Search

Vaccines and vitamin A supplementation (VAS) are financed by donors in several countries, indicating that challenges remain with achieving sustainable government financing of these critical health commodities. This qualitative study aimed to explore political economy variables of actors' interests, roles, power and commitment to ensure government financing of vaccines and VAS. A total of 77 interviews were conducted in Burundi, Comoros, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Malawi and Zimbabwe. Governments and development partners had similar interests. Donor commitment to vaccines and VAS was sometimes dependent on the priorities and political situation of the donor country. Governments' commitment to financing vaccines was demonstrated through policy measures, such as enactment of immunization laws. Explicit government financial commitment to VAS was absent in all six countries. Some development partners were able to influence governments directly via allocation of health funding while others influenced indirectly through coordination, consolidation and networks. Government power was exercised through multiple systemic and individual processes, including hierarchy, bureaucracy in governance and budgetary process, proactiveness of Ministry of Health officials in engaging with Ministry of Finance, and control over resources. Enablers that were likely to increase government commitment to financing vaccines and VAS included emerging reforms, attention to the voice of citizens and improvements in the domestic economy that in turn increased government revenues. Barriers identified were political instability, health sector inefficiencies, overly complicated bureaucracy, frequent changes of health sector leadership and non-health competing needs. Country governments were aware of their role in financing vaccines, but only a few had made tangible efforts to increase government financing. Discussions on government financing of VAS were absent. Development partners continue to influence government health commodity financing decisions. The political economy environment and contextual factors work together to facilitate or impede domestic financing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Appropriate costing and economic modeling are major factors for the successful scale‐up of health interventions. Various cost functions are currently being used to estimate costs of health interventions at scale in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) potentially resulting in disparate cost projections. The aim of this study is to gain understanding of current methods used and provide guidance to inform the use of cost functions that is fit for purpose. We reviewed seven databases covering the economic and global health literature to identify studies reporting a quantitative analysis of costs informing the projected scale‐up of a health intervention in LMICs between 2003 and 2019. Of the 8725 articles identified, 40 met the inclusion criteria. We classified studies according to the type of cost functions applied—accounting or econometric—and described the intended use of cost projections. Based on these findings, we developed new mathematical notations and cost function frameworks for the analysis of healthcare costs at scale in LMICs setting. These notations estimate variable returns to scale in cost projection methods, which is currently ignored in most studies. The frameworks help to balance simplicity versus accuracy and increase the overall transparency in reporting of methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are marked differences in methods used for undertaking economic evaluations across low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries. We outline the most apparent dissimilarities and reflect on their underlying reasons. We randomly sampled 50 studies from each of three country income groups from a comprehensive database of 2844 economic evaluations published between January 2012 and May 2014. Data were extracted on ten methodological areas: (i) availability of guidelines; (ii) research questions; (iii) perspective; (iv) cost data collection methods; (v) cost data analysis; (vi) outcome measures; (vii) modelling techniques; (viii) cost-effectiveness thresholds; (ix) uncertainty analysis; and (x) applicability. Comparisons were made across income groups and odds ratios calculated. Contextual heterogeneity rightly drives some of the differences identified. Other differences appear less warranted and may be attributed to variation in government health sector capacity, in health economics research capacity and in expectations of funders, journals and peer reviewers. By highlighting these differences, we seek to start a debate about the underlying reasons why they have occurred and to what extent the differences are conducive for methodological advancements. We suggest a number of specific areas in which researchers working in countries of differing environments could learn from one another. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To estimate the mean costs of cataract surgery and refractive error correction at a faith-based eye hospital in Zambia. Methods: Out-of-pocket expenses for user fees, drugs and transport were collected from 90 patient interviews; 47 received cataract surgery and 43 refractive error correction. Overhead and diagnosis-specific costs were determined from micro-costing of the hospital. Costs per patient were calculated as the sum of out-of-pocket expenses and hospital costs, excluding user fees to avoid double counting. Results: From the perspective of the hospital, overhead costs amounted to US$31 per consultation and diagnosis-specific costs were US$57 for cataract surgery and US$36 for refractive error correction. When including out-of-pocket expenses, mean total costs amounted to US$128 (95% confidence interval [CI] US$96--168) per cataract surgery and US$86 (95% CI US$67--118) per refractive error correction. Costs of providing services corresponded well with the user fee levels established by the hospital. Conclusion: This is the first paper to report on the costs of eye care services in an African setting. The methods used could be replicated in other countries and for other types of visual impairments. These estimates are crucial for determining resources needed to meet global goals for elimination of avoidable blindness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Measles vaccination is associated with major reductions in child mortality and morbidity. In Guinea-Bissau, to limit vaccine wastage, children are only measles-vaccinated if at least six children aged 9–11 months are present at a vaccination session. Objective: To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of providing measles vaccine (MV) to all children regardless of age and number of children present. Methods: We estimated MV coverage among children living in villages cluster-randomized to MV for all children and among children cluster-randomized to the current restrictive MV policy (status quo). Prices of MV and injection equipment were obtained from the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Cost savings of hospital admissions averted were collected from a sample of health facilities. The non-specific mortality effects of MV were estimated and presented as deaths averted and life years gained (LYG) from providing MV-for-all. Results: MV coverage at 36 months was 97% in MV-for-all clusters and 84% in restrictive MV policy clusters. Conservatively assuming 90% wastage of MV under the MV-for-all policy and 40% under the restrictive MV policy, cost per child vaccinated was USD 3.08 and USD 1.19, respectively. The incremental costs per LYG and death averted of the MV-for-all policy were USD 5.61 and USD 148, respectively. The MV-for-all policy became cost-saving at 88% wastage. Conclusions: Taking the low cost of MV and the beneficial non-specific effects of MV into consideration, a 10-dose MV vial should be reclassified as a ‘1+ dose vial’. The vial should be opened for a single child, irrespective of age, but can vaccinate up to 10 children. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: VISION 2020 is a global initiative launched in 1999 to eliminate avoidable blindness by 2020. The objective of this study was to undertake a situation analysis of the Zambian eye health system and assess VISION 2020 process indicators on human resources, equipment and infrastructure.Methods: All eye health care providers were surveyed to determine location, financing sources, human resources and equipment. Key informants were interviewed regarding levels of service provision, management and leadership in the sector. Policy papers were reviewed. A health system dynamics framework was used to analyse findings.Results: During 2011, 74 facilities provided eye care in Zambia; 39% were public, 37% private for-profit and 24% owned by Non-Governmental Organizations. Private facilities were solely located in major cities. A total of 191 people worked in eye care; 18 of these were ophthalmologists and eight cataract surgeons, equivalent to 0.34 and 0.15 per 250,000 population, respectively. VISION 2020 targets for inpatient beds and surgical theatres were met in six out of nine provinces, but human resources and spectacles manufacturing workshops were below target in every province. Inequalities in service provision between urban and rural areas were substantial.Conclusion: Shortage and maldistribution of human resources, lack of routine monitoring and inadequate financing mechanisms are the root causes of underperformance in the Zambian eye health system, which hinder the ability to achieve the VISION 2020 goals. We recommend that all VISION 2020 process indicators are evaluated simultaneously as these are not individually useful for monitoring progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of the meningococcal A (MenA) vaccine introduction in Mali through mass campaigns on the routine immunization program and the wider health system., Methods: We used a mixed-methods case-study design, combining semi-structured interviews with 31 key informants, a survey among 18 health facilities, and analysis of routine health facility data on number of routine vaccinations and antenatal consultations before, during, and after the MenA vaccine campaign in December 2010. Survey and interview data were collected at the national level and in 2 regions in July and August 2011, with additional interviews in January 2012., Findings: Many health system functions were not affected-either positively or negatively-by the MenA vaccine introduction. The majority of effects were felt on the immunization program. Benefits included strengthened communication and social mobilization, surveillance, and provider skills. Drawbacks included the interruption of routine vaccination services in the majority of health facilities surveyed (67%). The average daily number of children receiving routine vaccinations was 79% to 87% lower during the 10-day campaign period than during other periods of the month. Antenatal care consultations were also reduced during the campaign period by 10% to 15%. Key informants argued that, with an average of 14 campaigns per year, mass campaigns would have a substantial cumulative negative effect on routine health services. Many also argued that the MenA campaign missed potential opportunities for health systems strengthening because integration with other health services was lacking., Conclusion: The MenA vaccine introduction interrupted routine vaccination and other health services. When introducing a new vaccine through a campaign, coverage of routine health services should be monitored alongside campaign vaccine coverage to highlight where and how long services are disrupted and to mitigate risks to routine services.