The Second Appellate District’s Court of Appeal upheld the California law that removed California’s Personal Belief Exemption (PBE) from school immunization requirements earlier this month.
The decision is a strong endorsement of immunization mandates and is binding on all state courts until another appellate decision is handed down, or the Supreme Court of California addresses the question.
On June 28, the State of New York Court of Appeals upheld a New York City Board of Health requirement that children between the ages of 6 months and 5 years old attending city-regulated child care or school-based programs receive flu vaccinations.
While New York City is no stranger to progressive public health initiatives, this ruling in particular is significant on at least two accounts. First, it strengthens New York City’s ability to confer the public health benefits of flu vaccination to a wider segment of the adolescent population, consistent with current recommendations. Second, it stands as a reminder of the important role that local health authorities, like boards of health, can play in improving population health, if granted sufficient authority under state law.
Last year Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) refused free vaccinations for pneumonia from Pfizer, who had offered the medicines as a corporate donation to the humanitarian organisation. The explanation MSF provided (available here) makes for an interesting, if uncomfortable read. Looming large is the lengthy history of negotiations between MSF with the only manufacturers of the vaccine, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. MSF claim that the only sustainable solution to a disease that claims the lives of almost a million children each year is an overall reduction in the cost of the vaccine, and not one-off donations that come with restrictions on where MSF may use the medicines, and a constant power disparity between the parties, where Pfizer may release the medication on their own timeline, and revoke access as they see fit.
It’s a rainy day on the East Coast; what better way to get through the damp than four new legal epidemiology articles? Our colleagues have published papers examining vaccine policies, telehealth reimbursement policies, scope of practice laws for health care providers, and the field of legal epidemiology as a whole:
Since the 1990s, there has been a growing movement to improve access to immunization services by giving pharmacists the authority to administer vaccines.
The newest map on LawAtlas.org explores state laws from 1990 to 2016 that give pharmacists authority to administer vaccines and establish requirements for third-party vaccination authorization, patient age restrictions, and specific vaccination practice requirements, such as training, reporting, record-keeping, notification, malpractice insurance, and emergency exceptions.
As of January 1, 2016:
Pharmacists were explicitly authorized to administer vaccines in 46 states and the District of Columbia.
Thirteen states and the District of Columbia permit exceptions to vaccination requirements for emergencies or epidemics.
Ten states grant pharmacists prescriptive authority to administer vaccines (i.e., pharmacists can vaccinate without a third-party authorization).
The dataset was created by Cason Schmit, JD, Research Assistant Professor, Texas A&M University, and Allison Reddick, JD, MPH, Associate Attorney at Hill & Ponton, PA.
Whether it is Ebola, H1N1, the season flu, or the next nasty bug that we cannot yet even imagine, if we wanted to efficiently spread the disease, one could not do much better than packing several hundred people into a cylinder for a few hours, while they eat, drink, defecate, and urinate. Even more, to make sure that the disease cannot be contained in a particular locality, we could build thousands of those cylinders and move them rapidly from one place to another worldwide, remix the people, and put them back in the cylinders for return trips back to their homes, schools, and jobs.
We are (hopefully) not going to stop airline travel. But we can make it a lot safer, by ensuring that almost everyone who boards these flights is vaccinated. That’s the thesis of a new paper out this week.
Airlines carry two million people every day. And, prior research has shown that airline travel is a vector of disease. In fact, when the September 11 attacks caused airline travel to fall, seasonal flu diagnoses fell too.
The threat of pandemics is quite real, and more generally, the mortality and morbidity associated with infectious disease is a severe public health burden. About 42,000 adults and 300 children die every year from vaccine-preventable disease. New vaccines are on the horizon.
Arguably, airlines have market-based and liability-based reasons to begin screening passengers, whether for vaccinations generally or for particular ones during an outbreak. Although the states have traditionally exercised the plenary power to mandate vaccinations, and have primarily focused on children in schools, the U.S. federal government also has substantial untapped power to regulate in this domain as well.
As flu season begins, we are bombarded by ubiquitous reminders to get our flu shot. So, it is a good opportunity to reflect on how we provide vaccines to our fellow citizens 65 and older. By law, Medicare Part B covers 4 preventive vaccines (flu, two pneumococcal, and hepatitis B for medium-to high-risk patients). Part D picks up the rest, namely shingles, TDaP, and any other commercially available vaccine. But, that’s where the trouble begins.
This week, the Supreme Court appropriately declined to hear an appeal of a 2nd Circuit decision upholding the right of the state to require vaccination as a condition of enrollment in public schools, and to exclude exempted children from attending school during an infectious disease outbreak.
Under the Constitution, states have police power to protect the public’s health, welfare, and safety. A long-standing use of this authority is to protect communities from risks related to vaccine-preventable illnesses. In addition, when an infectious-disease outbreak occurs, states may use their police power to interrupt further transmission of the disease by restricting the movement of individuals. All states have incorporated this concept of social distancing into their school immunization laws. Schools can prohibit an unvaccinated child, who is more susceptible to acquiring highly infectious vaccine-preventable illness and more likely to become a carrier and vector for it, from coming to school until the danger subsides. Such measures, coupled with ready availability of vaccines, reduce the potential spread of serious disease in a vulnerable and tightly packed community. Read More
I’ve started writing for Forbes as a regular contributor. My first piece, Carly Fiorina Says Her Views On Vaccines Are Unremarkable; For Better Or Worse, She’s Right, analyzes GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina’s recent ad hoc remarks on the relative rights of parents and schools with respect to vaccinations and to some of the hyperbolic reactions to those remarks. Fiorina’s remarks are ambiguous, in ways that I discuss. But, as the title of the article suggests, and for better or worse, I think that the best interpretation of them places her stance squarely in the mainstream of current U.S. vaccination law. I end with a call for minimally charitable interpretations of others’ views, especially on contentious issues like vaccination.