The design of a Social Cost-Benefit Analysis of preventive interventions for toxoplasmosis: An example of the One Health approach.

Toxoplasma gondii infections cause a large disease burden in the Netherlands, with an estimated health loss of 1,900 Disability Adjusted Life Years and a cost-of-illness estimated at €44 million annually. Infections in humans occur via exposure to oocysts in the environment and after eating undercooked meat containing tissue cysts, leading to asymptomatic or mild symptoms, but potentially leading to the development of ocular toxoplasmosis. Infection in pregnant women can lead to stillbirth and disorders in newborns. At present, prevention is only targeted at pregnant women. Cat vaccination, freezing of meat destined for undercooked consumption and enhancing biosecurity in pig husbandries are possible interventions to prevent toxoplasmosis. As these interventions bear costs for sectors in society that differ from those profiting from the benefits, we perform a social cost-benefit analysis (SCBA). In an SCBA, costs and benefits of societal domains affected by the interventions are identified, making explicit which stakeholder pays and who benefits. Using an epidemiological model, we consider transmission of T. gondii after vaccination of all owned cats or cats at livestock farms. To identify relevant high-risk meat products that will be eaten undercooked, a quantitative microbial risk assessment model developed to attribute predicted T. gondii infections to specific meat products will be used. In addition, we evaluate serological monitoring of pigs at slaughter followed by an audit and tailor made advice for farmers in case positive results were found. The benefits will be modelled stochastically as reduction in DALYs and monetized in Euro's following reference prices for DALYs. If the balance of total costs and benefits is positive, this will lend support to implementation of these preventive interventions at the societal level. Ultimately, the SCBA will provide guidance to policy makers on the most optimal intervention measures to reduce the disease burden of T. gondii in the Netherlands.

[Costs and benefits of smoking]. / De rekening van roken.

- Two recent societal cost-benefit analyses have documented the costs of smoking and the cost-effectiveness of preventing smoking.- Smoking costs the Netherlands society EUR 33 billion per year.- The majority of this is the monetary value of health loss; these are "soft" euros that cannot be re-spent.- There is not a great deal of difference between costs and benefits when expressed in "hard" euros, which means that there is no clear business case for anti-smoking policy.- The greatest benefit of discouraging smoking is improved health for the individual and increased productivity for the business sector; however, the benefits cannot be easily realised, because even in the most favourable scenario the number of smokers will decrease slowly.- Excise duties seem to offer the most promising avenue for combating smoking. The benefits of anti-smoking policy, therefore, consist mainly of tax revenues for the government.- Stringent policy is required to transform tax revenues into health gains.

[Cost-effectiveness of addiction care]. / De kosteneffectiviteit van interventies gericht op verslaving aan alcohol en drugs.

BACKGROUND: A large number of interventions are available for the treatment of addiction. Professionals need to know about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions so they can prioritise appropriate interventions for the treatment of addiction. AIM: To provide an overview of the scientific literature on the cost-effectiveness of addiction treatment for alcohol- and drug-abusers. METHOD: We searched the databases Medline and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. To be relevant for our study, articles had to focus on interventions in the health-care setting, have a Western context and have a health-related outcome measure such as quality adjusted life years (QALY). Twenty-nine studies met our inclusion criteria: 15 for alcohol and 14 for drugs. RESULTS: The studies on alcohol addiction related mainly to brief interventions. They proved to be cost-saving or had a favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), remaining below the threshold of € 20,000 per QALY. The studies on drug addiction all involved pharmacotherapeutic interventions. In the case of 10 out of 14 interventions, the ICER was less than € 20,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Almost all of the interventions studied were cost-saving or cost-effective. Many studies consider only health-care costs. Additional research, for instance using a social cost-benefit analysis, could provide more details about the costs of addiction and about the impact that an intervention could have in these/the costs.