Inattention or reluctance? Parental responses to vaccination reminder letters

Sibling spillovers and the choice to get vaccinated: Evidence from a regression discontinuity design

We investigate the effects of introducing population-wide free-of-charge Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programs on the targeted adolescent cohorts and their siblings. For identification, we rely on regression discontinuity designs and high-quality Danish administrative data to exploit that date of birth determines program eligibility. We find that the programs increased the HPV vaccine take-up of both the targeted children (53.2 percentage points for girls and 36.0 percentage points for boys) and their older same-sex siblings (4.5 percentage points for sisters and 3.5 percentage points for brothers). We show that while the direct effects of the programs reduced HPV vaccine take-up inequality, the spillover effects, in contrast, contributed to an increase in vaccine take-up inequality highlighting the potential importance of spillover effects in the determination of distributional consequences of public health programs. Finally, we find some evidence of cross-vaccine spillovers.

Reminder design and childhood vaccination coverage

A major policy concern across public vaccination programs is non-compliance. Exploiting Danish population data and three national reforms in regression discontinuity designs, we document the effects of reminders for childhood vaccination coverage. Retrospective reminders are primarily effective for families with small children and when sent out close to the recommended vaccination age. Digital and postal reminders are equally effective. Prospective reminders increase timely vaccinations in later childhood and help reaching high coverage for new vaccines in increasingly complex vaccination programs. While reminders prompt additional preventive care for focal children, we find no spillovers to other health behaviors or relatives.

The impact of a long-term care information campaign on insurance coverage

I estimate the impact of an information campaign on long-term care planning behaviors. I identify this effect using the staggered timing of the federal-state "Own Your Future" campaign, which urged individuals to plan ahead for long-term care needs and reached 26 states over five years. I find the campaign increased long-term care insurance coverage for individuals in the top quintile of the asset distribution by four percentage points, or seventeen percent. A back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates Medicaid savings of $483 million in present value.

Direct and crowding-out effects of a Hepatitis B vaccination campaign

We evaluate the direct and spillover causal effects of a Hepatitis B (HB) vaccination campaign in French schools on the vaccination adherence of the targeted pupils. Using a regression discontinuity design, we show that this campaign created an exogenous shock on vaccination behavior, increasing the HB vaccination rate for children aged 11 and above. At the same time, we show a drop in the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination rate of the targeted pupils and an increase in the parental belief that measles is a benign disease. We interpret these results as a salience effect: the focus on HB vaccination leads to a decrease in the belief that other vaccines are as important. The effect on MMR vaccination was relatively unexpected and may imply a negative externality. Measles is an extremely contagious disease. If the vaccination rate falls, the disease will spread further, raising the question of the net effect of the HB vaccination campaign on the well-being of the population.

Consequences of a shortage and rationing: Evidence from a pediatric vaccine

Shortages and rationing are common in health care, yet we know little about the consequences. We examine an 18-month shortage of the pediatric Haemophilus Influenzae Type B (Hib) vaccine. Using insurance claims data and variation in shortage exposure across birth cohorts, we find that the shortage reduced uptake of high-value primary doses by 4 percentage points and low-value booster doses by 26 percentage points. This suggests providers largely complied with rationing recommendations. In the long-run, catch-up vaccination occurred but was incomplete: shortage-exposed cohorts were 4 percentage points less likely to have received the ir booster dose years later. We also find that the shortage and rationing caused provider switches, extra provider visits, and negative spillovers to other care.

How to reduce vaccination hesitancy? The relevance of evidence and its communicator

Even though the immediate urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic seems to have passed, many countries did not reach the vaccination rates they initially aimed for. The stagnation in vaccine uptake during the height of the pandemic presented policy makers with a challenge that remains unresolved and is paramount for future pandemics and other crises: How to convince the (often not insubstantial) unvaccinated proportion of the population of the benefits of a vaccination? Designing more successful communication strategies, both in retrospect and looking ahead, requires a differentiated understanding of the concerns of those that remain unvaccinated. Guided by the elaboration likelihood model, this paper has two objectives: First, it explores by means of a latent class analysis how unvaccinated individuals might be characterized by their attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination. Second, we investigate to what extent (i) varying types of evidence (none/anecdotal/statistical) can be employed by (ii) different types of communicators (scientists/politicians) to improve vaccination intentions across these subgroups. To address these questions, we conducted an original online survey experiment among 2145 unvaccinated respondents from Germany where a substantial population share remains unvaccinated. The results suggest three different subgroups, which differ regarding their openness towards a COVID-19 vaccination: Vaccination opponents (N = 1184), sceptics (N = 572) and those in principle receptive (N = 389) to be vaccinated. On average, neither the provision of statistical nor anecdotal evidence increased the persuasiveness of information regarding the efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine. However, scientists were, on average, more persuasive than politicians (relatively increase vaccination intentions by 0.184 standard deviations). With respect to heterogeneous treatment effects among the three subgroups, vaccination opponents seem largely unreachable, while sceptics value information by scientists, particularly if supported by anecdotal evidence (relatively increases intentions by 0.45 standard deviations). Receptives seem much more responsive to statistical evidence from politicians (relatively increases intentions by 0.38 standard deviations).