Abstract
Importance Cataract is the leading cause of curable blindness in India needing scale-up of coverage. However, the costs and benefits of such scale-up remain unknown.
Objective To calculate the annual scale-up costs, economic benefits of disease burden averted, and the net benefits of covering cataract needs.
Design This is a retrospective cross-sectional analysis for 2018-19.
Setting We look at population level data of India and its 30 states.
Main Outcomes and Measures Data on cataract prevalence and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) was taken from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2019 while cataract operations were taken from the National Health Profile (NHP) 2020. We used ten per capita surgical costs from three sources. Gross domestic product and health expenditure were taken from the National Health Accounts (2021).
For the cataract scale-up costs, we calculated the total need by multiplying cataract prevalence with per capita costs and the unmet need by multiplying the difference between the prevalence and surgeries achieved with the same costs. For economic benefits of averted cataract burden, we multiplied DALYs with non-health gross domestic product, i.e., GDP minus the government health expenditure. To calculate DALYs for unmet needs we multiplied DALYs for total need with the ratio of unmet to total needs. For net benefits, we subtracted the scale-up costs for meeting total and unmet needs from economic benefits. All monetary values were adjusted for inflation and converted to USD 2020.
Results The annual scale-up costs for covering total cataract needs in India were 0.92 - 4.9 billion USD. Costs for covering unmet needs were 0.72 - 3.82 billion USD. Nationally, the economic benefit of averting the total cataract disease burden was 12.4 (95%UI: 8.9 - 16.7) billion USD, while the for covering the unmet burden was 9.7 (95%UI: 6.93 - 13) billion USD. Annual net benefits of covering total needs were 7.53 - 11.5 billion USD. Net benefits of covering unmet needs were 5.9 - 9 billion USD. Net benefits varied widely across states.
Conclusion and Relevance Scaling up cataract coverage is cost-beneficial. In over 90% of the scenarios considered, all Indian states have net economic benefits from the scale-up.
Question What are the costs and benefits of scaling up cataract coverage in India?
Findings In this cost-benefit analysis, annual scale-up costs for meeting total cataract needs in India were 0.92 to 4.9 billion USD while the annual net benefits were 7.53 to 11.5 billion USD, several folds above the costs.
Meaning Universal cataract coverage is cost-beneficial to India. Further, scale-up costs form only a small percentage of the country’s gross domestic product.
Introduction
Cataract is the leading cause of curable blindness in India - the most populous country as of 2023.1,2 episode With a growing elderly population, ailments like cataracts will be on the rise in India. Currently, India runs the National Programme for Control of Blindness and Vision Impairment (NPCBVI) which aims to control cataract blindness. NPCBVI achieves these aims by procuring essential drugs and surgical consumables and providing financial support to government hospitals, private practitioners, non-governmental organizations, and community health workers like Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs) via a reimbursement system.3
Despite this, in 2018, India had a cataract prevalence of 30.34 million.4 However, the National Health Profile noted 6.66 million cataract surgeries (22% of the total prevalence).5 This points to a significant gap. An increase in investment is needed to scale up surgeries and meet the disease burden. In this study, we estimated the scale-up costs for universal cataract coverage, the economic benefits from averting the cataract disease burden, and the net benefits of cataract scale-up.
Methods
We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis for 2018 for India and its 30 states. Data sources for all variables are listed in eTable 1. The analysis can be split into three parts.
First, we calculated the scale-up costs for cataract coverage under two scenarios (eMethods 1). The total need was defined as cataract prevalence. The unmet need was defined as the number of people with cataracts who did not get operated on, i.e., the difference between prevalence and surgeries conducted under NPCBVI. Through a literature review, we extracted ten per capita surgical package costs from multiple sources. Costs and their sources are detailed in eTable 2. To ensure uniformity, all costs were converted from INR to USD and adjusted for inflation for the year 2020. To calculate the population-level scale-up costs for covering total needs, we multiplied cataract prevalence by the per capita cataract surgical package costs (Equation 1). To calculate the scale-up costs for covering the unmet needs, we multiplied the difference between prevalence and surgeries conducted with the per capita costs (Equation 2). Hence, we have twenty scale-up costs for each state and India. We conducted uncertainty propagation using the 95% uncertainty intervals associated with cataract prevalence. This accounted for potential variations in the prevalence data and made the analysis more robust and comprehensive. Mean cataract prevalence values and the 95% uncertainty intervals were taken from GBD 2019.
Second, the economic benefits of averted disease burden if cataract coverage is provided were calculated using the value-of-life-year (VLY) or the full-income approach.6,7 The approach estimates the monetary value of each year of life, even beyond the years of active workforce contribution considering the gains in the GDP and the population-level life expectancy due to past investments in basic public health interventions.8 The Lancet Commission on Investing in Health projected that for South Asia, the value of one life-year could be approximately 2.8 times the GDP per capita at a 3% discount rate.9 As a simpler adaptation, we multiplied non-health GDP per capita by a factor of 2.8. To quantify the economic benefits, we value of one life-year with averted disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) associated with cataracts (Equation 3). We assumed that surgeries are efficacious in reducing all cataract disease burdens. Mean DALY values and the 95% uncertainty intervals were taken from GBD 2019. To account for DALYs averted by covering unmet needs, we multiplied the DALYs averted by meeting total needs by the ratio of unmet to total needs (Equation 4). To account for uncertainties in economic benefits, we propagated uncertainties from the DALY values. All calculations were conducted for two scenarios - total and unmet need (eMethods 2).
Third, we calculated the net benefits from covering total need by subtracting the scale-up costs for covering the total needs from the economic benefits of averted total cataract burden (Equation 5). Similar calculations were conducted for net benefits from covering the unmet needs (Equation 6). Uncertainty analysis was not conducted for net benefits since uncertainty propagation was computationally intensive. This is detailed in eMethods 3.
We conducted these analyses for India and its thirty states using ten surgical package costs under two need scenarios. Hence, we have a total of 620 estimates for scale-up costs and net benefits. Data for the manuscript can be found in the associated repository at Harvard Dataverse.10
Results
Annual scale-up costs for covering total cataract needs in India were 0.92 - 4.9 billion USD (Figure 1a). While those for covering unmet needs were 0.72 - 3.82 billion USD (Figure 1b). Large and populous states like Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh had higher scale-up costs. Small Northeastern states like Sikkim, Nagaland, and Mizoram had lower scale-up costs (eTables 3 and 4). The economic benefit of averting the total cataract burden for India was 12.4 (95%UI: 8.9 - 16.7) billion USD (Figure 2a), while that of averting unmet cataract burden was 9.7 (95%UI: 6.93 - 13) billion USD (Figure 2b). The economic benefits for averting the total and unmet burden were highest for Maharashtra and lowest for Sikkim (Figure 2a & b). The annual net benefits from covering total needs in India ranged from 7.53 to 11.5 billion USD while those from covering unmet needs ranged from 5.9 to 9 billion USD (Figure 3). Twenty-seven (90%) states depicted net benefits for both total and unmet need scenarios. State-wise net benefits/losses are presented in eFigures 1-30. The highest and lowest net benefits were seen in Maharashtra (eFigure 24) and Meghalaya (eFigure 16), respectively. Bihar (eFigure 9), Meghalaya (eFigure 16), and Manipur (eFigure 13) had net losses for only certain per capita surgical package costs. For instance, Bihar depicted net losses for covering total needs for only two of the ten cost packages considered (eFigure 9).
All costs are adjusted to millions of USD for the year 2020. Abbreviations: NSS - National Sample Survey, PMJAY - Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana, PHACO - Phacoemulsification, IOL - Intraocular lens, SICS - Small Incision Cataract Surgery.
Values in million USD.
All costs are adjusted to USD for the year 2020. Positive values depict net benefit while negative values depict net loss. Abbreviations: NSS - National Sample Survey, PMJAY - Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana, PHACO - Phacoemulsification, IOL - Intraocular lens, SICS - Small Incision Cataract Surgery
Discussion
Scale-up costs calculated to cover total and unmet needs show wide interstate variability due to differences in population size, disease burden, and GDP values. Expectedly, states like Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan have greater scale-up costs than those for northeastern states like Sikkim and Nagaland. Out of the ten per capita surgical package costs used, the patient (indirect) costs with mean intraocular lens (IOL) cost from the Aravind Eye Care Model led to the lowest scale-up costs.11 Whereas, using the state-wise mean costs from the National Sample Survey and Mean Societal Costs using mean IOL from the Aravind Eye Care Model resulted in higher scale-up costs.12 In most scenarios, all states in India would have net benefits from the scale-up of cataract surgeries. Investing in universal cataract coverage will help in getting ahead in the management of a rising burden.
The economic burden of cataracts as a preventable cause of blindness has been studied in the context of India previously.13 The cost-effectiveness of scaling up case detection strategies in India has also been studied previously.14 The present analysis estimates the state-wise economic benefits of scaling up cataract surgeries in India, which was missing, to our knowledge. The net benefits of scaling up cataract surgeries in India are substantial, which can incentivize policymakers to expand cataract coverage. More treatment facilities can scale up surgical volumes. Further, NPCBVI can be expanded by increasing direct payments to healthcare providers to ease the financial burden of the diseased and expedite the process of treatment.2
To our knowledge, this is the first state-wise pan-India analysis of the costs and benefits of universal cataract coverage. We provide a library of over 600 estimates under multiple scenarios and cost assumptions. We also ensured robustness through uncertainty propagation. However, the study has the following limitations. First, we assumed that surgeries could treat the entire disease burden which may not be true. However, cataract surgeries do have a high success rate in India.15 Second, we could not conduct an uncertainty analysis for net benefits. Future studies should model uncertainty using appropriate distribution-based statistical approaches for net benefits. Finally, we only analyzed the annual net benefits of 2018 and did not project future benefits. Nonetheless, the over-time benefits for future years would only rise further. Hence, our findings could be considered as the lower bound of the net benefits.
Declarations
Funding
None
Authors’ contributions
Study concept and design: Siddhesh Zadey
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Anoushka Arora, Pushkar Nimkar, Himanshu Iyer, Siddhesh Zadey
Drafting of the manuscript: Anoushka Arora, Madhurima Vuddemarry
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors
Statistical analysis: Anoushka Arora, Pushkar Nimkar Administrative, technical, or material support: Siddhesh Zadey
Study supervision: Siddhesh Zadey
Competing interests
Siddhesh Zadey represents the Association for Socially Applicable Research (ASAR) on the drafting committee of the Maharashtra State Mental Health Policy. He has previously received honoraria from Think Global Health, Harvard Public Health Magazine, and The Hindu. He is on the advisory board of ASAR and Nivarana. Other authors declare no competing interests.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This manuscript uses publicly available aggregate-level data. Hence, ethics approval and consent obligations are not applicable.
Data Availability
Data used and generated in this manuscript can be found in the associated repository at Harvard Dataverse (https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/DTEZXS).
Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process
During the preparation of this work the author did not use any such tool. The author takes full responsibility for the content of the publication.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ram Pachpor and Tejali Gangane for their assistance with data and Dr. Sweta Dubey for their helpful comments.
