View all News & Blog posts »
View all projects »
View all publications »
Interactive data visualizations of antibiotic use and resistance in North America and Europe
In examining potential short-term to medium-term financial savings, what are the marginal costs and benefits of converting malaria programmes from a control to an elimination goal?
This analysis shows that achieving and sustaining elimination will require substantial funding, and that some countries will need intensive support from the international community to achieve that goal. Financial savings should not form the rationale for embarking on malaria elimination campaigns, but benefits may still outweigh the costs.
Evidence on the costs and benefits of embarking on malaria elimination campaigns is scarce, yet it help determine malaria intervention strategies. Through comprehensive cost-benefit analysis and programmatic comparison, policymakers and healthcare providers will be better equipped to determine whether and how to pursue malaria elimination or alternative control measures.
The marginal costs and benefits of converting malaria programmes from a control to an elimination goal are central to strategic decisions, but empirical evidence is scarce. We present a conceptual framework to assess the economics of elimination and analyse a central component of that framework—potential short-term to medium-term financial savings. After a review that showed a dearth of existing evidence, the net present value of elimination in five sites was calculated and compared with effective control. The probability that elimination would be cost-saving over 50 years ranged from 0% to 42%, with only one site achieving cost-savings in the base case. These findings show that financial savings should not be a primary rationale for elimination, but that elimination might still be a worthy investment if total benefits are sufficient to outweigh marginal costs. Robust research into these elimination benefits is urgently needed.