Preferences for Postacute Care at Home vs Facilities.

Importance: Two in 5 US hospital stays result in rehabilitative postacute care, typically through skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) or home health agencies (HHAs). However, a lack of clear guidelines and understanding of patient and caregiver preferences make it challenging to promote high-value patient-centered care. Objective: To assess preferences and willingness to pay for facility-based vs home-based postacute care among patients and caregivers, considering demographic variations. Design, Setting, and Participants: In September 2022, a nationally representative survey was conducted with participants 45 years or older. Using a discrete choice experiment, participants acting as patients or caregivers chose between facility-based and home-based postacute care that best met their preferences, needs, and family conditions. Survey weights were applied to generate nationally representative estimates. Main Outcomes and Measures: Preferences and willingness to pay for various attributes of postacute care settings were assessed, examining variation based on demographic factors, socioeconomic status, job security, and previous care experiences. Results: A total of 2077 adults were invited to participate in the survey; 1555 (74.9%) completed the survey. In the weighted sample, 52.9% of participants were women, 6.5% were Asian or Pacific Islander, 1.7% were American Indian or Alaska Native, 11.2% were Black or African American, 78.4% were White; the mean (SD) age was 62.6 (9.6) years; and there was a survey completion rate of 74.9%. Patients and caregivers showed a substantial willingness to pay for home-based and high-quality care. Patients and caregivers were willing to pay an additional $58.08 per day (95% CI, 45.32-70.83) and $45.54 per day (95% CI, 31.09-59.99) for HHA care compared with a shared SNF room, respectively. However, increased demands on caregiver time within an HHA scenario and socioeconomic challenges, such as insecure employment, shifted caregivers' preferences toward facility-based care. There was a strong aversion to below average quality. To avoid below average SNF care, patients and caregivers were willing to pay $75.21 per day (95% CI, 61.68-88.75) and $79.10 per day (95% CI, 63.29-94.91) compared with average-quality care, respectively. Additionally, prior awareness and experience with postacute care was associated with willingness to pay for home-based care. No differences in preferences among patients and caregivers based on race, educational background, urban or rural residence, general health status, or housing type were observed. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this survey study underscore a prevailing preference for home-based postacute care, aligning with current policy trends. However, attention is warranted for disadvantaged groups who are potentially overlooked during the shift toward home-based care, particularly those facing caregiver constraints and socioeconomic hardships. Ensuring equitable support and improved quality measure tools are crucial for promoting patient-centric postacute care, with emphasis on addressing the needs of marginalized groups.

Health impact and cost-effectiveness of expanding routine immunization coverage in India through Intensified Mission Indradhanush.

Many children do not receive a full schedule of childhood vaccines, yet there is limited evidence on the cost-effectiveness of strategies for improving vaccination coverage. Evidence is even scarcer on the cost-effectiveness of strategies for reaching 'zero-dose children', who have not received any routine vaccines. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of periodic intensification of routine immunization (PIRI), a widely applied strategy for increasing vaccination coverage. We focused on Intensified Mission Indradhanush (IMI), a large-scale PIRI intervention implemented in India in 2017-2018. In 40 sampled districts, we measured the incremental economic cost of IMI using primary data, and used controlled interrupted time-series regression to estimate the incremental vaccination doses delivered. We estimated deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted using the Lives Saved Tool and reported cost-effectiveness from immunization programme and societal perspectives. We found that, in sampled districts, IMI had an estimated incremental cost of 2021US$13.7 (95% uncertainty interval: 10.6 to 17.4) million from an immunization programme perspective and increased vaccine delivery by an estimated 2.2 (-0.5 to 4.8) million doses over a 12-month period, averting an estimated 1413 (-350 to 3129) deaths. The incremental cost from a programme perspective was $6.21 per dose ($2.80 to dominated), $82.99 per zero-dose child reached ($39.85 to dominated), $327.63 ($147.65 to dominated) per DALY averted, $360.72 ($162.56 to dominated) per life-year saved and $9701.35 ($4372.01 to dominated) per under-5 death averted. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of 1× per-capita GDP per DALY averted, IMI was estimated to be cost-effective with 90% probability. This evidence suggests IMI was both impactful and cost-effective for improving vaccination coverage, though there is a high degree of uncertainty in the results. As vaccination programmes expand coverage, unit costs may increase due to the higher costs of reaching currently unvaccinated children.

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.

Unit cost repositories for health program planning and evaluation: a report on research in practice with lessons learned.

BACKGROUND: Most low- and middle-income countries have limited access to cost data that meets the needs of health policy-makers and researchers in health intervention areas including HIV, tuberculosis, and immunization. Unit cost repositories (UCRs)-searchable databases that systematically codify evidence from costing studies-have been developed to reduce the effort required to access and use existing costing information. These repositories serve as public resources and standard references, which can improve the consistency and quality of resource needs projections used for strategic planning and resource mobilization. UCRs also enable analysis of cost determinants and more informed imputation of missing cost data. This report examines our experiences developing and using seven UCRs (two global, five country-level) for cost projection and research purposes. DISCUSSION: We identify advances, challenges, enablers, and lessons learned that might inform future work related to UCRs. Our lessons learned include: (1) UCRs do not replace the need for costing expertise; (2) tradeoffs are required between the degree of data complexity and the useability of the UCR; (3) streamlining data extraction makes populating the UCR with new data easier; (4) immediate reporting and planning needs often drive stakeholder interest in cost data; (5) developing and maintaining UCRs requires dedicated staff time; (6) matching decision-maker needs with appropriate cost data can be challenging; (7) UCRs must have data quality control systems; (8) data in UCRs can become obsolete; and (9) there is often a time lag between the identification of a cost and its inclusion in UCRs. CONCLUSIONS: UCRs have the potential to be a valuable public good if kept up-to-date with active quality control and adequate support available to end-users. Global UCR collaboration networks and greater control by local stakeholders over global UCRs may increase active, sustained use of global repositories and yield higher quality results for strategic planning and resource mobilization.

Health Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Testing, Linkage, and Early Antiretroviral Treatment in the Botswana Combination Prevention Project.

BACKGROUND: The Botswana Combination Prevention Project tested the impact of combination prevention (CP) on HIV incidence in a community-randomized trial. Each trial arm had ∼55,000 people, 26% HIV prevalence, and 72% baseline ART coverage. Results showed intensive testing and linkage campaigns, expanded antiretroviral treatment (ART), and voluntary male medical circumcision referrals increased coverage and decreased incidence over ∼29 months of follow-up. We projected lifetime clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of CP in this population. SETTING: Rural and periurban communities in Botswana. METHODS: We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications model to estimate lifetime health impact and cost of (1) earlier ART initiation and (2) averting an HIV infection, which we applied to incremental ART initiations and averted infections calculated from trial data. We determined the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [US$/quality-adjusted life-years (QALY)] for CP vs. standard of care. RESULTS: In CP, 1418 additional people with HIV initiated ART and an additional 304 infections were averted. For each additional person started on ART, life expectancy increased 0.90 QALYs and care costs increased by $869. For each infection averted, life expectancy increased 2.43 QALYs with $9200 in care costs saved. With CP, an additional $1.7 million were spent on prevention and $1.2 million on earlier treatment. These costs were mostly offset by decreased care costs from averted infections, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $79 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced HIV testing, linkage, and early ART initiation improve life expectancy, reduce transmission, and can be cost-effective or cost-saving in settings like Botswana.

Estimating the cost of COVID-19 vaccine deployment and introduction in Ghana using the CVIC tool.

BACKGROUND: This study estimated cost of COVID-19 vaccine introduction and deployment in Ghana. METHODS: Using the WHO-UNICEF COVID-19 Vaccine Introduction and deployment Costing (CVIC) tool Ghana's Ministry of Health Technical Working Group for Health Technology Assessment (TWG-HTA) in collaboration with School of Public Health, University of Ghana, organized an initial two-day workshop that brought together partners to deliberate and agree on input parameters to populate the CVIC tool. A further 2-3 days validation with the Expanded Program of Immunization (EPI) and other partners to finalize the analysis was done. Three scenarios, with different combinations of vaccine products and delivery modalities, as well as time period were analyzed. The scenarios included AstraZeneca (40%), Johnson & Johnson (J&J) (30%), Moderna, Pfizer, and Sputnik V at 10% each; with primary schedule completed by second half of 2021 (Scenario 1); AstraZeneca (30%), J&J (40%), Moderna, Pfizer, and Sputnik V at 10% each with primary schedule completed by first half of 2022 (Scenario 2); and equal distribution (20%) among AstraZeneca, J&J, Moderna, Pfizer, and Sputnik V with primary schedule completed by second half of 2022 (Scenario 3). RESULTS: The estimated total cost of COVID-19 vaccination ranges between $348.7 and $436.1 million for the target population of 17.5 million. These translate into per person completed primary schedule cost of $20.9-$26.2 and per dose (including vaccine cost) of $10.5-$13.1. Again, per person completed primary schedule excluding vaccine cost was $4.5 and $4.6, thus per dose excluding vaccine also ranged from $2.2 - $2.3. The main cost driver was vaccine doses, including shipping, which accounts for between 78% and 83% of total cost. Further, an estimated 8,437-10,247 vaccinators (non-FTEs) would be required during 2021-2022 to vaccinate using a mix of delivery strategies, accounting for 8-10% of total cost. CONCLUSION: These findings provide the estimates to inform resource mobilization efforts by government and other partners.

Cost of vaccine delivery strategies in low- and middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted immunization services critical to the prevention of vaccine-preventable diseases in many low- and middle- income countries around the world. These services will need to be modified in order to minimize COVID-19 transmission and ensure the safety of health workers and the community. Additional budget will be required to implement these modifications that ensure safe delivery. METHODS: Using a simple modeling analysis, we estimated the additional resource requirements associated with modifications to supplementary immunization activities (campaigns) and routine immunization services via fixed sites and outreach in 2020 US dollars. We considered the following four categories of costs: (1) personal protective equipment (PPE) & infection prevention and control (IPC) measures for immunization sessions; (2) physical distancing and screening during immunization sessions; (3) delivery strategy changes, such as changes in session sizes and frequency; and (4) other operational cost increases, including additional social mobilization, training, and hazard pay to compensate health workers. RESULTS: We found that implementing a range of measures to protect health workers and communities from COVID-19 transmission could result in a per-facility start-up cost of $466-799 for routine fixed-site delivery and $12-220 for routine outreach delivery, and $12-108 per immunization campaign site. A recurrent monthly cost of $137-1,024 for fixed-site delivery and $152-848 for outreach delivery per facility could be incurred, and a $0.32-0.85 increase in the cost per dose during campaigns. CONCLUSIONS: By illustrating potential cost implications of providing immunization services through a range of strategies in a safe manner, these estimates can provide a benchmark for program managers and policy makers on the additional budget required. These findings can help country practitioners and global development partners planning the continuation of immunization services in the context of COVID-19.

Impact of campaign-style delivery of routine vaccines: a quasi-experimental evaluation using routine health services data in India.

The world is not on track to achieve the goals for immunization coverage and equity described by the World Health Organization's Global Vaccine Action Plan. Many countries struggle to increase coverage of routine vaccination, and there is little evidence about how to do so effectively. In India in 2016, only 62% of children had received a full course of basic vaccines. In response, in 2017-18 the government implemented Intensified Mission Indradhanush (IMI), a nationwide effort to improve coverage and equity using a campaign-style strategy. Campaign-style approaches to routine vaccine delivery like IMI, sometimes called 'periodic intensification of routine immunization' (PIRI), are widely used, but there is little robust evidence on their effectiveness. We conducted a quasi-experimental evaluation of IMI using routine data on vaccine doses delivered, comparing districts participating and not participating in IMI. Our sample included all districts that could be merged with India's 2016 Demographic and Health Surveys data and had available data for the full study period. We used controlled interrupted time-series analysis to estimate the impact of IMI during the 4-month implementation period and in subsequent months. This method assumes that, if IMI had not occurred, vaccination trends would have changed in the same way in the participating and not participating districts. We found that, during implementation, IMI increased delivery of 13 infant vaccines, with a median effect of 10.6% (95% confidence interval 5.1% to 16.5%). We did not find evidence of a sustained effect during the 8 months after implementation ended. Over the 12 months from the beginning of implementation, we estimated reductions in the number of under-immunized children that were large but not statistically significant, ranging from 3.9% (-6.9% to 13.7%) to 35.7% (-7.5% to 77.4%) for different vaccines. The largest effects were for the first doses of vaccines against diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and polio: IMI reached approximately one-third of children who would otherwise not have received these vaccines. This suggests that PIRI can be successful in increasing routine immunization coverage, particularly for early infant vaccines, but other approaches may be needed for sustained coverage improvements.

Cost-effectiveness of Frequent HIV Screening Among High-risk Young Men Who Have Sex With Men in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Of new HIV infections in the US, 20% occur among young men who have sex with men (YMSM, ages 13-24), but >50% of YMSM with HIV are unaware of their status. Using Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV/AIDS Interventions (ATN) data, we projected the clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of frequent HIV screening among high-risk YMSM from age 15. METHODS: Using a mathematical simulation, we examined 3 screening strategies: Yearly, 6-monthly, and 3-monthly, each in addition to the Status quo (SQ, 0.7-10.3% screened/year, stratified by age). We used published data (YMSM-specific when available) including: HIV incidences (0.91-6.41/100PY); screen acceptance (80%), linkage-to-care/antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation (76%), HIV transmission (0.3-86.1/100PY, by HIV RNA), monthly ART costs ($2290-$3780), and HIV per-screen costs ($38). Projected outcomes included CD4 count at diagnosis, primary HIV transmissions from ages 15-30, quality-adjusted life expectancy, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, $/quality-adjusted life-year saved [QALY]; threshold ≤$100 000/QALY). RESULTS: Compared to SQ, all strategies increased projected CD4 at diagnosis (296 to 477-515 cells/µL) and quality-adjusted life expectancy from age 15 (44.4 to 48.3-48.7 years) among YMSM acquiring HIV. Compared to SQ, all strategies increased discounted lifetime cost for the entire population ($170 800 to $178 100-$185 000/person). Screening 3-monthly was cost-effective (ICER: $4500/QALY) compared to SQ and reduced primary transmissions through age 30 by 40%. Results were most sensitive to transmission rates; excluding the impact of transmissions, screening Yearly was ≤$100 000/QALY (ICER: $70 900/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: For high-risk YMSM in the US, HIV screening 3-monthly compared to less frequent screening will improve clinical outcomes and be cost-effective.

Producing Standardized Country-Level Immunization Delivery Unit Cost Estimates.

BACKGROUND: To plan for the financial sustainability of immunization programs and make informed decisions to improve immunization coverage and equity, decision-makers need to know how much these programs cost beyond the cost of the vaccine. Non-vaccine delivery cost estimates can significantly influence the cost-effectiveness estimates used to allocate resources at the country level. However, many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) do not have immunization delivery unit cost estimates available, or have estimates that are uncertain, unreliable, or old. We undertook a Bayesian evidence synthesis to generate country-level estimates of immunization delivery unit costs for LMICs. METHODS: From a database of empirical immunization costing studies, we extracted estimates of the delivery cost per dose for routine childhood immunization services, excluding vaccine costs. A Bayesian meta-regression model was used to regress delivery cost per dose estimates, stratified by cost category, against a set of predictor variables including country-level [gross domestic product per capita, reported diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis third dose coverage (DTP3), population, and number of doses in the routine vaccination schedule] and study-level (study year, single antigen or programmatic cost per dose, and financial or economic cost) predictors. The fitted prediction model was used to generate standardized estimates of the routine immunization delivery cost per dose for each LMIC for 2009-2018. Alternative regression models were specified in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: We estimated the prediction model using the results from 29 individual studies, covering 24 countries. The predicted economic cost per dose for routine delivery of childhood vaccines (2018 US dollars), not including the price of the vaccine, was $1.87 (95% uncertainty interval $0.64-4.38) across all LMICs. By individual cost category, the programmatic economic cost per dose for routine delivery of childhood vaccines was $0.74 ($0.26-1.70) for labor, $0.26 ($0.08-0.67) for supply chain, $0.22 ($0.06-0.57) for capital, and $0.65 ($0.20-1.66) for other service delivery costs. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate immunization delivery costs are necessary for assessing the cost-effectiveness and strategic planning needs of immunization programs. The cost estimates from this analysis provide a broad indication of immunization delivery costs that may be useful when accurate local data are unavailable.

Developing and Validating Metamodels of a Microsimulation Model of Infant HIV Testing and Screening Strategies Used in a Decision Support Tool for Health Policy Makers.

Background. Metamodels can simplify complex health policy models and yield instantaneous results to inform policy decisions. We investigated the predictive validity of linear regression metamodels used to support a real-time decision-making tool that compares infant HIV testing/screening strategies. Methods. We developed linear regression metamodels of the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications Pediatric (CEPAC-P) microsimulation model used to predict life expectancy and lifetime HIV-related costs/person of two infant HIV testing/screening programs in South Africa. Metamodel performance was assessed with cross-validation and Bland-Altman plots, showing between-method differences in predicted outcomes against their means. Predictive validity was determined by the percentage of simulations in which the metamodels accurately predicted the strategy with the greatest net health benefit (NHB) as projected by the CEPAC-P model. We introduced a zone of indifference and investigated the width needed to produce between-method agreement in 95% of the simulations. We also calculated NHB losses from "wrong" decisions by the metamodel. Results. In cross-validation, linear regression metamodels accurately approximated CEPAC-P-projected outcomes. For life expectancy, Bland-Altman plots showed good agreement between CEPAC-P and the metamodel (within 1.1 life-months difference). For costs, 95% of between-method differences were within $65/person. The metamodels predicted the same optimal strategy as the CEPAC-P model in 87.7% of simulations, increasing to 95% with a zone of indifference of 0.24 life-months ( ∼ 7 days). The losses in health benefits due to "wrong" choices by the metamodel were modest (range: 0.0002-1.1 life-months). Conclusions. For this policy question, linear regression metamodels offered sufficient predictive validity for the optimal testing strategy as compared with the CEPAC-P model. Metamodels can simulate different scenarios in real time, based on sets of input parameters that can be depicted in a widely accessible decision-support tool.

A novel method to estimate the indirect community benefit of HIV interventions using a microsimulation model of HIV disease.

BACKGROUND: Microsimulation models of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease that simulate individual patients one at a time and assess clinical and economic outcomes of HIV interventions often provide key details regarding direct individual clinical benefits ("individual benefit"), but they may lack detail on transmissions, and thus may underestimate an intervention's indirect benefits ("community benefit"). Dynamic transmission models can be used to simulate HIV transmissions, but they may do so at the expense of the clinical detail of microsimulations. We sought to develop, validate, and demonstrate a practical, novel method that can be integrated into existing HIV microsimulation models to capture this community benefit, integrating the effects of reduced transmission while keeping the clinical detail of microsimulations. METHODS: We developed a new method to capture the community benefit of HIV interventions by estimating HIV transmissions from the primary cohort of interest. The method captures the benefit of averting infections within the cohort of interest by estimating a corresponding gradual decline in incidence within the cohort. For infections averted outside the cohort of interest, our method estimates transmissions averted based on reductions in HIV viral load within the cohort, and the benefit (life-years gained and cost savings) of averting those infections based on the time they were averted. To assess the validity of our method, we paired it with the Cost-effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEPAC) Model - a validated and widely-published microsimulation model of HIV disease. We then compared the consistency of model-estimated outcomes against outcomes of a widely-validated dynamic compartmental transmission model of HIV disease, the HIV Optimization and Prevention Economics (HOPE) model, using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with a two-way mixed effects model. Replicating an analysis done with HOPE, validation endpoints were number of HIV transmissions averted by offering pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to men who have sex with men (MSM) and people who inject drugs (PWID) in the US at various uptake and efficacy levels. Finally, we demonstrated an application of our method in a different setting by evaluating the clinical and economic outcomes of a PrEP program for MSM in India, a country currently considering PrEP rollout for this high-risk group. RESULTS: The new method paired with CEPAC demonstrated excellent consistency with the HOPE model (ICC = 0.98 for MSM and 0.99 for PWID). With only the individual benefit of the intervention incorporated, a PrEP program for MSM in India averted 43,000 transmissions over a 5-year period and resulted in a lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$2,300/year-of-life saved (YLS) compared to the status quo. After applying both the direct (individual) and indirect (community) benefits, PrEP averted 86,000 transmissions over the same period and resulted in an ICER of US$600/YLS. CONCLUSIONS: Our method enables HIV microsimulation models that evaluate clinical and economic outcomes of HIV interventions to estimate the community benefit of these interventions (in terms of survival gains and cost savings) efficiently and without sacrificing clinical detail. This method addresses an important methodological gap in health economics microsimulation modeling and allows decision scientists to make more accurate policy recommendations.

The efficiency of routine infant immunization services in six countries: a comparison of methods.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have systematically examined the efficiency of routine infant immunization services. Using a representative sample of infant immunization sites in Benin, Ghana, Honduras, Moldova, Uganda and Zambia (316 total), we estimated average efficiency levels and variation in efficiency within each country, and investigated the properties of published efficiency estimation techniques. METHODS: Using a dataset describing 316 immunization sites we estimated site-level efficiency using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA), and a published ensemble method combining these two approaches. For these three methods we operationalized efficiency using the Sheppard input efficiency measure, which is bounded in (0, 1), with higher values indicating greater efficiency. We also compared these methods to a simple regression approach, which used residuals from a conventional production function as a simplified efficiency index. Inputs were site-level service delivery costs (excluding vaccines) and outputs were total clients receiving DTP3. We analyzed each country separately, and conducted sensitivity analysis for different input/output combinations. RESULTS: Using DEA, average input efficiency ranged from 0.40 in Ghana and Moldova to 0.58 in Benin. Using SFA, average input efficiency ranged from 0.43 in Ghana to 0.69 in Moldova. Within each country scores varied widely, with standard deviation of 0.18-0.23 for DEA and 0.10-0.20 for SFA. Input efficiency estimates generated using SFA were systematically higher than for DEA, and the rank correlation between scores ranged between 0.56-0.79. Average input efficiency from the ensemble estimator ranged between 0.41-0.61 across countries, and was highly correlated with the simplified efficiency index (rank correlation 0.81-0.92) as well as the DEA and SFA estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Results imply costs could be 30-60% lower for fully efficient sites. Such efficiency gains are unlikely to be achievable in practice - some of the apparent inefficiency may reflect measurement errors, or unmodifiable differences in the operating environment. However, adapted to work with routine reporting data and simplified methods, efficiency analysis could triage low performing sites for greater management attention, or identify more efficient sites as models for other facilities.

Systematic review of the costs and effectiveness of interventions to increase infant vaccination coverage in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, several large studies have assessed the costs of national infant immunization programs, and the results of these studies are used to support planning and budgeting in low- and middle-income countries. However, few studies have addressed the costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve immunization coverage, despite this being a major focus of policy attention. Without this information, countries and international stakeholders have little objective evidence on the efficiency of competing interventions for improving coverage. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review on the costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve immunization coverage in low- and middle-income countries, including both published and unpublished reports. We evaluated the quality of included studies and extracted data on costs and incremental coverage. Where possible, we calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to describe the efficiency of each intervention in increasing coverage. RESULTS: A total of 14 out of 41 full text articles reviewed met criteria for inclusion in the final review. Interventions for increasing immunization coverage included demand generation, modified delivery approaches, cash transfer programs, health systems strengthening, and novel technology usage. We observed substantial heterogeneity in costing methods and incompleteness of cost and coverage reporting. Most studies reported increases in coverage following the interventions, with coverage increasing by an average of 23 percentage points post-intervention across studies. ICERs ranged from $0.66 to $161.95 per child vaccinated in 2017 USD. We did not conduct a meta-analysis given the small number of estimates and variety of interventions included. CONCLUSIONS: There is little quantitative evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions for improving immunization coverage, despite this being a major objective for national immunization programs. Efforts to improve the level of costing evidence-such as by integrating cost analysis within implementation studies and trials of immunization scale up-could allow programs to better allocate resources for coverage improvement. Greater adoption of standardized cost reporting methods would also enable the synthesis and use of cost data.

Rapid, point-of-care diagnosis of tuberculosis with novel Truenat assay: Cost-effectiveness analysis for India's public sector.

BACKGROUND: Truenat is a novel molecular assay that rapidly detects tuberculosis (TB) and rifampicin-resistance. Due to the portability of its battery-powered testing platform, it may be valuable in peripheral healthcare settings in India. METHODS: Using a microsimulation model, we compared four TB diagnostic strategies for HIV-negative adults with presumptive TB: (1) sputum smear microscopy in designated microscopy centers (DMCs) (SSM); (2) Xpert MTB/RIF in DMCs (Xpert); (3) Truenat in DMCs (Truenat DMC); and (4) Truenat for point-of-care testing in primary healthcare facilities (Truenat POC). We projected life expectancy, costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and 5-year budget impact of deploying Truenat POC in India's public sector. We defined a strategy "cost-effective" if its ICER was

Incorporating costing study results into district and service planning to enhance immunization programme performance: a Zambian case study.

Donors, researchers and international agencies have made significant investments in collection of high-quality data on immunization costs, aiming to improve the efficiency and sustainability of services. However, improved quality and routine dissemination of costing information to local managers may not lead to enhanced programme performance. This study explored how district- and service-level managers can use costing information to enhance planning and management to increase immunization outputs and coverage. Data on the use of costing information in the planning and management of Zambia's immunization programme was obtained through individual and group semi-structured interviews with planners and managers at national, provincial and district levels. Document review revealed the organizational context within which managers operated. Qualitative results described managers' ability to use costing information to generate cost and efficiency indicators not provided by existing systems. These, in turn, would allow them to understand the relative cost of vaccines and other resources, increase awareness of resource use and management, benchmark against other facilities and districts, and modify strategies to improve performance. Managers indicated that costing information highlighted priorities for more efficient use of human resources, vaccines and outreach for immunization programming. Despite decentralization, there were limitations on managers' decision-making to improve programme efficiency in practice: major resource allocation decisions were made centrally and planning tools did not focus on vaccine costs. Unreliable budgets and disbursements also undermined managers' ability to use systems and information. Routine generation and use of immunization cost information may have limited impact on managing efficiency in many Zambian districts, but opportunities were evident for using existing capacity and systems to improve efficiency. Simpler approaches, such as improving reliability and use of routine immunization and staffing indicators, drawing on general insights from periodic costing studies, and focusing on maximizing coverage with available resources, may be more feasible in the short-term.

Cost-effectiveness of urine-based tuberculosis screening in hospitalised patients with HIV in Africa: a microsimulation modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Testing urine improves the number of tuberculosis diagnoses made among patients in hospital with HIV. In conjunction with the two-country randomised Rapid Urine-based Screening for Tuberculosis to Reduce AIDS-related Mortality in Hospitalised Patients in Africa (STAMP) trial, we used a microsimulation model to estimate the effects on clinical outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of adding urine-based tuberculosis screening to sputum screening for hospitalised patients with HIV. METHODS: We compared two tuberculosis screening strategies used irrespective of symptoms among hospitalised patients with HIV in Malawi and South Africa: a GeneXpert assay (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) for Mycobacterium tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance (Xpert) in sputum samples (standard of care) versus sputum Xpert combined with a lateral flow assay for M tuberculosis lipoarabinomannan in urine (Determine TB-LAM Ag test, Abbott, Waltham, MA, USA [formerly Alere]; TB-LAM) and concentrated urine Xpert (intervention). A cohort of simulated patients was modelled using selected characteristics of participants, tuberculosis diagnostic yields, and use of hospital resources in the STAMP trial. We calibrated 2-month model outputs to the STAMP trial results and projected clinical and economic outcomes at 2 years, 5 years, and over a lifetime. We judged the intervention to be cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was less than US$750/year of life saved (YLS) in Malawi and $940/YLS in South Africa. A modified intervention of adding only TB-LAM to the standard of care was also evaluated. We did a budget impact analysis of countrywide implementation of the intervention. FINDINGS: The intervention increased life expectancy by 0·5-1·2 years and was cost-effective, with an ICER of $450/YLS in Malawi and $840/YLS in South Africa. The ICERs decreased over time. At lifetime horizon, the intervention remained cost-effective under nearly all modelled assumptions. The modified intervention was at least as cost-effective as the intervention (ICERs $420/YLS in Malawi and $810/YLS in South Africa). Over 5 years, the intervention would save around 51 000 years of life in Malawi and around 171 000 years of life in South Africa. Health-care expenditure for screened individuals was estimated to increase by $37 million (10·8%) and $261 million (2·8%), respectively. INTERPRETATION: Urine-based tuberculosis screening of all hospitalised patients with HIV could increase life expectancy and be cost-effective in resource-limited settings. Urine TB-LAM is especially attractive because of high incremental diagnostic yield and low additional cost compared with sputum Xpert, making a compelling case for expanding its use to all hospitalised patients with HIV in areas with high HIV burden and endemic tuberculosis. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, UK Department for International Development, Wellcome Trust, US National Institutes of Health, Royal College of Physicians, Massachusetts General Hospital.

Estimating the distribution of morbidity and mortality of childhood diarrhea, measles, and pneumonia by wealth group in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Equitable access to vaccines has been suggested as a priority for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, it is unclear whether providing equitable access is enough to ensure health equity. Furthermore, disaggregated data on health outcomes and benefits gained across population subgroups are often unavailable. This paper develops a model to estimate the distribution of childhood disease cases and deaths across socioeconomic groups, and the potential benefits of three vaccine programs in LMICs. METHODS: For each country and for three diseases (diarrhea, measles, pneumonia), we estimated the distributions of cases and deaths that would occur across wealth quintiles in the absence of any immunization or treatment programs, using both the prevalence and relative risk of a set of risk and prognostic factors. Building on these baseline estimates, we examined what might be the impact of three vaccines (first dose of measles, pneumococcal conjugate, and rotavirus vaccines), under five scenarios based on different sets of quintile-specific immunization coverage and disease treatment utilization rates. RESULTS: Due to higher prevalence of risk factors among the poor, disproportionately more disease cases and deaths would occur among the two lowest wealth quintiles for all three diseases when vaccines or treatment are unavailable. Country-specific context, including how the baseline risks, immunization coverage, and treatment utilization are currently distributed across quintiles, affects how different policies translate into changes in cases and deaths distribution. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights several factors that would substantially contribute to the unequal distribution of childhood diseases, and finds that merely ensuring equal access to vaccines will not reduce the health outcomes gap across wealth quintiles. Such information can inform policies and planning of programs that aim to improve equitable delivery of healthcare services.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Clinical Childhood Obesity Intervention.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness and population impact of the national implementation of the Study of Technology to Accelerate Research (STAR) intervention for childhood obesity. METHODS: In the STAR cluster-randomized trial, 6- to 12-year-old children with obesity seen at pediatric practices with electronic health record (EHR)-based decision support for primary care providers and self-guided behavior-change support for parents had significantly smaller increases in BMI than children who received usual care. We used a microsimulation model of a national implementation of STAR from 2015 to 2025 among all pediatric primary care providers in the United States with fully functional EHRs to estimate cost, impact on obesity prevalence, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The expected population reach of a 10-year national implementation is ∼2 million children, with intervention costs of $119 per child and $237 per BMI unit reduced. At 10 years, assuming maintenance of effect, the intervention is expected to avert 43 000 cases and 226 000 life-years with obesity at a net cost of $4085 per case and $774 per life-year with obesity averted. Limiting implementation to large practices and using higher estimates of EHR adoption improved both cost-effectiveness and reach, whereas decreasing the maintenance of the intervention's effect worsened the former. CONCLUSIONS: A childhood obesity intervention with electronic decision support for clinicians and self-guided behavior-change support for parents may be more cost-effective than previous clinical interventions. Effective and efficient interventions that target children with obesity are necessary and could work in synergy with population-level prevention strategies to accelerate progress in reducing obesity prevalence.