Willingness to pay for haemodialysis among patients with chronic kidney disease in Abuja, Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of willingness to pay for kidney replacement therapy is scarce in low-middle-income countries, including Nigeria's Formal Sector Social Health Insurance Programme. The study, therefore, assessed the willingness to pay for haemodialysis among chronic kidney disease patients in Abuja, Nigeria. METHODS: The study adopted a cross-sectional survey design. We used the contingent valuation method to estimate the maximum stated willingness to pay (WTP) for haemodialysis among end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients. We obtained informed written consent from respondents before data collection. The socio-demographic characteristics and willingness to pay data were summarized using descriptive statistics. We evaluated the mean differences in respondents' WTP using Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests. All variables that had p < 0.25 in the bivariate analysis were included in the Generalized Linear Model (gamma with link function) to determine the predictors of the WTP for one's and another's haemodialysis. The level of significance in the final model was ρ < 0.05. RESULTS: About 88.3% and 64.8% of ESKD patients were willing to pay for personal and altruistic haemodialysis, correspondingly. The mean annual WTP for haemodialysis for one's and altruistic haemodialysis was USD25,999.06 and USD 1539.89, respectively. Private hospital patients were likelier to pay for their haemodialysis (ß = 0.39, 95%CI: 0.21 to 0.57, p < 0.001). Patients attending public-private partnership hospitals were less likely to pay for altruistic haemodialysis than those attending public hospitals (ß = -1.65, 95%CI: -2.51 to -0.79, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The willingness to pay for haemodialysis for themselves and others was high. The type of facility ESKD patients attended influenced their willingness to pay for haemodialysis. The findings highlight the need for policies to enhance affordable and equitable access to haemodialysis in Nigeria through pre-payment mechanisms and altruistic financing strategies.

Cost analysis of the management of end-stage renal disease patients in Abuja, Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Although the treatment for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) under Nigeria's National Health Insurance Authority is haemodialysis (HD), the cost of managing ESRD is understudied in Nigeria. Therefore, this study estimated the provider and patient direct costs of haemodialysis and managing ESRD in Abuja, Nigeria. METHOD: The study was a cross-sectional survey from both healthcare provider and consumer perspectives. We collected data from public and private tertiary hospitals (n = 6) and ESRD patients (n = 230) receiving haemodialysis in the selected hospitals. We estimated the direct providers' costs using fixed and variable costs. Patients' direct costs included drugs, laboratory services, transportation, feeding, and comorbidities. Additionally, data on the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients were collected. The costs were summarized in descriptive statistics using means and percentages. A generalized linear model (gamma with log link) was used to predict the patient characteristics associated with patients' cost of haemodialysis. RESULTS: The mean direct cost of haemodialysis was $152.20 per session (providers: $123.69; and patients: $28.51) and $23,742.96 annually (providers: $19,295.64; and patients: $4,447.32). Additionally, patients spent an average of $2,968.23 managing comorbidities. The drivers of providers' haemodialysis costs were personnel and supplies. Residing in other towns (HD:ß = 0.55, ρ = 0.001; ESRD:ß = 0.59, ρ = 0.004), lacking health insurance (HD:ß = 0.24, ρ = 0.038), attending private health facility (HD:ß = 0.46, ρ < 0.001; ESRD: ß = 0.75, ρ < 0.001), and greater than six haemodialysis sessions per month (HD:ß = 0.79, ρ < 0.001; ESRD: ß = 0.99, ρ < 0.001) significantly increased the patient's out-of-pocket spending on haemodialysis and ESRD. CONCLUSION: The costs of haemodialysis and managing ESRD patients are high. Providing public subsidies for dialysis and expanding social health insurance coverage for ESRD patients might reduce the costs.

Cost-benefit analysis of haemodialysis in patients with end-stage kidney disease in Abuja, Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Significant gaps in scholarship on the cost-benefit analysis of haemodialysis exist in low-middle-income countries, including Nigeria. The study, therefore, assessed the cost-benefit of haemodialysis compared with comprehensive conservative care (CCC) to determine if haemodialysis is socially worthwhile and justifies public funding in Nigeria. METHODS: The study setting is Abuja, Nigeria. The study used a mixed-method design involving primary data collection and analysis of secondary data from previous studies. We adopted an ingredient-based costing approach. The mean costs and benefits of haemodialysis were derived from previous studies. The mean costs and benefits of CCC were obtained from a primary cross-sectional survey. We estimated the benefit-cost ratios (BCR) and net benefits to determine the social value of the two interventions. RESULTS: The net benefit of haemodialysis (2,251.30) was positive, while that of CCC was negative (-1,197.19). The benefit-cost ratio of haemodialysis was 1.09, while that of CCC was 0.66. The probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses results demonstrate that haemodialysis was more cost-beneficial than CCC, and the BCRs of haemodialysis remained above one in most scenarios, unlike CCC's BCR. CONCLUSION: The benefit of haemodialysis outweighs its cost, making it cost-beneficial to society and justifying public funding. However, the National Health Insurance Authority requires additional studies, such as budget impact analysis, to establish the affordability of full coverage of haemodialysis.