Glyxambi
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 1392
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 60  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 475-480

The global cost of eliminating avoidable blindness


1 Three Rivers, Sydney, Australia
2 PricewaterhouseCoopers, Sydney, Australia
3 The Fred Hollows Foundation, Sydney, Australia

Correspondence Address:
Jeremy G Thorpe
PricewaterhouseCoopers, Darling Park Tower 2, 201 Sussex Street, Sydney 2000
Australia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.100554

Rights and Permissions

Aims : To complete an initial estimate of the global cost of eliminating avoidable blindness, including the investment required to build ongoing primary and secondary health care systems, as well as to eliminate the 'backlog' of avoidable blindness. This analysis also seeks to understand and articulate where key data limitations lie. Materials and Methods : Data were collected in line with a global estimation approach, including separate costing frameworks for the primary and secondary care sectors, and the treatment of backlog. Results : The global direct health cost to eliminate avoidable blindness over a 10-year period from 2011 to 2020 is estimated at $632 billion per year (2009 US$). As countries already spend $592 billion per annum on eye health, this represents additional investment of $397.8 billion over 10 years, which is $40 billion per year or $5.80 per person for each year between 2010 and 2020. This is concentrated in high-income nations, which require 68% of the investment but comprise 16% of the world's inhabitants. For all other regions, the additional investment required is $127 billion. Conclusions : This costing estimate has identified that low- and middle-income countries require less than half the additional investment compared with high-income nations. Low- and middle-income countries comprise the greater investment proportion in secondary care whereas high-income countries require the majority of investment into the primary sector. However, there is a need to improve sector data. Investment in better data will have positive flow-on effects for the eye health sector.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3854    
    Printed48    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded272    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal