Open Access

Costs analysis of the treatment of imported malaria

  • Viera Svihrova1Email author,
  • Maria Szilagyiova2,
  • Elena Novakova3,
  • Jan Svihra4 and
  • Henrieta Hudeckova1
Malaria Journal201211:1

https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-11-1

Received: 31 August 2011

Accepted: 2 January 2012

Published: 2 January 2012

Abstract

Background

To document the status of imported malaria infections and estimate the costs of treating of patients hospitalized with the diagnosis of imported malaria in the Slovak Republic during 2003 to 2008.

Case study

Calculating and comparing the direct and indirect costs of treatment of patients diagnosed with imported malaria (ICD-10: B50 - B54) who used and not used chemoprophylaxis. The target sample included 19 patients diagnosed with imported malaria from 2003 to 2008, with 11 whose treatment did not include chemoprophylaxis and eight whose treatment did.

Results

The mean direct cost of malaria treatment for patients without chemoprophylaxis was 1,776.0 EUR, and the mean indirect cost 524.2 EUR. In patients with chemoprophylaxis the mean direct cost was 405.6 EUR, and the mean indirect cost 257.4 EUR.

Conclusions

The analysis confirmed statistically-significant differences between the direct and indirect costs of treatment with and without chemoprophylaxis for patients with imported malaria.

Keywords

Imported malariaCostsPrevention

Background

Malaria is a common and life-threatening disease in areas where it is endemic. In the Slovak Republic, malaria is currently categorized as an imported infectious disease. In the past years, there was a balanced trend in the Slovak Republic in the numbers of reported cases of imported malaria, no deaths have been confirmed. The disease has traditionally been expensive to treat. Malaria chemoprophylaxis, a very effective protection against the infection, is important not only for health reasons but also because it reduces the costs of treating the disease and, in the case of working persons, it minimizes possible social-economic impacts on the patient and his/her family and society.

The goal of this paper was to calculate and compare the direct and indirect costs of treatment with and without chemoprophylaxis in patients diagnosed with imported malaria (ICD-10: B50 - B54). This is the first study in Slovakia about hospitalization costs of imported malaria.

Methods

Data on imported malaria patients in the Slovak Republic from 2003 to 2008 were obtained from the Epidemiological Information System of the Office of the Public Health of the Slovak Republic (EPIS). Analysis has evaluated costs during hospitalization. Patients without hospitalization were observed in home surroundings, this presents zero costs for hospitalization. From the data on hospitalized patients, it was calculated and estimated the direct cost to health insurance companies for the treatment of all patients. The costs of hospitalization were obtained from the health insurance companies and from the Health Care Surveillance Authority. The 2008 EUR exchange rate was used for cost calculations. The direct costs of hospitalization and of laboratory and imaging examinations were included.

Indirect costs included those to employers in the form of compensation for lost income to the health funds of the Social Insurance Company and health benefits as well as the production losses due to the reduction of the gross domestic product (GDP) during the patients' working disability. During adult patients' first ten days of working disability, their income is compensated by the employer at a rate of 25% of the daily-calculated basis for the first three days and then at a rate of 55% [1]. The lowest possible calculated daily base is defined as one-thirtieth of the minimum wage for workers with a monthly wage on the day on which the valid claim for compensation was made [2]. For calculation of indirect costs, the gross wages of employees were used. By law, in the Slovak Republic, there are guaranteed gross minimal wages. In calculating the costs, this was used as a base the minimum wage in 2008, which was 268.871 EUR monthly or 1.547 EUR hourly [3].

All group data were expressed as the mean and the standard deviation (SD). The costs incurred by patients without chemoprophylaxis were compared with those incurred by patients with chemoprophylaxis using the Mann-Whitney U test. A p value less than 0.05 was accepted as the level of statistical significance. Data were processed using the SPSS software Windows edition, version 11.0.

Results

During the study period 19 cases of imported malaria were identified by the EPIS in Slovak Republic. All of the above patients had visited areas where malaria was endemic; only eight (42%) of them had used malaria chemoprophylaxis before and during their sojourn in the endemic areas. Hospitalization was not required in two cases where chemoprophylaxis has been used, and the patients were treated as out-patients. Therefore, 17 patients were hospitalized with the diagnosis of imported malaria. Eleven patients had not used chemoprophylaxis; their mean age was 34 years, with a range of 20 - 55 years. The length of their hospitalization was 5 - 26 days, with a mean length of 13 days. Eight patients had used chemoprophylaxis; their mean age was 27 years, with a range 22 - 35 years. The length of their hospitalization was 0 - 11 days, with a mean length of 6.5 days (Table 1).
Table 1

Imported malaria in the Slovak Republic, 2003 - 2008

Case

Age

Gender

Place of acquisition

Plasmodium species

Length of inpatient stay

Using of antimalaria chemoprophylaxis

2003

      

1

25

male

Chad

P. falciparum

15 days

no

2

42

male

Myanmar

P. vivax,

20 days

no

    

P. falciparum

  

3

27

male

Ivory Coast

P. falciparum

0 days

yes

4

24

female

South East Asia

P. falciparum

0 days

yes

2004

      

5

26

male

Eritrea

P.vivax

11 days

yes

6

24

male

Eritrea

P.vivax

10 days

yes

7

22

male

Eritrea

P.vivax

10 days

yes

8

35

male

Eritrea

P.vivax

6 days

yes

2005

      

9

32

male

Cameroon

P. falciparum

5 days

yes

2006

      

10

55

female

Uganda

P. vivax

10 days

no

11

27

male

Ivory Coast

P. vivax

10 days

yes

12

34

male

Equatorial Guinea

P. falciparum

15 days

no

13

35

male

Benin

P. falciparum

26 days

no

14

20

male

Benin

P. falciparum

14 days

no

15

28

male

Ecuador

P. vivax,

9 days

no

    

P. falciparum

  

16

41

male

Angola

P. falciparum

11 days

no

2007

      

17

32

male

Equatorial Guinea

P. falciparum

5 days

no

2008

      

18

20

male

Ghana

P. falciparum

10 days

no

19

37

male

Namibia, S.Africa

P. falciparum

9 days

no

Most infections were acquired in Africa (17 cases - 89%). The infectious agents were Plasmodium vivax in six cases (35%) and Plasmodium falciparum in eleven cases (53%). Two patients (12%) had dual infections. Uncomplicated versus complicated diseases were found in 16 versus three cases (2× Plasmodium falciparum, 1× dual infection).

After calculating the costs of hospitalization to the health insurance company, the mean direct cost of treatment for patients without chemoprophylaxis was 1,776.0 EUR (527.1 - 7,029.8 EUR). In patients with chemoprophylaxis, the mean direct costs per patient was 405.6 EUR (0.0 - 543.5 EUR) (Table 2).
Table 2

Comparison of direct and indirect costs in EUR of imported malaria with and without chemoprophylaxis

 

n without chemoprophylaxis

n with chemoprophylaxis

 

n = 11 without chemoprophylaxis

mean

SD

mean

SD

p values

direct costs

     

price of hospitalization

1419.7

2121.9

349.5

215.7

< 0.05

price of laboratory and imaging examinations

356.3

430.8

56.1

35.1

< 0.05

total price

1776.0

2518.5

405.6

250.4

< 0.05

indirect costs

     

compensation of income by employer and social insurance

78.0

40.0

35.9

26.4

< 0.05

loss of GDP

446.2

200.2

221.6

154.6

< 0.05

total indirect costs

524.2

240.2

257.4

180.9

< 0.05

total direct and indirect costs

2300.2

2669.4

663.0

419.0

< 0.05

loss of income during inoperable

84.0

32.7

44.6

29.9

< 0.05

The indirect costs included compensation of loss of income by the employer for the first ten days of the working disability and by the Social Insurance Company thereafter. In patients without chemoprophylaxis, the income compensation by employer and social insurance represented the sum of 78.0 EUR for 13 days of working disability, which mean a 52% decrease in income.

Other indirect costs are not negligible: lost salaries decreased production and lowered GDP. For patients without chemoprophylaxis, the mean loss of income was 84.0 EUR (39,0 - 156,0 EUR), and the mean loss of productivity at the current GDP was 446.2 EUR (170.4 - 886.2 EUR). In patients with chemoprophylaxis, the mean loss of income was 44.6 EUR (0.0 - 72.4 EUR), and the mean loss of GDP was 221.6 EUR (0.0 - 374.9 EUR). The total indirect costs for patients without and with chemoprophylaxis were 524.2 EUR (193.3 - 1,052.0 EUR) and 257.4 EUR (0.0 - 438.6 EUR), respectively.

Discussion

Malaria is currently endemic in over 100 countries, which are visited by more than 125 million international travellers every year. Each year, many international travellers fall ill with malaria while visiting these countries and well over 10,000 is reported to fall ill after returning home. Due to underreporting, the real figure may be as high as 30,000 [4]. During the years 2008-2009, 25 cases of imported malaria were registered in Romania, with no fatalities [5]. The most significant endemic areas for malaria are in Sub-Saharan Africa, the South-West Pacific, South-East Asia and the rainforests of South America [6]. According to the EPIS, 53 cases of imported malaria were reported in the Slovak Republic during 1997 to 2008 (Figure 1), with a decreasing trend similar to the decreases in the Netherlands and the UK [7, 8].
Figure 1

Reported cases of imported malaria in the Slovak Republic (B50 - B54) 1997-2008.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the annual incidence of malaria in the world accounts for 190-311 million clinical episodes and 708,000 - 1,003,000 deaths [9]. According to many scholars, the disease causes as much as 0.6% - 1.3% loss of the GDP in countries with high malaria incidences [10, 11]. In these countries, the costs of treating one case of malaria are 1.4 USD in Ethiopia, 6.3 USD in Sudan, and 8.0 USD in Burkina Faso [1214]. In two provinces of Papua New Guinea total mean inpatient malaria episode costs were 25.2 USD in Madang and 14.1 USD in Maprik [15].

In the available literature, only three comprehensive calculations of the direct and indirect costs of imported malaria in high-income countries were found. The costs in patients from Switzerland and the Federal German Republic were lower for those who had undergone mefloquine prophylaxis than for those who had not [16]. In the UK, the costs of treating malaria without chemoprophylaxis greatly exceed the costs of chemoprophylaxis, showing the prophylaxis to be highly cost effective. This is clearly shown by the cost-benefit ratios. Except for malaria, the benefits (expressed as avoided costs) did not exceed the incurred costs [17]. Keystone showed that the costs of pre-travel consultations and of inexpensive vaccines and malaria prophylaxis would likely be easily offset by the savings owing to reduced health care costs incurred from the treatment of imported infectious diseases [18]. In these cases, prevention is better than treatment.

One study analysed the case of fifteen soldiers from the British army who required intensive hospital therapy because of malaria infection. Out of 24,600 British troops stationed in Germany, approximately 800 were occupationally exposed to malaria during 2001 and 800 during 2002. Three imported malaria cases were reported in British soldiers during 2001 and 12 during 2002. Two soldiers, one with P. vivax and the other with P. falciparum infections. required intensive hospital therapy. The median length of patient stay in hospital was seven days for a P. vivax infection, and 8.5 days for a P. falciparum infection. The direct treatment costs of the hospitalizations totalled 27,760 EUR [19]. All soldiers in this study were prescribed mefloquine for malaria chemoprophylaxis.

It is generally known that no anti-malarial prophylactic regimen gives complete protection, but good chemoprophylaxis (adherence to the recommended drug regimen) does reduce the risk of fatal disease [4]. Malaria chemoprophylaxis is unequivocally cheaper than the treatment of malaria. In this series, statistically-significant differences between the direct and indirect costs among patients who had imported malaria, with and without chemoprophylaxis, were confirmed. All anti-malarial drugs have specific contraindications and possible side effects. Adverse reactions attributed to malaria chemoprophylaxis are common, but most are minor and do not affect the activities of the traveller. Depending on the malaria risk in the area visited, the recommended prevention method may only be mosquito bite prevention, or mosquito bite prevention in combination with chemoprophylaxis [4]. When mefloquine was used, it represented 4.7% of the total direct costs of treatment in Slovak Republic of patients with the lowest compensation from the health insurance company. The costs of two months of prevention by mefloquine chemoprophylaxis (24.8 EUR) are lower than the cost of lost income from a five-day working disability (39.0 EUR). In the case of patient with the highest direct costs the use of chemoprophylaxis represented only 0.4% of the total direct costs for the treatment [20].

This is the first analysis of the costs of hospitalization for imported malaria in Slovakia. The results confirmed that the prevention of malaria is worthwhile. Prevention decreases the occurrence of disease, reduces process of disease and reduces costs for hospitalization. In Slovakia, this disease is rare and the number of cases is limited. Trends show that number of cases is not increasing and death had not been confirmed in previous years.

Conclusions

The continuous growth of professional and leisure travel to malaria-endemic regions may lead to an increase of imported cases, especially if prophylactic measures are not strictly followed. In the Slovak Republic, malaria chemoprophylaxis is not reimbursed by health insurance. The analysis by Pistone et al. shows that a policy change toward reimbursing malaria chemoprophylaxis for travellers from France to sub-Saharan Africa would be cost-effective for the European health insurance system [21]. A similar policy should be considered in the Slovak Republic.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the insurance companies Dôvera a.s., SZP a.s. and Union ZP a.s., mainly for making the data of the costs for the provided medical care accessible.

Funding

The paper was conducted under the auspices of the overarching project "VEGA No 1/0038/08" and the Centre of Experimental and Clinical Respirology (CEKR II) "We supported the research activities in Slovakia/Project is co-financed from EU sources".

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Public Health, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine Comenius University
(2)
Clinic of Infectology and Travel Medicine, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine Comenius University
(3)
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine Comenius University
(4)
Clinic of Urology, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine Comenius University

References

  1. Act No. 461/2003. Collection of Acts Slovak Republic. 2008, 1386-1545.Google Scholar
  2. Act No. 462/2003. Collection of Acts Slovak Republic. 2003, 3704-3708.Google Scholar
  3. Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic: Indicators of Economic Development of the SR. 2011, Available at: http://portal.statistics.sk/showdoc.do?docid=19 [accessed on 30 April 2011]Google Scholar
  4. World Health Organization: International Travel and Health: Situation as on 1 January 2010. 2010, World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  5. Neghina R, Neghina AM, Marincu I, Iacobiciu I: International Travel Increase and Malaria Importation in Romania, 2008-2009. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases. Available at: http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/vbz.2010.0275; 2011 [accessed on 10 August 2011]
  6. World Health Organization: Global Malaria Control and Elimination: Report of a Technical Review. 2008, World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  7. van Genderen PJ, Hesselink DA, Bezemer JM: Imported malaria - Imported malaria is falling in Netherlands and Europe. BMJ. 2008, 337: a1026-10.1136/bmj.a1026.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Behrens RH, Carroll B, Smith V, Alexander N: Declining incidence of malaria imported into the UK from West Africa. Malar J. 2008, 7: 235-10.1186/1475-2875-7-235.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention: Malaria facts. CDC, Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/malaria; 2010 [accessed on 28 April 2011]
  10. Hollyman S, Gathany J, Buj V: World Health Organization. 10 Facts on Malaria. 2009, Available at: http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/malaria (accessed on 28 April 2011)Google Scholar
  11. Shepard DS, Ettling MB, Brinkmann U, Sauerborn R: The economic costs of malaria in Africa. Trop Med Parasitol. 1991, 42: 199-203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Deressa W, Hailemariam D, Ali A: Economic costs of epidemic malaria to households in rural Ethiopia. Trop Med Int Health. 2007, 12: 1148-1156. 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2007.01901.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Mustafa MH, Babiker MA: Economic costs of malaria on households during a transmission season in Khartoum State, Sudan. East Mediterr Health J. 2007, 13: 1298-1307.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Guiguemde TR, Coulibaly N, Coulibaly SO, Ouedraogo JB, Gbary AR: A precise method for estimating the economic costs of malaria: Application of the method in a rural area in Burkina Faso (West Africa). Trop Med Int Health. 1997, 2: 66-653.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Sicuri E, Davy C, Marinelli M, Oa O, Ome M, Siba P, Conteh L, Mueller I: The economic cost to households of childhood malaria in Papua New Guinea: a focus on intra-country variation. Health Policy Plan. 2011, 10.1093/heapol/czr046 Available at: http://heapol.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/22/heapol.czr046.full; 2011; [accessed on 30 June 2011]Google Scholar
  16. Dinkel R, Banz K, Buchner K, Sfeffen R, Gutzwiller F: Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse der Malariaprophylaxe bei Keniareisenden mit Mefloquin. Soz Praeventivmed. 1990, 35: 213-219. 10.1007/BF01369089.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Behrens RH, Roberts JA: Is travel prophylaxis worthwhile? Economic appraisal of prophylactic measures against malaria, hepatitis A, and typhoid in travellers. BMJ. 1994, 309: 918-922. 10.1136/bmj.309.6959.918.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Keystone JS: Protecting Canadian travellers: Prevention is better than cure. CMAJ. 2008, 178: 373-10.1503/cmaj.080027.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Croft AM, Winfield CR, Horsfall M, Quarrell MA: Direct health costs of occupationally acquired malaria in a military population in Europe. Occup Med. 2005, 55: 128-130. 10.1093/occmed/kqi027.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Ministry of Health Slovak Republic: Bulletin of the Ministry of Health Slovak Republic: Regulation of the Ministry of Health Slovak Republic No. OPL0208-13444/2008-OL. 2008, Bratislava: ObzorGoogle Scholar
  21. Pistone T, Schwarzinger M, Chauvin P, Ezzedine K, Receveur MC, Djossou F, Siriwardana M, Larouze B, Malvy D: Reimbursement of malaria chemoprophylaxis for travellers from Europe to Sub-Saharan Africa: Cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the French national health insurance system. Health Policy. 2008, 88: 186-199. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.03.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Svihrova et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Advertisement