> This cash experiment cut child deaths in half. Here’s the catch.
Cash transfers can save lives. Just not very cost-effectively.
And from the article:
> Perhaps the most significant caveat about the study, however, is that, while the effect on infant mortality was large, the cost-effectiveness of the cash program as a lifesaving tool isn’t impressive. The cash program cost $25.75 million, and, per the study results, saved 86 children’s lives, for a cost per life saved of $299,418. That’s very good by rich country standards. For comparison, Medicaid takes $5.4 million to save a life. But it’s not competitive with the most cost-effective ways to save lives in countries like Kenya. GiveWell estimates that Vitamin A supplementation can save a life for about $3,500, while malaria prevention meds can do the same for about $4,500.
> This cash experiment cut child deaths in half. Here’s the catch. Cash transfers can save lives. Just not very cost-effectively.
And from the article:
> Perhaps the most significant caveat about the study, however, is that, while the effect on infant mortality was large, the cost-effectiveness of the cash program as a lifesaving tool isn’t impressive. The cash program cost $25.75 million, and, per the study results, saved 86 children’s lives, for a cost per life saved of $299,418. That’s very good by rich country standards. For comparison, Medicaid takes $5.4 million to save a life. But it’s not competitive with the most cost-effective ways to save lives in countries like Kenya. GiveWell estimates that Vitamin A supplementation can save a life for about $3,500, while malaria prevention meds can do the same for about $4,500.