Framework for determining the optimal course of action when efficiency and affordability measures differ by perspective in cost-effectiveness analysis—with an illustrative case of HIV treatment in Mozambique

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

Methodology

Joseph Corlis¹  Stephen C. Resch²  Jinyi Zhu³  Orrin Tiberi⁴  Hélder Macul⁴  Makini A. S. Boothe⁵ 

[1]Avenir Health, Takoma Park, MD, USA

[2]Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

[3]Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA

[4]Programa Nacional de Controle de ITS-HIV/SIDA, Ministério da Saúde, Maputo, Mozambique

[5]UNAIDS, Maputo, Mozambique

关键词: Cost-effectiveness analysis;    Patient perspective;    Affordability;    Value;    Decision-making;    HIV;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12962-023-00474-4

 received in 2022-06-10, accepted in 2023-09-03,  发布年份 2023

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundCost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a standard tool for evaluating health programs and informing decisions about resource allocation and prioritization. Most CEAs evaluating health interventions in low- and middle-income countries adopt a health sector perspective, accounting for resources funded by international donors and country governments, while often excluding out-of-pocket expenditures and time costs borne by program beneficiaries. Even when patients’ costs are included, a companion analysis focused on the patient perspective is rarely performed. We view this as a missed opportunity.MethodsWe developed methods for assessing intervention affordability and evaluating whether optimal interventions from the health sector perspective also represent efficient and affordable options for patients. We mapped the five different patterns that a comparison of the perspective results can yield into a practical framework, and we provided guidance for researchers and decision-makers on how to use results from multiple perspectives. To illustrate the methodology, we conducted a CEA of six HIV treatment delivery models in Mozambique. We conducted a Monte Carlo microsimulation with probabilistic sensitivity analysis from both patient and health sector perspectives, generating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the treatment approaches. We also calculated annualized patient costs for the treatment approaches, comparing the costs with an affordability threshold. We then compared the cost-effectiveness and affordability results from the two perspectives using the framework we developed.ResultsIn this case, the two perspectives did not produce a shared optimal approach for HIV treatment at the willingness-to-pay threshold of 0.3 × Mozambique’s annual GDP per capita per DALY averted. However, the clinical 6-month antiretroviral drug distribution strategy, which is optimal from the health sector perspective, is efficient and affordable from the patient perspective. All treatment approaches, except clinical 1-month distributions of antiretroviral drugs which were standard before Covid-19, had an annual cost to patients less than the country’s annual average for out-of-pocket health expenditures.ConclusionIncluding a patient perspective in CEAs and explicitly considering affordability offers decision-makers additional insights either by confirming that the optimal strategy from the health sector perspective is also efficient and affordable from the patient perspective or by identifying incongruencies in value or affordability that could affect patient participation.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023

【 图 表 】

Fig. 4

Fig. 1

12936_2023_4724_Article_IEq33.gif

12888_2023_5142_Article_IEq24.gif