Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Vaccine ; 33 Suppl 1: A47-52, 2015 May 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25919174

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to inform planning and funding by providing updated, detailed information on total and unit costs of routine immunisation (RI) in Zambia, a GAVI-eligible lower middle-income country with a population of 13 million. METHODS: The exercise was part of a multi-country study on costs and financing of routine immunisation (EPIC) that utilized a common, ingredients-based approach to costing. Data on inputs, prices and outputs were collected in a stratified, random sample of 51 facilities in nine districts between December 2012 and March 2013 using a pre-tested questionnaire. Shared inputs were allocated to RI costs on the basis of tracing factors developed for the study. A comprehensive set of costs were analysed to obtain total and unit costs, at facility and above-facility levels. RESULTS: The total annual economic cost of RI was $38.16 million, equivalent to approximately 10% of government health spending. Government contributed 83% of finances. Labour accounted for the lion's share (49%) of total costs followed by vaccines (16%) and travel allowances (12%). Analysis of specific activity costs showed that outreach and facility-based services accounted for half of total economic costs. Costs for managing the program at district, provincial and national levels (above-facility costs) represented 24% of total costs. Average unit costs were $7.18 per dose, $59.32 per infant and $65.89 per DPT3 immunised child, with markedly higher unit costs in rural facilities. Analyses suggest that greater efficiency is associated with higher utilisation levels and urban facility type. CONCLUSIONS: Total and unit costs, and government's contribution, were considerably higher than previous Zambian estimates and international benchmarks. These findings have substantial implications for planners, efficiency improvement and sustainable financing, particularly as new vaccines are introduced. Variations in immunisation costs at facility level warrant further statistical analyses.


Subject(s)
Costs and Cost Analysis , Health Care Costs , Health Facilities/economics , Health Services Administration/economics , Vaccination/economics , Data Collection , Health Policy , Humans , Random Allocation , Surveys and Questionnaires , Vaccination/methods , Zambia
2.
Vaccine ; 33 Suppl 1: A79-84, 2015 May 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25919180

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Global Vaccine Action Plan highlights the need for immunisation programmes to have sustainable access to predictable funding. A good understanding of current and future funding needs, commitments, and gaps is required to enhance planning, improve resource allocation and mobilisation, and to avoid funding bottlenecks, as well as to ensure that co-funding arrangements are appropriate. This study aimed to map the resource envelope and flows for immunisation in Uganda in 2009/10 and 2010/11. METHODS: To assess costs and financing of immunisation, the study applied a common methodology as part of the multi-country Expanded Program on Immunisation Costing (EPIC) study (Brenzel et al., 2015). The financial mapping developed a customised extension of the System of Health Accounts (SHA) codes to explore immunisation financing in detail. Data were collected from government and external sources. The mapping was able to assess financing more comprehensively than many studies, and the simultaneous costing of routine immunisation collected detailed data about human resources costs. RESULTS: The Ugandan government contributed 56% and 42% of routine immunisation funds in 2009/10 and 2010/11, respectively, higher than previously estimated, and managed up to 90% of funds. Direct delivery of services used 93% of the immunisation financial resources in 2010/11, while the above service delivery costs were small (7%). Vaccines and supplies (41%) and salaries (38%) absorbed most funding. There were differences in the key cost categories between actual resource flows and the estimates from the comprehensive multi-year plan (cMYP). CONCLUSIONS: Results highlight that governments and partners need to improve systems to routinely track immunisation financing flows for enhanced accountability, performance, and sustainability. The modified SHA coding allowed financing to be mapped to specific immunisation activities, and could be used for standardised, resource tracking compatible with National Health Accounts (NHA). Recommendations are made for refining routine resource mapping approaches.


Subject(s)
Capital Financing , Health Care Costs , Health Services Administration/economics , Vaccination/economics , Health Policy , Humans , Uganda , Vaccination/methods
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...