Integrating epidemiological and economic models to identify the cost of foodborne diseases

Despite food technology advancements, food safety policies and alert systems, foodborne diseases are still a relevant concern for consumers and public health authorities, with great impacts on the economy and the society. Evaluating the cost of foodborne diseases may support the design and the implementation of policy interventions. This paper proposes a simple method for cost identification of foodborne diseases, accessible to researchers and practitioners who are not specialist in economics. The method is based on the assumption that epidemiological and economic models can be integrated to understand how the burden of disease determines costs in a wider socio-economic perspective. Systems thinking and interdisciplinary approach are the pivotal conceptual tools of the method. Systems thinking allows for the understanding of the complex relationships working among the elementary units of a system (e.g. wildlife, bred animals, consumers, environment, agro-food industry) in the occurrence of a health problem such foodborne diseases. Complex systemic relationships usually cross the traditional boundaries of scientific knowledge (human medicine, veterinary science, economics) and sectoral institutional responsibilities (e.g. ministry of health, ministry of agriculture). For these reasons more scientific disciplines, institutional competences and social bodies need to work together to face complex health problems, in an interdisciplinary framework. The first step of the proposed method is the identification of the potential cost of the disease. To this aim, the authors first focus on the links between epidemiological and economic models, based on the fact that foodborne diseases, likewise other diseases, hit people's and animals' aptitude to produce utility and goods for the society (e.g. wellbeing, revenue, safe food). These utility losses are real economic costs. Then they show how simple economic models, such as the food supply chain, can help understand the way costs spread across the economic sectors and the society. It should be underlined that the authors adopt already existing and well rooted scientific tools, focusing in particular that their integration in an interdisciplinary framework can effectively contribute to increase the understanding of complex health problems in a viable way.

Economics of One Health: Costs and benefits of integrated West Nile virus surveillance in Emilia-Romagna

Since 2013 in Emilia-Romagna, Italy, surveillance information generated in the public health and in the animal health sectors has been shared and used to guide public health interventions to mitigate the risk of West Nile virus (WNV) transmission via blood transfusion. The objective of the current study was to identify and estimate the costs and benefits associated with this One Health surveillance approach, and to compare it to an approach that does not integrate animal health information in blood donations safety policy (uni-sectoral scenario). Costs of human, animal, and entomological surveillance, sharing of information, and triggered interventions were estimated. Benefits were quantified as the averted costs of potential human cases of WNV neuroinvasive disease associated to infected blood transfusion. In the 2009–2015 period, the One Health approach was estimated to represent a cost saving of €160,921 compared to the uni-sectoral scenario. Blood donation screening was the main cost for both scenarios. The One Health approach further allowed savings of €1.21 million in terms of avoided tests on blood units. Benefits of the One Health approach due to short-term costs of hospitalization and compensation for transfusion-associated disease potentially avoided, were estimated to range from €0 to €2.98 million according to the probability of developing WNV neuroinvasive disease after receiving an infected blood transfusion.

One Health Economics to confront disease threats

Global economic impacts of epidemics suggest high return on investment in prevention and One Health capacity. However, such investments remain limited, contributing to persistent endemic diseases and vulnerability to emerging ones. An interdisciplinary workshop explored methods for country-level analysis of added value of One Health approaches to disease control. Key recommendations include: 1. systems thinking to identify risks and mitigation options for decision-making under uncertainty; 2. multisectoral economic impact assessment to identify wider relevance and possible resource-sharing, and 3. consistent integration of environmental considerations. Economic analysis offers a congruent measure of value complementing diverse impact metrics among sectors and contexts.