Explore the vast range of titles available.

Cost-effectiveness analysis is used to compare the costs and outcomes of alternative policy options. Each resulting cost-effectiveness ratio represents the magnitude of additional health gained per additional unit of resources spent. Cost-effectiveness thresholds allow cost-effectiveness ratios that represent good or very good value for money to be identified. In 2001, the World Health Organization's Commission on Macroeconomics in Health suggested cost-effectiveness thresholds based on multiples of a country's per-capita gross domestic product (GDP). In some contexts, in choosing which health interventions to fund and which not to fund, these thresholds have been used as decision rules. However, experience with the use of such GDP-based thresholds in decision-making processes at country level shows them to lack country specificity and this - in addition to uncertainty in the modelled cost-effectiveness ratios - can lead to the wrong decision on how to spend health-care resources. Cost-effectiveness information should be used alongside other considerations - e.g. budget impact and feasibility considerations - in a transparent decision-making process, rather than in isolation based on a single threshold value. Although cost-effectiveness ratios are undoubtedly informative in assessing value for money, countries should be encouraged to develop a context-specific process for decision-making that is supported by legislation, has stakeholder buy-in, for example the involvement of civil society organizations and patient groups, and is transparent, consistent and fair.

We expect a lot from the middle classes. At least three distinct arguments about the special economic role of the middle class are traditionally made. In one, new entrepreneurs armed with a capacity and a tolerance for delayed gratification emerge from the middle class and create employment and productivity growth for the rest of society. In a second, perhaps more conventional view, the middle class is primarily a source of vital inputs for the entrepreneurial class: it is their “middle class values”—their emphasis on the accumulation of human capital and savings—that makes them central to the process of capitalist accumulation. The third view, a staple of the business press, emphasizes the middle class consumer, whose demand for quality consumer goods feeds investment in production and marketing, which in turn raises income levels for everyone. This essay asks what we should make of these arguments in the context of today's developing countries. We focus on two groups of households: those whose daily per capita expenditures are between $2 and $4, and those with expenditures between $6 and $10. These are the groups that we will call the middle class. Starting from survey data on patterns of consumption and investment by the middle class in thirteen developing countries, we look for what is distinct about the global middle class, especially when compared to the global poor (defined as those whose per capita daily consumption is below $2 a day). In particular, is there anything special about the way middle class people per spend their money, earn their incomes, or bring up their children?

One in seven US households cannot reliably afford food. Food budgets are more frequently exhausted at the end of a month than at other points in time. We postulated that this monthly pattern influenced health outcomes, such as risk for hypoglycemia among people with diabetes. Using administrative data on inpatient admissions in California for 2000-08, we found that admissions for hypoglycemia were more common in the low-income than the high-income population (270 versus 200 admissions per 100,000). Risk for hypoglycemia admission increased 27 percent in the last week of the month compared to the first week in the low-income population, but we observed no similar temporal variation in the high-income population. These findings suggest that exhaustion of food budgets might be an important driver of health inequities. Policy solutions to improve stable access to nutrition in low-income populations and raise awareness of the health risks of food insecurity might be warranted. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Background As the economic burden of treating cancer patients has been soaring in European countries, performing a budget impact analysis is becoming one of the requirements for payers’ application dossiers. Objective The objective of this study was to estimate the budgetary impact of introducing the biosimilar trastuzumab (CT-P6) from the payer’s perspective and to determine the number of additional patients who could be treated with resulting savings in 28 European countries. Methods A budget impact model was developed to analyze the financial impact of switching from originator trastuzumab to biosimilar CT-P6 in the treatment of early and metastatic breast cancer and metastatic gastric cancer with a time horizon of 1–5 years. Budgetary savings and the number of patients potentially affected were measured based on epidemiological and sales volume data. The base-case analysis assumed that the price of CT-P6 is 70% of the originator price, the switching rate of originator to CT-P6 in the first year is 20%, and the annual growth in the switching rate for each subsequent year is 5%. Results For analyses using the base-case scenario following CT-P6 introduction, the total estimated budgetary savings over a 5-year period (depending on the scenario) ranged from €1.13 billion to €2.27 billion based on epidemiological data, or from €0.91 billion to €1.82 billion based on sales volume data. In the first year only, the projected budgetary savings ranged from €58 million to €136 million, and the number of additional patients who could be treated using the savings ranged from 3503 to 7078 by sensitivity analysis. Conclusions The conducted budget impact analysis assessing a switch from originator trastuzumab to biosimilar CT-P6 in 28 European countries indicates that budget savings could be between €0.91 billion and €2.27 billion over the next 5 years. These savings could be used to help improve patient access to local biologics in their respective countries while simultaneously strengthening the overall public health landscape across the European Union.

The objective of this analysis was to evaluate and report on the economic impact of implementing an integrated, quality, and operational improvement program on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) care from acute through post-acute care settings. This initiative was established in a cohort of 12 hospitals in Alabama and sought to address COPD readmission through improved workflows pertaining to early diagnosis, efficient care transitions, and patient visibility across the entire care episode. Implementation of the initiative was influenced by lean principles, particularly cross-functional agreement of workflows to improve COPD care delivery and outcomes. A budget impact model was developed to calculate cost savings directly from objective data collected during this initiative. The model estimated payer annual savings over 5 years. Patients were classified for analysis based on whether or not they received noninvasive ventilation. Scenario analyses calculated savings for payers covering different COPD cohort sizes. The base case revealed annual per patient savings of $11,263 for patients treated through the quality improvement program versus traditional care. The model projected cumulative savings of $52 million over a 5-year period. Clinical incorporation of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) resulted in $20,535 annual savings per patient and projected $91 million over 5 years. We conclude that an integrated management program for COPD patients across the care continuum is associated with substantial cost savings and significantly reduced hospital readmissions.

Objectives. To evaluate trends in funding over the past 16 years for key federal public health preparedness and response programs at the US Department of Health and Human Services, to improve understanding of federal funding history in this area, and to provide context for future resource allocation decisions for public health preparedness. Methods. In this 2017 analysis, we examined the funding history of key federal programs critical to public health preparedness by reviewing program budget data collected for our annual examination of federal funding for biodefense and health security programs since fiscal year (FY) 2001. Results. State and local preparedness at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention initially received $940 million in FY2002 and resulted in significant preparedness gains, but funding levels have since decreased by 31%. Similarly, the Hospital Preparedness Program within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response was funded at a high of $515 million in FY2003, but funding was reduced by 50%. Investments in medical countermeasure development and stockpiling remained relatively stable. Conclusions. The United States has made significant progress in preparing for disasters and advancing public health infrastructure. To enable continued advancement, federal funding commitments must be sustained.

The aim of this article is to present the development of cross-country comparable food reference budgets in 26 European countries, and to discuss their usefulness as an addition to food-based dietary guidelines (FBDG) for tackling food insecurity in low-income groups. Reference budgets are illustrative priced baskets containing the minimum goods and services necessary for well-described types of families to have an adequate social participation. This study was conducted starting from national FBDG, which were translated into monthly food baskets. Next, these baskets were validated in terms of their acceptability and feasibility through focus group discussions, and finally they were priced. Along the paper, we show how that food reference budgets hold interesting contributions to the promotion of healthy eating and prevention of food insecurity in low-income contexts in at least four ways: (1) they show how a healthy diet can be achieved with limited economic resources, (2) they bring closer to the citizen a detailed example of how to put FBDG recommendations into practice, (3) they ensure that food security is achieved in an integral way, by comprising the biological but also psychological and social functions of food, and (4) providing routes for further (comparative) research into food insecurity.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has been affecting the maintenance of various disease control programmes, including malaria. In some malaria-endemic countries, funding and personnel reallocations were executed from malaria control programmes to support COVID-19 response efforts, resulting mainly in interruptions of disease control activities and reduced capabilities of health system. While it is principal to drive national budget rearrangements during the pandemic, the long-standing malaria control programmes should not be left behind in order to sustain the achievements from the previous years. With different levels of intensity, many countries have been struggling to improve the health system resilience and to mitigate the unavoidable stagnation of malaria control programmes. Current opinion emphasized the impacts of budget reprioritization on malaria-related resources during COVID-19 pandemic in malaria endemic countries in Africa and Southeast Asia, and feasible attempts that can be taken to lessen these impacts.

The global health community has been stunned by the UK Government's decision to cut funding of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) by 85% for 2021. [...]many health experts are perplexed by the UK's move, which is part of the government's decision to reduce the foreign aid budget from 0·7% to 0·5% of gross national income. ” The cut is significant and will affect the provision of life-saving HIV services, the empowerment of young women and adolescent girls, particularly in Africa, and it will impact our work in upholding the human rights of some of the most marginalised people around the world”, Winnie Byanyima, of UNAIDS, told The Lancet.

ObjectivesIn many countries, the healthcare sector is dealing with important challenges such as increased demand for healthcare services, capacity problems in hospitals and rising healthcare costs. Therefore, one of the aims of the Dutch government is to move care from in-hospital to out-of-hospital care settings. An example of an innovation where care is moved from a more specialised setting to a less specialised setting is the performance of an antenatal cardiotocography (aCTG) in primary midwife-led care. The aim of this study was to assess the budget impact of implementing aCTG for healthy pregnant women in midwife-led care compared with usual obstetrician-led care in the Netherlands.MethodsA budget impact analysis was conducted to estimate the actual costs and reimbursement of aCTG performed in midwife-led care and obstetrician-led care (ie, base-case analysis) from the Dutch healthcare perspective. Epidemiological and healthcare utilisation data describing both care pathways were obtained from a prospective cohort, survey and national databases. Different implementation rates of aCTG in midwife-led care were explored. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to estimate the uncertainty surrounding the budget impact estimates.ResultsShifting aCTG from obstetrician-led care to midwife-led-care would increase actual costs with €311 763 (97.5% CI €188 574 to €426 072) and €1 247 052 (97.5% CI €754 296 to €1 704 290) for implementation rates of 25% and 100%, respectively, while it would decrease reimbursement with −€7 538 335 (97.5% CI −€10 302 306 to −€4 559 661) and −€30 153 342 (97.5% CI −€41 209 225 to −€18 238 645) for implementation rates of 25% and 100%, respectively. The sensitivity analysis results were consistent with those of the main analysis.ConclusionsFrom the Dutch healthcare perspective, we estimated that implementing aCTG in midwife-led care may increase the associated actual costs. At the same time, it might lower the healthcare reimbursement.