Financing and cost-effectiveness of emergency medical services in low- and middle-income countries

In 2023, the 76th World Health Assembly declared coordinated emergency, critical, and operative care services fundamental for comprehensive universal health coverage in low- and middle-income countries. With increasing mortality from noncommunicable diseases, an organized emergency care system has the capacity to treat a variety of conditions with a common set of resources, optimizing per-unit cost efficiency by applying economies of scope and increasing cost-effectiveness. However, the financing and cost-effectiveness of emergency medical services remain poorly understood despite affordability and financial barriers comprising some of the most significant obstacles to development. Cost-effectiveness analyses generate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for comparison against per-capita gross domestic product thresholds to determine cost-effectiveness, promoted by the World Health Organization's Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective program. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios may be used as context-specific indicators of value alongside budget impact and feasibility considerations. Currently, there are few high-quality cost-effectiveness studies of emergency care in low- and middleincome countries, demonstrating significant methodologic heterogeneity, little geographic diversity, neglecting descriptions of assumptions used in cost-effectiveness calculations and comparators used, and lacking incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for comparison. The assessment of emergency care costeffectiveness is challenging, given the significant breadth of conditions encountered and difficulty in projecting subsequent impact. Without improved epidemiologic surveillance and data-collection infrastructure, data inputs for cost-effectiveness calculations will remain limited. Future efforts should practice standard cost-effectiveness methodologies to permit comparison of incremental costeffectiveness ratios across interventions and settings while incorporating trauma registry data to longitudinally track patient outcomes over sufficient time horizons to determine impact. New indices that expand the scope of analysis to capture broader secondary impacts of emergency care for future cost-effectiveness studies are needed. In this article, we summarize the key steps for economic evaluations for prehospital care systems and recommend considerations for future prehospital emergency care cost-effectiveness analyses, determining the optimal structure for financing mechanisms wellsuited to resource-limited settings are critical for future investigation.