Supporting analysis
Two approaches to preventing malaria
Seasonal medicine in Chad and mosquito nets in DR Congo illustrate how program costs translate into avoided illness. Both examples describe funded grants, with selected benefits shown per $100 in delivery costs.
These are program benchmarks. They do not establish what a new donation would achieve.
Program-cost estimates
What the program models suggest
Both funded examples use full modeled delivery costs before final grant adjustments. The AMF donation estimate uses a different cost model and explicit assumptions about future delivery.
Young children’s acute malaria suffering, using the same USU assumptions. Each program uses its full modeled delivery costs. Deaths prevented are a separate outcome.
| Program | Period and population | USU averted per $100 | Episodes prevented | Direct deaths prevented | Funding status | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seasonal malaria medicineChad | 2026–27Seasonal rounds Ages 3–59 months | ≈17 | ≈2.8 | ≈0.017 | Funded grantWorked example | Read → |
| Insecticide-treated netsDR Congo | 2027–29 distributionsThree-year benefit model Under-five population | ≈16 | ≈2.5 | ≈0.014 | Funded grantSome repeat campaigns conditional | Read → |
All three outcomes are per $100. These are modeled program benchmarks, not observed results or verified effects of a new donation. Gross acute-malaria benefit; adverse effects and longer-term effects are unestimated.
What the comparison tells us
Similar estimates,
different programs
The central estimates are in the same broad range: approximately 17 USU for Chad and 16 for DR Congo per $100 of modeled delivery costs. The available evidence does not establish a reliable winner.
With the same illness courses, the USU comparison mostly follows the number of acute malaria episodes prevented. The value of a common suffering unit becomes more distinct when we compare experiences with different durations or intensities.
Death prevention remains visible alongside USU. The table does not assign USU to lost life years or capture every reason a program might be valuable.
One USU uses a stipulated six-hour kidney-stone pain reference totaling 47.25 intensity-hours. This reference defines the unit; the malaria intensity assignments remain provisional. About the unit
What to check before choosing between programs
Who benefits?
The SMC model targets children aged 3–59 months. The net model covers an under-five population, using a mortality rate for ages 1–59 months. We retain these source definitions rather than make an unsupported age adjustment.
Nets also protect older children and adults. This first comparison charges the full net-program cost while leaving those benefits out. It is a child-focused comparison, not total program value.
For how long, and at what cost?
SMC costs buy a seasonal round. Net benefits accumulate over three years after a distribution, potentially beyond 2029. Both rows count the modeled benefit purchased by $100; neither is an annualized score.
Cost estimates come from 2025 and 2026 source models and are not inflation-standardized. Disease risk, coverage and program baselines also differ. The difference between these two scores should not be read as a measured treatment advantage.
Both rows use core program-model outcomes before final grant-level adjustments for monitoring, other funders and supplemental effects. Those choices make the calculation traceable, but they do not establish the impact of marginal funding today.
Test the shared assumptions
Change the illness course for both programs
The same lower, central or higher course is applied to both rows. Program costs and episodes prevented stay fixed.
Chad · Seasonal medicine17.3USU per $100
DR Congo · Mosquito nets15.5USU per $100
Central: nonfatal course, 4 days at intensity 3; fatal course, 4 days at intensity 5.
Rounded to one decimal place here so you can inspect the calculation. These scenarios only vary the USU mapping.
This calculator illustrates the model. It does not make a payment or collect a donation.
| Assumptions | Nonfatal days × intensity | Fatal days × intensity | Chad USU | DR Congo USU |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | 2 days × 2 | 2 days × 3 | 5.8 | 5.2 |
| Central | 4 days × 3 | 4 days × 5 | 17.3 | 15.5 |
| Higher | 7 days × 4 | 7 days × 7 | 40.5 | 36.2 |
These are sensitivity scenarios, not confidence intervals or full uncertainty bounds. Changing the same illness assumptions does not test differences in disease burden, costs or real-world effectiveness between the two programs.
Display update: this page uses $100 throughout. Original model v0.1 downloads retain their $1,000 reference budget; divide their budget-scaled outcomes by 10 to reproduce this display. Unit costs, illness profiles and assumptions are unchanged.