Estimating treatment costs for uncomplicated diabetes at a hospital serving refugees in Kenya.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is increasing markedly in low- and middle-income countries where over three-quarters of global deaths occur due to non-communicable diseases. Unfortunately, these conditions are considered costly and often deprioritized in humanitarian settings with competing goals. Using a mixed methods approach, this study aimed to quantify the cost of outpatient treatment for uncomplicated type-1 (T1DM) and type-2 (T2DM) diabetes at a secondary care facility serving refugees in Kenya. A retrospective cost analysis combining micro- and gross-costings from a provider perspective was employed. The main outcomes included unit costs per health service activity to cover the total cost of labor, capital, medications and consumables, and overheads. A care pathway was mapped out for uncomplicated diabetes patients to identify direct and indirect medical costs. Interviews were conducted to determine inputs required for diabetes care and estimate staff time allocation. A total of 360 patients, predominantly Somali refugees, were treated for T2DM (92%, n = 331) and T1DM (8%, n = 29) in 2017. Of the 3,140 outpatient consultations identified in 2017; 48% (n = 1,522) were for males and 52% (n = 1,618) for females. A total of 56,144 tests were run in the setting, of which 9,512 (16.94%) were Random Blood Sugar (RBS) tests, and 90 (0.16%) HbA1c tests. Mean costs were estimated as: $2.58 per outpatient consultation, $1.37 per RBS test and $14.84 per HbA1c test. The annual pharmacotherapy regimens cost $91.93 for T1DM and $20.34 for T2DM. Investment in holistic and sustainable non-communicable disease management should be at the forefront of humanitarian response. It is expected to be beneficial with immediate implications on the COVID-19 response while also reducing the burden of care over time. Despite study limitations, essential services for the management of uncomplicated diabetes in a humanitarian setting can be modest and affordable. Therefore, integrating diabetes care into primary health care should be a fundamental pillar of long-term policy response by stakeholders.

Community health workers at the dawn of a new era: 4. Programme financing.

BACKGROUND: This is the fourth of our 11-paper supplement on "Community Health Workers at the Dawn of New Era". Here, we first make the case for investing in health programmes, second for investing in human resources for health, third for investing in primary healthcare (PHC) workers, and finally for investing in community health workers (CHWs). METHODS: Searches of peer-reviewed journals and the grey literature were conducted with a focus on community health programme financing. The literature search was supplemented with a search of the grey literature for information about national health sector plans, community health strategies/policies, and costing information from databases of various countries' ministries of health, and finally a request for information from in-country partners. RESULTS: The global shortage of human resources for health is projected to rise to 18 million health workers by 2030, with more acute shortages in Africa and South Asia. CHWs have an important role to play in mitigating this shortage because of their effectiveness (when properly trained and supported) and the feasibility of their deployment. Data are limited on the costs of current CHW programmes and how they compare to government and donor expenditures for PHC and for health services more broadly. However, available data from 10 countries in Africa indicate that the median per capita cost of CHW programmes is US$ 4.77 per year and US$ 2574 per CHW, and the median monthly salary of CHWs in these same countries is US$ 35 per month. For a subset of these countries for which spending for PHC is available, governments and donors spend 7.7 times more on PHC than on CHW programming, and 15.4 times more on all health expenditures. Even though donor funding for CHW programmes is a tiny portion of health-related donor support, most countries rely on donor support for financing their CHW programmes. CONCLUSION: The financing of national CHW programmes has been a critical element that has not received sufficient emphasis in the academic literature on CHW programmes. Increasing domestic government funding for CHW programmes is a priority. In order to ensure growth in funding for CHW programmes, it will be important to measure CHW programme expenditures and their relationship to expenditures for PHC and for all health-related expenditures.