IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v23y2025i1d10.1007_s40258-024-00923-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Budget Impact Analysis of Implementing Antenatal Care Recommendations for Positive Pregnancy Outcomes at Public Primary Facilities in Tanzania

Author

Listed:
  • Amisa Tindamanyile Chamani

    (University of Bergen
    Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences)

  • Bjarne Robberstad

    (University of Bergen)

  • Amani Thomas Mori

    (University of Bergen)

Abstract

Background Tanzania recently changed its antenatal care (ANC) guidelines to reduce perinatal mortality and improve the experience of pregnancy care. The new guideline recommends increasing the number of ANC visits from four to eight and introducing one routine ultrasound scan, among other recommendations. We estimated the budget impact of implementing the new guideline compared to the previous focused ANC guideline at public dispensaries and health centers. Method In a dynamic Markov model, we prospectively followed annual cohorts of between 2.3 and 2.6 million pregnant women who will be attending ANC at dispensaries and health centers for 5 years. We allowed a population of pregnant women into the model every year and women exit the model at delivery. We calculated the cost of medicines, medical supplies, and laboratory supplies required to produce services from a public health system perspective. Our model neither estimated condition-related costs nor health effects. The budget impact was calculated as the difference in the estimated costs between the two guidelines. We conducted scenario analyses to explore attending more visits and different assumptions to calculate the target population. Results We estimated that implementing the new ANC guideline would have a cumulative budget impact of around US$154 million over 5 years. The budget required will increase from US$137 million under the focused ANC guideline to US$291 million under the new guideline. Laboratory supplies will consume 47% of the estimated budget under the new guideline. We expect the annual budget impact to be US$38 million in the first year of implementation and US$32 million in the fifth year. We assumed that by the fifth year, 82% of all pregnant women would have had four or more visits. The budget impact would increase to US$214 million, with the proportion of pregnant women attending four or more ANC visits reaching 90% within 5 years. Conclusion Scaling up the implementation of the new ANC guideline at public dispensaries and health centers may substantially increase the supplies required to produce ANC services, particularly laboratory supplies. Studies on the health impact of the new guideline are warranted to estimate the value for money.

Suggested Citation

  • Amisa Tindamanyile Chamani & Bjarne Robberstad & Amani Thomas Mori, 2025. "Budget Impact Analysis of Implementing Antenatal Care Recommendations for Positive Pregnancy Outcomes at Public Primary Facilities in Tanzania," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 93-104, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-024-00923-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-024-00923-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-024-00923-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-024-00923-y?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zsolt Mogyorosy & Peter Smith, 2005. "The main methodological issues in costing health care services: A literature review," Working Papers 007cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hoa Thi Nguyen & Manuela Allegri & Jörg Heil & André Hennigs, 2023. "Population-Level Impact of Omitting Axillary Lymph Node Dissection in Early Breast Cancer Women: Evidence from an Economic Evaluation in Germany," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 275-287, March.
    2. Pokhilenko, I. & Kast, T. & Janssen, L. M.M. & Evers, S. M.A.A. & Paulus, A. T.G. & Simon, J. & Mayer, S. & Berger, M. & Konnopka, A. & Muntendorf, L. & Brodszky, V. & García-Pérez, L. & Park, A-La & , 2023. "International comparability of reference unit costs of education services: when harmonizing methodology is not enough (PECUNIA project)," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 117769, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Carlos Rojas-Roque & Alfredo Palacios, 2023. "A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations and Budget Impact Analyses to Inform Healthcare Decision-Making in Central America," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 419-440, May.
    4. Claudia Fischer & Susanne Mayer & Nataša Perić & Judit Simon, 2022. "Harmonization issues in unit costing of service use for multi-country, multi-sectoral health economic evaluations: a scoping review," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Banke-Thomas, Aduragbemi & Ayomoh, Francis & Aberjirinde, Ibukun-Oluwa & Banke-Thomas, Oluwasola & Eboreime, Ejemai Amaize & Ameh, Charles, 2021. "Cost of utilising maternal health services in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 105081, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Susanne Mayer & Michael Berger & Alexander Konnopka & Valentin Brodszky & Silvia M. A. A. Evers & Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen & Mencia R. Guitérrez-Colosia & Luis Salvador-Carulla & A-La Park & William , 2022. "In Search for Comparability: The PECUNIA Reference Unit Costs for Health and Social Care Services in Europe," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-15, March.
    7. Indrani Gupta & Mayur Trivedi & Vishal Jani & Kanksha Barman & Avantika Ranjan & Manas Sharma, 2021. "Costing Of Health And Wellness Centre A Case Study Of Gujarat," IEG Working Papers 415, Institute of Economic Growth.
    8. Reinhard Busse & Jonas Schreyögg & Peter C. Smith, 2008. "Variability in healthcare treatment costs amongst nine EU countries – results from the HealthBASKET project," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(S1), pages 1-8, January.
    9. Eman A Hammad & Taissir Fardous & Ibrahim Abbadi, 2017. "Costs of hospital services in Jordan," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(4), pages 388-399, October.
    10. Abdelbaste Hrifach & Coralie Brault & Sandrine Couray-Targe & Lionel Badet & Pascale Guerre & Christell Ganne & Hassan Serrier & Vanessa Labeye & Pierre Farge & Cyrille Colin, 2016. "Mixed method versus full top-down microcosting for organ recovery cost assessment in a French hospital group," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-7, December.
    11. Banke-Thomas, Aduragbemi & Aberjirinde, Ibukun-Oluwa & Ayomoh, Francis Ifeanyi & Banke-Thomas, Oluwasola & Eboreime, Ejemai Amaize & Ameh, Charles, 2020. "The cost of maternal health services in low-income and middle-income countries from a provider's perspective: a systematic review," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 104344, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Paul-Simon Pugliesi & Laurie Marrauld & Catherine Lejeune, 2024. "Cost of Carbon in the Total Cost of Healthcare Procedures: A Methodological Challenge," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 599-607, September.
    13. Walsh, Brendan & Keegan, Conor & Brick, Aoife & Connolly, Sheelah & Bergin, Adele & Wren, Maev-Ann & Lyons, Seán & Hill, Leonie & Smith, Samantha, 2021. "Projections of expenditure for primary, community and long-term care Ireland, 2019–2035, based on the Hippocrates model," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS126.
    14. Eduard Beck & Carlos Avila & Sofia Gerbase & Guy Harling & Paul Lay, 2012. "Counting the Cost of Not Costing HIV Health Facilities Accurately," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(10), pages 887-902, October.
    15. Shelley Potter & Charlotte Davies & Gareth Davies & Caoimhe Rice & William Hollingworth, 2020. "The use of micro-costing in economic analyses of surgical interventions: a systematic review," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    16. Patrick Fahr & James Buchanan & Sarah Wordsworth, 2020. "A Review of Health Economic Studies Comparing Traditional and Massively Parallel Sequencing Diagnostic Pathways for Suspected Genetic Disorders," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 143-158, February.
    17. Mads D. Faurby & Olaf C. Jensen & Lulu Hjarnoe & Despena Andrioti, 2017. "The costs of repatriating an ill seafarer: a micro-costing approach," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-8, December.
    18. Leticia García-Mochón & Zuzana Špacírová & Jaime Espín, 2022. "Costing methodologies in European economic evaluation guidelines: commonalities and divergences," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 979-991, August.
    19. M. Carreras & M. García-Goñi & P. Ibern & J. Coderch & L. Vall-Llosera & J. Inoriza, 2011. "Estimates of patient costs related with population morbidity: can indirect costs affect the results?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(4), pages 289-295, August.
    20. Frank G. Sandmann & Julie V. Robotham & Sarah R. Deeny & W. John Edmunds & Mark Jit, 2018. "Estimating the opportunity costs of bed‐days," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 592-605, March.

    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:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-024-00923-y. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.