Prioritizing Pandemic Influenza Vaccination: Public Values and Public Policy - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Prioritizing Pandemic Influenza Vaccination: Public Values and Public Policy PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 167a34-ZDc1Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Prioritizing Pandemic Influenza Vaccination: Public Values and Public Policy

Description:

Ethics Considerations by the Interagency Working Group. Process issues ... Nursing home staff. 69. Community orgs. 71. Diplomats. 71. Pharmacists. 72. Border ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:45
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 25
Provided by: bxs6
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Prioritizing Pandemic Influenza Vaccination: Public Values and Public Policy


1
Prioritizing Pandemic Influenza Vaccination
Public Values and Public Policy
Benjamin Schwartz, M.D. National Vaccine Program
Office, DHHS
2
Why prioritize pandemic vaccine?
  • Everyone will be susceptible
  • Current minimum of 20 weeks to first pandemic
    vaccine availability
  • U.S.-based production capacity currently is not
    sufficient to make vaccine rapidly for the entire
    population
  • Targeting groups for earlier or later vaccination
    will best support pandemic response goals to
    reduce health, societal, and economic impacts

3
Initiatives to increase pandemic influenza
vaccine availability
Preparedness now decreases the need
for allocation decisions later
Kathy Kinlaw, MDiv, Emory Univ. CDC Ethics
Subcommittee
  • HHS has invested over 1 billion to
  • Increase vaccine production capacity
  • Develop and license new vaccine production
    technologies (e.g., cell culture, recombinants)
    that will increase surge capacity and reduce time
    to availability
  • Evaluate adjuvanted vaccine formulations

4
Pandemic vaccine prioritization 2005 ACIP/NVAC
  • Joint work of HHS vaccine advisory committees
  • Process included consideration of
  • Vaccine supply and efficacy
  • Impacts of past pandemics by age and risk group
  • Potential impacts on critical infrastructures
    especially healthcare
  • Ethical concerns
  • Recommendations included in the 2005 HHS pandemic
    plan
  • As guidance for State/local planning
  • To promote further discussions

5
ACIP/NVAC priority groups
  • Personnel Cumulative
  • Tier and population groups ( 1,000s)
    total (1,000s)
  • 1A. Health care involved in direct patient
    9,000 9,000
  • contact essential support
  • Vaccine and antiviral drug manufacturing
    40 9,040
  • personnel
  • 1B. Highest risk groups 25,840
    34,880
  • 1C. Household contacts of children lt6 mo,
    severely 10,700 45,580
  • immune compromised, and pregnant women
  • 1D. Key government leaders critical public
    151 45,731
  • health pandemic responders
  • 2. Rest of high risk 59,100 104,831
  • Most CI and other PH emergency responders
    8,500 113,331
  • 3. Other key government health decision
    500 113,831

6
Rationale for reconsideration of pandemic vaccine
prioritization
  • Evolving planning assumptions
  • More severe pandemic increased absenteeism
  • Results from public engagement meetings
  • Preserving essential services ranked as top goal
    over protecting high-risk individuals
  • Additional analysis of critical infrastructures
    (CI)
  • National Infrastructure Advisory Council study of
    CI sectors and vaccination priority groups

7
Interagency pandemic vaccine prioritization
working group process
  • Presentation and discussion of
  • Prior ACIP/NVAC recommendations
  • Scientific public health issues
  • Analysis recommendations on critical
    infrastructure by the National Infrastructure
    Advisory Council
  • National homeland security issues
  • Consideration of ethical issues
  • Public engagement stakeholder meeting
  • Decision analysis

8
National Infrastructure Advisory Council analysis
of critical infrastructure (CI) for a U.S.
pandemic
  • Issues considered
  • Essential functions of CI and key resource (KR)
    sectors (e.g., maintain national homeland
    security ensure economic survival maintain
    health welfare)
  • Interdependencies between sectors
  • Workforces needed to maintain critical functions
  • Process
  • Survey of CI/KR operators review of existing
    data and plans interviews of subject matter
    experts

www.dhs.gov/niac
9
Identifying critical employee groups all
sectors, tier 1 only
Employees Tier 1 Only Banking Finance
417,000 Chemical 161,309 Commercial Facilities
42,000 Communications 396,097 Electricity
50,000 Emergency Services 1,997,583 Food and
Agriculture 500,000 Healthcare
6,999,725 Information Technology
692,800 Nuclear 86,000 Oil and Natural Gas
223,934 Postal and Shipping 115,344 Transportatio
n 100,185 Water and Wastewater 608,000
TOTAL 12,389,977
  • Notes
  • Numbers include Tier 1 essential employees
    only.
  • State and local government numbers removed from
    gross and priority workforce numbers.

http//www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/niac/niac-pande
mic-wg_v8-011707.pdf
10
Ethics Considerations by the Interagency Working
Group
  • Process issues
  • Transparency, inclusiveness, reasonableness
  • Content issues
  • Preserving society consider before protecting
    individuals
  • Fairness value all equally treat all in a
    priority group the same
  • Reciprocity protect those who assume
    occupational risk
  • Flexibility reconsider strategy periodically
    and at the time of a pandemic

11
Public engagement and stakeholder meetings
Rationale
  • For a rationing strategy to be successful, it
    must reflect societal values and preferences
  • There are conflicting frameworks for deciding who
    to protect first during a pandemic
  • Prevent the most deaths
  • Prevent the most years of potential life lost
  • Protect adolescents young adults (life cycle
    approach)
  • Protect well-being of society
  • There is uncertainty around the impact of
    different choices
  • Need for vaccination to preserve essential
    services

12
Public engagement and stakeholder meetings
  • Objective Consider the potential goals of
    pandemic vaccination and assign values to each
  • Approach
  • Background presentations
  • Group discussions
  • Electronic voting
  • Participants
  • Las Cruces, NM 108 persons culturally diverse
  • Nassau Co., NY 130 persons many older adults
  • DC 90 persons from government, CI sectors,
    community organizations

13
Value of pandemic vaccination goals public (Las
Cruces, Nassau Co.) and stakeholder (DC) meeting
results (7-point scale)
14
Decision analysis Approach
  • Consider 57 groups defined by job, age, and
    health status
  • Interagency group rated (0 3) extent to which
    each group met occupational objectives
  • CDC and external experts rated extent to which
    each group met science based objectives
  • Vaccine effectiveness, risk of severe illness and
    death, and likelihood to transmit infection
  • Weights applied based on public and stakeholder
    values
  • Sx O1w1 O2w2 … O10w10

15
Decision analysis Selected results
General population Infants toddlers (30)
young children (29) older children (24)
pregnant women (20) elderly (18)
16
Decision analysis Stratified results
17
The Pandemic Severity Index (PSI)
  • Severity of 20th century pandemics differed
  • Threats to essential services and security differ
    by severity
  • PSI offers a way to characterize pandemics based
    on their case-fatality rate

18
Key issues in building the pandemic vaccine
prioritization strategy
  • Multiple important objectives to achieve
  • Public values of preserving healthcare
    essential services, and protecting persons at
    occupational risk children
  • Maintaining essential services requires targeting
    only a portion of the critical infrastructure
    workforce
  • Need to target workers varies with pandemic
    severity
  • The timing and rate of vaccine availability
    relative to the pandemic wave is unknown
  • Draft guidance developed and vetted in additional
    public stakeholder meetings and in a web
    dialogue

19
Vaccination tiers for a severe pandemic
300 M
123 million
74 million
64 million
16 million
23 million
Tier 1 Tier 2
Tier 3 Tier 4
Tier 5
Vaccination tiers
20
Vaccine Prioritization Tiers and Target Groups
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Not
targeted (Vaccinated in General pop.)
21
Critical Infrastructure Tiers and Target Groups
22
Critical Infrastructure Influenza Vaccine
Prioritization for a Severe Pandemic
23
Steps in pandemic vaccine implementation
  • Ongoing planning to address each step in the
    process
  • Challenges in identifying and vaccinating target
    groups
  • Businesses must identify targeted workers
    priority status must be validated at vaccination
    site
  • Persons in families will be vaccinated at
    different times in different tiers

Prioritization
Production
Allocation
Distribution
Administration
Monitoring
24
Conclusions Public values and public policy
This guidance is the result of a deliberative
democratic process. All interested parties took
part in the dialogue. We are confident that this
document represents the best of shared
responsibility and decision-making. HHS
Secretary Mike Leavitt
About PowerShow.com