Last data update: Apr 29, 2024. (Total: 46658 publications since 2009)
Records 1-30 (of 73 Records) |
Query Trace: Bridges CB[original query] |
---|
U.S. COVID-19 vaccine distribution strategies, systems, performance, and lessons learned, December 2020 - May 2023
Duggar C , Santoli JM , Noblit C , Moore LB , El Kalach R , Bridges CB . Vaccine 2024 During December 2020 through May 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Immunization Services Division supported and executed the largest vaccine distribution effort in U.S. history, delivering nearly one billion doses of COVID-19 vaccine to vaccine providers in all 50 states, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, Federated States of Micronesia, American Samoa, Marshall Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, and Palau. While existing infrastructure, ordering, and distribution mechanisms were in place from the Vaccines for Children Program (VFC) and experience had been gained during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and incorporated into influenza vaccination pandemic planning, the scale and complexity of the national mobilization against a novel coronavirus resulted in many previously unforeseen challenges, particularly related to transporting and storing the majority of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccine at frozen and ultra-cold temperatures. This article describes the infrastructure supporting the distribution of U.S. government-purchased COVID-19 vaccines that was in place pre-pandemic, and the infrastructure, processes, and communications efforts developed to support the heightened demands of the COVID-19 vaccination program, and describes lessons learned. |
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended immunization schedule for adults aged 19 years and older--United States, 2013
Bridges CB , Woods L , Coyne-Beasley T . MMWR Suppl 2013 62 (1) 9-19 Vaccines are recommended for adults on the basis of age, prior vaccinations, health conditions, lifestyle, occupation, and travel. Current levels of vaccination coverage among adults are low (1). Health-care providers should be aware of the importance of routinely assessing patients' vaccination histories and recommending and providing routinely recommended vaccines. A strong recommendation from a health-care provider is associated with increased uptake of vaccines (2,3). Other interventions shown to increase vaccine uptake, such as implementation of reminder/recall systems and standing orders, have been summarized by the Community Guide (3). | | The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) annually reviews and updates the adult immunization schedule, which is designed to provide vaccine providers with a summary of existing ACIP recommendations regarding the routine use of vaccines for adults (Figures 1 and 2). The adult schedule also includes a table summarizing the primary contraindications and precautions for routinely recommended vaccines (Table). In October 2012, ACIP approved the adult immunization schedule for 2013. This schedule also incorporates changes to vaccine recommendations voted on by ACIP at its October 24–25, 2012 meeting. | | The primary updates include adding information for the first time on the use of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) and the timing of administration of PCV13 relative to the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) in adults (4). PCV13 is recommended for adults aged 19 years and older with immunocompromising conditions (including chronic renal failure and nephrotic syndrome), functional or anatomic asplenia, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants. The schedule also clarifies which adults need 1 or 2 doses of PPSV23 before age 65 years. Other changes to the PPSV23 footnote include adding information regarding recommendations for vaccination when vaccination status is unknown. |
Importance of reasons for stocking adult vaccines
Hutton DW , Rose A , Singer DC , Bridges CB , Kim D , Pike J , Prosser LA . Am J Manag Care 2019 25 (11) e334-e341 OBJECTIVES: To identify the most important reasons underlying decisions to stock or not stock adult vaccines. STUDY DESIGN: US physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and administrators of internal medicine, family medicine, obstetrics/gynecology, and multispecialty practices who were involved in vaccine stocking decisions (N = 125) completed a best-worst scaling survey online between February and April 2018. METHODS: Sixteen potential factors influencing stocking decisions were developed based on key informant interviews and focus groups. Respondents selected factors that were most and least important in vaccine stocking decisions. Relative importance scores for the best-worst scaling factors were calculated. Survey respondents described which vaccines their practice stocks and reasons for not stocking specific vaccines. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the respondent's involvement in vaccine decision making, role in the organization, specialty, and affiliation status, as well as practice characteristics such as practice size, insurance mix, and patient age mix. RESULTS: Relative importance scores for stocking vaccines were highest for "cost of purchasing vaccine stock," "expense of maintaining vaccine inventory," and "lack of adequate reimbursement for vaccine acquisition and administration." Most respondents (97%) stocked influenza vaccines, but stocking rates of other vaccines varied from 39% (meningococcal B) to 83% (tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis). Best-worst scaling results were consistent across respondent subgroups, although the range of vaccine types stocked differed by practice type. CONCLUSIONS: Economic factors associated with the purchase and maintenance of vaccine inventory and inadequate reimbursement for vaccination services were the most important to decision makers when considering whether to stock or not stock vaccines for adults. |
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.
Lee JT , Althomsons SP , Wu H , Budnitz DS , Kalayil EJ , Lindley MC , Pingali C , Bridges CB , Geller AI , Fiebelkorn AP , Graitcer SB , Singleton JA , Patel SA . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021 70 (30) 1036-1039 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.(§). |
Implementation of the Standards for Adult Immunization Practice: A survey of U.S. health care providers
Granade CJ , Parker Fiebelkorn A , Black CL , Lutz CS , Srivastav A , Bridges CB , Ball SW , Devlin RG , Cloud AJ , Kim DK . Vaccine 2020 38 (33) 5305-5312 The revised Standards for Adult Immunization Practice ("Standards"), published in 2014, recommend routine vaccination assessment, strong provider recommendation, vaccine administration or referral, and documentation of vaccines administered into immunization information systems (IIS). We assessed clinician and pharmacist implementation of the Standards in the United States from 2016 to 2018. Participating clinicians (family and internal medicine physicians, obstetricians-gynecologists, specialty physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners) and pharmacists responded using an internet panel survey. Weighted proportion of clinicians and pharmacists reporting full implementation of each component of the Standards were calculated. Adjusted prevalence ratio (APR) estimates of practice characteristics associated with self-reported implementation of the Standards are also presented. Across all medical specialties, the percentages of clinicians and pharmacists implementing the vaccine assessment and recommendation components of the Standards were >80.0%. However, due to low IIS documentation, full implementation of the Standards was low overall, ranging from 30.4% for specialty medicine to 45.8% in family medicine clinicians. The presence of an immunization champion (APR, 1.40 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.26 to 1.54]), use of standing orders (APR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.27 to 1.57]), and use of a patient reminder-recall system (APR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.26 to 1.54]) were positively associated with adherence to the Standards by clinicians. Similar results were observed for pharmacists. Nonetheless, vaccination improvement strategies, i.e., having standing orders in place, empowering an immunization champion, and using patient recall-reminder systems were underutilized in clinical settings; full implementation of the Standards was inconsistent across all health care provider practices. |
Billing and payment of commercial and Medicaid health plan adult vaccination claims in Michigan since the Affordable Care Act
Goodman RM , Bridges CB , Kim D , Pike J , Rose A , Prosser LA , Hutton DW . Vaccine 2019 37 (45) 6803-6813 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. |
Challenges with hepatitis B vaccination of high risk adults - A pilot program
Bridges CB , Watson TL , Nelson NP , Chavez-Torres M , Fineis P , Ntiri-Reid B , Wake E , Leahy JM , Kurian AK , Hall MAK , Kennedy ED . Vaccine 2019 37 (35) 5111-5120 BACKGROUND: Acute hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections in the United States occur predominantly among persons aged 30-59years. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends vaccination of adults at increased risk for HBV infection. Completing the hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine dose-series is critical for optimal immune response. OBJECTIVES: CDC funded 14 health departments (awardees) from 2012 to 2015 to implement a pilot HepB vaccination program for high-risk adults. We evaluated the pilot program to assess vaccine utilization; vaccine dose-series completion, including by vaccination location type; and implementation challenges. METHODS: Awardees collaborated with sites providing health care to persons at increased risk for HBV infection. Awardees collected information on doses administered, vaccine dose-series completion, and challenges completing and tracking vaccinations, including use of immunization information systems (IIS). Data were reported by each awardee in aggregate to CDC. RESULTS: Six of 14 awardees administered 47,911 doses and were able to report patient-level dose-series completion. Among persons who received dose 1, 40.4% received dose 2, and 22.3% received dose 3. Local health department clinics had the highest 3-dose-series completion, 60.6% (531/876), followed by federally qualified health centers at 38.0% (923/2432). While sexually transmitted diseases (STD) clinics administered the most doses in total (17,173 [35.8% of 47,911 doses]), 3-dose-series completion was low (17.1%). The 14 awardees reported challenges regarding completing and tracking dose-series, including reaching high-risk adults for follow-up and inconsistencies in use of IIS or other tracking systems across sites. CONCLUSIONS: Dose-series completion was low in all settings, but lowest where patients may be less likely to return for follow-up (e.g., STD clinics). Routinely assessing HepB vaccination needs of high-risk adults, including through use of IIS where available, may facilitate HepB vaccine dose-series completion. |
A review of the cost-effectiveness of adult influenza vaccination and other preventive services
Dabestani NM , Leidner AJ , Seiber EE , Kim H , Graitcer SB , Foppa IM , Bridges CB . Prev Med 2019 126 105734 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend annual influenza vaccination of persons >/=6months 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. |
Cost-effectiveness of increased influenza vaccination uptake against readmissions of major adverse cardiac events in the US.
Peasah SK , Meltzer MI , Vu M , Moulia DL , Bridges CB . PLoS One 2019 14 (4) e0213499 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. |
Estimating the costs and income of providing vaccination to adults and children
Yarnoff B , Kim D , Zhou F , Leidner AJ , Khavjou O , Bates L , Bridges CB . Med Care 2019 57 (6) 410-416 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. |
A pathway to developing and testing quality measures aimed at improving adult vaccination rates in the United States
Shen AK , Groom AV , Leach DL , Bridges CB , Tsai AY , Tan L . Vaccine 2019 37 (10) 1277-1283 Despite recommendations for vaccinating adults and widespread availability of immunization services (e.g., pharmacy venues, workplace wellness clinics), vaccination rates in the United States remain low. The U.S. National Adult Immunization Plan identified the development of quality measures as a priority and key strategy to address low adult vaccination coverage rates. The use of quality measures can provide incentives for increased utilization of preventive services. To address the lack of adult immunization measures, the National Adult and Influenza Immunization Summit, a coalition of adult immunization partners led by the Immunization Action Coalition, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Vaccine Program Office, spearheaded efforts to (1) identify gaps and priorities in adult immunization quality performance measurement; (2) explore feasibility of data collection on adult immunizations through pilot testing and engaging stakeholders; and (3) develop and test quality measure specifications. This paper outlines the process by which a public-private partnership drove the development of two adult immunization performance measures-an adult immunization status measure for influenza, tetanus and diphtheria (Td) and/or tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap), herpes zoster and pneumococcal vaccines, and a prenatal immunization status measure for influenza and Tdap vaccinations in pregnant women. These measures have recently been added to the 2019 Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS(R)), a widely used set of performance measures reportable by private health plans. |
Cost-effectiveness of adult vaccinations: A systematic review
Leidner AJ , Murthy N , Chesson HW , Biggerstaff M , Stoecker C , Harris AM , Acosta A , Dooling K , Bridges CB . Vaccine 2018 37 (2) 226-234 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 >/=18years 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. |
Association between patient reminders and influenza vaccination status among children
Kahn KE , Santibanez TA , Zhai Y , Bridges CB . Vaccine 2018 36 (52) 8110-8118 BACKGROUND: Patient reminders are recommended to increase vaccination rates. The objectives of this study were to estimate the percentage of children 6months-17years for whom a patient reminder for influenza vaccination was received by a child's parent or guardian, estimate influenza vaccination coverage by receipt of a patient reminder, and identify factors associated with receipt of a patient reminder. METHODS: National Immunization Survey-Flu (NIS-Flu) data for the 2013-14 influenza season were analyzed. Tests of association between patient reminders and demographic characteristics were conducted using Wald chi-square tests and pairwise comparison t-tests. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine variables independently associated with receiving a patient reminder. RESULTS: Approximately 22% of children had a parent or guardian report receiving a patient reminder for influenza vaccination for their child, ranging from 12.9% in Idaho to 41.2% in Mississippi. Children with a patient reminder were more likely to be vaccinated compared with children without a patient reminder (73.7% versus 55.5%). In the multivariable model, reminder receipt was higher for children 6-23months compared with children 13-17years, black children compared with white children, and children whose parent completed the survey in English compared with children whose parent completed the survey in a language other than English or Spanish. CONCLUSIONS: Although patient reminders are associated with a higher likelihood of influenza vaccination, nationally, less than one-fourth of children had a parent report receiving one. Despite being based on parental report, with its limitations, this study suggests that increasing the number of parents who receive patient reminders for their children may improve vaccination coverage among children. |
Do parents prefer inactivated or live attenuated influenza vaccine for their children
Santibanez TA , Kahn KE , Bridges CB . Vaccine 2018 36 (48) 7300-7305 OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of children whose parents prefer them to receive live, attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) or inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV), examine reasons for preferences, and determine what percentage of vaccinated children receive other than the preferred type of vaccine and why. METHODS: Parental-reported data for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 influenza seasons from the National Immunization Survey-Flu (NIS-Flu), a random-digit-dialed, dual frame (landline and cellular telephone) survey of households with children, were analyzed. We calculated the proportions of vaccinated children aged 2-17years whose parents preferred LAIV, IIV, or had no preference, and the proportions that were vaccinated with other than the preferred type of vaccine. RESULTS: For the 2014-15 and 2015-16 seasons, 55.2% and 53.7%, respectively, of vaccinated children had parents who reported no preference for either IIV or LAIV. The percentage who preferred LAIV was 22.7% and 21.7%, and IIV was 22.1% and 24.7%. The most common reason given by parents for preferring LAIV was the child's fear of needles (70.9%) and for preferring IIV was belief that the shot is more effective (29.0%). Approximately one-third of vaccinated children whose parents preferred LAIV received IIV only. CONCLUSIONS: The main finding of this study was that most parents do not have a vaccine type preference for their children. The lack of overwhelming preference is advantageous for the maintenance of vaccination coverage levels during times when one vaccine type is not available or not recommended such as in the 2016-17 and 2017-18 seasons when there was a temporary recommendation not to administer LAIV. |
Clinicians' and pharmacists' reported implementation of vaccination practices for adults
Lutz CS , Kim DK , Black CL , Ball SW , Devlin RG , Srivastav A , Fiebelkorn AP , Bridges CB . Am J Prev Med 2018 55 (3) 308-318 INTRODUCTION: Despite the proven effectiveness of immunization in preventing morbidity and mortality, adult vaccines remain underutilized. The objective of this study was to describe clinicians' and pharmacists' self-reported implementation of the Standards for Adult Immunization Practice ("the Standards"; i.e., routine assessment, recommendation, and administration/referral for needed vaccines, and documentation of administered vaccines, including in immunization information systems). METHODS: Two Internet panel surveys (one among clinicians and one among pharmacists) were conducted during February-March 2017 and asked respondents about their practice's implementation of the Standards. T-tests assessed associations between clinician medical specialty, vaccine type, and each component of the Standards (March-August 2017). RESULTS: Implementation of the Standards varied substantially by vaccine and provider type. For example, >80.0% of providers, including obstetrician/gynecologists and subspecialists, assessed for and recommended influenza vaccine. However, 24.3% of obstetrician/gynecologists and 48.9% of subspecialists did not stock influenza vaccine for administration. Although zoster vaccine was recommended by >89.0% of primary care providers, <58.0% stocked the vaccine; by contrast, 91.6% of pharmacists stocked zoster vaccine. Vaccine needs assessments, recommendations, and stocking/referrals also varied by provider type for pneumococcal; tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis; tetanus diphtheria; human papillomavirus; and hepatitis B vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: This report highlights gaps in access to vaccines recommended for adults across the spectrum of provider specialties. Greater implementation of the Standards by all providers could improve adult vaccination rates in the U.S. by reducing missed opportunities to recommend vaccinations and either vaccinate or refer patients to vaccine providers. |
Association between provider recommendation and influenza vaccination status among children
Kahn KE , Santibanez TA , Zhai Y , Bridges CB . Vaccine 2018 36 (24) 3486-3497 BACKGROUND: Provider recommendation is associated with influenza vaccination receipt. The objectives of this study were to estimate the percentage of children 6months-17years for whom a provider recommendation for influenza vaccination was received, identify factors associated with receipt of provider recommendation, and evaluate the association between provider recommendation and influenza vaccination status among children. METHODS: National Immunization Survey-Flu (NIS-Flu) parentally reported data for the 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 seasons were analyzed. Tests of association between provider recommendation and demographic characteristics were conducted using Wald chi-square tests and pairwise comparison t-tests. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine variables independently associated with receiving provider recommendation and the association between provider recommendation and influenza vaccination status. RESULTS: Approximately 70% of children had a parent report receiving a provider recommendation for influenza vaccination for their child. The strongest association between receipt of provider recommendation and demographic characteristics was with child's age, with younger children (6-23months, 2-4years, and 5-12years) being more likely to have a provider recommendation than older children (13-17years). In addition, children living in a household above poverty with household income >$75,000 were more likely to have a parent report receipt of a provider recommendation than children living below poverty. Children with a provider recommendation were twice as likely to be vaccinated than those without. CONCLUSIONS: This study affirms the importance of provider recommendation for influenza vaccination among children. Ensuring that parents of all children receive a provider recommendation may improve vaccination coverage. |
Receipt and effectiveness of influenza vaccination reminders for adults, 2011-2012 season, United States
Benedict KM , Santibanez TA , Kahn KE , Pabst LJ , Bridges CB , Kennedy ED . Influenza Other Respir Viruses 2018 12 (5) 605-612 BACKGROUND: Reminders for influenza vaccination improve influenza vaccination coverage. The purpose of this study was to describe the receipt of reminders for influenza vaccination during the 2011-12 influenza season among U.S. adults. METHODS: We analyzed data from the March 2012 National Flu Survey (NFS), a random digit dial telephone survey of adults in the United States. Relative to July 1, 2011, respondents were asked if they received a reminder for influenza vaccination and the source and type of reminder they received. The association with reminder receipt and demographic variables, and the association between influenza vaccination coverage and receipt of reminders were also examined. RESULTS: Of adults interviewed, 17.2% reported receiving a reminder since July 1, 2011. More than half (65.2%) of the reminders were sent by doctor offices. Hispanics and non-Hispanic blacks were more likely than non-Hispanic whites to report receiving a reminder. Adults who reported having a usual health care provider, health insurance, or a high-risk condition were more likely to report receiving reminders than the respective reference group. Adults reporting receipt of reminders were 1.15 times more likely (adjusted prevalence ratio, 95% CI: 1.06-1.25) to report being vaccinated for influenza than adults reporting not receiving reminders. CONCLUSIONS: Differences exist in receipt of influenza vaccination reminders among adults. Reminders are important tools to improve adult influenza vaccination coverage. Greater use of reminders may lead to higher rates of adult influenza vaccination coverage and reductions in influenza-related morbidity. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. |
Human infection with avian influenza A(H7N2) virus-Virginia, 2002
Terebuh P , Adija A , Edwards L , Rowe T , Jenkins S , Kleene J , Fukuda K , Katz JM , Bridges CB . Influenza Other Respir Viruses 2018 12 (4) 529-532 BACKGROUND: In March 2002, an outbreak of low-pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) A(H7N2) was detected among commercial poultry operations in Virginia. METHODS: We performed a serosurvey of 80 government workers involved in efforts to control the outbreak. RESULTS: One study participant who assisted with disposal of infected birds tested positive for neutralizing antibodies to influenza A(H7N2) by microneutralization assay and H7-specific IgM antibodies by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The acute infection was temporally associated with an influenza-like illness that resolved without hospitalization. CONCLUSION: This study documents the earliest evidence of human infection with an H7 influenza virus of the North American lineage. |
Vaccine financing and billing in practices serving adult patients: A follow-up survey
Lindley MC , Hurley LP , Beaty BL , Allison MA , Crane LA , Brtnikova M , Snow M , Bridges CB , Kempe A . Vaccine 2018 36 (8) 1093-1100 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' struggle with current adult pneumococcal vaccine recommendations
Hurley LP , Allison MA , Pilishvili T , O'Leary ST , Crane LA , Brtnikova M , Beaty BL , Lindley MC , Bridges CB , Kempe A . J Am Board Fam Med 2018 31 (1) 94-104 INTRODUCTION: In 2012, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) in series with 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) for at-risk adults >/=19; in 2014, it expanded this recommendation to adults >/=65. Primary care physicians' practice, knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding these recommendations are unknown. METHODS: Primary care physicians throughout the U.S. were surveyed by E-mail and post from December 2015 to January 2016. RESULTS: Response rate was 66% (617 of 935). Over 95% of respondents reported routinely assessing adults' vaccination status and recommending both vaccines. A majority found the current recommendations to be clear (50% "very clear," 38% "somewhat clear"). Twenty percent found the upfront cost of purchasing PCV13, lack of insurance coverage, inadequate reimbursement, and difficulty determining vaccination history to be "major barriers" to giving these vaccines. Knowledge of recommendations varied, with 83% identifying the PCV13 recommendation for adults >/=65 and only 21% identifying the recommended interval between PCV13 and PPSV23 in an individual <65 at increased risk. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all surveyed physicians reported recommending both pneumococcal vaccines, but a disconnect seems to exist between perceived clarity and knowledge of the recommendations. Optimal implementation of these recommendations will require addressing knowledge gaps and reported barriers. |
Awareness among adults of vaccine-preventable diseases and recommended vaccinations, United States, 2015
Lu PJ , O'Halloran A , Kennedy ED , Williams WW , Kim D , Fiebelkorn AP , Donahue S , Bridges CB . Vaccine 2017 35 (23) 3104-3115 BACKGROUND: Adults are recommended to receive select vaccinations based on their age, underlying medical conditions, lifestyle, and other considerations. Factors associated with awareness of vaccine-preventable diseases and recommended vaccines among adults in the United States have not been explored. METHODS: Data from a 2015 internet panel survey of a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults aged ≥19years were analyzed to assess awareness of selected vaccine-preventable diseases and recommended vaccines for adults. A multivariable logistic regression model with a predictive marginal approach was used to identify factors independently associated with awareness of selected vaccine-preventable infections/diseases and corresponding vaccines. RESULTS: Among the surveyed population, from 24.6 to 72.1% reported vaccination for recommended vaccines. Awareness of vaccine-preventable diseases among adults aged ≥19years ranged from 63.4% to 94.0% (63.4% reported awareness of HPV, 71.5% reported awareness of tetanus, 72.0% reported awareness of pertussis, 75.4% reported awareness of HZ, 75.8% reported awareness of hepatitis B, 83.1% reported awareness of pneumonia, and 94.0% reported awareness of influenza). Awareness of the corresponding vaccines among adults aged ≥19years ranged from 59.3% to 94.1% (59.3% HZ vaccine, 59.6% HPV vaccine, 64.3% hepatitis B vaccine, 66.2% pneumococcal vaccine, 86.3% tetanus vaccines, and 94.1% influenza vaccine). In multivariable analysis, being female and being a college graduate were significantly associated with a higher level of awareness for majority of vaccine-preventable diseases, and being female, being a college graduate, and working as a health care provider were significantly associated with a higher level of awareness for majority of corresponding vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: Although adults in this survey reported high levels of awareness for most vaccines recommended for adults, self-reported vaccination coverage was not optimal. Combining interventions known to increase uptake of recommended vaccines, such as patient reminder/recall systems and other healthcare system-based interventions, and ensuring patients' vaccination needs are assessed, are needed to improve vaccination of adults. |
Evaluating the impact of pharmacies on pandemic influenza vaccine administration
Schwerzmann J , Graitcer SB , Jester B , Krahl D , Jernigan D , Bridges CB , Miller J . Disaster Med Public Health Prep 2017 11 (5) 1-7 OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to quantify the potential retail pharmacy vaccine administration capacity and its possible impact on pandemic influenza vaccine uptake. METHODS: We developed a discrete event simulation model by use of ExtendSim software (Imagine That Inc, San Jose, CA) to forecast the potential effect of retail pharmacy vaccine administration on total weekly vaccine administration and the time needed to reach 80% vaccination coverage with a single dose of vaccine per person. RESULTS: Results showed that weekly national vaccine administration capacity increased to 25 million doses per week when retail pharmacist vaccination capacity was included in the model. In addition, the time to achieve 80% vaccination coverage nationally was reduced by 7 weeks, assuming high public demand for vaccination. The results for individual states varied considerably, but in 48 states the inclusion of pharmacies improved time to 80% coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists can increase the numbers of pandemic influenza vaccine doses administered and reduce the time to achieve 80% single-dose coverage. These results support efforts to ensure pharmacist vaccinators are integrated into pandemic vaccine response planning. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;page 1 of 7). |
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Recommended Immunization Schedule for Adults Aged 19 Years or Older - United States, 2017
Kim DK , Riley LE , Harriman KH , Hunter P , Bridges CB . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2017 66 (5) 136-138 In October 2016, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to approve the Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule for Adults Aged 19 Years or Older-United States, 2017. The 2017 adult immunization schedule summarizes ACIP recommendations in two figures, footnotes for the figures, and a table of contraindications and precautions for vaccines recommended for adults. These documents are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules. The full ACIP recommendations for each vaccine can be found at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html. The 2017 adult immunization schedule was also reviewed and approved by the American College of Physicians (https://www.acponline.org), the American Academy of Family Physicians (https://www.aafp.org), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (http://www.acog.org), and the American College of Nurse-Midwives (http://www.midwife.org). |
Recommended Immunization Schedule for Adults Aged 19 Years or Older, United States, 2017
Kim DK , Riley LE , Harriman KH , Hunter P , Bridges CB . Ann Intern Med 2017 166 (3) 209-219 In October 2016, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to approve the Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule for Adults Aged 19 Years or Older, United States, 2017. The 2017 adult immunization schedule summarizes ACIP recommendations in 2 figures, footnotes for the figures, and a table of contraindications and precautions for vaccines recommended for adults (Figure). These documents can also be found at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules. The full ACIP recommendations for each vaccine can be found at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html. The 2017 adult immunization schedule was also reviewed and approved by the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American College of Nurse-Midwives. |
Primary care physicians' perspective on financial issues and adult immunization in the Era of the Affordable Care Act
Hurley LP , Lindley MC , Allison MA , Crane LA , Brtnikova M , Beaty BL , Snow M , Bridges CB , Kempe A . Vaccine 2016 35 (4) 647-654 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
Fitzgerald TJ , Kang Y , Bridges CB , Talbert T , Vagi SJ , Lamont B , Graitcer SB . Vaccine 2016 34 (46) 5643-5648 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. |
Recommendations and offers for adult influenza vaccination, 2011-2012 season, United States
Benedict KM , Kennedy ED , Santibanez TA , Black CL , Ding H , Graitcer SB , Bridges CB . Vaccine 2016 35 (9) 1353-1361 BACKGROUND: Provider recommendations and offers for influenza vaccination improve adult influenza vaccination coverage. Analysis was performed to describe receipt of influenza vaccination recommendations and offers among adults who visited a healthcare provider (HCP) during the 2011-2012 influenza season and describe differences between those receiving and not receiving recommendations and offers for influenza vaccination. Associations between influenza vaccination and receipt of recommendations and offers were examined. METHODS: Respondents to a random digit dial telephone survey who had visited a HCP since July 1, 2011 were asked if they had received a recommendation for influenza vaccination. Those receiving a recommendation were asked if they received an offer for vaccination. Participants were characterized by demographic and access to health care variables. Logistic regression was used to examine the relationships between participant characteristics and recommendation alone, between participant characteristics and recommendation and offer, and between influenza vaccination and recommendation and offer. RESULTS: Of those who reported visiting a HCP, 43.8% reported receiving a recommendation for influenza vaccination. Of those who reported receiving a recommendation, 76.6% reported receiving an offer for influenza vaccination. Persons with high-risk conditions and persons over 65 years were more likely to receive recommendations for influenza vaccination when compared to those without high-risk conditions and 18-49 year olds, respectively. Those reporting receipt of a recommendation and offer for influenza vaccination were 1.76 times more likely and those reporting receipt of a recommendation but no offer were 1.72 times more likely to report being vaccinated for influenza controlling for all patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Less than half of respondents reported receipt of recommendations and offers of influenza vaccination during the 2011-2012 influenza season and disparities exist between groups. All healthcare providers seeing adults should recommend or offer influenza vaccination for all patients at every visit during the influenza season. |
Physician attitudes toward adult vaccines and other preventive practices, United States, 2012
Hurley LP , Bridges CB , Harpaz R , Allison MA , O' Leary ST , Crane LA , Brtnikova M , Stokley S , Beaty BL , Jimenez-Zambrano A , Kempe A . Public Health Rep 2016 131 (2) 320-30 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
Williams WW , Lu PJ , O'Halloran A , Kim DK , Grohskopf LA , Pilishvili T , Skoff TH , Nelson NP , Harpaz R , Markowitz LE , Rodriguez-Lainz A , Bridges CB . MMWR Surveill Summ 2016 65 (1) 1-36 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. |
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Recommended Immunization Schedule for Adults Aged 19 Years or Older - United States, 2016
Kim DK , Bridges CB , Harriman KH . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016 65 (4) 88-90 In October 2015, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)* approved the Recommended Immunization Schedule for Adults Aged 19 Years or Older, United States, 2016. This schedule provides a summary of ACIP recommendations for the use of vaccines routinely recommended for adults aged 19 years or older in two figures, footnotes for each vaccine, and a table that describes primary contraindications and precautions for commonly used vaccines for adults. Although the figures in the adult immunization schedule illustrate recommended vaccinations that begin at age 19 years, the footnotes contain information on vaccines that are recommended for adults that may begin at age younger than age 19 years. The footnotes also contain vaccine dosing, intervals between doses, and other important information and should be read with the figures. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:Apr 29, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure