The cost and cost implications of implementing the integrated chronic disease management model in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: A cost analysis of implementation of interventions informs budgeting and economic evaluations.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost of implementing the integrated chronic disease management (ICDM) model in primary healthcare (PHC) clinics in South Africa.
METHODS: Cost data from the provider's perspective were collected in 2019 from four PHC clinics with comparable patient caseloads (except for one). We estimated the costs of implementing the ICDM model current activities for three (facility reorganization, clinical supportive management and assisted self-management) components and additional costs of implementing with enhanced fidelity. Costs were estimated based on budget reviews, interviews with management teams, and other published data. The standard of care activities such as medication were not included in the costing. One-way sensitivity analyses were carried out for key parameters by varying patient caseloads, required infrastructure and staff. Annual ICDM model implementation costs per PHC clinic and per patient per visit are presented in 2019 US dollars.
RESULTS: The overall mean annual cost of implementing the ICDM model was $148 446.00 (SD: $65 125.00) per clinic. Current ICDM model activities cost accounted for 84% ($124 345.00) of the annual mean cost, while additional costs for higher fidelity were 16% ($24 102.00). The mean cost per patient per visit was $6.00 (SD:$0.77); $4.94 (SD:0.70) for current cost and $1.06 (SD:0.33) for additional cost to enhance ICDM model fidelity. For the additional cost, 49% was for facility reorganization, 31% for adherence clubs and 20% for training of nursing staff. In the sensitivity analyses, the major cost drivers were the proportion of effort of assisted self-management staff and the number of patients with chronic diseases receiving care at the clinic.
CONCLUSION: Minimal additional cost are required to implement the ICDM model with higher fidelity. Further research on the cost-effectiveness of the ICDM model in middle-income countries is required.

Background

Chronic diseases are a major public health challenge, accounting for 60% of all deaths, with 35% and 40% of deaths due to chronic diseases occurring in low and middle income countries respectively [1-3]. Chronic diseases can cost up to 7% of a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) due to the undesirable effect these diseases have on economic activities and increased public health and social welfare expenditure [3, 4]. In high-income settings such as the USA, Europe and Spain, the cost of the increasing number of chronic illnesses account for 75%, 80% and 77% of the total healthcare cost respectively [5, 6]. The key drivers of cost in health systems are increased utilization of services, medication and health system adaptation of service delivery [3].

South Africa, like many low and middle-income countries, has a dual burden of chronic diseases, with a high prevalence of both communicable and non-communicable chronic diseases [7, 8]. Data from Free State Province indicate that 24% of the population suffer from chronic diseases [9]. Results from a Cape Town study showed that prevalence of multi-morbidity is approximately 23%, and chronic diseases account for 45% of all primary healthcare (PHC) consultations [10]. Nevertheless, the diagnostic tools, training and supervision of clinical staff as they manage and provide care for chronic conditions are inadequate, particularly at the PHC level [11, 12]. In an effort to address this challenge, the South African Department of Health developed and implemented the integrated chronic disease management (ICDM) model [13]. The ICDM model was developed based on the principles of the chronic care model (CCM) and innovative care for chronic conditions (ICCC) framework [13, 14]. Research in other settings has indicated that integrated chronic care models improve patient care and health outcomes [15-17].

The aim of the ICDM model is to provide a comprehensive chronic disease management model that reduces healthcare utilization and promotes self-management among patients with chronic diseases [13, 14]. Patients who are incorporated into the ICDM model include adults and children with chronic communicable (HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis) and non-communicable (hypertension, diabetes, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, mental health and epilepsy) diseases [13]. The ICDM model consists of four inter-related components, namely facility reorganization, clinical supportive management, assisted self-management and strengthening of support systems [13, 14].

Facility reorganization activities include management of patient flow, bookings and records to enhance clinic operational effeciency [13]. Clinical supportive management includes the activities of the district clinical specialist team (DCST) and the training of nurses on primary healthcare and management of the conditions included in the ICDM model [13]. Assisted self-management activities aim to empower patients to become involved in their disease management and be supported at community level [13]. Community level support is provided by ward-based outreach teams (WBOTs) and community healthcare workers (CHCW). Patients with chronic conditions who are stable on treatment are offered the option of collecting pre-packed medication at the PHC clinic or at other outlets under the central chronic medicine dispensing and distribution (CCMDD) programme [13]. The strengthening of support systems promotes collaborations between the clinic and other departments like school health and support structures for health services delivery such as community organizations [13]. An assessment of the ICDM model implementation has shown enhancements in patients’ records, improved health outcomes for HIV-positive patients on antiretroviral medication, but no substantial improvements for patients with hypertension [18, 19].

Developing, implementing and evaluating effectiveness and implementation outcomes are essential in public healthcare research [20]. The implementation outcomes or measures of successful implementation an intervention or a programme, include amongst others, fidelity, implementation costs, acceptability and sustainability [21]. Implementation costs of interventions reveals the feasibility, scalability and sustainability of proposed integrated care interventions [20]. Implementation costs is one of the implementation outcomes that also allows decision makers to determine and choose which interventions are efficient and equitable [20]. Fidelity is the degree to which the implementation of a programme follows the original design as outlined in the guidelines [22, 23]. A process evaluation of the implementation fidelity of the ICDM model indicates that the level of fidelity (adherence) to guidelines varies between clinics, with some clinics having high scores (80%-89%), and others having medium (70%-79%) and low (<70%) scores [24]. Chronic care models are also cost-effective as they reduce healthcare services utilization and improved disease management [15-17]. However, there are no data on the cost of implementing the ICDM model in South Africa. The objective of this study was to estimate the empirical implementation cost of each of the components of the ICDM model in two health districts to inform planning, scaling-up and further economic evaluations. In addition, we assessed if the degree of fidelity to the ICDM model guidelines has an impact on the cost of implementing the ICDM model.

Methods

Overview

This analysis is nested within a larger study to assess the level and determinants of fidelity in the implementation of the ICDM model in the two health districts in South Africa [25]. We evaluated the cost of implementing three (facility reorganization, clinical supportive management, assisted self-management) of the four components of the ICDM model from the health system perspective. The strengthening of support systems was not included in the cost analysis as the activities are extensive and most of the costs are covered by collaborating organizations. In addition to evaluating the current cost of operating the ICDM model, we estimated the costing of the additional activities or infrastructure required to implement the ICDM model with a high degree of fidelity in a PHC clinic per annum. Due to lack of data on the ICDM model’s effectiveness in optimizing clinical outcomes, we conducted a cost analysis using the empirical micro-costing. Standard healthcare service costs like medication, laboratory investigations and management of complications were excluded from the analysis to keep the focus on the ICDM model activities. The standard costs would be incurred irrespective of the ICDM model and their inclusion would overestimate the costs of the ICDM model activities.

The setting

The study was conducted in two health districts in South Africa, the West Rand (WR) district in the Gauteng province and the Dr. Kenneth Kaunda (DKK) district in the North West province [25]. These two health districts, as well as Bushbuckridge health district in Mpumalanga, were the pilot sites for implementing the ICDM model in South Africa on the initiative the South African National Department of Health in 2011 [26]. The two health districts were selected for this study as they have comparable population sizes and burden of disease. The population sizes in the two districts are similar (811 000 in WR and 716 000 in DKK health district) [27]. In 2011, the provincial HIV prevalence was also comparable (12.4% and 13.3% in Gauteng and North West, respectively [28]). Hypertension prevalence is high (31%- 39.7%) in both health districts, with high health service utilization for chronic non-communicable diseases [27]. In Gauteng, 63% of the households rely on state health facilities (clinics and hospitals) for health services, while 73% of the households in North West depend on state health facilities [29]. We selected these two districts as the ICDM model had been implemented in these districts for over 7 years. The cost analysis would therefore be representative of medium to long-term scale-up scenarios.

Ethics approval

The study was approved by the ethics committees of the University of Cape Town (Ref: 127/2018) and the University of the Witwatersrand (Ref: R14/49).

Data collection

Clinic selection

Four of the 16 PHC clinics that formed part of the larger ‘degree of fidelity’ study [25] were selected based on their ICDM model implementation fidelity scores and patient caseloads. One of the clinics with the highest [clinics A (87.%) and B (84.8%)] fidelity scores and one of the clinics with the lowest [clinics C (76.6%) and D(65.8%)] fidelity scores [24]. were chosen per health district for the cost analysis. The four clinics had comparable characteristics (personnel and patient consultations) as summarized in Table 1. However, clinic A had more consulting rooms and fewer patients consulting for chronic diseases management.

Table 1

Characteristics of the primary healthcare clinics included in the cost analysis of implementing the Integrated Chronic Disease Management (ICDM) model.

Variable	Clinic A	Clinic B	Clinic C	Clinic D
Fidelity to the ICDM model	Score (Percentage)
Overall fidelity of the ICDM model implementation	136/158 (87.3)	134/158 (84.8)	121/158 (76.6)	104/158 (65.8)
Facility reorganization	29/37 (78.4)	27/37 (73.0)	30/37 (81.1)	29/37 (78.4)
Clinical supportive management	37/39 (94.9)	33/39 (84.6)	29/39 (74.4)	20/39 (51.3)
Assisted self-management	36/39 (92.3)	37/39 (94.9)	27/39 (69.2)	30/39 (76.9)
Strengthening of support systems	34/43 (79.1)	37/43 (86.1)	35/43 (81.4)	25/43 (58.1)
	Number of Personnel
Professional nurses	4	5	6	10
Enrolled nurses	3	0	5	1
Medical officers	1	1	5	1
Pharmacists assistant	0	0	1	0
Administrative staff	5	8	3	1
Counsellors	2	6	4	7
WBOT^ Leaders	4	2	4	2
WBOT^/CHCW#	4	13	50	17
Nurse patient ratio	333	731	370	340
Medical officer patient ratio	2328	3655	814	3735
Patient consultations per month. per facility              mean (SD)
Total primary healthcare headcount	2328 (150)	3655 (206)	4068 (146)	3735 (245)
Total patients >20 years per month per facility	1530 (126)	2457 (187)	2865 (106)	2795 (233)
Total patients with chronic diseases consultations*	981 (67)	2653 (133)	2922 (302)	1802 (144)
Proportion of patients with chronic diseases consultation to total headcount	42%	73%	72%	48%
Adults in care for HIV/AIDS	687 (38)	2240 (27)	2004 (48)	1434 (13)
New TB diagnosis	2 (1)	4 (5)	3 (1)	14 (3)
Diabetic patients consultation	63 (8)	90 (24)	144 (30)	57 (4)
Hypertensive patients consultations	243 (34)	344 (119)	768 (157)	227 (126)
Nurse patient ratio	259	406	452	414
Infrastructure
Total area in m2	557	1367	491	442
Number of consulting rooms	8	5	2	3
Vital signs stations	1	1	1	1
Waiting areas	2	1	1	2
Reception/Medical Reocords	1	1	1	1

^WBOT–Ward-based outreach teams

#CHCW–Community healthcare worker

*Based on the number of patients with each disease. and not taking into consideration multi-morbidity

Estimation of costs

Costs were stated according to the 2019 prices and converted to US dollars (US$) at an exchange rate of ZAR 14.42 equal to US$ 1 [30]. The costs are reported as annual costs per PHC clinic and per patient with chronic disease per visit. The current cost and the additional cost of required infrastructure or unexecuted recommended ICDM model activities were estimated as outlined below.

Facility reorganization cost

The current costs were estimated based on interviews with key personnel, budget reviews and estimating the proportion of resources allocated to patients with chronic disease based on the clinic consultations records. On average, 59% of the patients attending the four PHC clinics were consulting for chronic disease care. Therefore, we used this proportion to apportion facility reorganization costs for the current activities. Items included in the cost estimate for current facility reorganization were building (reception, waiting areas, vital signs station and consulting rooms), equipment and furniture, and building maintenance costs. Additional infrastructure cost for facility reorganization were based on the estimates according to the guidelines, as well as current cost. The ICDM model guidelines recommend that patients with chronic diseases should have separate waiting rooms, a vital signs station and consultation rooms. On evaluation of the fidelity and patient flow analysis, some clinics did not meet the guidelines for adequate infrastructure. Therefore, the additional facility reorganization cost was calculated by calculating the cost of building an additional three consultation rooms for clinics C and D only, as clinics A and B had adequate consultation rooms according to the guidelines. Furthermore, additional facility reorganization costs included building a waiting area, a vital signs station, a CCMDD kiosk and a multi-purpose meeting room for adherence clubs meetings for each of the four clinics. The South African building cost of US$ 561.17 per m2 was used to estimate the cost of building the additional recommended areas based on valued office building costs [31]. The size of the rooms, furniture and equipment requirements were based on the data collected and the guideline recommendations [32, 33]. The cost of the equipment and furniture were sourced from large furniture and medical supplies stores. A discount rate of 7% [34] was applied to calculate the annual cost of buildings, furniture and equipment with an estimated life span of 20 years, 10 years and 5 years respectively.

Clinical supportive management cost

The current cost of clinical supportive management were calculated based on costs of the DCST providing support to each PHC in the district. The DCST in the DKK district did not provide support to PHC clinics on management of patients with chronic diseases, so the cost of providing the DCST in the WR district was used for the DKK district. The proportion of time apportioned to patients with chronic diseases was determined by interviewing the DCST leader in the WR health district. The proportion allocation of personnel (family physician, senior pediatric medical officer, pediatric nurse and senior PHC nurse) costs and telecommunication costs for the DCST to ICDM model was calculated and divided by number of clinics in each health district. The additional cost of clinical supportive management was for training nurses on PHC- and nurse-initiated management of antiretroviral treatment (NIMART) [13]. The training cost was obtained from a training organization that delivers the two training courses on behalf of the Department of Health. We worked on the assumption that all professional nurses at the clinics would have to be trained to account for staff turn-over. Travel cost was not included as the training is usually delivered in the district.

Assisted self-management cost

The current costs of CHCW, WBOT and supervision was estimated according the current salaries and the proportion of time allocated by the staff members to support patients with chronic diseases. Staff salary values were informed by the National Department of Health salary scales. All four of the PHC clinics had no functional adherence clubs, thus the additional cost of training staff on adherence support and ongoing provision of the adherence clubs was sourced from the literature [35]. Data on adherence clubs’ cost were only available for 2011 [35], and the average inflation of 5.4% was applied to estimate the costs for 2019.

Sensitivity analysis

One-way sensitivity analyses were performed on all cost estimates that were major (> 4%) components of the cost for both current and additional costs. We varied the discount rate from 4% to 9% (based on data for the last 5 years [34]) to assess the different scenarios of cost for current and additional building costs. In addition, under the current cost, building and building maintenance were varied for the proportion of patients that consult for chronic disease using one standard deviation of the mean of 59% as this was applied in the initial analysis. For the additional costs, building cost was varied depending on whether additional consulting rooms are required. One standard deviation (SD) was applied to calculate the highest and lowest cost for WBOTs and WBOT supervision from the mean effort of 62% and 52% respectively. The mean number of patients and the SD were used in the sensitivity analyses for the adherence club cost. The SD of the numbers of nurses that have to be trained was applied for the NIMART and PHC training sensitivity analysis.

Results

Implementation cost of the ICDM model

The overall ICDM model implementation cost

Based on the data collected from the four PHC clinics, the annual cost (current and additional costs) of implementing the ICDM model per PHC clinic varied from $77 726.00 in clinic A to $232 103.00 in clinic C (Table 2). The mean overall annual cost of implementing the recommended activities of the ICDM model per facility was $148 447.00 (SD: $65 125.00), and the mean cost per patient per visit was $6.00 (SD:$0.77). Capital costs were 24% ($35 760.09) of the total annual mean costs. Current cost contributed 84% ($124 345.00) of the total annual mean cost, while additional cost accounted for 16% ($24 102.00) (Table 3). Almost two-thirds of the current cost came from the personnel cost of the WBOTs/CHCW and their supervision under assisted self-management (66%; $91 204.00). For the additional annual cost, facility reorganization accounted for 49% ($9 668.64), while adherence clubs and the training cost for nurses were 31% ($7 470.80) and 20% ($4 868.60) respectively. The additional recurrent costs to achieve higher ICDM model fidelity per patient per visit was $0.62 (SD: 0.15).

Table 2

The estimated annual current and additional costs to enhance the fidelity to the ICDM model recommended activities in the four study clinics–A and B high fidelity, C moderate and D low fidelity.

	ICDM Model Component	Items	Clinic A	Clinic B	Clinic C	Clinic D
Current Costs	Facility reorganization	Building	$12 432.88	$52 559.23	$18 681.49	$11 321.36
		Furniture	$1 580.38	$2 162.55	$1 726.56	$1 346.59
		Equipment	$746.67	$ 867.02	$443.22	$390.56
		Building maintenance	$ 3 118.68	$13 184.02	$4 686.08	$2 839.86
	Clinical supportive management	DCST	$1 019.93	$1 218.25	$1 019.93	$1 218.25
	Assisted self-management	WBOT Supervision	$31 128.78	$29 288.06	$31 128.78	$29 288.06
		WBOT	$ 11 618.26	$37 759.34	$145 228.22	$49 377.59
	Total current costs		$61 645.58	$137 038.46	$202 914.28	$ 95 782.28
Additional Costs to enhance Fidelity	Facility reorganization	Building	$ 7 395.30	$7 395.30	$9 296.95	$9 296.95
		Furniture	$150.46	$150.46	$1 630.84	$1 630.84
		Equipment	$56.45	$56.45	$807.28	$ 807.28
		Building maintenance	$1 855.05	$1 855.05	$2 332.06	$2 332.06
	Clinical supportive management	NIMART Training	$1 715.08	$ 2 143.85	$2 572.61	$ 4 287.69
		PHC Training	$1 400.83	$1 751.04	$2 101.24	$3 502.07
	Assisted self-management	Adherence Club	$3 507.47	$9 485.54	$10 447.32	$6 442.87
	Total additional costs		$16 081	$22 838	$29 188	$28 300
Estimated total costs of implementing ICDM model in each PHC clinic (Current costs + additional costs to enhance fidelity)			$77 726.21	$159 876.14	$232 102.59	$124 082.04
Costs per patient per visit
Current costs per patient per visit			$5.24	$4.30	$5.79	$4.43
Additional costs per patient per visit			$1.37	$0.72	$0.83	$1.31
Total mean costs per patient per visit			$6.60	$5.02	$6.62	$5.74

Table 3

Mean current and additional annual costs of implementing the recommended activities for ICDM model per PHC clinic.

	ICDM Model Component	Items	Estimated annual costs Mean (SD)	Proportion of costs
Current Costs	Facility reorganization	Building	$23 748.74 (19 478)	19.1%
		Furniture	$1 704.02 (343)	1.4%
		Equipment	$611.87 (231)	0.5%
		Building maintenance	$5 957.16 (4 886)	4.8%
	Clinical supportive management	DCST	$1 119.09 (115)	0.9%
	Assisted self-management	WBOT Supervision	$30 208.42 (1 063)	24.3%
		WBOT	$60 995.85 (58 333)	49.1%
	Total current costs		$124 345.15 (60 776)	100%
Additional Costs	Facility reorganization	Building	$8 346.12 (1 098)	34.6%
		Furniture	$890.65 (855)	3.7%
		Equipment	$431.87 (433)	1.8%
		Building maintenance	$2 093.55 (275)	8.7%
	Clinical supportive management	NIMART Training	$2 679.81 (1 128)	11.1%
		PHC Training	$2 188.80 (928)	9.1%
	Assisted self-management	Adherence Club	$7 470.80 (3 146)	31.0%
	Total additional costs		$24 101.60 (6 040)	100%
Current costs			$124 345.15	85%
Additional costs			$24 101.60	15%
Total mean costs of implementing ICDM model			$148 446.75 (65 125)	100%

In all of the four PHC clinics, the current cost was higher than the additional (infrastructure, training and adherence clubs) cost required to enhance the degree of fidelity. The cost per patient per visit for each of the four clinics for the current cost ranged from $4.30 to $5.79 (mean: $4.94; SD:0.70) and the additional cost from $0.72 to $1.37 (mean: $1.06; SD:0.33). The clinics with the higher level of ICDM model implementation fidelity had a lower additional annual cost [clinic A ($16,081) and clinic B($22,838)], compared to those with lower degree of fidelity [clinic C ($29,188) and clinic D (28,299)].

Facility reorganization

The mean cost of facility reorganization contributed 25.8% ($32 021.79) to the current annual cost and 49% ($9 668.64) to the additional annual cost. The building costs for clinic B are higher compared to the other clinics as it is based in a large repurposed manucipality building. These additional facility reorganization cost included the capital investment of building additional facilities dedicated for chronic patients, such as a vital signs station, a waiting area, a CCMDD kiosk and a multi-purpose room in all four clinics, as well as three consulting rooms in two of the clinics. The cost of maintaining the additional spaces, for instance ensuring cleanliness, water and sanitation was estimated at $2 093.55 per annum. The mean cost of equipment and furniture was estimated at $1 322.52 per annum.

Clinical supportive management

Clinical supportive management activities accounted for 0.9% ($1 119.09) of the total current annual cost of implementing the ICDM model. The mean cost of the DCST providing support to each health facility was low as the proportion of time allocated to support each clinic was low. The DCST cost varied slightly between the two health districts; the cost in WR was $1 022.76 while in the DKK it was $1 221.63. The cost for providing NIMART and PHC training for the nurses was significantly higher and accounted for 20% ($4 868.60) of the additional annual cost.

Assisted self-management

Interviews with managers and a review of the reports of the CHCW and WBOT staff members indicated that WBOTs/CHCW allocate 62% (SD: 43%) of their time to adherence support and tracing defaulters on chronic medication. The mean number of WBOT/CHCW per facility was 21 (SD:20) (Table 1), and each earns $242 72 per month. The WBOTs and CHCW are supervised by nurses for a portion of their time at a mean of mean 52% (SD:12%). In two of the PHC clinics, two professional nurses provided supervision (clinic A and C) clinics and in the other two, four enrolled nurses provided this service (clinic B and D). The estimated current mean annual cost of providing assisted self-management was $60 995.85 (SD:$58,33) for WBOTs/CHCW and $30 208.42 (SD:1,063) for their supervision. The costs per clinic for WBOTs/CHCW differed by clinic as it is greatly affected by the number of WBOTs/CHCW based at each clinic according to the number of community wards. For example the cost for clinic C was $145 228.22 for 50 WBOTs/CHCW versus $11 618.25 in clinic A for 4 WBOTs/CHCW. The additional cost of providing adherence clubs for assisted self-management varied from $3 507.47 in a clinic with 981 patients with chronic disease consultations per month (Clinic A) to $10 477.32 in a clinic with almost 3000 patients per month (Clinic C).

The key parameters in the cost model and the one-way sensitivity analyses are outlined in Table 4 and Fig 1. The current building cost was $18 513.18 at discount rate from 4% and $25 625.80 at 9%; while additional building cost was $6 506.17 and $9 005.79 for 4% and 9% discount rates. Based on the one-way sensitivity analysis, the major cost drivers are the proportion of effort of the WBOTs/CHCW per WBOTs supervisor and the number of patients accessing chronic disease care. Varying the building cost according to whether or not additional consulting rooms are included also revealed that building is a major cost driver in the additional cost (Fig 1B).

Table 4

The range of key parameters in the costs model.

Key cost parameter	Baseline (mean)	Standard deviation	Range
Current costs
Building–proportion of patients with chronic diseases	59%	16%	43% -75%
Building maintenance–proportion of patients with chronic diseases	59%	16%	43% -75%
WBOT supervison–effort on ICDM model activities	52%	12%	40%– 64%
WBOT–effort on ICDM model activities	62%	43%	18% - 100%
Additional costs
Building–including or excluding additional consulting rooms	3	N/A	0–3
Adherance club–number of patients with chronic diseases	2 090	880	1 210–2 970
NIMART training–number of nurses to be trained per annum	6	3	3–9
PHC training—number of nurses to be trained per annum	6	3	3–9

Fig 1

Torando diagram summarizing one-way sensitivity analyses of mean and cost of implementing the recommended activities of the ICDM model per PHR clinic.

Middle line = zero costs.

Discussion

From the provider’s perspective, we estimated that the annual mean cost of implementing the ICDM model activities are $148 446.75 per clinic or $6.00 per patient with chronic disease per visit. The current cost was the largest component of the overall ICDM model implementation cost. The additional costs were lower for clinics with a higher degree of implementation fidelity. Facility reorganization accounted for 49%, adherence clubs 31% and training of nursing staff 20% of the additional mean cost. Assisted self-management was the most costly component of the ICDM model to implement, and it contributed 73% of the current cost and 31% of the additional cost. The overall ICDM model implementation cost varied between the four study PHC clinics. The major cost drivers were the number of patients accessing services for chronic disease management and associated WBOTs to support assisted self-management and the required additional infrastructure.

The annual cost of implementing the ICDM model activities was $148,446.75 per clinic. The cost of implementing a team-based chronic care model in another study conducted in northern California, USA, was estimated at $2 304 787.00 over 29 months ($79 475.41 per month) [36]. Chronic disease management, particularly in the context of multimorbidity, is the largest expense for health systems [4-6]. More research and strategies to improve the effectiveness of the ICDM model to enhance health outcomes for all chronic diseases are important to support such an expenditure [18, 19]. A systematic review showed other types of integrated care for chronic diseases, based on similar principles as the ICDM model to be cost-effective by reducing health utilization and improving health outcomes [16]. All the studies that were reviewed had been conducted in high-income countries [16]. In this study, the current cost was the largest component of the total estimated mean annual cost of the ICDM model. This reflects the increased allocation of financial resources by the South African Department of Health to PHC clinics to ensure that there is adequate infrastructure, medicines and supplies at PHC clinics [32].

The major contributor to the additional cost was additional infrastructure required for facility reorganization activities. These costs are lower than the cost of assisted self-management and clinical supportive management. However, the expenditure requires capital investment for which the health system might not have an available allocated budget. Clinical supportive management activities were the least costly, contributing 6% of the total cost. A report from South Africa has revealed that chronic diseases (diabetes, hypertension, asthma and epilepsy) are not adequately managed at PHC clinics, and there are few healthcare workers with adequate and competent training [37]. Our study findings support the view that a relatively low-cost investment in clinical supportive management can potentially have a high yield, improving quality of care for patients with chronic diseases.

Assisted self-management was the most costly component of the ICDM model to implement, and contributed 73% of the current cost and 31% of the additional cost. There was a great variability among clinics as some clinics were allocated more personnel. Human resource cost was also the highest cost in a team-based chronic care model [36]. In a study in Poland, the addition of integrated home-orientated services that included education and family support for patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) reduced the overall cost of care from the health system perspective [38]. The main reasons for cost reduction were reduced hospitalizations and disease exacerbations [38]. However, in other studies, the chronic care model reduced costs related to unplanned hospitalization, but increased costs for out-patient consultations and medication [39, 40]. Community-based adherence support and delivery of medication reduces the cost of accessing care from the patient’s perspective. Cost has been mentioned as the greatest barrier to seeking care among 47% of patients in South Africa [41]. Affordability is greatly affected by travel cost as many of the PHC clinics are not within a walking distance of patients, especially in rural areas [42]. Despite the high cost of assisted self-management, it is an important component of chronic disease management to support adherence and reduce overcrowding at PHC clinics.

The cost of implementing the ICDM model activities varied across the four study PHC clinics, and the major cost drivers were the number of patients with chronic diseases consulted, as well as personnel for assisted self-management and the required additional infrastructure. High building costs for large clinics also contributed to some of the variation in clinic costs. A systematic review of chronic disease management programmes implemented in high-income countries showed that 14/16 (88%) of the studies demonstrated cost-effectiveness based on quality-adjusted life-year, while two studies had less than US$30 000 per life-year gained. Some of the reasons for the differences in the outcomes include the components of the chronic disease management programme that were implemented, the type of chronic disease being treated and level of comprehensiveness in measuring the costs [43]. In another study on a diabetes quality improvement project in five clinics in the USA, the cost of providing chronic care services per patient with diabetes per year varied from $6 in large clinics to $68 in small clinics [44].

Strengths and limitations

The strength of this study is that it is one of the few studies that provides a cost analysis of implementing a chronic disease management model in a middle-income country. Moreover, most of the costs in the cost analysis are based on the actual costs for clinics to implement the ICDM model recommended activities. The results of this cost analysis could also be used for additional economic evaluations of the ICDM model. As data were collected from only four PHC clinics, a limitation of the study is that this small sample size could have resulted in large variability in the observed results. The generalizability of these results could also be limited by this small sample size. However, we minimized this by including clinics with different degrees of implementation fidelity to the ICDM model from two different provinces. Therefore, this data would be informative for budgeting and resource allocation for clinics with similar characteristics. Another limitation of this analysis is that it does not include a full cost-effectiveness analysis as there is limited data on the effectiveness of the ICDM model in South Africa. The standard healthcare costs, like laboratory investigations, treatment of complications and medication was not included in the calculations and that leads to an underestimation of the overall cost of providing care to patients with chronic diseases. Lastly, only three of the four components of the ICDM model were included in the analysis. Therefore more research is needed on the implementation costs of the ICDM model activities related to strengthening of support systems.

Conclusion

The estimated mean cost of implementing the ICDM model activities was $6.00 per patient with chronic disease per consultation. The greater portion of the costs are current costs. The additional cost of implementing the ICDM model with higher fidelity was minimal and comprised mainly of costs for facility reorganization and training of personnel. The mean cost of implementing the ICDM model activities varied between clinics and were affected by patient case load and the required additional infrastructure. The results of this cost analysis can enable additional ICDM model cost evaluations and budgetary planning for scale-up and scale-out of the ICDM model or similar models in countries with a similar disease burden and resources. Furthermore, this study provides information on the additional resources required to enhance the fidelity to the implementation of the ICDM model. Further research is needed on the cost-effectiveness of implementing the ICDM model for the management of patients with chronic diseases in South Africa and other similar contexts, as most of the studies published on cost-effectiveness of chronic care models are from high-income countries.

18 May 2020

PONE-D-20-09044

The cost and cost implications of implementing the integrated chronic disease management model in South Africa

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lebina,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by June 15, 2020. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alana T Brennan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

3. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thanks for the chance to review this paper. The authors present cost estimates to implement an integrated model for the care of chronic diseases in primary health care clinics in two South African health districts to provide data to inform future implementation and evaluations of the program. The paper is well-written and I have only the following minor suggestions for the authors to consider:

Introduction

• Lines 98 – 100 – “Implementation costs is one of the implementation outcomes that also allows decision makers to determine and choose which interventions are effective, efficient and equitable” – I’m not sure this is accurate, e.g. how can the costs of implementation inform a policy decision around an interventions effectiveness?

• Lines 101-104 – “A process evaluation of the implementation fidelity of the ICDM model indicates that the level of fidelity to guidelines varies between clinics, with some clinics having high scores (80%-89%), and others having medium (70%-79%) and low (<70%) scores [19].” Should this be ‘adherence’ to guidelines?

Methods

• Lines 151-2 – I think the exchange rate is the wrong way around.

• Why are costs presented per patient visit? Would cost per patient be a better measure given the long term care needs of these patients? Is this possible with the data?

Discussion

• Line 301 – I think ‘healthy’ should be ‘health

Reviewer #2: PONE-D-20-09044

Lebina et al in their study on ‘The cost and cost implications of implementing the integrated chronic disease management model in South Africa’ undertake a cost analysis of implementing the integrated chronic disease management (ICDM) model in four primary healthcare clinics in South Africa, two with low and two with high fidelity.

The manuscript is well written and reports on the cost aspects of a larger study to assess the levels and determinants of fidelity in the implementation of the ICDM model in two health districts in South Africa. There are however, several shortcomings as denoted below that would need to be considered prior to publication of the study.

Abstract:

Methods: The abstract currently lacks information on the components of the ICDM evaluated – facility reorganisation, clinical, supportive management, assisted self-management. A sensitivity analysis is referred to, without further information for the reader to understand to what this analysis refers to.

Results: The overall costs of implementing the ICDM model are not very informative as generally the reader has no reference to the usual costs of providing services in the primary healthcare clinics included in the study. In this regard referring to the percentage of funds needed on top of the annual costs to run these clinics may be much more informative (also see lines 230-231); this would also take into account that clinics may differ with regard to size and patients demographics / disease profile.

Main manuscript

Introduction: Please clarify in line 58, that reference 9 refers to national and reference 10 to provincial figures.

Methods: Two of all the districts where the ICDM pilot was undertaken were included in the study. Please provide the rationale for the selection of these two districts. The costing undertaken in the current study has not considered standard healthcare service costs like medication, laboratory investigations and management of complications. Kindly provide the rationale why the costing of these factors has not been included and how this could have influenced the results of the study.

Results: In line with the note above relating to the abstract an increasing focus on the percentage of additional costs for implementation of the ICDM per clinic would be considerably more informative than the overall additional costs of the ICDM implementation. Further, inclusion of once-off capital investment costs in the overall cost estimate, although providing an overall cost estimate, may be at the same time less informative than differentiating between once-off capital investment costs for e.g. building infrastructure and recurring / annual costs to maintain these / offer services.

Limitations: Generally limitations are well discussed, however, given the extent of these limitations, could the authors discuss in more detail the implications of these shortcomings?

Ethics approval: Please add the ethics certificate number.

References: It seems that several conference presentations have been included in the reference list, please check for updates, respectively published articles such as Ameh etal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017 Aug 1;75(4):472-479. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000001437.Effectiveness of an Integrated Approach to HIV and Hypertension Care in Rural South Africa: Controlled Interrupted Time-Series Analysis.

Please also check for completeness of references (e.g. ref 25) and remove duplicate references (e.g. ref 19 & 24).

Table 1: Kindly include further information on general characteristics and infrastructure / equipment of the clinics.

Table 2: For the reader table 2 is difficult to understand. What is meant by current and additional ICDM costs if the overall estimated costs of implementing the ICDM are the sum of the two? For clinic B (high fidelity) considerably higher building costs are included – these should be reported in the results and possibly explanations referred to in the discussion. For clinic C (low fidelity), a very high figure for WBOT assisted self-management is reported, please check the figure and if confirmed, report it in the result section and elaborate on possible explanations and implications of these study results (and summary figures presented) in the discussion section.

Figures: Figures 1a and 1b are of very poor quality not allowing to assess the content of these figures in detail.

General comment: The paper refers to developed and developing countries which in my understanding is rather an outdated terminology. I recommend to use the terms low- and middle-income, respectively high income countries / settings, especially in the case of South Africa considered to be an emerging economy.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

11 Jun 2020

11 June 2020

Dear Editor

Re: Manuscript: “The cost and cost implications of implementing the integrated chronic disease management model in South Africa.”

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-20-09044

Thank you very much for consideration of the above named manuscript for publication in your journal.

We thank the reviewers for their comments. The manuscript has been reviewed and revised for clarity and accuracy.

Please see below for the itemised responses to reviewers’ comments.

Yours Sincerely

Limakatso Lebina

On behalf of all authors.

*Line references are on tracked manuscript

Reviewer #1:

Thanks for the chance to review this paper. The authors present cost estimates to implement an integrated model for the care of chronic diseases in primary health care clinics in two South African health districts to provide data to inform future implementation and evaluations of the program. The paper is well-written and I have only the following minor suggestions for the authors to consider:

Introduction

1. Lines 98 – 100 – “Implementation costs is one of the implementation outcomes that also allows decision makers to determine and choose which interventions are effective, efficient and equitable” – I’m not sure this is accurate, e.g. how can the costs of implementation inform a policy decision around an interventions effectiveness?

Thank you for this comment, we have revised the sentence for clarity.

Lines 117-119: “Implementation costs is one of the implementation outcomes that also allows decision makers to determine and choose which interventions are efficient and equitable [20].”

2. Lines 101-104 – “A process evaluation of the implementation fidelity of the ICDM model indicates that the level of fidelity to guidelines varies between clinics, with some clinics having high scores (80%-89%), and others having medium (70%-79%) and low (<70%) scores [19].” Should this be ‘adherence’ to guidelines?

Thank you for this comment. The sentence has been revised as suggested.

Lines 120-123: “A process evaluation of the implementation fidelity of the ICDM model indicates that the level of fidelity (adherence) to guidelines varies between clinics, with some clinics having high scores (80%-89%), and others having medium (70%-79%) and low (<70%) scores [24].”

Methods

3. Lines 151-2 – I think the exchange rate is the wrong way around.

Thank you for this comment. We have corrected the sentence.

Lines 176-177: “Costs were stated according to the 2019 prices and converted to US dollars (US$) at an exchange rate of ZAR 14.42 equal to US$ 1[30].”

4. Why are costs presented per patient visit? Would cost per patient be a better measure given the long term care needs of these patients? Is this possible with the data?

Thank you for this comment. Yes, it’s not possible with this routinely collected data on patient caseload to present costs per patient.

Discussion

5. Line 301 – I think ‘healthy’ should be ‘health

Thank you for this comment. We have corrected the spelling error in that sentence.

Lines 366-367: “However, the expenditure requires capital investment for which the health system might not have an available allocated budget.”

Reviewer #2: PONE-D-20-09044

Lebina et al in their study on ‘The cost and cost implications of implementing the integrated chronic disease management model in South Africa’ undertake a cost analysis of implementing the integrated chronic disease management (ICDM) model in four primary healthcare clinics in South Africa, two with low and two with high fidelity.

The manuscript is well written and reports on the cost aspects of a larger study to assess the levels and determinants of fidelity in the implementation of the ICDM model in two health districts in South Africa. There are however, several shortcomings as denoted below that would need to be considered prior to publication of the study.

Abstract:

1. Methods: The abstract currently lacks information on the components of the ICDM evaluated – facility reorganisation, clinical, supportive management, assisted self-management. A sensitivity analysis is referred to, without further information for the reader to understand to what this analysis refers to.

Thank you for this comments. We have revised the methods section of the abstract to include the additional information.

Lines 25-28: “We estimated the costs of implementing the ICDM model current activities for three (facility reorganization, clinical supportive management and assisted self-management) components and additional costs of implementing with enhanced fidelity.”

Lines 30-32: “One-way sensitivity analyses were carried out for key parameters by varying patient caseloads, required infrastructure and staff.”

2. Results: The overall costs of implementing the ICDM model are not very informative as generally the reader has no reference to the usual costs of providing services in the primary healthcare clinics included in the study. In this regard referring to the percentage of funds needed on top of the annual costs to run these clinics may be much more informative (also see lines 230-231); this would also take into account that clinics may differ with regard to size and patients demographics / disease profile.

Thank you for this comment. We have revised the results section of the abstract to indicate additional funds required in addition to what is already being spent on current ICDM model activities.

Lines 35-37: “Current ICDM model activities cost accounted for 84% ($124 345.00) of the annual mean cost, while additional costs for higher fidelity were 16% ($24 102.00).”

Main manuscript

3. Introduction: Please clarify in line 58, that reference 9 refers to national and reference 10 to provincial figures.

Thank you for this comment, we have revised the sentence to improve clarity.

Lines 70-73: “Data from Free State Province indicate that 24% of the population suffer from chronic diseases [9]. Results from a Cape Town study showed that prevalence of multi-morbidity is approximately 23%, and chronic diseases account for 45% of all primary healthcare (PHC) consultations [10].”

4. Methods: Two of all the districts where the ICDM pilot was undertaken were included in the study. Please provide the rationale for the selection of these two districts.

Thank you for this comment, the two health districts (out of three pilot health districts) were selected for this study as they have comparable population sizes and burden of disease.

Lines 154-156: “The two health districts were selected for this study as they have comparable population sizes and burden of disease.”

5. The costing undertaken in the current study has not considered standard healthcare service costs like medication, laboratory investigations and management of complications. Kindly provide the rationale why the costing of these factors has not been included and how this could have influenced the results of the study.

Thank you for this comment, we have provided the rationale for not including the standard of care costs.

Lines 147-149: “Standard healthcare service costs like medication, laboratory investigations and management of complications were excluded from the analysis to keep the focus on the ICDM model activities. The standard costs would be incurred irrespective of the ICDM model and their inclusion would overestimate the costs of the ICDM model activities.”

6. Results: In line with the note above relating to the abstract an increasing focus on the percentage of additional costs for implementation of the ICDM per clinic would be considerably more informative than the overall additional costs of the ICDM implementation. Further, inclusion of once-off capital investment costs in the overall cost estimate, although providing an overall cost estimate, may be at the same time less informative than differentiating between once-off capital investment costs for e.g. building infrastructure and recurring / annual costs to maintain these / offer services.

Thank you for this comment. The results section has been updated to increase the focus on proportion of additional costs to enhance fidelity and also estimated costs that excludes capital costs.

Lines 252-268: “The mean overall annual cost of implementing the recommended activities of the ICDM model per facility was $148 447.00 (SD: $65 125.00), and the mean cost per patient per visit was $6.00 (SD:$0.77). Capital costs were 24% ($35 760.09) of the total annual mean costs. Current cost contributed 84% ($124 345.00) of the total annual mean cost, while additional cost accounted for 16% ($24 102.00) (Table 3). Almost two-thirds of the current cost came from the personnel cost of the WBOTs/CHCW and their supervision under assisted self-management (66%; $91 204.00). For the additional annual cost, facility reorganization accounted for 49% ($9 668.64), while adherence clubs and the training cost for nurses were 31% ($7 470.80) and 20% ($4 868.60) respectively. The additional recurrent costs to achieve higher ICDM model fidelity per patient per visit was $0.62 (SD: 0.15).”

7. Limitations: Generally limitations are well discussed, however, given the extent of these limitations, could the authors discuss in more detail the implications of these shortcomings?

Thank you for this comment. The limitations section has been updated to include more details regarding the implications of the shortcomings of the study.

Lines 412-427: “As data were collected from only four PHC clinics, a limitation of the study is that this small sample size could have resulted in large variability in the observed results. The generalizability of these results could also be limited by this small sample size. However, we minimized this by including clinics with different degrees of implementation fidelity to the ICDM model from two different provinces. Therefore, this data would be informative for budgeting and resource allocation for clinics with similar characteristics. Another limitation of this analysis is that does not include a full cost-effectiveness analysis as the there is no data on the effectiveness of the ICDM model in South Africa. The standard healthcare costs, like laboratory investigations, treatment of complications and medication was not included in the calculations and that leads to an underestimation of the overall cost of providing care to patients with chronic diseases. Lastly, only three of the four components of the ICDM model were included in the analysis. Therefore more research is needed on the implementation costs of the ICDM model activities related to strengthening of support systems.”

8. Ethics approval: Please add the ethics certificate number.

Thank you for this comment, we have included the ethics committees’ certificate numbers.

Line 165-166: “Ethics Approval: The study was approved by the ethics committees of the University of Cape Town (Ref: 127/2018) and the University of the Witwatersrand (Ref: R14/49).”

9. References: It seems that several conference presentations have been included in the reference list, please check for updates, respectively published articles such as Ameh etal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017 Aug 1;75(4):472-479. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000001437.Effectiveness of an Integrated Approach to HIV and Hypertension Care in Rural South Africa: Controlled Interrupted Time-Series Analysis.

Please also check for completeness of references (e.g. ref 25) and remove duplicate

references (e.g. ref 19 & 24).

Thank you for this comment. All references have been reviewed and updated as necessary.

10. Table 1: Kindly include further information on general characteristics and infrastructure / equipment of the clinics.

Thank you for this comment. Table 1 has been updated to include more characteristics of the PHC clinics.

11. Table 2: For the reader table 2 is difficult to understand. What is meant by current and additional ICDM costs if the overall estimated costs of implementing the ICDM are the sum of the two?

Thank you for this comment. We revised Table 2 headings and subheadings for clarity. Please see below.

12. For clinic B (high fidelity) considerably higher building costs are included – these should be reported in the results and possibly explanations referred to in the discussion.

Thank you for this comment, the building costs for clinic B are high because of the large size of the clinic that is in a repurposed municipality building. We have updated the results and the discussion sections to include an explanation for this high costs.

Lines 282-283: “The building costs for clinic B are higher compared to the other clinics it is based in a large repurposed municipality building.”

Line 398: “High building costs for large clinics also contributed to some of the variation in clinic costs.”

13. For clinic C (low fidelity), a very high figure for WBOT assisted self-management is reported, please check the figure and if confirmed, report it in the result section and elaborate on possible explanations and implications of these study results (and summary figures presented) in the discussion section.

Thank you for this comment. The number of allocated WBOTs and CHCW is dependant

Lines 305-308: “The costs per clinic for WBOTs/CHCW differed by clinic as it is greatly affected by the number of WBOTs/CHCW based at clinic according to the number of community wards. For example the cost for clinic C was $145 228.22 for 50 WBOTs/CHCW versus $11 618.25 in clinic A for 4 WBOTs/CHCW.”

Lines 379-380: “There was a great variability among clinics as some clinics were allocated more personnel.”

14. Figures: Figures 1a and 1b are of very poor quality not allowing to assess the content of these figures in detail.

Thank you for this comment. We have made some changes to improve the quality of the Figures.

15. General comment: The paper refers to developed and developing countries which in my understanding is rather an outdated terminology. I recommend to use the terms low- and middle-income, respectively high income countries / settings, especially in the case of South Africa considered to be an emerging economy.

Thank you for this comment, we have revised the manuscript according to your recommendations.

Lines 55-56: “Further research on the cost-effectiveness of the ICDM model in middle-income countries is required.”

Lines 68-70: “South Africa, like many low and middle-income countries, has a dual burden of chronic diseases, with a high prevalence of both communicable and non-communicable chronic diseases [7, 8].”

Lines 358-359: “All the studies that were reviewed had been conducted in high-income countries [16].”

Lines 399-400: A systematic review of chronic disease management programmes implemented in high-income countries showed that 14/16 (88%) of the studies demonstrated cost-effectiveness.”

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers comments 11June2020.docx

Click here for additional data file.

16 Jun 2020

The cost and cost implications of implementing the integrated chronic disease management model in South Africa

PONE-D-20-09044R1

Dear Dr. Lebina,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alana T Brennan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

17 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-09044R1

The cost and cost implications of implementing the integrated chronic disease management model in South Africa

Dear Dr. Lebina:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alana T Brennan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE