Use of a Sustainable Livelihood Framework-Based Measure to Estimate Socioeconomic Impact of Tuberculosis on Households.

Tuberculosis (TB) disproportionally affects impoverished members of society. The adverse socioeconomic impact of TB on households is mostly measured using money-centric approaches, which have been criticized as one-dimensional and risk either overestimating or underestimating the true socioeconomic impacts of TB. We propose the use of the sustainable livelihood framework, which includes 5 household capital assets (human, financial, physical, natural, and social) and conceptualizes that households employ accumulative strategies in times of plenty and coping (survival) strategies in response to shocks such as TB. The proposed measure ascertains to what extent the 5 capital assets are available to households affected by TB as well as the coping costs (reversible and nonreversible) that are incurred by households at different time points (intensive, continuation, and post-TB treatment phase). We assert that our approach is holistic and multidimensional and draws attention to multisectoral responses to mitigate the socioeconomic impact of TB on households.

Does Ghana's National Health Insurance Scheme provide financial protection to tuberculosis patients and their households?

Financial barriers are a key limitation to accessing health services, such as tuberculosis (TB) care in resource-poor settings. In Ghana, the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), established in 2003, officially offers free TB care to those enrolled. Using data from the first Ghana's national TB patient cost survey, we address two key questions 1) what are the key determinants of costs and affordability for TB-affected households, and 2) what would be the impact on costs for TB-affected households of expanding NHIS to all TB patients? We reported the level of direct and indirect costs, the proportion of TB-affected households experiencing catastrophic costs (defined as total TB-related costs, i.e., direct and indirect, exceeding 20% of their estimated pre-diagnosis annual household income), and potential determinants of costs, stratified by insurance status. Regression models were used to determine drivers of costs and affordability. The effect of enrolment into NHIS on costs was investigated through Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Analysis. Higher levels of education and income, a bigger household size and an multi-drug resistant TB diagnosis were associated with higher direct costs. Being in a low wealth quintile, living in an urban setting, losing one's job and having MDR-TB increased the odds of experiencing catastrophic costs. There was no evidence to suggest that enrolment in NHIS defrayed medical, non-medical, or total costs, nor mitigated income loss. Even if we expanded NHIS to all TB patients, the analyses suggest no evidence for any impact of insurance on medical cost, income loss, or total cost. An expansion of the NHIS programme will not relieve the financial burden for TB-affected households. Social protection schemes require enhancement if they are to protect TB patients from financial catastrophe.

Cash transfers to enhance TB control: lessons from the HIV response.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization prioritises a more holistic global response to end the tuberculosis (TB) epidemic by 2030. Based on experiences in the HIV response, social protection, and in particular cash transfers, show promise for contributing to this. Currently, individual-level evidence for the potential of cash transfers to prevent TB by addressing the structural social determinants of disease is lacking. To identify priority actions for the TB research agenda, we appraised efforts by the HIV response to establish the role of cash transfers in preventing HIV infection. MAIN BODY: The HIV response has evaluated the effects of cash transfers on risky sexual behaviours and HIV incidence. Work has also evaluated the added effects of supplementing cash transfers with psychosocial support. The HIV response has focused research on populations with disproportionate HIV risk, and used a mix of explanatory evaluations, which use ideal conditions, and pragmatic evaluations, which use operational conditions, to generate evidence that is both causally valid and applicable to the real world. It has always collaborated with multiple stakeholders in funding and evaluating projects. Learning from the HIV response, priority actions for the TB response should be to investigate the effect of cash transfers on intermediary social determinants of active TB disease, and TB incidence, as well as the added effects of supplementing cash transfers with psychosocial support. Work should be focused on key groups in high burden settings, and look to build a combination of explanatory and pragmatic evidence to inform policy decisions in this field. To achieve this, there is an urgent need to facilitate collaborations between groups interested in evaluating the impact of cash transfers on TB risk. CONCLUSIONS: The HIV response highlights several priority actions necessary for the TB response to establish the potential of cash transfers to prevent TB by addresing the structural social determinants of disease.