Suchergebnisse

"This book, the product of a multi-year knowledge-exchange effort led by WHO staff, represents the first in-depth global treatment of health taxes as an independent domain of social policy. It discusses the principal health taxes that are, and that are likely to be in future, of interest to policymakers; it explores their effects, both positive and negative; and it outlines how the outcomes of health taxes are influenced by their design as well as by the context in which they are applied. The book describes how and where, and under what conditions, health taxes can be successfully implemented. Finally, the book builds a careful argument showing why it is imperative for policymakers in all branches of government to be aware of health taxes, to understand their rationale, and to be able to formulate and implement them appropriately."

Background: Road safety has been receiving increased attention through the United Nations Decade of Action on Road Safety, and is also now specifically addressed in the sustainable development goals 3.6 and 11.2. In an effort to enhance the response to Road Traffic Injuries (RTIs), this paper aims to examine the cost effectiveness of proven preventive interventions and forms part of an update of the WHO-CHOICE programme. Methods: Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA) approach was used for our analysis. GCEA applies a null reference case, in which the effects of currently implemented interventions are subtracted from current rates of burden, in order to identify the most efficient package of interventions. A population model was used to arrive at estimates of intervention effectiveness. All heath system costs required to deliver the intervention, regardless of payer, were included. Interventions are considered to be implemented for 100 years. The analysis was undertaken for eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. Results: In Southeast Asia, among individual interventions, drink driving legislation and its enforcement via random breath testing of drivers at roadside checkpoints, at 80% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective intervention. Moreover, the combination of "speed limits + random breath testing + motorcycle helmet use", at 90% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective package. In eastern sub-Saharan Africa, enforcement of speed limits via mobile/handheld cameras, at 80% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective single intervention. The combination of "seatbelt use + motorcycle helmet use + speed limits + random breath testing" at 90% coverage was found to be the most cost-effective intervention package. Conclusion: This study presents updated estimates on cost-effectiveness of practical, evidence-based strategies that countries can use to address the burden of RTIs. The combination of individual interventions that enforces simultaneously multiple road safety measures are proving to be the most cost-effective scenarios. It is important to note, however, that, in addition to enacting and enforcing legislation on the risk factors highlighted as part of this paper, countries need to have a coordinated, multi-faceted strategy to improve road safety.

Cost-effectiveness analysis is used to compare the costs and outcomes of alternative policy options. Each resulting cost-effectiveness ratio represents the magnitude of additional health gained per additional unit of resources spent. Cost-effectiveness thresholds allow cost-effectiveness ratios that represent good or very good value for money to be identified. In 2001, the World Health Organization's Commission on Macroeconomics in Health suggested cost-effectiveness thresholds based on multiples of a country's per-capita gross domestic product (GDP). In some contexts, in choosing which health interventions to fund and which not to fund, these thresholds have been used as decision rules. However, experience with the use of such GDP-based thresholds in decision-making processes at country level shows them to lack country specificity and this-in addition to uncertainty in the modelled cost-effectiveness ratios-can lead to the wrong decision on how to spend health-care resources. Cost-effectiveness information should be used alongside other considerations-e.g. budget impact and feasibility considerations-in a transparent decision-making process, rather than in isolation based on a single threshold value. Although cost-effectiveness ratios are undoubtedly informative in assessing value for money, countries should be encouraged to develop a context-specific process for decision-making that is supported by legislation, has stakeholder buy-in, for example the involvement of civil society organizations and patient groups, and is transparent, consistent and fair.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is potentially an important aid to public health decision-making but, with some notable exceptions, its use and impact at the level of individual countries is limited. A number of potential reasons may account for this, among them technical shortcomings associated with the generation of current economic evidence, political expediency, social preferences and systemic barriers to implementation. As a form of sectoral CEA, Generalized CEA sets out to overcome a number of these barriers to the appropriate use of cost-effectiveness information at the regional and country level. Its application via WHO-CHOICE provides a new economic evidence base, as well as underlying methodological developments, concerning the cost-effectiveness of a range of health interventions for leading causes of, and risk factors for, disease. The estimated sub-regional costs and effects of different interventions provided by WHO-CHOICE can readily be tailored to the specific context of individual countries, for example by adjustment to the quantity and unit prices of intervention inputs (costs) or the coverage, efficacy and adherence rates of interventions (effectiveness). The potential usefulness of this information for health policy and planning is in assessing if current intervention strategies represent an efficient use of scarce resources, and which of the potential additional interventions that are not yet implemented, or not implemented fully, should be given priority on the grounds of cost-effectiveness. Health policy-makers and programme managers can use results from WHO-CHOICE as a valuable input into the planning and prioritization of services at national level, as well as a starting point for additional analyses of the trade-off between the efficiency of interventions in producing health and their impact on other key outcomes such as reducing inequalities and improving the health of the poor.