IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v92y2009i2-3p288-295.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Drugs, sex, money and power: An HPV vaccine case study

Author

Listed:
  • Haas, Marion
  • Ashton, Toni
  • Blum, Kerstin
  • Christiansen, Terkel
  • Conis, Elena
  • Crivelli, Luca
  • Lim, Meng Kin
  • Lisac, Melanie
  • MacAdam, Margaret
  • Schlette, Sophia

Abstract

In this paper we compare the experiences of seven industrialized countries in considering approval and introduction of the world's first cervical cancer-preventing vaccine. Based on case studies, articles from public agencies, professional journals and newspapers we analyse the public debate about the vaccine, examine positions of stakeholder groups and their influence on the course and outcome of this policy process. The analysis shows that the countries considered here approved the vaccine and established related immunization programs exceptionally quickly even though there still exist many uncertainties as to the vaccine's long-term effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety. Some countries even bypassed established decision-making processes. The voice of special interest groups has been prominent in all countries, drawing on societal values and fears of the public. Even though positions differed among countries, all seven decided to publicly fund the vaccine, illustrating a widespread convergence of interests. It is important that decision-makers adhere to transparent and robust guidelines in making funding decisions in the future to avoid capture by vested interests and potentially negative effects on access and equity.

Suggested Citation

  • Haas, Marion & Ashton, Toni & Blum, Kerstin & Christiansen, Terkel & Conis, Elena & Crivelli, Luca & Lim, Meng Kin & Lisac, Melanie & MacAdam, Margaret & Schlette, Sophia, 2009. "Drugs, sex, money and power: An HPV vaccine case study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(2-3), pages 288-295, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:92:y:2009:i:2-3:p:288-295
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168-8510(09)00132-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roughead, Elizabeth Ellen & Gilbert, Andrew L. & Vitry, Agnes I., 2008. "The Australian funding debate on quadrivalent HPV vaccine: A case study for the national pharmaceutical policy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 250-257, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fischer, Katharina E. & Leidl, Reiner & Rogowski, Wolf H., 2011. "A structured tool to analyse coverage decisions: Development and feasibility test in the field of cancer screening and prevention," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 290-299, August.
    2. Mario García Molina & Liliana Alejandra Chicaíza-Becerra, 2015. "Riesgo, incertidumbre y política pública en vacunas," Revista Cuadernos de Economia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID, March.
    3. Mezza, Maurizia & Blume, Stuart, 2021. "Turning suffering into side effects: Responses to HPV vaccination in Colombia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    4. van der Putten, Ingeborg M. & Paulus, Aggie T.G. & Hiligsmann, Mickael & Hutubessy, Raymond C.W. & Evers, Silvia M.A.A., 2019. "Evidence-informed vaccine decision making: The introduction of Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccination in the Netherlands," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(3), pages 260-266.
    5. Blume, Stuart & Tump, Janneke, 2010. "Evidence and policymaking: The introduction of MMR vaccine in the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(6), pages 1049-1055, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Whitty, Jennifer A. & Littlejohns, Peter, 2015. "Social values and health priority setting in Australia: An analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 127-136.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:92:y:2009:i:2-3:p:288-295. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.