Should rapid antigen tests be government funded in Australia? An economic evaluation
Karnon, J.; Afzali, H.; Bonevski, B.
Show abstract
ObjectiveEasy and equitable access to testing is 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 the public purchase their own Rapid Antigen Tests (RATs). We conduct an economic analysis of government-funded RATs in Australia. DesignAn interactive decision tree model was developed to compare one policy in which government-funded RATs are free-to-the-user, and one in which individuals purchase their own RATs. The decision tree represents RAT and PCR testing pathways for a cohort of individuals without COVID-19-like symptoms, to estimate the likelihood of COVID-19 positive individuals isolating prior to developing symptoms and the associated costs of testing, from a government perspective. Data sourcesTest costs and detection rates were informed by published studies, other input parameter values are unobservable and uncertain, for which a range of scenario analyses are presented. Data synthesisAssuming 10% prevalence of COVID-19 in a cohort of 10,000 individuals who would use government-funded RATs, the model estimates an additional 464 individuals would isolate early at a cost to the government of around $52,000. Scenario analyses indicate that the incremental cost per additional COVID-19 positive individual isolating with no symptoms remains at a few hundred dollars at 5% prevalence, rising to $2,052 at 1% prevalence. ConclusionsBased on the presented decision tree model, even only minor reductions in COVID-19 transmission rates due to early isolation would justify the additional costs associated with a policy of government-funded RATs.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Cost-effectiveness of whole area testing of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in Merthyr Tydfil, 2020: A Modelling and economic analysis 96%
- Modelling vaccination capacity at mass vaccination hubs and general practice clinics 93%
- Cost-effectiveness of intensive care for hospitalized Covid-19 patients: experience from South Africa 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and validation of an algorithm to estimate the risk of severe complications of COVID-19 to prioritise vaccination 93%
- Public acceptability of non-pharmaceutical interventions to control a pandemic in the United Kingdom: a discrete choice experiment 93%
- A Deep Recurrent Reinforced Learning model to compare the efficacy of targeted local vs. national measures on the spread of COVID-19 in the UK 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Cost savings in male circumcision post-operative care continuum in rural and urban South Africa: Evidence on the importance of initial counselling and daily SMS 94%
- Health and Economic Costs of Early, Delayed and No Suppression of COVID-19: The Case of Australia 93%
- Variation in English Covid booster uptake 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Risk-benefit analysis of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in Australia using a Bayesian network modelling framework 94%
- mRNA-based COVID-19 booster vaccination is highly effective and cost-effective in Australia 93%
- Modelling of COVID-19 vaccination strategies and herd immunity, in scenarios of limited and full vaccine supply in NSW, Australia 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.