Search

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]

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]

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., (© 2016 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)