Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses of strategies to improve measles vaccination coverage in Kenya
5 affiliations
- 1Health Economics Research Unit, KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya
- 2Ministry of Health, Government of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya
- 3Department of Economics, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia
- 4Health Policy Research Group, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria
- 5Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
Abstract
Measles control efforts have been implemented over the years. However, elimination of the disease is yet to be realized. Additionally, global measles vaccination coverage has stagnated over the past decade, leading to outbreaks. We assessed the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of scaling-up vaccination coverage in Kenya, towards the measles elimination goal. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model from a health system’s perspective over a 10-year time frame, incorporating a new birth cohort annually. Two vaccination scenarios were examined 1) a constant coverage improvement scenario, assuming current funding is maintained resulting in annual increases of 0.3% and 2% in the first and second-dose measles vaccine coverage, respectively, alongside supplementary immunization activities(SIAs) and 2) an intensified investment scenario, assuming achievement of 95% coverage for both vaccine doses in addition to SIAs. The later assumed increased investments to reach hard-to-reach populations. A threshold of USD 1,280 per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted was applied. A budget impact analysis was also conducted. Over a 10-year time horizon, the constant coverage improvement scenario led to 6% fewer deaths (213 (161–276)) and was cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER = USD 1,269 (1,205−1,333) per DALY averted) compared to the base scenario. Increasing coverage in the intensified investment scenario, further reduced deaths by 25% (879(626--1,284)) and was more cost effective, ICER 1,093 (1,029 -1,157) per DALY averted, compared to the constant improvement scenario. The constant improvement scenario had a moderate budget impact while the intensified improvement scenario had a very high budget impact, when assessed against Kenya’s health expenditure. Our findings suggest that accelerating measles coverage through intensified investments towards measles elimination is cost-effective but has a high budget impact. Therefore, policy makers should consider market shaping interventions and strategies to mobilize and allocate sufficient resources to increase vaccination coverage and ensure sustained health gains.
Related
- Epidemiology of animal bites and post-exposure vaccination coverage in Davao City, Philippines: A five-year retrospective cohort study, 2019–2023
- Assessing the impact of a gender-neutral approach to HPV vaccination on vaccination coverage for nine-year-old girls in Cameroon: A retrospective, cross-sectional study
- Pertussis and vaccination coverage in children under one year of age and in pregnant women: a challenge that persists Coqueluche e cobertura vacinal em menores de um ano e gestantes: ainda um desafio
- Small Quantity Lipid-Based Nutritional Supplementation and Measles Vaccination Coverage in Children Aged 6-23\,Months: A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial
- CD8+ stem cell-like memory T cells: Unveiling the potential for next-generation vaccination strategies
BibTeX
@article{orangi2026costeffectiveness,
title = {{Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses of strategies to improve measles vaccination coverage in Kenya}},
author = {Stacey Orangi and Prashant Mandaliya and Rose Jalang’o and Patrick Amoth and Alick Banda and Chibueze Anosike and Felix Masiye and Obinna Onwujekwe and Edwine Barasa},
journal = {PLOS Global Public Health},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.1371/journal.pgph.0006440},
url = {https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0006440},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses of strategies to improve measles vaccination coverage in Kenya
AU - Stacey Orangi
AU - Prashant Mandaliya
AU - Rose Jalang’o
AU - Patrick Amoth
AU - Alick Banda
AU - Chibueze Anosike
AU - Felix Masiye
AU - Obinna Onwujekwe
AU - Edwine Barasa
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/22
JO - PLOS Global Public Health
DO - 10.1371/journal.pgph.0006440
UR - https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0006440
AB - Measles control efforts have been implemented over the years. However, elimination of the disease is yet to be realized. Additionally, global measles vaccination coverage has stagnated over the past decade, leading to outbreaks. We assessed the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of scaling-up vaccination coverage in Kenya, towards the measles elimination goal. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model from a health system’s perspective over a 10-year time frame, incorporating a new birth cohort annually. Two vaccination scenarios were examined 1) a constant coverage improvement scenario, assuming current funding is maintained resulting in annual increases of 0.3% and 2% in the first and second-dose measles vaccine coverage, respectively, alongside supplementary immunization activities(SIAs) and 2) an intensified investment scenario, assuming achievement of 95% coverage for both vaccine doses in addition to SIAs. The later assumed increased investments to reach hard-to-reach populations. A threshold of USD 1,280 per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted was applied. A budget impact analysis was also conducted. Over a 10-year time horizon, the constant coverage improvement scenario led to 6% fewer deaths (213 (161–276)) and was cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER = USD 1,269 (1,205−1,333) per DALY averted) compared to the base scenario. Increasing coverage in the intensified investment scenario, further reduced deaths by 25% (879(626--1,284)) and was more cost effective, ICER 1,093 (1,029 -1,157) per DALY averted, compared to the constant improvement scenario. The constant improvement scenario had a moderate budget impact while the intensified improvement scenario had a very high budget impact, when assessed against Kenya’s health expenditure. Our findings suggest that accelerating measles coverage through intensified investments towards measles elimination is cost-effective but has a high budget impact. Therefore, policy makers should consider market shaping interventions and strategies to mobilize and allocate sufficient resources to increase vaccination coverage and ensure sustained health gains.
SN - 2767-3375
ER -