growing political momentum to definitively address tuberculosis, could all make ending the pandemic within a generation more feasible than ever before. Moving forward with bold, comprehensive strategies Globally, the priority must be to deliver person-centred and family-centred services to all individuals with tuberculosis who present to care. This approach means ensuring that high-quality diagnostics, treatment, and prevention modalities are available to all, wherever they seek care. Improving quality of tuberculosis care in the private sector is crucial to end tuberculosis in high incidence countries such as India, the country with the highest tuberculosis burden. Modelling shows that optimising private sector engagement in India could avert 8 million deaths from tuberculosis between 2019 and 2045 (appendix p 3). In high drug-resistant tuberculosis burden countries, access to rapid drug susceptibility testing (DST) and second-line drugs is essential to success. In Moldova, where more than 25% of all tuberculosis cases are drug-resistant, improving access to DST and second-line drugs would reduce mortality from drug-resistant tuberculosis by 44% in the coming generation (appendix p 3). Secondly, tuberculosis programme budgets must increase to enable reaching these people and populations at high risk of tuberculosis. In Kenya, for example, where the proportions of HIV and tuberculosis coinfection are high, scaling up access to both antiretroviral therapy and tuberculosis preventive therapy can help save an additional 3 million lives over the next generation (appendix p 3). However, ultimately, the fight against tuberculosis will not be won unless countries also ensure that everyone, not just high-risk groups, can access essential health Key messages The Commission recommends five priority investments to achieve a tuberculosis-free world within a generation. These investments are designed to fulfil the mandate of the UN High Level Meeting on tuberculosis. In addition, they answer the question of how countries with high-burden tuberculosis and their development partners should target their future investments to ensure that ending tuberculosis is achievable. Invest first to ensure that high quality rapid diagnostics and treatment are provided to all individuals receiving care for tuberculosis, wherever they seek care This priority includes rapid drug susceptibility testing and second-line treatment for resistant forms of tuberculosis. Achieving universal, high-quality person-centred and family-centred care-including sustained improvement in the performance of private sector providers-usually should be the top policy and budget priority. Reach people and populations at high risk for tuberculosis (such as household and other close contacts of people with tuberculosis, and people with HIV) and bring them into care Active case-finding and treatment in high-risk populations demands adequate resources to reach and care for these populations. At the same time, reaching certain high-risk populations, such as people co-infec...

Background New WHO guidelines recommend ART initiation for HIV-positive persons with CD4 cell counts ≤500 cells/µL, a higher threshold than was previously recommended. Country decision makers must consider whether to further expand ART eligibility accordingly. Methods We used multiple independent mathematical models in four settings—South Africa, Zambia, India, and Vietnam—to evaluate the potential health impact, costs, and cost-effectiveness of different adult ART eligibility criteria under scenarios of current and expanded treatment coverage, with results projected over 20 years. Analyses considered extending eligibility to include individuals with CD4 ≤500 cells/µL or all HIV-positive adults, compared to the previous recommendation of initiation with CD4 ≤350 cells/µL. We assessed costs from a health system perspective, and calculated the incremental cost per DALY averted ($/DALY) to compare competing strategies. Strategies were considered ‘very cost-effective’ if the $/DALY was less than the country’s per capita gross domestic product (GDP; South Africa: $8040, Zambia: $1425, India: $1489, Vietnam: $1407) and ‘cost-effective’ if $/DALY was less than three times per capita GDP. Findings In South Africa, the cost per DALY averted of extending ART eligibility to CD4 ≤500 cells/µL ranged from $237 to $1691/DALY compared to 2010 guidelines; in Zambia, expanded eligibility ranged from improving health outcomes while reducing costs (i.e. dominating current guidelines) to $749/DALY. Results were similar in scenarios with substantially expanded treatment access and for expanding eligibility to all HIV-positive adults. Expanding treatment coverage in the general population was therefore found to be cost-effective. In India, eligibility for all HIV-positive persons ranged from $131 to $241/DALY and in Vietnam eligibility for CD4 ≤500 cells/µL cost $290/DALY. In concentrated epidemics, expanded access among key populations was also cost-effective. Interpretation Earlier ART eligibility is estimated to be very cost-effective in low- and middle-income settings, although these questions should be revisited as further information becomes available. Scaling-up ART should be considered among other high-priority health interventions competing for health budgets. Funding The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and World Health Organization

No abstract

Good health is a function of a range of biological, environmental, behavioral, and social factors. The consumption of quality health care services is therefore only a part of how good health is produced. Although few would argue with this, the economic framework used to allocate resources to optimize population health is applied in a way that constrains the analyst and the decision maker to health care services. This approach risks missing two critical issues: 1) multiple sectors contribute to health gain and 2) the goods and services produced by the health sector can have multiple benefits besides health. We illustrate how present cost-effectiveness thresholds could result in health losses, particularly when considering health-producing interventions in other sectors or public health interventions with multisectoral outcomes. We then propose a potentially more optimal second best approach, the so-called cofinancing approach, in which the health payer could redistribute part of its budget to other sectors, where specific nonhealth interventions achieved a health gain more efficiently than the health sector's marginal productivity (opportunity cost). Likewise, other sectors would determine how much to contribute toward such an intervention, given the current marginal productivity of their budgets. Further research is certainly required to test and validate different measurement approaches and to assess the efficiency gains from cofinancing after deducting the transaction costs that would come with such cross-sectoral coordination.