METHODS AND FINDINGS: Key electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Scopus, Global Health, CinAHL, EconLit and Business Source Premier were searched. We also searched the grey literature, specifically websites of leading organizations supporting health care in LMICs. Only studies using benefit incidence analysis (BIA) and/or financing incidence analysis (FIA) as explicit methodology were included. A total of 512 records were obtained from the various sources. The full texts of 87 references were assessed against the selection criteria and 24 were judged appropriate for inclusion. Twelve of the 24 studies originated from sub-Saharan Africa, nine from the Asia-Pacific region, two from Latin America and one from the Middle East. The evidence points to a pro-rich distribution of total health care benefits and progressive financing in both sub-Saharan Africa and Asia-Pacific. In the majority of cases, the distribution of benefits at the primary health care level favoured the poor while hospital level services benefit the better-off. A few Asian countries, namely Thailand, Malaysia and Sri Lanka, maintained a pro-poor distribution of health care benefits and progressive financing.
CONCLUSION: Studies evaluated in this systematic review indicate that health care financing in LMICs benefits the rich more than the poor but the burden of financing also falls more on the rich. There is some evidence that primary health care is pro-poor suggesting a greater investment in such services and removal of barriers to care can enhance equity. The results overall suggest that there are impediments to making health care more accessible to the poor and this must be addressed if universal health coverage is to be a reality.
METHODS: Patient demography, pre-operative visual acuity, intra-operative complications, post-operative complications and post-operative visual acuity were recorded for two hundred and forty seven of the 400 patients who underwent cataract surgery during a 2-week period. The cost of surgery, which included capital, staff and overhead, and patient care consumable costs were assessed prospectively in 8 randomly sampled patients over a 3-month period. Cost efficiency refers to cost per cataract surgery. Cost effectiveness refers to cost per successful cataract surgery. This is estimated by the ratio of cost efficiency to the proportion of successful cataract surgery. Successful surgery was defined as best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of better than 6/12 at 3 months post-operatively.
RESULTS: Proportion of patients who had post-operative visual acuity of 6/12 or better was higher in phacoemulsification group (94%) than in the ECCE group (81%). Conventional extracapsular cataract surgery with intraocular lens implant costs RM3442 (USD 905.79) and phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implant costs RM4288 (USD 1128.42).
DISCUSSION: There was no significant difference in cost effectiveness between ECCE and phacoemulsification. The cost of cataract surgery in the MOH hospital was found to be high due to the high overhead costs.