Total costs saved (direct + indirect) through sexual and reproductive healthcare is sourced from the Copenhagen Consensus, as their analysis indicates that for each dollar spent on SRHR, $120 would be saved.
I suppose the other numbers are extrapolations from this figure, though it’s hard to say.
These cost effectiveness numbers are based on the total costs of our Outreach and Public Sector Strengthening programs in Nigeria and our impact based on services delivered through these channels and calculated using our Impact 2 tool. Costs include all actual expenses to MSI involved in delivering services through these two channels, for example, for our outreach teams, these costs encompass service and non service providers, consumables, travel, demand generation, quality assurance, and other overhead expenses associated with providing services on-site (such as Research, Monitoring and Evaluation). This also includes MSI’s indirect costs.
For impact estimates, such as the number of maternal deaths averted, we utilize our Impact 2. This is an open-source, peer-reviewed tool that models bottom up estimates based on the services our teams deliver on the ground. The modelling is based on best available data from reputable sources such as WHO, UN, World Bank etc.
I’ll be honest, to me the numbers sound too good to be true, so I’m curious to understand the assumptions that go into those numbers and whether I agree with them.
If the numbers really are that good that’s quite exciting!
Is there a cost-effectiveness analysis available where I can read how you arrived at these numbers?
This note says:
I suppose the other numbers are extrapolations from this figure, though it’s hard to say.
These cost effectiveness numbers are based on the total costs of our Outreach and Public Sector Strengthening programs in Nigeria and our impact based on services delivered through these channels and calculated using our Impact 2 tool. Costs include all actual expenses to MSI involved in delivering services through these two channels, for example, for our outreach teams, these costs encompass service and non service providers, consumables, travel, demand generation, quality assurance, and other overhead expenses associated with providing services on-site (such as Research, Monitoring and Evaluation). This also includes MSI’s indirect costs.
For impact estimates, such as the number of maternal deaths averted, we utilize our Impact 2. This is an open-source, peer-reviewed tool that models bottom up estimates based on the services our teams deliver on the ground. The modelling is based on best available data from reputable sources such as WHO, UN, World Bank etc.
You can read more about Impact 2 via this introductory guide here: https://​​www.msichoices.org/​​wp-content/​​uploads/​​2023/​​10/​​impact-2-introductory-guide-june-2018-1.pdf
The full methodology paper can be found here: https://​​www.msichoices.org/​​wp-content/​​uploads/​​2023/​​10/​​impact-26-methodology-paper-2023.pdf
You can download the tool here: https://​​www.msichoices.org/​​what-we-do/​​technical-expertise/​​impact-2/​​
We will be publishing a follow-up blog with a deep dive on our Nigerian program and its cost effectiveness calculations soon.
Thanks, I’m looking forward to that post!
I’ll be honest, to me the numbers sound too good to be true, so I’m curious to understand the assumptions that go into those numbers and whether I agree with them.
If the numbers really are that good that’s quite exciting!
Thanks so much, we will share more soon!