Your browser doesn't support javascript.
An Economic Evaluation of Government-Funded COVID-19 Testing in Australia.
Karnon, Jonathan; Afzali, Hossein Haji Ali; Bonevski, Billie.
  • Karnon J; Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute (FHMRI), College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia. jonathan.karnon@flinders.edu.au.
  • Afzali HHA; Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute (FHMRI), College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
  • Bonevski B; Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute (FHMRI), College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Appl Health Econ Health Policy ; 20(5): 681-691, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1966202
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

Easy and equitable access to testing has been a cornerstone of the public health response to COVID-19. Currently in Australia, testing using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests for COVID-19 is free to the user, but government funding for rapid antigen tests (RATs) is limited. We conduct an economic analysis of alternative government policies regarding the funding of COVID-19 testing in Australia.

METHODS:

A decision tree model was developed to describe COVID-19 testing pathways for the Australian population over a 1-week period. The model outputs were analysed to estimate R numbers associated with alternative funding policies, which were used to estimate COVID-19 cases over a 6-month time horizon. Healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) effects were applied to new COVID-19 cases. The model was populated using responses to a de novo population survey and published data sources.

RESULTS:

Compared with no government-funded COVID-19 testing, government-funded testing is estimated to generate large incremental net monetary benefits (INMBs), up to A$15 billion in the base-case analyses. Government-funded PCR testing and RATs for all is predicted to maximise INMBs in most tested scenarios, though funding RATs for all and not PCR tests has similar INMBs in many scenarios and generates higher benefits to costs ratios.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our interpretation of the modelled analysis is that at the time of writing (July 2022), with high vaccination uptake in Australia and few other public health measures in place, Australian governments should consider reducing funding of PCR testing, for example, limiting capacity to essential workers and individuals with known risk factors for serious symptoms, and fund RATs for all.
Subject(s)

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Financing, Government / COVID-19 Testing / COVID-19 Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study Topics: Vaccines Limits: Humans Country/Region as subject: Oceania Language: English Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Journal subject: Public Health / Health Services Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: S40258-022-00749-6

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Financing, Government / COVID-19 Testing / COVID-19 Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study Topics: Vaccines Limits: Humans Country/Region as subject: Oceania Language: English Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Journal subject: Public Health / Health Services Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: S40258-022-00749-6