scholarly journals Can extended cost-effectiveness analysis guide the scale-up of essential health services towards universal health coverage?

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. e247-e248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Humphrey Karamagi ◽  
Delanyo Dovlo
Salud Mental ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-71
Author(s):  
Héctor Cabello-Rangel ◽  
Lina Díaz-Castro ◽  
Carlos Pineda-Antúnez

Introduction. To achieve universal coverage in mental health, it is necessary to demonstrate which interventions should be adopted. Objective. Analyze the alternatives of pharmacological and psychosocial treatment in Mexico for patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, as well as Early Intervention in Psychosis Program. Method. The Extended cost effectiveness analysis (ECEA), it is implemented under scenario the option of treatment in Mexico, which includes: typical or atypical antipsychotic medication plus psychosocial treatment, assuming that all the medications will be provided to the patient, a measure of effectiveness is the years of life adjusted to disability (DALYs). Results. The effect of Universal Public Financing (UPF) is reflected in avoiding 147 DALYs for every 1,000,000 habitants. In addition, has a positive effect in the avoided pocket expenditures from US $ 101,221 to US $ 787,498 according to the type of intervention. Increasing government spending has a greater impact on the poorest quintile, as a distributive effect of the budget is generated. Respect to the value of insurance, the quintile III is the one who is most willing to pay for having insurance, on the other hand, in the highest income quintile, the minimum assurance valuation was observed. Discussion and conclusion. The reduction in out-of-pocket spending is uniform across all quintiles; “Early Intervention in Psychosis Program” is not viable for middle income countries, as México. The ECEA is a convenient method to assess the feasibility and affordability of mental health interventions to generate information for decision makers.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e51990 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruoyan Gai Tobe ◽  
Rintaro Mori ◽  
Lihui Huang ◽  
Lingzhong Xu ◽  
Demin Han ◽  
...  

1974 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 325-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herbert E. Klarman

As an economic technique for evaluating specific projects or programs in the public sector, cost-benefit analysis is relatively new. In this paper, the theory and practice of cost-benefit analysis in general are discussed as a basis for considering its role in assessing technology in the health services. A review of the literature on applications of cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis to the health field reveals that few complete studies have been conducted to date. It is suggested that an adequate analysis requires an empirical approach in which costs and benefits are juxtaposed, and in which presumed benefits reflect an ascertained relationship between inputs and outputs. A threefold classification of benefits is commonly employed: direct, indirect, and intangible. Since the latter pose difficulty, cost-effectiveness analysis is often the more practicable procedure. After summarizing some problems in predicting how technologic developments are likely to affect costs and benefits, the method of cost-benefit analysis is applied to developments of health systems technology in two settings-the hospital and automated multiphasic screening. These examples underscore the importance of solving problems of measurement and valuation of a project or program in its concrete setting. Finally, barriers to the performance of sound and systematic analysis are listed, and the political context of decision making in the public sector is emphasized.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document