IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jbcoan/v10y2019is1p132-153_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the Application of CEA and BCA to Tuberculosis Control Interventions in South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Wilkinson, Thomas
  • Bozzani, Fiammetta
  • Vassall, Anna
  • Remme, Michelle
  • Sinanovic, Edina

Abstract

Achieving ambitious targets to address the global tuberculosis (TB) epidemic requires consideration of the impact of competing interventions for improved identification of patients with TB. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and benefit-cost analysis (BCA) are two approaches to economic evaluation that assess the costs and effects of competing alternatives. However, the differing theoretical basis and methodological approach to CEA and BCA is likely to result in alternative analytical outputs and potentially different policy interpretations. A BCA was conducted by converting an existing CEA on various combinations of TB control interventions in South Africa using a benefits transfer approach to estimate the value of statistical life (VSL) and value of statistical life year (VSLY). All combinations of interventions reduced untreated active disease compared to current TB control, reducing deaths by between 5,000 and 75,000 and resulting in net benefits of Int$3.2–Int$137 billion (ZAR18.1 billion to ZAR764 billion) over a 20-year period. This analysis contributes to development and application of BCA methods for health interventions and demonstrates that further investment in TB control in South Africa is expected to yield significant benefits. Further work is required to guide the appropriate analytical approach, interpretation and policy recommendations in the South African policy perspective and context.

Suggested Citation

  • Wilkinson, Thomas & Bozzani, Fiammetta & Vassall, Anna & Remme, Michelle & Sinanovic, Edina, 2019. "Comparing the Application of CEA and BCA to Tuberculosis Control Interventions in South Africa," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(S1), pages 132-153, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:10:y:2019:i:s1:p:132-153_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2194588819000022/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:10:y:2019:i:s1:p:132-153_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bca .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.