RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Addressing child health inequity through case management of under-five malaria in Nigeria: A model-based extended cost-effectiveness analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.04.09.21255181
DO 10.1101/2021.04.09.21255181
A1 Dasgupta, Rishav Raj
A1 Mao, Wenhui
A1 Ogbuoji, Osondu
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/13/2021.04.09.21255181.abstract
AB Background Under-five malaria in Nigeria remains one of the biggest threats to global child health, accounting for 95,000 annual child deaths. Despite having the highest GDP in Africa, Nigeria’s current health financing system has not succeeded in reducing high out-of-pocket medical expenditure, which discourages care-seeking and use of effective antimalarials in the poorest households. Resultingly, Nigeria has some of the worst indicators of child health equity among low and middle-income countries, stressing the need to evaluate how the benefits of health interventions are distributed across socioeconomic lines.Methods We developed a decision tree model for case management of under-five malaria in Nigeria and conducted an extended cost-effectiveness analysis of subsidies covering the direct and indirect costs of treatment. We estimated the number of under-five malaria deaths averted, out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure averted, cases of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) averted, and cost of implementation.Finding Fully subsidizing direct medical costs plus a voucher system to cover non-medical and indirect costs with pro-poor increase in treatment coverage would annually avert over 19,000 under-five deaths, US$205.2 million in OOP spending, and 8,600 cases of CHE. Per US$1 million invested, this corresponds to 76 under-five deaths averted, 34 cases of CHE averted, and over US$800,000 in OOP expenditure averted. Due to low current treatment coverage and high disease burden, the health and financial-risk protection benefits would be pro-poor, with the poorest 40% of Nigerians accounting for 72% of all deaths averted, 55% of all OOP expenditure averted, and 74% of all cases of CHE averted. Targeted subsidies to the poor would see significantly greater health and economic benefits per US$1 million invested than broad, non-targeted interventions.Conclusion Subsidizing case management of under-five malaria for the poorest and most vulnerable children would significantly reduce illness-related impoverishment and child mortality in Nigeria while preserving limited financial resources.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementRD received funding from the Department of Science and Society at Duke University through the Huang Fellowship and the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy at Duke University to cover his time. RD also received funding for TreeAge software from North Carolina State University through the George T. Barthalmus Research Award. WM and OO were funded through Duke CPIGH's 4D transitions study in Nigeria supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1199624) and the Partnership for Maternal Newborn and Child Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:IRB approval was not necessary for this study, as relevant data were all freely available online.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data used are freely available online as cited or within the supplemental text. https://dhsprogram.com/publications/publication-fr359-dhs-final-reports.cfm