RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Should rapid antigen tests be government funded in Australia? An economic evaluation
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.01.03.22268709
DO 10.1101/2022.01.03.22268709
A1 Jonathan Karnon
A1 Hossein Afzali
A1 Billie Bonevski
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/06/2022.01.03.22268709.abstract
AB 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 StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any funding.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe 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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript. https://tinyurl.com/mrcnuese