Re-thinking performance assessment for primary care : opinion of the Expert Panel on Effective Ways of Investing in Health

Background: In 2017, the European Commission (EC) identified as a policy priority the performance assessment of primary care systems, which relates to a country’s primary care structure, services delivery and outcomes. The EC requested its Expert Panel on Effective Ways of Investing in Health (Expert Panel) to provide an opinion on ways for improving performance assessment of primary care. Objectives: To provide an overview of domains and dimensions to be taken into consideration in assessing primary care and specific indicators to be collected and analysed to improve understanding of primary care performance. Methods: A sub-group of the Expert Panel performed a literature review. The opinion was drafted, improved and approved through working-group discussions, consultations with the EC, the Expert Group on Health Systems Performance Assessment, and a public hearing. Results: Drawing on the main characteristics of primary care, we propose essential elements of a primary care performance assessment system based on specific indicators. We identified ten domains with accompanying dimensions for which comparative key indicators and descriptive indicators are proposed: (1) universal and accessible care, (2) integrated, (3) person-centred, (4) comprehensive and community-oriented care, (5) provided by a team accountable for addressing a vast majority of personal health needs, (6) sustained partnership with patients and informal caregivers, (7) coordination, (8) continuity of care, (9) primary care organization, and (10) human resources. Conclusion: The identified characteristics and criteria for development of a primary care performance assessment system provides a starting point for strengthening the coherence of assessment frameworks across countries and exchanging best practices

How to govern the digital transformation of health services.

The impact of digitalization of health services has been profound and is expected to be even more profound in the future. It is important to evaluate whether digital health services contribute to health system goals in an optimal way. This should be done at the level of the service, not the 'digital transformation'. Decisions to adopt new digital health services, at different levels of the health care system, are ideally based on evidence regarding their performance in light of health system goals. In order to evaluate this, a broad perspective should be taken in evaluations of digital health services. Attainment of the broad health system goals, including quality, efficiency and equity, are objectives against which to judge new digital health services. These goals in a broad sense are unaltered by the process of digitalization. Governance should be designed and tailored in such a way to capture all relevant changes in an adequate way. When evaluating digital health services many specific aspects need to be considered. Like for other innovations and (new) technologies, such promises may or may not materialize and potential benefits may also be accompanied by unintended and/or negative (side) effects in the short or long term. Hence, the introduction, implementation, use and funding of digital health technologies should be carefully evaluated and monitored. Governments should play a more active role in the further optimization both of the process of decision making (both at the central and decentral level) and the related outcomes. They need to find a balance between centralized and decentralized activity. Moreover, the broader preparation of the health care system to be able to deal with digitalization, from education, through financial and regulatory preconditions, to implementation of monitoring systems to monitor its effects on health system performance remains important

A cost effectiveness analysis of the preferred antidotes for acute paracetamol poisoning patients in Sri Lanka

Background: Acute paracetamol poisoning is a rapidly increasing problem in Sri Lanka. The antidotes are expensive and yet no health economic evaluation has been done on the therapy for acute paracetamol poisoning in the developing world. The aim of this study is to determine the cost effectiveness of using N-acetylcysteine over methionine in the management of acute paracetamol poisoning in Sri Lanka. Methods:Economic analysis was applied using public healthcare system payer perspective. Costs were obtained from a series of patients admitted to the National Hospital of Sri Lanka with a history of acute paracetamol overdose. Evidence on effectiveness was obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Death due to hepatotoxicity was used as the primary outcome of interest. Analysis and development of decision tree models was done using Tree Age Pro 2008. Results: An affordable treatment threshold of Sri Lankan rupees 1,537,120/death prevented was set from the expected years of productive life gained and the average contribution to GDP. A cost-minimisation analysis was appropriate for patients presenting within 10 hours and methionine was the least costly antidote. For patients presenting 10-24 hours after poisoning, n-acetylcysteine was more effective and the incremental cost effectiveness ratio of Sri Lankan rupees 316,182/life saved was well under the threshold. One-way and multi-way sensitivity analysis also supported methionine for patients treated within 10 hours and n-acetylcysteine for patients treated within 10-24 hours as preferred antidotes.Conclusions: Post ingestion time is an important determinant of preferred antidotal therapy for acute paracetamol poisoning patients in Sri Lanka. Using n-acetylcysteine in all patients is not cost effective. On economic grounds, methionine should become the preferred antidote for Sri Lankan patients treated within 10 hours of the acute ingestion and n-acetylcysteine should continue to be given to patients treated within 10-24 hours

Rabies Control: Could innovative Financing Break the Deadlock?

The neglected zoonotic diseases (NZDs) have been all but eradicated in wealthier countries but remain major causes of ill-health and mortality in over 80 countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The nature of neglect for the NZDs has been ascribed, in part, to underreporting resulting in an underestimation of their global burden that, together with a lack of advocacy, downgrades their relevance to policy-makers and funding agencies. While this may be the case for many NZDs, for rabies this is not the case. The global burden estimates for rabies (931,600 DALYs) more than justify prioritizing rabies control building on the strong advocacy platforms, functioning at local, regional, and global levels (including the Global Alliance for Rabies Control), and commitments from WHO, OIE, and FAO. Simple effective tools for rabies control exist together with blueprints for operationalizing control, yet, despite elimination targets being set, no global affirmative action has been taken. Rabies control demands activities both in the short term and over a long period of time to achieve the desired cumulative gains. Despite the availability of effective vaccines and messaging tools, rabies will not be sustainably controlled in the near future without long-term financial commitment, particularly as disease incidence decreases and other health priorities take hold. While rabies control is usually perceived as a public good, public private partnerships could prove equally effective in addressing endemic rabies through harnessing social investment and demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of control. It is acknowledged that greater attention to navigating local realities in planning and implementation is essential to ensuring that rabies, and other neglected diseases, are controlled sustainably. In the shadows of resource and institutional limitations in the veterinary sector in low- and middle-income countries, sufficient funding is required so that top-down interventions for rabies can more explicitly engage with local project organization capacity and affected communities in the long term. Development Impact Bonds have the potential to secure the financing required to deliver effective rabies control

[Tuberculosis in Salvador, Brazil: costs to health system and families].

OBJECTIVE: Tuberculosis is one the greatest causes of mortality worldwide, but its economic effects are not well known. This study had the objective of estimating the costs to the public and private healthcare systems and to families of tuberculosis treatment and prevention. METHODS: This study was made in the municipality of Salvador, State of Bahia, Brazil, in 1999. Data for estimating the costs to the healthcare system were collected from the Department of Health, healthcare facilities and a philanthropic institution. The public and private costs were analyzed using cost accounting methodology. Cost data relating to families were collected by means of questionnaires, and included data on transportation, food and other expenses, and also income losses associated with this disease. RESULTS: The average cost of treating one new case of tuberculosis was approximately US$103. The cost of treating one multiresistant patient was 27 higher than this. The cost to the public services consisted of 65% on hospitalization, 32% on treatment, and only 3% on prevention. The families committed around 33% of their income on expenses related to tuberculosis. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the fact that the families did not have to pay for medications and treatment, given that this service is offered by the State, the costs to families related to loss of income due to the disease were very high. The proportion of public service funds utilized for prevention is small. Greater investment in prevention campaigns not only might diminish the numbers of cases but also might lead to earlier diagnosis, thus reducing the costs associated with hospitalization. The lack of an integrated cost accounting system makes it impossible to visualize costs across the various sectors