Acceptance and application of a broad population health perspective when evaluating vaccine.

Ulf Persson, Sara Olofsson, Rikard Althin, Andreas Palmborg, Ann-Charlotte Dorange
Author Information
  1. Ulf Persson: The Swedish Institute for Health Economics, IHE, Lund, Sweden. Electronic address: ulf.persson@ihe.se.
  2. Sara Olofsson: The Swedish Institute for Health Economics, IHE, Lund, Sweden.
  3. Rikard Althin: The Swedish Institute for Health Economics, IHE, Lund, Sweden.
  4. Andreas Palmborg: Pfizer AB, Sweden.
  5. Ann-Charlotte Dorange: Pfizer AB, Sweden.

Abstract

The traditional health economic analysis is limited to estimating the impact on the treated patient. As vaccines are usually aimed at preventing infectious diseases, they may be associated with additional values for the non-treated wider population. Although there are valid reasons for treating vaccines differently, and a wide support for a broader perspective in the literature (i.e., beyond the net costs and health gain related to the outcome for the vaccinated individual), it remains unclear to what extent the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies accept and apply a broader perspective. The purpose of this study is to examine and discuss what type of consequences are relevant for a health economic analysis of vaccines and which consequences are considered by HTA agencies. The study includes a strategic review of literature and HTA decisions in Sweden and other countries, online round-table discussions with stakeholders in Sweden, and a basic estimation of the value of a COVID-19 vaccination in Sweden. The study shows that, other than herd effect, broader economic consequences for the population are generally not included in the economic evaluation of vaccines. Also, all economic consequences for the treated patient (production loss) and caregiver (health loss) are not always considered. The perspective chosen can have a major impact on the outcome of the analysis. A vaccine for COVID-19 is estimated to provide a value of €744-€956 per dose when using a societal perspective including broader consequences for the population. Providing a complete and appropriate picture of the value of vaccination is of importance to allocate resources efficiently, to provide incentives for vaccine development, and to show the cost of delaying decisions to implement a new vaccine.

Keywords

References

  1. Lancet Glob Health. 2019 Jan;7(1):e58-e67 [PMID: 30554762]
  2. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016 Jun;14(3):245-52 [PMID: 26832145]
  3. Vaccine. 2014 Sep 3;32(39):5065-70 [PMID: 25045822]
  4. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Dec 11;14:632 [PMID: 25494641]
  5. Br J Gen Pract. 2016 Sep;66(650):e633-9 [PMID: 27402969]
  6. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 22;68(46):1069-1075 [PMID: 31751323]
  7. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Nov 13;65(11):1780-1789 [PMID: 29020171]
  8. BMC Med. 2018 Sep 5;16(1):139 [PMID: 30180901]
  9. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Aug 26;111(34):12313-9 [PMID: 25136129]
  10. BMC Med. 2015 Sep 03;13:209 [PMID: 26335923]
  11. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021 Nov;39(11):1201-1208 [PMID: 34557996]
  12. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2020 Jan 31;8(1):1719588 [PMID: 32128075]
  13. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2022 Jan;20(1):105-117 [PMID: 34553333]
  14. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013 Dec;19(12):1096-105 [PMID: 23957860]
  15. Value Health. 2018 Oct;21(10):1133-1149 [PMID: 30314613]
  16. Value Health. 2018 Feb;21(2):131-139 [PMID: 29477390]
  17. Vaccine. 2013 Dec 9;31(51):6046-9 [PMID: 23968768]
  18. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Dec 18;115(51):12896-12901 [PMID: 30559195]
  19. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2015 Aug 12;3: [PMID: 27123182]
  20. Eur J Health Econ. 2011 Apr;12(2):97-102 [PMID: 21267624]
  21. Vaccine. 2015 Jan 1;33(1):3-11 [PMID: 25258100]
  22. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2016 Dec;59(12):1623-1657 [PMID: 27885449]
  23. Sci Transl Med. 2016 Jun 29;8(345):345ps14 [PMID: 27358496]
  24. BMJ Open. 2019 May 15;9(5):e027739 [PMID: 31097487]
  25. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2013 Jul;56(7):957-84 [PMID: 23807405]
  26. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016 Mar;34(3):227-44 [PMID: 26477039]
  27. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008 Nov;8(11):727-33 [PMID: 18992409]
  28. Value Health. 2021 Jan;24(1):105-111 [PMID: 33431141]
  29. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Nov;33(11):1229-36 [PMID: 26093889]
  30. BMJ. 2005 Nov 5;331(7524):1064-5 [PMID: 16230312]
  31. Health Econ. 2015 Oct;24(10):1289-1301 [PMID: 25070495]
  32. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2009 Feb 6;58(RR-2):1-25 [PMID: 19194371]
  33. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2003 Oct;2(5):649-60 [PMID: 14711326]
  34. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2015;11(9):2266-73 [PMID: 25902371]
  35. J Pers Med. 2017 Sep 04;7(3): [PMID: 28869571]

MeSH Term

COVID-19
COVID-19 Vaccines
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Humans
Population Health
Vaccination
Vaccines

Chemicals

COVID-19 Vaccines
Vaccines

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0healtheconomicperspectiveconsequencesvaccinespopulationbroaderHTAvaccineanalysisstudySwedenvalueimpacttreatedpatientliteratureoutcomeagenciesconsidereddecisionsCOVID-19vaccinationlossprovidetraditionallimitedestimatingusuallyaimedpreventinginfectiousdiseasesmayassociatedadditionalvaluesnon-treatedwiderAlthoughvalidreasonstreatingdifferentlywidesupportiebeyondnetcostsgainrelatedvaccinatedindividualremainsunclearextentHealthTechnologyAssessmentacceptapplypurposeexaminediscusstyperelevantincludesstrategicreviewcountriesonlineround-tablediscussionsstakeholdersbasicestimationshowsherdeffectgenerallyincludedevaluationAlsoproductioncaregiveralwayschosencanmajorestimated€744-€956perdoseusingsocietalincludingProvidingcompleteappropriatepictureimportanceallocateresourcesefficientlyincentivesdevelopmentshowcostdelayingimplementnewAcceptanceapplicationbroadevaluatingCosteffectivenessPerspectiveVaccine

Similar Articles

Cited By