Printer Friendly

Cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions to achieve universal health coverage for schizophrenia in Mexico.

INTRODUCTION

Providinghealth services to the entire population and ensuring financial protection is one of the main objectives of a health system. The 2030 Sustainable Development Goals highlight the importance of protection against financial risks aspart of a universal health coverage (Union Nations Organization, 2012). Mental disorders have an economic impact on the labor productivity of individuals, so that investing in them influences economic growth, hence the importance of evidencing which interventions must be adopted so that the health system manages to provide necessary services for the entire population. This means that interventions should be cost-effective,feasible, and affordable (World Health Organization, 2013).

In low and middle income countries, it is particularly difficult to decide which interventions should be included in the service packages in the absence of cost-effectiveness evidence. In this sense, interventions that include typical and/or atypical antipsychotic medication and psychosocial treatment are considered affordable, feasible, and effective (Patel, 2016; Chisholm & Saxena, 2012). Applying these interventionswould contribute to reducing the gap in mental health care, which in Latin America is currently from 58.0 to 44.4% (Kohn et al., 2005).

In Mexico, since 2003, the Social Protection System in Health (SPSS, initials for Sistema de Proteccion Social en Salud) in Spanish was established. Its main objective is to guarantee the financial protection of the population without social security. The SPSS provides health care services in thefirst and second levels of care through "Popular Insurance" (SP,initials of Seguro Popular). The health interventions for psychotic disorders (schizophrenia, delusions and schizotypal disorder) include a quarterly consultation, one to two annual hospitalizations, antipsychotic medication (risperidone,olanzapine, haloperidol, perphenazine, quetiapine, clozapine,levomepromazine, aripiprazole, trifluoperazine), and auxiliary diagnostic studies (laboratory and imaging) (Secretaria de Salud, 2005). Those interventions were integrated on the basis of recommendations from the WHOCHOICE project whose objective is to provide information on cost-effective interventions based on three key criteria:public health burden and importance; the availability of effective and potentially profitable interventions; and theavailability of data on epidemiology, clinical effectiveness, use of resources and costs (Chisholm, 2005).

Thecost-effectiveness analysis is an adequate economic evaluationmethod to provide relevant information to decide which interventions should be adopted. In Mexico there have been few cost-effectiveness studies of the interventions forthe treatment of schizophrenia. For example, the evaluation ofthe effectiveness of different care strategies reported that psychosocial intervention without medication is less cost-effectivethan a comprehensive care strategy (psychosocial treatment+ antipsychotic medication + psychoeducational treatment)and even interventions in which the hospital provided antipsychotic medication (Cabello-Rangel, Diaz-Castro, & Arredondo, 2011). Another study considered the effectiveness as DALYS avoided based on a hypothetical coverage of 80% the cost of DALY avoided was $ 1,135,516. 00 Mexican pesos, with antipsychotic treatment only, when adding psychosocial treatment, the cost is $ 390,892.00 Mexican pesos (Lara-Munoz et al., 2010).

Theextended cost effectiveness analysis (ECEA) approach stems from the idea of providing protection against financialrisks and consequently distribution of health benefits in population subgroups (quintiles), that is, it assesses the cost-effectiveness effect of a Universal Public Finance (UPF). It is a method that incorporates financial protection measures within economic evaluations of health policies. Itsfundamental premises is that the UPF reduces the private expense and may influence the equalization between incomegroups for both financial and health outcomes (Verguet, Laxminarayan, & Jamison, 2015).

The objective of this work is to perform an extended cost-effectivenessanalysis and pharmacological and psychosocial treatmentinterventions afore mentioned for patients diagnosedwith schizophrenia, as well as "Early Intervention in Psychosis Program" (EIP).

The EIP is a novel program of psychiatric hospital to treat first episode of psychosis with the aim of reducing medicaland social complications as well as the comorbidities which flourish as a long-term result of the first episode of psychosis, through efficient treatment, focused on the patient and the family, the intervention of social workers, clinical psychologists, psychiatry and specialized nurses is necessary. Similar programs have been established and evaluatedin other countries (McCrone, Knapp, & Dhanasiri, 2009).Therefore, it is of interest to evaluate them considering theavailable resources of an economic middle-income country.

METHOD

An extended cost-effectiveness analysis study (ECEA) was designed in which the variable and fixed costs of outpatient carefor schizophrenia interventions were analyzed and quantified. This is an atypical or typical antipsychotic medication and psychosocial treatment; in this model all medications will be provided to the patient.

Interventions

1.Intervention 1 (T1): Typical or atypical antipsychotic with same effectiveness (haloperidol 5 mg and/or risperidone2mg) + biperiden 2mg + basic psychosocial treatment (outpatient).

2. Intervention 2 (T2): Atypical antipsychotic (olanzapine 10mg) + basic psychosocial treatment (outpatient).

3. Intervention 3 (T3): Atypical antipsychotic (olanzapine 10mg)+ Early Intervention in Psychosis Program that includes: 1. intensive stage: management of the prodromal stage,acute and recovery of psychotic syndrome that includes psychiatric, and psychotherapeutic treatment for the patient and the family for nine months. 2. follow-up stage: scheduled appointments on a regular basis, but with a longer time interval, to monitor the established treatment.

Variables

Following the method developed by Verguet, the ECEA is based on a hypothetical population of one million inhabitants distributedin quintiles of 200,000 people, in which parameters that are assumed, and others used in previously published studiesare applied, the risk aversion coefficient was estimated at 3% (Verguet et al., 2015). According to the Institute for Health Metrics, the weight of disability for chronic cases is .576 and for acute cases .756, and the estimated prevalence for schizophrenia in Mexico is .22%, according to the latest reports (Institute for Health Metrics, 2010).

The effectiveness of antipsychotic and psychosocial treatmentsis 46% and 49% for haloperidol and/or risperidone and olanzapine, respectively, at an equivalent dose of 15 mg/day of haloperidol (olanzapine 20 mg/day or risperidone 4 mg/day) (Leucht, Pitschel-Walz, Abraham, & Kissling, 1999). Adherence to treatment is 76% for all interventions(Chatterjee et al., 2014; Thieda, Beard, Richter, & Kane, 2003). Early intervention in psychosis has a therapeutic adherence of 53% (Solmi et al., 2018).

Thepercentage of current coverage of care by quintile and the Gross National Income per capita (GNI) is

US$815.61; the participation in the GNI by income of quintile is 5.4% on the lowest and 52.2% on the highest, which represents that the lowest quintile of the population hasa weighted income of US $ 398.90 and the highest quintile ofUS $ 3859.08, for the year 2014, so that a population of one million inhabitants would have an income of US$851,660,000.00 and was based on that reported for Mexico by the World Bank (World Bank, 2018) (Table 1). We consider that the population with Social Security has access to medicines and psychosocial care in the first and second level of medical care, which is concordant with theprevalence of coverage for low incidence mental disorders (Whitefordet al., 2013). For the present study, it is considered that in the highest income quintiles the prevalence is higher, given that they have better access and use of health care services, so that the probability of seeking care results from the product of the prevalence and the percentage of coverage in each quintile. The out-of-pocket expenditure forcare medical is 66% of the monthly income (Wirtz, Santa-Ana-Tellez, Servan-Mori, & Avila-Burgos, 2012).

Treatment costs

It includes variable and fixed costs; the variable costs (food, laundry, laboratory, water, electric power, municipal waste, cleaning, private security) derived from the current expenses incurred for the operation of the service were determined by the Primary Cost system. The fixed costs derived from human resources (medical, nursing, social work, psychology, and intendancy) were obtained from the coefficient of the annual gross salary between the annual workday in minutes for the time allocated to the care of each patient, both cost were published in a previous study (Cabello-Rangel et al., 2011).

The present value of these costs was calculated with compound interest:

VF =VP(1 + j)[pi]

Where:

VF: Future value

VP: Present value

i = Interes rate, (the rate that approximates the time preference of people, commonly used as 3% or 5%)

[pi] = Number of periods between present value and future value (Brig ham & Houston, 2005).

The cost of medications was based on current prices according to the purchase price of the IMSS International PublicBid for 2017 in Mexico (Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, 2017) (Table 2).

Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) were used as the measure of effectiveness of the interventions, the DA-LYs werecalculated with the method to determine the prevalence Years Lost by Disability, that is: YLD = prevalent cases* (size of the effect * adherence) * weight of disability * average duration of illness * target coverage (Raykar, Nigam, & Chisholm, 2015).

Consideringa population of one million people, a prevalence of 2 200 cases of schizophrenia is estimated. It is assumed that 80% of the population would be covered with UPF, that is, 1760 cases.

Finally, the insurance value was calculated, which is the amount that an individual is willing to pay to receive health protection. For this, we estimated the expected value ofthe cost of treating schizophrenia without UPF at an individual level, using the following equation:

yp = (1 -p)y+p(y-c)

Where:

p = probability of receiving attention for Schizophrenia, c = cost of treatment.

y= income.

Following the estimation of the insurance value of Verguet et al. (2015), the following equation of certainty is considered:

[mathematical expression not reproducible]

Where r is the coefficient of risk aversion (value 3%).

At the individual level, the delta in the monetary value is:

Delta(V) =[Y.sub.p]-Y*

The insurance value at the population level by income quintile is:

Delta(v) * Quintile size * Target coverage

RESULTS

Ensuring a coverage of 80% of the population has an impact of 98 and 106 DALYs are avoided in the poorest quintile for T1 and T2, respectively, and even in the richest quintiles it has a positive effect (Table 3).

In the current situation, the cost of intervention financed by the government to the population with social security is upto 80% higher for the quintiles with higher income compared to the poorest quintile. In the present analysis, the out-of-pocket expense for the cost of intervention and the prevalence of the disease by income quintile ranged from US $ 60,930.00 to US $ 474,035.43 (Table 4).

Theeffect of ensuring coverage for 80% of the population throughUPF avoids out-of-pocket expenses in direct proportion to the percentage of increase in coverage capacity, ensuring medication, and psychosocial treatment for patients with schizophrenia. It has a positive effect in the avoided pocket expense from US $ 101,221 to US $ 787,498 according to the type of intervention.

Increasing coverage generates an additional cost for the government that is not directly related to the reduction of DALYsby quintile, that is, increasing government spending has a greater impact on the poorest quintile since the cost-effectiveness ratio is higher in this one quintile given thatthe DALYS avoided are greater with very little difference compared to the quintiles of higher income, that is, a distributive effect of the budget is generated (Table 5).

The cost per capita of implementing each intervention, asthe quantity of the total cost and the hypothetical population, is US$0.15, US$0.16 and US $1.19 for T1, T2 and T3 respectively. This means that T1 and T2 are highly affordableand low cost, while option T3 is possibly affordable, accordingto the criteria to identify investment priorities in mental health (World Health Organization, 2013).

The value of the annual assurance at the population level is US $ 7,627.14 for T2 and US $ 6,958.86 for T1. This valuation is not homogeneous among the quintiles, since quintile III is the one which is most willing to pay for insurance with respect to the other quintiles. On the other hand, in the highest income quintile, the minimum assurance valuation was observed. In the case of T3, it was foundthat this option is highly expensive, with a monthly treatment cost seven times higher than the other two options (Table 2). In turn, T3 is not available for all the quintiles because the insurance cost exceeds the income. In fact, for quintile I the treatment cost is 50% higher than theincome and for this reason, it was not possible to estimate the insurance value, since the term (y-c) must be positive. Figure 1 shows the insurance value for the five quintiles of the two most cost-effective treatments.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In terms of the global burden of the disease, in 2016 in Mexico mental disorders were the fourth cause within the categoryof disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). However, the organized social response has been inadequate. Most people suffering from mental disorders, such as schizophrenia, do not seek or receive care due to lack of services and/or stigma, reflecting the huge attention gaps observed:around 69% for people with severe mental disorders (suchas schizophrenia) in low-middle income countries do not receive treatment (Lora et al., 2012).

In the specific case of universal health coverage for schizophrenia, it was necessary to know the prevalence and cost of care to plan health care service, prioritize available resources, and establish the cost-effectiveness of current and future interventions.

In Mexico, under current conditions, the distribution of thebudget for the care of patients with schizophrenia is inequitable. It is up to five times higher in the richest quintile than in the poorest one. The research carried out shows the approach to reduce the existing inequity in the population suffering from schizophrenia, given the current modalities of care in the country.

Under the premise of establishing a UPF to ensure that the population with schizophrenia receives available andaffordable treatment, our research showed that two basic interventions such as typical or atypical antipsychotic treatment with same effectiveness + psychosocial treatment (T1) or atypical antipsychotic treatment + psychosocial treatment (T2), have a positive effect on the distribution of healthspending, as evidenced by the extended cost-effectiveness analysis in the DALYs avoided. This interventions wouldcreate a more equitable health system, by systematically incorporating the health care required and accessible to this population, which would impact on patient, family, andsocial costs. In our opinion, the results serve as a substrate forthe planning of mental health services with an effect of distributive justice of wealth.

If it is analyzed from the point of view of the value of the assurance, that is, of the user's willingness to pay for interventions for T1 and T2, it is very similar, and is below the average level of income for each quintile, so they are very affordable.

Other currently available interventions, which require a higher degree of specialization and human resources per case, are not viable in middle-income countries such as Mexico. For instance, the EIP is not viable at population level, and the cost of treatment and willingness to pay is only feasible for the richest quintiles.

The extended cost-effectiveness analysis is essential before funding a health intervention to avoid incurring in theerror of allocating budget to non-cost-effective interventions for the system. In the specific case of Mexico, it is necessary to reevaluate health interventions, particularly medicines.This in the understanding that the highest outof-pocket expenses incurred by users of services, and the one that generate catastrophic health expenditure, is in the purchaseof medicines. In this sense, T2 proves to be a viable option to expand treatment coverage in schizophrenia, because it is a highly cost-effective strategy and the most efficient of the three treatments analyzed in the present work, in addition to showing a greater value of population insurance.

Finally, the ECEA is an accessible method to generate information that allows decision makers to incorporate or exclude therapeutic interventions to achieve universal health coverage, as demonstrated in the present investigation.

Funding

None.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

Brigham, E. F, & Houston, J. F. (2005). Fundamentals of financial management (10th Edition). Ed Thomson.

Cabello-Rangel, H., Diaz-Castro, L., & Arredondo, A. (2011). Costo-efectividad de intervenciones para esquizofrenia en Mexico. Salud Mental, 34(2), 95-102.

Chatterjee, S., Naik, S., John, S., Dabholkar, H., Balaji, M., Koschorke, M., ... Thornicroft, G. (2014). Effectiveness of a community-based intervention for people with schizophrenia and their caregivers in India (COPSI): A randomized controlled trail. The Lancet, 383(9926), 1385-1394. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62629-X

Chisholm, D. (2005). Choosing cost-effective interventions in psychiatry: Results from the CHOICE programme of the World Health Organization. World Psychiatry, 4(1), 37-44.

Chisholm, D., & Saxena, S. (2012). Cost effectiveness of strategies to combat neuropsychiatric conditions in sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia: mathematical modelling study. British Medical Journal, 344, e609. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e609

Institute for Health Metrics. (2010). Global Burned Diseases. Retrieved from https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/

Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. (2017). Documentacion compra consolidada 2016-2017. Retrieved from http://www.imss.gob.mx/compraconsolidada/2016

Kohn, R., Levav, I, Caldas de Almeida, J. M., Vicente, B., Silveira Guerra Andrade, L. H., Caraveo-Anduaga, J. J., Saxena, S., & Saraceno, B. (2005). Mental disorders in Latin America and the Caribbean: a public health priority. Revista Panamericana de Salud Publica, 18(4-5), 229-240. doi: 10.1590/sl020-49892005000900002

Lara-Munoz, M. C, Robles-Garcia, R., Orozco, R., Saltijeral Mendez, M. T., Medina-Mora, M. E., & Chisholm, D. (2010). Estudio de costo-efectividad del tratamiento de la esquizofrenia en Mexico. Salud Mental, 33(3), 211-218.

Leucht, S., Pitschel-Walz, G., Abraham, D., & Kisslmg, W. (1999). Efficacy and extrapyramidal side-effects of the new antipsychotics olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and sertindole compared to conventional antipsychotics and placebo. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Schizophrenia Research, 35(1), 51-68. doi: 10.1016/s0920-9964(98)00105-4

Lora, A., Kohn, R., Levav, I, McBain, R., Morris, J., & Saxena, S. (2012). Service availability and utilization and treatment gap for schizophrenic disorders: a survey in 50 low- and middle-income countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 90, 47-54B. doi: 10.2471/BLT.11.089284

McCrone, P., Knapp, M., & Dhanasiri, S. (2009). Economic impact of services for first-episode psychosis: A decision model approach. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 3(4), 266-273. doi: 10.1111/j. 1751-7893.2009.00145.x

Patel, V. (2016). Universal health coverage for schizophrenia: Aglobal mental health priority. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 42(4), 885-890. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbvl07

Raykar, N, Nigam, A., & Chisholm, D. (2015). An extended cost-effectiveness analysis of schizophrenia treatment in India under universal public finance. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 14(1), 9. doi: 10.1186/sl2962-016-0058-z

Secretaria de Salud. (2005). Sistema de Proteccion Social en Salud. Elementos conceptuales, financieros y operativos. Mexico, D. F. ISBN 970-721-290-X. Retrieved from http://www.salud.gob.mx/unidades/cdi/documentos/DOCSAL7723.pdf

Solmi, F, Mohammadi, A., Perez, J. A., Hameed, Y., Jones, P B., & Kirkbride, J. B. (2018). Predictors of disengagement from Early Intervention in Psychosis services. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 213(2), 477-483. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2018.91

Thieda, P., Beard, S., Richter, A., & Kane, J. (2003). An economic review of compliance with medication therapy in treatment of schizophrenia. Psychiatric Services, 54(4), 508-516. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.54.4.508

Union Nations Organization. (2012). Sustainable Development Goals 2030. Geneve Switzerland.

Verguet, S., Laxminarayan, R., & Jamison, D. T. (2015). Universal public finance of tuberculosis treatment in India: An extended cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Economics, 24(3), 318-332. doi: 10.1002/hec.3019

Whiteford, H. A., Degenhardt, L., Rehm, J., Baxter, A. J., Ferrari, A. J., Erskine, H. E., ... Vos, T. (2013). Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The Lancet, 382(9904), 1575-1586. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61611-6

Wirtz, V J., Santa-Ana-Tellez, Y, Servan-Mon, E., & Avila-Burgos, L. (2012). Heterogeneous effects of health insurance on out-of-pocket expenditure on medicines in Mexico. Value in Health, 15(5), 593-603. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.01.006

World Bank. (s.fi). Indicadores del desarrollo mundial [Conjunto de datos]. Access date: July 2018. Retrieved from https://databank.bancomundial.org/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators

World Health Organization (2013). Investing in mental health: evidence for action. Geneva, Switzerland.

Hector Cabello-Rangel, (1) Lina Diaz-Castro, (2) Carlos Pineda-Antunez (3)

(1)Hospital Psiquiatrico Fray Bernardino Alvarez, Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico

(2)Direccion de Investigaciones Epidemiologicas y Psicosociales, Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatria Ramon de aFuente Muniz, Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico

(3) Departamento de Investigacion de Serviciosde Salud, Instituto Nacional de Salud Publica, Cuernavacc Morelos, Mexico

Correspondence:

Hector Cabello Rangel

Hospital Psiquiatrico "Fray Bernardino

Alvarez1.

Av. San Buenaventura 2,

Col. Nino Jesus,

T1alpan, 14000 Ciudad de Mexico,

Mexico

Phone: (+ 52 11 555573 - 1500

Email: hedor 19.05.19.05@gmail.com

Received: 18 April 2019

Accepted: 12 October 2019

Citation:

Cabello-Rangel, H., Diaz-Castro, .., & Pineda-Antunez, C. [2020], Cosheffectivenessanalysis of interventions toachieve universal health coverage for schizophrenia in Mexico Salud Mental, 43[2], 65-71

DOI: 10.17711/SM.0185-3325.2020.01 0
Table 1
Variables for model Extend Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (ECEA)

Inputs                                                         Value

Demography inputs
Cohort size                                                    1000000
                                               I       II      III
Cohort size per quintile                       200000  200000  200000
Current coverage with social insurance         .16     .344    .636
Target coverage                                .8      .8      .8
Prevalence rate per quintile                   .22     .23     .25
Overall probability of seeking care            .0352   .07912  .159

Income inputs                                                  $851.66
% of participation of income per quintile      5.4     9.4     13.4
Average monthly GDP per capita (US $ at 2014)  398.9   694.93  990.64
Average out-pocket expenditures.                               66%

Inputs

Demography inputs
Cohort size
                                               IV       V
Cohort size per quintile                       200000   200000
Current coverage with social insurance         .716     .492
Target coverage                                .8       .8
Prevalence rate per quintile                   .26      .27
Overall probability of seeking care            0.18616  0.13284

Income inputs
% of participation of income per quintile      19.6     52.2
Average monthly GDP per capita (US $ at 2014)  1449     3859.08
Average out-pocket expenditures.

Inputs                                         Reference

Demography inputs
Cohort size

Cohort size per quintile
Current coverage with social insurance         17
Target coverage
Prevalence rate per quintile                   12
Overall probability of seeking care            Prevalence * Current
                                               coverage with social
                                               insurance
Income inputs                                  17
% of participation of income per quintile      17
Average monthly GDP per capita (US $ at 2014)  17
Average out-pocket expenditures.               19

Note: Project: Cabello-Rangel H, Diaz-Castro L, Pineda-Antunez C.
Extended cost-effective interventions for schizophrenia to achieve
universal health coverage in Mexico.
Source: Authors.

Table 2
Cost of interventions to treatment schizophrenia

                                                          Average annual
                                        Percent of cases  of out care
                                                          consultations

T1 = Psychosocial treatment + typic
or atypical antipsychotic               100%                 4
(Haloperidol/risperidone)
T2 = Psychosocial treatment + atypical
antipsychotic (Olanzapine)              100%                 4
T3 = Early Intervention in Psychosis
+ atypical antipsychotic                 80%                15
(Olanzapine)
Antipsychotics
Haloperidol 5mg (1)                      40%              1095
Risperidone 2mg (2)                      30%              2190
Olanzapine 10mg (3)                      20%               730
Biperiden 2mg (T1)                       40%               365
Laboratory test                         100%                 1
Total, T1
Total, T2
Total, T3

                                        Unitary Cost US $
                                        (June 2018)

T1 = Psychosocial treatment + typic
or atypical antipsychotic                $1.78
(Haloperidol/risperidone)
T2 = Psychosocial treatment + atypical
antipsychotic (Olanzapine)               $1.78
T3 = Early Intervention in Psychosis
+ atypical antipsychotic                $35.70
(Olanzapine)
Antipsychotics
Haloperidol 5mg (1)                      $0.07
Risperidone 2mg (2)                      $0.02
Olanzapine 10mg (3)                      $1.75
Biperiden 2mg (T1)                       $0.04
Laboratory test
Total, T1
Total, T2
Total, T3

                                        Cost per case US $
                                         (June 2018)

T1 = Psychosocial treatment + typic
or atypical antipsychotic                 $7.12
(Haloperidol/risperidone)
T2 = Psychosocial treatment + atypical
antipsychotic (Olanzapine)                $7.12
T3 = Early Intervention in Psychosis
+ atypical antipsychotic                $535.48
(Olanzapine)
Antipsychotics
Haloperidol 5mg (1)                      $29.88
Risperidone 2mg (2)                      $13.80
Olanzapine 10mg (3)                      $60.35
Biperiden 2mg (T1)                       $13.09
Laboratory test                          $14.04
Total, T1                                $77.93
Total, T2                                $81.51
Total, T3                               $606.29

Note: Project: Cabello-Rangel H, Diaz-Castro L, Pineda-Antunez C.
Extended cost-effective interventions for schizophrenia to achieve
universal health coverage in Mexico.
Source: Authors.

Table 3
DALYs evicted with interventions to treatment schizophrenia

                            Income quintile
                      I   II   III  IV    V     Total

DALY current burden  465  515  611  1790  1153  4534
T1 DALY evicted       98   73   28    42   106   347
T2 DALY evicted      106   81   38    68   124   417
T3 DALY evicted       67   40    7    60    35   209

Note: Project: Cabello-Rangel H, Diaz-Castro L, Pineda-Antunez C.
Extended cost-effective interventions for schizophrenia to achieve
universal health coverage in Mexico.
Source: Authors.

Table 4
Cost of intervention to treatment schizophrenia with current coverage

                                            I           II

              Total cost of intervention     $5,486.27  $12,331.64
              T1 Private expenditure         $3,620.94   $8,138.88
              Cost financial by government   $1,865.33   $4,192.76
Intervention  Total cost of intervention     $5,738.21  $12,897.92
              T2 Private expenditure         $3,787.22   $8,512.63
              Cost financial by government   $1,950.99   $4,385.29
              Total cost of intervention    $42,682.86  $95,939.42
              T3 Private expenditure        $28,170.69  $63,320.02
              Cost financial by government  $14,512.17  $32,619.40

                                            III          IV

              Total cost of intervention     $24,781.74   $29,014.90
              T1 Private expenditure         $16,355.95   $19,149.83
              Cost financial by government    $8,425.79    $9,865.07
Intervention  Total cost of intervention     $25,919.74   $30,347.28
              T2 Private expenditure         $17,107.03   $20,029.21
              Cost financial by government    $8,812.71   $10,318.08
              Total cost of intervention    $192,800.40  $225,734.11
              T3 Private expenditure        $127,248.27  $148,984.51
              Cost financial by government   $65,552.14   $76,749.60

                                            V            Total

              Total cost of intervention     $20,704.44   $92,319.00
              T1 Private expenditure         $13,664.93   $60,930.54
              Cost financial by government    $7,039.51   $31,388.46
Intervention  Total cost of intervention     $21,655.21   $96,558.35
              T2 Private expenditure         $14,292.44   $63,728.51
              Cost financial by government    $7,362.77   $32,829.84
              Total cost of intervention    $161,079.28  $718,236.07
              T3 Private expenditure        $106,312.33  $474,035.81
              Cost financial by government   $54,766.96  $244,200.26

Note: Project: Cabello-Rangel H, Diaz-Castro L, Pineda-Antunez C.
Extended cost-effective interventions for schizophrenia to achieve
universal health coverage in Mexico.
Source: Authors.

Table 5
Cost of intervention to treatment schizophrenia with coverage 80%

                                                      I

                  Total de cost of intervention        $27,431.36
                  Additional cost for the government   $21,945.09
              T1  Out-of-pocket averted                $18,104.70
                  Ratio cost-effectiveness (Cost/         $223.93
                  DALY averted)
Intervention      Value insurance                       $1,336.50
                  Total de cost of intervention        $28,691.03
                  Additional cost for the government   $22,952.82
              T2  Out-of-pocket averted                $18,936.08
                  Ratio cost-effectiveness (Cost/         $216.54
                  DALY averted)
                  Value insurance                       $1,467.51
                  Total de cost of intervention       $213,414.28
                  Additional cost for the government  $170,731.43
              T3  Out-of-pocket averted               $140,853.43
                  Ratio cost-effectiveness (Cost/       $2,548.23
                  DALY averted)
                  Value insurance                     NA

                                                      II

                  Total de cost of intervention        $28,678.24
                  Additional cost for the government   $16,346.60
              T1  Out-of-pocket averted                $18,927.64
                  Ratio cost-effectiveness (Cost/         $223.93
                  DALY averted)
Intervention      Value insurance                       $1,595.13
                  Total de cost of intervention        $29,995.17
                  Additional cost for the government   $17,097.25
              T2  Out-of-pocket averted                $19,796.81
                  Ratio cost-effectiveness (Cost/         $211.08
                  DALY averted)
                  Value insurance                       $1,748.63
                  Total de cost of intervention       $223,114.93
                  Additional cost for the government  $127,175.51
              T3  Out-of-pocket averted               $147,255.86
                  Ratio cost-effectiveness (Cost/       $3,179.39
                  DALY averted)
                  Value insurance                     $155,178.57

                                                      III

                  Total de cost of intervention        $31,172.00
                  Additional cost for the government    $6,390.26
              T1  Out-of-pocket averted                $20,573.52
                  Ratio cost-effectiveness (Cost/         $228.22
                  DALY averted)
Intervention      Value insurance                       $2,030.88
                  Total de cost of intervention        $32,603.44
                  Additional cost for the government    $6,683.71
              T2  Out-of-pocket averted                $21,518.27
                  Ratio cost-effectiveness (Cost/         $175.89
                  DALY averted)
                  Value insurance                       $2,225.09
                  Total de cost of intervention       $242,516.23
                  Additional cost for the government   $49,715.83
              T3  Out-of-pocket averted               $160,060.71
                  Ratio cost-effectiveness (Cost/       $7,102.26
                  DALY averted)
                  Value insurance                     $162,797.95

                                                      IV

                  Total de cost of intervention        $32,418.88
                  Additional cost for the government    $3,403.98
              T1  Out-of-pocket averted                $21,396.46
                  Ratio cost-effectiveness (Cost/          $81.05
                  DALY averted)
Intervention      Value insurance                       $1,557.85
                  Total de cost of intervention        $33,907.58
                  Additional cost for the government    $3,560.30
              T2  Out-of-pocket averted                $22,379.00
                  Ratio cost-effectiveness (Cost/          $52.36
                  DALY averted)
                  Value insurance                       $1,706.03
                  Total de cost of intervention       $252,216.88
                  Additional cost for the government   $26,482.77
              T3  Out-of-pocket averted               $166,463.14
                  Ratio cost-effectiveness (Cost/         $441.38
                  DALY averted)
                  Value insurance                     $112,351.84

                                                      V

                  Total de cost of intervention        $33,665.76
                  Additional cost for the government   $12,961.32
              T1  Out-of-pocket averted                $22,219.40
                  Ratio cost-effectiveness (Cost/         $122.28
                  DALY averted)
Intervention      Value insurance                         $438.49
                  Total de cost of intervention        $35,211.72
                  Additional cost for the government   $13,556.51
              T2  Out-of-pocket averted                $23,239.73
                  Ratio cost-effectiveness (Cost/         $109.33
                  DALY averted)
                  Value insurance                         $479.88
                  Total de cost of intervention       $261,917.53
                  Additional cost for the government  $100,838.25
              T3  Out-of-pocket averted               $172,865.57
                  Ratio cost-effectiveness (Cost/       $2,881.09
                  DALY averted)
                  Value insurance                      $28,069.55

                                                      Total

                  Total de cost of intervention         $153,366.24
                  Additional cost for the government     $61,047.24
              T1  Out-of-pocket averted                 $101,221.72
                  Ratio cost-effectiveness (Cost/
                  DALY averted)
Intervention      Value insurance                         $6,958.86
                  Total de cost of intervention         $160,408.94
                  Additional cost for the government     $63,850.58
              T2  Out-of-pocket averted                 $105,869.90
                  Ratio cost-effectiveness (Cost/
                  DALY averted)
                  Value insurance                         $7,627.14
                  Total de cost of intervention       $1,193,179.86
                  Additional cost for the government    $474,943.79
              T3  Out-of-pocket averted                 $787,498.71
                  Ratio cost-effectiveness (Cost/
                  DALY averted)
                  Value insurance                       $458,397.91

Notes: NA: This value was not estimated since the treatment cost was
higher than income therefore the negative difference could not be used
in the Value Insurance equation.
Project: Cabello-Rangel H, Diaz-Castro L, Pineda-Antunez C. Extended
cost-effective interventions for schizophrenia to achieve universal
health coverage in Mexico.
Source: Authors.
COPYRIGHT 2020 Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatria
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2020 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:ORIGINAL ARTICLE texto en ingles
Author:Cabello-Rangel, Hector; Diaz-Castro, Lina; Pineda-Antunez, Carlos
Publication:Salud Mental
Date:Mar 1, 2020
Words:4951
Previous Article:Suicidal ideation and suicide attempt in a clinical sample of Mexican naval military.
Next Article:Role of parenting styles in internalizing, externalizing, and adjustment problems in children.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters