nos.nl
High Shingles Vaccine Cost Exacerbates Health Disparities in Aging Dutch Population
In the Netherlands, over 90,000 people contract shingles annually, resulting in significant pain and potential lifelong nerve damage; a preventative vaccine exists, but the high cost (nearly 400 euro) prevents many from accessing it, exacerbating health disparities among the aging population.
- What are the immediate health and economic impacts of the high cost of the Shingrix vaccine for shingles in the Netherlands?
- Over 90,000 people in the Netherlands experience shingles annually, a painful infection causing burning and itching, sometimes leading to lifelong nerve pain. The unvaccinated population faces a significant risk as the aging population increases the incidence of shingles.",
- How does the lack of government funding for the Shingrix vaccine contribute to rising healthcare costs and potential health disparities among the elderly?
- The Netherlands faces a growing health disparity among the elderly due to the rising incidence of shingles and the high cost of the preventative Shingrix vaccine. While the vaccine is effective, its nearly 400 euro price tag prevents many from accessing it, despite a 2019 recommendation from the Health Council to cover the cost for individuals over 60.
- What are the long-term societal implications of inaction regarding the high cost and low accessibility of the Shingrix vaccine in the Netherlands, considering demographic trends?
- The increasing number of elderly people in the Netherlands will exacerbate the shingles problem and related healthcare costs. The lack of government funding for the Shingrix vaccine increases the risk of chronic nerve pain, requiring expensive and often unavailable medications like anti-epileptics or even methadone. This could lead to a surge in healthcare costs, particularly as the 60+ population increases by 800,000 in the next 15 years.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing strongly emphasizes the human cost of not having the shingles vaccine covered, using emotionally charged language and personal stories to evoke sympathy and support for vaccination. The headline and introduction immediately highlight the suffering caused by shingles and the financial barrier to vaccination, setting a tone that prioritizes these aspects over other potential considerations.
Language Bias
The article uses emotionally charged language, such as "gekmakend brandend gevoel" (insane burning feeling), "chronische zenuwpijn" (chronic nerve pain), and descriptions of the pain as "ondraaglijke pijn" (unbearable pain). These terms are not necessarily biased, but they significantly amplify the negative aspects of shingles and lack a counterbalance.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the financial burden of the vaccine and the suffering of individuals with shingles, but it omits discussion of potential counterarguments to vaccination, such as possible side effects or the effectiveness of alternative treatments. While acknowledging the high cost of the vaccine, it doesn't explore potential cost-saving measures or alternative funding models.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the issue as a simple choice between the high cost of the vaccine and the suffering caused by shingles. It doesn't explore the complexities of healthcare budgeting, the potential for phased vaccine rollout, or other nuanced solutions.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the significant number of people affected by shingles (gordelroos) in the Netherlands, with the lack of affordable vaccination leading to preventable suffering and potential long-term health issues, including chronic nerve pain and even death. The high cost of the vaccine creates an inequitable access barrier, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations like the elderly.