Description:
Intervention policies, like stay-at-home orders, are shown to be effective in controlling the spread of the novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, concerns over economic burdens of these policies have propelled U.S. states to move towards reopening. Decision-making in most states has been challenging, especially because of a dearth of quantitative evidence on health gains versus economic burdens of different intervention policies. To assist decision-makers, we make use of detailed data from 51 U.S. states on various factors, including number of tests, positive and negative results, hospitalizations, ICU beds and ventilators used, residents' mobility, and deaths, and provide an analytical framework to measure per capita total costs versus quality-adjusted life years (QALY) under various intervention policies. Our results show that, compared to a hypothetical no intervention during March-June 2020, the policies undertaken across the U.S. on average saved each person up to 4.04 days worth of QALY while incurring $3,284.67 for him/her. Had the states undertaken more strict policies during the same time frame than those they adopted, the increase in the average QALY and cost per person would be up to 6 days and $4,953.81, respectively. We also find that stricter policies are not cost-effective at the typical willingness-to-pay rates. Imposing such strict policies, however, may be inevitable in the near future, especially if the risk of a second wave of COVID-19 increases. Finally, in addition to quantifying the health and economic impacts of intervention policies, our results allow federal and state authorities to avoid following a “one-size-fits-all" strategy, and instead enact policies that are better suited for each state