Free market’s vaccine against the flu |
Featured Commentary

Free market’s vaccine against the flu

Every fall, Americans welcome the changing season through cooler evenings, the start of football season and children heading back to school. Unfortunately, another autumn regularity is seasonal influenza.

Often perceived as a mere nuisance, the flu’s commonplace nature belies its impact: Hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide are attributed annually to the flu with 10 times that many contracting a serious illness from the infection. As a result, getting a flu vaccine is, for millions of Americans, as much a fall tradition as picking out a Halloween costume.

The flu, however, allows a unique insight into how economies allocate goods and services — and the dangers of moving away from the market.

This year, scores of Americans will choose to get vaccinated against seasonal influenza. The decentralized nature of markets allows manufacturers to send doses to the areas with the greatest demand.

But markets haven’t always handled the distribution of a flu vaccine. In 2009, the H1N1 virus, or swine flu, spread throughout the United States and the world to such an extent that the World Health Organization declared a pandemic. As a result, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) assumed control of the distribution of the swine flu vaccine. Instead of markets responding to local increases in demand in light of variances in production, HHS determined exactly how many doses of vaccine each state received on a weekly basis. In short, a centralized plan replaced the spontaneous order of the market.

So what was the result? At the time, many believed that those individuals who were most at risk should have first crack at the limited H1N1 vaccine supply. While “at risk” is open to interpretation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention outlined exactly who it considered to be at risk for H1N1 infection. Pregnant women, individuals under the age of 24 and first responders were directly identified by the CDC to receive the vaccine first. Analysis of the actual distribution pattern of the swine flu vaccine, however, shows that none of these groups received any more vaccine than the general population. At best, the intention to direct vaccine units toward the highest risk groups simply failed; at worst, other motives were served.

So who did get more vaccine? In short, political representation mattered. States that had Democrat members on the House Oversight Committee received significantly more units of vaccine — about 60,000 additional units per representative during the first week and nearly 100,000 by the end of the third week. Instead of H1N1 vaccine units going to those who valued it the most, they instead went to those with the strongest political connections.

The lesson here is twofold. First, in scenarios of broad, complex distribution, the market has the characteristics needed to provide a better allocation outcome.

Second, when the public sector becomes involved in the distribution of goods and services, politics necessarily become involved as well.

So if you decide to vaccinate yourself or your child this fall, take a second to appreciate the ability of the market to supply you with an added protection against sickness — and be thankful that your flu vaccine wasn’t left in Washington’s hands.

Matt E. Ryan is an assistant professor of economics at Duquesne University.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.