Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Poverty reduction and equity benefits of introducing or scaling up measles, rotavirus and pneumococcal vaccines in low-income and middle-income countries: a modelling study
  1. Carlos Riumallo-Herl1,2,
  2. Angela Y Chang1,
  3. Samantha Clark3,
  4. Dagna Constenla4,
  5. Andrew Clark5,
  6. Logan Brenzel6,
  7. Stéphane Verguet1
  1. 1 Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  2. 2 Department of Applied Economics, Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  3. 3 Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
  4. 4 Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  5. 5 Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  6. 6 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Washington DC, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Carlos Riumallo-Herl; riumalloherl{at}ese.eur.nl

Abstract

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.

  • vaccines
  • measles
  • rotavirus
  • pneumococcal pneumonia
  • out-of-pocket costs
  • catastrophic health costs
  • financial risk protection
  • impoverishment
  • poverty
  • equity

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Sanni Yaya

  • Contributors CR-H and SV developed the modelling methods and analysed the data. CR-H ran the analyses and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. SV reviewed the paper. AYC, SC, DC and AC developed the data inputs and reviewed the paper. LB provided advice and suggestions and reviewed the paper.

  • Funding This work was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OOP1137904). This paper was presented at a BMGF-Gavi Impact Modelling Meeting in Evian, France in 2016, and we received useful comments from meeting participants.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.