To what extent is eliminating Malaria in Uganda using sprays and nets cost effective?
BY ZEINAB SABET
[This is a cross-post
on a comparative study conducted by Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC) as
part of the Global Development Network's project 'Strengthening Institutions to Improve Public Expenditure Accountability']
Despite all the
efforts deployed in the fight against it, Malaria still represents a major
burden in Uganda as it is one of the main diseases responsible for illness and
death throughout the country. According to the Malaria Control
Programme of Uganda (MCP), pregnant women, children under five years
and HIV-positive people represent the most vulnerable segment of the society
due to their low immunity.
In an attempt to add
to the tremendous efforts directed at improving health system performance and
increasing public awareness about the disease, a new nationwide indoor residual
spraying program was announced by the Ministry of Health on September 2nd, 2013. Such program
would cost the Government of Uganda around US$ 75 million. As part of the
Global Development Network’s project Strengthening Institutions to Improve
Public Expenditure Accountability, aiming to help governments utilize their budgets
more efficiently, the Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC) recently conducted
a comparative study on the cost-effectiveness of indoor residual spraying and
insecticide treated nets.
The Ministry of Health announced on 2 September, 2013 that
the Government of Uganda is to spend UGX 188 billion (about US$ 75 million) on
a new nationwide program to spray households as a means of controlling the
spread of malaria parasites. Previously, the government experimented with
indoor residual spraying (IRS) in some parts of the country but the program was
abandoned due to widespread concerns regarding the negative perception about
the environmental friendliness of the chemical used then (DDT). The
reintroduction and now potential scaling up of IRS across Uganda is partly due
to the fact that malaria remains the largest contributor to the burden of
disease in Uganda; research showing that IRS remains the most cost-effective
strategy for malaria control; the adoption of a new but more expensive chemical
(Carbamates also known as Bendiocarb) as the preferred choice of spray.
Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC) recently
conducted a comparative study on the cost-effectiveness of indoor
residual spraying and insecticide treated nets. The study is part of the Global
Development Network’s project Strengthening Institutions to Improve Public Expenditure Accountability which
aims to help governments utilize their budgets more efficiently.
Comments
Post a Comment