School-located influenza vaccination with third-party billing: outcomes, cost, and reimbursement

Costs of Interventions to Increase Vaccination Coverage Among Children in the United States: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) has recommended several interventions that have been demonstrated to be effective at increasing vaccination coverage.

OBJECTIVE

Conduct a systematic review to examine the costs of interventions designed to increase vaccination coverage among children and adolescents in the United States.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EconLit, Embase, and Cochrane.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS

Peer-reviewed articles from January 1, 2009 to August 31, 2019.

APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Studies were identified with systematic searches of the literature, reviewed for inclusion criteria, abstracted for data on intervention, target population, costs, and risk of bias. Cost measures were reported as costs per child in the target population, costs per vaccinated child, incremental costs per vaccinated child, and costs per vaccine dose administered. Results were stratified by intervention type, vaccine, and age group.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies were identified for full-text review. Across all interventions and age groups, the cost per child ranged from $0.10 to $537.38, and the incremental cost per vaccinated child ranged from $6.52 to $5,098.57. Provider assessment and feedback interventions had the lowest (median) cost per child ($0.17) and a healthcare system-based combined intervention with multiple components had the lowest (median) incremental cost per vaccinated child ($26.65). A community-based combined intervention with multiple components had the highest median cost per child ($537.38) and the highest median incremental cost per vaccinated child ($5,098.57).

LIMITATIONS

A small number of included intervention types and inconsistent cost definition.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial variability in the costs of CPSTF-recommended interventions.

Centralized Reminder/Recall to Increase Influenza Vaccination Rates: A Two-State Pragmatic Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

Centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R) by health departments using immunization information systems is more effective and cost effective than practice-based approaches for increasing childhood vaccines but has not been studied for influenza vaccination. We assessed effectiveness and cost of C-R/R for increasing childhood influenza vaccination compared with usual care.

METHODS

Within Colorado (CO) and New York (NY), random samples of primary care practices (pediatric, family medicine, and health center) were selected proportionate to where children are served-65 practices (N = 54,353 children) in CO; 101 practices (N = 65,777) in NY. We conducted 4-arm RCTs per state (1, 2, or 3 autodial reminders vs usual care), with randomization at the patient level within practices from 10/2016 to 1/2017.

RESULTS

In CO, the maximum absolute difference in receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine was 1.7% between the 2 R/R group and control (adjusted risk ratio [ARR] of 1.06 [1.01, 1.10]); other R/R arms did not differ significantly. In NY, ARRs for the study arms versus control varied from 1.05 (1.01, 1.10) for 3 R/R to 1.06 (1.01, 1.11) for 1-2 R/R groups and maximum absolute increase in vaccination was 0.6%. In time-to-event analyses, study arm was a significant predictor of vaccination in CO (P = .001) but not in NY. Costs/child randomized to one message were $.17 in CO and $.23 in NY.

CONCLUSIONS

C-R/R for influenza vaccine using autodial had low-level effects on increasing influenza rates in 2 states. Given the feasibility and low cost of C-R/R in previous trials, its utility for influenza should be re-examined using different modalities.

Nontraditional Uses of Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine: School-Located Influenza Vaccination

Immunization against influenza continues to be the best method of preventing influenza infection in children, and additionally, indirectly helping to lower disease in adults, given the role of children as "spreaders" of influenza to the community at large. An increasing evidence base exists for the use of school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) programs to increase the influenza vaccination rates among children. Live, attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) has unique characteristics that make it useful for SLIV programs, including ease of immunization without needles, faster delivery, and in many (but not all) years, good vaccine effectiveness. Reviewed herein are results of selected published trials as well as guidance on planning a successful SLIV program.

Cost effectiveness of school-located influenza vaccination programs for elementary and secondary school children

Background

Studies have noted variations in the cost-effectiveness of school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV), but little is known about how SLIV’s cost-effectiveness may vary by targeted age group (e.g., elementary or secondary school students), or vaccine consent process (paper-based or web-based). Further, SLIV’s cost-effectiveness may be impacted by its spillover effect on practice-based vaccination; prior studies have not addressed this issue.

Methods

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on two SLIV programs in upstate New York in 2015–2016: (a) elementary school SLIV using a stepped wedge design with schools as clusters (24 suburban and 18 urban schools) and (b) secondary school SLIV using a cluster randomized trial (16 suburban and 4 urban schools). The cost-per-additionally-vaccinated child (i.e., incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)) was estimated by dividing the incremental SLIV intervention cost by the incremental effectiveness (i.e., the additional number of vaccinated students in intervention schools compared to control schools). We performed deterministic analyses, one-way sensitivity analyses, and probabilistic analyses.

Results

The overall effectiveness measure (proportion of children vaccinated) was 5.7 and 5.5 percentage points higher, respectively, in intervention elementary (52.8%) and secondary schools (48.2%) than grade-matched control schools. SLIV programs vaccinated a small proportion of children in intervention elementary (5.2%) and secondary schools (2.5%). In elementary and secondary schools, the ICER excluding vaccine purchase was $85.71 and $86.51 per-additionally-vaccinated-child, respectively. When additionally accounting for observed spillover impact on practice-based vaccination, the ICER decreased to $80.53 in elementary schools -- decreasing substantially in secondary schools. (to $53.40). These estimates were higher than the published practice-based vaccination cost (median = $25.50, mean = $45.48). Also, these estimates were higher than our 2009–2011 urban SLIV program mean costs ($65) due to additional costs for use of a new web-based consent system ($12.97 per-additionally-vaccinated-child) and higher project coordination costs in 2015–2016. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that ICER estimates were most sensitive to the SLIV effectiveness.

Conclusions

SLIV raises vaccination rates and may increase practice-based vaccination in primary care practices. While these SLIV programs are effective, to be as cost-effective as practice-based vaccination our SLIV programs would need to vaccinate more students and/or lower the costs for consent systems and project coordination.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT02227186 (August 25, 2014), updated NCT03137667 (May 2, 2017).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4228-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

School-Located Influenza Vaccinations: A Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

Assess impact of offering school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) clinics using both Web-based and paper consent upon overall influenza vaccination rates among elementary school children.

METHODS

We conducted a cluster-randomized trial (stratified by suburban/urban districts) in upstate New York in 2014-2015. We randomized 44 elementary schools, selected similar pairs of schools within districts, and allocated schools to SLIV versus usual care (control). Parents of children at SLIV schools were sent information and vaccination consent forms via e-mail, backpack fliers, or both (depending on school preferences) regarding school vaccine clinics. Health department nurses conducted vaccine clinics and billed insurers. For all children registered at SLIV/control schools, we compared receipt of influenza vaccination anywhere (primary outcome).

RESULTS

The 44 schools served 19 776 eligible children in 2014-2015. Children in SLIV schools had higher influenza vaccination rates than children in control schools county-wide (54.1% vs 47.4%, P < .001) and in suburban (61.9% vs 53.6%, P < .001) and urban schools (43.9% vs 39.2%; P < .001). Multivariate analyses (controlling for age, grade, vaccination in previous season) confirmed bivariate findings. Among parents who consented for SLIV, nearly half of those notified by backpack fliers and four-fifths of those notified by e-mail consented online. In suburban districts, SLIV did not substitute for primary care influenza vaccination. In urban schools, some substitution occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

SLIV raised seasonal influenza vaccination rates county-wide and in both suburban and urban settings. SLIV did not substitute for primary care vaccinations in suburban settings where pediatricians often preorder influenza vaccine but did substitute somewhat in urban settings.

Parents' and staff's support for a childcare agency employee mandatory vaccination policy or agency certification program

BACKGROUND

Vaccine-preventable diseases pose a significant risk to children in childcare. However, few regulations exist regarding childcare staff vaccination. This study aimed to assess support for a childcare agency staff mandatory vaccination policy.

METHODS

Surveys were distributed to staff and parents at 23 St Louis, Mo, childcare agencies during fall 2014. Staff and parents' support for a mandatory vaccination and/or agency certification program were compared using χ(2) tests. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted using a 2-level nested design and controlling for gender, race, age, and income to determine predictive models for support for a mandatory staff vaccination policy and/or agency certification program.

RESULTS

Overall, 354 parents and staff participated (response rate, 32%). Most supported a mandatory staff vaccination policy (80.0%; n = 280) or agency certification program (81.2%; n = 285), and there were no differences between parents versus staff. Determinants of support for a mandatory policy included willingness to receive influenza vaccine annually, belief that vaccines are safe and effective, and support for the policy only if there were no costs.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong support for some type of childcare agency staff vaccination policy. Implementing such a policy/program should be a collaborative endeavor that addresses vaccine cost and access.

Sustainability of school-located influenza vaccination programs in Florida

BACKGROUND

School-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) programs are a promising strategy for increasing vaccination coverage among schoolchildren. However, questions of economic sustainability have dampened enthusiasm for this approach in the United States. We evaluated SLIV sustainability of a health department led, county-wide SLIV program in Alachua County, Florida. Based on Alachua's outcome data, we modeled the sustainability of SLIV programs statewide using two different implementation costs and at different vaccination rates, reimbursement amount, and Vaccines for Children (VFC) coverage.

METHODS

Mass vaccination clinics were conducted at 69 Alachua County schools in 2013 using VFC (for Medicaid and uninsured children) and non-VFC vaccines. Claims were processed after each clinic and submitted to insurance providers for reimbursement ($5 Medicaid and $47.04 from private insurers). We collected programmatic expenditures and volunteer hours to calculate fixed and variable costs for two different implementation costs (with or without in-kind costs included). We project program sustainability for Florida using publicly available county-specific student populations and health insurance enrollment data.

RESULTS

Approximately 42% (n=12,853) of pre-kindergarten - 12th grade students participated in the SLIV program in Alachua. Of the 13,815 doses provided, 58% (8042) were non-VFC vaccine. Total implementation cost was $14.95/dose or $7.93/dose if "in-kind" costs were not included. The program generated a net surplus of $24,221, despite losing $4.68 on every VFC dose provided to Medicaid and uninsured children. With volunteers, 99% of Florida counties would be sustainable at a 50% vaccination rate and average reimbursement amount of $3.25 VFC and $37 non-VFC. Without volunteers, 69% of counties would be sustainable at 50% vaccination rate if all VFC recipients were on Medicaid and its reimbursement increased from $5 to $10 (amount private practices receive).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Key factors that contributed to the sustainability and success of an SLIV program are: targeting privately insured children and reducing administration cost through volunteers. Counties with a high proportion of VFC eligible children may not be sustainable without subsidies at $5 Medicaid reimbursement.

Association of School-Based Influenza Vaccination Clinics and School Absenteeism--Arkansas, 2012-2013

BACKGROUND

Influenza is a major cause of seasonal viral respiratory illness among school-aged children. Accordingly, the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) coordinates >800 school-based influenza immunization clinics before each influenza season. We quantified the relationship between student influenza vaccination in Arkansas public schools and school absenteeism during the 2012-2013 influenza season.

METHODS

The relationship between the percent of students vaccinated in Arkansas public schools during ADH-facilitated clinics and the average daily percent of students absent from school during the 2012-2013 influenza season was quantified using linear regression modeling. The effect of increasing vaccination coverage among students on absentee days in the Arkansas public school system was estimated.

RESULTS

For every 1% higher vaccination coverage, 0.027% fewer absenteeism days were predicted. Larger school size was associated with higher absenteeism and predicted decreases in absenteeism were larger in magnitude for larger schools compared with smaller schools. Extrapolation of the model showed that a 10% higher vaccination level was associated with a reduction of 16-163 student absentee days per school over a 12-week influenza season.

CONCLUSIONS

Influenza vaccination is an effective tool to reduce school absenteeism. School-based clinics are a feasible way to target influenza vaccinations to school-aged children.

The most effective and promising population health strategies to advance human papillomavirus vaccination

The US is failing to make substantive progress toward improving rates of human papillomavirus vaccine uptake. While the Healthy People 2020 goal for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is 80%, the three-dose completion rate in the US in 2014 for 13- to 17-year-old females is less than 40%, and the rate for males is just above 20%. Experts point to a number of reasons for the poor HPV vaccination rates including parental concerns about safety, necessity, and timing. However, the evidence refuting these concerns is substantial. Efforts focusing on education and communication have not shown promise, but several population health strategies have reminder/recall systems; practice-focused strategies targeting staff, clinicians, and parents; assessment and feedback activities; and school-based HPV vaccination programs.

Cost effectiveness analysis of Year 2 of an elementary school-located influenza vaccination program-Results from a randomized controlled trial

Background

School-located vaccination against influenza (SLV-I) has the potential to improve current suboptimal influenza immunization coverage for U.S. school-aged children. However, little is known about SLV-I’s cost-effectiveness. The objective of this study is to establish the cost-effectiveness of SLV-I based on a two-year community-based randomized controlled trial (Year 1: 2009–2010 vaccination season, an unusual H1N1 pandemic influenza season, and Year 2: 2010–2011, a more typical influenza season).

Methods

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on a two-year randomized controlled trial of a Western New York SLV-I program. SLV-I clinics were offered in 21 intervention elementary schools (Year 1 n = 9,027; Year 2 n = 9,145 children) with standard-of-care (no SLV-I) in control schools (Year 1 n = 4,534 (10 schools); Year 2 n = 4,796 children (11 schools)). We estimated the cost-per-vaccinated child, by dividing the incremental cost of the intervention by the incremental effectiveness (i.e., the number of additionally vaccinated students in intervention schools compared to control schools).

Results

In Years 1 and 2, respectively, the effectiveness measure (proportion of children vaccinated) was 11.2 and 12.0 percentage points higher in intervention (40.7 % and 40.4 %) than control schools. In year 2, the cost-per-vaccinated child excluding vaccine purchase ($59.88 in 2010 US $) consisted of three component costs: (A) the school costs ($8.25); (B) the project coordination costs ($32.33); and (C) the vendor costs excluding vaccine purchase ($16.68), summed through Monte Carlo simulation. Compared to Year 1, the two component costs (A) and (C) decreased, while the component cost (B) increased in Year 2. The cost-per-vaccinated child, excluding vaccine purchase, was $59.73 (Year 1) and $59.88 (Year 2, statistically indistinguishable from Year 1), higher than the published cost of providing influenza vaccination in medical practices ($39.54). However, taking indirect costs (e.g., averted parental costs to visit medical practices) into account, vaccination was less costly in SLV-I ($23.96 in Year 1, $24.07 in Year 2) than in medical practices.

Conclusions

Our two-year trial’s findings reinforced the evidence to support SLV-I as a potentially favorable system to increase childhood influenza vaccination rates in a cost-efficient way. Increased efficiencies in SLV-I are needed for a sustainable and scalable SLV-I program.

Implementing a School-Located Vaccination Program in Denver Public Schools

BACKGROUND

School-located vaccination (SLV) offers an opportunity to deliver vaccines to students, particularly those without a primary care provider.

METHODS

This SLV program offered 2 clinics at each of 20 elementary schools (influenza vaccine) and 3 clinics at each of 7 middle/preschool-eighth-grade schools (adolescent platform plus catch-up vaccines) during the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. Established programmatic processes for immunization delivery in an outreach setting were used. Billing and vaccine inventory management processes were developed. Vaccines from the federal Vaccines for Children program were used for eligible students. Third-party payers were billed for insured students; parents were not billed for services.

RESULTS

The proportion of enrolled students who received at least 1 dose of vaccine increased from year 1 to year 2 (elementary: 28% to 31%; middle: 12% to 19%). Issues identified and addressed included program planning with partners, development and implementation of billing processes, development of a solution to adhere to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act requirements, development and utilization of an easy-to-comprehend consent form, and implementation of standard work procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

This SLV program offered an alternative approach for providing vaccinations to students outside of the primary care setting. To be successful, ongoing partnerships are needed.

School-located influenza vaccination with third-party billing: outcomes, cost, and reimbursement

OBJECTIVE

To assess rates of immunization; costs of conducting clinics; and reimbursements for a school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) program that billed third-party payers.

METHODS

SLIV clinics were conducted in 19 elementary schools in the Denver Public School district (September 2010 to February 2011). School personnel obtained parental consent, and a community vaccinator conducted clinics and performed billing. Vaccines For Children vaccine was available for eligible students. Parents were not billed for any fees. Data were collected regarding implementation costs and vaccine cost was calculated using published private sector prices. Reimbursement amounts were compared to costs.

RESULTS

Overall, 30% of students (2784 of 9295) received ≥1 influenza vaccine; 39% (1079 of 2784) needed 2 doses and 80% received both. Excluding vaccine costs, implementation costs were $24.69 per vaccination. The percentage of vaccine costs reimbursed was 62% overall (82% from State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), 50% from private insurance). The percentage of implementation costs reimbursed was 19% overall (23% from private, 27% from Medicaid, 29% from SCHIP and 0% among uninsured). Overall, 25% of total costs (implementation plus vaccine) were reimbursed.

CONCLUSIONS

A SLIV program resulted in vaccination of nearly one third of elementary students. Reimbursement rates were limited by 1) school restrictions on charging parents fees, 2) low payments for vaccine administration from public payers and 3) high rates of denials from private insurers. Some of these problems might be reduced by provisions in the Affordable Care Act.