Search

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., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

A Measles-Rubella (MR) vaccination campaign was launched in India in a phased manner in February 2017 to cover children aged 9 months to 15 years. As evidence on campaign vaccine delivery costs is limited, the delivery cost for MR campaign from a government provider perspective was estimated in four Indian states, namely, Assam, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. Costs were calculated in top-down and bottom-up approaches using data collected from 84 sites at different administrative levels and immunization partners in the study states from August 2019 to March 2020. All costs were presented in 2019 US$ and Indian Rupee (INR). The financial cost per dose of the MR campaign including all partner support ranged from US$0.16 (INR 10.95) in Uttar Pradesh to US$0.34 (INR 24.13) in Gujarat. In Uttar Pradesh, the full economic cost per dose was US$0.87 (INR 61.39). The key financial cost drivers were incentives related to service delivery and supervision, the printing of reporting formats for record-keeping, social mobilization, and advocacy. The financial delivery cost per dose estimated was higher than the government pre-fixed budget per child for the MR campaign, probably indicating an insufficient budget. However, the study found underutilization of MR budget in two states and use of other sources of funding for the campaign indicating the need for proper utilization of the campaign budgets by the states. Unit cost information generated from this study will be useful for planning, cost projections, and economic analysis of future vaccination campaigns in India.

Introduction: In 2017, aligned with global World Health Organization tetanus guidelines, Vietnam prepared evidence to support a recommendation to introduce the tetanus-diphtheria (Td) vaccine into routine immunization. This study aimed to provide evidence on the costs and budgetary impact of the potential replacement of the tetanus-toxoid (TT) vaccine with the Td vaccine, considering different possible delivery strategies., Method: We used an activity-based ingredients costing approach to estimate the 2017 program costs of providing TT vaccination to girls aged 15-16 years and conducting Td campaigns in outbreak areas. We performed a budget impact analysis for 2018-2025 using the cost per dose estimates based on the current delivery of these vaccines. We assumed complete cessation of TT vaccination of girls aged 15-16 years and a transition period where Td outbreak control campaigns would still occur. Td vaccine was assumed to be provided to children aged 7 years using either facility- or school-based delivery or combined facility- and school-based delivery., Results: The delivery cost per dose for current TT vaccination for girls aged 15-16 years was US$1.49 for school-based delivery, US$1.76 for facility-based delivery, and US$3.86 for delivery via outreach. Td vaccination through campaigns was estimated to cost US$3.56/dose. During 2018-2025, replacing the TT vaccine for girls aged 15-16 years with the Td vaccine for children aged 7 years is estimated to save US$4.61 million in immunization delivery costs if a school-based delivery strategy is used or US$1.04 million if facility-based delivery is used., Conclusion: Compared to the current plan, delivery of Td routine vaccination via a school-based strategy was the most cost saving. These results were used in late 2019 to support the delivery of Td vaccination using a school-based delivery strategy for children aged 7 years in 30 Northern provinces in Vietnam., (© Mai et al.)

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).)

In many low- and middle-income countries, planning cycles and policy decisions are not always informed by cost evidence, even where relevant and recent cost evidence is available. The Immunization Costing Action Network (ICAN) project was a research and learning community designed to strengthen country capacity to generate immunization cost evidence and to understand and improve the evidence-to-policy linkages for the evidence. We identified key factors that increase the likelihood that health policy makers will use evidence for policy making or planning, which shaped the development of a 6-step evidence to policy and practice (EPP) facilitated process. ICAN used the EPP process in Indonesia, Tanzania, and Vietnam from 2016-2019. The experience resulted in several insights regarding country priorities related to cost evidence and factors that determine uptake. Cost evidence is more likely to be used if it answers a specific policy question prioritized by the immunization program, while the use case is less clear and urgent for routine planning and program management. Nonhealth ministries and subnational stakeholders can provide important perspectives to inform the research and its usability. The use case for evidence should be revisited periodically as divergences from formal planning cycles are common and new policy windows open. Ensuring evidence is available at the right time is critical, even if this requires a sacrifice between rigor and speed. Engaging a small group of stakeholders, rather than an individual, to champion the research may be more effective, and the research has greater legitimacy if it is produced by multidisciplinary country teams. Evidence and messages should be tailored for and packaged targeting different audiences. Going forward, continued support is necessary to bridge the divide between those who generate cost evidence and those who translate evidence for policy and planning decisions., (© Ozaltin et al.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted immunization services critical to the prevention of vaccine-preventable diseases in many low- and middle- income countries around the world. These services will need to be modified in order to minimize COVID-19 transmission and ensure the safety of health workers and the community. Additional budget will be required to implement these modifications that ensure safe delivery., Methods: Using a simple modeling analysis, we estimated the additional resource requirements associated with modifications to supplementary immunization activities (campaigns) and routine immunization services via fixed sites and outreach in 2020 US dollars. We considered the following four categories of costs: (1) personal protective equipment (PPE) & infection prevention and control (IPC) measures for immunization sessions; (2) physical distancing and screening during immunization sessions; (3) delivery strategy changes, such as changes in session sizes and frequency; and (4) other operational cost increases, including additional social mobilization, training, and hazard pay to compensate health workers., Results: We found that implementing a range of measures to protect health workers and communities from COVID-19 transmission could result in a per-facility start-up cost of $466-799 for routine fixed-site delivery and $12-220 for routine outreach delivery, and $12-108 per immunization campaign site. A recurrent monthly cost of $137-1,024 for fixed-site delivery and $152-848 for outreach delivery per facility could be incurred, and a $0.32-0.85 increase in the cost per dose during campaigns., Conclusions: By illustrating potential cost implications of providing immunization services through a range of strategies in a safe manner, these estimates can provide a benchmark for program managers and policy makers on the additional budget required. These findings can help country practitioners and global development partners planning the continuation of immunization services in the context of COVID-19., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [LBr was employed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation while contributing to the study. The other authors declare no competing interests.]., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)