IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgph00/0006440.html

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses of strategies to improve measles vaccination coverage in Kenya

Author

Listed:
  • Stacey Orangi
  • Prashant Mandaliya
  • Rose Jalang’o
  • Patrick Amoth
  • Alick Banda
  • Chibueze Anosike
  • Felix Masiye
  • Obinna Onwujekwe
  • Edwine Barasa

Abstract

Measles control efforts have been implemented over the years. However, elimination of the disease is yet to be realized. Additionally, global measles vaccination coverage has stagnated over the past decade, leading to outbreaks. We assessed the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of scaling-up vaccination coverage in Kenya, towards the measles elimination goal. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model from a health system’s perspective over a 10-year time frame, incorporating a new birth cohort annually. Two vaccination scenarios were examined 1) a constant coverage improvement scenario, assuming current funding is maintained resulting in annual increases of 0.3% and 2% in the first and second-dose measles vaccine coverage, respectively, alongside supplementary immunization activities(SIAs) and 2) an intensified investment scenario, assuming achievement of 95% coverage for both vaccine doses in addition to SIAs. The later assumed increased investments to reach hard-to-reach populations. A threshold of USD 1,280 per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted was applied. A budget impact analysis was also conducted. Over a 10-year time horizon, the constant coverage improvement scenario led to 6% fewer deaths (213 (161–276)) and was cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER = USD 1,269 ($1,205-$1,333) per DALY averted) compared to the base scenario. Increasing coverage in the intensified investment scenario, further reduced deaths by 25% (879(626--1,284)) and was more cost effective, ICER 1,093 (1,029 -1,157) per DALY averted, compared to the constant improvement scenario. The constant improvement scenario had a moderate budget impact while the intensified improvement scenario had a very high budget impact, when assessed against Kenya’s health expenditure. Our findings suggest that accelerating measles coverage through intensified investments towards measles elimination is cost-effective but has a high budget impact. Therefore, policy makers should consider market shaping interventions and strategies to mobilize and allocate sufficient resources to increase vaccination coverage and ensure sustained health gains.

Suggested Citation

  • Stacey Orangi & Prashant Mandaliya & Rose Jalang’o & Patrick Amoth & Alick Banda & Chibueze Anosike & Felix Masiye & Obinna Onwujekwe & Edwine Barasa, 2026. "Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses of strategies to improve measles vaccination coverage in Kenya," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-16, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0006440
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0006440
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0006440
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0006440&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgph.0006440?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pgph00:0006440. 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: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .

    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.