Annual cost of antiretroviral therapy among three service delivery models in Uganda

Abstract

IntroductionIn response to the increasing burden of HIV, the Ugandan government has employed different service delivery models since 2004 that aim to reduce costs and remove barriers to accessing HIV care. These models include community-based approaches to delivering antiretroviral therapy (ART) and delegating tasks to lower-level health workers. This study aimed to provide data on annual ART cost per client among three different service delivery models in Uganda.MethodsCosting data for the entire year 2012 were retrospectively collected as part of a larger task-shifting study conducted in three organizations in Uganda: Kitovu Mobile (KM), the AIDS Support Organisation (TASO) and Uganda Cares (UC). A standard cost data capture tool was developed and used to retrospectively collect cost information regarding antiretroviral (ARV) drugs and non-ARV drugs, ART-related lab tests, personnel and administrative costs. A random sample of four TASO centres (out of 11), four UC clinics (out of 29) and all KM outreach units were selected for the study.ResultsCost varied across sites within each organization as well as across the three organizations. In addition, the number of annual ART visits was more frequent in rural areas and through KM (the community distribution model), which played a major part in the overall annual ART cost. The annual cost per client (in USD) was $404 for KM, $332 for TASO and $257 for UC. These estimates were lower than previous analyses in Uganda or the region compared to data from 2001 to 2009, but comparable with recent estimates using data from 2010 to 2013. ARVs accounted for the majority of the total cost, followed by personnel and operational costs.ConclusionsThe study provides updated data on annual cost per ART visit for three service delivery models in Uganda. These data will be vital for in-country budgetary efforts to ensure that universal access to ART, as called for in the 2015 World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, is achievable. The lower annual ART cost found in this study indicates that we may be able to treat all people with HIV as laid out in the 2015 WHO guidelines. The variation of costs across sites and the three models indicates the potential for efficiency gains.

Factors associated with loss-to-follow-up of HIV-positive mothers and their infants enrolled in HIV care clinic: A qualitative study

“…These include community ART groups, fixed community mobile ART clinics, home delivery of ART and multi-month ART prescription among others which can be implemented to compliment the current approach of facility-based model. These interventions are less costly to the clients and reduce number of clinic visits which is favourable to the patients [45][46][47][48][49][50]. In addition, they likely reduce workload of health care workers hence reduce the probability of speaking unfavourably to clients due to fatigue.…”

Can differentiated care models solve the crisis in HIV treatment financing? Analysis of prospects for 38 countries in sub‐Saharan Africa

“…Based on a review of recent country-specific studies, we estimated ranges for the cost per clinical and ARV refill visit of facility-level overhead (e.g., for utilities) and personnel costs (e.g., for health workers who directly deliver treatment interventions). Data from 10 studies across 11 countries were included in the analysis [50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58]. We assumed the unit costs would be higher as country income levels increased.…”

“…Few studies estimate community-based ART costs. Community-based ART cost ranges were derived from four studies [15,55,59,60]. The analysis assumes communitybased ART programs cost more in rural than urban areas [13].…”

Cutting the cost of South African antiretroviral therapy using newer, safer drugs

“…Finally, ART drug costs account for about a quarter of cost of HIV care in SA (it is a greater proportion in countries where salaries are lower and laboratory monitoring is more limited); therefore, attention to systemic cost drivers are still needed. [7,10] If successful, patients will benefit with a much safer and more forgiving regimen in a smaller tablet, government and other funders will save money, while pharmaceutical producers will have simplified manufacturing, using lower volumes of active pharmaceutical ingredients. In an age of escalating medical costs, we are seldom presented with a win-win scenario with regard to clinical care.…”