Search

To compare the unit and total costs of three models of ART care for mother-infant pairs during the postpartum phase from provider and patient's perspectives: (i) local standard of care with women in general ART services and infants at well-baby clinics; (ii) women and infants continue to receive care through an integrated maternal and child care approach during the postpartum breastfeeding period; and (iii) referral of women directly to community adherence clubs with their infants receiving care at well-baby clinics.Capital and recurrent cost data (relating to buildings, furniture, equipment, personnel, overheads, maintenance, medication, diagnostic tests and immunisations) were collected from a provider's perspective at six sites in Cape Town, South Africa. Patient time, collected via time-and-motion observation and questionnaires, was used to estimate patient perspective costs and is comprised of lost productivity time, time spent travelling and the direct cost of travelling.The cost of postpartum ART visits under models I, II and III was US $13, US $10 and US $7 per visit for a mother-infant pair, respectively, in 2018 US$. The annual costs for the mother-infant pair utilising the average visit frequencies (a mean of 4.5, 6.9 and 6.7 visits postpartum for models I, II and III, respectively) including costs for infant immunisations, visits, medication and diagnostic tests for both mothers and infants were: I - US $222, II - US $335 and III - US $249. Sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of visit frequency on visit cost showed that Model I annual costs would be most costly if visit frequency was equalised.This comparative analysis of three models of care provides novel data on unit costs and insight into the costs to provide ART and care to mother-infant pairs during the delicate postpartum phase. These costs may be used to help make decisions around integrated services models and differentiated service delivery for postpartum WLH and their children.Comparer le coût et unitaire et total de trois modèles de soins ART pour les paires mère-enfant pendant la phase post-partum selon les perspectives du fournisseur et du patient: (I) - normes locales des soins avec les femmes dans les services généraux de l'ART et les nourrissons dans les cliniques de bien-être pour bébés; (II) - les femmes et les nourrissons continuent de recevoir des soins via une approche intégrée de soins maternels et infantiles pendant la période d'allaitement post-partum; et (III) - orientation des femmes directement vers les clubs d'adhésion communautaires, leurs nourrissons recevant des soins dans les cliniques de bien-être pour bébés pour bébés. MÉTHODES: Les données sur les coûts d'investissement et les coûts récurrents (relatifs aux bâtiments, au mobilier, à l'équipement, au personnel, aux frais généraux, à l'entretien, aux médicaments, aux tests de diagnostic et aux vaccinations) ont été recueillies selon le point de vue du prestataire sur six sites à Cape Town, en Afrique du Sud. Le temps du patient, recueilli via l'observation du temps et des mouvements et des questionnaires, a été utilisé pour estimer les coûts selon le point de vue du patient, et comprend le temps de productivité perdu, le temps passé en déplacement et le coût direct du déplacement. RÉSULTATS: Le coût des visites ART post-partum dans les modèles I, II et III était respectivement de 13 USD, 10 USD et 7 USD par visite pour une paire mère-enfant en USD de 2018. Les coûts annuels pour la paire mère-enfant en utilisant la fréquence moyenne des visites (une moyenne de 4,5 ; 6,9 et 6,7 visites post-partum pour les modèles I, II et III respectivement), y compris les coûts des vaccinations infantiles, des visites, des médicaments et des tests diagnostiques pour les mères et les nourrissons étaient: I - 222 USD, II - 335 USD et III - 249 USD. L'analyse de sensibilité pour évaluer l'impact de la fréquence des visites sur le coût des visites a montré que les coûts annuels du modèle I seraient les plus élevés si la fréquence des visites était égalisée.Cette analyse comparative de trois modèles de soins fournit de nouvelles données sur les coûts unitaires et un aperçu des coûts de fourniture de l’ART et de soins aux paires mère-enfant pendant la phase délicate du post-partum. Ces coûts peuvent être utilisés pour aider à la prise des décisions concernant les modèles de services intégrés et la prestation de services différenciés pour les femmes en période de post-partum et leurs enfants.

South Africa has embarked on major health policy reform to deliver universal health coverage through the establishment of National Health Insurance (NHI). The aim is to improve access, remove financial barriers to care, and enhance care quality. Health technology assessment (HTA) is explicitly identified in the proposed NHI legislation and will have a prominent role in informing decisions about adoption and access to health interventions and technologies. The specific arrangements and approach to HTA in support of this legislation are yet to be determined. Although there is currently no formal national HTA institution in South Africa, there are several processes in both the public and private healthcare sectors that use elements of HTA to varying extents to inform access and resource allocation decisions. Institutions performing HTAs or related activities in South Africa include the National and Provincial Departments of Health, National Treasury, National Health Laboratory Service, Council for Medical Schemes, medical scheme administrators, managed care organizations, academic or research institutions, clinical societies and associations, pharmaceutical and devices companies, private consultancies, and private sector hospital groups. Existing fragmented HTA processes should coordinate and conform to a standardized, fit-for-purpose process and structure that can usefully inform priority setting under NHI and for other decision makers. This transformation will require comprehensive and inclusive planning with dedicated funding and regulation, and provision of strong oversight mechanisms and leadership.

Background. Evidence-informed priority setting is vital to improved investment in public health interventions. This is particularly important as South Africa (SA) makes the shift to universal health coverage and institution of National Health Insurance. Objectives. To measure the financial impact of increasing the demand for modern contraceptive methods in the SA public health sector. We estimated the total cost of providing contraceptives, and specifically the budgetary impact of premature removals of long-acting reversible contraceptives. Methods. We created a deterministic model in Microsoft Excel to estimate the costs of contraception provision over a 5-year time horizon (2018 - 2023) from a healthcare provider perspective. Only direct costs of service provision were considered, including drugs, supplies and personnel time. Costs were not discounted owing to the short time horizon. Scenario analyses were conducted to test uncertainty. Results. The base-case cost of current contraceptive use in 2018 was estimated to be ZAR1.64 billion (ZAR29 per capita). Injectable contraceptives accounted for ~47% of total costs. To meet the total demand for family planning, SA would have to spend ~30% more than the estimate for current contraceptive use. In the year 2023, the ‘current use’ of modern contraceptives would increase to ZAR2.2 billion, and fulfilling the total demand for family planning would require ZAR2.9 billion. The base-case cost of implantable contraceptives was estimated at ZAR54 million. Assuming a normal removal rate, the use of implants is projected to increase by 20% during the 5-year period between 2019 and 2023, with an estimated 46% increase in costs. The cost of early removal of Implanon NXT is estimated at ZAR75 million, with total contraception costs estimated at ZAR102 million in 2019, compared with ZAR56 million when a normal removal rate is applied. Conclusions. The costs of scaling up modern contraceptives in SA are substantial. Early and premature removals of implantable contraceptives are costly to the nation and must be minimised. The government should consider conducting appropriate health technology assessments to inform the introduction of new public health interventions as SA makes the shift to universal health coverage by means of National Health Insurance.

Objectives Transferability of economic evaluations to low- and middle-income countries through adaptation of models is important; however, several methodological and practical challenges remain. Given its significant costs and the quality-of-life burden to patients, adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer was identified as a priority intervention by the South African National Department of Health. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of docetaxel and paclitaxel-containing chemotherapy regimens (taxanes) compared with standard (non-taxane) treatments. Methods A cost-utility analysis was undertaken based on a UK 6-health-state Markov model adapted for South Africa using the Mullins checklist. The analysis assumed a 35-year time horizon. The model was populated with clinical effectiveness data (hazard ratios, recurrence rates, and adverse events) using direct comparisons from clinical trials. Resource use patterns and unit costs for estimating cost parameters (drugs, diagnostics, consumables, personnel) were obtained from South Africa. Uncertainty was assessed using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. Results The incremental cost per patient for the docetaxel regimen compared with standard treatment was R6774. The incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 0.24, generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of R28430 per QALY. The cost of the paclitaxel regimen compared with standard treatment was estimated as −R578 and −R1512, producing an additional 0.03 and 0.025 QALYs, based on 2 trials. Paclitaxel, therefore, appears to be a dominant intervention. The base case results were robust to all sensitivity analyses. Conclusions Based on the adapted model, docetaxel and paclitaxel are predicted to be cost-effective as adjuvant treatment for early breast cancer in South Africa.

Background: Resource allocation in health is universally challenging, but especially so in resource-constrained contexts in the Global South. Pursuing a strategy of evidence-based decision-making and using tools such as Health Technology Assessment (HTA), can help address issues relating to both affordability and equity when allocating resources. Three BRICS and Global South countries, China, India and South Africa have committed to strengthening HTA capacity and developing their domestic HTA systems, with the goal of getting evidence translated into policy. Through assessing and comparing the HTA journey of each country it may be possible to identify common problems and shareable insights. Objectives: This collaborative paper aimed to share knowledge on strengthening HTA systems to enable enhanced evidence-based decision-making in the Global South by: Identifying common barriers and enablers in three BRICS countries in the Global South; and Exploring how South-South collaboration can strengthen HTA capacity and utilisation for better healthcare decision-making. Methods: A descriptive and explorative comparative analysis was conducted comprising a Within-Case analysis to produce a narrative of the HTA journey in each country and an Across-Case analysis to explore both knowledge that could be shared and any potential knowledge gaps. Results: Analyses revealed that China, India and South Africa share many barriers to strengthening and developing HTA systems such as: (1) Minimal HTA expertise; (2) Weak health data infrastructure; (3) Rising healthcare costs; (4) Fragmented healthcare systems; and (5) Significant growth in non-communicable diseases. Stakeholder engagement and institutionalisation of HTA were identified as two conducive factors for strengthening HTA systems. Conclusion: China, India and South Africa have all committed to establishing robust HTA systems to inform evidence-based priority setting and have experienced similar challenges. Engagement among countries of the Global South can provide a supportive platform to share knowledge that is more applicable and pragmatic.

Objectives: The development of a new economic model for every single country that an intervention is used may be seen an inefficient. As such, model adaptation has often been proposed as a potential solution which could save scarce resources for decision makers in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Using adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer as a case study, this study assessed the appropriateness of adapting an economic evaluation model originally developed in the UK for use in South Africa. The study aimed to determine the likely challenges that can arise from the routine adaptation of models to similar settings around the world. Methods: Eight model adaptation methods were identified from a systematic review and a citation search performed using Web of Science and Scopus databases. The eight methods were then appraised against criteria developed by the study team to select the most appropriate approach for LMICs. The Mullins checklist was formally applied in a case study assessing the cost-effectiveness of docetaxel and paclitaxel-containing chemotherapy regimens compared with standard treatments for adjuvant early breast cancer in South Africa. South African resource use patterns and unit cost data were obtained for estimating cost parameters, whilst targeted literature reviews were used to update the clinical effectiveness and utility data in the model. Results: Several methods are available to guide the process of adapting economic evaluation models for countries other than those in which they were conducted. The Mullins checklist seems the most appropriate approach for LMICs. We recommend that a consensus should be developed by a well-conducted Delphi panel. Conclusions: Based on model adaptation using resource use data from South Africa, the Mullins checklist appears to be an appropriate existing method to guide the transferability of economic evaluations done elsewhere to LMICs. However, research on refining the guidance further is urgently needed.

Background. South Africa (SA) is in the process of implementing National Health Insurance (NHI), which will require co-ordination of health provision across sectors and levels of care. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are tools for standardising and implementing care, and are intended to influence clinical decision-making with consequences for patient outcomes, health system costs and resource use. Under NHI, CPGs will be used to guide the provision of healthcare for South Africans. It is therefore important to explore the current landscape of CPG developers and development. Objective. To identify and describe all CPGs available in the public domain produced by SA developers for the SA context. Methods. We conducted a cross-sectional evaluation using a two-part search process: an iterative, electronic search of grey literature and relevant websites (161 websites searched), and a systematic search for peer-reviewed literature (PubMed) after publication year 2000. CPGs were identified, and data were extracted and categorised by two independent reviewers. Any discrepancies were referred to a third reviewer. Data extracted included a description of the developer, condition, and reporting of items associated with CPG quality. Results. A search conducted in May 2017 identified 285 CPGs published after January 2000. Of those, 171 had been developed in the past 5 years. Developers included the national and provincial departments of health (DoH), professional societies and associations, ad hoc collaborations of clinicians, and the Council for Medical Schemes. Topics varied by developer; DoH CPGs focused on high-burden conditions (HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria), and other developers focused on non-communicable diseases. A conflict of interest statement was included in 23% of CPGs developed by societies or clinicians, compared with 4% of DoH CPGs. Conclusion. Accessing CPGs was challenging and required extensive searching. SA has many contributors to CPG development from the public and private sectors and across disciplines, but there is no formal co-ordination or prioritisation of topics for CPG development. Different versions of the CPGs were identified and key quality items were poorly reported, potentially affecting the usability and credibility of those available. There was substantial variation in CPG comprehensiveness and methodological approach. Establishing a national CPG co-ordinating unit responsible for developing standards for CPG development along with clinical quality standards, and supporting high-quality CPG development, is one essential step for moving forward with NHI.