Making salient ethics arguments about vaccine mandates: A California case study.

Vaccine mandates can take many forms, and different kinds of mandates can implicate an array of values in diverse ways. It follows that good ethics arguments about particular vaccine mandates will attend to the details of individual policies. Furthermore, attention to particular mandate policies-and to attributes of the communities they aim to govern-can also illuminate which ethics arguments may be more salient in particular contexts. If ethicists want their arguments to make a difference in policy, they should attend to these kinds of empirical considerations. This paper focuses on the most common and contentious vaccine mandate reform in the contemporary United States: the elimination of nonmedical exemptions (NMEs) to school and daycare vaccine mandates. It highlights, in particular, debates about California's Senate Bill 277 (SB277), which was the first successful recent effort to eliminate NMEs in that country. We use media, secondary sources, and original interviews with policymakers and activists to identify and evaluate three ethics arguments offered by critics of SB277: parental freedom, informed consent, and children's rights to care and education. We then turn to one ethics argument often offered by advocates of SB277: harm prevention. We note, however, that three arguments for mandates that are common in the immunization ethics literature-fairness/free-riding, children's rights to vaccination, and utilitarianism-did not play a role in debates about SB277.

Pediatric Decision Making: Consensus Recommendations.

Despite apparent disagreement in the scholarly literature on standards of pediatric decision making, a recognition that similar norms underpin many of the dominant frameworks motivated a June 2022 symposium "Best Interests and Beyond: Standards of Decision Making in Pediatrics" in St Louis, MO. Over the course of this 3-day symposium, 17 expert scholars (see author list) deliberated on the question "In the context of US pediatric care, what moral precepts ought to guide parents and clinicians in medical decision making for children?" The symposium and subsequent discussion generated 6 consensus recommendations for pediatric decision making, constructed with the primary goals of accessibility, teachability, and feasibility for practicing clinicians, parents, and legal guardians. In this article, we summarize these recommendations, including their justification, limitations, and remaining concerns.

Eliminating nonmedical exemptions: a radical shift in how childhood vaccine mandates govern.

INTRODUCTION: Every state in the US has had school vaccine mandates for decades, and all except West Virginia and Mississippi offered nonmedical exemptions (NMEs) in addition to medical exemptions. Several states recently eliminated NMEs, and others have attempted to do so. These efforts are transforming America's immunization governance. AREAS COVERED: What we call the 'mandates & exemptions' regime of vaccination policy from the 1960s and 1970s functioned to orient parents toward vaccination, but did not coerce or punish them for not vaccinating. The article identifies how policy tweaks in the 2000s - including education requirements and other bureaucratic burdens - delivered enhancements to the 'mandates & exemptions' regime. Finally, the paper illustrates how the recent elimination of NMEs, first in California and then in other states, represents a radical transformation of America's vaccine mandates. EXPERT OPINION: Today's 'unencumbered vaccine mandates' (mandates without exemptions) directly govern and punish non-vaccination, unlike the 'mandates & exemption' regime that aimed to make it harder for parents to avoid vaccination. This kind of policy change introduces new problems for implementation and enforcement, especially within America's underfunded public health system, and in the context of post-COVID public health political conflicts.

School staff as vaccine advocates: Perspectives on vaccine mandates and the student registration process.

Recently, several states in the US have made it more difficult to receive nonmedical exemptions to school vaccine mandates in the hope of better orienting parents towards vaccination. However, little is known about how public-facing school staff implement and enforce mandate policies, including why or how often they steer parents towards nonmedical exemptions. This study focused on Michigan, which has recently added an additional burden for families seeking nonmedical exemptions. We used an anonymous online survey to assess Michigan public-school employees (n = 157) about their knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding Michigan's school enrollment vaccine mandate policy. Our main conclusions are that frontline school staff are generally knowledgeable about vaccines and immunization policy, but are at best ambivalent about their role in immunization governance, believing that other agents should be responsible for ensuring that children are vaccinated. Furthermore, some respondents indicated low vaccine confidence, which was associated with increased ambivalence about, or opposition to, their role in immunization governance. As more jurisdictions within and beyond the US consider introducing or tightening childhood vaccine mandates, it is increasingly important to understand how these policies can be improved by attending to the attitudes and roles of relevant frontline actors.

COVID-19 Vaccination Concerns and Reasons for Acceptance Among US Health Care Personnel.

OBJECTIVES: Because health care personnel (HCP) are potentially at increased risk of contracting COVID-19, high vaccination rates in this population are essential. The objective of this study was to assess vaccination status, barriers to vaccination, reasons for vaccine acceptance, and concerns about COVID-19 vaccination among HCP. METHODS: We conducted an anonymous online survey at a large US health care system from April 9 through May 4, 2021, to assess COVID-19 vaccination status and endorsement of reasons for acceptance and concerns related to vaccination (based on selections from a provided list). RESULTS: A total of 4603 HCP (12.2% response rate) completed the survey, 3947 (85.7%) had received at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine at the time of the survey, and 550 (11.9%) reported no plans to receive the vaccine. Unvaccinated HCP were 30 times more likely than vaccinated HCP to endorse religious or personal beliefs as a vaccine concern (odds ratio = 30.95; 95% CI, 21.06-45.48) and 15 times more likely to believe that personal vaccination is not needed if enough others are vaccinated (odds ratio = 14.99; 95% CI, 10.84-20.72). The more reasons endorsed for vaccination (ß = 0.60; P < .001), the higher the likelihood of having received the vaccine. However, the number of concerns about COVID-19 vaccine was not related to vaccination status (ß = 1.01; P = .64). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that reasons for vaccination acceptance and concerns about vaccination need to be considered to better understand behavioral choices related to COVID-19 vaccination among HCP, because these beliefs may affect vaccination advocacy, responses to vaccine mandates, and promotion of COVID-19 vaccine boosters.

Imperfect Immunization Communication on School District Websites: A Mixed-Methods Review.

Schools and school districts are key to U.S. vaccination policies: They communicate immunization enrollment requirements and enforce them during registration. This article presents a mixed-methods study of how Michigan's 537 districts communicate about vaccine mandates through public-facing websites. It reports the results of a qualitative analysis (n = 50) of websites from Southeast Michigan and a quantitative analysis of all (n = 537) Michigan's district websites. School district websites engage in diverse health promotion practices surrounding immunization, from encouraging vaccination to neutral messaging and to encouraging exemptions. Most provide scant immunization information and few promote the importance of immunization for individual and community health. We recommend that school nurses, district staff, and health authorities collaborate to ensure that school district communication promotes immunization and does not promote nonmedical exemptions. This can lead schools to embrace immunization as an essential activity for their own functioning rather than as an unwelcome requirement imposed by outside agents.

School staff and immunization governance: Missed opportunities for public health promotion.

BACKGROUND: In US states, childhood immunization mandates are enforced for school registration by front-line school staff, usually secretaries. Despite substantial changes to mandate policies in several states and many countries, little attention has been paid to the people who enforce them. This qualitative pilot study aimed to uncover beliefs, attitudes, and practices regarding immunization governance of Michigan school staff. METHOD: Front-line administrative workers from Michigan schools and district offices were solicited by email. Sixteen were interviewed remotely. RESULTS: Front-line school staff believed in vaccines, but did not advocate for vaccination while registering children. Instead, they sought low-friction bureaucratic transactions, privileging the collection of data over the promotion of public health goals. This revealed a mismatch between the goals of the front-line staff who enforce vaccine mandates in schools and the goals of the policymakers who created school vaccine mandates. CONCLUSIONS: This study found low mobilization of front-line enforcers of mandates in public-facing school administration roles, a problem likely to afflict the majority of American states with the 'mandates + exemptions' model of immunization governance. Schools would have stronger incentives to promote vaccination if state funding were better tied to immunization compliance. Front-line staff could better enforce vaccine mandates if they were provided with resources and training about vaccine promotion.

When Do Pediatricians Call the Ethics Consultation Service? Impact of Clinical Experience and Formal Ethics Training.

Background: Previous research shows that pediatricians inconsistently utilize the ethics consultation service (ECS). Methods: Pediatricians in two suburban, Midwestern academic hospitals were asked to reflect on their ethics training and utilization of ECS via an anonymous, electronic survey distributed in 2017 and 2018, and analyzed in 2018. Participants reported their clinical experience, exposure to formal and informal ethics training, use of formal and informal ethics consultations, and potential barriers to formal consultation. Results: Less experienced pediatricians were more likely to utilize formal ethics consultation and more likely to have formal ethics training. The most commonly reported reasons not to pursue formal ECS consultation were inconvenience and self-reported expertise in pediatric ethics. Conclusions: These results inform ongoing discussions about ethics consultation among pediatricians and the role of formal ethics training in both undergraduate and graduate medical education.

Efficient burdens decrease nonmedical exemption rates: A cross-county comparison of Michigan's vaccination waiver education efforts.

Michigan's introduction of mandatory counseling for nonmedical exemptions was associated with decreased nonmedical exemption rates. However, while each of Michigan's 45 local health departments made its own decisions about how to conduct immunization counseling, differences in the burdensomeness of counseling programs was not associated with greater or lesser changes in exemption rates. Data from a survey of Michigan local health departments (online, October 2015), epidemiological data from Michigan's Department of Health and Human Services (online, various dates), and social and economic data from the American Community Survey (online, various dates) were used in models explaining change in county-level nonmedical exemption rates. Counties that first required an education session after the December 2014 rule change had a 30% greater reduction in their nonmedical exemption rates for 2015 than did counties that already required education sessions. Michigan's experience with vaccination waiver education suggests that imposing burdens on nonmedical waiver applicants decreases nonmedical waiver rates. It also indicates there may be a burden threshold beyond which incremental increases in inconvenience do not further reduce exemption rates. Thus, in a context of hyper-politicization and austerity, health departments may be wise to avoid implementing additionally burdensome processes that are politically or economically expensive to administer.

Perspectives of public health nurses on the ethics of mandated vaccine education.

BACKGROUND: Since 2015, Michigan has required parents who request nonmedical exemptions (NMEs) from school or daycare immunization mandates to receive education from local public health staff (usually nurses). This is unlike most other US states that have implemented mandatory immunization counseling, which require physicians to document immunization education, or which provide online instruction. PURPOSE: To attend to the activity and dispositions of the public health staff who provide "waiver education". METHOD: This study reports results of focus group interviews with 39 of Michigan's vaccine waiver educators (37 nurses), conducted during 2016 and 2017, and analyzed in 2018. FINDINGS: Four themes emerged from analysis of the transcripts of these interviews: Participants had (1) complex and nuanced observations and evaluations of parents' judgments and feelings about vaccines and vaccine education; (2) sympathetic attitudes about alternative vaccine schedules; (3) critical and supportive evaluations of institutional policies and the background political context of immunization education; and (4) consistent commitments to respect parents, affirm their values, and protect their rights. DISCUSSION: These results show that public health nurses are sensitive to the burdens mandatory immunization education places on families, the motivations for parents' requests for nonmedical exemptions, and the values implicated by personal immunization decisions and government immunization policies. In light of the unique training, experiences, and public reputation of nurses, there is good reason for additional investigation into the roles that nurses can play in immunization education and in vaccine mandate policies, more generally.

Vaccine mandates, value pluralism, and policy diversity.

Political communities across the world have recently sought to tackle rising rates of vaccine hesitancy and refusal, by implementing coercive immunization programs, or by making existing immunization programs more coercive. Many academics and advocates of public health have applauded these policy developments, and they have invoked ethical reasons for implementing or strengthening vaccine mandates. Others have criticized these policies on ethical grounds, for undermining liberty, and as symptoms of broader government overreach. But such arguments often obscure or abstract away from the diverse values that are relevant to the ethical justifications of particular political communities' vaccine-mandate policies. We argue for an expansive conception of the normative issues relevant to deciding whether and how to establish or reform vaccine mandates, and we propose a schema by which to organize our thoughts about the ways in which different kinds of vaccine-mandate policies implicate various values.

Vaccine Education, Reasons for Refusal, and Vaccination Behavior.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about associations between the reasons parents refuse or delay vaccines for their children, their responsiveness to vaccine counseling, and their children's vaccination status at various ages. Since 2015, Michigan has required parents to attend education sessions at local health departments to receive nonmedical exemptions. This requirement provides an opportunity to study otherwise opaque aspects of vaccine refusal. METHODS: In 2017 and 2018, researchers analyzed a combined data set that included electronic medical records (n=4,098) generated by one Michigan health department during 2015 immunization education sessions, and immunization records from an August 2016 report of the Michigan Care Improvement Registry immunization registry. Analyses employed difference of proportions and ANOVAs to explore group differences in vaccination behaviors after education sessions and on-time vaccination status at various ages. RESULTS: Children whose parents stated a commitment to an alternative schedule at the education session subsequently received a vaccine their parents had refused at a much higher rate (39.2%) than did children whose parents refused for reasons of religion (4.4%), concerns about the risks of vaccines (8.1%), or beliefs that vaccines provide little benefit (10.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Different reasons for refusal are associated with different patterns of vaccination behavior. Furthermore, results suggest that education sessions may overcome vaccine refusal in some cases, and that distinct refusal reasons mark real differences in parental motivations regarding vaccination choices. These differences in parental motivations may indicate the existence of different sites for potential pro-vaccination interventions.

Recent vaccine mandates in the United States, Europe and Australia: A comparative study.

BACKGROUND: In response to recent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases and concerns around vaccine refusal, several high-income countries have adopted or reformed vaccine mandate policies. While all make it more difficult for parents to refuse vaccines, the nature and scope of 'mandatory vaccination' is heterogeneous, and there has been no attempt to develop a detailed, comparative systematic account of the possible forms mandates can take. METHODS: We compare the construction, introduction/amendment, and operation of six new high profile vaccine mandates in Australia, France, Germany, Italy, California, and Washington. We rank these policies in order of their relative restrictiveness and analyze other differences between them. RESULTS: New mandate instruments differ in their effects on behavior, and with regard to their structure, exemptions, target populations, consequences and enforcement. We identify diverse means by which vaccine mandates can restrict behaviors, various degrees of severity, and different gradations of intensity in enforcement. CONCLUSION: We suggest that politico-cultural context and vaccine policy history are centrally important factors for vaccine mandate policymakers to consider. It matters whether citizens trust their governments to limit individual freedom in the name of public health, and whether citizens have previously been subjected to vaccine mandates. Furthermore, political communities must consider the diverse mechanisms by which they may construct vaccine mandate policies; whether through emergency decrees or ordinary statutes, and how (or whether) to involve various stakeholder groups in developing and implementing new vaccine mandate policies.

The evolution of immunization waiver education in Michigan: A qualitative study of vaccine educators.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, Michigan implemented an education requirement for parents who requested nonmedical exemptions from school or daycare immunization mandates. Michigan required parents to receive education from public health staff, unlike other states, whose vaccine education requirements could be completed online or at physicians' offices. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Results of focus group interviews with 39 of Michigan's vaccine waiver educators, conducted during 2016 and 2017, were analyzed to identify themes describing educators' experiences of waiver education. The core theme that emerged from the data was that educators changed their perception of the purpose of waiver education, from convincing vaccine-refusing parents to vaccinate their children to promoting more diffuse and forward-looking goals. CONCLUSIONS: Michigan, and other communities that require vaccine waiver education, ought to investigate whether and how waiver education contributes to public health goals other than short-term vaccination compliance. Research shows that education requirements can decrease nonmedical exemption rates by discouraging some parents from applying for exemptions, but further studies are needed to identify ways in which waiver education can promote other public health goals, while minimizing costs and burdens on staff.