It is not appropriate to treat a vaccine as a matter of “bringing or losing money” on the elderly. What is the real focus of a free policy when it lands
Did you save $4,500? Or let the elderly run less, less lined up, less hospitalized, less chance of serious illness
To start with, it is hard to say, “free is not a slogan of welfare, free is a switch on vaccination rates”. As long as the cost threshold is removed, the inoculation will change from hesitation to arrangement。
There are two main players in this round of change: influenza vaccine for 60 years of age and over, 23-priced pneumococcal vaccine, which focuses on 65-85 years of age, and policy often refers to habitual residence or local conditions。
Coverage has been repeatedly mentioned, with many advances in guangdong, jiangsu, zhejiang, shandong, sichuan and beijing, often in more than 20 provinces, with a potential beneficiary population estimated at 180 million elderly people。
The money is clear: flu costs between $200 and $300 for itself, pneumonia costs between $200 and $400 for 23 years, folding together between $400 and $500, free of charge for vaccines and vaccinations。
Instead of using the account only as a cost-saving reason for “slowing off,” older persons are often afraid of trouble, of spending and of being inappropriate。
There are also entrances to the ground, where the main battlefield is located at the community health service centres, where the registration of vaccinations with documents is the norm, and where public calls, telephone appointments run in multiple places。
Such groups are the most vulnerable to neglect, with some places vaccinate in the service, older persons without having to go downstairs, and families less concerned。
Before the inoculation, the phrase “discuss the history of the disease” was omitted, with allergies, chronic drugs, recent fevers, and 30 minutes left behind as a rule。
The time window for the influenza vaccine is often misunderstood, and september to october is considered to match the epidemic season, but failure to catch up is not meaningless, and it is crucial to follow doctor assessment arrangements。
Policy clarity and data also have to be made clear. Vaccination rates in free areas tend to reach 40 to 50, while open data in self-financing areas fall between one and four, not the will, but the threshold。
It has also been suggested that influenza vaccines can reduce hospitalization risks for older persons by about 40 and death risks by about 50, and that data are not myths and are common “risk discounts” in public health。
Pneumoccal vaccine is worth more than one case of pneumonia, pneumocococcal-related infections push up hospitalization and antibiotics use, and the burden of medical care increases rapidly when chronically ill older persons are infected。
The phrase “180 million beneficiaries” is to be viewed as a measure of potential coverage, which is not equal to the number of people who have been vaccinated. The real target should be vaccination coverage, completion rates, and coverage of home services。
The policy was seen as a first step, often in the words of “the state is well-intentioned”, with a change of hands and a short communication chain, and the more specific the information, the older people are willing to ask the community。
There are also people who are stuck in real-life details, who are registered locally or who live permanently, who are able to enjoy their 23-priced and their appointment numbers are not so tight as to determine the perception of policy。
Prudent voices exist, fear of adverse reactions, fear of whether chronic diseases can be fought, and even fear of “tired queues”, which require assessment and diversion at the grass-roots level。
There are also those who are sensitive to the numbers and ask whether “the country is the same”, which is correct, as local finance and local procurement are still being used to advance, with differences in calibration and crowd definition。
Broadening claims are equally direct, with the desire to include influenza in national immunization plans and the incidental reference to the high price of herpes vaccine, which points to the same thing, fairness and accessibility。
The next step of the policy is not in the slogan, but in the implementation, the stability of seedlings, the availability of medical training and the compliance of the appointment system determine whether free of charge can be converted into a real immunization barrier。
Leave a question for the family and the elderly, should the inoculation go “as soon as possible” or “as soon as fall”? The first image reduces the window gap, the second one matches the popular season, and the child and the caregiver say which side to choose。
