Estimating the delivery costs of COVID-19 vaccination using the COVID-19 Vaccine Introduction and deployment Costing (CVIC) tool: the Lao People's Democratic Republic experience.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 Vaccine Introduction and deployment Costing (CVIC) tool was developed to assist countries to estimate incremental financial costs to roll out COVID-19 vaccines. This article describes the purposes, assumptions and methods used in the CVIC tool and presents the estimated financial costs of delivering COVID-19 vaccines in the Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR). METHODS: From March to September 2021, a multidisciplinary team in Lao PDR was involved in the costing exercise of the National Deployment and Vaccination Plan for COVID-19 vaccines to develop potential scenarios and gather inputs using the CVIC tool. Financial costs of introducing COVID-19 vaccines for 3 years from 2021 to 2023 were projected from the government perspective. All costs were collected in 2021 Lao Kip and presented in United States dollar. RESULTS: From 2021 to 2023, the financial cost required to vaccinate all adults in Lao PDR with primary series of COVID-19 vaccines (1 dose for Ad26.COV2.S (recombinant) vaccine and 2 doses for the other vaccine products) is estimated to be US$6.44 million (excluding vaccine costs) and additionally US$1.44 million and US$1.62 million to include teenagers and children, respectively. These translate to financial costs of US$0.79-0.81 per dose, which decrease to US$0.6 when two boosters are introduced to the population. Capital and operational cold-chain costs contributed 15-34% and 15-24% of the total costs in all scenarios, respectively. 17-26% went to data management, monitoring and evaluation, and oversight, and 13-22% to vaccine delivery. CONCLUSIONS: With the CVIC tool, costs of five scenarios were estimated with different target population and booster dose use. These facilitated Lao PDR to refine their strategic planning for COVID-19 vaccine rollout and to decide on the level of external resources needed to mobilize and support outreach services. The results may further inform inputs in cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analyses and potentially be applied and adjusted in similar low- and middle-income settings.

Consumer choice and public-private providers: The role of perceived prices.

Governments often encourage health service providers to improve quality of care and reduce prices through competition. The efficacy of competition hinges on the assumption that consumers demand high quality care at low prices for any given health condition. In this paper, we examine this assumption by investigating the role of perceived price and quality on consumer choice for four different health conditions across public and private providers. We use a nationally representative survey in Malaysia to elicit respondents' perception on prices and quality, and their preferred choice of provider. We estimate a mixed logit model and show that consumers value different dimensions of quality depending on the health condition. Furthermore, increasing perceived prices for private providers reduces demand for minor, more frequent health conditions such as flu fever or cough, but increases demand for more complex, severe conditions such as coronary artery bypass graft. These findings provide empirical support for price regulation which differentiates the severity of underlying health conditions.

Reprioritizing government spending on health: pushing an elephant up the stairs?

Countries vary widely with respect to the share of government spending on health, a metric that can serve as a proxy for the extent to which health is prioritized by governments. World Health Organization (WHO) data estimate that, in 2011, health's share of aggregate government expenditure averaged 12% in the 170 countries for which data were available. However, country differences were striking: ranging from a low of 1% in Myanmar to a high of 28% in Costa Rica. Some of the observed differences in health's share of government spending across countries are unsurprisingly related to differences in national income. However, significant variations exist in health's share of government spending even after controlling for national income. This paper provides a global overview of health's share of government spending and summarizes some of the key theoretical and empirical perspectives on allocation of public resources to health vis-à-vis other sectors from the perspective of reprioritization, one of the modalities for realizing fiscal space for health. The paper argues that theory and cross-country empirical analyses do not provide clear-cut explanations for the observed variations in government prioritization of health. Standard economic theory arguments that are often used to justify public financing for health are equally applicable to many other sectors including defence, education and infrastructure. To date, empirical work on prioritization has been sparse: available cross-country econometric analyses suggest that factors such as democratization, lower levels of corruption, ethnolinguistic homogeneity and more women in public office are correlated with higher shares of public spending on health; however, these findings are not robust and are sensitive to model specification. Evidence from case studies suggests that country-specific political economy considerations are key, and that results-focused reform efforts - in particular efforts to explicitly expand the breadth and depth of health coverage as opposed to efforts focused only on government budgetary benchmarking targets - are more likely to result in sustained and politically feasible prioritization of health from a fiscal space perspective.