Abstract
We assess the economic value of screening testing programs as a policy response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. We find that the fiscal, macroeconomic, and health benefits of rapid SARS-CoV-2 screening testing programs far exceed their costs, with the ratio of economic benefits to costs typically in the range of 2-15 (depending on program details), not counting the monetized value of lives saved. Unless the screening test is highly specific, however, the signal value of the screening test alone is low, leading to concerns about adherence. Confirmatory testing increases the net economic benefits of screening tests by reducing the number of healthy workers in quarantine and by increasing adherence to quarantine measures. The analysis is undertaken using a behavioral SIR model for the United States with 5 age groups, 66 economic sectors, screening and diagnostic testing, and partial adherence to instructions to quarantine or to isolate.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was supported in part by NSF Rapid Grant 082359691.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
There are no human subjects in this project and no need for IRB approval.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Reformatted main tables. Expanded sensitivity analyses. Author affiliations updated.
1 See Arnon et al (2020), Goolsbee and Syverson (2020), Chetty et al (2020), and Gupta, Simon, and Wing (2020) and the literature cited in those papers.
2 The positive predictive value is the probability of being infected conditional on testing positive. By Bayes Law, the PPV depends on the specificity and sensitivity of the test and on the population rate of infection.
3 These costs and accuracy rates are those of the Abbot Laboratories BinaxNOW™antigen test (FDA (2020)). Additional estimates of test performance and costs are available in Table 2 of Silcox et. al. (2020).
4 Meta-analyses of influenza antigen tests estimate specificity of 98.2% (Chartrand et al (2012)) and 98.4% (Antoniol et al (2018)), see Pettengill and McAdam (2020)). These specificities are close to the BinaxNOW™ specificity of 98.5%. In this light, the assumed 80% specificity for the first stage is conservative.
5 An early focus of this literature concerned the macroeconomic and epidemiological effects of lockdown and re-opening policies. Eichenbaum, Rebelo, Trabant (2020a) augment a standard New Keynesian macroeconomic model with a SIR-type model of disease transmission, characterize the relationship between consumption/labor supply decisions and disease transmission, and study the effects of simple lockdown policies. Acemoglu, Chernozhukov, Werning, and Whinston (2020) study a multi-group SIR model where infection, hospitalization, and fatality rates vary between groups and characterize optimal age-varying lockdown policies. This literature has expanded to include other non-pharmaceutical interventions, see Baqaee, Farhi, Mina, and Stock (2020a). See BFMS (2020b) for additional references.
6 Specifically, to align the BFMS rule with Arnon et al, we set κup, κui, and κdd in Appendix equation (24) to 0 and solved for the value of κdp for which the average model-implied elasticity matched the Arnon et al elasticity of employment with respect to cases. That elasticity is related to the elasticity of labor hours with respect to deaths, computed from Appendix equations (24) and (25), as,
where Et is employment, Lt is labor hours, Ct is cases, is daily deaths, εf is the elasticity of the case fatality rate with respect to cases, and εh is the elasticity of weekly hours with respect to employment. The elasticity εh was estimated from aggregate US data on hours and unemployment, and the elasticity εf was estimated from data on the cases and deaths from July 1 – October 22, 2020 (a period in which the number of tests were roughly constant).
Data Availability
All data used ihis paper is derived from publicly available sources and available from the authors upon request.
