Cost Effectiveness of Facility-Based Care, Home-Based Care and Mobile Clinics for Provision of Antiretroviral Therapy in Uganda

Joseph Babigumira, Ajay Sethi, Kathleen Smyth and Mendel Singer
Additional contact information
Joseph Babigumira: Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research Policy Program, Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Ajay Sethi: Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Kathleen Smyth: Department of Epidemiology Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA Neurological Outcomes Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Mendel Singer: Department of Epidemiology Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

PharmacoEconomics, 2009, vol. 27, issue 11, pages 963-973

Abstract: Background: Stakeholders in HIV/AIDS care currently use different programmes for provision of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Uganda. It is not known which of these represents the best value for money. Objective: To compare the cost effectiveness of home-based care (HBC), facility-based care (FBC) and mobile clinic care (MCC) for provision of ART in Uganda. Methods: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using decision and Markov modeling of adult AIDS patients in WHO Clinical Stage 3 and 4 from the perspective of the Ugandan healthcare system. The main outcome measures were cost (year 2008 values), life expectancy in life-years (LY) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) measured as cost per QALY or LY gained over 10 years. Results: Ten-year mean undiscounted life expectancy was lowest for FBC (3.6 LY), followed by MCC (4.3 LY) and highest for HBC (5.3 LY), while the mean discounted QALYs were also lowest for FBC (2.3), followed by MCC (2.9) and highest for HBC (3.7). The 10-year mean costs per patient were lowest for FBC ($US3212), followed by MCC ($US4782) and highest for HBC ($US7033). The ICER was lower for MCC versus FBC ($US2241 per LY and $US2615 per QALY) than for HBC versus MCC ($US2251 per LY and $US2814 per QALY). FBC remained cost effective in univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: FBC appears to be the most cost-effective programme for provision of ART in Uganda. This analysis supports the implementation of FBC for scale-up and sustainability of ART in Uganda. HBC and MCC would be competitive only if there is increased access, increased adherence or reduced cost.

JEL-codes: C D I Z I1 I19 I18 I11 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2009

Downloads: (external link)
http://PharmacoEconomics.adisonline.com/pt/re/phe/ ... -200927110-00007.pdf (application/pdf)
http://PharmacoEconomics.adisonline.com/pt/re/phe/ ... -200927110-00007.htm (text/html)
Pay per view

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:27:y:2009:i:11:p:963-973

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is edited by Christopher I. Carswell, MSc, MRPharmS

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Wolters Kluwer Health | Adis
Series data maintained by Remco Bouckaert ().