No abstract

BackgroundDeclining donor funding and competing health priorities threaten the sustainability of malaria programmes. Elucidating the cost and benefits of continued investments in malaria could encourage sustained political and financial commitments. The evidence, although available, remains disparate. This paper reviews the existing literature on the economic and financial cost and return of malaria control, elimination and eradication.MethodsA review of articles that were published on or before September 2014 on the cost and benefits of malaria control and elimination was performed. Studies were classified based on their scope and were analysed according to two major categories: cost of malaria control and elimination to a health system, and cost-benefit studies. Only studies involving more than two control or elimination interventions were included. Outcomes of interest were total programmatic cost, cost per capita, and benefit-cost ratios (BCRs). All costs were converted to 2013 US$ for standardization.ResultsOf the 6425 articles identified, 54 studies were included in this review. Twenty-two were focused on elimination or eradication while 32 focused on intensive control. Forty-eight per cent of studies included in this review were published on or after 2000. Overall, the annual per capita cost of malaria control to a health system ranged from $0.11 to $39.06 (median: $2.21) while that for malaria elimination ranged from $0.18 to $27 (median: $3.00). BCRs of investing in malaria control and elimination ranged from 2.4 to over 145.ConclusionOverall, investments needed for malaria control and elimination varied greatly amongst the various countries and contexts. In most cases, the cost of elimination was greater than the cost of control. At the same time, the benefits of investing in malaria greatly outweighed the costs. While the cost of elimination in most cases was greater than the cost of control, the benefits greatly outweighed the cost. Information from this review provides guidance to national malaria programmes on the cost and benefits of malaria elimination in the absence of data. Importantly, the review highlights the need for more robust economic analyses using standard inputs and methods to strengthen the evidence needed for sustained financing for malaria elimination.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12936-016-1635-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThe Commission on Investing in Health published its report, GlobalHealth2035, in 2013, estimating an investment case for a grand convergence in health outcomes globally. In support of the drafting of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), we estimate what the grand convergence investment case might achieve—and what investment would be required—by 2030.Methods and FindingsOur projection focuses on a sub-set of low-income (LIC) or lower-middle-income countries (LMIC). We start with a country-based (bottom-up) analysis of the costs and impact of scaling up reproductive, maternal, and child health tools, and select HIV and malaria interventions. We then incorporate global (top-down) analyses of the costs and impacts of scaling up existing tools for tuberculosis, additional HIV interventions, the costs to strengthen health systems, and the costs and benefits from scaling up new health interventions over the time horizon of this forecast. These data are then allocated to individual countries to provide an aggregate projection of potential cost and impact at the country level. Finally, incremental costs of R&D for low-income economies and the costs of addressing NTDs are added to provide a global total cost estimate of the investment scenario.ResultsCompared with a constant coverage scenario, there would be more than 60 million deaths averted in LIC and 70 million deaths averted in LMIC between 2016 and 2030. For the years 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030, the incremental costs of convergence in LIC would be (US billion) $24.3, $21.8, $24.7, and $27, respectively; in LMIC, the incremental costs would be (US billion) $34.75, $38.9, $48.7, and $56.3, respectively.ConclusionKey health outcomes in low- and low-middle income countries can significantly converge with those of wealthier countries by 2030, and the notion of a “grand convergence” may serve as a unifying theme for health indicators in the SDGs.

No abstract

Health systems face increasing pressure to optimise value: providing the best quality care for the lowest possible cost. In the US, changes in modern healthcare, along with early efforts to contain costs, fuelled the growth of a new cadre of inpatient clinicians known as hospitalists. This commentary briefly reviews the history of the hospitalist movement through the lens of healthcare value, examines the evidence for value improvement in the care and training provided by hospitalists, and concludes by exploring both the lessons learned and remaining challenges facing hospitalists. We believe that openness to challenging the status quo was a critical enabler of the US hospitalist's impact on both the healthcare workforce and the American care delivery model. This spirit of re-engineering has far-reaching implications, both in the USA and abroad.