Universal Health Coverage for Mental, Neurological, and Substance Use Disorders: An Extended Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Author(s):  
Dan Chisholm ◽  
Kjell Arne Johansson ◽  
Neha Raykar ◽  
Itamar Megiddo ◽  
Aditi Nigam ◽  
...  
Addiction ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 108 (12) ◽  
pp. 2166-2174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn E. McCollister ◽  
Michael T. French ◽  
Derek M. Freitas ◽  
Michael L. Dennis ◽  
Christy K. Scott ◽  
...  

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.


2008 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 272-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael T. French ◽  
Silvana K. Zavala ◽  
Kathryn E. McCollister ◽  
Holly B. Waldron ◽  
Charles W. Turner ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Melanie Y. Bertram ◽  
Jeremy A. Lauer ◽  
Karin Stenberg ◽  
Ambinintsoa H. Ralaidovy ◽  
Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer

Background: World Health Organization Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective (WHO CHOICE) has been a programme of the WHO for 20 years. In this latest update, we present for the first time a cross-programme analysis of the comparative cost-effectiveness of 479 intervention scenarios across 20 disease programmes and risk factors. Methods: This analysis follows the standard WHO CHOICE approach to generalized cost-effectiveness analysis applied to two regions, Eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. The scope of the analysis is all interventions included in programme specific WHO CHOICE analyses, using WHO treatment guidelines for major disease areas as the foundation. Costs are measured in 2010 international dollars, and benefits modelled beginning in 2010, or the nearest year for which validated data was available, both for a period of 100 years. Results: Across both regions included in the analysis, interventions span multiple orders of magnitude in terms of cost-effectiveness ratios. A health benefit package optimized through a value for money lens incorporates interventions responding to all of the main drivers of disease burden. Interventions delivered through first level clinical and non-clinical services represent the majority of the high impact cost-effective interventions. Conclusion: Cost-effectiveness is one important criterion when selecting health interventions for benefit packages to progress towards universal health coverage (UHC), but it is not the only criterion and all calculations should be adapted to the local context. To support country decision-makers, WHO CHOICE has developed a downloadable tool to support the development of data for this criterion.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document