No abstract

IntroductionThe prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is rising in low- and middle-income countries, including Kenya, disproportionately to the rest of the world. Our objective was to quantify patient payments to obtain NCD screening, diagnosis, and treatment services in the public and private sector in Kenya and evaluate patients’ ability to pay for the services.Methods and findingsWe collected payment data on cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, breast and cervical cancer, and respiratory diseases from Kenyatta National Hospital, the main tertiary public hospital, and the Kibera South Health Center—a public outpatient facility, and private sector practitioners and hospitals. We developed detailed treatment frameworks for each NCD and used an itemization cost approach to estimate payments. Patient affordability metrics were derived from Kenyan government surveys and national datasets.Results compare public and private costs in U.S. dollars. NCD screening costs ranged from $4 to $36, while diagnostic procedures, particularly for breast and cervical cancer, were substantially more expensive. Annual hypertension medication costs ranged from $26 to $234 and $418 to $987 in public and private facilities, respectively. Stroke admissions ($1,874 versus $16,711) and dialysis for chronic kidney disease ($5,338 versus $11,024) were among the most expensive treatments. Cervical and breast cancer treatment cost for stage III (curative approach) was about $1,500 in public facilities and more than $7,500 in the private facilities. A large proportion of Kenyans aged 15 to 49 years do not have health insurance, which makes NCD services unaffordable for most people given the overall high cost of services relative to income (average household expenditure per adult is $413 per annum).ConclusionsThere is substantial variation in patient costs between the public and private sectors. Most NCD diagnosis and treatment costs, even in the public sector, represent a substantial economic burden that can result in catastrophic expenditures.

Objective To evaluate oral cancer screening by visual inspection. Methods A cluster randomized controlled trial was initiated in Trivandrum district, Kerala, India. Of 13 population clusters, seven were randomly allocated to three rounds of screening between 1996 and 2004, while standard care was provided in six (control arm). An activity-based approach was employed to calculate costs associated with various components of the screening trial. Information on the resources used and on clinical events in each trial arm was derived from trial databases. Total costs for each cluster were estimated in 2004 United States dollars (US$). The incremental cost per life-year saved was calculated for all eligible individuals and for high-risk individuals (i.e. tobacco or alcohol users). Findings The proportion of oral cancers detected at an early stage (i.e. stage I or II) was higher in the intervention arm than the control arm (42% versus 24%, respectively). The incremental cost per life-year saved was US$ 835 for all individuals eligible for screening and US$ 156 for high-risk individuals. Oral cancer screening by visual inspection was performed for under US$ 6 per person. Conclusion The most cost-effective approach to oral cancer screening by visual inspection is to offer it to the high-risk population. Targeted screening of this group will ensure that screening can be offered at a reasonable cost in a limited-resource setting.Une traduction en français de ce résumé figure à la fin de l'article. Al final del artículo se facilita una traducción al español.

No abstract

Adverse drug events in the ambulatory setting substantially increase the healthcare costs of elderly persons.