A Systematic Review of the State of Economic Evaluation for Health Care in India

Prinja, Shankar; Chauhan, Akashdeep Singh; Angell, Blake; Gupta, Indrani; Jan, Stephen

doi:10.1007/s40258-015-0201-6

Cited by 65 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 115 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Empirical estimations of a cost-effectiveness threshold carried out by a recent study suggest it is below a one-time GDP for most low-and middle-income countries [73]. A recent systematic review carried out for assessing the quality of economic evaluations in India reveals that the majority of studies used a one-time GDP per capita as the cost-effectiveness threshold [74]. Moreover, in the Indian context, recent cost-effectiveness studies used per capita GDP as the threshold [75][76][77][78].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapeutic Use of Safety-Engineered Syringes in Healthcare Facilities in India

Bahuguna

Prinja

Lahariya

et al. 2019

Appl Health Econ Health Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Globally, 16 billion injections are administered each year of which 95% are for curative care. India contributes 25-30% of the global injection load. Over 63% of these injections are reportedly unsafe or deemed unnecessary. Objectives To assess the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with the introduction of safetyengineered syringes (SES) as compared to disposable syringes for therapeutic care in India. Methods A decision tree was used to compute the volume of needle-stick injuries (NSIs) and reuse episodes among healthcare professionals and the patient population. Subsequently, three separate Markov models were used to compute lifetime costs and QALYs for individuals infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Three SES were evaluated-reuse prevention syringe (RUP), sharp injury prevention (SIP) syringe, and syringes with features of both RUP and SIP. A lifetime study horizon starting from a base year of 2017 was considered appropriate to cover all costs and consequences comprehensively. A systematic review was undertaken to assess the SES effects in terms of reduction in NSIs and reuse episodes. These were then modelled in terms of reduction in transmission of blood-borne infections, life-years and QALYs gained. Future costs and consequences were discounted at the rate of 3%. Incremental cost per QALY gained was computed to assess the cost-effectiveness. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to account for parameter uncertainties. Results The introduction of RUP, SIP and RUP + SIP syringes in India is estimated to incur an incremental cost of Indian

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapeutic Use of Safety-Engineered Syringes in Healthcare Facilities in India

Bahuguna

Prinja

Lahariya

et al. 2019

Appl Health Econ Health Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cost-effectiveness analysis is a form of economic analysis that compares the relative costs and outcomes (effects) of different courses of action. With increasing costs in medical care, there is an imminent need to undertake economic evaluations for policymakers to use these tools for rational allocation of resources [28].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to a study from Chennai, the cost of MUD transplant in India for TM has been approximately 2,500,000 (US $38,461) including procurement of the stem cells per child per HSCT [28]. In our study, the average cost incurred for MUD transplant was 2,717,977 (US$41,815) including the acquisition of cells (from either DKMS [German] or DATRI [Indian] donor registries), repeated admissions for infection, and estimated OPD follow up for the first year.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost Effectiveness of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Compared with Transfusion Chelation for Treatment of Thalassemia Major

John

Jyani

Jindal

et al. 2018

Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is the only cure for thalassemia major (TM), which inflicts a significant 1-time cost. Hence, it is important to explore the cost effectiveness of HSCT versus lifelong regular transfusion-chelation (TC) therapy. This study was undertaken to estimate incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with the intervention group HSCT, and the comparator group TC, in TM patients. A combination of decision tree and Markov model was used for analysis. A hospital database, supplemented with a review of published literature, was used to derive input parameters for the model. A lifetime study horizon was used and future costs and consequences were discounted at 3%. Results are presented using societal perspective. Incremental cost per QALY gained with use of HSCT as compared with TC was 64,096 (US$986) in case of matched related donor (MRD) and 1,67,657 (US$2579) in case of a matched unrelated donor transplantation. The probability of MRD transplant to be cost effective at the willingness to pay threshold of Indian per capita gross domestic product is 94%. HSCT is a long-term value for money intervention that is highly cost effective and its long-term clinical and economic benefits outweigh those of TC.

show abstract

“…Cost of health interventions includes health services delivery costs such as cost health personnel, investigations, medicines, other health supplies etc. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] It can also include costs which are not directly related to service delivery, such as the costs of the building and equipment, costs of health facility administration. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Next step is to estimate the amount of the resources used in the interventions and value each resource used in monitory terms.…”

Section: Identifying and Valuing Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effectiveness analysis for decision making in health care-concept, relevance and methodological challenges

Mughal

Jehan

Albejaidi

et al. 2017

Int J Community Med Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With continuous rise in health spending among countries, the need to make use of limited resources in health systems has become crucial. Health policy makers in countries strive to identify the interventions which can contribute to improving health outcomes. Techniques of economic evaluation, especially cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) have been widely applied in health sector to identify interventions that are more effective in terms of resources utilization. An understanding of CEA will not only help policy makers to take appropriate decisions in health sector but also in judicious spending of scarce resources. However, CEA studies have been flaunted with series of methodological challenges and practicability issues. This paper provides an introduction to CEA as one of the techniques of economic evaluation of health interventions and its relevance in making decisions in health sector. The paper also discusses some of the practical issues that arise while doing a CEA study in the health sector.

show abstract

A Systematic Review of the State of Economic Evaluation for Health Care in India

Cited by 65 publications

References 115 publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapeutic Use of Safety-Engineered Syringes in Healthcare Facilities in India

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapeutic Use of Safety-Engineered Syringes in Healthcare Facilities in India

Cost Effectiveness of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Compared with Transfusion Chelation for Treatment of Thalassemia Major

Cost-effectiveness analysis for decision making in health care-concept, relevance and methodological challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About