Cost and outcomes of routine HIV care and treatment: public and private service delivery models covering low-income earners in South Africa.

Antiretroviral therapy Cost and cost analysis HIV Private sector South Africa

Journal

BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 Mar 2023
Historique:
received: 08 10 2021
accepted: 03 02 2023
entrez: 11 3 2023
pubmed: 13 3 2023
medline: 15 3 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

While South Africa's national HIV program is the largest in the world, it has yet to reach the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets. To reach these targets, the expansion of the HIV treatment program may be accelerated through the use private sector delivery models. This study identified three innovative non-governmental primary health care models (private sector) providing HIV treatment, as well as two government primary health clinics (public sector) that served similar populations. We estimated the resources used, and costs and outcomes of HIV treatment across these models to provide inputs to inform decisions around how these services might best be provided through National Health Insurance (NHI). A review of potential private sector models for HIV treatment in a primary health care setting was conducted. Models actively offering HIV treatment (i.e. in 2019) were considered for inclusion in the evaluation, subject to data availability and location. These models were augmented by government primary health clinics offering HIV services in similar locations. We conducted a cost-outcomes analysis by collecting patient-level resource usage and treatment outcomes through retrospective medical record reviews and a bottom-up micro-costing from the provider perspective (public or private payer). Patient outcomes were based on whether the patient was still in care at the end of the follow up period and viral load (VL) status, to create the following outcome categories: in care and responding (VL suppressed), in care and not responding (VL unsuppressed), in care (VL unknown) and not in care (LTFU or deceased). Data collection was conducted in 2019 and reflects services provided during the 4 years prior to that (2016-2019). Three hundred seventy-six patients were included across the five HIV treatment models. Across the three private sector models there were differences in the costs and outcomes of HIV treatment delivery, two of the models had results similar to the public sector primary health clinics. The nurse-led model appears to have a cost-outcome profile distinct from the others. The results show that across the private sector models studied the costs and outcomes of HIV treatment delivery vary, yet there were models that provided costs and outcomes similar to those found with public sector delivery. Offering HIV treatment under NHI through private delivery models could therefore be an option to increase access beyond the current public sector capacity.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
While South Africa's national HIV program is the largest in the world, it has yet to reach the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets. To reach these targets, the expansion of the HIV treatment program may be accelerated through the use private sector delivery models. This study identified three innovative non-governmental primary health care models (private sector) providing HIV treatment, as well as two government primary health clinics (public sector) that served similar populations. We estimated the resources used, and costs and outcomes of HIV treatment across these models to provide inputs to inform decisions around how these services might best be provided through National Health Insurance (NHI).
METHODS METHODS
A review of potential private sector models for HIV treatment in a primary health care setting was conducted. Models actively offering HIV treatment (i.e. in 2019) were considered for inclusion in the evaluation, subject to data availability and location. These models were augmented by government primary health clinics offering HIV services in similar locations. We conducted a cost-outcomes analysis by collecting patient-level resource usage and treatment outcomes through retrospective medical record reviews and a bottom-up micro-costing from the provider perspective (public or private payer). Patient outcomes were based on whether the patient was still in care at the end of the follow up period and viral load (VL) status, to create the following outcome categories: in care and responding (VL suppressed), in care and not responding (VL unsuppressed), in care (VL unknown) and not in care (LTFU or deceased). Data collection was conducted in 2019 and reflects services provided during the 4 years prior to that (2016-2019).
RESULTS RESULTS
Three hundred seventy-six patients were included across the five HIV treatment models. Across the three private sector models there were differences in the costs and outcomes of HIV treatment delivery, two of the models had results similar to the public sector primary health clinics. The nurse-led model appears to have a cost-outcome profile distinct from the others.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
The results show that across the private sector models studied the costs and outcomes of HIV treatment delivery vary, yet there were models that provided costs and outcomes similar to those found with public sector delivery. Offering HIV treatment under NHI through private delivery models could therefore be an option to increase access beyond the current public sector capacity.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36906559
doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09147-7
pii: 10.1186/s12913-023-09147-7
pmc: PMC10007767
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

240

Subventions

Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : K01 MH119923
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s).

Références

PLoS One. 2019 Feb 26;14(2):e0210497
pubmed: 30807573
PLoS Med. 2011 Apr;8(4):e1000433
pubmed: 21532746
Global Health. 2017 Apr 12;13(1):24
pubmed: 28403871
Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Jul 1;35(7):1214-21
pubmed: 27385236
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Aug 16;4(Suppl 8):e001551
pubmed: 31478028
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Aug 16;4(Suppl 8):e001453
pubmed: 31478021
BMC Public Health. 2021 Sep 9;21(1):1649
pubmed: 34503478
PLoS Med. 2012;9(6):e1001244
pubmed: 22723748
S Afr Med J. 2019 Sep 30;109(10):771-783
pubmed: 31635576

Auteurs

L C Long (LC)

Health Economics and Epidemiology Research Office (HE²RO), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. lclong@bu.edu.
Department of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, United States. lclong@bu.edu.

S Girdwood (S)

Health Economics and Epidemiology Research Office (HE²RO), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

K Govender (K)

Health Economics and Epidemiology Research Office (HE²RO), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

G Meyer-Rath (G)

Health Economics and Epidemiology Research Office (HE²RO), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Department of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, United States.

J Miot (J)

Health Economics and Epidemiology Research Office (HE²RO), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Department of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, United States.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH