Economics of Mass Deworming Programs

Excerpt

Soil-transmitted helminth (STH) and schistosomiasis infections affect more than 1 billion people, mainly in low- and middle-income countries, particularly school-age children. Although light infections can be fairly asymptomatic, severe infections can have significant health effects, such as malnutrition, listlessness, organ damage, and internal bleeding (Bundy, Appleby, and others 2017).

Low-cost drugs are available and are the standard of medical care for diagnosed infections. Because diagnosis is relatively expensive, and treatment is inexpensive and safe, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends periodic mass treatments in areas where worm infections are greater than certain thresholds (WHO 2015). A number of organizations, including the Copenhagen Consensus, GiveWell, and the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab, which have reviewed the evidence for, and comparative cost-effectiveness of, a wide range of development interventions, have consistently ranked deworming as a priority for investment. However, Taylor-Robinson and others (2015) challenge this policy, accepting that those known to be infected should be treated but arguing that there is substantial evidence that mass drug administration (MDA) has no impact on a range of outcomes.

This chapter discusses the economics of policy choices surrounding public investments in deworming and considers policy choices under two frameworks:

1. Welfare economics or public finance approach. Individuals are presumed to make decisions that maximize their own welfare, but government intervention may be justified in cases in which individual actions create externalities for others. These externalities could include health externalities from reductions in the transmission of infectious disease, as well as fiscal externalities if treatment increases long-term earnings and tax payments. Evidence on epidemiological and fiscal externalities from deworming will be important for informing decisions under this perspective.

2. Expected cost-effectiveness approach. Policy makers should pursue a policy if the statistical expectation of the value of benefits exceeds the cost. Future monetary benefits should be discounted back to the present. Policy makers may also value nonfinancial goals, such as weight gain or school participation; they should pursue a policy if the statistical expectation of the benefit achieved per unit of expenditure exceeds that of other policies that policy makers are considering.

Under either framework, the case for government subsidies will be stronger if demand for deworming is sensitive to price. If everyone would buy deworming medicine on their own, without subsidies, then subsidies would yield no benefits; they would generate a deadweight loss of taxation.

The first perspective focuses on individual goals and assumes that consumers will maximize their own welfare. It treats them as rational and informed, and it abstracts from intrahousehold conflicts. The second perspective does not make these assumptions and seeks simply to inform policy makers about expected benefit-cost ratios or cost-effectiveness metrics, rather than making welfare statements.

This chapter summarizes the public finance case for deworming subsidies, given the evidence on epidemiological externalities and high responsiveness of household deworming to price. It reviews the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of mass school-based deworming and associated fiscal externalities. It argues that the expected benefits of following the WHO’s recommendation of mass presumptive deworming of children in endemic regions exceed the costs, even given uncertainty about the magnitude and likelihood of impacts in given contexts. This benefit is realized even when only the educational and economic benefits of deworming are considered. Finally, the chapter maintains that between the two leading policy options for treatment in endemic areas—mass treatment versus screening and treatment of those found to be infected—the former is preferred under both public finance and cost-effectiveness approaches. Definitions of age groupings and age-specific terminology used in this volume can be found in chapter 1 (Bundy, de Silva, and others 2017).