Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analysis of the Implementation of Differentiated Service Delivery Models for HIV Treatment in Mozambique: a Modelling Study.

INTRODUCTION: In 2018, the Mozambique Ministry of Health launched guidelines for implementing differentiated service delivery models (DSDMs) to optimize HIV service delivery, improve retention in care, and ultimately reduce HIV-associated mortality. The models were fast-track, 3-month antiretrovirals dispensing, community antiretroviral therapy groups, adherence clubs, family approach and three one-stop shop models: adolescent-friendly health services, maternal and child health, and tuberculosis. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis to compare these models to conventional services. METHODS: We constructed a decision tree model based on the percentage of enrolment in each model and the probability of the outcome (12-month retention in treatment) for each year of the study period-three for the cost-effectiveness analysis (2019-2021) and three for the budget impact analysis (2022-2024). Costs for these analyses were primarily estimated per client-year from the health system perspective. A secondary cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the societal perspective. Budget impact analysis costs included antiretrovirals, laboratory tests and service provision interactions. Cost-effectiveness analysis additionally included start-up, training and clients' opportunity costs. Effectiveness was estimated using an uncontrolled interrupted time series analysis comparing the outcome before and after the implementation of the differentiated models. A one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to identify drivers of uncertainty. RESULTS: After implementation of the DSDMs, there was a mean increase of 14.9 percentage points (95% CI: 12.2, 17.8) in 12-month retention, from 47.6% (95% CI, 44.9-50.2) to 62.5% (95% CI, 60.9-64.1). The mean cost difference comparing DSDMs and conventional care was US$ -6 million (173,391,277 vs. 179,461,668) and -32.5 million (394,705,618 vs. 433,232,289) from the health system and the societal perspective, respectively. Therefore, DSDMs dominated conventional care. Results were most sensitive to conventional care interaction costs in the one-way sensitivity analysis. For a population of 1.5 million, the base-case 3-year financial costs associated with the DSDMs was US$550 million, compared with US$564 million for conventional care. CONCLUSIONS: DSDMs were less expensive and more effective in retaining clients 12 months after antiretroviral therapy initiation and were estimated to save approximately US$14 million for the health system from 2022 to 2024.

Framework for determining the optimal course of action when efficiency and affordability measures differ by perspective in cost-effectiveness analysis-with an illustrative case of HIV treatment in Mozambique.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a standard tool for evaluating health programs and informing decisions about resource allocation and prioritization. Most CEAs evaluating health interventions in low- and middle-income countries adopt a health sector perspective, accounting for resources funded by international donors and country governments, while often excluding out-of-pocket expenditures and time costs borne by program beneficiaries. Even when patients' costs are included, a companion analysis focused on the patient perspective is rarely performed. We view this as a missed opportunity. METHODS: We developed methods for assessing intervention affordability and evaluating whether optimal interventions from the health sector perspective also represent efficient and affordable options for patients. We mapped the five different patterns that a comparison of the perspective results can yield into a practical framework, and we provided guidance for researchers and decision-makers on how to use results from multiple perspectives. To illustrate the methodology, we conducted a CEA of six HIV treatment delivery models in Mozambique. We conducted a Monte Carlo microsimulation with probabilistic sensitivity analysis from both patient and health sector perspectives, generating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the treatment approaches. We also calculated annualized patient costs for the treatment approaches, comparing the costs with an affordability threshold. We then compared the cost-effectiveness and affordability results from the two perspectives using the framework we developed. RESULTS: In this case, the two perspectives did not produce a shared optimal approach for HIV treatment at the willingness-to-pay threshold of 0.3 × Mozambique's annual GDP per capita per DALY averted. However, the clinical 6-month antiretroviral drug distribution strategy, which is optimal from the health sector perspective, is efficient and affordable from the patient perspective. All treatment approaches, except clinical 1-month distributions of antiretroviral drugs which were standard before Covid-19, had an annual cost to patients less than the country's annual average for out-of-pocket health expenditures. CONCLUSION: Including a patient perspective in CEAs and explicitly considering affordability offers decision-makers additional insights either by confirming that the optimal strategy from the health sector perspective is also efficient and affordable from the patient perspective or by identifying incongruencies in value or affordability that could affect patient participation.