Immunization costs,from evidence to policy: Findings from a nationally representative costing study and policy translation effort in Tanzania

IntroductionInformation on the costs of routine immunization programs is needed for budgeting, planning, and domestic resource mobilization. This information is particularly important for countries such as Tanzania that are preparing to transition out of support from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. This study aimed to estimate the total and unit costs for of child immunization in Tanzania from July 2016 to June 2017 and make this evidence available to key stakeholders.MethodsWe used an ingredients-based approach to collect routine immunization cost data from the facility, district, regional, and national levels. We collected data on the cost of vaccines as well as non-vaccine delivery costs. We estimated total and unit costs from a provider perspective for each level and overall, and examined how costs varied by delivery strategy, geographic area, and facility-level service delivery volume. An evidence-to-policy plan identified key opportunities and stakeholders to target to facilitate the use of results.ResultsThe total annual economic cost of the immunization program, inclusive of vaccines, was estimated to be US$138 million (95% CI: 133, 144), or $4.32 ($3.72, $4.98) per dose. The delivery costs made up $45 million (38, 52), or $1.38 (1.06, 1.70) per dose. The costs of facility-based delivery were similar in urban and rural areas, but the costs of outreach delivery were higher in rural areas than in urban areas. The facility-level delivery cost per dose decreased with the facility service delivery volume.DiscussionWe estimated the costs of the routine immunization program in Tanzania, where no immunization costing study had been conducted for five years. These estimates can inform the program’s budgeting and planning as Tanzania prepares to transition out of Gavi support. Next steps for evidence-to-policy translation have been identified, including technical support requirements for policy advocacy and planning.     

Cost of introducing and delivering RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine within the malaria vaccine implementation program

BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) recommended widespread use of the RTS,S/AS01 (RTS,S) malaria vaccine among children residing in regions of moderate to high malaria transmission. This recommendation is informed by RTS,S evidence, including findings from the pilot rollout of the vaccine in Ghana, Kenya, and Malawi. This study estimates the incremental costs of introducing and delivering the malaria vaccine within routine immunization programs in the context of malaria vaccine pilot introduction, to help inform decision-making.MethodsAn activity-based, retrospective costing was conducted from the governments’ perspective. Vaccine introduction and delivery costs supported by the donors during the pilot introduction were attributed as costs to the governments under routine implementation. Detailed resource use data were extracted from the pilot program expenditure and activity reports for 2019–2021. Primary data from representative health facilities were collected to inform recurrent operational and service delivery costs. Costs were categorized as introduction or recurrent costs. Both financial and economic costs were estimated and reported in 2020 USD. The cost of donated vaccine doses was evaluated at $2, $5 and $10 per dose and included in the economic cost estimates. Financial costs include the procurement add on costs for the donated vaccines and immunization supplies, along with other direct expenses.FindingsAt a vaccine price of $5 per dose, the incremental cost per dose administered across countries ranges from $2.30 to $3.01 (financial), and $8.28 to $10.29 (economic). The non-vaccine cost of delivery ranges between $1.04 and $2.46 (financial) and $1.52 and $4.62 (economic), by country. Considering only recurrent costs, the non-vaccine cost of delivery per dose ranges between $0.29 and $0.89 (financial) and $0.59 and $2.29 (economic), by country. Introduction costs constitute between 33% and 71% of total financial costs. Commodity and procurement add-on costs are the main cost drivers of total cost across countries. Incremental resource needs for implementation are dependent on country’s baseline immunization program capacity constraints.InterpretationThe financial costs of introducing RTS,S are comparable with costs of introducing other new vaccines. Country resource requirements for malaria vaccine introduction are most influenced by vaccine price and potential donor funding for vaccine purchases and introduction support.     

Costs of delivering human papillomavirus vaccination using a one- or two-dose strategy in Tanzania

ObjectiveAs part of the Dose Reduction Immunobridging and Safety Study of Two HPV Vaccines in Tanzanian Girls (DoRIS; NCT02834637), the current study is one of the first to evaluate the financial and economic costs of the national rollout of an HPV vaccination program in school-aged girls in sub-Saharan Africa and the potential costs associated with a single dose HPV vaccine program, given recent evidence suggesting that a single dose may be as efficacious as a two-dose regimen.MethodsThe World Health Organization’s (WHO) Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Costing (C4P) micro-costing tool was used to estimate the total financial and economic costs of the national vaccination program from the perspective of the Tanzanian government. Cost data were collected in 2019 via surveys, workshops, and interviews with local stakeholders for vaccines and injection supplies, microplanning, training, sensitization, service delivery, supervision, and cold chain. The cost per two-dose and one-dose fully immunized girl (FIG) was calculated.ResultsThe total financial and economic costs were US$10,117,455 and US$45,683,204, respectively, at a financial cost of $5.17 per two-dose FIG, and an economic cost of $23.34 per FIG. Vaccine and vaccine-related costs comprised the largest proportion of costs, followed by service delivery. In a one-dose scenario, the cost per FIG reduced to $2.51 (financial) and $12.18 (economic), with the largest reductions in vaccine and injection supply costs, and service delivery.ConclusionsThe overall cost of Tanzania’s HPV vaccination program was lower per vaccinee than costs estimated from previous demonstration projects in the region, especially in a single-dose scenario. Given the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization’s recent recommendation to update dosing schedules to either one or two doses of the HPV vaccine, these data provide important baseline data for Tanzania and may serve as a guide for improving coverage going forward. The findings may also aid in the prioritization of funding for countries that have not yet added HPV vaccines to their routine immunizations.     

Costing RTS,S introduction in Burkina Faso,Ghana, Kenya,Senegal, Tanzania,and Uganda: A generalizable approach drawing on publicly available data

Recent results from the phase 3 trial of RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine show that the vaccine induced partial protection against clinical malaria in infants and children; given the high burden of the disease it is currently considered for use in malaria endemic countries. To inform adoption decisions the paper proposes a generalizable methodology to estimate the cost of vaccine introduction using routinely collected and publicly available data from the cMYP, UNICEF, and WHO-CHOICE. Costing is carried out around a set of generic activities, assumptions, and inputs for delivery of immunization services adapted to a given country and deployment modality to capture among other factors the structure of the EPI program, distribution model, geography, and demographics particular to the setting. The methodology is applied to estimate the cost of RTS,S introduction in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda. At an assumed vaccine price of $5 per dose and given our assumptions on coverage and deployment strategy, we estimate total economic program costs for a 6–9 months cohort within $23.11–$28.28 per fully vaccinated child across the 6 countries. Net of procurement, costs at country level are substantial; for instance in Tanzania these could add as much as $4.2 million per year or an additional $2.4 per infant depending on the level of spare capacity in the system. Differences in cost of vaccine introduction across countries are primarily driven by differences in cost of labour. Overall estimates generated with the methodology result in costs within the ranges reported for other new vaccines introduced in SSA and capture multiple sources of heterogeneity in costs across countries. Further validation with data from field trials will support use of the methodology while also serving as a validation for cMYP and WHO-CHOICE as resources for costing health interventions in the region.     

Optimized supply chain model reduces health system costs in DRC

ObjectiveIn 2017, an optimized immunization supply chain (iSC) model was implemented in Equateur Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo. The optimized model aimed to address iSC challenges and featured direct deliveries to service delivery points (SDPs), longer replenishment intervals and increased cold chain capacity. This assessment examines iSC costs before and 5 months after implementing the optimized model.Materials & MethodsWe used a nonexperimental pre-post study design to compare iSC costs before and after implementation. We applied an activity-based costing approach with a comparison arm to assess procurement, management, storage and transportation costs for three iSC tiers: Province (n = 1); Zone (n = 4) and SDP (n = 15). We included data from 3 treatment Zones and 11 treatment SDPs; 1 control Zone and 4 control SDPs. We used sample and population data to estimate iSC costs for the entirety of Equateur Province.ResultsIn the period immediately before implementing the optimized model, estimated annual iSC costs were $974,237. Following implementation, estimated annual iSC costs were $642,627—a 34% ($331,610) reduction. This change in costs was influenced by a 43% ($180,313) reduction in SDP costs, a 67% ($198,092) reduction in Zonal costs and an 18% ($46,795) increase in Provincial costs. After implementing the optimized model, average iSC costs for treatment Zones was $6,895 (SD: $6,072); for the control Zone was $21,738; for treatment SDPs was $989 (SD: $969); and for control SDPs was $1,356 (SD: $1,062).ConclusionsWe observed an absolute reduction in iSC costs in treatment Zones while control Zone post-implementation iSC costs remained the same or increased. The greatest cost reductions were for storage and transport at Zones and SDPs. Although cost implications of this model must continue to be evaluated over time, these findings are promising and will inform decisions around project expansion.     

Funding gap for immunization across 94 low- and middle-income countries

Novel vaccine development and production has given rise to a growing number of vaccines that can prevent disease and save lives. In order to realize these health benefits, it is essential to ensure adequate immunization financing to enable equitable access to vaccines for people in all communities. This analysis estimates the full immunization program costs, projected available financing, and resulting funding gap for 94 low- and middle-income countries over five years (2016–2020). Vaccine program financing by country governments, Gavi, and other development partners was forecasted for vaccine, supply chain, and service delivery, based on an analysis of comprehensive multi-year plans together with a series of scenario and sensitivity analyses.Findings indicate that delivery of full vaccination programs across 94 countries would result in a total funding gap of $7.6 billion (95% uncertainty range: $4.6–$11.8 billion) over 2016–2020, with the bulk (98%) of the resources required for routine immunization programs. More than half (65%) of the resources to meet this funding gap are required for service delivery at $5.0 billion ($2.7–$8.4 billion) with an additional $1.1 billion ($0.9–$2.7 billion) needed for vaccines and $1.5 billion ($1.1–$2.0 billion) for supply chain. When viewed as a percentage of total projected costs, the funding gap represents 66% of projected supply chain costs, 30% of service delivery costs, and 9% of vaccine costs. On average, this funding gap corresponds to 0.2% of general government expenditures and 2.3% of government health expenditures.These results suggest greater need for country and donor resource mobilization and funding allocation for immunizations. Both service delivery and supply chain are important areas for further resource mobilization. Further research on the impact of advances in service delivery technology and reductions in vaccine prices beyond this decade would be important for efficient investment decisions for immunization.     

Cost of immunization with a locally produced, oral cholera vaccine in Viet Nam

Policy decisions regarding whether to incorporate new vaccines into routine public health practice in developing countries will depend in part on the costs of vaccine purchase and of vaccine delivery. In March, 1997, a large-scale effectiveness trial of a locally produced, orally administered bivalent vaccine against Vibrio cholerae 01 and 0139 began in Viet Nam. Empirical data obtained from the trial was used to determine the costs of the immunization campaign from the government perspective. The study population, including the children less than one year of age and pregnant women who were ineligible for immunization, was 353926. A total of 289041 persons received two doses of vaccine, and 13340 persons received one dose of vaccine. Two-dose vaccine coverage was 83.4%. The total cost of vaccine delivery during the immunization campaign was $66527. The cost of each dose of vaccine was $0.31. Therefore, the total cost of the immunization campaign was $0.44 per dose administered, and $0.91 per fully immunized person. Attempts to reduce the cost per dose of vaccine (e.g. the use of a monovalent vaccine against serogroup 01) are likely to have a large impact on the cost of future similar immunization campaigns.     

Cost effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination in Australia

OBJECTIVE: Rotavirus gastroenteritis causes substantial morbidity, including hospital admission, in young children. In the context of recent vaccine developments, this study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a rotavirus vaccination program in Australia. METHOD: Standard methods of health economic evaluation were used to assess the total cost of rotavirus immunisation (as the difference between estimated vaccination program costs and the cost of disease that would be avoided by immunisation) and relate this to the number of cases of disease that would be prevented. Estimates were made from both societal and health care systems perspectives. RESULTS: Based on Australian data on disease incidence and cost of hospitalisation, the current annual cost of rotavirus disease is about $26.0 million. Using conservative vaccine efficacy estimates, current immunization uptake rates and a cost of $30 per dose of vaccine, rotavirus immunisation would incur a net societal cost of $2.9 million ($11 per child), at a gross program cost of $21.6 million. These estimates are sensitive to two sources of uncertainty in the estimation of program delivery costs: vaccine price and whether separate immunization visits would be required. CONCLUSION: A rotavirus immunisation program would be cost-neutral to Australian society at a vaccine price of $26 per dose (or $19 when health care system costs only are considered). IMPLICATIONS: Rotavirus immunization may be cost-effective in Australia, but considerable uncertainty remains. Policy decisions will depend heavily on pricing of the vaccine and may also need to consider intangible costs not accounted for in this analysis.     

Systematic review of the costs for vaccinators to reach vaccination sites: Incremental costs of reaching hard-to-reach populations

IntroductionEconomic evidence on how much it may cost for vaccinators to reach populations is important to plan vaccination programs. Moreover, knowing the incremental costs to reach populations that have traditionally been undervaccinated, especially those hard-to-reach who are facing supply-side barriers to vaccination, is essential to expanding immunization coverage to these populations.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review to identify estimates of costs associated with getting vaccinators to all vaccination sites. We searched PubMed and the Immunization Delivery Cost Catalogue (IDCC) in 2019 for the following costs to vaccinators: (1) training costs; (2) labor costs, per diems, and incentives; (3) identification of vaccine beneficiary location; and (4) travel costs. We assessed if any of these costs were specific to populations that are hard-to-reach for vaccination, based on a framework for examining supply-side barriers to vaccination.ResultsWe found 19 studies describing average vaccinator training costs at $0.67/person vaccinated or targeted (SD $0.94) and $0.10/dose delivered (SD $0.07). The average cost for vaccinator labor and incentive costs across 29 studies was $2.15/dose (SD $2.08). We identified 13 studies describing intervention costs for a vaccinator to know the location of a beneficiary, with an average cost of $19.69/person (SD $26.65), and six studies describing vaccinator travel costs, with an average cost of $0.07/dose (SD $0.03). Only eight of these studies described hard-to-reach populations for vaccination; two studies examined incremental costs per dose to reach hard-to-reach populations, which were 1.3–2 times higher than the regular costs. The incremental cost to train vaccinators was $0.02/dose, and incremental labor costs for targeting hard-to-reach populations were $0.16–$1.17/dose.ConclusionAdditional comparative costing studies are needed to understand the potential differential costs for vaccinators reaching the vaccination sites that serve hard-to-reach populations. This will help immunization program planners and decision-makers better allocate resources to extend vaccination programs.     

One size does not fit all: The impact of primary vaccine container size on vaccine distribution and delivery

BackgroundWhile the size and type of a vaccine container (i.e., primary container) can have many implications on the safety and convenience of a vaccination session, another important but potentially overlooked consideration is how the design of the primary container may affect the distribution of the vaccine, its resulting cost, and whether the vial is ultimately opened.MethodsUsing our HERMES software platform, we developed a simulation model of the World Health Organization Expanded Program on Immunization supply chain for the Republic of Benin and used the model to explore the effects of different primary containers for various vaccine antigens.ResultsReplacing vaccines with presentations containing fewer doses per vial reduced vaccine availability (proportion of people arriving for vaccines who are successfully immunized) by as much as 13% (from 73% at baseline) and raised logistics costs by up to $0.06 per dose administered (from $0.25 at baseline) due to increased bottlenecks, while reducing total costs by as much as $0.15 per dose administered (from $2.52 at baseline) due to lower open vial wastage. Primary containers with a greater number of doses per vial each improved vaccine availability by 19% and reduced logistics costs by $0.05 per dose administered, while reducing the total costs by up to $0.25 per dose administered. Changes in supply chain performance were more extreme in departments with greater constraints. Implementing a vial opening threshold reversed the direction of many of these effects.ConclusionsOur results show that one size may not fit all when choosing a primary vaccine container. Rather, the choice depends on characteristics of the vaccine, the vaccine supply chain, immunization session size, and goals of decision makers. In fact, the optimal vial size may vary among locations within a country. Simulation modeling can help identify tailored approaches to improve availability and efficiency.     

The benefits of redesigning Benin's vaccine supply chain

Introduction

New vaccine introductions have put strains on vaccine supply chains around the world. While increasing storage and transportation may be the most straightforward options, it is also important to consider what financial and operational benefits can be incurred. In 2012, suboptimal vaccine coverage and impending vaccine introductions prompted the Republic of Benin's Ministry of Health (MOH) to explore ways to improve their vaccine supply chain.

Methods

Working alongside the Beninese MOH, we utilized our computational model, HERMES, to explore the impact on cost and vaccine availability of three possible options: (1) consolidating the Commune level to a Health Zone level, (2) removing the Commune level completely, and (3) removing the Commune level and expanding to 12 Department Stores. We also analyzed the impact of adding shipping loops during delivery.

Results

At baseline, new vaccine introductions without any changes to the current system increased the logistics cost per dose ($0.23 to $0.26) and dropped the vaccine availability to 71%. While implementing the Commune level removal scenario had the same capital costs as implementing the Health Zone scenario, the Health Zone scenario had lower operating costs. This increased to an overall cost savings of $504,255 when implementing shipping loops.

Discussion

The best redesign option proved to be the synergistic approach of converting to the Health Zone design and using shipping loops (serving ten Health Posts/loop). While a transition to either redesign or only adding shipping loops was beneficial, implementing a redesign option and shipping loops can yield both lower capital expenditures and operating costs.     

Dual-chamber injection device for measles-rubella vaccine: The potential impact of introducing varying sizes of the devices in 3 countries

IntroductionBy pairing diluent with vaccines, dual-chamber vaccine injection devices simplify the process of reconstituting vaccines before administration and thus decrease associated open vial wastage and adverse events. However, since these devices are larger than current vaccine vials for lyophilized vaccines, manufacturers need guidance as to how the size of these devices may affect vaccine distribution and delivery.MethodsUsing HERMES-generated immunization supply chain models of Benin, Bihar (India), and Mozambique, we replace the routine 10-dose measles-rubella (MR) lyophilized vaccine with single-dose MR dual-chamber injection devices, ranging the volume-per-dose (5.2–26 cm³) and price-per-dose ($0.70, $1.40).ResultsAt a volume-per-dose of 5.2 cm³, a dual-chamber injection device results in similar vaccine availability, decreased open vial wastage (OVW), and similar total cost per dose administered as compared to baseline in moderately constrained supply chains. Between volumes of 7.5 cm³ and 26 cm³, these devices lead to a reduction in vaccine availability between 1% and 14% due to increases in cold chain storage utilization between 1% and 7% and increases in average peak transport utilization between 2% and 44%. At the highest volume-per-dose, 26 cm³, vaccine availability decreases between 9% and 14%. The total costs per dose administered varied between each scenario, as decreases in vaccine procurement costs were coupled with decreases in doses administered. However, introduction of a dual-chamber injection device only resulted in improved total cost per dose administered for Benin and Mozambique (at 5.2 cm³ and $0.70-per-dose) when the total number of doses administered changed <1% from baseline.ConclusionIn 3 different country supply chains, a single-dose MR dual-chamber injection device would need to be no larger than 5.2 cm³ to not significantly impair the flow of other vaccines.     

A cost comparison of introducing and delivering pneumococcal,rotavirus and human papillomavirus vaccines in Rwanda

BackgroundDetailed cost evaluations of delivery of new vaccines such as pneumococcal conjugate, human papillomavirus (HPV), and rotavirus vaccines in low and middle-income countries are scarce. This paper differs from others by comparing the costs of introducing multiple vaccines in a single country and then assessing the financial and economic impact at the time and implications for the future. The objective of the analysis was to understand the introduction and delivery cost per dose or per child of the three new vaccines in Rwanda to inform domestic and external financial resource mobilization.MethodsStart-up, recurrent, and capital costs from a government perspective were collected in 2012. Since pneumococcal conjugate and HPV vaccines had already been introduced, cost data for those vaccines were collected retrospectively while prospective (projected) costing was done for rotavirus vaccine.ResultsThe financial unit cost per fully immunized child (or girl for HPV vaccine) of delivering 3 doses of each vaccine (without costs related to vaccine procurement) was $0.37 for rotavirus (RotaTeq^®) vaccine, $0.54 for pneumococcal (Prevnar^®) vaccine in pre-filled syringes, and $10.23 for HPV (Gardasil ^®) vaccine. The financial delivery costs of Prevnar^® and RotaTeq^® were similar since both were delivered using existing health system infrastructure to deliver infant vaccines at health centers. The total financial cost of delivering Gardasil^® was higher than those of the two infant vaccines due to greater resource requirements associated with creating a new vaccine delivery system in for a new target population of 12-year-old girls who have not previously been served by the existing routine infant immunization program.ConclusionThe analysis indicates that service delivery strategies have an important influence on costs of introducing new vaccines and costs per girl reached with HPV vaccine are higher than the other two vaccines because of its delivery strategy. Documented information on financial commitments for new vaccines, particularly from government sources, is a useful input into country policy dialogue on sustainable financing and co-financing of new vaccines, as well as for policy decisions by donors such as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.     

Economic evaluation of delivering Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine in routine immunization services in Kenya

OBJECTIVE: Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine was introduced into routine immunization services in Kenya in 2001. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Hib vaccine delivery. METHODS: A model was developed to follow the Kenyan 2004 birth cohort until death, with and without Hib vaccine. Incidence of invasive Hib disease was estimated at Kilifi District Hospital and in the surrounding demographic surveillance system in coastal Kenya. National Hib disease incidence was estimated by adjusting incidence observed by passive hospital surveillance using assumptions about access to care. Case fatality rates were also assumed dependent on access to care. A price of US$ 3.65 per dose of pentavalent diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-hep B-Hib vaccine was used. Multivariate Monte Carlo simulations were performed in order to assess the impact on the cost-effectiveness ratios of uncertainty in parameter values. FINDINGS: The introduction of Hib vaccine reduced the estimated incidence of Hib meningitis per 100,000 children aged < 5 years from 71 to 8; of Hib non-meningitic invasive disease from 61 to 7; and of non-bacteraemic Hib pneumonia from 296 to 34. The costs per discounted disability adjusted life year (DALY) and per discounted death averted were US$ 38 (95% confidence interval, CI: 26-63) and US$ 1197 (95% CI: 814-2021) respectively. Most of the uncertainty in the results was due to uncertain access to care parameters. The break-even pentavalent vaccine price--where incremental Hib vaccination costs equal treatment costs averted from Hib disease--was US$ 1.82 per dose. CONCLUSION: Hib vaccine is a highly cost-effective intervention in Kenya. It would be cost-saving if the vaccine price was below half of its present level.     

Re-designing the Mozambique vaccine supply chain to improve access to vaccines

IntroductionPopulations and routine childhood vaccine regimens have changed substantially since supply chains were designed in the 1980s, and introducing new vaccines during the “Decade of Vaccine” may exacerbate existing bottlenecks, further inhibiting the flow of all vaccines.MethodsWorking with the Mozambique Ministry of Health, our team implemented a new process that integrated HERMES computational simulation modeling and on-the-ground implementers to evaluate and improve the Mozambique vaccine supply chain using a system-re-design that integrated new supply chain structures, information technology, equipment, personnel, and policies.ResultsThe alternative system design raised vaccine availability (from 66% to 93% in Gaza; from 76% to 84% in Cabo Delgado) and reduced the logistics cost per dose administered (from $0.53 to $0.32 in Gaza; from $0.38 to $0.24 in Cabo Delgado) as compared to the multi-tiered system under the current EPI. The alternative system also produced higher availability at lower costs after new vaccine introductions. Since reviewing scenarios modeling deliveries every two months in the north of Gaza, the provincial directorate has decided to pilot this approach diverging from decades of policies dictating monthly deliveries.DiscussionRe-design improved not only supply chain efficacy but also efficiency, important since resources to deliver vaccines are limited. The Mozambique experience and process can serve as a model for other countries during the Decade of Vaccines. For the Decade of Vaccines, getting vaccines at affordable prices to the market is not enough. Vaccines must reach the population to be successful.     

Cost of goods sold and total cost of delivery for oral and parenteral vaccine packaging formats

Despite limitations of glass packaging for vaccines, the industry has been slow to implement alternative formats. Polymer containers may address many of these limitations, such as breakage and delamination. However, the ability of polymer containers to achieve cost of goods sold (COGS) and total cost of delivery (TCOD) competitive with that of glass containers is unclear, especially for cost-sensitive low- and lower-middle-income countries.COGS and TCOD models for oral and parenteral vaccine packaging formats were developed based on information from subject matter experts, published literature, and Kenya’s comprehensive multiyear plan for immunization. Rotavirus and inactivated poliovirus vaccines (IPV) were used as representative examples of oral and parenteral vaccines, respectively. Packaging technologies evaluated included glass vials, blow-fill-seal (BFS) containers, preformed polymer containers, and compact prefilled auto-disable (CPAD) devices in both BFS and preformed formats.For oral vaccine packaging, BFS multi-monodose (MMD) ampoules were the least expensive format, with a COGS of $0.12 per dose. In comparison, oral single-dose glass vials had a COGS of $0.40. BFS MMD ampoules had the lowest TCOD of oral vaccine containers at $1.19 per dose delivered, and ten-dose glass vials had a TCOD of $1.61 per dose delivered. For parenteral vaccines, the lowest COGS was achieved with ten-dose glass vials at $0.22 per dose. In contrast, preformed CPAD devices had the highest COGS at $0.60 per dose. Ten-dose glass vials achieved the lowest TCOD of the parenteral vaccine formats at $1.56 per dose delivered. Of the polymer containers for parenteral vaccines, BFS MMD ampoules achieved the lowest TCOD at $1.89 per dose delivered, whereas preformed CPAD devices remained the most expensive format, at $2.25 per dose delivered.Given their potential to address the limitations of glass and reduce COGS and TCOD, polymer containers deserve further consideration as alternative approaches for vaccine packaging.     

Costs of Immunization Programs for 10 Vaccines in 94 Low- and Middle-Income Countries From 2011 to 2030

ObjectivesUnderstanding 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.MethodWe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionResource 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.     

Cost effectiveness analysis of elementary school-located vaccination against influenza—Results from a randomized controlled trial

School-located vaccination against influenza (SLV-I) has been suggested to help meet the need for annual vaccination of large numbers of school-aged children with seasonal influenza vaccine. However, little is known about the cost and cost-effectiveness of SLV-I. We conducted a cost-analysis and a cost-effectiveness analysis based on a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an SLV-I program implemented in Monroe County, New York during the 2009–2010 vaccination season. We hypothesized that SLV-I is more cost effective, or less-costly, compared to a conventional, office-located influenza vaccination delivery. First and second SLV-I clinics were offered in 21 intervention elementary schools (n = 9027 children) with standard of care (no SLV-I) in 11 control schools (n = 4534 children). The direct costs, to purchase and administer vaccines, were estimated from our RCT. The effectiveness measure, receipt of ≥1 dose of influenza vaccine, was 13.2 percentage points higher in SLV-I schools than control schools. The school costs ($9.16/dose in 2009 dollars) plus project costs ($23.00/dose) plus vendor costs excluding vaccine purchase ($19.89/dose) was higher in direct costs ($52.05/dose) than the previously reported mean/median cost [$38.23/$21.44 per dose] for providing influenza vaccination in pediatric practices. However SLV-I averted parent costs to visit medical practices ($35.08 per vaccine). Combining direct and averted costs through Monte Carlo Simulation, SLV-I costs were $19.26/dose in net costs, which is below practice-based influenza vaccination costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated to be $92.50 or $38.59 (also including averted parent costs). When additionally accounting for the costs averted by disease prevention (i.e., both reduced disease transmission to household members and reduced loss of productivity from caring for a sick child), the SLV-I model appears to be cost-saving to society, compared to “no vaccination”. Our findings support the expanded implementation of SLV-I, but also the need to focus on efficient delivery to reduce direct costs.     

Service volume and other factors affecting the costs of immunizations in the Gambia

The total cost of the Expanded Programme on Immunization and of its various components in the Gambia over a period of one year (from July 1980 to June 1981) was investigated, and the costs per immunization dose and per fully immunized child were calculated. The total costs were to a large extent (45%) due to the cost of personnel and fixed costs. Where there was efficient delivery of immunizations, the average cost per dose was about one-fifth of that in the most costly facilities (range: US$2.32 to $0.41). The lower costs were related to more intensive use of the facilities. The national average cost was $1.09. The implications of the results of this study for policies to reduce costs are discussed, and further areas of research are suggested that will provide improved information to guide decision-makers in the use of scarce immunization programme resources for better health in the world.     

Cost of vaccine delivery strategies in low- and middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsUsing 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsBy 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.