Disability and the achievement of Universal Health Coverage in the Maldives.

OBJECTIVE: To assess access to general and disability-related health care among people with disabilities in the Maldives. METHODS: This study uses data from a case-control study (n = 711) nested within a population-based, nationally representative survey to compare health status and access to general healthcare amongst people with and without disabilities. Cases and controls were matched by gender, location and age. Unmet need for disability-related healthcare is also assessed. Multivariate regression was used for comparisons between people with and without disabilities. RESULTS: People with disabilities had poorer levels of health compared to people without disabilities, including poorer self-rated health, increased likelihood of having a chronic condition and of having had a serious health event in the previous 12 months. Although most people with and without disabilities sought care when needed, people with disabilities were much more likely to report difficulties when routinely accessing healthcare services compared to people without disabilities. Additionally, 24% of people with disabilities reported an unmet need for disability-related healthcare, which was highest amongst people with hearing, communication and cognitive difficulties, as well as amongst older adults and people living in the lowest income per capita quartile. Median healthcare spending in the past month was modest for people with and without disabilities. However, people with disabilities appear to have high episodic healthcare costs, such as for disability-related healthcare and when experiencing a serious health event. CONCLUSIONS: This study found evidence that people with disabilities experience unmet needs for both disability-related and general healthcare. There is therefore evidence that people with disabilities in the Maldives are falling behind in core components relevant to UHC: availability of all services needed, and quality and affordability of healthcare.

Emotional distress in COVID-19 patients in Maldives.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Researchers are exploring the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, treatment, vaccination and the challenges faced by healthcare authorities. However less focus is being paid towards the impact of COVID-19 on mental health of the patients. This study is a cross-sectional study, measuring the prevalence of emotional distress among patients with COVID-19 in the Maldivian population. METHODS: This study was conducted in Maldivian nations above 18 of age with COVID-19 who were admitted in isolation facilities. Patients who were on treatment for any other chronic medical conditions, severe and critical COVID-19 disease were excluded. This study was conducted over a period of 2 months by administering a local translated version of DASS21 questionnaire. RESULTS: The total of 195 patients were included in this study. The mean age of the patients was 40 (CI at 95% 38-42) years. The respondents were 48.7% men and 51.3% women. Overall, 9% of patients with COVID-19 had depression while 23% of patients had anxiety and 12% of the patients had stress. There was a statistically significant relationship between gender and depression, anxiety and stress (p < 0.01). Symptomatic cases had a significantly higher level of stress than asymptomatic patients (p < 0.05), but no significant association was observed with symptomatic status and anxiety or depression. CONCLUSION: The management of patients with COVID-19 should be multi-disciplinary with special focus on the mental wellbeing of our patients. We should aim to establish proper communication with the patients in order to identify emotional distress and provide appropriate mental health care.

Navigating the health system in responding to health workforce challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic: the case of Maldives (short case).

Being a small island and low-middle income country (LMIC) heavily dependent on global markets for sustaining its basic needs and health system, Maldives faced specific challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was reinforced through tensions between the heavily centralized healthcare delivery and a partially decentralized public health system. Using the pillars of pandemic response proposed by the World Health Organisation, this article explores the planning assumptions, resource estimations and strategies adopted to equip the health system with resources for the pandemic response. The resource need estimates based on projections for COVID-19 identified a shortfall of medical professionals to care for patients while maintaining 55% of the workforce for regular healthcare across the atolls. The findings show that while the policy of lockdown bought time to increase hospital beds and devices, the country was unable to increase the healthcare workforce. Furthermore, as the lockdown eased, the exponential increase of cases took Maldives to the global one per capita incidence. Despite this, with cautious planning and use of resources, the country has so far managed to maintain low mortality from COVID-19. The lessons from this experience are paramount in future pandemic response planning, not only for Maldives, but other small island LMICs.

What are we paying for? A cost-effectiveness analysis of patented denosumab and generic alendronate for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: Zoledronic acid and denosumab were funded by the Australian government for the management of osteoporosis at an equivalent price to alendronate. The price of alendronate has declined by around 65 %, but the price of the other two therapies has remained stable. Using data published since the listing, this paper reports current estimates of the value of denosumab compared to alendronate from an Australian health system perspective. METHODS: A cohort-based state transition model was developed that predicted changes in bone mineral density (BMD), and calibrated fracture probabilities as a function of BMD, age and previous fracture to estimate differences in costs and QALYs gained over a 10-year time horizon. RESULTS: The base-case incremental cost per QALY gained for denosumab versus alendronate was $246,749. There is a near zero probability that denosumab is cost-effective at a threshold value of $100,000 per QALY gained. If the price of denosumab was reduced by 50 %, the incremental cost per QALY gained falls to $50,068. DISCUSSION: Current Australian legislation precludes price reviews when comparator therapies come off patent. The presented analysis illustrates a review process, incorporating clinical data collected since the original submission to inform a price at which denosumab would provide value for money.