Should rapid antigen tests be government funded in Australia? An economic evaluation

  1. Jonathan Karnon
  2. Hossein Afzali
  3. Billie Bonevski

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

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.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.03.22268709: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.03.22268709v2 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.03.22268709v1 on medRxiv