Health, Technical Efficiency And Agricultural Production In Indian Districts

In this study, we attempt to quantify the effect of improved population health on technical efficiency in agricultural production. Using data for over 260 districts in 15 Indian states, we employ the random-coefficients technique to estimate a Cobb-Douglas production function, computing overall and input specific technical efficiencies for each district. We then model health (the district infant mortality rate) as a determinant of (in) efficiency in a second stage, controlling for a range of other socioeconomic variables. We find that decreases in the infant mortality rate, as well as increases in the literacy rate and level of irrigation, are associated with significant increases in overall technical efficiency, and that a good portion of healths effect is probably due to improvements in the efficiency of labor use. While efficiency increases from improvements in irrigation and literacy are larger, the potential gains from health are still fairly substantial.technical efficiency, Random coefficients model, the frontier production function

Measuring the costs of outreach motivational interviewing for smoking cessation and relapse prevention among low-income pregnant women

Background: Economic theory provides the philosophical foundation for valuing costs in judging medical and public health interventions. When evaluating smoking cessation interventions, accurate data on costs are essential for understanding resource consumption. Smoking cessation interventions, for which prior data on resource costs are typically not available, present special challenges. We develop a micro-costing methodology for estimating the real resource costs of outreach motivational interviewing (MI) for smoking cessation and relapse prevention among low-income pregnant women and report results from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) employing the methodology. Methodological standards in cost analysis are necessary for comparison and uniformity in analysis across interventions. Estimating the costs of outreach programs is critical for understanding the economics of reaching underserved and hard-to-reach populations. Methods: Randomized controlled trial (1997-2000) collecting primary cost data for intervention. A sample of 302 low-income pregnant women was recruited from multiple obstetrical sites in the Boston metropolitan area. MI delivered by outreach health nurses vs. usual care (UC), with economic costs as the main outcome measures. Results: The total cost of the MI intervention for 156 participants was $48,672 or$312 per participant. The total cost of $311.8 per participant for the MI intervention compared with a cost of$4.82 per participant for usual care, a difference of $307 ([CI],$289.2 to $322.8). The total fixed costs of the MI were$3,930 and the total variable costs of the MI were $44,710. The total expected program costs for delivering MI to 500 participants would be 147,430, assuming no economies of scale in program delivery. The main cost components of outreach MI were intervention delivery, travel time, scheduling, and training. Conclusion: Grounded in economic theory, this methodology systematically identifies and measures resource utilization, using a process tracking system and calculates both component-specific and total costs of outreach MI. The methodology could help improve collection of accurate data on costs and estimates of the real resource costs of interventions alongside clinical trials and improve the validity and reliability of estimates of resource costs for interventions targeted at underserved and hard-to-reach populations

From conceptual pluralism to practical agreement on policy: global responsibility for global health.

BACKGROUND: As the human cost of the global economic crisis becomes apparent the ongoing discussions surrounding the post-2015 global development framework continue at a frenzied pace. Given the scale and scope of increased globalization moving forward in a post-Millennium Development Goals era, to protect and realize health equity for all people, has never been more challenging or more important. The unprecedented nature of global interdependence underscores the importance of proposing policy solutions that advance realizing global responsibility for global health. DISCUSSION: This article argues for advancing global responsibility for global health through the creation of a Global Fund for Health. It suggests harnessing the power of the exceptional response to the combined epidemics of AIDS, TB and Malaria, embodied in the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, to realize an expanded, reconceptualized Global Fund for Health. However this proposal creates both an analytical quandary embedded in conceptual pluralism and a practical dilemma for the scope and raison d'etre of a new Global Fund for Health. To address these issues we offer a logical framework for moving from conceptual pluralism in the theories supporting global responsibility for health to practical agreement on policy to realize this end. We examine how the innovations flowing from this exceptional response can be coupled with recent ideas and concepts, for example a global social protection floor, a Global Health Constitution or a Framework Convention for Global Health, that share the global responsibility logic that underpins a Global Fund for Health. CONCLUSIONS: The 2014 Lancet Commission on Global Governance for Health Report asks whether a single global health protection fund would be better for global health than the current patchwork of global and national social transfers. We concur with this suggestion and argue that there is much room for practical agreement on a Global Fund for Health that moves from the conceptual level into policies and practice that advance global health. The issues of shared responsibility and mutual accountability feature widely in the post-2015 discussions and need to be addressed in a coherent manner. Our article argues why and how a Global Fund for Health effectuates this, thus advancing global responsibility for global health

Cost-effectiveness of nicotine patches for smoking cessation in pregnancy: a placebo randomised controlled trial (SNAP)

Introduction: Smoking during pregnancy is the most important, preventable cause of adverse pregnancy outcomes including miscarriage, premature birth and low birth weight, with huge financial costs to the NHS. However, there are very few published economic evaluations of smoking cessation interventions in pregnancy and previous studies are predominantly US-based and do not present incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). A number of studies have demonstrated cost-effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in the general population, but this has yet to be tested among pregnant smokers. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken alongside the SNAP trial to compare NRT patches plus behavioural support to behavioural support alone, for pregnant women who smoked. Results: At delivery, biochemically verified quit rates were slightly higher at 9.4% in the NRT group compared to 7.6% in the control group (odds ratio: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.82-1.96), at an increased cost of around £90 per participant. Higher costs in the NRT group were mainly attributable to the cost of NRT patches (mean = £46.07). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with NRT was £4,926 per quitter and a sensitivity analysis including only singleton births yielded an ICER of £4,156 per quitter. However, wide confidence intervals indicated a high level of uncertainty. Conclusions: Without a specific willingness to pay threshold, and due to high levels of statistical uncertainty, it is hard to determine the cost-effectiveness of NRT in this population. Furthermore, future research should address compliance issues, as these may dilute any potential effects of NRT, thus reducing the cost-effectiveness

Defining Catastrophic Costs and Comparing Their Importance for Adverse Tuberculosis Outcome with Multi-Drug Resistance: A Prospective Cohort Study, Peru

Background Even when tuberculosis (TB) treatment is free, hidden costs incurred by patients and their households (TB-affected households) may worsen poverty and health. Extreme TB-associated costs have been termed “catastrophic” but are poorly defined. We studied TB-affected households' hidden costs and their association with adverse TB outcome to create a clinically relevant definition of catastrophic costs. Methods and Findings From 26 October 2002 to 30 November 2009, TB patients (n = 876, 11% with multi-drug-resistant [MDR] TB) and healthy controls (n = 487) were recruited to a prospective cohort study in shantytowns in Lima, Peru. Patients were interviewed prior to and every 2–4 wk throughout treatment, recording direct (household expenses) and indirect (lost income) TB-related costs. Costs were expressed as a proportion of the household's annual income. In poorer households, costs were lower but constituted a higher proportion of the household's annual income: 27% (95% CI = 20%–43%) in the least-poor houses versus 48% (95% CI = 36%–50%) in the poorest. Adverse TB outcome was defined as death, treatment abandonment or treatment failure during therapy, or recurrence within 2 y. 23% (166/725) of patients with a defined treatment outcome had an adverse outcome. Total costs ≥20% of household annual income was defined as catastrophic because this threshold was most strongly associated with adverse TB outcome. Catastrophic costs were incurred by 345 households (39%). Having MDR TB was associated with a higher likelihood of incurring catastrophic costs (54% [95% CI = 43%–61%] versus 38% [95% CI = 34%–41%], p<0.003). Adverse outcome was independently associated with MDR TB (odds ratio [OR] = 8.4 [95% CI = 4.7–15], p<0.001), previous TB (OR = 2.1 [95% CI = 1.3–3.5], p = 0.005), days too unwell to work pre-treatment (OR = 1.01 [95% CI = 1.00–1.01], p = 0.02), and catastrophic costs (OR = 1.7 [95% CI = 1.1–2.6], p = 0.01). The adjusted population attributable fraction of adverse outcomes explained by catastrophic costs was 18% (95% CI = 6.9%–28%), similar to that of MDR TB (20% [95% CI = 14%–25%]). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that existing catastrophic costs thresholds (≥10% or ≥15% of household annual income) were not associated with adverse outcome in our setting. Study limitations included not measuring certain “dis-saving” variables (including selling household items) and gathering only 6 mo of costs-specific follow-up data for MDR TB patients. Conclusions Despite free TB care, having TB disease was expensive for impoverished TB patients in Peru. Incurring higher relative costs was associated with adverse TB outcome. The population attributable fraction indicated that catastrophic costs and MDR TB were associated with similar proportions of adverse outcomes. Thus TB is a socioeconomic as well as infectious problem, and TB control interventions should address both the economic and clinical aspects of this disease

Cost-Effectiveness of Peer-Delivered Interventions for Cocaine and Alcohol Abuse among Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial

<div><h3>Aims</h3><p>To determine whether the additional interventions to standard care are cost-effective in addressing cocaine and alcohol abuse at 4 months (4 M) and 12 months (12 M) from baseline.</p> <h3>Method</h3><p>We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial with three arms: (1) NIDA's Standard intervention (SI); (2) SI plus a Well Woman Exam (WWE); and, (3) SI, WWE, plus four Educational Sessions (4ES).</p> <h3>Results</h3><p>To obtain an additional cocaine abstainer, WWE compared to SI cost $7,223 at 4 M and$3,611 at 12 M. Per additional alcohol abstainer, WWE compared to SI cost $3,611 and$7,223 at 4 M and 12 M, respectively. At 12 M, 4ES was dominated (more costly and less effective) by WWE for abstinence outcomes.</p> <h3>Conclusions</h3><p>To our knowledge, this is the first cost-effectiveness analysis simultaneously examining cocaine and alcohol abuse in women. Depending on primary outcomes sought and priorities of policy makers, peer-delivered interventions can be a cost-effective way to address the needs of this growing, underserved population.</p> <h3>Trial Registration</h3><p>ClinicalTrials.gov <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01235091">NCT01235091</a></p> </div