Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Jun 24;368(1623):20120149.
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0149. Print 2013 Aug 5.

Economic considerations for the eradication endgame

Scott Barrett  1
Affiliations

Economic considerations for the eradication endgame

Scott Barrett. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. .

Abstract

An infectious disease will be eradicated only if it is eliminated everywhere, including in the hardest-to-reach, most vaccine-wary communities. If eradication is successful, it promises a dividend in the form of avoided infections and vaccinations. However, success is never certain unless and until eradication is achieved, and claiming the dividend means bearing the possibly great risk of re-emergence. Economic analysis of eradication evaluates these risks and rewards relative to the alternative of 'optimal control', and also exposes the incentives for achieving and capitalizing on eradication. Eradication is a 'game', because some countries may be willing to eliminate the disease within their borders only if assured that all others will eliminate the disease within their borders. International financing is also a game, because each country would rather free ride than contribute. Finally, for diseases such as polio, capitalizing on eradication is a game, for should any country continue to vaccinate in the post-eradication era using the live-attenuated polio vaccine, the countries that stop vaccinating will be exposed to the risk of vaccine-derived polioviruses. In the framework developed in this paper, eradication is a seductive goal, its attainment fraught with peril.

Keywords: cost–benefit analysis; eradication; game theory; global public goods; infectious diseases; weakest links.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
The vaccination game.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
The economics of eradication.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
The eradication game. (Online version in colour.)
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
The post-eradication, vaccination cessation game. (Online version in colour.)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Miller M, Barrett S, Henderson DA. 2006. Control and eradication. In Disease control priorities in developing countries (ed. Jamison DT, Breman JG, Measham AR, Alleyne G, Claeson M, Evans DB, Jha P, Mills A, Musgrove P.), pp. 1163–1176 Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
    1. Bart KJ, Foulds J, Patriarca P. 1996. Global eradication of poliomyelitis: benefit–cost analysis. Bull. WHO 74, 35–45 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kahn M, Ehreth J. 2003. Costs and benefits of polio eradication: a long-run global perspective. Vaccine 21, 702–705 10.1016/S0264-410X(02)00584-4 (doi:10.1016/S0264-410X(02)00584-4) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Perisic A, Bauch CT. 2009. Social contact networks and disease eradicability under voluntary vaccination. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5, e1000280. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000280 (doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000280) - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Anderson RM, May RM. 1991. Infectious diseases of humans: dynamics and control. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press

LinkOut - more resources