RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

State budget cuts slash HPV vaccination effort



Toolbox

By DANIEL BARLOW Vermont Press Bureau - Published: January 14, 2009

MONTPELIER — Vermont will no longer subsidize human papillomavirus vaccinations for women over the age of 19 due to cuts made to the state budget last month, lawmakers were told Tuesday.

When lawmakers created Catamount Health more than two years ago, they also established an annual $4 million fund to boost vaccinations for preventable diseases — an effort to reduce the overall cost of health care in the state in the long term.

But members of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee were told Tuesday that the $20 million in cuts made to the current state budget by the Joint Fiscal Committee and Gov. James Douglas' administration last month included one-quarter of the annual funding for the vaccination effort.

Vermont Department of Health Commissioner Wendy Davis told lawmakers that the cut meant ending a program that reached out to older women in Vermont to get the vaccination for HPV, the leading cause of cervical cancer in women.

Davis said the state will continue outreach to women younger than 19 to become vaccinated for HPV, which is one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases.

There were about 27 to 30 cases of cervical cancer in Vermont in 2008, according to the Health Department, with eight to 10 deaths resulting. Across the country, there were nearly 4,000 women who died from cervical cancer in the same year.

"This vaccine is very successful," Davis said. "This was not an easy decision."

Lawmakers, many of whom were looking at budget cuts made last summer and December for the first time, expressed shock that the state cut the program, especially since it was aimed at preventing future medical problems for Vermonters.

Sen. Doug Racine, D-Chittenden, chairman of the Senate Health Committee, said the program was introduced to make it easier for local physicians to offer vaccinations to their patients. These vaccinations are often expensive and difficult for doctors' offices to store.

"This makes me worried where we will end up," said Sen. Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland, another member of the committee.

Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons, D-Chittenden, said the cut is especially troubling because the federal government funds 60 percent of the vaccination effort. The cut essentially only saves about $400,000 from the state's troubled general fund, she said.

"In other words, the state is giving up $600,000 because of this," she said.

Davis stressed that the vaccination effort will continue, but the HPV portion of it will only focus on women younger than 19. She said the vaccine is most effective in women who are not yet sexually active.

"We know that we see the younger women come in more often for the vaccination," she said.

The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommends HPV vaccination for women between the ages of 13 and 26, according to its Web site.

Contact Daniel Barlow at daniel.barlow@rutlandherald.com.








READER COMMENTS


Talk about being penny wise and pound foolish! The costs of treating one case of cervical cancer, (even if the treatment is successful) is probably more than 2 years of vaccines, in dollar costs alone. In terms of personal suffering, the costs are even more staggering.

It is horrific to even allow this to come up in discussion. And what a slap in the face to Dartmouth Hitchcock hospital whos' researchers worked so diligently to produce this vaccine which will save lives. If the vaccines are difficult to store, why not do storefront vaccinations, similar to those where you can get a flu shot? You will do dozens on one day, effectively providing the service, and limiting storage time. Ladies, go and get the shot, whatever age you are. If it saves one woman from dying needlessly from cervical cancer, that 400,000 was worth it. (And, in treatment costs, would most likely amount to a total as well)
-- Posted by Colleen Wright on Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 2:04 pm EST

report this comment



Why am I not surprised that one of the first things to go is a program to help protect the health of low income women?
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 12:00 pm EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout