The Economic Burden of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Amongst Health Care Workers The Economic Burden of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Amongst Health Care Workers in the First Year of the Pandemic in Kenya, Colombia, Eswatini, and South Africa Huihui Wang Amanda McClelland Wu Zeng Marine Buissonniere Kenneth Munge Kabubei Christopher T. Lee Jennifer Rasanathan Jane Chuma Jacob Kazungu Jeremy Veillard Sandile Ginindza Thulani Matsebula Sifiso Mtshali Mickey Chopra 1 Luis E. Salinas © 2023 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. ­ The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. June 2023 The Economic Burden of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Amongst Health Care Workers in the First Year of the Pandemic in Kenya, Colombia, Eswatini, and South Africa Huihui Wang Amanda McClelland Wu Zeng Marine Buissonniere Kenneth Munge Kabubei Christopher T. Lee Jennifer Rasanathan Jane Chuma Jacob Kazungu Jeremy Veillard Sandile Ginindza Thulani Matsebula Sifiso Mtshali Mickey Chopra Luis E. Salinas Table of Contents Introduction 6 Chapter 1. Data and Methodology 10 I. Overall approach 11 II. Methods 13 III. Site selection 16 IV. Data Sources 16 V. Scenario and sensitivity analysis 17 Chapter 2. Results 18 I. Pathway 1: The economic costs of HCW primary infections and deaths due to COVID-19 19 II. Pathway 2: The economic costs of secondary infections and deaths due to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from infected HCWs 22 III. Pathway 3: Economic burden associated with excess non-COVID mortality due to HCW infections 24 IV. Total economic burden associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs (all pathways) 25 V. Scenario and sensitivity analysis 27 Chapter 3. Discussion 30 Policy Implications 34 Conclusion 36 Annex 1. Sources of key parameters for modeling, by country 38 Estimation of exposure rate and odds ratio for Annex 2.  secondary infection 44 References 45 Acknowledgments 52 5 Introduction 6   Introduction Health care workers (HCWs) face disproportionate risk of exposure and becoming ill in any infectious disease outbreak. SARS-CoV-2 has proven to be no exception: From Wuhan to Manaus, London to Tehran, and Delhi to Johannesburg, HCWs working in clinics and hospitals have been at heightened risk of developing COVID-19 disease,1-5 especially at the beginning of the pandemic when little was known about the then-novel pathogen.6,7 The estimated incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst HCWs in the first year of the pandemic varied widely across settings, from less than 1% to nearly 50% positivity on PCR testing,8,9 with more recent evidence suggesting an average incidence of 12.5% amongst HCWs in China, the US and Europe.10-12 High rates of HCW infection and death exacerbate the health impacts of epidemics and pandemics through many channels. First, infected HCWs can be important vectors of onward disease transmission to patients and colleagues,13,14 amplifying or seeding broader community outbreaks.15-18 This was demonstrated with SARS: infections acquired in health care settings accounted for the majority of SARS cases in Singapore,19 Toronto, and Taiwan.16 Health care-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections have similarly proven to be prevalent, more so before the development of COVID-19 vaccines.20 HCWs with SARS-CoV-2 infection are important sources of ­ ransmission to other HCWs21 and to household members.4 viral t Second, HCW absenteeism due to COVID-19 illness, isolation or death, and fear of being infected disrupts essential health service delivery.22,23 Now widely understood, health systems overwhelmed by surging COVID-19 cases are not only compromised in their ability to care for those with COVID-19 disease, but also for patients with other life-threatening emergencies or longitudinal health care needs. Essential health care services including maternity care, immunization, chronic disease man- agement, emergency services, and surgery were severely disrupted in the first year of the pandemic,24,25 especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where human resources for health are already in chronically short supply. For example, an estimated 8.74 million patient visits across nine health services in Mexico were not done in the first nine months of the pandemic,26 and more than 300,000 doses of an essential pediatric vaccine were missed across eight countries in sub-Saharan Africa in the first five months of the pandemic.27 Detrimental impacts of COVID-19 have been documented on maternal and child health care globally: fewer immunizations were given, fewer women received the full scope of antenatal care, and fewer babies were delivered in health care facilities.23,24,27-29 Studies reveal stark differences in maternal and child health service provision including routine child immunization due to the COVID-19 pandemic.23,27,30 7 As a result, child and maternal death rates were expected to increase31 and already have in some countries.32 Maternal and child health care delivery is directly com- promised by HCW illness and deaths;33 fear of acquiring infections in healthcare settings, lack of trust in public health care services, and even movement restrictions often stem from HCW infections and further deter patients from seeking care.28,34,35 In addition to the immediate consequences on service delivery and mortality, HCW infections during the pandemic are likely to have longer-term impacts on the global health care workforce, jeopardizing the pursuit of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) and setting countries back in their progress toward Sustainable Develop- ment Goal 3 (SDG3).36 Decades-long efforts to build human resources for health are testament that the health care workforce cannot be easily or rapidly generated.37 Unanticipated morbidity and mortality of HCWs due to COVID-19 are likely to be exacerbated by the mental health toll of the pandemic on HCWs38 and potentially deter young people from pursuing careers in health care.39 It is critical to understand the burden of COVID-19 attributable to HCW infections. Though it is well-known and widely understood that COVID-19 is not just a health crisis, but an economic crisis,40 the extent to which HCW infections and deaths due to COVID-19 pose a society-wide economic burden is less well understood. The burden of illness or death of HCWs includes costs of medical care, diminished personal earnings, and lost economic productivity over time.41 These costs are amplified by greater infectious spread, including in health care settings, within households of HCWs and to the wider community. Further, the economic costs associated with disruptions in health care service delivery when HCWs are sick are borne by the entire society.41,42 Studies have sought to quantify the overall economic burden of the COVID-19 pandemic43, including the cost of lost productivity due to premature deaths from 8   Introduction COVID-1944, without specifically examining the economic burden attributed to COVID infections and deaths in HCWs. One study in Iran estimated the economic costs of SARS-CoV-2 infections in HCWs 45,46, with a focus on productivity losses due to HCW absenteeism and medical costs of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs. Similar to studies on the economic burden of illness,47,48 examining the economic burden (cost) of SARS-CoV-2 infections among HCWs would help raise the awareness of COVID-19 infections in this specific group of professionals during the pandemic and prioritize interventions to address it. To our knowledge, there is no empirical evidence of the total society-wide economic burden of SARS-CoV-2 infections in HCWs, especially in LMICs, capturing the direct and indirect cost of HCW infections, their contributions to wider community transmissions and the economic toll of disrupted health services. Understanding the greater scale of economic costs may move national decision-makers and the global health community beyond panic-neglect cycles in pandemic response financing toward (re-)building a resilient health workforce and more sustainable, enduring pandemic preparedness, which includes adequate protection of HCWs.49,50 This study thus aims to estimate the economic costs of SARS-CoV-2 infections in HCWs during the first year of the pandemic from the societal perspective in four low or middle-income countries. We propose a framework to translate SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst HCWs into economic costs along three pathways, provide the estimated burden of HCW infections, and offer recommendations to mitigate against future economic losses due to HCW infections. The economic burden due to SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs makes a compelling investment case for pandemic preparedness, particularly the protection of HCWs, and resilient health systems going forward. 9 Chapter 1 Data and Methodology 10 Chapter 1.  Data and Methodology I. Overall approach We developed a framework that lays out the major pathways through which SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs lead to morbidity and mortality across the population based on a review of the literature regarding the health and economic impacts of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs.4,11,45,51 To quantify the economic burden of COVID-19 attributable to HCW infection, we follow the traditional cost-of-illness (COI) approach to translate additional morbidity and mortality into the economic burden on a societal level.41,42 (Figure 1) The COI approach, which focuses on the economic consequences of diseases, was widely used in studies of the economic burden of diseases, such as diabetes,47 dengue,52 and respiratory diseases.53 Generally, the COI approach concentrates on therapeutic costs and the cost ­ associated with the productivity loss due to the illness. It does not estimate the cost of interventions to prevent the diseases. Figure 1. Pathways from SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs to the economic cost Adequacy of infection prevention Features of pathogens and epidemics and protection among HCWs Disproportionate risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection of HCWS during the outbreak Primary SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths among HCWs PATHWAY 1 PATHWAY 2 PATHWAY 3 Direct cost Secondary SARS-CoV-2 Health care workforce + Medical costs, infections and deaths disruption (HCW transmitted by HCWs absenteeism and + Costs of seeking care reduced productivity) Indirect cost + Costs of productivity Direct cost loss due to illness and Disrupted essential premature deaths + Medical costs, services + Costs of seeking care Indirect cost Higher non-COVID + Costs of productivity mortality, particularly loss due to illness and among children under 5 premature deaths and pregnant women Productivity loss due to premature death 11 The framework focuses on three pathways through which SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs lead to economic costs to society: 1 The first pathway, also the most direct pathway, accounts for the cost associated with primary infections and deaths among HCWs. HCWs in this study were defined as those who work in health institutions with professional health-related positions, including physicians, nurses, lab technicians, and health administrators. They did not include cleaners, drivers, and community health workers. Ill HCWs need to seek care, receive treatment, and take time off from work for recovery and isolation. We captured two types of costs: a) direct costs, i.e., costs that are directly associated with care-seeking due to COVID-19 disease, which includes both medical costs and non-medical costs (e.g., meals and transportation); and b) indirect costs, estimated with the human capital approach, i.e., the costs associated with lost productivity while sick and recov- ering or, in the case of death, for the years of economic productivity lost relative to the life expectancy. 2 The second pathway accounts for the costs of secondary infections and deaths. As described above, HCWs can drive disease transmission. Secondary infec- tions and deaths in this context refer to infections and deaths in the general population attributable to the transmission from infected HCWs, especially among those who have close contact with HCWs, for example, household members and patients. The direct and indirect costs included under pathway 2 are estimated in the same way as pathway 1. 3 The third pathway encompasses the economic cost of excess deaths due to conditions other than COVID-19 as a result of health care workforce disruptions (e.g., absenteeism and reduced productivity due to stress, fatigue or missing essential team members). These costs largely result from lost human capital and lost years of economic productivity due to premature deaths. The full scope of health consequences due to HCW infection-mediated disruptions in service delivery is not yet known, but there is already compelling evidence of impact on child and maternal mortality due to health workforce shortag- es.23,27,31,35 In this pathway, we used the human capital approach to estimate the productivity losses due to additional maternal and child deaths. In this study, we estimated the economic costs incurred due to HCW infection during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic through each of these three pathways and in total in Eswatini, Kenya, Colombia, and two provinces of South Africa. In provinces because South Africa, we focused on KwaZulu-Natal and Western Cape ­ ­ ccounted for 40% national aggregates were not available and these two provinces a of the national COVID-19 burden by February 2021.54 The study period was between March 1, 2020 and February 28, 2021. 12 Chapter 1.  Data and Methodology II. Methods Table 1 summarizes the population groups included as well as the economic costs captured in each pathway using the COI approach. In the following section, we explain how we estimated the number of cases and deaths in each group and present formulas for estimating each type of cost. Table 1. The economic costs included in each pathway   POPULATION GROUPS INCLUDED CAPTURED COSTS HCWs infected with COVID-19 (all) Medical and non-medical direct costs Pathway 1 HCWs who survived Indirect costs: lost income during illness, recovery and/or isolation HCWs who died of COVID-19 Indirect costs: Productivity losses due to premature death People with secondary SARS-CoV-2 Medical and non-medical direct costs infections (all) Pathway 2 People with secondary infections who Indirect costs: lost income during illness, survived recovery and/or isolation People with secondary infections who Indirect costs: Productivity losses due to died of COVID-19 premature death Additional child deaths Indirect costs: Productivity losses due to Pathway 3 premature death Additional maternal deaths Indirect costs: Productivity losses due to premature death Estimating infections and deaths under each pathway PATHWAY 1: The number of SARS-CoV-2 infections in HCWs, as well as the number of HCWs who either survived or died, was collected through primary data collection by the research team from country data sources described in Annex 1 and presented in the results section. PATHWAY 2: The number of people with secondary infections was estimated by applying the concept of population attributable risk (PAR), the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infec- tions in the general population that was attributable to close contacts of HCWs in each study site. In this study, we defined close contacts as HCWs’ household members and patients admitted to hospitals for inpatient care. The household size for each country was obtained from government documents, and we assumed 20% of inpatients as close contacts of HCWs in the main analysis. The number of 20% is based on the contact intensity of inpatients with HCWs compared to that of HCWs’ family members with HCWs. The number of secondary infections was estimated to be the product of total SARS-CoV-2 infections and PAR. We then estimated the number of deaths due to secondary infections to be the product of the number of secondary infections and the case fatality rate in each site. PAR was calculated using the following formula: 13 E ∗ (OR − 1) PAR = E ∗ (OR − 1) + 1 where E is the share of the population considered to be close contacts of HCWs, and OR is the odds ratio of being diagnosed with COVID-19 due to HCW exposure. Annex 2 presents detailed estimations of E and OR. PATHWAY 3: To estimate the additional child deaths resulting from SARS-CoV-2 infection and death in HCWs, we first converted the duration of HCW absence from work and the associated reduction in productivity into a decrease in HCW density. For HCWs who were not infected with SARS-CoV-2, we assumed a 10% reduction in their working productivity absent essential team members, using the same assumption Roberton’s study in the main analysis.31 as ­ Percentage reduction in HCW density = share of HCS infected and alive out of all HCWs * duration of absence from work in years + share of HCWs infected and deceased out of all HCWS * duration of absence from work in years (assumed to be 0.5) + share of remaining HCWS *10% We estimated the resulting change in the under-five mortality rate (U5MR) based on the elasticity of U5MR relative to HCW density,55 and from this calculated addi- tional deaths in children under five years old. Excess deaths in children under 5 years old = population size ∗ birth rate ∗U 5MR ∗ percentage change in U 5MR Where percentage change in U5MR = elasticity * percentage reduction in HCW density We applied the same method to estimate excess maternal deaths, using the mater- nal mortality rate (MMR) and its elasticity relative to HCW density. ESTIMATING DIRECT COSTS Direct cost estimation applies to all COVID 19 cases in pathways 1 and 2 survived and lethal cases) and includes two elements: medical costs and (both ­ ­non-medical cost. The medical costs were estimated to be: Medical costs = ∑Treatment cost per cased ∗ number of cases d d where d is the severity of COVID-19 disease (e.g., mild-moderate, severe, or critical). In this study, we assumed that 81% of non-lethal SARS-CoV-2 infections were mild to moderate, 14% were severe and 5% were critical in severity.56 Of lethal cases, 14 Chapter 1.  Data and Methodology we assumed that 0.85% resulted from mild-moderate disease, 1.7% derived from severe disease, and the vast majority, 97.45%, resulted from critical cases.57 The local treatment cost per case at each severity level was obtained from peer-­ reviewed literature or grey literature. Barasa et al. presented the treatment costs of COVID-19 disease in Kenya by severity level.58 Where treatment costs were not available for all severity levels, , we derived them using the known corresponding cost ratio from Kenya (Annex 1). For example, it was estimated the ratio of treat- ment cost of the severe COVID-19 case to that of the mild-moderate hospitalized case was estimated to be 1.69 based on collected data in Kenya. We applied this ratio to estimating the treatment cost of the mild-moderate hospitalized case in Eswatini, as the associated cost was not available, but the cost of the severe case could be obtained in Eswatini. The non-medical costs of HCW infections include travel and meal costs while seeking or receiving facility-based care.41 Non − medical costs = ∑ (Unit cost of travel * number of trips + cost of meals per day * length of stay d ) d * number of cases d where d is the severity of COVID-19 disease (e.g., mild-moderate, severe, or critical). We assumed one trip was needed per COVID-19 episode regardless of the severity. ESTIMATING INDIRECT COSTS For those who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and survived, the indirect costs of their illness were estimated to be their lost income for the period when they couldn’t work due to COVID-19 disease. Indirect costs for non − lethal cases = income loss per day ∗ days absent from work ∗ number of non − lethal cases To estimate the indirect costs for those who died of COVID-19, we used the human capital approach to estimate the productivity losses associated with premature death. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita in each country was used as a proxy for annual productivity loss.42 Total productivity loss was estimated as the present value of lost productivity across all anticipated productive years lost. We estimated the number of productive years lost based on life expectancy at the age of death according to the Global Health Observatory.59 Indirect cost for lethal cases = cost per death ∗number of deaths − r ∗La 1− e Cost per death = GDP per capita ∗ r where r is the annual discount rate (3%), e is the exponential constant and La is life expectancy at the age of death. 15 III. Site selection Taking into consideration the feasibility of conducting the study and demonstrating the economic cost of HCW infection in various country settings, we selected five study sites (Kenya, Eswatini, Colombia, and Western Cape province and ­ KwaZulu-Natal province in South Africa). The study sites had diverse profiles with respect to their overall demographics, HCW density, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and death rates in both HCWs and the general population. Table 2 summarizes the pat- terns of relevant key indicators for each site. For example, Colombia is a populous country with more human resources for health. Although the SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality rates in the general population were high, HCWs had only a slightly higher infection rate than the general population, with a very low mortality rate. Kenya, another populous country, presented a divergent profile: low HCW density, low infection, and mortality rates in the general population, but HCWs faced a much higher risk of infection. KwaZulu-Natal and Western Cape were characterized by high overall infection rates with an even higher infection rate in HCWs. Table 2. Country profiles of study sites KENYA ESWATINI COLOMBIA SA-WC SA-KZN Population size +++ + +++ ++ ++ HCW Density + ++ +++ ++ ++ COVID-19 incidence in + ++ +++ +++ ++ general population Mortality rate for general + +++ ++ +++ ++ population Share of infections in +++ ++ + +++ +++ HCWs compared to general population Share of deaths due ++ ++ + + ++ to COVID-19 in HCWs compared to general population Note: the number of + indicates the relative level of each indicator, with “+++” being the highest and “+” being the lowest. SA denotes South Africa; WC denotes Western Cape; KZN denotes KwaZulu-Natal. The detailed numbers for the country profile are presented in Table 4. IV. Data Sources To estimate the costs of HCW infections according to the methodology described above, we used a mix of data sources: a) primary data collection in close collab- oration with World Bank country offices and national authorities on SARS-CoV-2 infections in HCWs and their outcomes (i.e., survival or death) in the first year of the pandemic, as well as average HCW income by profession to the extent possible; b) World Development Indicators (WDI) on country demographics, macroeconomic figures (e.g., GDP per capita) and health sector characteristics and indicators (e.g., total health expenditure, total government health expenditure, hospital admission rates, under-five mortality rate, maternal mortality rate)60; c) the Johns Hopkins University database on SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths in the general 16 Chapter 1.  Data and Methodology population;61 d) peer-reviewed journal publications or grey literature for other key parameters such as treatment cost per case, the composition of cases by severity level, length of stay in a medical facility, duration of absence from work; and e) the team’s own assumptions. Annex 1 provides the details on the sources of all data and assumptions used for each study site. V. Scenario and sensitivity analysis To understand the sensitivity of the change of parameters to the estimated economic burden, we created three scenarios based on different combinations of values in four parameters which are critical to final cost estimates and more likely subject to a range instead of fixed-point estimates: (1) the share of inpatients considered to be close contacts of HCWs; (2) the extent to which COVID-19 reduced health care workforce productivity; (3) the elasticity of MMR relative to HCW density; and (4) the elasticity of U5MR relative to HCW density. Table 3 shows the value of these 4 indicators in low, moderate, and high-impact scenarios. We used the moderate impact scenario for the main analysis and ­ presented all findings under this scenario. The high- and low-impact scenarios assumed the independence of the four parameters. The high-impact scenario presented a scenario that would result in a high economic burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs by adjusting up the share of inpatients as close contact of HCWs, reduction in HCWs’ productivity, and high elasticities of MMR and U5MR. Conversely, the low-impact scenario adjusted down those parameters. We additionally conducted one-way sensitivity analyses of these four parameters and examined how they affect the economic costs, reported as percentage changes from the main analysis. Table 3. Values of four parameters in each scenario REDUCTION SHARE OF IN HCW ELASTICITIES INPATIENTS PRODUCTIVITY OF MATERNAL WHO ARE CLOSE DUE TO AND UNDER-FIVE CONTACTS OF COVID-19 MORTALITY RATES HCWS (PATHWAY 2) (PATHWAY 3) (PATHWAY 3) Low impact scenario 10% 5% Mean+1.96*SD Moderate impact scenario 20% 10% mean (main analysis) High impact scenario 30% 15% Mean-1.96*SD SD denotes standard deviation 17 Chapter 2 Results 18 Chapter 2.  Results I. Pathway 1: The economic costs of HCW primary infections and deaths due to COVID-19 I-A. Infections and deaths among HCWs The number of SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths among HCWs is compared with that among the general population in Table 4. KwaZulu-Natal province had the highest proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections occurring in HCWs (4.66%), and Colombia had the lowest, 1.86%. The COVID-19 incidence among HCWs was higher than in the general population in all study sites – almost 10 times higher in Kenya and 7-8 times higher in the two provinces of South Africa. Unlike other study sites, the incidence among HCWs was only slightly higher than the general population (50.2 vs. 44.7) in Colombia which had the highest level of human resources for health measured by the HCW density. Mortality due to COVID-19 was higher for HCWs than the general population in each site except Colombia, which had the lowest case mortality rate as shown in Table 4. COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates in HCWs and the general population are also depicted in Figures 2 and 3. Table 4. SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths among HCWs and the general population, by study site KENYA ESWATINI COLOMBIA SA-WC SA-KZN Background indicators Population size (2019, in millions) 52.57 1.15 50.34 7.01 11.53 Total number of HCWs (2019) 176,662 7,726 838,651 35,317 68,862 Number of HCWs per 1,000 (2019) 3.4 6.7 16.7 5.0 6.0 SARS-CoV-2 infections (March 1, 2020-Feb 28, 2021) Number of SARS-CoV-2 infections 105,14 8 17,911 2,250,173 297,043 341,336 in the general population Number of SARS-CoV-2 infections 3,400 464 42,142 10,111 16,299 in HCWs Share of infections that occurred in 3.20% 2.53% 1.86% 3.37% 4.66% HCWs Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection 2.0 15.6 44.7 42.4 29.6 in the general population (per 1000 population) Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection 19.2 60.1 50.2 286.3 236.7 in HCWs (per 1000 population) COVID deaths (March 1, 2020-Feb 28, 2021) Number of COVID-19 deaths in the 1,853 670 60,511 11,881 10,535 general population Number of COVID-19 deaths in 33 10 196 108 386 HCWs Share of deaths that occurred in 1.78% 1.49% 0.32% 0.91% 3.66% HCWs (%) Mortality in the general population 0.4 5.8 12.0 17.0 9.1 (per 10 000 population) 19 KENYA ESWATINI COLOMBIA SA-WC SA-KZN Mortality in HCWs (per 10 000 1.9 12.9 2.3 30.6 56.1 population) Case fatality rate (March 1, 2020-Feb 28, 2021) HCWs 0.98% 2.20% 0.47% 1.08% 2.43% General population 1.76% 3.64% 2.69% 4.01% 3.09% Note: SA denotes South Africa; WC denotes Western Cape; KZ denotes KwaZulu-Natal Figure 2. SARS-CoV-2 infections among HCWs and across the general population in five sites 300 286.3 12 9.59 250 236.7 10 Incidence of COVID-19 (per 1000 population) 200 8.00 8 6.76 Ratio 150 6 3.85 100 4 60.1 44.7 50.2 42.4 50 29.6 2 19.2 15.6 1.12 2.0 0 0 Kenya Eswatini Colombia SA-WC SA-KZN Incidence of COVID-19 among all populations (1) Incidence of COVID-19 among HCWs (2) Ratio (3) = (2)/(1) Note: SA denotes South Africa; WC denotes Western Cape; KZ denotes KwaZulu-Natal Figure 3. COVID-19 mortality rate among HCWs and in the general population in five sites 60 56.1 7 6.14 50 6 5.30 (per 1000 population) 5 COVID-19 mortality 40 30.6 4 Ratio 30 3 2.22 20 17.0 12.9 2 12.0 1.80 0.19 9.1 10 58 1 1.9 2.3 0.4 0 0 Kenya Eswatini Colombia SA-WC SA-KZN COVID-19 mortality among all populations (1) COVID-19 mortality among HCWs (2) Ratio (3) = (2)/(1) Note: SA denotes South Africa; WC denotes Western Cape; KZ denotes KwaZulu-Natal 20 Chapter 2.  Results I-B. Costs on Pathway 1 Table 5 presents the costs directly associated with HCWs who became unwell with COVID-19 disease, including their medical cost, non-medical costs related to seek- ing care, along with the productivity losses due to morbidity and mortality (indirect costs). The costs accrued along Pathway 1 ranged from US$2.00 million in Eswatini to US$163.47 million in KwaZulu-Natal province alone, with a combined cost of US$252.29 million across both provinces in South Africa. Indirect costs comprised the largest share of costs associated with HCW infections and deaths in Eswatini, and KwaZulu-Natal and Western Cape provinces in South Africa (Figure 4). Table 5. The total costs of SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths in HCWs in five sites through pathway 1 (in USD million) KENYA ESWATINI COLOMBIA SA-WC SA-KZN DIRECT COST Medical costs 2.79 0.79 65.64 19.99 32.22 Non-medical costs 0.04 0.01 1.44 0.20 0.32 INDIRECT COSTS Non-lethal cases 1.26 0.59 35.87 57.67 91.74 Lethal cases 1.13 0.61 25.95 10.96 39.19 Total costs on Pathway 1 5.22 2.00 128.89 88.82 163.47 Figure 4. Composition of costs associated with primary SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths in HCWs 100 80 45.80 47.96 59.86 77.27 Percentage 60 80.09 0.67 1.12 40 0.50 53.53 50.92 20 39.64 0.22 0.20 22.5 19.71 0 Kenya Eswatini Colombia SA-WC SA-KZN Direct medical cost Direct non-medical cost Indirect cost Note: SA denotes South Africa; WC denotes Western Cape; KZN denotes KwaZulu-Natal 21 II. Pathway 2: The economic costs of secondary infections and deaths due to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from infected HCWs II-A. Secondary infections and deaths due to transmission from infected HCWs Table 6 shows the number of secondary infections and deaths due to HCW infections. There were an estimated 2,607 secondary infections in Eswatini and 9,939 in Kenya. Colombia, Western Cape, and KwaZulu-Natal had more than 40,000 secondary infections in each location, with 69,331 secondary cases in KwaZulu-Natal. Table 6. Estimated secondary infections and deaths due to onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from HCWs KENYA ESWATINI COLOMBIA SA-WC SA-KZN Secondary infections due 9,939 2,607 43,786 41,162 69,331 to HCW infections Secondary deaths due to 175 95 1,177 1,648 2,141 HCW infections Note: SA denotes South Africa; WC denotes Western Cape; KZN denotes KwaZulu-Natal Compared with the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections in HCWs, there were at least three times as many secondary infections in all study sites except Colombia (Figure 5). Deaths due to secondary infections were greater than HCW deaths in every study site, with over 15 times as many deaths due to secondary infection as HCW deaths in Western Cape province. Secondary deaths are displayed in Figure 6 relative to deaths in HCWs. Figure 5. Secondary SARS-CoV-2 infections compared with infections in HCWs 80,000 7 69,331 70,000 6 5.74 60,000 Number of infections 4.11 5 50,000 4.36 43,786 41,946 4 41,162 Ratio 40,000 2.95 3 30,000 2 20,000 15,913 9,939 1.04 10,003 10,000 1 3,367 2,607 454 0 0 Kenya Eswatini Colombia SA-WC SA-KZN Number of infections among HCWs (1) Number of second infections (2) Ratio (3) = (2)/(1) Note: SA denotes South Africa; WC denotes Western Cape; KZN denotes KwaZulu-Natal 22 Chapter 2.  Results Figure 6. Deaths due to secondary infections compared to HCW deaths from COVID-19 2500 16 2,141 14 15.26 2000 12 1,648 Number of deaths 10 1500 9.49 Ratio 1,177 8 1000 6 6.00 5.29 5.55 4 500 386 175 196 2 95 108 33 10 0 0 Kenya Eswatini Colombia SA-WC SA-KZN Deaths of HCW from COVID-19 (1) Deaths of secondary infection (5) Ratio (6) = (5)/(4) Note: SA denotes South Africa; WC denotes Western Cape; KZN denotes KwaZulu-Natal The direct and indirect costs of secondary SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths are presented in Table 7. The Indirect cost due to the loss of productivity from both recovered and diseased COVID-19 patients transmitted by HCWs dominated the total cost through pathway 2. Along pathway 2, the cost of these infections and deaths in Eswatini was US$9.94 million, US$14.95 million in Kenya, and more than US$200 million for other study sites. As in pathway 1, the indirect costs accounted for about half of the total costs accrued via this pathway, and the share was even higher in Colombia, KwaZulu-Natal, and Western Cape (Figure 7). Table 7. The total costs of secondary SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths amongst close contacts of HCWs in five sites through pathway 2 (in USD millions)   KENYA ESWATINI COLOMBIA SA-WC SA_KZN DIRECT COST Medical costs 8.17 4.46 68.20 81.38 137.07 Mon-medical costs 0.10 0.06 1.49 0.81 1.36 INDIRECT COSTS Recovered contacts of HCWs 1.16 0.63 17.64 14.82 25.20 Deceased contacts of HCWs 5.52 4.80 155.80 139.49 181.16 Total costs on Pathway 2 14.95 9.94 243.13 236.50 344.79 Note: SA denotes South Africa; WC denotes Western Cape; KZN denotes KwaZulu-Natal 23 Figure 7. Cost composition for secondary infections and deaths 100 80 44.68 54.56 59.85 65.25 71.34 Percentage 60 0.68 0.56 40 0.4 0.34 54.63 0.62 20 44.88 39.75 34.41 28.05 0 Kenya Eswatini Colombia SA-WC SA-KZN Direct medical cost Direct non-medical cost Indirect cost Note: SA denotes South Africa; WC denotes Western Cape; KZN denotes KwaZulu-Natal III. Pathway 3: Economic burden associated with excess non-COVID mortality due to HCW infections The costs incurred on Pathway 3 relate to excess maternal and child deaths resulting from HCW absenteeism that compromises health service delivery. The associated costs were included in Table 8. Excess maternal and child deaths in each ­ country or province, along with the estimated total cost of productivity losses to society due to premature death, are included in Table 8. Maternal deaths were the least affected by HCW shortages in Eswatini and both provinces of South Africa. Kenya had the highest estimated excess maternal and child deaths, and the costs along this pathway were similarly highest in Kenya at US$93.03 million. In our analysis, Colombia had the second-highest increase in maternal and under-five mortality rates, amounting to US$51.84 million in economic losses along pathway 3. Table 8. Excess maternal and child deaths and associated total costs due to the productivity losses through pathway 3   KENYA ESWATINI COLOMBIA SA-WC SA-KZN Number of deaths Maternal deaths 243 6 29 4 8 Deaths of children under 5 1499 34 235 70 206 Costs (in USD million) Cost of maternal deaths 12.00 0.55 5.37 0.62 1.19 Cost of deaths in children under 5 81.03 3.70 46.47 11.98 35.19 Total costs on Pathway 3 93.03 4.25 51.84 12.60 36.38 Note: SA denotes South Africa; WC denotes Western Cape; KZN denotes KwaZulu-Natal 24 Chapter 2.  Results IV. Total economic burden associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs (all pathways) The total economic burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs along pathways 1, 2 and 3, as well as the estimated burden per HCW infection are displayed in Table 9. Economic losses ranged from $16.19 million in Eswatini to $544.64 million ­ waZulu-Natal province alone. The cost per HCW infection was more than in K $30,000 in four sites, while the cost per HCW infection was estimated to be $10,105 in Colombia. This equates to between 1.54 times (Colombia) to 17.98 times (Kenya) GDP/capita. The low cost per HCW infection in Colombia was primary due to the lower risk of HCWs transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to their close contacts. Table 9. Total economic costs due to SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs TOTAL ECONOMIC COST PER HCW COST (US$ INFECTION (US$) RATIO OF MILLION) (SUM (TOTAL COST/ COST PER HCW OF COST OF ALL NUMBER OF HCW GDP/CAPITA INFECTION TO   THREE CHANNELS) INFECTIONS) IN 2020 (US$) GDP/CAPITA Kenya $113.20 $33,619 $1,870 17.98 Eswatini $16.19 $35,659 $3,941 9.05 Colombia $423.86 $10,105 $6,549 1.54 SA-WC $337.91 $33,781 $5,931 5.70 SA-KZN $544.64 $34,226 $5,931 5.77 Note: SA denotes South Africa; WC denotes Western Cape; KZN denotes KwaZulu-Natal Figure 8 depicts these economic costs as a share of the annual total health expenditure (THE) and of annual public health expenditure (PHE) (both Government health expenditure and compulsory health financing schemes). These indicators showed the relative significance of the economic cost of HCWs infection, ranging from 1.51% in Colombia to more than 8% of annual THE in the two provinces of South Africa, and from 1.95% in Colombia to more than 17% of annual PHE in the two provinces of the PHE. The five study sites show different patterns across the three pathways of economic costs. (Figure 9). In Kenya, the cost along pathway 3, which was associated with excess maternal and child deaths arising from HCW infections, accounted for the largest share of the total economic loss (82.2%), while the costs along pathway 2, which was associated with secondary SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths, rep- resented only 13.2% of the total cost. In Eswatini, Colombia, Western Cape, and KwaZulu-Natal, where more than 5% of HCWs had SARS-CoV-2 infection, the cost along pathway 2 (secondary infections and deaths) accounted for the majority (57.4%-70.0%) of the economic loss. In Colombia and both provinces of South Africa, the primary costs of HCW infections made up nearly a third of the total economic cost (pathway 1), while the cost associated with excess non-COVID mortality was relatively less substantial (pathway 3). 25 Figure 8. Total economic costs of infections in HCWs as a share of THE and PHE 20 17.39 17.02 16 Percentage 12 8.38 8.21 7.69 8 5.01 4.28 4 2.03 1.51 1.95 0 Kenya Eswatini Colombia SA-WC SA-KZN Share of THE Share of public health expenditure (government schemes + compulsary heath nancing schemes) Note: SA denotes South Africa; WC denotes Western Cape; KZN denotes KwaZulu-Natal; THE denotes total health Expenditure; PHE denotes public health expenditure. * THE in Western Cape and KwaZulu- Natal was estimated based on the share of the population in the two provinces. Figure 9. Relative contribution of each pathway to the total economic cost of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs in five study sites 100 12.23 3.73 6.68 26.23 80 Percentage 60 82.19 57.36 69.99 63.31 61.40 40 20 30.41 26.29 30.01 13.20 12.37 0 4.61 Kenya Eswatini Colombia SA-WC SA-KZN Cost of infections to HCWs Cost of secondary infections Cost of maternal and child deaths Note: SA denotes South Africa; WC denotes Western Cape; KZN denotes KwaZulu-Natal 26 Chapter 2.  Results V. Scenario and sensitivity analysis Table 10 shows the total economic cost and cost per HCW infection under the low impact and high impact scenarios. The total cost in Kenya ranged from $35.83 million to $246.12 million with the cost per HCW infection between $10,641 and $73,098. The two provinces in South Africa had a relatively smaller variation, and their cost per infection was between $28,032 and $39,793. Table 10. The economic cost and cost per HCW infection under low impact and high impact scenarios TOTAL ECONOMIC COST (USD MILLION) COST PER HCW INFECTION (USD) LOW IMPACT HIGH IMPACT LOW IMPACT HIGH IMPACT SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO Kenya $35.83 $246.12 $10,641 $73,098 Eswatini $11.58 $23.21 $25,509 $51,121 Colombia $369.18 $509.20 $8,801 $12,139 SA-WC $280.40 $398.69 $28,032 $39,857 SA-KZN $471.96 $633.22 $29,659 $39,793 Note: SA denotes South Africa; WC denotes Western Cape; KZN denotes KwaZulu-Natal One-way sensitivity analysis shows the percentage change from the total economic costs we had calculated when four parameters were adjusted (Figure 10). Kenya was most sensitive to variations in the parameters used to cost pathway 3, while the South African provinces were most sensitive to variation in the proportion of inpatients who were close contacts of infected HCWs. The cost along pathway 2 could range from 14.1% lower to 13.3% higher than our estimate for Western Cape depending on this variable. The extent to which HCW productivity was impacted by HCW infections (pathway 3) affected the estimated results in Kenya and Eswatini substantially, particularly in Kenya. The estimated cost along pathway 3 could range in Kenya from 40.6% lower to 40.6% higher than the main analysis depending on this variable. The U5MR and MMR elasticities as they relate to HCW density had a larger impact in Kenya and Eswatini than the other three sites. 27 Figure 10. Tornado graphs representing sensitivity analyses a. Sensitive analysis of the percentage of impact exposed to HCWs Kenya –2.6 2.5 Eswatini –7.6 7.3 Colombia –3.1 3.1 SA–WC –14.1 13.3 SA–KZN –8.1 7.6 –20 –15 –10 –5 0 5 10 15 b. Sensitive analysis of the productivity reduction among healthy HCWs Kenya –40.6 40.6 Eswatini –12.5 12.5 Colombia –5.9 5.9 SA–WC –1.5 1.5 SA–KZN –2.7 2.7 –50 –40 –30 –20 –10 0 10 20 30 40 50 c. Sensitive analysis of HCWs elasticity of U5MR and MMR Kenya –49.8 49.8 Eswatini –15.9 15.9 Colombia –7.5 7.5 SA–WC –2.3 2.3 SA–KZN –4.2 4.2 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60 Lower bound Upper bound Note: SA denotes South Africa; WC denotes Western Cape; KZN denotes KwaZulu-Natal 28 Chapter 2.  Results 29 Chapter 3 Discussion 30 Chapter 3.  Discussion In this analysis, we have estimated the economic costs associated with SARS-CoV-2 in HCWs in three countries and two provinces of a fourth by calculating: (1) the primary costs of SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths in HCWs themselves; (2) the costs of secondary infections and deaths due to transmission of COVID-19 from HCWs; and (3) the costs of excess maternal and child deaths arising from disrupted essential health services in the face of HCW shortages and diminished productivity. SARS-CoV-2 infections in HCWs result in enormous societal costs, especially in country settings where HCWs face a disproportionate risk of infections compared with the general population. Our findings corroborate previous reports of increased risks of exposure and higher infection rates in HCWs compared to the general population from all income settings and regions.2,6,10-12 Countries in this study with substantial differences in the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate between HCWs and the general population (Kenya, Eswatini, and both provinces of South Africa) bore the greatest financial toll as a percentage of total public health expenditure (Figure 8), with a societal ‘price’ per HCW infection that is several times higher than the per capita GDP. Colombia had the lowest cost per HCW infection (Table 9). Infection rates among HCWs did not vary greatly from COVID-19 incidence in the general population, and baseline MMR and U5MR are low in Colombia (Annex 1). These findings highlight the critical importance of adequate infection prevention and control measures to minimize the risk of HCWs being infected and prevent such enormous cost incurring This study demonstrates the negative externality that HCW infections can cause; When HCWs are infected, the health and economic impacts of those infec- tions go far beyond their individual health and livelihoods. Although the cost of HCW primary infections and deaths is not insignificant (pathway 1), the total cost is mostly related to onward infectious transmissions from sick HCWs and disruption of maternal and child health services as a result of HCW illness, isolation, or death. The substantial economic cost due to the service disruption is consistent with pre- vious research estimating the enormous costs associated with HCW shortages in LMICs due to brain drain.62 These results demonstrate the need to closely monitor the situation of HCWs during epidemics and pandemics, to include and quantify the economic costs of HCW infections beyond costs incurred to HCWs themselves. Maternal and child deaths related to compromised health service delivery greatly contribute to economic losses due to HCW infections, especially when countries have poor maternal and child health outcomes and inadequate human resources for health at baseline. Most maternal and child deaths are avoidable, and excess deaths due to disrupted maternal and child health services are tragic reversals in earlier progress. 32 Excess maternal and child deaths are also economically costly: the costs of excess maternal and child deaths due to HCW ­ infections amount to US$93 million and comprise the greatest proportion (82%) of total costs in Kenya. Of the countries and provinces included in this study, Eswatini and Kenya had the highest pre-pandemic U5MR and MMR, and our cost estimates in Kenya and Eswatini were sensitive to the U5MR and MMR elasticities relative to HCW density as well as changes in productivity for HCWs remaining in post. 31 In countries with high U5MR and MMR, there may be fewer other stopgaps in place to prevent unnecessary deaths when the health care workforce is compromised. Maternal and child mortality rates similarly rose in West African countries affected by the 2014 Ebola outbreak, which saw severely disrupted provision of essential services including child vaccination and antenatal care.33,63-65 Unfortunately, public health measures such as movement restrictions to ‘flatten the curve’ of COVID-19 outbreaks further disrupt essential health services including maternal and child health care. One modelling study estimated that COVID-19-related restrictions reduced delivery of essential maternal and child health services in LMICs by 9.8-51.9%, resulting in substantial excess maternal and child deaths globally.31 As maternal and child health services seem to be sensitive to workforce disruptions during public health emergencies, dedicated measures to safeguard maternal and child health in countries with high baseline mortality rates are critical. These might include task-shifting or bolstering child health with interventions that aren’t dependent on HCW density.66 The studied countries took different strategies to mitigate the service disruption. Colombia developed the pandemic containment plan, which included human resource retainment strategies. In Kenya, hiring new HCWs in the public sector was initiated although rehiring retirees was prohibited due to the concerns of their risk of infection. Nevertheless, the high estimated costs in Kenya due to excess maternal and child deaths as a result of disrupted health services again highlight the importance of protecting HCWs, minimizing disruptions to essential health service delivery,23,67 and maintaining service utilization levels,35 while urgent work to reduce maternal and child mortality continues globally. These costs are likely to be conservative estimates of the true cost to society of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs. Our economic cost estimates are likely to be conservative for several reasons. First, it is likely that the SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths were underreported.68,69 Under-reporting is common for infectious diseases generally, but the challenges to accurately reporting SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths are well recognized, including access to tests, testing capacity and the challenges in defining causality in the event of death.70 Second, SARS-CoV-2 infec- tions and deaths among HCWs are likely to have longer-term impacts on the supply of the health workforce that we did not attempt to capture. For example, COVID-19 surges tend to prompt additional HCWs to leave their jobs in clinical care.71 Students or young people who have witnessed the disproportionate infectious risks faced by HCWs may change their career choices.72 Third, we focused on three pathways through which HCW infections incur economic costs. While these pathways likely comprise the most important sources of economic losses, we were not able to quantify (1) the costs associated with worse health outcomes beyond excess maternal and child mortality, especially in the area of non-communicable diseases which account for a significant share of disease burden in countries. 73 Disruptions in essential health care services in the first year of the pandemic were pervasive, especially in LMICs, and certainly include impacts on services beyond maternal and child health care.26 (2) Nor does this analysis include the cost of training HCWs to replace those who are no longer working or alive as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Training HCWs is costly and slow, and is one focus of ongoing efforts to ameliorate the global health workforce shortage.37 (3) This study does not account 32 Chapter 3.  Discussion for the costs associated with mental health impacts of COVID-19 on HCWs or other long-term sequelae of infection such as long-covid.74 -76 (4) The COI approach does not include the cost of interventions to prevent the illness, such as the deployment of COVID-19 vaccines and provision of PPE among HCWs. Limitations. Several limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, this study does not use an infectious disease transmission model to estimate the second- ary infections from infected HCWs in each country. Instead, this study estimated the odds ratio of infection for close contacts of HCWs based on an epidemiological study in a high-income country and used a log-linear regression to adjust for the difference in the relative risks faced by HCWs in each country. The estimations thus may not fully reflect the relative risk of secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through exposure to infected HCWs in different settings. Further epidemiological research is likely to enable the global public health community to estimate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission more precisely in different settings. Second, data on SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths in HCWs for the two sites in South Africa does not include data from the private sector. Data from the other study sites represents composite information from both public and private sectors. If infections and deaths occurring in the private sector in Western Cape and KwaZulu were included in this analysis, the economic costs would be even higher for pathway 1. Limited evidence from Saudi Arabia suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate may be similar in public and private facilities.77 Assuming that this is also true for the five sites in this study, the economic costs along pathways 2 and 3 would not significantly vary. Third, some data were not available in some study sites. In this event, we made assumptions or drew from the literature from neighboring countries. Taking the cost per meal and cost of travel in Eswatini as an example, we used the analogous prices for South Africa as proxies when calculating direct non-medical costs. These inaccuracies are thus not likely to substantively change our results, as we used the best available data to substitute for missing figures. Fourth, in estimating the potential service disruptions due to the deaths and illness of HCWs, we neglect the potential strategies that countries had taken to mitigate the impact. Kenya hired more HCWs in the public sector and Colombia accelerated the validation of foreign qualifications and deployed medical students and graduates. Their impact on the estimated economic burden depends on the size of additional personnel adding to the health workforce. Finally, we cannot precisely calculate the change in productivity of HCWs remaining in their post in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (pathway 3). Productivity could vary by the number of colleagues absent, the number of deaths in HCW colleagues or family members, mental health status, the presence of post-covid symptoms, and the change in patient demand. Instead, we made an arbitrary assumption that all these factors reduce the overall productivity by 10 percent. The sensitivity analysis shows that the results from Kenya are sensitive to this assumption. Even under the low impact scenario with a decrease in productivity of 5%, this still translated to US$10,641 per HCW infection, 5.7 times higher than per capita GDP. 33 Policy Implications To accurately estimate the toll of the pandemic on HCWs in economic terms, countries and the global health community need to have high-quality data on HCW infections and deaths based on a consistent methodology. Infection rates among HCWs vary widely between countries, with estimates ranging from 1% to 30-35%, and up to nearly 50% in some locations.8 While methodologies for mea- suring deaths due to COVID-19 have been questioned,68 in general, SARS-CoV-2 infection and death rates in HCWs in the first year of the pandemic are widely understood to be under-reported and under-estimated.8,69 This has been attributed to incomplete data, inadequate access to or availability of testing, and the fact different municipalities took different approaches to case-finding, testing, and documenting COVID-19 cases and deaths amongst HCWs.69 In part due to limits on testing capacity, health systems in the first year of the pandemic prioritized testing of symptomatic HCWs and were delayed in implementing routine screening of asymptomatic HCWs.67 Multiple data sources in the decentralized health system and across public and private sector providers present an additional layer of complexity for compiling readily available national-level aggregate data. Without accurate accounting of HCW infections and deaths, adequate steps cannot be taken to properly protect them. Conversely, quality data on HCW infections and deaths may help identify the most vulnerable professionals requiring additional protective measures.12 For decades, the International Labor Organization(ILO)’s Occupational Safety and Health Convention (1981) Article 11(c) has stipulated the need to establish and apply “procedures for the notification of occupational acci- dents and diseases, by employers.”78 More recently, the seventy-fourth World Health Assembly resolution A74/A/CONF./6 on Protecting, safeguarding and investing in the health and care workforce has further paved the way for action by specifying that national health workforce accounts should be utilized and expanded “for accelerating the continuous measurement and monitoring of the […] safeguarding and protection of the health and care workforce, including the collection of data pertaining to health and care workers’ morbidity and mortality, in the context of their work responding to epidemics and/or pandemics.”79 These provide a strong mandate for investing in infectious disease reporting methodologies that capture more accurate and complete data on HCW infections and deaths. Transparency of accurately measured HCW infections and deaths due to COVID-19 can reduce risks to fellow HCWs and their contacts and minimize the social and economic toll of the pandemic.10 Failing to report HCW cases and deaths likely hindered awareness of the full gravity and impact of COVID-19 on the health care workforce and delayed actions for improvement, for both HCW and patients, given that globally, health care-associated infections are the single largest risk to patient safety.80 Case numbers and HCW deaths were often not publicly available.81 When collecting data from other study sites, the infection and deaths data routinely collected by countries are not disaggregated by profession. In Kenya, data on HCW infections and deaths were made publicly available towards the end of 2020 and led to tensions between service providers and the authority. 34 HCW infection rates may not have been made public out of concern that they would Chapter 3.  Discussion deter people from seeking essential health care services.82 Indeed, fear of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 due to exposure to a health care environment or infected HCWs is a well-described deterrent to health-seeking.21,27 The economic costs associated with HCW infections are preventable if infectious risks to HCWs are mitigated upfront by working towards safe health facilities with full implementation of infection prevention and control (IPC) measures and water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) standards. Epidemiologic reviews of outbreaks repeatedly cite the same exposure risks: lack of systematic IPC protocols and training on how to follow them, and lack of appropriate WASH standards and resources. The 2002–2003 SARS epidemic was made worse by continued IPC lapses after the disease was identified.16 A review of the MERS response attributed the improvement in infectious risks to enhanced IPC efforts, including regular training of healthcare workers in IPC and auditing of IPC in healthcare facilities.83 Studies on the correct use of adequate PPE have consistently demonstrated its effectiveness in reducing the spread of COVID-19 from HCWs to patients and to HCW colleagues.1,7,84,85 In light of these results, modeling that suggests high cost-­ effectiveness of providing PPE to HCWs86 is not surprising. Pre-service education and on-the-job training need to incorporate and regularly re-visit the training on IPC practices and correct use of PPE. For example, South Korea mandated regular PPE training for the health workforce after its 2015 MERS outbreak.87 There are robust IPC standards and normative occupational health guidance,88,89,90 reiterated by World Health Assembly resolution A74/A/CONF./6.79 Increased and coordinated investments in IPC training, supplies (including PPEs), and monitoring, including adequate WASH facilities, are needed to support the full implementation of IPC guidance; implementation research may also help in this regard. Protecting HCWs during public health emergencies including pandemics is an integral part of a building back better agenda. The COVID-19 pandemic has again spurred countries and the global public health community to invest in and prioritize building resilient health systems.91-94 Key components of resilient health systems are adapting public health functions to mount a timely response to the infectious threat and protecting HCWs in order to preserve essential health service delivery.93 This study has described and quantified the economic impacts due to infections and deaths in the health workforce during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. It shows that the societal cost of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs as a percentage of total health expenditure was highest in this analysis in the four study sites with the lowest HCW density. Protecting health workers needs to be embedded in all aspects of human resource production, deployment, and compensation. Well-­ developed hazard compensation policies, for example in Vietnam,95 demonstrate a recognition of the importance for overall health outcomes of protecting HCWs and maintaining an adequate healthcare workforce in times of crisis. Deployment of the health workforce during a crisis should be complemented by comprehensive support measures including physical protection, psychological support, and child/family support, many of which have been implemented during COVID-19 in many countries and require institutionalization for long-term impact.93 Given the importance of HCWs for enacting public health emergency responses – and the ways in which lower HCW density could render essential health services more 35 disruption - policies to attract, retain, and motivate qualified HCWs vulnerable to ­ should be placed at the center of building more resilient health systems in LMICs. Better protect health care workers can also contribute to gender equality as women comprise 70% of the global health workforce and more than 80% of the nursing and midwifery workforce96, the profession that is most vulnerable to infection risks. The enormous negative externalities associated with HCW infections and deaths necessitate accountability for protecting HCWs during infectious outbreaks from governments, with guidance from the WHO and support from funders. Many countries adopted various strategies to protect HCWs during the pandemic. For example, the Kenya government reviewed and identified policy gaps (e.g. working environment monitoring) and implementation challenges of HCWs protection (e.g. shortage of PPE). Specific resources were allocated to address the gaps and challenges. In Colombia, actions, such as training on HCW protection, ensuring the availability of PPE, and vaccination, were taken to enhance the protection of HCWs from SARS-CoV-2 infection. The protection of HCWs need a holistic approach. In addition to setting policies to build and maintain a core health care workforce, government responsibilities for the health workforce encompass mobilizing and allocating resources required for protecting health workers, ensuring proper use of these resources, and being accountable to the results. We suggest actions to pro- tect health care workers include, but are not limited to: improving collection of data pertaining to HCW infections and deaths; strengthening national IPC programs and supporting the full implementation of WASH standards; developing and deploying training, tools and resources for a safer health care workforce; reinforcing supply chains - including emergency procurement policies and local production - to main- tain adequate supplies of PPE; equitably distributing countermeasures to HCWs, including quality-ensured PPE in sufficient quantity; reviewing laws and regulations to protect HCWs from attack and stigma; providing HCWs with mental health sup- port and appropriate financial compensation; and improving overall transparency as it relates to the safety of the workforce and facilities.93 The Member State-led WHA resolution A74/A/CONF./6 on Protecting, safeguarding and investing in the health and care workforce enshrines the above recommendations, and together with ILO’s Occupational Safety and Health Convention (1981) Article 16,78 point to the need for a clear accountability framework to ensure HCWs are protected from potential health and financial risks in the setting of an infectious outbreak.97 Conclusion This study shows that SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths in HCWs in the first year of the pandemic posed substantial economic burden on whole societies. Most of the economic costs go beyond infections and deaths in HCWs themselves. There is an opportunity now as countries begin to ‘build back better’ from COVID-19 to invest in and prioritize greater health system resilience, particularly in LMICs. Failing to enact protective measures oriented toward the health workforce would almost certainly incur additional, substantial costs in future waves of COVID-19 or future pandemics. Governments should take the lead in protecting HCWs. 36 ANNEX 1 Sources of key parameters for modeling, by country Key Parameters for Kenya PARAMETERS VALUE SOURCE General information Population size in 2019 52,573,973 60 GDP per capita in 2019 1,817 60 GDP per capita growth rate in 2019 3.0% 60 Under 5 mortality rates in 2019 4.32% 60 Maternal mortality rate in 2019 0.34% 60 Birth rate (per 1000 population) in 2019 28.75 60 Number of admissions (per 1000 population) in 2018 35.0 98 (As a proxy for 2020) Household size in 2019 3.9 99 Total health expenditure (USD in million) in 2020 5575 60 Treatment costs per case Mild-moderate COVID-19 cases (home-based) 227 58 Mild-moderate COVID-19 cases (facility-based) 844 58 Severe COVID-19 cases 1,430 58 Critical COVID-19 cases 6,753 58 Length of stay (for calculating the meal cost) Mild-moderate COVID-19 cases (facility-based) 1.0 Assumption Severe COVID-19 cases 7.0 100 Critical COVID-19 cases 10.3 100 Other cost information Travel cost per round trip for seeking care 14.17 101 Meal cost per day 3.18 101 GDP per capita per day 7.19 60 Monthly salary for doctors (USD) 1,448 Estimated from unpublished salary survey and interviews in Kenya Monthly salary for nurses (USD) 309 Estimated from unpublished salary survey and interviews in Kenya Monthly salary for clinical officers (USD) 407 Estimated from unpublished salary survey and interviews in Kenya Monthly salary for lab staff (USD) 241 Estimated from unpublished salary survey and interviews in Kenya Monthly salary for other staff (USD) 386 Estimated from unpublished salary survey and interviews in Kenya 38 Annex 1.  Sources of key parameters for modeling, by country PARAMETERS VALUE SOURCE Other parameters or intermediate parameters Total number of HCWs 176,662 102 Exposure rate to HCWs 1.67% Calculated Odds ratio of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to exposure 7.21 Calculated to HCWs Population attribution risk 9.40% Calculated HCWs SARS-CoV-2 infection rate 1.92% Calculated General population SARS-CoV-2 infection rate 0.20% Calculated Average age at deaths of COVID-19 cases among 50.8 Collected from MoH’s Emergency HCWs Operation Center Average age at deaths of COVID-19 cases among 55.0 Collected from MoH’s Emergency general population Operation Center Key Parameters for Eswatini PARAMETERS ESWATINI SOURCE General information Population size in 2019 1,14 8,130 60 GDP per capita in 2019 3,895 60 GDP per capita growth rate in 2019 3.0% 60 Under 5 mortality rates in 2019 4.94% 60 Maternal mortality rate in 2019 0.44% 60 Birth rate (per 1000 population) in 2019 26.342 60 Number of admissions (per 1000 population) in 2010 64.5 103 (As a proxy for 2020) Household size in 2019 5.84 99 Total health expenditure (USD in million) in 2020 323 60 Treatment costs per case Mild-moderate COVID-19 cases (home-based) 298 Estimated based on Kenya data Mild-moderate COVID-19 cases (facility-based) 2,866 Estimated based Kenya data Severe COVID-19 cases 4,844 Estimated from claims from health insurance agency Critical cases 7,511 Estimated from claims from health insurance agency Length of stay (for calculating the meal cost) Mild-moderate COVID-19 cases (facility-based) 1.0 Assumption Severe COVID-19 cases 22.5 104 Critical COVID-19 cases 8.8 104 Other cost information Travel cost per round trip for seeking care 10.0 105 Meal cost per day 5.0 105 GDP per capita per day 15.16 60 Monthly salary for doctors (USD) 7,715 Collected through a survey Monthly salary for nurses (USD) 1,066 Collected through a survey Monthly salary for other staff (USD) 525 Collected through a survey 39 Other parameters or intermediate parameters Total number of HCWs 7,726 Collected from the Ministry of Health Exposure rate to HCWs 4.55% Calculated Odds ratio of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to exposure 4.63 Calculated to HCWs Population attribution risk 14.20% Calculated HCWs SARS-CoV-2 infection rate 6.01% Calculated General population SARS-CoV-2 infection rate 1.56% 61 Average age at deaths of COVID-19 cases among 52 Collected from the Ministry of Health HCWs Average age at deaths of COVID-19 cases among 59 Collected from the Ministry of Health general population Key parameters for Colombia PARAMETERS COLOMBIA SOURCE General information Population size in 2019 50,339,443 60 GDP per capita in 2019 6,429 60 GDP per capita growth rate in 2019 1.9% 60 Under 5 mortality rates in 2019 1.38% 60 Maternal mortality rate in 2019 0.08% 60 Birth rate (per 1000 population) in 2019 14.882 60 Number of admissions (per 1000 population) in 2017 34.4 106 (As a proxy for 2020) Household size in 2019 4.31 99 Total health expenditure (USD in million) in 2020 28,040 60 Treatment costs per case Mild-moderate COVID-19 cases (home-based) 283 Calculated based on Kenya data and 107 Mild-moderate COVID-19 cases (facility-based) 2,441 Calculated based on Kenya data and 107 Severe COVID-19 cases 4,126 107 Critical COVID-19 cases 8,022 107 Length of stay (for calculating the meal cost) Mild-moderate COVID-19 cases (facility-based) 1.0 Assumption Severe COVID-19 cases 10.0 108 Critical COVID-19 cases 14.0 108 Other cost information Travel cost per round trip for seeking care 20.3 109 Meal cost per day 11.9 109 GDP per capita per day 25.19 60 Monthly salary for doctors (USD) 1,900 110 Monthly salary for nurses (USD) 917 111 Monthly salary for other staff (USD) 917 Assumption (to be the same as nurses) 40 Annex 1.  Sources of key parameters for modeling, by country Other parameters or intermediate parameters Total number of HCWs 838,651 MoH Exposure rate to HCWs 6.20% Calculated Odds ratio of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to exposure 1.32 Calculated to HCWs Population attribution risk 1.90% Calculated HCWs SARS-CoV-2 infection rate 5.00% Calculated General population SARS-CoV-2 infection rate 4.47% 61 Average age at deaths of COVID-19 cases among 54 Specific database on HCWs HCWs infection Average age at deaths of COVID-19 cases among 54 Assumption (to be the same general population as HCWs) Key parameters for Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa SA- SA- WESTERN KWAZULU- PARAMETERS CAPE SOURCE NATAL SOURCE General information Population size 7,005,741 Collected 11,531,628 Collected GDP per capita in 2019 6,001 60 6,001 60 GDP per capita growth rate in 2019 -1.2% 60 -1.2% 60 Under 5 mortality rate in 2019 2.33% Collected 4.03% Collected from from Department of Department Health, KwaZulu of Health, Western Cape Maternal mortality rate in 2019 0.07% Collected 0.08% Collected from from Department of Department Health, KwaZulu of Health, Western Cape Birth rate (per 1000 population) in 2019 20.51 60 20.51 60 Number of admissions 69.7 Collected 79.6 Collected from (per 1000 population) in 2020 from Department of Department Health, KwaZulu of Health, Western Cape Household size 4.32 99 6.14 99 Total health expenditure 4,032 Calculated 6,638 Calculated based (USD in million) in 2020 based on on population population size and WHO size and WHO database112 database112 Treatment costs per case Mild-moderate COVID-19 cases 308 Calculated 308 Calculated based (home-based) based on on Kenya data Kenya data and 104 and 104 41 SA- SA- WESTERN KWAZULU- PARAMETERS CAPE SOURCE NATAL SOURCE Mild-moderate COVID-19 cases 3,140 Calculated 3,140 Calculated based (facility-based) based on on Kenya data Kenya data and 104 and 104 Severe COVID-19 cases 5,306 104 5,306 104 Critical COVID-19 cases 10,521 Calculated 10,521 Calculated based based on on Kenya data Kenya data and 104 and 104 Length of stay (for calculating the meal cost) Mild-moderate COVID-19 cases 1.0 Assumption 1.0 Assumption (facility-based) Severe COVID-19 cases 22.5 104 22.5 104 Critical COVID-19 cases 8.8 104 8.8 104 Other cost information Travel cost per round trip for seeking 5.0 113 5.0 113 care Meal cost per day 5.0 Assumption 5.0 Assumption GDP per capita per day 22.81 60 22.81 60 Monthly salary for health care workers 7,715 Department 7,715 Department of (USD) of Health Health Other parameters or intermediate parameters Total number of HCWs 35,317 Department 68,862 Department of of Health Health Exposure rate to HCWs 3.07% Calculated 4.46% Calculated Odds ratio of SARS-CoV-2 infection due 6.25 Calculated 6.71 Calculated to exposure to HCWs Population attribution risk 13.90% Calculated 20.30% Calculated HCWs SARS-CoV-2 infection rate 28.32% Department 23.11% Department of of Health Health General population SARS-CoV-2 4.24% 61 2.96% 61 infection rate Average age at deaths of COVID-19 56 Department 56 Department of cases among HCWs of Health Health Average age at deaths of COVID-19 63 Department 63 Department of cases among general population of Health Health 42 Annex 1.  Sources of key parameters for modeling, by country Parameters applied to all study sites ITEMS VALUE SOURCE Share of COVID-19 cases Mid-moderate 81% 57 Severe 14% 57 Critical 5% 57 Share of mid-moderate COVID-19 cases Home care 80% Assumption Facility-based care 20% Assumption Number of round trips per CIVID-19 cases 1.0 Assumption Duration of being absent from the work Survived COVID-19 HCWs (days) 16.44 45 Deceased COVID-19 HCWs (years) 0.5 Assumption (mid-year death) Reduction in productivity of other HCWs 10% 31 Contact intensity of inpatients compared to family 20% Assumption members of HCW Age at deaths Pregnant women 22.5 Assumption (mean age of pregnancy from one mid-income country) Children under 5 2.5 Assumption (death at mid-point between 0 and 5 years) Odds ratio of SARS-CoV-2 infection/hospitalization 1.79 4 of close contact of HCWs Elasticity Healthcare worker elasticity of maternal mortality rate -0.474 55 Healthcare worker elasticity of under 5 mortality rate -0.231 55 43 ANNEX 2 Estimation of exposure rate and odds ratio for secondary infection To estimate Ei, we divided the sum of the average number of household contacts and patients admitted to health care facilities by the total population. To account for the difference in the duration and proximity of contact between HCWs and their household members compared to patients admitted to a health care facility, we assumed that inpatients had roughly 20% of the exposure to HCWs as household members. (household sizei − 1) ∗ #HCWs i + #hospital admissions i ∗ 20% Ei = Total population sizei There is scarce literature on relative risk or odds ratio of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to HCW exposure. A national study in Scotland showing that family members of HCWs had a higher likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an odds ratio of 1.79.4 By assuming that the higher odds ratio of infection amongst close contacts of HCWs has a log-linear relationship with the ratio of SARS-CoV-2 infections in HCWs to the general population in any given country, we estimated the odds ratio for other countries based on Scotland’s estimated odds ratio.  Infection rate of HCWi  ln   Infection rate of general populationi   OR i = 1+ 0.79 ∗  Infection rate of HCWr  ln   Infection rate of general populationr   44 References References  1. Zheng L, Wang X, Zhou C, et al. Analysis of the Infection Status of Healthcare Workers in Wuhan During the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Cross-sectional Study. Clin Infect Dis 2020; 71(16): 2109-13.  2. Nguyen LH, Drew DA, Graham MS, et al. Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health- care workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Public Health 2020; 5(9): e475-e83.  3. Sahu AK, Amrithanand VT, Mathew R, Aggarwal P, Nayer J, Bhoi S. COVID-19 in health care workers - A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med 2020; 38(9): 1727-31.  4. Shah ASV, Wood R, Gribben C, et al. Risk of hospital admission with coronavirus disease 2019 in healthcare workers and their households: nationwide linkage cohort study. BMJ 2020; 371: m3582.  5. Mutambudzi M, Niedwiedz C, Macdonald EB, et al. Occupation and risk of severe COVID-19: prospective cohort study of 120 075 UK Biobank participants. Occup Environ Med 2020.  6. Chou R, Dana T, Buckley DI, Selph S, Fu R, Totten AM. Update Alert 10: Epidemiology of and Risk Factors for Coronavirus Infection in Health Care Workers. Ann Intern Med 2022; 175(1): W8-W9.  7. Liu M, Cheng SZ, Xu KW, et al. Use of personal protective equipment against coronavirus disease 2019 by healthcare professionals in Wuhan, China: cross sectional study. BMJ 2020; 369: m2195.  8. World Health Organization. Prevention, identification and management of health worker infection in the context of COVID-19: Interim guidance. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2020.  9. Chou R, Dana T, Buckley DI, Selph S, Fu R, Totten AM. Epidemiology of and Risk Factors for Coronavirus Infection in Health Care Workers: A Living Rapid Review. Ann Intern Med 2020; 173(2): 120-36. 10. World Health Organization. The impact of COVID-19 on health and care workers: a closer look at deaths. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2021. 11. Gholami M, Fawad I, Shadan S, et al. COVID-19 and healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis 2021; 104: 335-46. 12. Gomez-Ochoa SA, Franco OH, Rojas LZ, et al. COVID-19 in Health-Care Workers: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence, Risk Factors, Clinical Characteristics, and Outcomes. Am J Epidemiol 2021; 190(1): 161-75. 13. Heinzerling A, Stuckey MJ, Scheuer T, et al. Transmission of COVID-19 to Health Care Personnel During Exposures to a Hospitalized Patient - Solano County, California, February 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020; 69(15): 472-6. 14. Wang D, Hu B, Hu C, et al. Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With 2019 Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA 2020; 323(11): 1061-9. 15. Leung GM, Hedley AJ, Ho LM, et al. The epidemiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome in the 2003 Hong Kong epidemic: an analysis of all 1755 patients. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141(9): 662-73. 45 16. McDonald LC, Simor AE, Su IJ, et al. SARS in healthcare facilities, Toronto and Taiwan. Emerg Infect Dis 2004; 10(5): 777-81. 17. Gan WH, Lim JW, Koh D. Preventing Intra-hospital Infection and Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Health-care Workers. Saf Health Work 2020; 11(2): 241-3. 18. Frieden TR, Lee CT. Identifying and Interrupting Superspreading Events- Implications for Control of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2. Emerg Infect Dis 2020; 26(6): 1059-66. 19. Ministry of Health. special feature: Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). 2003. https://www.moh.gov.sg/docs/librariesprovider5/resources-statistics/ reports/special_feature_sars.pdf (accessed April 4 2022). 20. Ngandu NK, Mmotsa TM, Dassaye R, et al. Hospital acquired COVID-19 infections amongst patients before the rollout of COVID-19 vaccinations, a scoping review. BMC Infect Dis 2022; 22(1): 140. 21. Mo Y, Eyre DW, Lumley SF, et al. Transmission of community- and hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 in hospital settings in the UK: A cohort study. PLoS Med 2021; 18(10): e1003816. 22. World Health Organization. Impact of COVID-19 on human resources for health and policy response: The case of Plurinational State of Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2021. 23. Aranda Z, Binde T, Tashman K, et al. Disruptions in maternal health service use during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020: experiences from 37 health facilities in low-income and middle-income countries. BMJ Glob Health 2022; 7(1). 24. World Health Organization. Pulse survey on continuity of essential health services during the COVID-19 pandemic: Interim report. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2020. 25. WHO. COVID-19 continues to disrupt essential health services in 90% of countries. 2021. https://www.who.int/news/item/23-04-2021-covid-19-continues-to-disrupt- essential-health-services-in-90-of-countries (accessed March 30 2022). 26. Doubova SV, Leslie HH, Kruk ME, Perez-Cuevas R, Arsenault C. Disruption in essential health services in Mexico during COVID-19: an interrupted time series analysis of health information system data. BMJ Glob Health 2021; 6(9). 27. Shapira G, Ahmed T, Drouard SHP, et al. Disruptions in maternal and child health service utilization during COVID-19: analysis from eight sub-Saharan African countries. Health Policy Plan 2021; 36(7): 1140-51. 28. Kc A, Gurung R, Kinney MV, et al. Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic response on intrapartum care, stillbirth, and neonatal mortality outcomes in Nepal: a prospective observational study. Lancet Glob Health 2020; 8(10): e1273-e81. 29. Global Financing Facility. New findings confirm global disruptions in essential health services for women and children from COVID-19. 2020. https://www. globalfinancingfacility.org/new-findings-confirm-global-disruptions-essential- health-services-women-and-children-covid-19 (accessed April 23 2022). 30. Siedner MJ, Kraemer JD, Meyer MJ, et al. Access to primary healthcare during lockdown measures for COVID-19 in rural South Africa: an interrupted time series analysis. BMJ Open 2020; 10(10): e043763. 46 References 31. Roberton T, Carter ED, Chou VB, et al. Early estimates of the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternal and child mortality in low-income and middle- income countries: a modelling study. Lancet Glob Health 2020; 8(7): e901-e8. 32. Chmielewska B, Barratt I, Townsend R, et al. Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternal and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2021; 9(6): e759-e72. 33. Evans DK, Goldstein M, Popova A. The next wave of deaths from Ebola? The impact of health care worker mortality. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2015. 34. Lemoine M, Kim JU, Ndow G, et al. Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on viral hepatitis services in sub-Saharan Africa. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 5(11): 966-7. 35. Banke-Thomas A, Semaan A, Amongin D, et al. A mixed-methods study of maternal health care utilisation in six referral hospitals in four sub-Saharan African countries before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Glob Health 2022; 7(2). 36. United Nations. The sustainable development goals report 2020. New York, NY: United Nations, 2021. 37. World Health Organization. Global strategy on human resources for health: Workforce 2030. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2016. 38. Htay MNN, Marzo RR, AlRifai A, et al. Immediate impact of COVID-19 on mental health and its associated factors among healthcare workers: A global perspective across 31 countries. J Glob Health 2020; 10(2): 020381. 39. Yang G, Wang L, Wang J, Geng Z, Liu H, Xu T. Career choice regret during COVID-19 among healthcare students and professionals in mainland China: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ 2021; 21(1): 534. 40. World Bank. World development report 2022: Finance for an equitable recovery. Washington, DC, 2022. 41. Jo C. Cost-of-illness studies: concepts, scopes, and methods. Clin Mol Hepatol 2014; 20(4): 327-37. 42. Halasa YA, Shepard DS, Zeng W. Economic cost of dengue in Puerto Rico. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2012; 86(5): 745-52. 43. Yeyati EL, Filippini F. Social and economic impact of COVID-19 Washington, DC: Brookings Institute, 2021. 44. Hanly P, Ahern M, Sharp L, Ursul D, Loughnane G. The cost of lost productivity due to premature mortality associated with COVID-19: a Pan-European study. Eur J Health Econ 2022; 23(2): 249-59. 45. Faramarzi A, Javan-Noughabi J, Tabatabaee SS, Najafpoor AA, Rezapour A. The lost productivity cost of absenteeism due to COVID-19 in health care workers in Iran: a case study in the hospitals of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences. BMC Health Serv Res 2021; 21(1): 1169. 46. Maltezou HC, Giannouchos TV, Pavli A, et al. Costs associated with COVID-19 in healthcare personnel in Greece: a cost-of-illness analysis. J Hosp Infect 2021; 114: 126-33. 47. O’Connell JM, Manson SM. Understanding the Economic Costs of Diabetes and Prediabetes and What We May Learn About Reducing the Health and Economic Burden of These Conditions. Diabetes Care 2019; 42(9): 1609-11. 47 48. Bebo B, Cintina I, LaRocca N, et al. The Economic Burden of Multiple Sclerosis in the United States: Estimate of Direct and Indirect Costs. Neurology 2022; 98(18): e1810-e7. 49. Schaferhoff M, Chodavadia P, Martinez S, et al. International Funding for Global Common Goods for Health: An Analysis Using the Creditor Reporting System and G-FINDER Databases. Health Syst Reform 2019; 5(4): 350-65. 50. World Bank. From panic and neglect to investing in health security: Financing pandemic preparedness at a national level. 2017. https://www.worldbank.org/ en/news/infographic/2017/05/23/from-panic-neglect-to-investing-in-health-security- financing-pandemic-preparedness-at-a-national-level (accessed April 5 2022). 51. Bandyopadhyay S, Baticulon RE, Kadhum M, et al. Infection and mortality of healthcare workers worldwide from COVID-19: a systematic review. BMJ Glob Health 2020; 5(12). 52. Shepard DS, Undurraga EA, Halasa YA, Stanaway JD. The global economic burden of dengue: a systematic analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2016; 16(8): 935-41. 53. Ramsey SD, Sullivan SD. The burden of illness and economic evaluation for COPD. Eur Respir J Suppl 2003; 41: 29s-35s. 54. DataConvergence. Provincial breakdown of corona virus in South Africa. 2022. https://www.covid19sa.org/provincial-breakdown. 55. Anand S, Barnighausen T. Human resources and health outcomes: cross-country econometric study. Lancet 2004; 364(9445): 1603-9. 56. Wu Z, McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and Important Lessons From the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak in China: Summary of a Report of 72314 Cases From the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA 2020; 323(13): 1239-42. 57. Liu D, Cui P, Zeng S, et al. Risk factors for developing into critical COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China: A multicenter, retrospective, cohort study. EClinicalMedicine 2020; 25: 100471. 58. Barasa E, Kairu A, Nganga W, et al. Examining unit costs for COVID-19 case management in Kenya. medRxiv 2020. 59. WHO. The global health observatory: Life tables. WHO; 2021. 60. World Bank. World Development Indicators. 2022. https://databank.worldbank. org/source/world-development-indicatorsSept 11). 61. Johns Hopkins University. COVID-19 Dashboard. 2021. https://coronavirus.jhu. edu/map.html (accessed Aug, 10 2021). 62. Saluja S, Rudolfson N, Massenburg BB, Meara JG, Shrime MG. The impact of physician migration on mortality in low and middle-income countries: an economic modelling study. BMJ Glob Health 2020; 5(1): e001535. 63. Ngo TM, Rogers B, Patnaik R, Jambai A, Sharkey AB. The Effect of Ebola Virus Disease on Maternal and Child Health Services and Child Mortality in Sierra Leone, 2014-2015: Implications for COVID-19. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2021; 104(3): 1085-92. 64. Delamou A, Ayadi AME, Sidibe S, et al. Effect of Ebola virus disease on maternal and child health services in Guinea: a retrospective observational cohort study. Lancet Glob Health 2017; 5(4): e448-e57. 65. Huber C, Finelli L, Stevens W. The Economic and Social Burden of the 2014 Ebola Outbreak in West Africa. J Infect Dis 2018; 218(suppl_5): S698-S704. 48 References 66. Lickness J, Bachanas P, Tohme R, Russell A, Craig A, Hakim A. COVID-19 mitigation measures to maintain access to essential health services: new opportunities with long-term benefits. Pan Afr Med J 2021; 40: 254. 67. Chersich MF, Gray G, Fairlie L, et al. COVID-19 in Africa: care and protection for frontline healthcare workers. Global Health 2020; 16(1): 46. 68. Whittaker C, Walker PGT, Alhaffar M, et al. Under-reporting of deaths limits our understanding of true burden of covid-19. BMJ 2021; 375: n2239. 69. Alwan NA. Surveillance is underestimating the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet 2020; 396(10252): e24. 70. Collaborators C-EM. Estimating excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic analysis of COVID-19-related mortality, 2020-21. Lancet 2022; 399(10334): 1513-36. 71. Schug C, Geiser F, Hiebel N, et al. Sick Leave and Intention to Quit the Job among Nursing Staff in German Hospitals during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19(4). 72. Lee KE, Lim F, Silver ER, Faye AS, Hur C. Impact of COVID-19 on residency choice: A survey of New York City medical students. PLoS One 2021; 16(10): e0258088. 73. GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 2020; 396(10258): 1204-22. 74. Walton M, Murray E, Christian MD. Mental health care for medical staff and affiliated healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2020; 9(3): 241-7. 75. Pappa S, Ntella V, Giannakas T, Giannakoulis VG, Papoutsi E, Katsaounou P. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Behav Immun 2020; 88: 901-7. 76. Blanco JR, Cobos-Ceballos MJ, Navarro F, et al. Pulmonary long-term consequences of COVID-19 infections after hospital discharge. Clin Microbiol Infect 2021; 27(6): 892-6. 77. Al Bujayr AA, Aljohar BA, Bin Saleh GM, Alanazi KH, Assiri AM. Incidence and epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 among health care workers in Saudi Arabia: A retrospective cohort study. J Infect Public Health 2021; 14(9): 1174 -8. 78. International Labour Organization. C155 - Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155). 1981. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/ en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C155#A11 (accessed May 5 2022). 79. World Health Organization. Protecting, safeguarding and investing in the health and care workforce. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2021. 80. Allegranzi B, Bagheri Nejad S, Combescure C, et al. Burden of endemic health-care​ -associated infection in developing countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2011; 377(9761): 228-41. 81. Erdem H, Lucey DR. Healthcare worker infections and deaths due to COVID-19: A survey from 37 nations and a call for WHO to post national data on their website. Int J Infect Dis 2021; 102: 239-41. 49 82. Lazzerini M, Barbi E, Apicella A, Marchetti F, Cardinale F, Trobia G. Delayed access or provision of care in Italy resulting from fear of COVID-19. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 2020; 4(5): e10-e1. 83. Elkholy AA, Grant R, Assiri A, Elhakim M, Malik MR, Van Kerkhove MD. MERS-CoV infection among healthcare workers and risk factors for death: Retrospective analysis of all laboratory-confirmed cases reported to WHO from 2012 to 2 June 2018. J Infect Public Health 2020; 13(3): 418-22. 84. Sikkema RS, Pas SD, Nieuwenhuijse DF, et al. COVID-19 in health-care workers in three hospitals in the south of the Netherlands: a cross-sectional study. Lancet Infect Dis 2020; 20(11): 1273-80. 85. Hunter DJ. Covid-19 and the Stiff Upper Lip - The Pandemic Response in the United Kingdom. N Engl J Med 2020; 382(16): e31. 86. Risko N, Werner K, Offorjebe OA, Vecino-Ortiz AI, Wallis LA, Razzak J. Cost- effectiveness and return on investment of protecting health workers in low- and middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One 2020; 15(10): e0240503. 87. Kang J, Kim EJ, Choi JH, et al. Difficulties in using personal protective equipment: Training experiences with the 2015 outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome in Korea. Am J Infect Control 2018; 46(2): 235-7. 88. World Health Organization. Mininum requirements for infection prevention and control programmes. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization 2019. 89. World Health Organization. Guidelines on core components of infection prevention and control programmes at the national and acute health care facility level. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2016. 90. World Health Organization and International Labour Organization. Occupational safety and health in public health emergencies: a manual for protecting health workers and responders. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2018. 91. Nimako K, Kruk ME. Seizing the moment to rethink health systems. Lancet Glob Health 2021; 9(12): e1758-e62. 92. Kruk ME, Gage AD, Arsenault C, et al. High-quality health systems in the Sustainable Development Goals era: time for a revolution. Lancet Glob Health 2018; 6(11): e1196-e252. 93. Haldane V, De Foo C, Abdalla SM, et al. Health systems resilience in managing the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons from 28 countries. Nat Med 2021; 27(6): 964-80. 94. Wang Z, Duan Y, Jin Y, Zheng ZJ. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: how countries should build more resilient health systems for preparedness and response. Glob Health J 2020; 4(4): 139-45. 95. Lotova E, Samuel P. Overtime regulations and compensation in Vietnam. 2021. https://www.vietnam-briefing.com/news/overtime-regulations-compensation​ -vietnam.html/. 96. Boniol M, Mclsaac M, Xu L, Wuliji T, Diallo K, Campbell J. Gender equity in the health workforce: Analysis of 104 countries. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2019. 97. World Bank. Explaining the economic impacts of healthcare worker infections with COVID-19 in Kenya using a governance lens. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2022. 50 References  98. Dutta A, Maina T, Ginivan M, Koseki S. Kenya health financing system assessment, 2018: Time to pick the best path. Washington, Dc: Palladium, 2018.  99. Statista. Average household size in Kenya as of 2019, by county. 2022. https://www. statista.com/statistics/1225097/household-size-in-kenya-by-county/Jan 10). 100. de Andrade CLT, Pereira CCA, Martins M, Lima SML, Portela MC. COVID-19 hospitalizations in Brazil’s Unified Health System (SUS). PLoS One 2020; 15(12): e0243126. 101. Vodicka EL, Chung MH, Zimmermann MR, et al. Estimating the costs of HIV clinic integrated versus non-integrated treatment of pre-cancerous cervical lesions and costs of cervical cancer treatment in Kenya. PLoS One 2019; 14(6): e0217331. 102. Ministry of Health. Human resources for health dataset. Nairobi, Kenya: Ministry of Health, Kenya, 2020. 103. Ministry of Health. Swaziland Annual Health Statistics Report. Mbabane, Swaziland: Ministry of Health, Swaziland, 2010. 104. Cleary SM, Wilkinson T, Tamandjou Tchuem CR, Docrat S, Solanki GC. Cost- effectiveness of intensive care for hospitalized COVID-19 patients: experience from South Africa. BMC Health Serv Res 2021; 21(1): 82. 105. Ngcamphalala C, Ostensson E, Ginindza TG. The economic burden of cervical cancer in Eswatini: Societal perspective. PLoS One 2021; 16(4): e0250113. 106. OECD. Health at a glance 2017 Paris: OECD Publishing 2017. 107. elHospital. Tarifas de atencion en uci para pacientes con COVID-19. 2020. https:// www.elhospital.com/temas/Tarifas-de-atencion-en-UCI-para-pacientes-con- COVID-19+134794 (accessed Jan 10 2022). 108. Diaz H, Espana G, Castaneda N, Rodriguez L, de la Hoz-Restrepo F. Dynamical characteristics of the COVID-19 epidemic: Estimation from cases in Colombia. Int J Infect Dis 2021; 105: 26-31. 109. Lee JS, Mogasale V, Lim JK, et al. A multi-country study of the economic burden of dengue fever: Vietnam, Thailand, and Colombia. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2017; 11(10): e0006037. 110. Economic Research Institute. Medical doctor salary in Colombia. 2021. https:// www.erieri.com/salary/job/medical-doctor/colombia (accessed Jan 10 2022). 111. Salaryexplorer. Nurse average salary in Colomiba in 2020. 2020. https://www. salaryexplorer.com/salary-survey.php?loc=47&loctype=1&job=865&jobtype=3 (accessed Jan 10 2022). 112. WHO. Global Health Expenditure Database. 2021. https://apps.who.int/ nha/database (accessed April 2021). 113. Foster N, Vassall A, Cleary S, Cunnama L, Churchyard G, Sinanovic E. The economic burden of TB diagnosis and treatment in South Africa. Soc Sci Med 2015; 130: 42-50. 51 Acknowledgments This report was prepared by a World Bank and Resolve to Save Lives team led by Huihui Wang (Senior Economist/Team Leader, World Bank), comprising Wu Zeng (Consultant, World Bank), Kenneth Munge Kabubei (Health Specialist, World Bank), Jennifer Rasanathan (Consultant, World Bank), Jacob Kazungu (Consultant, World Bank), Sandile Ginindza (former World Bank Health Specialist, PACT), Sifiso Mtshali (Consultant, World Bank), Luis Ernesto Salinas (Consultant, World Bank), Amanda McClelland (Senior Vice President, Resolve to Save Lives), Marine Buissonniere (Senior Advisor, Policy, Resolve to Save Lives), Christopher T. Lee (Director, Resolve to Save Lives), Jane Chuma (Senior Health Economist, World Bank), Jeremy Veillard (Senior Health Specialist, World Bank), Thulani Matsebula (Senior Health Economist, World Bank) and Mickey Chopra (Lead Health Specialist, World Bank). Mukesh Chawla (Adviser, World Bank) and Edson Correia Araujo (Senior Economist, World Bank) provided valuable inputs as the team conceptualized the study. Kseniya Bieliaieva and Marize De Fatima Santos of the World Bank provided administrative support. This study has benefited enormously from the close collaboration with the health authorities in each of the countries involved (Eswatini, Colombia, Kenya, and South Africa) throughout the process. The team would also like to acknowledge the strong support received from Gauteng Department of Health, Western Cape Department of Health and KwaZulu-Natal Department of Health in South Africa, Dr George Kadondi Kasera of the Ministry of Health in Kenya, and Mr Morris Ogero of the Kenya Medical Research Institute Wellcome Trust Research Program. The team appreciates the guidance and support from the management team of the World Bank Health, Nutrition and Population Global Practice for the undertaking of the study and the preparation of the report: Juan Pablo Uribe (Global Director, HHNDR), Muhammad Ali Pate (former Global Director, HHNDR), Monique Vledder (Practice Manager, HHNGE), Feng Zhao (Practice Manager, HSAHP), David Wilson (we Director, HHNDR), Francisca Ayodeji Akala (Practice Manager, HAEH2) and Michele Gragnolati (HLCHN). We acknowledge the helpful feedback received on the report draft from HNP colleagues throughout the process, as well as written comments p ­ ­ rovided for the decision review meeting from Pia Schneider (Lead Economist, HAEH1), Ajay Tandon (Lead Economist, HSAHN), and Zara Amoore Shubber (Senior Health Specialist, HHNGE). 52