Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 270

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Cost-effectiveness of a Routine Varicella Vaccination Program for US Children

Lieu, Tracy A.·1994·JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the economic consequences of a routine varicella vaccination program that targets healthy children. METHODS: Decision analysis was used to compare the costs, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of a routine vaccination program with no intervention. Clinical outcomes were based on a mathematical model of vaccine efficacy that relied on published and unpublished data and on expert opinion. Medical utilization rates and costs were collected from multiple sources, including the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program and the California Hospital Discharge Database. RESULTS: A routine varicella vaccination program for healthy children would prevent 94% of all potential cases of chickenpox, provided the vaccination coverage rate is 97% at school entry. It would cost approximately $162 million annually if one dose of vaccine per child were recommended at a cost of $35 per dose. From the societal perspective, which includes work-loss costs as well as medical costs, the program would save more than $5 for every dollar invested in vaccination. However, from the health care payer's perspective (medical costs only), the program would cost approximately $2 per chickenpox case prevented, or $2500 per life-year saved. The medical cost of disease prevention was sensitive to the vaccination coverage rate and vaccine price but was relatively insensitive to assumptions about vaccine efficacy within plausible ranges. An additional program for catch-up vaccination of 12-year-olds would have high incremental costs if the vaccination coverage rate of children of preschool age were 97%, but would result in net savings at a coverage rate of 50%. CONCLUSIONS: A routine varicella vaccination program for healthy children would result in net savings from the societal perspective, which includes work-loss costs as well as medical costs. Compared with other prevention programs, it would also be relatively cost-effective from the health care payer's perspective.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1994.03510290057037

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 270

Metadata

Authors
Lieu, T. A.
Venue
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Published
1994-02-02
Volume
271
Issue
5
Pages
375
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2069124476
Cited by
270
References
0
FWCI
17.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cost-effectiveness of a Routine Varicella Vaccination Program for US Children. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.1994.03510290057037
The paper
Lieu, T. A. (1994). Cost-effectiveness of a Routine Varicella Vaccination Program for US Children. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03510290057037

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.