The importance of assessing out-of-pocket payments when the financing of antiretroviral therapy is transitioned to domestic funding: findings from Vietnam.

OBJECTIVE: To assess out-of-pocket payments and catastrophic health expenditures among antiretroviral therapy (ART) patients in Vietnam, and to model catastrophic payments under different copayment scenarios when the primary financing of ART changes to social health insurance. METHODS: Cross-sectional facility-based survey of 843 patients at 42 health facilities representative of 87% of ART patients in 2015. RESULTS: Because of donor and government funding, no payments were made for antiretroviral drugs. Other health expenditures were about $66 per person per year (95% CI: $30-$102), of which $15 ($7-$22) were directly for HIV-related health services, largely laboratory tests. These payments resulted in a 4.9% (95% CI: 3.1-6.8%) catastrophic payment rate and 2.5% (95% CI: 0.9-4.1%) catastrophic payment rate for HIV-related health services. About 32% of respondents reported, they were eligible for SHI without copayments. If patients had to pay 20% of costs of ART under social health insurance, the catastrophic payment rate would increase to 8% (95% CI: 5.5-10.0%), and if patients without health insurance had to pay the full costs of ART, the catastrophic payment rate among all patients would be 24% (95% CI: 21.1-27.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Health and catastrophic expenditures were substantially lower than in previous studies, although different methods may explain some of the discrepancy. The 20% copayments required by social health insurance would present a financial burden to an additional 0.6% to 5.1% of ART patients. Ensuring access to health insurance for all ART patients will prevent an even higher level of financial hardship.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Integrating HIV Counseling and Testing into Primary Health Care in the Ukraine.

We estimate the number of HIV cases diagnosed, costs, and cost per HIV case detected associated with integrating HIV counseling and testing (HCT) into primary health care facilities in Ukraine. The study uses a difference-in-difference design with four districts implementing the intervention compared to 20 districts where HCT were offered only at specialized HIV clinics. There was a 2.01 (95 % CI: 1.12-3.61) times increase in the number of HIV cases detected per capita in intervention districts compared to other districts. The incremental cost of the intervention was $21,017 and the incremental cost per HIV case detected was $369. The average cost per HIV case detected before the intervention was $558. Engaging primary health care facilities to provide HCT is likely desirable from an efficiency point-of-view. However, the affordability of the intervention needs to be assessed because expansion will require additional investment.

Cost-effectiveness of health research study participant recruitment strategies: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A large fraction of the cost of conducting clinical trials is allocated to recruitment of participants. A synthesis of findings from studies that evaluate the cost and effectiveness of different recruitment strategies will inform investigators in designing cost-efficient clinical trials. PURPOSE: To systematically identify, assess, and synthesize evidence from published comparisons of the cost and yield of strategies for recruitment of participants to health research studies. METHODS: We included randomized studies in which two or more strategies for recruitment of participants had been compared. We focused our economic evaluation on studies that randomized participants to different recruitment strategies. RESULTS: We identified 10 randomized studies that compared recruitment strategies, including monetary incentives (cash or prize), direct contact (letters or telephone call), and medical referral strategies. Only two of the 10 studies compared strategies for recruiting participants to clinical trials. We found that allocating additional resources to recruit participants using monetary incentives or direct contact yielded between 4% and 23% additional participants compared to using neither strategy. For medical referral, recruitment of prostate cancer patients by nurses was cost-saving compared to recruitment by consultant urologists. For all underlying study designs, monetary incentives cost more than direct contact with potential participants, with a median incremental cost per recruitment ratio of Int$72 (Int$-International dollar, a theoretical unit of currency) for monetary incentive strategy compared to Int$28 for direct contact strategy. Only monetary incentives and source of referral were evaluated for recruiting participants into clinical trials. LIMITATIONS: We did not review studies that presented non-monetary cost or lost opportunity cost. We did not adjust for the number of study recruitment sites or the study duration in our economic evaluation analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic and explicit reporting of cost and effectiveness of recruitment strategies from randomized comparisons is required to aid investigators to select cost-efficient strategies for recruiting participants to health research studies including clinical trials.

The highest attainable standard of evidence (HASTE) for HIV/AIDS interventions: toward a public health approach to defining evidence.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence-driven decisions have become a standard for health interventions, policy, and programs. While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are encouraged for public health interventions, there are limitations with RCTs as the gold standard of evidence for HIV interventions. We developed a novel system of evaluating evidence for assessing HIV preventive interventions termed the Highest Attainable Standard of Evidence (HASTE). METHODS: The HASTE system focuses on triangulation of three distinct categories of evidence: efficacy data, implementation data, and plausibility. We conducted systematic reviews, including experimental and observational data, to assess all available interventions for men who have sex with men (MSM). We collected implementation and programmatic data using a global electronic consultation, Internet searches, and in-person consultations. We assessed plausibility with expert analyses of both biological and public health evidence. RESULTS: HASTE includes four grades of evidence: Strong (Grade 1), Conditional (Grade 2), Insufficient (Grade 3), and Inappropriate (Grade 4). We used the HASTE system to evaluate the evidence for HIV interventions for MSM in low- and middle-income countries. Several differences emerged in the strength of recommendation with the use of the HASTE system, including strong recommendations for voluntary counseling and testing and for structural interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The HASTE system addresses a need for an evidence evaluation tool that is specific for HIV interventions and facilitates an evaluation of biomedical, behavioral, and structural approaches using the highest standard of attainable evidence. HASTE represents a tool that balances scientific integrity and practicality in assessing the quality of evidence of preventive interventions targeting the most-at-risk populations for HIV.

Prevention, screening and treatment of colorectal cancer: a global and regional generalized cost effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Regional generalized cost-effectiveness estimates of prevention, screening and treatment interventions for colorectal cancer are presented. METHODS: Standardised WHO-CHOICE methodology was used. A colorectal cancer model was employed to provide estimates of screening and treatment effectiveness. Intervention effectiveness was determined via a population state-transition model (PopMod) that simulates the evolution of a sub-regional population accounting for births, deaths and disease epidemiology. Economic costs of procedures and treatment were estimated, including programme overhead and training costs. RESULTS: In regions characterised by high income, low mortality and high existing treatment coverage, the addition of screening to the current high treatment levels is very cost-effective, although no particular intervention stands out in cost-effectiveness terms relative to the others.In regions characterised by low income, low mortality with existing treatment coverage around 50%, expanding treatment with or without screening is cost-effective or very cost-effective. Abandoning treatment in favour of screening (no treatment scenario) would not be cost effective.In regions characterised by low income, high mortality and low treatment levels, the most cost-effective intervention is expanding treatment. CONCLUSIONS: From a cost-effectiveness standpoint, screening programmes should be expanded in developed regions and treatment programmes should be established for colorectal cancer in regions with low treatment coverage.