ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAAB
1
Estimated long-run income effects from averting childhood malaria
2
3
Bleakley 2010 Results
4
Occupational income scoreDuncan's indexAverageExplanation
5
Percentage increase in income in the United States from eradicating malaria throughout childhood14.0%18.0%16.0%Headline Bleakley results for U.S. malaria eradication campaigns
6
Years in childhood (assumed years of malaria averted to get full income effect)1515GiveWell's assumption
7
Percentage increase in income in the United States from eradicating malaria for one year during childhood0.9%1.2%1.1%Calculation: pooled annual treatment effect in Bleakley
8
Maximum pre-intervention U.S. annual malaria mortality per 10,000 people (rough estimate), Maxcy 192317.817.8This section calculates pre-intervention malaria burden to scale benefits. We track maximum rather than mean burden because Bleakley compares post-eradication economic outcomes in the most vs. least malarious areas at baseline.
9
U.S. historical malaria case fatality rate (rough estimate), Maxcy 19230.0050.005
10
Approx. pre-intervention malaria incidence in the United States per 10,000 people3,5603,560
11
Estimated maximum pre-intervention malaria incidence rate, entire population35.6%35.6%Calculation: decrease in population malaria incidence necessary to produce the income effect found in Bleakley
12
Estimated ratio of under-5 malaria incidence to malaria incidence at all ages2.02.0Assumption to convert population incidence to incidence in childhood. We expect malaria incidence to generally be higher in children than adults.
13
Estimated ratio of malaria incidence for ages 5-14 to malaria incidence at all ages1.01.0Assumption to convert population incidence to incidence in childhood. We expect malaria incidence to generally be higher in children than adults.
14
Proportion of children 0-14 who are under 5 at time of malaria eradication35.0%35.0%Input based on historical data
15
Estimated ratio of malaria for ages 0-14 to malaria incidence at all ages135.0%135.0%Calculation: multiplier to convert overall incidence to incidence in childhood
16
Estimated maximum counterfactual malaria incidence rate, children ages 0-1448.1%48.1%Calculation: decrease in childhood malaria incidence to produce the income effect found in Bleakley
17
18
Percentage increase in income per malaria case averted between ages 0 and 14 (pre-adjustments)1.9%2.5%2.2%Calculation: the expected Bleakley income effect size for children who avoided malaria as a result of malaria eradication. We net out children who would not have gotten malaria in the Bleakley counterfactual to calculate development benefits based on malaria cases averted in modern contexts in our cost-effectiveness analyses.
19
20
Cutler et al. 2010 Results
21
MinMaxAverageNotes
22
23
Rise in expenditure from 10 percentage point decrease in malaria incidence throughout childhood1.50%6.80%4.15%Headline Cutler results for malaria eradication campaigns in India
24
Years in childhood (assumed years of malaria averted to get full income effect)1515GiveWell's assumption
25
Percentage increase in income from eradicating malaria for one year during childhood0.1%0.5%0.3%Calculation: pooled annual treatment effect in Cutler
26
Corresponding percentage point decrease in malaria incidence, entire population (used to scale benefits)10%10%Cutler's effect size is scaled to a 10% decrease in malaria incidence for the entire population. We need to re-scale Cutler's benefits by this amount of malaria averted for use in GiveWell's cost-effectiveness analyses.
27
Estimated ratio of malaria for ages 0-14 to malaria incidence at all ages135%135%Multiplier to convert overall incidence to incidence in childhood. This assumption is the same as for Bleakley.
28
Estimated reduction in malaria incidence for ages 0-14 to generate consumption effect14%14%Calculation: translating population incidence averted to incidence averted in childhood.
29
Percentage increase in consumption expenditure per malaria case averted during childhood (pre-adjustments)0.7%3.4%2.0%Calculation: the expected Cutler consumption effect size for children who avoided malaria as a result of malaria eradication. We need to net out children who would not have gotten malaria in the Cutler counterfactual to calculate development benefits based on malaria cases averted in modern contexts in our cost-effectiveness analyses.
30
31
Cutler average effect size relative to Bleakley-8%
32
33
Weighted average results and comparison with current nets CEA
34
Annual percentage increase in income per unit prevalence reduction in current CEA (pre-adjustments)2.30%
35
Weight on Bleakley60%
36
Weight on Cutler40%
37
Percentage increase in annual income per malaria case averted between ages 0 and 14 (pre-adjustments)2.15%
38
Additional replicability adjustment for the relationship between malaria and income-70%
39
External validity adjustment for less malaria prevalence averted in current vs. historical settings-10%
40
Adjusted percentage increase in annual income per malaria case averted between ages 0 and 14 (for nets)0.6%
41
42
Weighted average results to use in the SMC CEA
43
Adjusted percentage increase in annual income per malaria case averted between ages 0 and 14 (for SMC)0.6%
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100