IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0005037.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benchmarking the Cost per Person of Mass Treatment for Selected Neglected Tropical Diseases: An Approach Based on Literature Review and Meta-regression with Web-Based Software Application

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Fitzpatrick
  • Fiona M Fleming
  • Matthew Madin-Warburton
  • Timm Schneider
  • Filip Meheus
  • Kingsley Asiedu
  • Anthony W Solomon
  • Antonio Montresor
  • Gautam Biswas

Abstract

Background: Advocacy around mass treatment for the elimination of selected Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) has typically put the cost per person treated at less than US$ 0.50. Whilst useful for advocacy, the focus on a single number misrepresents the complexity of delivering “free” donated medicines to about a billion people across the world. We perform a literature review and meta-regression of the cost per person per round of mass treatment against NTDs. We develop a web-based software application (https://healthy.shinyapps.io/benchmark/) to calculate setting-specific unit costs against which programme budgets and expenditures or results-based pay-outs can be benchmarked. Methods: We reviewed costing studies of mass treatment for the control, elimination or eradication of lymphatic filariasis, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminthiasis, onchocerciasis, trachoma and yaws. These are the main 6 NTDs for which mass treatment is recommended. We extracted financial and economic unit costs, adjusted to a standard definition and base year. We regressed unit costs on the number of people treated and other explanatory variables. Regression results were used to “predict” country-specific unit cost benchmarks. Results: We reviewed 56 costing studies and included in the meta-regression 34 studies from 23 countries and 91 sites. Unit costs were found to be very sensitive to economies of scale, and the decision of whether or not to use local volunteers. Financial unit costs are expected to be less than 2015 US$ 0.50 in most countries for programmes that treat 100 thousand people or more. However, for smaller programmes, including those in the “last mile”, or those that cannot rely on local volunteers, both economic and financial unit costs are expected to be higher. Discussion: The available evidence confirms that mass treatment offers a low cost public health intervention on the path towards universal health coverage. However, more costing studies focussed on elimination are needed. Unit cost benchmarks can help in monitoring value for money in programme plans, budgets and accounts, or in setting a reasonable pay-out for results-based financing mechanisms. Author Summary: Advocacy around mass treatment for the elimination of selected Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) has typically put the cost per person treated at less than US$ 0.50. Whilst useful for advocacy, the focus on a single number misrepresents the complexity of delivering “free” donated medicines to about a billion people across the world. Given the increasing focus of the NTD community on value for money and, in the context of universal health coverage, of the global health community on outreach beyond health facilities, there was a need for greater nuance. We performed the most comprehensive literature review and first regression analysis of differences between settings in the cost per person treated against six NTDs (excluding the cost of individual medicines). We considered more than ten possible drivers of cost. We found, for example, that the unit cost of treatment depends very much on the number of people treated (economies of scale). We then developed a web-based software application (https://healthy.shinyapps.io/benchmark/) that can be used to predict setting-specific unit costs against which programme budgets and expenditures or results-based pay-outs can be benchmarked.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Fitzpatrick & Fiona M Fleming & Matthew Madin-Warburton & Timm Schneider & Filip Meheus & Kingsley Asiedu & Anthony W Solomon & Antonio Montresor & Gautam Biswas, 2016. "Benchmarking the Cost per Person of Mass Treatment for Selected Neglected Tropical Diseases: An Approach Based on Literature Review and Meta-regression with Web-Based Software Application," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-18, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0005037
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005037
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0005037
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0005037&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0005037?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0005037. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.