The Italian Health System: Cost Containment, Mismanagement, and Politicization

Abstract Background Since 2002, Tanzania has been implementing the focused Antenatal Care (ANC) model that recommended four antenatal care visits. In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) reintroduced the standard ANC model with more interventions including a minimum of eight contacts. However, cost-implications of these changes to the health system are unknown, particularly in countries like Tanzania, that failed to optimally implement the simpler focused ANC model. We compared the health system cost of providing ANC under the focused and the standard models at primary health facilities in Tanzania. Methods We used a micro-costing approach to identify and quantify resources used to implement the focused ANC model at six primary health facilities in Tanzania from July 2018 to June 2019. We also used the standard ANC implementation manual to identify and quantify additional resources required. We used basic salary and allowances to value personnel time while the Medical Store Department price catalogue and local market prices were used for other resources. Costs were collected in Tanzanian shillings and converted to 2018 US$. Results The health system cost of providing ANC services at six facilities (2 health centres and 4 dispensaries) was US$185,282 under the focused model. We estimated that the cost would increase by about 90% at health centres and 97% at dispensaries to US$358,290 by introducing the standard model. Personnel cost accounted for more than one third of the total cost, and more than two additional nurses are required per facility for the standard model. The costs per pregnancy increased from about US$33 to US$63 at health centres and from about US$37 to US$72 at dispensaries. Conclusion Introduction of a standard ANC model at primary health facilities in Tanzania may double resources requirement compared to current practice. Resources availability has been one of the challenges to effective implementation of the current focused ANC model. More research is required, to consider whether the additional costs are reasonable compared to the additional value for maternal and child health.

Download Full-text

Cost Analysis of Pediatric Intensive Care: A Low-Middle Income Country Perspective

10.21203/rs.3.rs-72310/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Amrit Kaur ◽

Muralidharan Jayashree ◽

Shankar Prinja ◽

Ranjana Singh ◽

Arun K. Baranwal

Keyword(s):

Intensive Care Unit ◽

Intensive Care ◽

Health System ◽

Pediatric Intensive Care Unit ◽

Pediatric Intensive Care ◽

Severe Illness ◽

Annual Data ◽

System Cost ◽

Health System Cost ◽

State Of Art

Abstract Background: Globally, Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) admissions are amongst the most expensive. This makes it important to gain insights into the cost of pediatric intensive care units. We undertook this study to calculate the health system cost and out of pocket expenditure incurred per patient during Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) stayMethods: Prospective study conducted in a state of art tertiary level PICU of a teaching and referral hospital. Bottom-up micro costing methods were used to assess the health system cost. Annual data regarding hospital resources used for PICU care was collected from January 2018 to December 2018. Data regarding out of pocket expenditure (OOP) was collected from 299 patients who were admitted from July 2017 to December 2018. The study period was divided into four intervals, each of 4 and a half months duration and data was collected for 1 month in each interval. Per patient and per bed day costs for treatment were estimated both from health system and patient’s perspective. Results: The median (inter-quartile range, IQR) length of PICU stay was 5(3–8) days. Mean ± SD PRISM score of the study cohort was 22.23 ± 7.3. Of the total patients, 55.9% (167) were ventilated. Mean cost per patient treated was US$ 2,078(₹ 144,566). Of this, health system cost and OOP expenditure per patient were US$ 1,731 (₹ 120,425) and 352 (₹ 24,535) respectively. OOP expenditure of a ventilated child was twice that of a non‐ ventilated child. Conclusions: The fixed cost of PICU care were 3.5 times more than variable costs. Major portion of cost is borne by hospital. Severe illness, longer ICU stay and ventilation were associated with increased costs. This study can be used to set the reimbursement package rates under Ayushman Bharat – Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY). Tertiary care state of art intensive care in a public sector teaching hospital in India is far less expensive than developed countries.

Download Full-text

Health System Cost of Post-Abortion Care (PAC): A Systematic Review

10.21203/rs.3.rs-773107/v2 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Estro Dariatno Sihaloho ◽

Ibnu Habibie ◽

Fariza Zahra Kamilah ◽

Yodi Christiani

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Health System ◽

Direct Cost ◽

Medical Cost ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

System Cost ◽

Abortion Care ◽

Post Abortion Care ◽

Health System Cost ◽

Post Abortion

Abstract Background: Despite the increasing trend of Post Abortion Care (PAC) needs and provision, the evidence related to its health system cost is lacking. The study aims to review the health system costs of Post-Abortion Care (PAC) per patient at a national level.Methods: A systematic review of literatures related to PAC cost published in 1994 – October 2020 was performed. Electronic databases such as PubMed, Medline, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were used to search the literature. Following the title and abstract screening, reporting quality was appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. PAC costs were extrapolated into, US dollars ($US) and international dollars ($I), both in 2019. Content analysis was also conducted to synthesize the qualitative findings.Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies reported direct medical cost per patient in accessing PAC, but only three of them included indirect medical cost. All studies reported either average or range of cost. In terms of range, The highest direct cost of PAC with MVA (Medical Vacuum Aspiration) services can be found in Colombia, between $US50.58-212.47, while the lowest is in Malawi ($US15.2-139.19). The highest direct cost of PAC with D&C (Dilatation and Curettage), services was in El Salvador ($US65.22-240.75), while the lowest is in Bangladesh ($US15.71-103.85). Among two studies providing average indirect cost data, Uganda with $US105.04 is the highest average indirect medical cost, while Rwanda with $US51.44 is the lowest on the cost of indirect medical.Conclusions: Our review shows variability in cost of PAC across countries. This study depicts a clearer picture of how costly it is for women to access PAC service, although it is still seemingly underestimated. When a study compared the use of UE method between MVA and D&C, it is confirmed that MVA treatments tend to have lower costs and potentially reduce a significant cost. Therefore, by looking at both clinical and economic perspective, improving and strengthening the quality and accessibility of PAC with MVA is a priority.

Download Full-text

Implementing Standard Antenatal Care Interventions: Health System Cost at Primary Health Facilities in Tanzania.

10.21203/rs.3.rs-401352/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Amisa Tindamanyile Chamani ◽

Amani Thomas Mori ◽

Bjarne Robberstad

Keyword(s):

Standard Model ◽

Antenatal Care ◽

Health System ◽

Health Facilities ◽

System Cost ◽

Primary Health ◽

Health System Cost ◽

The Standard Model ◽

Health Centres ◽

Primary Health Facilities

Abstract Background Since 2002, Tanzania has been implementing the focused Antenatal Care (ANC) model that recommended four antenatal care visits. In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) reintroduced the standard ANC model with more interventions including a minimum of eight contacts. However, cost-implications of these changes to the health system is unknown, particulary in countries like Tanzania, that failed to optimally implement the simpler focused ANC model. We compared the health system cost of providing ANC under the focused and the standard models at primary health facilities in Tanzania. Methods We used a micro-costing approach to identify and quantify resources used to implement the focused ANC model at six primary health facilities in Tanzania from July 2018 to June 2019. We also used the standard ANC implementation manual to identify and quantify additional resources required. We used basic salary and allowances to value personnel time while the Medical Store Department price catalogue and local market prices were used for other resources. Cost were collected in Tanzanian shillings and converted to 2018 US$. Results The health system cost of providing ANC services was US$185,282 under the focused model and the cost increased by about 90% at health centres and 97% at dispensaries to US$358,290 for the standard model. Personnel cost accounted for more than one third of the total cost for both models. With the standard model, costs per pregnancy increased from about US$33 to US$63 at health centres and from about US$37 to US$72 at dispensaries Conclusion Introduction of a standard ANC model at primary healthcare facilities in Tanzania will double resources use compared to current practice. While resources availability has been one of the challenge to effective implementation of the focused ANC model, more research is required, to consider whether these costs are reasonable compared to the additional value for maternal and child health.

Download Full-text

Health system cost of delivering routine vaccination in low- and lower-middle income countries: what is needed over the next decade?

Bulletin of the World Health Organization ◽

10.2471/blt.13.130146 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 92 (5) ◽

pp. 382-384 ◽

Cited By ~ 24

Author(s):

Patrick Lydon ◽

Gian Gandhi ◽

Jos Vandelaer ◽

Jean-Marie Okwo-Bele

Keyword(s):

Health System ◽

Routine Vaccination ◽

Middle Income ◽

System Cost ◽

Middle Income Countries ◽

Health System Cost

Download Full-text

Optimizing formulary decisions.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2017.35.8_suppl.14 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽

pp. 14-14

Author(s):

Henry Jacob Conter

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Health System ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Mortality Data ◽

Primary Concern ◽

System Cost ◽

Best Estimate ◽

Health System Cost ◽

Drug Review

14 Background: As medication prices rise, the sustainability of health care systems has been increasingly questioned. Health technology assessment (HTA) could be employed to maximize value when budgets are limited. Methods: The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) is an evidence-based, cancer drug review process that guides formulary decision-making. As of 10/30/16, data from all 93 reviews and economic guidances were abstracted for price of medication, total health care cost per patient, cost-utility provided by the submitter, and the re-analysis by pCODR. Regression analysis was employed to identify correlations. Expected use of therapy was estimated employing mortality data from the Canadian Cancer Society. An optimal formulary was then developed, with value for money as the primary concern. Results: Of the 93 reviews, 11 were not finalized, 3 were withdrawn, and 1 was suspended. 4 reviews were excluded since the base-case was ambiguous. Of included reviews, 13% were recommended for funding, 66% were recommended conditional on improved cost-effectiveness, and 22% were rejected. The median drug price per 28-day cycle was $7,567 (range $2,800-$18,435), with no annual difference from 2012-2016 (p=0.49). The median best-estimate of cost-utility was $188,537/QALY (IQR $127,399/QALY) with a median net increase in health system cost of $66,069/patient (IQR $90,466). The median difference between pCODR’s best estimate and the submitter’s was $61,240/QALY (IQR $73,656/QALY). The submitter’s estimate of cost effectiveness was correlated with pCODRs assessment (R² = 0.65, p<0.01). Cost per 28-day cycle was a weak predictor of value (R² = 0.01, p<0.01), and not of health system cost (R² = 0.17, p=0.11). In the Canadian context, funding all efficacious medications would require a total of $5.91 billion producing 31,705 QALYs, annually. Funding the system with $1.12 billion for new medicines by first-come-first-served principle, yields 5,966 QALYs over 16 drugs, annually. By prioritizing based on value, $1 billion allows for funding of 22 drugs producing 9,665 QALYs, annually. $2 billion would increase annual QALYs to 15,792 over 26 drugs. Conclusions: Price of medications should not be used as a heuristic for value. An optimized formulary requires practical deployment of HTA.

Download Full-text