OBJECTIVES

The burden of oral diseases is high in the Philippines. The global burden of disease study in 2019 estimated that 44 million Filipinos are affected by oral disorder. More specifically, 29 million Filipinos have untreated dental caries. Outpatients' dental health services are not covered by PhilHealth benefit package. There is a need to include key oral health interventions such as basic prevention and treatment in PhilHealth benefit package to be delivered at the primary health care settings (WHO TSA 153980). The study aimed to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of a set of oral health care services to be delivered at different levels of health care within a comprehensive PhilHealth benefit package.

METHODS

This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of including basic oral health services in the PhilHealth benefit package using a Markov modelling approach. The target population consists of Filipino adults and children at risk for dental diseases who are potential beneficiaries of PhilHealth. The intervention under consideration includes dental consultation, oral prophylaxis, topical fluoride application, silver diamine fluoride application, dental filling, and tooth extraction. The comparator is the current standard of care, which involves out-of-pocket payments for oral health services or limited access to subsidized dental care. The primary outcomes assessed include the incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A Markov model was constructed with a time horizon of 50 years to simulate the lifespan of Filipinos up to the average life expectancy of 70 years old, using a cycle length of one year to reflect disease progression and treatment effects overtime. Model parameters were derived from literature and expert opinion. Sensitivity analyses, including one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, were conducted to assess uncertainty in model inputs. The analysis was carried out from a societal perspective incorporating direct medical and non-medical costs, and indirect costs.

RESULTS

A Markov model showed that a subsidized package is a cost-effective approach compared to the current situation of no subsidy, with an ICER of PhP 75,636 (1,535.76 USD) per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted. The computed ICER was considered good value for money as it was below 2021 GDP per capita of the Philippines of PhP 174,286 (3,538.80 USD). One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of preventive treatment had the most significant impact on the model, and a price threshold of greater than PhP 3,062 (62.17 USD) for preventive treatment will render the subsidized package no longer cost-effective. The budget impact analysis showed a 1.63% increase in budget annually with the current situation of no subsidy. Rolling out a subsidized oral health package will entail a significant increase in government expenses during the first year but a decreasing trend of 1-2% annually for the following years as the program takes its effect.

CONCLUSION

A subsidized oral health package is a costeffective approach from a societal perspective. It will entail a significant increase in government expenditure during the start of its roll out but will eventually result in a decreasing trend of expenses as the years progress.

Human ; Oral Health ; Insurance ; Cost-effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES

During the early COVID-19 pandemic (2020 to mid-2021), the Philippine government relied on nonpharmaceutical interventions such as lockdowns and Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ). With the emergency use authorization of vaccines, assessing their potential impact became essential. This study develops a Philippine model to evaluate the epidemiologic and economic effects of COVID-19 vaccination, estimating its impact on mortality, hospitalization, and mild/asymptomatic cases under various prioritization strategies, including booster doses and the presence of variants of concern.

METHODS

A dynamic transmission model (DTM) with an SEIR (Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered) structure was calibrated using local data, including case numbers, deaths, seroprevalence, vaccination coverage, and intervention costs. The model’s outputs informed a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from health system and societal perspectives over a two-year horizon. Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) were calculated, with costs adjusted to 2020 prices and discount rates of 3%-10% applied. Sensitivity analyses, including one-way and probabilistic approaches, assessed robustness, while a budget impact analysis (BIA) estimated government expenditures in 2020 and 2021.

RESULTS

Without vaccination, daily cases could have peaked at 400,000 between February and May 2021. A vaccination campaign was projected to reduce cases to around 20,000, significantly lowering mortality.  

From the health system perspective, the estimated cost without vaccination was PhP 14.46 trillion, with 93.83 million QALYs. With vaccination, costs dropped to PhP 2.36 trillion, while QALYs increased to 101.79 million. From the societal perspective, costs were PhP 14.68 trillion without vaccination and PhP 2.38 trillion with vaccination, with the same QALY outcomes.

CEA results confirmed that vaccination was cost-saving, with ICERs of -PhP 1,520,727.28 per QALY (health system) and -PhP 1,546,171.63 per QALY (societal). Sensitivity analyses supported these findings, with oneway sensitivity analysis showing minimal impact from parameter changes and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirming cost-saving outcomes. The BIA estimated government expenditures of PhP 983.45 billion in 2020 and PhP 1.47 trillion in 2021 for the vaccine scenario, lower than the no-vaccine scenario.

CONCLUSION

Indeed, our modeling has shown that COVID-19 vaccines could mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and provide good value for money.

Human ; Covid-19 ; Cost-effectiveness Analysis ; Vaccines ; Philippines