‘These are not luxuries, it is essential for access to life’: Disability related out-of-pocket costs as a driver of economic vulnerability in South Africa

Background: With the dawn of the new sustainable development goals, we face not only a world that has seen great successes in alleviating poverty but also a world that has left some groups, such as persons with disabilities, behind. Middle-income countries (MICs) are home to a growing number of persons with disabilities. As these countries strive to achieve the new goals, we have ample opportunity to include persons with disabilities in the emerging poverty alleviation strategies. However, a lack of data and research on the linkages between economic vulnerability and disability in MICs hampers our understanding of the factors increasing economic vulnerability in people with disabilities. Methods: This article aims to present data related to elements of this vulnerability in one MIC, South Africa. Focusing on out-of-pocket costs, it uses focus group discussions with 73 persons with disabilities and conventional content analysis to describe these costs. Results: A complex and nuanced picture of disability-driven costs evolved on three different areas: care and support for survival and safety, accessibility of services and participation in community. Costs varied depending on care and support needs, accessibility (physical and financial), availability, and knowledge of services and assistive devices. Conclusions: The development of poverty alleviation and social protection mechanisms in MICs like South Africa needs to better consider diverse disability-related care and support needs not only to improve access to services such as education and health (National Health Insurance schemes, accessible clinics) but also to increase the effect of disability-specific benefits and employment equity policies

A systematic review of Health Technology Assessment tools in sub-Saharan Africa: methodological issues and implications

Background Health technology assessment (HTA) is mostly used in the context of high- and middle-income countries. Many “resource-poor” settings, which have the greatest need for critical assessment of health technology, have a limited basis for making evidence-based choices. This can lead to inappropriate use of technologies, a problem that could be addressed by HTA that enables the efficient use of resources, which is especially crucial in such settings. There is a lack of clarity about which HTA tools should be used in these settings. This research aims to provide an overview of proposed HTA tools for “resource-poor” settings with a specific focus on sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Methodology A systematic review was conducted using basic steps from the PRISMA guidelines. Studies that described HTA tools applicable for “resource-limited” settings were identified and critically appraised. Only papers published between 2003 and 2013 were included. The identified tools were assessed according to a checklist with methodological criteria. Results Six appropriate tools that are applicable in the SSA setting and cover methodological robustness and ease of use were included in the review. Several tools fulfil these criteria, such as the KNOW ESSENTIALS tool, Mini-HTA tool, and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis but their application in the SSA context remains limited. The WHO CHOICE method is a standardized decision making tool for choosing interventions but is limited to their cost-effectiveness. Most evaluation of health technology in SSA focuses on priority setting. There is a lack of HTA tools that can be used for the systematic assessment of technology in the SSA context. Conclusions An appropriate HTA tool for “resource-constrained” settings, and especially SSA, should address all important criteria of decision making. By combining the two most promising tools, KNOW ESSENTIALS and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, appropriate analysis of evidence with a robust and flexible methodology could be applied for the SSA setting

Inequality in South Africa: A two part document on the current understanding and dimensions of inequality in health, gender and livelihoods

Recognising that inequality is at the heart of the South African ‘development problem', Oxfam commissioned this research from the Health Economics and HIV and AIDS Research Division (HEARD) at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. The report, supported by 91 references, is in two parts, with an executive summary. Part 1 covers the current understanding of inequality in South Africa, reviewing definitions, types, and ways of monitoring inequality, and offers a set of measures for Oxfam to use. Part 2 focuses on the dimensions of inequality in three main areas of Oxfam's programme in the country: Health, Gender, and Livelihoods, in the context of Oxfam's ongoing programme work.This document is one of a number of publications highlighting NGO good practice and innovations from partner organisations supported by Oxfam in South Africa

Modelling the healthcare costs of skin cancer in South Africa

CITATION: Gordon, L. G., et al. 2016. Modelling the healthcare costs of skin cancer in South Africa. BMC Health Services Research, 16:113, doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1364-z.The original publication is available at http://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.comBackground: Skin cancer is a growing public health problem in South Africa due to its high ambient ultraviolet radiation environment. The purpose of this study was to estimate the annual health system costs of cutaneous melanoma, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and basal cell carcinoma (BCC) in South Africa, incorporating both the public and private sectors. Methods: A cost-of-illness study was used to measure the economic burden of skin cancer and a ‘bottom-up’ micro-costing approach. Clinicians provided data on the patterns of care and treatments while national costing reports and clinician fees provided cost estimates. The mean costs per melanoma and per SCC/BCC were extrapolated to estimate national costs using published incidence data and official population statistics. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to address the uncertainty of the parameters used in the model. Results: The estimated total annual cost of treating skin cancers in South Africa were ZAR 92.4 million (2015) (or US$15.7 million). Sensitivity analyses showed that the total costs could vary between ZAR 89.7 to 94.6 million (US$15.2 to $16.1 million) when melanoma-related variables were changed and between ZAR 78.4 to 113.5 million ($13.3 to $19.3 million) when non-melanoma-related variables were changed. The primary drivers of overall costs were the cost of excisions, follow-up care, radical lymph node dissection, cryotherapy and radiation therapy. Conclusion: The cost of managing skin cancer in South Africa is sizable. Since skin cancer is largely preventable through improvements to sun-protection awareness and skin cancer prevention programs, this study highlights these healthcare resources could be used for other pressing public health problems in South Africa.https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-016-1364-zPublisher's versio