OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the financial incentives that companies have to treat HIV-infected employees, in a health care services company in Kampala, Uganda. DESIGN: Cost-benefit analysis from the company's perspective of three interventions to treat HIV-infected employees. METHODS: The costs and benefits of each intervention were compared with no intervention and with each other: cotrimoxazole prophylaxis (CTX) starting at WHO stage 2; highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) plus CTX starting at WHO stage 2; and a 'hybrid' strategy that begins with CTX at WHO stage 2 and later includes HAART. The 5-year health and economic outcomes were calculated using a Markov model. Inputs for disease progression rates and effects of HIV on company costs were derived from published and unpublished data and a survey administered to company officers. RESULTS: The analysis showed that the 'hybrid' intervention is the most cost-effective. For 100 skilled employees it would save the company 38,939 US dollars and 73 disability adjusted life-years (DALYs). For unskilled workers 'CTX' is the most cost effective and would save 16,417 US dollars and 60 DALYs. 'Hybrid' has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 45 US dollars per DALY for unskilled workers whereas HAART is far less economical at an incremental cost per DALY of 4118 US dollars. For 'CTX', net savings are preserved across the full range of input values. CONCLUSION: A 'hybrid' intervention combining CTX prophylaxis followed by HAART would generate savings to a Ugandan company. Governments and other donors may find opportunities to share costs with the private sector as part of their phase-in strategy for antiretroviral therapy.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the financial incentives that companies have to treat HIV-infected employees, in a health care services company in Kampala, Uganda. DESIGN: Cost-benefit analysis from the company's perspective of three interventions to treat HIV-infected employees. METHODS: The costs and benefits of each intervention were compared with no intervention and with each other: cotrimoxazole prophylaxis (CTX) starting at WHO stage 2; highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) plus CTX starting at WHO stage 2; and a 'hybrid' strategy that begins with CTX at WHO stage 2 and later includes HAART. The 5-year health and economic outcomes were calculated using a Markov model. Inputs for disease progression rates and effects of HIV on company costs were derived from published and unpublished data and a survey administered to company officers. RESULTS: The analysis showed that the 'hybrid' intervention is the most cost-effective. For 100 skilled employees it would save the company 38,939 US dollars and 73 disability adjusted life-years (DALYs). For unskilled workers 'CTX' is the most cost effective and would save 16,417 US dollars and 60 DALYs. 'Hybrid' has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 45 US dollars per DALY for unskilled workers whereas HAART is far less economical at an incremental cost per DALY of 4118 US dollars. For 'CTX', net savings are preserved across the full range of input values. CONCLUSION: A 'hybrid' intervention combining CTX prophylaxis followed by HAART would generate savings to a Ugandan company. Governments and other donors may find opportunities to share costs with the private sector as part of their phase-in strategy for antiretroviral therapy.
Authors: Elliot Marseille; James G Kahn; Christian Pitter; Rebecca Bunnell; William Epalatai; Emmanuel Jawe; Willy Were; Jonathan Mermin Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.561
Authors: Rory Leisegang; Gary Maartens; Michael Hislop; Leon Regensberg; Susan Cleary Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-07-02 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Pam Sonnenberg; Andrew Copas; Judith R Glynn; Andre Bester; Gill Nelson; Stuart Shearer; Jill Murray Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2010-11-28 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Leonor Guariguata; Ingrid de Beer; Rina Hough; Pancho Mulongeni; Frank G Feeley; Tobias F Rinke de Wit Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Rory Leisegang; Gary Maartens; Michael Hislop; John Sargent; Ernest Darkoh; Susan Cleary Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gesine Meyer-Rath; Jan Pienaar; Brian Brink; Andrew van Zyl; Debbie Muirhead; Alison Grant; Gavin Churchyard; Charlotte Watts; Peter Vickerman Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: John R Koethe; Elliot Marseille; Mark J Giganti; Benjamin H Chi; Douglas Heimburger; Jeffrey S Stringer Journal: Cost Eff Resour Alloc Date: 2014-04-27