Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 166
Filter
1.
BMJ Glob Health ; 9(9)2024 Sep 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39244220

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered one of the largest global health and economic crises in recent history. COVID-19 vaccination (CV) has been the central tool for global health and macroeconomic recovery, yet estimates of CV's global health and macroeconomic value remain scarce. METHODS: We used regression analyses to measure the impact of CV on gross domestic product (GDP), infections and deaths. We combined regression estimates of vaccine-averted infections and deaths with estimates of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) losses, and direct and indirect costs, to estimate three broad value components: (i) QALY gains, (ii) direct and indirect costs averted and (iii) GDP impacts. The global value is the sum of components over 148 countries between January 2020 and December 2021 for CV generally and for Pfizer-BioNTech specifically. RESULTS: CV's global value was US$5.2 (95% CI US$4.1 to US$6.2) trillion, with Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccines contributing over US$1.9 (95% CI US$1.5 to US$2.3) trillion. Varying key parameters results in values 10%-20% higher or lower than the base-case value. The largest value component was GDP impacts, followed by QALY gains, then direct and indirect costs averted. CV provided US$740 of value per dose, while Pfizer-BioNTech specifically provided >US$1600 per dose. We estimated conservative benefit-cost ratios of 13.9 and 30.8 for CV and Pfizer-BioNTech, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We provide the first estimates of the broad value of CV incorporating GDP, QALY and direct and indirect cost impacts. Through December 2021, CV produced significant health and economic value, represented strong value for money and produced significant macroeconomic benefits that should be considered in vaccine evaluation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Global Health , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/economics , Global Health/economics , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , Gross Domestic Product , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Vaccination/economics
2.
PLoS One ; 19(9): e0310427, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39288199

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 booster immunization policy is cost-effective, but evidence on additional booster doses and appropriate strategies is scarce. This research compared the cost-effectiveness of annual, twice-a-year, and biennial booster dose policies. We performed stochastic modeling using compartmental susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered models and a system dynamic model. We evaluated four policy scenarios: (1) hypothetical no-booster immunization policy; (2) twice-a-year vaccination policy; (3) annual vaccination policy; and (4) biennial vaccination policy. In addition, we conducted a one-way sensitivity analysis by adjusting R0 from 1.8 to 3.0 in all scenarios (epidemic stage) and by decreasing the vaccination cost by 50% at the end of the first year to reflect the current policy direction to enhance domestic vaccine production. Compared to non-booster policies, all three booster strategies reduced the number of cases, hospital admissions, and severe infections remarkably. Without a booster, total cases would reach 16,220,615 (95% confidence interval [CI] 6,726,550-29,661,112) by day 1,460, whereas, with a twice-a-year booster, the total cases would reach 597,901 (95% CI 526,230-694,458) in the same period. Even though the no booster scenario exhibited the lowest cost by approximately the first 500 days, by day 1,460 the biennial booster scenario demonstrated the lowest cost at 72.0 billion baht (95% CI 68.6-79.4 billion). The most cost-saving policy was the biennial booster scenario. The annual booster scenario also stood as a cost-effective option for most outcomes. In the epidemic stage and in an assumption where the vaccination costs dropped, all booster policies became more cost-effective or cost-saving compared with the main assumption. This study underscores the significance of the COVID-19 vaccine booster policy. Implementing policies should take into consideration cost-effectiveness, feasibility, and public communication.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Immunization, Secondary , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Immunization, Secondary/economics , Thailand/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination/economics , Health Policy/economics , Immunization Programs/economics , Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
4.
Vaccine ; 42(24): 126287, 2024 Oct 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39232401

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to quantify U.S. jurisdiction-level costs related to the COVID-19 Vaccination Program by estimating the per-dose-administered cost during December 20, 2020-May 31, 2021, from a combined federal and local government perspective. Costs were limited to vaccine purchase, administration (including operations and wastage), and local redistribution by jurisdictions. Data were collected through publicly available sources, published literature, and a survey of 62 jurisdictions (38 responded). A total of 284.6 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine were distributed to jurisdictions during the study period, of which 284.2 million doses were administered, and 0.4 million doses were wasted. The estimated cost per-dose-administered among the 38 jurisdictions that responded to study survey was $57.45 and imputed cost across all jurisdictions was $63.11. The findings on jurisdiction-level cost per-dose-administered and vaccination cost during the initial period of U.S. COVID-19 Vaccination Program, when demand exceeded supply, may be considered in future pandemic preparedness planning.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Immunization Programs , Vaccination , Humans , United States , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Immunization Programs/economics , Vaccination/economics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology
5.
Sci Rep ; 14(1): 20425, 2024 09 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39227428

ABSTRACT

This study focused on the challenges posed by the fluctuating demand for COVID-19 vaccines, considering factors such as side effects, religious objections, and absenteeism, which result in the accumulation of excess vaccines. Recognizing the resulting social, economic, and environmental issues, this study investigated the application of a lateral transshipment policy for the management of the inventory of short-term vaccines, considering related unpredictabilities. A discrete event simulation built on foundational principles derived from a mixed-integer linear programming model was employed to explore the dynamics of mRNA-based vaccine distribution among two hospitals based on lateral transshipment and reordering policies. Through the simulation of various scenarios over periods of 1-30 days, transshipment based on the availability policy is employed to determine the quantity of vaccines to be transshipped, constrained to vial amounts, and the (s, S) inventory system for reordering. The results of this study underscore the efficacy of lateral transshipment, particularly in situations where demand discrepancies exist between hospitals, thereby revealing its superiority over non-transshipment strategies within 7 days.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , mRNA Vaccines , Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/economics , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccines, Synthetic/economics
6.
Front Public Health ; 12: 1380627, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39193195

ABSTRACT

Background: Ukraine has one of the lowest COVID-19 vaccination rates in Europe. This may pose a significant epidemiological risk in the context of the refugee crisis and the fact that, since 2020, SARS-CoV-2 has been spreading and changing globally. Objective: To evaluate determinants of vaccination decision making among Ukrainian female migrants (UFMs). Methods: A qualitative study with 45 UFMs was conducted between December 2021 and January 2022. UFMs, from 2 Polish provinces, differing in age, education and length of stay were invited with the use of the snowball technique. Using a semi-structured topic guide, eight focus groups were conducted in person, recorded and transcribed. Thematic, qualitative analysis was made; key themes which emerged from the data (with the help of the Working Group Determinants of Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix), were related to contextual, individual/group and contextual vaccine/vaccination-specific influences. Results: Mothers were found to be playing a crucial role in children and adolescent COVID-19 vaccine decision-making process. Universal trust in the Polish healthcare system and vaccination procedures, employer requirements and willingness to preserve jobs, desire to get back to normal and social influences were paramount prerequisites to let UFMs make a decision to get vaccinated. However, COVID-19 vaccines also faced backlash among UFMs. Negative experiences with vaccines provided in Ukraine, doubts about the rapid vaccine development, combined with lack of confidence in vaccine safety, specifically regarding child vaccination, might have a bearing on UFMs' decision about declining COVID-19 vaccine while on migration. Discrimination through HCWs during vaccination visits was also reported. Corrupted Ukrainian healthcare system, which facilitates proof forgery regarding vaccination certificates, could act as a negative influencer of UFMs' vaccine decision-making. Conclusion: The results provide the novel information, expressed in economic UFMs' own words. Findings show that influencers of the decision-making process regarding the COVID-19 vaccination are complex and polarized; elements of hesitancy may persist after migration. Any continuation of UFMs' vaccination with COVID-19 vaccine should be subject to designing accessible information to address modifiable demotivators of the vaccine decision-making process identified in this study.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Decision Making , Qualitative Research , Transients and Migrants , Humans , Female , Ukraine , Poland , Adult , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , COVID-19/prevention & control , Transients and Migrants/statistics & numerical data , Transients and Migrants/psychology , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination/psychology , Middle Aged , Focus Groups , Adolescent , Vaccination Hesitancy/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination Hesitancy/psychology , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
7.
Front Public Health ; 12: 1411345, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39193202

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic caused a widespread public health and financial crisis. The rapid vaccine development generated extensive discussions in both mainstream and social media, sparking optimism in the global financial markets. This study aims to explore the key themes from mainstream media's coverage of COVID-19 vaccines on Facebook and examine how public interactions and responses on Facebook to mainstream media's posts are associated with daily stock prices and trade volume of major vaccine manufacturers. Methods: We obtained mainstream media's coverage of COVID-19 vaccines and major vaccine manufacturers on Facebook from CrowdTangle, a public insights tool owned and operated by Facebook, as well as the corresponding trade volume and daily closing prices from January 2020 to December 2021. Structural topic modelling was used to analyze social media posts while regression analysis was conducted to determine the impact of Facebook reactions on stock prices and trade volume. Results: 10 diverse topics ranging from vaccine trials and their politicization (note: check that we use American spelling throughout), to stock market discussions were found to evolve over the pandemic. Although Facebook reactions were not consistently associated with vaccine manufacturers' stock prices, 'Haha' and 'Angry' reactions showed the strongest association with stock price fluctuations. In comparison, social media reactions had little observable impact on trading volume. Discussion: Topics generated reflect both actual events during vaccine development as well as its political and economic impact. The topics generated in this study reflect both the actual events surrounding vaccine development and its broader political and economic impact. While we anticipated a stronger correlation, our findings suggest a limited relationship between emotional reactions on Facebook and vaccine manufacturers' stock prices and trading volume. We also discussed potential technical enhancements for future studies, including the integration of large language models.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Social Media , Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , COVID-19 Vaccines/supply & distribution , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/economics , Drug Industry/economics , Commerce , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemics/prevention & control
8.
Expert Rev Vaccines ; 23(1): 750-760, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39176448

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines adapted to newly emerging circulating variants are necessary to better protect the population due to the evolving nature of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The South African population was stratified by age and risk (defined by comorbidities such as diabetes, obesity, smoking, cancer, and asthma), and HIV status. The outcomes of different vaccination strategies based on age, risk, and HIV status were estimated using a Markov-decision tree model based on age-specific inputs derived from the literature and South African surveillance data. RESULTS: Vaccinating older adults and those with comorbidities was estimated to avert 111,179 infections 18,281 hospitalizations, and 3,868 deaths, resulting in savings of ZAR 1,260 million (USD 67 million) and ZAR 3,205 million (USD 170 million) in direct and indirect costs, respectively. Similar results were obtained when considering strategies targeting older adults and the HIV population. Expanding vaccination to 75% of the standard-risk population prevented more infections (401%), hospitalizations (167%), and deaths (67%) and increased the direct (232%) and indirect (455%) cost savings compared to the base case. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing widespread vaccination strategies that utilize a vaccine adapted to the prevailing circulating variant in South Africa would result in significant public health and economic gains.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Public Health , Vaccination , Humans , South Africa/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Vaccination/economics , Vaccination/methods , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/economics , Young Adult , HIV Infections/prevention & control , HIV Infections/epidemiology , Adolescent , Markov Chains , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Male , Female
9.
Int J Health Policy Manag ; 13: 8471, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39099498

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Drug Industry , Global Health , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Drug Industry/economics , COVID-19 Vaccines/supply & distribution , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemics , Developing Countries
10.
Expert Rev Vaccines ; 23(1): 730-739, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39072472

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Immunization, Secondary , Markov Chains , Public Health , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , Humans , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Middle Aged , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/economics , Adolescent , Aged , Adult , Young Adult , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Child , Public Health/economics , Immunization, Secondary/economics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Hospitalization/economics , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Male , Female , Decision Trees , Vaccination/economics , Vaccination/methods
11.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 24(1): 857, 2024 Jul 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39075487

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Immunization Programs , Humans , South Africa/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Immunization Programs/economics , Immunization Programs/organization & administration , SARS-CoV-2
12.
BMC Public Health ; 24(1): 1900, 2024 Jul 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39014354

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus , Hypertension , Mass Screening , Humans , South Africa/epidemiology , Hypertension/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/economics , Diabetes Mellitus/diagnosis , Diabetes Mellitus/economics , Diabetes Mellitus/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Mass Screening/economics , Mass Screening/methods , Male , Female , Prospective Studies , Adult , Middle Aged
14.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 24(1): 779, 2024 Jul 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38977967

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , Vietnam , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/economics , SARS-CoV-2 , Immunization Programs/economics , Immunization Programs/organization & administration
15.
PLoS Comput Biol ; 20(7): e1012010, 2024 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39024382

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , Uncertainty , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , Pandemics/prevention & control , Quarantine , Computational Biology , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Models, Theoretical , Epidemics/prevention & control
16.
Health Aff (Millwood) ; 43(7): 979-984, 2024 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38950301

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Medically Uninsured , Humans , Medically Uninsured/statistics & numerical data , United States , COVID-19/prevention & control , Adult , COVID-19 Vaccines/supply & distribution , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , Middle Aged , Female , Male , United States Health Resources and Services Administration , Young Adult , SARS-CoV-2 , Immunization Programs/economics
17.
Vaccine ; 42(20): 125988, 2024 Aug 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38824084

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Cost-Effectiveness Analysis , Immunization Programs , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Disability-Adjusted Life Years , Hospitalization/economics , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Immunization Programs/economics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , South Africa/epidemiology , Vaccination/economics
18.
BMJ Glob Health ; 9(6)2024 Jun 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38844381

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , Africa , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , COVID-19 Vaccines/supply & distribution , Drug Stability , Drug Storage , Community Participation , Vaccination/economics , Vaccination/methods
19.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ; 121(26): e2321978121, 2024 Jun 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38885387

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Pandemics/economics , SARS-CoV-2 , Models, Economic , Biomedical Research/economics , Biomedical Research/trends , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL