Total and unit costs, and government's contribution, were considerably higher than previous Zambian estimates and international benchmarks. These findings have substantial implications for planners, efficiency improvement and sustainable financing, particularly as new vaccines are introduced. Variations in immunisation costs at facility level warrant further statistical analyses.

Even though WHO has approved global goals for hepatitis elimination, most countries have yet to establish programs for hepatitis B and C, which account for 320 million infections and over a million deaths annually. One reason for this slow response is the paucity of robust, compelling analyses showing that national HBV/HCV programs could have a significant impact on these epidemics and save lives in a cost-effective, affordable manner. In this context, our team used an investment case approach to develop a national hepatitis action plan for South Africa, grounded in a process of intensive engagement of local stakeholders. Costs were estimated for each activity using an ingredients-based, bottom-up costing tool designed by the authors. The health impact and cost-effectiveness of the Action Plan were assessed by simulating its four priority interventions (HBV birth dose vaccination, PMTCT, HBV treatment and HCV treatment) using previously developed models calibrated to South Africa’s demographic and epidemic profile. The Action Plan is estimated to require ZAR3.8 billion (US$294 million) over 2017–2021, about 0.5% of projected government health spending. Treatment scale-up over the initial 5-year period would avert 13 000 HBV-related and 7000 HCV-related deaths. If scale up continues beyond 2021 in line with WHO goals, more than 670 000 new infections, 200 000 HBV-related deaths, and 30 000 HCV-related deaths could be averted. The incremental cost-effectiveness of the Action Plan is estimated at $3310 per DALY averted, less than the benchmark of half of per capita GDP. Our analysis suggests that the proposed scale-up can be accommodated within South Africa’s fiscal space and represents good use of scarce resources. Discussions are ongoing in South Africa on the allocation of budget to hepatitis. Our work illustrates the value and feasibility of using an investment case approach to assess the costs and relative priority of scaling up HBV/HCV services.

BackgroundAddressing the social and other non-biological determinants of health largely depends on policies and programmes implemented outside the health sector. While there is growing evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that tackle these upstream determinants, the health sector does not typically prioritise them. From a health perspective, they may not be cost-effective because their non-health outcomes tend to be ignored. Non-health sectors may, in turn, undervalue interventions with important co-benefits for population health, given their focus on their own sectoral objectives. The societal value of win-win interventions with impacts on multiple development goals may, therefore, be under-valued and under-resourced, as a result of siloed resource allocation mechanisms. Pooling budgets across sectors could ensure the total multi-sectoral value of these interventions is captured, and sectors’ shared goals are achieved more efficiently. Under such a co-financing approach, the cost of interventions with multi-sectoral outcomes would be shared by benefiting sectors, stimulating mutually beneficial cross-sectoral investments. Leveraging funding in other sectors could off-set flat-lining global development assistance for health and optimise public spending. Although there have been experiments with such cross-sectoral co-financing in several settings, there has been limited analysis to examine these models, their performance and their institutional feasibility.AimThis study aimed to identify and characterise cross-sectoral co-financing models, their operational modalities, effectiveness, and institutional enablers and barriers.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature, following PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if data was provided on interventions funded across two or more sectors, or multiple budgets. Extracted data were categorised and qualitatively coded.ResultsOf 2751 publications screened, 81 cases of co-financing were identified. Most were from high-income countries (93%), but six innovative models were found in Uganda, Brazil, El Salvador, Mozambique, Zambia, and Kenya that also included non-public and international payers. The highest number of cases involved the health (93%), social care (64%) and education (22%) sectors. Co-financing models were most often implemented with the intention of integrating services across sectors for defined target populations, although models were also found aimed at health promotion activities outside the health sector and cross-sectoral financial rewards. Interventions were either implemented and governed by a single sector or delivered in an integrated manner with cross-sectoral accountability. Resource constraints and political relevance emerged as key enablers of co-financing, while lack of clarity around the roles of different sectoral players and the objectives of the pooling were found to be barriers to success. Although rigorous impact or economic evaluations were scarce, positive process measures were frequently rep...

The most striking finding is the mismatch between the types of HIV epidemics and the allocation of resources. The current global economic recession will force countries to rethink national strategies, especially in low-income countries with high aid dependency. Mapping HIV expenditures provides crucial guidance for reallocation of resources and supports evidence-based decisions. Now more than ever, countries need to know and act on their epidemics and give priority to the most effective programmatic services.

Results highlight that governments and partners need to improve systems to routinely track immunisation financing flows for enhanced accountability, performance, and sustainability. The modified SHA coding allowed financing to be mapped to specific immunisation activities, and could be used for standardised, resource tracking compatible with National Health Accounts (NHA). Recommendations are made for refining routine resource mapping approaches.

No abstract

Community health nursing has the potential to reach beyond the individual and create interventions that affect the community as a whole. The Nursing Model of Community Organization for Change presented in this article describes the relationships among the concepts of empowerment, partnership, participation, cultural responsiveness, and community competence within a community organizing context. These concepts are implemented through the use of the Nursing Model of Community Organization for Change, which consists of four phases: assessment/reassessment, planning/design, implementation, and evaluation/dissemination. This nursing model provides a theoretical framework for community health professionals when creating community health interventions in partnership with community members.

This cost-outcome study estimated, from the perspective of the service provider, the total annual cost per client on antiretroviral therapy (ART) and total annual cost per client virally suppressed (defined as < 1000 copies/ml at the time of the study) in Uganda in five ART differentiated service delivery models (DSDMs). These included both facility- and community-based models and the standard of care (SOC), known as the facility-based individual management (FBIM) model. The Ministry of Health (MOH) adopted guidelines for DSDMs in 2017 and sought to measure their costs and outcomes, in order to effectively plan for their resourcing, implementation, and scale-up. In Uganda, the standard of care (FBIM) is considered as a DSDM option for clients requiring specialized treatment and support, or for those who select not to join an alternative DSDM. Note that clients on second-line regimes and considered as “established on treatment” can join a suitable DSDM.Using retrospective client record review of a cohort of clients over a two-year period, with bottom-up collection of clients’ resource utilization data, top-down collection of above-delivery level and delivery-level providers’ fixed operational costs, and local unit costs. Forty-seven DSDMs located at facilities or community-based points in the four regions of Uganda were included in the study, with 653 adults on ART (> 18 years old) enrolled in a DSDM. The study found that retention in care was 98% for the sample as a whole [96–100%], and viral suppression, 91% [86-93%]. The mean cost to the provider (MOH or NGO implementers) was $152 per annum per client treated, ranging from $141 to $166. Differences among the models’ costs were largely due to clients’ ARV regimens and the proportions of clients on second line regimens. Service delivery costs, excluding ARVs, other medicines and laboratory tests, were modest, ranging from $9.66–16.43 per client per year. We conclude that differentiated ART service delivery in Uganda achieved excellent treatment outcomes at a cost similar to the standard of care. While large budgetary savings might not be immediately realized, the reallocation of “saved” staff time could improve health system efficiency and with their equivalent or better outcomes and large benefits to clients, client-centred differentiated models would nevertheless add great societal value.