METHODS: Country-specific data from a multinational prospective cohort study, Association of Southeast Asian Nations Costs in Oncology Study, comprising 1,249 cancer survivors were included. Household costs of complementary medicine (healthcare practices or products that are not considered as part of conventional medicine) throughout the first year after cancer diagnosis were measured using cost diaries. Study outcomes comprised (1) shares of household expenditures on complementary medicine from total out-of-pocket costs and health costs that were respectively incurred in relation to cancer, (2) incidence of financial catastrophe (out-of-pocket costs related to cancer ≥ 30% of annual household income), and (3) economic hardship (inability to pay for essential household items or services).
RESULTS: One third of patients reported out-of-pocket household expenditures on complementary medicine in the immediate year after cancer diagnosis, accounting to 20% of the total out-of-pocket costs and 35% of the health costs. Risk of financial catastrophe was higher in households reporting out-of-pocket expenditures on complementary medicine (adjusted odds ratio: 1.39 [95% CI, 1.05 to 1.86]). Corresponding odds ratio within patients from low-income households showed that they were substantially more vulnerable: 2.28 (95% CI, 1.41 to 3.68). Expenditures on complementary medicine were, however, not associated with economic hardship in the immediate year after cancer diagnosis.
CONCLUSION: In settings with universal health coverage, integration of subsidized evidence-based complementary medicine into mainstream cancer care may alleviate catastrophic expenditures. However, this must go hand in hand with interventions to reduce the use of nonevidence-based complementary therapies following cancer.
METHODS: Literature and government documents were reviewed and analyzed by authors with experiences in HTA and drug policy in the country.
RESULTS: The structure of HTA and its process in the drug selection of the NLEM were described, followed by the outcomes of the use of HTA. Examples of lowering drug prices, as a result of price negotiation using HTA, were presented. A few examples were also provided to demonstrate how decisions were made from considering factors beyond cost-effectiveness findings. Finally, challenges on various issues including improvement of HTA structure and process were discussed for the future direction of HTA in Thailand.
CONCLUSIONS: HTA has been adopted as a tool for the drug selection of the NLEM to help Thailand achieve universal health coverage. Nevertheless, various challenges exist and need to be addressed.
METHODS: This study employs a quantitative method by way of a cross-sectional approach. The 2018 JKN claims data, drawn from a 1% sample that JKN annually produces, were analyzed. Nine hundred forty-five HIV patients out of 1,971,744 members were identified in the data sample and their claims record data at primary care and hospital levels were analyzed. Using ICD (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems), 10 codes (i.e., B20, B21, B22, B23, and B24) that fall within the categories of HIV-related disease. For each level, patterns of service utilization by patient-health status, discharge status, severity level, and total cost per claim were analyzed.
RESULTS: Most HIV patients (81%) who first seek care at the primary-care level are referred to hospitals. 72.5% of the HIV patients receive antiretroviral treatment (ART) through JKN; 22% at the primary care level; and 78% at hospitals. The referral rate from public primary-care facilities was almost double (45%) that of private providers (24%). The most common referral destination was higher-level hospitals: Class B 48%, and Class C 25%, followed by the lowest Class A at 3%. Because JKN pays hospitals for each inpatient admission, it was possible to estimate the cost of hospital care. Extrapolating the sample of hospital cases to the national level using the available weight score, it was estimated that JKN paid IDR 444 billion a year for HIV hospital services and a portion of capitation payment.
CONCLUSION: There was an underrepresentation of PLHIV (People Living with HIV) who had been covered by JKN as 25% of the total PLHIV on ART were able to attain access through other schemes. This study finding is principally aligned with other local research findings regarding a portion of PLHIV access and the preferred delivery channel. Moreover, the issue behind the underutilization of National Health Insurance services in Indonesia among PLHIV is similar to what was experienced in Vietnam in 2015. The 2015 Vietnam study showed that negative perception, the experience of using social health insurance as well as inaccurate information, may lead to the underutilization problem (Vietnam-Administration-HIV/AIDSControl, Social health insurance and people living with HIV in Vietnam: an assessment of enrollment in and use of social health insurance for the care and treatment of people living with HIV, 2015). Furthermore, the current research finding shows that 99% of the total estimated HIV expenditure occurred at the hospital. This indicates a potential inefficiency in the service delivery scheme that needs to be decentralized to a primary-care facility.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: Key electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Scopus, Global Health, CinAHL, EconLit and Business Source Premier were searched. We also searched the grey literature, specifically websites of leading organizations supporting health care in LMICs. Only studies using benefit incidence analysis (BIA) and/or financing incidence analysis (FIA) as explicit methodology were included. A total of 512 records were obtained from the various sources. The full texts of 87 references were assessed against the selection criteria and 24 were judged appropriate for inclusion. Twelve of the 24 studies originated from sub-Saharan Africa, nine from the Asia-Pacific region, two from Latin America and one from the Middle East. The evidence points to a pro-rich distribution of total health care benefits and progressive financing in both sub-Saharan Africa and Asia-Pacific. In the majority of cases, the distribution of benefits at the primary health care level favoured the poor while hospital level services benefit the better-off. A few Asian countries, namely Thailand, Malaysia and Sri Lanka, maintained a pro-poor distribution of health care benefits and progressive financing.
CONCLUSION: Studies evaluated in this systematic review indicate that health care financing in LMICs benefits the rich more than the poor but the burden of financing also falls more on the rich. There is some evidence that primary health care is pro-poor suggesting a greater investment in such services and removal of barriers to care can enhance equity. The results overall suggest that there are impediments to making health care more accessible to the poor and this must be addressed if universal health coverage is to be a reality.
METHODS: The incidence, health service utilisation and household expenditure related to rotavirus gastroenteritis according to national income quintiles were obtained from local data sources. Multiple birth cohorts were distributed into income quintiles and followed from birth over the first five years of life in a multicohort, static model.
RESULTS: We found that the rich pay more out of pocket (OOP) than the poor, as the rich use more expensive private care. OOP payments among the poorest although small are high as a proportion of household income. Rotavirus vaccination results in substantial reduction in rotavirus episodes and expenditure and provides financial risk protection to all income groups. Poverty reduction benefits are concentrated amongst the poorest two income quintiles.
CONCLUSION: We propose that universal vaccination complements health financing reforms in strengthening Universal Health Coverage (UHC). ECEA provides an important tool to understand the implications of vaccination for UHC, beyond traditional considerations of economic efficiency.
METHODS: Through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Costs in Oncology study, 1,294 newly diagnosed patients with cancer (Ministry of Health [MOH] hospitals [n = 577], a public university hospital [n = 642], private hospitals [n = 75]) were observed in Malaysia. Cost diaries and questionnaires were used to measure incidence of financial toxicity, encompassing financial catastrophe (FC; out-of-pocket costs ≥ 30% of annual household income), medical impoverishment (decrease in household income from above the national poverty line to below that line after subtraction of cancer-related costs), and economic hardship (inability to make necessary household payments). Predictors of financial toxicity were determined using multivariable analyses.
RESULTS: One fifth of patients had private health insurance. Incidence of FC at 1 year was 51% (MOH hospitals, 33%; public university hospital, 65%; private hospitals, 72%). Thirty-three percent of households were impoverished at 1 year. Economic hardship was reported by 47% of families. Risk of FC attributed to conventional medical care alone was 18% (MOH hospitals, 5%; public university hospital, 24%; private hospitals, 67%). Inclusion of expenditures on nonmedical goods and services inflated the risk of financial toxicity in public hospitals. Low-income status, type of hospital, and lack of health insurance were strong predictors of FC.
CONCLUSION: Patients with cancer may not be fully protected against financial hardships, even in settings with universal health coverage. Nonmedical costs also contribute as important drivers of financial toxicity in these settings.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey to explore knowledge of, and attitudes towards PrEP among providers from hospital and Key Population Led Health Services (KPLHS) settings. The questionnaire was distributed online in July 2020. Descriptive and univariate analysis using an independent-sample t-test were applied in the analyses. Attitudes were ranked from the most negative (score of 1) to the most positive (score of 5).
RESULTS: Overall, there were 196 respondents (158 from hospitals and 38 from KPLHS) in which most hospital providers are female nurse practitioners while half of those from KPLHS report current gender as gay. Most respondents report a high level of PrEP knowledge and support provision in all high-risk groups with residual concern regarding anti-retroviral drugs resistance. Over two-fifths of providers from both settings perceive that PrEP would result in risk compensation and half of KPLHS providers are concerned regarding risk of sexual transmitted infections. Limited PrEP counselling time is a challenge for hospital providers.
CONCLUSIONS: Service integration between both settings, more involvement and distribution of KPLHS in reaching key populations would be essential in optimizing PrEP uptake and retention. Continuing support particularly in raising awareness about PrEP among healthcare providers and key populations, facilities and manpower, unlimited quota of patient recruitment and PrEP training to strengthen providers' confidence and knowledge would be essential for successful PrEP implementation.