Cost of TB services: approach and summary findings of a multi-country study (Value TB).

BACKGROUND: There are currently large gaps in unit cost data for TB, and substantial variation in the quality and methods of unit cost estimates. Uncertainties remain about sample size, range and comprehensiveness of cost data collection for different purposes. We present the methods and results of a project implemented in Kenya, Ethiopia, India, The Philippines and Georgia to estimate unit costs of TB services, focusing on findings most relevant to these remaining methodological challenges.METHODS: We estimated financial and economic unit costs, in close collaboration with national TB programmes. Gold standard methods included both top-down and bottom-up approaches to resource use measurement. Costs are presented in 2018 USD and local currency unit.RESULTS: Cost drivers of outputs varied by service and across countries, as did levels of capacity inefficiency. There was substantial variation in unit cost estimates for some interventions and high overhead costs were observed. Estimates were subject to sampling uncertainty, and some data gaps remain.CONCLUSION: This paper describes detailed methods for the largest TB costing effort to date, to inform prioritisation and planning for TB services. This study provides a strong baseline and some cost estimates may be extrapolated from this data; however, regular further studies of similar quality are needed to add estimates for remaining gaps, or to add new or changing services and interventions. Further research is needed on the best approach to extrapolation of cost data. Costing studies are best implemented as partnerships with policy makers to generate a community of mutual learning and capacity development.

Cost of TB services in healthcare facilities in Kenya (No 3).

BACKGROUND: The reduction of Kenya´s TB burden requires improving resource allocation both to and within the National TB, Leprosy and Lung Disease Program (NTLD-P). We aimed to estimate the unit costs of TB services for budgeting by NTLD-P, and allocative efficiency analyses for future National Strategic Plan (NSP) costing.METHODS: We estimated costs of all TB interventions in a sample of 20 public and private health facilities from eight counties. We calculated national-level unit costs from a health provider´s perspective using bottom-up (BU) and top-down (TD) approaches for the financial year 2017-2018 using Microsoft Excel and STATA v16.RESULTS: The mean unit cost for passive case-finding (PCF) was respectively US$38 and US$60 using the BU and TD approaches. The unit BU and TD costs of a 6-month first-line treatment (FLT) course, including monitoring tests, was respectively US$135 and US$160, while those for adult drug-resistant TB (DR-TB) treatment was respectively US$3,230.28 and US$3,926.52 for the 9-month short regimen. Intervention costs highlighted variations between BU and TD approaches. Overall, TD costs were higher than BU, as these are able to capture more costs due to inefficiency (breaks/downtime/leave).CONCLUSION: The activity-based TB unit costs form a comprehensive cost database, and the costing process has built-in capacity within the NTLD-P and international TB research networks, which will inform future TB budgeting processes.