Can Bill Gates Save A Life for Under $2,000?

Jamie in Chile

Hi everyone. New to forum, first post. In this paywalled article https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/magazine/bill-gates-foundation-closing-2045.html Bill Gates says "Normally we’re saving lives for $2,000 or $3,000. But given the problems that are out there, we’re actually now saving lives for less.”

He goes on in the interview to talk about TB and AIDS, but unclear if that's what he's referring to.

He may be referring to cuts in aid from the US government leaving low hanging fruit out there. Can I save a life for under $2,000? How?Who do I donate to? (As a best estimate, I'm aware there's uncertainty.)

Give Well is currently estimating $3,500-$5,500 per life saved for top 4 recommended charities. https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities.

13 Reactions

Comments5

Sorted by

New & upvoted

Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 4:23 AM

Kestrel🔸Nov 26 20257

You may be interested in our donation election! https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/YqYSGpRbLa7ppkuWs/meet-the-candidates-donation-election-2025 - all organisations on it have legitimate funding gaps.

I believe that Lafiya ($900ish), Development Media International ($600ish), and a few others on there are under estimated $2k per life saved. Some estimates are more certain than others, and estimates of past programs may not translate to future programs.

Away from the current candidates, there's also Taimaka for which future donations may well get a lot under $2k per life saved due to partnership scaling, the Lead Exposure Elimination Project (which doesn't necessarily *save* lots of lives but has very cost-effective DALYs). I don't know if these have funding gaps though.

There's also One for the World which will get under $2k per life saved by using your money to raise several times more for the Against Malaria Foundation (probably) than you donate to it.

Overall, the answer is yes - saving a life is cheaper and cheaper.

Kestrel🔸Nov 26 20256

Just did a quick scan and Lafiya https://lafiyanigeria.org/ has Gates Foundation on its sponsor list, so yes I do believe Bill Gates has saved lives for under $2k.

Jamie in ChileNov 26 20255

Thanks. Useful answer. I'll check that out. I'd also be interested on where these <$2k per life estimates come from, and why Give Well recommends $3.5-$5.5k per life charities and not these.

Looks like DMI $675 is their own estimate. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Mp9ioib8HS4XC6exQ/dmi-scaling-priority-child-survival-campaigns-in-2026

However they published in BMJ so should be peer reviewed at least.

NickLaingNov 27 20255

i won't get into the details, but I'm super unconvinced by DMIs numbers. they haven't actually done a RCT which measures mortality, and i think they overestimate the benefits of more people turning up at health facilities after campaigns (what they measure). i like the work but not their cost effectiveness numbers.

it's a bit weird to me that there's no external cost effectiveness estimate there either for an org that size. Has GiveWell not had a look at them given their own numbers are so optimistic?

Kestrel🔸Nov 27 2025*5

Some points:

With e.g. DMI there are reputational considerations for interventions when your intervention is "convince people to get healthcare via mass radio" - as by doing it you put costs on the health system that you don't cover. There are similar things with any kind of partnership scaling. So you can't say it's the most effective thing ever and therefore dump $50m on it, as it can't absorb that in the system. Individual small donors don't have this issue though.
The evidence for e.g. AMF is just really, really solid. And many donors prefer solid evidence over effectiveness. That's why GiveWell separates out the Top Charities Fund and the All Grants Fund. I believe many of the "more effective than AMF" charities receive All Grants Fund grants. They're just also separately fundraising because why wouldn't they.
You may have noticed our Donation Election is for a comparatively tiny amount of money, and is really more of a community engagement exercise than an attempt to disperse large amounts. It's probably also functioning as a survey of community priorities, and some donors or grantmakers may take these into account when dispersing other funding, while retaining the ability to decide on their own evaluation criteria.