Dataset Information

Resource requirements for essential universal health coverage: a modelling study based on findings from Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition (DCP3), published two model health benefits packages (HBPs). This study estimates the overall costs and individual component costs of these packages in low-income countries (LICs) and lower-middle-income countries (lower-MICs).

Methods

This study reports on our Disease Control Priorities Cost Model (DCP-CM), developed as part of the DCP3 project to determine the overall costs of the 218 health sector interventions recommended in the model HBP termed essential universal health coverage (EUHC). Model inputs included data on intervention unit costs, demographic and epidemiological data to quantify the populations in need of specific interventions, baseline coverage indicators, and estimates of required health system costs to support direct service delivery. The DCP-CM was informed primarily by published estimates of economic costs of interventions measured from the health system perspective. We estimated counterfactual annual costs for the year 2015. We disaggregated costs according to intervention characteristics (delivery platform, delivery timing, and health system objective) and did one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses with determination of 95% credible intervals (Crls).

Findings

At 80% population coverage, the annual cost of EUHC would be US$79 (95% Crl 60-110) per capita (in 2016 US dollars) in LICs and US$130 (100-180) per capita in lower-MICs. As a share of 2015 gross national income (GNI), additional investments would require 8·0% (95% Crl 5·7-11·3) in LICs and 4·2% (2·9-5·9) in lower-MICs. A highest priority subpackage comprising 115 of the EUHC interventions would cost approximately half of these amounts (3·7% [2·6-5·3] of 2015 GNI in LICs and 2·0% [1·4-2·8] in lower-MICs). Mortality-reducing interventions would require around two-thirds of the overall package costs, with interventions to reduce mortality at age 5-69 years from non-communicable disease and injury comprising the highest share of total EUHC costs in both income groups (37·6% [37·2-37·9] in LICs and 43·0% [42·6-43·4] in lower-MICs). Interventions addressing chronic health conditions (requiring 45·5% [44·8-46·4] 2015 GNI for LICs and lower-MICs combined) and interventions delivered in health centres (requiring 49·8% [49·5-50·2] 2015 GNI for LICs and lower-MICs combined) would each comprise the plurality of costs.

Interpretation

Implementation of EUHC would require costly investment, especially in LICs. DCP-CM is available as an online tool that can inform local HBP deliberation and support efficient investment in UHC, especially as countries pivot towards non-communicable disease and injury care.

Funding

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Trond Mohn Foundation, and Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation.

SUBMITTER: Watkins DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7248571 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The first month of life is the period with the highest risk of dying. Despite knowledge of effective interventions, newborn mortality is high and utilization of health care services remains low in Ethiopia. In settings without universal health coverage, the economy of a household is vulnerable to illness, and out-of-pocket payments may limit families' opportunities to seek health care for newborns. In this paper we explore intra-household resource allocation, focusing on how families prioritize newborn health versus other household needs and their coping strategies for managing these priorities.A qualitative study was conducted in 2015 in Butajira, Ethiopia, comprising observation, semi-structured interviews, and focus group discussions with household members, health workers, and community members. Household members with hospitalized newborns or who had experienced neonatal death were primary informants.In this predominantly rural and poor district, households struggled to pay out-of-pocket for services such as admission, diagnostics, drugs, and transportation. When newborns fell ill, families made hard choices balancing concerns for newborn health and other household needs. The ability to seek care, obtain services, and follow medical advice depended on the social and economic assets of the household. It was common to borrow money from friends and family, or even to sell a sheep or the harvest, if necessary. In managing household priorities and high costs, families waited before seeking health care, or used cheaper traditional medicines. For poor families with no money or opportunity to borrow, it became impossible to follow medical advice or even seek care in the first place. This had fatal health consequences for the sick newborns.While improving neonatal health is prioritized at policy level in Ethiopia, poor households with sick neonates may prioritize differently. With limited money at hand and high direct health care costs, families balanced conflicting concerns to newborn health and family welfare. We argue that families should not be left in situations where they have to choose between survival of the newborn and economic ruin. Protection against out-of-pocket spending is key as Ethiopia moves towards universal health coverage. A necessary step is to provide prioritized newborn health care services free of charge.

Project description:Monitoring universal health coverage (UHC) focuses on information on health intervention coverage and financial protection. This paper addresses monitoring intervention coverage, related to the full spectrum of UHC, including health promotion and disease prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and palliation. A comprehensive core set of indicators most relevant to the country situation should be monitored on a regular basis as part of health progress and systems performance assessment for all countries. UHC monitoring should be embedded in a broad results framework for the country health system, but focus on indicators related to the coverage of interventions that most directly reflect the results of UHC investments and strategies in each country. A set of tracer coverage indicators can be selected, divided into two groups-promotion/prevention, and treatment/care-as illustrated in this paper. Disaggregation of the indicators by the main equity stratifiers is critical to monitor progress in all population groups. Targets need to be set in accordance with baselines, historical rate of progress, and measurement considerations. Critical measurement gaps also exist, especially for treatment indicators, covering issues such as mental health, injuries, chronic conditions, surgical interventions, rehabilitation, and palliation. Consequently, further research and proxy indicators need to be used in the interim. Ideally, indicators should include a quality of intervention dimension. For some interventions, use of a single indicator is feasible, such as management of hypertension; but in many areas additional indicators are needed to capture quality of service provision. The monitoring of UHC has significant implications for health information systems. Major data gaps will need to be filled. At a minimum, countries will need to administer regular household health surveys with biological and clinical data collection. Countries will also need to improve the production of reliable, comprehensive, and timely health facility data. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Project description:The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt) provides the scientific community with a single, centralized, authoritative resource for protein sequences and functional information. Formed by uniting the Swiss-Prot, TrEMBL and PIR protein database activities, the UniProt consortium produces three layers of protein sequence databases: the UniProt Archive (UniParc), the UniProt Knowledgebase (UniProt) and the UniProt Reference (UniRef) databases. The UniProt Knowledgebase is a comprehensive, fully classified, richly and accurately annotated protein sequence knowledgebase with extensive cross-references. This centrepiece consists of two sections: UniProt/Swiss-Prot, with fully, manually curated entries; and UniProt/TrEMBL, enriched with automated classification and annotation. During 2004, tens of thousands of Knowledgebase records got manually annotated or updated; we introduced a new comment line topic: TOXIC DOSE to store information on the acute toxicity of a toxin; the UniProt keyword list got augmented by additional keywords; we improved the documentation of the keywords and are continuously overhauling and standardizing the annotation of post-translational modifications. Furthermore, we introduced a new documentation file of the strains and their synonyms. Many new database cross-references were introduced and we started to make use of Digital Object Identifiers. We also achieved in collaboration with the Macromolecular Structure Database group at EBI an improved integration with structural databases by residue level mapping of sequences from the Protein Data Bank entries onto corresponding UniProt entries. For convenient sequence searches we provide the UniRef non-redundant sequence databases. The comprehensive UniParc database stores the complete body of publicly available protein sequence data. The UniProt databases can be accessed online (http://www.uniprot.org) or downloaded in several formats (ftp://ftp.uniprot.org/pub). New releases are published every two weeks.

Project description:BackgroundAs universal health coverage becomes the norm in many countries, it is important to determine public priorities regarding benefits to include in health insurance coverage. We report results of participation in a decision exercise among residents of Switzerland, a high-income country with a long history of universal health insurance and deliberative democracy.MethodsWe adapted the Choosing Healthplans All Together (CHAT) tool, an exercise developed to transform complex healthcare allocation decisions into easily understandable choices, for use in Switzerland. We conducted CHAT exercises in twelve Swiss cities with recruitment from a range of socio-economic backgrounds, taking into account differences in language and culture.ResultsCompared to existing coverage, a majority of 175 participants accepted greater general practice gatekeeping (94%), exclusion of invasive life-sustaining measures in dying patients (80%), longer waiting times for non-urgent episodic care (78%), greater adherence to cost-effectiveness guidelines in chronic care (66%), and lower premium subsidies (51%). Most initially chose greater coverage for dental care (59%), quality of life (57%), and long-term care (90%). During group deliberations, participants increased coverage for out-of-pocket costs (58%) and mental health to current levels (41%) and beyond current levels for rehabilitation (50%), and decreased coverage for quality of life to current levels (74%). Following group deliberation, they tended to change their views back to below current coverage for help with out-of-pocket costs, and back to current levels for rehabilitation. Most participants accepted the plan as appropriate and fair. A significant number would have added nothing.ConclusionSwiss participants who have engaged in a priority setting exercise accept complex resource allocation trade-offs in healthcare coverage. Moreover, in the context of a well-funded healthcare system with universal coverage centered on individual choice, at least some of our participants believed a fully sufficient threshold of health insurance coverage was achieved.