Scaling up malaria intervention “packages” in Senegal: using cost effectiveness data for improving allocative efficiency and programmatic decision-making

BACKGROUND: Senegal's National Malaria Control Programme (NMCP) implements control interventions in the form of targeted packages: (1) scale-up for impact (SUFI), which includes bed nets, intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy, rapid diagnostic tests, and artemisinin combination therapy; (2) SUFI + reactive case investigation (focal test and treat) ; (3) SUFI + indoor residual spraying (IRS) ; (4) SUFI + seasonal malaria chemoprophylaxis (SMC) ; and, (5) SUFI + SMC + IRS. This study estimates the cost effectiveness of each of these packages to provide the NMCP with data for improving allocative efficiency and programmatic decision-making. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis for the period 2013-2014 covering all 76 Senegal districts. The yearly implementation cost for each intervention was estimated and the information was aggregated into a package cost for all covered districts. The change in the burden of malaria associated with each package was estimated using the number of disability adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted. The cost effectiveness (cost per DALY averted) was then calculated for each package. RESULTS: The cost per DALY averted ranged from 76 to 1591 across packages. Using World Health Organization standards, 4 of the 5 packages were "very cost effective" (less than Senegal's GDP per capita). Relative to the 2 other packages implemented in malaria control districts, the SUFI + SMC package was the most cost-effective package at 76 per DALY averted. SMC seems to make IRS more cost effective: 582 per DALY averted for SUFI + IRS compared with 272 for the SUFI + IRS + SMC package. The SUFI + focal test and treat, implemented in malaria elimination districts, had a cost per DALY averted of 1591 and was only "cost-effective" (less than three times Senegal's per capita GDP). CONCLUSION: Senegal's choice of deploying malaria interventions by packages seems to be effectively targeting high burden areas with a wide range of interventions. However, not all districts showed the same level of performance, indicating that efficiency gains are still possible.