Abstract
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.
IntroductionEstimating 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsAt 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.ConclusionEstimates 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.
Setting out a health benefits package (HBP) of interventions to be prioritised for funding is an important step towards achieving universal health coverage in low and middle income countries. The 3rd ...version of the Disease Control Priorities (DCP3) database, and other similar databases, aim to establishing a single point of reference ("one stop shop") for cost effectiveness evidence to inform HBP design and other policy making. We reflect upon our experiences in using DCP3 for HBP design and offer suggestions for improving the future reporting of cost-effectiveness evidence. We appraise DCP3 based on generalisability, level of detail, and accessibility. We find that DCP and similar initiatives should be commended for the systematic assessment of a vast array of cost-effectiveness studies-the magnitude of such an endeavour is impressive in its own right. However, there are flaws. In future, providing disaggregated estimates of costs and effects, quantifying uncertainty, and systematically assessing the context in which estimates apply would make this evidence more useful for decision makers.
Evaluating whether a new health technology provides good value for money requires an assessment of its opportunity cost. If the opportunity cost of the new health technology exceeds the benefits, ...however measured, a net loss is produced. Value frameworks using economic evaluation methods have been developed to guide the assessment of the value of new technologies within health care in response to rising spending. However, few explicitly consider health opportunity costs and fewer still base health opportunity costs on empirical estimates. This may partly be due to the dearth of estimates available, with only a handful of countries having estimates based on within-country data. To fill this gap, this study provides estimates of cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted for 33 high-income countries and the remaining Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and BRIICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China and South Africa).
Cost per DALY averted for each country was based on estimated elasticities of the health effects of changes in expenditure on health outcomes from applying an existing published econometric model that uses cross-country data to an expanded dataset and other existing elasticities drawn from selected UK within-country studies to country-level data on health expenditure, demographic characteristics, and burden of ill health. To provide a comprehensive picture of the state of research around empirical estimates of health opportunity costs for these countries, results from this study are reported against previously published estimates of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for the same countries.
All but one of the ranges estimated fall below 3× the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, the upper end of the widely applied range of 1–3× GDP per capita. The range of estimates based on applying an existing published econometric model that uses cross-country data to an expanded dataset are higher than when cost per DALY averted is calculated from other existing elasticities of the health effects of changes in expenditure drawn from selected UK within-country studies. They also tend to be higher than published estimates of cost per QALY gained.
This study provides placeholder cost per DALY averted estimates that reflect health opportunity costs for 33 high-income countries and the remaining OECD and BRIICS countries. These estimates can be used to estimate the health opportunity costs of government health care expenditure until country-specific health opportunity cost are estimated using within-country data.
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.
The economic evaluation of healthcare interventions requires an assessment of whether the improvement in health outcomes they offer exceeds the improvement in health that would have been possible if ...the additional resources required had, instead, been made available for other healthcare activities. Therefore, some assessment of these health opportunity costs is required if the best use is to be made of the resources available for healthcare. This paper provides a framework for generating country-specific estimates of cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted ‘thresholds’ that reflect health opportunity costs. We apply estimated elasticities on mortality, survival, morbidity and a generic measure of health, DALYs, that take account of measures of a country’s infrastructure and changes in donor funding to country-specific data on health expenditure, epidemiology and demographics to determine the likely DALYs averted from a 1% change in expenditure on health. The resulting range of cost per DALY averted ‘threshold’ estimates for each country that represent likely health opportunity costs tend to fall below the range previously suggested by WHO of 1–3× gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. The 1–3× GDP range and many other previous and existing recommendations about which interventions are cost-effective are not based on an empirical assessment of the likely health opportunity costs, and as a consequence, the health effects of changes in health expenditure have tended to be underestimated, and there is a risk that interventions regarded as cost-effective reduce rather than improve health outcomes overall.
Public payers around the world are increasingly using cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) to assess the value-for-money of an intervention and make coverage decisions. However, there is still much ...confusion about the meaning and uses of the CET, how it should be calculated, and what constitutes an adequate evidence base for its formulation. One widely referenced and used threshold in the last decade has been the 1-3 GDP per capita, which is often attributed to the Commission on Macroeconomics and WHO guidelines on Choosing Interventions that are Cost Effective (WHO-CHOICE). For many reasons, however, this threshold has been widely criticised; which has led experts across the world, including the WHO, to discourage its use. This has left a vacuum for policy-makers and technical staff at a time when countries are wanting to move towards Universal Health Coverage
This article seeks to address this gap by offering five practical options for decision-makers in low- and middle-income countries that can be used instead of the 1-3 GDP rule, to combine existing evidence with fair decision-rules or develop locally relevant CETs. It builds on existing literature as well as an engagement with a group of experts and decision-makers working in low, middle and high income countries.
Cost-effectiveness (CE) thresholds are being discussed more frequently and there have been many new developments in this area; however, there is a lack of understanding about what thresholds mean and ...their implications. This paper provides an overview of the CE threshold literature. First, the meaning of a CE threshold and the key assumptions involved (perfect divisibility, marginal increments in budget, etc.) are highlighted using a hypothetical example, and the use of historic/heuristic estimates of the threshold is noted along with their limitations. Recent endeavours to estimate the empirical value of the thresholds, both from the supply side and the demand side, are then presented. The impact on CE thresholds of future directions for the field, such as thresholds across sectors and the incorporation of multiple criteria beyond quality-adjusted life-years as a measure of ‘value’, are highlighted. Finally, a number of common issues and misconceptions associated with CE thresholds are addressed.
Abstract
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.
Background
Health technology assessment has been increasingly used in China, having been legally mandated in 2019, to inform reimbursement decisions and price negotiations between the National ...Healthcare Security Administration and pharmaceutical companies around the price of new pharmaceuticals. The criteria currently used to judge cost effectiveness and inform pricing negotiations, 3 × GDP per capita, is based on the rule of thumb previously recommended by the World Health Organization rather than an estimate based on an empirical assessment of health opportunity costs.
Objective
The objective of this study was to inform a cost-effectiveness threshold for health technology assessment in China that accounts for health opportunity cost.
Methods
The elasticity of health outcomes with respect to health expenditure was estimated using variations across 30 provincial-level administrative divisions in 2017 controlling for a range of other factors and using an instrumental variable approach to account for endogeneity to assess robustness of results. The estimated elasticity was then used to calculate the cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted by variations in Chinese health expenditure at the margin.
Results
The range estimated from this study, 27,923–52,247 (2017 RMB) (central estimate 37,446) per DALY averted or 47–88% of GDP per capita (central estimate 63%), shows that a cost per DALY averted cost-effectiveness threshold that reflects health opportunity costs is below 1 × GDP per capita.
Conclusion
Our results suggest that the current cost-effectiveness threshold used in China is too high; continuing to use it risks decisions that reduce overall population health.
PDF
