The economic value of personal protective equipment for healthcare workers.

In this paper, we examine the cost effectiveness of investment in personal protective equipment (PPE) for protecting health care workers (HCWs) against two infectious diseases: Ebola virus and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). This builds on similar work published for COVID-19 in 2020. We developed two separate decision-analytic models using a payer perspective to compare the costs and effects of multiple PPE use scenarios for protection of HCW against Ebola and MRSA. Bayesian multivariate sensitivity analyses were used to consider the uncertainty surrounding all key parameters for both diseases. We estimate the cost to provide adequate PPE for a HCW encounter with an Ebola patient is $13.04, which is associated with a 97% risk reduction in infections. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is $3.98 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Because of lowered infection and disability rates, this investment is estimated to save $132.27 in averted health systems costs, a financial ROI of 1,014%. For MRSA, the cost of adequate PPE for one HCW encounter is $0.88, which is associated with a 53% risk reduction in infections. The mean ICER is $362.14 per DALY averted. This investment is estimated to save $20.18 in averted health systems costs, a financial ROI of 2,294%. In terms of total health savings per death averted, investing in adequate PPE is the dominant strategy for Ebola and MRSA, suggesting that it is both more costly and less clinically optimal to not fully invest in PPE for these diseases. There are many compelling reasons to invest in PPE to protect HCWs. This analysis examines the economic case, building on previous evidence that protecting HCWs with PPE is cost-effective for COVD-19. Ebola and MRSA scenarios were selected to allow assessment of both endemic and epidemic infectious diseases. While PPE is cost-effective for both conditions, compared to our analysis for COVID-19, PPE is relatively more cost-effective for Ebola and relatively less so for MRSA. Further research is needed to assess shortfalls in the PPE supply chain identified during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure an efficient and resilient supply in the face of future pandemics.

Access to primary healthcare Services in Conflict-Affected Fragile States: a subnational descriptive analysis of educational and wealth disparities in Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, and Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Measuring and improving equitable access to care is a necessity to achieve universal health coverage. Pre-pandemic estimates showed that most conflict-affected and fragile situations were off-track to meet the Sustainable Development Goals on health and equity by 2030. Yet, there is a paucity of studies examining health inequalities in these settings. This study addresses the literature gap by applying a conflict intensity lens to the analysis of disparities in access to essential Primary Health Care (PHC) services in four conflict-affected fragile states: Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali and Nigeria. METHODS: For each studied country, disparities in geographic and financial access to care were compared across education and wealth strata in areas with differing levels of conflict intensity. The Demographic Health Survey (DHS) and the Uppsala Conflict Data Program were the main sources of information on access to PHC and conflict events, respectively. To define conflict intensity, household clusters were linked to conflict events within a 50-km distance. A cut-off of more than two conflict-related deaths per 100,000 population was used to differentiate medium or high intensity conflict from no or low intensity conflict. We utilized three measures to assess inequalities: an absolute difference, a concentration index, and a multivariate logistic regression coefficient. Each disparity measure was compared based on the intensity of conflict the year the DHS data was collected. RESULTS: We found that PHC access varied across subnational regions in the four countries studied; with more prevalent financial than geographic barriers to care. The magnitude of both educational and wealth disparities in access to care was higher with geographic proximity to medium or high intensity conflict. A higher magnitude of wealth rather than educational disparities was also likely to be observed in the four studied contexts. Meanwhile, only Nigeria showed statistically significant interaction between conflict intensity and educational disparities in access to care. CONCLUSION: Both educational and wealth disparities in access to PHC services can be exacerbated by geographic proximity to organized violence. This paper provides additional evidence that, despite limitations, household surveys can contribute to healthcare assessment in conflict-affected and fragile settings.

Health equity and COVID-19: global perspectives.

The COVID-19 is disproportionally affecting the poor, minorities and a broad range of vulnerable populations, due to its inequitable spread in areas of dense population and limited mitigation capacity due to high prevalence of chronic conditions or poor access to high quality public health and medical care. Moreover, the collateral effects of the pandemic due to the global economic downturn, and social isolation and movement restriction measures, are unequally affecting those in the lowest power strata of societies. To address the challenges to health equity and describe some of the approaches taken by governments and local organizations, we have compiled 13 country case studies from various regions around the world: China, Brazil, Thailand, Sub Saharan Africa, Nicaragua, Armenia, India, Guatemala, United States of America (USA), Israel, Australia, Colombia, and Belgium. This compilation is by no-means representative or all inclusive, and we encourage researchers to continue advancing global knowledge on COVID-19 health equity related issues, through rigorous research and generation of a strong evidence base of new empirical studies in this field.

Confidentiality agreements: a challenge in market regulation.

BACKGROUND: Sustainability and the ability to maintain the right to health, with the guarantee of access to quality medicines and health services, have been a great challenge for countries with universal health systems. The great technological advances bring with it an expressive increase in the expenditures of the health systems, especially those directed towards the acquisition of high-cost drugs, which are still under patent protection, have a high cost and, in some cases, present uncertainties about their effectiveness and safety. As a way of maintaining the proper functioning of the systems and guaranteeing access to these medicines, some countries started to negotiate discounts with manufacturing companies. Pricing agreements have been adopted by developed countries with the objective of reducing their spending on high-cost medicines and, although they represent an opportunity for better negotiation with the industries, they violate the principle of transparency that regulates the world market. However, the existence of confidentiality agreements has meant that the declared prices are not the actual prices, unfairly harming the countries that use these price lists as beacons in their systems. METHODS: Representatives of health, judicial, legislative, patient organizations and academics from eight countries in Latin America and South Korea participated in a meeting in September 2017 in Chile to discuss price confidentiality agreements and the impact on public health policies. During the meeting, participants were presented with a hypothetical case to subsidize the discussion on the topic. Divided into groups, participants should propose recommendations for the problem by pointing out the pros and cons if each proposed recommendation was adopted. The groups were then confronted by a simulated jury and finally issued a single and final recommendation for the problem. RESULTS: The topic was widely discussed and recommendations were raised by the participants. Among them, it is worth noting the elaboration of norms that regulate the negotiations of prices between the countries bringing transparency and harmony in the adopted conducts. In addition, the possible consequences and potential impacts of confidentiality on drug prices and inputs, such as information asymmetry and inequity of access between countries, were pointed out. CONCLUSION: Despite there are efforts to make price negotiations more transparent, there is still no well-established standardization that promotes a well-functioning market. Confidentiality agreements hamper the fairness of access to essential health products.

Who should pay for the continuity of post-trial health care treatments?

BACKGROUND: The bioethical debate in the world on who should pay for the continuity of post-trials treatment of patients that have medical indication remains obscure and introduces uncertainties to the patients involved in the trials. The continuity of post-trial treatment was only incorporated in the 2000s by the Helsinki Declaration. The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, published in 2006, points out that post-trial continuity may present a broader scope than just the availability of the investigated medicine. In the latest version of this Declaration, in 2013, it was stated that "prior to the start of the clinical trial, funders, researchers and governments of the countries participating in the research should provide post-trial access for all participants who still require an intervention that was identified as beneficial. This information should also be disclosed to participants during the informed consent process". However, a systematic review on the registration of phase III and IV clinical trials, from the clinical trials website, demonstrated that the understanding of the various guidelines and resolutions is conflicting, generating edges in the post-trial setting. For the health authorities of countries where clinical trials take place, the uncertainties about the continuity of the treatments generate gaps in care and legal proceedings against health systems, which are forced to pay for the treatments, even if they are not included in the list of medicines available to the population. METHODS: Fifty-one representatives from the health, judicial, legislative, patient and academic organizations of eight countries of Latin American and South Korea took part in a meeting in Chile, in 2017, to discuss the responsibility of the treatment continuation after clinical trials. From a hypothetical case of development of a new drug and its studies of efficacy and safety, the participants, divided in groups, proposed recommendations for the problem and pointed out the pros and cons of adopting each recommendation. The groups were, afterwards, confronted by a simulated jury and, finally, issued a final recommendation for the problem. Then, an analysis was made on the content of the recommendations and the pros and cons in adopting conservative or liberal positions, besides the possible impacts of a restrictive regulation regarding the conduction of clinical trials, pointed out by the groups, before and after the simulated jury. RESULTS: The theme was widely discussed and about 12 recommendations were proposed by the participants. The main ones took into account aspects related to patients' rights, economic factors and the development of new technologies, above the position of industry and research institutes, as well as the legislation in force in each country. CONCLUSION: The countries of Latin America and South Korea, currently, do not have laws that address patients' rights, moreover, there is no definition on who should be responsible for post-trial treatments. It is suggested that the World Health Organization issue a resolution recommending that all associated countries determine that the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, or those that sponsored it, should continue to provide treatment to all patients who participated in clinical trials and have medical indication to the continuity.

Colombia's universal health insurance system.

By insuring more than 80 percent of its population, Colombia provides a valuable opportunity to gather evidence on a hotly debated health policy issue. Results from three studies evaluating the impact of universal health insurance in Colombia show that it has greatly increased access to and use of health services, even those that are free for all, and has reduced the incidence of catastrophic health spending. The impact has been more dramatic among those most vulnerable to health shocks: those living in rural areas, the poorest, and the self-employed.