Cargando…

Leprosy services in primary health care in India: comparative economic cost analysis of two public‐health settings

OBJECTIVES: The WHO recommends inclusion of post‐exposure chemoprophylaxis with single‐dose rifampicin in national leprosy control programmes. The objective was to estimate the cost of leprosy services at primary care level in two different public‐health settings. METHODS: Ingredient‐based costing w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tiwari, Anuj, Blok, David J., Suryawanshi, Pramilesh, Raikwar, Akash, Arif, Mohammad, Richardus, Jan Hendrik
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7379621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30444947
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tmi.13182
_version_ 1783562682405748736
author Tiwari, Anuj
Blok, David J.
Suryawanshi, Pramilesh
Raikwar, Akash
Arif, Mohammad
Richardus, Jan Hendrik
author_facet Tiwari, Anuj
Blok, David J.
Suryawanshi, Pramilesh
Raikwar, Akash
Arif, Mohammad
Richardus, Jan Hendrik
author_sort Tiwari, Anuj
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The WHO recommends inclusion of post‐exposure chemoprophylaxis with single‐dose rifampicin in national leprosy control programmes. The objective was to estimate the cost of leprosy services at primary care level in two different public‐health settings. METHODS: Ingredient‐based costing was performed in eight primary health centres (PHCs) purposively selected in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli (DNH) and the Umbergaon block of Valsad district, Gujarat, India. All costs were bootstrapped, and to estimate the variation in total cost under uncertainty, a univariate sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: The mean annual cost of providing leprosy services was USD 29 072 in the DNH PHC (95% CI: 22 125–36 020) and USD 11 082 in Umbergaon (95% CI: 8334–13 830). The single largest cost component was human resources: 79% in DNH and 83% in Umbergaon. The unit cost for screening the contact of a leprosy patient was USD 1 in DNH (95% CI: 0.8–1.2) and USD 0.3 in Umbergaon (95% CI: 0.2–0.4). In DNH, the unit cost of delivering single‐dose of rifampicin (SDR) as chemoprophylaxis for contacts was USD 2.9 (95% CI: 2.5–3.7). CONCLUSIONS: The setting with an enhanced public‐health financing system invests more in leprosy services than a setting with fewer financial resources. In terms of leprosy visits, the enhanced public‐health system is hardly more expensive than the non‐enhanced public‐health system. The unit cost of contact screening is not high, favouring its sustainability in the programme.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7379621
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73796212020-07-24 Leprosy services in primary health care in India: comparative economic cost analysis of two public‐health settings Tiwari, Anuj Blok, David J. Suryawanshi, Pramilesh Raikwar, Akash Arif, Mohammad Richardus, Jan Hendrik Trop Med Int Health Editors’ Choice OBJECTIVES: The WHO recommends inclusion of post‐exposure chemoprophylaxis with single‐dose rifampicin in national leprosy control programmes. The objective was to estimate the cost of leprosy services at primary care level in two different public‐health settings. METHODS: Ingredient‐based costing was performed in eight primary health centres (PHCs) purposively selected in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli (DNH) and the Umbergaon block of Valsad district, Gujarat, India. All costs were bootstrapped, and to estimate the variation in total cost under uncertainty, a univariate sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: The mean annual cost of providing leprosy services was USD 29 072 in the DNH PHC (95% CI: 22 125–36 020) and USD 11 082 in Umbergaon (95% CI: 8334–13 830). The single largest cost component was human resources: 79% in DNH and 83% in Umbergaon. The unit cost for screening the contact of a leprosy patient was USD 1 in DNH (95% CI: 0.8–1.2) and USD 0.3 in Umbergaon (95% CI: 0.2–0.4). In DNH, the unit cost of delivering single‐dose of rifampicin (SDR) as chemoprophylaxis for contacts was USD 2.9 (95% CI: 2.5–3.7). CONCLUSIONS: The setting with an enhanced public‐health financing system invests more in leprosy services than a setting with fewer financial resources. In terms of leprosy visits, the enhanced public‐health system is hardly more expensive than the non‐enhanced public‐health system. The unit cost of contact screening is not high, favouring its sustainability in the programme. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-12-06 2019-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7379621/ /pubmed/30444947 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tmi.13182 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Tropical Medicine & International Health Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Editors’ Choice
Tiwari, Anuj
Blok, David J.
Suryawanshi, Pramilesh
Raikwar, Akash
Arif, Mohammad
Richardus, Jan Hendrik
Leprosy services in primary health care in India: comparative economic cost analysis of two public‐health settings
title Leprosy services in primary health care in India: comparative economic cost analysis of two public‐health settings
title_full Leprosy services in primary health care in India: comparative economic cost analysis of two public‐health settings
title_fullStr Leprosy services in primary health care in India: comparative economic cost analysis of two public‐health settings
title_full_unstemmed Leprosy services in primary health care in India: comparative economic cost analysis of two public‐health settings
title_short Leprosy services in primary health care in India: comparative economic cost analysis of two public‐health settings
title_sort leprosy services in primary health care in india: comparative economic cost analysis of two public‐health settings
topic Editors’ Choice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7379621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30444947
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tmi.13182
work_keys_str_mv AT tiwarianuj leprosyservicesinprimaryhealthcareinindiacomparativeeconomiccostanalysisoftwopublichealthsettings
AT blokdavidj leprosyservicesinprimaryhealthcareinindiacomparativeeconomiccostanalysisoftwopublichealthsettings
AT suryawanshipramilesh leprosyservicesinprimaryhealthcareinindiacomparativeeconomiccostanalysisoftwopublichealthsettings
AT raikwarakash leprosyservicesinprimaryhealthcareinindiacomparativeeconomiccostanalysisoftwopublichealthsettings
AT arifmohammad leprosyservicesinprimaryhealthcareinindiacomparativeeconomiccostanalysisoftwopublichealthsettings
AT richardusjanhendrik leprosyservicesinprimaryhealthcareinindiacomparativeeconomiccostanalysisoftwopublichealthsettings