On the optimal production capacity for influenza vaccine

COVID-19 health policy evaluation: integrating health and economic perspectives with a data envelopment analysis approach

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global challenge to humankind. To improve the knowledge regarding relevant, efficient and effective COVID-19 measures in health policy, this paper applies a multi-criteria evaluation approach with population, health care, and economic datasets from 19 countries within the OECD. The comparative investigation was based on a Data Envelopment Analysis approach as an efficiency measurement method. Results indicate that on the one hand, factors like population size, population density, and country development stage, did not play a major role in successful pandemic management. On the other hand, pre-pandemic healthcare system policies were decisive. Healthcare systems with a primary care orientation and a high proportion of primary care doctors compared to specialists were found to be more efficient than systems with a medium level of resources that were partly financed through public funding and characterized by a high level of access regulation. Roughly two weeks after the introduction of ad hoc measures, e.g., lockdowns and quarantine policies, we did not observe a direct impact on country-level healthcare efficiency, while delayed lockdowns led to significantly lower efficiency levels during the first COVID-19 wave in 2020. From an economic perspective, strategies without general lockdowns were identified as a more efficient strategy than the full lockdown strategy. Additionally, governmental support of short-term work is promising. Improving the efficiency of COVID-19 countermeasures is crucial in saving as many lives as possible with limited resources.

Revisiting the pharmaceuticalisation of pandemic influenza using Lukes' framework of power

The power of social actors to drive or block pharmaceutical uptake has been a concern in sociological debates on pharmaceuticalisation, including in the case of pandemic vaccination. We build on Steven Lukes' three-dimensional view of power to explore the 2009 H1N1 pandemic vaccination in Sweden and Denmark - two similar countries that arrived at conflicting vaccination strategies. Drawing on interviews with members of each country's pandemic steering group and on document analysis, we explore three consecutive stages of pandemic vaccination response: planning, vaccine procurement and the vaccination campaign. The paper makes two contributions to studies of pharmaceuticalisation and pandemics. Conceptually, we advocate the suitability of Lukes' framework over the 'countervailing powers' framework repeatedly used to model power in the pharmaceutical field. Empirically, our study confirms that government-appointed experts steered pandemic planning in both countries, but we show that the state, industry and the WHO also exerted power by enabling and constraining experts' decision-making, including by keeping some information secret. Furthermore, we argue that mass vaccination in Sweden was a pervasive expression of state power, in Lukes' sense, since it rested on keeping latent the tension between many individuals' health interests and the state's interests in protecting social and economic functioning.