TY - JOUR
T1 - Thresholds for decision-making
T2 - Informing the cost-effectiveness and affordability of rotavirus vaccines in Malaysia
AU - Loganathan, Tharani
AU - Ng, Chiu Wan
AU - Lee, Way Seah
AU - Hutubessy, Raymond C.W.
AU - Verguet, Stéphane
AU - Jit, Mark
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 The Author.
PY - 2018/3/1
Y1 - 2018/3/1
N2 - Cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) based on the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health (CMH) are extensively used in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) lacking locally defined CETs. These thresholds were originally intended for global and regional prioritization, and do not reflect local context or affordability at the national level, so their value for informing resource allocation decisions has been questioned. Using these thresholds, rotavirus vaccines are widely regarded as cost-effective interventions in LMICs. However, high vaccine prices remain a barrier towards vaccine introduction. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, affordability and threshold price of universal rotavirus vaccination at various CETs in Malaysia. Cost-effectiveness of Rotarix and RotaTeq were evaluated using a multi-cohort model. Pan American Health Organization Revolving Fund's vaccine prices were used as tender price, while the recommended retail price for Malaysia was used as market price. We estimate threshold prices defined as prices at which vaccination becomes cost-effective, at various CETs reflecting economic theories of human capital, societal willingness-to-pay and marginal productivity. A budget impact analysis compared programmatic costs with the healthcare budget. At tender prices, both vaccines were cost-saving. At market prices, cost-effectiveness differed with thresholds used. At market price, using 'CMH thresholds', Rotarix programmes were cost-effective and RotaTeq were not cost-effective from the healthcare provider's perspective, while both vaccines were cost-effective from the societal perspective. Using other CETs, both vaccines were not cost-effective at market price, from the healthcare provider's and societal perspectives. At tender and cost-effective prices, rotavirus vaccination cost 1 and 3% of the public health budget, respectively. Using locally defined thresholds, rotavirus vaccination is cost-effective at vaccine prices in line with international tenders, but not at market prices. Thresholds representing marginal productivity are likely to be lower than those reflecting human capital and individual preference measures, and may be useful in determining affordable vaccine prices.
AB - Cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) based on the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health (CMH) are extensively used in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) lacking locally defined CETs. These thresholds were originally intended for global and regional prioritization, and do not reflect local context or affordability at the national level, so their value for informing resource allocation decisions has been questioned. Using these thresholds, rotavirus vaccines are widely regarded as cost-effective interventions in LMICs. However, high vaccine prices remain a barrier towards vaccine introduction. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, affordability and threshold price of universal rotavirus vaccination at various CETs in Malaysia. Cost-effectiveness of Rotarix and RotaTeq were evaluated using a multi-cohort model. Pan American Health Organization Revolving Fund's vaccine prices were used as tender price, while the recommended retail price for Malaysia was used as market price. We estimate threshold prices defined as prices at which vaccination becomes cost-effective, at various CETs reflecting economic theories of human capital, societal willingness-to-pay and marginal productivity. A budget impact analysis compared programmatic costs with the healthcare budget. At tender prices, both vaccines were cost-saving. At market prices, cost-effectiveness differed with thresholds used. At market price, using 'CMH thresholds', Rotarix programmes were cost-effective and RotaTeq were not cost-effective from the healthcare provider's perspective, while both vaccines were cost-effective from the societal perspective. Using other CETs, both vaccines were not cost-effective at market price, from the healthcare provider's and societal perspectives. At tender and cost-effective prices, rotavirus vaccination cost 1 and 3% of the public health budget, respectively. Using locally defined thresholds, rotavirus vaccination is cost-effective at vaccine prices in line with international tenders, but not at market prices. Thresholds representing marginal productivity are likely to be lower than those reflecting human capital and individual preference measures, and may be useful in determining affordable vaccine prices.
KW - affordability
KW - cost-effectiveness
KW - Cost-effectiveness thresholds
KW - vaccine price
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85043369725&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85043369725&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/heapol/czx166
DO - 10.1093/heapol/czx166
M3 - Article
C2 - 29228339
AN - SCOPUS:85043369725
SN - 0268-1080
VL - 33
SP - 204
EP - 214
JO - Health Policy and Planning
JF - Health Policy and Planning
IS - 2
ER -