August 1, 2012 – Volume 30 – Issue 8 pp: 633-747,e1-e15
The Impact of Rotavirus Vaccination on Discounted Net Tax Revenue in Egypt: A Government Perspective Analysis
Connolly, Mark P.; Topachevskyi, Oleksandr; Standaert, Baudouin; Ortega, Omayra; Postma, Maarten
Pharmacoeconomics. 30(8):681-695, August 1, 2012.
Background: We evaluated national rotavirus (RV) immunization programme costs to estimate how resulting changes in morbidity and mortality will influence government fiscal accounts over time. The assumption was that increased childhood survival in vaccinated cohorts leads to increased numbers of children consuming government resource, and an increased number of future tax payers.
Objective: Our objective was to evaluate the difference in lifetime discounted net tax revenue generated by RV vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts from the Egyptian government perspective.
Methods: The model framework adopts the Egyptian government perspective for RV immunization costs (year 2009 values) and all government transfers (e.g. education costs, health costs, pensions). To reflect the government tax revenue, we applied a fixed income tax burden to earnings over the lifetime of vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts. At each year of the model, we derive net taxes (gross taxes less transfers) discounted to the immunization year to reflect the present value of RV vaccination investment costs.
Results: Projected incremental net present values of the vaccinated cohort versus the unvaccinated cohort are $US6.1 million, $US58.1 million and $US55.7 million at 25-, 50- and 72-year time horizons, respectively. The internal rate of return for the government based on RV vaccination at years 25, 50 and 72 was 10.8%, 15.1% and 14.9, respectively. Within the first 5 years of vaccination, 76% of vaccine acquisition costs were offset due to direct and indirect cost savings attributed to a reduction in RV-related disease burden. Investments in RV vaccination in a single year are entirely offset when the vaccinated cohort of newborns reach 22 years of age.
Conclusion: The government perspective is useful for evaluating investments in RV vaccination because of ongoing government transfers and tax receipts attributed to changes in RV-attributed morbidity and mortality. The analysis described here illustrates that investing in RV offers tangible long-term fiscal benefits for government over many generations that would not ordinarily be captured in economic evaluations typically applied to healthcare interventions.