Search

Economic principles and tools have aided policy-making on the allocation of resources for health and have been applied convincingly to vaccination. In the late 1970s cost-effectiveness studies of immunization programmes [...]

Many children do not receive a full schedule of childhood vaccines, yet there is limited evidence on the cost-effectiveness of strategies for improving vaccination coverage. Evidence is even scarcer on the cost-effectiveness of strategies for reaching 'zero-dose children', who have not received any routine vaccines. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of periodic intensification of routine immunization (PIRI), a widely applied strategy for increasing vaccination coverage. We focused on Intensified Mission Indradhanush (IMI), a large-scale PIRI intervention implemented in India in 2017-2018. In 40 sampled districts, we measured the incremental economic cost of IMI using primary data, and used controlled interrupted time-series regression to estimate the incremental vaccination doses delivered. We estimated deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted using the Lives Saved Tool and reported cost-effectiveness from immunization programme and societal perspectives. We found that, in sampled districts, IMI had an estimated incremental cost of 2021US$13.7 (95% uncertainty interval: 10.6 to 17.4) million from an immunization programme perspective and increased vaccine delivery by an estimated 2.2 (-0.5 to 4.8) million doses over a 12-month period, averting an estimated 1413 (-350 to 3129) deaths. The incremental cost from a programme perspective was $6.21 per dose ($2.80 to dominated), $82.99 per zero-dose child reached ($39.85 to dominated), $327.63 ($147.65 to dominated) per DALY averted, $360.72 ($162.56 to dominated) per life-year saved and $9701.35 ($4372.01 to dominated) per under-5 death averted. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of 1× per-capita GDP per DALY averted, IMI was estimated to be cost-effective with 90% probability. This evidence suggests IMI was both impactful and cost-effective for improving vaccination coverage, though there is a high degree of uncertainty in the results. As vaccination programmes expand coverage, unit costs may increase due to the higher costs of reaching currently unvaccinated children., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.)

Most countries rolled out COVID-19 vaccination during 2021-2022. However, COVID-19 vaccine delivery cost estimates are still needed to support planning and budgeting to integrate COVID-19 vaccines into routine programs and to target high risk populations, specifically within resource-scarce contexts. Management Sciences for Health and the COVID-19 Vaccine Delivery Partnership Working Group collected country-level data through two surveys exploring global experiences with vaccine roll-out. 40 respondents from 27 countries responded to the surveys in November 2021 and May 2022. Respondents described their country's human resources needs, vaccine delivery modalities, demand generation strategies, booster uptake, cold chain capacity, supplies, and sub-population targets. The surveys highlighted unexpected trends in hiring, reliance on newer and costlier delivery and demand generation methods and significant gaps regarding HR, supplies, boosters, cold chain and reaching sub-populations. These types of opportunity assessments are useful ways of rapidly filling gaps in information needed to adequately cost alternative delivery strategies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Ishani Mathur reports financial support was provided by United States Agency for International Development., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background : Deep-rooted and widespread gender-based bias and discrimination threaten achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Despite evidence that addressing gender inequities contributes to better health and development outcomes, the resources for, and effectiveness of, such efforts in development assistance for health (DAH) have been insufficient. This paper explores systemic challenges in DAH that perpetuate or contribute to gender inequities, with a particular focus on the role of external donors and funders. Methods: We applied a co-creation system design process to map and analyze interactions between donors and recipient countries, and articulate drivers of gender inequities within the landscape of DAH. We conducted qualitative primary data collection and analysis in 2021 via virtual facilitated discussions and visual mapping exercises among a diverse set of 41 stakeholders, including representatives from donor institutions, country governments, academia, and civil society. Results: Six systemic challenges emerged as perpetuating or contributing to gender inequities in DAH: 1) insufficient input and leadership from groups affected by gender bias and discrimination; 2) decision-maker blind spots inhibit capacity to address gender inequities; 3) imbalanced power dynamics contribute to insufficient resources and attention to gender priorities; 4) donor funding structures limit efforts to effectively address gender inequities; 5) fragmented programming impedes coordinated attention to the root causes of gender inequities; and 6) data bias contributes to insufficient understanding of and attention to gender inequities. Conclusions : Many of the drivers impeding progress on gender equity in DAH are embedded in power dynamics that distance and disempower people affected by gender inequities. Overcoming these dynamics will require more than technical solutions. Groups affected by gender inequities must be centered in leadership and decision-making at micro and macro levels, with practices and structures that enable co-creation and mutual accountability in the design, implementation, and evaluation of health programs., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Two of the co-authors are employed at the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation and played a role in preparation of the manuscript and its review as co-authors., (Copyright: © 2023 Bartel D et al.)

Background: Development assistance for health (DAH) is an important mechanism for funding and technical support to low-income countries. Despite increased DAH spending, intractable health challenges remain. Recent decades have seen numerous efforts to reform DAH models, yet pernicious challenges persist amidst structural complexities and a growing number of actors. Systems-based approaches are promising for understanding these types of complex adaptive systems. This paper presents a systems-based understanding of DAH, including barriers to achieving sustainable and effective country-driven models for technical assistance and capacity strengthening to achieve better outcomes Methods: We applied an innovative systems-based approach to explore and map how donor structures, processes, and norms pose challenges to improving development assistance models. The system mapping was carried out through an iterative co-creation process including a series of discussions and workshops with diverse stakeholders across 13 countries. Results: Nine systemic challenges emerged: 1) reliance on external implementing partners undermines national capacity; 2) prioritizing global initiatives undercuts local programming; 3) inadequate contextualization hampers program sustainability; 4) decision-maker blind spots inhibit capacity to address inequities; 5) power asymmetries undermine local decision making; 6) donor funding structures pose limitations downstream; 7) program fragmentation impedes long-term country planning; 8) reliance on incomplete data perpetuates inequities; and 9) overemphasis on donor-prioritized data perpetuates fragmentation. Conclusions: These interconnected challenges illustrate interdependencies and feedback loops manifesting throughout the system. A particular driving force across these system barriers is the influence of power asymmetries between actors. The articulation of these challenges can help stakeholders overcome biases about the efficacy of the system and their role in perpetuating the issues. These findings indicate that change is needed not only in how we design and implement global health programs, but in how system actors interact. This requires co-creating solutions that shift the structures, norms, and mindsets governing DAH models., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Two of the co-authors are employed at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and played a role in the preparation of this manuscript and its review., (Copyright: © 2023 Knittel B et al.)

We estimated immunization program costs, financing, and funding gaps for sixteen vaccines among ninety-four low- and middle-income countries during the period 2011-30. Inputs were obtained from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, the 2020 Decade of Vaccine Economics costing analysis, the World Health Organization, Gavi, and the United Nations Children's Fund. We found a total funding gap of $38.4 billion between 2011 and 2030, with the cost of immunization delivery being the main driver (86 percent) of the funding gap. On average, government financing of vaccination programs steadily rises throughout the period. However, the decline in both Gavi and development assistance for health (DAH) financing anticipated between 2011 and 2030 outpaces the forecasted increases in domestic government immunization spending. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was applied to both the costing and the scenario analyses to address uncertainty in the financing of vaccines and vaccine delivery. The results highlight a narrowing gap for vaccine acquisition but a growing gap for vaccine delivery, which emphasizes the critical need for resource mobilization and sustainable financial strategies for immunization programs at national and global levels, as well as a need to address the COVID-19 pandemic's potential effects on government financing for vaccines between 2021 and 2030.

Despite widespread adoption of decentralization reforms, the impact of decentralization on health system attributes, such as access to health services, responsiveness to population health needs, and effectiveness in affecting health outcomes, remains unclear. This study examines how decision space, institutional capacities, and accountability mechanisms of the Intensified Mission Indradhanush (IMI) in India relate to measurable performance of the immunization program. Data on decision space and its related dimensions of institutional capacity and accountability were collected by conducting structured interviews with managers based in 24 districts, 61 blocks, and 279 subcenters. Two measures by which to assess performance were selected: (1) proportion reduction in the DTP3 coverage gap (i.e., effectiveness), and (2) total IMI doses delivered per incremental USD spent on program implementation (i.e., efficiency). Descriptive statistics on decision space, institutional capacity, and accountability for IMI managers were generated. Structural equation models (SEM) were specified to detect any potential associations between decision space dimensions and performance measures. The majority of districts and blocks indicated low levels of decision space. Institutional capacity and accountability were similar across areas. Increases in decision space were associated with less progress towards closing the immunization coverage gap in the IMI context. Initiatives to support health workers and managers based on their specific contextual challenges could further improve outcomes of the program. Similar to previous studies, results revealed strong associations between each of the three decentralization dimensions. Health systems should consider the impact that management structures have on the efficiency and effectiveness of health services delivery. Future research could provide greater evidence for directionality of direct and indirect effects, interaction effects, and/or mediators of relationships., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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.

In Rwanda, provider reimbursements for oxygen are based on the duration of patient consumption at a fixed hourly tariff rate. This study sought to assess whether the current insurance tariff in Rwanda was adequate to cover the costs of oxygen used in oxygen therapy and to explore alternative tariff models.The assessment found that hospitals make a marginal surplus from low volume flow rate patients and incur losses from patients who require high volume flow rates. In high volume nonspecialized hospitals with a large pool of patients consuming medical oxygen, low flow rate usage patients (e.g., neonates) tend to subsidize high flow usage patients (surgery), if the number of patients consuming low flow oxygen is higher than the latter. The study found that the current tariff was sufficient before the exponential surge in demand for high flow usage during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. A variable tariff that factors both the duration (hours) and the volume (liters) used during the therapy may require more work but better reflects the cost of consumption in each ward. A case-based payment model provides a standard pricing framework based on the patient's diagnosis, intervention, and intensity of treatment.This study highlights the need for a transition from the time-based tariff structure to a case-based or volume-based tariff to incentivize sustainable production and provision (supply) of medical oxygen services at health facilities in Rwanda. Social health insurance reimbursement tariffs for medical oxygen need to reflect both duration and volume of consumption because oxygen therapy varies based on intervention, disease severity, patient age, length of stay, and responsiveness to treatment., (© Kizza et al.)

Background: Development assistance for health (DAH) is an important mechanism for funding and technical support to low-income countries. Despite increased DAH spending, intractable health challenges remain. Recent decades have seen numerous efforts to reform DAH models, yet pernicious challenges persist amidst structural complexities and a growing number of actors. Systems-based approaches are promising for understanding these types of complex adaptive systems. This paper presents a systems-based understanding of DAH, including barriers to achieving sustainable and effective country-driven models for technical assistance and capacity strengthening to achieve better outcomes Methods: We applied an innovative systems-based approach to explore and map how donor structures, processes, and norms pose challenges to improving development assistance models. The system mapping was carried out through an iterative co-creation process including a series of discussions and workshops with diverse stakeholders across 13 countries. Results: Nine systemic challenges emerged: 1) reliance on external implementing partners undermines national capacity; 2) prioritizing global initiatives undercuts local programming; 3) inadequate contextualization hampers program sustainability; 4) decision-maker blind spots inhibit capacity to address inequities; 5) power asymmetries undermine local decision making; 6) donor funding structures pose limitations downstream; 7) program fragmentation impedes long-term country planning; 8) reliance on incomplete data perpetuates inequities; and 9) overemphasis on donor-prioritized data perpetuates fragmentation. Conclusions: These interconnected challenges illustrate interdependencies and feedback loops manifesting throughout the system. A particular driving force across these system barriers is the influence of power asymmetries between actors. The articulation of these challenges can help stakeholders overcome biases about the efficacy of the system and their role in perpetuating the issues. These findings indicate that change is needed not only in how we design and implement global health programs, but in how system actors interact. This requires co-creating solutions that shift the structures, norms, and mindsets governing DAH models., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Two of the co-authors are employed at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and played a role in the preparation of this manuscript and its review., (Copyright: © 2022 Knittel B et al.)

Background: This study estimated cost of COVID-19 vaccine introduction and deployment in Ghana., Methods: Using the WHO-UNICEF COVID-19 Vaccine Introduction and deployment Costing (CVIC) tool Ghana's Ministry of Health Technical Working Group for Health Technology Assessment (TWG-HTA) in collaboration with School of Public Health, University of Ghana, organized an initial two-day workshop that brought together partners to deliberate and agree on input parameters to populate the CVIC tool. A further 2-3 days validation with the Expanded Program of Immunization (EPI) and other partners to finalize the analysis was done. Three scenarios, with different combinations of vaccine products and delivery modalities, as well as time period were analyzed. The scenarios included AstraZeneca (40%), Johnson & Johnson (J&J) (30%), Moderna, Pfizer, and Sputnik V at 10% each; with primary schedule completed by second half of 2021 (Scenario 1); AstraZeneca (30%), J&J (40%), Moderna, Pfizer, and Sputnik V at 10% each with primary schedule completed by first half of 2022 (Scenario 2); and equal distribution (20%) among AstraZeneca, J&J, Moderna, Pfizer, and Sputnik V with primary schedule completed by second half of 2022 (Scenario 3)., Results: The estimated total cost of COVID-19 vaccination ranges between $348.7 and $436.1 million for the target population of 17.5 million. These translate into per person completed primary schedule cost of $20.9-$26.2 and per dose (including vaccine cost) of $10.5-$13.1. Again, per person completed primary schedule excluding vaccine cost was $4.5 and $4.6, thus per dose excluding vaccine also ranged from $2.2 - $2.3. The main cost driver was vaccine doses, including shipping, which accounts for between 78% and 83% of total cost. Further, an estimated 8,437-10,247 vaccinators (non-FTEs) would be required during 2021-2022 to vaccinate using a mix of delivery strategies, accounting for 8-10% of total cost., Conclusion: These findings provide the estimates to inform resource mobilization efforts by government and other partners., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Justice Nonvignon reports administrative support was provided by Ghana Ministry of Health. Stephen C. Resch reports article publishing charges was provided by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Dynamic modeling is commonly used to evaluate direct and indirect effects of interventions on infectious disease incidence. The risk of secondary outcomes (e.g., death) attributable to infection may depend on the underlying disease incidence targeted by the intervention. Consequently, the impact of interventions (e.g., the difference in vaccination and no-vaccination scenarios) on secondary outcomes may not be proportional to the reduction in disease incidence. Here, we illustrate the estimation of the impact of vaccination on measles mortality, where case fatality ratios (CFRs) are a function of dynamically changing measles incidence., Methods: We used a previously published model of measles CFR that depends on incidence and vaccine coverage to illustrate the effects of (1) assuming higher CFR in "no-vaccination" scenarios, (2) time-varying CFRs over the past, and (3) time-varying CFRs in future projections on measles impact estimation. We used modeled CFRs in alternative scenarios to estimate measles deaths from 2000 to 2030 in 112 low- and middle-income countries using two models of measles transmission: Pennsylvania State University (PSU) and DynaMICE. We evaluated how different assumptions on future vaccine coverage, measles incidence, and CFR levels in "no-vaccination" scenarios affect the estimation of future deaths averted by measles vaccination., Results: Across 2000-2030, when CFRs are separately estimated for the "no-vaccination" scenario, the measles deaths averted estimated by PSU increased from 85.8% with constant CFRs to 86.8% with CFRs varying 2000-2018 and then held constant or 85.9% with CFRs varying across the entire time period and by DynaMICE changed from 92.0 to 92.4% or 91.9% in the same scenarios, respectively. By aligning both the "vaccination" and "no-vaccination" scenarios with time-variant measles CFR estimates, as opposed to assuming constant CFRs, the number of deaths averted in the vaccination scenarios was larger in historical years and lower in future years., Conclusions: To assess the consequences of health interventions, impact estimates should consider the effect of "no-intervention" scenario assumptions on model parameters, such as measles CFR, in order to project estimated impact for alternative scenarios according to intervention strategies and investment decisions., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

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: Childhood immunisation is one of the most cost-effective health interventions. However, despite its known value, global access to vaccines remains far from complete. Although supply-side constraints lead to inadequate vaccine coverage in many health systems, there is no comprehensive analysis of the funding for immunisation. We aimed to fill this gap by generating estimates of funding for immunisation disaggregated by the source of funding and the type of activities in order to highlight the funding landscape for immunisation and inform policy making., Methods: For this financial modelling study, we estimated annual spending on immunisations for 135 low-income and middle-income countries (as determined by the World Bank) from 2000 to 2017, with a focus on government, donor, and out-of-pocket spending, and disaggregated spending for vaccines and delivery costs, and routine schedules and supplementary campaigns. To generate these estimates, we extracted data from National Health Accounts, the WHO-UNICEF Joint Reporting Forms, comprehensive multi-year plans, databases from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation's 2019 development assistance for health database. We estimated total spending on immunisation by aggregating the government, donor, prepaid private, and household spending estimates., Findings: Between 2000 and 2017, funding for immunisation totalled US$112·4 billion (95% uncertainty interval 108·5-118·5). Aggregated across all low-income and middle-income countries, government spending consistently remained the largest source of funding, providing between 60·0% (57·7-61·9) and 79·3% (73·8-81·4) of total immunisation spending each year (corresponding to between $2·5 billion [2·3-2·8] and $6·4 billion [6·0-7·0] each year). Across income groups, immunisation spending per surviving infant was similar in low-income and lower-middle-income countries and territories, with average spending of $40 (38-42) in low-income countries and $42 (39-46) in lower-middle-income countries, in 2017. In low-income countries and territories, development assistance made up the largest share of total immunisation spending (69·4% [64·6-72·0]; $630·2 million) in 2017. Across the 135 countries, we observed higher vaccine coverage and increased government spending on immunisation over time, although in some countries, predominantly in Latin America and the Caribbean and in sub-Saharan Africa, vaccine coverage decreased over time, while spending increased., Interpretation: These estimates highlight the progress over the past two decades in increasing spending on immunisation. However, many challenges still remain and will require dedication and commitment to ensure that the progress made in the previous decade is sustained and advanced in the next decade for the Immunization Agenda 2030., Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 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.)

Intensified Mission Indradhanush (IMI) was a strategic endeavour launched by the Government of India aiming to achieve 90% full immunization coverage in the country by 2018. The basic strategy of this special drive involved identifying missed children and vaccinating them in temporary outreach sites for 1 week over consecutive 4-month period starting from October 2017. This study estimated the incremental economic and financial cost of conducting IMI in India from a government provider perspective. Five states-Assam, Bihar, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh were purposefully selected because of high concentration of IMI activities. The stratified random sample of 40 districts, 90 sub-districts and 289 sub-centres were included in this study. Cost data were retrospectively collected at all levels from administrative records, financial records and staff interviews involved in IMI. The weighted incremental economic cost per dose (including vaccine costs) was lowest in Uttar Pradesh (US$3.45) and highest in Maharashtra (U$12.23). Incremental economic cost per IMI dose was found to be higher than a recent routine immunization costing study by Chatterjee and colleagues in 2018, suggesting that it requires additional resources to immunize children through an intensified push in hard-to-reach areas. Incremental financial cost of the IMI programme estimated in this study will be helpful for the government for any future planning of such special initiative. The reasons for variation of unit costs of IMI across the study districts are not known, but lower baseline coverage, high population density, migration, geography and terrain and vaccinating small numbers of children per session could account for the range of findings. Further analysis is required to understand the determinants of cost variations of the IMI programme, which may aid in better planning and more efficient use of resources for future intensified efforts., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.)

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.)

Background: Coverage rates for immunization have dropped in lower income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising concerns regarding potential outbreaks and premature death. In order to re-invigorate immunization service delivery, sufficient financing must be made available from all sources, and particularly from government resources. This study utilizes the most recent data available to provide an updated comparison of available data sources on government spending on immunization., Methods: We examined data from WHO/UNICEF's Joint Reporting Form (JRF), country Comprehensive Multi-Year Plan (cMYP), country co-financing data for Gavi, and WHO National Health Accounts (NHA) on government spending on immunization for consistency by comparing routine and vaccine spending where both values were reported. We also examined spending trends across time, quantified underreporting and utilized concordance analyses to assess the magnitude of difference between the data sources., Results: Routine immunization spending reported through the cMYP was nearly double that reported through the JRF (rho = 0.64, 95% 0.53 to 0.77) and almost four times higher than that reported through the NHA on average (rho = 3.71, 95% 1.00 to 13.87). Routine immunization spending from the JRF was comparable to spending reported in the NHA (rho = 1.30, 95% 0.97 to 1.75) and vaccine spending from the JRF was comparable to that from the cMYP data (rho = 0.97, 95% 0.84 to 1.12). Vaccine spending from both the JRF and cMYP was higher than Gavi co-financing by a at least two (rho = 2.66, 95% 2.45 to 2.89) and (rho = 2.66, 95% 2.15 to 3.30), respectively., Implications: Overall, our comparative analysis provides a degree of confidence in the validity of existing reporting mechanisms for immunization spending while highlighting areas for potential improvements. Users of these data sources should factor these into consideration when utilizing the data. Additionally, partners should work with governments to encourage more reliable, comprehensive, and accurate reporting of vaccine and immunization spending., 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 © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The world is not on track to achieve the goals for immunization coverage and equity described by the World Health Organization's Global Vaccine Action Plan. Many countries struggle to increase coverage of routine vaccination, and there is little evidence about how to do so effectively. In India in 2016, only 62% of children had received a full course of basic vaccines. In response, in 2017-18 the government implemented Intensified Mission Indradhanush (IMI), a nationwide effort to improve coverage and equity using a campaign-style strategy. Campaign-style approaches to routine vaccine delivery like IMI, sometimes called 'periodic intensification of routine immunization' (PIRI), are widely used, but there is little robust evidence on their effectiveness. We conducted a quasi-experimental evaluation of IMI using routine data on vaccine doses delivered, comparing districts participating and not participating in IMI. Our sample included all districts that could be merged with India's 2016 Demographic and Health Surveys data and had available data for the full study period. We used controlled interrupted time-series analysis to estimate the impact of IMI during the 4-month implementation period and in subsequent months. This method assumes that, if IMI had not occurred, vaccination trends would have changed in the same way in the participating and not participating districts. We found that, during implementation, IMI increased delivery of 13 infant vaccines, with a median effect of 10.6% (95% confidence interval 5.1% to 16.5%). We did not find evidence of a sustained effect during the 8 months after implementation ended. Over the 12 months from the beginning of implementation, we estimated reductions in the number of under-immunized children that were large but not statistically significant, ranging from 3.9% (-6.9% to 13.7%) to 35.7% (-7.5% to 77.4%) for different vaccines. The largest effects were for the first doses of vaccines against diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and polio: IMI reached approximately one-third of children who would otherwise not have received these vaccines. This suggests that PIRI can be successful in increasing routine immunization coverage, particularly for early infant vaccines, but other approaches may be needed for sustained coverage improvements., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.)

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.)

Objectives: Vaccination has prevented millions of deaths and cases of disease in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). During the Decade of Vaccines (2011-2020), international organizations, including the World Health Organization and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, focused on new vaccine introduction and expanded coverage of existing vaccines. As Gavi, other organizations, and country governments look to the future, we aimed to estimate the economic benefits of immunization programs made from 2011 to 2020 and potential gains in the future decade., Methods: We used estimates of cases and deaths averted by vaccines against 10 pathogens in 94 LMICs to estimate the economic value of immunization. We applied 3 approaches-cost of illness averted (COI), value of statistical life (VSL), and value of statistical life-year (VSLY)-to estimate observable and unobservable economic benefits between 2011 and 2030., Results: From 2011 to 2030, immunization would avert $1510.4 billion ($674.3-$2643.2 billion) (2018 USD) in costs of illness in the 94 modeled countries, compared with the counterfactual of no vaccination. Using the VSL approach, immunization would generate $3436.7 billion ($1615.8-$5657.2 billion) in benefits. Applying the VSLY approach, $5662.7 billion ($2547.2-$9719.4) in benefits would be generated., Conclusion: Vaccination has generated significant economic benefits in LMICs in the past decade. To reach predicted levels of economic benefits, countries and international donor organizations need to meet coverage projections outlined in the Gavi Operational Forecast. Estimates generated using the COI, VSL, or VSLY approach may be strategically used by donor agencies, decision makers, and advocates to inform investment cases and advocacy campaigns., (Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cost-of-illness data from empirical studies provide insights into the use of healthcare resources including both expenditures and the opportunity cost related to receiving treatment., Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to gather cost data and relevant parameters for hepatitis B, pneumonia, meningitis, encephalitis caused by Japanese encephalitis, rubella, yellow fever, measles, influenza, and acute gastroenteritis in children in low- and middle-income countries., Data Sources: Peer-reviewed studies published in public health, medical, and economic journals indexed in PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and EconLit., Study Eligibility Criteria, Participants, and Interventions: Studies must (1) be peer reviewed, (2) be published in 2000-2016, (3) provide cost data for one of the nine diseases in children aged under 5 years in low- and middle-income countries, and (4) generated from primary data collection., Limitations: We cannot exclude missing a few articles in our review. Measures were taken to reduce this risk. Several articles published since 2016 are omitted from the systematic review results, these articles are included in the discussion., Conclusions and Implications of Key Findings: The review yielded 37 articles and 267 sets of cost estimates. We found no cost-of-illness studies with cost estimates for hepatitis B, measles, rubella, or yellow fever from primary data. Most estimates were from countries in Gavi preparatory (28%) and accelerated (28%) transition, followed by those who are initiating self-financing (22%) and those not eligible for Gavi support (19%). Thirteen articles compared household expenses to manage illnesses with income and two articles with other household expenses, such as food, clothing, and rent. An episode of illness represented 1-75% of the household's monthly income or 10-83% of its monthly expenses. Articles that presented both household and government perspectives showed that most often governments incurred greater costs than households, including non-medical and indirect costs, across countries of all income statuses, with a few notable exceptions. Although limited for low- and middle-income country settings, cost estimates generated from primary data collection provided a 'real-world' estimate of the economic burden of vaccine-preventable diseases. Additional information on whether common situations preventing the application of official clinical guidelines (such as medication stock-outs) occurred would help reveal deficiencies in the health system. Improving the availability of cost-of-illness evidence can inform the public policy agenda about healthcare priorities and can help to operationalize the healthcare budget in local health systems to respond adequately to the burden of illness in the community.

Background: To plan for the financial sustainability of immunization programs and make informed decisions to improve immunization coverage and equity, decision-makers need to know how much these programs cost beyond the cost of the vaccine. Non-vaccine delivery cost estimates can significantly influence the cost-effectiveness estimates used to allocate resources at the country level. However, many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) do not have immunization delivery unit cost estimates available, or have estimates that are uncertain, unreliable, or old. We undertook a Bayesian evidence synthesis to generate country-level estimates of immunization delivery unit costs for LMICs., Methods: From a database of empirical immunization costing studies, we extracted estimates of the delivery cost per dose for routine childhood immunization services, excluding vaccine costs. A Bayesian meta-regression model was used to regress delivery cost per dose estimates, stratified by cost category, against a set of predictor variables including country-level [gross domestic product per capita, reported diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis third dose coverage (DTP3), population, and number of doses in the routine vaccination schedule] and study-level (study year, single antigen or programmatic cost per dose, and financial or economic cost) predictors. The fitted prediction model was used to generate standardized estimates of the routine immunization delivery cost per dose for each LMIC for 2009-2018. Alternative regression models were specified in sensitivity analyses., Results: We estimated the prediction model using the results from 29 individual studies, covering 24 countries. The predicted economic cost per dose for routine delivery of childhood vaccines (2018 US dollars), not including the price of the vaccine, was $1.87 (95% uncertainty interval $0.64-4.38) across all LMICs. By individual cost category, the programmatic economic cost per dose for routine delivery of childhood vaccines was $0.74 ($0.26-1.70) for labor, $0.26 ($0.08-0.67) for supply chain, $0.22 ($0.06-0.57) for capital, and $0.65 ($0.20-1.66) for other service delivery costs., Conclusions: Accurate immunization delivery costs are necessary for assessing the cost-effectiveness and strategic planning needs of immunization programs. The cost estimates from this analysis provide a broad indication of immunization delivery costs that may be useful when accurate local data are unavailable.

Estimating the value of global investment in immunization programs is critical to helping decision makers plan and mobilize immunization programs and allocate resources required to realize their full benefits. We estimated economic benefits using cost-of-illness and value-of-a-statistical-life approaches and combined this estimation with immunization program costs to derive the return on investment from immunization programs against ten pathogens for ninety-four low- and middle-income countries for the period 2011-30. Using the cost-of-illness approach, return on investment for one dollar invested in immunization against our ten pathogens was 26.1 for the ninety-four countries from 2011 to 2020 and 19.8 from 2021 to 2030. Using the value-of-a-statistical-life approach, return on investment was 51.0 from 2011 to 2020 and 52.2 from 2021 to 2030. The results demonstrate continued high return on investment from immunization programs. The return-on-investment estimates from this study will inform country policy makers and decision makers in funding agencies and will contribute to efforts to mobilize resources for immunization. Realization of the full benefits of immunization will depend on sustained investment in and commitment to immunization programs.

High-quality evidence on the cost of delivering vaccines is essential for policymakers, planners, and donors to ensure sufficient, equitable, predictable, and sustainable financing. However, poor practices and reporting oversights in both the published and grey literature limit the understanding and usability of cost data. This paper describes quality assessment results and quantifies problems with immunization costing study reporting practices found in 68 articles and reports included in an immunization delivery unit cost repository focused on low- and middle-income countries and launched in 2018, the Immunization Delivery Cost Catalogue (IDCC). We recommend a standard of practice for writing up an immunization costing study, in the form of an easy to follow checklist, to increase the quality of reporting and the comparability of results. Reporting that adheres to this checklist will improve the comprehension and interpretability of evidence, increasing the likelihood that costing studies are understood and can be used for resource mobilization and allocation, planning and budgeting, and policy decisions., Competing Interests: 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., (© 2020 The Author(s).)

Background: Few studies have systematically examined the efficiency of routine infant immunization services. Using a representative sample of infant immunization sites in Benin, Ghana, Honduras, Moldova, Uganda and Zambia (316 total), we estimated average efficiency levels and variation in efficiency within each country, and investigated the properties of published efficiency estimation techniques., Methods: Using a dataset describing 316 immunization sites we estimated site-level efficiency using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA), and a published ensemble method combining these two approaches. For these three methods we operationalized efficiency using the Sheppard input efficiency measure, which is bounded in (0, 1), with higher values indicating greater efficiency. We also compared these methods to a simple regression approach, which used residuals from a conventional production function as a simplified efficiency index. Inputs were site-level service delivery costs (excluding vaccines) and outputs were total clients receiving DTP3. We analyzed each country separately, and conducted sensitivity analysis for different input/output combinations., Results: Using DEA, average input efficiency ranged from 0.40 in Ghana and Moldova to 0.58 in Benin. Using SFA, average input efficiency ranged from 0.43 in Ghana to 0.69 in Moldova. Within each country scores varied widely, with standard deviation of 0.18-0.23 for DEA and 0.10-0.20 for SFA. Input efficiency estimates generated using SFA were systematically higher than for DEA, and the rank correlation between scores ranged between 0.56-0.79. Average input efficiency from the ensemble estimator ranged between 0.41-0.61 across countries, and was highly correlated with the simplified efficiency index (rank correlation 0.81-0.92) as well as the DEA and SFA estimates., Conclusions: Results imply costs could be 30-60% lower for fully efficient sites. Such efficiency gains are unlikely to be achievable in practice - some of the apparent inefficiency may reflect measurement errors, or unmodifiable differences in the operating environment. However, adapted to work with routine reporting data and simplified methods, efficiency analysis could triage low performing sites for greater management attention, or identify more efficient sites as models for other facilities.

Background: In recent years, several large studies have assessed the costs of national infant immunization programs, and the results of these studies are used to support planning and budgeting in low- and middle-income countries. However, few studies have addressed the costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve immunization coverage, despite this being a major focus of policy attention. Without this information, countries and international stakeholders have little objective evidence on the efficiency of competing interventions for improving coverage., Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review on the costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve immunization coverage in low- and middle-income countries, including both published and unpublished reports. We evaluated the quality of included studies and extracted data on costs and incremental coverage. Where possible, we calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to describe the efficiency of each intervention in increasing coverage., Results: A total of 14 out of 41 full text articles reviewed met criteria for inclusion in the final review. Interventions for increasing immunization coverage included demand generation, modified delivery approaches, cash transfer programs, health systems strengthening, and novel technology usage. We observed substantial heterogeneity in costing methods and incompleteness of cost and coverage reporting. Most studies reported increases in coverage following the interventions, with coverage increasing by an average of 23 percentage points post-intervention across studies. ICERs ranged from $0.66 to $161.95 per child vaccinated in 2017 USD. We did not conduct a meta-analysis given the small number of estimates and variety of interventions included., Conclusions: There is little quantitative evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions for improving immunization coverage, despite this being a major objective for national immunization programs. Efforts to improve the level of costing evidence-such as by integrating cost analysis within implementation studies and trials of immunization scale up-could allow programs to better allocate resources for coverage improvement. Greater adoption of standardized cost reporting methods would also enable the synthesis and use of cost data.

Introduction: Information on immunization delivery costs (IDCs) is essential for better planning and budgeting for the sustainability and performance of national programs. However, delivery cost evidence is fragmented and of variable quality, making it difficult for policymakers, planners, and other stakeholders to understand and use. This study aimed to consolidate and summarize the evidence on delivery costs, answering the question: What are the unit costs of vaccine delivery across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and through a variety of delivery strategies?, Methods: We conducted a systematic review of over 15,000 published and unpublished resources from 2005 to 2018 that included IDCs in LMICs. We quality-rated and extracted data from 61 resources that contained 410 immunization delivery unit costs (e.g., cost per dose, cost per fully immunized child). We converted cost findings to a common year (2016) and currency (U.S. dollars) to ensure comparability across studies and settings. We performed a descriptive and gap analysis and developed immunization delivery cost ranges using comparable unit costs for single vaccines and schedules of vaccines., Results: The majority of IDC evidence comes from low-income countries and Sub-Saharan Africa. Most unit costs are presented as cost per dose and represent health facility-based delivery., Discussion: The cost ranges may be higher than current estimates used in many LMICs for budgeting: $0.16-$2.54 incremental cost per dose (including economic, financial, and fiscal costs) for single, newly introduced vaccines, and $0.75-$9.45 full cost per dose (economic costs) for schedules of four to eight vaccines delivered to children under one., Conclusions: Despite increased attention on improving coverage and strengthening immunization delivery, evidence on the cost of delivery is nascent but growing. The cost ranges can inform planning and policymaking, but should be used with caution given their width and the few unit costs used in their development.

Background: Little is known about the role of private sector providers in providing and financing immunization. To fill this gap, the authors conducted a study in Benin, Malawi, and Georgia to estimate (1) the proportion of vaccinations taking place through the private sector; (2) private expenditures for vaccination; and (3) the extent of regulation., Methods: In each country, the authors surveyed a stratified random sample of 50 private providers (private for-profit and not-for-profit) using a standardized, pre-tested questionnaire administered by trained enumerators. In addition, the authors conducted 300 or more client exit interviews in each country., Results: The three countries had different models of private service provision of vaccination. In Malawi, 44% of private facilities, predominantly faith-based organizations, administered an estimated 27% of all vaccinations. In Benin, 18% of private for-profit and not-for-profit facilities provided vaccinations, accounting for 8% of total vaccinations. In Georgia, all sample facilities were privately managed, and conducted 100% of private vaccinations. In all three countries, the Ministries of Health (MoHs) supplied vaccines and other support to private facilities. The study found that 6-76% of clients paid nominal fees for vaccination cards and services, and a small percentage (2-26%) chose to pay higher fees for vaccines not within their countries' national schedules. The percentage of private expenditure on vaccination was less than 1% of national health expenditures. The case studies revealed that service quality at private facilities was mixed, a finding that is similar to those of other studies on private sector vaccination. The three countries varied in how well the MoHs managed and supervised private sector services., Discussion/conclusion: The private sector plays a growing role in lower-income countries and is expanding access to services. Governments' ability to regulate and monitor immunization services and promote quality and affordable services in the private sector should be a priority., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Donors, researchers and international agencies have made significant investments in collection of high-quality data on immunization costs, aiming to improve the efficiency and sustainability of services. However, improved quality and routine dissemination of costing information to local managers may not lead to enhanced programme performance. This study explored how district- and service-level managers can use costing information to enhance planning and management to increase immunization outputs and coverage. Data on the use of costing information in the planning and management of Zambia's immunization programme was obtained through individual and group semi-structured interviews with planners and managers at national, provincial and district levels. Document review revealed the organizational context within which managers operated. Qualitative results described managers' ability to use costing information to generate cost and efficiency indicators not provided by existing systems. These, in turn, would allow them to understand the relative cost of vaccines and other resources, increase awareness of resource use and management, benchmark against other facilities and districts, and modify strategies to improve performance. Managers indicated that costing information highlighted priorities for more efficient use of human resources, vaccines and outreach for immunization programming. Despite decentralization, there were limitations on managers' decision-making to improve programme efficiency in practice: major resource allocation decisions were made centrally and planning tools did not focus on vaccine costs. Unreliable budgets and disbursements also undermined managers' ability to use systems and information. Routine generation and use of immunization cost information may have limited impact on managing efficiency in many Zambian districts, but opportunities were evident for using existing capacity and systems to improve efficiency. Simpler approaches, such as improving reliability and use of routine immunization and staffing indicators, drawing on general insights from periodic costing studies, and focusing on maximizing coverage with available resources, may be more feasible in the short-term., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.)

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.)

Background: Equitable access to vaccines has been suggested as a priority for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, it is unclear whether providing equitable access is enough to ensure health equity. Furthermore, disaggregated data on health outcomes and benefits gained across population subgroups are often unavailable. This paper develops a model to estimate the distribution of childhood disease cases and deaths across socioeconomic groups, and the potential benefits of three vaccine programs in LMICs., Methods: For each country and for three diseases (diarrhea, measles, pneumonia), we estimated the distributions of cases and deaths that would occur across wealth quintiles in the absence of any immunization or treatment programs, using both the prevalence and relative risk of a set of risk and prognostic factors. Building on these baseline estimates, we examined what might be the impact of three vaccines (first dose of measles, pneumococcal conjugate, and rotavirus vaccines), under five scenarios based on different sets of quintile-specific immunization coverage and disease treatment utilization rates., Results: Due to higher prevalence of risk factors among the poor, disproportionately more disease cases and deaths would occur among the two lowest wealth quintiles for all three diseases when vaccines or treatment are unavailable. Country-specific context, including how the baseline risks, immunization coverage, and treatment utilization are currently distributed across quintiles, affects how different policies translate into changes in cases and deaths distribution., Conclusions: Our study highlights several factors that would substantially contribute to the unequal distribution of childhood diseases, and finds that merely ensuring equal access to vaccines will not reduce the health outcomes gap across wealth quintiles. Such information can inform policies and planning of programs that aim to improve equitable delivery of healthcare services.

A comprehensive understanding of the costs of routine vaccine delivery is essential for planning, budgeting and sustaining India's Universal Immunisation Programme. India currently allocates approximately US$25 per child for vaccines and operational costs. This budget is prepared based on historical expenditure data as information on cost is not available. This study estimated the cost of routine immunisation services based on a stratified, random sample of 255 public health facilities from 24 districts across seven states-Bihar, Gujarat, Kerala, Meghalaya, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. The economic cost for the fiscal year 2013-2014 was measured by adapting an internationally accepted approach for the Indian context. Programme costs included the value of personnel, vaccines, transport, maintenance, training, cold chain equipment, building and other recurrent costs. The weighted average national level cost per dose delivered was US$2.29 including vaccine costs, and the cost per child vaccinated with the third dose of diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) vaccine (a proxy for full immunisation) was US$31.67 (at 2017 prices). There was wide variation in the weighted average state-level cost per dose delivered inclusive of vaccine costs (US$1.38 to US$2.93) and, for the cost per DTP3 vaccinated child (US$20.08 to US$34.81). Lower costs were incurred by facilities and districts that provided the largest number of doses of vaccine. Out of the total cost, the highest amount (57%) was spent on personnel. This costing study, the most comprehensive conducted to date in India, provides evidence, which should help improve planning and budgeting for the national programme. The budget generally considers financial costs, while this study focused on economic costs. For using this study's results for planning and budgeting, the collected data can be used to extract the relevant financial costs. Variation in cost per dose and doses administered across facilities, districts and states need to be further investigated to understand the drivers of cost and measure the efficiency of service delivery., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LB and AR are the employees of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

National Immunisation Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) provide independent guidance to health ministries to support evidence-based and nationally relevant immunisation decisions. We examined NITAGs' value, sustainability, and need for support in low and middle-income countries, drawing from a mixed-methods study including 130 global and national-level key informant interviews. NITAGs were particularly valued for providing independent and nationally owned evidence-based decision-making (EBDM), but needed to be integrated within national processes to effectively balance independence and influence. Participants agreed that most NITAGs, being relatively new, would need developmental and strengthening support for at least a decade. While national governments could support NITAG functioning, external support is likely needed for requisite capacity building. This might come from Gavi mechanisms and WHO, but would require alignment among stakeholders to be effective.

Introduction: Beyond their impact on health, vaccines can lead to large economic benefits. While most economic evaluations of vaccines have focused on the health impact of vaccines at a national scale, it is critical to understand how their impact is distributed along population subgroups., Methods: We build a financial risk protection model to evaluate the impact of immunisation against measles, severe pneumococcal disease and severe rotavirus for birth cohorts vaccinated over 2016-2030 for three scenarios in 41 Gavi-eligible countries: no immunisation, current immunisation coverage forecasts and the current immunisation coverage enhanced with funding support. We distribute modelled disease cases per socioeconomic group and derive the number of cases of: (1) catastrophic health costs (CHCs) and (2) medical impoverishment., Results: In the absence of any vaccine coverage, the number of CHC cases attributable to measles, severe pneumococcal disease and severe rotavirus would be approximately 18.9 million, 6.6 million and 2.2 million, respectively. Expanding vaccine coverage would reduce this number by up to 90%, 30% and 40% in each case. More importantly, we find a higher share of CHC incidence among the poorest quintiles who consequently benefit more from vaccine expansion., Conclusion: Our findings contribute to the understanding of how vaccines can have a broad economic impact. In particular, we find that immunisation programmes can reduce the proportion of households facing catastrophic payments from out-of-pocket health expenses, mainly in lower socioeconomic groups. Thus, vaccines could have an important role in poverty reduction., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

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.

Background: Evidence on immunization costs is a critical input for cost-effectiveness analysis and budgeting, and can describe variation in site-level efficiency. The Expanded Program on Immunization Costing and Financing (EPIC) Project represents the largest investigation of immunization delivery costs, collecting empirical data on routine infant immunization in Benin, Ghana, Honduras, Moldova, Uganda, and Zambia., Methods: We developed a pooled dataset from individual EPIC country studies (316 sites). We regressed log total costs against explanatory variables describing service volume, quality, access, other site characteristics, and income level. We used Bayesian hierarchical regression models to combine data from different countries and account for the multi-stage sample design. We calculated output elasticity as the percentage increase in outputs (service volume) for a 1% increase in inputs (total costs), averaged across the sample in each country, and reported first differences to describe the impact of other predictors. We estimated average and total cost curves for each country as a function of service volume., Results: Across countries, average costs per dose ranged from $2.75 to $13.63. Average costs per child receiving diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis ranged from $27 to $139. Within countries costs per dose varied widely-on average, sites in the highest quintile were 440% more expensive than those in the lowest quintile. In each country, higher service volume was strongly associated with lower average costs. A doubling of service volume was associated with a 19% (95% interval, 4.0-32) reduction in costs per dose delivered, (range 13% to 32% across countries), and the largest 20% of sites in each country realized costs per dose that were on average 61% lower than those for the smallest 20% of sites, controlling for other factors. Other factors associated with higher costs included hospital status, provision of outreach services, share of effort to management, level of staff training/seniority, distance to vaccine collection, additional days open per week, greater vaccination schedule completion, and per capita gross domestic product., Conclusions: We identified multiple features of sites and their operating environment that were associated with differences in average unit costs, with service volume being the most influential. These findings can inform efforts to improve the efficiency of service delivery and better understand resource needs.