IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v49y1999i6p763-779.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The cost-effectiveness of introducing a varicella vaccine to the New Zealand immunisation schedule

Author

Listed:
  • Scuffham, P.
  • Devlin, N.
  • Eberhart-Phillips, J.
  • Wilson-Salt, R.

Abstract

This study examined the cost-effectiveness of adding a varicella vaccine to an existing childhood immunisation schedule relative to a counterfactual where the varicella vaccine is available on a user-pays basis (the current New Zealand situation). The costs and consequences of chickenpox in an annual cohort of 57,200, 15-month old children were simulated for a 30-year period. The cohort simulation design captures the 'phasing-in' effects of routine varicella vaccination on the population. From a health care payer's perspective (medical costs only) every dollar invested in a vaccination programme would return NZ $0.67. However, from a societal point of view (which includes the value of work-loss), a vaccination programme would return NZ $2.79 for every dollar invested. To implement a varicella vaccination programme covering 80% of 15-month old children in New Zealand would add more than NZ $1 million in net direct (health care) costs each year. However, the indirect cost savings from reduced losses of work-time exceed NZ $2 million annually. The net average health care cost per child vaccinated over the 30-year modelling period was $54 whereas the cost-savings from work-loss averted averaged $101 per child vaccinated. Total cost-savings to society of $47 per child vaccinated, on average, could be gained from a vaccination programme. The finding that the addition to vaccination costs resulting from a routine programme (including the cost of complications from the vaccine) were greater than the offsetting health care cost savings from reduced incidence of chickenpox were robust to a sensitivity analysis on all assumptions within plausible ranges. Overall cost-effectiveness estimates were most sensitive to assumptions regarding lost work-time, the discount rate, and the price and efficacy of the vaccine. Estimates were relatively insensitive to changes in assumptions regarding health care utilisation.

Suggested Citation

  • Scuffham, P. & Devlin, N. & Eberhart-Phillips, J. & Wilson-Salt, R., 1999. "The cost-effectiveness of introducing a varicella vaccine to the New Zealand immunisation schedule," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 763-779, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:49:y:1999:i:6:p:763-779
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(99)00115-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. M. Brisson & W. J. Edmunds, 2006. "Impact of Model, Methodological, and Parameter Uncertainty in the Economic Analysis of Vaccination Programs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(5), pages 434-446, September.
    2. Jane Hall & Patricia Kenny & Madeleine King & Jordan Louviere & Rosalie Viney & Angela Yeoh, 2002. "Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 457-465, July.
    3. Nancy Thiry & Philippe Beutels & Pierre Damme & Eddy Doorslaer, 2003. "Economic Evaluations of Varicella Vaccination Programmes," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 13-38, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:49:y:1999:i:6:p:763-779. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.