An economic analysis of malaria elimination program in Nepal

• Main Authors: Uttam Paudel, Krishna Prasad Pant
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2020-05-01
• Series: Heliyon
• Subjects: Economics; Infectious disease; Public health; Cost-benefit analysis; Malaria elimination; Willingness to pay
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844020307313

Background: Governments have committed to eliminate malaria. But a decline in government investment in malaria interventions, particularly in developing countries such as Nepal, reveals a limited emphasis on malaria elimination that may be due to lack of strong evidence on benefits of the investment. This paper empirically analyses curative and preventive costs and benefits of Nepal's malaria elimination program from the perspectives of both service providers in the public sector and people who are at risk. Methods: Cost benefit analysis of both curative and preventive interventions for malaria elimination was conducted using case and non-case household survey data. Secondary data were obtained from government sources. Ingredient approach and step-down methods were used to estimate costs of malaria elimination interventions, and willingness to pay (WTP) method and case averted approach to estimate benefits. Results: Curative intervention of malaria elimination program is economically viable in Nepal with a net present value (NPV) of USD 23 million, benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 1.58 and internal rate of return of 63%. Malaria preventive intervention is highly beneficial with NPV of USD 435 million and BCR of 2.13. An annual investment of USD 36.59 million is required to continue the current pattern of malaria reduction that can generate societal benefits of USD 92.81 million. From this investment, the government can save USD 132 million by the end of 2025. The maximum WTP of case households for the intervention is USD 57 per household which is 63% higher than that of non-case households. Conclusion: Malaria elimination program in Nepal is economically viable and investment worthy. As the preventive intervention generates much higher net benefits than the curative intervention, the government should emphasize on preventive intervention while continuing the curative interventions.