Committee Opinion No. 661: Integrating Immunizations Into Practice

Cost and reimbursement of providing routine vaccines in outpatient obstetrician/gynecologist settings

OBJECTIVE

To determine the costs and reimbursement associated with running a vaccine program in 5 obstetrics/gynecology practices in Colorado that had participated in a 3-year randomized, controlled trial focused on increasing vaccination in this setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a secondary analysis on costs from 5 clinics participating in a cluster-randomized controlled trial that assessed the effectiveness of a multimodal intervention to improve vaccination rates in outpatient obstetrics/gynecology clinics in central Colorado. The intervention included designation of an immunization champion within the practice, purchasing recommended vaccines for the practice, guidance on storage and management, implementing practices for routine identification of eligible patients for vaccination using the medical record, implementation of standing orders for vaccination, and vaccine administration to patients. Data on costs were gathered from office invoices, claims data, surveys and in-person observations during the course of the trial. These data incorporated supply and personnel costs for administering vaccines to individual patients that were derived from a combination of time-motion studies of staff and provider clinical activity, and practice reports, as well as costs related to maintaining the vaccination program at the practice level, which were derived from practice reports and invoices. Cost data for personnel time during visits in which vaccination was assessed and/or discussed, but no vaccine was given to the patient were also included in the main analysis. Data on practice revenue were derived from practice reimbursement records. All costs were described in 2014 dollars. The primary analysis was the proportion of costs for the program that were reimbursed, aggregated over all years of the study and combining all vaccines and practices, separated by obstetrics vs gynecology patients.

RESULTS

Collectively the 5 clinics served >40,000 patient during the study period and served a population that was 16% Medicaid. Over the 3-year observation period, there were 6573 vaccination claims made collectively by the practices (4657 for obstetric patients, 1916 for gynecology patients). The most expensive component of the program was the material costs of the vaccines themselves, which ranged from a low of $9.67 for influenza vaccines, to a high of $141.40 for human papillomavirus vaccine. Staff costs for assessing and delivering vaccines during patient visits were minimal ($0.09-$1.24 per patient visit depending on the practice and whether an obstetrics or gynecology visit was being assessed) compared with staff costs for maintaining the program at a practice level (ie, assessing inventory, ordering and stocking vaccines; $0.89-$105.89 per vaccine dose given). When assessing all costs compared with all reimbursement, we found that vaccines for obstetrics patients were reimbursed at 159% of the costs over the study period, and for gynecology patients at 97% of the costs. Overall, the vaccination program was financially favorable across the practices, averaging 125% reimbursement of costs across the three study years.

CONCLUSION

Providing routine vaccines to patients in the ambulatory obstetrics/gynecology setting is generally not financially prohibitive for practices, and may even be financially beneficial, though there is variability between practices that can affect the overall reimbursement margin.

Maternal Immunization

Vaccines administered to women during pregnancy can provide protection against serious infectious diseases for the mother, for the newborn, or both. Maternal immunization boosts the concentration of maternal antibodies that can be transferred across the placenta to directly protect infants too young to be immunized. In addition, indirect protection through prevention of maternal infection and through breast milk antibodies can be achieved through maternal immunization. In general, inactivated vaccines are considered safe for pregnant women and their fetuses, whereas live vaccines are avoided owing to the theoretical potential risk to the fetus. However, the risks and benefits of vaccination must be carefully weighed and whenever possible, protection to the mother and her infant should be prioritized. Influenza and tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines are routinely recommended for all pregnant women in the United States. Seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine is recommended for all pregnant women in any trimester of pregnancy, mainly to protect the mother, but there is growing evidence that infants benefit from passive antibody protection against influenza complications. The Tdap vaccine is recommended during the third trimester of each pregnancy to provide optimal protection to infants who are at particularly high risk of pertussis complications and mortality in the first 3 months of life. The effects of maternal immunization on the prevention of maternal and infant disease have been demonstrated in observational and prospective studies of influenza and pertussis disease in the United States and worldwide. Maternal immunization has the potential to improve the health of mothers and young infants and therefore, other diseases of relevance during this period are now targets of active research and vaccine development, including group B streptococcus and respiratory syncytial virus. Similarly, several vaccines can be administered during pregnancy in special circumstances, when maternal health, travel, or other special situations arise. This article reviews the current recommendations for vaccination of women during pregnancy.

Embedding the delivery of antenatal vaccination within routine antenatal care: a key opportunity to improve uptake

Improving the uptake of vaccination in pregnancy has been highlighted as a priority by the World Health Organisation, yet establishing the optimal location for delivery of the antenatal vaccination program remains a topic of debate internationally. In many countries, antenatal vaccines are usually delivered within Primary Care (under the lead of general practitioners [GPs] or family physicians), yet this often presents a logistic barrier to accessing vaccination, and increasing evidence demonstrates that embedding vaccination within routine antenatal care visits may significantly improve uptake. In this commentary, we discuss recent evidence to support this approach, including anonymous feedback from patients and staff at our own institution, in which a dedicated midwife-led vaccine clinic has recently been set up. Furthermore, we highlight a number of individual and institution-level barriers which would need addressing before this approach can be routinely adopted, and suggest targets for future education and research.

Vaccination Practices Among Obstetrician/Gynecologists for Non-pregnant Patients

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.

Australian caregivers' perceptions of influenza vaccination in pregnancy: A mixed methods exploration

BACKGROUND

Pregnant women and their unborn children are at high risk from both pandemic and seasonal influenza.

AIM

To explore views about influenza vaccination during pregnancy, in a pandemic and immediate post-pandemic context, among mothers and other carers of young children.

METHODS

In a mixed methods study, caregivers from 16 childcare centres in Sydney, Australia, were surveyed in November and December 2009, and interviews were conducted with caregivers from six childcare centres between June 2009 and May 2011.

FINDINGS

Emerging themes from 41 interviews conducted with mothers included: 'pregnancy as a protected state', 'risk negotiation' and 'centrality of healthcare worker interaction'. Of 972 surveys distributed, 431 were completed (a response rate of 44%). Respondents perceived pandemic influenza risks to be greater for pregnant women than for their unborn children. Only 2% (9/383) of women reported being vaccinated against swine flu during pregnancy and 45% (168/383) indicated intent to receive swine flu vaccination in a future pregnancy.

DISCUSSION

The low rates of maternal influenza vaccination revealed in this study contrast to recent gains in vaccine uptake. Vaccination decision-making in pregnancy can be complex and contextually driven for some women. Healthcare workers, including midwives, have a key role in addressing women's concerns about maternal influenza vaccination in both pandemic and interpandemic periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Policy makers need to be cognisant of women's concerns and develop resources for both pregnant women and healthcare workers as part of both future pandemic planning and seasonal vaccination efforts.

Beyond the verbal: Pregnant women's preferences for receiving influenza and Tdap vaccine information from their obstetric care providers

OBJECTIVE

Prenatal providers are pregnant women's most trusted sources of health information, and a provider's recommendation is a strong predictor of maternal vaccine receipt. However, other ways women prefer receiving vaccine-related information from prenatal providers, aside from face-to-face conversations, is unclear. This study explores what secondary communication methods are preferred for receiving maternal vaccine-related information.

STUDY DESIGN

Obstetric patients at four prenatal clinics around Atlanta, Georgia received a 27-item survey between May 5th, 2016 and June 15th, 2016. Participants were asked about sources they currently use to obtain prenatal health information and their preferences for receiving vaccine-related information from providers. Descriptive statistics were calculated and chi-square tests were used to evaluate associations between participant characteristics and outcomes.

RESULTS

Women primarily reported using the CDC website (57.7%) and pregnancy-related websites (53.0%) to obtain vaccine information. Apart from clinical conversations, educational brochures (64.9%) and e-mails (54.7%) were the preferred methods of receiving vaccine information from providers, followed by their provider's practice website (42.1%). Communication preferences and interest in maternal immunization varied by race/ethnicity, age and education; white women were twice as likely to want information on a provider's practice website compared to African-American women (OR = 2.06; 95% CI: 1.31, 3.25).

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women use the Internet for information about vaccines, but they still value input from their providers. While e-mails and brochures were the preferred secondary modes of receiving information, a provider's existing practice website offers a potential communications medium that capitalizes on women's information seeking behaviors and preferences while limiting burden on providers.

"My mom said it wasn't important": A case for catch-up human papillomavirus vaccination among young adult women in the United States

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine prevents HPV-related diseases, including anogenital cancers and genital warts. In the United States, while it is recommended to adolescents ages 11 to 12, catch-up vaccination is available for those previously unvaccinated until age 26. Parental decisions or lack of provider recommendation during adolescence are barriers to on-time vaccination. Young adult women, ages 18 to 26, are a key catch-up vaccination population as this is a period for autonomous decision-making, high healthcare utilization, and other recommended prevention behaviors. Additional intervention research is required to promote HPV vaccine uptake among young adult women. Evidence-based and theory-informed interventions need to be developed and evaluated to reach a large number of women. In order to improve HPV vaccination among young adult women, future research should integrate the themes of health literacy, alternative healthcare settings, and OB/GYN providers to facilitate improved access and shared decision-making for the vaccine. This last chance for HPV-related cancer prevention should not be forgotten in public health efforts.

The crucial role of maternal care providers as vaccinators for pregnant women

Vaccination during pregnancy is increasingly being recognised internationally a useful means of preventing illness in pregnant women and their newborns. It has been used since the 1960s, when it was found that tetanus vaccine was highly effective in preventing neonatal tetanus, but interest has greatly increased over the last few years. As new data become available showing the numerous benefits of maternal immunisation and its potential for improving maternal and neonatal health in relation to a number of infectious conditions, it is being increasingly incorporated into the national vaccination programmes around the world. However, the development of new vaccines, the existence of clinical trials testing the efficacy of vaccinating pregnant women in order to protect newborns against respiratory syncytial virus and group B Streptococcus infections, and the fact that the uptake of influenza and pertussis vaccines during pregnancy is lower than expected in developed countries is making it increasingly clear that existing maternal vaccination programmes need to be strengthened. This reviews addresses the importance of integrating maternal immunisation and standard obstetrical care in order to promote vaccination administration by maternal care providers (MCPs) because the vaccination goals for pregnant women cannot be achieved without appropriate training and extending the role of MCPs as vaccinators. In order to make meaningful progress, it is necessary to develop and refine targeted messages for pregnant women concerning the benefits of maternal immunisation for themselves and their infants.

Preventing human papillomavirus-related cancers: we are all in this together

Human papillomavirus-related cancers, which include cervical, vulvovaginal, anal, and oropharyngeal cancers, are on the rise in the United States. Although the human papillomavirus vaccine has been on the market for 10 years, human papillomavirus vaccination rates are well below national goals. Research identified many barriers and facilitators to human papillomavirus vaccination, and provider recommendation remains the most important factor in parental and patient decisions to vaccinate. While much of the burden of human papillomavirus vaccine provision falls on pediatricians and primary care providers, they cannot do it alone. As clinicians who care for a large proportion of human papillomavirus-related conditions, obstetrician-gynecologists and other women's health care providers must share the responsibility for vaccination of eligible patients. Obstetrician-gynecologists can support the efforts to eradicate human papillomavirus-related disease in their patients and their families via multiple avenues, including providing the human papillomavirus vaccine and being community leaders in support of vaccination.

Low Uptake of Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Among Postpartum Women, 2006-2012

BACKGROUND

Young adult women find it acceptable to be offered the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine postpartum. Little is known about the practice of administering the HPV vaccine during the postpartum period.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database was used to develop a cohort of privately insured 18 to 26-year-old women with uncomplicated live-born pregnancies. Eligibility required no previous doses of HPV vaccine before delivery and continuous insurance enrollment from June 2006 through 1 year postpartum. Descriptive statistics were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 51,913 women meet age and enrollment criteria, with 3912 (7.5%) having received any doses of vaccine before their delivery, leaving 48,001 women in this cohort. In the year postpartum, 861 women (1.8%) received any HPV vaccine. Of the women initiating the vaccine, only 337 (39%) completed the three-vaccine series. Women who received the vaccine, compared with women who did not, were younger (21 vs. 23 years old), more often the dependent to the insurance beneficiary (56% vs. 30%), and were more likely to have had an abnormal pap smear in the year prior (19.6% vs. 9.1%) or postdelivery (16.4% vs. 4.9). More women completed the HPV vaccine series when initiated within 2 months postpartum compared with women initiating the vaccine series >2 months postpartum (44% vs. 38%).

CONCLUSIONS

Postpartum women are eligible for the HPV vaccine, yet very few are receiving it. The postpartum period is a missed opportunity for administration of this cancer-preventing vaccine.