Asthma care quality for children with minority-serving providers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare asthma care quality for children with and without minority-serving providers. DESIGN: Cross-sectional telephone survey of parents, linked with a mailed survey of their children's providers. SETTING: A Medicaid-predominant health plan and multispecialty provider group in Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 563 children with persistent asthma, identified by claims and encounter data. Main Exposure Whether the child's provider was minority serving (>25% of patients black or Latino). Outcomes Parent report of whether the child had (1) ever received inhaled steroids, (2) received influenza vaccination during the past season, and (3) received an asthma action plan in the past year. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, Latino children and those with minority-serving providers were more likely to have never received inhaled steroids. In adjusted models, the odds of never receiving inhaled steroids were not statistically significantly different for children with minority-serving providers (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-2.64), or for Latino vs white children (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 0.74-4.18); odds were increased for children receiving care in community health centers (OR, 4.88; 95% CI, 1.70-14.02) or hospital clinics (OR, 4.53; 95% CI, 1.09-18.92) vs multispecialty practices. Such differences were not seen for influenza vaccinations or action plans. CONCLUSIONS: Children with persistent asthma are less likely to receive inhaled steroids if they receive care in community health centers or hospital clinics. Practice setting mediated initially observed disparities in inhaled steroid use by Latino children and those with minority-serving providers. No differences by race/ethnicity or minority-serving provider were observed for influenza vaccinations or asthma action plans.

Pediatricians' self-reported clinical practices and adherence to national immunization guidelines after the introduction of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about whether pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) has altered pediatricians' practices regarding well-child and acute care. OBJECTIVES: To (1) describe whether PCV caused pediatricians to move other routine infant vaccines and/or add routine visits; (2) characterize adherence to national immunization recommendations; and (3) determine whether PCV altered pediatricians' planned clinical approach to well-appearing febrile infants. DESIGN AND METHODS: One year after PCV was added to the pediatric immunization schedule, we mailed a 23-item survey to 691 randomly selected pediatricians in Massachusetts. The adjusted response rate was 77%. RESULTS: After PCV introduction, 39% of pediatricians moved other routine infant vaccines to different visits and 15% added routine visits to the infant schedule. The self-reported immunization schedules of 36% were nonadherent to national immunization guidelines for at least 1 vaccine. Nonadherence rates were significantly higher among pediatricians who had been in practice longer, moved another vaccine because of PCV introduction, and/or offered to give shots later when multiple injections were due. For a hypothetical febrile 8-month-old girl who had received 3 doses of PCV, pediatricians reported they were significantly less likely to (1) perform both blood and urine testing and (2) prescribe antibiotics than in the pre-PCV era. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of PCV may have had unintended effects on pediatric primary care, including decreased adherence to national recommendations for the timing of immunizations and decreased urine testing for well-appearing febrile infants. Special efforts may be warranted to ensure that pediatricians remain current with changing recommendations.

Immunization status among children newly enrolled in a health plan: a new frontier for quality measurement?

BACKGROUND: The National Scientific Panel on Immunization Measurement Standards recently recommended that the assessment population for the childhood immunization measure of the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set include 24-month-olds with > or = 6 months of continuous enrollment in a health plan. The current inclusion criterion is > or = 12 months of continuous enrollment. The new recommendation would expand the assessment population to include children with more recent enrollment. OBJECTIVES: To compare the immunization status of children enrolled in a large health plan between ages 12 and 17 months vs earlier in life and to describe the proportion of children enrolled between ages 12 and 17 months that could be fully immunized by 24 months. METHODS: All children enrolled in a group-model HMO who turned 24 months old during a 12-month study were identified for a retrospective cohort study. A computerized immunization database was used to identify all vaccines administered to each child, and summary measures were created to describe immunization status at selected times. The full-text medical records of children who seemed to have no immunizations in the computerized database were reviewed. RESULTS: Of the 3448 children in the study population, 3130 (91%) enrolled between birth and 11 months of age and 161 (5%) enrolled between 12 and 17 months of age. Whereas 87% of children who enrolled between birth and 11 months of age were fully immunized at age 24 months, only 57% of those enrolled between 12 and 17 months of age were fully immunized at 24 months of age (risk difference, 30%; 95% confidence interval, 24%-36%; P < .001). Of the 161 children enrolled between 12 and 17 months of age, 68% had received all of the immunizations in the primary series. Only 6% of these 161 children would have been impossible or difficult to fully immunize by age 24 months using accelerated catch-up vaccination schedules. CONCLUSIONS: Children who enrolled in an HMO between 12 and 17 months of age were less likely than those who enrolled earlier in life to be fully immunized by age 24 months, but it would be feasible to bring almost all of them up to date by that age. Including such children in immunization measures, either together with earlier-enrolled children or as a separate stratum, would expand the scope of the quality of care under evaluation.

Pediatricians' views on financial barriers and values for pneumococcal vaccine for children.

OBJECTIVES: To 1) describe barriers to pneumococcal conjugate vaccine adoption and 2) estimate the value of the vaccine based on pediatricians' responses to willingness-to-pay questions. METHODS: In June 2000, we mailed a random sample of pediatricians in Massachusetts a questionnaire about barriers to adoption of the vaccine and willingness to pay for the vaccine and associated outcomes. Respondents were assigned at random to 1 of 2 survey versions: the Personal Perspective version, for which they imagined spending their own money for their own child, or the Public Perspective version, for which they imagined spending the government's money for the average child. RESULTS: Of the 546 pediatricians who responded (estimated completion rate, 80%), only 9% were using the vaccine routinely at the time of the survey. Most said that if the state did not provide the vaccine, financial barriers including inadequate insurance reimbursement would limit their use of the vaccine either a great deal (61%) or a moderate amount (25%). Pediatricians who were asked how much they would pay for the vaccine for their own child (personal perspective) gave a mean of $56 per dose, whereas those who were asked how much the government should pay on behalf of an average child (public perspective) gave a mean of $36 per dose. Alternatively, when we used a decision analysis model and incorporated pediatricians' values for preventing pneumococcal infections to estimate the vaccine's value, the value per dose was $38 from the personal perspective and $34 from the public perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatricians in Massachusetts identified significant financial barriers to the adoption of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine related to insurance arrangements. Based on willingness-to-pay questions, the value of the vaccine is lower than the current list price. The methods used to estimate the value of a vaccine, including the perspective used to frame questions, may substantially influence the results.