Relief as public hospitals roll out vaccine against rotavirus
A nurse gives the rotavirus vaccine to a baby. Photo/FILE AFP
In a week’s time, public health facilities will start vaccinating babies against rotavirus-associated diarrhoea.
The vaccine comes as relief to parents and public hospitals facing high diarrhoea admissions and mortality.
Roll-out of such a big project means it must have been thoroughly thought through.
However, a contentious issue arises given that the vaccine only protects against a specific causative agent. With over 70 per cent of rural and urban poor Kenyans without access to regular clean water, many older children will still be susceptible to other water-associated diarrhoea.
For the rotavirus vaccine, some health economists argue that just like the flu vaccine, it only lessens the severity of the symptoms but does not eliminate the problems. As such, absolute cost versus benefit analysis needs to be looked at.
Efficacy of the vaccine in a number of counties has been good as it was associated with significant reductions in hospital admissions for babies.
However, different countries have different diarrhoea associative risk factors and sociocultural determinants.
Another concern is why many insurers are still not covering costs for such vaccines.
As people with economic and health data guiding their medical bills reduction, their lack of interest could be either because they have data going against such a decision to introduce mass vaccination or it is an oversight on their part.
The cost implications are not small, either, despite the projected benefits. Currently, a dose of the vaccine retails at an average price of Sh5,000 in the private sector.
The cost budgeted for is way below what the prevailing market rates would need. For just one year, assuming one million babies are given the vaccine, it would go upwards of Sh7 billion at current market value.
In the short-term, the support by the global vaccine initiatives assures an easy and cheaper roll-out. In the long-term, however, withdrawal of the donor subsidy risks dooming the project to financial straits unless the vaccine production costs are lowered and the partnership has no expiry date.
As a social experiment, only positive results can vindicate this initiative.
Its success could change the hearts of medical insurers to start accepting claims for such vaccines and promote mass roll-outs of other vaccines like the human papilloma virus (HPV) targeting reduction in cervical cancer.
Some medics have also questioned the prioritisation given that respiratory tract infections are associated with higher fatality rates and many of our public hospitals lack ventilator support equipment and units.
The latter is a one-off cost and although higher, it would serve more children and for much longer periods. A visit to our neonatal and paediatric wards would show just how.
