Megan C. Lindley

Effect of Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel on Morbidity and Mortality Among Patients: Systematic Review and Grading of Evidence

BACKGROUNDnInfluenza vaccination of healthcare personnel (HCP) is recommended in >40 countries. However, there is controversy surrounding the evidence that HCP vaccination reduces morbidity and mortality among patients. Key factors for developing evidence-based recommendations include quality of evidence, balance of benefits and harms, and values and preferences.nnnMETHODSnWe conducted a systematic review of randomized trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies published through June 2012 to evaluate the effect of HCP influenza vaccination on mortality, hospitalization, and influenza cases in patients of healthcare facilities. We pooled trial results using meta-analysis and assessed evidence quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.nnnRESULTSnWe identified 4 cluster randomized trials and 4 observational studies conducted in long-term care or hospital settings. Pooled risk ratios across trials for all-cause mortality and influenza-like illness were 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI], .59-.85) and 0.58 (95% CI, .46-.73), respectively; pooled estimates for all-cause hospitalization and laboratory-confirmed influenza were not statistically significant. The cohort and case-control studies indicated significant protective associations for influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed influenza. No studies reported harms to patients. Using GRADE, the quality of the evidence for the effect of HCP vaccination on mortality and influenza cases in patients was moderate and low, respectively. The evidence quality for the effect of HCP vaccination on patient hospitalization was low. The overall evidence quality was moderate.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe quality of evidence is higher for mortality than for other outcomes. HCP influenza vaccination can enhance patient safety.

Barriers to the Use of Herpes Zoster Vaccine

BACKGROUNDnThe herpes zoster vaccine is the most expensive vaccine recommended for older adults and the first vaccine to be reimbursed through Medicare Part D. Early uptake has been 2% to 7% nationally.nnnOBJECTIVEnTo assess current vaccination practices, knowledge and practice regarding reimbursement, and barriers to vaccination among general internists and family medicine physicians.nnnDESIGNnMail and Internet-based survey, designed through an iterative process and conceptually based on the Health Belief Model.nnnSETTINGnNational survey conducted from July to September 2008.nnnPARTICIPANTSnGeneral internists and family medicine physicians.nnnMEASUREMENTSnSurvey responses on current vaccination practices, knowledge and practice regarding reimbursement, and barriers to vaccination.nnnRESULTSnResponse rates were 72% in both specialties (301 general internists and 297 family medicine physicians). Physicians in both specialties reported similar methods for delivering vaccine, which included stocking and administering the vaccine in their offices (49%), referring patients to a pharmacy to purchase the vaccine and bring it back to the office for administration (36%), and referring patients to a pharmacy for vaccine administration (33%). Eighty-eight percent of providers recommend herpes zoster vaccine and 41% strongly recommend it, compared with more than 90% who strongly recommend influenza and pneumococcal vaccines. For physicians in both specialties, the most frequently reported barriers to vaccination were financial. Only 45% of respondents knew that herpes zoster vaccine is reimbursed through Medicare Part D. Of respondents who began administering herpes zoster vaccine in their office, 12% stopped because of cost and reimbursement issues.nnnLIMITATIONSnSurvey results represent reported but not observed practice. Surveyed providers may not be representative of all providers.nnnCONCLUSIONnPhysicians are making efforts to provide herpes zoster vaccine but are hampered by barriers, particularly financial ones. Efforts to facilitate the financing of herpes zoster vaccine could help increase its use.nnnPRIMARY FUNDING SOURCEnCenters for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Role of Schools in Strengthening Delivery of New Adolescent Vaccinations

Schools offer an opportunity to deliver new vaccines to adolescents who may not receive them in their medical home. However, school budgets and health priorities are set at the local level; consequently resources devoted to health-related activities vary widely. Partnering with schools requires soliciting buy-in from stakeholders at district and school levels and providing added value to schools. With appropriate resources and partnerships, schools could carry out vaccination-related activities from educating students, parents, and communities to developing policies supporting vaccination, providing vaccines, or serving as the site at which partners administer vaccines. Activities will vary among schools, but every school has the potential to use some strategies that promote adolescent vaccination.

Financing the delivery of vaccines to children and adolescents: Challenges to the current system

Recent increases in the number and costs of vaccines routinely recommended for children and adolescents have raised concerns about the ability of the current vaccine financing and delivery systems to maintain access to recommended vaccines without financial barriers. Here we review the current state of US financing for vaccine delivery to children and adolescents and identify challenges that should be addressed to ensure future access to routinely recommended vaccines without financial barriers. Challenges were considered from the perspectives of vaccine providers; state and local governments; insurers, employers, and other health care purchasers; vaccine manufacturers; and consumers.

Increases in vaccination coverage of healthcare personnel following institutional requirements for influenza vaccination: A national survey of US hospitals

BACKGROUNDnInstitutional requirements for influenza vaccination, ranging from policies that mandate declinations to those terminating unvaccinated healthcare personnel (HCP), are increasingly common in the U.S. Our objective was to determine HCP vaccine uptake following requirements for influenza vaccination at U.S. hospitals.nnnMETHODSnSurvey mailed in 2011 to a nationally representative sample of 998 acute care hospitals. An institutional requirement was defined as an institutional policy that requires receipt or declination of influenza vaccination, with or without consequences for vaccine refusal. Respondents reported institutional-level, seasonal influenza vaccination coverage, if known, during two consecutive influenza seasons: the season prior to (i.e., pre-requirement), and the first season of requirement (i.e., post-requirement). Weighted univariate and multivariate analyses accounted for sampling design and non-response.nnnRESULTSn808 (81.0%) hospitals responded. Of hospitals with institutional requirements for influenza vaccination (n=440), 228 hospitals met analytic inclusion criteria. Overall, mean reported institutional-level influenza vaccination coverage among HCP rose from 62.0% in the pre-requirement season to 76.6% in the post-requirement season, representing a single-season increase of 14.7 (95% CI: 12.6-16.7) percentage points. After adjusting for potential confounders, single-season increases in influenza vaccination uptake remained greater among hospitals that imposed consequences for vaccine refusal, and among hospitals with lower pre-requirement vaccination coverage. Institutional characteristics were not associated with vaccination increases of differential magnitude.nnnCONCLUSIONnHospitals that are unable to improve suboptimal influenza vaccination coverage through multi-faceted, voluntary vaccination campaigns may consider institutional requirements for influenza vaccination. Rapid and measurable increases in vaccination coverage followed institutional requirements at hospitals of varying demographic characteristics.

Student vaccination requirements of U.S. health professional schools: a survey.

BACKGROUNDnUnvaccinated health care personnel are at increased risk for transmitting vaccine-preventable diseases to their patients. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that health care personnel, including students, receive measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, varicella, influenza, and pertussis vaccines. Prematriculation vaccination requirements of health professional schools represent an early opportunity to ensure that health care personnel receive recommended vaccines.nnnOBJECTIVEnTo examine prematriculation vaccination requirements and related policies at selected health professional schools in the United States and compare requirements with current ACIP recommendations.nnnDESIGNnCross-sectional study using an Internet-based survey.nnnSETTINGnMedical and baccalaureate nursing schools in the United States and its territories.nnnPARTICIPANTSnDeans of accredited medical schools granting MD (n = 130) and DO (n = 26) degrees and of baccalaureate nursing programs (n = 603).nnnMEASUREMENTSnProportion of MD-granting and DO-granting schools and baccalaureate nursing programs that require that entering students receive vaccines recommended by the ACIP for health care personnel.nnnRESULTSn563 schools (75%) responded. More than 90% of all school types required measles, mumps, rubella, and hepatitis B vaccines for entering students; varicella vaccination also was commonly required. Tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccination was required by 66%, 70%, and 75% of nursing, MD-granting, and DO-granting schools, respectively. Nursing and DO-granting schools (31% and 45%, respectively) were less likely than MD-granting schools (78%) to offer students influenza vaccines free of charge.nnnLIMITATIONSnEstimates were conservative, because schools that reported that they did not require proof of immunity for a given vaccine were considered not to require that vaccine. Estimates also were restricted to schools that train physicians and nurses.nnnCONCLUSIONnThe majority of schools now require most ACIP-recommended vaccines for students. Medical and nursing schools should adopt policies on student vaccination and serologic testing that conform to ACIP recommendations and should encourage annual influenza vaccination by offering influenza vaccination to students at no cost.nnnPRIMARY FUNDING SOURCEnNone.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Vaccination Coverage Among Adult Populations in the U.S.

INTRODUCTIONnReducing racial/ethnic disparities in immunization rates is a compelling public health goal. Disparities in childhood vaccination rates have not been observed in recent years for most vaccines. The objective of this study is to assess adult vaccination by race/ethnicity in the U.S.nnnMETHODSnThe 2012 National Health Interview Survey was analyzed in 2014 to assess adult vaccination by race/ethnicity for five vaccines routinely recommended for adults: influenza, tetanus, pneumococcal (two vaccines), human papilloma virus, and zoster vaccines. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors independently associated with all adult vaccinations.nnnRESULTSnVaccination coverage was significantly lower among non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, and non-Hispanic Asians compared with non-Hispanic whites, with only a few exceptions. Age, sex, education, health insurance, usual place of care, number of physician visits in the past 12 months, and health insurance were independently associated with receipt of most of the examined vaccines. Racial/ethnic differences narrowed, but gaps remained after taking these factors into account.nnnCONCLUSIONSnRacial and ethnic differences in vaccination levels narrow when adjusting for socioeconomic factors analyzed in this survey, but are not eliminated, suggesting that other factors that are associated with vaccination disparities are not measured by the National Health Interview Survey and could also contribute to the differences in coverage. Additional efforts, including systems changes to ensure routine assessment and recommendations for needed vaccinations among adults for all racial/ethnic groups, are essential for improving vaccine coverage.

Vaccination Coverage Among U.S. Adolescents Aged 13–17 Years Eligible for the Vaccines for Children Program, 2009

Objectives. We compared (1) characteristics of adolescents who are and are not entitled to receive free vaccines from the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program and (2) vaccination coverage with meningococcal conjugate (MCV4), quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV4), and tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines among VFC-eligible and non-VFC-eligible adolescents. Methods. We analyzed data from the 2009 National Immunization Survey-Teen, a nationally representative, random-digit-dialed survey of households with adolescents aged 13–17 years (n=20,066). Differences in sociodemographic characteristics and provider-reported vaccination coverage were evaluated using t-tests. Results. Overall, 32.1% (±1.2%) of adolescents were VFC-eligible. VFC-eligible adolescents were significantly less likely than non-VFC-eligible adolescents to be white and to live in suburban areas, and more likely to live in poverty and to have younger and less educated mothers. Nationally, coverage among non-VFC-eligible adolescents was 57.1% (±1.5%) for ≥1 dose of Tdap, 55.4% (±1.5%) for ≥1 dose of MCV4, and 43.2% (±2.2%) for ≥1 dose of HPV4. Coverage among VFC-eligible adolescents was 52.5% (±2.4%) for ≥1 dose of Tdap, 50.1% (±2.4%) for ≥1 dose of MCV4, and 46.6% (±3.5%) for ≥1 dose of HPV4. Only 27.5% (±1.8%) of non-VFC-eligible adolescents and 25.0% (±2.9%) of VFC-eligible adolescents received ≥3 doses of HPV4. Vaccination coverage was significantly higher among non-VFC-eligible adolescents for Tdap and MCV4, but not for one-dose or three-dose HPV4. Conclusions. Coverage with some recommended vaccines is lower among VFC-eligible adolescents compared with non-VFC-eligible adolescents. Continued monitoring of adolescent vaccination rates, particularly among VFC-eligible populations, is needed to ensure that all adolescents receive all routinely recommended vaccines.

Institutional Requirements for Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel: Results From a Nationally Representative Survey of Acute Care Hospitals—United States, 2011

BACKGROUNDnMany health professional organizations now endorse influenza vaccination as a condition of employment in healthcare settings. Our objective was to describe institutional requirements for influenza vaccination of healthcare personnel (HCP) among US hospitals during the 2010-2011 influenza season.nnnMETHODSnA survey was mailed in 2011 to a nationally representative sample of 998 acute care hospitals. An institutional requirement was defined as a policy that requires HCP to receive or decline influenza vaccination, with or without consequences for vaccine refusal. A weighted analysis included univariate analyses and logistic regression.nnnRESULTSnOf responding hospitals (n = 808; 81.0%), 440 (55.6%) reported institutional requirements for influenza vaccination. Although employees were uniformly subject to requirements, nonemployees often were not. The proportion of requirements with consequences for vaccine refusal was 44.4% (n = 194); where consequences were imposed, nonmedical exemptions were often granted (69.3%). Wearing a mask was the most common consequence (74.2% of 194 requirements); by contrast, 29 hospitals (14.4%) terminated unvaccinated HCP. After adjustment for demographic factors, the following characteristics remained significantly associated with requirements: location in a state requiring HCP to receive or decline influenza vaccine, caring for inpatients that are potentially vulnerable to influenza, use of ≥9 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices-recommended, evidence-based influenza vaccination campaign strategies, and for-profit ownership.nnnCONCLUSIONSnInfluenza vaccination requirements were prevalent among hospitals of varying size and location. However, few policies were as stringent or as comprehensive as those endorsed by health professional organizations. Because influenza vaccination requirements are a viable alternative for hospitals unable to achieve high coverage through voluntary policies, there is still substantial room for improvement.

Net Financial Gain or Loss From Vaccination in Pediatric Medical Practices

OBJECTIVE: The goal was to determine the net return (gain or loss after costs were subtracted from revenues) to private pediatric medical practices from investing time and resources in vaccines and vaccination of their patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of private medical practices requested data on all financial and capacity aspects of the practices, including operating expenses; labor composition and wages/salaries; private- and public-purchase vaccine orders and inventories; Medicaid and private insurance reimbursements; patient population; numbers of providers; and numbers, types, and lengths of visits. Costs were assigned to vaccination visits and subtracted from reimbursements from public- and private-pay sources to determine net financial gains/losses from vaccination. RESULTS: Thirty-four practices responded to the survey. More than one half of the respondents broke even or suffered financial losses from vaccinating patients. With greater proportions of Medicaid-enrolled patients served, greater financial loss was noted. On average, private insurance vaccine administration reimbursements did not cover administration costs unless a child received ≥3 doses of vaccine in 1 visit. Finally, wide ranges of per-dose prices paid and reimbursements received for vaccines indicated that some practices might be losing money in purchasing and delivering vaccines for private-pay patients if they pay high purchase prices but receive low reimbursements. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the vaccination portion of the business model for primary care pediatric practices that serve private-pay patients results in little or no profit from vaccine delivery. When losses from vaccinating publicly insured children are included, most practices lose money.