Cost of treating sick young infants (0-59 days) with Possible Serious Bacterial Infection in resource-constrained outpatient primary care facilities: An insight from implementation research in two districts of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh (India).

Background: Information on the average and incremental costs of implementing alternative strategies for treating young infants 0-59 days old in primary health facilities with signs of possible serious bacterial infection (PSBI) when a referral is not feasible is limited but valuable for policymakers. Methods: Direct activity costs were calculated for outpatient treatment of PSBI and pneumonia in two districts of India: Palwal, Haryana and Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. These included costs of staff time and consumables for initial assessment, classification, and referrals; recommended treatment of fast breathing (oral amoxicillin for seven days) and PSBI (injection gentamicin and oral amoxicillin for seven days); and daily assessments. Indirect operational costs included staff training; staff time cost for general management, supervision, and coordination; referral transport; and communication. Results: The average cost per young infant treated for recommended and acceptable treatment for PSBI was 16 US dollars (US$) (95% CI = US$15.4-16.3) in 2018-19 and US$18.5 in 2022 (adjusted for inflation) when all direct and indirect operational costs were considered. The average cost of recommended treatment for pneumonia was US$10.1 (95% CI = US$9.7-10.6) or US$11.7 in 2022, per treated young infant. The incremental cost 2018-2019 for supplies, medicines, and operations (excluding staff time costs) per infant treated for PSBI was US$6.1 and US$4.3 and for pneumonia was US$3.5 and US$2.2 in Palwal and Lucknow, respectively. Operation and administrative costs were 25% in Palwal and 12% in Lucknow of the total PSBI treatment costs. The average cost per live birth for treating PSBI in each population was US$5 in Palwal and US$3 in Lucknow. Higher operation costs for social mobilisation activities in Palwal led to the empowerment of families and timely care-seeking. Conclusions: Costs of treatment of PSBI with the recommended regimen in an outpatient setting, when a referral is not feasible, are under US$20 per treated child and must be budgeted to reduce deaths from neonatal sepsis. The investment must be made in activities that lead to successful identification, prompt care seeking, timely initiation of treatment and follow-up.

A comparison of the cost of outpatient care delivered by Aam Aadmi Mohalla Clinics compared to other public and private facilities in Delhi, India.

Aam Admi Mohalla Clinics (AAMCs) were introduced in Delhi in 2015 as neighbourhood clinics to strengthen the delivery of primary care. To inform the policies on government investments for outpatient care, this study estimated the cost of outpatient care per visit in Delhi for 2019-20 for AAMCs and compared it with urban primary health centres (UPHCs), public hospitals, private clinics and private hospitals. Facility costs for AAMCs and UPHCs were also estimated. Using the data from a national health survey, government annual budgets and reports, a modified top-down methodology was adopted to measure the true cost of public facilities, taking into account both government expenditure and out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE). Inflation-adjusted OOPE was used to measure the cost of private facilities. The cost per visit at a private clinic at ₹1146 (US$16) was more than 3-times higher than that at a UPHC (₹325/US$5) and 8-times higher than that at AAMCs (₹143/US$2.0). These costs were ₹1099 (US$15) and ₹1818 (US$25) at public and private hospitals respectively. The annual economic cost per facility of a UPHC at ₹ 9 280 000/$130 000 is ∼4-times that at AAMC (₹2 474 000/$35 000). Unit costs are found to be lower at AAMCs. Utilization for outpatient care has shifted in favour of public primary care facilities. Higher investment in public primary care facilities with expanded services for prevention and promotion, upscaled infrastructure and a gate-keeping mechanism can strengthen the delivery of primary care and promote universal health care at a lower cost.

Patient perception of attributes of primary care: a study of Aam Aadmi Mohalla Clinics in Delhi, India.

BACKGROUND: Aam Aadmi Mohalla Clinics (AAMC) are the community level public primary care facilities recently introduced to strengthen primary care in Delhi, India by bringing affordable healthcare close to home. OBJECTIVES: This study looks at the primary care attributes of AAMC from a patient perspective, to assess their features, strengths and weaknesses. METHODS: Using a primary care survey tool, a cross-sectional survey of 360 users was conducted at 18 facilities across 9 districts of Delhi to gather information on six dimensions of primary care delivery. Thematic analysis of responses to quantitative, multiple-choice and Likert scale questions using percentage of respondents in each category; and a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and suggestions (SWOS) framework, was used to examine the primary care attributes. RESULTS: AAMCs have done well in improving proximity, availability, physical and financial access to primary care with respondents reporting their residence within 1 kilometre of AAMCs (95%), physician being available (100%), free drugs in stock (99%). Service delivery is however not comprehensive with missing preventive care. Respondents reported missing gatekeeping, weak referral mechanism (6-19%), and low physician's familiarity with their overall health (2%). CONCLUSION: AAMCs have brought affordable healthcare with free medicines and diagnostics to neighbourhood. There is an opportunity for attaining universal healthcare that is responsive to user needs through provision of comprehensive care. Compulsory enrolment of neighbourhood population with an electronic database of patients has an immense potential to improve longitudinality and coordination of care.

Unit costs for allopathic and AYUSH outpatient care in public facilities in Urban Delhi, India.

Introduction: The National Health Policy, 2017, suggests pluralism in health care with the integrated delivery of AYUSH and allopathic care at public facilities. Information on unit cost of outpatient visits for both types of care at public facilities is useful to guide the policies on health-care delivery. Methods: The costs in 2019-20 were estimated for each type of care at allopathic urban primary health center (UPHC) and AYUSH facilities using top-down methodology and adding out-of-pocket expenditures (OOPE) incurred to reflect true costs. Data from national health survey, annual government budgets, and reports were used. Results: The average cost of an outpatient visit for allopathic care was ₹325 at a UPHC and ₹189 in a homeopathic dispensary and ₹692 in an Ayurvedic dispensary. While OOPE per visit at UPHC was ₹177, no OOPE was incurred at AYUSH facilities. The government expenditure per visit for allopathic care at UPHC at ₹148 was the lowest compared to any type of AYUSH care. The cost per facility for allopathic UPHC was higher than both Ayurvedic and homeopathic dispensaries. Unani dispensaries were least cost-effective, both in terms of cost per visit and cost per facility. Conclusion: Costs per visit at a facility are impacted by footfalls. For Ayurveda, despite lower facility costs as compared to UPHC, per visit costs were higher due to low utilization. Improving evidence-based utilization of AYUSH care is critical for the success of the government policy of mainstreaming AYUSH care at low cost.

Costs and cost-effectiveness of management of possible serious bacterial infections in young infants in outpatient settings when referral to a hospital was not possible: Results from randomized trials in Africa.

INTRODUCTION: Serious bacterial neonatal infections are a major cause of global neonatal mortality. While hospitalized treatment is recommended, families cannot access inpatient treatment in low resource settings. Two parallel randomized control trials were conducted at five sites in three countries (Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, and Nigeria) to compare the effectiveness of treatment with experimental regimens requiring fewer injections with a reference regimen A (injection gentamicin plus injection procaine penicillin both once daily for 7 days) on the outpatient basis provided to young infants (0-59 days) with signs of possible serious bacterial infection (PSBI) when the referral was not feasible. Costs were estimated to quantify the financial implications of scaleup, and cost-effectiveness of these regimens. METHODS: Direct economic costs (including personnel, drugs and consumable costs) were estimated for identification, prenatal and postnatal visits, assessment, classification, treatment and follow-up. Data on time spent by providers on each activity was collected from 83% of providers. Indirect marginal financial costs were estimated for non-consumables/capital, training, transport, communication, administration and supervision by considering only a share of the total research and health system costs considered important for the program. Total economic costs (direct plus indirect) per young infant treated were estimated based on 39% of young infants enrolled in the trial during 2012 and the number of days each treated during one year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated using treatment failure after one week as the outcome indicator. Experimental regimens were compared to the reference regimen and pairwise comparisons were also made. RESULTS: The average costs of treating a young infant with clinical severe infection (a sub-category of PSBI) in 2012 was lowest with regimen D (injection gentamicin once daily for 2 days plus oral amoxicillin twice daily for 7 days) at US$ 20.9 (95% CI US$ 16.4-25.3) or US$ 32.5 (2018 prices). While all experimental regimens B (injection gentamicin once daily plus oral amoxicillin twice daily, both for 7 days), regimen C (once daily of injection gentamicin injection plus injection procaine penicillin for 2 days, thereafter oral amoxicillin twice daily for 5 days) and regimen D were found to be more cost-effective as compared with the reference regimen A; pairwise comparison showed regimen D was more cost-effective than B or C. For fast breathing, the average cost of treatment with regimen E (oral amoxicillin twice daily for 7 days) at US$ 18.3 (95% CI US$ 13.4-23.3) or US$ 29.0 (2018 prices) was more cost-effective than regimen A. Indirect costs were 32% of the total treatment costs. CONCLUSION: Scaling up of outpatient treatment for PSBI when the referral is not feasible with fewer injections and oral antibiotics is cost-effective for young infants and can lead to increased access to treatment resulting in potential reductions in neonatal mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry under ID ACTRN 12610000286044.

Costing of three feeding regimens for home-based management of children with uncomplicated severe acute malnutrition from a randomised trial in India.

TRIAL DESIGN: Three feeding regimens-centrally produced ready-to-use therapeutic food, locally produced ready-to-use therapeutic food, and augmented, energy-dense, home-prepared food-were provided in a community setting for children with severe acute malnutrition (SAM) in the age group of 6-59 months in an individually randomised multicentre trial that enrolled 906 children. Foods, counselling, feeding support and treatment for mild illnesses were provided until recovery or 16 weeks. METHODS: Costs were estimated for 371 children enrolled in Delhi in a semiurban location after active survey and identification, enrolment, diagnosis and treatment for mild illnesses, and finally treatment with one of the three regimens, both under the research and government setting. Direct costs were estimated for human resources using a price times quantity approach, based on their salaries and average time taken for each activity. The cost per week per child for food, medicines and other consumables was estimated based on the total expenditure over the period and children covered. Indirect costs for programme management including training, transport, non-consumables, infrastructure and equipment were estimated per week per child based on total expenditures for research study and making suitable adjustments for estimations under government setting. RESULTS: No significant difference in costs was found across the three regimens per covered or per treated child. The average cost per treated child in the government setting was estimated at US$56 (<3500 rupees). CONCLUSION: Home-based management of SAM with a locally produced ready-to-use therapeutic food is feasible, acceptable, affordable and very cost-effective in terms of the disability-adjusted life years saved and gross national income per capita of the country. The treatment of SAM at home needs serious attention and integration into the existing health system, along with actions to prevent SAM. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01705769; Pre-results.

Study raises questions about measurement of 'additionality,'or maintaining domestic health spending amid foreign donations.

Donor nations and philanthropic organizations increasingly require that funds provided for a specific health priority such as HIV should supplement domestic spending on that priority-a concept known as "additionality." We investigated the "additionality" concept using data from Honduras, Rwanda, and Thailand, and we found that the three countries increased funding for HIV in response to increased donor funding. In contrast, the study revealed that donors, faced with increased Global Fund resources for HIV in certain countries, tended to decrease their funding for HIV or shift funds for use in non-HIV health areas. More broadly, we found many problems in the measurement and interpretation of additionality. These findings suggest that it would be preferable for donors and countries to agree on how best to use available domestic and external funds to improve population health, and to develop better means of tracking outcomes, than to try to develop more sophisticated methods to track additionality.

Social and Economic Implications of Noncommunicable diseases in India.

Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) have become a major public health problem in India accounting for 62% of the total burden of foregone DALYs and 53% of total deaths. In this paper, we review the social and economic impact of NCDs in India. We outline this impact at household, health system and the macroeconomic level. Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) figure at the top among the leading ten causes of adult (25-69 years) deaths in India. The effects of NCDs are inequitable with evidence of reversal in social gradient of risk factors and greater financial implications for the poorer households in India. Out-of-pocket expenditure associated with the acute and long-term effects of NCDs is high resulting in catastrophic health expenditure for the households. Study in India showed that about 25% of families with a member with CVD and 50% with cancer experience catastrophic expenditure and 10% and 25%, respectively, are driven to poverty. The odds of incurring catastrophic hospitalization expenditure were nearly 160% higher with cancer than the odds of incurring catastrophic spending when hospitalization was due to a communicable disease. These high numbers also pose significant challenge for the health system for providing treatment, care and support. The proportion of hospitalizations and outpatient consultations as a result of NCDs rose from 32% to 40% and 22% to 35%, respectively, within a decade from 1995 to 2004. In macroeconomic term, most of the estimates suggest that the NCDs in India account for an economic burden in the range of 5-10% of GDP, which is significant and slowing down GDP thus hampering development. While India is simultaneously experiencing several disease burdens due to old and new infections, nutritional deficiencies, chronic diseases, and injuries, individual interventions for clinical care are unlikely to be affordable on a large scale. While it is clear that "treating our way out" of the NCDs may not be the efficient way, it has to be strongly supplemented with population-based services aimed at health promotion and action on social determinants of health along with individual services. Since health sector alone cannot deal with the "chronic emergency" of NCDs, a multi-sectoral action addressing the social determinants and strengthening of health systems for universal coverage to population and individual services is required.

Reducing out-of-pocket expenditures to reduce poverty: a disaggregated analysis at rural-urban and state level in India.

Out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure on health care has significant implications for poverty in many developing countries. This paper aims to assess the differential impact of OOP expenditure and its components, such as expenditure on inpatient care, outpatient care and on drugs, across different income quintiles, between developed and less developed regions in India. It also attempts to measure poverty at disaggregated rural-urban and state levels. Based on Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) data from the National Sample Survey (NSS), conducted in 1999-2000, the share of households' expenditure on health services and drugs was calculated. The number of individuals below the state-specific rural and urban poverty line in 17 major states, with and without netting out OOP expenditure, was determined. This also enabled the calculation of the poverty gap or poverty deepening in each region. Estimates show that OOP expenditure is about 5% of total household expenditure (ranging from about 2% in Assam to almost 7% in Kerala) with a higher proportion being recorded in rural areas and affluent states. Purchase of drugs constitutes 70% of the total OOP expenditure. Approximately 32.5 million persons fell below the poverty line in 1999-2000 through OOP payments, implying that the overall poverty increase after accounting for OOP expenditure is 3.2% (as against a rise of 2.2% shown in earlier literature). Also, the poverty headcount increase and poverty deepening is much higher in poorer states and rural areas compared with affluent states and urban areas, except in the case of Maharashtra. High OOP payment share in total health expenditures did not always imply a high poverty headcount; state-specific economic and social factors played a role. The paper argues for better methods of capturing drugs expenditure in household surveys and recommends that special attention be paid to expenditures on drugs, in particular for the poor. Targeted policies in just five poor states to reduce OOP expenditure could help to prevent almost 60% of the poverty headcount increase through OOP payments.

Who pays for health care in Asia?

We estimate the distributional incidence of health care financing in 13 Asian territories that account for 55% of the Asian population. In all territories, higher-income households contribute more to the financing of health care. The better-off contribute more as a proportion of ability to pay in most low- and lower-middle-income territories. Health care financing is slightly regressive in three high-income economies with universal social insurance. Direct taxation is the most progressive source of finance and is most so in poorer economies. In universal systems, social insurance is proportional to regressive. In high-income economies, the out-of-pocket (OOP) payments are proportional or regressive while in low-income economies the better-off spend relatively more OOP. But in most low-/middle-income countries, the better-off not only pay more, they also get more health care.

Catastrophic payments for health care in Asia.

Out-of-pocket (OOP) payments are the principal means of financing health care throughout much of Asia. We estimate the magnitude and distribution of OOP payments for health care in fourteen countries and territories accounting for 81% of the Asian population. We focus on payments that are catastrophic, in the sense of severely disrupting household living standards, and approximate such payments by those absorbing a large fraction of household resources. Bangladesh, China, India, Nepal and Vietnam rely most heavily on OOP financing and have the highest incidence of catastrophic payments. Sri Lanka, Thailand and Malaysia stand out as low to middle income countries that have constrained both the OOP share of health financing and the catastrophic impact of direct payments. In most low/middle-income countries, the better-off are more likely to spend a large fraction of total household resources on health care. This may reflect the inability of the poorest of the poor to divert resources from other basic needs and possibly the protection of the poor from user charges offered in some countries. But in China, Kyrgyz and Vietnam, where there are no exemptions of the poor from charges, they are as, or even more, likely to incur catastrophic payments.

Effect of payments for health care on poverty estimates in 11 countries in Asia: an analysis of household survey data.

BACKGROUND: Conventional estimates of poverty do not take account of out-of-pocket payments to finance health care. We aimed to reassess measures of poverty in 11 low-to-middle income countries in Asia by calculating total household resources both with and without out-of-pocket payments for health care. METHODS: We obtained data on payments for health care from nationally representative surveys, and subtracted these payments from total household resources. We then calculated the number of individuals with less than the internationally accepted threshold of absolute poverty (US1 dollar per head per day) after making health payments. We also assessed the effect of health-care payments on the poverty gap--the amount by which household resources fell short of the 1 dollar poverty line in these countries. FINDINGS: Our estimate of the overall prevalence of absolute poverty in these countries was 14% higher than conventional estimates that do not take account of out-of-pocket payments for health care. We calculated that an additional 2.7% of the population under study (78 million people) ended up with less than 1 dollar per day after they had paid for health care. In Bangladesh, China, India, Nepal, and Vietnam, where more than 60% of health-care costs are paid out-of-pocket by households, our estimates of poverty were much higher than conventional figures, ranging from an additional 1.2% of the population in Vietnam to 3.8% in Bangladesh. INTERPRETATION: Out-of-pocket health payments exacerbate poverty. Policies to reduce the number of Asians living on less than 1 dollar per day need to include measures to reduce such payments.