Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 77–85 | Cite as

Using the economics of certification to improve the safety and quality of male circumcision in developing countries

Three models of implementation
Current Opinion

Abstract

Although male circumcision (MC) has been a widespread practice in some regions, while relatively new in others, it has recently ascended in popularity as a HIV-reduction intervention, particularly in areas with high rates of HIV but low rates of MC. However, the uptake and potential effectiveness of MC may be hampered by uneven levels of provider training and procedure skill within developing country settings. Indeed, this procedure that is otherwise considered simple and safe has witnessed complication rates as high as 25–35% in some areas, leaving some men with irreversible injuries.

To improve the transparency of procedure quality for prospective patients, I borrow from a classic economics approach and advocate a new application in the form of provider certification. Building on some experience in the healthcare systems and economic rationale of high-income counties, I explore the potential for certifying providers of MC in low-income countries and compare and contrast three models of implementation: government agency, private certifiers and private MC device manufacturers. The hope is that increased transparency of provider quality through any or all three types of certifying programmes can better assist local men as they navigate this otherwise complex and unclear medical care market. As more resources are being devoted to MC scale up, I argue that certification should be considered for incorporation as a means of complementing both current and future efforts in order to enhance the effectiveness of MC campaigns.

The two models based on privatized certification, as opposed to having the local government underwrite the intervention, may prove most useful when public or philanthropic funding is volatile or incomplete for a given location. The timing for MC campaign adoption and desired speed of scale up may vary across countries in ways that international assistance efforts cannot always immediately and flexibly adapt to. As such, the role of the diverse MC provider marketplace and accompanying quality-revelation mechanisms may take on different levels of importance and expediency across settings as individual countries move forward with their respective HIV prevention campaigns. The subsequent challenge is to creatively design solutions that are sustainable and applicable within diverse host-country environments and expectations. This is where I believe some economic insights are currently lacking in the MC dialogue.

Although I believe the three certification models exhibit much potential for enhancing medical care delivery in developing countries, they are not without their challenges, and implementation would not necessarily be a simple process. Local levels of medical knowledge, public and private resource constraints and the integrity of local business transactions and government practices would likely influence the nature and success of a certification intervention. However, with sufficient model adaptability and partnerships across public and private sectors, I argue that many of these implementation issues could be proactively addressed. Creative and careful certification structures should ultimately improve the MC circumstances across a variety of developing countries.

References

  1. 1.
    Bongaarts J, Buettner T, Heilig G, et al. Has the HIV epidemic peaked? Popul Dev Rev 2008 Jun; 34(2): 199–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Walque D. Sero-discordant couples in five African countries: implications for prevention strategies. Popul Dev Rev 2007 Sep; 33(3): 501–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Canning D. The economics of HIV/AIDS in low-income countries: the case for prevention. J Econ Perspect 2006; 20(3): 121–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Raviv S. The kindest cut. The Atlantic. Washington DC: Atlantic Media Company, 2011 Jan/Feb [online]. Available from URL: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-kindest-cut/8338/ [Accessed 2011 Dec 13]Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bailey R, Moses S, Parker C, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007 Feb; 369(9562): 643–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gostin LO, Hankins CA. Male circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy in sub-Saharan Africa: sociolegal barriers. JAMA 2008; 300(21): 2539–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet 2007 Feb; 369(9562): 657–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Katz IT, Wright AA. Circumcision: a surgical strategy for HIV prevention in Africa. N Engl J Med 2008 Dec; 359: 2412–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Siegfried N, Muller M, Deeks JJ, et al. Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; (4): 1–38Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    WHO, UNAIDS. WHO and UNAIDS announce recommendations from expert meeting on male circumcision for HIV prevention: UNAIDS report [media release] 2007 Mar 28 [online]. Available from URL: http://data.unaids.org/pub/pressrelease/2007/20070328_pr_mc_recommendations_en.pdf [Accessed 2011 Dec 13]Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, et al. Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 trial. PLoS Med 2005 Nov; 2(11): 1112–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bailey RC, Egesah O, Rosenberg S. Male circumcision for HIV prevention: a prospectve study of complications in clinical and traditional settings in Bungoma, Kenya. Bull World Health Organ 2008 Sep; 86(9): 669–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Streefland P. Public health care under pressure in sub-Saharan Africa. Health Policy 2005 Mar; 71(3): 375–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Peters DH, Mirchandani GG, Hansen PM. Strategies for engaging the private sector in sexual and reproductive health: how effective are they? Health Policy Plan 2004; 19Suppl. 1: 5–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Crabb C. Male circumcision to prevent heterosexual HIV transmission gets (another) green light, but traditional circumcision in Africa has ’shocking’ number of complications. AIDS 2010 Jan; 24(1): N1–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    World Health Organization, UNAIDS. Progress in male circumcision scale-up: country implementation and research update, 2010 June [online]. Available from URL: http://www.malecircumcision.org/documents/MC_country_June2010.pdf [Accessed 2011 Dec 14]Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dranove D, Jin GZ. Quality disclosure and certification: theory and practice. J Econ Lit 2010; 48(4): 935–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Akerlof GA. The market for ‘lemons’: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q J Econ 1970 Aug; 84(3): 488–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hibbard JH. Engaging health care consumers to improve the quality of care. Med Care 2003 Jan; 41(1): 61–70Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dranove D, Kessler D, McClellan M, et al. Is more information better? The effects of ‘report cards’ on health care providers. J Polit Econ 2003; 111: 555–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Epstein AM. Rolling down the runway: the challenges ahead for quality report cards. JAMA 1998 Jun; 279(21): 1691–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Glazer J, McGuire T, Cao Z, et al. Using global ratings of health plans to improve the quality of health care. J Health Econ 2008 Sep; 27(5): 1182–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Romano PS, Zhou H. Do well-publicized risk-adjusted outcomes reports affect hospital volume? Med Care 2004 Apr; 42(4): 367–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wedig GJ, Tai-Seale M. The effect of report cards on consumer choice in the health insurance market. J Health Econ 2002 Nov; 21(6): 1031–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chernew M, Gowrisankaran G, Scanlon DP. Learning and the value of information: evidence from health plan report cards. J Econometr 2008 May; 144(1): 156–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bundorf MK, Chun N, Goda G, et al. Do markets respond to quality information? The case of fertility clinics. J Health Econ 2009 May; 28(3): 718–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leonard KL, Adelman SW, Essam T. Idle chatter or learning? Evidence of social learning about clinicians and the health system from rural Tanzania. Soc Sci Med 2009 Jul; 69(2): 183–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mcnamara P. Provider-specific report cards: a tool for health sector accountability in developing countries. Health Pol Plan 2006 Mar; 21(2): 101–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    McNamara P. Purchaser strategies to influence quality of care: from rhetoric to global applications. Qual Saf Health Care 2006; 15: 171–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Leland HE. Quacks, lemons, and licensing: a theory of minimum quality standards. J Polit Econ 1979 Dec; 87(6): 1328–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jin GZ, Kato A, List JA. That’s news to me! Information revelation in professional certification markets. Econ Inq 2010 Jan; 48(1): 104–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Biglaiser G. Middlemen as experts. RAND J Econ 1993; 24(2): 212–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hubbard TN. How do consumers motivate experts? Reputational incentives in an auto repair market. J Law Econ 2002; 45: 437–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Health Policy and Administration, School of Public HealthYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations