Wastewater Surveillance Pilot at US Military Installations: Cost Model Analysis.

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for pathogen surveillance systems to augment both early warning and outbreak monitoring/control efforts. Community wastewater samples provide a rapid and accurate source of environmental surveillance data to complement direct patient sampling. Due to its global presence and critical missions, the US military is a leader in global pandemic preparedness efforts. Clinical testing for COVID-19 on US Air Force (USAF) bases (AFBs) was effective but costly with respect to direct monetary costs and indirect costs due to lost time. To remain operating at peak capacity, such bases sought a more passive surveillance option and piloted wastewater surveillance (WWS) at 17 AFBs to demonstrate feasibility, safety, utility, and cost-effectiveness from May 2021 to January 2022.

OBJECTIVE

We model the costs of a wastewater program for pathogens of public health concern within the specific context of US military installations using assumptions based on the results of the USAF and Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense pilot program. The objective was to determine the cost of deploying WWS to all AFBs relative to clinical swab testing surveillance regimes.

METHODS

A WWS cost projection model was built based on subject matter expert input and actual costs incurred during the WWS pilot program at USAF AFBs. Several SARS-CoV-2 circulation scenarios were considered, and the costs of both WWS and clinical swab testing were projected. Analysis was conducted to determine the break-even point and how a reduction in swab testing could unlock funds to enable WWS to occur in parallel.

RESULTS

Our model confirmed that WWS is complementary and highly cost-effective when compared to existing alternative forms of biosurveillance. We found that the cost of WWS was between US $10.5-$18.5 million less expensive annually in direct costs as compared to clinical swab testing surveillance. When the indirect cost of lost work was incorporated, including lost work associated with required clinical swab testing, we estimated that over two-thirds of clinical swab testing could be maintained with no additional costs upon implementation of WWS.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support the adoption of WWS across US military installations as part of a more comprehensive and early warning system that will enable adaptive monitoring during disease outbreaks in a more cost-effective manner than swab testing alone.