Using costing to facilitate policy making towards Universal Health Coverage: findings and recommendations from country-level experiences.

As countries progress towards universal health coverage (UHC), they frequently develop explicit packages of health services compatible with UHC goals. As part of the Disease Control Initiative 3 Country Translation project, a systematic survey instrument was developed and used to review the experience of five low-income and lower-middle-income countries-Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Somalia and Sudan-in estimating the cost of their proposed packages. The paper highlights the main results of the survey, providing information about how costing exercises were conducted and used and what country teams perceived to be the main challenges. Key messages are identified to facilitate similar exercises and improve their usefulness. Critical challenges to be addressed include inconsistent application of costing methods, measurement errors and data reliability issues, the lack of adequate capacity building, and the lack of integration between costing and budgeting. The paper formulates four recommendations to address these challenges: (1) developing more systematic guidance and standard ways to implement costing methodologies, particularly regarding the treatment of health systems-related common costs, (2) acknowledging ranges of uncertainty of costing results and integrating sensitivity analysis, (3) building long-term capacity at the local level and institutionalising the costing process in order to improve both reliability and policy relevance, and (4) closely linking costing exercises to public budgeting.

Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions to Improve Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Outcomes: A WHO-CHOICE Analysis for Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia.

BACKGROUND: Information on cost-effectiveness allows policy-makers to evaluate if they are using currently available resources effectively and efficiently. Our objective is to examine the cost-effectiveness of health interventions to improve maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) outcomes, to provide global evidence relative to the context of two geographic regions. METHODS: We consider interventions across the life course from adolescence to pregnancy and for children up to 5 years old. Interventions included are those that fall within the areas of immunization, child healthcare, nutrition, reproductive health, and maternal/newborn health, and for which it is possible to model impact on MNCH mortality outcomes using the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA) was used to derive average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) for individual interventions and combinations (packages). Costs were assessed from the health system perspective and reported in international dollars. Health outcomes were estimated and reported as the gain in healthy life years (HLYs) due to the specific intervention or combination. The model was run for 2 regions: Eastern sub-Saharan Africa (SSA-E) and South-East Asia (SEA). RESULTS: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended interventions to improve MNCH are generally considered cost-effective, with the majority of interventions demonstrating ACERs below I$100/HLY saved in the chosen settings (low-and middle-income countries [LMICs]). Best performing interventions are consistent across the two regions, and include family planning, neonatal resuscitation, management of pneumonia and neonatal infection, vitamin A supplementation, and measles vaccine. ACERs below I$100 can be found across all delivery platforms, from community to hospital level. The combination of interventions into packages (such as antenatal care) produces favorable ACERs. CONCLUSION: Within each region there are interventions which represent very good value for money. There are opportunities to gear investments towards high-impact interventions and packages for MNCH outcomes. Cost-effectiveness tools can be used at national level to inform investment cases and overall priority setting processes.

Is Universal Health Coverage Affordable? Estimated Costs and Fiscal Space Analysis for the Ethiopian Essential Health Services Package.

Estimating the required resources for implementing an essential health services package (EHSP) is vital to examine its feasibility and affordability. This study aimed to estimate the financial resources required to implement the Ethiopian EHSP from 2020 to 2030. Furthermore, we explored potential alternatives to increase the fiscal space for health in Ethiopia. We used the OneHealth Tool (OHT) to estimate the costs of expanding the EHSP service provision in the public sector in Ethiopia. Combinations of ingredient-based bottom-up and program-based summary costing approaches were applied. We predicted the fiscal space using assumptions for economic growth, government resource allocations to health, external aid for health, the magnitude of out-of-pocket expenditure, and other private health expenditures as critical factors affecting available resources devoted to health. All costs were valued using 2020 US dollars (USD). To implement the EHSP, 13.0 billion USD (per capita: 94 USD) would be required in 2030. The largest (50-70%) share of estimated costs was for medicines, commodities, and supplies, followed by human resources costs (10-17%). However, the expected available resources based on a business-as-usual fiscal space estimate would be 63 USD per capita for the same year. Therefore, the gap as a percentage of the required resources would be 33% in 2030. The resources needed to implement the EHSP would increase steadily over the projection period due mainly to increases in service coverage targets over time. Allocating gains from economic growth to increase the total government health expenditure could partly address the gap.

Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Interventions for Priority Setting in the Health System: An Update From WHO CHOICE.

The World Health Organization's (WHO's) Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective (CHOICE) programme has been a global leader in the field of economic evaluation, specifically cost-effectiveness analysis for almost 20 years. WHO-CHOICE takes a "generalized" approach to cost-effectiveness analysis that can be seen as a quantitative assessment of current and future efficiency within a health system. This supports priority setting processes, ensuring that health stewards know how to spend resources in order to achieve the highest health gain as one consideration in strategic planning. This approach is unique in the global health landscape. This paper provides an overview of the methodological approach, updates to analytic framework over the past 10 years, and the added value of the WHO-CHOICE approach in supporting decision makers as they aim to use limited health resources to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030.

Progressive Realisation of Universal Health Coverage in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Beyond the "Best Buys".

BACKGROUND: World Health Organization Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective (WHO CHOICE) has been a programme of the WHO for 20 years. In this latest update, we present for the first time a cross-programme analysis of the comparative cost-effectiveness of 479 intervention scenarios across 20 disease programmes and risk factors. METHODS: This analysis follows the standard WHO CHOICE approach to generalized cost-effectiveness analysis applied to two regions, Eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. The scope of the analysis is all interventions included in programme specific WHO CHOICE analyses, using WHO treatment guidelines for major disease areas as the foundation. Costs are measured in 2010 international dollars, and benefits modelled beginning in 2010, or the nearest year for which validated data was available, both for a period of 100 years. RESULTS: Across both regions included in the analysis, interventions span multiple orders of magnitude in terms of cost-effectiveness ratios. A health benefit package optimized through a value for money lens incorporates interventions responding to all of the main drivers of disease burden. Interventions delivered through first level clinical and non-clinical services represent the majority of the high impact cost-effective interventions. CONCLUSION: Cost-effectiveness is one important criterion when selecting health interventions for benefit packages to progress towards universal health coverage (UHC), but it is not the only criterion and all calculations should be adapted to the local context. To support country decision-makers, WHO CHOICE has developed a downloadable tool to support the development of data for this criterion.

Generalised cost-effectiveness analysis of 159 health interventions for the Ethiopian essential health service package.

BACKGROUND: Cost effectiveness was a criterion used to revise Ethiopia's essential health service package (EHSP) in 2019. However, there are few cost-effectiveness studies from Ethiopia or directly transferable evidence from other low-income countries to inform a comprehensive revision of the Ethiopian EHSP. Therefore, this paper reports average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) of 159 health interventions used in the revision of Ethiopia's EHSP. METHODS: In this study, we estimate ACERs for 77 interventions on reproductive maternal neonatal and child health (RMNCH), infectious diseases and water sanitation and hygiene as well as for 82 interventions on non-communicable diseases. We used the standardised World Health Organization (WHO) CHOosing Interventions that are cost effective methodology (CHOICE) for generalised cost-effectiveness analysis. The health benefits of interventions were determined using a population state-transition model, which simulates the Ethiopian population, accounting for births, deaths and disease epidemiology. Healthy life years (HLYs) gained was employed as a measure of health benefits. We estimated the economic costs of interventions from the health system perspective, including programme overhead and training costs. We used the Spectrum generalised cost-effectiveness analysis tool for data analysis. We did not explicitly apply cost-effectiveness thresholds, but we used US$100 and $1000 as references to summarise and present the ACER results. RESULTS: We found ACERs ranging from less than US$1 per HLY gained (for family planning) to about US$48,000 per HLY gained (for treatment of stage 4 colorectal cancer). In general, 75% of the interventions evaluated had ACERs of less than US$1000 per HLY gained. The vast majority (95%) of RMNCH and infectious disease interventions had an ACER of less than US$1000 per HLY while almost half (44%) of non-communicable disease interventions had an ACER greater than US$1000 per HLY. CONCLUSION: The present study shows that several potential cost-effective interventions are available that could substantially reduce Ethiopia's disease burden if scaled up. The use of the World Health Organization's generalised cost-effectiveness analysis tool allowed us to rapidly calculate country-specific cost-effectiveness analysis values for 159 health interventions under consideration for Ethiopia's EHSP.

Revision of the Ethiopian Essential Health Service Package: An Explication of the Process and Methods Used.

To make progress toward universal health coverage, countries should define the type and mix of health services that respond to their populations' needs. Ethiopia revised its essential health services package (EHSP) in 2019. This paper describes the process, methodology and key features of the new EHSP. A total of 35 consultative workshops were convened with experts and the public to define the scope of the revision, develop a list of health interventions, agree on the prioritization criteria, gather evidence and compare health interventions. Seven prioritization criteria were employed: disease burden, cost effectiveness, equity, financial risk protection, budget impact, public acceptability and political acceptability. In the first phase, 1,749 interventions were identified, including existing and new interventions, which were regrouped and reorganized to identify 1,442 interventions as relevant. The second phase removed interventions that did not match the burden of disease or were not relevant in the Ethiopian setting, reducing the number of interventions to 1,018. These were evaluated further and ranked by the other criteria. Finally, 594 interventions were classified as high priority (58%), 213 as medium priorities (21%) and 211 as low priority interventions (21%). The current policy is to provide 570 interventions (56%) free of charge while guaranteeing the availability of the remaining services with cost-sharing (38%) and cost-recovery (6%) mechanisms in place. In conclusion, the revision of Ethiopia's EHSP followed a participatory, inclusive and evidence-based prioritization process. The interventions included in the EHSP were comprehensive and were assigned to health care delivery platforms and linked to financing mechanisms.

Cost-Effectiveness of Testing and Treatment for Hepatitis B Virus and Hepatitis C Virus Infections: An Analysis by Scenarios, Regions, and Income.

OBJECTIVES: Testing and treatment for hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are highly effective, high-impact interventions. This article aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of scaling up these interventions by scenarios, regions, and income groups. METHODS: We modeled costs and impacts of hepatitis elimination in 67 low- and middle-income countries from 2016 to 2030. Costs included testing and treatment commodities, healthcare consultations, and future savings from cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinomas averted. We modeled disease progression to estimate disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted. We estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) by regions and World Bank income groups, according to 3 scenarios: flatline (status quo), progress (testing/treatment according to World Health Organization guidelines), and ambitious (elimination). RESULTS: Compared with no action, current levels of testing and treatment had an ICER of $807/DALY for HBV and -$62/DALY (cost-saving) for HCV. Scaling up to progress scenario, both interventions had ICERs less than the average gross domestic product/capita of countries (HBV: $532/DALY; HCV: $613/DALY). Scaling up from flatline to elimination led to higher ICERs across countries (HBV: $927/DALY; HCV: $2528/DALY, respectively) that remained lower than the average gross domestic product/capita. Sensitivity analysis indicated discount rates and commodity costs were main factors driving results. CONCLUSIONS: Scaling up testing and treatment for HBV and HCV infection as per World Health Organization guidelines is a cost-effective intervention. Elimination leads to a much larger impact though ICERs are higher. Price reduction strategies are needed to achieve elimination given the substantial budget impact at current commodity prices.

Guide posts for investment in primary health care and projected resource needs in 67 low-income and middle-income countries: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Primary health care (PHC) is a driving force for advancing towards universal health coverage (UHC). PHC-oriented health systems bring enormous benefits but require substantial financial investments. Here, we aim to present measures for PHC investments and project the associated resource needs. METHODS: This modelling study analysed data from 67 low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Recognising the variation in PHC services among countries, we propose three measures for PHC, with different scope for included interventions and system strengthening. Measure 1 is centred on public health interventions and outpatient care; measure 2 adds general inpatient care; and measure 3 further adds cross-sectoral activities. Cost components included in each measure were based on the Declaration of Astana, informed by work delineating PHC within health accounts, and finalised through an expert and country validation meeting. We extracted the subset of PHC costs for each measure from WHO's Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) price tag for the 67 LMICs, and projected the associated health impact. Estimates of financial resource need, health workforce, and outpatient visits are presented as PHC investment guide posts for LMICs. FINDINGS: An estimated additional US$200-328 billion per year is required for the various measures of PHC from 2020 to 2030. For measure 1, an additional $32 is needed per capita across the countries. Needs are greatest in low-income countries where PHC spending per capita needs to increase from $25 to $65. Overall health workforces would need to increase from 5·6 workers per 1000 population to 6·7 per 1000 population, delivering an average of 5·9 outpatient visits per capita per year. Increasing coverage of PHC interventions would avert an estimated 60·1 million deaths and increase average life expectancy by 3·7 years. By 2030, these incremental PHC costs would be about 3·3% of projected gross domestic product (GDP; median 1·7%, range 0·1-20·2). In a business-as-usual financing scenario, 25 of 67 countries will have funding gaps in 2030. If funding for PHC was increased by 1-2% of GDP across all countries, as few as 16 countries would see a funding gap by 2030. INTERPRETATION: The resources required to strengthen PHC vary across countries, depending on demographic trends, disease burden, and health system capacity. The proposed PHC investment guide posts advance discussions around the budgetary implications of strengthening PHC, including relevant system investment needs and achievable health outcomes. Preliminary findings suggest that low-income and lower-middle-income countries would need to at least double current spending on PHC to strengthen their systems and universally provide essential PHC services. Investing in PHC will bring substantial health benefits and build human capital. At country level, PHC interventions need to be explicitly identified, and plans should be made for how to most appropriately reorient the health system towards PHC as a key lever towards achieving UHC and the health-related SDGs. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Additional resource needs for viral hepatitis elimination through universal health coverage: projections in 67 low-income and middle-income countries, 2016-30.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Assembly calls for elimination of viral hepatitis as a public health threat by 2030 (ie, -90% incidence and -65% mortality). However, WHO's 2017 cost projections to achieve health-related Sustainable Development Goals did not include the resources needed for hepatitis testing and treatment. We aimed to estimate the incremental commodity cost of adding scaled up interventions for testing and treatment of hepatitis to WHO's investment scenarios. METHODS: We added modelled costs for implementing WHO recommended hepatitis testing and treatment to the 2017 WHO cost projections. We quantified additional requirements for diagnostic tests, medicines, health workers' time, and programme support across 67 low-income and middle-income countries, from 2016-30. A progress scenario scaled up interventions and a more ambitious scenario was modelled to reach elimination by 2030. We used 2018 best available prices of diagnostics and generic medicines. We estimated total costs and the additional investment needed over the projection of the 2016 baseline cost. FINDINGS: The 67 countries considered included 230 million people living with hepatitis B virus (HBV) and 52 million people living with hepatitis C virus (HCV; 90% and 73% of the world's total, respectively). Under the progress scenario, 3250 million people (2400 million for HBV and 850 million for HCV) would be tested and 58·2 million people (24·1 million for HBV and 34·1 million for HCV) would be treated (total additional cost US$ 27·1 billion). Under the ambitious scenario, 11 631 million people (5502 million for HBV and 6129 million for HCV) would be tested and 93·8 million people (32·2 million for HBV and 61·6 million for HCV) would be treated (total additional cost $58·7 billion), averting 4·5 million premature deaths and leading to a gain of 51·5 million healthy life-years by 2030. However, if affordable HCV medicines remained inaccessible in 13 countries where medicine patents are protected, the additional cost of the ambitious scenario would increase to $118 billion. Hepatitis elimination would account for a 1·5% increase to the WHO ambitious health-care strengthening scenario costs, avert an additional 4·6% premature deaths, and add an additional 9·6% healthy life-years from 2016-30. INTERPRETATION: Access to affordable medicines in all countries will be key to reach hepatitis elimination. This study suggests that elimination is feasible in the context of universal health coverage. It points to commodities as key determinants for the overall price tag and to options for cost reduction strategies. FUNDING: WHO, United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Unitaid.

Estimating health plan costs with the OneHealth tool, Cambodia.

OBJECTIVE: To do resource and cost projections for the entire Cambodian health sector using the OneHealth tool, during the development of the third national health strategic plan 2016-2020. METHODS: Through a consultative process, the health ministry estimated the needed and available resources to implement the strategic plan. The health ministry used the OneHealth Tool to estimate costs of expanding public sector service provision and compared these to estimates of projected available financing. Cost estimates covered implementation of health programmes including commodities and programme management costs, and six cross-cutting health system strengthening components. The tool is populated with local demographic, epidemiological, programmatic and unit cost data. We present costs in constant 2015 United States dollars (US$). FINDINGS: We estimated the five-year cost of the strategic plan to be US$ 2973.8 million. Costs are split between health systems strengthening components (US$ 1516.3 million) and investments in individual disease or public health programmes (US$ 1457.5 million). Health programmes for maternal and neonatal health (US$ 367 million), child health and immunization (US$ 197 million) and noncommunicable disease (US$ 157 million) have the highest costs. Although projected resource needs increase over time, a financial space analysis with ambitious projected increases in government funding indicates that government and donor funding jointly could be sufficient to cover the cost of the strategic plan from 2018 to 2020. CONCLUSION: The results both informed development of the strategic plan, and contributed to the evidence base for improved budgeting, resource mobilization strategies and stronger overall public sector financial planning.

Econometric estimation of WHO-CHOICE country-specific costs for inpatient and outpatient health service delivery.

BACKGROUND: Policy makers require information on costs related to inpatient and outpatient health services to inform resource allocation decisions. METHODS: Country data sets were gathered in 2008-2010 through literature reviews, website searches and a public call for cost data. Multivariate regression analysis was used to explore the determinants of variability in unit costs using data from 30 countries. Two models were designed, with the inpatient and outpatient models drawing upon 3407 and 9028 observations respectively. Cost estimates are produced at country and regional level, with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Inpatient costs across 30 countries are significantly associated with the type of hospital, ownership, as well as bed occupancy rate, average length of stay, and total number of inpatient admissions. Changes in outpatient costs are significantly associated with location, facility ownership and the level of care, as well as to the number of outpatient visits and visits per provider per day. CONCLUSIONS: These updated WHO-CHOICE service delivery unit costs are statistically robust and may be used by analysts as inputs for economic analysis. The models can predict country-specific unit costs at different capacity levels and in different settings.

Disease control programme support costs: an update of WHO-CHOICE methodology, price databases and quantity assumptions.

BACKGROUND: Estimating health care costs, either in the context of understanding resource utilization in the implementation of a health plan, or in the context of economic evaluation, has become a common activity of health planners, health technology assessment agencies and academic groups. However, data sources for costs outside of direct service delivery are often scarce. WHO-CHOICE produces global price databases and guidance on quantity assumptions to support country level costing exercises. This paper presents updates to the WHO-CHOICE methodology and price databases for programme costs. METHODS: We collated publicly available databases for 14 non-traded cost variables, as well as a set of traded items used within health systems (traded goods are those which can be purchased from anywhere in the world, whereas non-traded goods are those which must be produced locally, such as human resources). Within each of the variables, missing data was present for some proportion of the WHO member states. For each variables statistical or econometric models were used to model prices for each of the 194 WHO member states in 2010 International Dollars. Literature reviews were used to update quantity assumptions associated with each variable to contribute to the support costs of disease control programmes. RESULTS: A full database of prices for disease control programme support costs is available for country-specific costing purposes. Human resources are the largest driver of disease control programme support costs, followed by supervision costs. CONCLUSIONS: Despite major advances in the availability of data since the previous version of this work, there are still some limitations in data availability to respond to the needs of those wishing to develop cost and cost-effectiveness estimates. Greater attention to programme support costs in cost data collection activities would contribute to an understanding of how these costs contribute to quality of health service delivery and should be encouraged.

Financing transformative health systems towards achievement of the health Sustainable Development Goals: a model for projected resource needs in 67 low-income and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: The ambitious development agenda of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) requires substantial investments across several sectors, including for SDG 3 (healthy lives and wellbeing). No estimates of the additional resources needed to strengthen comprehensive health service delivery towards the attainment of SDG 3 and universal health coverage in low-income and middle-income countries have been published. METHODS: We developed a framework for health systems strengthening, within which population-level and individual-level health service coverage is gradually scaled up over time. We developed projections for 67 low-income and middle-income countries from 2016 to 2030, representing 95% of the total population in low-income and middle-income countries. We considered four service delivery platforms, and modelled two scenarios with differing levels of ambition: a progress scenario, in which countries' advancement towards global targets is constrained by their health system's assumed absorptive capacity, and an ambitious scenario, in which most countries attain the global targets. We estimated the associated costs and health effects, including reduced prevalence of illness, lives saved, and increases in life expectancy. We projected available funding by country and year, taking into account economic growth and anticipated allocation towards the health sector, to allow for an analysis of affordability and financial sustainability. FINDINGS: We estimate that an additional $274 billion spending on health is needed per year by 2030 to make progress towards the SDG 3 targets (progress scenario), whereas US$371 billion would be needed to reach health system targets in the ambitious scenario-the equivalent of an additional $41 (range 15-102) or $58 (22-167) per person, respectively, by the final years of scale-up. In the ambitious scenario, total health-care spending would increase to a population-weighted mean of $271 per person (range 74-984) across country contexts, and the share of gross domestic product spent on health would increase to a mean of 7·5% (2·1-20·5). Around 75% of costs are for health systems, with health workforce and infrastructure (including medical equipment) as the main cost drivers. Despite projected increases in health spending, a financing gap of $20-54 billion per year is projected. Should funds be made available and used as planned, the ambitious scenario would save 97 million lives and significantly increase life expectancy by 3·1-8·4 years, depending on the country profile. INTERPRETATION: All countries will need to strengthen investments in health systems to expand service provision in order to reach SDG 3 health targets, but even the poorest can reach some level of universality. In view of anticipated resource constraints, each country will need to prioritise equitably, plan strategically, and cost realistically its own path towards SDG 3 and universal health coverage. FUNDING: WHO.