Exploring The No Jab No Pay Policy: Political, Economic, And Social Factors

Background and implementation of the No Jab No Pay policy

Question:

Discuss about the Social Science Policy Analysis for Amendment Act.

This study deals with a policy area such as No Jab No Pay that had been implemented under Social Services Legislation Amendment Act 2015 and started with the operations from 1^st of January 2016. No Jab No Pay policy had been properly explained in the current segment by mentioning both positive and negative points in detail (Yang & Studdert, 2017). The present segment explains the political factors, economical factors, social factors and historical factors of these policy areas. No Jab No Pay Act removes the right of the parents that become both conscientious as well as religious objectors of vaccination for getting specific refund or benefits. This policy had been implemented by Government so that every individual vaccines against rubella, mumps and measles that are inaccessible and even here the natural community will be disabled as it combines targets of Schedule vaccine. In this particular assignment, proper emphasis had been given on policy areas of No Jab No Pay. Furthermore, immunization in Australia is not compulsory as it need not to be contentious. More than 1, 00,000 families have had child care rebates as well as welfare payments that had suspended or cancelled for failing for vaccinating kids under the policy area No Jab No Pay. It was estimated that more than $38 million happened for welfare payments especially for Family Tax Benefit that gets balanced in cases where the families have fallen behind or reject to vaccinate their children (Paxton et al., 2016).

The policy area (No Jab No Pay) are proposed by the Coalition Government that had injected eagerness into politics but the policies mandate vaccination as it is morally very unstable. In addition, No Jab No Pay plans to hold back payments of child-care as well as family tax benefits for unvaccinated children that could cost non-compliant parents up to AUD $ 15,000 for a year. However, parents are eventually concerned for their children. All vaccines are not 100% safe and childhood vaccinations can cause febrile seizures (Johnson, 2017).

Decision are made by the government to withhold family as well as childcare payments from parents who actually refuses to vaccinate their children as it prompts mixed reaction from medical expert where some fear that it will drive the anti-vaccination association. It is essential to guide the community and seek ways to impose their view on others that are raised in the policy (Beard, Leask & McIntyre, 2017). It is therefore unfortunate to look at the policy of No Jab No Pay where there is no vaccine as it engages in unethical behavior. Child care centres have taken right turn to given special attention to the unvaccinated kids under new laws as it is being drafted by the State Government

Positive and negative points of the policy

The Health Minister are considering whether to go for imposing a blanket ban on unvaccinated children who attended child care activities. At a minimum level, the legislation actually made it explicit that child care centres have an absolute right for turning away kids who are not vaccinated (Fielding, Bolam & Danchin, 2017). The child care centres already have a policy that refuses to care for unvaccinated children. This centres won but it should be understood as mentioned under Public Health Act as they have the right to turn unvaccinated children away. It was planned to introduce the legislation into State parliament when the Government had decided on how strict policy it was for given period of time. In the year 2014, the New South Wales Government had changed the Public Health Act so that the children could not be enrolled at a child acre facility unless a parent or guardian provides an official record as it provokes the child was fully immunized or an approved exemption was provided. However, the Federal Government implemented policy (No Jab No Pay) that came into effect that means families would lose welfare payment when children were not fully immunized. The New South Wales mainly marginalizes children who already marginalized as it warrants for careful consideration. The Australian Medical Association supports the move where it provides child care centres the right to refuse unvaccinated children (Macartney, 2015).

The low coverage associates directly with the economic status as it has particular interest to those who faces issues with non-vaccination. As per the data that is available publicly at National Health Performance Authority, it shows that the percentage of fully immunized 5 year old children as it is lower in the rich suburbs in areas such as Melbourne and Sydney (Amdani, Yerrapotu & Ross, 2017). The index of relative economic advantage as well as disadvantage score areas dealt upon continuum where it deals with skills and qualifications. The drivers for under-vaccination are mainly depends upon markers. It is noted that double the proportion of children shows recorded vaccination objection where top 10% of postcodes are ranked by the economic resources as compared to those who live in the bottom line. While looking at vaccine refusal mainly rather than just coverage, it can be viewed that wealthier parents shows interest in registering for a vaccine objective as compared to other financially disadvantaged families. However, future research explore findings as it will not be possible due to vaccine objection is no longer recorded after introducing policy areas of No Jab No Pay. In this policy area, it is mainly highlighted about the importance to track trend in vaccine objective in countries such as Australia (Beard et al., 2016).

Political, economic, and social factors behind the policy

The Australian parents had to spend thousands of dollars for getting access to childcare as well as safety benefits if they reject to vaccinate their children. No Jab No Pay plan was announced by the Federal Government that has bipartisan support. There are thousands of families that are losing payments as the management had estimated that more than 39,000 children under the age group of 7 years have not yet received immunization as their parents are major vaccine objectors. It is believed by the Social Service Minister that it is not fair for the taxpayers for subsidizing parents who are selecting the option of not immunizing their children. It is argued by the Government that number of parents is opting for the meticulous objection vaccination to get exempted for payments as it has eventually doubled over past decades. No Jab No Pay policy will remove it as an exemption by the year 2016. According to Australian Medical Association, there were 27,000 doctors who back up the plan (Leask & Danchin, 2017).

Vaccination can be dealt as one of the most effective public health measures that increase the vaccination rates. The policy does not actually catch parents who do not need the benefit that lead to children who are excluded. In this case, kids may get punished due to the position of their parents (Thomas et al., 2017). The rest of the community need to be protected where sick people undergo chemotherapy

 In this particular plan, it is suggested by the Productivity Commission that inquires about the child care where parents decide against immunizations that went up to $15,000 worse off per child. In addition, they would lose a child care benefits up to $205 per week. The children rebates up to $7500 per year or the Family Tax Benefit A annual supplements to $726 (Billington & Omer, 2016).

It is important to consider the fact that childhood immunization coverage can be lower at social spectrum as it exposes inherent inequity in case of policy area of No Jab No Pay. In addition, financial penalty is more likely to be incurred that are reliant on family assistance payments. In order to investigate the hypothesis, it is important to undertake an ecological study that will help in determining the fact whether childhood immunization coverage by vaccines as well as age cohort for past five years (Gibney et al., 2017).

Australian mandatory vaccines are even closer to become reality as it is needed for welfare as well as public education. In addition, the Australian Government decided to implement No Jab No Pay policy. The Prime Minister tried to forge a policy where parents with unvaccinated children will not be able to enroll them in public school. It is important to further look at the push for Australian mandatory vaccines by keeping in mind the horrendous society f vaccines that had been injured, paralyzed as well as sterilized and killed countless people in and across the world (Elia, Perrett & Newall, 2017).

Impact and controversy of the policy

The article on No Jab No Pay has a serious concern as it has principled sting on how this policy area hurts poorer Australian families. This policy has harmed beyond the physical level as it may wrongly deny funds for individuals who eventually are suffering from hardship. There is much awareness given to half of non-vaccinators who constantly refuses and here people have failed to vaccinate for other reasons like having an ill child or being caught up that becomes difficult to separate in a given family situation or scenario (Johnson, 2017).

People who do not vaccinate for reasons other than difference as well as worry that tends to be lower household incomes as the income percentage is 60% as it is less than AUD $50,000 as well as lower education levels is at 34%. However, single-parent households represent a population of 21% as compared to 15% of families in and across the world. The preschool at New South Wales need vaccinations that enroll children will also co-operate. Some of the individuals are of the opinion that vaccinations are safe as well as that objects for immunization as it endangers the community by lowering so-called herd community to diseases.

It was quoted by the social service minister that more than 5700 have secured their child care payments by having their children immunized that had started with a campaign that was held in January. Under these policy areas of No Jab No Pay, it is noted that family payments are made up to $15,000 per year that can be withheld from parents who do not immunize their children. However, families that receives childcare benefits as well as child care rebate actually to get immunizations as missing out on payments (Ribar, 2017).

In the year 2016, the Federal Government boarded on a notable experiment that aims at improving immunization rates in and across Australia (Attwell et al., 2017). Here, the Government had taken initiation to introduce No Jab No Pay legislation for the first time. However, conscientious objectors to vaccination had been exempted from these measures that are no longer present.

On analysis, it is noted that there are several states that have implemented No Jab No Pay policy area that means children who will go to child care centres to be immunized (Cohen et al., 2015). Here, such laws are in place in areas such as New South Wales as well as Queensland and Victoria as they are the strictest that need full immunization for attendance. It is about parents who arrange for catch-up schedule that can continue activities for receiving the Child-care benefit as it supplements and securing back for paying as a financial incentives to vaccinate. It is already mentioned that the campaign help in improving vaccination rate in Australia that properly impact of the reforms. No Jab No Pay policy area aims at finding ways for looking at the health of children. It is the Government who remains under fire for preparing activities to dump the booster dose of the whooping cough vaccine as given to children in the initial year as well as delaying the establishment of the Australian Schools Vaccination Register. No Jab No Pay policy had been implemented by the Federal Government for having led to an extra 5700 children for being vaccinated that starts from the implementing phase. No Jab No Pay policies takes into concern withholding family payments that are worth of more than $15,000 per year to parents who mainly fails to have their children being vaccinated (Vorsters et al., 2017). It reveals the fact that the parents can be absolutely certain and secured now because their kids are going into child care activities where the Government had enacted a policy that can life immunizations such as whooping cough and polio as the kids are protected in child care activities. Vaccination rates had fallen to such of a historically low level as it can view the re-emergence of diseases that is free for years. It is a main matter of concern where majority of parents who are not acting as a vaccination objector’s desire that their kids should be safe. No Jab No Pay policy address 7% of under-vaccinated children based in Australia that makes progress on other ways that can protect children. The Government actually sustains the interest rates by improving vaccination rates where the vaccination programs are a pillar of public health. In countries like Australia, it is noted that measles vaccination alone had brought a net fiscal advantage that goes upwards $9.2 billion as well as averted at least 4 million cases from the initial phases of operations (Macintyre et al., 2016). Some of the areas are neglected that improves vaccination rates of staff members in child care centres in the most appropriate way. In the year 2012, it is noted that less than one-third of child care staff members will get access to updated or latest information for their whooping cough vaccine. It is mostly considered improper as well as promote examination is needed for these activities. It is important to give confidence to the parents that their children are safe at the time while attending child care as well as pre-school. Furthermore, child care worker vaccination becomes an important component that helps in minimizing risk as well as possible for completing ways for eliminating risk in the given institutions (Hudson, Weston & Farmer, 2017).

Childcare and vaccination in Australia

Conclusion

At the end of the study, it is concluded that No Jab No Pay had been implemented by Government to solve the issue of vaccination. The present study critically highlights the essence as well as importance of policy area (No Jab No Pay) and issue of the policy at the same time. The above analysis even highlights about policy area No Jab No Pay and how this area is affected the society both in terms of positive and negative aspects. No Jab No Pay policy had been implemented by the Government where every individual vaccines against diseases such as measles, mumps and rubella as it is next to impossible to access in the near future. It is even noted natural immunity will not be able to exclude that become impossible to access and combines Schedule vaccine targets. The above analysis shows the need of this vaccination as it can be understood by the age of child as it takes into account vaccines of most early childhood by implementing “National Immunization Program”. It is about the requirement as it is listed under two legislative instruments such as Child Care Benefits in education as well as Family Assistance in Vaccination Schedules for the year 2015. The entire study explain about factors of this policy area (No Jab No Pay) where Government claims that the legislation increases Australian vaccination rates as it is a controversial hypothesis named as herd immunity.

Reference List

Amdani, S. M., Yerrapotu, N., & Ross, R. (2017). Right Ventricular Mass in a Neonate. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 53(8), 826-827.

Attwell, K., Attwell, K., Smith, D. T., & Smith, D. T. (2017). Parenting as politics: social identity theory and vaccine hesitant communities. International Journal of Health Governance, 22(3), 183-198.

Beard, F. H., Hull, B. P., Leask, J., Dey, A., & McIntyre, P. B. (2016). Trends and patterns in vaccination objection, Australia, 2002–2013. The Medical Journal of Australia, 204(7), 275.

Beard, F. H., Leask, J., & McIntyre, P. B. (2017). No Jab, No Pay and vaccine refusal in Australia: the jury is out. The Medical Journal of Australia, 206(9), 381-383.

Billington, J. K., & Omer, S. B. (2016). Use of fees to discourage nonmedical exemptions to school immunization laws in US states. American journal of public health, 106(2), 269-270.

Cohen, L. L., Rodrigues, N. P., Lim, C. S., Bearden, D. J., Welkom, J. S., Joffe, N. E., … & Cousins, L. A. (2015). Automated parent-training for preschooler immunization pain relief: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of pediatric psychology, 40(5), 526-534.

Elia, S., Perrett, K., & Newall, F. (2017). Providing opportunistic immunisations for at?risk inpatients in a tertiary paediatric hospital. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 22(1).

Fielding, J. E., Bolam, B., & Danchin, M. H. (2017). Immunisation coverage and socioeconomic status–questioning inequity in the ‘No Jab, No Pay’policy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 41(5), 455-457.

Gibney, K. B., Brahmi, A., O’Hara, M., Morey, R., & Franklin, L. (2017). Challenges in managing a school?based measles outbreak in Melbourne, Australia, 2014. Australian and New Zealand journal of public health, 41(1), 80-84.

Hudson, J. N., Weston, K. M., & Farmer, E. A. (2017). Changes in medical education to help physicians meet future health care needs. The Medical Journal of Australia, 206(9), 378-379.

Johnson, C. (2017). No jab no pay gets tougher. Australian Medicine, 29(9), 10.

Johnson, C. (2017). Vaccinations debate gets shot in the arm. Australian Medicine, 29(5), 6.

Leask, J., & Danchin, M. (2017). Imposing penalties for vaccine rejection requires strong scrutiny. Journal of paediatrics and child health, 53(5), 439-444.

Macartney, K. (2015). Opinion: Forget’no jab, no pay’schemes, there are better ways to boost vaccination. Australian Medicine, 27(2A), 21.

Macintyre, C. R., Karki, S., Sheikh, M., Zwar, N., & Heywood, A. E. (2016). The role of travel in measles outbreaks in Australia–An enhanced surveillance study. Vaccine, 34(37), 4386-4391.

Paxton, G. A., Tyrrell, L., Oldfield, S. B., Kiang, K., & Danchin, M. H. (2016). No Jab, No Pay—no planning for migrant children. Med. J. Aust, 205, 296-8.

Ribar, D. C. (2017). Welfare and Children’s Well?Being. Australian Economic Review, 50(3), 348-355.

Thomas, S., Islam, F., Durrheim, D. N., & Cashman, P. (2017). Addressing Barriers to Immunisation Using a Tailored Approach. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 53(8), 826-826.

Vorsters, A., Arbyn, M., Baay, M., Bosch, X., de Sanjosé, S., Hanley, S., … & Van Damme, P. (2017). Overcoming barriers in HPV vaccination and screening programs. Papillomavirus Research, 4, 45-53.

Yang, Y. T., & Studdert, D. M. (2017). Linking Immunization Status and Eligibility for Welfare and Benefits Payments: The Australian “No Jab, No Pay” Legislation. Jama, 317(8), 803-804.