Since antiretroviral (ARV) medicines represent one of the most costly components of therapy for HIV in middle-income countries, ensuring their efficient procurement is highly relevant. In 2008, Mexico created a national commission for the negotiation of ARV prices to achieve price reductions for their public HIV treatment programmes. The objective of this study is to assess the immediate impact of the creation of the Mexican Commission for Price Negotiation on ARV prices and expenditures. A longitudinal retrospective analysis of procurement prices, volumes and type of the most commonly prescribed ARVs procured by the two largest providers of HIV/AIDS care in Mexico between 2004 and 2009 was carried out. These analyses were combined with 26 semi-structured key informant interviews to identify changes in the procurement process. Prices for ARVs dropped by an average of 38% after the first round of negotiations, indicating that the Commission was successful in price negotiations. However, when compared with other upper-middle-income countries, Mexico continues to pay an average of six times more for ARVs. The Commission's negotiations were successful in achieving lower ARV prices. However, price reduction in upper-middle-income countries suggests that the price decrease in Mexico cannot be entirely attributed to the Commission's first round of negotiations. In addition, key informants identified inefficiencies in the forecasting and procurement processes possibly affecting the efficiency of the negotiation process. A comprehensive approach to improving efficiency in the purchasing and delivery of ARVs is necessary, including a better clarification in the roles and responsibilities of the Commission, improving supply data collection and integration in forecasting and procurement, and the creation of a support system to monitor and provide feedback on patient ARV use.

BackgroundAs voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) programs scale up, there is a pressing need for information about the important cost drivers, and potential efficiency gains. We examine those cost drivers here, and estimate the potential efficiency gains through an econometric model.Methods and FindingsWe examined the main cost drivers (i.e., personnel and consumables) associated with providing VMMC in sub-Saharan Africa along a number of dimensions, including facility type and service provider. Primary source facility level data from Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia were utilized throughout. We estimated the efficiency gains by econometrically estimating a cost function in order to calculate the impact of scale and other relevant factors. Personnel and consumables were estimated at 36% and 28%, respectively, of total costs across countries. Economies of scale (EOS) is estimated to be eight at the median volume of VMMCs performed, and EOS falls from 23 at the 25th percentile volume of VMMCs performed to 5.1 at the 75th percentile.ConclusionsThe analysis suggests that there is significant room for efficiency improvement as indicated by declining EOS as VMMC volume increases. The scale of the fall in EOS as VMMC volume increases suggests that we are still at the ascension phase of the scale-up of VMMC, where continuing to add new sites results in additional start-up costs as well. A key aspect of improving efficiency is task sharing VMMC procedures, due to the large percentage of overall costs associated with personnel costs. In addition, efficiency improvements in consumables are likely to occur over time as prices and distribution costs decrease.

BackgroundAchieving the Sustainable Development Goals will require careful allocation of resources in order to achieve the highest impact. The Lives Saved Tool (LiST) has been used widely to calculate the impact of maternal, neonatal and child health (MNCH) interventions for program planning and multi-country estimation in several Lancet Series commissions. As use of the LiST model increases, many have expressed a desire to cost interventions within the model, in order to support budgeting and prioritization of interventions by countries. A limited LiST costing module was introduced several years ago, but with gaps in cost types. Updates to inputs have now been added to make the module fully functional for a range of uses.MethodsThis paper builds on previous work that developed an initial version of the LiST costing module to provide costs for MNCH interventions using an ingredients-based costing approach. Here, we update in 2016 the previous econometric estimates from 2013 with newly-available data and also include above-facility level costs such as program management. The updated econometric estimates inform percentages of intervention-level costs for some direct costs and indirect costs. These estimates add to existing values for direct cost requirements for items such as drugs and supplies and required provider time which were already available in LiST Costing.ResultsResults generated by the LiST costing module include costs for each intervention, as well as disaggregated costs by intervention including drug and supply costs, labor costs, other recurrent costs, capital costs, and above-service delivery costs. These results can be combined with mortality estimates to support prioritization of interventions by countries.ConclusionsThe LiST costing module provides an option for countries to identify resource requirements for scaling up a maternal, neonatal, and child health program, and to examine the financial impact of different resource allocation strategies. It can be a useful tool for countries as they seek to identify the best investments for scarce resources. The purpose of the LiST model is to provide a tool to make resource allocation decisions in a strategic planning process through prioritizing interventions based on resulting impact on maternal and child mortality and morbidity.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-017-4738-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThere is a pressing need to include cost data in the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). This paper proposes a method that combines data from both the WHO CHOosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective (CHOICE) database and the OneHealth Tool (OHT) to develop unit costs for delivering child and maternal health services, both alone and bundled.MethodsFirst, a translog cost function is estimated to calculate factor shares of personnel, consumables, other direct (variable or recurrent costs excluding personnel and consumables) and indirect (capital or investment) costs. Primary source facility level data from Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe are utilized, with separate analyses for hospitals and health centres. Second, the resulting other-direct and indirect factor shares are applied to country unit costs from the WHO CHOICE unit cost database to calculate those portions of unit cost. Third, the remainder of the costs is calculated using default data from the OHT. Fourth, we calculate the effect of bundling services by assuming that a LiST intervention visit takes an average of 20 minutes when delivered alone but only incremental time in addition to the basic visit when delivered in a bundle.ResultsPersonnel costs account for the greatest share of costs for both hospitals and health centres at 50% and 38%, respectively. The percentages differ between hospitals and health centres for consumables (21% versus 17%), other direct (7.5% versus 6.75%), and indirect (22% versus 23%) costs. Combining the other-direct and indirect factor shares with the WHO CHOICE database and the other costs from OHT provides a comprehensive cost estimate of LiST interventions. Finally, the cost of six recommended antenatal care (ANC) interventions is $69.76 when delivered alone, but $61.18 when delivered as a bundle, a savings of $8.58 (12.2%).ConclusionsThis paper proposes a method for estimating a comprehensive cost of providing child and maternal health interventions by combining labor, consumables and drug costs from OHT with indirect and other-direct proportional costs from WHO CHOICE. In addition, we demonstrate the potential cost savings that can be achieved from bundling the delivery of essential antenatal care interventions rather than delivering the same interventions alone.

Asthma and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) are both common medical conditions. Globally, asthma affected 262.4 million people in 2019 1 and is the most common chronic disease in children. 2 In comparison with the general population, the prevalence of GORD is reported to be increased in people with asthma; 3 however, the mechanism underpinning this relationship remains unclear. 3 The presence of GORD in people with asthma is associated with increased exacerbations and lower quality of life scores 4 and is, therefore, an important and potentially modifiable factor.Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease can be treated pharmacologically and surgically alongside lifestyle adjustments. A 4-week trial of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is considered the first line pharmacological management in adults. 5 A histamine receptor (type 2) antagonist (H 2 RA) is considered interchangeably with a PPI in children or young people (CYP) 6 and as second line in adults, 5 prokinetics can also be considered in certain circumstances. 5,6 Surgical options include a Nissen fundoplication and partial posterior semi-fundoplication (Toupet and Lind techniques).

No abstract

No abstract