Politics. Preventing cervical cancer good. Preventing STD bad.
Plain and simple. Of course you want to immunize as many as possible against a communicable disease, especially as not all women or girls will get the vaccine.
>>third-party payers can be expected to argue that vaccinating males aged 9-26 to avert HPV infection in females is overkill if females aged 9-26 are already being vaccinated pursuant to the FDA label.
I understand that. From a cost minimization (for the payer's) perspective* the solution should turn on how many of the females are being immunized. IF that is very high (call it 75%) then immunizing males is far less significant to reducing transmission. Even in that case "active males" probably should be immunized.
I would argue that if less then 25% of females are being immunized that it is even more important to immunize the males.
I would hope that large payer's would take a big picture and long term view. But it is a health issue of public policy dimensions so a government mandate may lie.
ij
* Seems to me as we move toward universal coverage that taking a long term view of the minimization problems is more likely to be used.
PS DD - thanks for confirming my science was not faulty.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
