The equity road ahead for financing non-national immunization program vaccines in China: challenges and opportunities from a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In China, national immunization program (NIP) vaccines benefit from robust financial support and have achieved high coverage. Non-NIP vaccines rely on fragmented funding sources, mostly out-of-pocket payment, and face sub-optimal and inequitable coverage. Sustainable financing needs to be secured for addressing equity in non-NIP vaccine delivery. However, discussion and understanding of this issue remain limited. This study aims to analyze the current situation, comprehensively identify challenges and opportunities in non-NIP vaccine financing, and offer suggestions to enhance vaccine uptake and improve public health. METHODS: Between July and December 2023, we conducted a series of semi-structured, in-person interviews with 55 stakeholders from the Health Bureau, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Medical Insurance Bureau, and Finance Bureau across five provinces in China. Participants were selected through stratified sampling, and the interviews mainly included their involvement in non-NIP vaccine financing, challenges faced, and strategies for improvement to enhance financing performance. Informed consent was obtained, and thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Non-NIP vaccine financing sources include out-of-pocket payments, government fiscal, health insurance and other external funds. These four channels differ in vaccine types covered, costs, and target populations, each with unique challenges and opportunities. High out-of-pocket costs remain a significant barrier to equitable vaccine uptake, while market competition has lowered the vaccine price and improved accessibility. Local fiscal support for free vaccination programs faces challenges related to sustainability and regional disparity, though governmental commitment to vaccination is growing. Nevertheless, centralized procurement organized by the government has lowered the price and reduced the financial burden. Despite legal restrictions on using basic health insurance for vaccinations and limited commercial insurance options, private medical savings accounts and mutual-aid mechanisms present new opportunities. Although the scope and impact of external support are limited, it has successfully increased awareness and social attention to vaccination. CONCLUSION: Relying on individual payments as the main financing channel for non-NIP vaccines is unsustainable and inadequate for ensuring universal vaccine access. A concerted and synergistic approach is essential to ensure sufficient, sustainable resources and enhance public financial management to improve equity in the non-NIP vaccines.

The broader benefits of vaccines: methodologies for inclusion in economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: As the societal value of vaccines is increasingly recognized, there is a need to examine methodological approaches that could be used to integrate these various benefits in the economic evaluation of a vaccine. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A literature review and two expert panel meetings explored methodologies to value herd immunity, health spillover effects (beyond herd immunity), impact on antimicrobial resistance, productivity, and equity implications of vaccines. RESULTS: The consideration of broader benefits of vaccines in economic evaluation is complicated and necessitates technical expertise. Whereas methodologies to account for herd immunity and work productivity are relatively well established, approaches to investigate equity implications are developing and less frequently applied. Modeling the potential impact on antimicrobial resistance not only depends on the multi-faceted causal relationship between vaccination and resistance but also on data availability. CONCLUSIONS: Different methods are available to value the broad impact of vaccines, and it is important that analysts are aware of their strengths and limitations and justify their choice of method. In the future, we expect that an increasing number of economic evaluations will consider the broader benefits of vaccines as part of their base-case analysis or in sensitivity analyses.

Health and Economic Benefits of Routine Childhood Immunizations in the Era of the Vaccines for Children Program - United States, 1994-2023.

Since 1994, the U.S. Vaccines for Children (VFC) program has covered the cost of vaccines for children whose families might not otherwise be able to afford vaccines. This report assessed and quantified the health benefits and economic impact of routine U.S. childhood immunizations among both VFC-eligible and non-VFC-eligible children born during 1994-2023. Diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis vaccine; Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine; oral and inactivated poliovirus vaccines; measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine; hepatitis B vaccine; varicella vaccine; pneumococcal conjugate vaccine; hepatitis A vaccine; and rotavirus vaccine were included. Averted illnesses and deaths and associated costs over the lifetimes of 30 annual cohorts of children born during 1994-2023 were estimated using established economic models. Net savings were calculated from the payer and societal perspectives. Among approximately 117 million children born during 1994-2023, routine childhood vaccinations will have prevented approximately 508 million lifetime cases of illness, 32 million hospitalizations, and 1,129,000 deaths, at a net savings of $540 billion in direct costs and $2.7 trillion in societal costs. From both payer and societal perspectives, routine childhood vaccinations among children born during 1994-2023 resulted in substantial cost savings. Childhood immunizations continue to provide substantial health and economic benefits, while promoting health equity.

Fiscal space for the immunisation program in Zambia- an efficiency analysis approach.

OBJECTIVE: The immunisation programme in Zambia remains one of the most effective public health programmes. Its financial sustainability is, however, uncertain. Using administrative data on immunisation coverage rate, vaccine utilisation, the number of health facilities and human resources, expenditure on health promotion, and the provision of outreach services from 24 districts, we used Data Envelopment Analysis to determine the level of technical efficiency in the provision of immunisation services. Based on our calculated levels of technical efficiency, we determined the available fiscal space for immunisation. RESULTS: Out of the 24 districts in our sample, 9 (38%) were technically inefficient in the provision of immunisation services. The average efficiency score, however, was quite high, at 0.92 (CRS technology) and 0.95 (VRS technology). Based on the calculated level of technical efficiency, we estimated that an improvement in technical efficiency can save enough vaccine doses to supply between 5 and 14 additional districts. The challenge, however, lies in identifying and correcting for the sources of technical inefficiency.

The Value of Flexible Vaccine Manufacturing Capacity: Value Drivers, Estimation Methods, and Approaches to Value Recognition in Health Technology Assessment.

Expanding flexible vaccine manufacturing capacity (FVMC) for routine vaccines could facilitate more timely access to novel vaccines during future pandemics. Vaccine manufacturing capacity is 'flexible' if it is built on a technology platform that allows rapid adaption to new infectious agents. The added value of routine vaccines produced using a flexible platform for pandemic preparedness is not currently recognised in conventional health technology assessment (HTA) methods. We start by examining the current state of play of incentives for FVMC and exploring the relation between flexible and spare capacity. We then establish the key factors for estimating FVMC and draw from established frameworks to identify relevant value drivers. The role of FVMC as a countermeasure against pandemic risks is deemed an additional value attribute that should be recognised. Next, we address the gap in the vaccine-valuation literature between the conceptual understanding of the value of additional FVMC and the availability of accurate and reliable tools for its estimation to facilitate integration into HTA. Three practical approaches for estimating the value of additional FVMC are discussed: stated and revealed preference studies, macroeconomic modelling, and benefit-cost analysis. Lastly, we review how value recognition of additional FVMC can be realised within the HTA process for routine vaccines manufactured on flexible platforms. We argue that, while the value of additional FVMC is uncertain and further research is needed to help to better estimate it, the value of increased pandemic preparedness is likely to be too large to be ignored.

Health impact and cost-effectiveness of expanding routine immunization coverage in India through Intensified Mission Indradhanush.

Many children do not receive a full schedule of childhood vaccines, yet there is limited evidence on the cost-effectiveness of strategies for improving vaccination coverage. Evidence is even scarcer on the cost-effectiveness of strategies for reaching 'zero-dose children', who have not received any routine vaccines. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of periodic intensification of routine immunization (PIRI), a widely applied strategy for increasing vaccination coverage. We focused on Intensified Mission Indradhanush (IMI), a large-scale PIRI intervention implemented in India in 2017-2018. In 40 sampled districts, we measured the incremental economic cost of IMI using primary data, and used controlled interrupted time-series regression to estimate the incremental vaccination doses delivered. We estimated deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted using the Lives Saved Tool and reported cost-effectiveness from immunization programme and societal perspectives. We found that, in sampled districts, IMI had an estimated incremental cost of 2021US$13.7 (95% uncertainty interval: 10.6 to 17.4) million from an immunization programme perspective and increased vaccine delivery by an estimated 2.2 (-0.5 to 4.8) million doses over a 12-month period, averting an estimated 1413 (-350 to 3129) deaths. The incremental cost from a programme perspective was $6.21 per dose ($2.80 to dominated), $82.99 per zero-dose child reached ($39.85 to dominated), $327.63 ($147.65 to dominated) per DALY averted, $360.72 ($162.56 to dominated) per life-year saved and $9701.35 ($4372.01 to dominated) per under-5 death averted. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of 1× per-capita GDP per DALY averted, IMI was estimated to be cost-effective with 90% probability. This evidence suggests IMI was both impactful and cost-effective for improving vaccination coverage, though there is a high degree of uncertainty in the results. As vaccination programmes expand coverage, unit costs may increase due to the higher costs of reaching currently unvaccinated children.

Tiered Pricing and Alternative Mechanisms for Equitative Access to Vaccines in Latin America: A Narrative Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVES: To review and describe alternative strategies for the supply of vaccines in Latin America. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review to explore and describe alternatives for equitable vaccine access in Latin America. We searched and considered the main access strategies reported in the literature through PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. Additionally, we reviewed the web sites of key stakeholders. The search was conducted using the following keywords: ("access" or "availability" or "acquisition" or "affordability" or "tiered pricing") and ("vaccine"). Subsequently, documents that met the inclusion criteria were selected. Finally, findings were grouped by means of a thematic analysis and an interpretative synthesis. RESULTS: Twenty-four publications were included. We identified 5 main topics: current supply strategies, challenges for the acquisition of vaccines, vaccine prices equity, alternative supply strategies, and the advantages and impact of a tiered pricing strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggests that tiered pricing can be an tool for accelerating the process of introducing vaccines in low-income countries at affordable prices and for countries that do not adhere to the current procurement mechanisms or are not eligible for Vaccine Alliance because giving countries prices for vaccines that reflect their ability to pay can result in better programmatic and financial planning for the purchase of these vaccines, and in return, vaccine manufacturers can gain access to wider markets However, this model has not been z improve access to vaccines that are aimed only at developing countries, mainly because the market in these countries is not profitable for producers.

Systematic review of cost projections of new vaccine introduction.

BACKGROUND: A recent review of guidance documents on vaccine delivery costing revealed current guidance on cost projections for new vaccine introduction has gaps on methods of sampling, data collection and analysis. In preparation for updating the respective guidance, this systematic review was undertaken to qualitatively assess methodologies used in new vaccine cost projection studies. This will inform researchers and stakeholders about the methods of new vaccine introduction cost projections for strategic directions in countries where cost data are not available. METHODS: We systematically searched four search engines (PubMed, Cochrane Open Access, Mendeley and Google Scholar) for articles on cost projections for new vaccines published between 1999 and 15 June 2022. We developed inclusion and exclusion criteria for the selection of articles and analyzed the results using a PRISMA 2020 flow diagram. RESULTS: Out of 1,108 articles identified, 171 met the criteria for inclusion in the study. Half of the articles were from high-income countries (50%), and most cost projections were part of cost-effectiveness analysis (84%). The most common source of cost data was secondary national information (43%), followed by author's assumptions (17%), secondary international information (14%), and primary data collection (7%). 19% of studies didn't include costs to deliver vaccines in their cost estimation. Among studies that included secondary vaccine delivery costs, approximately half only calculated vaccine administration costs (50%), while 35% included incremental system costs and 15% utilized ingredients data. Two thirds of the studies were conducted to inform policymakers of the cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit of introducing the vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Half of the economic evaluations on new vaccine introductions only included partial vaccine delivery costs. Thus, total costs of vaccine introduction were often being underestimated in economic evaluations. This suggests that guidelines on economic evaluations and journals should recommend that authors include more extensive vaccine delivery costs in their studies.

Estimación del presupuesto de vacunas del PAI-Paraguay 2007-2022 y el impacto de posibles cambios / Estimation of the Vaccination Budget for the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI)- Paraguay 2007-2022 and the Impact of Possible Changes / Estimativa do orçamento de vacinas do PAI-Paraguai 2007 - 2022 e o impacto de possíveis mudanças

Introducción: el programa de vacunación es una intervención de salud pública cuyo propósito es controlar o eliminar enfermedades inmunoprevenibles. El objetivo de este trabajo fue estimar la evolución del presupuesto en vacunas entre 2007 y 2022, y el impacto de potenciales mejoras en el calendario de vacunaciones de Paraguay. Método: se estimó la evolución del presupuesto en vacunas según los cambios entre 2007 y 2022, y el impacto de esquemas alternativos versus el actual, que incluyen la vacuna contra la influenza cuádruple, séxtuple en lactantes, el agregado de la vacuna contra papiloma en varones y meningococo ACYW en adolescentes. La perspectiva del análisis fue la del Ministerio de Salud Pública y el horizonte temporal de un año. Los resultados de las alternativas se expresan como impacto presupuestal versus el año 2022. Resultados: entre 2007 y 2022 la cantidad de biológicos del Programa Ampliado de Inmunizaciones pasó de 11 a 18 e incorporó indicaciones de algunas vacunas. Se estima que el presupuesto se incrementó de 3,8 a 29,9 millones de dólares entre los extremos de la serie. Las alternativas implicarían un incremento de 13%, 35%, 5% y 10%, individualmente. El incremento en conjunto alcanza el 62%. Conclusiones: el aumento del gasto en vacunas fue de ocho veces entre 2007 y 2022. Se estima el impacto presupuestal en diferentes escenarios que se interpretan como mejoras comparadas con el actual de 2022, siendo el incremento más exigente de un 35%. La evidencia generada puede colaborar en el proceso de toma de decisiones acerca de esta política pública en Paraguay.

Introduction: the vaccination program is a public health intervention aimed at controlling or eliminating vaccine-preventable diseases. The objective of the study was to estimate the evolution of the vaccine budget between 2007 and 2022 and the impact of potential improvements in Paraguay's vaccination schedule. Method: the evolution of the vaccine budget was estimated considering the changes introduced between 2007 and 2022 and the impact of alternative schedules versus the current one. These alternatives include the addition of the quadrivalent influenza vaccine, the hexavalent vaccine for infants, the inclusion of the HPV vaccine for boys, and the ACYW meningococcal ACYW vaccine for adolescents. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Ministry of Health, with a time horizon of one year. The results of the alternatives are expressed as budget impact compared to the year 2022. Results: between 2007 and 2022, the number of biological products in the EPI increased from 11 to 18, and additional indications for some vaccines were incorporated. The budget is estimated to have increased from 3.8 to 29.9 million USD over the series. The alternatives would result in individual increases of 13%, 35%, 5%, and 10%. The combined increase reaches 62%. Conclusions: the increase in vaccine expenditure was eightfold between 2007 and 2022. The budget impact was estimated in different scenarios, interpreted as improvements compared to the current 2022 scenario, with the most demanding increase being 35%. The generated evidence can assist in the decision-making process regarding this public policy in Paraguay.

Introdução: o programa de vacinação é uma intervenção de saúde pública cuja finalidade é controlar ou eliminar doenças imunopreveníveis. O objetivo deste estudo foi estimar a evolução do orçamento de vacinas entre 2007 e 2022 e o impacto de possíveis melhorias no cronograma de vacinação do Paraguai. Métodos: estimamos a evolução do orçamento de vacinas de acordo com as mudanças ocorridas entre 2007 e 2022 e o impacto de esquemas alternativos em relação ao atual, que incluem a vacina quádrupla contra a gripe, a sextupla em bebês, a adição da vacina contra o papilomavírus em homens e a vacina meningocócica ACYW em adolescentes. A perspectiva da análise foi a do Ministerio de Salud e o intervalo de tempo foi de um ano. Os resultados das alternativas são expressos como impacto orçamentário em relação a 2022. Resultados: Entre 2007 e 2022, o número de produtos biológicos do PAI aumentou de 11 para 18 e incorporou indicações para algumas vacinas. Estima-se que o orçamento tenha aumentado de US$ 3,8 milhões para US$ 29,9 milhões entre os extremos da série. As alternativas implicariam em um aumento de 13%, 35%, 5% e 10% individualmente. O aumento geral chega a 62%. Conclusões: o aumento nos gastos com vacinas foi de oito vezes entre 2007-2022. O impacto orçamentário é estimado em diferentes cenários que são interpretados como melhorias em comparação com o cenário de 2022, sendo que o aumento mais exigente é de 35%. As evidências geradas podem contribuir para o processo de tomada de decisão relacionado a essa política pública no Paraguai.

The Value(s) of Vaccination: Building the Scientific Evidence According to a Value-Based Healthcare Approach.

Objectives: To provide a new value-based immunization approach collating the available scientific evidence on the topic. Methods: Four value pillars (personal, allocative, technical, and societal) applied to vaccination field were investigated. A systematic literature review was performed querying three database from December 24th, 2010 to May 27th, 2020. It included studies on vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) that mentioned the term value in any part and which were conducted in advanced economies. An in-depth analysis was performed on studies addressing value as key element. Results: Overall, 107 studies were considered. Approximately half of the studies addressed value as a key element but in most of cases (83.3%) only a single pillar was assessed. Furthermore, the majority of papers addressed the technical value by looking only at classical methods for economic assessment of vaccinations whereas very few dealt with societal and allocative pillars. Conclusions: Estimating the vaccinations value is very complex, even though their usefulness is certain. The assessment of the whole value of vaccines and vaccinations is still limited to some domains and should encompass the wider impact on economic growth and societies.

Estimating total spending by source of funding on routine and supplementary immunisation activities in low-income and middle-income countries, 2000-17: a financial modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Childhood immunisation is one of the most cost-effective health interventions. However, despite its known value, global access to vaccines remains far from complete. Although supply-side constraints lead to inadequate vaccine coverage in many health systems, there is no comprehensive analysis of the funding for immunisation. We aimed to fill this gap by generating estimates of funding for immunisation disaggregated by the source of funding and the type of activities in order to highlight the funding landscape for immunisation and inform policy making. METHODS: For this financial modelling study, we estimated annual spending on immunisations for 135 low-income and middle-income countries (as determined by the World Bank) from 2000 to 2017, with a focus on government, donor, and out-of-pocket spending, and disaggregated spending for vaccines and delivery costs, and routine schedules and supplementary campaigns. To generate these estimates, we extracted data from National Health Accounts, the WHO-UNICEF Joint Reporting Forms, comprehensive multi-year plans, databases from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation's 2019 development assistance for health database. We estimated total spending on immunisation by aggregating the government, donor, prepaid private, and household spending estimates. FINDINGS: Between 2000 and 2017, funding for immunisation totalled US$112·4 billion (95% uncertainty interval 108·5-118·5). Aggregated across all low-income and middle-income countries, government spending consistently remained the largest source of funding, providing between 60·0% (57·7-61·9) and 79·3% (73·8-81·4) of total immunisation spending each year (corresponding to between $2·5 billion [2·3-2·8] and $6·4 billion [6·0-7·0] each year). Across income groups, immunisation spending per surviving infant was similar in low-income and lower-middle-income countries and territories, with average spending of $40 (38-42) in low-income countries and $42 (39-46) in lower-middle-income countries, in 2017. In low-income countries and territories, development assistance made up the largest share of total immunisation spending (69·4% [64·6-72·0]; $630·2 million) in 2017. Across the 135 countries, we observed higher vaccine coverage and increased government spending on immunisation over time, although in some countries, predominantly in Latin America and the Caribbean and in sub-Saharan Africa, vaccine coverage decreased over time, while spending increased. INTERPRETATION: These estimates highlight the progress over the past two decades in increasing spending on immunisation. However, many challenges still remain and will require dedication and commitment to ensure that the progress made in the previous decade is sustained and advanced in the next decade for the Immunization Agenda 2030. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The CAPACITI Decision-Support Tool for National Immunization Programs.

OBJECTIVES: Immunization programs in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are faced with an ever-growing number of vaccines of public health importance recommended by the World Health Organization, while also financing a greater proportion of the program through domestic resources. More than ever, national immunization programs must be equipped to contextualize global guidance and make choices that are best suited to their setting. The CAPACITI decision-support tool has been developed in collaboration with national immunization program decision makers in LMICs to structure and document an evidence-based, context-specific process for prioritizing or selecting among multiple vaccination products, services, or strategies. METHODS: The CAPACITI decision-support tool is based on multi-criteria decision analysis, as a structured way to incorporate multiple sources of evidence and stakeholder perspectives. The tool has been developed iteratively in consultation with 12 countries across Africa, Asia, and the Americas. RESULTS: The tool is flexible to existing country processes and can follow any type of multi-criteria decision analysis or a hybrid approach. It is structured into 5 sections: decision question, criteria for decision making, evidence assessment, appraisal, and recommendation. The Excel-based tool guides the user through the steps and document discussions in a transparent manner, with an emphasis on stakeholder engagement and country ownership. CONCLUSIONS: Pilot countries valued the CAPACITI decision-support tool as a means to consider multiple criteria and stakeholder perspectives and to evaluate trade-offs and the impact of data quality. With use, it is expected that LMICs will tailor steps to their context and streamline the tool for decision making.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of vaccines in Middle East and North Africa countries: is existing evidence good enough to support policy decision-making?

INTRODUCTION: A vaccine introduction process should be systematic and transparent and take into account many factors, including cost-effectiveness evidence. This study aimed to assess quantity, characteristic, and quality of economic evaluation (EE) studies on vaccines performed in Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries. AREAS COVERED: PubMed and Scopus electronic databases were searched since inception to December 2019 to identify published EE studies of vaccines, which were conducted in the 26 MENA countries. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. EXPERT OPINION: Of the 616 studies identified, 46 were included in the review. Most studies (65%) were conducted in Iran, Israel, and Turkey. The most commonly evaluated vaccines were rotavirus vaccine (n = 15; 33%), human Papillomavirus vaccine (n = 8; 17%), and pneumococcal vaccine (n = 7; 15%). We classified 5 (11%), 27 (59%), 12 (26%), and 2 (4%) studies as excellent, good, moderate, and poor quality, respectively. There were limited cost-effectiveness evidences in the region. It is imperative to have local guidelines on good practice and reporting, availability of local data, and funding sources to improve quantity and quality of EE studies of vaccines in the region, thereby, facilitating transparent and consistent decision-making processes.

A review of prospective pathways and impacts of COVID-19 on the accessibility, safety, quality, and affordability of essential medicines and vaccines for universal health coverage in Africa.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has the potential to reverse progress towards global targets. This study examines the risks that the COVID-19 pandemic poses to equitable access to essential medicines and vaccines (EMV) for universal health coverage in Africa. METHODS: We searched medical databases and grey literature up to 2 October 2020 for studies reporting data on prospective pathways and innovative strategies relevant for the assessment and management of the emerging risks in accessibility, safety, quality, and affordability of EMV in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. We used the resulting pool of evidence to support our analysis and to draw policy recommendations to mitigate the emerging risks and improve preparedness for future crises. RESULTS: Of the 310 records screened, 134 were included in the analysis. We found that the disruption of the international system affects more immediately the capability of low- and middle-income countries to acquire the basket of EMV. The COVID-19 pandemic may facilitate dishonesty and fraud, increasing the propensity of patients to take substandard and falsified drugs. Strategic regional cooperation in the form of joint tenders and contract awarding, joint price negotiation and supplier selection, as well as joint market research, monitoring, and evaluation could improve the supply, affordability, quality, and safety of EMV. Sustainable health financing along with international technology transfer and substantial investment in research and development are needed to minimize the vulnerability of African countries arising from their dependence on imported EMV. To ensure equitable access, community-based strategies such as mobile clinics as well as fees exemptions for vulnerable and under-served segments of society might need to be considered. Strategies such as task delegation and telephone triage could help reduce physician workload. This coupled with payments of risk allowance to frontline healthcare workers and health-literate healthcare organization might improve the appropriate use of EMV. CONCLUSIONS: Innovative and sustainable strategies informed by comparative risk assessment are increasingly needed to ensure that local economic, social, demographic, and epidemiological risks and potentials are accounted for in the national COVID-19 responses.

Immunization funding across 28 European countries.

INTRODUCTION: Disease prevention and improving vaccination coverage in Europe are key elements contributing to resilient health systems and ensuring better health outcomes for all. The aim of this study was to describe the immunization funding landscape across all European Union 28 countries (EU28). AREAS COVERED: Data collected in a targeted literature review supported descriptive analysis on the different indicators that were looked at: vaccines included in the EU28 national immunization programs (NIP), national immunization funding, immunization funding per capita (2015-2019) and percentage of health-care budget allocated to immunization. EXPERT OPINION: Immunization funding represents a small proportion of total healthcare spend in Europe (median 0.3%). In the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic, demographic changes, and the potential introduction of new vaccines; the need for adequate financing of immunization programs will be important, to establish resilient immunization systems and provide sustainable protection of the population against vaccine-preventable diseases.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARYWhat is the context?Herpes zoster, or shingles, is a viral disease characterized by a painful, localized skin rash. It affects approximately 32% of US citizens at least once in their lifetime.The risk of contracting shingles increases with age.Most American adults over 50 years have not received the shingles vaccine, and vaccination rates are especially low for African-Americans.What is new?This is the first study to evaluate what drives shingles vaccination decisions among US adults ≥ 50 years of age. We also assessed the differences between African-American and non-African-American adults, and inside the African-American group.In this choice experiment, 1,454 people ≥ 50 years completed a survey of 8 choice questions, as well as questions on their previous experiences with vaccines, socioeconomic, and demographic characteristics. Seven factors were evaluated.We found that American adults preferred to get vaccinated, and the most influential factors were costs and vaccine effectiveness while location of vaccination was the least important. There were differences in preferences between African-American and non-African-American adults, mainly driven by costs and vaccine effectiveness. 3 different groups of African-American adults with systematically different preferences could be identified; two were likely to vaccinate, with one being more cost sensitive at lower price thresholds, and the third was unlikely to vaccinate.What is the impact?Decisions on shingles vaccination appear to be mostly driven by costs, which could be a barrier to those who do not have appropriate insurance, especially among some African-Americans.However, healthcare professionals should continue to educate patients on other vaccine characteristics, as they also influence vaccination decisions.

A visual approach to the economic evaluation of vaccines: opening the health economic black box.

OBJECTIVES: The economic evaluation of vaccines has attracted a great deal of controversy. In the academic literature, several vaccination advocates argue that the evaluation frame for vaccines should be expanded to give a more complete picture of their benefits. We seek to contribute to the debate and facilitate informed dialogue about vaccine assessment using visualization, as able to support both deliberation by technical committees about the substance of evaluation and communication of the underlying rationale to non-experts. METHODS: We present two visualizations, an Individual Risk Plot (IRP), and a Population Impact Plot (PIP), both showing the beneficiary population on one axis and the degree of individual benefit and cost of an individual dose on the second axis. We sketch out such graphs for 10 vaccines belonging to the UK routine childhood immunization schedule and present our own analysis for the rotavirus and meningitis B vaccines. RESULTS: While the IRPs help classify diseases by morbidity and mortality, the PIPs display the health and economic loss averted after introducing a vaccine, allowing further comparisons. CONCLUSION: The visualizations presented, albeit open to provide an increasingly complete accounting of the value of vaccination, ensure consistency of approach where comparative judgments are most needed.