Cunnama, Lucy; Sinanovic, Edina; Ramma, Lebogang; Foster, Nicola; Berrie, Leigh; Stevens, Wendy; Molapo, Sebaka; Marokane, Puleng; McCarthy, Kerrigan; Churchyard, Gavin; +1 more... Vassall, Anna; (2016) Using Top-down and Bottom-up Costing Approaches in LMICs: The Case for Using Both to Assess the Incremental Costs of New Technologies at Scale. Health economics, 25 Sup (Suppl ). pp. 53-66. ISSN 1057-9230 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3295
Permanent Identifier
Use this Digital Object Identifier when citing or linking to this resource.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Estimating the incremental costs of scaling-up novel technologies in low-income and middle-income countries is a methodologically challenging and substantial empirical undertaking, in the absence of routine cost data collection. We demonstrate a best practice pragmatic approach to estimate the incremental costs of new technologies in low-income and middle-income countries, using the example of costing the scale-up of Xpert Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB)/resistance to riframpicin (RIF) in South Africa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We estimate costs, by applying two distinct approaches of bottom-up and top-down costing, together with an assessment of processes and capacity. RESULTS: The unit costs measured using the different methods of bottom-up and top-down costing, respectively, are $US16.9 and $US33.5 for Xpert MTB/RIF, and $US6.3 and $US8.5 for microscopy. The incremental cost of Xpert MTB/RIF is estimated to be between $US14.7 and $US17.7. While the average cost of Xpert MTB/RIF was higher than previous studies using standard methods, the incremental cost of Xpert MTB/RIF was found to be lower. CONCLUSION: Costs estimates are highly dependent on the method used, so an approach, which clearly identifies resource-use data collected from a bottom-up or top-down perspective, together with capacity measurement, is recommended as a pragmatic approach to capture true incremental cost where routine cost data are scarce.