A smallpox vaccine against smallpox would save money, but not 65-year-olds would be offered gravel vaccines. These are examples of findings in the University of Gothenburg’s dissertation examining the cost-effectiveness of Sweden’s national immunization programs.
It is clear that the case of the contemporary vaccine is now that a pandemic has begun. The dissertation now on display at the Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, does not cover vaccination against COVID-19. But author Ellen Wolff, a health economist at the Swedish Public Health Organization, reflects on the current situation.
It has become clear that the development of a new vaccine can be rapid. But newer vaccines tend to cost more per dose than those already established on the market. “
Ellen Wolff, Health Economist, Swedish Public Health Organization
In general, vaccination is one of the key instruments in public health policy. Many diseases that caused major disease worries and premature death were largely eradicated. Vaccination has a direct effect on the recipient, and also helps protect others in the community by reducing the spread of infection.
But the introduction of vaccines in national programs requires economic priority. While demand for healthcare is limitless, resources in the form of labor, equipment and assets in the care sector are limited.
A cost-effectiveness study of vaccine programs compares the health effects and costs of two or more other programs, on the one hand, without providing vaccines on the other. The results are commonly presented in terms of cost per year of quality-adjusted life (QALY), an indicator that combines long-term effects related to health and quality of life. The analysis includes not only costs such as vaccine doses, but also the cost of care.
Already during her doctoral studies, Ellen Wolff’s research provided experience that has influenced Sweden’s national immunization programs. These include the now sexually neutral vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV), which has been affecting boys as well as girls since the fall of 2020 .This vaccine protects against not only breast cancer, but also types of cancer that affect all sexes.
In addition, she has studied the cost-effectiveness of various vaccination strategies for protecting babies from whooping cough (pertussis). The most cost-effective strategy was to vaccinate babies at the right time – ages 3, 5, and 12 months – without delay. Vaccination of pregnant women, or parents or guardians of newborn babies (“Congo strategy”) was less cost-effective.
In another study that was part of Wolff’s dissertation, she examined the cost-effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccination for 65- and 75-year-olds. The findings show that giving these vaccines to 65-year-olds is not cost-effective, and a 75-year-old vaccine may be.
The smallpox vaccine for varicella is not yet included in the Swedish public vaccination program for children. However, according to the dissertation this step would be cost effective and even cost saving. On the other hand, vaccinating 65-year-olds against shingles (herpes zoster), which can affect people who have contracted smallpox at some point, is not gaining cost-effectiveness. .
When asked, in a questionnaire study in the dissertation, did they think that society should spend more resources on implementing immunization programs or treating disease once and for all? has risen, respondents clearly gave a clear priority to prevention. There were more than 1,900 of these respondents, based on a representative sample of the Swedish population.
“Preventive measures such as vaccines may include heavy consumption in the present, while the health effects arise in the future. So it may be difficult to take it. decision – makers should prioritize prevention, over treatment of diseases that have already emerged, “Ellen Wolff concludes.