Search

Sustainable financing for immunization refers to the sufficient and predictable allocation and use of resources to support the achievement of immunization goals within the framework of overall health financing. The Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) agenda spells out four important focus areas needed for sustainable financing: (1) ensuring sufficient and predictable resources, (2) making optimal use of resources, (3) aligning partnerships, and (4) supporting sustainable transitions from external assistance. This paper summarizes the evidence and proposes interventions under each area. While immunization is one of the best investments and justifies public financing, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to the worst economic recession since the Great Depression and threatens countries' ability to mobilize funding to ensure continuity and access to essential services, including immunization. Strategies for ensuring adequate resources differ by income group but include raising more revenues, reprioritizing the budget towards health, and ensuring that health resources favor Primary Health Care (PHC) and immunization. In low- and lower-middle income countries, support from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which channels the largest amount of external financing, will remain important, but some lower-middle income countries will need to prepare for transition. Countries benefitting from the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) are also experiencing a transition from GPEI financing to domestic and other external financing. This paper outlines ways in which countries can improve the use of domestic and external resources to better incentivize high-quality PHC and immunization services and align immunization programs with health sector reforms. While governments must lead, collective action from development partners, the private sector, and civil society is needed to promote health system financing systems that ensure that the world is better prepared for future outbreaks and pandemics, while reinforcing the IA2030 vision and making progress towards universal health coverage and the Sustainable Development Goals., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Understanding the level of investment needed for the 2021-2030 decade is important as the global community faces the next strategic period for vaccines and immunization programs. To assist with this goal, we estimated the aggregate costs of immunization programs for ten vaccines in 94 low- and middle-income countries from 2011 to 2030., Method: We calculated vaccine, immunization delivery and stockpile costs for 94 low- and middle-income countries leveraging the latest available data sources. We conducted scenario analyses to vary assumptions about the relationship between delivery cost and coverage as well as vaccine prices for fully self-financing countries., Results: The total aggregate cost of immunization programs in 94 countries for 10 vaccines from 2011 to 2030 is $70.8 billion (confidence interval: $56.6-$93.3) under the base case scenario and $84.1 billion ($72.8-$102.7) under an incremental delivery cost scenario, with an increasing trend over two decades. The relative proportion of vaccine and delivery costs for pneumococcal conjugate, human papillomavirus, and rotavirus vaccines increase as more countries introduce these vaccines. Nine countries in accelerated transition phase bear the highest burden of the costs in the next decade, and uncertainty with vaccine prices for the 17 fully self-financing countries could lead to total costs that are 1.3-13.1 times higher than the base case scenario., Conclusion: Resource mobilization efforts at the global and country levels will be needed to reach the level of investment needed for the coming decade. Global-level initiatives and targeted strategies for transitioning countries will help ensure the sustainability of immunization programs., (Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the 21st century, increases in immunisation coverage and decreases in under-5 mortality have substantially reduced the global burden of measles mortality. However, the assessment of measles mortality burden is highly dependent on estimates of case-fatality ratios for measles, which can vary according to geography, health systems infrastructure, prevalence of underlying risk factors, and measles endemicity. With imprecise case-fatality ratios, there is continued uncertainty about the burden of measles mortality and the effect of measles vaccination. In this study, we aimed to update the estimations of case-fatality ratios for measles, to develop a prediction model to estimate case-fatality ratios across heterogeneous groupings, and to project future case-fatality ratios for measles up to 2030., Methods: We did a review of the literature to identify studies examining measles cases and deaths in low-income and middle-income countries in all age groups from 1980 to 2016. We extracted data on case-fatality ratios for measles overall and by age, where possible. We developed and examined several types of generalised linear models and determined the best-fit model according to the Akaike information criterion. We then selected a best-fit model to estimate measles case-fatality ratios from 1990 to 2015 and projected future case-fatality ratios for measles up to 2030., Findings: We selected 124 peer-reviewed journal articles published between Jan 1, 1980, and Dec 31, 2016, for inclusion in the final review-85 community-based studies and 39 hospital-based studies. We selected a log-linear prediction model, resulting in a mean case-fatality ratio of 2·2% (95% CI 0·7-4·5) in 1990-2015. In community-based settings, the mean case-fatality ratio was 1·5% (0·5-3·1) compared with 2·9% (0·9-6·0) in hospital-based settings. The mean projected case-fatality ratio in 2016-2030 was 1·3% (0·4-3·7)., Interpretation: Case-fatality ratios for measles have seen substantial declines since the 1990s. Our study provides an updated estimation of case-fatality ratios that could help to refine assessment of the effect on mortality of measles control and elimination programmes., Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

With social policies increasingly directed toward enhancing equity through health programs, it is important that methods for estimating the health and economic benefits of these programs by subpopulation be developed, to assess both equity concerns and the programs' total impact. We estimated the differential health impact (measured as the number of deaths averted) and household economic impact (measured as the number of cases of medical impoverishment averted) of ten antigens and their corresponding vaccines across income quintiles for forty-one low- and middle-income countries. Our analysis indicated that benefits across these vaccines would accrue predominantly in the lowest income quintiles. Policy makers should be informed about the large health and economic distributional impact that vaccines could have, and they should view vaccination policies as potentially important channels for improving health equity. Our results provide insight into the distribution of vaccine-preventable diseases and the health benefits associated with their prevention.