Conducting a cost analysis to address issues of budget constraints on the implementation of the indoor residual spray program. an intervention to control and eliminate Malaria in two districts of Maputo Province, Mozambique

Introduction: Over the past few years, the capacity of the government of Mozambique to sustain the cost of payment of salaries to operationalize the Indoor Residual Spray (IRS), a widely recommended tool to control and prevent malaria, is facing numerous challenges. This is due to recent restrictions of the Official Development Assistance (ODA), an external aid scheme and the main source of financing of the Mozambican government budget. Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the cost of IRS operationalization activities in Matutuine and Namaacha districts health directorates, in Maputo Province, Mozambique. Methods: A cost analysis using an approach from the provider’s perspective was conducted in two district health directorates in the Maputo province, Matutuine and Namaacha. The institutions were purposely selected since in 2014 in both districts the expenditure on salaries to operationalize IRS was funded by the government budget. Cost information was collected retrospectively and both economic and financial costs were calculated. Uncertainty of results was tested using “one-way” deterministic sensitivity analysis. Results: The average total annual economic cost was 117,351.34 US$. The average economic cost per households sprayed totalled 16.35 US$. On average the economic costs per person protected is 4.09 US$in total. In the financial analysis, the average total annual financial costs totalled 69,174.83 US$. The average financial cost per household sprayed and per person protected were 9.84 US$and 2.46 US$ respectively. Vehicles, personnel salaries and consumables were the major substantial cost components. Conclusion: Setting aside the ODA restriction and focusing on the aim of implementing IRS within the existing resources, the study makessuggestions for improving efficiency by focusing on areas with a higher need and pays attention to cost drivers in order to reduce the costs

a low-income country

Funding Information: We are grateful to Dr. Armando Melo from the Ministry of Health of Mozambique for providing all necessary connections between the research team, the Ministry of Health, and the provinces and study sites. Funding Information: This study was funded by the United Nation Population Fund (UNFPA) \u2013 Mozambique. Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2024.Background: Obstetric fistula is incident and prevalent in low-income countries. Globally, about 100,000 women develop fistula annually. In Mozambique, more than 2,000 fistulas are reported annually. A national strategy to combat obstetric fistula has been implemented in Mozambique from 2012–2020. This strategy is under review, making it opportune to generate evidence that reflects the course of the strategy implemented to subsidize/optimize the definition of priorities of the new strategy to achieve universal health coverage. In Mozambique, information on the costs incurred to treat fistula is scarce. This study aims to estimate the mean unit cost of repair/treatment of simple and complex obstetric fistula in Mozambique. Methods: We carried out a retrospective evaluation, from the provider’s perspective, using the Ingredient and Stepdown approaches. The mean unit cost was obtained by the sum of individual and shared ingredients to treat fistula. Cost dimensions included Direct Medical Costs (personnel, drugs, and supplies), Overhead and Capital Costs (administration and capital assets’ costs, respectively). The average exchange rate was USD 1 = MZN 61.47. Data were collected in secondary, tertiary, and quaternary hospitals of Zambézia and Nampula provinces in 2021. Costs borne by patients and their families and loss of productivity were not included. Results: The mean cost for Simple Obstetric Fistula repair was MZN 14,937.21 (USD 243) and Complex Obstetric Fistula was MZN 21,145.68 (USD 344) per person operated. Regardless of the type of fistula, the repair cost was MZN 18,072.18 (USD 294). Conclusion: Without neglecting that prevention is better than plasty, the results show feasible levels of fistula repair costs for mobilization of funds. For the estimated 2,000 fistulas reported annually, the government needs an average MZN 36,144,360 (USD 588,000).publishersversionpublishe

The economic cost of treatment for patients with severe COVID-19 in Maputo Province, Mozambique

BACKGROUNDMozambique has an under-resourced and fragile healthcare system that is already facing a high burden of comorbidities. Determining the cost of COVID-19 treatment is therefore an early priority to inform the resource-constrained pandemic response. This study aimed to estimate the economic cost of treating patients with severe COVID-19 in Mozambique. METHODOLOGYCost data were collected retrospectively from the provider perspective. A “one-way” deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the assumptions. RESULTSThe total economic cost of treatment for inpatients with severe COVID-19 at Centro da Matola 1 (CM1) was 21,157,159 MZN, corresponding to US$334,501. The economic cost per capita per day was 22,039 MZN, corresponding to US$348. The costs of treatment for patients with tuberculosis and patients with pneumonia did not vary considerably, ranging between 176,122 MZN (US$2,785) and 176,113 MZN (US$2,784) for the affected comorbidities; without co-morbidities, 176,105 MZN (US$2,784) to 176,087 MZN (US$2,784), respectively. COVID-19 patients co- infected with bronchopneumonia and HIV were the ones with the least costly morbidities, ranging from 88,085 MZN (US$1,393) to 88,053 MZN (US$1,392). CONCLUSIONThe results show a substantial cost to treat COVID-19 inpatients in a resource-constrained context. The course of the pandemic substantially impacted the total costs and consequently, there has been an increase in the demand for resources. Revising priority setting values and resource allocation shall be taken into consideration for timely adjustments to save lives, considering the scenario of a high burden of commodities versus resource constraints in Mozambican public health services. Additionally, it is highly recommended that the cost analysis be regularly updated to illustrate the current cost and contribute to informing the efficient allocation of resources

Testing for SARS-CoV-2 in resource-limited settings: A cost analysis study of diagnostic tests using different Ag-RDTs and RT-PCR technologies in Mozambique.

Early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is fundamental to reduce the risk of community transmission and mortality, as well as public sector expenditures. Three years after the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there are still gaps on what is known regarding costs and cost drivers for the major diagnostic testing strategies in low- middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aimed to estimate the cost of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis of symptomatic suspected patients by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) in Mozambique. We conducted a retrospective cost analysis from the provider's perspective using a bottom-up, micro-costing approach, and compared the direct costs of two nasopharyngeal Ag-RDTs (Panbio and Standard Q) against the costs of three nasal Ag-RDTs (Panbio, COVIOS and LumiraDx), and RT-PCR. The study was undertaken from November 2020 to December 2021 in the country's capital city Maputo, in four healthcare facilities at primary, secondary and tertiary levels of care, and at one reference laboratory. All the resources necessary for RT-PCR and Ag-RDT tests were identified, quantified, valued, and the unit costs per test and per facility were estimated. Our findings show that the mean unit cost of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis by nasopharyngeal Ag-RDTs was MZN 728.00 (USD 11.90, at 2020 exchange rates) for Panbio and MZN 728.00 (USD 11.90) for Standard Q. For diagnosis by nasal Ag-RDTs, Panbio was MZN 547.00 (USD 8.90), COVIOS was MZN 768.00 (USD 12.50), and LumiraDx was MZN 798.00 (USD 13.00). Medical supplies expenditures represented the main driver of the final cost (>50%), followed by personnel and overhead costs (mean 15% for each). The mean unit cost regardless of the type of Ag-RDT was MZN 714.00 (USD 11.60). Diagnosis by RT-PCR cost MZN 2,414 (USD 39.00) per test. Our sensitivity analysis suggests that focussing on reducing medical supplies costs would be the most cost-saving strategy for governments in LMICs, particularly as international prices decrease. The cost of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using Ag-RDTs was three times lower than RT-PCR testing. Governments in LMICs can include cost-efficient Ag-RDTs in their screening strategies, or RT-PCR if international costs of such supplies decrease further in the future. Additional analyses are recommended as the costs of testing can be influenced by the sample referral system

Additional file 1 of Achieving malaria testing and treatment targets for children under five in Mozambique: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Additional file 1. Supplemental material

Cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination in Mozambique.

INTRODUCTION: Rotavirus is one of the most common cause of severe gastroenteritis in children, with the largest mortality burden in low- and middle-income countries. To prevent rotavirus gastroenteritis, Mozambique introduced ROTARIX® vaccine in 2015, however, its cost-effectiveness has never been established in the country. In 2018, additional vaccines became available globally. This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of the recently introduced ROTARIX in Mozambique and compares the cost-effectiveness of ROTARIX®, ROTAVAC®, and ROTASIIL® to inform future use. METHODS: We used a decision-support model to calculate the potential cost-effectiveness of vaccination with ROTARIX compared to no vaccination over a five-year period (2016-2020) and to compare the cost-effectiveness of ROTARIX, ROTAVAC, and ROTASIIL to no vaccination and to each other over a ten-year period (2021-2030). The primary outcome was the incremental cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted from a government perspective. We assessed uncertainty through sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2020, we estimate the vaccine program with ROTARIX cost US$12.3 million, prevented 4,628 deaths, and averted US$3.1 million in healthcare costs. The cost per DALY averted was US$70. From 2021 to 2030, we estimate all three vaccines could prevent 9,000 deaths and avert US$7.8 million in healthcare costs. With Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (Gavi) support, ROTARIX would have the lowest vaccine program cost (US$31 million) and 98$75.8 million) and 30 % probability of being cost-effective at the same threshold. CONCLUSION: ROTARIX vaccination had a substantial public health impact in Mozambique between 2016 and 2020. ROTARIX is currently estimated to be the most cost-effective product, but the choice of vaccine should be re-evaluated as more evidence emerges on the price, incremental delivery cost, wastage, and impact associated with each of the different rotavirus vaccines

Tool for HR, overhead, no of patients.

Early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is fundamental to reduce the risk of community transmission and mortality, as well as public sector expenditures. Three years after the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there are still gaps on what is known regarding costs and cost drivers for the major diagnostic testing strategies in low- middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aimed to estimate the cost of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis of symptomatic suspected patients by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) in Mozambique. We conducted a retrospective cost analysis from the provider’s perspective using a bottom-up, micro-costing approach, and compared the direct costs of two nasopharyngeal Ag-RDTs (Panbio and Standard Q) against the costs of three nasal Ag-RDTs (Panbio, COVIOS and LumiraDx), and RT-PCR. The study was undertaken from November 2020 to December 2021 in the country’s capital city Maputo, in four healthcare facilities at primary, secondary and tertiary levels of care, and at one reference laboratory. All the resources necessary for RT-PCR and Ag-RDT tests were identified, quantified, valued, and the unit costs per test and per facility were estimated. Our findings show that the mean unit cost of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis by nasopharyngeal Ag-RDTs was MZN 728.00 (USD 11.90, at 2020 exchange rates) for Panbio and MZN 728.00 (USD 11.90) for Standard Q. For diagnosis by nasal Ag-RDTs, Panbio was MZN 547.00 (USD 8.90), COVIOS was MZN 768.00 (USD 12.50), and LumiraDx was MZN 798.00 (USD 13.00). Medical supplies expenditures represented the main driver of the final cost (>50%), followed by personnel and overhead costs (mean 15% for each). The mean unit cost regardless of the type of Ag-RDT was MZN 714.00 (USD 11.60). Diagnosis by RT-PCR cost MZN 2,414 (USD 39.00) per test. Our sensitivity analysis suggests that focussing on reducing medical supplies costs would be the most cost-saving strategy for governments in LMICs, particularly as international prices decrease. The cost of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using Ag-RDTs was three times lower than RT-PCR testing. Governments in LMICs can include cost-efficient Ag-RDTs in their screening strategies, or RT-PCR if international costs of such supplies decrease further in the future. Additional analyses are recommended as the costs of testing can be influenced by the sample referral system.</div

Tool for capital items.

Early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is fundamental to reduce the risk of community transmission and mortality, as well as public sector expenditures. Three years after the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there are still gaps on what is known regarding costs and cost drivers for the major diagnostic testing strategies in low- middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aimed to estimate the cost of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis of symptomatic suspected patients by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) in Mozambique. We conducted a retrospective cost analysis from the provider’s perspective using a bottom-up, micro-costing approach, and compared the direct costs of two nasopharyngeal Ag-RDTs (Panbio and Standard Q) against the costs of three nasal Ag-RDTs (Panbio, COVIOS and LumiraDx), and RT-PCR. The study was undertaken from November 2020 to December 2021 in the country’s capital city Maputo, in four healthcare facilities at primary, secondary and tertiary levels of care, and at one reference laboratory. All the resources necessary for RT-PCR and Ag-RDT tests were identified, quantified, valued, and the unit costs per test and per facility were estimated. Our findings show that the mean unit cost of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis by nasopharyngeal Ag-RDTs was MZN 728.00 (USD 11.90, at 2020 exchange rates) for Panbio and MZN 728.00 (USD 11.90) for Standard Q. For diagnosis by nasal Ag-RDTs, Panbio was MZN 547.00 (USD 8.90), COVIOS was MZN 768.00 (USD 12.50), and LumiraDx was MZN 798.00 (USD 13.00). Medical supplies expenditures represented the main driver of the final cost (>50%), followed by personnel and overhead costs (mean 15% for each). The mean unit cost regardless of the type of Ag-RDT was MZN 714.00 (USD 11.60). Diagnosis by RT-PCR cost MZN 2,414 (USD 39.00) per test. Our sensitivity analysis suggests that focussing on reducing medical supplies costs would be the most cost-saving strategy for governments in LMICs, particularly as international prices decrease. The cost of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using Ag-RDTs was three times lower than RT-PCR testing. Governments in LMICs can include cost-efficient Ag-RDTs in their screening strategies, or RT-PCR if international costs of such supplies decrease further in the future. Additional analyses are recommended as the costs of testing can be influenced by the sample referral system.</div

Summary of resources per type of test and costs for Ag-RDT tests (USD 2020).

Summary of resources per type of test and costs for Ag-RDT tests (USD 2020).</p

S1 Dataset -

Early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is fundamental to reduce the risk of community transmission and mortality, as well as public sector expenditures. Three years after the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there are still gaps on what is known regarding costs and cost drivers for the major diagnostic testing strategies in low- middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aimed to estimate the cost of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis of symptomatic suspected patients by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) in Mozambique. We conducted a retrospective cost analysis from the provider’s perspective using a bottom-up, micro-costing approach, and compared the direct costs of two nasopharyngeal Ag-RDTs (Panbio and Standard Q) against the costs of three nasal Ag-RDTs (Panbio, COVIOS and LumiraDx), and RT-PCR. The study was undertaken from November 2020 to December 2021 in the country’s capital city Maputo, in four healthcare facilities at primary, secondary and tertiary levels of care, and at one reference laboratory. All the resources necessary for RT-PCR and Ag-RDT tests were identified, quantified, valued, and the unit costs per test and per facility were estimated. Our findings show that the mean unit cost of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis by nasopharyngeal Ag-RDTs was MZN 728.00 (USD 11.90, at 2020 exchange rates) for Panbio and MZN 728.00 (USD 11.90) for Standard Q. For diagnosis by nasal Ag-RDTs, Panbio was MZN 547.00 (USD 8.90), COVIOS was MZN 768.00 (USD 12.50), and LumiraDx was MZN 798.00 (USD 13.00). Medical supplies expenditures represented the main driver of the final cost (>50%), followed by personnel and overhead costs (mean 15% for each). The mean unit cost regardless of the type of Ag-RDT was MZN 714.00 (USD 11.60). Diagnosis by RT-PCR cost MZN 2,414 (USD 39.00) per test. Our sensitivity analysis suggests that focussing on reducing medical supplies costs would be the most cost-saving strategy for governments in LMICs, particularly as international prices decrease. The cost of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using Ag-RDTs was three times lower than RT-PCR testing. Governments in LMICs can include cost-efficient Ag-RDTs in their screening strategies, or RT-PCR if international costs of such supplies decrease further in the future. Additional analyses are recommended as the costs of testing can be influenced by the sample referral system.</div