Analisis Efektivitas Biaya Penggunaan Kontrasepsi di Indonesia Tahun 2014–2017
Abstract
Keluarga berencana menjadi salah satu program kesehatan dan kependudukan di Indonesia yang pembiayaannya dijamin oleh sistem Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional (JKN). Tujuan penelitian ini adalah mengetahui analisis efektivitas biaya penggunaan kontrasepsi hormonal dan nonhormonal di Indonesia pada tahun 2014–2017. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian kuantitatif menggunakan data sekunder dengan pengambilan data dilakukan secara retrospektif, dan dilaksanakan di Fakultas Farmasi Universitas Padjadjaran pada bulan Oktober 2018 hingga Januari 2019. Metode yang digunakan pada penelitian ini adalah analisis efektivitas biaya dengan menghitung Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER). Perspektif biaya yang digunakan adalah payer perspective (BPJS Kesehatan). Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa beban biaya penggunaan kontrasepsi hormonal pada tahun 2014–2017 di Indonesia memiliki nilai yang lebih rendah dibandingkan beban biaya penggunaan kontrasepsi nonhormonal. Dari segi efektivitas, kontrasepsi nonhormonal memiliki efektivitas yang lebih rendah dibandingkan efektivitas hormonal. Simpulan penelitian ini adalah kontrasepsi hormonal lebih cost-effective dengan nilai ICER kontrasepsi hormonal sebesar Rp64.471/ 1% kehamilan yang dapat dicegah sedangkan nilai ICER kontrasepsi nonhormonal sebesar Rp341.003/1% kehamilan yang dapat dicegah. Analisis sensitivitas menunjukkan bahwa efektivitas metode kontrasepsi menjadi faktor paling berpengaruh terhadap nilai ICER.
Kata kunci: Analisis sensitivitas, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), kontrasepsi hormonal
dan nonhormonal
Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Contraceptive Use in Indonesia during 2014–2017
Abstract
Family planning is one of the healthcare programs in Indonesia that is included in the National Health Insurance (NHI) system. The purpose of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness analysis of hormonal and non-hormonal contraceptive use in Indonesia during 2014–2017. A quantitative study was applied in this study and data collection was collected retrospectively. This study was conducted at the Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Padjadjaran from October 2018 to January 2019. A cost-effectiveness analysis was applied by calculating the Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER). A payer perspective was considered by calculating all costs covered by BPJS Kesehatan. The results showed that the cost of using hormonal contraception during 2014–2017 in Indonesia was lower than non-hormonal contraception. In term of effectiveness, non-hormonal contraception had a lower effectiveness compared to hormonal effectiveness. It can be concluded that hormonal contraception was more cost-effective than non-hormonal contraception by confirming that ICER of hormonal contraception (64,471 IDR/1% pregnancy averted) was lower than non-hormonal contraception (341,003 IDR/1% pregnancy averted). Sensitivity analysis confirmed that effectiveness of contraception method is the most critical factor affecting the ICER value.
Keywords: Hormonal and non-hormonal contraception, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio
(ICER), sensitivity analysis
Keywords
Full Text:
PDF (Bahasa Indonesia)References
Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia. Pedoman manajemen pelayanan keluarga berencana. Jakarta: Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia; 2014.
Visser J, Snel M, Van Vliet HA. Hormonal versus non-hormonal contraceptives in women with diabetes mellitus type 1 and 2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;3:CD003990. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003990.pub4.
Mason JM, Chalmers JR, Godec T, Nunn AJ, Kirtschig G, Wojnarowska F, et al. Doxycycline compared with prednisolone therapy for patients with bullous pemphigoid: Cost-effectiveness analysis of the BLISTER trial. Br J Dermatol. 2018; 178(2):415–23. doi: 10.1111/bjd.16006.
Faridah N, Machlaurin A, Prihwanto BS. Analisis efektivitas biaya penggunaan antibiotik terhadap pasien sepsis pediatrik di rawat inap RSD dr. Soebandi Kabupaten Jember pada tahun 2014. E-Jurnal Pustaka Kesehatan. 2016;4(2):255–62.
Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia. Riset kesehatan dasar 2017. Jakarta: Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia; 2018.
Hoshi SL, Seposo X, Okubo I, Kondo M. Cost-effectiveness analysis of pertussis vaccination during pregnancy in Japan. Vaccine. 2018;36(34):5133–40. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.07.026.
Nguyen E, Craig IC, Christine GK, Erin RW. Ranozaline in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic angina: A cost-effectiveness analysis and assessment of health-related quality-of-life. Int J Cardiol. 2018;273:34–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.09.060.
Cho SK, Hay JW, Barzi A. Cost-effectiveness analysis of regorafenib and TAS-102 in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer in the United States. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2018;17(4):e751–61. doi: 10.1016/j.clcc.2018.08.003.
Ikeme S, Weltert L, Lewis KM, Bothma G, Cianciulli D, Pay N, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a sealing hemostat patch (HEMOPATCH) vs standard of care in cardiac surgery. J Med Econ. 2018;21(3):273–81. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2017.1400977
Tromp N, Siregar A, Leuwol B, Komarudin D, van der Ven A, van Crevel R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of scaling up voluntary counselling and testing in West-Java, Indonesia. Acta Med Indones. 2013;45(1):17–25.
Bellows BK, Tak CR, Sanders JN, Turok DK, Schwarz EB. Cost-effectiveness of emergency contraception options over 1 year. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(5):508.e1–e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.01.025.
Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia. Riset kesehatan dasar 2016. Jakarta: Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia; 2017.
Veisi F, Zangeneh M. Comparison of two different injectable contraceptive methods: Depo-medroxy progesterone acetate (DMPA) and cyclofem. J Family Reprod Health. 2013;7(3):109–113.
Lipetz C, Phillips CJ, Fleming CF. The cost-effectiveness of a long-acting reversible contraceptive (Implanon) relative to oral contraception in a community setting. Contraception. 2009;79(4):304–9. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.11.003.
Trussell J, Lalla AM, Doan QV, Reyes E, Pinto L, Gricar J. Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States. Contraception. 2009;79(1):5–14. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.08.003.
Agostini A, Godard C, Laurendeau C, Benmahmoud A, Lafuma A, Doz M, et al. Effectiveness and cost of contraception in France (FACET study): A cohort study from the French National Healthcare Insurance Database. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;229:137–43. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.08.007.
Sharlip ID, Belker AM, Honig S, Labrecque M, Marmar JL, Ross LS, et al. Vasectomy: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2012;188(6):2482–91. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.080.
D’Anna LH, Korosteleva O, Warner L, Douglas J, Paul S, Metcalf C, et al. Factors associated with condom use problems during vaginal sex with main and non-main partners. Sex Transm Dis. 2012;39(9):687–93. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31825ef325
Bulsei J, Darlington M, Durand-Zaleski I, Azizi M; DENERHTN Study Group. How to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis with surrogate endpoint: Renal denervation in patients with resistant hypertension (DENERHTN) trial as an example. Blood Press. 2018;27(2):66–72. doi: 10.1080/08037051.2017.1394160.
Mavranezouli I. Health economics of contraception. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;23(2):187–98. doi: 10.10 16/j.bpobgyn.2008.11.007.
Mustafa N. Cost-effectiveness analysis: Educational interventions that reduce the incidence of HIV/AIDS infection in Kenyan teenagers. Int J Educ Dev. 2018;62(C):264–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2018.06.001
Schmid R. The cost-effectiveness of emergency hormonal contraception with ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel for minors in France. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0138990. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138990.
World Health Organization. Selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use. Jenewa: World Health Organization; 2004.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15416/ijcp.2019.8.3.188
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Indonesian Journal of Clinical Pharmacy is indexed by
