Search

Michigan’s introduction of mandatory counseling for nonmedical exemptions was associated with decreased nonmedical exemption rates. However, while each of Michigan’s 45 local health departments made its own decisions about how to conduct immunization counseling, differences in the burdensomeness of counseling programs was not associated with greater or lesser changes in exemption rates. Data from a survey of Michigan local health departments (online, October 2015), epidemiological data from Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services (online, various dates), and social and economic data from the American Community Survey (online, various dates) were used in models explaining change in county-level nonmedical exemption rates. Counties that first required an education session after the December 2014 rule change had a 30% greater reduction in their nonmedical exemption rates for 2015 than did counties that already required education sessions. Michigan’s experience with vaccination waiver education suggests that imposing burdens on nonmedical waiver applicants decreases nonmedical waiver rates. It also indicates there may be a burden threshold beyond which incremental increases in inconvenience do not further reduce exemption rates. Thus, in a context of hyper-politicization and austerity, health departments may be wise to avoid implementing additionally burdensome processes that are politically or economically expensive to administer. Keywords: Immunization, Public health, Nonmedical exemption, Vaccine

Background In response to recent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases and concerns around vaccine refusal, several high-income countries have adopted or reformed vaccine mandate policies. While all make it more difficult for parents to refuse vaccines, the nature and scope of ‘mandatory vaccination’ is heterogeneous, and there has been no attempt to develop a detailed, comparative systematic account of the possible forms mandates can take. Methods We compare the construction, introduction/amendment, and operation of six new high profile vaccine mandates in Australia, France, Germany, Italy, California, and Washington. We rank these policies in order of their relative restrictiveness and analyze other differences between them. Results New mandate instruments differ in their effects on behavior, and with regard to their structure, exemptions, target populations, consequences and enforcement. We identify diverse means by which vaccine mandates can restrict behaviors, various degrees of severity, and different gradations of intensity in enforcement. Conclusion We suggest that politico-cultural context and vaccine policy history are centrally important factors for vaccine mandate policymakers to consider. It matters whether citizens trust their governments to limit individual freedom in the name of public health, and whether citizens have previously been subjected to vaccine mandates. Furthermore, political communities must consider the diverse mechanisms by which they may construct vaccine mandate policies; whether through emergency decrees or ordinary statutes, and how (or whether) to involve various stakeholder groups in developing and implementing new vaccine mandate policies.