Addressing the UHC Challenge Using the Disease Control Priorities 3 Approach: Lessons Learned and an Overview of the Pakistan Experience.

BACKGROUND: Pakistan developed its first national Essential Package of Health Services (EPHS) as a key step towards accelerating progress in achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC). We describe the rationale, aims, the systematic approach followed to EPHS development, methods adopted, outcomes of the process, challenges encountered, and lessons learned. METHODS: EPHS design was led by the Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations & Coordination. The methods adopted were technically guided by the Disease Control Priorities 3 Country Translation project and existing country experience. It followed a participatory and evidence-informed prioritisation and decision-making processes. RESULTS: The full EPHS covers 117 interventions delivered at the community, health centre and first-level hospital platforms at a per capita cost of US$29.7. The EPHS also includes an additional set of 12 population-based interventions at US$0.78 per capita. An immediate implementation package (IIP) of 88 district-level interventions costing US$12.98 per capita will be implemented initially together with the population-based interventions until government health allocations increase to the level required to implement the full EPHS. Interventions delivered at the tertiary care platform were also prioritised and costed at US$6.5 per capita, but they were not included in the district-level package. The national EPHS guided the development of provincial packages using the same evidence-informed process. The government and development partners are in the process of initiating a phased approach to implement the IIP. CONCLUSION: Key ingredients for a successful EPHS design requires a focus on package feasibility and affordability, national ownership and leadership, and solid engagement of national stakeholders and development partners. Major challenges to the transition to implementation are to continue strengthening the national technical capacity, institutionalise priority setting and package design and its revision in ministries of health, address health system gaps and bridge the current gap in financing with the progressive increase in coverage towards 2030.

Costing Interventions for Developing an Essential Package of Health Services: Application of a Rapid Method and Results From Pakistan.

BACKGROUND: The Federal Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination (MNHSR&C) in Pakistan has committed to progress towards universal health coverage (UHC) by 2030 by providing an Essential Package of Health Services (EPHS). Starting in 2019, the Disease Control Priorities 3rd edition (DCP3) evidence framework was used to guide the development of Pakistan's EPHS. In this paper, we describe the methods and results of a rapid costing approach used to inform the EPHS design process. METHODS: A total of 167 unit costs were calculated through a context-specific, normative, ingredients-based, and bottom-up economic costing approach. Costs were constructed by determining resource use from descriptions provided by MNHSR&C and validated by technical experts. Price data from publicly available sources were used. Deterministic univariate sensitivity analyses were carried out. RESULTS: Unit costs ranged from 2019 US$ 0.27 to 2019 US$ 1478. Interventions in the cancer package of services had the highest average cost (2019 US$ 837) while interventions in the environmental package of services had the lowest (2019 US$ 0.68). Cost drivers varied by platform; the two largest drivers were drug regimens and surgery-related costs. Sensitivity analyses suggest our results are not sensitive to changes in staff salary but are sensitive to changes in medicine pricing. CONCLUSION: We estimated a large number of context-specific unit costs, over a six-month period, demonstrating a rapid costing method suitable for EPHS design.

The Use of Evidence to Design an Essential Package of Health Services in Pakistan: A Review and Analysis of Prioritisation Decisions at Different Stages of the Appraisal Process.

BACKGROUND: Pakistan embarked on a process of designing an essential package of health services (EPHS) as a pathway towards universal health coverage (UHC). The EPHS design followed an evidence-informed deliberative process; evidence on 170 interventions was introduced along multiple stages of appraisal engaging different stakeholders tasked with prioritising interventions for inclusion. We report on the composition of the package at different stages, analyse trends of prioritised and deprioritised interventions and reflect on the trade-offs made. METHODS: Quantitative evidence on cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and avoidable burden of disease was presented to stakeholders in stages. We recorded which interventions were prioritised and deprioritised at each stage and carried out three analyses: (1) a review of total number of interventions prioritised at each stage, along with associated costs per capita and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, to understand changes in affordability and efficiency in the package, (2) an analysis of interventions broken down by decision criteria and intervention characteristics to analyse prioritisation trends across different stages, and (3) a description of the trajectory of interventions broken down by current coverage and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Value for money generally increased throughout the process, although not uniformly. Stakeholders largely prioritised interventions with low budget impact and those preventing a high burden of disease. Highly cost-effective interventions were also prioritised, but less consistently throughout the stages of the process. Interventions with high current coverage were overwhelmingly prioritised for inclusion. CONCLUSION: Evidence-informed deliberative processes can produce actionable and affordable health benefit packages. While cost-effective interventions are generally preferred, other factors play a role and limit efficiency.

The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Designing the Essential Package of Health Services in Pakistan.

BACKGROUND: The Disease Control Priorities 3 (DCP3) project provides long-term support to Pakistan in the development and implementation of its universal health coverage essential package of health services (UHC-EPHS). This paper reports on the priority setting process used in the design of the EPHS during the period 2019-2020, employing the framework of evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs), a tool for priority setting with the explicit aim of optimising the legitimacy of decision-making in the development of health benefit packages. METHODS: We planned the six steps of the framework during two workshops in the Netherlands with participants from all DCP3 Pakistan partners (October 2019 and February 2020), who implemented these at the country level in Pakistan in 2019 and 2020. Following implementation, we conducted a semi-structured online survey to collect the views of participants in the UHC benefit package design about the prioritisation process. RESULTS: The key steps in the EDP framework were the installation of advisory committees (involving more than 150 members in several Technical Working Groups [TWGs] and a National Advisory Committee [NAC]), definition of decision criteria (effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, avoidable burden of disease, equity, financial risk protection, budget impact, socio-economic impact and feasibility), selection of interventions for evaluation (a total of 170), and assessment and appraisal (across the three dimensions of the UHC cube) of these interventions. Survey respondents were generally positive across several aspects of the priority setting process. CONCLUSION: Despite several challenges, including a partial disruption because of the COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of the priority setting process may have improved the legitimacy of decision-making by involving stakeholders through participation with deliberation, and being evidence-informed and transparent. Important lessons were learned that can be beneficial for other countries designing their own health benefit package such as on the options and limitations of broad stakeholder involvement.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and social contact patterns in Pakistan: results from a national cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is a key tool against COVID-19. However, in many settings it is not clear how acceptable COVID-19 vaccination is among the general population, or how hesitancy correlates with risk of disease acquisition. In this study we conducted a nationally representative survey in Pakistan to measure vaccination perceptions and social contacts in the context of COVID-19 control measures and vaccination programmes. METHODS: We conducted a vaccine perception and social contact survey with 3,658 respondents across five provinces in Pakistan, between 31 May and 29 June 2021. Respondents were asked a series of vaccine perceptions questions, to report all direct physical and non-physical contacts made the previous day, and a number of other questions regarding the social and economic impact of COVID-19 and control measures. We examined variation in perceptions and contact patterns by geographic and demographic factors. We describe knowledge, experiences and perceived risks of COVID-19. We explored variation in contact patterns by individual characteristics and vaccine hesitancy, and compared to patterns from non-pandemic periods. RESULTS: Self-reported adherence to self-isolation guidelines was poor, and 51% of respondents did not know where to access a COVID-19 test. Although 48.1% of participants agreed that they would get a vaccine if offered, vaccine hesitancy was higher than in previous surveys, and greatest in Sindh and Baluchistan provinces and among respondents of lower socioeconomic status. Participants reported a median of 5 contacts the previous day (IQR: 3-5, mean 14.0, 95%CI: 13.2, 14.9). There were no substantial differences in the number of contacts reported by individual characteristics, but contacts varied substantially among respondents reporting more or less vaccine hesitancy. Contacts were highly assortative, particularly outside the household where 97% of men's contacts were with other men. We estimate that social contacts were 9% lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Although the perceived risk of COVID-19 in Pakistan is low in the general population, around half of participants in this survey indicated they would get vaccinated if offered. Vaccine impact studies which do not account for correlation between social contacts and vaccine hesitancy may incorrectly estimate the impact of vaccines, for example, if unvaccinated people have more contacts.

Benefit-risk analysis of maintaining essential Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health (RMNCH) services against risk of COVID-19 infection.

With the COVID-19 pandemic spreading across the world, its disruptive effect on the provision and utilization of non- COVID related health services have become well-documented. As countries developed mitigation strategies to help continue the delivery of essential health services through the pandemic, they needed to carefully weigh the benefits and risks of pursuing these strategies. In an attempt to assist countries in their mitigation efforts, a Benefit-Risk model was designed to provide guidance on how to compare the health benefits of sustained essential reproductive, maternal, newborn and child (RMNCH) services against the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infections incurred by the countries' populations when accessing these services. This article describes how two existing models were combined to create this model, the field-testing process carried out from November 2020 through March 2021 in six countries and the findings. The overall Benefit-Risk Ratio in the 6 countries analyzed was found to be between 13.7 and 79.2, which means that for every 13.7 to 79.2 lives gained due to increased RMNCH service coverage, there was one loss of a life related to COVID-19. In all cases and for all services, the benefit of maintaining essential health services far exceeded the risks associated with additional COVID-19 infections and deaths. This modelling process illustrated how essential health services can continue to operate during a pandemic and how mitigation measures can reduce COVID-19 infections and restore or increase coverage of essential health services. Overall, this Benefit-Risk analysis underscored the importance and value of maintaining coverage of essential health services even during public health emergencies, including the recent COVID-19 pandemic.