The benefits of coronavirus suppression: A cost-benefit analysis of the response to the first wave of COVID-19 in the United States

The economics of the COVID-19 pandemic: economic evaluation of government mitigation and suppression policies, health system innovations, and models of care

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the scope of health economics literature, which will increasingly examine value beyond health care interventions such as government policy and broad health system innovations.

Aim

The study analyzes economic evaluations and methodologies evaluating government policies suppressing or mitigating transmission and reducing COVID-19, broad health system innovations, and models of care. This can facilitate future economic evaluations and assist government and public health policy decisions during pandemics.

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was used. Methodological quality was quantified using the scoring criteria in European Journal of Health Economics, Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Checklist and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) Cost Benefit Analysis Checklist. PUBMED, Medline, and Google Scholar were searched from 2020-2021.

Results

Cost utility analysis (CUA) and cost benefit analysis (CBA) analyzing mortality, morbidity, quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, national income loss, and value of production effectively evaluate government policies suppressing or mitigating COVID-19 transmission, disease, and impacting national income loss. The WHO's pandemic economic framework facilitates economic evaluations of social and movement restrictions. Social return on investment (SROI) links benefits to health and broader social improvements. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) can facilitate vaccine prioritization, equitable health access, and technology evaluation. Social welfare function (SWF) can account for social inequalities and population-wide policy impact. It is a generalization of CBA, and operationally, it is equal to an equity-weighted CBA. It can provide governments with a guideline for achieving the optimal distribution of income, which is vital during pandemics. Economic evaluations of broad health system innovations and care models addressing COVID-19 effectively use cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) that utilize decision trees and Monte Carlo models, and CUAs that effectively utilize decision trees and Markov models, respectively.

Conclusion

These methodologies are very instructive for governments, in addition to their current use of CBA and the value of a statistical life analytical tool. CUA and CBA effectively evaluate government policies suppressing or mitigating COVID-19 transmission, disease, and impacts on national income loss. CEA and CUA effectively evaluate broad health system innovations and care models addressing COVID-19. The WHO's framework, SROI, MCDA, and SWF can also facilitate government decision-making during pandemics.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10389-023-01919-z.

Understanding public perceptions in social media responses to posts about acute severe hepatitis of unknown etiology in Indonesia: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Acute Severe Hepatitis of Unknown Etiology (ASHUE) emerged as a new global outbreak in Indonesia early May 2022, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to understand public reactions and responses to the emergence of ASHUE Indonesia and to Government-led disease prevention responses. Understanding how the public perceived government-led preventive messaging about the hepatitis outbreak is crucial to controlling viral spread - particularly given the rapid and unforeseen emergence of ASHUE coincided with COVID-19 and public trust in the Indonesian Government to manage health outbreaks was already tenuous.

METHODS

Social media users' responses to information disseminated via Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter were analyzed to understand public perceptions about ASHUE outbreak and their attitudes toward Government-led prevention measures. Data were extracted on a daily basis from 1st May 2022 to 30th May 2022 and analyzed manually. We inductively generated the codes, from which we formed a construct and then grouped to identify themes.

RESULTS

A total of 137 response comments collected from 3 social medial platforms were analyzed. Of these, 64 were from Facebook, 57 were from YouTube, and 16 were from Twitter. We identified 5 main themes, including (1) disbelief in the existence of the infection; (2) suspicion about a potential new business after COVID-19; (3) suspicion that COVID-19 vaccine(s) are the cause; (4) religion-related fatalism and (5) trust in government measures.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings advance knowledge about public perceptions, reactions and attitudes towards the emergence of ASHUE and the efficacy of disease countermeasures. The knowledge from this study will provide an understanding of why disease prevention measures might not be followed. It can be used to develop public awareness programs in Indonesia about both the ASHUE and its possible consequences and the available healthcare support.

Economic evaluation of strategies against coronavirus: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 outbreak was defined as a pandemic on 11 March 2020 by the World Health Organization. After that, COVID-19 has enormously influenced health systems around the world, and it has claimed more than 4.2 million deaths until July 2021. The pandemic has led to global health, social and economic costs. This situation has prompted a crucial search for beneficial interventions and treatments, but little is known about their monetary value. This study is aimed at systematically reviewing the articles conducted on the economic evaluation of preventive, control and treatment strategies against COVID-19.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar from December 2019 to October 2021 to find applicable literature to the economic evaluation of strategies against COVID-19. Two researchers screened potentially eligible titles and abstracts. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to quality assessment of studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies were included in this review, and the average CHEERS score was 72. Cost-effectiveness analysis was the most common type of economic evaluation, used in 21 studies. And the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was the main outcome applied to measure the effectiveness of interventions, which was used in 19 studies. In addition, articles were reported a wide range of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and the lowest cost per QALY ($321.14) was related to the use of vaccines.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of this systematic review, it seems that all strategies are likely to be more cost-effective against COVID-19 than no intervention and vaccination was the most cost-effective strategy. This research provides insight for decision makers in choosing optimal interventions against the next waves of the current pandemic and possible future pandemics.

The German COVID-19 Digital Contact Tracing App: A Socioeconomic Evaluation

The COVID-19 pandemic posed challenges to governments in terms of contact tracing. Like many other countries, Germany introduced a mobile-phone-based digital contact tracing solution ("Corona Warn App"; CWA) in June 2020. At the time of its release, however, it was hard to assess how effective such a solution would be, and a political and societal debate arose regarding its efficiency, also in light of its high costs. This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of the CWA, considering prevented infections, hospitalizations, intensive care treatments, and deaths. In addition, its efficiency was to be assessed from a monetary point of view, and factors with a significant influence on the effectiveness and efficiency of the CWA were to be determined. Mathematical and statistical modeling was used to calculate infection cases prevented by the CWA, along with the numbers of prevented complications (hospitalizations, intensive care treatments, deaths) using publicly available CWA download numbers and incidences over time. The monetized benefits of these prevented cases were quantified and offset against the costs incurred. Sensitivity analysis was used to identify factors critically influencing these parameters. Between June 2020 and April 2022, the CWA prevented 1.41 million infections, 17,200 hospitalizations, 4600 intensive care treatments, and 7200 deaths. After offsetting costs and benefits, the CWA had a net present value of EUR 765 m in April 2022. Both the effectiveness and efficiency of the CWA are decisively and disproportionately positively influenced by the highest possible adoption rate among the population and a high rate of positive infection test results shared via the CWA.

COVID-19 in US Economy: Structural Analysis and Policy Proposals

Based on an input–output framework, this paper analyses the intersectoral structure of the US economy and estimates the COVID-19 multiplier effects on this economy. For this purpose we employ a model of matrix multipliers—which, except for the technical conditions of production, also considers imports, income distribution, savings, and consumption patterns—using data from the input–output table of the US economy for the year 2015, i.e., the latest available data at the time of this research (a few months after the US presidential election). Furthermore, we detect the key commodities that are considered appropriate for implementing economic policies in the short term, i.e., for boosting growth and job creation, as well as the commodities that are suitable for long-term, structural policies. Our findings suggest that short-term policies for a direct recovery after COVID-19 should be based on public consumption expenditures and investments as well as through exports. It is also shown that there is a great variety of short-term and long-term policies that can be adjusted according to the challenges of the US economy. Finally, for reasons of completeness, we estimate the impact of the main plans of the American president’s policy program, i.e., the “American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan”, and we show that both plans would cumulatively increase the US output by about USD 6.07 trillion over the next ten years, not only helping the US economy recover from the COVID-19 shock but also ensuring macroeconomic stability and social cohesion.

Cost-effectiveness of interventions for the prevention and control of COVID-19: Systematic review of 85 modelling studies

Background

We aimed to quantitatively summarise the health economic evaluation evidence of prevention and control programs addressing COVID-19 globally.

Methods

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the economic and health benefit of interventions for COVID-19. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library of economic evaluation from December 31, 2019, to March 22, 2022, to identify relevant literature. Meta-analyses were done using random-effects models to estimate pooled incremental net benefit (INB). Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics and publication bias was assessed by Egger's test. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021267475.

Results

Of 16 860 studies identified, 85 articles were included in the systematic review, and 25 articles (10 studies about non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs), five studies about vaccinations and 10 studies about treatments) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled INB of NPIs, vaccinations, and treatments were $1378.10 (95% CI = $1079.62, $1676.59), $254.80 (95% CI = $169.84, $339.77) and $4115.11 (95% CI = $1631.09, $6599.14), respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.

Conclusions

NPIs, vaccinations, and treatments are all cost-effective in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. However, evidence was mostly from high-income and middle-income countries. Further studies from lower-income countries are needed.

Burden of Covid-19 restrictions: National, regional and global estimates

BACKGROUND

A growing literature has documented the high global morbidity, mortality and mental health burden associated with the current Covid-19 pandemic. In this paper, we aimed to quantify the total utility and quality of life loss resulting from Covid-19-related government restrictions imposed at the national, regional and global levels.

METHODS

We conducted quality of life online surveys in France, India, Italy, UK and the United States of America between June 21st and September 13th 2021, and used regression models to estimate the average quality of life loss due to light and severe restrictions in these countries. We then combined estimated disutility weights from the pooled sample with the latest data on Covid-19 restrictions exposure in each country to estimate the total disutility generated by restrictions at the national, regional and global level. We also embedded a discrete choice experiment (DCE) into the online survey to estimate average willingness to pay to avoid specific restrictions.

FINDINGS

A total of 947 surveys were completed. Thirty-five percent of respondents were female, and 69.5% were between 18 and 39 years old. The weighted average utility weight was 0.71 (95% CIs 0.69-0.74) for light restrictions, and 0.65 (0.63-0.68) for severe restrictions. At the global scale, this implies a total loss of 3259 million QALYs (95% 3021, 3496) as of September 6th, 2021, with the highest burden in lower and upper middle-income countries. Utility losses appear to be particularly large for closures of schools and daycares as well as restaurants and bars, and seem relatively small for wearing masks and travel restrictions.

INTERPRETATION

The results presented here suggest that the QALY losses due to restrictions are substantial. Future mitigation strategies should try to balance potential reductions in disease transmission achievable through specific measures against their respective impact on quality of life. Additional research is needed to determine differences in restriction-specific disutilities across countries, and to determine optimal policy responses to similar future disease threats.

FUNDING

No funding was received for this project.

Cost-Effectiveness of Public Health Measures to Control COVID-19 in China: A Microsimulation Modeling Study

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of various public health measures in dealing with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China. A stochastic agent-based model was used to simulate the progress of the COVID-19 outbreak in scenario I (imported one case) and scenario II (imported four cases) with a series of public health measures. The main outcomes included the avoided infections and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty. The results indicated that isolation-and-quarantine averted the COVID-19 outbreak at the lowest ICERs. The joint strategy of personal protection and isolation-and-quarantine averted one more case than only isolation-and-quarantine with additional costs. The effectiveness of isolation-and-quarantine decreased with lowering quarantine probability and increasing delay time. The strategy that included community containment would be cost-effective when the number of imported cases was >65, or the delay time of the quarantine was more than 5 days, or the quarantine probability was below 25%, based on current assumptions. In conclusion, isolation-and-quarantine was the most cost-effective intervention. However, personal protection combined with isolation-and-quarantine was the optimal strategy for averting more cases. The community containment could be more cost-effective as the efficiency of isolation-and-quarantine drops and the imported cases increases.

The societal economic value of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States

AIMS

The COVID-19 pandemic has claimed the lives of more than 800,000 people in the United States (US) and has been estimated to carry a societal cost of $16 trillion over the next decade. The availability of COVID-19 vaccines has had a profound effect on the trajectory of the pandemic, with wide-ranging benefits. We aimed to estimate the total societal economic value generated in the US from COVID-19 vaccines.

METHODS

We developed a population-based economic model informed by existing data and literature to estimate the total societal value generated from COVID-19 vaccines by avoiding COVID-19 infections as well as resuming social and economic activity more quickly. To do this, we separately estimated the value generated from life years saved, healthcare costs avoided, quality of life gained, and US gross domestic product (GDP) gained under a range of plausible assumptions.

RESULTS

Findings from our base case analysis suggest that from their launch in December 2020, COVID-19 vaccines were projected to generate $5.0 trillion in societal economic value for the US from avoided COVID-19 infections and resuming unrestricted social and economic activity more quickly. Our scenario analyses suggest that the value could range between $1.8 and $9.9 trillion. Our model indicates that the most substantial sources of value are derived from reduction in prevalence of depression ($1.9 trillion), gains to US GDP ($1.4 trillion), and lives saved from fewer COVID-19 infections ($1.0 trillion).

LIMITATIONS

Constructed as a projection from December 2020, our model does not account for the Delta or future variants, nor does it account for improvements in COVID-19 treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The magnitude of economic benefit from vaccination highlights the need for coordinated policy decisions to support continued widespread vaccine uptake in the US.

The impact of government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic on GDP growth: Does strategy matter?

We analyze whether and to what extent strategies employed by governments to fight the COVID-19 pandemic made a difference for GDP growth developments in 2020. Based on the strength and speed with which governments imposed non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) when confronted with waves of infections we distinguish between countries pursuing an elimination strategy and countries following a suppression / mitigation strategy. For a sample of 44 countries fixed effect panel regression results show that NPI changes conducted by elimination strategy countries had a less severe effect on GDP growth than NPI changes in suppression / mitigation strategy countries: strategy matters. However, this result is sensitive to the countries identified as "elimination countries" and to the sample composition. Moreover, we find that exogenous country characteristics drive the choice of strategy. At the same time our results show that countries successfully applying the elimination strategy achieved better health outcomes than their peers without having to accept lower growth.

Welfare economics of managing an epidemic: an exposition

This paper reviews recent findings on the normative analysis of private and governmental countermeasures against infectious diseases, focusing on COVID-19. Based on a model that relates the economic activity to infectious disease epidemics, policies that maximize social welfare are considered. Lockdowns in many countries are measures that restrict economic activity over a wide area, and the economic damage they cause is extremely large. Existing studies on the net benefit of lockdown implemented in 2020 have reached mixed conclusions as to whether it is warranted or not. Although the estimates of costs and effects are relatively stable, the setting of the value of a statistical life for converting effects into benefits has a wide range and is also likely to overestimate benefits. Therefore, a careful procedure for setting is particularly crucial to obtain a reliable evaluation of countermeasures. Compared to uniform restriction of activities, taking measures to restrict activities by selecting targets may improve efficiency. Attributes that can be used to select targets include those that can be identified at little or no cost, such as age and industry, and those that can only be identified at a cost, such as close contact with infectious individuals and the presence of pathogens. In comparison to lockdown, these measures may reduce human suffering and economic suffering. No trade-off exists between uniform activity restrictions and selective activity restrictions.