PURPOSE: Vaccination rates are significantly lower among adolescents living in rural areas compared to those living in urban areas. The objective of this study was to understand the factors contributing to disparities in vaccination between adolescents in rural compared to urban areas. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with parents and providers in 16 rural and 4 urban counties of Colorado. Interview questions followed the socioecological model of health and addressed personal, interpersonal, community, and environment/structural barriers and facilitators that impact adolescent vaccination rates. Qualitative content analysis with a directed content analysis approach was used. Urban and rural interviews were compared to identify barriers unique to rural communities. FINDINGS: Reported barriers included lack of vaccine access at primary care, lack of routine preventive care utilization, the need to take off time from work and school, and misinformation about vaccines. Barriers that were unique to rural communities included structural barriers such as lack of evening and weekend appointments, providers not stocking vaccines, short provider tenures, and costs; logistical barriers such as the need for multiple visits to multiple locations and distance and travel time; and beliefs and behaviors such as an overreliance on sports physicals (in lieu of preventive visits) and natural lifestyle cultures. CONCLUSIONS: There are unique challenges to adolescent vaccination in rural areas that contribute to fewer adolescents receiving their recommended vaccines. Addressing structural barriers may address this disparity.

Objective(s): To identify barriers and facilitators related to reimbursement processes, device acquisition costs, stocking, and supply of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) from 27 jurisdictions (26 states/1 territory) participating in the Increasing Access to Contraception Learning Community from 2016 to 2018. Materials and Methods: A descriptive study using qualitative data collected through 27 semistructured key informant interviews was conducted during the final year of the learning community among all jurisdictional teams. Excerpts were extracted and coded by theme, then summarized as barriers or facilitators using implementation science methods. Results: Most jurisdictions (89%) identified barriers to reimbursement processes, device acquisition, stocking, and supply of LARC devices, and 85% of jurisdictions identified facilitators for these domains. Payment methodology challenges and lack of billing and coding processes were identified as the most common barriers to reimbursement processes. Device acquisition cost challenges and lack of delivery facility protocols for billing were the most common barriers to device acquisition, stocking, and supply of LARC. The most common facilitator of reimbursement processes was expanded payment methodology options, whereas supplemental funding for acquisition costs and protocol development were identified as the most common facilitators of device acquisition, stocking, and supply. Conclusion: Revised payment methodologies and broader health systems changes including additional funding sources and protocols for billing, stocking, and supply were used by learning community jurisdictions to address identified barriers. The learning community framework offers a forum for information exchange, peer-to-peer learning, and sharing of best practices to support jurisdictions in addressing identified barriers and facilitators affecting contraception access.

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.

Return to international travel in the COVID-19 pandemic recovery period is expected to increase the number of patients with imported malaria in the United States (US). Malaria prevention in travelers and preparedness for timely diagnosis and appropriate treatment are key to minimize imported malaria morbidity and mortality. Intravenous artesunate (IVAS) is now available from commercial distributors in the US for the treatment of severe malaria. Hospitals and pharmacists should have a plan for malaria treatment, including stocking artemether-lumefantrine for uncomplicated malaria, and stocking or planning for rapid procurement of IVAS for the treatment of severe malaria.

PROBLEM/CONDITION: Malaria in humans is caused by intraerythrocytic protozoa of the genus Plasmodium. These parasites are transmitted by the bite of an infective female Anopheles species mosquito. Most malaria infections in the United States and its territories occur among persons who have traveled to regions with ongoing malaria transmission. However, among persons who have not traveled out of the country, malaria is occasionally acquired through exposure to infected blood or tissues, congenital transmission, nosocomial exposure, or local mosquitoborne transmission. Malaria surveillance in the United States and its territories provides information on its occurrence (e.g., temporal, geographic, and demographic), guides prevention and treatment recommendations for travelers and patients, and facilitates rapid transmission control measures if locally acquired cases are identified. PERIOD COVERED: This report summarizes confirmed malaria cases in persons with onset of illness in 2018 and trends in previous years. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: Malaria cases diagnosed by blood smear microscopy, polymerase chain reaction, or rapid diagnostic tests are reported to local and state health departments through electronic laboratory reports or by health care providers or laboratory staff members directly reporting to CDC or health departments. Case investigations are conducted by local and state health departments, and reports are transmitted to CDC through the National Malaria Surveillance System (NMSS), the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS), or direct CDC clinical consultations. CDC reference laboratories provide diagnostic assistance and conduct antimalarial drug resistance marker testing on blood specimens submitted by health care providers or local or state health departments. This report summarizes data from the integration of all cases from NMSS and NNDSS, CDC clinical consultations, and CDC reference laboratory reports. RESULTS: CDC received reports of 1,823 confirmed malaria cases with onset of symptoms in 2018, including one cryptic case and one case acquired through a bone marrow transplant. The number of cases reported in 2018 is 15.6% fewer than in 2017. The number of cases diagnosed in the United States and its territories has been increasing since the mid-1970s; the number of cases reported in 2017 was the highest since 1972. Of the cases in 2018, a total of 1,519 (85.0%) were imported cases that originated from Africa; 1,061 (69.9%) of the cases from Africa were from West Africa, a similar proportion to what was observed in 2017. Among all cases, P. falciparum accounted for most infections (1,273 [69.8%]), followed by P. vivax (173 [9.5%]), P. ovale (95 [5.2%]), and P. malariae (48 [2.6%]). For the first time since 2008, an imported case of P. knowlesi was identified in the United States and its territories. Infections by two or more species accounted for 17 cases (<1.0%). The infecting species was not reported or was undetermined in 216 cases (11.9%). Most patients (92.6%) had symptom onset <90 days after returning to the United States or its territories from a country with malaria transmission. Of the U.S. civilian patients who reported reason for travel, 77.0% were visiting friends and relatives. Chemoprophylaxis with antimalarial medications are recommended for U.S. residents to prevent malaria while traveling in countries where it is endemic. Fewer U.S. residents with imported malaria reported taking any malaria chemoprophylaxis in 2018 (24.5%) than in 2017 (28.4%), and adherence was poor among those who took chemoprophylaxis. Among the 864 U.S. residents with malaria for whom information on chemoprophylaxis use and travel region were known, 95.0% did not adhere to or did not take a CDC-recommended chemoprophylaxis regimen. Among 683 women with malaria, 19 reported being pregnant. Of these, 11 pregnant women were U.S. residents, and one of whom reported taking chemoprophylaxis to prevent malaria but her adherence to chemoprophylaxis was not reported. Thirty-eight (2.1%) malaria cases occurred among U.S. military personnel in 2018, more than in 2017 (26 [1.2%]). Among all reported malaria cases in 2018, a total of 251 (13.8%) were classified as severe malaria illness, and seven persons died from malaria. In 2018, CDC analyzed 106 P. falciparum-positive and four P. falciparum mixed species specimens for antimalarial resistance markers (although certain loci were untestable in some specimens); identification of genetic polymorphisms associated with resistance to pyrimethamine were found in 99 (98.0%), to sulfadoxine in 49 (49.6%), to chloroquine in 50 (45.5%), and to mefloquine in two (2.0%); no specimens tested contained a marker for atovaquone or artemisinin resistance. INTERPRETATION: The importation of malaria reflects the overall trends in global travel to and from areas where malaria is endemic, and 15.6% fewer cases were imported in 2018 compared with 2017. Of imported cases, 59.3% were among persons who had traveled from West Africa. Among U.S. civilians, visiting friends and relatives was the most common reason for travel (77.1%). PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIONS: The best way for U.S. residents to prevent malaria is to take chemoprophylaxis medication before, during, and after travel to a country where malaria is endemic. Adherence to recommended malaria prevention strategies among U.S. travelers would reduce the number of imported cases. Reported reasons for nonadherence include prematurely stopping after leaving the area where malaria was endemic, forgetting to take the medication, and experiencing a side effect. Health care providers can make travelers aware of the risks posed by malaria and incorporate education to motivate them to be adherent to chemoprophylaxis. Malaria infections can be fatal if not diagnosed and treated promptly with antimalarial medications appropriate for the patient's age, pregnancy status, medical history, the likely country of malaria acquisition, and previous use of antimalarial chemoprophylaxis. Antimalarial use for chemoprophylaxis and treatment should be determined by the CDC guidelines, which are frequently updated. In April 2019, intravenous (IV) artesunate became the first-line medication for treatment of severe malaria in the United States and its territories. Artesunate was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2020 and is commercially available (Artesunate for Injection) from major U.S. drug distributors (https://amivas.com). Stocking IV artesunate locally allows for immediate treatment of severe malaria once diagnosed and provides patients with the best chance of a complete recovery and no sequelae. With commercial IV artesunate now available, CDC will discontinue distribution of non-FDA-approved IV artesunate under an investigational new drug protocol on September 30, 2022. Detailed recommendations for preventing malaria are online at https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/travelers/drugs.html. Malaria diagnosis and treatment recommendations are also available online at https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/diagnosis_treatment. Health care providers who have sought urgent infectious disease consultation and require additional assistance on diagnosis and treatment of malaria can call the Malaria Hotline 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday-Friday, at 770-488-7788 or 855-856-4713 or after hours for urgent inquiries at 770-488-7100. Persons submitting malaria case reports (care providers, laboratories, and state and local public health officials) should provide complete information because incomplete reporting compromises case investigations and public health efforts to prevent future infections and examine trends in malaria cases. Molecular surveillance of antimalarial drug resistance markers enables CDC to track, guide treatment, and manage drug resistance in malaria parasites both domestically and globally. A greater proportion of specimens from domestic malaria cases are needed to improve the completeness of antimalarial drug resistance analysis; therefore, CDC requests that blood specimens be submitted for any case of malaria diagnosed in the United States and its territories.

CONTEXT: Federally funded Community, Migrant, and Homeless Health Centers provide health services to the most vulnerable communities in the United States. However, little is known about their capabilities and processes for providing vaccinations to adults. PROGRAM: We conducted the first national survey of health centers assessing their inventory, workflow, capacity for, and barriers to provision of routinely recommended adult vaccines. In addition, we asked health center leaders' perceptions regarding best practices and policy recommendations for adult vaccinations. IMPLEMENTATION: A survey was developed on the basis of domains elicited from advisory panels and focus groups and was sent electronically to leaders of 762 health centers throughout the United States and its territories; data were collected and analyzed in 2018. EVALUATION: A total of 319 survey responses (42%) were obtained. Health centers reported stocking most routinely recommended vaccines for adults; zoster vaccines were not stocked regularly due to supply and storage issues. Respondents most commonly reported adequate reimbursement for vaccination services from private insurance and Medicaid. Most vaccinations were provided during primary care encounters; less than half of health centers reported providing vaccines during specialist visits. Vaccines administered at the health center were most commonly documented in an open field of the electronic health record (96%) or in an immunization information system (72%). Recommendations for best practices related to better documentation of vaccinations and communication with immunization information systems were provided. DISCUSSION: Health centers provide most adult vaccines to their patients despite financial and technological barriers to optimal provisioning. Further studies at point of care could help identify mechanisms for system improvements.

Introduction: Many non-pregnant women see obstetrician-gynecologists as their sole source of medical care, yet little is known about vaccination practices of obstetrician-gynecologists for non-pregnant patients. The objectives were to assess, among a national sample of obstetrician-gynecologists, practices related to vaccine delivery in non-pregnant patients and factors associated with stocking and administering more than three different vaccines to non-pregnant patients. Methods: E-mail and mail surveys were administered July–October 2015, with analyses performed during October–November 2015 and April–June 2018. Results: The response rate was 73% (353/482). Human papillomavirus (92%); influenza (82%); and tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis vaccines (50%) were the vaccines most commonly assessed, with the remaining vaccines assessed by <40% of respondents. Vaccines most commonly administered by obstetrician-gynecologists to non-pregnant patients included human papillomavirus (81%); influenza (70%); and tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (54%). The remaining vaccines were administered by <30% of obstetrician-gynecologists. Factors associated with routinely administering more than three vaccines to non-pregnant patients included working in a hospital-, public health– or university-associated clinic (RR=1.87, 95% CI=1.35, 2.58, referent to private practice); a larger practice (more than five providers; RR=1.54, 95% CI=1.05, 2.27); perceiving fewer financial barriers (RR=0.74, 95% CI=0.57, 0.96); fewer practice-associated barriers (RR=0.71, 95% CI=0.55, 0.92); and greater patient barriers (RR=1.62, 95% CI=1.33, 1.98). Conclusions: Human papillomavirus; influenza; and tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis vaccines are the only vaccines routinely assessed and administered to non-pregnant patients by most obstetrician-gynecologists. Given their role as the sole source of care for many women, obstetrician-gynecologists could make a positive impact on the vaccination status of their non-pregnant patients.

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.

INTRODUCTION: U.S. obstetrician/gynecologists play a critical role as vaccinators of pregnant women. However, little is known about their current immunization practices. Thus, study objectives were to determine (1) practices related to assessment of vaccination status and vaccine delivery for pregnant patients; (2) barriers to stocking and administering vaccines; and (3) factors associated with administering both influenza and tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines. METHODS: An e-mail and mail survey among a national sample of obstetrician/gynecologists conducted July-October 2015 (analysis August 2016-August 2017). RESULTS: The response rate was 73.2% (353/482). Among obstetrician/gynecologists caring for pregnant women (n=324), vaccination status was most commonly assessed for influenza (97%), Tdap (92%), and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines (88%). Vaccines most commonly administered included influenza (85%) and Tdap (76%). Few respondents reported administering other vaccines to pregnant patients. More physicians reported using standing orders for influenza (66%) than Tdap (39%). Other evidence-based strategies for increasing vaccine uptake were less frequently used (electronic decision support, 42%; immunization information system to record [13%] or assess vaccination status [11%]; reminder/recall, 7%). Barriers most commonly reported were provider financial barriers, yet provider attitudinal barriers were rare. Providers who administered both influenza and Tdap vaccines were more likely to be female, perceive fewer financial and practice barriers, less likely to be in private practice, and perceive more patient barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Although most obstetrician/gynecologists administer some vaccines to pregnant women, the focus remains on influenza and Tdap. Financial barriers and infrequent use of evidence-based strategies for increasing vaccination uptake may be hindering delivery of a broader complement of adult vaccines in obstetrician/gynecologist offices.

OBJECTIVE: Small food store interventions show promise to increase healthy food access in under-resourced areas. However, none have tested the impact of price discounts on healthy food supply and demand. We tested the impact of store-directed price discounts and communications strategies, separately and combined, on the stocking, sales and prices of healthier foods and on storeowner psychosocial factors. DESIGN: Factorial design randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Twenty-four corner stores in low-income neighbourhoods of Baltimore City, MD, USA. SUBJECTS: Stores were randomized to pricing intervention, communications intervention, combined pricing and communications intervention, or control. Stores that received the pricing intervention were given a 10-30 % price discount by wholesalers on selected healthier food items during the 6-month trial. Communications stores received visual and interactive materials to promote healthy items, including signage, taste tests and refrigerators. RESULTS: All interventions showed significantly increased stock of promoted foods v. CONTROL: There was a significant treatment effect for daily unit sales of healthy snacks (beta=6.4, 95 % CI 0.9, 11.9) and prices of healthy staple foods (beta=-0.49, 95 % CI -0.90, -0.03) for the combined group v. control, but not for other intervention groups. There were no significant intervention effects on storeowner psychosocial factors. CONCLUSIONS: All interventions led to increased stock of healthier foods. The combined intervention was effective in increasing sales of healthier snacks, even though discounts on snacks were not passed to the consumer. Experimental research in small stores is needed to understand the mechanisms by which store-directed price promotions can increase healthy food supply and demand.

Coaching Boys into Men is an evidence-based dating violence prevention program for coaches to implement with male athletes. A common adaptation of this program is delivery by domestic violence and sexual violence prevention advocates instead of coaches. We explored how this implementer adaptation may influence athlete uptake of program messages and outcomes. Randomly, one school received the program delivered by an advocate while another school received the program delivered by coaches. Athletes completed baseline and follow-up surveys (n = 148), and a subset who received the advocate-led program participated in focus groups (four groups; n = 26). We compared changes in athlete attitudes and behaviors and conducted thematic analyses with qualitative data. We found no significant differences between athletes who received the program from the advocate versus their coaches. Athletes highlighted the advocate's delivery and role as a non-judgmental adult ally as qualities that influenced their uptake of program messages. The acceptability of the advocate-led program may be related to the implementer type along with specific implementer characteristics and delivery methods. Using advocates together with coaches as implementers could increase the reach of this program. Further study of best practices for Coaching Boys into Men adaptation is needed to guide program dissemination and sustainability.

Receptivity to strategies to improve the food environment by increasing access to healthier foods in small food stores is underexplored. We conducted 20 in-depth interviews with small storeowners of different ethnic backgrounds as part of a small-store intervention trial. Store owners perceived barriers and facilitators to purchase, stock, and promote healthy foods. Barriers mentioned included customer preferences for higher fat and sweeter taste and for lower prices; lower wholesaler availability of healthy food; and customers' lack of interest in health. Most store owners thought positively of taste tests, free samples, and communication interventions. However, they varied in terms of their expectations of the effect of these strategies on customers' healthy food purchases. The findings reported add to the limited data on motivating and working with small-store owners in low-income urban settings.

BACKGROUND: Although anti-malarial medicines are free in Kenyan public health facilities, patients often seek treatment from private sector retail drug outlets. In mid-2010, the Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria (AMFm) was introduced to make quality-assured artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) accessible and affordable in private and public sectors. METHODS: Private sector retail drug outlets stocking anti-malarial medications within a surveillance area of approximately 220,000 people in a malaria perennial high-transmission area in rural western Kenya were identified via a census in September 2013. A cross-sectional study was conducted in September-October 2013 to determine availability and price of anti-malarial medicines and malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) in drug outlets. A standardized questionnaire was administered to collect drug outlet and personnel characteristics and availability and price of anti-malarials and RDTs. RESULTS: Of 181 drug outlets identified, 179 (99 %) participated in the survey. Thirteen percent were registered pharmacies, 25 % informal drug shops, 46 % general shops, 13 % homesteads and 2 % other. One hundred sixty-five (92 %) had at least one ACT type: 162 (91 %) had recommended first-line artemether-lumefantrine (AL), 22 (12 %) had recommended second-line dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHA-PPQ), 85 (48 %) had sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP), 60 (34 %) had any quinine (QN) formulation, and 14 (8 %) had amodiaquine (AQ) monotherapy. The mean price (range) of an adult treatment course for AL was $1.01 ($0.35-4.71); DHA-PPQ was $4.39 ($0.71-7.06); QN tablets were $2.24 ($0.12-4.71); SP was $0.62 ($0.24-2.35); AQ monotherapy was $0.42 ($0.24-1.06). The mean AL price with or without the AMFm logo did not differ significantly ($1.01 and 1.07, respectively; p = 0.45). Only 17 (10 %) drug outlets had RDTs; 149 (84 %) never stocked RDTs. The mean RDT price was $0.92 ($0.24-2.35). CONCLUSIONS: Most outlets never stocked RDTs; therefore, testing prior to treatment was unlikely for customers seeking treatment in the private retail sector. The recommended first-line treatment, AL, was widely available. Although SP and AQ monotherapy are not recommended for treatment, both were less expensive than AL, which might have caused preferential use by customers. Interventions that create community demand for malaria diagnostic testing prior to treatment and that increase RDT availability should be encouraged.

BACKGROUND: Immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) are highly effective in preventing unintended pregnancy. State health departments are in the process of implementing a systems change approach to better apply policies supporting the use of immediate postpartum LARC. METHODS: Beginning in 2014, a group of national organizations, federal agencies, and six states have convened a LARC Learning Community to share strategies and best practices in immediate postpartum LARC policy development and implementation. Community activities consist of in-person meetings and a webinar series as forums to discuss systems change. RESULTS: The Learning Community identified eight domains for discussion and development of resources: training, pay streams, stocking and supply, consent, outreach, stakeholder partnerships, service location, and data and surveillance. The community is currently developing resource materials and guidance for use by other state health departments. CONCLUSIONS: To effectively implement policies on immediate postpartum LARC, states must engage a number of stakeholders in the process, raise awareness of the challenges to implementation, and communicate strategies across agencies during policy development.

BACKGROUND: Adults are at substantial risk for vaccine-preventable disease, but their vaccination rates remain low. OBJECTIVE: To assess practices for assessing vaccination status and stocking recommended vaccines, barriers to vaccination, characteristics associated with reporting financial barriers to delivering vaccines, and practices regarding vaccination by alternate vaccinators. DESIGN: Mail and Internet-based survey. SETTING: Survey conducted from March to June 2012. PARTICIPANTS: General internists and family physicians throughout the United States. MEASUREMENTS: A financial barriers scale was created. Multivariable linear modeling for each specialty was performed to assess associations between a financial barrier score and physician and practice characteristics. RESULTS: Response rates were 79% (352 of 443) for general internists and 62% (255 of 409) for family physicians. Twenty-nine percent of general internists and 32% of family physicians reported assessing vaccination status at every visit. A minority used immunization information systems (8% and 36%, respectively). Almost all respondents reported assessing need for and stocking seasonal influenza; pneumococcal; tetanus and diphtheria; and tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccines. However, fewer assessed and stocked other recommended vaccines. The most commonly reported barriers were financial. Characteristics significantly associated with reporting greater financial barriers included private practice setting, fewer than 5 providers in the practice, and, for general internists only, having more patients with Medicare Part D. The most commonly reported reasons for referring patients elsewhere included lack of insurance coverage for the vaccine (55% for general internists and 62% for family physicians) or inadequate reimbursement (36% and 41%, respectively). Patients were most often referred to pharmacies/retail stores and public health departments. LIMITATIONS: Surveyed physicians may not be representative of all physicians. CONCLUSION: Improving adult vaccination delivery will require increased use of evidence-based methods for vaccination delivery and concerted efforts to resolve financial barriers, especially for smaller practices and for general internists who see more patients with Medicare Part D. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Medicines Facility - malaria (AMFm) is primarily an artemisinin combination therapy (ACT) subsidy, aimed at increasing availability, affordability, market share and use of quality-assured ACTs (QAACTs). Mainland Tanzania was one of eight national scale programmes where AMFm was introduced in 2010. Here we present findings from outlet and household surveys before and after AMFm implementation to evaluate its impact from both the supply and demand side. METHODS: Outlet surveys were conducted in 49 randomly selected wards throughout mainland Tanzania in 2010 and 2011, and data on outlet characteristics and stocking patterns were collected from outlets stocking antimalarials. Household surveys were conducted in 240 randomly selected enumeration areas in three regions in 2010 and 2012. Questions about treatment seeking for fever and drugs obtained were asked of individuals reporting fever in the previous two weeks. RESULTS: The availability of QAACTs increased from 25.5% to 69.5% among all outlet types, with the greatest increase among pharmacies and drug stores, together termed specialised drug sellers (SDSs), where the median QAACT price fell from $5.63 to $0.94. The market share of QAACTs increased from 26.2% to 42.2%, again with the greatest increase in SDSs. Household survey results showed a shift in treatment seeking away from the public sector towards SDSs. Overall, there was no change in the proportion of people with fever obtaining an antimalarial or ACT from baseline to endline. However, when broken down by treatment source, ACT use increased significantly among clients visiting SDSs. DISCUSSION: Unchanged ACT use overall, despite increases in QAACT availability, affordability and market share in the private sector, reflected a shift in treatment seeking towards private providers. The reasons for this shift are unclear, but likely reflect both persistent stockouts in public facilities, and the increased availability of subsidised ACTs in the private sector.

Pediatric vaccine stockpiles have been in place in the U.S. since 1983 to address the potential disruption in supply of routine pediatric vaccines. Increases in the number of vaccines recommended for pediatric and adolescent patients have increased the cost of stocking and maintaining the stockpile. Based on a spreadsheet-based model (VacStockpile) we developed, we estimated potential supply shortages of 14 stockpiled vaccines as of August 1, 2008 and its health and financial impacts under various shortage and stockpile scenarios. To illustrate the implications of policy options, we compared "high" to "low" stockpile scenarios. The high stockpile scenario ensures a 6-month vaccine supply to vaccinate all children according to recommended schedules. The low scenario comprised of 50% of the high scenario or existing stocks, whichever is smaller. For each vaccine, we used a weighted average of five shortage scenarios ranging from 0% to 100%, in 25% increments. Demand for each vaccine was based on current distribution or birth cohort size. The probabilities of shortages were based on number of manufacturers, market stability, history of manufacturing problems, and production complexity. CDC contract prices were used to estimate costs. Expert opinion and literature provided estimates of health impacts due to shortages. Applying the probabilities of shortages to all vaccines in a single year, the "low" scenario could cost $600 million, with 376,000 vaccine-preventable cases occurring and 1774 deaths. The "high" scenario could cost $2 billion, with an additional $1.6 billion initial stocking, and result in 7100 vaccine-preventable cases occurring and 508 deaths. Based on the assumptions in the model, there is the potential for large differences in outcomes between the scenarios although some outcomes could potentially be averted with measures such as catch-up campaigns after shortages. Using the VacStockpile policy makers can readily evaluate the implications of assumptions and decide which set of assumptions they wish to use in planning.

Two prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have great potential to prevent HPV-associated diseases and cancers. In 2006, a quadrivalent vaccine that protects against four HPV types associated with most cases of genital warts and cervical cancers and in 2009 a bivalent vaccine that protects against two types associated with most cases of cervical cancer were licensed. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends either vaccine for routine vaccination of 11- or 12-year-old female adolescents and catch-up vaccination of females through age 26 years. The quadrivalent HPV vaccine was recently licensed for use in males aged 9 through 26 years; ACIP did not recommend that the vaccine be used for routine use but that it may be given to males aged 9 through 26 years to reduce their likelihood of acquiring genital warts. Although HPV vaccine for males is not routinely recommended, it can still be covered by the Vaccines for Children Program. | For any vaccine, implementation is affected by attitudes and acceptance of the general public, parents, and providers. Studies show that the most influential factor in vaccination decisions is provider recommendation [1], [2], [3]. Most previous research on attitudes and acceptability for HPV vaccine has focused on vaccination of females; there has been less research related to males. The study in this issue by Weiss et al [4] provides valuable insight about providers' attitudes toward vaccinating males. Although not generalizable to pediatricians and family physicians as a whole, it does provide information on those already stocking and providing vaccine to females and who may consider providing vaccine to males.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We developed recommendations for antidote stocking at hospitals that provide emergency care. METHODS: An expert panel representing diverse perspectives (clinical pharmacology, clinical toxicology, critical care medicine, clinical pharmacy, emergency medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, poison centers, pulmonary medicine, and hospital accreditation) was formed to create recommendations for antidote stocking. Using a standardized summary of the medical literature, the primary reviewer for each antidote proposed guidelines for antidote stocking to the full panel. The panel used a formal iterative process to reach their recommendation for the quantity of an antidote that should be stocked and the acceptable period for delivery of each antidote. RESULTS: The panel recommended consideration of 24 antidotes for stocking. The panel recommended that 12 of the antidotes be available for immediate administration on patient arrival. In most hospitals, this period requires that the antidote be stocked in the emergency department. Another 9 antidotes were recommended for availability within 1 hour of the decision to administer, allowing the antidote to be stocked in the hospital pharmacy if the hospital has a mechanism for prompt delivery of antidotes. The panel identified additional antidotes that should be stocked by the hospital but are not usually needed within the first hour of treatment. The panel recommended that each hospital perform a formal antidote hazard vulnerability assessment to determine the need for antidote stocking in that hospital. CONCLUSION: The antidote expert recommendations provide a tool to be used in creating practices for appropriate and adequate antidote stocking in hospitals that provide emergency care.