Cash Experiment Cut Child Deaths in Half
Posted5 months agoActive5 months ago
vox.comSciencestory
calmmixed
Debate
20/100
Cash TransfersInfant MortalityCost-Effectiveness
Key topics
Cash Transfers
Infant Mortality
Cost-Effectiveness
A study found that cash transfers cut child deaths in half, but the cost-effectiveness of the program is questionable.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
3h
Peak period
1
3-4h
Avg / period
1
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Aug 24, 2025 at 11:42 PM EDT
5 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Aug 25, 2025 at 2:51 AM EDT
3h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
1 comments in 3-4h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Aug 25, 2025 at 2:51 AM EDT
5 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45009993Type: storyLast synced: 11/18/2025, 12:05:16 AM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
> 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.