Childhood Vaccination Mandates: Scope, Sanctions, Severity, Selectivity, and Salience

Katie Attwell, Mark C. Navin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Policy Points We offer the first systematic conceptual framework for analyzing the operation of mandatory vaccination policies. Our multicomponent framework facilitates synthesis judgments on single issues of pressing concern to policymakers, in particular, how mandatory vaccination policies motivate people to vaccinate. We consider the impact of each component of our framework on persons who remain unvaccinated for different reasons, including complacency, social disadvantage, and more or less committed forms of refusal. Context: In response to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease and increasing rates of vaccine refusal, some political communities have recently implemented coercive childhood immunization programs, or they have made existing childhood immunization programs more coercive. Many other political communities possess coercive vaccination policies, and others are considering developing them. Scholars and policymakers generally refer to coercive immunization policies as “vaccine mandates.” However, mandatory vaccination is not a unitary concept. Rather, coercive childhood immunization policies are complex, context-specific instruments. Their legally and morally significant features often differ, and they are imposed by political communities in varying circumstances and upon diverse populations. Methods: In this paper, we introduce a taxonomy for classifying real-world and theoretical mandatory childhood vaccination policies, according to their scope (which vaccines to require), sanctions and severity (which kind of penalty to impose on vaccine refusers, and how much of that penalty to impose), and selectivity (how to enforce or exempt people from vaccine mandates). Findings: A full understanding of the operation of a vaccine mandate policy (real or potential) requires attention to the separate components of that policy. However, we can synthesize information about a policy's scope, sanctions, severity, and selectivity to identify a further attribute—salience—which identifies the magnitude of the burdens the state imposes on those who are not vaccinated. Conclusion: Our taxonomy provides a framework for forensic examination of current and potential mandatory vaccination policies, by focusing attention on those features of vaccine mandates that are most relevant for comparative judgments.

Original languageEnglish
JournalMilbank Quarterly
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 16 Sep 2019

Fingerprint

Vaccination
Vaccines
Immunization Programs
Immunization
Disease Outbreaks
Population

Cite this

@article{c19bd1917f304c53a2ec83ebfc8d5262,
title = "Childhood Vaccination Mandates: Scope, Sanctions, Severity, Selectivity, and Salience",
abstract = "Policy Points We offer the first systematic conceptual framework for analyzing the operation of mandatory vaccination policies. Our multicomponent framework facilitates synthesis judgments on single issues of pressing concern to policymakers, in particular, how mandatory vaccination policies motivate people to vaccinate. We consider the impact of each component of our framework on persons who remain unvaccinated for different reasons, including complacency, social disadvantage, and more or less committed forms of refusal. Context: In response to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease and increasing rates of vaccine refusal, some political communities have recently implemented coercive childhood immunization programs, or they have made existing childhood immunization programs more coercive. Many other political communities possess coercive vaccination policies, and others are considering developing them. Scholars and policymakers generally refer to coercive immunization policies as “vaccine mandates.” However, mandatory vaccination is not a unitary concept. Rather, coercive childhood immunization policies are complex, context-specific instruments. Their legally and morally significant features often differ, and they are imposed by political communities in varying circumstances and upon diverse populations. Methods: In this paper, we introduce a taxonomy for classifying real-world and theoretical mandatory childhood vaccination policies, according to their scope (which vaccines to require), sanctions and severity (which kind of penalty to impose on vaccine refusers, and how much of that penalty to impose), and selectivity (how to enforce or exempt people from vaccine mandates). Findings: A full understanding of the operation of a vaccine mandate policy (real or potential) requires attention to the separate components of that policy. However, we can synthesize information about a policy's scope, sanctions, severity, and selectivity to identify a further attribute—salience—which identifies the magnitude of the burdens the state imposes on those who are not vaccinated. Conclusion: Our taxonomy provides a framework for forensic examination of current and potential mandatory vaccination policies, by focusing attention on those features of vaccine mandates that are most relevant for comparative judgments.",
author = "Katie Attwell and {C. Navin}, Mark",
year = "2019",
month = "9",
day = "16",
doi = "10.1111/1468-0009.12417",
language = "English",
journal = "The Milbank Quarterly: a journal of public health and health care policy",
issn = "0887-378X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

Childhood Vaccination Mandates : Scope, Sanctions, Severity, Selectivity, and Salience. / Attwell, Katie; C. Navin, Mark.

In: Milbank Quarterly, 16.09.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Childhood Vaccination Mandates

T2 - Scope, Sanctions, Severity, Selectivity, and Salience

AU - Attwell, Katie

AU - C. Navin, Mark

PY - 2019/9/16

Y1 - 2019/9/16

N2 - Policy Points We offer the first systematic conceptual framework for analyzing the operation of mandatory vaccination policies. Our multicomponent framework facilitates synthesis judgments on single issues of pressing concern to policymakers, in particular, how mandatory vaccination policies motivate people to vaccinate. We consider the impact of each component of our framework on persons who remain unvaccinated for different reasons, including complacency, social disadvantage, and more or less committed forms of refusal. Context: In response to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease and increasing rates of vaccine refusal, some political communities have recently implemented coercive childhood immunization programs, or they have made existing childhood immunization programs more coercive. Many other political communities possess coercive vaccination policies, and others are considering developing them. Scholars and policymakers generally refer to coercive immunization policies as “vaccine mandates.” However, mandatory vaccination is not a unitary concept. Rather, coercive childhood immunization policies are complex, context-specific instruments. Their legally and morally significant features often differ, and they are imposed by political communities in varying circumstances and upon diverse populations. Methods: In this paper, we introduce a taxonomy for classifying real-world and theoretical mandatory childhood vaccination policies, according to their scope (which vaccines to require), sanctions and severity (which kind of penalty to impose on vaccine refusers, and how much of that penalty to impose), and selectivity (how to enforce or exempt people from vaccine mandates). Findings: A full understanding of the operation of a vaccine mandate policy (real or potential) requires attention to the separate components of that policy. However, we can synthesize information about a policy's scope, sanctions, severity, and selectivity to identify a further attribute—salience—which identifies the magnitude of the burdens the state imposes on those who are not vaccinated. Conclusion: Our taxonomy provides a framework for forensic examination of current and potential mandatory vaccination policies, by focusing attention on those features of vaccine mandates that are most relevant for comparative judgments.

AB - Policy Points We offer the first systematic conceptual framework for analyzing the operation of mandatory vaccination policies. Our multicomponent framework facilitates synthesis judgments on single issues of pressing concern to policymakers, in particular, how mandatory vaccination policies motivate people to vaccinate. We consider the impact of each component of our framework on persons who remain unvaccinated for different reasons, including complacency, social disadvantage, and more or less committed forms of refusal. Context: In response to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease and increasing rates of vaccine refusal, some political communities have recently implemented coercive childhood immunization programs, or they have made existing childhood immunization programs more coercive. Many other political communities possess coercive vaccination policies, and others are considering developing them. Scholars and policymakers generally refer to coercive immunization policies as “vaccine mandates.” However, mandatory vaccination is not a unitary concept. Rather, coercive childhood immunization policies are complex, context-specific instruments. Their legally and morally significant features often differ, and they are imposed by political communities in varying circumstances and upon diverse populations. Methods: In this paper, we introduce a taxonomy for classifying real-world and theoretical mandatory childhood vaccination policies, according to their scope (which vaccines to require), sanctions and severity (which kind of penalty to impose on vaccine refusers, and how much of that penalty to impose), and selectivity (how to enforce or exempt people from vaccine mandates). Findings: A full understanding of the operation of a vaccine mandate policy (real or potential) requires attention to the separate components of that policy. However, we can synthesize information about a policy's scope, sanctions, severity, and selectivity to identify a further attribute—salience—which identifies the magnitude of the burdens the state imposes on those who are not vaccinated. Conclusion: Our taxonomy provides a framework for forensic examination of current and potential mandatory vaccination policies, by focusing attention on those features of vaccine mandates that are most relevant for comparative judgments.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073963526&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1468-0009.12417

DO - 10.1111/1468-0009.12417

M3 - Article

JO - The Milbank Quarterly: a journal of public health and health care policy

JF - The Milbank Quarterly: a journal of public health and health care policy

SN - 0887-378X

ER -