The economic value of changing mortality risk in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic breakdown by cause of death

• Main Authors: Aayush Khadka, Stéphane Verguet
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2021-07-01
• Series: BMC Medicine
• Subjects: Economic burden of disease; Mortality reduction; Non-communicable diseases; Communicable diseases; Priority setting; Low- and middle-income countries
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-021-02029-x

Abstract Background We develop a framework for quantifying monetary values associated with changes in disease-specific mortality risk in low- and middle-income countries to help quantify trade-offs involved in investing in mortality reduction due to one disease versus another. Methods We monetized the changes in mortality risk for communicable and non-communicable diseases (CD and NCD, respectively) between 2017 and 2030 for low-income, lower-middle-income, and upper-middle-income countries (LICs, LMICs, and UMICs, respectively). We modeled three mortality trajectories (“base-case”, “high-performance”, and “low-performance”) using Global Burden of Disease study forecasts and estimated disease-specific mortality risk changes relative to the base-case. We assigned monetary values to changes in mortality risk using value of a statistical life (VSL) methods and conducted multiple sensitivity analyses. Results In terms of NCDs, the absolute monetary value associated with changing mortality risk was highest for cardiovascular diseases in older age groups. For example, being on the low-performance trajectory relative to the base-case in 2030 was valued at $9100 (95% uncertainty range $6800; $11,400), $28,300 ($24,200; $32,400), and $30,300 ($27,200; $33,300) for females aged 70–74 years in LICs, LMICs, and UMICs, respectively. Changing the mortality rate from the base-case to the high-performance trajectory was associated with high monetary value for CDs as well, especially among younger age groups. Estimates were sensitive to assumptions made in calculating VSL. Conclusions Our framework provides a priority setting paradigm to best allocate investments toward the health sector and enables intersectoral comparisons of returns on investments from health interventions.