Background: Provider challenges to accessing long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) include level of reimbursement for LARC device acquisition and cost to stock. State-level LARC device reimbursement policies that cover a greater proportion of the cost of the LARC device and enable providers to purchase LARC upfront may improve contraceptive access. Materials and Methods: To summarize state-level policies that include language on LARC device reimbursement in the outpatient setting, we conducted a systematic, web-based review among all 50 states of publicly available LARC device reimbursement policies that include coverage of LARC devices as a medical or pharmacy benefit, the use of the 340B Drug Pricing Program to purchase LARC devices, and separate payment for LARC devices outside of the Medicaid Prospective Payment System (PPS) payment rate for Federally Qualified Health Centers or Rural Health Clinics. Results: Forty-two percent (21/50) of states with publicly available state-level policies included language on LARC device reimbursement. Among the states, 24% (5/21) had coverage policies as a medical benefit, 33% (7/21) as a pharmacy benefit, and 19% (4/21) as both a medical benefit and pharmacy benefit; 38% (8/21) used the 340B Program to purchase LARC devices; and 62% (13/21) indicated separate payment for LARC devices outside of the Medicaid PPS payment rate. Conclusion: State-level policies for LARC device reimbursement vary, highlighting differences in reimbursement strategies across the U.S. Future research could explore how the implementation of these payment methods may impact LARC device reimbursement and whether increased reimbursement may improve access to the full range of contraceptive methods.

BACKGROUND: Planning and monitoring vaccine introduction and effectiveness relies on strong vaccine-preventable disease (VPD) surveillance. In low and middle-income countries (LMICs) especially, cost is a commonly reported barrier to VPD surveillance system maintenance and performance; however, it is rarely calculated or assessed. This review describes and compares studies on the availability of cost information for VPD surveillance systems in LMICs to facilitate the design of future cost studies of VPD surveillance. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, and EconLit were used to identify peer-reviewed articles and Google was searched for relevant grey literature. Studies selected described characteristics and results of VPD surveillance systems cost studies performed in LMICs. Studies were categorized according to the type of VPD surveillance system, study aim, the annual cost of the system, and per capita costs. RESULTS: Eleven studies were identified that assessed the cost of VPD surveillance systems. The studies assessed systems from six low-income countries, two low-middle-income countries, and three middle-income countries. The majority of the studies (n=7) were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa and fifteen distinct VPD surveillance systems were assessed across the studies. Most studies aimed to estimate incremental costs of additional surveillance components and presented VPD surveillance system costs as mean annual costs per resource category, health structure level, and by VPD surveillance activity. Staff time/personnel cost represents the largest cost driver, ranging from 21% to 61% of total VPD surveillance system costs across nine studies identifying a cost driver. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a starting point to guide LMICs to invest and advocate for more robust VPD surveillance systems. Critical gaps were identified including limited information on the cost of laboratory surveillance, challenges with costing shared resources, and missing data on capital costs. Appropriate guidance is needed to guide LMICs conducting studies on VPD surveillance system costs.

We report on an Ebola virus disease (EVD) survivor who showed Ebola virus (EBOV) in seminal fluid 531 days after onset of disease. The persisting virus was sexually transmitted in February 2016, about 470 days after onset of symptoms, and caused a new cluster of EVD in Guinea and Liberia.