Achieving the WHO/UNAIDS antiretroviral treatment 3 by 5 goal: what will it cost?

The "3 by 5" goal to have 3 million people in low and middle income countries on antiretroviral therapy (ART) by the end of 2005 is ambitious. Estimates of the necessary resources are needed to facilitate resource mobilisation and rapid channelling of funds to where they are required. We estimated the financial costs needed to implement treatment protocols, by use of country-specific estimates for 34 countries that account for 90% of the need for ART in resource-poor settings. We first estimated the number of people needing ART and supporting programmes for each country. We then estimated the cost per patient for each programme by country to derive total costs. We estimate that between US5.1 billion dollars and US5.9 billion dollars will be needed by the end of 2005 to provide ART, support programmes, and cover country-level administrative and logistic costs for 3 by 5

Cost-effectiveness thresholds : pros and cons

Cost-effectiveness analysis is used to compare the costs and outcomes of alternative policy options. Each resulting cost-effectiveness ratio represents the magnitude of additional health gained per additional unit of resources spent. Cost-effectiveness thresholds allow cost-effectiveness ratios that represent good or very good value for money to be identified. In 2001, the World Health Organization’s Commission on Macroeconomics in Health suggested cost-effectiveness thresholds based on multiples of a country’s per-capita gross domestic product (GDP). In some contexts, in choosing which health interventions to fund and which not to fund, these thresholds have been used as decision rules. However, experience with the use of such GDP-based thresholds in decision-making processes at country level shows them to lack country specificity and this-in addition to uncertainty in the modelled cost-effectiveness ratios-can lead to the wrong decision on how to spend health-care resources. Cost-effectiveness information should be used alongside other considerations-e.g. budget impact and feasibility considerations-in a transparent decision-making process, rather than in isolation based on a single threshold value. Although cost-effectiveness ratios are undoubtedly informative in assessing value for money, countries should be encouraged to develop a context-specific process for decision-making that is supported by legislation, has stakeholder buy-in, for example the involvement of civil society organizations and patient groups, and is transparent, consistent and fair

Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis for national-level priority-setting in the health sector

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is potentially an important aid to public health decision-making but, with some notable exceptions, its use and impact at the level of individual countries is limited. A number of potential reasons may account for this, among them technical shortcomings associated with the generation of current economic evidence, political expediency, social preferences and systemic barriers to implementation. As a form of sectoral CEA, Generalized CEA sets out to overcome a number of these barriers to the appropriate use of cost-effectiveness information at the regional and country level. Its application via WHO-CHOICE provides a new economic evidence base, as well as underlying methodological developments, concerning the cost-effectiveness of a range of health interventions for leading causes of, and risk factors for, disease. The estimated sub-regional costs and effects of different interventions provided by WHO-CHOICE can readily be tailored to the specific context of individual countries, for example by adjustment to the quantity and unit prices of intervention inputs (costs) or the coverage, efficacy and adherence rates of interventions (effectiveness). The potential usefulness of this information for health policy and planning is in assessing if current intervention strategies represent an efficient use of scarce resources, and which of the potential additional interventions that are not yet implemented, or not implemented fully, should be given priority on the grounds of cost-effectiveness. Health policy-makers and programme managers can use results from WHO-CHOICE as a valuable input into the planning and prioritization of services at national level, as well as a starting point for additional analyses of the trade-off between the efficiency of interventions in producing health and their impact on other key outcomes such as reducing inequalities and improving the health of the poor

Cost-Effectiveness and Resource Allocation (CERA) – directions for the future

The journal Cost-Effectiveness and Resource Allocation (CERA) is now in its seventh year, and is an excellent example of how open access publishing can improve dissemination. Now the journal is through its infancy, it is time to reflect on its orientation and to define the strategy for the years to come. Firstly, the journal will pay particular attention to stimulating and publishing studies originating from low- and middle-income countries. Second, CERA will continue to solicit contributions originating from high-income countries, but with the caveat that such studies should be of interest to the broad international readership of the journal. Third, the journal encourages submissions on methodological work from any setting, that is generalisable between low-, middle-, and high income countries. Fourth, CERA recognizes the development of national health accounts and expenditure tracking as a first step to improved resource allocation, and solicit manuscripts of this nature. Finally, CERA recognizes that cost and cost-effectiveness analysis alone may not provide sufficient information to decision makers to guide their choices on the allocation of resources, and therefore encourages submission of studies that advance the broader field of priority-setting

Financing transformative health systems towards achievement of the health Sustainable Development Goals: a model for projected resource needs in 67 low-income and middle-income countries

The ambitious development agenda of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) requires substantial investments across several sectors, including for SDG 3 (healthy lives and wellbeing). No estimates of the additional resources needed to strengthen comprehensive health service delivery towards the attainment of SDG 3 and universal health coverage in low-income and middle-income countries have been published. Methods We developed a framework for health systems strengthening, within which population-level and individual-level health service coverage is gradually scaled up over time. We developed projections for 67 low-income and middle-income countries from 2016 to 2030, representing 95% of the total population in low-income and middle-income countries. We considered four service delivery platforms, and modelled two scenarios with differing levels of ambition: a progress scenario, in which countries' advancement towards global targets is constrained by their health system's assumed absorptive capacity, and an ambitious scenario, in which most countries attain the global targets. We estimated the associated costs and health effects, including reduced prevalence of illness, lives saved, and increases in life expectancy. We projected available funding by country and year, taking into account economic growth and anticipated allocation towards the health sector, to allow for an analysis of affordability and financial sustainability. Findings We estimate that an additional $274 billion spending on health is needed per year by 2030 to make progress towards the SDG 3 targets (progress scenario), whereas US$371 billion would be needed to reach health system targets in the ambitious scenario—the equivalent of an additional $41 (range 15–102) or$58 (22–167) per person, respectively, by the final years of scale-up. In the ambitious scenario, total health-care spending would increase to a population-weighted mean of $271 per person (range 74–984) across country contexts, and the share of gross domestic product spent on health would increase to a mean of 7·5$20–54 billion per year is projected. Should funds be made available and used as planned, the ambitious scenario would save 97 million lives and significantly increase life expectancy by 3·1–8·4 years, depending on the country profile. Interpretation All countries will need to strengthen investments in health systems to expand service provision in order to reach SDG 3 health targets, but even the poorest can reach some level of universality. In view of anticipated resource constraints, each country will need to prioritise equitably, plan strategically, and cost realistically its own path towards SDG 3 and universal health coverage

Guide posts for investment in primary health care and projected resource needs in 67 low-income and middle-income countries: a modelling study

Primary health care (PHC) is a driving force for advancing towards universal health coverage (UHC). PHC-oriented health systems bring enormous benefits but require substantial financial investments. Here, we aim to present measures for PHC investments and project the associated resource needs.; This modelling study analysed data from 67 low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Recognising the variation in PHC services among countries, we propose three measures for PHC, with different scope for included interventions and system strengthening. Measure 1 is centred on public health interventions and outpatient care; measure 2 adds general inpatient care; and measure 3 further adds cross-sectoral activities. Cost components included in each measure were based on the Declaration of Astana, informed by work delineating PHC within health accounts, and finalised through an expert and country validation meeting. We extracted the subset of PHC costs for each measure from WHO's Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) price tag for the 67 LMICs, and projected the associated health impact. Estimates of financial resource need, health workforce, and outpatient visits are presented as PHC investment guide posts for LMICs.; An estimated additional US$200-328 billion per year is required for the various measures of PHC from 2020 to 2030. For measure 1, an additional$32 is needed per capita across the countries. Needs are greatest in low-income countries where PHC spending per capita needs to increase from $25 to$65. Overall health workforces would need to increase from 5·6 workers per 1000 population to 6·7 per 1000 population, delivering an average of 5·9 outpatient visits per capita per year. Increasing coverage of PHC interventions would avert an estimated 60·1 million deaths and increase average life expectancy by 3·7 years. By 2030, these incremental PHC costs would be about 3·3% of projected gross domestic product (GDP; median 1·7%, range 0·1-20·2). In a business-as-usual financing scenario, 25 of 67 countries will have funding gaps in 2030. If funding for PHC was increased by 1-2% of GDP across all countries, as few as 16 countries would see a funding gap by 2030.; The resources required to strengthen PHC vary across countries, depending on demographic trends, disease burden, and health system capacity. The proposed PHC investment guide posts advance discussions around the budgetary implications of strengthening PHC, including relevant system investment needs and achievable health outcomes. Preliminary findings suggest that low-income and lower-middle-income countries would need to at least double current spending on PHC to strengthen their systems and universally provide essential PHC services. Investing in PHC will bring substantial health benefits and build human capital. At country level, PHC interventions need to be explicitly identified, and plans should be made for how to most appropriately reorient the health system towards PHC as a key lever towards achieving UHC and the health-related SDGs.; The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Effect of specificity of health expenditure questions in the measurement of out-of-pocket health expenditure: evidence from field experimental study in Ghana

Background: The effect of number of health items on out-of- pockets (OOPs) has been identified as a source of bias in measuring OOPs. Evidence comes mostly from cross-sectional comparison of different survey instruments to collect data on OOPs. Very few studies have attempted to validate these questionnaires, or distinguish bias arising from the comprehensiveness of the OOPs list versus specificity of OOPs questions. Objectives: This study aims to estimate biases arising from the specificity of OOPs questions by comparing provider and household's information. Methods: A generic questionnaire to collect data on household's OOPs was developed following the nomenclature proposed in division 6 of the classification of household final consumption 2018. The four categories within such division are used to set the comprehensiveness of the OOPs list, the specificity within each category was tailored to the design of the nationally representative living standard survey in Ghana where a field experiment was conducted to test the validity of different versions. Households were randomised to 11, 44 or 56 health items. Using data from provider records as the gold standard, we compared the mean positive OOPs, and estimated the mean ratio and variability in the ratio of household expenditures to provider data for the individual households using the Bland-Altman method of assessing agreement. Findings: We found evidence of a difference in the overall mean ratio in the specificity for OOPs in inpatient care and medications. Within each of these two categories, a more detailed disaggregation yielded lower OOPs estimates than less detailed ones. The level of agreement between household and provider OOPs also decreased with increasing specificity of health items. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that, for inpatient care and medications, systematically decomposing OOPs categories into finer subclasses tend to produce lower OOPs estimates. Less detailed items produced more accurate and reliable OOPs estimates in the context of a rural setting

Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group

BACKGROUND: A number of approaches have been used to grade levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. The use of many different approaches detracts from one of the main reasons for having explicit approaches: to concisely characterise and communicate this information so that it can easily be understood and thereby help people make well-informed decisions. Our objective was to critically appraise six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations as a basis for agreeing on characteristics of a common, sensible approach to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. METHODS: Six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and strength of recommendations were selected and someone familiar with each system prepared a description of each of these. Twelve assessors independently evaluated each system based on twelve criteria to assess the sensibility of the different approaches. Systems used by 51 organisations were compared with these six approaches. RESULTS: There was poor agreement about the sensibility of the six systems. Only one of the systems was suitable for all four types of questions we considered (effectiveness, harm, diagnosis and prognosis). None of the systems was considered usable for all of the target groups we considered (professionals, patients and policy makers). The raters found low reproducibility of judgements made using all six systems. Systems used by 51 organisations that sponsor clinical practice guidelines included a number of minor variations of the six systems that we critically appraised. CONCLUSIONS: All of the currently used approaches to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations have important shortcomings

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 11. Incorporating considerations of cost-effectiveness, affordability and resource implications

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the 11(th )of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed the literature on incorporating considerations of cost-effectiveness, affordability and resource implications in guidelines and recommendations. METHODS: We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: When is it important to incorporate cost-effectiveness, resource implications and affordability considerations in WHO guidelines (which topics)? • For cost-effectiveness: The need for cost/effectiveness information should be dictated by the specific question, of which several may be addressed in a single guideline. It is proposed that the indications for undertaking a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) could be a starting point for determining which recommendation(s) in the guideline would benefit from such analysis. • For resource implications/affordability: The resource implications of each individual recommendation need to be considered when implementation issues are being discussed. How can cost-effectiveness, resource implications and affordability be explicitly taken into account in WHO guidelines? • For cost-effectiveness: ∘ If data are available, the ideal time to consider cost-effectiveness is during the evidence gathering and synthesizing stage. However, because of the inconsistent availability of CEAs and the procedural difficulty associated with adjusting results from different CEAs to make them comparable, it is also possible for cost-effectiveness to be considered during the stage of developing recommendations. ∘ Depending on the quantity and quality and relevance of the data available, such data can be considered in a qualitative way or in a quantitative way, ranging from a listing of the costs to a modelling exercise. At the very least, a qualitative approach like a commentary outlining the economic issues that need to be considered is necessary. If a quantitative approach is to be used, the full model should be transparent and comprehensive. • For resource implications/affordability: ∘ Resource implications, including health system changes, for each recommendation in a WHO guideline should be explored. At the minimum, a qualitative description that can serve as a gross indicator of the amount of resources needed, relative to current practice, should be provided. How does one provide guidance in contextualizing guideline recommendations at the country level based on considerations of cost-effectiveness, resource implications and affordability? • All models should be made available and ideally are designed to allow for analysts to make changes in key parameters and reapply results in their own country. • In the global guidelines, scenarios and extensive sensitivity/uncertainty analysis can be applied. Resource implications for WHO • From the above, it is clear that guidelines development groups will need a health economist. There is need to ensure that this is included in the budget for guidelines and that there is in-house support for this as well

Making fair choices on the path to universal health coverage: applying principles to difficult cases

Progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC) requires making difficult trade-offs. In this journal, Dr. Margaret Chan, the WHO Director-General, has endorsed the principles for making such decisions put forward by the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and UHC. These principles include maximizing population health, priority for the worse off, and shielding people from health-related financial risks. But how should one apply these principles in particular cases and how should one adjudicate between them when their demands conflict? This paper by some members of the Consultative Group and a diverse group of health policy professionals addresses these questions. It considers three stylized versions of actual policy dilemmas. Each of these cases pertains to one of the three principal dimensions of progress towards UHC: which services to cover first, which populations to prioritize for coverage, and how to move from out-of-pocket expenditures to pre-payment with pooling of funds. Our cases are simplified to highlight common trade-offs. While we make specific recommendations, our primary aim is to demonstrate both the form and substance of the reasoning involved in striking a fair balance between competing interests on the road to UHC