ASSESSING THE CASE FOR APPLYING PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR COVID-19 VACCINATION IN A SOUTH AFRICAN INSURED POPULATION

Background Personal choice, the opportunity to select an action from available options, free from external constraint, significantly affects health, risks, and treatment needs. Unhealthy lifestyles contribute substantially to global disease burden, pressuring health systems and reigniting debate about individual responsibility for health. The COVID-19 pandemic brought these debates into sharp focus. In South Africa's private health sector, vaccine hesitancy persisted where vaccines were freely available, raising questions about fairness when avoidable costs are imposed on others within pooled insurance. This paper develops and applies a structured framework to assess the case for applying personal responsibility(policies linking contributions, coverage, or costs to factors under individual control) using COVID-19 vaccination in a South African insured population. Methods We employed a multi-part approach drawing on administrative claims and vaccination data from approximately 550,000 insured members (March 2020 to December 2022). We examined vaccination on hospitalisation, utilisation, and expenditure; evaluated fairness from utilitarian (cost-effectiveness and cost-utility) and luck egalitarian (choice vs cost distribution) perspectives; assessed the practical feasibility of responsibility-based mechanisms; and integrated findings through a decision framework. Results Vaccination was associated with >90% lower hospitalisation risk, shorter stays, and 35 to 55% lower costs. Cost-utility analysis showed vaccination dominated non-vaccination (more QALYs at lower cost). Predictive modelling indicated non-vaccination in higher-risk groups reflected personal choice rather than constrained circumstance. Observed costs exceeded modelled costs (if all vaccinated) by 22%, concentrated among older adults and those with comorbidities. Practical assessment identified a hierarchy from low-risk vaccination rewards to higher-risk surcharges and benefit restrictions. Conclusion Vaccination was impactful and cost-effective; non-vaccination in higher-risk groups reflected personal choice. Responsibility-sensitive approaches may be justified where choice is demonstrable, impacts clear, and mechanisms proportionate, fair, and feasible. Incentive-based mechanisms offer lower-risk starting points than punitive designs. The framework offers policymakers a tool to weigh accountability, fairness, and solidarity in health-financing policy. Key Words COVID-19 vaccination; personal responsibility; luck egalitarianism; health insurance; South Africa; priority-setting