Costing of Paediatric Treatment alongside Clinical Trials under Low Resource Constraint Environments: Cotrimoxazole and Antiretroviral Medications in Children Living with HIV/AIDS.

Introduction. Costing evidence is essential for policy makers for priority setting and resource allocation. It is in this context that the clinical trials of ARVs and cotrimoxazole provided a costing component to provide evidence for budgeting and resource needs alongside the clinical efficacy studies. Methods. A micro based costing approach was adopted, using case record forms for maintaining patient records. Costs for fixed assets were allocated based on the paediatric space. Medication and other resource costs were costed using the WHO/MSH Drug Price Indicators as well as procurement data where these were available. Results. The costs for cotrimoxazole and ARVs are significantly different. The average costs for human resources were US$22 and US$71 for physician costs and $1.3 and $16 for nursing costs while in-patient costs were $257 and $15 for the cotrimoxazole and ARV cohorts, respectively. Mean or average costs were $870 for the cotrimoxazole cohort and $218 for the ARV. The causal factors for the significant cost differences are attributable to the higher human resource time, higher infections of opportunistic conditions, and longer and higher frequency of hospitalisations, among others.

From targeted exemptions to user fee abolition in health care: experience from rural Zambia.

Poor access to health care is one of the greatest impediments to improved health in Africa. In Zambia, user fees are considered to be partly responsible for substantial disparities in access to health care. When the Government introduced user fees in 1993, considerable concern was expressed about the adverse effects on utilisation and access. A national exemption policy was designed to protect the poorest sections of the population. However, this was largely ineffective in reaching the majority of the eligible population. On January 13th, 2006, the President of Zambia announced a policy to abolish user fees at primary health care facilities in designated rural districts. This was a major policy shift from targeted exemptions to free primary health care across the board. This study reviewed the performance of free health care in Zambia, following 15 months of implementation. Using a comprehensive national facility-based dataset, we found that utilisation increased among the rural population aged at least five years by 55%. Importantly, utilisation increases were greatest in the districts with the highest levels of poverty and material deprivation. Further, our patient exit interview survey at facilities in two rural districts reveals that although there is some evidence of a strain on drug supplies, perceptions of quality of health care remain fairly positive. This is in contrast to the experience in other countries that have removed user fees. Our findings strongly suggest that fee removal is more effective than fragmented efforts to target exemptions to certain groups in providing protection against the financial consequences of using health services.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of artemether lumefantrine for treatment of uncomplicated malaria in Zambia.

BACKGROUND: Malaria remains a leading cause of morbidity, mortality and non-fatal disability in Zambia, especially among children, pregnant women and the poor. Data gathered by the National Malaria Control Centre has shown that recently observed widespread treatment failure of SP and chloroquine precipitated a surge in malaria-related morbidity and mortality. As a result, the Government has recently replaced chloroquine and SP with combination therapy as first-line treatment for malaria. Despite the acclaimed therapeutic advantages of ACTs over monotherapies with SP and CQ, the cost of ACTs is much greater, raising concerns about affordability in many poor countries such as Zambia. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness analysis of artemether-lumefantrine, a version of ACTs adopted in Zambia in mid 2004. METHODS: Using data gathered from patients presenting at public health facilities with suspected malaria, the costs and effects of using ACTs versus SP as first-line treatment for malaria were estimated. The study was conducted in six district sites. Treatment success and reduction in demand for second line treatment constituted the main effectiveness outcomes. The study gathered data on the efficacy of, and compliance to, AL and SP treatment from a random sample of patients. Costs are based on estimated drug, labour, operational and capital inputs. Drug costs were based on dosages and unit prices provided by the Ministry of Health and the manufacturer (Norvatis). FINDINGS: The results suggest that AL produces successful treatment at less cost than SP, implying that AL is more cost-effective. While it is acknowledged that implementing national ACT program will require considerable resources, the study demonstrates that the health gains (treatment success) from every dollar spent are significantly greater if AL is used rather than SP. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is estimated to be 4.10 US dollars. When the costs of second line treatment are considered the ICER of AL becomes negative, indicating that there are greater resource savings associated with AL in terms of reduction of costs of complicated malaria treatment. CONCLUSION: This study suggests the decision to adopt AL is justifiable on both economic and public health grounds.