Estimating the costs of the vaccine supply chain and service delivery for selected districts in Kenya and Tanzania

Having data on the costs of the immunization system can provide decision-makers with information to benchmark the costs when evaluating the impact of new technologies or programmatic innovations. This paper estimated the supply chain and immunization service delivery costs and cost per dose in selected districts in Kenya and Tanzania. We also present operational data describing the supply chain and service delivery points (SDPs).To estimate the supply chain costs, we collected resource-use data for the cold chain, distribution system, and health worker time and per diems paid. We also estimated the service delivery costs, which included the time cost of health workers to provide immunization services, and per diems and transport costs for outreach sessions. Data on the annual quantities of vaccines distributed to each facility, and the occurrence and duration of stockouts were collected from stock registers. These data were collected from the national store, 2 regional and 4 district stores, and 12 SDPs in each country for 2012. Cost per dose for the supply chain and immunization service delivery were estimated.The average annual costs per dose at the SDPs were $0.34 (standard deviation (s.d.) $0.18) for Kenya when including only the vaccine supply chain costs, and $1.33 (s.d. $0.82) when including immunization service delivery costs. In Tanzania, these costs were $0.67 (s.d. $0.35) and $2.82 (s.d. $1.64), respectively. Both countries experienced vaccine stockouts in 2012, bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine being more likely to be stocked out in Kenya, and oral poliovirus vaccine in Tanzania. When stockouts happened, they usually lasted for at least one month.Tanzania made investments in 2011 in preparation for planned vaccine introductions, and their supply chain cost per dose is expected to decline with the new vaccine introductions. Immunization service delivery costs are a significant portion of the total costs at the SDPs.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

Tracking donor funding towards achieving the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) goals: A landscape analysis (1990–2016)

Efforts driving universal coverage have recently been strengthened through implementation of the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) where cost estimates for immunization support were developed totaling US$40 billion of donor assistance by 2020. In addition to resource mobilization, there has been an increasing focus on improving both vaccine access and delivery systems. We track donor assistance for immunization by funding objective and channel from 1990 to 2016, and illustrate projections through 2020 to inform progress of the GVAP.Using available data from development agencies supporting immunization, we categorize funding by vaccine and quantify support for systems strengthening. We split time into four periods including the post universal childhood immunization era (1990–1999) and Gavi’s three funding phases between 2000 and 2015, during which annualized funding changes are estimated. Lastly, we perform a linear extrapolation through 2020 to predict the success of stipulated resource mobilization targets. Double counting was eliminated and results presented in real 2017 US dollars.Over the last 27 years, funding for immunization increased by 10.5% annually, with non-Gavi funding increasing by 7.1% and Gavi funding by 23.6% in the last 17 years. Gavi disbursements targeting vaccines and health system improvements increased uniformly at 15%, compared to 22.5% for vaccines and 11.7% for system strengthening from non-Gavi channels. Funding fluctuated for non-Gavi channels with disbursements declining before 2000 and during Gavi funding phase II, while Gavi disbursements continued to grow relative the previous phase. New and underused vaccines were prioritized by Gavi whereas non-Gavi channels focused on elimination efforts. Projected funding targets were estimated to be on track for Gavi contrary to non-Gavi support which was estimated to remain 40% below the stipulated target.Renewed assessments for funding requirements need to be undertaken, while strengthening existing resource efficiencies in order to achieve current global universal coverage targets.     

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.     

Routine immunization services costs and financing in China, 2015

ObjectiveTo estimate the costs of routine immunization (RI) services in China in 2015, to provide objective data relevant to investment in the Expanded Program on Immunization, and to contribute to global data on costing and financing of RI.MethodsThe study was conducted between January and March 2016. We selected 276 villages, 138 townships, 46 counties, and 40 prefectures from 15 provinces as investigation sites at random, stratified by eastern, middle, and western regions. Direct cost items included vaccines, personnel, cold chain, surveillance, communication, training, and supervision at the national, provincial, prefecture, county, township, and village levels. We obtained financial data from governmental and external sources. Indirect costs of RI included parents’ transportation costs and productivity lost due to taking their children for vaccination.ResultsTotal direct costs were $92.42 for each child fully immunized ($4.20/dose), which equates to $1529.55 million per birth cohort. RI costs were higher in the eastern region than in the western region, and higher than that of the central region. Vaccination coverage was positively associated with direct routine immunization costs. The cost of the recommended vaccines was $19.08/child and vaccine only accounted for 20.64% of total costs. Operational cost, including surveillance, communication, training and supervision, was $217.31/child, accounting for 14.21% of total cost. The indirect cost per child was $72.86; the total indirect cost was $1205.83 million for the birth cohort. Government investment in RI accounted for about 70% of total costs. Revenue from sales of private-sector vaccine supported the remaining 30% of RI costs.ConclusionsWhile government financing has increased, some operating costs continue to be provided from revenue generated by sales of Category 2 (private-sector) vaccines to families. China could benefit from bringing new and underutilized vaccines into the EPI system based on evidence that includes routine immunization vaccine and operations costs.     

Exploring new packaging and delivery options for the immunization supply chain

A variety of vaccine packaging and delivery technologies may benefit the immunization supply chain. These include alternative primary packaging, such as blow-fill-seal polymer containers, and novel delivery technologies, such intradermal delivery devices, microarray patches, and sublingual formulations of vaccines, and others in development. The potential timeline to availability of these technologies varies and depends on their stage of development and the type of data necessary to achieve licensure. Some new delivery devices are anticipated to be introduced in 2017, such as intradermal devices for delivery of inactivated poliovirus vaccine to stretch vaccine supplies due to a supply limitation. Other new technologies requiring vaccine reformulation, such as microarray patches and sublingual vaccines, may become available in the long term (2021 and beyond). Development of many new technologies requires partnership between vaccine and technology manufacturers and identification of the applicable regulatory pathway. Interaction with public-sector stakeholders early on (through engagement with forums such as the World Health Organization’s Immunization Practices Advisory Committee Delivery Technologies Working Group) is important to ensure suitability for immunization program use. Key considerations for programmatic suitability of a new vaccine, packaging, and delivery device include cold chain volume, costs, and health impact.     

Should countries switch to using five- or ten-dose rotavirus vaccines now that they are available?

IntroductionSingle-dose rotavirus vaccines, which are used by a majority of countries, are some of the largest-sized vaccines in immunization programs, and have been shown to constrain supply chains and cause bottlenecks. Efforts have been made to reduce the size of the single-dose vaccines; however, with two-dose, five-dose and ten-dose options available, the question then is whether using multi-dose instead of single-dose rotavirus vaccines will improve vaccine availability.MethodsWe used HERMES-generated simulation models of the vaccine supply chains of the Republic of Benin, Mozambique, and Bihar, a state in India, to evaluate the operational and economic impact of implementing each of the nine different rotavirus vaccine presentations.ResultsAmong single-dose rotavirus vaccines, using Rotarix RV1 MMP (multi-monodose presentation) led to the highest rotavirus vaccine availability (49–80%) and total vaccine availability (56–79%), and decreased total costs per dose administered ($0.02-$0.10) compared to using any other single-dose rotavirus vaccine. Using two-dose ROTASIIL decreased rotavirus vaccine availability by 3–6% across each supply chain compared to Rotarix RV1 MMP, the smallest single-dose vaccine. Using a five-dose rotavirus vaccine improved rotavirus vaccine availability (52–92%) and total vaccine availability (60–85%) compared to single-dose and two-dose vaccines. Further, using the ten-dose vaccine led to the highest rotavirus vaccine availability compared to all other rotavirus vaccines in both Benin and Bihar.ConclusionOur results show that countries that implement five-dose or ten-dose rotavirus vaccines consistently reduce cold chain constraints and achieve higher rotavirus and total vaccine availability compared to using either single-dose or two-dose rotavirus vaccines.     

National vaccine coverage trends and funding in Latin America and the Caribbean

BackgroundFrom 2006 to 2011 nearly 174,000 deaths were prevented in Latin America and the Caribbean through vaccination of children under five, which is widely attributed to the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI). Despite near global adoption of EPI recommendations, vaccination coverage shows substantial variation across world regions. Causes for low immunizations within regions are multifaceted and include vaccination program costs. To date, publications regarding vaccine coverage across Latin America and the Caribbean are not readily available. This study aimed to: (1) compare vaccine coverage trends across nations within the region; and (2) assess whether national immunization program expenditures are correlated with vaccine coverage.MethodsCoverage for nine vaccines were collected by nation using publicly available data from WHO. National immunization program expenditures for each country were collected from the World Bank Index. The proportion of countries achieving 90% coverage in the years 2013 and 2017 for each vaccine were compared. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to measure the relationship between financing variables and DTP3 coverage for 2017.ResultsIn 2017, fewer Latin American and Caribbean nations were able to achieve 90% vaccine coverage for five vaccines compared to 2013. Mostly weak to moderate positive relationships were found between national immunization program expenditures and DTP3 coverage for 2017. Excluding Haiti, a weak negative relationship was found between total government expenditure on vaccines per infant and DTP3 coverage for 2017. Countries across Latin America and the Caribbean were largely self-reliant in funding vaccine expenditures.ConclusionsFewer countries across Latin America and the Caribbean are currently achieving optimum national vaccine coverage and weak to moderate relationships between routine immunization and vaccine expenditures and coverage were observed. Additional factors contributing to national vaccine coverage should be concomitantly examined to implement strategies which optimize delivery of childhood immunizations.     

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.     

Epidemiologic and economic impact of pharmacies as vaccination locations during an influenza epidemic

IntroductionDuring an influenza epidemic, where early vaccination is crucial, pharmacies may be a resource to increase vaccine distribution reach and capacity.MethodsWe utilized an agent-based model of the US and a clinical and economics outcomes model to simulate the impact of different influenza epidemics and the impact of utilizing pharmacies in addition to traditional (hospitals, clinic/physician offices, and urgent care centers) locations for vaccination for the year 2017.ResultsFor an epidemic with a reproductive rate (R0) of 1.30, adding pharmacies with typical business hours averted 11.9 million symptomatic influenza cases, 23,577 to 94,307 deaths, $1.0 billion in direct (vaccine administration and healthcare) costs, $4.2–44.4 billion in productivity losses, and $5.2–45.3 billion in overall costs (varying with mortality rate). Increasing the epidemic severity (R0 of 1.63), averted 16.0 million symptomatic influenza cases, 35,407 to 141,625 deaths, $1.9 billion in direct costs, $6.0–65.5 billion in productivity losses, and $7.8–67.3 billion in overall costs (varying with mortality rate). Extending pharmacy hours averted up to 16.5 million symptomatic influenza cases, 145,278 deaths, $1.9 billion direct costs, $4.1 billion in productivity loss, and $69.5 billion in overall costs. Adding pharmacies resulted in a cost-benefit of $4.1 to $11.5 billion, varying epidemic severity, mortality rate, pharmacy hours, location vaccination rate, and delay in the availability of the vaccine.ConclusionsAdministering vaccines through pharmacies in addition to traditional locations in the event of an epidemic can increase vaccination coverage, mitigating up to 23.7 million symptomatic influenza cases, providing cost-savings up to $2.8 billion to third-party payers and $99.8 billion to society. Pharmacies should be considered as points of dispensing epidemic vaccines in addition to traditional settings as soon as vaccines become available.     

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.     

Outsourcing vaccine logistics to the private sector: The evidence and lessons learned from the Western Cape Province in South-Africa

With few exceptions, immunization supply chains in developing countries continue to face chronic difficulties in providing uninterrupted availability of potent vaccines up to service delivery levels, and in the most efficient manner possible. As these countries struggle to keep pace with an ever growing number of vaccines, more and more Ministries of Health are considering options of engaging the private sector to manage vaccine storage, handling and distribution on their behalf. Despite this emerging trend, there is limited evidence on the benefits or challenges of this option to improve public supply chain performance for national immunization programmes. To bridge this knowledge gap, this study aims to shed light on the value proposition of outsourcing by documenting the specific experience of the Western Cape Province of South Africa. The methodology for this review rested on conducting two key supply chain assessments which allowed juxtaposing the performance of the government managed segments of the vaccine supply chain against those managed by the private sector. In particular, measures of effective vaccine management best practice and temperature control in the cold chain were analysed. In addition, the costs of engaging the private sector were analysed to get a better understanding of the economics underpinning outsourcing vaccine logistics. The results from this analysis confirmed some of the theoretical benefits of outsourcing to the private sector. Yet, if the experience in the Western Cape can be deemed a successful one, there are several policy and practice implications that developing countries should be mindful of when considering engaging the private sector. While outsourcing can help improve the performance of the vaccine supply chain, it has the potential to do the reverse if done incorrectly. The findings and lessons learnt from the Western Cape experience can serve as a step towards understanding the role of the private sector in immunization supply chain and logistics systems for developing countries.     

Benefits, risks and costs of immunization for measles, mumps and rubella.

For a single year, 1983, we compared the actual and estimated morbidity, mortality, and costs attributable to measles, mumps, and rubella with having or not having a childhood immunization program using the combined measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. Without an immunization program, an estimated 3,325,000 cases of measles would occur as compared to 2,872 actual cases in 1983 with a program. Instead of an expected 1.5 million rubella cases annually, there were only 3,816 actual cases. Mumps cases were lowered from an expected 2.1 million to 32,850 actual cases. Comparable reductions in disease-associated complications, sequelae, and deaths are gained with an immunization program. Without a vaccination program, disease costs would have been almost $1.4 billion. Based on the actual incidence of disease in 1983, costs were estimated to be approximately +14.5 million. Expenditures for immunization, including vaccine administration costs and the costs associated with vaccine reactions, totaled $96 million. The resulting benefit-cost ratio for the MMR immunization program is approximately 14:1. The savings realized due to the use of combination rather than single antigen vaccine total nearly $60 million.     

Successful introduction of an underutilized elderly pneumococcal vaccine in a national immunization program by integrating the pre-existing public health infrastructure

BackgroundAlthough pneumococcal vaccines had been recommended for the elderly population in South Korea for a considerable period of time, the coverage has been well below the optimal level. To increase the vaccination rate with integrating the pre-existing public health infrastructure and governmental funding, the Korean government introduced an elderly pneumococcal vaccination into the national immunization program with a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine in May 2013.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the performance of the program in increasing the vaccine coverage rate and maintaining stable vaccine supply and safe vaccination during the 20 months of the program.MethodsWe qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed the process of introducing and the outcomes of the program in terms of the systematic organization, efficiency, and stability at the national level.ResultsA staggered introduction during the first year utilizing the public sector, with a target coverage of 60%, was implemented based on the public demand for an elderly pneumococcal vaccination, vaccine supply capacity, vaccine delivery capacity, safety, and sustainability. During the 20-month program period, the pneumococcal vaccine coverage rate among the population aged ≥65 years increased from 5.0% to 57.3% without a noticeable vaccine shortage or safety issues. A web-based integrated immunization information system, which includes the immunization registry, vaccine supply chain management, and surveillance of adverse events following immunization, reduced programmatic errors and harmonized the overall performance of the program.ConclusionIntroduction of an elderly pneumococcal vaccination in the national immunization program based on strong government commitment, meticulous preparation, financial support, and the pre-existing public health infrastructure resulted in an efficient, stable, and sustainable increase in vaccination coverage.     

Domestic funding opportunities for Tanzania as five new Middle-Income countries brace for reduced Gavi support for immunization

Vaccines have produced remarkable impact in reducing the global burden of disease. Thanks to Gavi-the Vaccine Alliance, which supports eligible countries to increase access to the new and underused vaccines. Gavi support depends on economic growth, whereby low-income countries contribute 0.2 USD per dose of supported vaccines, while middle-income countries contribute by price fraction that increases gradually by 15% annually. A country must become fully self-financing within five years when its economy reaches 1,630 USD GNI per capita. Recently, Tanzania, Benin, Haiti, Nepal, and Tajikistan became middle-income countries triggering gradual reduction in Gavi support. This paper first compares the socio-demographic characteristics, immunization program performance, and health financing strategies of these countries and second, explores domestic financing strategies that Tanzania can use to close the funding gap. Although the five countries are similar economically, they vary in demography, health financing strategies, extent of donor dependency, and strength of immunization programs. Some health indicators are not any better than those in low-income countries. Tanzania receives the largest financial support from Gavi and is projected to be fully self-financing by 2043. The potential domestic funding opportunities include to increase Government budget, use of innovative financing strategies, and health insurance, complemented with enhanced program efficiency.     

Estimating the costs of achieving the WHO-UNICEF Global Immunization Vision and Strategy, 2006-2015

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost of scaling up childhood immunization services required to reach the WHO-UNICEF Global Immunization Vision and Strategy (GIVS) goal of reducing mortality due to vaccine-preventable diseases by two-thirds by 2015. METHODS: A model was developed to estimate the total cost of reaching GIVS goals by 2015 in 117 low- and lower-middle- income countries. Current spending was estimated by analysing data from country planning documents, and scale-up costs were estimated using a bottom-up, ingredients-based approach. Financial costs were estimated by country and year for reaching 90% coverage with all existing vaccines; introducing a discrete set of new vaccines (rotavirus, conjugate pneumococcal, conjugate meningococcal A and Japanese encephalitis); and conducting immunization campaigns to protect at-risk populations against polio, tetanus, measles, yellow fever and meningococcal meningitis. FINDINGS: The 72 poorest countries of the world spent US$ 2.5 (range: US$ 1.8-4.2) billion on immunization in 2005, an increase from US$ 1.1 (range: US$ 0.9-1.6) billion in 2000. By 2015 annual immunization costs will on average increase to about US$ 4.0 (range US$ 2.9-6.7) billion. Total immunization costs for 2006-2015 are estimated at US$ 35 (range US$ 13-40) billion; of this, US$ 16.2 billion are incremental costs, comprised of US$ 5.6 billion for system scale-up and US$ 8.7 billion for vaccines; US$ 19.3 billion is required to maintain immunization programmes at 2005 levels. In all 117 low- and lower-middle-income countries, total costs for 2006-2015 are estimated at US$ 76 (range: US$ 23-110) billion, with US$ 49 billion for maintaining current systems and $27 billion for scaling-up. CONCLUSION: In the 72 poorest countries, US$ 11-15 billion (30%-40%) of the overall resource needs are unmet if the GIVS goals are to be reached. The methods developed in this paper are approximate estimates with limitations, but provide a roadmap of financing gaps that need to be filled to scale up immunization by 2015.     

Mothers' preferences and willingness to pay for HPV vaccines in Vinh Long Province, Vietnam

About 530,000 women develop cervical cancer worldwide and 275,000 die from the disease each year. Eighty percent of these deaths occur in developing countries. In Vietnam, cervical cancer has recently emerged as the most common type of cancer in women, and there are no national screening programs for cervical cancer. Since 2009, two different human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines have been licensed for use in Vietnam, but access to these vaccines is generally limited to people who live in urban areas. Studies have shown that HPV vaccination may be cost-effective in cervical cancer prevention in Vietnam, depending on vaccination costs. Given that current HPV vaccines are expensive and public health funding for supporting a rapid introduction of the vaccine is limited, expanding and sustaining access to the HPV vaccine may require alternative financing mechanisms, such as fees-based immunization services. A conjoint analysis study was conducted with mothers of girls 9-17 years of age in Vinh Long Province in Vietnam to estimate the mothers' demand for HPV vaccines for their daughters and to measure the tradeoffs between vaccine fees and vaccine uptake. The results suggest that the demand for HPV vaccines was high, increased with vaccine effectiveness and duration of effectiveness, and decreased with vaccine cost. Vaccine effectiveness was the most important vaccine attribute to these mothers, followed by duration of effectiveness. The predicted probability of respondents buying an HPV vaccine that was 70% effective for 10 years varied by the price, ranging from 30% when the vaccine price was $353 per course, to 68% when the vaccine cost $6 per course. As expected, demand and predicted purchase probability were higher among groups with higher socioeconomic status.