ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2022
An Economic Evaluation of Government-Funded COVID-19 Testing in Australia.
Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEasy and equitable access to testing has been a cornerstone of the public health response to COVID-19. Currently in Australia, testing using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests for COVID-19 is free to the user, but government funding for rapid antigen tests (RATs) is limited. We conduct an economic analysis of alternative government policies regarding the funding of COVID-19 testing in Australia.
methodsA decision tree model was developed to describe COVID-19 testing pathways for the Australian population over a 1-week period. The model outputs were analysed to estimate R numbers associated with alternative funding policies, which were used to estimate COVID-19 cases over a 6-month time horizon. Healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) effects were applied to new COVID-19 cases. The model was populated using responses to a de novo population survey and published data sources.
resultsCompared with no government-funded COVID-19 testing, government-funded testing is estimated to generate large incremental net monetary benefits (INMBs), up to A$15 billion in the base-case analyses. Government-funded PCR testing and RATs for all is predicted to maximise INMBs in most tested scenarios, though funding RATs for all and not PCR tests has similar INMBs in many scenarios and generates higher benefits to costs ratios.
conclusionsOur interpretation of the modelled analysis is that at the time of writing (July 2022), with high vaccination uptake in Australia and few other public health measures in place, Australian governments should consider reducing funding of PCR testing, for example, limiting capacity to essential workers and individuals with known risk factors for serious symptoms, and fund RATs for all.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.