A Systematic Review of Methods for Estimating Productivity Losses due to Illness or Caregiving in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

BACKGROUND: Productivity losses are often included in costing studies and economic evaluations to provide a comprehensive understanding of the economic burden of disease. Global guidance on estimating productivity losses is sparse, especially for low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) where informal and unpaid work remains dominant. This study aims to describe current practices for valuing productivity losses in LMICs. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of studies published before April 2022 using three databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection. We included any costing or economic evaluation study conducted in a LMIC that provided methodological details on how the monetary value for productivity losses was estimated. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the quality of the studies. RESULTS: A total of 281 articles were included. While most studies did not specify the overall approach used to measure and value productivity losses (58%), the human capital approach was the most frequently used approach to measure productivity losses when this was clearly stated (39%). The most common methods to estimate a monetary value for productivity losses were market wages (51%), self-reported wages (28%) and macroeconomic measures (15%). CONCLUSION: Reporting standards for productivity losses in LMIC settings have room for improvement. While market wages were the most frequently used method to estimate the monetary value of productivity losses, this relies on context-specific data availability. Until a consensus is reached on if, when and how to include productivity losses in costing and economic evaluation studies, future studies could include a sensitivity analysis to explore the impact of different methods for estimating the monetary value of productivity losses.

Cetuximab as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): a model-based economic evaluation in Indonesia setting.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and leucovorin (FOLFOX) or fluorouracil, irinotecan and leucovorin (FOLFIRI) compared to standard chemotherapy alone as a first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with positive KRAS wild type patients in Indonesia. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis applying Markov model was constructed, with a societal perspective. Clinical evidence was derived from published clinical trials. Direct medical costs were gathered from hospital billings. Meanwhile, direct non-medical costs, indirect costs, and utility data were collected by directly interviewing patients. We applied 3% discount rate for both costs and outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the model's uncertainty. Additionally, using payer perspective, budget impact analysis was estimated to project the financial impact of treatment coverage. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in life years gained (LYG) between cetuximab plus FOLFOX/FOLFIRI and chemotherapy alone. The incremental QALY was only one month, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was approximately IDR 3 billion/QALY for cetuximab plus chemotherapy. Using 1-3 GDP per capita (IDR 215 million or USD 14,350) as the current threshold, the cetuximab plus chemotherapy was not cost-effective. The budget impact analysis resulted that if cetuximab plus chemotherapy remain included in the benefits package under the Indonesian national health insurance (NHI) system, the payer would need more than IDR 1 trillion for five years. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of cetuximab and chemotherapy for mCRC is unlikely cost-effective and has a substantial financial impact on the system.

Predicting the cost of COVID-19 treatment and its drivers in Indonesia: analysis of claims data of COVID-19 in 2020-2021.

BACKGROUND: Recent Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic shows that health system, particularly hospital care, takes the highest toll on COVID-19. As hospital gets to manage the surge of COVID-19 cases, it is important to standardize treatment standard and package for COVID-19. Until recently, in Indonesia, COVID-19 curative package in hospital is paid using a retrospective payment system (claims system) using a per-diem rate. Quantifying standard cost using an established retrospective claims dataset is important as a basis for standard formulation for COVID-19 package treatment, should COVID-19 be accommodated into the benefit package for Universal Health Coverage (UHC) under the National Health Insurance. METHODS: We estimated a standard cost for COVID-19 treatment using provider's perspective. The analysis was conducted retrospectively using established national COVID-19 claims dataset during January 2020 until 2021. Utilizing individual-or-patient level analysis, claims profile were broken down per-patient, yielding descriptive clinical and care-related profile. Estimate of price and charge were measured in average. Moreover, indicators were regressed to the total charged price (in logarithmic scale) so as to find the predictors of cost. RESULTS: Based on the analysis of 102,065 total claims data received by MOH in 2020-2021, there is an average claim payment for COVID-19 in the amount of IDR 74,52 million (USD$ 5175). Significant difference exists in hospital tariffs or price to the existing claims data, indicating profit for hospital within its role in managing COVID-19 cases. Claim amount predictors were found to be associated with change of claim amount, including high level of severity, hospital class, intensive care room occupancy and ventilator usage, as well as mortality. CONCLUSION: As COVID-19 pandemic shifts towards an endemic, countries including Indonesia need to reflect on the existing payment system and move towards a more sustainable payment mechanism for COVID-19. The COVID-19 payment system needs to be integrated into the existing national health insurance allowing bundled payment to become more sustainable, which can be achieved by comprehensively formulating the bundled payment package for COVID-19.

Adding rituximab to chemotherapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients in Indonesia: a cost utility and budget impact analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) has been used to treat patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) under National Health Insurance (NHI) scheme in Indonesia. This study aims to estimate its cost-effectiveness and budget impact. METHODS: We conducted a cost utility analysis using Markov model over a lifetime horizon, from a societal perspective. Clinical evidence was derived from published clinical trials. Direct medical costs were gathered from hospital data. Direct non-medical costs, indirect costs, and utility data were primarily gathered by interviewing the patients. We applied 3% discount rate for both costs and effect. All monetary data are converted into USD (1 USD = IDR 14,000, 2019). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. In addition, from a payer perspective, budget impact analysis was estimated using price reduction scenarios. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of R-CHOP was USD 4674/LYG and 9280/QALY. If we refer to the threshold three times the GDP per capita (USD 11,538), R-CHOP could thus be determined as a cost-effective therapy. Its significant health benefit has contributed to the considerable ICER result. Although the R-CHOP has been considered a cost-effective intervention, the financial consequence of R-CHOP if remain in benefit package under National Health Insurance (NHI) system in Indonesia is considerably substantial, approximately USD 35.00 million with 75% price reduction scenario. CONCLUSIONS: As a favorable treatment for DLBCL, R-CHOP ensures value for money in Indonesia. Budget impact analysis provides results which can be used as further consideration for decision-makers in matters related to benefit packages.

Cost and affordability of scaling up tuberculosis diagnosis using Xpert MTB/RIF testing in West Java, Indonesia.

In Indonesia, a significant number of tuberculosis (TB) cases may be missed, due to the low sensitivity and specificity of the currently used diagnostic algorithm. In this regard, the rapid molecular test using Xpert MTB/RIF, which has recently been introduced in Indonesia, can improve case detection. Thus, this study determined the cost and affordability of incorporating Xpert MTB/RIF testing for TB diagnosis. For this purpose, we estimated the costs (from the health system and societal perspectives) of reaching the TB detection target in Depok municipality, and applied the findings to the West Java province of Indonesia. The resources available for the health and TB program were also analyzed to support the decision to scale up the TB diagnosis using Xpert MTB/RIF testing. According to the results, the unit cost for TB diagnosis per person was USD 27.22 and USD 70.16 from the health system and societal perspectives, respectively. To reach the target of 109,843 TB cases for the 2020-2024 time period, Depok municipality would need USD 2,989,927 and USD 2,549,455 from the health system viewpoint, assuming the machine's lifespan of five and 10 years, respectively. Extrapolating these results to the West Java province, USD 56,353,833 would be necessary to test 2,076,413 cases from 2019 to 2024. However, in order to accelerate the case detection target up to 2024, West Java requires additional funds. The implication of the findings is that the central government must consider local capacity to accelerate TB case detection and ensure that the installation of Xpert MTB/RIF machines is included in the overall costs.

Utilization patterns of healthcare facility and estimated expenditure of PLHIV care under the Indonesian National Health Insurance Scheme in 2018.

BACKGROUND: This study analyzed current patterns of service use, referral, and expenditure regarding HIV care under the National Health Insurance Scheme (JKN) to identify opportunities to improve HIV treatment coverage. As of September 2020, an estimated 543,100 people in Indonesia were living with HIV, but only 352,670 (65%) were aware of their status, and only 139,585 (26%) were on treatment. Furthermore, only 27,917 (4.5%) viral load (VL) tests were performed. Indonesia seeks to broaden its HIV response. In doing so, it intends to replace declining donor-funding through better coverage of HIV/AIDS services by its JKN. Thus, this study aims to assess the current situation about HIV service coverage and expenditure under a domestic health-insurance funded scheme in Indonesia. METHODS: This study employs a quantitative method by way of a cross-sectional approach. The 2018 JKN claims data, drawn from a 1% sample that JKN annually produces, were analyzed. Nine hundred forty-five HIV patients out of 1,971,744 members were identified in the data sample and their claims record data at primary care and hospital levels were analyzed. Using ICD (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems), 10 codes (i.e., B20, B21, B22, B23, and B24) that fall within the categories of HIV-related disease. For each level, patterns of service utilization by patient-health status, discharge status, severity level, and total cost per claim were analyzed. RESULTS: Most HIV patients (81%) who first seek care at the primary-care level are referred to hospitals. 72.5% of the HIV patients receive antiretroviral treatment (ART) through JKN; 22% at the primary care level; and 78% at hospitals. The referral rate from public primary-care facilities was almost double (45%) that of private providers (24%). The most common referral destination was higher-level hospitals: Class B 48%, and Class C 25%, followed by the lowest Class A at 3%. Because JKN pays hospitals for each inpatient admission, it was possible to estimate the cost of hospital care. Extrapolating the sample of hospital cases to the national level using the available weight score, it was estimated that JKN paid IDR 444 billion a year for HIV hospital services and a portion of capitation payment. CONCLUSION: There was an underrepresentation of PLHIV (People Living with HIV) who had been covered by JKN as 25% of the total PLHIV on ART were able to attain access through other schemes. This study finding is principally aligned with other local research findings regarding a portion of PLHIV access and the preferred delivery channel. Moreover, the issue behind the underutilization of National Health Insurance services in Indonesia among PLHIV is similar to what was experienced in Vietnam in 2015. The 2015 Vietnam study showed that negative perception, the experience of using social health insurance as well as inaccurate information, may lead to the underutilization problem (Vietnam-Administration-HIV/AIDSControl, Social health insurance and people living with HIV in Vietnam: an assessment of enrollment in and use of social health insurance for the care and treatment of people living with HIV, 2015). Furthermore, the current research finding shows that 99% of the total estimated HIV expenditure occurred at the hospital. This indicates a potential inefficiency in the service delivery scheme that needs to be decentralized to a primary-care facility.

Budgetary impact of using BPaL for treating extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis.

INTRODUCTION: Bedaquiline, pretomanid and linezolid (BPaL) is a new all oral, 6-month regimen comprised of bedaquiline, the new drug pretomanid and linezolid, endorsed by the WHO for use under operational research conditions in patients with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB). We quantified per-patient treatment costs and the 5-year budgetary impact of introducing BPaL in Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan and Nigeria. METHODS: Per-patient treatment cost of BPaL regimen was compared head-to-head with the conventional XDR-TB treatment regimen for respective countries based on cost estimates primarily assessed using microcosting method and expected frequency of each TB service. The 5-year budget impact of gradual introduction of BPaL against the status quo was assessed using a Markov model that represented patient's treatment management and outcome pathways. RESULTS: The cost per patient completing treatment with BPaL was US$7142 in Indonesia, US$4782 in Kyrgyzstan and US$7152 in Nigeria - 57%, 78% and 68% lower than the conventional regimens in the respective countries. A gradual adoption of the BPaL regimen over 5 years would result in an 5-year average national TB service budget reduction of 17% (US$128 780) in XDR-TB treatment-related expenditure in Indonesia, 15% (US$700 247) in Kyrgyzstan and 32% (US$1 543 047) in Nigeria. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that the BPaL regimen can be highly cost-saving compared with the conventional regimens to treat patients with XDR-TB in high drug-resistant TB burden settings. This supports the rapid adoption of the BPaL regimen to address the significant programmatic and clinical challenges in managing patients with XDR-TB in high DR-TB burden countries.

How can we evaluate the potential of innovative vaccine products and technologies in resource constrained settings? A total systems effectiveness (TSE) approach to decision-making.

Innovations in vaccine product attributes could play an important role in addressing coverage and equity (C&E) gaps, but there is currently a poor understanding of the full system impact and trade-offs associated with investing in such technologies, both from the perspective of national immunisation programmes (NIPs) and vaccine developers. Total Systems Effectiveness (TSE) was developed as an approach to evaluate vaccines with different product attributes from a systems perspective, in order to analyse and compare the value of innovative vaccine products in different settings. The TSE approach has been advanced over the years by various stakeholders including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), Gavi, PATH, UNICEF and WHO. WHO further developed the TSE approach to incorporate the country perspective into immunisation decision-making, in order for countries to evaluate innovative products for introduction and product switch decisions, and for vaccine development stakeholders to conduct their assessments of product value in line with country preferences. This paper describes the original TSE approach, development of the tool and processes for NIPs to apply the WHO TSE approach, and results from piloting in 12 countries across Africa, Asia and the Americas. The WHO TSE framework emerged from this piloting effort. The WHO TSE approach has been welcomed by NIP and vaccine development stakeholders as a useful tool to evaluate trade-offs between different products. It was emphasised that the concept of "total systems effectiveness" is likely to be context-specific and that TSE is valuable in facilitating a deliberative process to articulate NIP priorities, for decisions around product choice, and for prioritising the development of future vaccine innovations.

Economic burden of dengue in Indonesia.

BACKGROUND: Dengue is associated with significant economic expenditure and it is estimated that the Asia Pacific region accounts for >50% of the global cost. Indonesia has one of the world's highest dengue burdens; Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus are the primary and secondary vectors. In the absence of local data on disease cost, this study estimated the annual economic burden during 2015 of both hospitalized and ambulatory dengue cases in Indonesia. METHODS: Total 2015 dengue costs were calculated using both prospective and retrospective methods using data from public and private hospitals and health centres in three provinces: Yogyakarta, Bali and Jakarta. Direct costs were extracted from billing systems and claims; a patient survey captured indirect and out-of-pocket costs at discharge and 2 weeks later. Adjustments across sites based on similar clinical practices and healthcare landscapes were performed to fill gaps in cost estimates. The national burden of dengue was extrapolated from provincial data using data from the three sites and applying an empirically-derived epidemiological expansion factor. RESULTS: Total direct and indirect costs per dengue case assessed at Yogyakarta, Bali and Jakarta were US$791, US$1,241 and US$1,250, respectively. Total 2015 economic burden of dengue in Indonesia was estimated at US$381.15 million which comprised US$355.2 million for hospitalized and US$26.2 million for ambulatory care cases. CONCLUSION: Dengue imposes a substantial economic burden for Indonesian public payers and society. Complemented with an appropriate weighting method and by accounting for local specificities and practices, these data may support national level public health decision making for prevention/control of dengue in public health priority lists.