9. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.
10. Mr C turned 65 before 31 August 2023. This means he will not be eligible for the Shingrix vaccination on the NHS until he turns 70. Mr C has suggested the approach should be closer to how people were vaccinated against COVID-19, which factored in age.
11. We understand he feels the current process is flawed, and he should not have had to pay to be vaccinated privately.
12. Our Principles of Good Administration say organisations should plan carefully when introducing new policies and procedures. They must act in accordance with recognised quality standards, established good practice or both.
13. Our Principles also say organisations should be open and truthful when accounting for their decisions and actions. They should state their criteria for decision making and give reasons for their decisions.
14. Given the context of the pandemic and the fact COVID-19 vaccinations were for a different virus, we are not persuaded that programme is an appropriate comparison.
15. We considered the approach used for the previous shingles vaccine rollout from 2013 onwards. From September 2013, a single dose of Zostavax shingles vaccine was offered routinely to individuals aged 70 years (born on or after 1 September 1942) with a phased catch-up programme based on age as of 1 September that year.
16. UKHSA’s approach for the Shringrix rollout is consistent with the practice it had established during the previous rollout. We consider this a reasonable approach.
17. JCVI also recommended the current Shingrix vaccination programme. JCVI is an independent expert advisory committee with a statutory role in providing advice to departments. We consider UKHSA’s decision to follow the JCVI recommendation was also reasonable, it does not indicate a failing.
18. We hope the details on the rollout dates reassure Mr C about the reason for the 1 September cut-off date for Shingrix, given the reservations he shared with us about this.
19. UKHSA has explained it considered vaccinating people at 65 and 70 years old was the best use of the capacity and resources available. This approach aimed to maintain the existing offer of vaccination at 70 years previously put in place for the Zostavax programme and add a new cohort to be vaccinated as they turn 65.
20. The rollout will continue at these ages until all those aged 65 years in 2023 have turned 70 and been offered vaccination (in 2028). In 2028, the vaccine offer will also be extended to those turning 60, as well as those turning 65. In 2033, the vaccine will become a routine offer at age 60. By this time all those turning 65 will have already been offered it.
21. Mr C has suggested UKHSA could use its existing capacity to vaccinate the oldest members of the eligible population instead, starting with those who are 70 years old. We appreciate his view that this would be fairer.
22. We can see that for the reasons UKHSA has outlined, Mr C’s suggestion may not be as straightforward as it seems. For example, by setting two ages, there is no need to update communications regularly about who is eligible and when they will become eligible.
23. UKHSA appears to have acted in line with our Principles based on the information we have seen. The complaint response reflects that vaccination programmes may not cover everyone who wants to be eligible. Unfortunately, this was the case for Mr C.
24. We acknowledge Mr C’s experience is not unique. Individuals who turned 80 years old were previously not eligible for a shingles vaccination. This was because Zostavax is less effective for older people.
25. Zostavax was contraindicated (not to be used) in people who are immunosuppressed. These individuals were therefore unable to receive vaccination under the previous programme despite their increased risk from shingles. These are not signs UKHSA got something wrong. Instead, it reflects the factors that inform such decision making.
26. In summary, we have seen no good reason to investigate this complaint further. We recognise Mr C may not share our view, but we hope our reasoning is clear and helps him.