Herd Immunity Effects in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses among Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

BACKGROUND: Herd immunity (HI) is a key benefit of vaccination programs, but the effects are not routinely included in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). OBJECTIVE: This study investigated how the inclusion of HI in CEAs may influence the reported value of immunizations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and illustrated the implications for COVID-19 immunization. METHODS: We reviewed immunization CEAs published from 2000 to 2018 focusing on LMICs using data from the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registries. We investigated the proportion of studies that included HI, the methods used, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported. When possible, we evaluated how ICERs would change with and without HI. RESULTS: Among the 243 immunization CEAs meeting inclusion criteria, 44 studies (18%) included HI. Of those studies, 11 (25%) used dynamic transmission models, whereas the remainder used static models. Sixteen studies allowed for ICER calculations with and without HI (n = 48 ratios). The inclusion of HI always resulted in more favorable ratios. In 20 cases (42%), adding HI decreased the ICERs enough to cross at least one or more common cost-effectiveness benchmarks for LMICs. Among pneumococcal vaccination studies, including HI in the analyses decreased seven of 24 ICERs enough to cross at least one cost-effectiveness benchmark. CONCLUSION: The full value of immunization may be underestimated without considering a scenario in which HI is achieved. Given the evidence in pneumococcal CEAs, COVID-19 vaccine value assessments should aim to show ICERs with and without HI to inform decision-making in LMICs.

Bridging the gap: aligning economic research with disease burden.

INTRODUCTION: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is critical for identifying high-value interventions that address significant unmet need. This study examines whether CEA study volume is proportionate to the burden associated with 21 major disease categories. METHODS: We searched the Tufts Medical Center CEA and Global Health CEA Registries for studies published between 2010 and 2019 that measured cost per quality-adjusted life-year or cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY). Stratified by geographical region and country income level, the relationship between literature volume and disease burden (as measured by 2019 Global Burden of Disease estimates of population DALYs) was analysed using ordinary least squares linear regression. Additionally, the number of CEAs per intervention deemed 'essential' for universal health coverage by the Disease Control Priorities Network was assessed to evaluate how many interventions are supported by cost-effectiveness evidence. RESULTS: The results located below the regression line but with relatively high burden suggested disease areas that were 'understudied' compared with expected study volume. Understudied disease areas varied by region. Higher-income and upper-middle-income country (HUMIC) CEA volume for non-communicable diseases (eg, mental/behavioural disorders) was 100-fold higher than that in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs). LLMIC study volume remained concentrated in HIV/AIDS as well as other communicable and neglected tropical diseases. Across 60 essential interventions, only 33 had any supporting CEA evidence, and only 21 had a decision context involving a low-income or middle-income country. With the exception of one intervention, available CEA evidence revealed the 21 interventions to be cost-effective, with base-case findings less than three times the GDP per capita. CONCLUSION: Our analysis highlights disease areas that require significant policy attention. Research gaps for highly prevalent, lethal or disabling diseases, as well as essential interventions may be stifling potential efficiency gains. Large research disparities between HUMICs and LLMICs suggest funding opportunities for improving allocative efficiency in LLMIC health systems.

Principles of Economic Evaluation in a Pandemic Setting: An Expert Panel Discussion on Value Assessment During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to generate significant morbidity and mortality as well as economic and societal impacts, the landscape of potential treatments has slowly begun to broaden. In the case of a novel disease with widespread consequences, society is more likely to place significant value on interventions that reduce the outsized economic burden of COVID-19. Treatments for severe disease will have a different value profile to that of large-scale vaccines because of their application in targeted and potentially small subsets of those with symptomatic disease vs broad deployment as a preventative measure. Where vaccines reduce transmissibility of COVID-19, use of therapeutics will target symptoms, up to and including death for infected individuals. This paper describes discussions from a virtual expert panel that met to attempt a consensus on how existing principles of economic evaluation should be applied to therapeutics that emerge in a pandemic setting, with specific focus on severe hospitalised cases of COVID-19. The panel concluded that the core principles of economic evaluation do not need to be drastically overhauled to meet the challenges of a pandemic, but that there are several additional elements of value such as equity, disease severity, insurance value, and scientific and family spillover effects that should be considered when presenting results to decision makers. The panel also highlighted the persistent challenges on how society should value novel therapies, such as the appropriate cost-effectiveness threshold to apply, which are particularly salient during a pandemic.

Consideration Of Value-Based Pricing For Treatments And Vaccines Is Important, Even In The COVID-19 Pandemic.

Prices send signals about consumer preferences and thus stimulate producers to make more of what people want. Pricing in a pandemic is complicated and fraught. The policy puzzle involves balancing lower prices to ensure access to essential medications, vaccines, and tests against the need for adequate revenue streams to provide manufacturers with incentives to make the substantial, risky investments needed to develop products in the first place. We review alternative pricing strategies (cost recovery models, monetary prizes, and advance market commitments) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics. Hybrid pricing strategies are undoubtedly needed in a pandemic, but even in a public health crisis, value-based pricing is important. Cost-effectiveness analyses can inform pricing. Ideally, analyses would be conducted from both a health system and a societal perspective. Incorporating the added value of social benefits into cost-effectiveness analyses does not mean that manufacturers should capture the entire societal benefit of a diagnostic, vaccine, or therapy. Such analyses can provide important information and help policy makers consider the full costs and benefits of products and the wide-ranging ramifications of their actions.

Crisis into opportunity: can COVID-19 help set a path to improved health care efficiency?

With a "new normal" level of care going forward post coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the key will be to invest in high-value services while deterring a resurgence of low-value care.