Immunisation rates in Australia

This article examines the current rates of immunisation in Australia, the policies in place to increase these rates, and the effectiveness of government intervention in immunisation. It also explores how government subsidies can lead to socially efficient levels of immunisation. The article provides insights into the economic theory behind immunisation and discusses the impact of government policies such as 'No jab, no play' and 'No jab, no pay'.

Running head: Immunisation rates in Australia 1
Immunisation rates in Australia
Institution
Student
Date

Immunisation rates in Australia 2
Immunisation rates in Australia
Introduction
Immunisation is among the most effective and safest ways of stopping avoidable ailments from
spreading. In Australia, Immunisation is recommended from an early age for all kids. Having
their child immunized aids parents protect them from a broad range of severe diseases, some of
which can be fatal (Vann, Jacobson, Coyne‐Beasley, Asafu‐Adjei, & Szilagyi, 2018). This easy
will look at; the current rates of Immunisation in Australia, policies that are put in place to
increase these rates, a relevant economic theory to show how a policy that increases
Immunisation rates could result in a socially efficient level of Immunisation rates, government
Immunisation subsidies, and effectiveness of government intervention to Immunisation in
correcting marketing failure.
Body 1
Immunisation in Australia is among the leading vital public health interventions in the last 200
years, offering a secure and efficient way to avert the spread of various ailments that cause
hospitalization, severe continuing health conditions and at times death. Immunisation coverage
for children between the ages of 1-5 years old has since 2008 increased sharply. Though
Australia has not yet attained its inspirational target of 95%, it is close to it (Australian
Government Department of Health, 2018).
 Coverage rates for all 1 year olds is 94.02%
 Coverage rates for all 2 year olds is 90.63%
 Coverage rates for all 5 year olds is94.62%

Immunisation rates in Australia 3
Figure 1: immunization coverage rates
Currently, the Australian Government has initiated parenting payments and Centrelink payments
policy which is meant to provide financial aid to parents. There are different types of payments
covered under this policy such as Child Care Benefit, Child Care Rebate, and Family Tax
Benefit (Part A&B). In Child Care Benefit (CCB), government provides payments to children at
the age of 7 who have met Australian Immunisation requirements. Child Care Rebate (CCR), on
the other hand, is a non-means tested payment made by the government which aids working
families to meet the cost of child care specifically immunization. Family Tax Benefit is payment
made by the Australian Government to eligible parents as a subsidy cost of raising children, for
instance Immunisation (Taxpayers Australia Inc, 2014).
Body 2
Behavioral economic theory is an effective strategy of promoting immunization. Faced with
outbreaks of infections and other vaccine-preventable sicknesses; policymakers, parents,
educators, and health providers around the globe often intent to know how to persuade people to
get their immunizations (Roberto, & Kawachi, 2015). Specialists have proven that a policy that
focuses directly on shaping patient’s behavior instead of attempting to change his/her mind is
more effective in increasing Immunisation rates. Behavioral economic theory, in regards to
Immunisation asserts that it is easy to persuade people to get immunized or take their children for
this medication. The most effective Immunisation intervention policy employs behavioral
strategies to:
Facilitate action: By offering patients with prompts and reminders.
Reduce barriers: By setting non-payment appointments and orders
Shape behavior: By developing requirements, sanctions, and incentives.
With proper integration of behavioral economic theory as a lens for understanding the factors
that motivate vaccination, it will be easy for policymakers to attain socially efficient level of
Immunisation rates (Bloom, & Gullotta, 2018).
Government subsidies increase Immunisation rates to a socially efficient level in various ways.
They, for example, develop incentives for the development of new vaccines by giving producers
a reassurance of sufficient returns and pricing for those vaccines which bestow significant public
benefit (Anderson, et al, 2018). Subsidies also lessen the responsibility of government in buying
vaccines and circumvent impediments now associated with protracted contract negotiations,

Immunisation rates in Australia 4
eligibility standards, discount arrangements, discretionary funding cycles, and price caps. This
phenomenon can be illustrated using the following diagram:
Figure 2: Diagram of government subsidy on positive externality
Subsidy involves the government meeting a part of the cost of the vaccine manufacturer; this
decreases the price of the Immunisation and normally encourages more people to undergo it.
Subsidies shift the vaccines supply curve to the right and in this case it can easily be justified
since the commodity in question offers benefits to the rest of the society. Free market
equilibrium is at Q1 since S (supply) =D (demand). Society members maximize their welfare
where Private Marginal Benefit (PMB) is equivalent to Private Marginal Cost (PMC). However,
social efficiency takes place at Q2 (where social marginal benefit) SMB = (social marginal cost)
SMC), so, at the free market equilibrium, the SMB is greater than the SMC. Society will benefit
from growing output until Q2. To increase production and consumption of vaccines, the
government offers a subsidy to lessen the price and increase quantity.
 Government Subsidy = P0 (price0) - P2 (price2)

Immunisation rates in Australia 5
 The vaccines supply curve shifts to S2 as shown above and their price decreases from P1 to
P2
 People shall now be incentivized to take immunization; the quantity increases from Q1 to
Q2.
 The output (Q2) shown in the diagram above, is social efficient: since here Social marginal
cost (SMC) is equivalent to Social marginal benefit (SMB)
Body 3
Australian Government intervention through care benefit, child care rebate, and family tax
benefit is primarily meant to offer assistance for child care costs. They provide supplemental fee
aid which can make all the difference for a given family. The Child Care Benefit (CCB) is
governmental aid based on family income (in addition to a few other requirements), which is
paid directly to an individual’s approved child care centre (Li, Park, & Chen, 2016). The Child
Care Rebate (CCR) is a support that is not means tested and is paid directly to an individuals’
approved bank account or child care centre. Family Tax Benefit (FTB) is a program which aids
eligible parents with the cost of raising their children. It is made up of two parts: FTB Part A and
FTB Part. CCR, FTB, and CCB programs purpose to minimize a beneficiary’s out-of-pocket
expenditures for child Immunisation care (Field, 2012). Since these programs generally lower the
price incurred by families in meeting vaccination expenses, they help correct a market failure by
ensuring efficient distribution of Immunisation facilities in a free market. They incentivize
Australian families to portray rational behaviors in regards to Immunisation which in turn leads
to an efficient level of Immunisation in the community.
Australian Government has put in place two main policies that are meant to increase
Immunisation coverage rates namely, No jab, no play and No jab, no pay.
No jab, no play: This policy requires all children to be well immunized and “up-to-date” with
their vaccines for their age at the time of enrolment into kindergarten or childcare. In case
children are not up-to-date, their parents are required to avail proof of commencing a catch-up
vaccination schedule in order to be allowed to enroll into childcare and kindergarten (Beard,
Leask, & McIntyre, 2017).

Immunisation rates in Australia 6
Figure 3: Immunisation rates for Australia 5 year olds
After the inception of this policy in 1st July 2016, vaccination rates increased with a significant
rate but remained constant just below 95%. In the long run, this policy is expected to act as an
encouragement by incentivizing parents to take their children for vaccination in fear of being
blacklisted in enrolling their kids to kindergartens or childcares. As opposed to financial
immunisation incentives, No jab, no play has really encouraged parents to conform to
vaccination requirements. Since the commencement of this policy, the vaccination rate for 1-
year-old babies went up by approximately one percentage point, to 93.6%. However, despite the
effectiveness of this legislator, even after its introduction 134,372 children still were not caught
up in their immunizations — and their parents had their government benefits decreased. This
scenario implies that No jab, no play as a vaccination boosting scheme still is not effective to its
anticipated limits.

Immunisation rates in Australia 7
No jab, no pay: According to this policy, parents of children who have attained the age of 19
years and are not fully immunized shall not be eligible for Family Tax Benefit A., Child Care
Rebate, or Child Care Benefit. Just like No jab, no play, No jab, no pay allows parents whose
children have medical reasons not to be immunized or are already invulnerable to particular
ailments to claim an exemption. It also asserts that failing to have a child vaccinated or having a
“conscientious objection” are by no chance accepted as suitable reasons. No jab, no pay is
expected to increase immunisation coverage rates with higher significant margins (Yang, &
Studdert, 2017). It will help the government substantially since it is targeting almost every parent
who intends to be a beneficiary of the aforementioned programs. However, this policy has a
serious ethical sting. The arrangement to hold back payments of child-care and family tax
benefits for unimmunized children could cost dissenting parents about A$15,000 yearly. Looking
at it from a critical perspective, it is worthwhile arguing that it is unethical to punish parents for
what is supposed to be a personal decision based on concern for their children. Parents are of
course apprehensive for their kids. Whilst some of their worries might be groundless, not all
vaccines are 100% secure; whereas uncommon, childhood immunizations can lead to febrile
seizures. In short, “no jab, no pay” legislature has detriments afar the physical because it might
unjustly refute funds to parents who are already suffering from destitution and lack of money.
Conclusion
In Australia, children continue to die from vaccine preventable sicknesses. Some of their parents
deliberately fail to vaccinate them for various reasons including not trusting vaccines or the
system that delivers them, having specific concerns about vaccines, having difficulty actually
accessing vaccines or a vaccination program, or feeling that the risks of the vaccine seem higher
than the risk of the diseases. As a result, over the past years, Immunisation coverage rates have
remained steady at around 93%. For Australia to reach its inspirational target of 95% there is the
need to create awareness among the community that immunizations function properly and it is an
effective and safe way of protecting children against ailments which can lead to serious illness or
even death.

Immunisation rates in Australia 8
References
Anderson, L. J., Shekelle, P., Keeler, E., Uscher-Pines, L., Shanman, R., Morton, S., ... &
Nuckols, T. K. (2018). The Cost of Interventions to Increase Influenza Vaccination: A
Systematic Review. American journal of preventive medicine, 54(2), 299-315.
Australian Government Department of Health, 2018. Immunisation coverage rates for all
children. National coverage rates. Retrieved from: https://beta.health.gov.au/health-
topics/immunisation/childhood-immunisation-coverage/immunisation-coverage-rates-for-
all-children
Beard, F. H., Leask, J., & McIntyre, P. B. (2017). No jab, no pay and vaccine refusal in
Australia: the jury is out. Medical Journal of Australia, 206(9), 381-383.
Bloom, M., & Gullotta, T. P. (2018). Primary prevention in adolescent substance abuse.
In Adolescent Substance Abuse(pp. 277-292). Springer, Cham.
Field, N. (2012). Investing in Your Child's Future: Financial Planning for Your Child's
Education. Milton, QLD : John Wiley & Sons Australia, Limited.
Li, H., Park, E., & Chen, J. J. (Eds.). (2016). Early childhood education policies in Asia Pacific:
Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 35). Springer.
Roberto, C. A., & Kawachi, I. (Eds.). (2015). Behavioral economics and public health. Oxford
University Press.
Taxpayers Australia Inc, 2014. Taxpayers' Guide. (2014). Milton: Wrightbooks.
Vann, J. C. J., Jacobson, R. M., Coyne‐Beasley, T., Asafu‐Adjei, J. K., & Szilagyi, P. G. (2018).
Patient reminder and recall interventions to improve Immunisationrates. Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews, (1).
Yang, Y. T., & Studdert, D. M. (2017). Linking Immunisationstatus and eligibility for welfare
and benefits payments: The Australian “No Jab, No Pay” Legislation. Jama, 317(8), 803-
804.