Skip to main content

Table 4 Cost-benefit analyses of vaccination programs in the general population

From: Health economics of rubella: a systematic review to assess the value of rubella vaccination

First author [Reference]

Stray-Pedersen [[25]]

White [[26]]

Hatzandrieu [[27]]

Schoenbaum [[24]]

Country

Norway

USA

USA

USA

Year

1982

1985

1994

1976

WB income group

High

High

High

High

Comparators

1. Vaccinate infant girls

1. Rubella vaccination

1. Rubella vaccination

1. Vaccinate all 2-yr-olds

 

2. Vaccinate pubertal girls

2. MMR vaccination

2. MMR vaccination

2. Vaccinate all 6-yr-olds

    

3. Vaccinate all 12-yr-olds

    

4. Vaccinate 2-yr-olds and 12-yr-olds

Perspective

Societal

Societal

Societal

Societal

Cost components measured

Vaccine; immunization; serology; CRS treatment (including special care; indirect costs (lost productivity and premature mortality)

Vaccine; immunization; physician visits; hospitalization; supportive care; special schooling; institutionalization; indirect costs (lost wages, lost lifetime earnings due to retardation or death)

Vaccine; immunization; physician visits; hospitalization; supportive care; special schooling; institutionalization; indirect costs (lost wages, lost lifetime earnings due to retardation or death)

Vaccine; immunization; OP care; hospitalization; CRS treatment and care; indirect costs (lost lifetime earnings)

Method of cost estimation

Micro-costing (for vaccination and treatment; expected lifetime earnings (for indirect costs)

Micro-costing (for direct costs; expected lifetime earnings (for indirect costs)

Micro-costing (for direct costs; expected lifetime earnings (for indirect costs)

Micro-costing (for direct costs; expected lifetime earnings (for indirect costs)

Method of benefits estimation

Averted costs

Averted costs

Averted costs

Averted costs

Time period for costs and benefits

Lifetime

Lifetime

Lifetime

Lifetime

Discounting (Rate)

Yes (7%)

Yes (10%)

Yes (10%)

Yes (6%)

Results—Benefit-cost ratio

1. 5

1. 7.7

1. 11.1

1. 8

 

2. 11

2. 14.4

2. 21.3

2. 9

    

3. 27

    

4. 8

Stated conclusion

Vaccination of pubertal girls preferable

Routine MMR vaccine program was cost-effective

Routine MMR vaccine program was cost-effective

Vaccination at 12 years better than vaccination at other ages

Sponsor

NR

CDC*

CDC*

NR

  1. *Not explicitly reported but inferred.
  2. WB, World Bank; NR, Not Reported; NA, Not Applicable; CDC, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.