Disparities in COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage Among Health Care Personnel Working in Long-Term Care Facilities, by Job Category, National Healthcare Safety Network - United States, March 2021.

Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and health care personnel (HCP) working in these facilities are at high risk for COVID-19-associated mortality. As of March 2021, deaths among LTCF residents and HCP have accounted for almost one third (approximately 182,000) of COVID-19-associated deaths in the United States (1). Accordingly, LTCF residents and HCP were prioritized for early receipt of COVID-19 vaccination and were targeted for on-site vaccination through the federal Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program (2). In December 2020, CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) launched COVID-19 vaccination modules, which allow U.S. LTCFs to voluntarily submit weekly facility-level COVID-19 vaccination data.* CDC analyzed data submitted during March 1-April 4, 2021, to describe COVID-19 vaccination coverage among a convenience sample of HCP working in LTCFs, by job category, and compare HCP vaccination coverage rates with social vulnerability metrics of the surrounding community using zip code tabulation area (zip code area) estimates. Through April 4, 2021, a total of 300 LTCFs nationwide, representing approximately 1.8% of LTCFs enrolled in NHSN, reported that 22,825 (56.8%) of 40,212 HCP completed COVID-19 vaccination.† Vaccination coverage was highest among physicians and advanced practice providers (75.1%) and lowest among nurses (56.7%) and aides (45.6%). Among aides (including certified nursing assistants, nurse aides, medication aides, and medication assistants), coverage was lower in facilities located in zip code areas with higher social vulnerability (social and structural factors associated with adverse health outcomes), corresponding to vaccination disparities present in the wider community (3). Additional efforts are needed to improve LTCF immunization policies and practices, build confidence in COVID-19 vaccines, and promote COVID-19 vaccination. CDC and partners have prepared education and training resources to help educate HCP and promote COVID-19 vaccination coverage among LTCF staff members.§.

Billing and payment of commercial and Medicaid health plan adult vaccination claims in Michigan since the Affordable Care Act.

BACKGROUND: Provider concern regarding insurance non-payment for vaccines is a common barrier to provision of adult immunizations. We examined current adult vaccination billing and payment associated with two managed care populations to identify reasons for non-payment of immunization insurance claims. METHODS: We assessed administrative data from 2014 to 2015 from Blue Care Network of Michigan, a nonprofit health maintenance organization, and Blue Cross Complete of Michigan, a Medicaid managed care plan, to determine rates of and reasons for non-payment of adult vaccination claims across patient-care settings, insurance plans, and vaccine types. We compared commercial and Medicaid payment rates to Medicare payment rates and examined patient cost sharing. RESULTS: Pharmacy-submitted claims for adult vaccine doses were almost always paid (commercial 98.5%; Medicaid 100%). As the physician office accounted for the clear majority (79% commercial; 69% Medicaid) of medical (non-pharmacy) vaccination services, we limited further analyses of both commercial and Medicaid medical claims to the physician office setting. In the physician office setting, rates of payment were high with commercial rates of payment (97.9%) greater than Medicaid rates (91.6%). Reasons for non-payment varied, but generally related to the complexity of adult vaccine recommendations (patient diagnosis does not match recommendations) or insurance coverage (complex contracts, multiple insurance payers). Vaccine administration services were also generally paid. Commercial health plan payments were greater for both vaccine dose and vaccine administration than Medicare payments; Medicaid paid a higher amount for the vaccine dose, but less for vaccine administration than Medicare. Patients generally had very low (commercial) or no (Medicaid) cost-sharing for vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Adult vaccine dose claims were usually paid. Medicaid generally had higher rates of non-payment than commercial insurance.

A review of the cost-effectiveness of adult influenza vaccination and other preventive services.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend annual influenza vaccination of persons ≥6 months old. However, in 2016-17, only 43.3% of U.S. adults reported receiving an influenza vaccination. Limited awareness about the cost-effectiveness (CE) or the economic value of influenza vaccination may contribute to low vaccination coverage. In 2017, we conducted a literature review to survey estimates of the CE of influenza vaccination of adults compared to no vaccination. We also summarized CE estimates of other common preventive interventions that are recommended for adults by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Results are presented as costs in US$2015 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved. Among adults aged 18-64, the CE of influenza vaccination ranged from $8000 to $39,000 per QALY. Assessments for adults aged ≥65 yielded lower CE ratios, ranging from being cost-saving to $15,300 per QALY. Influenza vaccination was cost-saving to $85,000 per QALY for pregnant women in moderate or severe influenza seasons and $260,000 per QALY in low-incidence seasons. For other preventive interventions, CE estimates ranged from cost-saving to $170,000 per QALY saved for breast cancer screening among women aged 50-74, from cost-saving to $16,000 per QALY for colorectal cancer screening, and from $27,000 to $600,000 per QALY for hypertension screening and treatment. Influenza vaccination in adults appears to have a similar CE profile as other commonly utilized preventive services for adults. Efforts to improve adult vaccination should be considered by adult-patient providers, healthcare systems and payers given the health and economic benefits of influenza vaccination.

Estimating the Costs and Income of Providing Vaccination to Adults and Children.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccinations are recommended to prevent serious morbidity and mortality. However, providers' concerns regarding costs and payments for providing vaccination services are commonly reported barriers to adult vaccination. Information on the costs of providing vaccination is limited, especially for adults. METHODS: We recruited 4 internal medicine, 4 family medicine, 2 pediatric, 2 obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) practices, and 2 community health clinics in North Carolina to participate in a study to assess the economic costs and benefits of providing vaccination services for adults and children. We conducted a time-motion assessment of vaccination-related activities in the provider office and a survey to providers on vaccine management costs. We estimated mean cost per vaccination, minimum and maximum payments received, and income. RESULTS: Across all provider settings, mean cost per vaccine administration was $14 with substantial variation by practice setting (pediatric: $10; community health clinics: $15; family medicine: $17; OBGYN: $23; internal medicine: $23). When receiving the maximum payment, all provider settings had positive income for vaccination services. When receiving the minimum reported payments for vaccination services, pediatric and family medicine practices had positive income, internal medicine, and OBGYN practices had approximately equal costs and payments, and community health clinics had losses or negative income. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, vaccination service providers appeared to have small positive income from vaccination services. In some cases, providers experienced negative income, which underscores the need for providers and policymakers to design interventions and system improvements to make vaccination services financially sustainable for all provider types.

Cost-effectiveness of increased influenza vaccination uptake against readmissions of major adverse cardiac events in the US.

BACKGROUND: Although influenza vaccination has been shown to reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) among those with existing cardiovascular disease (CVD), in the 2015-16 season, coverage for persons with heart disease was only 48% in the US. METHODS: We built a Monte Carlo (probabilistic) spreadsheet-based decision tree in 2018 to estimate the cost-effectiveness of increased influenza vaccination to prevent MACE readmissions. We based our model on current US influenza vaccination coverage of the estimated 493,750 US acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients from the healthcare payer perspective. We excluded outpatient costs and time lost from work and included only hospitalization and vaccination costs. We also estimated the incremental cost/MACE case averted and incremental cost/QALY gained (ICER) if 75% hospitalized ACS patients were vaccinated by discharge and estimated the impact of increasing vaccination coverage incrementally by 5% up to 95% in a sensitivity analysis, among hospitalized adults aged ≥ 65 years and 18-64 years, and varying vaccine effectiveness from 30-40%. RESULT: At 75% vaccination coverage by discharge, vaccination was cost-saving from the healthcare payer perspective in adults ≥ 65 years and the ICER was $12,680/QALY (95% CI: 6,273-20,264) in adults 18-64 years and $2,400 (95% CI: -1,992-7,398) in all adults 18 + years. These resulted in ~ 500 (95% CI: 439-625) additional averted MACEs/year for all adult patients aged ≥18 years and added ~700 (95% CI: 578-825) QALYs. In the sensitivity analysis, vaccination becomes cost-saving in adults 18+years after about 80% vaccination rate. To achieve 75% vaccination rate in all adults aged ≥ 18 years will require an additional cost of $3 million. The effectiveness of the vaccine, cost of vaccination, and vaccination coverage rate had the most impact on the results. CONCLUSION: Increasing vaccination rate among hospitalized ACS patients has a favorable cost-effectiveness profile and becomes cost-saving when at least 80% are vaccinated.

Cost-effectiveness of adult vaccinations: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Coverage levels for many recommended adult vaccinations are low. The cost-effectiveness research literature on adult vaccinations has not been synthesized in recent years, which may contribute to low awareness of the value of adult vaccinations and to their under-utilization. We assessed research literature since 1980 to summarize economic evidence for adult vaccinations included on the adult immunization schedule. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, EconLit, and Cochrane Library from 1980 to 2016 and identified economic evaluation or cost-effectiveness analysis for vaccinations targeting persons aged ≥18 years in the U.S. or Canada. After excluding records based on title and abstract reviews, the remaining publications had a full-text review from two independent reviewers, who extracted economic values that compared vaccination to "no vaccination" scenarios. RESULTS: The systematic searches yielded 1688 publications. After removing duplicates, off-topic publications, and publications without a "no vaccination" comparison, 78 publications were included in the final analysis (influenza = 25, pneumococcal = 18, human papillomavirus = 9, herpes zoster = 7, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis = 9, hepatitis B = 9, and multiple vaccines = 1). Among outcomes assessing age-based vaccinations, the percent indicating cost-savings was 56% for influenza, 31% for pneumococcal, and 23% for tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis vaccinations. Among age-based vaccination outcomes reporting $/QALY, the percent of outcomes indicating a cost per QALY of ≤$100,000 was 100% for influenza, 100% for pneumococcal, 69% for human papillomavirus, 71% for herpes zoster, and 50% for tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis vaccinations. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of published studies report favorable cost-effectiveness profiles for adult vaccinations, which supports efforts to improve the implementation of adult vaccination recommendations.

Vaccine financing and billing in practices serving adult patients: A follow-up survey.

BACKGROUND: Financial concerns are often cited by physicians as a barrier to administering routinely recommended vaccines to adults. The purpose of this study was to assess perceived payments and profit from administering recommended adult vaccines and vaccine purchasing practices among general internal medicine (GIM) and family medicine (FM) practices in the United States. METHODS: We conducted an interviewer-administered survey from January-June 2014 of practices stratified by specialty (FM or GIM), affiliation (standalone or ≥ 2 practice sites), and level of financial decision-making (independent or larger system level) in FM and GIM practices that responded to a previous survey on adult vaccine financing and provided contact information for follow-up. Practice personnel identified as knowledgeable about vaccine financing and billing responded to questions about payments relative to vaccine purchase price and payment for vaccine administration, perceived profit on vaccination, claim denial, and utilization of various purchasing strategies for private vaccine stocks. Survey items on payment and perceived profit were assessed for various public and private payer types. Descriptive statistics were calculated and responses compared by physician specialty, practice affiliation, and level of financial decision-making. RESULTS: Of 242 practices approached, 43% (n = 104) completed the survey. Reported payment levels and perceived profit varied by payer type. Only for preferred provider organizations did a plurality of respondents report profiting on adult vaccination services. Over half of respondents reported losing money vaccinating adult Medicaid beneficiaries. One-quarter to one-third of respondents reported not knowing about Medicare Part D payment levels for vaccine purchase and vaccine administration, respectively. Few respondents reported negotiating with manufacturers or insurance plans on vaccine purchase prices or payments for vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Practices vaccinating adults may benefit from education and technical assistance related to vaccine financing and billing and greater use of purchasing strategies to decrease upfront vaccine cost.

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.

Integrating pharmacies into public health program planning for pandemic influenza vaccine response.

BACKGROUND: During an influenza pandemic, to achieve early and rapid vaccination coverage and maximize the benefit of an immunization campaign, partnerships between public health agencies and vaccine providers are essential. Immunizing pharmacists represent an important group for expanding access to pandemic vaccination. However, little is known about nationwide coordination between public health programs and pharmacies for pandemic vaccine response planning. METHODS: To assess relationships and planning activities between public health programs and pharmacies, we analyzed data from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessments of jurisdictions that received immunization and emergency preparedness funding from 2012 to 2015. RESULTS: Forty-seven (88.7%) of 53 jurisdictions reported including pharmacies in pandemic vaccine distribution plans, 24 (45.3%) had processes to recruit pharmacists to vaccinate, and 16 (30.8%) of 52 established formal relationships with pharmacies. Most jurisdictions plan to allocate less than 10% of pandemic vaccine supply to pharmacies. DISCUSSION: While most jurisdictions plan to include pharmacies as pandemic vaccine providers, work is needed to establish formalized agreements between public health departments and pharmacies to improve pandemic preparedness coordination and ensure that vaccinating pharmacists are fully utilized during a pandemic.

Physician Attitudes Toward Adult Vaccines and Other Preventive Practices, United States, 2012.

OBJECTIVES: We described the following among U.S. primary care physicians: (1) perceived importance of vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices relative to U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) preventive services, (2) attitudes toward the U.S. adult immunization schedule, and (3) awareness and use of Medicare preventive service visits. METHODS: We conducted an Internet and mail survey from March to June 2012 among national networks of general internists and family physicians. RESULTS: We received responses from 352 of 445 (79%) general internists and 255 of 409 (62%) family physicians. For a 67-year-old hypothetical patient, 540/606 (89%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 87, 92) of physicians ranked seasonal influenza vaccine and 487/607 (80%, 95% CI 77, 83) ranked pneumococcal vaccine as very important, whereas 381/604 (63%, 95% CI 59, 67) ranked Tdap/Td vaccine and 288/607 (47%, 95% CI 43, 51) ranked herpes zoster vaccine as very important (p<0.001). All Grade A USPSTF recommendations were considered more important than Tdap/Td and herpes zoster vaccines. For the hypothetical patient aged 30 years, the number and percentage of physicians who reported that the Tdap/Td vaccine (377/604; 62%, 95% CI 59, 66) is very important was greater than the number and percentage who reported that the seasonal influenza vaccine (263/605; 43%, 95% CI 40, 47) is very important (p<0.001), and all Grade A and Grade B USPSTF recommendations were more often reported as very important than was any vaccine. A total of 172 of 587 physicians (29%) found aspects of the adult immunization schedule confusing. Among physicians aware of "Welcome to Medicare" and annual wellness visits, 492/514 (96%, 95% CI 94, 97) and 329/496 (66%, 95% CI 62, 70), respectively, reported having conducted fewer than 10 such visits in the previous month. CONCLUSIONS: Despite lack of prioritization of vaccines by ACIP, physicians are prioritizing some vaccines over others and ranking some vaccines below other preventive services. These attitudes and confusion about the immunization schedule may result in missed opportunities for vaccination. Medicare preventive visits are not being used widely despite offering a venue for delivery of preventive services, including vaccinations.

Surveillance of Vaccination Coverage Among Adult Populations - United States, 2014.

PROBLEM/CONDITION: Overall, the prevalence of illness attributable to vaccine-preventable diseases is greater among adults than among children. Adults are recommended to receive vaccinations based on their age, underlying medical conditions, lifestyle, prior vaccinations, and other considerations. Updated vaccination recommendations from CDC are published annually in the U.S. Adult Immunization Schedule. Despite longstanding recommendations for use of many vaccines, vaccination coverage among U.S. adults is low. REPORTING PERIOD: August 2013-June 2014 (for influenza vaccination) and January-December 2014 (for pneumococcal, tetanus and diphtheria [Td] and tetanus and diphtheria with acellular pertussis [Tdap], hepatitis A, hepatitis B, herpes zoster, and human papillomavirus [HPV] vaccination). DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is a continuous, cross-sectional national household survey of the noninstitutionalized U.S. civilian population. In-person interviews are conducted throughout the year in a probability sample of households, and NHIS data are compiled and released annually. The survey objective is to monitor the health of the U.S. population and provide estimates of health indicators, health care use and access, and health-related behaviors. RESULTS: Compared with data from the 2013 NHIS, increases in vaccination coverage occurred for Tdap vaccine among adults aged ≥19 years (a 2.9 percentage point increase to 20.1%) and herpes zoster vaccine among adults aged ≥60 years (a 3.6 percentage point increase to 27.9%). Aside from these modest improvements, vaccination coverage among adults in 2014 was similar to estimates from 2013 (for influenza coverage, similar to the 2012-13 season). Influenza vaccination coverage among adults aged ≥19 years was 43.2%. Pneumococcal vaccination coverage among high-risk persons aged 19-64 years was 20.3% and among adults aged ≥65 years was 61.3%. Td vaccination coverage among adults aged ≥19 years was 62.2%. Hepatitis A vaccination coverage among adults aged ≥19 years was 9.0%. Hepatitis B vaccination coverage among adults aged ≥19 years was 24.5%. HPV vaccination coverage among adults aged 19-26 years was 40.2% for females and 8.2% for males. Racial/ethnic differences in coverage persisted for all seven vaccines, with higher coverage generally for whites compared with most other groups. Adults without health insurance were significantly less likely than those with health insurance to report receipt of influenza vaccine (aged ≥19 years), pneumococcal vaccine (aged 19-64 years with high-risk conditions and aged ≥65 years), Td vaccine (aged ≥19 years), Tdap vaccine (aged ≥19 years and 19-64 years), hepatitis A vaccine (aged ≥19 years overall and among travelers), hepatitis B vaccine (aged ≥19 years, 19-49 years, and 19-59 years with diabetes), herpes zoster vaccine (aged ≥60 years and 60-64 years), and HPV vaccine (females aged 19-26 years and males aged 19-26 years). Adults who reported having a usual place for health care generally were more likely to receive recommended vaccinations than those who did not have a usual place for health care, regardless of whether they had health insurance. Vaccination coverage was significantly higher among those reporting one or more physician contacts in the past year compared with those who had not visited a physician in the past year, regardless of whether they had health insurance. Even among adults who had health insurance and ≥10 physician contacts within the past year, 23.8%-88.8% reported not having received vaccinations that were recommended either for all persons or for those with some specific indication. Overall, vaccination coverage among U.S.-born respondents was significantly higher than that of foreign-born respondents with few exceptions (influenza vaccination [adults aged 19-49 years], hepatitis A vaccination [adults aged ≥19 years], hepatitis B vaccination [adults with diabetes aged ≥60 years], and HPV vaccination [males aged 19-26 years]). INTERPRETATION: Overall, increases in adult vaccination coverage are needed. Although modest gains occurred in Tdap vaccination coverage among adults aged ≥19 years and herpes zoster vaccination coverage among adults aged ≥60 years, coverage for other vaccines and risk groups did not improve, and racial/ethnic disparities persisted for routinely recommended adult vaccines. Coverage for all vaccines for adults remained low, and missed opportunities to vaccinate adults continued. Although having health insurance coverage and a usual place for health care are associated with higher vaccination coverage, these factors alone do not assure optimal adult vaccination coverage. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIONS: Assessing associations with vaccination is important for understanding factors that contribute to low coverage rates and to disparities in vaccination, and for implementing strategies to improve vaccination coverage. Practices that have been demonstrated to improve vaccination coverage should be used. These practices include assessment of patients' vaccination indications by health care providers and routine recommendation and offer of needed vaccines to adults, implementation of reminder-recall systems, use of standing-order programs for vaccination, and assessment of practice-level vaccination rates with feedback to staff members. For vaccination to be improved among those least likely to be up-to-date on recommended adult vaccines, efforts also are needed to identify adults who do not have a regular provider or insurance and who report fewer health care visits.

Meeting the Challenges of Immunizing Adults.

The overall burden of illness from diseases for which vaccines are available disproportionately falls on adults. Adults are recommended to receive vaccinations based on their age, underlying medical conditions, lifestyle, prior vaccinations, and other considerations. Updated vaccine recommendations from CDC are published annually in the U.S. Adult Immunization Schedule. Vaccine use among U.S. adults is low. Although receipt of a provider (physician or other vaccinating healthcare provider) recommendation is a key predictor of vaccination, more often consumers report not receiving vaccine recommendations at healthcare provider visits. Although providers support the benefits of vaccination, they also report several barriers to vaccinating adults, including the cost of providing vaccination services, inadequate or inconsistent payment for vaccines and vaccine administration, and acute medical care taking precedence over preventive services. Despite these challenges, a number of strategies have been demonstrated to substantially improve adult vaccine coverage, including patient and provider reminders and standing orders for vaccination. Providers are encouraged to incorporate routine assessment of their adult patients' vaccination needs during all clinical encounters to ensure patients receive recommendations for needed vaccines and are either offered needed vaccines or referred for vaccination.

Racial and ethnic disparities in vaccination coverage among adult populations in the U.S.

INTRODUCTION: Reducing racial/ethnic disparities in immunization rates is a compelling public health goal. Disparities in childhood vaccination rates have not been observed in recent years for most vaccines. The objective of this study is to assess adult vaccination by race/ethnicity in the U.S. METHODS: The 2012 National Health Interview Survey was analyzed in 2014 to assess adult vaccination by race/ethnicity for five vaccines routinely recommended for adults: influenza, tetanus, pneumococcal (two vaccines), human papilloma virus, and zoster vaccines. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors independently associated with all adult vaccinations. RESULTS: Vaccination coverage was significantly lower among non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, and non-Hispanic Asians compared with non-Hispanic whites, with only a few exceptions. Age, sex, education, health insurance, usual place of care, number of physician visits in the past 12 months, and health insurance were independently associated with receipt of most of the examined vaccines. Racial/ethnic differences narrowed, but gaps remained after taking these factors into account. CONCLUSIONS: Racial and ethnic differences in vaccination levels narrow when adjusting for socioeconomic factors analyzed in this survey, but are not eliminated, suggesting that other factors that are associated with vaccination disparities are not measured by the National Health Interview Survey and could also contribute to the differences in coverage. Additional efforts, including systems changes to ensure routine assessment and recommendations for needed vaccinations among adults for all racial/ethnic groups, are essential for improving vaccine coverage.

Meeting the Challenges of Immunizing Adults.

The overall burden of illness from diseases for which vaccines are available disproportionately falls on adults. Adults are recommended to receive vaccinations based on their age, underlying medical conditions, lifestyle, prior vaccinations, and other considerations. Updated vaccine recommendations from CDC are published annually in the U.S. Adult Immunization Schedule. Vaccine use among U.S. adults is low. Although receipt of a provider (physician or other vaccinating healthcare provider) recommendation is a key predictor of vaccination, more often consumers report not receiving vaccine recommendations at healthcare provider visits. Although providers support the benefits of vaccination, they also report several barriers to vaccinating adults, including the cost of providing vaccination services, inadequate or inconsistent payment for vaccines and vaccine administration, and acute medical care taking precedence over preventive services. Despite these challenges, a number of strategies have been demonstrated to substantially improve adult vaccine coverage, including patient and provider reminders and standing orders for vaccination. Providers are encouraged to incorporate routine assessment of their adult patients' vaccination needs during all clinical encounters to ensure patients receive recommendations for needed vaccines and are either offered needed vaccines or referred for vaccination.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Vaccination Coverage Among Adult Populations in the U.S.

INTRODUCTION: Reducing racial/ethnic disparities in immunization rates is a compelling public health goal. Disparities in childhood vaccination rates have not been observed in recent years for most vaccines. The objective of this study is to assess adult vaccination by race/ethnicity in the U.S. METHODS: The 2012 National Health Interview Survey was analyzed in 2014 to assess adult vaccination by race/ethnicity for five vaccines routinely recommended for adults: influenza, tetanus, pneumococcal (two vaccines), human papilloma virus, and zoster vaccines. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors independently associated with all adult vaccinations. RESULTS: Vaccination coverage was significantly lower among non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, and non-Hispanic Asians compared with non-Hispanic whites, with only a few exceptions. Age, sex, education, health insurance, usual place of care, number of physician visits in the past 12 months, and health insurance were independently associated with receipt of most of the examined vaccines. Racial/ethnic differences narrowed, but gaps remained after taking these factors into account. CONCLUSIONS: Racial and ethnic differences in vaccination levels narrow when adjusting for socioeconomic factors analyzed in this survey, but are not eliminated, suggesting that other factors that are associated with vaccination disparities are not measured by the National Health Interview Survey and could also contribute to the differences in coverage. Additional efforts, including systems changes to ensure routine assessment and recommendations for needed vaccinations among adults for all racial/ethnic groups, are essential for improving vaccine coverage.

Vaccination coverage among adults, excluding influenza vaccination - United States, 2013.

Vaccinations are recommended throughout life to prevent vaccine-preventable diseases and their sequelae. Adult vaccination coverage, however, remains low for most routinely recommended vaccines and below Healthy People 2020 targets. In October 2014, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) approved the adult immunization schedule for 2015. With the exception of influenza vaccination, which is recommended for all adults each year, other adult vaccinations are recommended for specific populations based on a person's age, health conditions, behavioral risk factors (e.g., injection drug use), occupation, travel, and other indications. To assess vaccination coverage among adults aged ≥19 years for selected vaccines, CDC analyzed data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). This report highlights results of that analysis for pneumococcal, tetanus toxoid-containing (tetanus and diphtheria vaccine [Td] or tetanus and diphtheria with acellular pertussis vaccine [Tdap]), hepatitis A, hepatitis B, herpes zoster (shingles), and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines by selected characteristics (age, race/ethnicity,† and vaccination indication). Influenza vaccination coverage estimates for the 2013-14 influenza season have been published separately. Compared with 2012, only modest increases occurred in Tdap vaccination among adults aged ≥19 years (a 2.9 percentage point increase to 17.2%), herpes zoster vaccination among adults aged ≥60 years (a 4.1 percentage point increase to 24.2%), and HPV vaccination among males aged 19-26 years (a 3.6 percentage point increase to 5.9%); coverage among adults in the United States for the other vaccines did not improve. Racial/ethnic disparities in coverage persisted for all six vaccines and widened for Tdap and herpes zoster vaccination. Increases in vaccination coverage are needed to reduce the occurrence of vaccine-preventable diseases among adults. Awareness of the need for vaccines for adults is low among the general population, and adult patients largely rely on health care provider recommendations for vaccination. The Community Preventive Services Task Force and the National Vaccine Advisory Committee have recommended that health care providers incorporate vaccination needs assessment, recommendation, and offer of vaccination into every clinical encounter with adult patients to improve vaccination rates and to narrow the widening racial/ethnic disparities in vaccination coverage.

U.S. physicians' perspective of adult vaccine delivery.

BACKGROUND: Adults are at substantial risk for vaccine-preventable disease, but their vaccination rates remain low. OBJECTIVE: To assess practices for assessing vaccination status and stocking recommended vaccines, barriers to vaccination, characteristics associated with reporting financial barriers to delivering vaccines, and practices regarding vaccination by alternate vaccinators. DESIGN: Mail and Internet-based survey. SETTING: Survey conducted from March to June 2012. PARTICIPANTS: General internists and family physicians throughout the United States. MEASUREMENTS: A financial barriers scale was created. Multivariable linear modeling for each specialty was performed to assess associations between a financial barrier score and physician and practice characteristics. RESULTS: Response rates were 79% (352 of 443) for general internists and 62% (255 of 409) for family physicians. Twenty-nine percent of general internists and 32% of family physicians reported assessing vaccination status at every visit. A minority used immunization information systems (8% and 36%, respectively). Almost all respondents reported assessing need for and stocking seasonal influenza; pneumococcal; tetanus and diphtheria; and tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccines. However, fewer assessed and stocked other recommended vaccines. The most commonly reported barriers were financial. Characteristics significantly associated with reporting greater financial barriers included private practice setting, fewer than 5 providers in the practice, and, for general internists only, having more patients with Medicare Part D. The most commonly reported reasons for referring patients elsewhere included lack of insurance coverage for the vaccine (55% for general internists and 62% for family physicians) or inadequate reimbursement (36% and 41%, respectively). Patients were most often referred to pharmacies/retail stores and public health departments. LIMITATIONS: Surveyed physicians may not be representative of all physicians. CONCLUSION: Improving adult vaccination delivery will require increased use of evidence-based methods for vaccination delivery and concerted efforts to resolve financial barriers, especially for smaller practices and for general internists who see more patients with Medicare Part D. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Seasonal influenza vaccination coverage among adult populations in the United States, 2005-2011.

The most effective strategy for preventing influenza is annual vaccination. We analyzed 2005-2011 data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis to estimate cumulative proportions of persons reporting influenza vaccination in the 2004-2005 through 2010-2011 seasons for persons aged ≥18, 18-49, 50-64, and ≥65 years, persons with high-risk conditions, and health-care personnel. We compared vaccination coverage by race/ethnicity within each age and high-risk group. Vaccination coverage among adults aged ≥18 years increased from 27.4% during the 2005-2006 influenza season to 38.1% during the 2010-2011 season, with an average increase of 2.2% annually. From the 2005-2006 season to the 2010-2011 season, coverage increased by 10-12 percentage points for all groups except adults aged ≥65 years. Coverage for the 2010-2011 season was 70.2% for adults aged ≥65 years, 43.7% for adults aged 50-64 years, 36.7% for persons aged 18-49 years with high-risk conditions, and 55.8% for health-care personnel. In most subgroups, coverage during the 2010-2011 season was significantly lower among non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics than among non-Hispanic whites. Vaccination coverage among adults under age 65 years increased from 2005-2006 through 2010-2011, but substantial racial/ethnic disparities remained in most age groups. Targeted efforts are needed to improve influenza vaccination coverage and reduce disparities.

Disparities between black and white children in hospitalizations associated with acute respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in 3 US counties--2002-2009.

Few US studies have assessed racial disparities in viral respiratory hospitalizations among children. This study enrolled black and white children under 5 years of age who were hospitalized for acute respiratory illness (ARI) in 3 US counties during October-May 2002-2009. Population-based rates of hospitalization were calculated by race for ARI and laboratory-confirmed influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), using US Census denominators. Relative rates of hospitalization between racial groups were estimated. Of 1,415 hospitalized black children and 1,824 hospitalized white children with ARI enrolled in the study, 108 (8%) black children and 111 (6%) white children had influenza and 230 (19%) black children and 441 (29%) white children had RSV. Hospitalization rates were higher among black children than among white children for ARI (relative rate (RR) = 1.7, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.6, 1.8) and influenza (RR = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.6, 2.9). For RSV, rates were similar among black and white children under age 12 months but higher for black children aged 12 months or more (for ages 12-23 months, RR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1, 2.5; for ages 24-59 months, RR = 2.2, 95% CI: 1.3, 3.6). Black children versus white children were significantly more likely to have public insurance or no insurance (85% vs. 43%) and a history of asthma/wheezing (28% vs. 18%) but not more severe illness. The observed racial disparities require further study.

The first national adult immunization summit 2012: implementing change through action.

To address lagging vaccine coverage among adults in the United States, over 150 organizations representing a wide range of immunization partners convened in Atlanta, GA from May 15-16, 2012 for the inaugural National Adult Immunization Summit. The meeting called for solution-oriented discussion toward improving current immunization levels, implementing the 2011 National Vaccine Advisory Committee adult immunization recommendations, and capitalizing on new opportunities to improve coverage. Provisions in the federal health reform law that increase access to preventive services, including immunizations, and the increasing numbers of complementary vaccine providers such as pharmacists, create new opportunities to increase access for immunization services and improve coverage for adults. The Summit organized around five focal areas: empowering providers, quality and performance measures, increasing access and collaboration, educating patients, and informing decision-makers. These focal areas formed the basis of working groups, charged to coordinate efforts by the participating organizations to address gaps in the current immunization system. Summit participants identified priority themes to address as tasks during the coming year, including better communicating the value of immunizations to increase demand for immunizations, creating a central repository of resources for providers, patients, and others interested in improving adult immunization levels, examining performance and quality measures and evaluating means to use such measures to motivate vaccine providers, increasing engagement with employer and employee groups to increase awareness and demand for vaccinations, improving the use of immunization information systems and electronic health reports, decreasing barriers to all vaccine providers including pharmacists and community vaccinators, decreasing the complexity of the adult vaccine schedule where possible, engaging adult immunization champions and leaders in key sectors, including adult healthcare provider groups, and encouraging more integration of immunization services with other preventive services.