Social protection against the cost of illness is a central policy objective of Universal Health Coverage and the post-2015 Global strategy for Tuberculosis (TB). Understanding the economic burden associated with TB illness and care is key to identifying appropriate interventions towards achieving this target. The aims of this study were to identify points in patient pathways from start of TB symptoms to treatment completion where interventions could be targeted to reduce the economic impact on patients and households, and to identify those most vulnerable to these costs. Two cohorts of patients accessing TB services from ten clinics in four provinces in South Africa were surveyed between July 2012 and June 2013. One cohort of 351 people with suspected TB were interviewed at the point of receiving a TB diagnostic and followed up six months later. Another cohort of 168 patients on TB treatment, at the same ten facilities, was interviewed at two-months and five-months on treatment. Patients were asked about their health-seeking behaviour, associated costs, income loss, and coping strategies used. Patients incurred the greatest share of TB episode costs (41%) prior to starting treatment, with the largest portion of these costs being due to income loss. Poorer patients incurred higher direct costs during treatment than those who were less poor but only 5% of those interviewed were accessing cash-transfers during treatment. Indirect costs accounted for 52% of total episode cost. Despite free TB diagnosis and care in South Africa, patients incur substantial direct and indirect costs particularly prior to starting treatment. The poorest group of patients were incurring higher costs, with fewer resources to pay for it. Both the direct and indirect cost of illness should be taken into account when setting levels of financial protection and social support, to prevent TB illness from pushing the poor further into poverty.

BACKGROUND The End TB Strategy sets global goals of reducing TB incidence and mortality by 50% and 75% respectively by 2025. We assessed resource requirements and cost-effectiveness of strategies to achieve these targets in China, India, and South Africa. METHODS We examined intervention scenarios developed in consultation with country stakeholders, which scaled-up existing interventions to high but feasible coverage by 2025. Nine independent TB modelling groups collaborated to estimate policy outcomes, and we costed each scenario by synthesizing service utilization estimates, empirical cost data, and expert opinion on implementation strategies. We estimated health impact and resource implications for 2016–2035, including patient-incurred costs. To assess resource requirements and cost-effectiveness, we compared scenarios to a base case representing continued current practice. FINDINGS Incremental TB service costs differed by scenario and country, and in some cases more than doubled current funding needs. In general, expanding TB services substantially reduced patient-incurred costs; and in India and China this produced net cost-savings for most interventions under a societal perspective. In all countries, expanding TB care access produced substantial health gains. Compared to current practice, most intervention approaches appeared highly cost-effective when compared to conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds. INTERPRETATION Expanding TB services appears cost-effective for high-burden countries and could generate substantial health and economic benefits for patients, though funding needs challenge affordability. Further work is required to determine the optimal intervention mix for each country.

PurposeEstimating the incremental costs of scaling‐up novel technologies in low‐income and middle‐income countries is a methodologically challenging and substantial empirical undertaking, in the absence of routine cost data collection. We demonstrate a best practice pragmatic approach to estimate the incremental costs of new technologies in low‐income and middle‐income countries, using the example of costing the scale‐up of Xpert Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB)/resistance to riframpicin (RIF) in South Africa.Materials and methodsWe estimate costs, by applying two distinct approaches of bottom‐up and top‐down costing, together with an assessment of processes and capacity.ResultsThe unit costs measured using the different methods of bottom‐up and top‐down costing, respectively, are $US16.9 and $US33.5 for Xpert MTB/RIF, and $US6.3 and $US8.5 for microscopy. The incremental cost of Xpert MTB/RIF is estimated to be between $US14.7 and $US17.7. While the average cost of Xpert MTB/RIF was higher than previous studies using standard methods, the incremental cost of Xpert MTB/RIF was found to be lower.ConclusionCosts estimates are highly dependent on the method used, so an approach, which clearly identifies resource‐use data collected from a bottom‐up or top‐down perspective, together with capacity measurement, is recommended as a pragmatic approach to capture true incremental cost where routine cost data are scarce.

SummaryBackgroundIn 2010 a new diagnostic test for tuberculosis, Xpert MTB/RIF, received a conditional programmatic recommendation from WHO. Several model-based economic evaluations predicted that Xpert would be cost-effective across sub-Saharan Africa. We investigated the cost-effectiveness of Xpert in the real world during national roll-out in South Africa.MethodsFor this real-world cost analysis and economic evaluation, we applied extensive primary cost and patient event data from the XTEND study, a pragmatic trial examining Xpert introduction for people investigated for tuberculosis in 40 primary health facilities (20 clusters) in South Africa enrolled between June 8, and Nov 16, 2012, to estimate the costs and cost per disability-adjusted life-year averted of introducing Xpert as the initial diagnostic test for tuberculosis, compared with sputum smear microscopy (the standard of care).FindingsThe mean total cost per study participant for tuberculosis investigation and treatment was US$312·58 (95% CI 252·46–372·70) in the Xpert group and $298·58 (246·35–350·82) in the microscopy group. The mean health service (provider) cost per study participant was $168·79 (149·16–188·42) for the Xpert group and $160·46 (143·24–177·68) for the microscopy group of the study. Considering uncertainty in both cost and effect using a wide range of willingness to pay thresholds, we found less than 3% probability that Xpert introduction improved the cost-effectiveness of tuberculosis diagnostics.InterpretationAfter analysing extensive primary data collection during roll-out, we found that Xpert introduction in South Africa was cost-neutral, but found no evidence that Xpert improved the cost-effectiveness of tuberculosis diagnosis. Our study highlights the importance of considering implementation constraints, when predicting and evaluating the cost-effectiveness of new tuberculosis diagnostics in South Africa.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Summary Setting South Africa is one of the world’s 22 high tuberculosis (TB) burden countries, with the second highest number of notified rifampicin-resistant TB (RR-TB) and multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) cases. Objective To estimate patient costs associated with the diagnosis and treatment of RR-TB/MDR-TB in South Africa. Design Patients diagnosed with RR-TB/MDR-TB and accessing care at government health care facilities were surveyed using a structured questionnaire. Direct and indirect costs associated with accessing RR-TB/MDR-TB care were estimated at different treatment durations for each patient. Results A total of 134 patients were surveyed: 84 in the intensive phase and 50 in the continuation phase of treatment, 82 in-patients and 52 out-patients. The mean monthly patient costs associated with the diagnosis and treatment of RR-TB/MDR-TB were higher during the intensive phase than the continuation phase (US$235 vs. US$188) and among in-patients than among out-patients (US$269 vs. US$122). Patients in the continuation phase and those accessing care as out-patients reported higher out-of-pocket costs than other patients. Most patients did not access social protection for costs associated with RR-TB/MDR-TB illness. Conclusion Despite free health care, patients bear high costs when accessing diagnosis and treatment services for RR-TB/MDR-TB; appropriate social protection mechanisms should be provided to assist them in coping with these costs.