Health impact and cost-effectiveness of expanding routine immunization coverage in India through Intensified Mission Indradhanush.

Many children do not receive a full schedule of childhood vaccines, yet there is limited evidence on the cost-effectiveness of strategies for improving vaccination coverage. Evidence is even scarcer on the cost-effectiveness of strategies for reaching 'zero-dose children', who have not received any routine vaccines. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of periodic intensification of routine immunization (PIRI), a widely applied strategy for increasing vaccination coverage. We focused on Intensified Mission Indradhanush (IMI), a large-scale PIRI intervention implemented in India in 2017-2018. In 40 sampled districts, we measured the incremental economic cost of IMI using primary data, and used controlled interrupted time-series regression to estimate the incremental vaccination doses delivered. We estimated deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted using the Lives Saved Tool and reported cost-effectiveness from immunization programme and societal perspectives. We found that, in sampled districts, IMI had an estimated incremental cost of 2021US$13.7 (95% uncertainty interval: 10.6 to 17.4) million from an immunization programme perspective and increased vaccine delivery by an estimated 2.2 (-0.5 to 4.8) million doses over a 12-month period, averting an estimated 1413 (-350 to 3129) deaths. The incremental cost from a programme perspective was $6.21 per dose ($2.80 to dominated), $82.99 per zero-dose child reached ($39.85 to dominated), $327.63 ($147.65 to dominated) per DALY averted, $360.72 ($162.56 to dominated) per life-year saved and $9701.35 ($4372.01 to dominated) per under-5 death averted. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of 1× per-capita GDP per DALY averted, IMI was estimated to be cost-effective with 90% probability. This evidence suggests IMI was both impactful and cost-effective for improving vaccination coverage, though there is a high degree of uncertainty in the results. As vaccination programmes expand coverage, unit costs may increase due to the higher costs of reaching currently unvaccinated children.

Insights to COVID-19 vaccine delivery: Results from a survey of 27 countries.

Most countries rolled out COVID-19 vaccination during 2021-2022. However, COVID-19 vaccine delivery cost estimates are still needed to support planning and budgeting to integrate COVID-19 vaccines into routine programs and to target high risk populations, specifically within resource-scarce contexts. Management Sciences for Health and the COVID-19 Vaccine Delivery Partnership Working Group collected country-level data through two surveys exploring global experiences with vaccine roll-out. 40 respondents from 27 countries responded to the surveys in November 2021 and May 2022. Respondents described their country's human resources needs, vaccine delivery modalities, demand generation strategies, booster uptake, cold chain capacity, supplies, and sub-population targets. The surveys highlighted unexpected trends in hiring, reliance on newer and costlier delivery and demand generation methods and significant gaps regarding HR, supplies, boosters, cold chain and reaching sub-populations. These types of opportunity assessments are useful ways of rapidly filling gaps in information needed to adequately cost alternative delivery strategies.

Financing And Funding Gap For 16 Vaccines Across 94 Low- And Middle-Income Countries, 2011-30.

We estimated immunization program costs, financing, and funding gaps for sixteen vaccines among ninety-four low- and middle-income countries during the period 2011-30. Inputs were obtained from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, the 2020 Decade of Vaccine Economics costing analysis, the World Health Organization, Gavi, and the United Nations Children's Fund. We found a total funding gap of $38.4 billion between 2011 and 2030, with the cost of immunization delivery being the main driver (86 percent) of the funding gap. On average, government financing of vaccination programs steadily rises throughout the period. However, the decline in both Gavi and development assistance for health (DAH) financing anticipated between 2011 and 2030 outpaces the forecasted increases in domestic government immunization spending. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was applied to both the costing and the scenario analyses to address uncertainty in the financing of vaccines and vaccine delivery. The results highlight a narrowing gap for vaccine acquisition but a growing gap for vaccine delivery, which emphasizes the critical need for resource mobilization and sustainable financial strategies for immunization programs at national and global levels, as well as a need to address the COVID-19 pandemic's potential effects on government financing for vaccines between 2021 and 2030.

Examining decentralization and managerial decision making for child immunization program performance in India.

Despite widespread adoption of decentralization reforms, the impact of decentralization on health system attributes, such as access to health services, responsiveness to population health needs, and effectiveness in affecting health outcomes, remains unclear. This study examines how decision space, institutional capacities, and accountability mechanisms of the Intensified Mission Indradhanush (IMI) in India relate to measurable performance of the immunization program. Data on decision space and its related dimensions of institutional capacity and accountability were collected by conducting structured interviews with managers based in 24 districts, 61 blocks, and 279 subcenters. Two measures by which to assess performance were selected: (1) proportion reduction in the DTP3 coverage gap (i.e., effectiveness), and (2) total IMI doses delivered per incremental USD spent on program implementation (i.e., efficiency). Descriptive statistics on decision space, institutional capacity, and accountability for IMI managers were generated. Structural equation models (SEM) were specified to detect any potential associations between decision space dimensions and performance measures. The majority of districts and blocks indicated low levels of decision space. Institutional capacity and accountability were similar across areas. Increases in decision space were associated with less progress towards closing the immunization coverage gap in the IMI context. Initiatives to support health workers and managers based on their specific contextual challenges could further improve outcomes of the program. Similar to previous studies, results revealed strong associations between each of the three decentralization dimensions. Health systems should consider the impact that management structures have on the efficiency and effectiveness of health services delivery. Future research could provide greater evidence for directionality of direct and indirect effects, interaction effects, and/or mediators of relationships.

Financial Implications of Tariffs for Medical Oxygen on Rwandan Public Hospitals' Finance Management During the Coronavirus Epidemic.

In Rwanda, provider reimbursements for oxygen are based on the duration of patient consumption at a fixed hourly tariff rate. This study sought to assess whether the current insurance tariff in Rwanda was adequate to cover the costs of oxygen used in oxygen therapy and to explore alternative tariff models.The assessment found that hospitals make a marginal surplus from low volume flow rate patients and incur losses from patients who require high volume flow rates. In high volume nonspecialized hospitals with a large pool of patients consuming medical oxygen, low flow rate usage patients (e.g., neonates) tend to subsidize high flow usage patients (surgery), if the number of patients consuming low flow oxygen is higher than the latter. The study found that the current tariff was sufficient before the exponential surge in demand for high flow usage during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. A variable tariff that factors both the duration (hours) and the volume (liters) used during the therapy may require more work but better reflects the cost of consumption in each ward. A case-based payment model provides a standard pricing framework based on the patient's diagnosis, intervention, and intensity of treatment.This study highlights the need for a transition from the time-based tariff structure to a case-based or volume-based tariff to incentivize sustainable production and provision (supply) of medical oxygen services at health facilities in Rwanda. Social health insurance reimbursement tariffs for medical oxygen need to reflect both duration and volume of consumption because oxygen therapy varies based on intervention, disease severity, patient age, length of stay, and responsiveness to treatment.

WHO-led consensus statement on vaccine delivery costing: process, methods, and findings.

BACKGROUND: Differences in definitions and methodological approaches have hindered comparison and synthesis of economic evaluation results across multiple health domains, including immunization. At the request of the World Health Organization's (WHO) Immunization and Vaccines-related Implementation Research Advisory Committee (IVIR-AC), WHO convened an ad hoc Vaccine Delivery Costing Working Group, comprising experts from eight organizations working in immunization costing, to address a lack of standardization and gaps in definitions and methodological guidance. The aim of the Working Group was to develop a consensus statement harmonizing terminology and principles and to formulate recommendations for vaccine delivery costing for decision making. This paper discusses the process, findings of the review, and recommendations in the Consensus Statement. METHODS: The Working Group conducted several interviews, teleconferences, and one in-person meeting to identify groups working in vaccine delivery costing as well as existing guidance documents and costing tools, focusing on those for low- and middle-income country settings. They then reviewed the costing aims, perspectives, terms, methods, and principles in these documents. Consensus statement principles were drafted to align with the Global Health Cost Consortium costing guide as an agreed normative reference, and consensus definitions were drafted to reflect the predominant view across the documents reviewed. RESULTS: The Working Group identified four major workstreams on vaccine delivery costing as well as nine guidance documents and eleven costing tools for immunization costing. They found that some terms and principles were commonly defined while others were specific to individual workstreams. Based on these findings and extensive consultation, recommendations to harmonize differences in terminology and principles were made. CONCLUSIONS: Use of standardized principles and definitions outlined in the Consensus Statement within the immunization delivery costing community of practice can facilitate interpretation of economic evidence by global, regional, and national decision makers. Improving methodological alignment and clarity in program costing of health services such as immunization is important to support evidence-based policies and optimal resource allocation. On the other hand, this review and Consensus Statement development process revealed the limitations of our ability to harmonize given that study designs will vary depending upon the policy question that is being addressed and the country context.

Differential health impact of intervention programs for time-varying disease risk: a measles vaccination modeling study.

BACKGROUND: Dynamic modeling is commonly used to evaluate direct and indirect effects of interventions on infectious disease incidence. The risk of secondary outcomes (e.g., death) attributable to infection may depend on the underlying disease incidence targeted by the intervention. Consequently, the impact of interventions (e.g., the difference in vaccination and no-vaccination scenarios) on secondary outcomes may not be proportional to the reduction in disease incidence. Here, we illustrate the estimation of the impact of vaccination on measles mortality, where case fatality ratios (CFRs) are a function of dynamically changing measles incidence. METHODS: We used a previously published model of measles CFR that depends on incidence and vaccine coverage to illustrate the effects of (1) assuming higher CFR in "no-vaccination" scenarios, (2) time-varying CFRs over the past, and (3) time-varying CFRs in future projections on measles impact estimation. We used modeled CFRs in alternative scenarios to estimate measles deaths from 2000 to 2030 in 112 low- and middle-income countries using two models of measles transmission: Pennsylvania State University (PSU) and DynaMICE. We evaluated how different assumptions on future vaccine coverage, measles incidence, and CFR levels in "no-vaccination" scenarios affect the estimation of future deaths averted by measles vaccination. RESULTS: Across 2000-2030, when CFRs are separately estimated for the "no-vaccination" scenario, the measles deaths averted estimated by PSU increased from 85.8% with constant CFRs to 86.8% with CFRs varying 2000-2018 and then held constant or 85.9% with CFRs varying across the entire time period and by DynaMICE changed from 92.0 to 92.4% or 91.9% in the same scenarios, respectively. By aligning both the "vaccination" and "no-vaccination" scenarios with time-variant measles CFR estimates, as opposed to assuming constant CFRs, the number of deaths averted in the vaccination scenarios was larger in historical years and lower in future years. CONCLUSIONS: To assess the consequences of health interventions, impact estimates should consider the effect of "no-intervention" scenario assumptions on model parameters, such as measles CFR, in order to project estimated impact for alternative scenarios according to intervention strategies and investment decisions.

Key Factors Influencing Use of Immunization Cost Evidence in Country Planning and Budgeting Processes: Experiences From Indonesia, Tanzania, and Vietnam.

In many low- and middle-income countries, planning cycles and policy decisions are not always informed by cost evidence, even where relevant and recent cost evidence is available. The Immunization Costing Action Network (ICAN) project was a research and learning community designed to strengthen country capacity to generate immunization cost evidence and to understand and improve the evidence-to-policy linkages for the evidence. We identified key factors that increase the likelihood that health policy makers will use evidence for policy making or planning, which shaped the development of a 6-step evidence to policy and practice (EPP) facilitated process. ICAN used the EPP process in Indonesia, Tanzania, and Vietnam from 2016-2019. The experience resulted in several insights regarding country priorities related to cost evidence and factors that determine uptake. Cost evidence is more likely to be used if it answers a specific policy question prioritized by the immunization program, while the use case is less clear and urgent for routine planning and program management. Nonhealth ministries and subnational stakeholders can provide important perspectives to inform the research and its usability. The use case for evidence should be revisited periodically as divergences from formal planning cycles are common and new policy windows open. Ensuring evidence is available at the right time is critical, even if this requires a sacrifice between rigor and speed. Engaging a small group of stakeholders, rather than an individual, to champion the research may be more effective, and the research has greater legitimacy if it is produced by multidisciplinary country teams. Evidence and messages should be tailored for and packaged targeting different audiences. Going forward, continued support is necessary to bridge the divide between those who generate cost evidence and those who translate evidence for policy and planning decisions.

Estimating the cost of COVID-19 vaccine deployment and introduction in Ghana using the CVIC tool.

BACKGROUND: This study estimated cost of COVID-19 vaccine introduction and deployment in Ghana. METHODS: Using the WHO-UNICEF COVID-19 Vaccine Introduction and deployment Costing (CVIC) tool Ghana's Ministry of Health Technical Working Group for Health Technology Assessment (TWG-HTA) in collaboration with School of Public Health, University of Ghana, organized an initial two-day workshop that brought together partners to deliberate and agree on input parameters to populate the CVIC tool. A further 2-3 days validation with the Expanded Program of Immunization (EPI) and other partners to finalize the analysis was done. Three scenarios, with different combinations of vaccine products and delivery modalities, as well as time period were analyzed. The scenarios included AstraZeneca (40%), Johnson & Johnson (J&J) (30%), Moderna, Pfizer, and Sputnik V at 10% each; with primary schedule completed by second half of 2021 (Scenario 1); AstraZeneca (30%), J&J (40%), Moderna, Pfizer, and Sputnik V at 10% each with primary schedule completed by first half of 2022 (Scenario 2); and equal distribution (20%) among AstraZeneca, J&J, Moderna, Pfizer, and Sputnik V with primary schedule completed by second half of 2022 (Scenario 3). RESULTS: The estimated total cost of COVID-19 vaccination ranges between $348.7 and $436.1 million for the target population of 17.5 million. These translate into per person completed primary schedule cost of $20.9-$26.2 and per dose (including vaccine cost) of $10.5-$13.1. Again, per person completed primary schedule excluding vaccine cost was $4.5 and $4.6, thus per dose excluding vaccine also ranged from $2.2 - $2.3. The main cost driver was vaccine doses, including shipping, which accounts for between 78% and 83% of total cost. Further, an estimated 8,437-10,247 vaccinators (non-FTEs) would be required during 2021-2022 to vaccinate using a mix of delivery strategies, accounting for 8-10% of total cost. CONCLUSION: These findings provide the estimates to inform resource mobilization efforts by government and other partners.

Exploring system drivers of gender inequity in development assistance for health and opportunities for action.

Background : Deep-rooted and widespread gender-based bias and discrimination threaten achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Despite evidence that addressing gender inequities contributes to better health and development outcomes, the resources for, and effectiveness of, such efforts in development assistance for health (DAH) have been insufficient. This paper explores systemic challenges in DAH that perpetuate or contribute to gender inequities, with a particular focus on the role of external donors and funders. Methods: We applied a co-creation system design process to map and analyze interactions between donors and recipient countries, and articulate drivers of gender inequities within the landscape of DAH. We conducted qualitative primary data collection and analysis in 2021 via virtual facilitated discussions and visual mapping exercises among a diverse set of 41 stakeholders, including representatives from donor institutions, country governments, academia, and civil society. Results: Six systemic challenges emerged as perpetuating or contributing to gender inequities in DAH: 1) insufficient input and leadership from groups affected by gender bias and discrimination; 2) decision-maker blind spots inhibit capacity to address gender inequities; 3) imbalanced power dynamics contribute to insufficient resources and attention to gender priorities; 4) donor funding structures limit efforts to effectively address gender inequities; 5) fragmented programming impedes coordinated attention to the root causes of gender inequities; and 6) data bias contributes to insufficient understanding of and attention to gender inequities. Conclusions : Many of the drivers impeding progress on gender equity in DAH are embedded in power dynamics that distance and disempower people affected by gender inequities. Overcoming these dynamics will require more than technical solutions. Groups affected by gender inequities must be centered in leadership and decision-making at micro and macro levels, with practices and structures that enable co-creation and mutual accountability in the design, implementation, and evaluation of health programs.

Cost of conducting Measles-Rubella vaccination campaign in India.

A Measles-Rubella (MR) vaccination campaign was launched in India in a phased manner in February 2017 to cover children aged 9 months to 15 years. As evidence on campaign vaccine delivery costs is limited, the delivery cost for MR campaign from a government provider perspective was estimated in four Indian states, namely, Assam, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. Costs were calculated in top-down and bottom-up approaches using data collected from 84 sites at different administrative levels and immunization partners in the study states from August 2019 to March 2020. All costs were presented in 2019 US$ and Indian Rupee (INR). The financial cost per dose of the MR campaign including all partner support ranged from US$0.16 (INR 10.95) in Uttar Pradesh to US$0.34 (INR 24.13) in Gujarat. In Uttar Pradesh, the full economic cost per dose was US$0.87 (INR 61.39). The key financial cost drivers were incentives related to service delivery and supervision, the printing of reporting formats for record-keeping, social mobilization, and advocacy. The financial delivery cost per dose estimated was higher than the government pre-fixed budget per child for the MR campaign, probably indicating an insufficient budget. However, the study found underutilization of MR budget in two states and use of other sources of funding for the campaign indicating the need for proper utilization of the campaign budgets by the states. Unit cost information generated from this study will be useful for planning, cost projections, and economic analysis of future vaccination campaigns in India.

Critical barriers to sustainable capacity strengthening in global health: a systems perspective on development assistance.

Background: Development assistance for health (DAH) is an important mechanism for funding and technical support to low-income countries. Despite increased DAH spending, intractable health challenges remain. Recent decades have seen numerous efforts to reform DAH models, yet pernicious challenges persist amidst structural complexities and a growing number of actors. Systems-based approaches are promising for understanding these types of complex adaptive systems. This paper presents a systems-based understanding of DAH, including barriers to achieving sustainable and effective country-driven models for technical assistance and capacity strengthening to achieve better outcomes Methods: We applied an innovative systems-based approach to explore and map how donor structures, processes, and norms pose challenges to improving development assistance models. The system mapping was carried out through an iterative co-creation process including a series of discussions and workshops with diverse stakeholders across 13 countries. Results: Nine systemic challenges emerged: 1) reliance on external implementing partners undermines national capacity; 2) prioritizing global initiatives undercuts local programming; 3) inadequate contextualization hampers program sustainability; 4) decision-maker blind spots inhibit capacity to address inequities; 5) power asymmetries undermine local decision making; 6) donor funding structures pose limitations downstream; 7) program fragmentation impedes long-term country planning; 8) reliance on incomplete data perpetuates inequities; and 9) overemphasis on donor-prioritized data perpetuates fragmentation. Conclusions: These interconnected challenges illustrate interdependencies and feedback loops manifesting throughout the system. A particular driving force across these system barriers is the influence of power asymmetries between actors. The articulation of these challenges can help stakeholders overcome biases about the efficacy of the system and their role in perpetuating the issues. These findings indicate that change is needed not only in how we design and implement global health programs, but in how system actors interact. This requires co-creating solutions that shift the structures, norms, and mindsets governing DAH models.

Estimating total spending by source of funding on routine and supplementary immunisation activities in low-income and middle-income countries, 2000-17: a financial modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Childhood immunisation is one of the most cost-effective health interventions. However, despite its known value, global access to vaccines remains far from complete. Although supply-side constraints lead to inadequate vaccine coverage in many health systems, there is no comprehensive analysis of the funding for immunisation. We aimed to fill this gap by generating estimates of funding for immunisation disaggregated by the source of funding and the type of activities in order to highlight the funding landscape for immunisation and inform policy making. METHODS: For this financial modelling study, we estimated annual spending on immunisations for 135 low-income and middle-income countries (as determined by the World Bank) from 2000 to 2017, with a focus on government, donor, and out-of-pocket spending, and disaggregated spending for vaccines and delivery costs, and routine schedules and supplementary campaigns. To generate these estimates, we extracted data from National Health Accounts, the WHO-UNICEF Joint Reporting Forms, comprehensive multi-year plans, databases from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation's 2019 development assistance for health database. We estimated total spending on immunisation by aggregating the government, donor, prepaid private, and household spending estimates. FINDINGS: Between 2000 and 2017, funding for immunisation totalled US$112·4 billion (95% uncertainty interval 108·5-118·5). Aggregated across all low-income and middle-income countries, government spending consistently remained the largest source of funding, providing between 60·0% (57·7-61·9) and 79·3% (73·8-81·4) of total immunisation spending each year (corresponding to between $2·5 billion [2·3-2·8] and $6·4 billion [6·0-7·0] each year). Across income groups, immunisation spending per surviving infant was similar in low-income and lower-middle-income countries and territories, with average spending of $40 (38-42) in low-income countries and $42 (39-46) in lower-middle-income countries, in 2017. In low-income countries and territories, development assistance made up the largest share of total immunisation spending (69·4% [64·6-72·0]; $630·2 million) in 2017. Across the 135 countries, we observed higher vaccine coverage and increased government spending on immunisation over time, although in some countries, predominantly in Latin America and the Caribbean and in sub-Saharan Africa, vaccine coverage decreased over time, while spending increased. INTERPRETATION: These estimates highlight the progress over the past two decades in increasing spending on immunisation. However, many challenges still remain and will require dedication and commitment to ensure that the progress made in the previous decade is sustained and advanced in the next decade for the Immunization Agenda 2030. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Cost of vaccine delivery strategies in low- and middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted immunization services critical to the prevention of vaccine-preventable diseases in many low- and middle- income countries around the world. These services will need to be modified in order to minimize COVID-19 transmission and ensure the safety of health workers and the community. Additional budget will be required to implement these modifications that ensure safe delivery. METHODS: Using a simple modeling analysis, we estimated the additional resource requirements associated with modifications to supplementary immunization activities (campaigns) and routine immunization services via fixed sites and outreach in 2020 US dollars. We considered the following four categories of costs: (1) personal protective equipment (PPE) & infection prevention and control (IPC) measures for immunization sessions; (2) physical distancing and screening during immunization sessions; (3) delivery strategy changes, such as changes in session sizes and frequency; and (4) other operational cost increases, including additional social mobilization, training, and hazard pay to compensate health workers. RESULTS: We found that implementing a range of measures to protect health workers and communities from COVID-19 transmission could result in a per-facility start-up cost of $466-799 for routine fixed-site delivery and $12-220 for routine outreach delivery, and $12-108 per immunization campaign site. A recurrent monthly cost of $137-1,024 for fixed-site delivery and $152-848 for outreach delivery per facility could be incurred, and a $0.32-0.85 increase in the cost per dose during campaigns. CONCLUSIONS: By illustrating potential cost implications of providing immunization services through a range of strategies in a safe manner, these estimates can provide a benchmark for program managers and policy makers on the additional budget required. These findings can help country practitioners and global development partners planning the continuation of immunization services in the context of COVID-19.

Tracking government spending on immunization: The joint reporting forms, national health accounts, comprehensive multi-year plans and co-financing data.

BACKGROUND: Coverage rates for immunization have dropped in lower income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising concerns regarding potential outbreaks and premature death. In order to re-invigorate immunization service delivery, sufficient financing must be made available from all sources, and particularly from government resources. This study utilizes the most recent data available to provide an updated comparison of available data sources on government spending on immunization. METHODS: We examined data from WHO/UNICEF's Joint Reporting Form (JRF), country Comprehensive Multi-Year Plan (cMYP), country co-financing data for Gavi, and WHO National Health Accounts (NHA) on government spending on immunization for consistency by comparing routine and vaccine spending where both values were reported. We also examined spending trends across time, quantified underreporting and utilized concordance analyses to assess the magnitude of difference between the data sources. RESULTS: Routine immunization spending reported through the cMYP was nearly double that reported through the JRF (rho = 0.64, 95% 0.53 to 0.77) and almost four times higher than that reported through the NHA on average (rho = 3.71, 95% 1.00 to 13.87). Routine immunization spending from the JRF was comparable to spending reported in the NHA (rho = 1.30, 95% 0.97 to 1.75) and vaccine spending from the JRF was comparable to that from the cMYP data (rho = 0.97, 95% 0.84 to 1.12). Vaccine spending from both the JRF and cMYP was higher than Gavi co-financing by a at least two (rho = 2.66, 95% 2.45 to 2.89) and (rho = 2.66, 95% 2.15 to 3.30), respectively. IMPLICATIONS: Overall, our comparative analysis provides a degree of confidence in the validity of existing reporting mechanisms for immunization spending while highlighting areas for potential improvements. Users of these data sources should factor these into consideration when utilizing the data. Additionally, partners should work with governments to encourage more reliable, comprehensive, and accurate reporting of vaccine and immunization spending.

The incremental cost of improving immunization coverage in India through the Intensified Mission Indradhanush programme.

Intensified Mission Indradhanush (IMI) was a strategic endeavour launched by the Government of India aiming to achieve 90% full immunization coverage in the country by 2018. The basic strategy of this special drive involved identifying missed children and vaccinating them in temporary outreach sites for 1 week over consecutive 4-month period starting from October 2017. This study estimated the incremental economic and financial cost of conducting IMI in India from a government provider perspective. Five states-Assam, Bihar, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh were purposefully selected because of high concentration of IMI activities. The stratified random sample of 40 districts, 90 sub-districts and 289 sub-centres were included in this study. Cost data were retrospectively collected at all levels from administrative records, financial records and staff interviews involved in IMI. The weighted incremental economic cost per dose (including vaccine costs) was lowest in Uttar Pradesh (US$3.45) and highest in Maharashtra (U$12.23). Incremental economic cost per IMI dose was found to be higher than a recent routine immunization costing study by Chatterjee and colleagues in 2018, suggesting that it requires additional resources to immunize children through an intensified push in hard-to-reach areas. Incremental financial cost of the IMI programme estimated in this study will be helpful for the government for any future planning of such special initiative. The reasons for variation of unit costs of IMI across the study districts are not known, but lower baseline coverage, high population density, migration, geography and terrain and vaccinating small numbers of children per session could account for the range of findings. Further analysis is required to understand the determinants of cost variations of the IMI programme, which may aid in better planning and more efficient use of resources for future intensified efforts.

Impact of campaign-style delivery of routine vaccines: a quasi-experimental evaluation using routine health services data in India.

The world is not on track to achieve the goals for immunization coverage and equity described by the World Health Organization's Global Vaccine Action Plan. Many countries struggle to increase coverage of routine vaccination, and there is little evidence about how to do so effectively. In India in 2016, only 62% of children had received a full course of basic vaccines. In response, in 2017-18 the government implemented Intensified Mission Indradhanush (IMI), a nationwide effort to improve coverage and equity using a campaign-style strategy. Campaign-style approaches to routine vaccine delivery like IMI, sometimes called 'periodic intensification of routine immunization' (PIRI), are widely used, but there is little robust evidence on their effectiveness. We conducted a quasi-experimental evaluation of IMI using routine data on vaccine doses delivered, comparing districts participating and not participating in IMI. Our sample included all districts that could be merged with India's 2016 Demographic and Health Surveys data and had available data for the full study period. We used controlled interrupted time-series analysis to estimate the impact of IMI during the 4-month implementation period and in subsequent months. This method assumes that, if IMI had not occurred, vaccination trends would have changed in the same way in the participating and not participating districts. We found that, during implementation, IMI increased delivery of 13 infant vaccines, with a median effect of 10.6% (95% confidence interval 5.1% to 16.5%). We did not find evidence of a sustained effect during the 8 months after implementation ended. Over the 12 months from the beginning of implementation, we estimated reductions in the number of under-immunized children that were large but not statistically significant, ranging from 3.9% (-6.9% to 13.7%) to 35.7% (-7.5% to 77.4%) for different vaccines. The largest effects were for the first doses of vaccines against diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and polio: IMI reached approximately one-third of children who would otherwise not have received these vaccines. This suggests that PIRI can be successful in increasing routine immunization coverage, particularly for early infant vaccines, but other approaches may be needed for sustained coverage improvements.

Costs of Immunization Programs for 10 Vaccines in 94 Low- and Middle-Income Countries From 2011 to 2030.

OBJECTIVES: Understanding the level of investment needed for the 2021-2030 decade is important as the global community faces the next strategic period for vaccines and immunization programs. To assist with this goal, we estimated the aggregate costs of immunization programs for ten vaccines in 94 low- and middle-income countries from 2011 to 2030. METHOD: We calculated vaccine, immunization delivery and stockpile costs for 94 low- and middle-income countries leveraging the latest available data sources. We conducted scenario analyses to vary assumptions about the relationship between delivery cost and coverage as well as vaccine prices for fully self-financing countries. RESULTS: The total aggregate cost of immunization programs in 94 countries for 10 vaccines from 2011 to 2030 is $70.8 billion (confidence interval: $56.6-$93.3) under the base case scenario and $84.1 billion ($72.8-$102.7) under an incremental delivery cost scenario, with an increasing trend over two decades. The relative proportion of vaccine and delivery costs for pneumococcal conjugate, human papillomavirus, and rotavirus vaccines increase as more countries introduce these vaccines. Nine countries in accelerated transition phase bear the highest burden of the costs in the next decade, and uncertainty with vaccine prices for the 17 fully self-financing countries could lead to total costs that are 1.3-13.1 times higher than the base case scenario. CONCLUSION: Resource mobilization efforts at the global and country levels will be needed to reach the level of investment needed for the coming decade. Global-level initiatives and targeted strategies for transitioning countries will help ensure the sustainability of immunization programs.

Economic Benefits of Immunization for 10 Pathogens in 94 Low- and Middle-Income Countries From 2011 to 2030 Using Cost-of-Illness and Value-of-Statistical-Life Approaches.

OBJECTIVES: Vaccination has prevented millions of deaths and cases of disease in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). During the Decade of Vaccines (2011-2020), international organizations, including the World Health Organization and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, focused on new vaccine introduction and expanded coverage of existing vaccines. As Gavi, other organizations, and country governments look to the future, we aimed to estimate the economic benefits of immunization programs made from 2011 to 2020 and potential gains in the future decade. METHODS: We used estimates of cases and deaths averted by vaccines against 10 pathogens in 94 LMICs to estimate the economic value of immunization. We applied 3 approaches-cost of illness averted (COI), value of statistical life (VSL), and value of statistical life-year (VSLY)-to estimate observable and unobservable economic benefits between 2011 and 2030. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2030, immunization would avert $1510.4 billion ($674.3-$2643.2 billion) (2018 USD) in costs of illness in the 94 modeled countries, compared with the counterfactual of no vaccination. Using the VSL approach, immunization would generate $3436.7 billion ($1615.8-$5657.2 billion) in benefits. Applying the VSLY approach, $5662.7 billion ($2547.2-$9719.4) in benefits would be generated. CONCLUSION: Vaccination has generated significant economic benefits in LMICs in the past decade. To reach predicted levels of economic benefits, countries and international donor organizations need to meet coverage projections outlined in the Gavi Operational Forecast. Estimates generated using the COI, VSL, or VSLY approach may be strategically used by donor agencies, decision makers, and advocates to inform investment cases and advocacy campaigns.