Nursing home residents are at risk for becoming infected with and experiencing severe complications from respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Fall 2023 is the first season during which vaccines are simultaneously available to protect older adults in the United States against all three of these respiratory viruses. Nursing homes are required to report COVID-19 vaccination coverage and can voluntarily report influenza and RSV vaccination coverage among residents to CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network. The purpose of this study was to assess COVID-19, influenza, and RSV vaccination coverage among nursing home residents during the current 2023-24 respiratory virus season. As of December 10, 2023, 33.1% of nursing home residents were up to date with vaccination against COVID-19. Among residents at 20.2% and 19.4% of facilities that elected to report, coverage with influenza and RSV vaccines was 72.0% and 9.8%, respectively. Vaccination varied by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services region, social vulnerability index level, and facility size. There is an urgent need to protect nursing home residents against severe outcomes of respiratory illnesses by continuing efforts to increase vaccination against COVID-19 and influenza and discussing vaccination against RSV with eligible residents during the ongoing 2023-24 respiratory virus season.

During the 2023-24 respiratory virus season, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends influenza and COVID-19 vaccines for all persons aged ≥6 months, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine is recommended for persons aged ≥60 years (using shared clinical decision-making), and for pregnant persons. Data from the National Immunization Survey-Adult COVID Module, a random-digit-dialed cellular telephone survey of U.S. adults aged ≥18 years, are used to monitor influenza, COVID-19, and RSV vaccination coverage. By December 9, 2023, an estimated 42.2% and 18.3% of adults aged ≥18 years reported receiving an influenza and updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine, respectively; 17.0% of adults aged ≥60 years had received RSV vaccine. Coverage varied by demographic characteristics. Overall, approximately 27% and 41% of adults aged ≥18 years and 53% of adults aged ≥60 years reported that they definitely or probably will be vaccinated or were unsure whether they would be vaccinated against influenza, COVID-19, and RSV, respectively. Strong provider recommendations for and offers of vaccination could increase influenza, COVID-19, and RSV vaccination coverage. Immunization programs and vaccination partners are encouraged to use these data to understand vaccination patterns and attitudes toward vaccination in their jurisdictions to guide planning, implementation, strengthening, and evaluation of vaccination activities.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, annual vaccination against seasonal influenza is recommended for all people ages ≥ 6 months. Vaccination coverage assessments can identify populations less protected from influenza morbidity and mortality and help to tailor vaccination efforts. Within the Vaccine Safety Datalink population ages ≥ 6 months, we report influenza vaccination coverage for the 2017-18 through 2022-23 seasons. METHODS: Across eight health systems, we identified influenza vaccines administered from August 1 through March 31 for each season using electronic health records linked to immunization registries. Crude vaccination coverage was described for each season, overall and by self-reported sex; age group; self-reported race and ethnicity; and number of separate categories of diagnoses associated with increased risk of severe illness and complications from influenza (hereafter referred to as high-risk conditions). High-risk conditions were assessed using ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes assigned in the year preceding each influenza season. RESULTS: Among individual cohorts of more than 12 million individuals each season, overall influenza vaccination coverage increased from 41.9 % in the 2017-18 season to a peak of 46.2 % in 2019-20, prior to declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. Coverage declined over the next three seasons, coincident with widespread SARS-CoV-2 circulation, to a low of 40.3 % in the 2022-23 season. In each of the six seasons, coverage was lowest among males, 18-49-year-olds, non-Hispanic Black people, and those with no high-risk conditions. While decreases in coverage were present in all age groups, the declines were most substantial among children: 2022-23 season coverage for children ages six months through 8 years and 9-17 years was 24.5 % and 22.4 % (14 and 10 absolute percentage points), respectively, less than peak coverage achieved in the 2019-20 season. CONCLUSIONS: Crude influenza vaccination coverage increased from 2017 to 18 through 2019-20, then decreased to the lowest level in the 2022-23 season. In this insured population, we identified persistent disparities in influenza vaccination coverage by sex, age, and race and ethnicity. The overall low coverage, disparities in coverage, and recent decreases in coverage are significant public health concerns.

There are limited data on influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant people in the United States during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Within the Vaccine Safety Datalink, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to examine influenza vaccination coverage during the 2016-2017 through the 2021-2022 influenza seasons among pregnant people aged 18-49 years. Using influenza vaccines administered through March each season, we assessed crude coverage by demographic and clinical characteristics. Annual influenza vaccination coverage increased from the 2016-2017 season (63.0%) to a high of 71.0% in the 2019-2020 season. After the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, it decreased to a low of 56.4% (2021-2022). In each of the six seasons, coverage was lowest among pregnant people aged 18-24 years and among non-Hispanic Black pregnant people. The 2021-2022 season had the lowest coverage across all age and race and ethnicity groups. The recent decreases highlight the need for continued efforts to improve coverage among pregnant people.

Monitoring COVID-19 vaccination coverage among nursing home (NH) residents and staff is important to ensure high coverage and guide patient-safety policies. With the termination of the federal Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program, another source of facility-based vaccination data is needed. We compared numbers of COVID-19 vaccinations administered to NH residents and staff reported by pharmacies participating in the temporary federal Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program with those reported by NHs participating in new COVID-19 vaccination modules of CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). Pearson correlation coefficients comparing the number vaccinated between the two approaches were 0.89, 0.96, and 0.97 for residents and 0.74, 0.90, and 0.90 for staff, in the weeks ending January 3, 10, and 17, respectively. Based on subsequent NHSN reporting, vaccination coverage with ≥1 vaccine dose reached 77% for residents and 50% for staff the week ending January 31 and plateaued through April 2021.Three-question summary boxWhat is the current understanding of the subject?Because of high risk of disease, nursing home residents and staff were prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination when doses were limited.What does this report add to the literature?National monitoring of nursing home residents and staff vaccination coverage through the CDC National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) correlated with vaccination administration reports from the federal Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program in January 2021. NHSN-reported vaccination coverage rates plateaued from February through April 2021.What are the implications for public health practice?NHSN can track COVID-19 vaccination in nursing homes and help guide efforts to increase vaccine uptake in residents and staff.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This activity was reviewed by CDC and was conducted consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy (See e.g., 45 C.F.R. part 46, 21 C.F.R. part 56; 42 U.S.C. section 241(d); 5 U.S.C. section 552a; 44 U.S.C. section 3501 et seq.).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData supporting the findings of the study are found in the manuscript and/or supplementary files. Any other data can be furnished upon request.

This study uses data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink on receipt of booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines among pregnant individuals aged 18 to 49 years.

Monitoring COVID-19 vaccination coverage among nursing home residents and staff is important to ensure high coverage rates and guide patient-safety policies. With the termination of the federal Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program, another source of facility-based vaccination data is needed. We compared numbers of COVID-19 vaccinations administered to nursing home residents and staff reported by pharmacies participating in the temporary federal Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program with the numbers of COVID-19 vaccinations reported by nursing homes participating in new COVID-19 vaccination modules of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). Pearson correlation coefficients comparing the number vaccinated between the 2 approaches were 0.89, 0.96, and 0.97 for residents and 0.74, 0.90, and 0.90 for staff, in the weeks ending January 3, 10, and 17, 2021, respectively. Based on subsequent NHSN reporting, vaccination coverage with ≥1 vaccine dose reached 73.7% for residents and 47.6% for staff the week ending January 31 and increased incrementally through July 2021. Continued monitoring of COVID-19 vaccination coverage is important as new nursing home residents are admitted, new staff are hired, and additional doses of vaccine are recommended.

Estimates from the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) indicated that 15.2% of adults aged ≥18 years had at least one reported functional disability (1). Persons with disabilities are more likely than are those without disabilities to have chronic health conditions (2) and also face barriers to accessing health care (3). These and other health and social inequities have placed persons with disabilities at increased risk for COVID-19-related illness and death, yet they face unique barriers to receipt of vaccination (4,5). Although CDC encourages that considerations be made when expanding vaccine access to persons with disabilities,* few public health surveillance systems measure disability status. To describe COVID-19 vaccination status and intent, as well as perceived vaccine access among adults by disability status, data from the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM) were analyzed. Adults with a disability were less likely than were those without a disability to report having received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine (age-adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.84-0.93) but more likely to report they would definitely get vaccinated (aPR = 1.86; 95% CI = 1.43-2.42). Among unvaccinated adults, those with a disability were more likely to report higher endorsement of vaccine as protection (aPR = 1.29; 95% CI = 1.16-1.44), yet more likely to report it would be or was difficult to get vaccinated than did adults without a disability (aPR = 2.69; 95% CI = 2.16-3.34). Reducing barriers to vaccine scheduling and making vaccination sites more accessible might improve vaccination rates among persons with disabilities.

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.(§).

COVID-19 vaccination is critical to ending the COVID-19 pandemic. Members of minority racial and ethnic groups have experienced disproportionate COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality (1); however, COVID-19 vaccination coverage is lower in these groups (2). CDC used data from CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD)* to assess disparities in vaccination coverage among persons aged ≥16 years by race and ethnicity during December 14, 2020-May 15, 2021. Measures of coverage included receipt of ≥1 COVID-19 vaccine dose (i.e., receipt of the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines or 1 dose of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine [Johnson & Johnson]) and full vaccination (receipt of 2 doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines or 1 dose of Janssen COVID-19 vaccine). Among 9.6 million persons aged ≥16 years enrolled in VSD during December 14, 2020-May 15, 2021, ≥1-dose coverage was 48.3%, and 38.3% were fully vaccinated. As of May 15, 2021, coverage with ≥1 dose was lower among non-Hispanic Black (Black) and Hispanic persons (40.7% and 41.1%, respectively) than it was among non-Hispanic White (White) persons (54.6%). Coverage was highest among non-Hispanic Asian (Asian) persons (57.4%). Coverage with ≥1 dose was higher among persons with certain medical conditions that place them at higher risk for severe COVID-19 (high-risk conditions) (63.8%) than it was among persons without such conditions (41.5%) and was higher among persons who had not had COVID-19 (48.8%) than it was among those who had (42.4%). Persons aged 18-24 years had the lowest ≥1-dose coverage (28.7%) among all age groups. Continued monitoring of vaccination coverage and efforts to improve equity in coverage are critical, especially among populations disproportionately affected by COVID-19.

COVID-19 vaccines are critical for ending the COVID-19 pandemic; however, current data about vaccination coverage and safety in pregnant women are limited. Pregnant women are at increased risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 compared with nonpregnant women of reproductive age, and are at risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preterm birth (1-4). Pregnant women are eligible for and can receive any of the three COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States via Emergency Use Authorization.* Data from Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), a collaboration between CDC and multiple integrated health systems, were analyzed to assess receipt of ≥1 dose (first or second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines or a single dose of the Janssen [Johnson & Johnson] vaccine) of any COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy, receipt of first dose of a 2-dose COVID-19 vaccine (initiation), or completion of a 1- or 2-dose COVID-19 vaccination series. During December 14, 2020-May 8, 2021, a total of 135,968 pregnant women were identified, 22,197 (16.3%) of whom had received ≥1 dose of a vaccine during pregnancy. Among these 135,968 women, 7,154 (5.3%) had initiated and 15,043 (11.1%) had completed vaccination during pregnancy. Receipt of ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy was highest among women aged 35-49 years (22.7%) and lowest among those aged 18-24 years (5.5%), and higher among non-Hispanic Asian (Asian) (24.7%) and non-Hispanic White (White) women (19.7%) than among Hispanic (11.9%) and non-Hispanic Black (Black) women (6.0%). Vaccination coverage increased among all racial and ethnic groups over the analytic period, likely because of increased eligibility for vaccination(†) and increased availability of vaccine over time. These findings indicate the need for improved outreach to and engagement with pregnant women, especially those from racial and ethnic minority groups who might be at higher risk for severe health outcomes because of COVID-19 (4). In addition, providing accurate and timely information about COVID-19 vaccination to health care providers, pregnant women, and women of reproductive age can improve vaccine confidence and coverage by ensuring optimal shared clinical decision-making.

India's cervical cancer screening was launched in 2016 and we evaluated baseline facility readiness using nationally representative data from the 2012-13 District Level Household and Facility Survey on 4 tiers of the public health care system - 18,367 sub-health centres (SHC's), 8540 primary health centres (PHC's), 4810 community health centres and 1540 district/sub-divisional hospitals. To evaluate facility readiness we used the Improving Data for Decision Making in Global Cervical Cancer Programmes toolkit on six domains - potential staffing, infrastructure, equipment and supplies, infection prevention, medicines and laboratory testing, and data management. Composite scores were created by summing responses within domains, standardizing scores across domains at each facility level, and averaging across districts/states. Overall, readiness scores were low for cervical cancer screening. At SHC's, the lowest scores were observed in 'infrastructure' (0.55) and 'infection prevention' (0.44), while PHC's had low 'potential staffing' scores (0.50) due to limited manpower to diagnose and treat (cryotherapy) potential cases. Scores were higher for tiers conducting diagnostic work-up and treatment/referral. The highest scores were in 'potential staffing' except for PHC's, while the lowest scores were in 'infection & prevention' and 'medicines and laboratory'. Goa and Maharashtra were consistently top 5 ranking states for readiness. Substantial heterogeneity in facility readiness for cervical cancer screening spans states and tiers of India's public healthcare system. Infrastructure and staffing are large barriers to screening at PHCs, which are crucial for referral of high-risk patients. Our results suggest focus areas in cervical cancer screening at the district level for policy makers.

Cervical cancer is the second leading cause of new cancer cases and cancer-related deaths among women in India, with an estimated 96,922 new cases and 60,078 deaths each year.* Despite the availability of effective low-cost screening options in India, limited access to screening and treatment services, diagnosis at a later stage, and low investment in health care infrastructure all contribute to the high number of deaths (1). In 2016 the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of India recommended cervical cancer screening using visual inspection with acetic acid every 5 years for women aged 30-65 years (per World Health Organization [WHO] guidelines) (2,3). To establish a baseline for cervical cancer screening coverage, survey data were analyzed to estimate the percentage of women aged 30-49 years who had ever been screened for cervical cancer (defined as ever having had a cervix examination). Cervical cancer screening was estimated using data from the Fourth National Family Health Survey(dagger) (NFHS-4), a nationally representative survey conducted at the district level during 2015-2016, which included 699,686 Indian women aged 15-49 years. Lifetime cervical cancer screening prevalence was low (29.8%) and varied by geographic region, ranging from 10.0% in the Northeast Region to 45.2% in the Western Region. Prevalence of screening was higher among women with higher levels of education and household wealth, those who had ever been married, and urban residents. This screening prevalence can be used as a baseline indicator for cervical cancer screening in India in accordance with the WHO Noncommunicable Diseases Global Monitoring Framework during state-based programmatic rollout and program evaluation (4).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: After the 2009 pandemic influenza seasons, the financial sustainability of school-located vaccination (SLV) clinics drew much attention. This study estimated and compared the labor costs of SLV clinics and reimbursements for influenza vaccinations for students attending 5 schools in 2 Oregon counties during 2010-2011. DESIGN/SETTING: Using a biweekly, Web-based survey, staff and volunteers prospectively tracked the time they spent on SLV clinic planning, implementation, and billing. They also tracked claims submitted and reimbursements by payment source. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: We report labor hours and associated costs for implementing school-based vaccination clinics; number of claims submitted and the reimbursement rate; and total and net costs. RESULTS: In county A, 260 doses were administered at a total cost of $5009 and received $3620 in payment. For county B, 165 doses were administered at a cost of $5598 and received $3807 in payments. With billing, the net cost per dose decreased from $19.74 to $8.57 and $38.08 to $16.17, for county A and county B, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Reimbursements reduced cost per dose by 48% across SLV clinics across both Oregon counties. Local health departments can bill local health insurers to offset costs for implementing school-based vaccination clinics. Efforts to set up billing processes require dedicated billing staff who can effectively manage claims submission processes with multiple health insurers.

PURPOSE: Health and administrative systems are facing spatial clustering in chronic diseases such as diabetes. This study explores how geographic distribution of diabetes in the United States is associated with socioeconomic and built environment characteristics and health-relevant policies. METHODS: We compiled nationally representative county-level data from multiple data sources. We standardized characteristics to a mean = 0 and a SD = 1 and modeled county-level age-adjusted diagnosed diabetes incidence in 2013 using 2-level hierarchical linear regression. RESULTS: Incidence of age-standardized diagnosed diabetes in 2013 varied across U.S. counties (n = 3109), ranging from 310 to 2190 new cases/100,000, with an average of 856.4/100,000. Socioeconomic and health-related characteristics explained approximately 42% of the variation in diabetes incidence across counties. After accounting for other characteristics, counties with higher unemployment, higher poverty, and longer commutes had higher incidence rates than counties with lower levels. Counties with more exercise opportunities, access to healthy food, and primary care physicians had fewer diabetes cases. CONCLUSIONS: Features of the socioeconomic and built environment were associated with diabetes incidence; identifying the salient modifiable features of counties can inform targeted policies to reduce diabetes incidence.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the societal economic and health impacts of Maine's school-based influenza vaccination (SIV) program during the 2009 A(H1N1) influenza pandemic. DATA SOURCES: Primary and secondary data covering the 2008-09 and 2009-10 influenza seasons. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated weekly monovalent influenza vaccine uptake in Maine and 15 other states, using difference-in-difference-in-differences analysis to assess the program's impact on immunization among six age groups. We also developed a health and economic Markov microsimulation model and conducted Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis. DATA COLLECTION: We used national survey data to estimate the impact of the SIV program on vaccine coverage. We used primary data and published studies to develop the microsimulation model. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The program was associated with higher immunization among children and lower immunization among adults aged 18-49 years and 65 and older. The program prevented 4,600 influenza infections and generated $4.9 million in net economic benefits. Cost savings from lower adult vaccination accounted for 54 percent of the economic gain. Economic benefits were positive in 98 percent of Monte Carlo simulations. CONCLUSIONS: SIV may be a cost-beneficial approach to increase immunization during pandemics, but programs should be designed to prevent lower immunization among nontargeted groups.

INTRODUCTION: National adult Tdap vaccination rates are low, reinforcing the need to increase vaccination efforts in primary care offices. The 4 Pillars Practice Transformation Program is an evidence-based, step-by-step guide to improving primary care adult vaccination with an online implementation tracking dashboard. This study tested the effectiveness of an intervention to increase adult Tdap vaccination that included the 4 Pillars Program, provider education, and one-on-one coaching of practice-based immunization champions. METHODS: 25 primary care practices participated in a randomized controlled cluster trial (RCCT) in Year 1 (6/1/2013-5/31/2014) and a pre-post study in Year 2 (6/1/2014-1/31/2015). Baseline year was 6/1/2012-5/31/2013, with data analyzed in 2016. Demographic and vaccination data were derived from de-identified electronic medical record (EMR) extractions. The primary outcomes were vaccination rates and percentage point (PP) changes/year. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 70,549 patients 18years who were seen in the practices 1 time each year, with a baseline mean age=55years; 35% were men; 56% were non-white; 35% were Hispanic and 20% were on Medicare. Baseline vaccination rate averaged 35%. In the Year 1 RCCT, cumulative Tdap vaccination increased significantly in both intervention and control groups; in both cities, the percentage point increases in the intervention groups (7.7 PP in Pittsburgh and 9.9 PP in Houston) were significantly higher (P<0.001) than in the control groups (6.4 PP in Pittsburgh and 7.6 PP in Houston). In the Year 2 pre-post study, in both cities, active intervention groups increased rates significantly more (6.2 PP for both) than maintenance groups (2.2 PP in Pittsburgh and 4.1 PP in Houston; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An intervention that includes the 4 Pillars Practice Transformation Program, staff education and coaching is effective for increasing adult Tdap immunization rates within primary care practices. Clinical Trial Registry Name/Number: NCT01868334.