Accounting for health opportunity costs in key decisions in healthcare resource allocation in low- and middle-income countries

The concept of opportunity cost is fundamental to economic analysis. Opportunity costs exist because resources are scarce, and so their use in one way means they are not available for use in other ways. Economic evaluation methods that enable opportunity costs to be accounted for in decision-making in healthcare in high-income countries (HICs) are well-developed. However, methods are less well-developed to inform decisions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) despite the fact that it is in these countries where healthcare resources are most constrained and the potential health gains per additional resource spent on healthcare are greatest. This thesis provides methods to answer key policy questions for healthcare resource allocation in LMICs by extending existing frameworks and estimating key parameters required to inform them to enable health opportunity costs to be accounted for. It begins by providing empirical estimates of the marginal cost per unit of health produced by the healthcare system for LMICs, which were previously unavailable. How calculations of value founded on such estimates can be used to inform international guidelines about whether specific healthcare interventions should be provided in countries, whether and the extent to which these should be externally supported, and how to prioritise the development of new healthcare interventions for provision in LMICs is demonstrated. Next, the sources for empirical evidence to inform key parameter estimates for a framework of economic evaluation that accounts for the timing of costs and effects in a more appropriate way are identified, and the assumptions implicit in existing guidelines for economic evaluation are exposed and compared. Finally, a framework is developed to inform health benefits package (HBP) design that takes account of health opportunity costs and can analytically consider dimensions pertaining to equity, financing and implementation, while explicitly assessing key trade-offs in package design

Assessing the value of human papillomavirus vaccination in Gavi-eligible low-income and middle-income countries.

INTRODUCTION: Estimating the value of providing effective healthcare interventions in a country requires an assessment of whether the improvement in health outcomes they offer exceeds the improvement in health that would have been possible if the resources required had, instead, been made available for other healthcare activities in that country. This potential alternative use of the same resources represents the health opportunity cost of providing the intervention. Without such assessments, there is a danger that blanket recommendations made by international organisations will lead to the adoption of healthcare interventions that are not cost effective in some countries, even given existing donor mechanisms intended to support their affordability. METHODS: We assessed the net health impact to 46 Gavi-eligible countries of achieving one of the WHO's proposed 90-70-90 targets for cervical cancer elimination, which includes 90% coverage of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among girls by 15 years of age, using published estimates of the expected additional benefits and costs in each country and estimates of the marginal productivity of each healthcare system. We calculated the maximum price each country could afford to pay for HPV vaccination to be cost effective by assessing the net health impact that would be expected to be generated at different potential prices. RESULTS: At Gavi negotiated prices, HPV vaccination offers net health benefits across most Gavi-eligible countries included in this study. However, if Gavi-eligible countries faced the average price faced by non-Gavi eligible countries, providing HPV vaccination would result in reduced overall population health in most countries. CONCLUSION: Estimates of the net health impact of providing a healthcare intervention can be used to assess the benefit (or lack of) to countries of adhering to global guidance, inform negotiations with donors, as well as pricing negotiations and the value of developing new healthcare interventions

Accounting for Country- and Time-Specific Values in the Economic Evaluation of Health-Related Projects Relevant to low- and Middle-Income Countries

Economic evaluation of health-related projects requires principles and methods to address the various trade-offs that need to be made between costs and benefits, across sectors and social objectives, and over time. Existing guidelines for economic evaluation in low- and middle-income countries embed implicit assumptions about expected changes in the marginal cost per unit of health produced by the healthcare sector, the consumption value of health and the appropriate discount rates for health and consumption. Separating these evaluation parameters out requires estimates for each country over time, which have hitherto been unavailable. We present a conceptual economic evaluation framework that aims to clarify the distinct roles of these different evaluation parameters in evaluating a health-related project. Estimates for each are obtained for each country, and in each time period, based on available empirical evidence. Where existing estimates are not available, for future values of the marginal cost per unit of health produced by the healthcare sector, new estimates are obtained following a practical method for obtaining projected values. The framework is applied to a simple, hypothetical, illustrative example and the results from our preferred approach are compared against those obtained from other approaches informed by the assumptions implicit within existing guidelines. This exposes the consequences of applying such assumptions, which are not supported by available evidence, in terms of potentially sub-optimal decisions. In general, we find that applying existing guidelines as done in conventional practice likely underestimates the value of health-related projects on account of not allowing for expected growth in the marginal cost per unit of health produced by the healthcare sector

Supporting a review of the benefits package of the National Health Insurance Scheme in Ghana

BACKGROUND: Although Ghana is lauded for its National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), concerns exist about the scheme’s functioning and sustainability. An often-cited issue—contributing to the scheme’s decreasing membership, long-standing financial deficit, and frequent out-of-pocket payments among members—is the large benefits package (BP). While, on paper, the BP covers over 95% of the conditions occurring in Ghana, its design was not informed by any budget analysis, nor any systematic prioritization of interventions. This paper aims to provide evidence-based input into ongoing discussions regarding a review of the NHIS benefits package. METHODS: An existing analytic framework is used to calculate net health benefit (NHB) for a range of interventions in order to assess their cost-effectiveness and enable the prioritization of ‘best buys’. The framework is expanded upon by incorporating concerns for financial protection, and practical feasibility, as well as the political economy challenges of disinvesting in currently funded activities. Five different options for the benefits package, each based on policy discourse in Ghana’s health sector, are presented and evaluated. RESULTS: Implementing all interventions for which data was available to 100% of the population in need was estimated to cost GH₵4323 million (US$994 million), while the available NHIS budget was only GH₵970 million (US$223 million). Options for the benefits package that focussed on cost-effectiveness and primary care provision achieved the best health outcomes, while options reflecting the status quo and allowing for co-payments included a higher number of healthcare interventions. Apart from the package option focussing on primary care, all packages were faced with physician shortages. CONCLUSIONS: Current funding to the NHIS is insufficient to provide the historical benefits package, which promises to cover over 95% of disease conditions occurring in Ghana, to the total population. Shifting the NHIS focus from intervention coverage to population coverage is likely to lead to better health outcomes. A primary care package may be most feasible in the short-term, though additional physicians should be trained to provide higher-level care that is highly cost-effective, such as emergency neonatal care. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12962-022-00365-0

Cost per DALY averted thresholds for low- and middle-income countries : evidence from cross country data

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face difficult decisions about which health care interventions are worthwhile given existing constraints on health care expenditure. Decisions require some assessment of the health opportunity costs of proposed investments, i.e., a ‘supply side’ cost-effectiveness threshold (CET) that represents the likely health effects of changes in health care expenditure.  This paper provides a framework for generating country-level CETs using existing published estimates of the mortality effect of health expenditure. Two different estimation strategies are used (Bokhari et al (2007) and Moreno-Serra and Smith (2015)) and, where possible, estimation is extended to include other measures of mortality, survival and disability outcomes, reflecting the demographic and other characteristics of each LMIC. The results suggest that CETs representing likely health opportunity costs tend to be below the lower bound suggested by WHO of 1x GDP per capita. Hence, many previous and existing recommendations about which interventions are cost-effective that are based on the WHO threshold are likely to do more harm than good

Supporting the development of a health benefits package in Malawi

Malawi, like many low-income and middle-income countries, has used health benefits packages (HBPs) to allocate scarce resources to key healthcare interventions. With no widely accepted method for their development, HBPs often promise more than can be delivered, given available resources. An analytical framework is developed to guide the design of HBPs that can identify the potential value of including and implementing different interventions. It provides a basis for informing meaningful discussions between governments, donors and other stakeholders around the trade-offs implicit in package design. Metrics of value, founded on an understanding of the health opportunity costs of the choices faced, are used to quantify the scale of the potential net health impact (net disability adjusted life years averted) or the amount of additional healthcare resources that would be required to deliver similar net health impacts with existing interventions (the financial value to the healthcare system). The framework can be applied to answer key questions around, for example: the appropriate scale of the HBP; which interventions represent 'best buys' and should be prioritised; where investments in scaling up interventions and health system strengthening should be made; whether the package should be expanded; costs of the conditionalities of donor funding and how objectives beyond improving population health can be considered. This is illustrated using data from Malawi. The framework was successfully applied to inform the HBP in Malawi, as a core component of the country's Health Sector Strategic Plan II 2017-2022

Concomitant health benefits package design and research prioritisation : development of a new approach and an application to Malawi

Health benefits packages (HBPs) are increasingly used in many countries to guide spending priorities on the path towards universal health coverage. Their design is, however, informed by an uncertain evidence base but research funds available to address this are limited. This gives rise to the question of which piece of research relating to the cost-effectiveness of interventions would most contribute to improving resource allocation. We propose to incorporate research prioritisation as an integral part of HBP design. We have, therefore, developed a framework and a freely available companion stand-alone tool, to quantify in terms of net disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted, the value of research for the interventions considered for inclusion in a package. Using the tool, the framework can be implemented using sensitivity analysis results typically reported in cost-effectiveness studies. To illustrate the framework, we applied the tool to the evidence base that informed the Malawi Health Sector Strategic Plan 2017-2022. Out of 21 interventions considered, 8 investment decisions were found to be uncertain and three showed strong potential for research to generate large health gains: 'male circumcision', 'community-management of acute malnutrition in children' and 'isoniazid preventive therapy in HIV +individuals', with a potential to avert up to 65 762, 36 438 and 20 132 net DALYs, respectively. Our work can help set research priorities in resource-constrained settings so that research funds are invested where they have the largest potential to impact on the population health generated via HBPs