-effective interventions for the health sector. We test the framework by applying it to the 2018 Disease Control Priority (DCP) list of interventions recommended for public funding and find that less than 10% of cost-effective interventions unconditionally qualify as CGH, while another two-thirds may or may not qualify depending on context and form. We conclude that while CEA can be used as a tool to prioritize CGH, the scarcity of such analyses for CGH interventions may be partly responsible for the lack of priority given to them. We encourage further research to address methodological and resource challenges to assessing the cost-effectiveness of CGH intervention packages, in particular those involving large investments and long-term benefits

Essential surgery: key messages from Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition.

The World Bank will publish the nine volumes of Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition, in 2015-16. Volume 1--Essential Surgery--identifies 44 surgical procedures as essential on the basis that they address substantial needs, are cost effective, and are feasible to implement. This report summarises and critically assesses the volume's five key findings. First, provision of essential surgical procedures would avert about 1·5 million deaths a year, or 6-7% of all avertable deaths in low-income and middle-income countries. Second, essential surgical procedures rank among the most cost effective of all health interventions. The surgical platform of the first-level hospital delivers 28 of the 44 essential procedures, making investment in this platform also highly cost effective. Third, measures to expand access to surgery, such as task sharing, have been shown to be safe and effective while countries make long-term investments in building surgical and anaesthesia workforces. Because emergency procedures constitute 23 of the 28 procedures provided at first-level hospitals, expansion of access requires that such facilities be widely geographically diffused. Fourth, substantial disparities remain in the safety of surgical care, driven by high perioperative mortality rates including anaesthesia-related deaths in low-income and middle-income countries. Feasible measures, such as WHO's Surgical Safety Checklist, have led to improvements in safety and quality. Fifth, the large burden of surgical disorders, cost-effectiveness of essential surgery, and strong public demand for surgical services suggest that universal coverage of essential surgery should be financed early on the path to universal health coverage. We point to estimates that full coverage of the component of universal coverage of essential surgery applicable to first-level hospitals would require just over US$3 billion annually of additional spending and yield a benefit-cost ratio of more than 10:1. It would efficiently and equitably provide health benefits, financial protection, and contributions to stronger health systems

Essential surgery: key messages from Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition.

The World Bank will publish the nine volumes of Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition, in 2015-16. Volume 1--Essential Surgery--identifies 44 surgical procedures as essential on the basis that they address substantial needs, are cost effective, and are feasible to implement. This report summarises and critically assesses the volume's five key findings. First, provision of essential surgical procedures would avert about 1·5 million deaths a year, or 6-7% of all avertable deaths in low-income and middle-income countries. Second, essential surgical procedures rank among the most cost effective of all health interventions. The surgical platform of the first-level hospital delivers 28 of the 44 essential procedures, making investment in this platform also highly cost effective. Third, measures to expand access to surgery, such as task sharing, have been shown to be safe and effective while countries make long-term investments in building surgical and anaesthesia workforces. Because emergency procedures constitute 23 of the 28 procedures provided at first-level hospitals, expansion of access requires that such facilities be widely geographically diffused. Fourth, substantial disparities remain in the safety of surgical care, driven by high perioperative mortality rates including anaesthesia-related deaths in low-income and middle-income countries. Feasible measures, such as WHO's Surgical Safety Checklist, have led to improvements in safety and quality. Fifth, the large burden of surgical disorders, cost-effectiveness of essential surgery, and strong public demand for surgical services suggest that universal coverage of essential surgery should be financed early on the path to universal health coverage. We point to estimates that full coverage of the component of universal coverage of essential surgery applicable to first-level hospitals would require just over US$3 billion annually of additional spending and yield a benefit-cost ratio of more than 10:1. It would efficiently and equitably provide health benefits, financial protection, and contributions to stronger health systems

Cost-effectiveness of groin hernia repair from a randomized clinical trial comparing commercial versus

BackgroundOver 200 million people worldwide live with groin hernia and 20 million are operated on each year. In resource-scarce settings, the superior surgical technique using a synthetic mesh is not affordable. A low-cost alternative is needed. The objective of this study was to calculate and compare costs and cost-effectiveness of inguinal hernia mesh repair using a low-cost versus a commercial mesh in a rural setting in Uganda. MethodsThis is a cost-effectiveness analysis of a double-blinded RCT comparing outcomes from groin hernia mesh repair using a low-cost mesh and a commercially available mesh. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in US dollars (with euros in parentheses, exchange rate 30 December 2016) per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. ResultsThe cost difference resulting from the choice of mesh was $1247 (Euro1181). In the low-cost mesh group, the cost per DALY averted and QALY gained were$168 (Euro159) and $76 (Euro72) respectively. The corresponding costs were$582 (Euro551) and $333 (Euro315) in the commercial mesh group. A sensitivity analysis was undertaken including cost variations and different health outcome scenarios. The maximum costs per DALY averted and QALY gained were$1484 (Euro1405) and $847 (Euro802) respectively. ConclusionRepair using both meshes was highly cost-effective in the study setting. A potential cost reduction of over$120 (nearly Euro120) per operation with use of the low-cost mesh is important if the mesh technique is to be made available to the many millions of patients in countries with limited resources. Trial registration number: ISRCTN20596933 (). Mosquito mesh is cost-efficient</p