Lelisa Fekadu Assebe1,2,3, Wondesen Nigatu Belete1,2,3, Senait Alemayehu3,4, Elias Asfaw3,5, Kora Tushune Godana6, Yibeltal Kiflie Alemayehu3,6,7, Alula M Teklu3, Amanuel Yigezu3,4. 1. Federal Ministry of Health, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 2. Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. 3. MERQ Consultancy PLC, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 4. Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 5. EAZ Consultancy and Research Service, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 6. Department of Health Policy and Management, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia. 7. Department of Global Community Health and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, United States of America.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ethiopia launched the Health Extension Program (HEP) in 2004, aimed at ensuring equitable community-level healthcare services through Health Extension Workers. Despite the program's being a flagship initiative, there is limited evidence on whether investment in the program represents good value for money. This study assessed the cost and cost-effectiveness of HEP interventions to inform policy decisions for resource allocation and priority setting in Ethiopia. METHODS: Twenty-one health care interventions were selected under the hygiene and sanitation, family health services, and disease prevention and control sub-domains. The ingredient bottom-up and top-down costing method was employed. Cost and cost-effectiveness were assessed from the provider perspective. Health outcomes were measured using life years gained (LYG). Incremental cost per LYG in relation to the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of Ethiopia (US$852.80) was used to ascertain the cost-effectiveness. All costs were collected in Ethiopian birr and converted to United States dollars (US$) using the average exchange rate for 2018 (US$1 = 27.67 birr). Both costs and health outcomes were discounted by 3%. RESULT: The average unit cost of providing selected hygiene and sanitation, family health, and disease prevention and control services with the HEP was US$0.70, US$4.90, and US$7.40, respectively. The major cost driver was drugs and supplies, accounting for 53% and 68%, respectively, of the total cost. The average annual cost of delivering all the selected interventions was US$9,897. All interventions fall within 1 times GDP per capita per LYG, indicating that they are very cost-effective (ranges: US$22-$295 per LYG). Overall, the HEP is cost-effective by investing US$77.40 for every LYG. CONCLUSION: The unit cost estimates of HEP interventions are crucial for priority-setting, resource mobilization, and program planning. This study found that the program is very cost-effective in delivering community health services.
BACKGROUND: Ethiopia launched the Health Extension Program (HEP) in 2004, aimed at ensuring equitable community-level healthcare services through Health Extension Workers. Despite the program's being a flagship initiative, there is limited evidence on whether investment in the program represents good value for money. This study assessed the cost and cost-effectiveness of HEP interventions to inform policy decisions for resource allocation and priority setting in Ethiopia. METHODS: Twenty-one health care interventions were selected under the hygiene and sanitation, family health services, and disease prevention and control sub-domains. The ingredient bottom-up and top-down costing method was employed. Cost and cost-effectiveness were assessed from the provider perspective. Health outcomes were measured using life years gained (LYG). Incremental cost per LYG in relation to the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of Ethiopia (US$852.80) was used to ascertain the cost-effectiveness. All costs were collected in Ethiopian birr and converted to United States dollars (US$) using the average exchange rate for 2018 (US$1 = 27.67 birr). Both costs and health outcomes were discounted by 3%. RESULT: The average unit cost of providing selected hygiene and sanitation, family health, and disease prevention and control services with the HEP was US$0.70, US$4.90, and US$7.40, respectively. The major cost driver was drugs and supplies, accounting for 53% and 68%, respectively, of the total cost. The average annual cost of delivering all the selected interventions was US$9,897. All interventions fall within 1 times GDP per capita per LYG, indicating that they are very cost-effective (ranges: US$22-$295 per LYG). Overall, the HEP is cost-effective by investing US$77.40 for every LYG. CONCLUSION: The unit cost estimates of HEP interventions are crucial for priority-setting, resource mobilization, and program planning. This study found that the program is very cost-effective in delivering community health services.
Authors: Justice Nonvignon; Margaret A Chinbuah; Margaret Gyapong; Mercy Abbey; Elizabeth Awini; John O Gyapong; Moses Aikins Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Amnesty E LeFevre; Samuel D Shillcutt; Hugh R Waters; Sabbir Haider; Shams El Arifeen; Ishtiaq Mannan; Habibur R Seraji; Rasheduzzaman Shah; Gary L Darmstadt; Steve N Wall; Emma K Williams; Robert E Black; Mathuram Santosham; Abdullah H Baqui Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2013-07-12 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Barbara McPake; Ijeoma Edoka; Sophie Witter; Karina Kielmann; Miriam Taegtmeyer; Marjolein Dieleman; Kelsey Vaughan; Elvis Gama; Maryse Kok; Daniel Datiko; Lillian Otiso; Rukhsana Ahmed; Neil Squires; Chutima Suraratdecha; Giorgio Cometto Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2015-08-03 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Yibeltal Assefa; Yalemzewod Assefa Gelaw; Peter S Hill; Belaynew Wassie Taye; Wim Van Damme Journal: Global Health Date: 2019-03-26 Impact factor: 4.185
Authors: Daniel Erku; Amanual G Mersha; Eskinder Eshetu Ali; Gebremedhin B Gebretekle; Befikadu L Wubishet; Gizat Molla Kassie; Anwar Mulugeta; Alemayehu B Mekonnen; Tesfahun C Eshetie; Paul Scuffham Journal: Health Policy Plan Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 3.547