No abstract

Background: Amidst the shortages of critical care resources in the public sector resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the South African Government embarked on an initiative to purchase critical bed capacity from the private sector. Within an already under-funded public health sector, it is imperative that the costs and effects of potential interventions to care are assessed and weighed against the opportunity costs of their required investment. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of ICU management for admitted COVID-19 patients across the public and private health sector in South Africa. Methods: Using a Markov modelling framework and a health system perspective, the costs and health outcomes of inpatient management of severe and critical COVID-19 patients in (1) general ward and intensive care (GW+ICU) and (2) general ward only were assessed. Disability adjusted life years (DALYs) were evaluated as health outcomes, and the cost per admission from public and private sectors was determined. The models made use of four variables: mortality rates, utilisation of inpatient days for each management approach, disability weights associated to the severity of the disease, and the unit cost per general ward day and per ICU day in public and private hospitals. The unit costs were multiplied by utilisation estimates to determine the cost per admission. DALYs were calculated as the sum of years of life lost (YLL) and years lived with disability (YLD). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) - representing the difference in costs and health outcomes of the two management strategies - was calculated and compared to a cost-effectiveness threshold to determine the value for money of ICU management. Results: A cost per admission of ZAR 75,127 was estimated for inpatient management of severe and critical COVID-19 patients in general wards only as opposed to ZAR 103,030 in GW+ICU. DALYs were 1.48 and 1.10 in the general ward only and GW+ICU, respectively. The ratio of difference in costs and health outcomes between the two management strategies produced an ICER equal to ZAR 73 091 per DALY averted, a value above the cost-effectiveness threshold of ZAR 38 465. Conclusions: This study indicated that purchasing additional ICU capacity from the private sector may not be a cost-effective use of limited health resources. The real time, rapid, pragmatic, and transparent nature of this analysis demonstrates a potential approach for further evidence generation for decision making relating to the COVID-19 pandemic response and the wider priority setting agenda in South Africa.

Background. The viability of obstetric practice in the private sector has been threatened as a result of steep increases in professional indemnity fees over the past 10 years. Despite this, empirical research investigating key aetiological factors to target risk management interventions has been lacking. Objectives. To explore private practice medicolegal data linked to obstetricians and gynaecologists (O&Gs) to identify factors in clinical practice associated with claims, for the purposes of guiding future research and risk management solutions. Methods. This was a retrospective, observational study of private sector O&Gs' medicolegal case histories. All incidents declared to a prominent local professional indemnity insurer were categorised in terms of medicolegal case type, as well as clinical parameters. To allow for risk-adjusted calculations of case incidence, year of entry into private practice was estimated for all practitioners. Results. Steep increases in medicolegal investigations and demands were demonstrated for both obstetrics-and gynaecology-related cases from about 2003 to 2012. Whereas the total numbers of claims, regulatory complaints and requests for records were similar for obstetrics and gynaecology in recent years (accounting for 52% v. 48% of known cases, respectively), a significantly greater percentage of demands and paid settlements related to gynaecology rather than obstetrics (58% and 76% v. 42% and 24% of cases, respectively). In obstetrics, about half of all cases on record with a paid settlement were in the context of severe neonatal birth-related neurological injury (n=9). For gynaecology, procedure-related complications accounted for 92% of settlements, of which at least 41% were for intraoperative injuries to internal organs and vessels. Laparoscopic procedures were most frequently associated with such intraoperative injuries, followed by vaginal and abdominal hysterectomies/oophorectomies and caesarean sections. For O&Gs in private practice for >2 years, 50/458 (11%) accounted for 138/228 (61%) of demands over a 10-year period. Conclusions. The higher number of gynaecological demands and settlements in comparison with obstetric cases was unexpected and is contrary to international experiences and public sector findings, calling for more research to identify reasons for this finding. Other than further exploring surgical outcomes in private sector gynaecological patients, aspects of surgical training and accreditation standards in gynaecology may need review. Regarding birth-related injuries, the contribution of system failures needs quantification and further interrogation. The high contribution towards the medicolegal burden by a small group of practitioners suggests a need for doctor-focused interventions, including strengthening of peer review and regulatory oversight.