Structural and relational factors for successful cross-sector collaboration in home visiting: a multiple case study.

BACKGROUND: Aligning delivery and financing systems across sectors to create broader systems of care can improve the health and well-being of families experiencing adversities. We aimed to identify structural and relational factors for best practices to achieve successful cross-sector collaboration among home visiting programs in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a multiple case study approach to identify best practices for successful cross-sector collaboration between home visitors and other community service providers. We selected five diverse exemplary cases with cross-sector collaboration with variation in implementing agency type and geographic location. Cases were selected using a positive deviance approach based on strong coordination and integration with different community service provider types identified from previous survey data. We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with home visiting staff, community providers, and clients with a total of 76 interviews conducted from 2021 to 2022. We wrote memos to synthesize themes within each case through data triangulation using interview data, documents, and site visit observations. We compared themes across the five cases to create a cross-case synthesis of best practices for successful cross-sector collaboration. RESULTS: Across the five cases, relational factors including leadership from all levels, champions across sectors, and shared goals between community providers were key factors for successful collaboration. Interpersonal relationships, coupled with the desire and capacity to engage, facilitated effective coordination to address families' needs. At the structural level, shared data systems, written agreements, and co-location enabled care coordination activities. Community Advisory Boards provided a venue for developing partnerships, relationship-building, resource-sharing, and increasing awareness of home visiting. CONCLUSIONS: We identified key elements of successful cross-sector collaboration across five case studies where home visitors coordinate care frequently and/or are structurally integrated with a range of providers. These learnings will inform future interventions to improve home visiting collaboration with other community providers to create a system of care to enhance family well-being.

The Link Between School Attendance and Good Health.

More than 6.5 million children in the United States, approximately 13% of all students, miss 15 or more days of school each year. The rates of chronic absenteeism vary between states, communities, and schools, with significant disparities based on income, race, and ethnicity. Chronic school absenteeism, starting as early as preschool and kindergarten, puts students at risk for poor school performance and school dropout, which in turn, put them at risk for unhealthy behaviors as adolescents and young adults as well as poor long-term health outcomes. Pediatricians and their colleagues caring for children in the medical setting have opportunities at the individual patient and/or family, practice, and population levels to promote school attendance and reduce chronic absenteeism and resulting health disparities. Although this policy statement is primarily focused on absenteeism related to students' physical and mental health, pediatricians may play a role in addressing absenteeism attributable to a wide range of factors through individual interactions with patients and their parents and through community-, state-, and federal-level advocacy.

Primary care physicians' perspectives on respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in adults and a potential RSV vaccine for adults.

BACKGROUND: Deaths attributable to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) among adults are estimated to exceed 11,000 annually, and annual adult hospitalizations for influenza and RSV may be comparable. RSV vaccines for older adults are in development. We assessed the following among primary care physicians (PCPs) who treat adults: (1) perception of RSV disease burden; (2) current RSV testing practices; and (3) anticipated barriers to adoption of an RSV vaccine. METHODS: We administered an Internet and mail survey from February to March 2017 to national networks of 930 PCPs. RESULTS: The response rate was 67% (620/930). Forty-nine percent of respondents (n = 303) were excluded from analysis as they reported never or rarely caring for an adult patient with possible RSV in the past year. Among respondents who reported taking care of RSV patients (n = 317), 73% and 57% responded that in patients ≥ 50 years, influenza is generally more severe than RSV and that they rarely consider RSV as a potential pathogen, respectively. Most (61%) agreed that they do not test for RSV because there is no treatment. The most commonly reported anticipated barriers to a RSV vaccine were potential out-of-pocket expenses for patients if the vaccine is not covered by insurance (93%) and lack of reimbursement for vaccination (74%). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians reported little experience with RSV disease in adults. They are generally not testing for it and the majority believe that influenza disease is more severe. Physicians will require more information about RSV disease burden in adults and the potential need for a vaccine in their adult patients.

Using Mobile Health to Promote Early Language Development: A Narrative Review.

In this narrative review, we first present a brief overview of known disparities in children's language development based on socioeconomic status and efforts in the primary care setting to promote children's language development. Next, we define mobile health (m-health) and review the limited, published literature regarding the effectiveness of m-health interventions in promoting children's health, in general, and language development, in particular. Finally, we discuss the potential role of smartphone applications to increase parental behaviors that promote their children's language development, as well as challenges that should be addressed as the field of m-health continues to grow.

Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Category B ACIP Recommendations Among Primary Care Providers for Children.

OBJECTIVE: In 2015, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) made a category B recommendation for use of serogroup B meningococcal (MenB) vaccines, meaning individual clinical decision-making should guide recommendations. This was the first use of a category B recommendation pertaining to a large population and the first such recommendation for adolescents. As part of a survey regarding MenB vaccine, our objectives were to assess among pediatricians (Peds) and family physicians (FPs) nationally: 1) knowledge of the meaning of category A versus B recommendations and insurance coverage implications, and 2) attitudes about category A and B recommendations. METHODS: We surveyed a nationally representative sample of Peds and FPs via e-mail and mail from October to December 2016. RESULTS: The response rate was 72% (660 of 916). Although >80% correctly identified the definition of a category A recommendation, only 24% were correct about the definition for category B. Fifty-five percent did not know that private insurance would pay for vaccines recommended as category B, and 51% did not know that category B-recommended vaccines would be covered by the Vaccines for Children program. Fifty-nine percent found it difficult to explain category B recommendations to patients; 22% thought ACIP should not make category B recommendations; and 39% were in favor of category B recommendations because they provide leeway in decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: For category B recommendations to be useful in guiding practice, primary care clinicians will need to have a better understanding of their meaning, their implications for insurance payment, and guidance on how to discuss them with parents and patients.

Can School-Located Vaccination Have a Major Impact on Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Rates in the United States?

School-local vaccination (SLV) has been a highly effective method of increasing rates of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in many countries internationally in which vaccines are purchased by national, regional, or local public health authorities and offered free of charge within schools. However, the effectiveness of SLV for increasing HPV vaccination rates in the United States is likely to be substantially limited due to a number of identified barriers, the most significant of which is with the need to bill for vaccines among adolescents not covered under the Vaccines for Children Program. HPV vaccination within school-based health centers (SBHCs) has been much more effective than SLV, but SBHCs exist in only 2% of schools in the United States. The opportunity gap between the United States and other countries will remain unless reimbursement issues related to HPV delivery in schools can be addressed in a sustainable manner or SBHCs become much more common.

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.

Infant, Maternal, and Hospital Factors' Role in Loss to Follow-up After Failed Newborn Hearing Screening.

OBJECTIVE: Completion of newborn hearing screening (NBHS) is recommended by 1 month old. Delays and loss to follow-up and documentation (LTF/LTD) after failed NBHS are common. Committees of experts have established hospital guidelines to reduce LTF/LTD. We aimed to identify maternal and infant factors associated with LTF/LTD and determine if adherence to hospital guidelines is associated with timely completion of follow-up screening. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of all infants born in Colorado hospitals who failed the newborn admission hearing screening from 2007 to 2012 and a cross-sectional survey of NBHS coordinators at Colorado birthing hospitals. Neonatal intensive care unit infants were excluded. Outcomes included documented completion of the follow-up NBHS and completion by 1 month. Data sources comprised the electronic birth record, infant hearing integrated data system, and NBHS coordinator survey. Data were analyzed by logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 13,904 newborns did not pass the newborn admission hearing screening from 2007 to 2012, and 11,422 (82%) had documentation of a completed follow-up screening. A total of 10,558 (76%) completed follow-up screening by 1 month. All 53 NBHS coordinators completed the survey. Maternal age, education, smoking, and birth country; and payer, race, birth order, and population density were associated with completion of follow-up hearing screening. Maternal education, payer, population density, birth weight, and cleft lip were associated with completion by 1 month of age. Only birth in a facility that charges a rescreening fee was associated with completion of follow-up screening. CONCLUSIONS: Low-income, rural, and minority infants are at risk for LTF. Further studies are needed to determine if adherence to guidelines can overcome barriers to follow-up.

Immunization Practices of U.S. Obstetrician/Gynecologists for Pregnant Patients.

INTRODUCTION: U.S. obstetrician/gynecologists play a critical role as vaccinators of pregnant women. However, little is known about their current immunization practices. Thus, study objectives were to determine (1) practices related to assessment of vaccination status and vaccine delivery for pregnant patients; (2) barriers to stocking and administering vaccines; and (3) factors associated with administering both influenza and tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines. METHODS: An e-mail and mail survey among a national sample of obstetrician/gynecologists conducted July-October 2015 (analysis August 2016-August 2017). RESULTS: The response rate was 73.2% (353/482). Among obstetrician/gynecologists caring for pregnant women (n=324), vaccination status was most commonly assessed for influenza (97%), Tdap (92%), and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines (88%). Vaccines most commonly administered included influenza (85%) and Tdap (76%). Few respondents reported administering other vaccines to pregnant patients. More physicians reported using standing orders for influenza (66%) than Tdap (39%). Other evidence-based strategies for increasing vaccine uptake were less frequently used (electronic decision support, 42%; immunization information system to record [13%] or assess vaccination status [11%]; reminder/recall, 7%). Barriers most commonly reported were provider financial barriers, yet provider attitudinal barriers were rare. Providers who administered both influenza and Tdap vaccines were more likely to be female, perceive fewer financial and practice barriers, less likely to be in private practice, and perceive more patient barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Although most obstetrician/gynecologists administer some vaccines to pregnant women, the focus remains on influenza and Tdap. Financial barriers and infrequent use of evidence-based strategies for increasing vaccination uptake may be hindering delivery of a broader complement of adult vaccines in obstetrician/gynecologist offices.

Chronic School Absenteeism and the Role of Adverse Childhood Experiences.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between chronic school absenteeism and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) among school-age children. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the 2011-2012 National Survey of Children's Health including children 6 to 17 years old. The primary outcome variable was chronic school absenteeism (≥15 days absent in the past year). We examined the association between chronic school absenteeism and ACEs by logistic regression with weighting for individual ACEs, summed ACE score, and latent class analysis of ACEs. RESULTS: Among the 58,765 school-age children in the study sample, 2416 (4.1%) experienced chronic school absenteeism. Witnessing or experiencing neighborhood violence was the only individual ACE significantly associated with chronic absenteeism (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-2.01). Having 1 or more ACE was significantly associated with chronic absenteeism: 1 ACE (aOR 1.35, 95% CI 1.02-1.79), 2 to 3 ACEs (aOR 1.81, 95% CI 1.39-2.36), and ≥4 ACEs (aOR 1.79, 95% CI 1.32-2.43). Three of the latent classes were also associated with chronic absenteeism, and children in these classes had a high probability of endorsing neighborhood violence, family substance use, or having multiple ACEs. CONCLUSIONS: ACE exposure was associated with chronic school absenteeism in school-age children. To improve school attendance, along with future graduation rates and long-term health, these findings highlight the need for an interdisciplinary approach to address child adversity that involves pediatricians, mental health providers, schools, and public health partners.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

School-based health centers: improving access and quality of care for low-income adolescents.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare visit rates, emergency care use, and markers of quality of care between adolescents who use school-based health centers and those who use other community centers within a safety-net health care system for low-income and uninsured patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study we used Denver Health electronic medical chart data, the Denver Health immunization registry, and Denver Public Schools enrollment data for the period from August 1, 2002, to July 31, 2003. The cohort included all 14- to 17-year-old Denver Public Schools high school enrollees who were active Denver Health patients and were either uninsured or insured by Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. "School-based health center users" were those who had used a Denver Health school-based health center; "other users" were those who had used a Denver Health community clinic but not a school-based health center. Markers of quality included having a health maintenance visit and receipt of an influenza vaccine, tetanus booster, and hepatitis B vaccine if indicated. Multiple logistic regression analysis that controlled for gender, race/ethnicity, insurance status, chronic illness, and visit rate was used to compare school-based health center users to other users. RESULTS: Although school-based health center users (n = 790) were less likely than other users (n = 925) to be insured (37% vs 73%), they were more likely to have made > or = 3 primary care visits (52% vs 34%), less likely to have used emergency care (17% vs 34%), and more likely to have received a health maintenance visit (47% vs 33%), an influenza vaccine (45% vs 18%), a tetanus booster (33% vs 21%), and a hepatitis B vaccine (46% vs 20%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that, within a safety-net system, school-based health centers augment access to care and quality of care for underserved adolescents compared with traditional outpatient care sites.