Introduction Micronutrient deficiencies during pregnancy have serious consequences for both mother and child; thus the longstanding standard of care in low- and low-middle income countries (LMICs) has been daily prenatal iron–folic acid (IFA) supplementation. While prenatal multiple micronutrient supplements (MMSs) provide additional significant benefits in comparison to IFA supplements, the view that MMS is too expensive has hindered national MMS adoption. However, increased competition, volume procurement and the use of advanced purchase commitments have significantly reduced the cost of MMS.Methods Using new cost data, we estimate the benefits of replacing IFA with MMS in both health (averted low birth weights (LBWs), stillbirths and female neonatal mortality) and monetary (costs of averted LBW and death; total economic value; benefit–cost ratios) terms in 25 LMICs with the greatest burden of LBW. A number of scenarios describing different coverage and procurement cost scenarios are explored.Results Replacing preventive antenatal IFA with MMS would avert 3 514 594 LBW births, 186 369 stillbirths and 218 914 female neonatal deaths over 5 years in these countries. Providing MMS to all pregnant women receiving at least one antenatal care visit averts 7 272 320 LBW, 473 471 stillbirths and 541 591 female neonatal deaths. The total cost of replacing IFA with MMS ranges from US$201.8 million to US$1.326 billion, equivalent to between 0.5% and 3.0% of current spending on efforts to reduce undernutrition. Using the most conservative estimate, this would generate US$7.19 billion in economic returns and a benefit–cost ratio greater than 10. The cost of averting a stillbirth or neonatal death ranges from US$497 to US$1306.Conclusion Replacing prenatal IFA with MMS cost-effectively generates large health benefits.

At present, the world is off-track to meet the World Health Assembly global nutrition targets for 2025. Reducing the prevalence of stunting and low birthweight (LBW) in children, and anaemia in women, and increasing breastfeeding rates are among the prioritized global nutrition targets for all countries. Governments and development partners need evidence-based data to understand the true costs and consequences of policy decisions and investments. Yet there is an evidence gap on the health, human capital, and economic costs of inaction on preventing undernutrition for most countries. The Cost of Inaction tool and expanded Cost of Not Breastfeeding tool provide country-specific data to help address the gaps. Every year undernutrition leads to 1.3 million cases of preventable child and maternal deaths globally. In children, stunting results in the largest economic burden yearly at US$548 billion (0.7% of global gross national income [GNI]), followed by US$507 billion for suboptimal breastfeeding (0.6% of GNI), US$344 billion (0.3% of GNI) for LBW and US$161 billion (0.2% of GNI) for anaemia in children. Anaemia in women of reproductive age (WRA) costs US$113 billion (0.1% of GNI) globally in current income losses. Accounting for overlap in stunting, suboptimal breastfeeding and LBW, the analysis estimates that preventable undernutrition cumulatively costs the world at least US$761 billion per year, or US$2.1 billion per day. The variation in the regional and country-level estimates reflects the contextual drivers of undernutrition. In the lead-up to the renewed World Health Assembly targets and Sustainable Development Goals for 2030, the data generated from these tools are powerful information for advocates, governments and development partners to inform policy decisions and investments into high-impact low-cost nutrition interventions. The costs of inaction on undernutrition continue to be substantial, and serious coordinated action on the global nutrition targets is needed to yield the significant positive human capital and economic benefits from investing in nutrition.

Abstract Antenatal multiple micronutrient supplementation (MMS) is an intervention that can help reach three of the six global nutrition targets, either directly or indirectly: a reduction in low birth weight, stunting, and anaemia in women of reproductive age. To support global guideline development and national decision‐making on investments into maternal nutrition, Nutrition International developed a modelling tool called the MMS cost–benefit tool to help users understand whether antenatal MMS is better value for money than iron and folic acid supplementation (IFAS) during pregnancy. The MMS cost–benefit tool can generate estimates on the potential health impact, budget impact, economic value, cost‐effectiveness and benefit–cost ratio of investing in MMS compared to IFAS in LMICs. In the 33 countries with data included in the tool, the MMS cost–benefit tool shows that transitioning is expected to generate substantial health benefits in terms of morbidity and mortality averted and can be very cost‐effective in multiple scenarios for these countries. The cost per DALY averted averages at US$ 23.61 and benefit–cost ratio ranges from US$ 41–US$ 1304: $1.0, which suggest MMS is good value for money compared with IFAS. With its user‐friendly design, open access availability, and online data‐driven analytics, the MMS cost–benefit tool can be a powerful resource for governments and nutrition partners seeking timely and evidence‐based analyses to inform policy‐decision and investments towards the scale‐up of MMS for pregnant women globally.

Using a predetermined set of criteria, including burden of anemia and neural tube defects (NTDs) and an enabling environment for large-scale fortification, this paper identifies 18 low- and middle-income countries with the highest and most immediate potential for large-scale wheat flour and/or rice fortification in terms of health impact and economic benefit. Adequately fortified staples, delivered at estimated coverage rates in these countries, have the potential to avert 72.1 million cases of anemia among non-pregnant women of reproductive age; 51,636 live births associated with folic acid-preventable NTDs (i.e., spina bifida, anencephaly); and 46,378 child deaths associated with NTDs annually. This equates to a 34% reduction in the number of cases of anemia and 38% reduction in the number of NTDs in the 18 countries identified. An estimated 5.4 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) could be averted annually, and an economic value of 31.8 billion United States dollars (USD) generated from 1 year of fortification at scale in women and children beneficiaries. This paper presents a missed opportunity and warrants an urgent call to action for the countries identified to potentially avert a significant number of preventable birth defects, anemia, and under-five child mortality and move closer to achieving health equity by 2030 for the Sustainable Development Goals.

In 2011, Tanzania mandated the fortification of edible oil with vitamin A to help address its vitamin A deficiency (VAD) public health problem. By 2015, only 16% of edible oil met the standards for adequate fortification. There is no evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the fortification of edible oil by small- and medium-scale (SMS) producers in preventing VAD. The MASAVA project initiated the production of sunflower oil fortified with vitamin A by SMS producers in the Manyara and Shinyanga regions of Tanzania. A quasi-experimental nonequivalent control-group research trial and an economic evaluation were conducted. The household survey included mother and child pairs from a sample of 568 households before the intervention and 18 months later. From the social perspective, the incremental cost of fortification of sunflower oil could be as low as $0.13, $0.06, and $0.02 per litre for small-, medium-, and large-scale producers, respectively, compared with unfortified sunflower oil. The SMS intervention increased access to fortified oil for some vulnerable groups but did not have a significant effect on the prevention of VAD due to insufficient coverage. Fortification of vegetable oil by large-scale producers was associated with a significant reduction of VAD in children from Shinyanga. The estimated cost per disability-adjusted life year averted for fortified sunflower oil was $281 for large-scale and could be as low as $626 for medium-scale and $1,507 for small-scale producers under ideal conditions. According to the World Health Organization thresholds, this intervention is very cost-effective for large- and medium-scale producers and cost-effective for small-scale producers.

Background:Almost half of all Indonesian children under 6 months of age were not exclusive breastfed in 2017. Optimizing maternity protection programs may result in increased breastfeeding rates. This study aims to: estimate the potential cost implications of optimizing the current paid maternity protection program, estimate budgets needed to increase coverage of lactation rooms in mid and large firms, and explore challenges in its implementation in Indonesia.Methods:The potential cost implication of the current and increased maternity leave length (three and 6 months) as well as the potential budget impact to the government were estimated for 2020 to 2030. The cost of setting up lactation rooms in formal sector companies was estimated using the Alive & Thrive standards. Interviews were conducted in five different provinces to 29 respondents in 2016 to identify current and potential challenges in implementing both existing and improved maternity protection policies.Results:The costs of expanding paid maternity leave from three to 6 months and incorporating standardized lactation rooms in 80% of medium and large size firms in Indonesia was estimated at US$1.0 billion (US$616.4/mother per year) from 2020 to 2030, covering roughly 1.7 million females. The cost of setting up a basic lactation room in 80% of medium and large companies may reach US$18.1 million over 10 years. The three main barriers to increasing breastfeeding rates were: breastmilk substitutes marketing practices, the lack of lactation rooms in workplaces, and local customs that may hamper breastfeeding according to recommendations.Conclusions:The cost of expanding paid maternity leave is lower than the potential cost savings of US$ 1.5 billion from decreased child mortality and morbidity, maternal cancer rates and cognitive loss. Sharing the cost of paid maternity leave between government and the private sector may provide a feasible economic solution. The main barriers to increasing breastfeeding need to be overcome to reap the benefits of recommended breastfeeding practices.

Evidence shows that breastfeeding has many health, human capital and future economic benefits for young children, their mothers and countries. The new Cost of Not Breastfeeding tool, based on open access data, was developed to help policy-makers and advocates have information on the estimated human and economic costs of not breastfeeding at the country, regional and global levels. The results of the analysis using the tool show that 595 379 childhood deaths (6 to 59 months) from diarrhoea and pneumonia each year can be attributed to not breastfeeding according to global recommendations from WHO and UNICEF. It also estimates that 974 956 cases of childhood obesity can be attributed to not breastfeeding according to recommendations each year. For women, breastfeeding is estimated to have the potential to prevent 98 243 deaths from breast and ovarian cancers as well as type II diabetes each year. This level of avoidable morbidity and mortality translates into global health system treatment costs of US$1.1 billion annually. The economic losses of premature child and women's mortality are estimated to equal US$53.7 billion in future lost earnings each year. The largest component of economic losses, however, is the cognitive losses, which are estimated to equal US$285.4 billion annually. Aggregating these costs, the total global economic losses are estimated to be US$341.3 billion, or 0.70% of global gross national income. While the aim of the tool is to capture the majority of the costs, the estimates are likely to be conservative since economic costs of increased household caregiving time (mainly borne by women), and treatment costs related to other diseases attributable to not breastfeeding according to recommendations are not included in the analysis. This study illustrates the substantial costs of not breastfeeding, and potential economic benefits that could be generated by government and development partners' investments in scaling up effective breastfeeding promotion and support strategies.

Background: In Indonesia, 96% of children (< 24mo) are breastfed. However, only 42% of children (< 6mo) are exclusively breastfed, as per World Health Organization recommendations. Breastfeeding provides protective benefits such as reducing the risk of morbidity and mortality associated with diarrhea and pneumonia/respiratory disease (PRD). This study estimates the potential economic impact of not breastfeeding according to recommendation in Indonesia based on infants suffering from attributable diarrhea and PRD. Methods: A cost analysis examined both the healthcare system costs and non-medical costs for children (< 24mo) with diarrhea and PRD. Data collection took place between 2015 and 2016 and healthcare expenditures were assessed in 13 facilities, in five sites including Bandung and Tomohon City. Costs from a provider perspective were estimated using healthcare records and 26 interviews with healthcare workers. A discount rate of 3% was used. A cross-sectional survey with caregiver-child pairs (n = 615) collected data related to out of pocket costs such transportation and opportunity costs such as wage loss. These figures were combined with the national disease prevalence rates from Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey 2012, and the relative risk of disease of not breastfeeding according to recommendation from literatures to extrapolate the financial burden of treatment. Results: The healthcare system cost due to not breastfeeding according to recommendation was estimated at US$118 million annually. The mean healthcare system cost and out of pocket costs was US$11.37 and US$3.85 respectively. This cost consists of US$88.64 million of provider costs and US$29.98 million of non-medical patient costs. Conclusions: The cost of not breastfeeding according to recommendation is potentially high, therefore the Indonesian government needs to invest in breastfeeding protection, promotion and support as the potential healthcare system cost savings are significant. As suggested by other studies, the long term cost due to cognitive losses of providing not breastfeeding according to recommendation should also be taken into account to provide a complete understanding of the economic impact of not breastfeeding according to recommendation.

Breastfeeding MedicineVol. 12, No. 3 CorrectionFree AccessCorrection to: Breastfeed Med 2016;11:413–415is erratum ofReaching the Global Target to Increase Exclusive Breastfeeding: How Much Will It Cost and How Can We Pay for It?Published Online:1 Apr 2017https://doi.org/10.1089/bfm.2016.0128.correxAboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail In the October 2016 issue of Breastfeeding Medicine (vol. 11, no. 8; 413–415), the article titled “Reaching the Global Target to Increase Exclusive Breastfeeding: How Much Will It Cost and How Can We Pay for It?” by Lucy Martinez Sullivan requires a correction to the byline due to an accidental omission of four authors' names.The four authors whose names were accidentally omitted are:Dylan Walters, Julia Dayton Eberwein, Mary Rose D'Alimonte, and Meera Shekar.The complete author listing is as follows:Dylan Walters,1,2 Julia Dayton Eberwein,1 Lucy Martinez Sullivan,3 Mary Rose D'Alimonte,4 and Meera Shekar11Health, Nutrition and Population Global Practice, World Bank Group, Washington, DC.2Canadian Centre for Health Economics, Institute of Health Policy and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.31,000 Days, Washington, DC.4Results for Development Institute, Washington, DC.The online version of the article has been corrected to reflect this change.Ms. Lucy Martinez Sullivan apologizes to the coauthors and to the readership for this unfortunate oversight.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesReaching the Global Target to Increase Exclusive Breastfeeding: How Much Will It Cost and How Can We Pay for It?1 Oct 2016Breastfeeding Medicine Volume 12Issue 3Apr 2017 InformationCopyright 2017, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:Correction to: Breastfeed Med 2016;11:413–415.Breastfeeding Medicine.Apr 2017.186-186.http://doi.org/10.1089/bfm.2016.0128.correxPublished in Volume: 12 Issue 3: April 1, 2017Online Ahead of Print:March 30, 2017PDF download

Appendix A lists the technical advisory group membership by name, along with the name of the organization represented by each. Appendix B provides tables showing the percentage of the population that would be covered by the relevant interventions for four targets—stunting, anemia, breastfeeding, and wasting—by country. Appendix C presents details about the unit cost for each intervention in the analysis. Appendix D presents estimates of government investments on nutrition specific programs by source, indicating the availability of expenditure data versus budget data.

In 2012, the World Health Assembly set the target of increasing the rate of exclusive breastfeeding in the first six months to at least 50 percent (from 38 percent) by 2025 (WHO 2012). This summary describes the estimated resources required to achieve this target, and the impact that this investment is expected to have on nutrition, health, and economic outcomes.

Recognising radical shifts in the global health research (GHR) environment, participants in a 2013 deliberative dialogue called for careful consideration of equity-centred principles that should inform Canadian funding polices. This study examined the existing funding structures and policies of Canadian and international funders to inform the future design of a responsive GHR funding landscape.

Describes how the financing needs for four targets—stunting, anemia, breastfeeding, and wasting—remain aggregated, and presents the total financing needs and benefits of reaching all four targets. Reaching these targets will require an investment of $70 billion over the next 10 years, an investment which can yield tremendous returns, including (1) 3.7 million child lives saved; (2) at least 65 million fewer stunted children; (3) 265 million fewer women suffering from anemia in 2025; (4) 105 million more infants exclusively breastfed up to six months of age as compared to the 2015 baseline; and (5) 91 million children treated for wasting, in addition to other health and poverty reduction efforts. Every dollar invested has the potential to generate between $4 and $35 in economic returns, depending on the target, making the returns on these investments in nutrition high and positive, though they will vary in different country contexts.

There is an urgent need for global action to increase the rates of exclusive breastfeeding. In 2012, the World Health Assembly (WHA) set a global target to increase the rate of exclusive breastfeeding in the first 6 months up to at least 50% by 2025. However, current investment levels are insufficient to drive the kind of progress that is needed to meet the target. Reaching the global nutrition target of increasing exclusive breastfeeding to 50% will require an average annual investment of $570 million over 10 years in addition to what is currently being spent. This investment is projected to result in an additional 105 million children being exclusively breastfed and at least 520,000 child deaths prevented over the next 10 years. This analysis was part of an investment framework developed by the World Bank, Results for Development Institute, and 1,000 Days to provide policy makers with a roadmap for how to reach four of the six WHA global nutrition targets: decreasing childhood stunting, decreasing childhood wasting, decreasing rates of anemia in women of reproductive age, and increasing exclusive breastfeeding in the first 6 months.