Men who have sex with men (MSM) have borne a disproportionate burden of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and remain a markedly underresourced population globally. To better describe HIV epidemics among MSM in low- and middle-income countries, the authors conducted a systematic review of published and unpublished literature available after January 1, 2000 (2000-2009). A total of 133 HIV prevalence studies from 50 countries met the search criteria. Data were used to develop an algorithmic approach to categorize these epidemics. The authors found that the HIV epidemic in low- and middle-income countries may be described using the following 4 scenarios: 1) settings where MSM are the predominant contributor to HIV cases; 2) settings where HIV transmission among MSM occurs in the context of epidemics driven by injection drug users; 3) settings where HIV transmission among MSM occurs in the context of well-established HIV transmission among heterosexuals; and 4) settings where both sexual and parenteral modes contribute significantly to HIV transmission. The authors focused on Peru, Ukraine, Kenya, and Thailand to describe the diversity across and similarities between proposed epidemic scenarios. This scenario-based categorization of HIV epidemics among MSM may assist public health agencies and civil societies to develop and implement better-targeted HIV prevention programs and interventions.

Estimating the costs of health interventions is important to policy-makers for a number of reasons including the fact that the results can be used as a component in the assessment and improvement of their health system performance. Costs can, for example, be used to assess if scarce resources are being used efficiently or whether there is scope to reallocate them in a way that would lead to improvements in population health. As part of its WHO-CHOICE project, WHO has been developing a database on the overall costs of health interventions in different parts of the world as an input to discussions about priority setting.Programme costs, defined as costs incurred at the administrative levels outside the point of delivery of health care to beneficiaries, may comprise an important component of total costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis has sometimes omitted them if the main focus has been on personal curative interventions or on the costs of making small changes within the existing administrative set-up. However, this is not appropriate for non-personal interventions where programme costs are likely to comprise a substantial proportion of total costs, or for sectoral analysis where questions of how best to reallocate all existing health resources, including administrative resources, are being considered.This paper presents a first effort to systematically estimate programme costs for many health interventions in different regions of the world. The approach includes the quantification of resource inputs, choice of resource prices, and accounts for different levels of population coverage. By using an ingredients approach, and making tools available on the World Wide Web, analysts can adapt the programme costs reported here to their local settings. We report results for a selected number of health interventions and show that programme costs vary considerably across interventions and across regions, and that they can contribute substantially to the overall costs of interventions.

Objective To estimate the cost of scaling up childhood immunization services required to reach the WHO-UNICEF Global Immunization Vision and Strategy (GIVS) goal of reducing mortality due to vaccine-preventable diseases by two-thirds by 2015. Methods A model was developed to estimate the total cost of reaching GIVS goals by 2015 in 117 low-and lower-middleincome countries. Current spending was estimated by analysing data from country planning documents, and scale-up costs were estimated using a bottom-up, ingredients-based approach. Financial costs were estimated by country and year for reaching 90% coverage with all existing vaccines; introducing a discrete set of new vaccines (rotavirus, conjugate pneumococcal, conjugate meningococcal A and Japanese encephalitis); and conducting immunization campaigns to protect at-risk populations against polio, tetanus, measles, yellow fever and meningococcal meningitis.

National governments and international agencies, including programmes like the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, have committed to scaling up health interventions and to meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and need information on costs of scaling up these interventions. However, there has been no systematic attempt across health interventions to determine the impact of scaling up on the costs of programmes. This paper presents a systematic review of the literature on the costs of scaling up health interventions. The objectives of this review are to identify factors affecting costs as coverage increases and to describe typical cost curves for different kinds of interventions. Thirty-seven studies were found, three containing cost data from programmes that had already been scaled up. The other studies provide either quantitative cost projections or qualitative descriptions of factors affecting costs when interventions are scaled up, and are used to determine important factors to consider when scaling up. Cost curves for the scaling up of different health interventions could not be derived with the available data. This review demonstrates that the costs of scaling up an intervention are specific to both the type of intervention and its particular setting. However, the literature indicates general principles that can guide the process: (1) calculate separate unit costs for urban and rural populations; (2) identify economies and diseconomies of scale, and separate the fixed and variable components of the costs; (3) assess availability and capacity of health human resources; and (4) include administrative costs, which can constitute a significant proportion of scale-up costs in the short run. This study is limited by the scarcity of real data reported in the public domain that address costs when scaling up health interventions. As coverage of health interventions increases in the process of meeting the MDGs and other health goals, it is recommended that costs of scaling up are reported alongside the impact on health of the scaled-up interventions.

No abstract

Objective To provide the international community with an estimate of the amount of financial resources needed to scale up malaria control to reach international goals, including allocations by country, year and intervention as well as an indication of the current funding gap. Methods A costing model was used to estimate the total costs of scaling up a set of widely recommended interventions, supporting services and programme strengthening activities in each of the 81 most heavily affected malaria-endemic countries. Two scenarios were evaluated, using different assumptions about the effect of interventions on the needs for diagnosis and treatment. Current health expenditures and funding for malaria control were compared to estimated needs. Findings A total of US$ 38 to 45 billion will be required from 2006 to 2015. The average cost during this period is US$ 3.8 to 4.5 billion per year. The average costs for Africa are US$ 1.7 billion and US$ 2.2 billion per year in the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios, respectively; outside Africa, the corresponding costs are US$ 2.1 billion and US$ 2.4 billion. Conclusion While these estimates should not be used as a template for country-level planning, they provide an indication of the scale and scope of resources required and can help donors to collaborate towards meeting a global benchmark and targeting funding to countries in greatest need. The analysis highlights the need for much greater resources to achieve the goals and targets for malaria control set by the international community.

BackgroundIndoor residual spraying (IRS) is the application of insecticide to the interior walls of household structures that often serve as resting sites for mosquito vectors of malaria. Human exposure to malaria vectors is reduced when IRS involves proper application of pre-determined concentrations of the active ingredient specific to the insecticide formulation of choice. The impact of IRS can be affected by the dosage of insecticide, spray coverage, vector behavior, vector susceptibility to insecticides, and the residual efficacy of the insecticide applied. This report compiles data on the residual efficacy of insecticides used in IRS campaigns implemented by the United States President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI)/United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in 17 African countries and compares observed length of efficacy to ranges proposed in World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. Additionally, this study provides initial analysis on variation of mosquito mortality depending on the surface material of sprayed structures, country spray program, year of implementation, source of tested mosquitoes, and type of insecticide.MethodsResidual efficacy of the insecticides used for PMI/USAID-supported IRS campaigns was measured in Benin, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The WHO cone bioassay tests were used to assess the mortality rate of mosquitoes exposed to insecticide-treated mud, wood, cement, and other commonly used housing materials. Baseline tests were performed within weeks of IRS application and follow-up tests were continued until the mortality of exposed mosquitoes dropped below 80% or the program monitoring period ended. Residual efficacy in months was then evaluated with respect to WHO guidelines that provide suggested ranges of residual efficacy for insecticide formulations recommended for use in IRS. Where the data allowed, direct comparisons of mosquito mortality rates were then made to determine any significant differences when comparing insecticide formulation, country, year, surface type, and the source of the mosquitoes used in testing.ResultsThe residual efficacy of alpha-cypermethrin ranged from 4 to 10 months (average = 6.4 months), with no reported incidents of underperformance when compared to the efficacy range provided in WHO guidelines. Deltamethrin residual efficacy results reported a range of 1 to 10 months (average = 4.9 months), with two instances of underperformance. The residual efficacy of bendiocarb ranged from 2 weeks to 7 months (average = 2.8 months) and failed to achieve proposed minimum efficacy on 14 occasions. Lastly, long-lasting pirimiphos-methyl efficacy ranged from 2 months to 9 months (average = 5.3 months), but reported 13 incidents of underperformance.ConclusionsMuch of the data used to determine application rate and expected efficacy of insecticides approved for use in IRS programs are collected in controlled laboratory or pilot fiel...

Recent studies such as the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health have highlighted the need for expanding the coverage of services for HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, immunisations and other diseases. In order for policy makers to plan for these changes, they need to analyse the change in costs when interventions are 'scaled-up' to cover greater percentages of the population. Previous studies suggest that applying current unit costs to an entire population can misconstrue the true costs of an intervention. This study presents the methodology used in WHO-CHOICE's generalised cost effectiveness analysis, which includes non-linear cost functions for health centres, transportation and supervision costs, as well as the presence of fixed costs of establishing a health infrastructure. Results show changing marginal costs as predicted by economic theory.