Intervention strategies to reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases in Mexico: cost effectiveness analysis

Abstract

Objective To inform decision making regarding intervention strategies against non-communicable diseases in Mexico, in the context of health reform.Design Cost effectiveness analysis based on epidemiological modelling.Interventions 101 intervention strategies relating to nine major clusters of non-communicable disease: depression, heavy alcohol use, tobacco use, cataracts, breast cancer, cervical cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.Data sources Mexican data sources were used for most key input parameters, including administrative registries; disease burden and population estimates; household surveys; and drug price databases. These sources were supplemented as needed with estimates for Mexico from the WHO-CHOICE unit cost database or with estimates extrapolated from the published literature.Main outcome measures Population health outcomes, measured in disability adjusted life years (DALYs); costs in 2005 international dollars ($Int); and costs per DALY.Results Across 101 intervention strategies examined in this study, average yearly costs at the population level would range from around ≤$Int1m (such as for cataract surgeries) to >$Int1bn for certain strategies for primary prevention in cardiovascular disease. Wide variation also appeared in total population health benefits, from <1000 DALYs averted a year (for some components of cancer treatments or aspirin for acute ischaemic stroke) to >300 000 averted DALYs (for aggressive combinations of interventions to deal with alcohol use or cardiovascular risks). Interventions in this study spanned a wide range of average cost effectiveness ratios, differing by more than three orders of magnitude between the lowest and highest ratios. Overall, community and public health interventions such as non-personal interventions for alcohol use, tobacco use, and cardiovascular risks tended to have lower cost effectiveness ratios than many clinical interventions (of varying complexity). Even within the community and public health interventions, however, there was a 200-fold difference between the most and least cost effective strategies examined. Likewise, several clinical interventions appeared among the strategies with the lowest average cost effectiveness ratios-for example, cataract surgeries. ConclusionsWide variations in costs and effects exist within and across intervention categories. For every major disease area examined, at least some strategies provided excellent value for money, including both population based and personal interventions.Correspondence to: J A Salomon jsalomon@hsph.harvard.edu Extra material supplied by the author (see http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e355?tab=related#webextra)General appendix (referred to by all the papers in this cluster) Technical appendix: details of methods and assumptions used in modelling population health effects, costs, and cost effectiveness Appendix IntroductionIn 2003, Mexico introduced a major health reform that created the System of Social Protection in Health (SSPH...

The impact of diabetes on employment in Mexico

“…To alleviate some of these negative effects of diabetes Seguro Popular may provide an opportunity to further improve the prevention and treatment of diabetes in the poor, especially if the health system adapts to the challenges presented by chronic diseases (Samb et al, 2010). Evidence of possible cost-effective interventions for secondary prevention in the context of Seguro Popular already exists (Salomon et al, 2012). There remains, however, an evidence gap on cost-effective strategies for the primary prevention of diabetes.…”

Health and Economic Implications of National Treatment Coverage for Cardiovascular Disease in India

“…15 Direct nonmedical costs such as patients’ out-of-pocket expenditures, time and transportation were included for all strategies. 21 We followed up the data sources from the WHO’s CHOICE database, which are widely used, 45 and consistent with recent subnational surveys from India. 46 To estimate CIs, all modeled scenarios were repeated 10 000× while sampling from the ranges of input variable values, listed in Table 1.…”

Predictors of Socioeconomic Burden and Cost-Effectiveness of Hospital Cares for Ischemic Stroke

“…One a recent study carried out in 2015, found the home-based stroke rehabilitation cost-effective for patients, which could be explained by the relief of expensive hospital cares [25]. In another cost-effectiveness analysis conducted in 2012, Primary prevention interventions were determined as considerably costeffective for stroke [26] which could be in respect to the concept of the more ischemic stroke occurs the more socioeconomic burden imposed on the health system and society [1,8,9]. Surgical Decompression intervention for Space Occupying Hemispheric Infarction also was considered unlikely to be a cost-effective intervention as illustrated in a 2013 analytic research [27].…”