ABSTRACT
Even if public health interventions are successful at reducing the spread of COVID-19, there is no guarantee that they will bring net benefits to the society because of the dynamic nature of the pandemic, e.g., the risk of a second outbreak if those interventions are stopped too early, and the costs of a continued lockdown. In this analysis, a discrete-time dynamic model is used to simulate the effect of reducing the effective reproduction number, driven by lockdowns ordered in March 2020 in four European countries (UK, France, Italy and Spain), on QALYs and hospitalisation costs. These benefits are valued in monetary terms (30,000 per QALY assumed) and compared to productivity costs due to reduced economic activity during the lockdown. An analysis of the optimal duration of lockdown is performed where a net benefit is maximised. The switch to a soft lockdown is analysed and compared to a continued lockdown or no intervention. Results vary for two assumptions about hospital capacity of the health system: (a) under unlimited capacity, average benefit ranges from 8.21 to 14.21% of annual GDP, for UK and Spain, respectively; (b) under limited capacity, average benefits are higher than 30.32% of annual GDP in all countries. The simulation results imply that the benefits of lockdown are not substantial unless continued until vaccination of high-risk groups is complete. It is illustrated that lockdown may not bring net benefits under some scenarios and a soft lockdown will be a more efficient alternative from mid-June 2020 only if the basic reproduction number is maintained low (not necessarily below 1) and productivity costs are sufficiently reduced.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to suggestions that cost-effectiveness analyses should adopt a broader perspective when estimating costs. This review aims to provide an overview of economic evaluations of interventions against viral pandemics in terms of the perspective taken, types of costs included, comparators, type of economic model, data sources and methods for estimating productivity costs. STUDY DESIGN: Scoping literature review. METHODS: Publications were eligible if they conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, cost-benefit analysis or cost-minimisation analysis and evaluated interventions aimed at viral pandemics or for patients infected with viral pandemic disease. We searched PubMed, Embase and Scopus for relevant references and charted data from the selected full-text publications into a predefined spreadsheet based on research sub-questions, summary tables and figures. RESULTS: From 5410 references, 36 full-text publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The economic evaluations were mainly model based and included direct medical costs of hospital treatment. Around half of the studies included productivity costs and the proportion of total costs attributed to productivity costs ranged from 10% to 90%, depending on estimation methods, assumptions about valuation of time, type of intervention, severity of illness and degree of transmission. CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluations of interventions against viral pandemics differed in terms of estimation methods and reporting of productivity costs, even for similar interventions. Hence, the literature on economic evaluations for pandemic response would benefit from having standards for conducting and reporting economic evaluations, especially for productivity costs.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Efficiency , HumansABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study is to calculate the years of life lost (YLL) and years of potential life lost (YPLL) due to COVID-19, according to age groups in Turkey in the first year of the pandemic and the cost of this burden. STUDY DESIGN: This is an observational study with quantitative analyses. METHODS: YLL due to premature deaths was calculated for men and women by interpolating the number of deaths and the expected life expectancy. YPLL was calculated according to the age 65 years. Productivity loss is an estimation of the cost of time lost at work-related activities-in a scenario analysis-using predetermined wage rates with the human capital theory. RESULTS: Men lost 205,177 (67.57%) years of life, whereas women lost 125,330 (32.43%) years of life. The YLL average age in men was 63.66 ± 14.66 years, and the YLL average age in women was 66.07 ± 15.46 years. The average YLL age in men was younger than in women (P < 0.001). Men lost 65,180 (70.16%) YPLL, whereas women lost 27,723 (29.84%) YPLL. The average YPLL age in women was younger than in men (P < 0.001). During one year of the pandemic, premature death cost Turkey 227,396,694 USD, the cost for one premature death was 14,187 USD, and the cost of any year of life lost was 1261 USD. CONCLUSION: YLL and YPLLs are very closely associated with COVID-19 deaths in the country. The economic dimensions of the pandemic with human losses are quite high.