Background: 2015 was the target year for malaria goals set by the World Health Assembly and other international institutions to reduce malaria incidence and mortality. A review of progress indicates that malaria programme financing and coverage have been transformed since the beginning of the millennium, and have contributed to substantial reductions in the burden of disease. Findings: Investments in malaria programmes increased by more than 2.5 times between 2005 and 2014 from US$ 960 million to US$ 2.5 billion, allowing an expansion in malaria prevention, diagnostic testing and treatment programmes. In 2015 more than half of the population of sub-Saharan Africa slept under insecticide-treated mosquito nets, compared to just 2 % in 2000. Increased availability of rapid diagnostic tests and antimalarial medicines has allowed many more people to access timely and appropriate treatment. Malaria incidence rates have decreased by 37 % globally and mortality rates by 60 % since 2000. It is estimated that 70 % of the reductions in numbers of cases in sub-Saharan Africa can be attributed to malaria interventions.

Summary Background Rapid declines in malaria prevalence, cases, and deaths have been achieved globally during the past 15 years because of improved access to first-line treatment and vector control. We aimed to assess the intervention coverage needed to achieve further gains over the next 15 years. Methods We used a mathematical model of the transmission of Plasmodium falciparum malaria to explore the potential effect on case incidence and malaria mortality rates from 2015 to 2030 of five different intervention scenarios: remaining at the intervention coverage levels of 2011–13 (Sustain), for which coverage comprises vector control and access to treatment; two scenarios of increased coverage to 80% (Accelerate 1) and 90% (Accelerate 2), with a switch from quinine to injectable artesunate for management of severe disease and seasonal malaria chemoprevention where recommended for both Accelerate scenarios, and rectal artesunate for pre-referral treatment at the community level added to Accelerate 2; a near-term innovation scenario (Innovate), which included longer-lasting insecticidal nets and expansion of seasonal malaria chemoprevention; and a reduction in coverage to 2006–08 levels (Reverse). We did the model simulations at the first administrative level (ie, state or province) for the 80 countries with sustained stable malaria transmission in 2010, accounting for variations in baseline endemicity, seasonality in transmission, vector species, and existing intervention coverage. To calculate the cases and deaths averted, we compared the total number of each under the five scenarios between 2015 and 2030 with the predicted number in 2015, accounting for population growth. Findings With an increase to 80% coverage, we predicted a reduction in case incidence of 21% (95% credible intervals [CrI] 19–29) and a reduction in mortality rates of 40% (27–61) by 2030 compared with 2015 levels. Acceleration to 90% coverage and expansion of treatment at the community level was predicted to reduce case incidence by 59% (Crl 56–64) and mortality rates by 74% (67–82); with additional near-term innovation, incidence was predicted to decline by 74% (70–77) and mortality rates by 81% (76–87). These scenarios were predicted to lead to local elimination in 13 countries under the Accelerate 1 scenario, 20 under Accelerate 2, and 22 under Innovate by 2030, reducing the proportion of the population living in at-risk areas by 36% if elimination is defined at the first administrative unit. However, failing to maintain coverage levels of 2011–13 is predicted to raise case incidence by 76% (Crl 71–80) and mortality rates by 46% (39–51) by 2020. Interpretation Our findings show that decreases in malaria transmission and burden can be accelerated over the next 15 years if the coverage of key interventions is increased. Funding UK Medical Research Council, UK Department for International Development, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Swiss Development Agency, and the US Agency for International Development.

Background: There has been a growing interest in the role of the private for-profit sector in health service provision in low-and middle-income countries. The private sector represents an important source of care for all socioeconomic groups, including the poorest and substantial concerns have been raised about the quality of care it provides. Interventions have been developed to address these technical failures and simultaneously take advantage of the potential for involving private providers to achieve public health goals. Limited information is available on the extent to which these interventions have successfully expanded access to quality health services for poor and disadvantaged populations. This paper addresses this knowledge gap by presenting the results of a systematic literature review on the effectiveness of working with private for-profit providers to reach the poor.

No abstract

BackgroundDespite widespread implementation across Africa, there is limited evidence of the effect of payment for performance (P4P) schemes in low income countries on the coverage of quality services and affordability, consistent with universal health coverage objectives. We examined the effect of a government P4P scheme on utilisation, quality, and user costs of health services in Tanzania.MethodsWe evaluated the effects of a P4P scheme on utilisation of all maternal and child immunization services targeted by the scheme, and non-targeted general outpatient service use. We also evaluated effects on patient satisfaction with care and clinical content of antenatal care, and user costs. The evaluation was done in 150 facilities across all 7 intervention districts and 4 comparison districts with two rounds of data collection over 13-months in January 2012 and February 2013. We sampled 3000 households of women who had delivered in the 12 months prior to interview; 1500 patients attending health facilities for targeted and non-targeted services at each round of data collection. Difference-in-difference regression analysis was employed.FindingsWe estimated a significant positive effect on two out of eight targeted indicators. There was an 8.2% (95% CI: 3.6% to 12.8%) increase in coverage of institutional deliveries among women in the intervention area, and a 10.3% (95% CI: 4.4% to 16.1%) increase in the provision of anti-malarials during pregnancy. Use of non-targeted services reduced at dispensaries by 57.5 visits per month among children under five (95% CI: -110.2 to -4.9) and by 90.8 visits per month for those aged over five (95% CI: -156.5 to -25.2). There was no evidence of an effect of P4P on patient experience of care for targeted services. There was a 0.05 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.10) increase in the patient satisfaction score for non-targeted services. P4P was associated with a 5.0% reduction in those paying out of pocket for deliveries (95% CI: -9.3% to -0.7%) but there was no evidence of an effect on the average amount paid.ConclusionThis study adds to the very limited evidence on the effects of P4P at scale and highlights the potential risks of such schemes in relation to non-targeted service use. Further consideration of the design of P4P schemes is required to enhance progress towards universal health coverage, and close monitoring of effects on non-targeted services and user costs should be encouraged.

Whilst some populations have recently experienced dramatic declines in malaria, the majority of those most at risk of Plasmodium falciparum malaria still lack access to effective treatment with artemisinin combination therapy (ACT) and others are already facing parasites resistant to artemisinins.In this context, there is a crucial need to improve both access to and targeting of ACT through greater availability of good quality ACT and parasitological diagnosis. This is an issue of increasing urgency notably in the private commercial sector, which, in many countries, plays an important role in the provision of malaria treatment. The Affordable Medicines Facility for malaria (AMFm) is a recent initiative that aims to increase the provision of affordable ACT in public, private and NGO sectors through a manufacturer-level subsidy. However, to date, there is little documented experience in the programmatic implementation of subsidized ACT in the private sector. Cambodia is in the unique position of having more than 10 years of experience not only in implementing subsidized ACT, but also rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) as part of a nationwide social marketing programme. The programme includes behaviour change communication and the training of private providers as well as the sale and distribution of Malarine, the recommended ACT, and Malacheck, the RDT. This paper describes and evaluates this experience by drawing on the results of household and provider surveys conducted since the start of the programme.The available evidence suggests that providers' and consumers' awareness of Malarine increased rapidly, but that of Malacheck much less so. In addition, improvements in ACT and RDT availability and uptake were relatively slow, particularly in more remote areas.The lack of standardization in the survey methods and the gaps in the data highlight the importance of establishing a clear system for monitoring and evaluation for similar initiatives. Despite these limitations, a number of important lessons can still be learnt. These include the importance of a comprehensive communications strategy and of a sustained and reliable supply of products, with attention to the geographical reach of both. Other important challenges relate to the difficulty in incentivising providers and consumers not only to choose the recommended drug, but to precede this with a confirmatory blood test and ensure that providers adhere to the test results and patients to the treatment regime. In Cambodia, this is particularly complicated due to problems inherent to the drug itself and the emergence of artemisinin resistance.

BackgroundIntermittent preventive treatment for malaria in children (IPTc) involves the administration of a full course of an anti-malarial treatment to children under 5 years old at specified time points regardless of whether or not they are known to be infected, in areas where malaria transmission is seasonal. It is important to determine the costs associated with IPTc delivery via community based volunteers and also the potential savings to health care providers and caretakers due to malaria episodes averted as a consequence of IPTc.MethodsTwo thousand four hundred and fifty-one children aged 3–59 months were randomly allocated to four groups to receive: three days of artesunate plus amodiaquine (AS+AQ) monthly, three days of AS+AQ bimonthly, one dose of sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) bi-monthly or placebo. This paper focuses on incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the three IPTc drug regimens as delivered by community based volunteers (CBV) in Hohoe, Ghana compared to current practice, i.e. case management in the absence of IPTc. Financial and economic costs from the publicly funded health system perspective are presented. Treatment costs borne by patients and their caretakers are also estimated to present societal costs. The costs and effects of IPTc during the intervention period were considered with and without a one year follow up. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to account for uncertainty.ResultsEconomic costs per child receiving at least the first dose of each course of IPTc show SP bimonthly, at US$8.19, is the cheapest to deliver, followed by AS+AQ bimonthly at US$10.67 and then by AS+AQ monthly at US$14.79. Training, drug delivery and supervision accounted for approximately 20–30% each of total unit costs. During the intervention period AS & AQ monthly was the most cost effective IPTc drug regimen at US$67.77 (61.71–74.75, CI 95%) per malaria case averted based on intervention costs only, US$64.93 (58.92–71.92, CI 95%) per malaria case averted once the provider cost savings are included and US$61.00 (54.98, 67.99, CI 95%) when direct household cost savings are also taken into account. SP bimonthly was US$105.35 (75.01–157.31, CI 95%) and AS & AQ bimonthly US$211.80 (127.05–399.14, CI 95%) per malaria case averted based on intervention costs only. The incidence of malaria in the post intervention period was higher in children who were <1 year old when they received AS+AQ monthly compared to the placebo group leading to higher cost effectiveness ratios when one year follow up is included. The cost per child enrolled fell considerably when modelled to district level as compared to those encountered under trial conditions.ConclusionsWe demonstrate how cost-effective IPTc is using three different drug regimens and the possibilities for reducing costs further if the intervention was to be scaled up to the district level. The need for effective training, drug delivery channels and supervision to support a strong network of community based volunteers is emphasised.

BackgroundAccess to malaria control interventions falls short of universal health coverage. The Global Technical Strategy for malaria targets at least 90% reduction in case incidence and mortality rates, and elimination in 35 countries by 2030. The potential to reach these targets will be determined in part by investments in malaria. This study estimates the financing required for malaria control and elimination over the 2016–2030 period.MethodsA mathematical transmission model was used to explore the impact of increasing intervention coverage on burden and costs. The cost analysis took a public provider perspective covering all 97 malaria endemic countries and territories in 2015. All control interventions currently recommended by the WHO were considered. Cost data were sourced from procurement databases, the peer-reviewed literature, national malaria strategic plans, the WHO-CHOICE project and key informant interviews.ResultsAnnual investments of $6.4 billion (95% uncertainty interval (UI $4.5–$9.0 billion)) by 2020, $7.7 billion (95% UI $5.4–$10.9 billion) by 2025 and $8.7 billion (95% UI $6.0–$12.3 billion) by 2030 will be required to reach the targets set in the Global Technical Strategy. These are equivalent to annual investment per person at risk of malaria of US$3.90 by 2020, US$4.30 by 2025 and US$4.40 by 2030, compared with US$2.30 if interventions were sustained at current coverage levels. The 20 countries with the highest burden in 2015 will require 88% of the total investment.ConclusionsGiven the challenges in increasing domestic and international funding, the efficient use of currently available resources should be a priority.