Primary care physician perspectives on reimbursement for childhood immunizations

Association of Provider Recommendation and Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Initiation among Male Adolescents Aged 13-17 Years-United States

OBJECTIVE

To assess human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage among adolescents by provider recommendation status.

STUDY DESIGN

The 2011-2016 National Immunization Survey-Teen data were used to assess HPV vaccination coverage among male adolescents by provider recommendation status. Multivariable logistic analyses were conducted to evaluate associations between HPV vaccination and provider recommendation status.

RESULTS

HPV vaccination coverage among male adolescents increased from 8.3% in 2011 to 57.3% in 2016. Likewise, the prevalence of provider recommendation increased from 14.2% in 2011 to 65.5% in 2016. In 2016, HPV coverage was higher in male adolescents with a provider recommendation than in those without a provider recommendation (68.8% vs 35.4%). In multivariable logistic regression, characteristics independently associated with a higher likelihood of HPV vaccination included receipt of a provider recommendation, age 16-17 years, black or Hispanic race/ethnicity, any Medicaid insurance, ≥2 physician contacts in the previous 12 months, and urban or suburban residence. Participants with a mother with some college or a college degree, those with a mother aged 35-44 years, and those who did not have a well-child visit at age 11-12 years had a lower likelihood of HPV vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Receiving a provider recommendation for vaccination was significantly associated with receipt of HPV vaccine among male adolescents, indicating that a provider recommendation for vaccination is an important approach to increase vaccination coverage. Evidence-based strategies, such as standing orders and provider reminders, alone or in combination with health system interventions, are useful for increasing provider recommendations and HPV vaccination coverage among male adolescents.

Vaccine Hesitancy in Pediatric Primary Care Practices

Understanding how pediatric practices handle parental vaccine hesitancy is important as it impacts the efficiency and effectiveness of pediatric practices. In total, 21 semi-structured interviews with pediatric practice staff within a primary care network were conducted between May 2012 and March 2013. Thematic analysis focused on the barriers and challenges of vaccine hesitancy and strategies to reduce the burden at the practice level. Barriers and challenges of vaccine hesitancy included time constraints, administrative challenges, financial challenges and strained patient-provider relationships. Strategies to minimize the burden of vaccine hesitancy included training for vaccine counseling, screening for vaccine hesitancy prior to immunization visits, tailored vaccine counseling, and primary care provider visits for follow-up immunization. Pediatric practices reported many challenges when caring for vaccine-hesitant families. Multiple strategies were identified to reduce the burden of vaccine hesitancy, which future studies should explore to determine how effective they are in increasing vaccine acceptance in pediatric practices.

Financing of Vaccine Delivery in Primary Care Practices

OBJECTIVE

Vaccines represent a significant portion of primary care practice expenses. Our objectives were to determine among pediatric (Ped) and family medicine (FM) practices: 1) relative payment for vaccine purchase and administration and estimated profit margin according to payer type, 2) strategies used to reduce vaccine purchase costs and increase payment, and 3) whether practices have stopped providing vaccines because of finances.

METHODS

A national survey conducted from April through September 2011 among Ped and FM practitioners in private, single-specialty practices.

RESULTS

The response rate was 51% (221 of 430). Depending on payer type, 61% to 79% of practices reported that payment for vaccine purchase was at least 100% of purchase price and 34% to 74% reported that payment for vaccine administration was at least $11. Reported strategies to reduce vaccine purchase cost were online purchasing (81% Ped, 36% FM), prompt pay (78% Ped, 49% FM), and bulk order (65% Ped, 49% FM) discounts. Fewer than half of practices used strategies to increase payment; in a multivariable analysis, practices with ≥5 providers were more likely to use strategies compared with practices with fewer providers (adjusted odds ratio, 2.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-4.62). When asked if they had stopped purchasing vaccines because of financial concerns, 12% of Ped practices and 23% of FM practices responded 'yes,' and 24% of Ped and 26% of FM practices responded 'no, but have seriously considered.'

CONCLUSIONS

Practices report variable payment for vaccination services from different payer types. Practices might benefit from increased use of strategies to reduce vaccine purchase costs and increase payment for vaccine delivery.

Impact of Provider Recommendation on Tdap Vaccination of Adolescents Aged 13-17 Years

INTRODUCTION

Tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccination has been recommended for adolescents in the U.S. since 2006. Information on Tdap vaccination by provider recommendation is limited. The purpose of this study is to assess recent Tdap vaccination by provider recommendation status among adolescents aged 13-17 years.

METHODS

The 2013 National Immunization Survey-Teen data (N=18,948) were analyzed in 2016 to assess national and state-specific Tdap vaccination coverage disparities among adolescents by provider recommendation status, and other demographic and access to care variables. Multivariable logistic regression analysis and predictive marginal modeling evaluated associations between Tdap vaccination and provider recommendation status and other factors among adolescents aged 13-17 years.

RESULTS

Overall, only 56.9% of adolescents aged 13-17 years received a provider recommendation for Tdap. Coverage was significantly higher among adolescents with a provider recommendation (88.6%) compared with those without a provider recommendation (80.5%) (p<0.05). Multivariable logistic regression showed that characteristics independently associated with a higher likelihood of Tdap vaccination included receiving a provider recommendation, Hispanic ethnicity, having two to three physician contacts in the past 12 months, having one or two vaccination providers, and receiving vaccinations from more than one type of facility (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Provider recommendations were significantly associated with Tdap vaccination among adolescents aged 13-17 years. However, 43% of parents of adolescents did not receive a provider recommendation. Evidence-based strategies such as standing orders and provider reminders alone or health systems interventions in combination should be taken to improve provider recommendation and Tdap vaccination coverage.

Understanding the Financial Implications of Immunization Reminder/Recall in a Multipractice Pediatric Group

OBJECTIVE

Immunization reminder/recall is widely recommended as an effective strategy for increasing vaccination rates. We examined the revenue generated from well-child visits scheduled as a result of reminder/recall activities implemented in a multipractice pediatric organization.

METHODS

Patients aged 19 to 35 months who were due or overdue for vaccines were identified from participating practices and assigned to either standard or enhanced reminder/recall activities. Participants who received standard reminder/recall were observed for the 6-week study period, and the number of appointments in which vaccines were administered was tracked. Participants who received enhanced reminder/recall were contacted up to 3 times and received a letter followed by up to 2 phone calls. Financial information associated with appointments scheduled during the study period was obtained, and revenue was calculated for each dose of vaccine administered. Reminder/recall costs were calculated and overall revenue generated was calculated.

RESULTS

We identified 3916 children who were potentially due or overdue for immunizations. After review and manual uploading of missing historical vaccines, a total of 1892 participants received the reminder/recall initiative; 942 received standard reminder/recall, and 950 received enhanced reminder/recall. One hundred eighty-two (19%) standard and 277 (29%) enhanced reminder/recall participants scheduled an appointment by the end of the study period (P < .001). After subtracting the cost of reminder/recall activities, an additional $20,066 and $20,235 were generated by standard and enhanced reminder/recall, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We show that conducting reminder/recall is at a minimum financially neutral, and might increase revenue generated by vaccine administration.

Primary care physicians' perspective on financial issues and adult immunization in the Era of the Affordable Care Act

BACKGROUND

Financial barriers to adult vaccination are poorly understood. Our objectives were to assess among general internists (GIM) and family physicians (FP) shortly after Affordable Care Act (ACA) implementation: (1) proportion of adult patients deferring or refusing vaccines because of cost and frequency of physicians not recommending vaccines for financial reasons; (2) satisfaction with reimbursement for vaccine purchase and administration by payer type; (3) knowledge of Medicare coverage of vaccines; and (4) awareness of vaccine-specific provisions of the ACA.

METHODS

We administered an Internet and mail survey from June to October 2013 to national networks of 438 GIMs and 401 FPs.

RESULTS

Response rates were 72% (317/438) for GIM and 59% (236/401) for FP. Among physicians who routinely recommended vaccines, up to 24% of GIM and 30% of FP reported adult patients defer or refuse certain vaccines for financial reasons most of the time. Physicians reported not recommending vaccines because they thought the patient's insurance would not cover it (35%) or the patient could be vaccinated more affordably elsewhere (38%). Among physicians who saw patients with this insurance, dissatisfaction ('very dissatisfied') was highest for payments received from Medicaid (16% vaccine purchase, 14% vaccine administration) and Medicare Part B (11% vaccine purchase, 11% vaccine administration). Depending on the vaccine, 36-71% reported not knowing how Medicare covered the vaccine. Thirty-seven percent were 'not at all aware' and 19% were 'a little aware' of vaccine-specific provisions of the ACA.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients are refusing and physicians are not recommending adult vaccinations for financial reasons. Increased knowledge of private and public insurance coverage for adult vaccinations might position physicians to be more likely to recommend vaccines and better enable them to refer patients to other vaccine providers when a particular vaccine or vaccines are not offered in the practice.

Increasing Coverage of Appropriate Vaccinations: A Community Guide Systematic Economic Review

CONTEXT

Population-level coverage for immunization against many vaccine-preventable diseases remains below optimal rates in the U.S. The Community Preventive Services Task Force recently recommended several interventions to increase vaccination coverage based on systematic reviews of the evaluation literature. The present study provides the economic results from those reviews.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was conducted (search period, January 1980 through February 2012) to identify economic evaluations of 12 interventions recommended by the Task Force. Evidence was drawn from included studies; estimates were constructed for the population reach of each strategy, cost of implementation, and cost per additional vaccinated person because of the intervention. Analyses were conducted in 2014.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Reminder systems, whether for clients or providers, were among the lowest-cost strategies to implement and the most cost effective in terms of additional people vaccinated. Strategies involving home visits and combination strategies in community settings were both costly and less cost effective. Strategies based in settings such as schools and MCOs that reached the target population achieved additional vaccinations in the middle range of cost effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

The interventions recommended by the Task Force differed in reach, cost, and cost effectiveness. This systematic review presents the economic information for 12 effective strategies to increase vaccination coverage that can guide implementers in their choice of interventions to fit their local needs, available resources, and budget.

Human Papillomavirus Infection and Vaccination

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is an infection that can be sexually transmitted and result in health consequences including genital warts and cancers. Two vaccines, Gardasil® [Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent (Types 6, 11, 16, and 18) Vaccine, Recombinant] and Cervarix™ [Human Papillomavirus Bivalent (Types 16 and 18) Vaccine], have been approved for the prevention of HPV and HPV-related diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To explore facilitators and barriers associated with HPV vaccine utilization and compliance regarding vaccine series completion in school-aged, adolescent, and young adult females in the United States; to discuss HPV infection and highlight the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccine; and to illustrate delivery strategies that can improve immunization rates and review implications for healthcare providers.

METHODS

A literature review was performed using health-related online databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMED, Web of Science, EBSCOHost and Google Scholar) and archival searching to identify current vaccination rates and factors associated with vaccine uptake.

RESULTS

Despite the availability of vaccines that prevent cancer, acceptance and utilization rates of both HPV vaccines are less than recommended by the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP). Some of the barriers to HPV vaccination include lack of provider recommendation, negative parent or patient attitudes and beliefs, cost, and missed clinical opportunities. The primary facilitator to HPV vaccination is a strong provider recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare providers can enhance HPV vaccine utilization by taking an active role with patients. Strategies include education and advocacy for receiving the vaccine, maximizing access to the HPV vaccine, and implementing new strategies for vaccine-delivery.

Visual Indicators on Vaccine Boxes as Early Warning Tools to Identify Potential Freeze Damage

Background

The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of visual freeze indicators on vaccines would assist health care providers in identifying vaccines that may have been exposed to potentially damaging temperatures.

Methods

Twenty-seven sites in Connecticut involved in the Vaccine for Children Program participated. In addition to standard procedures, visual freeze indicators (FREEZEmarker^® L; Temptime Corporation, Morris Plains, NJ) were affixed to each box of vaccine that required refrigeration but must not be frozen. Temperatures were monitored twice daily.

Results

During the 24 weeks, all 27 sites experienced triggered visual freeze indicator events in 40 of the 45 refrigerators. A total of 66 triggered freeze indicator events occurred in all 4 types of refrigerators used. Only 1 of the freeze events was identified by a temperature-monitoring device. Temperatures recorded on vaccine data logs before freeze indicator events were within the 35°F to 46°F (2°C to 8°C) range in all but 1 instance. A total of 46,954 doses of freeze-sensitive vaccine were stored at the time of a visual freeze indicator event. Triggered visual freeze indicators were found on boxes containing 6566 doses (14.0% of total doses). Of all doses stored, 14,323 doses (30.5%) were of highly freeze-sensitive vaccine; 1789 of these doses (12.5%) had triggered indicators on the boxes.

Conclusions

Visual freeze indicators are useful in the early identification of freeze events involving vaccines. Consideration should be given to including these devices as a component of the temperature-monitoring system for vaccines.

Hepatitis B vaccination among adolescents 13-17 years, United States, 2006-2012

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B (HepB) vaccination is the most effective measure to prevent HBV infection. Routine HepB vaccination was recommended for infants in 1991 and catch-up vaccination has been recommended for adolescents since in 1995. The purpose of this study is to assess HepB vaccination among adolescents 13-17 years.

METHODS

The 2006-2012 NIS-Teen were analyzed. Vaccination trends and coverage by birth cohort among adolescents were evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression and predictive marginal models are used to identify factors independently associated with HepB vaccination.

RESULTS

HepB vaccination coverage increased from 81.3% in 2006 to 92.8% in 2012. Coverage varied by birth cohort and 79-83% received vaccination before 2 years of age for those who were born during 1995 and 1999. Among those who had not received vaccination by 11 years of age, for the 1993-1995 birth cohorts, 9-15% were vaccinated during ages 11-12 years, and 27-37% had been vaccinated through age 16 years. Coverage among adolescents 13-17 years in 2012 ranged by state from 84.4% in West Virginia to 98.7% in Florida (median 93.3%). Characteristics independently associated with a higher likelihood of HepB vaccination included living more than 5 times above poverty level, living in Northeastern or Southern region of the United States, and having a mixed facility as their vaccination provider. Those with a hospital listed as their vaccination provider and those who did not have a well-child visit at age 11-12 years were independently associated with a lower likelihood of HepB vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts focused on groups with lower coverage may reduce disparities in coverage and prevent hepatitis B infection. Parents and providers should routinely review adolescent immunizations. Routine reminder/recall, expanded access in health care settings, and standing order programs should be incorporated into routine clinical care of adolescents.

Analytics for vaccine economics and pricing: insights and observations

Pediatric immunization programs in the USA are a successful and cost-effective public health endeavor, profoundly reducing mortalities caused by infectious diseases. Two important issues relate to the success of the immunization programs, the selection of cost-effective vaccines and the appropriate pricing of vaccines. The recommended childhood immunization schedule, published annually by the CDC, continues to expand with respect to the number of injections required and the number of vaccines available for selection. The advent of new vaccines to meet the growing requirements of the schedule results: in a large, combinatorial number of possible vaccine formularies. The expansion of the schedule and the increase in the number of available vaccines constitutes a challenge for state health departments, large city immunization programs, private practices and other vaccine purchasers, as a cost-effective vaccine formulary must be selected from an increasingly large set of possible vaccine combinations to satisfy the schedule. The pediatric vaccine industry consists of a relatively small number of pharmaceutical firms engaged in the research, development, manufacture and distribution of pediatric vaccines. The number of vaccine manufacturers has dramatically decreased in the past few decades for a myriad of reasons, most notably due to low profitability. The contraction of the industry negatively impacts the reliable provision of pediatric vaccines. The determination of appropriate vaccine prices is an important issue and influences a vaccine manufacturer's decision to remain in the market. Operations research is a discipline that applies advanced analytical methods to improve decision making; analytics is the application of operations research to a particular problem using pertinent data to provide a practical result. Analytics provides a mechanism to resolve the challenges facing stakeholders in the vaccine development and delivery system, in particular, the selection of cost-effective vaccines and the appropriate pricing of vaccines. A review of applicable analytics papers is provided.

Economic evaluation of the routine childhood immunization program in the United States, 2009

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the economic impact of the 2009 routine US childhood immunization schedule, including diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate, inactivated poliovirus, measles/mumps/rubella, hepatitis B, varicella, 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate, hepatitis A, and rotavirus vaccines; influenza vaccine was not included.

METHODS

Decision analysis was conducted using population-based vaccination coverage, published vaccine efficacies, historical data on disease incidence before vaccination, and disease incidence reported during 2005 to 2009. Costs were estimated using the direct cost and societal (direct and indirect costs) perspectives. Program costs included vaccine, administration, vaccine-associated adverse events, and parent travel and work time lost. All costs were inflated to 2009 dollars, and all costs and benefits in the future were discounted at a 3% annual rate. A hypothetical 2009 US birth cohort of 4,261,494 infants over their lifetime was followed up from birth through death. Net present value (net savings) and benefit-cost ratios of routine childhood immunization were calculated.

RESULTS

Analyses showed that routine childhood immunization among members of the 2009 US birth cohort will prevent ∼42,000 early deaths and 20 million cases of disease, with net savings of $13.5 billion in direct costs and $68.8 billion in total societal costs, respectively. The direct and societal benefit-cost ratios for routine childhood vaccination with these 9 vaccines were 3.0 and 10.1.

CONCLUSIONS

From both direct cost and societal perspectives, vaccinating children as recommended with these vaccines results in substantial cost savings.

Vaccine financing from the perspective of primary care physicians

OBJECTIVES

Because of high purchase costs of newer vaccines, financial risk to private vaccination providers has increased. We assessed among pediatricians and family physicians satisfaction with insurance payment for vaccine purchase and administration by payer type, the proportion who have considered discontinuing provision of all childhood vaccines for financial reasons, and strategies used for handling uncertainty about insurance coverage when new vaccines first become available.

METHODS

A national survey among private pediatricians and family physicians April to September 2011.

RESULTS

Response rates were 69% (190/277) for pediatricians and 70% (181/260) for family physicians. Level of dissatisfaction varied significantly by payer type for payment for vaccine administration (Medicaid, 63%; Children's Health Insurance Program, 56%; managed care organizations, 48%; preferred provider organizations, 38%; fee for service, 37%; P < .001), but not for payment for vaccine purchase (health maintenance organization or managed care organization, 52%; Child Health Insurance Program, 47%; preferred provider organization, 45%; fee for service, 41%; P = .11). Ten percent of physicians had seriously considered discontinuing providing all childhood vaccines to privately insured patients because of cost issues. The most commonly used strategy for handling uncertainty about insurance coverage for new vaccines was to inform parents that they may be billed for the vaccine; 67% of physicians reported using 3 or more strategies to handle this uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Many primary care physicians are dissatisfied with payment for vaccine purchase and administration from third-party payers, particularly public insurance for vaccine administration. Physicians report a variety of strategies for dealing with the uncertainty of insurance coverage for new vaccines.

Novel immunization reminder/recall approaches: rural and urban differences in parent perceptions

OBJECTIVE

To assess the following among parents of young children: (1) preferences about the source of immunization reminder/recall (R/R) messages, (2) the degree of acceptability of different R/R modalities, and (3) factors that influence preferences, including rural and urban characteristics.

METHODS

We conducted a survey among parents of children 19 to 35 months old who needed ≥1 immunization according to the Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS). Equal numbers of urban and rural respondents were randomly selected. Up to 4 surveys were mailed to each parent who had a valid address.

RESULTS

After removing invalid addresses, the response rate was 55% (334 of 607). Half of parents (49.7%) had no preference about whether the public health department or their child's doctor sent reminders. Urban parents were more likely to prefer R/R come from their child's doctor (46.7%) compared to rural parents (33.7%), P = .003. Mail was the preferred R/R method (57.7%), then telephone (17.0%), e-mail (12.7%), and text message (10.7%). Although not preferred, 60.1% reported it would be acceptable to receive R/R by e-mail and 46.2% by text message. Factors associated with preferring to receive R/R from their child's doctor were urban residence and educational level of college graduate or greater.

CONCLUSIONS

A large portion of parents are willing to be reminded about vaccinations by their health department rather than their child's provider and via novel modalities, such as e-mail or text messaging. Urbanicity and higher educational level were associated with preferring that R/R come from a provider.

Awareness is not enough: the need to increase meningococcal vaccine uptake

OBJECTIVE

Adolescent meningococcal vaccine uptake remains low. We examined vaccine awareness among parents of adolescents and uptake.

METHODS

Parents of adolescents aged 11 to 17 years (n = 1281) participated in a statewide survey. Logistic regression with weighted data provided population-based estimates.

RESULTS

In all, 65% had heard of meningococcal vaccine; parents more likely to report awareness had adolescents aged 16 to 17 years, in private school, or with health insurance. In total, 44% of aware parents reported vaccination; vaccinated teens were more likely to be black (odds ratio [OR] = 2.17), had a preventive checkup within 12 months (OR = 3.03), or resided with another child ≤18 years (OR = 1.83). Many parents of unvaccinated adolescents (38.5%) did not plan to vaccinate them within 12 months. The most common reasons for not vaccinating were providers not recommending it and believing adolescents did not need it.

CONCLUSION

Many parents aware of meningococcal vaccine did not vaccinate their adolescents. Interventions that include increasing provider recommendation and annual visits may increase uptake.

Cost comparison of 2 mass vaccination campaigns against influenza A H1N1 in New York City

Objectives. We estimated and compared total costs and costs per dose administered for 2 influenza A 2009 monovalent vaccine campaigns in New York City: an elementary school-located campaign targeting enrolled children aged 4 years and older, and a community-based points-of-dispensing campaign for anyone aged 4 years and older. Methods. We determined costs from invoices or we estimated costs. We obtained vaccination data from the Citywide Immunization Registry and reports from the community points of dispensing. Results. The school campaign delivered approximately 202,089 vaccines for $17.9 million and $88 per dose. The community campaign delivered 49,986 vaccines for $7.6 million and $151 per dose. At projected capacity, the school campaign could have delivered 371,827 doses at $53 each or $13 each when we excluded the value of in-kind resources. The community points of dispensing could have administered 174,000 doses at $51 each or $24 each when we excluded the value of in-kind resources. Conclusions. The school campaign delivered vaccines at a lower cost per dose than did the community campaign. Had demand been higher, both campaigns may have delivered vaccine at lower, more comparable cost per dose.

Medicaid reimbursement and the uptake of adolescent vaccines

BACKGROUND

In light of low adolescent vaccination rates, state-level policies that could improve vaccine coverage should be evaluated. Approximately 1/3 of adolescents are eligible, primarily through Medicaid enrollment, to receive vaccines from state-administered Vaccines for Children (VFC) programs. We investigated whether Medicaid reimbursement, the scope of implementation of VFC programs (i.e. limited or universal purchase), and/or presence of school-based vaccine mandates were associated with adolescent vaccination levels.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of state-level associations between these policies and 2009 National Immunization Survey-TEEN vaccination rates for tetanus-containing, meningococcal conjugate (MCV4), and among females only, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines.

RESULTS

Medicaid reimbursement was not associated with vaccine coverage rates after adjusting for presence of vaccine-related school mandates, type of VFC program, proportion of adolescents attending preventive care visits, and state-specific distribution of insurance coverage. Participation in a more expansive VFC program (universal or universal-select) was significantly associated with HPV vaccine coverage, but not tetanus-containing vaccine or MCV4, among states that had mandates for any vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that, contrary to what has been shown for childhood vaccines, raising Medicaid reimbursement rates may not improve adolescent vaccine utilization. Instead, other policy changes may be more effective, such as expansion of VFC programs into universal purchase programs, further implementation of school-based vaccine mandates and efforts to raise preventive care visits among adolescents.

Human papillomavirus vaccine uptake among 9- to 17-year-old girls: National Health Interview Survey, 2008

BACKGROUND

Since 2006, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has been routinely recommended for preadolescent and adolescent girls in the United States. Depending on uptake patterns, HPV vaccine could reduce existing disparities in cervical cancer.

METHODS

HPV vaccination status and reasons for not vaccinating were assessed using data from the 2008 National Health Interview Survey. Households with a girl aged 9-17 years were included (N = 2205). Sociodemographic factors and health behaviors associated with vaccine uptake were assessed using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Overall, 2.8% of 9- to 10-year-olds, 14.7% of 11- to 12-year-olds, and 25.4% of 13- to 17-year-olds received at least 1 dose of HPV vaccine; 5.5% of 11- to 12-year-olds and 10.7% of 13- to 17-year-olds received all 3 doses. Factors associated with higher uptake in multivariate analysis included less than high school parental education, well-child check and influenza shot in the past year, and parental familiarity with HPV vaccine. Parents' primary reasons for not vaccinating were beliefs that their daughters did not need vaccination, that their daughters were not sexually active, or had insufficient vaccine knowledge. More parents with private insurance (58.0%) than public (39.8%) or no insurance (39.5%) would pay $360-$500 to vaccinate their daughters.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than one quarter of girls aged 9-17 years had initiated HPV vaccination by the end of 2008. Efforts to increase HPV uptake should focus on girls in the target age group, encourage providers to educate parents, and promote access to reduced-cost vaccines.

Financing and systems barriers to seasonal influenza vaccine delivery in community settings

BACKGROUND

Recommendations for annual seasonal influenza vaccination have expanded to now include >300 million children and adults each year. Community settings have become increasingly important venues for influenza vaccination. We sought to identify barriers to and solutions for expanding influenza vaccination in community settings.

METHODS

Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted from 01/09 to 06/10 with a range of stakeholders involved in influenza vaccination, including health plans, medical services firms, retail based clinics, pharmacies, schools, and state and local public health immunization programs. Participants (n=65) were asked about barriers and feasible solutions to influenza vaccine delivery to children and adults in community settings. Key themes were identified through iterative coding using a grounded theory approach.

RESULTS

Stakeholders identified specific financial barriers to influenza vaccine delivery in 3 major areas: purchase and distribution, delivery, and reimbursement. Limited purchasing power, the uncertain nature of public demand, and unpredictable timing of influenza vaccine supply were important barriers to enhance delivery in community settings. Barriers to delivery included complexities in running off-site clinics, especially in school settings, the need to manage publicly vs. privately purchased vaccines separately, and state-to-state variability in requirements for credentialing, physician oversight, and reporting. Reimbursement barriers included a protracted credentialing process, the need to determine insurance eligibility at point-of-service, and lack of a billing infrastructure in off-site clinics. Opportunities to mitigate financial barriers to influenza vaccine delivery in community settings focused on coordination across providers and the role of public health as a "trusted broker" to overcome existing challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial and systems barriers hamper the optimal use of community settings to effectively deliver influenza vaccines. Public health partners at the federal, state, and local levels are well-positioned to facilitate the engagement of all stakeholders in this important and complex vaccine delivery system.

Vaccination coverage among U.S. adolescents aged 13-17 years eligible for the Vaccines for Children program, 2009

OBJECTIVES

We compared (1) characteristics of adolescents who are and are not entitled to receive free vaccines from the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program and (2) vaccination coverage with meningococcal conjugate (MCV4), quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV4), and tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines among VFC-eligible and non-VFC-eligible adolescents.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the 2009 National Immunization Survey-Teen, a nationally representative, random-digit-dialed survey of households with adolescents aged 13-17 years (n = 20,066). Differences in sociodemographic characteristics and provider-reported vaccination coverage were evaluated using t-tests.

RESULTS

Overall, 32.1% (+/- 1.2%) of adolescents were VFC-eligible. VFC-eligible adolescents were significantly less likely than non-VFC-eligible adolescents to be white and to live in suburban areas, and more likely to live in poverty and to have younger and less educated mothers. Nationally, coverage among non-VFC-eligible adolescents was 57.1% (+/-1.5%) for > or = 1 dose of Tdap, 55.4% (+/-1.5%) for > or = 1 dose of MCV4, and 43.2% (+/- 2.2%) for > or = 1 dose of HPV4. Coverage among VFC-eligible adolescents was 52.5% (+/- 2.4%) for > or = 1 dose of Tdap, 50.1% (+/- 2.4%) for > or = 1 dose of MCV4, and 46.6% (+/- 3.5%) for > or =1 dose of HPV4. Only 27.5% (+/- 1.8%) of non-VFC-eligible adolescents and 25.0% (+/- 2.9%) of VFC-eligible adolescents received > or = 3 doses of HPV4. Vaccination coverage was significantly higher among non-VFC-eligible adolescents for Tdap and MCV4, but not for one-dose or three-dose HPV4. Conclusions. Coverage with some recommended vaccines is lower among VFC-eligible adolescents compared with non-VFC-eligible adolescents. Continued monitoring of adolescent vaccination rates, particularly among VFC-eligible populations, is needed to ensure that all adolescents receive all routinely recommended vaccines.

To give or not to give: Approaches to early childhood immunization delivery in Oregon rural primary care practices

CONTEXT

Little is known about rural clinicians' perspectives regarding early childhood immunization delivery, their adherence to recommended best immunization practices, or the specific barriers they confront.

PURPOSE

To examine immunization practices, beliefs, and barriers among rural primary care clinicians for children in Oregon and compare those who deliver all recommended immunizations in their practices with those who do not.

METHODS

A mailed questionnaire was sent to all physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants practicing primary care in rural communities throughout Oregon.

FINDINGS

While 39% of rural clinicians reported delivering all childhood immunizations in their clinic, 43% of clinicians reported that they refer patients elsewhere for some vaccinations, and 18% provided no immunizations in the clinic whatsoever. Leading reasons for referral include inadequate reimbursement, parental request, and storage and stocking difficulties. Nearly a third of respondents reported that they had some level of concern about the safety of immunizations, and 14% reported that concerns about safety were a specific reason for referring. Clinicians who delivered only some of the recommended immunizations were less likely than nonreferring clinicians to have adopted evidence-based best immunization practices.

CONCLUSIONS

This study of rural clinicians in Oregon demonstrates the prevalence of barriers to primary care based immunization delivery in rural regions. While some barriers may be difficult to overcome, others may be amenable to educational outreach and support. Thus, efforts to improve population immunization rates should focus on promoting immunization "best practices" and enhancing the capacity of practices to provide immunizations and ensuring that any alternative means of delivering immunizations are effective.

Primary care physician perspectives on providing adult vaccines

Recently, several new vaccines have been recommended for adults. Little is known regarding the immunization purchase and stocking practices of adult primary care physicians. To determine the proportion of family practice and internal medicine physicians who routinely stock specific adult vaccines and their rationale for those decisions, we conducted a cross-sectional survey in 2009 of a national random sample of 993 family physicians (FPs) and 997 general internists (IMs) in the US. Of the 1109 respondents, 886 reported that they provide primary care to adults aged 19-64 years and 96% of these physicians stock at least one vaccine recommended for adults. Of those, 2% plan to stop and 12% plan to increase vaccine purchases; the rest plan to maintain status quo. Of the respondents, 27% (31% FPs vs 20% IMs) stocked all adult vaccines. We conclude that many primary care physicians who provide care to adults do not stock all recommended immunizations. Efforts to improve adult immunization rates must address this fundamental issue.

Human papillomavirus vaccination practices: a survey of US physicians 18 months after licensure

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to assess, in a nationally representative network of pediatricians and family physicians, (1) human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination practices, (2) perceived barriers to vaccination, and (3) factors associated with whether physicians strongly recommended HPV vaccine to 11- to 12-year-old female patients.

METHODS

In January through March 2008, a survey was administered to 429 pediatricians and 419 family physicians.

RESULTS

Response rates were 81% for pediatricians and 79% for family physicians. Ninety-eight percent of pediatricians and 88% of family physicians were administering HPV vaccine in their offices (P<.001). Among those physicians, fewer strongly recommended HPV vaccination for 11- to 12-year-old female patients than for older female patients (pediatricians: 57% for 11- to 12-year-old patients and 90% for 13- to 15-year-old patients; P<.001; family physicians: 50% and 86%, respectively; P<.001). The most-frequently reported barriers to HPV vaccination were financial, including vaccine costs and insurance coverage. Factors associated with not strongly recommending HPV vaccine to 11- to 12-year-old female patients included considering it necessary to discuss sexuality before recommending HPV vaccine (risk ratio: 1.27 [95% confidence interval: 1.07-1.51]) and reporting more vaccine refusals among parents of younger versus older adolescents (risk ratio: 2.09 [95% confidence interval: 1.66-2.81]).

CONCLUSIONS

Eighteen months after licensure, the vast majority of pediatricians and family physicians reported offering HPV vaccine. Fewer physicians strongly recommended the vaccine for younger adolescents than for older adolescents, and physicians reported financial obstacles to vaccination.

Which pediatricians are providing care to America's children? An update on the trends and changes during the past 26 years

OBJECTIVE

To determine the current proportion of pediatric primary care and specialty visits being conducted by pediatricians versus other providers.

STUDY DESIGN

We used data from 1980-2006 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys (NAMCS) to examine trends in office visits by patients 0 to 17 years of age. During our years of interest, the total number of visits in NAMCS by children ranged from 2597 to 9220 per year.

RESULTS

Overall, the percentage of all nonsurgical physician office visits for children 0 to 17 years of age made to general pediatricians increased from 61% in 1996 to 71% in 2006 and those to nonpediatric generalists fell from 28% to 22%. The greatest changes between 2000 and 2006 occurred in the adolescent age group where the proportion of visits to general pediatricians increased from 38% to 53%.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatricians continue to provide most primary care visits for children in the United States. For the first time, pediatricians now provide most visits for adolescents.

Increasing immunization coverage

In 1977, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement calling for universal immunization of all children for whom vaccines are not contraindicated. In 1995, the policy statement "Implementation of the Immunization Policy" was published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, followed in 2003 with publication of the first version of this statement, "Increasing Immunization Coverage." Since 2003, there have continued to be improvements in immunization coverage, with progress toward meeting the goals set forth in Healthy People 2010. Data from the 2007 National Immunization Survey showed that 90% of children 19 to 35 months of age have received recommended doses of each of the following vaccines: inactivated poliovirus (IPV), measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), varicella-zoster virus (VZB), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib). For diphtheria and tetanus and acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine, 84.5% have received the recommended 4 doses by 35 months of age. Nevertheless, the Healthy People 2010 goal of at least 80% coverage for the full series (at least 4 doses of DTaP, 3 doses of IPV, 1 dose of MMR, 3 doses of Hib, 3 doses of HBV, and 1 dose of varicella-zoster virus vaccine) has not yet been met, and immunization coverage of adolescents continues to lag behind the goals set forth in Healthy People 2010. Despite these encouraging data, a vast number of new challenges that threaten continued success toward the goal of universal immunization coverage have emerged. These challenges include an increase in new vaccines and new vaccine combinations as well as a significant number of vaccines currently under development; a dramatic increase in the acquisition cost of vaccines, coupled with a lack of adequate payment to practitioners to buy and administer vaccines; unanticipated manufacturing and delivery problems that have caused significant shortages of various vaccine products; and the rise of a public antivaccination movement that uses the Internet as well as standard media outlets to advance a position, wholly unsupported by any scientific evidence, linking vaccines with various childhood conditions, particularly autism. Much remains to be accomplished by physician organizations; vaccine manufacturers; third-party payers; the media; and local, state, and federal governments to ensure dependable vaccine supply and payments that are sufficient to continue to provide immunizations in public and private settings and to promote effective strategies to combat unjustified misstatements by the antivaccination movement. Pediatricians should work individually and collectively at the local, state, and national levels to ensure that all children without a valid contraindication receive all childhood immunizations on time. Pediatricians and pediatric organizations, in conjunction with government agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, must communicate effectively with parents to maximize their understanding of the overall safety and efficacy of vaccines. Most parents and children have not experienced many of the vaccine-preventable diseases, and the general public is not well informed about the risks and sequelae of these conditions. A number of recommendations are included for pediatricians, individually and collectively, to support further progress toward the goal of universal immunization coverage of all children for whom vaccines are not contraindicated.

Perspective of vaccine manufacturers on financing pediatric and adolescent vaccines in the United States

OBJECTIVE

The goal was to understand vaccine manufacturers' perspectives on vaccine financing as a barrier to immunization.

METHODS

Individual telephone interviews with representatives of the 6 manufacturers that produce routinely recommended vaccines for children and adolescents in the United States were conducted in November and December 2006.

RESULTS

Although manufacturers acknowledged that the price of newer vaccines presents challenges to optimal vaccine use, they asserted that children and adolescents have access to vaccinations through public and private insurance. Respondents suggested that the system could be improved through adequate funding of the public-sector safety net. Respondents stated that providers should receive timely reimbursement for the full costs of vaccine purchase and administration, and manufacturers who sell directly to health care providers may provide flexible payment terms for vaccine purchases. Manufacturers supported targeted expansion of the Vaccines for Children program to allow children with incomplete insurance coverage for vaccines to receive vaccines at health department clinics. Manufacturers perceived delays in publication of Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations as a potential barrier to vaccine uptake. They viewed the perceived lack of public value for vaccines as a potential barrier to adequate reimbursement and optimal utilization. Respondents also maintained that their ability to negotiate vaccine prices through the private market is a crucial priority.

CONCLUSIONS

Manufacturers assert that children and adolescents have access to immunizations through public and private insurance. Manufacturers think that they have mitigated the challenge most directly in their control: the large financial outlays required for up-front vaccine purchases.

Underinsurance and adolescent immunization delivery in the United States

OBJECTIVE

The goal was to explore the association of being underinsured and receiving doses at a health department clinic (HDC) with not receiving all recommended adolescent vaccine doses.

METHODS

A total of 5657 adolescents, 13 to 17 years of age, were sampled in the National Immunization Survey-Teen in 2006-2007.

RESULTS

A total of 63.9% of all adolescents were covered by private health insurance. Among privately insured adolescents, approximately 31.3% were underinsured. Compared with fully insured adolescents, underinsured adolescents were more likely to receive doses at an HDC for tetanus-diphtheria toxoids/tetanus toxoids-reduced diphtheria toxoids-acellular pertussis vaccine (25.1% vs 6.2%; P < .05), tetravalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (11.5% vs 2.5%; P < .05), and quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (16.2% vs 3.4%; P < .05). Also, compared with fully insured adolescents, underinsured adolescents who received doses at an HDC had lower estimated rates of vaccination coverage for tetanus-diphtheria toxoids/tetanus toxoids-reduced diphtheria toxoids-acellular pertussis vaccine (58.5% vs 70.9%; P < .05), tetravalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (10.8% vs 25.8%; P < .05), and quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (7.8% vs 14.3%; P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Underinsured adolescents who receive doses at an HDC have lower rates of vaccination coverage than do fully insured adolescents.

Financing the delivery of vaccines to children and adolescents: challenges to the current system

Recent increases in the number and costs of vaccines routinely recommended for children and adolescents have raised concerns about the ability of the current vaccine financing and delivery systems to maintain access to recommended vaccines without financial barriers. Here we review the current state of US financing for vaccine delivery to children and adolescents and identify challenges that should be addressed to ensure future access to routinely recommended vaccines without financial barriers. Challenges were considered from the perspectives of vaccine providers; state and local governments; insurers, employers, and other health care purchasers; vaccine manufacturers; and consumers.

Health insurance plans and immunization: assessment of practices and policies, 2005-2008

OBJECTIVES

The goals were to assess private health insurance plans' policies and practices regarding recommended immunizations in 2008 and to identify trends since the America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) 2005 Immunization Assessment.

METHODS

In May 2008, AHIP staff members e-mailed a survey containing 46 questions on immunization practices to 101 AHIP member private health insurance plans. Of those, 58 responded (representing 121,345,521 covered individuals) and 43 declined to participate, yielding a response rate of 57% (compared with 53% in 2005). Data are reported as proportions of enrollees (weighted data) or of responding plans (unweighted data).

RESULTS

In 2008, almost all enrollees (99.8%) represented in the survey were in health insurance plans that used Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations to determine coverage. The vast majority (> or = 99.0%) of enrollees were in plans covering all ACIP-recommended child and adolescent vaccines in > or = 75% of the health insurance product lines offered, and > or = 16.5% of enrollees were in plans covering these vaccines in all products. The majority of enrollees (> or = 83.3%) were in plans covering ACIP-recommended pediatric and adolescent vaccines without cost-sharing. Plans covering 95.5% of enrollees updated benefits to reflect changes in vaccine recommendations within < or = 3 months, compared with 60.0% in 2005. In 2008, 96.7% of enrollees were in plans that could reimburse providers for vaccines within 3 months once the vaccines were included in benefit designs, compared with 59.2% in 2005.

CONCLUSION

The survey shows widespread private health insurance plan coverage of vaccines, consistent with, or better than, the coverage levels reported in the AHIP 2005 survey.

Update: Vaccines for women, adolescence through adulthood

Abstract Recommendations for routine vaccination of adolescents and adults are continually evolving; new vaccines are licensed, and ongoing studies lead to updated recommendations for existing vaccines. Although vaccination is important for both sexes, some recent developments are particularly relevant for women and girls. Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, licensed in 2006, is the first vaccine administered exclusively to women. Another recently licensed vaccine, adult and adolescent tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap), is especially important for women who plan to become pregnant and for new mothers to help prevent pertussis disease in infants who are too young to be vaccinated themselves. Other vaccines, such as influenza and rubella, are also important for pregnant women. Several vaccine safety issues are of particular relevance to women, namely, the theoretical risk of administering live vaccines during pregnancy and data suggesting that adolescent females might be at higher risk for syncope following vaccination. Obstetrician-gynecologists are the primary, and sometimes only, contact with the healthcare system for many adolescent and adult women and, as such, are uniquely positioned to provide vaccination services to the country's female population. Vaccine costs, storage and handling requirements, lack of access to immunization information systems (also known as vaccine registries), and unfamiliarity with current recommendations are potential obstacles to ensuring that all adolescent females and women are appropriately vaccinated. Obstetrician-gynecologists can help reduce some of these obstacles by availing themselves of existing vaccination resources.

Adoption of rotavirus vaccination by pediatricians and family medicine physicians in the United States

OBJECTIVES

The goals were to assess, among pediatricians and family medicine physicians, (1) rates of offering the vaccine in their office; (2) knowledge of Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations; (3) barriers to use; and (4) factors associated with offering the vaccine.

METHODS

Surveys of pediatricians and family medicine physicians were conducted in August to October 2007.

RESULTS

Response rates were 84% for pediatricians and 79% for family medicine physicians (N = 623). Proportions routinely offering the vaccine were 85% of pediatricians and 45% of family medicine physicians (P < .0001); 70% of pediatricians and 22% of family medicine strongly recommended the vaccine (P < .0001). Sixty-two percent of pediatricians and 32% of family medicine physicians (P < .0001) knew the age by which all 3 doses should be completed. Definite barriers to vaccine use included reported lack of coverage by insurance companies (family medicine physicians: 22%; pediatricians: 19%; not significant), costs of purchasing vaccine (family medicine physicians: 22%; pediatricians: 17%; not significant), lack of adequate reimbursement (family medicine physicians: 18%; pediatricians: 15%; not significant), concerns about safety (family medicine physicians: 25%; pediatricians: 9%; P < .0001), and concerns about adding another vaccine to the schedule (family medicine physicians: 22%; pediatricians: 5%; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of offering the new rotavirus vaccine are high among pediatricians but <50% among family medicine physicians. Both specialties identified financial barriers to use of the vaccine, but family medicine physicians had significantly more concerns about safety and about adding another vaccine to the vaccination schedule.

Vaccine supply, demand, and policy: a primer

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of supply and demand issues in the vaccine industry and the policy options that have been implemented to resolve these issues.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Policy File, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts were searched to locate academic journal articles. Other sources reviewed included texts on the topics of vaccine history and policy, government agency reports, and reports from independent think tanks. Keywords included vaccines, immunizations, supply, demand, and policy.

STUDY SELECTION

Search criteria were limited to English language and human studies. Articles pertaining to vaccine demand, supply, and public policy were selected and reviewed for inclusion.

DATA EXTRACTION

By the authors.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Vaccines are biologic medications, therefore making their development and production more difficult and costly compared with "small-molecule" drugs. Research and development costs for vaccines can exceed $800 million, and development may require 10 years or more. Strict manufacturing regulations and facility upgrades add to these costs. Policy options to increase and stabilize the supply of vaccines include those aimed at increasing supply, such as government subsidies for basic vaccine research, liability protection for manufacturers, and fast-track approval for new vaccines. Options to increase vaccine demand include advance purchase commitments, government stockpiles, and government financing for select populations.

CONCLUSION

High development costs and multiple barriers to entry have led to a decline in the number of vaccine manufacturers. Although a number of vaccine policies have met with mixed success in increasing the supply of and demand for vaccines, a variety of concerns remain, including developing vaccines for complex pathogens and increasing immunization rates with available vaccines. New policy innovations such as advance market commitments and Medicare Part D vaccine coverage have been implemented and may aid in resolving some of the problems in the vaccine industry.