BMC Health Services Research · 2 authors, 2 centres
This summary was generated by AI from a single paper. It has not been reviewed by a clinician and is not clinical advice. Verify against the source before acting on it.
This modeling study compared the cost-effectiveness of three major U.S. COVID-19 policies using a societal perspective. It found that hospital therapeutics and care improvements were the most cost-effective, followed by vaccines, while non-medical interventions like lockdowns were not cost-effective when considered alone.
This study performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective using a multi-risk SIR model to simulate QALYs lost under different COVID-19 policy scenarios in the US. The analysis compared the costs and benefits of non-medical interventions (NMIs), vaccine development/deployment, and hospital therapeutics/care improvements (HTCI) against a 'do nothing' counterfactual. The central result was that HTCI was the most cost-effective policy, with a cost of $2,089 per QALY gained. Vaccines were also cost-effective at $34,777 per QALY gained, while NMIs alone were not cost-effective due to high costs (e.g., $1.7 trillion in lost economic output) and an inability to independently prevent deaths. The combination of all three policies had a very high cost per QALY gained. Limitations included the exclusion of variables like mental health effects of school closures and the use of population averages rather than age-adjusted rates. The study implies that HTCI and vaccines were well-justified investments, whereas lockdowns had poor cost-effectiveness unless used temporarily to delay infections until other treatments were available.
