ABSTRACT
Background Sudden shocks to health systems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic may disrupt health system functions. Health system functions may also influence the health systems ability to deliver in the face of sudden shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined the impact of COVID-19 on the health financing function in Kenya, and how specific health financing arrangements influenced the health systems capacity to deliver services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study in three purposively selected counties in Kenya using a qualitative approach. We collected data using in-depth interviews (n = 56) and relevant document reviews. We interviewed national level health financing stakeholders, county department of health managers, health facility managers and COVID-19 healthcare workers. We analysed data using a framework approach. Results Purchasing arrangements: COVID-19 services were partially subsidized by the national government, exposing individuals to out-of-pocket costs given the high costs of these services. The National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) adapted its enhanced schemes benefit package targeting formal sector groups to include COVID-19 services but did not make any adaptations to its general scheme targeting the less well-off in society. This had potential equity implications. Public Finance Management (PFM) systems: Nationally, PFM processes were adaptable and partly flexible allowing shorter timelines for budget and procurement processes. At county level, PFM systems were partially flexible with some resource reallocation but maintained centralized purchasing arrangements. The flow of funds to counties and health facilities was delayed and the procurement processes were lengthy. Reproductive and child health services: Domestic and donor funds were reallocated towards the pandemic response resulting in postponement of program activities and affected family planning service delivery. Universal Health Coverage (UHC) plans: Prioritization of UHC related activities was negatively impacted due the shift of focus to the pandemic response. Contrarily the strategic investments in the health sector were found to be a beneficial approach in strengthening the health system. Conclusions Strengthening health systems to improve their resilience to cope with public health emergencies requires substantial investment of financial and non-financial resources. Health financing arrangements are integral in determining the extent of adaptability, flexibility, and responsiveness of health system to COVID-19 and future pandemics.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC) is a novel approach to the care of critically ill patients, focusing on first-tier, low-cost care and designed to be feasible even in low-resourced and low-staffed settings. This is distinct from advanced critical care, usually conducted in ICUs with specialised staff, facilities and technologies. This paper estimates the incremental cost of EECC and advanced critical care for the planning of care for critically ill patients in low resource settings with Kenya and Tanzania as case studies.The incremental costing took a health systems perspective. A normative approach based on the ingredients defined through the recently published global consensus on EECC was used. The setting was a district hospital in which the patient is provided with the definitive care typically provided at that level for their condition. Quantification of resource use was based on COVID-19 as a tracer condition using clinical expertise. Local prices were used where available, and all costs were converted to USD2020.The costs per patient day of EECC is estimated to be 1.01 USD, 10.83 USD and 32.84 USD in Tanzania and 1.76 USD, 14.86 USD and 37.43 USD in Kenya, for moderate, severe and critical COVID-19 patients respectively. The cost per patient day of advanced critical care is estimated to be 13.11 USD and 17.33 USD for severe and 297.30 USD and 369.64 USD for critical COVID-19 patients in Tanzania and Kenya, respectively.EECC, an approach of providing the essential care to all critically ill patients, is low-cost. The components of EECC are basic and universal and, when assessed against the existing gaps in critical care coverage and costs of advanced critical care, suggest that it should be a priority area of investment for health systems around the globe.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Background Few studies have assessed the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines in settings where most of the population had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 vaccine in Kenya from a societal perspective over a 1.5-year time frame. An age-structured transmission model assumed at least 80% of the population to have prior natural immunity when an immune escape variant was introduced. We examine the effect of slow (18 months) or rapid (6 months) vaccine roll-out with vaccine coverage of 30%, 50% or 70% of the adult (> 18 years) population prioritizing roll-out in over 50-year olds (80% uptake in all scenarios). Cost data were obtained from primary analyses. We assumed vaccine procurement at $7 per dose and vaccine delivery costs of $3.90-$6.11 per dose. The cost-effectiveness threshold was USD 919. Findings Slow roll-out at 30% coverage largely targets over 50-year-olds and resulted in 54% fewer deaths (8,132(7,914 to 8,373)) than no vaccination and was cost-saving (ICER=US$-1,343 (-1,345 to - 1,341) per DALY averted). Increasing coverage to 50% and 70%, further reduced deaths by 12% (810 (757 to 872) and 5% (282 (251 to 317) but was not cost-effective, using Kenya’s cost-effectiveness threshold ($ 919.11). Rapid roll-out with 30% coverage averted 63% more deaths and was more cost-saving (ICER=$-1,607 (-1,609 to -1,604) per DALY averted) compared to slow roll-out at the same coverage level, but 50% and 70% coverage scenarios were not cost-effective. Interpretation With prior exposure partially protecting much of the Kenyan population, vaccination of young adults may no longer be cost-effective. KEY QUESTIONS What is already known? The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a substantial number of cases and deaths in low-and middle-income countries. COVID-19 vaccines are considered the main strategy of curtailing the pandemic. However, many African nations are still at the early phase of vaccination. Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines are useful in estimating value for money and illustrate opportunity costs. However, there is a need to balance these economic outcomes against the potential impact of vaccination. What are the new findings? In Kenya, a targeted vaccination strategy that prioritizes those of an older age and is deployed at a rapid rollout speed achieves greater marginal health impacts and is better value for money. Given the existing high-level population protection to COVID-19 due to prior exposure, vaccination of younger adults is less cost-effective in Kenya. What do the new findings imply? Rapid deployment of vaccines during a pandemic averts more cases, hospitalisations, and deaths and is more cost-effective. Against a context of constrained fiscal space for health, it is likely more prudent for Kenya to target those at severe risk of disease and possibly other vulnerable populations rather than to the whole population.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Introduction Vaccines are considered the path out of the COVID-19 pandemic. The government of Kenya is implementing a phased strategy to vaccinate the Kenyan population, initially targeting populations at high risk of severe disease and infection. We estimated the financial and economic unit costs of procuring and delivering the COVID-19 vaccine in Kenya across various vaccination strategies. Methods We used an activity-based costing approach to estimate the incremental costs of COVID-19 vaccine delivery, from a health systems perspective. Document reviews and key informant interviews (n=12) were done to inform the activities, assumptions and the resources required. Unit prices were derived from document reviews or from market prices. Both financial and economic vaccine procurement costs per person vaccinated with 2-doses, and the vaccine delivery costs per person vaccinated with 2-doses were estimated and reported in 2021USD. Results The financial costs of vaccine procurement per person vaccinated with 2-doses ranged from $2.89-$13.09 in the 30% and 100% coverage levels respectively, however, the economic cost was $17.34 across all strategies. Financial vaccine delivery costs per person vaccinated with 2-doses, ranged from $4.28-$3.29 in the 30% and 100% coverage strategies: While the economic delivery costs were two to three times higher than the financial costs. The total procurement and delivery costs per person vaccinated with 2-doses ranged from $7.34-$16.47 for the financial costs and $29.7-$24.68 for the economic costs for the 30% and 100% coverage respectively. With the exception of procurement costs, the main cost driver of financial and economic delivery costs was supply chain costs (47-59%) and advocacy, communication and social mobilization (29-35%) respectively. Conclusion This analysis presents cost estimates that can be used to inform local policy and may further inform parameters used in cost-effectiveness models. The results could potentially be adapted and adjusted to country-specific assumptions to enhance applicability in similar low-and middle-income settings.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
BackgroundCase management of symptomatic COVID-19 patients is a key health system intervention. The Kenyan government embarked to fill capacity gaps in essential and advanced critical care needed for the management of severe and critical COVID-19. However, given scarce resources, gaps in both essential and advanced critical care persist. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of investments in essential and advanced critical care to inform the prioritization of investment decisions. MethodsWe employed a decision tree model to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of investment in essential care (EC) and investment in both essential and advanced critical care (EC+ACC) compared to current health care provision capacity (status quo) for COVID-19 patients in Kenya. We used a health system perspective, and an inpatient care episode time horizon. Cost data was obtained from primary empirical analysis while outcomes data was obtained from epidemiological model estimates. We used univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to assess the robustness of the results. ResultsThe status quo option is more costly and less effective compared to investment in essential care and is thus dominated by the later. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Investment in essential and advanced critical care (EC+ACC) was US $1,378.21 per DALY averted and hence not a cost-effective strategy when compared to Kenyas cost-effectiveness threshold (USD 908). ConclusionWhen the criterion of cost-effectiveness is considered, and within the context of resource scarcity, Kenya will achieve better value for money if it prioritizes investments in essential care before investments in advanced critical care. This information on cost-effectiveness will however need to be considered as part of a multi-criteria decision-making framework that uses a range of criteria that reflect societal values of the Kenyan society. Key questionsO_ST_ABSWhat is already known?C_ST_ABSO_LIThe COVID-19 pandemic is responsible for substantial health effects in low- and middle-income countries C_LIO_LIThe case management of COVID-19 is one of the key control interventions deployed by country health systems. C_LIO_LISimilar to other low- and middle-income countries, Kenya had substantial gaps in both essential and advanced critical care at the beginning of the pandemic. C_LI What are the new findings?O_LIProvision of essential care and advanced critical care for COVID-19 at the current health system capacity (status quo) was costly and the least effective strategy. C_LIO_LIInvestment in both essential care and advanced critical care for COVID-19 is not cost-effective in Kenya when compared to investment in essential care. C_LI What do the new findings imply?O_LIPrioritizing investments in filling capacity gaps in essential care before investing in filling capacity gaps in advanced critical care for COVID-19 is more cost-effective in Kenya C_LIO_LIThese findings are intended to inform the sequencing of investments in case management rather than the selection of either strategy, within a context of substantial resource constraint, and capacity gaps in both essential and advanced critical care or COVID-19 C_LIO_LIKenya will need to consider these findings on cost-effectiveness within a multi-criteria decision-making framework that use a range of criteria that reflect societal values. C_LI
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
IntroductionCase management for COVID-19 patients is one of key interventions in country responses to the pandemic. Countries need information on the costs of case management to inform resource mobilization, planning and budgeting, purchasing arrangements, and assessments of the cost-effectiveness of interventions. We estimated unit costs for COVID-19 case management for patients with asymptomatic, mild to moderate, severe, and critical COVID-19 disease in Kenya. MethodsWe estimated per patient per day unit costs of COVID-19 case management for patients that are asymptomatic and those that have mild to moderate, severe, and critical symptoms. For asymptomatic and mild to moderate patients, we estimated unit costs for home-based care and institutional (hospitals and isolation centers). We used an ingredients approach, adopted a health system perspective and patient episode of care as our time horizon. We obtained data on inputs and their quantities from COVID-19 case management guidelines, home based care guidelines, and human resource guidelines, and augmented this with data provided by three public covid-19 treatment hospitals in Kenya. We obtained input prices for services from a recent costing survey of 20 hospitals in Kenya and for pharmaceuticals, non-pharmaceuticals, devices and equipment from market price databases for Kenya. ResultsPer day per patient unit cost for asymptomatic patients and patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 disease under home based care are KES 1,993.01 (USD 18.89) and 1995.17 (USD 18.991) respectively. When these patients are managed in an isolation center of hospital, the same unit costs for asymptomatic patients and patients with mild to moderate disease are 7,415.28 (USD 70.29) and 7,417.44 (USD 70.31) respectively. Per day unit costs for patients with severe COVID-19 disease managed in general hospital wards and those with critical COVID-19 disease admitted in intensive care units are 12,570.75 (USD 119.16) and 59,369.42 (USD 562.79). ConclusionCOVID-19 case management costs are substantial. Unit costs for asymptomatic and mild to moderate COVID-19 patients in home-based care is 4-fold lower compared institutional care of the same patients. Kenya will not only need to mobilize substantial resources to finance COVID-19 case management but also explore additional service delivery adaptations that will reduce unit costs.