Designing an evidence-informed package of essential health services for Universal Health Coverage: lessons learnt and challenges to implementation in Liberia.

Liberia developed an evidence-informed package of health services for Universal Health Coverage (UHC) based on the Disease Control Priorities 3 evidence. This paper describes the policy decisions, methods and processes adopted for prioritisation, key features of the package and lessons learnt, with special emphasis on feasibility of implementation. Package design was led by the Ministry of Health. Prioritisation of essential services was based on evidence on disease burden, cost-effectiveness, financial risk, equity, budget impact, and feasibility of implementation. Fiscal space analysis was used to assess package affordability and options for expanding the budget envelope. The final adopted package focuses on primary healthcare and comprises a core subpackage of 78 publicly financed interventions and a complementary subpackage of 50 interventions funded through cost-sharing. The estimated per capita cost to the government is US$12.28, averting around 1.2 million DALYs. Key lessons learnt are described: (1) priority setting is essential for designing affordable packages of essential services; (2) the most realistic and affordable option when domestic resources are critically limited is to focus on basic, high-impact primary health services; (3) Liberia and many other countries will continue to rely on donor funding to expand the range of essential services until more domestic resources become available; (4) national leadership and effective engagement of key stakeholders are critical for a successful package design; (5) effective implementation is less likely unless the package cost is affordable and the health system gaps are assessed and addressed. A framework of action was employed to assess the consistency with the prerequisites for an appropriate package design. Based on the framework, Liberia developed a transparent and affordable package for UHC, but the challenges to implementation require further action by the government.

Costs-effectiveness and cost components of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions affecting antibiotic resistance outcomes in hospital patients: a systematic literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Limited information on costs and the cost-effectiveness of hospital interventions to reduce antibiotic resistance (ABR) hinder efficient resource allocation. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review for studies evaluating the costs and cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions aimed at reducing, monitoring and controlling ABR in patients. Articles published until 12 December 2023 were explored using EconLit, EMBASE and PubMed. We focused on critical or high-priority bacteria, as defined by the WHO, and intervention costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis guidelines, we extracted unit costs, ICERs and essential study information including country, intervention, bacteria-drug combination, discount rates, type of model and outcomes. Costs were reported in 2022 US dollars ($), adopting the healthcare system perspective. Country willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds from Woods et al 2016 guided cost-effectiveness assessments. We assessed the studies reporting checklist using Drummond's method. RESULTS: Among 20 958 articles, 59 (32 pharmaceutical and 27 non-pharmaceutical interventions) met the inclusion criteria. Non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as hygiene measures, had unit costs as low as $1 per patient, contrasting with generally higher pharmaceutical intervention costs. Several studies found that linezolid-based treatments for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus were cost-effective compared with vancomycin (ICER up to $21 488 per treatment success, all 16 studies' ICERs

Lessons from the development process of the Afghanistan integrated package of essential health services.

In 2017, in the middle of the armed conflict with the Taliban, the Ministry of Public Health decided that the Afghan health system needed a well-defined priority package of health services taking into account the increasing burden of non-communicable diseases and injuries and benefiting from the latest evidence published by DCP3. This leads to a 2-year process involving data analysis, modelling and national consultations, which produce this Integrated Package of Essential health Services (IPEHS). The IPEHS was finalised just before the takeover by the Taliban and could not be implemented. The Afghanistan experience has highlighted the need to address not only the content of a more comprehensive benefit package, but also its implementation and financing. The IPEHS could be used as a basis to help professionals and the new authorities to define their priorities.

National tuberculosis spending efficiency and its associated factors in 121 low-income and middle-income countries, 2010-19: a data envelopment and stochastic frontier analysis.

BACKGROUND: Maximising the efficiency of national tuberculosis programmes is key to improving service coverage, outcomes, and progress towards End TB targets. We aimed to determine the overall efficiency of tuberculosis spending and investigate associated factors in 121 low-income and middle-income countries between 2010 and 2019. METHODS: In this data envelopment and stochastic frontier analysis, we used data from the WHO Global TB report series on tuberculosis spending as the input and treatment coverage as the output to estimate tuberculosis spending efficiency. We investigated associations between 25 independent variables and overall efficiency. FINDINGS: We estimated global tuberculosis spending efficiency to be between 73·8% (95% CI 71·2-76·3) and 87·7% (84·9-90·6) in 2019, depending on the analytical method used. This estimate suggests that existing global tuberculosis treatment coverage could be increased by between 12·3% (95% CI 9·4-15·1) and 26·2% (23·7-28·8) for the same amount of spending. Efficiency has improved over the study period, mainly since 2015, but a substantial difference of 70·7-72·1 percentage points between the most and least efficient countries still exists. We found a consistent significant association between efficiency and current health expenditure as a share of gross domestic product, out-of-pocket spending on health, and some Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicators such as universal health coverage. INTERPRETATION: To improve efficiency, treatment coverage will need to be increased, particularly in the least efficient contexts where this might require additional spending. However, progress towards global End TB targets is slow even in the most efficient countries. Variables associated with TB spending efficiency suggest efficiency is complimented by commitments to improving health-care access that is free at the point of use and wider progress towards the SDGs. These findings support calls for additional investment in tuberculosis care. FUNDING: None.

Technical efficiency of national HIV/AIDS spending in 78 countries between 2010 and 2018: A data envelopment analysis.

HIV/AIDS remains a leading global cause of disease burden, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In 2020, more than 80% of all people living with HIV (PLHIV) lived in LMICs. While progress has been made in extending coverage of HIV/AIDS services, only 66% of all PLHIV were virally suppressed at the end of 2020. In addition to more resources, the efficiency of spending is key to accelerating progress towards global 2030 targets for HIV/AIDs, including viral load suppression. This study aims to estimate the efficiency of HIV/AIDS spending across 78 countries. We employed a data envelopment analysis (DEA) and a truncated regression to estimate the technical efficiency of 78 countries, mostly low- and middle-income, in delivering HIV/AIDS services from 2010 to 2018. Publicly available data informed the model. We considered national HIV/AIDS spending as the DEA input, and prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT) and antiretroviral treatment (ART) as outputs. The model was adjusted by independent variables to account for country characteristics and investigate associations with technical efficiency. On average, there has been substantial improvement in technical efficiency over time. Spending was converted into outputs almost twice as efficiently in 2018 (81.8%; 95% CI = 77.64, 85.99) compared with 2010 (47.5%; 95% CI = 43.4, 51.6). Average technical efficiency was 66.9% between 2010 and 2018, in other words 33.1% more outputs could have been produced relative to existing levels for the same amount of spending. There is also some variation between WHO/UNAIDS regions. European and Eastern and Southern Africa regions converted spending into outputs most efficiently between 2010 and 2018. Rule of Law, Gross National Income, Human Development Index, HIV prevalence and out-of-pocket expenditures were all significantly associated with efficiency scores. The technical efficiency of HIV investments has improved over time. However, there remains scope to substantially increase HIV/AIDS spending efficiency and improve progress towards 2030 global targets for HIV/AIDS. Given that many of the most efficient countries did not meet 2020 global HIV targets, our study supports the WHO call for additional investment in HIV/AIDS prevention and control to meet the 2030 HIV/AIDS and eradication of the AIDS epidemic.

Incidence of Catastrophic Health Expenditure and Its Determinants in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is the third leading cause of mortality in the world, and cancer patients are more exposed to financial hardship than other diseases. This paper aimed to review studies of catastrophic healthcare expenditure (CHE) in cancer patients, measure their level of exposure to CHE, and identify factors associated with incidence of CHE. METHODS: This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. Several databases were searched until February 2020, including MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, ScienceDirect and EMBASE. The results of selected studies were extracted and analyzed using a random effects model. In addition, determinants of CHE were identified. RESULTS: Among the 19 studies included, an average of 43.3% (95% CI 36.7-50.1) of cancer patients incurred CHE. CHE varied substantially depending on the Human Development Index (HDI) of the country in which a study was conducted. In countries with the highest HDI, 23.4% of cancer patients incurred CHE compared with 67.9% in countries with the lowest HDI. Key factors associated with incidence of CHE at the household level included household income, gender of the household head, and at the patient level included the type of health insurance, education level of the patient, type of cancer and treatment, quality of life, age and sex. CONCLUSION: The proportion of cancer patients that incur CHE is very high, especially in countries with lower HDI. The results from this review can help inform policy makers to develop fairer and more sustainable health financing mechanisms, addressing the factors associated with CHE in cancer patients.

Assessing the efficiency of countries in making progress towards universal health coverage: a data envelopment analysis of 172 countries.

INTRODUCTION: Maximising efficiency of resources is critical to progressing towards universal health coverage (UHC) and the sustainable development goal (SDG) for health. This study estimates the technical efficiency of national health spending in progressing towards UHC, and the environmental factors associated with efficient UHC service provision. METHODS: A two-stage efficiency analysis using Simar and Wilson's double bootstrap data envelopment analysis investigates how efficiently countries convert health spending into UHC outputs (measured by service coverage and financial risk protection) for 172 countries. We use World Bank and WHO data from 2015. Thereafter, the environmental factors associated with efficient progress towards UHC goals are identified. RESULTS: The mean bias-corrected technical efficiency score across 172 countries is 85.7% (68.9% for low-income and 95.5% for high-income countries). High-achieving middle-income and low-income countries such as El Salvador, Colombia, Rwanda and Malawi demonstrate that peer-relative efficiency can be attained at all incomes. Governance capacity, income and education are significantly associated with efficiency. Sensitivity analysis suggests that results are robust to changes. CONCLUSION: We provide a 2015 baseline for cross-country UHC technical efficiency scores. If countries wish to improve their UHC outputs within existing budgets, they should identify their current efficiency and try to emulate more efficient peers. Policy-makers should focus on strengthening institutions and implementing known best practices to replicate efficient systems. Using resources more efficiently is likely to positively impact UHC coverage goals and health outcomes, and without addressing gaps in efficiency progress towards achieving the SDGs will be impeded.

Measuring financial risk protection in health benefits packages: scoping review protocol to inform allocative efficiency studies.

INTRODUCTION: To progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC), countries will need to define a health benefits package of services free at the point of use. Financial risk protection is a core component of UHC and should therefore be considered a key dimension of health benefits packages. Allocative efficiency modelling tools can support national analytical capacity to inform an evidence-based selection of services, but none are currently able to estimate financial risk protection. A review of existing methods used to measure financial risk protection can facilitate their inclusion in modelling tools so that the latter can become more relevant to national decision making in light of UHC. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol proposes to conduct a scoping review of existing methods used to measure financial risk protection and assess their potential to inform the selection of services in a health benefits package. The proposed review will follow the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and the subsequent recommendations made by Levac et al. Several databases will be systematically searched including: (1) PubMed; (2) Scopus; (3) Web of Science and (4) Google Scholar. Grey literature will also be scanned, and the bibliography of all selected studies will be hand searched. Following the selection of studies according to defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, key characteristics will be collected from the studies using a data extraction tool. Key characteristics will include the type of method used, geographical region of focus and application to specific services or packages. The extracted data will then be charted, collated, reported and summarised using descriptive statistics, a thematic analysis and graphical presentations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The scoping review proposed in this protocol does not require ethical approval. The final results will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and shared with key stakeholders.