A RESIDENT has expressed their concern at the difficulty and confusion surrounding access to a potentially life-saving vaccine.
Offering protection against the Japanese Encephalitis Virus (JEV), a mosquito-borne illness that can be fatal if left untreated, the Japanese Encephalitis Vaccine is available free of charge to residents and workers in high-risk areas.
In December, following an announcement that the Mitchell Shire had been confirmed as a high-risk location, the Review listed three local clinics that had access to the vaccine as informed by the Local Public Health Unit GV Health.
However, after printing, one of the clinics informed the Review that they were unaware of the vaccine, while others in the region that had stock available had not been listed.
Concerned about contracting the virus, a resident booked in for a vaccine at one of the unlisted clinics.
However, during the appointment, they were informed that the clinic was unsure whether they were eligible for the free vaccine, as the wording of the criteria was vague.
The eligibility criteria states:
“People aged 2 months or older who live or routinely work in any of the high-risk [LGAs] and: regularly spend time engaging in outdoor activities that place them at risk of mosquito bites, or are experiencing homelessness, or are living in conditions with limited mosquito protection …, or are engaging in outdoor flood recovery [efforts].”
The resident, who regularly spends time outdoors, stated that it was the lack of specifications on what constitutes an ‘outdoor activity’ that discouraged the doctor from administering the vaccine.
While the resident was contacted by the clinic shortly afterwards to rebook their appointment, the concern that healthcare providers had not been provided with transparent information remained.
“The vagueness of terms like ‘outdoor activity’ has left both healthcare providers and residents uncertain about who qualifies for the vaccine,” they said.
“This lack of clarity has resulted in inconsistent access, with some clinics unaware of the program and others unsure about eligibility requirements, ultimately putting residents at greater risk.”
The Department of Health, however, informed the Review that they had provided local immunisation providers and the public health unit with information regarding the program’s expansion, eligibility criteria, ordering processes, an eLearning module, and reporting requirements.
In addition, they stated they had provided these communications to public health networks and several pharmaceutical and general practice associations, encouraging them to distribute the information within their own networks.
They also informed the Review that ‘outdoor activity’ was a clinical decision based on the judgement of the treating doctor.
This, however, is not mentioned on the vaccine’s webpage, nor is it mentioned in the eligibility criteria.
The Review then contacted Minister for Health Mary-Anne Thomas—who, in November, had released a statement praising the expansion of the ‘important program’ that would ‘protect [Victorians] and their loved ones’—for a comment, but were informed the enquiry had been passed onto the Department of Health for a response instead.
“It’s essential that the details of any program are fully finalised and communicated to all parties before public statements are made about its importance,” the resident said.
“While the Department of Health asserts that they have communicated the necessary details to providers, the absence of these specifics in public-facing guidelines and the failure to address the issue with clarity remains troubling.
“It is crucial that more transparent and direct communication be established to ensure residents receive the protection they need without confusion or delay.”
Despite the ongoing concerns, locals are still urged to book in for a vaccine, and are reminded to wear appropriate clothing and repellent when spending time outdoors to avoid being bitten.
