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.

HPV vaccination of boys in primary care practices.

OBJECTIVE: In October 2011, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended the quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV4) for the routine immunization schedule for 11- to 12-year-old boys. Before October 2011, HPV4 was permissively recommended for boys. We conducted a study in 2010 to provide data that could guide efforts to implement routine HPV4 immunization in boys. Our objectives were to describe primary care physicians': 1) knowledge and attitudes about human papillomavirus (HPV)-related disease and HPV4, 2) recommendation and administration practices regarding HPV vaccine in boys compared to girls, 3) perceived barriers to HPV4 administration in boys, and 4) personal and practice characteristics associated with recommending HPV4 to boys. METHODS: We conducted a mail and Internet survey in a nationally representative sample of pediatricians and family medicine physicians from July 2010 to September 2010. RESULTS: The response rate was 72% (609 of 842). Most physicians thought that the routine use of HPV4 in boys was justified. Although it was permissively recommended, 33% recommended HPV4 to 11- to 12-year-old boys and recommended it more strongly to older male adolescents. The most common barriers to HPV4 administration were related to vaccine financing. Physicians who reported recommending HPV4 for 11- to 12-year-old boys were more likely to be from urban locations, perceive that HPV4 is efficacious, perceive that HPV-related disease is severe, and routinely discuss sexual health with 11- to 12-year-olds. CONCLUSIONS: Although most physicians support HPV4 for boys, physician education and evidence-based tools are needed to improve implementation of a vaccination program for males in primary care settings.

Influenza vaccination in the 2009-2010 pandemic season: the experience of primary care physicians.

OBJECTIVES: Determine among a representative sample of pediatricians (Peds), family medicine (FM), and general internal medicine (GIM) physicians in the 2009-2010 influenza season physicians': 1) practices and experiences with delivery of seasonal and pH1N1 influenza vaccines; and 2) anticipated and experienced barriers. METHODS: Two US national surveys administered 7/2009-10/2009 (before pH1N1 distribution) and 3/2010-6/2010 (after pH1N1 distribution) to 416 Peds, 424 FM and 432 GIM. RESULTS: Of respondents who received both surveys, 62% (776/1253) completed both. Overall, 98% reported administering seasonal influenza vaccine and 86% pH1N1, with 70% reporting that working with public health in delivery of pH1N1 was a positive experience. Due to limited supplies of pH1N1, 63% of providers reported prioritizing who received vaccine even within high risk groups. Pre-distribution, 71% perceived that patient/parental safety concerns about pH1N1 would be a barrier, and post-distribution 72% perceived it had been a barrier. Physician concern about safety decreased, with 44% reporting safety a barrier pre-distribution and 12% post-distribution (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of a pandemic most primary care physicians collaborated with public health in delivery of pH1N1. Physicians faced challenges with patient/parent safety concerns about pH1N1 and supply issues with pH1N1 that required physicians to prioritize who received vaccine.

Adherence to expanded influenza immunization recommendations among primary care providers.

OBJECTIVE: To assess practices regarding the expanded Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations for influenza vaccination in children among US pediatricians and family medicine physicians (FMs) and strategies to promote vaccination. STUDY DESIGN: We administered a survey between July and October 2009 to 416 pediatricians and 424 FMs from nationally representative networks. RESULTS: The response rate was 75% (79% pediatricians, 70% FMs). FMs were less likely than pediatricians to report adherence to ACIP recommendations (35% vs 65%; adjusted risk ratio [RR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.50-0.72). Most physicians (89% pediatricians and 89% FMs) reported using posters or pamphlets to encourage influenza vaccination, and 57% pediatricians and 41% FMs reported offering after hours dedicated influenza vaccination clinics. Only 23% pediatricians and 14% FMs reported providing written, telephone, or e-mail reminders to all children. Having dedicated influenza vaccination clinics after hours or weekends was associated with routine vaccination of all children (adjusted RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.15-1.57). CONCLUSION: In the first year of the expanded ACIP recommendations to immunize all eligible children against influenza, two-thirds of pediatricians and one-half of FMs reported adherence, although less than one-quarter were actively engaging in reminder/recall efforts. Practices that adhered to the ACIP recommendations were more likely to put a substantial effort into promoting vaccination opportunities.

Timing of adolescent meningococcal conjugate vaccination attitudes and practices of pediatricians and family medicine physicians.

BACKGROUND: The meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV4) was recommended for those aged 11-18 years in 2005. Initial supply issues led to an emphasis on immunizing older adolescents. When supply improved in 2007, routine immunization was recommended for those aged 11-12 years. PURPOSE: Among a U.S. sample of pediatricians and family medicine physicians, describe (1) recommendation and administration practices for MCV4; (2) preferences regarding MCV4 administration; and (3) attitudes and characteristics associated with recommendation for those aged >12 years. METHODS: A mail and Internet survey in a nationally representative sample of physicians was conducted between December 2009 and March 2010. Analysis was conducted between March 2010 and October 2010, including a multivariable analysis to examine factors associated with deferring MCV4 to ages >12 years. RESULTS: Response rates were 88% (pediatricians 367/419) and 63% (family medicine physicians 268/423). In all, 95% of pediatricians and 73% of family medicine physicians reported administering MCV4 routinely to those aged 11-18 years (p<0.0001); 83% (pediatricians) and 45% (family medicine physicians) reported strongly recommending MCV4 for those aged 11-12 years (p<0.0001); 27% (pediatricians) and 40% (family medicine physicians) preferred to administer MCV4 to those aged >12 years (p<0.0001). Compared with those who strongly recommend for those aged 11-12 years, physicians who do not regularly stock MCV4, family medicine physicians, and physicians concerned about waning immunity were more likely to defer their recommendation, whereas physicians practicing in the Northeast and those with more Latino patients were less likely to defer. CONCLUSIONS: Most pediatricians and family medicine physicians administer MCV4, but many, especially family medicine physicians and those concerned about waning immunity, defer their recommendation for MCV4 to patients aged >12 years.

Influenza vaccine delivery delays from the perspective of primary care physicians.

BACKGROUND: The effects of delayed influenza vaccine delivery on primary practices are currently unknown. PURPOSE: To describe, among primary care physicians nationally regarding the 2006-2007 influenza season: (1) how physicians defined influenza vaccine delay; (2) the extent of reported vaccine delays; and (3) the perceived effects of vaccine delays. METHODS: Between March and June 2007, a total of 1268 primary care physicians nationally were surveyed. RESULTS: Survey response was 74% (n=940). The majority of physicians (79%) defined "influenza vaccine delay" as not receiving vaccine by November 1. Fifty-three percent reported a vaccine delay. Providers reported the following as effects of delays: reduced satisfaction of patients or parents in the practice (72%); decreased percentage in their practice who received the vaccination (65%); disruption of scheduling influenza clinics (55%); increased referral of patients elsewhere for vaccination (55%); and negative financial impact caused by unused vaccine (46%). Those who reported experiencing delays more often reported not meeting demand for vaccine (adjusted risk ratio [ARR]=1.83, 95% CI=1.64, 2.07); that grocery stores, retail outlets, or pharmacies had vaccine before their practices did (ARR=1.82, 95% CI=1.53, 2.26); not receiving all vaccine that was ordered (ARR=1.19, 95% CI=1.06, 1.36); and having leftover vaccine (ARR=1.17, 95% CI=1.04, 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: During the 2006-2007 influenza season, a non-shortage season, the majority of respondents reported experiencing an influenza vaccine delivery delay. Experiencing a delay was thought to decrease vaccination use, increase referrals elsewhere, and have a negative financial impact on practices. Delayed delivery of influenza vaccine is disruptive for primary care practices, and it consequently may affect vaccination coverage.

Prevalence of parental concerns about childhood vaccines: the experience of primary care physicians.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effects of increased parental vaccine safety concerns on physicians' vaccine communication attitudes and practices. PURPOSE: To assess among pediatricians and family medicine (FM) physicians: (1) prevalence of parental requests to deviate from recommended vaccine schedules; (2) responses to such requests; and (3) attitudes about the burden and success of vaccine communications with parents. METHODS: Survey of nationally representative samples of pediatricians and FM physicians (N=696) conducted during February to May 2009 with analysis in 2010. RESULTS: Response rates were 88% for pediatricians and 78% for FM physicians. Overall, 8% of physicians reported that ≥10% of parents refused a vaccine and 20% reported that ≥10% of parents requested to spread out vaccines in a typical month. More pediatricians than FM physicians reported always/often requiring parents to sign a form if they refused vaccination (53% vs 31%, p<0.0001); 64% of all physicians would agree to spread out vaccines in the primary series at least sometimes. When talking with parents with substantial concerns, 53% of physicians reported spending 10-19 minutes and 8% spending ≥20 minutes. Pediatricians were more likely than FM physicians to report their job less satisfying because of parental vaccine concerns (46% vs 21%, p<0.0001). Messages most commonly reported as "very effective" were personal statements such as what they would do for their own children. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of communicating with parents about vaccines is high, especially among pediatricians. Physicians report the greatest success convincing skeptical parents using messages that rely on their personal choices and experiences.

Physician practices regarding adult hepatitis B vaccination: a national survey.

BACKGROUND: Less than 50% of adults with risk factors for hepatitis B infection have been vaccinated. Although primary care settings typically serve an important role in immunization delivery, little is known about adult hepatitis B vaccination practices in primary care, including the use of strategies such as standing orders to improve immunization rates. The objectives of this study were to assess, among family physicians and general internists, current approaches to assessing adult patients for hepatitis B risk factors, reported hepatitis B vaccination practices, and attitudes about standing orders for hepatitis B vaccination. METHODS: From September to November 2006, a national sample of 433 family physicians and 420 general internists were surveyed. Results were analyzed in 2007 and 2008. RESULTS: Response rates were 65% for family physicians and 79% for general internists. Thirty-one percent of physicians reported assessing most or all adult patients for hepatitis B risk factors and vaccinating patients identified as high risk. Perceived barriers to hepatitis B vaccination included patients not disclosing high-risk behaviors, lack of adequate reimbursement for vaccination, and feeling too pressed for time to assess risk factors. Most surveyed physicians were very (47%) or somewhat (38%) supportive of using standing orders for hepatitis B vaccination in their practices. However, staff time constraints and patient unwillingness to disclose sensitive information to staff were perceived as barriers to using standing orders by a majority of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: In a national survey, less than one third of primary care physicians reported routinely assessing for and vaccinating adults with hepatitis B risk factors. This finding suggests that new strategies for adult hepatitis B vaccination in primary care settings are needed. Most physicians supported using standing orders for vaccination, but barriers were anticipated.