IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Simplified Mathematical Modelling of Uncertainty: Cost-Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines in Spain


  • Julio Emilio Marco-Franco

    (Research Centre for Economics Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain
    Nova School of Business and Economics, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 2775-405 Carcavelos, Portugal)

  • Pedro Pita-Barros

    (Nova School of Business and Economics, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 2775-405 Carcavelos, Portugal)

  • Silvia González-de-Julián

    (Research Centre for Economics Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain)

  • Iryna Sabat

    (Nova School of Business and Economics, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 2775-405 Carcavelos, Portugal)

  • David Vivas-Consuelo

    (Research Centre for Economics Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain)


When exceptional situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, arise and reliable data is not available at decision-making times, estimation using mathematical models can provide a reasonable reckoning for health planning. We present a simplified model (static but with two-time references) for estimating the cost-effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine. A simplified model provides a quick assessment of the upper bound of cost-effectiveness, as we illustrate with data from Spain, and allows for easy comparisons between countries. It may also provide useful comparisons among different vaccines at the marketplace, from the perspective of the buyer. From the analysis of this information, key epidemiological figures, and costs of the disease for Spain have been estimated, based on mortality. The fatality rate is robust data that can alternatively be obtained from death registers, funeral homes, cemeteries, and crematoria. Our model estimates the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to be 5132 € (4926–5276) as of 17 February 2021, based on the following assumptions/inputs: An estimated cost of 30 euros per dose (plus transport, storing, and administration), two doses per person, efficacy of 70% and coverage of 70% of the population. Even considering the possibility of some bias, this simplified model provides confirmation that vaccination against COVID-19 is highly cost-effective.

Suggested Citation

  • Julio Emilio Marco-Franco & Pedro Pita-Barros & Silvia González-de-Julián & Iryna Sabat & David Vivas-Consuelo, 2021. "Simplified Mathematical Modelling of Uncertainty: Cost-Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines in Spain," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-15, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:5:p:566-:d:512034

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Charles F. Manski, 2017. "Mandating vaccination with unknown indirect effects," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 19(3), pages 603-619, June.
    2. Mr. Paolo Dudine & Klaus-Peter Hellwig & Samir Jahan, 2020. "A Framework for Estimating Health Spending in Response to COVID-19," IMF Working Papers 2020/145, International Monetary Fund.
    3. Siciliani, Luigi & Wild, Claudia & McKee, Martin & Kringos, Dionne & Barry, Margaret M. & Barros, Pedro Pita & De Maeseneer, Jan & Murauskiene, Liubove & Ricciardi, Walter, 2020. "Strengthening vaccination programmes and health systems in the European Union: A framework for action," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(5), pages 511-518.
    4. Torrance, George W., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
    5. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    6. Frank A. Sonnenberg & J. Robert Beck, 1993. "Markov Models in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 13(4), pages 322-338, December.
    7. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Peter P. Wakker, 2012. "A Direct Method for Measuring Discounting and QALYs More Easily and Reliably," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(4), pages 583-593, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Gandjour, Afschin, 2022. "Value-based pricing of a COVID-19 vaccine," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 1-8.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Spencer, Anne & Rivero-Arias, Oliver & Wong, Ruth & Tsuchiya, Aki & Bleichrodt, Han & Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor & Norman, Richard & Lloyd, Andrew & Clarke, Philip, 2022. "The QALY at 50: One story many voices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    2. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’Haridon & Patrick Peretti-Watel & Valérie Seror, 2018. "Discounting health and money: New evidence using a more robust method," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 117-140, April.
    3. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2013. "In search of a preferred preference elicitation method: A test of the internal consistency of choice and matching tasks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 126-140.
    4. Mark Sculpher & David Torgerson & Ron Goeree & Bernie O'Brien, 1999. "A critical structured review of economic evaluations of interventions for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis," Working Papers 169chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    5. Nicholas Graves & Mary Courtney & Helen Edwards & Anne Chang & Anthony Parker & Kathleen Finlayson, 2009. "Cost-Effectiveness of an Intervention to Reduce Emergency Re-Admissions to Hospital among Older Patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(10), pages 1-9, October.
    6. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    7. Andrews, Brendon P., 2023. "Economic Evaluation under Ambiguity and Structural Uncertainties," Working Papers 2023-9, University of Alberta, Department of Economics, revised 05 Apr 2024.
    8. Rodríguez-Míguez, E. & Abellán-Perpiñán, J.M. & Alvarez, X.C. & González, X.M. & Sampayo, A.R., 2016. "The DEP-6D, a new preference-based measure to assess health states of dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 210-219.
    9. Arthur E. Attema & Werner B.F. Brouwer, 2014. "Deriving Time Discounting Correction Factors For Tto Tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 410-425, April.
    10. Janel Hanmer & Barry Dewitt & Lan Yu & Joel Tsevat & Mark Roberts & Dennis Revicki & Paul A Pilkonis & Rachel Hess & Ron D Hays & Baruch Fischhoff & David Feeny & David Condon & David Cella, 2018. "Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-13, July.
    11. Jacob Smith, 2023. "Considering Risk Aversion in Economic Evaluation: A Rank Dependent Approach," Papers 2311.07905,, revised Jan 2024.
    12. Michał Jakubczyk, 2023. "What if 0 is not equal to 0? Inter-personal health utilities anchoring using the largest health gains," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(7), pages 1217-1233, September.
    13. Carlo Lazzaro & Cecile van Steen & Florent Aptel & Cedric Schweitzer & Luigi Angelillo, 2022. "Cost-Utility Analysis of STN1013001, a Latanoprost Cationic Emulsion, versus Other Latanoprost Formulations (Latanoprost) in Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension and Ocular Surface Disease in Fr," Post-Print hal-03696350, HAL.
    14. Stefan A. Lipman & Arthur E. Attema & Matthijs M. Versteegh, 2022. "Correcting for discounting and loss aversion in composite time trade‐off," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(8), pages 1633-1648, August.
    15. Irina Pokhilenko & Luca M. M. Janssen & Aggie T. G. Paulus & Ruben M. W. A. Drost & William Hollingworth & Joanna C. Thorn & Sian Noble & Judit Simon & Claudia Fischer & Susanne Mayer & Luis Salvador-, 2023. "Development of an Instrument for the Assessment of Health-Related Multi-sectoral Resource Use in Europe: The PECUNIA RUM," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 155-166, March.
    16. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    17. Christian Gollier, 2020. "Cost–benefit analysis of age‐specific deconfinement strategies," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 22(6), pages 1746-1771, December.
    18. Kristina Burström & Magnus Johannesson & Finn Diderichsen, 2003. "The value of the change in health in Sweden 1980/81 to 1996/97," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 637-654, August.
    19. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    20. Goodkin-Gold, Matthew & Kremer, Michael & Snyder, Christopher M. & Williams, Heidi, 2022. "Optimal vaccine subsidies for endemic diseases," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).


    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:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:5:p:566-:d:512034. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.