Population density validation.

<p>Actual[<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0168867#pone.0168867.ref052" target="_blank">52</a>] vs. modeled population density in Uganda. In the model, each red and blue dot represents one person.</p

Efficiency frontiers when the cost of the mobile surgical unit is increased.

<p>A) Deaths averted per 100,000 people. B) Catastrophic expenditure averted per 100,000 people. C) Impoverishment averted per 100,000 people. The platform falls off the efficiency frontier for the financial risk protective outcomes.</p

Efficiency frontiers for all policies and platforms.

<p>Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are given in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0168867#pone.0168867.t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a>. A) Deaths averted per 100,000 people. B) Catastrophic expenditure averted per 100,000 people. C) Impoverishment averted per 100,000 people. UPF = universal public finance. TS = task shifting. V = vouchers. MS = mobile surgical unit. CH = cancer hospital. 2W = two-week surgical mission. The interpretation of efficiency frontiers is explained in detail in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0168867#pone.0168867.s001" target="_blank">S1 Appendix</a>.</p

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

<p>Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.</p

Incremental outcomes, compared against the status quo.

<p>Incremental outcomes, compared against the status quo.</p

Equity.

<p>Equity.</p

Health and financial risk protection per $100,000 spent.

<p>Policies closest to the upper right are most efficient. A) Deaths averted vs. catastrophic expenditure averted. B) Deaths averted vs. impoverishment averted. For both financial risk protection outcomes, the mobile surgical unit is dominant. Note that negative cases of catastrophic risk protection and impoverishment averted imply cases <i>created</i> by the respective policies. UPF = universal public finance. TS = task shifting. V = vouchers. MS = mobile surgical unit. CH = cancer hospital. 2W = two-week surgical mission. The interpretation of these standardized outcomes panels is explained in detail in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0168867#pone.0168867.s001" target="_blank">S1 Appendix</a>.</p

Impact of reducing out-of-pocket costs for pediatric surgery on catastrophic health expenditure by income quintile and World Bank income classification.

Impact of reducing out-of-pocket costs for pediatric surgery on catastrophic health expenditure by income quintile and World Bank income classification.</p

Research checklist: Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 check list.

Research checklist: Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 check list.</p

List of countries.

Over 1.7 billion children lack access to surgical care, mostly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with substantial risks of catastrophic health expenditures (CHE) and impoverishment. Increasing interest in reducing out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures as a tool to reduce the rate of poverty is growing. However, the impact of reducing OOP expenditures on CHE remains poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to estimate the global impact of reducing OOP expenditures for pediatric surgical care on the risk of CHE within and between countries. Our goal was to estimate the impact of reducing OOP expenditures for surgical care in children for 149 countries by modeling the risk of CHE under various scale-up scenarios using publicly available World Bank data. Scenarios included reducing OOP expenditures from baseline levels to paying 70%, 50%, 30%, and 10% of OOP expenditures. We also compared the impact of these reductions across income quintiles (poorest, poor, middle, rich, richest) and differences by country income level (low-income, lower-middle-income, upper-middle-income, and high-income countries).Reducing OOP expenditures benefited people from all countries and income quintiles, although the benefits were not equal. The risk of CHE due to a surgical procedure for children was highest in low-income countries. An unexpected observation was that upper-middle income countries were at higher risk for CHE than LMICs. The most vulnerable regions were Africa and Latin America. Across all countries, the poorest quintile had the greatest risk for CHE. Increasing interest in financial protection programs to reduce OOP expenditures is growing in many areas of global health. Reducing OOP expenditures benefited people from all countries and income quintiles, although the benefits were not equal across countries, wealth groups, or even by wealth groups within countries. Understanding these complexities is critical to develop appropriate policies to minimize the risks of poverty.</div