Costing Interventions for Developing an Essential Package of Health Services: Application of a Rapid Method and Results From Pakistan

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal of Health Policy and Management Pub Date : 2023-11-27 DOI:10.34172/ijhpm.2023.8006
Wajeeha Raza, Wahaj Zulfiqar, M. Shah, M. Huda, Syeda Shehirbano Akhtar, Urooj Aqeel, Saira Kanwal, Muhammad Khalid, Raza Zaidi, Maarten Jansen, N. Kitson, Leon Bijlmakers, S. Siddiqi, A. Alwan, Anna Vassall, S. Torres-Rueda
{"title":"Costing Interventions for Developing an Essential Package of Health Services: Application of a Rapid Method and Results From Pakistan","authors":"Wajeeha Raza, Wahaj Zulfiqar, M. Shah, M. Huda, Syeda Shehirbano Akhtar, Urooj Aqeel, Saira Kanwal, Muhammad Khalid, Raza Zaidi, Maarten Jansen, N. Kitson, Leon Bijlmakers, S. Siddiqi, A. Alwan, Anna Vassall, S. Torres-Rueda","doi":"10.34172/ijhpm.2023.8006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The Federal Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination (MNHSR&C) in Pakistan has committed to progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC) by 2030 by providing an essential package for health services (EPHS). Starting in 2019, the Disease Control Priorities 3 (DCP3) evidence framework was used to guide the development of Pakistan’s EPHS. In this paper, we describe the methods and results of a rapid costing approach used to inform the EPHS design process. Methods: A total of 167 unit costs were calculated through a context-specific, normative, ingredients-based, bottom-up economic costing approach. Costs were constructed by determining resource use from descriptions provided by MNHSR&C and validated by technical experts. Price data from publicly available sources were used. Deterministic univariate sensitivity analyses were carried out. Results: Unit costs ranged from 2019 US$ 0.27 to 2019 US$ 1,478. Interventions in the cancer package of services had the highest average cost (2019 US$ 837) while interventions in the environmental package of services had the lowest (2019 US$ 0.68). Cost drivers varied by platform; the two largest drivers were drug regimens and surgery-related costs. Sensitivity analyses suggest our results are not sensitive to changes in staff salary but are sensitive to changes in medicine pricing. Conclusion: We estimated a large number of context-specific unit costs, over a six-month period, demonstrating a rapid costing method suitable for EPHS design.","PeriodicalId":14135,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Policy and Management","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Policy and Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2023.8006","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Federal Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination (MNHSR&C) in Pakistan has committed to progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC) by 2030 by providing an essential package for health services (EPHS). Starting in 2019, the Disease Control Priorities 3 (DCP3) evidence framework was used to guide the development of Pakistan’s EPHS. In this paper, we describe the methods and results of a rapid costing approach used to inform the EPHS design process. Methods: A total of 167 unit costs were calculated through a context-specific, normative, ingredients-based, bottom-up economic costing approach. Costs were constructed by determining resource use from descriptions provided by MNHSR&C and validated by technical experts. Price data from publicly available sources were used. Deterministic univariate sensitivity analyses were carried out. Results: Unit costs ranged from 2019 US$ 0.27 to 2019 US$ 1,478. Interventions in the cancer package of services had the highest average cost (2019 US$ 837) while interventions in the environmental package of services had the lowest (2019 US$ 0.68). Cost drivers varied by platform; the two largest drivers were drug regimens and surgery-related costs. Sensitivity analyses suggest our results are not sensitive to changes in staff salary but are sensitive to changes in medicine pricing. Conclusion: We estimated a large number of context-specific unit costs, over a six-month period, demonstrating a rapid costing method suitable for EPHS design.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
计算干预措施的成本以制定基本的一揽子医疗服务:巴基斯坦快速方法的应用和结果
背景:巴基斯坦联邦国家卫生服务、法规和协调部(MNHSR&C)承诺通过提供基本卫生服务包(EPHS),到 2030 年逐步实现全民健康覆盖(UHC)。从 2019 年开始,疾病控制优先事项 3(DCP3)证据框架被用于指导巴基斯坦 EPHS 的发展。在本文中,我们将介绍用于为 EPHS 设计过程提供信息的快速成本计算方法和结果。方法:通过一种针对具体情况的、规范的、基于成分的、自下而上的经济成本计算方法,共计算出 167 个单位成本。成本的计算方法是根据国家卫生与健康部提供的说明确定资源使用情况,并由技术专家进行验证。使用了公开来源的价格数据。进行了确定性单变量敏感性分析。结果显示单位成本从 2019 年的 0.27 美元到 2019 年的 1,478 美元不等。癌症一揽子服务中的干预措施平均成本最高(2019 年为 837 美元),而环境一揽子服务中的干预措施平均成本最低(2019 年为 0.68 美元)。成本驱动因素因平台而异;两个最大的驱动因素是药物治疗和手术相关成本。敏感性分析表明,我们的结果对员工工资的变化不敏感,但对药品定价的变化敏感。结论:我们在六个月的时间内估算了大量与具体情况相关的单位成本,展示了一种适合 EPHS 设计的快速成本计算方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
International Journal of Health Policy and Management Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
142
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Health Policy and Management (IJHPM) is a monthly open access, peer-reviewed journal which serves as an international and interdisciplinary setting for the dissemination of health policy and management research. It brings together individual specialties from different fields, notably health management/policy/economics, epidemiology, social/public policy, and philosophy into a dynamic academic mix.
期刊最新文献
Why Are African Researchers Left Behind in Global Scientific Publications? - A Viewpoint. Grappling With the Inclusion of Patients and the Public in Consensus Building: A Commentary on Inclusion, Safety, and Accessibility; Comment on "Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study". Phase IV Drug Trials With a Canadian Site: A Comparison of Industry and Non-Industry-Funded Trials. The Rhetoric of Decolonizing Global Health Fails to Address the Reality of Settler Colonialism. Gaza as a Case in Point. Building a Systems Map: Applying Systems Thinking to Unhealthy Commodity Industry Influence on Public Health Policy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1