[mattkrause]

This has been extensively studied, and virtually every analysis comes to the same conclusion: it's cost-effective.

Here's an old analysis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12533280, which puts its effectiveness on-par with MMR vaccines and cost-effectiveness significantly better than the median $/QALY for existing interventions (~$42k, I think).

It's on the WHO list of recommended vaccines, and there are a ton of country-specific ones too; I linked to some elsewhere in the thread. Wikipedia has a giant list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccine#Vaccine_implementa...

[eldavojohn]

Yeah that's for females which is not at all what I was questioning.

Today I learned do not talk about money when it comes to healthcare initiatives on ycombinator.

[mattkrause]

Well...Suppose the vaccine did nothing at all when administered to males but--for some reason--we did it anyway. This would double the price while leaving the effectiveness unchanged, but the $/quality-adjusted year of life (QAYL) would still be a in range that we typically consider worthwhile.

In reality, the vaccine has beneficial effects for the men themselves, as the article points out. It also contributes to "herd immunity", which benefits vaccinated men and women alike. Increased demand for the vaccine could also drive down the unit cost (most drug-related costs are fixed, rather than marginal). These three factors all suggest it's even more cost-effective than my naive analysis above.

Also, definitely talk about stuff like this. It's important and interesting; I'm actually surprised there's less interest in the pharmoeconomic modelling itself, as it's a very HN-friendly topic. That said, it is a little frustrating when people assume everyone involved in something biological is an innumerate dummy. A lot of this stuff has been analyzed, often by fairly clever people.