Improving accountability in vaccine decision-making

Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review

Due to constraints on institutional capacity and financial resources, the road to universal health coverage (UHC) involves difficult policy choices. To assist with these choices, scholars and policy makers have done extensive work on criteria to assess the substantive fairness of health financing policies: their impact on the distribution of rights, duties, benefits and burdens on the path towards UHC. However, less attention has been paid to the procedural fairness of health financing decisions. The Accountability for Reasonableness Framework (A4R), which is widely applied to assess procedural fairness, has primarily been used in priority-setting for purchasing decisions, with revenue mobilization and pooling receiving limited attention. Furthermore, the sufficiency of the A4R framework's four criteria (publicity, relevance, revisions and appeals, and enforcement) has been questioned. Moreover, research in political theory and public administration (including deliberative democracy), public finance, environmental management, psychology, and health financing has examined the key features of procedural fairness, but these insights have not been synthesized into a comprehensive set of criteria for fair decision-making processes in health financing. A systematic study of how these criteria have been applied in decision-making situations related to health financing and in other areas is also lacking. This paper addresses these gaps through a scoping review. It argues that the literature across many disciplines can be synthesized into 10 core criteria with common philosophical foundations. These go beyond A4R and encompass equality, impartiality, consistency over time, reason-giving, transparency, accuracy of information, participation, inclusiveness, revisability and enforcement. These criteria can be used to evaluate and guide decision-making processes for financing UHC across different country income levels and health financing arrangements. The review also presents examples of how these criteria have been applied to decisions in health financing and other sectors.

Left-Right-Position, party affiliation and regional differences explain low COVID-19 vaccination rates in Germany

Established vaccine hesitancy measurement instruments, such as the Vaccine Hesitancy Determinants Matrix, are not sufficiently equipped to adequately and consistently measure political and ideological attitudes. Focusing on Germany, which is a particularly interesting case since it witnessed the establishment of the by far most well-organized and sustained 'anti-Covid' movement in Europe, this quantitative study explores the impact of political ideology and partisanship on the degree of vaccine hesitancy based on four surveys (February-October 2021) among more than 30,000 individuals. We demonstrate that party affiliation, political ideology and region of residence all impact vaccine hesitancy. In fact, they turn out to have a greater impact than two factors often analysed with respect to vaccine hesitancy: gender and educational background. Further interaction models show that the effect of political ideology on vaccine hesitancy is moderated by age, gender and region of residency. For instance, while the more rightwing a young individual is, the more hesitant they are towards SARS-CoV-2 vaccination-for older individuals, this is not the case. Our findings are relevant for future investigators measuring vaccine hesitancy and policy makers contemplating the differential impact of complex public health interventions: as the impact of political and ideological attitudes on vaccine hesitancy are not adequately captured by established vaccine hesitancy measurement instruments, we recommend its modification to include a clear and harmonised definition of the political-ideological dimension of vaccine hesitancy together with pre-validated measurement items that improve future studies. In addition, we reason that vaccine hesitancy, while being an outcome of complex socio-political factors, is in itself an indicator for societal cohesion and anomie, the degree of which is associated with trust in (health) policy makers, (public) health authorities, health service providers, etc. Therefore, we further recommend that vaccine hesitancy questions should be integrated in pertinent national surveys.

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.

Priority setting of vaccine introduction in Bangladesh: a multicriteria decision analysis study

OBJECTIVE

To prioritise vaccines for introduction in Bangladesh.

METHODS

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) process was used to prioritise potential vaccines for introduction in Bangladesh. A set of criteria were identified, weighted and assigned scores by relevant stakeholders (n=14) during workshop A. The performance matrix of the data of vaccines against the criteria set was constructed and validated with the experts (n=6) in workshop B. The vaccines were ranked and appraised by another group of stakeholders (n=10) in workshop C, and the final workshop D involved the dissemination of the findings to decision-makers (n=28).

RESULTS

Five criteria including incidence rate, case fatality rate, vaccine efficacy, size of the population at risk and type of population at risk were used quantitatively to evaluate and to score the vaccines. Two other criteria, cost-effectiveness and outbreak potentiality, were considered qualitatively. On deliberation, the Japanese encephalitis (JE) vaccine was ranked top to be recommended for introduction in Bangladesh.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the MCDA results, JE vaccine is planned to be recommended to the decision-makers for introduction into the national vaccine benefit package. The policymakers support the use of systematic evidence-based decision-making processes such as MCDA for vaccine introduction in Bangladesh, and to prioritise health interventions in the country.

Recommendations to drive a value-based decision-making on vaccination

INTRODUCTION

Health systems worldwide need to pay attention to both sustainability and quality. The explosion of health technologies represents a challenge for health systems' sustainability, and evidence-based tools should support resources allocation to guarantee a continuous quality improvement. The value-based approach could disentangle the full benefit of a health technology, and this is of utmost importance in the vaccination field because of several obstacles still existing in reaching optimal vaccination uptake.

AREAS COVERED

The paper conveys the evidence on the full value of vaccine(s)/vaccination based on the framework suggested by the Expert Panel on Effective Ways of Investing in Health of the European Commission. Indeed, evidence on the personal, technical, allocative, and societal value of vaccine(s)/vaccination published in the last decade was described as foundation of a following consultation with international experts of the field. The result was the issuing of recommendations for research, decision-making, and public engagement that aimed to drive a value-based decision-making on vaccination.

EXPERT OPINION

The development of vaccination programs based on the recognition of the full value of vaccine(s)/vaccination is essential. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to launch intersectoral and multidisciplinary research and implementation initiatives involving all relevant stakeholders.

Multi-criteria decision analysis to prioritize the introduction of new vaccines in Indonesia by using the framework of the strategic multi-attribute ranking tool for vaccines (SMART vaccines)

Background: Decision-making processes regarding new vaccine prioritizations are complex. The objective of this study was to prioritize the introduction of new vaccines in Indonesia.Methods: A multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was applied in this study. A preliminary data collection form was developed to collect country-specific data in relation to 30 pre-defined attributes. In particular, an open-ended questionnaire was conducted among targeted respondents from global level, national level and vaccine manufacturers, which were involved in the financial flows of new vaccine procurement in Indonesia. For setting new vaccines priorities, targeted respondents were asked to assign weight on 10 selected criteria.Results: Top 3 attributes with the highest weight from respondents were premature deaths averted per year, incident cases prevented per year, and cost-effectiveness. Applying criteria scores and weight assessment, the result showed that PCV, rotavirus, HPV, and JE would be on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rank for setting new vaccine priority in Indonesia. There was a significant difference score (p value <0.05) between all these vaccines.Conclusions: PCV, rotavirus and HPV vaccines should be more prioritized than JE vaccine. This ranking is in line with the WHO's priority list, which potentially illustrates the validity and usefulness of our MCDA-approach.

Pathway towards an ideal and sustainable framework agreement for the public procurement of vaccines in Spain: a multi-criteria decision analysis

Objective: To advance the development of an ideal and sustainable framework agreement for the public procurement of vaccines in Spain, and to agree on the desirable award criteria and their relative weight. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee of seven health-care professionals and managers developed a partial multi-criteria decision analysis to determine the award criteria that should be considered and their specific weights for the public procurement of routine vaccines and seasonal influenza vaccines, considering their legal viability. A re-test of the results was carried out. The current situation was analyzed through 118 tender specifications and compared to the ideal framework. Results: Price is the prevailing award criterion for the public procurement of both routine (weighting of 60% versus 40% for all other criteria) and influenza (36% versus 64%) vaccines. Ideally, 22 criteria should be considered for routine vaccines, grouped and weighted into five domains: efficacy (weighting of 29%), economic aspects (27%), vaccine characteristics (22%), presentation form and packaging (13%), and others (9%). Per criteria set, price was the most important criterion (22%), followed by effectiveness (9%), and composition/formulation (7%). Regarding influenza vaccines, 20 criteria were selected, grouped, and weighted: efficacy (29%), economic aspects (25%), vaccine characteristics (20%), presentation form and packaging (16%), and others (11%). Per criteria set, price was also the most relevant criterion (19%), followed by composition/formulation (8%), and effectiveness (8%). Conclusions: Contrary to the current approach, technical award criteria should prevail over economic criteria in an ideal and sustainable framework agreement for the public procurement of vaccines.

Costs of Invasive Meningococcal Disease: A Global Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Invasive meningococcal disease remains a public health concern because of its rapid onset and significant risk of death and long-term disability. New meningococcal serogroup B and combination serogroup ACWY vaccines are being considered for publicly funded immunization programs in many countries. Contemporary costing data associated with invasive meningococcal disease are required to inform cost-effectiveness analyses.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate costs and resource utilization associated with acute infection and the long-term care of invasive meningococcal disease.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, health economic databases, and electronically available conference abstracts were searched. Studies reporting any costs associated with acute infection and long-term sequelae of invasive meningococcal disease in English were included. All costs were converted into purchasing power parity-adjusted estimates [international dollars (I$)] using the Campbell and Cochrane Economics Methods Group and the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre cost converter.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies met our eligibility criteria and were included. The mean costs of acute admission ranged from I$1629 to I$50,796, with an incremental cost of I$16,378. The mean length of hospital stay was reported to be 6-18 days in multiple studies. The average costs reported for readmissions ranged from I$7905 to I$15,908. Key variables such as the presence of sequelae were associated with higher hospitalization costs and longer inpatient stay. No studies estimated direct non-healthcare costs and productivity loss. Ten studies reported only unadjusted mean values without using appropriate statistical methods for adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

Invasive meningococcal disease can result in substantial costs to healthcare systems. However, costing data on long-term follow-up and indirect costs used to populate health economic models are lacking.