SETTING: Bangalore City, India. OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost and cost-effectiveness of public-private mix (PPM) for tuberculosis (TB) care and control when implemented on a large scale. DESIGN: DOTS implementation under the Revised National TB Control Programme (RNTCP) began in 1999, PPM was introduced in mid-2001 and a second phase of intensified PPM began in 2003. Data on the costs and effects of TB treatment from 1999 to 2005 were collected and used to compare the two distinct phases of PPM with a scenario of no PPM. Costs were assessed in 2005 $US for public and private providers, patients and patient attendants. Sources of data included expenditure records, medical records, interviews with staff and patient surveys. Effectiveness was measured as the number of cases successfully treated. RESULTS: When PPM was implemented, total provider costs increased in proportion to the number of successfully treated TB cases. The average cost per patient treated from the provider perspective when PPM was implemented was stable, at US$69, in the intensified phase compared with US$71 pre-PPM. PPM resulted in the shift of an estimated 7200 patients from non-DOTS to DOTS treatment over 5 years. PPM implementation substantially reduced costs to patients, such that the average societal cost per patient successfully treated fell from US$154 to US$132 in the 4 years following the initiation of PPM. CONCLUSION: Implementation of PPM on a large scale in an urban setting can be cost-effective, and considerably reduces the financial burden of TB for patients.
SETTING: Bangalore City, India. OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost and cost-effectiveness of public-private mix (PPM) for tuberculosis (TB) care and control when implemented on a large scale. DESIGN: DOTS implementation under the Revised National TB Control Programme (RNTCP) began in 1999, PPM was introduced in mid-2001 and a second phase of intensified PPM began in 2003. Data on the costs and effects of TB treatment from 1999 to 2005 were collected and used to compare the two distinct phases of PPM with a scenario of no PPM. Costs were assessed in 2005 $US for public and private providers, patients and patient attendants. Sources of data included expenditure records, medical records, interviews with staff and patient surveys. Effectiveness was measured as the number of cases successfully treated. RESULTS: When PPM was implemented, total provider costs increased in proportion to the number of successfully treated TB cases. The average cost per patient treated from the provider perspective when PPM was implemented was stable, at US$69, in the intensified phase compared with US$71 pre-PPM. PPM resulted in the shift of an estimated 7200 patients from non-DOTS to DOTS treatment over 5 years. PPM implementation substantially reduced costs to patients, such that the average societal cost per patient successfully treated fell from US$154 to US$132 in the 4 years following the initiation of PPM. CONCLUSION: Implementation of PPM on a large scale in an urban setting can be cost-effective, and considerably reduces the financial burden of TB for patients.
Authors: C Rocha; R Montoya; K Zevallos; A Curatola; W Ynga; J Franco; F Fernandez; N Becerra; M Sabaduche; M A Tovar; E Ramos; A Tapley; N R Allen; D A Onifade; C D Acosta; M Maritz; D F Concha; S G Schumacher; C A Evans Journal: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: P Sinha; M Carwile; A Bhargava; C Cintron; C Acuna-Villaorduna; S Lakshminarayan; A F Liu; N Kulatilaka; L Locks; N S Hochberg Journal: Public Health Action Date: 2020-09-21
Authors: Anna Vassall; Sanne van Kampen; Hojoon Sohn; Joy S Michael; K R John; Saskia den Boon; J Lucian Davis; Andrew Whitelaw; Mark P Nicol; Maria Tarcela Gler; Anar Khaliqov; Carlos Zamudio; Mark D Perkins; Catharina C Boehme; Frank Cobelens Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2011-11-08 Impact factor: 11.069