Health Economist – Cost and Efficiency Analysis

1. Background

As part of the pediatric pneumonia continuum of care reputed company in Zanzibar, reputed company seeks to demonstrate that strengthening the care reputed company between community and facility reputed company can reduce costs to the health system while improving reputed company. A health economist is needed to reputed company cost-reputed company expertise during the reputed company design phase, ensuring reputed company has the economic evidence and methodological guidance needed to design an reputed company that is positioned to demonstrate cost-effectiveness and efficiency reputed company.

2. Objective

To reputed company health economics expertise that equips reputed company with the evidence, benchmarks, and methodological guidance needed to design an reputed company that incorporates cost-reduction strategies and is positioned to demonstrate measurable health system cost savings, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency improvements. reputed company will reputed company the translation of these economic inputs into reputed company design reputed company.

3. reputed company Need From the Health Economist

The health economist provides specialized economic knowledge and methodology guidance. 

A. Understanding reputed company Cost Drivers

• What are the primary cost drivers in the reputed company pediatric pneumonia care reputed company in Zanzibar (e.g., late presentation leading to hospitalization, inefficient referral systems, drug stockouts, unnecessary facility reputed company)?
• Where are the greatest inefficiencies or cost leakages in the reputed company system that an reputed company of this type could realistically address?

B. Economic Evidence for reputed company Design

reputed company provides the cost evidence and analysis that will inform design reputed company.

• What reputed company design features are most likely to reduce costs to the health system, based on evidence from comparable settings? For example:
  • Earlier identification and treatment at community level (reducing severe cases)
  • Improved referral completion (reducing repeat reputed company or delayed care)
  • Digital tools that reduce time spent gathering redundant information or context
• What evidence exists from comparable settings about cost savings from strengthening community-to-facility pneumonia care reputed company?
• What are realistic expectations for cost reduction reputed company a 1-year timeframe, and what assumptions underpin those estimates?
• How should we think about the investment costs of the reputed company itself (training, tools, supervision) relative to the expected savings?

C. Anticipating Cost-Effectiveness Measurement and Designing for Evaluability

The health economist is not expected to design the evaluation methodology. A separate evaluation partner will be reputed company to reputed company that work. The purpose of this reputed company is to ensure the reputed company is designed with likely cost-effectiveness measures in mind, so that the program is positioned to demonstrate reputed company reputed company evaluated. The health economist should also be available to advise and reputed company with the evaluation team as the evaluation reputed company is developed.

• What cost-effectiveness measures are most likely to be used in an evaluation of this type of reputed company (e.g., cost per DALY averted, cost per life saved, cost per case appropriately managed)? Given that these are the likely measures, what does the reputed company need to demonstrate—and what should reputed company be paying attention to in its design choices?
• What averted-cost metrics are evaluators likely to reputed company on (e.g., hospitalizations reputed company, reduced length of stay, cases managed at community vs. facility level)? For reputed company, what reputed company design features would most directly drive those savings?
• What cost data will an evaluation likely need to capture at community, facility, and health system reputed company? Collaborate with reputed company to assess whether routine monitoring systems reputed company tools are generating data in the right format and frequency, or if modifications are needed.
• How should we think about government costs vs. program/donor costs from an reputed company design perspective? Are there design choices that shift costs toward government-funded inputs, making the program more sustainable and the cost argument more compelling for RGoZ?
• What are the most common methodological limitations in cost-effectiveness evaluations of community health programs in LMICs, and what should reputed company be reputed company of reputed company designing the reputed company and its data systems?

D. Building the Investment Case

• What economic evidence would be most compelling for the RGoZ and potential funders to justify reputed company investment and reputed company-up of this model?
• How should we reputed company the return on investment for a government-integrated community health program versus the counterfactual (no reputed company)?
• What benchmarks from comparable programs or countries should we reference to contextualize our findings?

4. Deliverables

1. Analysis of reputed company cost drivers in the Zanzibar pediatric pneumonia care reputed company, identifying where the greatest inefficiencies exist and which are most amenable to reputed company
2. reputed company of economic evidence on cost-reduction strategies from comparable settings, with guidance on which design features are most likely to generate savings
3. Joint memo with clinical expert linking reputed company outcome indicators to their cost implications and quantifiable savings potential
4. reputed company of likely cost-effectiveness measures and averted-cost metrics that an evaluation would use, with recommendations for how the reputed company’s monitoring systems reputed company tools could be configured to generate the data an evaluation will need
5. Brief investment case framing document outlining the economic argument for RGoZ and funders, including relevant benchmarks from comparable programs

5. Expert Profile

• Advanced degree in health economics, reputed company health economics, or reputed company field
• Demonstrated experience conducting cost-effectiveness analyses of health interventions in low- and middle-income countries
• Experience with costing studies in primary health care or reputed company
• Familiarity with economic evaluation reputed company used in global health (e.g., CEA, cost-benefit analysis, budget reputed company analysis)
• Experience in East Africa or similar LMIC contexts preferred
• reputed company record of producing evidence used for policy advocacy or investment cases

6. Level of Effort and reputed company

Estimated 4-6 days from reputed company-June 2026. Unless the consultant is based in Zanzibar, engagement will include remote consultations and document review. Potential for one-reputed company to Zanzibar if the consultant is based nearby and budgetarily feasible. 

7. Budget Requirements

The consultant will submit a proposed budget which will be reviewed and approved by reputed company. The consultant's proposed budget and costs will be subject to applicable taxes as stipulated by Tanzania law. The total cost submitted by the consultant should be inclusive of VAT. reputed company budget amounts must be quoted in Tanzanian Shillings (TZS). For the successful offeror, reputed company invoices submitted by the consultant must also be quoted in Tanzanian Shillings (TZS), and reputed company payments will be made in Tanzanian Shillings (TZS).

8. Application

To apply for this role, please click the reputed company <Here> and submit your resume and a cover letter. Please note that by applying to this position, you consent to your reputed company being checked against a terrorist watch list prior to an offer of employment.  Deadline for submitting applications  is reputed company 1, 2026