Multimorbidity and care for hypertension, diabetes and HIV among older adults in rural South Africa

Objective To examine how multimorbidity might affect progression along the continuum of care among older adults with hypertension,diabetes and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in rural South Africa.Methods We analysed data from 4447 people aged 40 years or older who were enrolled in a longitudinal study in Agincourt sub-district. Household-based interviews were completed between November 2014 and November 2015. For hypertension and diabetes (2813 and 512 people, respectively), we defined concordant conditions as other cardiometabolic conditions, and discordant conditions as mental disorders or HIV infection. For HIV infection (1027 people) we defined any other conditions as discordant. Regression models were fitted to assess the relationship between the type of multimorbidity and progression along the care continuum and the likelihood of patients being in each stage of care for the index condition (four stages from testing to treatment).Findings People with hypertension or diabetes plus other cardio metabolic conditions were more like to progress through the care continuum for the index condition than those without cardiometabolic conditions (relative risk, RR: 1.14, 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.09­1.20, and: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.52­3.26, respectively). Having discordant comorbidity was associated with greater progression in care for those with hypertension but not diabetes. Those with HIV infection plus cardiometabolic conditions had less progress in the stages of care compared with those without such conditions (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.80­0.92).Conclusion Patients with concordant conditions were more likely to progress further along the care continuum, while those with discordant multimorbidity tended not to progress beyond diagnosis

Definición de prioridades para las intervenciones de salud en el Sistema de Protección Social en Salud de México / Priority setting for health interventions in Mexico's System of Social Protection in Health

La definición explícita de prioridades en intervenciones de salud representa una oportunidad para México de equilibrar la presión y la complejidad de una transición epidemiológica avanzada, con políticas basadas en evidencias generadas por la inquietud de cómo optimizar el uso de los recursos escasos para mejorar la salud de la población. La experiencia mexicana en la definición de prioridades describe cómo los enfoques analíticos estandarizados en la toma de decisiones, principalmente los de análisis de la carga de la enfermedad y de costo-efectividad, se combinan con otros criterios -tales como dar respuesta a las expectativas legítimas no médicas de los pacientes y asegurar un financiamiento justo para los hogares-, para diseñar e implementar un grupo de tres paquetes diferenciados de intervenciones de salud. Éste es un proceso clave dentro de un conjunto más amplio de elementos de reforma dirigidos a extender el aseguramiento en salud, especialmente a los pobres. Las implicaciones más relevantes en el ámbito de políticas públicas incluyen lecciones sobre el uso de las herramientas analíticas disponibles y probadas para definir prioridades nacionales de salud; la utilidad de resultados que definan prioridades para guiar el desarrollo de capacidades a largo plazo; la importancia de favorecer un enfoque para institucionalizar el análisis ex-ante de costo-efectividad; y la necesidad del fortalecimiento de la capacidad técnica local como un elemento esencial para equilibrar los argumentos sobre maximización de la salud con criterios no relacionados con la salud en el marco de un ejercicio sistemático y transparente.

Explicit priority setting presents Mexico with the opportunity to match the pressure and complexity of an advancing epidemiological transition with evidence-based policies driven by a fundamental concern for how to make the best use of scarce resources to improve population health. The Mexican priority-setting experience describes how standardised analytical approaches to decision making, mainly burden of disease and cost-effectiveness analyses, combine with other criteria -eg, being responsive to the legitimate non-health expectations of patients and ensuring fair financing across households- to design and implement a set of three differentiated health intervention packages. This process is a key element of a wider set of reform components aimed at extending health insurance, especially to the poor. The most relevant policy implications include lessons on the use of available and proven analytical tools to set national health priorities, the usefulness of priority-setting results to guide long-term capacity development, the importance of favouring an institutionalised approach to cost-effectiveness analysis, and the need for local technical capacity strengthening as an essential step to balance health-maximising arguments and other non-health criteria in a transparent and systematic process.