sante.lefigaro.fr
High Cost of Shingles Vaccine in France Sparks Debate
France's decision to include the Shingrix vaccine in its vaccination program for those over 65 is debated due to its high cost (€6 billion over five years) despite high efficacy (79% against shingles, 87% against chronic pain) and the fact that those over 65 account for 72% of hospitalizations related to shingles.
- How does the cost-effectiveness of the Shingrix vaccine compare to other preventative healthcare measures in France?
- The debate centers on the cost-effectiveness of vaccinating 16 million people aged 65 and over, at €320 per two-dose treatment. While the vaccine is highly effective, studies show it requires vaccinating 34 people to prevent one case of shingles and 293 to prevent one case of post-herpetic neuralgia.
- What is the primary concern regarding France's decision to widely administer the Shingrix vaccine to its senior population?
- France recently included the Shingrix vaccine in its vaccination schedule. This highly effective vaccine against shingles (zona) boasts 79% efficacy against the disease and 87% against resulting chronic pain. However, its widespread use among seniors is debated due to cost.
- What are the long-term economic and public health implications of France's decision to include the Shingrix vaccine in its national vaccination program?
- The French healthcare system faces a €6 billion, five-year cost if all eligible seniors receive the vaccine. This raises concerns about resource allocation, especially given existing budgetary constraints within the healthcare system. Further research into long-term cost-benefit analysis is needed to justify the vaccine's large-scale deployment.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the debate by initially highlighting concerns about the cost of mass vaccination. This upfront focus on cost might influence readers to view the vaccination program negatively before considering the benefits. The inclusion of quotes from those questioning the program's cost, before presenting those supporting it, creates a negative bias in the initial framing.
Language Bias
The article uses language that could subtly influence the reader's perception. For example, describing the cost as something that could "make budgets cough" uses emotive language. The use of phrases such as "real efficiency" and "quite modest benefit" in reference to the vaccine's effectiveness might undermine its positive attributes. Neutral alternatives could include "high effectiveness" and "moderate benefit in the general population.
Bias by Omission
The article presents arguments for and against mass vaccination for shingles, but omits discussion of potential long-term cost savings from reduced hospitalizations and long-term care needs due to shingles complications. It also doesn't explore alternative cost-saving strategies, such as targeted vaccination of high-risk individuals within the senior population, rather than a blanket approach. The article mentions the cost of the vaccine but doesn't detail the economic burden of treating shingles complications.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate as a simple eitheor choice: either mass vaccination or not. It overlooks the possibility of intermediate strategies, such as prioritizing vaccination for high-risk individuals or implementing more cost-effective vaccination programs. The debate is presented as solely about cost versus efficacy, while the long-term health and economic consequences are not fully explored.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the French government