Cost Incurred by the Family for Surgery in Their Children: A Bangladesh Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Cost of getting health services is a major concern in Bangladesh as well as in many other countries. A family has to bear more than half of the health care cost despite many facilities provided by the public hospitals. This out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure drives many families under the poverty line. The aim of this study was to find out the exact cost incurred by the family for a surgical operation of their child in the public and private sectors in Bangladesh. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted to find out the cost of child surgery in different settings of public and private hospitals in Chittagong division, Bangladesh. Cost of herniotomy was then compared across different settings. RESULTS: In this study, cost of operation in urban private hospitals was highest mostly due to surgeon and anesthetist fee. The cost was lowest in outreach programs as surgeon fee, anesthetist fee and accommodation cost was nil; food and transport cost was minimum. However, cost of accommodation, food, transport and medicine contributed significantly to OOP expenditure especially in tertiary-level public hospitals, in both indoor and day care settings, and also in private urban hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides some insight into the OOP expenditure in different health care settings in Bangladesh. This study might be useful in developing a strategy to minimize the OOP expenditure in this country.

Education: The Heart of the Matter.

There are inadequate numbers of anesthesia providers in many parts of the world. Good quality educational programs are needed to increase provider numbers, train leaders and teachers, and increase knowledge and skills. In some countries, considerable external support may be required to develop self-sustaining programs. There are some key themes related to educational programs in low- and middle-income countries:(1) Programs must be appropriate for the local environment-there is no "one-size-fits-all" program. In some countries, nonuniversity programs may be appropriate for training providers.(2) It is essential to train local teachers-a number of short courses provide teacher training. Overseas attachments may also play an important role in developing leadership and teaching capacity.(3) Interactive teaching techniques, such as small-group discussions and simulation, have been incorporated into many educational programs. Computer learning and videoconferencing offer additional educational possibilities.(4) Subspecialty education in areas such as obstetric anesthesia, pediatric anesthesia, and pain management are needed to develop leadership and increase capacity in subspecialty areas of practice. Examples include short subspecialty courses and clinical fellowships.(5) Collaboration and coordination are vital. Anesthesiologists need to work with ministries of health and other organizations to develop plans that are matched to need. External organizations can play an important role.(6) Excellent education is required at all levels. Training guidelines could help to standardize and improve training. Resources should be available for research, as well as monitoring and evaluation of educational programs.

Are Short Subspecialty Courses the Educational Answer?

There is an urgent need to train more anesthesia providers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There is also a need to provide more educational opportunities in subspecialty areas of anesthetic practice such as trauma management, pain management, obstetric anesthesia, and pediatric anesthesia. Together, these subspecialty areas make up a large proportion of the clinical workload in LMICs. In these countries, the quality of education may be variable, there may be few teachers, and opportunities for continued learning and mentorship are rare. Short subspecialty courses such as Primary Trauma Care, Essential Pain Management, Safer Anaesthesia From Education-Obstetric Anaesthesia, and Safer Anaesthesia From Education-Paediatric Anaesthesia have been developed to help fill this need. They have the potential for immediate impact by providing an opportunity for continuing professional development and relevant subspecialty training. These courses are all short (1-3 days), are presented as an off-the-shelf package, and include a teach-the-teacher component. They use a variety of interactive teaching techniques and are designed to be adaptable and responsive to local needs. There is an emphasis on local ownership of the educational process that helps to promote sustainability. After an initial financial outlay to purchase equipment, the costs are relatively low. Short subspecialty courses appear to be part of the educational answer in LMICs, but there is a need for research to validate their role.

Strengthening the Anesthesia Workforce in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

The majority of the world's population lacks access to safe, timely, and affordable surgical care. Although there is a health workforce crisis across the board in the poorest countries in the world, anesthesia is disproportionally affected. This article explores some of the key issues that must be tackled to strengthen the anesthesia workforce in low- and lower-middle-income countries. First, we need to increase the overall number of safe anesthesia providers to match a huge burden of disease, particularly in the poorest countries in the world and in remote and rural areas. Through using a task-sharing model, an increase is required in both nonphysician anesthesia providers and anesthesia specialists. Second, there is a need to improve and support the competency of anesthesia providers overall. It is important to include a broad base of knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to manage complex and high-risk patients and to lead improvements in the quality of care. Third, there needs to be a concerted effort to encourage interprofessional skills and the aspects of working and learning together with colleagues in a complex surgical ecosystem. Finally, there has to be a focus on developing a workforce that is resilient to burnout and the challenges of an overwhelming clinical burden and very restricted resources. This is essential for anesthesia providers to stay healthy and effective and necessary to reduce the inevitable loss of human resources through migration and cessation of professional practice. It is vital to realize that all of these issues need to be tackled simultaneously, and none neglected, if a sustainable and scalable solution is to be achieved.

Improving Anesthesia Safety in Low-Resource Settings.

The safety of anesthesia characteristic of high-income countries today is not matched in low-resource settings with poor infrastructure, shortages of anesthesia providers, essential drugs, equipment, and supplies. Health care is delivered through complex systems. Achieving sustainable widespread improvement globally will require an understanding of how to influence such systems. Health outcomes depend not only on a country's income, but also on how resources are allocated, and both vary substantially, between and within countries. Safety is particularly important in anesthesia because anesthesia is intrinsically hazardous and not intrinsically therapeutic. Nevertheless, other elements of the quality of health care, notably access, must also be considered. More generally, there are certain prerequisites within society for health, captured in the Jakarta declaration. It is necessary to have adequate infrastructure (notably for transport and primary health care) and hospitals capable of safely carrying out the "Bellwether Procedures" (cesarean delivery, laparotomy, and the treatment of compound fractures). Surgery, supported by safe anesthesia, is critical to the health of populations, but avoidable harm from health care (including very high mortality rates from anesthesia in many parts of the world) is a major global problem. Thus, surgical and anesthesia services must not only be provided, they must be safe. The global anesthesia workforce crisis is a major barrier to achieving this. Many anesthetics today are administered by nonphysicians with limited training and little access to supervision or support, often working in very challenging circumstances. Many organizations, notably the World Health Organization and the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists, are working to improve access to and safety of anesthesia and surgery around the world. Challenges include collaboration with local stakeholders, coordination of effort between agencies, and the need to influence national health policy makers to achieve sustainable improvement. It is conceivable that safe anesthesia and perioperative care could be provided for essential surgical services today by clinicians with moderate levels of training using relatively simple (but appropriately designed and maintained) equipment and a limited number of inexpensive generic medications. However, there is a minimum standard for these resources, below which reasonable safety cannot be assured. This minimum (at least) should be available to all. Not only more resources, but also more equitable distribution of existing resources is required. Thus, the starting point for global access to safe anesthesia is acceptance that access to health care in general should be a basic human right everywhere.

Anesthesia Service Use During Outpatient Gastroenterology Procedures Continued to Increase From 2010 to 2013 and Potentially Discretionary Spending Remained High.

OBJECTIVES: Previous studies have identified an increasing number of gastroenterology (GI) procedures using anesthesia services to provide sedation, with a majority of these services delivered to low-risk patients. The aim of this study was to update these trends with the most recent years of data. METHODS: We used Medicare and commercial claims data from 2010 to 2013 to identify GI procedures and anesthesia services based on CPT codes, which were linked together using patient identifiers and dates of service. We defined low-risk patients as those who were classified as ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status class I or II. For those patients without an ASA class listed on the claim, we used a prediction algorithm to impute an ASA physical status. RESULTS: Over 6.6 million patients in our sample had a GI procedure between 2010 and 2013. GI procedures involving anesthesia service accounted for 33.7% in 2010 and 47.6% in 2013 in Medicare patients, and 38.3% in 2010 and 53.0% in 2013 in commercially insured patients. Overall, as more patients used anesthesia services, total anesthesia service use in low-risk patients increased 14%, from 27,191 to 33,181 per million Medicare enrollees. Similarly, we observed a nearly identical uptick in commercially insured patients from 15,871 to 22,247 per million, an increase of almost 15%. During 2010-2013, spending associated with anesthesia services in low-risk patients increased from US$3.14 million to US$3.45 million per million Medicare enrollees and from US$7.69 million to US$10.66 million per million commercially insured patients. CONCLUSIONS: During 2010 to 2013, anesthesia service use in GI procedures continued to increase and the proportion of these services rendered for low-risk patients remained high.

Pensions, tax and the anaesthetist: significant implications for workforce planning.

This paper shows how recent tax changes to pensions (i.e. new lifetime and annual allowance contribution limits) mean that NHS consultants will need to adopt one of four rational strategies to work and financial planning. Two of those strategies (termed 'Earn Fast, Drop Out' and 'Never Enter') involve a break between work and pensions. The logical consequence of this break is that consultants may exercise options to maximise their total income, which in turn will result in less work within the NHS and more work in alternative higher paying (e.g. private) sectors. A third strategy ('Go Slow, Stay Low') also involves less-than-full-time NHS work. Only one option ('Do Nothing' as a result of the tax changes) has no effect. In short, the tax changes will predictably lead to future senior consultants devoting proportionately much less of their time to NHS work than before. The article discusses the important implications of this conclusion for NHS workforce planning.

An economic analysis of patient controlled remifentanil and epidural analgesia as pain relief in labour (RAVEL trial); a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of a strategy of patient controlled remifentanil versus epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour. DESIGN: We performed a multicentre randomised controlled trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands, the RAVEL trial. Costs were analysed from a health care perspective alongside the RAVEL trial. POPULATION: Pregnant women of intermediate to high risk beyond 32 weeks gestation who planned vaginal delivery. METHODS: Women were randomised before the onset of labour, to receive either patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia when pain relief was requested during labour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome for effectiveness was satisfaction with pain relief, expressed as the area under the curve (AUC). A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Here, we present an economic analysis from a health care perspective including costs from the start of labour to ten days postpartum. Health-care utilization was documented in the Case Report Forms and by administering an additional questionnaire. RESULTS: The costs in the patient controlled remifentanil group (n = 687) and in the epidural group (n = 671) were €2900 versus €3185 respectively (mean difference of -€282 (95% CI -€611 to €47)). The (non-significant) higher costs in the epidural analgesia group could be mainly attributed to higher costs of neonatal admission. CONCLUSION: From an economic perspective, there is no preferential pain treatment in labouring intermediate to high risk women. Since patient controlled remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to AUC for satisfaction with pain relief we recommend epidural analgesia as the method of choice. However, if appropriately counselled on effect and side effects there is, from an economic perspective, no reason to deny women patient controlled remifentanil.