Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Volume 3, Number 2—June 1997

Perspective

The Economic Impact of a Bioterrorist Attack: Are Prevention and Postattack Intervention Programs Justifiable?

Arnold F. Kaufmann, Martin I. MeltzerComments to Author , and George P. Schmid
Author affiliations: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Main Article

Figure 2

Rangesa of net savings due to postattack prophylaxis by disease and day of prophylaxis program initiation. aMaximum savings (l) were calculated by assuming a 95% effectiveness prophylaxis regimen and a 3% discount rate in determining the present value of expected lifetime earnings lost due to premature death (16) and a multiplication factor of 5 to adjust for unnecessary prophylaxis. Minimum savings (n) were calculated by assuming an 80% to 90% effectiveness regimen and a 5% discount rate and a

Figure 2. Rangesa of net savings due to postattack prophylaxis by disease and day of prophylaxis program initiation. aMaximum savings (l) were calculated by assuming a 95% effectiveness prophylaxis regimen and a 3% discount rate in determining the present value of expected lifetime earnings lost due to premature death (16) and a multiplication factor of 5 to adjust for unnecessary prophylaxis. Minimum savings (n) were calculated by assuming an 80% to 90% effectiveness regimen and a 5% discount rate and a multiplication factor of 15. In tularemia prophylaxis programs initiated on days 4-7 postattack, the minimum savings were calculated by assuming a 95% prophylaxis regimen effectiveness rather than an effectiveness of 80% to 90%.

Main Article

TOP