Search

Abstract Background To improve the efficient use of scarce resources, low- and middle-income countries and development partners are increasingly encouraged to deliver multiple vaccines and other interventions in a single integrated campaign. However, little is known regarding the cost of delivering vaccines through integrated campaigns, and the extent to which efficiencies are achieved. To fill this evidence gap, we estimated the cost of integrated immunization campaigns in Nigeria and Sierra Leone, and the potential savings from integration. Methods We conducted a retrospective ingredients-based costing study from a payer perspective of a campaign held in 2019 in Sierra Leone with measles-rubella vaccine and oral polio vaccine, during which nutrition supplements were also offered in part of the country, and yellow fever campaigns held in three states in Nigeria in 2019 and 2020, where in one state (Anambra) meningococcal A vaccines were co-delivered. We collected data from 108 health facilities, all relevant administrative levels, and implementing partners. We estimated the full financial and economic cost of each campaign, the average unit cost of delivery, as well as the cost by activity and resource type. We also estimated the cost savings from integration in Anambra state by modelling out the cost of the alternative of two standalone campaigns. Results The average financial delivery cost was $0.34 per dose in Sierra Leone, and the economic cost was $0.73 per dose. In Nigeria, the financial cost per dose was $0.29–$0.35 across the three states, and the economic cost per dose was $0.62–$0.85. Facilities and wards delivering more doses achieved a lower financial and economic unit cost of delivery, demonstrating evidence of economies of scale. We estimated that Anambra may have saved at least $1,204,133 in financial resources by integrating yellow fever and meningitis A vaccine delivery, amounting to $0.17 per dose delivered. When including opportunity costs, the economic cost saving was estimated at $0.34 per dose delivered. Conclusions The study offers evidence on what it costs to deliver integrated campaigns, and shows that integrated delivery is likely to result in significant cost savings. Where high delivery volumes can be achieved, integrated campaigns can benefit from economies of scale. The findings can be used to inform planning and budgeting for immunization campaigns in low- and middle-income countries.

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.

Abstract Background Differences in definitions and methodological approaches have hindered comparison and synthesis of economic evaluation results across multiple health domains, including immunization. At the request of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Immunization and Vaccines-related Implementation Research Advisory Committee (IVIR-AC), WHO convened an ad hoc Vaccine Delivery Costing Working Group, comprising experts from eight organizations working in immunization costing, to address a lack of standardization and gaps in definitions and methodological guidance. The aim of the Working Group was to develop a consensus statement harmonizing terminology and principles and to formulate recommendations for vaccine delivery costing for decision making. This paper discusses the process, findings of the review, and recommendations in the Consensus Statement. Methods The Working Group conducted several interviews, teleconferences, and one in-person meeting to identify groups working in vaccine delivery costing as well as existing guidance documents and costing tools, focusing on those for low- and middle-income country settings. They then reviewed the costing aims, perspectives, terms, methods, and principles in these documents. Consensus statement principles were drafted to align with the Global Health Cost Consortium costing guide as an agreed normative reference, and consensus definitions were drafted to reflect the predominant view across the documents reviewed. Results The Working Group identified four major workstreams on vaccine delivery costing as well as nine guidance documents and eleven costing tools for immunization costing. They found that some terms and principles were commonly defined while others were specific to individual workstreams. Based on these findings and extensive consultation, recommendations to harmonize differences in terminology and principles were made. Conclusions Use of standardized principles and definitions outlined in the Consensus Statement within the immunization delivery costing community of practice can facilitate interpretation of economic evidence by global, regional, and national decision makers. Improving methodological alignment and clarity in program costing of health services such as immunization is important to support evidence-based policies and optimal resource allocation. On the other hand, this review and Consensus Statement development process revealed the limitations of our ability to harmonize given that study designs will vary depending upon the policy question that is being addressed and the country context.