IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/chy/respap/136cherp.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Supporting the development of an essential health package: principles and initial assessment for Malawi

Author

Listed:
  • Jessica Ochalek

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.)

  • Karl Claxton

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.)

  • Paul Revill

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.)

  • Mark Sculpher

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.)

  • Alexandra Rollinger

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.)

Abstract

Many health care systems in low income settings define essential health packages (EHP) to concentrate scarce resources on key health interventions to which their populations can have free access at the point of delivery. Malawi has used EHPs since 2004 but they have generally included unaffordable interventions that have not been fully delivered. To guide decisions about the 2016 EHP in Malawi, an analytical framework is proposed that identifies interventions which, based on currently available evidence, offer the most gains in population health. The framework uses existing estimates of what the Malawian health care system is currently able to afford to generate gains in health – a measure of health opportunity costs. This facilitates an initial quantification of an appropriate budget for the EHP, and of the interventions that might be included which can then be prioritised on the basis of their expected impact on population health assuming 100% implementation. In practice, lower levels of implementation will be achieved by interventions due to various constraints operating on the demand or supply side, and which apply to specific interventions or the system more generally. The framework provides an analytical basis to consider the implications for population health of these different types of constraints. It uses this as a basis of assessing how the underspend on the EHP due to the ‘implementation gap’ can be used. The framework estimates the potential impacts on health outcomes of intervention-specific implementation activities and system strengthening. These potential impacts are compared with the health outcomes offered by extending the package to include additional interventions. The analytical framework can also assess the implications for population health of the types of constraints that donors may impose on their funding schemes in health care. These constraints can include requiring that particular interventions are included in the EHP when the funding could have a bigger impact on health if spent elsewhere; offers to expand the package but restricted to particular interventions and forgoing greater health outcomes elsewhere; and offers to provide additional funding as long as these are matched by government. In negotiating with donors and communicating with relevant stakeholders, policy makers will benefit from understanding the implications for population health of such constraints.

Suggested Citation

  • Jessica Ochalek & Karl Claxton & Paul Revill & Mark Sculpher & Alexandra Rollinger, 2016. "Supporting the development of an essential health package: principles and initial assessment for Malawi," Working Papers 136cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
  • Handle: RePEc:chy:respap:136cherp
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/researchpapers/CHERP136_EHP_Malawi_interventions.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2016
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Linda Ryen & Mikael Svensson, 2015. "The Willingness to Pay for a Quality Adjusted Life Year: A Review of the Empirical Literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(10), pages 1289-1301, October.
    2. Appleby, John & Devlin, Nancy & Parkin, David & Buxton, Martin & Chalkidou, Kalipso, 2009. "Searching for cost effectiveness thresholds in the NHS," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 239-245, August.
    3. Farasat A. S. Bokhari & Yunwei Gai & Pablo Gottret, 2007. "Government health expenditures and health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(3), pages 257-273.
    4. Martin, Stephen & Rice, Nigel & Smith, Peter C., 2008. "Does health care spending improve health outcomes? Evidence from English programme budgeting data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 826-842, July.
    5. Paul Revill & Simon Walker & Jason Madan & Andrea Ciaranello & Takondwa Mwase & Diana M Gibb & Karl Claxton & Mark J Sculpher, 2014. "Using cost-effectiveness thresholds to determine value for money in low- and middle-income country healthcare systems: Are current international norms fit for purpose?," Working Papers 098cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    6. Culyer, Anthony J., 2016. "Cost-effectiveness thresholds in health care: a bookshelf guide to their meaning and use," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(04), pages 415-432, October.
    7. Kara Hanson & M. Kent Ranson & Valeria Oliveira-Cruz & Anne Mills, 2003. "Expanding access to priority health interventions: a framework for understanding the constraints to scaling-up," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(1), pages 1-14.
    8. A. Newall & M. Jit & R. Hutubessy, 2014. "Are Current Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds for Low- and Middle-Income Countries Useful? Examples from the World of Vaccines," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 525-531, June.
    9. Jessica Ochalek & James Lomas & Karl Claxton, 2015. "Cost per DALY averted thresholds for low- and middle-income countries: evidence from cross country data," Working Papers 122cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    10. Alan Williams, 1999. "Calculating the global burden of disease: time for a strategic reappraisal?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 1-8.
    11. Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher & Stephen Palmer & Anthony J Culyer, 2015. "Causes For Concern: Is Nice Failing To Uphold Its Responsibilities To All Nhs Patients?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 1-7, January.
    12. A. Newall & M. Jit & R. Hutubessy, 2014. "Authors’ Reply to Gandjour: “Are Current Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds for Low- and Middle-Income Countries Useful? Examples from the World of Vaccines”," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1247-1247, December.
    13. Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Peter C. Smith, 2015. "Broader health coverage is good for the nation's health: evidence from country level panel data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 178(1), pages 101-124, January.
    14. Stéphane Verguet & Ramanan Laxminarayan & Dean T. Jamison, 2015. "Universal Public Finance of Tuberculosis Treatment in India: An Extended Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 318-332, March.
    15. Beth Woods & Paul Revill & Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton, 2015. "Country-level cost-effectiveness thresholds: initial estimates and the need for further research," Working Papers 109cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    16. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:5:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0606-1 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:chy:respap:136cherp. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Gill Forder). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/chyoruk.html .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.