[Review of the 2016 Swiss immunization schedule and technology update for improving vaccine management]. / Plan de vaccination 2016 et outils informatiques pour une meilleure gestion des vaccinations.

The 2016 immunization schedule published by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health includes three new clauses: reimbursement of the additional Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in young males (11-26 years) as recommended by local canton programs, the end of franchise exemption for the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination, and the creation of a new system of indemnities and moral compensation in the event of personal injury resulting from vaccinations. This article presents the main features of the 2016 immunization schedule with details of the technology available to physicians to improve vaccine management.

How might immunization rates change if cost sharing is eliminated?

OBJECTIVES: There is a debate regarding the effect of cost sharing on immunization, particularly as the Affordable Care Act will eliminate cost sharing for recommended vaccines. This study estimates changes in immunization rates and spending associated with extending first-dollar coverage to privately insured children for four childhood vaccines. METHODS: We used the 2008 National Immunization Survey and peer-reviewed literature to generate estimates of immunization status for each vaccine by age group and insurance type. We used the Truven Health Analytics 2006 MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database of line-item medical claims to estimate changes in immunization rates that would result from eliminating cost sharing, and we used the Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research and Educational Trust Employer Health Benefits Survey to determine the prevalence of coverage for patients with first-dollar coverage, patients who face office visit cost sharing, and patients who face cost sharing for all vaccine cost components. We assumed that once cost sharing is removed, coverage rates in plans that impose cost sharing will rise to the level of plans that do not. RESULTS: We estimate that immunization rates would increase modestly and result in additional direct spending of $26.0 million to insurers/employers. Further, these payers would have an additional $11.0 million in spending associated with eliminating cost sharing for children already receiving immunizations. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of eliminating cost sharing for vaccines vary by vaccine. Overall, immunization rates will rise modestly given high insurance coverage for vaccinations, and these increases would be more substantial for those currently facing cost sharing. However, in addition to the removal of cost sharing for immunizations, these findings suggest other strategies to consider to further increase immunization rates.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of MMR immunization in health care workers.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) status is an essential part of occupational health clearance for new health care workers (HCWs). At the time of this study the policy at Sheffield Occupational Health Service (SOHS) was to perform serological testing of HCWs without evidence of previous immunization prior to MMR vaccination. AIMS: To identify the cost implications of changing policy to offer vaccination without prior serological testing to HCWs without evidence of previous immunization. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of all MMR serological results from individuals attending SOHS for pre-placement assessment between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2012. RESULTS: Seven thousand five hundred and sixty-nine individuals attended SOHS for pre-placement screening. Of these, 52% (3921) had no evidence of prior vaccination to at least one MMR disease and underwent serological testing. Thirty-three per cent (1204) of these HCWs were sero-negative to at least one condition requiring vaccination. With the suggested change in policy, our data indicate a cost-saving of over £105 000 per year may currently be achieved at SOHS. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight significant savings through offering vaccination without prior serology for HCWs with no evidence of prior immunization to MMR. An awareness of costs associated with serology, vaccination and staff clinics, as well as the wider impact of population vaccination campaigns, are important factors determining the most cost-effective strategy in this area.

Measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella seroprevalence among health care workers in Turkey: is prevaccination screening cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: To investigate the immune status of health care workers (HCWs) against measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella zoster (MMRV) in Turkey and to define an appropriate vaccination program among HCWs. METHODS: Voluntary HCWs from a children's hospital and a general hospital were included in the study between March and May 2005. The specific IgG antibodies against MMRV viruses were screened by ELISA. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-three HCWs participated in the study; 186 (51%) were physicians, 118 (33%) were nurses, 36 (10%) were housekeeping staff, and 23 (6%) were medical technicians. The proportion of HCWs who had antibodies against measles was 98.6%; rubella, 98.3%; mumps, 92.2%; and varicella, 98%. No association was found between the susceptibility to at least 1 of MMRV virus infections and gender, age, duration of work, profession, and department of work in analysis either among the whole study group, or each hospital. The positive predictive value for the history of varicella was 100%, whereas it was 92% for MMR. The cost of vaccination for varicella was significantly expensive without screening before vaccination. However, there was not much difference for MMR infections. CONCLUSION: A policy based on obtaining the history of varicella infection from the staff and then screening the ones with negative history and vaccination of only seronegative HCWs was found to be appropriate.