ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Generally, hypertension control programs are cost-effective, including in low- and middle-income countries, but country governments and civil society are not likely to support hypertension control programs unless value is demonstrated in terms of public health benefits, budget impact, and value-for-investment for the individual country context. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) established a standard, simplified Global HEARTS approach to hypertension control, including preferred antihypertensive medicines and blood pressure measurement devices. The objective of this study is to report on health economic studies of HEARTS hypertension control package cost (especially medication costs), cost-effectiveness, and budget impact and describe mathematical models designed to translate hypertension control program data into the optimal approach to hypertension care service delivery and financing, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Early results suggest that HEARTS hypertension control interventions are either cost-saving or cost-effective, that the HEARTS package is affordable at between US$ 18-44 per person treated per year, and that antihypertensive medicines could be priced low enough to reach a global standard of an average <US$ 5 per patient per year in the public sector. This health economic evidence will make a compelling case for government ownership and financial support for national scale hypertension control programs.
RESUMEN En general, los programas de control de la hipertensión son costo-eficaces, incluso en los países de ingresos bajos y medios. Aun así, es poco probable que los gobiernos nacionales y la sociedad civil apoyen los programas de control de la hipertensión a menos que se demuestre su valor en términos de beneficios para la salud pública, impacto presupuestario y valor de la inversión para el contexto individual del país. La Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) y la Organización Panamericana de la Salud (OPS) implementaron la iniciativa HEARTS, un enfoque mundial estandarizado y simplificado para el control de la hipertensión, que incluye los medicamentos antihipertensivos y los dispositivos de medición de la presión arterial de preferencia. El objetivo de este estudio es informar sobre los estudios en el ámbito de la economía de la salud relativos al costo de las medidas de control de la hipertensión previstas en HEARTS (especialmente, de los medicamentos), la costo-efectividad y el impacto presupuestario, así como describir los modelos matemáticos diseñados para traducir los datos de este programa en un enfoque óptimo para la prestación y el financiamiento de los servicios de atención de la hipertensión, especialmente en países de ingresos medianos y bajos. Los primeros resultados indican que las intervenciones de HEARTS para el control de la hipertensión son de bajo costo o costo-eficaces, que el conjunto de medidas HEARTS es asequible, a un precio que oscila entre US$ 18 y US$ 44 al año por paciente tratado, y que los medicamentos antihipertensivos podrían tener un precio lo suficientemente bajo como para alcanzar un estándar medio mundial de <US$ 5 por paciente al año en el sector público. Estos datos del ámbito de la economía de la salud serán argumentos convincentes para que los gobiernos se involucren en los programas de control de la hipertensión a escala nacional y les brinden apoyo financiero.
RESUMO Geralmente, os programas de controle de hipertensão são custo-efetivos, inclusive em países de baixa e média renda, mas os governos dos países e a sociedade civil provavelmente não apoiarão tais programas a menos que demonstrem valor em termos de benefícios à saúde pública, impacto orçamentário e retorno sobre o investimento no contexto individual do país. A Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS) e a Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde (OPAS) criaram a Global HEARTS, uma abordagem padrão e simplificada ao controle da hipertensão arterial, que inclui medicamentos anti-hipertensivos preferidos e dispositivos para aferição da pressão arterial preferidos. O objetivo deste estudo é relatar os estudos de economia em saúde que analisaram o custo (especialmente custos de medicamentos), custo-benefício e impacto orçamentário do pacote HEARTS para controle da hipertensão e descrever modelos matemáticos elaborados para traduzir os dados do programa de controle de hipertensão em uma abordagem ideal para a prestação e financiamento de serviços de atenção às pessoas com hipertensão, especialmente em países de baixa e média renda. Os primeiros resultados sugerem que as intervenções HEARTS para controle da hipertensão são de baixo custo ou custo-efetivas, que o pacote HEARTS é acessível (custando de US$ 18 a 44 por pessoa tratada por ano) e que o preço dos medicamentos anti-hipertensivos poderia ser baixo o suficiente para atingir uma média global de <US$ 18 por paciente por ano no setor público. Estas evidências do campo da economia em saúde serão um argumento convincente para que os governos se responsabilizem por programas de controle de hipertensão em escala nacional e os dotem de recursos financeiros.
ABSTRACT
Background: The availability of reliable and comprehensive information on the health workforce is crucial for workforce planning. In India, routine information sources on the health workforce are incomplete and unreliable. This paper addresses this issue and provides a comprehensive picture of India’s health workforce. Methods: Data from the 68th round (July 2011 to June 2012) of the National Sample Survey on the Employment and unemployment situation in India were analysed to produce estimates of the health workforce in India. The estimates were based on self-reported occupations, categorized using a combination of both National Classification of Occupations (2004) and National Industrial Classification (2008) codes. Results: Findings suggest that in 2011–2012, there were 2.5 million health workers (density of 20.9 workers per 10 000 population) in India. However, 56.4% of all health workers were unqualified, including 42.3% of allopathic doctors, 27.5% of dentists, 56.1% of Ayurveda, yoga and naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and homoeopathy (AYUSH) practitioners, 58.4% of nurses and midwives and 69.2% of health associates. By cadre, there were 3.3 qualified allopathic doctors and 3.1 nurses and midwives per 10 000 population; this is around one quarter of the World Health Organization benchmark of 22.8 doctors, nurses and midwives per 10 000 population. Out of all qualified workers, 77.4% were located in urban areas, even though the urban population is only 31% of the total population of the country. This urban–rural difference was higher for allopathic doctors (density 11.4 times higher in urban areas) compared to nurses and midwives (5.5 times higher in urban areas). Conclusion: The study highlights several areas of concern: overall low numbers of qualified health workers; a large presence of unqualified health workers, particularly in rural areas; and large urban–rural differences in the distribution of qualified health workers.
ABSTRACT
Background & objectives: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes have become a leading threat to public health in India. This study examines socio-economic differences in self-reported morbidity due to CVD and diabetes, where people having these conditions seek care, how much households pay for and how they finance hospital treatment for these conditions. Methods: Data for this study are taken from the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) 60th round on ‘Morbidity and Health Care’ conducted between January and June 2004. Information from 2,129 and 438 individuals hospitalized for CVD and diabetes was analyzed. Results: The self-reported prevalence among adults was 12 per cent for CVD, 4 per cent (7% urban and 3% rural) for heart disease and 6 per cent (10% in urban and 4% in rural) for diabetes. Both self-reported CVD and diabetes appeared to afflict the wealthier more. The private sector was the main provider of outpatient and inpatient care for CVD and diabetes treatment, though the poor depended more on the public sector. Out-of-pocket payments (OOPS) for hospital treatment claimed a large share of annual household expenditures; 30 per cent for CVD and 17 per cent for diabetes. The OOPS share for diabetes treatment declined with increasing income. The majority of OOPS for hospital treatment paid by the poor was financed through borrowings. Interpretation & conclusions: The considerable financial strain which households, particularly the poor, face in treating CVD and diabetes is alarming. As the burden due to CVD and diabetes increases in India, more households will be subject to these financial strains and unfortunately, the economically vulnerable among them will be the worst affected. While primary prevention of these conditions need more emphasis, in addition, insurance schemes targeted at the poor like the RSBY have an important role to play in financially protecting vulnerable households.