Kasim, a health economist who now advises NEX, argues that both questions belong in the same conversation. That matters most in hospitals where budgets, staff and technology are already stretched.
The Question Is Whether Infection Control Also Releases Resources For Other Cares
When a hospital weighs up an intervention against antimicrobial resistance (AMR), the first question is whether it works. The second is what it frees up: beds, staff time and money the hospital can put towards other needs. Kasim, a health economist and epidemiologist who now advises NEX, argues that both questions belong in
the same conversation. That matters most in hospitals where budgets, staff and technology are already stretched.
From Chile's First National AMR Estimates to Hospital-Level Modelling
Kasim is an assistant professor in the Department of Economics at City St George's, University of London. His work combines mathematical modelling, epidemiology and health economics, and his training covers each of them: engineering first, then economics and health economics, then a PhD in infectious diseases.
His work on AMR began in Chile, where he is from. Around ten years ago, the country had no national estimate of how common resistance was. Using data from 41 tertiary hospitals, Kasim and colleagues produced the first national and subnational estimates of resistance for three clinically important bacteria, mapped how it varied across regions and examined the socioeconomic factors associated with it (Allel et al., 2020).
"We provided the first overall picture at the national level of what was happening at the time."
He says those findings went on to inform Chile's national action plan on AMR. His later work moved from measuring the problem to testing responses to it. In a study based on three Chilean hospitals, Kasim and colleagues modelled how carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) spread between patients, then compared the cost-effectiveness of nine screening, isolation and decolonisation strategies (Allel et al., 2025).
That paper is how he met Ash, who read it and got in touch on LinkedIn. The two have since become friends, and Kasim now advises NEX on health economics.
Transmission, Outcomes and Cost Belong in the Same Analysis
Kasim treats transmission, patient outcomes and cost as parts of one problem. How a resistant organism spreads through a hospital determines who becomes infected and how badly. Health economics then asks which responses produce the most benefit for the resources available.
"Health economics allows us to understand how resources could be allocated in a better way, and how we can optimise these resources to have the best outputs."
For Kasim, those outputs come in two forms. One is clinical, such as lower mortality. The other is financial: a hospital that screens, isolates and decolonises patients well may spend less treating infections that could have been avoided.
Looking at only one of these can mislead. An intervention that reduces infections at a high cost may take resources from other care, while one chosen mainly to save money may leave patients exposed. Assessing transmission, outcomes and cost together gives hospitals a fuller basis for deciding where to act.
Targeted Measures Can Reduce Both Deaths and Costs
Kasim's modelling of CRE and MRSA in Chile suggests that well-chosen infection control measures can improve outcomes and save money at the same time.
Most of the strategies tested were cost-effective in 80% of simulations, with testing plus digestive decolonisation for CRE the exception. The model also suggested that men were the main drivers of transmission. For MRSA, the most cost-effective strategy was pre-emptive isolation of newly admitted men, estimated to prevent 32.1 deaths per 1,000 hospital beds each year (Allel et al., 2025).
Scaled up, the numbers become relevant to national budgets. If these strategies reached 20% of hospitals in Chile, the study estimates savings of at least $12.2 million (Allel et al., 2025).
These are modelled estimates, and they depend on the assumptions and data behind the model. What they show is the value of targeting: the largest gains came from directing measures at the patients most likely to drive transmission, rather than applying every measure to everyone.
Where Budgets Are Tightest, Allocation Matters Most
In much of Latin America, hospitals face AMR with limited budgets, limited staff capacity and limited access to technology. Kasim has worked closely with hospitals and clinicians in the region, and he sees the same pressure repeatedly: every resource spent in one place is unavailable somewhere else.
Antibiotic prescribing shows how this plays out. In a study of bloodstream infections across three public hospitals in Chile, 33% of patients received empirical antibiotic therapy that did not match the in vitro susceptibility of their infection (Allel et al., 2024). Inappropriate treatment was associated with higher mortality.
Each of those cases carries a cost to the patient and to the hospital. Better information about which patients are at risk, and which organisms they are likely to carry, could help clinicians choose treatment and target precautions more accurately.
"If we can optimise resource allocation, we can release money within hospitals to put towards other pressing needs."
That is the argument at the centre of Kasim's work. An intervention that works and also frees resources gives a hospital room to do more of what it already knows it should.
What Success Looks Like
For Kasim, success means NEX helping hospitals reduce the burden of infection while using their resources better. Asked to finish the sentence "I know NEX works when…", he answered:
"…we need to optimise resource allocation. There is high potential for that. And when it comes to identifying populations at higher risk of infection."
Both parts of that answer point to the same aim: helping hospitals act where it counts, and keep the resources that saves for other patients.
