Abstract
Objective Easy 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.
Design An 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 sources Test 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 synthesis Assuming 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.
Conclusions Based 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.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The source data - the observable input parameter values for the presented decision tree model - were extracted from published sources, as referenced.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Jonathan.karnon{at}flinders.edu.au, hossein.afzali{at}flinders.edu.au, billie.bonevski{at}flinders.edu.au)
Corrected a few model outputs reported in the abstract and Table 2; added an additional scenario analysis (COVID-19 prevalence 1%); edited the discussion.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
