Nihon Koshu Eisei Zasshi. 2000 Dec;47(12):1018-28.
[Application of cost-effectiveness analysis of health care interventions in developing countries. A case study in Mauritius].
[Nihon koshu eisei zasshi] Japanese journal of public health
[Article in Japanese]
K Shibuya, O Kunii
Affiliations
Affiliations
- Department of Hygiene and Public Health, Teikyo University of School of Medicine.
PMID: 11201144
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness analysis is a tool to help inform the decision maker of efficient allocation of scarce health care resources and its application has increased in developing countries during the past decade. There are, however, a variety of different approaches used to calculate cost-effectiveness ratios, given the range and the controversies surrounding the use of some components of total cost, depending on the constraints faced by various decision-making bodies. This study is an investigation of cost-effectiveness of both currently delivered and prospective health interventions in Mauritius to set priorities and assess allocative efficiency by taking into account such constraints.
METHODS: Resource use and unit cost data were collected from the representative health facilities and the Ministry of Health to estimate costs of each health intervention per person. Effectiveness of each intervention was estimated from the results of the national burden of disease study and the efficacy database compiled for this exercise. Several types of cost-effectiveness were calculated for each intervention according to its characteristics and the constraints imposed by the existing infrastructures and other health interventions.
RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness ratios with and without the decision maker's constraints differed significantly. Infrastructure-constrained average cost-effectiveness of thirteen currently delivered and twenty one prospective interventions ranged from $127 to $92,949 and from $77 to $66,302 per DALY averted, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness of the prospective interventions was from $83 to $70,553. Among the currently delivered interventions, those for perinatal disorders, mental illness, and ischemic heart disease were particularly less cost-effective than the prospective interventions. Sensitivity analysis of both effectiveness and discount rates did not change the cost-effectiveness ranking significantly.
CONCLUSION: The present study showed that cost-effectiveness ratios differ significantly depending on the decision maker's constraints and that an interpretation of each cost-effectiveness study should be made with great caution when implementing its results in practice. Both average cost-effectiveness of the currently delivered interventions and incremental cost-effectiveness of the prospective interventions suggest that there is an allocative inefficiency among the currently delivered health interventions in Mauritius and a possibility of enhancing allocative efficiency through introducing alternative interventions.
MeSH terms
Publication Types
