Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Oct 26;12(10):e0186496.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186496. eCollection 2017.

Revealed willingness-to-pay versus standard cost-effectiveness thresholds: Evidence from the South African HIV Investment Case

Gesine Meyer-Rath  1   2 , Craig van Rensburg  2 , Bruce Larson  1 , Lise Jamieson  2 , Sydney Rosen  1   2
Affiliations

Revealed willingness-to-pay versus standard cost-effectiveness thresholds: Evidence from the South African HIV Investment Case

Gesine Meyer-Rath et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: The use of cost-effectiveness thresholds based on a country's income per capita has been criticized for not being relevant to decision making, in particular in middle-income countries such as South Africa. The recent South African HIV Investment Case produced an alternative cost-effectiveness threshold for HIV prevention and treatment interventions based on estimates of life years saved and the country's committed HIV budget.

Methods: We analysed the optimal mix of HIV interventions over a baseline of the current HIV programme under the committed HIV budget for 2016-2018. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) as cost per life-year saved (LYS) of 16 HIV prevention and treatment interventions over 20 years (2016-2035). We iteratively evaluated the most cost effective option (defined by an intervention and its coverage) over a rolling baseline to which the more cost effective options had already been added, thereby allowing for diminishing marginal returns to interventions. We constrained the list of interventions to those whose combined cost was affordable under the current HIV budget. Costs are presented from the government perspective, unadjusted for inflation and undiscounted, in 2016 USD.

Results: The current HIV budget of about $1.6 billion per year was sufficient to pay for the expansion of condom availability, medical male circumcision, universal treatment, and infant testing at 6 weeks to maximum coverage levels, while also implementing a social and behavior change mass media campaign with a message geared at increasing testing uptake and reducing the number of sexual partners. The combined ICER of this package of services was $547/ LYS. The ICER of the next intervention that was above the affordability threshold was $872/LYS.

Conclusions: The results of the South African HIV Investment Case point to an HIV cost-effectiveness threshold based on affordability under the current budget of $547-872 per life year saved, a small fraction of the country's GDP per capita of about $6,000.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

    1. Macroeconomics and health: investing in health for economic development Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
    1. Hutubessy R, Chisholm D, Edejer TT. Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis for national-level priority-setting in the health sector. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2003. December 19;1(1):8 doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-1-8 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shillcutt SD, Walker DG, Goodman CA, Mills AJ. Cost effectiveness in low- and middle-income countries: a review of the debates surrounding decision rules. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(11):903–17. doi: 10.2165/10899580-000000000-00000 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Marseille E, Larson B, Kazi DS, Kahn JG, Rosen S. Thresholds for the cost–effectiveness of interventions: alternative approaches. Bull World Health Organ. 2015. February 1;93(2):118–24. doi: 10.2471/BLT.14.138206 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bertram MY, Lauer LA, De Joncheere K, Edejer T, Hutubessy R, Kieny M-P, et al. : Cost-effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons. Bull World Health Organ 2016;94:925–930 doi: 10.2471/BLT.15.164418 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Substances