Profits First, Health Second: The Pharmaceutical Industry and the Global South Comment on "More Pain, More Gain! The Delivery of COVID-19 Vaccines and the Pharmaceutical Industry's Role in Widening the Access Gap".

The pharmaceutical industry has a long history of prioritizing the research and sale of medicines that will yield the largest amount of revenue and placing the health of people second. This gap is especially prevalent in countries of the Global South. This article first explores the dichotomy in research between the Global North and the Global South and then looks at examples of how access to key medicines used in diseases such as HIV, oncology and hepatitis C is limited in the latter group of countries. The role of pharmaceutical companies during the COVID-19 pandemic prompted negotiations for a pandemic accord that would ensure more equity in both research and access when the next pandemic comes. However, efforts by a combination of the pharmaceutical industry and some high-income countries (HICs) are creating serious obstacles to achieving the goal of an accord that would place health over profits.

Costs of the COVID-19 vaccination programme: estimates from the West Rand district of South Africa, 2021/2022.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 vaccination programme in South Africa was rolled out in February 2021 via five delivery channels- hospitals, primary healthcare (PHC), fixed, temporary, and mobile outreach channels. In this study, we estimated the financial and economic costs of the COVID-19 vaccination programme in the first year of roll out from February 2021 to January 2022 and one month prior, in one district of South Africa, the West Rand district. METHODS: Financial and economic costs were estimated from a public payer's perspective using top-down and ingredient-based costing approaches. Data were collected on costs incurred at the national level and from the West Rand district. Total cost and cost per COVID-19 vaccine dose were estimated for each of the five delivery channels implemented in the district. In addition, we estimated vaccine delivery costs which we defined as total cost exclusive of vaccine procurement costs. RESULTS: Total financial and economic costs were estimated at US$8.5 million and US$12 million, respectively; with a corresponding cost per dose of US$15.31 (financial) and US$21.85 (economic). The two biggest total cost drivers were vaccine procurement which contributed 73% and 51% to total financial and economic costs respectively, and staff time which contributed 10% and 36% to total financial and economic costs, respectively. Total vaccine delivery costs were estimated at US$2.1 million (financial) and US$5.7 million (economic); and the corresponding cost per dose at US$3.84 (financial) and US$10.38 (economic). Vaccine delivery cost per dose (financial/economic) was estimated at US$2.93/12.84 and US$2.45/5.99 in hospitals and PHCs, respectively, and at US$7.34/20.29, US$3.96/11.89 and US$24.81/28.76 in fixed, temporary and mobile outreach sites, respectively. Staff time was the biggest economic cost driver for vaccine delivery in PHCs and hospitals while per diems and staff time were the biggest economic cost drivers for vaccine delivery in the three outreach delivery channels. CONCLUSION: This study offers insights for budgeting and planning of COVID-19 vaccine delivery in South Africa's public healthcare system. It also provides input for cost-effectiveness analyses to guide future strategies for maximizing vaccination coverage in the country.

When should lockdown be implemented? Devising cost-effective strategies for managing epidemics amid vaccine uncertainty.

During an infectious disease outbreak, public health policy makers are tasked with strategically implementing interventions whilst balancing competing objectives. To provide a quantitative framework that can be used to guide these decisions, it is helpful to devise a clear and specific objective function that can be evaluated to determine the optimal outbreak response. In this study, we have developed a mathematical modelling framework representing outbreaks of a novel emerging pathogen for which non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are imposed or removed based on thresholds for hospital occupancy. These thresholds are set at different levels to define four unique strategies for disease control. We illustrate that the optimal intervention strategy is contingent on the choice of objective function. Specifically, the optimal strategy depends on the extent to which policy makers prioritise reducing health costs due to infection over the costs associated with maintaining interventions. Motivated by the scenario early in the COVID-19 pandemic, we incorporate the development of a vaccine into our modelling framework and demonstrate that a policy maker's belief about when a vaccine will become available in future, and its eventual coverage (and/or effectiveness), affects the optimal strategy to adopt early in the outbreak. Furthermore, we show how uncertainty in these quantities can be accounted for when deciding which interventions to introduce. This research highlights the benefits of policy makers being explicit about the precise objectives of introducing interventions.

The cost of adding rapid screening for diabetes, hypertension, and COVID-19 to COVID-19 vaccination queues in Johannesburg, South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are responsible for 51% of total mortality in South Africa, with a rising burden of hypertension (HTN) and diabetes mellitus (DM). Incorporating NCDs and COVID-19 screening into mass activities such as COVID-19 vaccination programs could offer significant long-term benefits for early detection interventions. However, there is limited knowledge of the associated costs and resources required. We evaluated the cost of integrating NCD screening and COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic testing (Ag-RDT) into a COVID-19 vaccination program. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cost analysis at three public sector primary healthcare clinics and one academic hospital in Johannesburg, South Africa, conducting vaccinations. Participants were assessed for eligibility and recruited during May-Dec 2022. Costs were estimated from the provider perspective using a bottom-up micro-costing approach and reported in 2022 USD. RESULTS: Of the 1,376 enrolled participants, 240 opted in to undergo a COVID-19 Ag-RDT, and none tested positive for COVID-19. 138 (10.1%) had elevated blood pressure, with 96 (70%) having no prior HTN diagnosis. 22 (1.6%) were screen-positive for DM, with 12 (55%) having no prior diagnosis. The median cost per person screened for NCDs was $1.70 (IQR: $1.38-$2.49), respectively. The average provider cost per person found to have elevated blood glucose levels and blood pressure was $157.99 and $25.19, respectively. Finding a potentially new case of DM and HTN was $289.65 and $36.21, respectively. For DM and DM + HTN screen-positive participants, diagnostic tests were the main cost driver, while staff costs were the main cost driver for DM- and HTN screen-negative and HTN screen-positive participants. The median cost per Ag-RDT was $5.95 (IQR: $5.55-$6.25), with costs driven mainly by test kit costs. CONCLUSIONS: We show the cost of finding potentially new cases of DM and HTN in a vaccine queue, which is an essential first step in understanding the feasibility and resource requirements for such initiatives. However, there is a need for comparative economic analyses that include linkage to care and retention data to fully understand this cost and determine whether opportunistic screening should be added to general mass health activities.

Modeling the potential public health and economic impact of different COVID-19 booster dose vaccination strategies with an adapted vaccine in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Updating vaccines is essential for combatting emerging coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) variants. This study assessed the public health and economic impact of a booster dose of an adapted vaccine in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: A Markov-decision tree model estimated the outcomes of vaccination strategies targeting various age and risk groups in the UK. Age-specific data derived from published sources were used. The model estimated case numbers, deaths, hospitalizations, medical costs, and societal costs. Scenario analyses were conducted to explore uncertainty. RESULTS: Vaccination targeting individuals aged ≥ 65 years and the high-risk population aged 12-64 years was estimated to avert 701,549 symptomatic cases, 5,599 deaths, 18,086 hospitalizations, 56,326 post-COVID condition cases, and 38,263 lost quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), translating into direct and societal cost savings of £112,174,054 and £542,758,682, respectively. The estimated economically justifiable price at willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY was £43 and £61, respectively, from the payer perspective and £64 and £82, respectively, from the societal perspective. Expanding to additional age groups improved the public health impact. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting individuals aged ≥ 65 years and those aged 12-64 years at high risk yields public health gains, but expansion to additional age groups provides additional gains.

The cost of delivering COVID-19 vaccines in Vietnam.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic affected hundreds of millions of people and lives, and vaccination was the safest and most effective strategy to prevent and mitigate the burden of this disease. The implementation of COVID-19 vaccination in Vietnam in 2021 was unprecedentedly challenging in scale and complexity, yet economic evidence on the cost of delivery vaccines thought the program was lacking. METHODS: This retrospective costing study utilized a bottom-up, ingredient-based approach to estimate the cost of delivering COVID-19 vaccines in Vietnam in 2021, from a payer perspective. The study included 38 study sites across all administrative and implementation level, including three geographic areas and two delivery strategies, in two provinces, Hanoi and Dak Lak. The study findings were complemented with qualitative interviews with health staff and stakeholders. RESULTS: The economic cost to deliver one COVID-19 vaccine dose was $1.73, mostly comprised of opportunity costs ($1.14 per dose) which were driven by labor costs ($1.12 per dose). The delivery cost in urban areas was the highest ($2.02), followed by peri-urban areas ($1.45) and remote areas ($1.37). Delivery costs were higher at temporary sites ($1.78) when compared to facility-based delivery ($1.63). Comparing low-volume and high-volume periods showed that the delivery cost decreased significantly as volume increased, from $5.24 per dose to $1.65 per dose. CONCLUSIONS: The study estimates the cost of delivering COVID-19 vaccines in Vietnam in 2021. Enabling factors and challenges during the implementation of the program were explored. Study limitations may lead to underestimation of results and reduce generalizability.

The COVID-19 Uninsured Program: Nearly 39 Million Vaccine Doses Were Funded, 2020-22.

The COVID-19 Uninsured Program, administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), reimbursed providers for administering COVID-19 vaccines to uninsured US adults from December 11, 2020, through April 5, 2022. Using HRSA claims data covering forty-two states, we estimated that the program funded about 38.9 million COVID-19 vaccine doses, accounting for 5.7 percent of total doses distributed and 10.9 percent of doses administered to adults ages 19-64.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of South Africa's COVID-19 vaccination programme.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out in South Africa beginning in February 2021. In this study we retrospectively assessed the cost-effectiveness of the vaccination programme in its first two years of implementation. METHOD: We modelled the costs, expressed in 2021 US$, and health outcomes of the COVID-19 vaccination programme compared to a no vaccination programme scenario. The study was conducted from a public payer's perspective over two time-horizons - nine months (February to November 2021) and twenty-four months (February 2021 to January 2023). Health outcomes were estimated from a disease transmission model parameterised with data on COVID-19-related hospitalisations and deaths and were converted to disability adjusted life years (DALYs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA) were conducted to assess parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated at US$1600 per DALY averted during the first study time horizon. The corresponding ICER for the second study period was estimated at US$1300 per DALY averted. When 85% of all excess deaths during these periods were included in the analysis, ICERs in the first and second study periods were estimated at US$1070 and US$660 per DALY averted, respectively. In the PSA, almost 100% of simulations fell below the estimated opportunity cost-based cost-effectiveness threshold for South Africa (US$2300 DALYs averted). COVID-19 vaccination programme cost per dose had the greatest impact on the ICERs. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that South Africa's COVID-19 vaccination programme represented good value for money in the first two years of rollout.

The economic case for scaling up health research and development: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, governments directly funded vaccine research and development (R&D), quickly leading to multiple effective vaccines and resulting in enormous health and economic benefits to society. We develop a simple economic model showing this feat could potentially be repeated for other health challenges. Based on inputs from the economic and medical literatures, the model yields estimates of optimal R&D spending on treatments and vaccines for known diseases. Taking a global and societal perspective, we estimate the social benefits of such spending and a corresponding rate of return. Applications to Streptococcus A vaccines and Alzheimer's disease treatments demonstrate the potential of enhanced research and development funding to unlock massive global health and health-related benefits. We estimate that these benefits range from 2 to 60 trillion (2020 US$) and that the corresponding rates of return on R&D spending range from 12% to 23% per year for 30 y. We discuss the current shortfall in R&D spending and public policies that can move current funding closer to the optimal level.

Urgent support mechanism: saving millions of COVID-19 vaccines from expiry in Africa.

Delivering COVID-19 vaccines with 4-6 weeks shelf life remains one of Africa's most pressing challenges. The Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC) leadership recognised that COVID-19 vaccines donated to many African countries were at risk of expiry considering the short shelf life on delivery in the Member States and slow vaccine uptake rates. Thus, a streamlined rapid response system, the urgent support mechanism, was developed to assist countries accelerate COVID-19 vaccine uptake. We describe the achievements and lessons learnt during implementation of the urgent support mechanism in eight African countries. An Africa CDC team was rapidly deployed to meet with the Ministry of Health of each country alerted for COVID-19 vaccine expiry and identified national implementing partners to quickly develop operational work plans and strategies to scale up the urgent use of the vaccines. The time between the initiation of alerts to the start of the implementation was typically within 2 weeks. A total of approximately 2.5 million doses of vaccines, costing $900 000, were prevented from expiration. The urgent support has also contributed to the increased COVID-19 vaccination coverage in the Member States from 16.1% at the initiation to 25.3% at the end of the urgent support. Some of the effective strategies used by the urgent support mechanism included coordination between Africa CDC and country vaccine task forces, establishment of vaccination centres, building the capacity of routine and surge health workforce, procurement and distribution of vaccine ancillaries, staff training, advocacy and sensitisation events, and use of trusted religious scriptures and community influencers to support public health messages. The urgent support mechanism demonstrated a highly optimised process and serves as a successful example for acceleration and integration of vaccination into different healthcare delivery points.

Benefit-Cost Analysis of the HHS COVID-19 Campaign: April 2021-March 2022.

INTRODUCTION: This study estimated the benefits and costs of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' We Can Do This COVID-19 public education campaign (the Campaign) and associated vaccination-related impacts. METHODS: Weekly media market and national Campaign expenditures were used to estimate weekly first-dose vaccinations that would not have occurred absent the Campaign, weekly Campaign-attributed complete vaccinations, and corresponding COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths averted. Benefits were valued using estimated morbidity and mortality reductions and associated values of a statistical life and a statistical case. Costs were estimated using Campaign paid media expenditures and corresponding vaccination costs. The net Campaign and vaccination benefit and return on investment were calculated. Analyses were conducted from 2022 to 2024. RESULTS: Between April 2021 and March 2022, an estimated 55.9 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines would not have been administered absent the Campaign. Campaign-attributed vaccinations resulted in 2,576,133 fewer mild COVID-19 cases, 243,979 fewer nonfatal COVID-19 hospitalizations, and 51,675 lives saved from COVID-19. The total Campaign benefit was $740.2 billion, and Campaign and vaccination costs totaled $8.3 billion, with net benefits of approximately $732.0 billion. For every $1 spent, the Campaign and corresponding vaccination costs resulted in benefits of approximately $89.54. CONCLUSIONS: The We Can Do This COVID-19 public education campaign saved more than 50,000 lives and prevented hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations and millions of COVID-19 cases, representing hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits in less than one year. Findings suggest that public education campaigns are a cost-effective approach to reducing COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.

Guaranteed Cash Incentives Boosted COVID-19 Vaccinations Of Young Adults: Evidence From West Virginia.

Guaranteed small cash incentives were widely employed by policy makers during the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, but the impact of these programs has been largely understudied. We were the first to exploit a statewide natural experiment of one such program implemented in West Virginia in 2021 that provided a $100 incentive to fully vaccinated adults ages 16-35. Using individual-level data from the Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey, we isolated the policy effect through a difference-in-discontinuities design that exploited the discontinuity in incentive eligibility at age thirty-five. We found that the $100 incentive was associated with a robust increase in the proportion of people ever vaccinated against COVID-19 and the proportion who completed or intended to complete the primary series of COVID-19 vaccines. The policy effects were also likely to be more pronounced among people with low incomes, those who were unemployed, and those with no prior COVID-19 infection. The guaranteed cash incentive program may have created more equitable access to vaccines for disadvantaged populations. Additional outreach may also be needed, especially to unvaccinated people with prior COVID-19 infections.

Sociodemographic determinants of vaccination and willingness to pay for COVID-19 vaccines in Hungary, results of a cross-sectional online questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Several different coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccines were authorized and distributed all over the world, including Hungary, but vaccination rates and acceptance of the different vaccines varied through 2021 and subsequent years. In Hungary Western vaccines and the Chinese and Russian vaccines were available in early 2021. Understanding preference and willingness to pay (WTP) for the COVID-19 vaccine could provide information for policy decision making to control the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to assess the socio-demographic factors influencing the COVID-19 vaccination and to analyse individual preferences for the available COVID-19 vaccines in Hungary. METHODS: A cross-sectional online questionnaire survey was conducted between 25-05-2021 and 08-06-2021 exploring the vaccine acceptance and WTP for vaccination in the Hungarian general population. To assess the preferences towards the different vaccines available in Hungary at the time of the study, we used a multi-step WTP task. RESULTS: Altogether 2,000 respondents filled out our survey, with the average age of 49.1 (SD = 15.3), out of whom 370 respondents (18.5%) stated that they already had a COVID-19 infection. Age above 65 years, male gender, higher level of education, higher income and residence in the capital or county seats were associated with a higher probability of vaccination. The average WTP ranged from 14.2 to 30.3 EUR for the different vaccine types. CONCLUSIONS: Males, respondents with higher education and income stated a higher WTP value for all vaccines. Better socioeconomic status increased both vaccination coverage and willingness to pay for vaccines.

Economic Evaluation of COVID-19 Immunization Strategies: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to systematically assess global economic evaluation studies on COVID-19 vaccination, offer valuable insights for future economic evaluations, and assist policymakers in making evidence-based decisions regarding the implementation of COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: Searches were performed from January 2020 to September 2023 across seven English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, EBSCO, KCL-Korean Journal Dataset, SciELO Citation Index, and Derwent Innovations Index) and three Chinese databases (Wanfang Data, China Science and Technology Journal, and CNKI). Rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Data were extracted from eligible studies using a standardized data collection form, with the reporting quality of these studies assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022). RESULTS: Of the 40 studies included in the final review, the overall reporting quality was good, evidenced by a mean score of 22.6 (ranging from 10.5 to 28). Given the significant heterogeneity in fundamental aspects among the studies reviewed, a narrative synthesis was conducted. Most of these studies adopted a health system or societal perspective. They predominantly utilized a composite model, merging dynamic and static methods, within short to medium-term time horizons to simulate various vaccination strategies. The research strategies varied among studies, investigating different doses, dosages, brands, mechanisms, efficacies, vaccination coverage rates, deployment speeds, and priority target groups. Three pivotal parameters notably influenced the evaluation results: the vaccine's effectiveness, its cost, and the basic reproductive number (R0). Despite variations in model structures, baseline parameters, and assumptions utilized, all studies identified a general trend that COVID-19 vaccination is cost-effective compared to no vaccination or intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The current review confirmed that COVID-19 vaccination is a cost-effective alternative in preventing and controlling COVID-19. In addition, it highlights the profound impact of variables such as dose size, target population, vaccine efficacy, speed of vaccination, and diversity of vaccine brands and mechanisms on cost effectiveness, and also proposes practical and effective strategies for improving COVID-19 vaccination campaigns from the perspective of economic evaluation.

A single dose for me, A wealth of protection for us: The public health cost of individualism in the rollout of COVID-19 vaccine.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines whether individualism weakens the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine eligibility expansions in the United States in 2021, and assesses the associated social benefits or costs associated with individualism. METHODS: We construct a county-level composite individualism index as a proxy of culture and the fraction of vaccine eligible population as a proxy of vaccination campaign (mean: 41.34%). We estimate whether the COVID-19 vaccine eligibility policy is less effective in promoting vaccine coverage, reducing in COVID-19 related hospitalization and death using a linear two-way fixed effect model in a sample of 2866 counties for the period between early December 2020 and July 1, 2021. We also test whether individualism shapes people's attitudes towards vaccine using a linear probability model in a sample of 625,308 individuals aged 18-65 (mean age: 43.3; 49% male; 59.1% non-Hispanic white, 19.1% Hispanic, 12% African American; 5.9% Asian) from the Household Pulse Survey. RESULTS: The effects of expanded vaccine eligibility are diminished in counties with greater individualism, as evidenced by lower effectiveness in increasing vaccination rates and reducing outpatient doctor visits primarily for COVID-related symptoms and COVID deaths. Moreover, our results show that this cultural influence on attitudes towards vaccine is more pronounced among the less educated, but unrelated to race. CONCLUSION: Assuming an average level of vaccine eligibility policies and an average intensity of individualism across the nation, we calculate that the average social cost associated with an individualistic culture amid the pandemic is approximately $50.044 billion, equivalent to 1.32% of the total U.S. health care spending in 2019. Our paper suggests that strategies to promote public policy compliance should be tailored to accommodate cultural and social contexts.

What Is the Economic Benefit of Annual COVID-19 Vaccination From the Adult Individual Perspective?

BACKGROUND: With coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination no longer mandated by many businesses/organizations, it is now up to individuals to decide whether to get any new boosters/updated vaccines going forward. METHODS: We developed a Markov model representing the potential clinical/economic outcomes from an individual perspective in the United States of getting versus not getting an annual COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: For an 18-49 year old, getting vaccinated at its current price ($60) can save the individual on average $30-$603 if the individual is uninsured and $4-$437 if the individual has private insurance, as long as the starting vaccine efficacy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is ≥50% and the weekly risk of getting infected is ≥0.2%, corresponding to an individual interacting with 9 other people in a day under Winter 2023-2024 Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant conditions with an average infection prevalence of 10%. For a 50-64 year old, these cost-savings increase to $111-$1278 and $119-$1706 for someone without and with insurance, respectively. The risk threshold increases to ≥0.4% (interacting with 19 people/day), when the individual has 13.4% preexisting protection against infection (eg, vaccinated 9 months earlier). CONCLUSIONS: There is both clinical and economic incentive for the individual to continue to get vaccinated against COVID-19 each year.