Cargando…

HIV partner services in Kenya: a cost and budget impact analysis study

BACKGROUND: The elicitation of contact information, notification and testing of sex partners of HIV infected patients (aPS), is an effective HIV testing strategy in low-income settings but may not necessarily be affordable. We applied WHO guidelines and the International Society for Pharmaco-economi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cherutich, Peter, Farquhar, Carey, Wamuti, Beatrice, Otieno, Felix A., Ng’ang’a, Ann, Mutiti, Peter Maingi, Macharia, Paul, Sambai, Betsy, Bukusi, David, Levin, Carol
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6142360/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30223833
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3530-y
_version_ 1783355842985197568
author Cherutich, Peter
Farquhar, Carey
Wamuti, Beatrice
Otieno, Felix A.
Ng’ang’a, Ann
Mutiti, Peter Maingi
Macharia, Paul
Sambai, Betsy
Bukusi, David
Levin, Carol
author_facet Cherutich, Peter
Farquhar, Carey
Wamuti, Beatrice
Otieno, Felix A.
Ng’ang’a, Ann
Mutiti, Peter Maingi
Macharia, Paul
Sambai, Betsy
Bukusi, David
Levin, Carol
author_sort Cherutich, Peter
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The elicitation of contact information, notification and testing of sex partners of HIV infected patients (aPS), is an effective HIV testing strategy in low-income settings but may not necessarily be affordable. We applied WHO guidelines and the International Society for Pharmaco-economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) guidelines to conduct cost and budget impact analyses, respectively, of aPS compared to current practice of HIV testing services (HTS) in Kisumu County, Kenya. METHODS: Using study data and time motion studies, we constructed an Excel-based tool to estimate costs and the budget impact of aPS. Cost data were collected from selected facilities in Kisumu County. We report the annual total and unit costs of HTS, incremental total and unit costs for aPS, and the budget impact of scaling up aPS over a 5-year horizon. We also considered a task-shifted scenario that used community health workers (CHWs) rather than facility based health workers and conducted sensitivity analyses assuming different rates of scale up of aPS. RESULTS: The average unit costs for HIV testing among HIV-infected index clients was US$ 25.36 per client and US$ 17.86 per client using nurses and CHWs, respectively. The average incremental costs for providing enhanced aPS in Kisumu County were US$ 1,092,161 and US$ 753,547 per year, using nurses and CHWs, respectively. The average incremental cost of scaling up aPS over a five period was 45% higher when using nurses compared to using CHWs (US$ 5,460,837 and US$ 3,767,738 respectively). Over the five years, the upper-bound budget impact of nurse-model was US$ 1,767,863, 63% and 35% of which were accounted for by aPS costs and ART costs, respectively. The CHW model incurred an upper-bound incremental cost of US$ 1,258,854, which was 71.2% lower than the nurse-based model. The budget impact was sensitive to the level of aPS coverage and ranged from US$ 28,547 for 30% coverage using CHWs in 2014 to US$ 1,267,603 for 80% coverage using nurses in 2018. CONCLUSION: Scaling aPS using nurses has minimal budget impact but not cost-saving over a five-year period. Targeting aPS to newly-diagnosed index cases and task-shifting to community health workers is recommended. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3530-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6142360
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61423602018-09-20 HIV partner services in Kenya: a cost and budget impact analysis study Cherutich, Peter Farquhar, Carey Wamuti, Beatrice Otieno, Felix A. Ng’ang’a, Ann Mutiti, Peter Maingi Macharia, Paul Sambai, Betsy Bukusi, David Levin, Carol BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: The elicitation of contact information, notification and testing of sex partners of HIV infected patients (aPS), is an effective HIV testing strategy in low-income settings but may not necessarily be affordable. We applied WHO guidelines and the International Society for Pharmaco-economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) guidelines to conduct cost and budget impact analyses, respectively, of aPS compared to current practice of HIV testing services (HTS) in Kisumu County, Kenya. METHODS: Using study data and time motion studies, we constructed an Excel-based tool to estimate costs and the budget impact of aPS. Cost data were collected from selected facilities in Kisumu County. We report the annual total and unit costs of HTS, incremental total and unit costs for aPS, and the budget impact of scaling up aPS over a 5-year horizon. We also considered a task-shifted scenario that used community health workers (CHWs) rather than facility based health workers and conducted sensitivity analyses assuming different rates of scale up of aPS. RESULTS: The average unit costs for HIV testing among HIV-infected index clients was US$ 25.36 per client and US$ 17.86 per client using nurses and CHWs, respectively. The average incremental costs for providing enhanced aPS in Kisumu County were US$ 1,092,161 and US$ 753,547 per year, using nurses and CHWs, respectively. The average incremental cost of scaling up aPS over a five period was 45% higher when using nurses compared to using CHWs (US$ 5,460,837 and US$ 3,767,738 respectively). Over the five years, the upper-bound budget impact of nurse-model was US$ 1,767,863, 63% and 35% of which were accounted for by aPS costs and ART costs, respectively. The CHW model incurred an upper-bound incremental cost of US$ 1,258,854, which was 71.2% lower than the nurse-based model. The budget impact was sensitive to the level of aPS coverage and ranged from US$ 28,547 for 30% coverage using CHWs in 2014 to US$ 1,267,603 for 80% coverage using nurses in 2018. CONCLUSION: Scaling aPS using nurses has minimal budget impact but not cost-saving over a five-year period. Targeting aPS to newly-diagnosed index cases and task-shifting to community health workers is recommended. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3530-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-09-17 /pmc/articles/PMC6142360/ /pubmed/30223833 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3530-y Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Cherutich, Peter
Farquhar, Carey
Wamuti, Beatrice
Otieno, Felix A.
Ng’ang’a, Ann
Mutiti, Peter Maingi
Macharia, Paul
Sambai, Betsy
Bukusi, David
Levin, Carol
HIV partner services in Kenya: a cost and budget impact analysis study
title HIV partner services in Kenya: a cost and budget impact analysis study
title_full HIV partner services in Kenya: a cost and budget impact analysis study
title_fullStr HIV partner services in Kenya: a cost and budget impact analysis study
title_full_unstemmed HIV partner services in Kenya: a cost and budget impact analysis study
title_short HIV partner services in Kenya: a cost and budget impact analysis study
title_sort hiv partner services in kenya: a cost and budget impact analysis study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6142360/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30223833
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3530-y
work_keys_str_mv AT cherutichpeter hivpartnerservicesinkenyaacostandbudgetimpactanalysisstudy
AT farquharcarey hivpartnerservicesinkenyaacostandbudgetimpactanalysisstudy
AT wamutibeatrice hivpartnerservicesinkenyaacostandbudgetimpactanalysisstudy
AT otienofelixa hivpartnerservicesinkenyaacostandbudgetimpactanalysisstudy
AT ngangaann hivpartnerservicesinkenyaacostandbudgetimpactanalysisstudy
AT mutitipetermaingi hivpartnerservicesinkenyaacostandbudgetimpactanalysisstudy
AT machariapaul hivpartnerservicesinkenyaacostandbudgetimpactanalysisstudy
AT sambaibetsy hivpartnerservicesinkenyaacostandbudgetimpactanalysisstudy
AT bukusidavid hivpartnerservicesinkenyaacostandbudgetimpactanalysisstudy
AT levincarol hivpartnerservicesinkenyaacostandbudgetimpactanalysisstudy
AT hivpartnerservicesinkenyaacostandbudgetimpactanalysisstudy