No Jab, No Pay Policy Analysis

This assignment delves into the 'No Jab, No Pay' policy implemented in Australia. It requires a critical analysis of the policy's effectiveness in increasing vaccination rates, its potential limitations, and the social and ethical implications associated with it. The report should explore both the positive and negative consequences of the policy on individuals and society.

Running head: PUBLIC HEALTH POLICIES
PUBLIC HEALTH POLICIES
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Authors note:

1PUBLIC HEALTH POLICIES
Executive Summary
This report will give a critical review on the health policy, i.e. ‘No Jab No Pay’, which was
announced by the government in 2015 in order to close some of the exclusion from the
immunization requirement for eligibility. This report will critically review this policy and will
provide with a brief summary and further it will identify and mention the issues that policy is
facing and what kind of solution it requires, and how has the policy addressed the issues and
what are the benefits or the limitations that the policy has.

2PUBLIC HEALTH POLICIES
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
No Jab No Pay Policy (Summary)...................................................................................................3
Purpose of this Policy......................................................................................................................4
Importance of this Policy as pet the Government............................................................................4
Critical Evaluation...........................................................................................................................4
Limitation and Benefits...................................................................................................................6
Threat of this Policy.........................................................................................................................6
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................7
References:......................................................................................................................................8

3PUBLIC HEALTH POLICIES
Introduction
This report identifies and deals with the policy ‘No Jab No Pay’ this policy is a Social
Services Legislation Amendment Act of 2015, this legislation was passed 2015 November and
was started from January 1st 2016. This policy will be further explained thoroughly and will
show its negative and positive points. This report will also identify its solution. It will give a
critical overview on the subject and will address the issues that the policy has, it will also provide
with its benefits and limitations that the policy or for that matter the government has faced while
implementing this policy (Yang & Studdert, 2017). It will also critically show the importance of
the issue.
No Jab No Pay Policy (Summary)
This policy was announced by the government on April 2015 and was passed in
November 2015. This Act removes the right of the parents to be both conscientious and religious
objectors of vaccination in order to get certain refund or benefits. The motive of this legislation
is for those parents on time not following the Australian Childhood Immunization Schedule
which will not be able to claim for any child care or subsidies. In addition, currently eligible
family for The Family Tax Benefit Supplement Part A will lose that too. The recognition of
medical exemption that will hardly accessible for the parents, and evidence that the respective
child has constricted one of the subsequently vaccine-preventable illnesses with respect to the
diseases (Leask, & Danchin, 2017). This new law provides for a 63 days grace period in which
people have to begin a catch up program before the benefits are invalidated. The 63 days grace
period begins from the notice providing date by the department that the child is not eligible for
meeting the vaccination requirement.

4PUBLIC HEALTH POLICIES
Purpose of this Policy
The Government has selected this policy to make sure that every individual vaccines
against rubella, measles, mumps which are inaccessible, so that even the natural immunity will
be disable an exclusion unless the child has the immunity to all of the diseased which a combine
targets of Schedule vaccine. The requirement of this vaccination depends on the age of the child
and it also includes vaccines of most early childhood on the National Immunization Program.
The two legislative instruments list this requirement, i.e. Child Care Benefit (Education) 2015
and Family Assistance (Vaccination Schedules) 2015.
Importance of this Policy as pet the Government
According to the education minister, Simon Birmngham, the policy was actively working; he
said that they have seen 24% reduction in the conscientious objectors’ numbers around Australia.
There are 9,500 fewer conscientious objectors. The Government claims that vaccination rate of
Australia is currently much higher compare to any other time. The claim of the government is
that this legislation will increase the Australian vaccination rates to a certain extent in which
vaccines will wipe out the diseases, which is a controversial hypothesis known as “herd
immunity” (Beard, Leask & McIntyre, 2017).
Critical Evaluation
Immunization in Australia is not compulsory and it does not need to be contentious. The
majority Australians recognize the unbelievable benefits that vaccination which offers to prevent
stern disease, it has elevated and steady coverage rate of approximately 93%. The childhood
immunization to the 95% objective rate would be still better, giving more individual protection.
However according to the suggestion of the youth and child benefit payments are more

5PUBLIC HEALTH POLICIES
restricted. In order to have an improving vaccine uptake, having an up to date immunization is
not the answer. Moreover most of the parents who have vaccinated their children require more
support in order to guard their child. It is apparent from the research that there are two groups
which divides the parents of the 7% incompletely vaccinated children. (Ishola, 2013).
The Coalition of the government’s proposed “no jab, no pay” policy which might bring in
eagerness into politics. Howevre, policies mandating the vaccination are ethically very precious.
Therefore, the plan for withholding the payments for family tax benefits and child care could
cost non- acquiescent parents up to $15,000 per year (Taylor, Gray & Stanton, 2016). However
the question is that whether it is ethical to punish parents on something which should be an
individual’s decision and especially which depends on the concern for their kids, as it takes an
emotional toll on the parents. This policy also reveals that only wealthy parents are twice as
likely to oppose vaccination as other parents (Fielding, Bolam & Danchin, 2017). However, not
only the exemptions are removed by this measure, but also requirements for including children
of all ages is extended, currently, for the FTB- A supplement and the children qualifying the
measure have to meet the relevancy of the requirements of the vaccination schedule for the
financial year of their age turning one, two or five years old. The Act appeals to motivates
medical practitioners to engage in serious conflict of interest; violate a several provisions of anti-
discrimination law; penalizes practitioners who; in good conscience and upon the basis of
evidence, which cannot recommend carrying out of the vaccination upon specific children; and
provides support for certain marketing products already considered to be unsuitable for the
desired purpose (Paxton, 2016). Unluckily, these scheme enhancements have been characterized
by the medium as “no jab, no play” that unimmunized children do not have the right to attend
childcare (Beard et al, 2016). In order to protect those unimmunized children are obligated for

6PUBLIC HEALTH POLICIES
staying at home from childcare in a weekly basis in the case of a vaccine-preventable disease
outburst, like cough or measles. This is a financial and realistic warning for parents who do not
vaccinate their respective children.
Limitation and Benefits
The Budget measure of this policy measure is mainly targeted at the conscientious objectors but
will affect those receiving child care subsidies and also those not having up to date vaccination
record of their children (Anderson & Thornley, 2014). There are few parents who refuse
vaccinating their children out of a concern of potential harm outweighing the benefits of the sme,
just because of philosophical or moral belief and have shown failure in keeping up to date with
the vaccination schedule as a result of the practical difficulties to access the required and
intended services. It has seen in a survey of Western Australia families with children having no
vaccinations recorded on the ACIR, it has been found to be most common. This policy has
improved the condition of the people to a certain extent. Children should be fully immunized, by
catching up this undergoing program of vaccination will benefit them in a long term program.
Vaccination objection is not a valid freedom, children can be refused enrolment and in fact this
enrolment can be cancelled if this immunization requirement is not met. Nevertheless these
childcare services will require an immunization history statement for enrolment.
Threat of this Policy
The threat of this policy according to the government is thee axing of childcare payments
for the parents failing to immunize their children has apparently increased vaccination rates, as

7PUBLIC HEALTH POLICIES
the fast approaches of cut-off date. There are Parents who marks themselves as the
‘conscientious objectors’ to the vaccination will be unable accessing the childcare benefit, the
childcare refund and the family tax benefit. As Chirstian Porter said “If you have not had your
child immunized or not entered into an arrangement for catch-ups, you will be accruing a debt
which will have to be paid back” However the government is aspiring for a 95% immunity rate.
According to (Fisher, 2013) the removing of welfare payments or childcare refunds will
affect to those, who does not completely immunize their children and is needlessly penalizing
and could have a lot of negative impact. On other hand, according to (Corben & Leask, 2016)
these dealings are not likely to manipulate the completely dedicated to that position. This policy
has various strategies which has helped to add to the chance to vaccinate are the most effective.
It also improves the access, affordability and alertness which boosts up the coverage rates by 3 to
5%. The research shows that maintaining the openness and the by gaining the trust of the people,
especially parents to make them feel comfortable. This policy will help the parents to alter their
place over the time and a quantity of listed vaccine agenda but then stopping the vaccinating or
prolong to selectively vaccine. There are some evidence objectors who fully go on to vaccinate
their children. Parent who were a bit hesitant about the vaccine, they engage themselves with
well qualifies health professionals taking time to address immunization concerns is essential to
help them wade through the challenges of that propaganda.
Conclusion
This report has helped to understand the essence and importance of this policy and the
limitation and issues of this policy. This report has given a critical review on all the aspect of this
policy and how “No jab no pay” has affected the society and how much does it spread both

8PUBLIC HEALTH POLICIES
positivity and negativity in the society. The report has gone walked through every nooks and
corner of this policy and also have brought out the few important points.

9PUBLIC HEALTH POLICIES
References:
Anderson, C., & Thornley, T. (2014). “It’s easier in pharmacy”: why some patients prefer to pay
for flu jabs rather than use the National Health Service. BMC health services
research, 14(1), 35.
Beard, F. H., Hull, B. P., Leask, J., Dey, A., & McIntyre, P. B. (2016). Trends and patterns in
vaccination objection, Australia, 2002–2013. The Medical Journal of Australia, 204(7),
275.
Beard, F. H., Leask, J., & McIntyre, P. B. (2017). No Jab, No Pay and vaccine refusal in
Australia: the jury is out. The Medical Journal of Australia, 206(9), 381-383.
Corben, P., & Leask, J. (2016). To close the childhood immunization gap, we need a richer
understanding of parents' decision-making. Human vaccines &
immunotherapeutics, 12(12), 3168-3176.
Fielding, J. E., Bolam, B., & Danchin, M. H. (2017). Immunisation coverage and socioeconomic
status–questioning inequity in the ‘No Jab, No Pay’policy. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Public Health.
Fisher, B. L. (2013). Vaccination During Pregnancy: Is It Safe. NVIC Newsletter.
Ishola Jr, D. A., Permalloo, N., Cordery, R. J., & Anderson, S. R. (2013). Midwives' influenza
vaccine uptake and their views on vaccination of pregnant women. Journal of Public
Health, 35(4), 570-577.

10PUBLIC HEALTH POLICIES
Jab, N., Pay, N., & Way, N (2014). Can the Government force injections it admits can KILL?
NO WAY!.
Leask, J., & Danchin, M. (2017). Imposing penalties for vaccine rejection requires strong
scrutiny. Journal of paediatrics and child health, 53(5), 439-444.
Paxton, G. A., Tyrrell, L., Oldfield, S. B., Kiang, K., & Danchin, M. H. (2016). No Jab, No Pay
—no planning for migrant children. Med. J. Aust, 205, 296-8.
Taylor, D. R., Gray, M., & Stanton, D. (2016). New conditionality in Australian social security
policy. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 51(1), 3-26.
Yang, Y. T., & Studdert, D. M. (2017). Linking Immunization Status and Eligibility for Welfare
and Benefits Payments: The Australian “No Jab, No Pay” Legislation. Jama, 317(8), 803-
804.