Imagine being told there’s a vaccine that could spare you from excruciating pain, reduce your risk of dementia, and even save you from hospitalization—but you’re forced to pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket for it. This is the reality for seniors in British Columbia, where the provincial government refuses to fund the shingles vaccine for those 50 and older, despite its proven benefits. But here’s where it gets controversial: while other provinces like Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec have stepped up to cover the cost, B.C. remains an outlier, leaving seniors to shoulder the financial burden. And this is the part most people miss: the vaccine isn’t just about preventing shingles—it’s also a powerful tool in reducing dementia diagnoses by up to 20%, according to a 2024 study. So, why isn’t B.C. prioritizing this? Let’s dive in.
Shingles, a painful reactivation of the chickenpox virus, affects up to one in three people in their lifetime. For those who get it, the symptoms can be devastating: severe blisters, burning pain, and long-term nerve damage that can last for months or even years. In Canada alone, there are approximately 130,000 shingles cases annually, with 17,000 resulting in persistent nerve pain and 2,000 leading to hospitalization. The good news? The Shingrix vaccine is highly effective, offering 97% protection for those aged 50 to 69 and 91% for those over 70. It’s a game-changer—but only if you can afford it.
Here’s the kicker: while the vaccine is recommended by Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) for everyone 50 and older, as well as immunocompromised adults over 18, B.C.’s government isn’t covering the cost. Each dose runs about $160 (though some pharmacies charge up to $206), and you need two doses for full protection. For seniors on fixed incomes, especially in high-cost regions like the Lower Mainland and Sea to Sky, this is a significant financial strain. Laura Tamblyn Watts, CEO of CanAge, a national seniors’ advocacy group, calls it an ‘unfair burden’ and a ‘bad public health policy.’
But it’s not just about fairness—it’s also about economics. Tamblyn Watts argues that funding the vaccine would save the province millions in healthcare costs associated with treating shingles complications, including hospitalizations and opioid prescriptions for pain management. ‘It makes absolutely no sense,’ she says, ‘especially in a stretched healthcare system.’ And let’s not forget the human cost: shingles can lead to blindness, chronic pain, and recurring infections. Why aren’t we doing everything possible to prevent this?
Here’s where it gets even more frustrating: B.C.’s Ministry of Health says it’s not currently considering a publicly funded shingles vaccine program, despite the growing aging population. By 2040, people 65 and older are projected to make up 23% of Canada’s population. In B.C., they already account for nearly 20%. Yet, the province continues to review and delay, while seniors suffer. Tamblyn Watts suggests lobbying employers to cover the vaccine, but she’s clear: ‘This is the government’s job.’
So, what do you think? Is B.C.’s stance on the shingles vaccine a missed opportunity, or is it a reasonable allocation of resources? Should provinces prioritize preventive measures like this, even if it means higher upfront costs? Let’s start the conversation—because when it comes to public health, every decision matters.
