Economic analysis of measles elimination program in the Republic of Korea, 2001: A cost benefit analysis study

• We modeled four measles vaccination strategies and compared cost–benefit ratio.
• With catch-up campaign, baseline 178,560 measles cases would decrease to 5936.
• Two-dose MMR and MR catch-up campaign showed the highest cost–benefit ratio.

BackgroundIn this study, we modeled the cost benefit analysis for three different measles vaccination strategies based upon three different measles-containing vaccines in Korea, 2001. We employed an economic analysis model using vaccination coverage data and population-based measles surveillance data, along with available estimates of the costs for the different strategies. In addition, we have included analysis on benefit of reduction of complication by mumps and rubella.MethodsWe evaluated four different strategies: strategy 1, keep-up program with a second dose measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine at 4–6 years without catch-up campaign; strategy 2, additional catch-up campaign with measles (M) vaccine; strategy 3, catch-up campaign with measles-rubella (MR) vaccine; and strategy 4, catch-up campaign with MMR vaccine. The cost of vaccination included cost for vaccines, vaccination practices and other administrative expenses. The direct benefit of estimated using data from National Health Insurance Company, a government-operated system that reimburses all medical costs spent on designated illness in Korea.ResultsWith the routine one-dose MMR vaccination program, we estimated a baseline of 178,560 measles cases over the 20 years; when the catch-up campaign with M, MR or MMR vaccines was conducted, we estimated the measles cases would decrease to 5936 cases. Among all strategies, the two-dose MMR keep-up program with MR catch-up campaign showed the highest benefit-cost ratio of 1.27 with a net benefit of 51.6 billion KRW.ConclusionAcross different vaccination strategies, our finding suggest that MR catch-up campaign in conjunction with two-dose MMR keep-up program was the most appropriate option in terms of economic costs and public health effects associated with measles elimination strategy in Korea.