Assessing the case for applying personal responsibility for COVID-19 vaccination in a South African insured population
1
Health Economics Division, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
2
Dept. of Statistical Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
Popul. Med. 2026;8(Supplement Supplement 1):
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:
The use of personal responsibility to influence health behaviour remains contested in public health policy, particularly where individual choices generate collective costs [1-7]. COVID-19 vaccination in an insured population provides a relatively controlled environment for examining whether responsibility-sensitive approaches can be ethically justified without undermining fairness or solidarity. This study assessed the overall case for applying personal responsibility for COVID-19 vaccination in a South African insured population.
METHODS:
A four-part structured assessment framework was developed to evaluate the case for applying personal responsibility for COVID-19 vaccination in the study population. Using administrative claims and vaccination data from a large insured population[8], we examined: (1) the impact of vaccination on hospitalisation, utilisation and costs[8]; (2) the cost-utility of COVID-19 vaccination, (3) fairness from a luck-egalitarian perspective by assessing the voluntariness of non-vaccination and the distribution of resulting burdens; and (4) the feasibility of applying responsibility based policies. Findings were synthesised using decision framework to guide interpretation.
RESULTS:
COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a greater than 90% reduction in hospitalisation risk, shorter lengths of stay, and 35–55% lower hospital expenditure[8]. Vaccination dominated non-vaccination from a cost-utility perspective, yielding more quality-adjusted life-years at lower cost. Predictive modelling indicated that non-vaccination in this insured population largely reflected voluntary choice rather than constrained access. While these findings support a prima facie case for applying personal responsibility, feasibility analysis indicated that punitive or exclusionary measures would be ethically and operationally difficult to implement.
CONCLUSIONS:
Applying personal responsibility for COVID-19 vaccination can be ethically and empirically defensible under specific conditions: where benefits are clear, choice is genuine, and interventions are feasible. Incentive-based and enabling approaches are preferable to punitive measures. The assessment framework provides a transparent tool for policymakers to balance fairness, efficiency, and solidarity when considering responsibility-sensitive public health policy.
The use of personal responsibility to influence health behaviour remains contested in public health policy, particularly where individual choices generate collective costs [1-7]. COVID-19 vaccination in an insured population provides a relatively controlled environment for examining whether responsibility-sensitive approaches can be ethically justified without undermining fairness or solidarity. This study assessed the overall case for applying personal responsibility for COVID-19 vaccination in a South African insured population.
METHODS:
A four-part structured assessment framework was developed to evaluate the case for applying personal responsibility for COVID-19 vaccination in the study population. Using administrative claims and vaccination data from a large insured population[8], we examined: (1) the impact of vaccination on hospitalisation, utilisation and costs[8]; (2) the cost-utility of COVID-19 vaccination, (3) fairness from a luck-egalitarian perspective by assessing the voluntariness of non-vaccination and the distribution of resulting burdens; and (4) the feasibility of applying responsibility based policies. Findings were synthesised using decision framework to guide interpretation.
RESULTS:
COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a greater than 90% reduction in hospitalisation risk, shorter lengths of stay, and 35–55% lower hospital expenditure[8]. Vaccination dominated non-vaccination from a cost-utility perspective, yielding more quality-adjusted life-years at lower cost. Predictive modelling indicated that non-vaccination in this insured population largely reflected voluntary choice rather than constrained access. While these findings support a prima facie case for applying personal responsibility, feasibility analysis indicated that punitive or exclusionary measures would be ethically and operationally difficult to implement.
CONCLUSIONS:
Applying personal responsibility for COVID-19 vaccination can be ethically and empirically defensible under specific conditions: where benefits are clear, choice is genuine, and interventions are feasible. Incentive-based and enabling approaches are preferable to punitive measures. The assessment framework provides a transparent tool for policymakers to balance fairness, efficiency, and solidarity when considering responsibility-sensitive public health policy.
| eISSN: | 2654-1459 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
