In the US, RSV imposes significant burdens on infants, households, and the health system. Yet the only licensed immunization is accessible to only certain risk groups comprising 2% of the infant population, leaving the remaining 98% unprotected. An effective immunization for all infants is a significant public health priority. One possible solution is the FDA-approved monoclonal antibody nirsevimab, which recent evidence suggests is safe and effective in preventing RSV in all infants, and which is currently being considered for inclusion in the pediatric immunization schedule and the federal Vaccines for Children (VFC) program. But the question arises whether passive immunization products like nirsevimab ought to be eligible for the VFC, which nominally and traditionally centers on vaccines providing active immunity. Addressing this is urgent because VFC inclusion will be decided on imminently. I argue there are strong policy grounds, i.e., reasons grounded in the ultimate health system goals of maximizing population health or social welfare subject to resource constraints, not to exclude passive immunization from VFC eligibility. Active and passive immunizations both provide adaptive immunity and can therefore produce qualitatively similar effects on risks of infection, disease, and transmission; on disease severity and duration; and on health, welfare, and health resource use. The distinction between active and passive immunization does not intrinsically matter since what matters for the attainment of health system goals is the extent of immunity conferred, not whether immunity is active or passive. Nor can passivity be considered a useful proxy for conferring a lesser extent of immunity, since no such proxy is needed (existing valuation methods can cope with variations in product attributes), and it is a poor proxy (passive immunizations can be better for individuals with impaired immune systems and can have comparable effectiveness durations and economic value as vaccines).
