Does closure of children's medical home impact their immunization coverage?

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the impact closing a health care facility has on immunization coverage of children utilizing that facility as a medical home. The authors assessed the impact of closing a Medicaid managed care facility in Philadelphia on immunization coverage of children, primarily low income children from racial/ethnic minority groups, utilizing that facility for routine immunizations. STUDY DESIGN: Observational longitudinal cohort case study. METHODS: Eligible children were born 03/01/05-06/30/07, present in Philadelphia's immunization information system (IIS), and were active clients of the facility before it closed in September 2007. IIS-recorded immunization coverage at ages 5, 7, 13, 16 and 19 months through January 2009 was compared between clinic children age-eligible to receive specific vaccines before clinic closing (preclosure cohorts) and children not age-eligible to receive those vaccines prior to closing (postclosure cohorts). RESULTS: Of 630 eligible children, 99 (16%) had no additional IIS-recorded immunizations. Third dose DTaP vaccine coverage at age seven months among preclosure cohorts was 54.4% vs. 40.3% among postclosure cohorts [risk ratio 1.31 (1.15,1.49)]. Fourth dose DTaP coverage at 19 months was 65.9% vs. 57.7% [risk ratio 1.24 (1.08,1.42)]. MMR coverage at 16 months was 79.5% vs. 69.9% [risk ratio 1.47 (1.22, 1.76)]. Coverage for the 431331 vaccination series at 19 months was 63.8% vs. 53.8% [risk ratio 1.28 (1.12,1.88)]. CONCLUSIONS: Immunization coverage declined at key age milestones for active clients of a Medicaid managed care that closed as compared with preclosure cohorts of clients from the same facility. When a primary health care facility closes, efforts should be made to ensure that children who had received vaccinations at that facility quickly establish a new medical home.

Decline in physician referrals to health department clinics for immunizations: the role of vaccine financing.

BACKGROUND: Physicians frequently refer children to health department clinics (HDCs) for immunizations because of high out-of-pocket costs to parents and poor reimbursement for providers. Referrals for immunizations can lead to scattered care. In 1994, two vaccine financing reforms began in New York State that reduced patient costs and improved provider reimbursement: the Vaccines for Children Program (VFC, mostly for those on Medicaid and uninsured) and a law requiring indemnity insurers to cover childhood immunizations and preventive services. OBJECTIVE: To measure reported changes in physician referrals to HDCs for immunizations before and after the vaccine financing reforms. DESIGN: In 1993, a self-administered survey measured immunization referral practices of primary care physicians. In 1997, we resurveyed respondents of the 1993 survey to evaluate changes in referrals. SETTING/ PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred twenty-eight eligible New York State primary care physicians (65% pediatricians and 35% family physicians) who responded to the 1997 follow-up immunization survey (response rate of 82%). RESULTS: The proportion of physicians reporting that they referred some or all children out for immunizations decreased from 51% in 1993 to 18% in 1997 (p<0.001). In 1997, physicians were more likely to refer if they were family physicians (28% vs. 13%,p<0.01), or did not obtain VFC vaccines (29% vs. 13%,p<0.001). According to physicians who referred in 1993, decreased referrals in 1997 were due to the new insurance laws (noted by 61%), VFC (60%), Child Health Plus (a statewide insurance program for poor children, 28%), growth in commercial managed care (23%), Medicaid managed care (19%), and higher Medicaid reimbursement for immunizations that is due to VFC (18%). For physicians noting a decline in referrals, the magnitude of the decline was substantial-60% fewer referrals for VFC-eligible patients and 50% fewer for patients eligible under the new insurance law. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine financing reforms decreased the proportion of physicians who referred children to HDCs for immunizations, and may have reduced scattering of pediatric care.

Impact of the sequential poliovirus immunization schedule: a demonstration project.

OBJECTIVE: Researchers for this project evaluated compliance with the sequential poliovirus immunization schedule that uses inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) for the first 2 doses of the polio immunization series, and assessed immunization coverage rates before and after implementation of this schedule at 6 public health clinics serving 1 county in Georgia. DESIGN: Immunization histories for 3 birth cohorts of infants were compared: (1) the baseline cohort, born January 1 through June 30, 1995; (2) the evaluation cohort, born January 1 through June 30, 1997, after implementation of the schedule change; and (3) the dose-3 cohort, born August 1 through November 30, 1996 (i.e., old enough to be eligible for a third dose of poliovirus vaccine following implementation of the sequential schedule). RESULTS: Following implementation of the new poliovirus immunization recommendations, 94% (534 of 567) of infants who received their first dose of poliovirus vaccine by age 3 months received IPV. Among these infants, 99.6% (532 of 534) were also up to date (UTD) for first doses of diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis vaccine (DTP1/DTaP1), 99.6% (532 of 534) were UTD for first doses of hemophilus influenza type b (Hib 1), and 98.6% (527 of 534) had received at least one dose of Hepatitis B. Among infants visiting the clinics for their first or second dose of poliovirus vaccine, DTaP/DTP, and/or Hib, 76% received 3 or 4 simultaneous injections. In the dose-3 cohort, 78% (145 of 185) of infants who received a third dose of poliovirus vaccine had received 2 doses of IPV and 1 dose of oral poliovirus vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with the recommended use of IPV for the first 2 poliovirus immunization doses as part of the sequential schedule was very high in this low-income and ethnically diverse population. Furthermore, the need for additional injections did not impede the delivery of recommended childhood immunizations.

Impact of multiple injections on immunization rates among vulnerable children.

BACKGROUND: In 1997, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended a switch from oral polio vaccine (OPV) to inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) for the first two infant doses. The ACIP also recommended use of diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP) for infants. These recommendations resulted in two additional injections at the 2- and 4-month immunization visits. This study evaluates the implementation of new IPV and DTaP immunization recommendations and their impact on immunization coverage levels. METHODS: Immunization coverage was assessed in public clinics in three urban areas before and after the recommendations. One pre- and three post-recommendation cohorts were followed to 12 months of age. RESULTS: Almost all (> or = 88%) infants in the pre-recommendation cohort received OPV, DTP, and only one or two injections. Almost all (> or = 78%) infants in the post-recommendation cohorts received IPV, DTaP, and three or four injections. The percentage of infants in the post-recommendation cohorts up-to-date for immunizations at 12 months of age was slightly higher than those in the pre-recommendation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Providers rapidly switched from OPV and DTP to IPV and DTaP. Coverage at 12 months of age was higher among IPV/DTaP recipients than among OPV/DTP recipients. Provider and parent acceptance of four injections at a visit was high. The recent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine recommendations potentially add a fifth injection at 2 and 4 months of age. Acceptance or rejection of five injections by providers and parents needs early assessment.

Parental attitudes toward multiple poliovirus injections following a provider recommendation.

OBJECTIVES: Changes to the polio vaccination schedule, first to a sequential inactivated poliovirus/oral poliovirus (IPV/OPV) schedule in 1996 and most recently to an all-IPV schedule, require infants to receive additional injections. Some surveys show parental hesitation concerning extra injections, whereas others show that parents prefer multiple simultaneous injections over extra immunization visits. This study describes parental behavior and attitudes about the poliovirus vaccine recommendations and additional injections at the 2- and 4-month immunization visits. METHODS: Beginning July 1, 1996, providers in eight public health clinics in Cobb and Douglas Counties, Georgia, informed parents of polio vaccination options and recommended the IPV/OPV sequential schedule. A cross-sectional clinic exit survey was conducted from July 15, 1996, to January 31, 1997, with parents whose infants (younger than 6 months) were eligible for a first poliovirus vaccination. RESULTS: Of approximately 405 eligible infants, parents of 293 infants were approached for an interview, and 227 agreed to participate. Of those 227 participants, 210 (92%) parents chose IPV for their infant and 17 (8%) chose OPV. Of greatest concern to most parents was vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) (155, or 68.3%); the next greatest concern was an extra injection (22, or 9.7%). These parental concerns were unrelated to the number of injections the infant actually received. CONCLUSIONS: After receiving information on polio vaccination options and a provider recommendation, parents overwhelmingly chose IPV over OPV. Concern about VAPP was more common than objection to an extra injection. The additional injection that results from using IPV for an infant's first poliovirus vaccination appears to be acceptable to most parents.

Impact of vaccine financing on vaccinations delivered by health department clinics.

OBJECTIVES: This study measured the number of childhood vaccinations delivered at health department clinics (HDCs) before and after changes in vaccine financing in 1994, and it assessed the impact of changes in financing on HDC operations. METHODS: We measured the number of vaccination doses administered annually at all 57 HDCs in New York State between 1991 and 1996, before and after the financing changes. Interviews of HDC personnel assessed the impact of financing changes. A secondary study measured trends in Pennsylvania and California. RESULTS: HDC vaccinations for preschool children in New York State declined slightly prior to the financing changes (6%-8% between 1991 and 1993) but declined markedly thereafter (53%-56% between 1993 and 1996). According to nearly two thirds of New York State's HDCs, the primary cause for this decline was the vaccine-financing changes. HDC vaccinations for preschool children in Pennsylvania declined by 12% between 1991 and 1993 and by 56% between 1993 and 1997. HDC vaccinations for polio-containing vaccines in California declined by 31% between 1993 and 1997. CONCLUSIONS: Substantially fewer vaccinations have been administered at HDCs since changes in vaccine financing, thereby keeping preschool children in their primary care medical homes.