Detecting New Sources of Childhood Environmental Lead Exposure Using a Statistical Surveillance System, 2015-2019.

Objectives. To design and implement a statistical surveillance system to prospectively identify potential clusters of elevated blood lead levels (EBLLs) in children younger than 6 years in the Denver, Colorado, metro area. Methods. We evaluated the ability of 2 independent statistical surveillance methods to detect synthetic clusters of EBLLs in Denver between 2015 and 2019. Results. Together, the statistical surveillance methods took an average of 9 months to detect the synthetic clusters. This is faster than similar real-world clusters that have been reported in the past. The system was relatively unaffected by changes in the testing rate and to the blood lead reference value. Conclusions. The adequate design of a statistical surveillance system can help increase the rate at which clusters of EBLLs are detected in Denver, but doing so requires an accurate model of the spatial distribution of EBLLs. Earlier detection of clusters can help guide more effective public health interventions at the local level. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S7):S715-S722. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307009).

Vaccine financing and billing in practices serving adult patients: A follow-up survey.

BACKGROUND: Financial concerns are often cited by physicians as a barrier to administering routinely recommended vaccines to adults. The purpose of this study was to assess perceived payments and profit from administering recommended adult vaccines and vaccine purchasing practices among general internal medicine (GIM) and family medicine (FM) practices in the United States. METHODS: We conducted an interviewer-administered survey from January-June 2014 of practices stratified by specialty (FM or GIM), affiliation (standalone or ≥ 2 practice sites), and level of financial decision-making (independent or larger system level) in FM and GIM practices that responded to a previous survey on adult vaccine financing and provided contact information for follow-up. Practice personnel identified as knowledgeable about vaccine financing and billing responded to questions about payments relative to vaccine purchase price and payment for vaccine administration, perceived profit on vaccination, claim denial, and utilization of various purchasing strategies for private vaccine stocks. Survey items on payment and perceived profit were assessed for various public and private payer types. Descriptive statistics were calculated and responses compared by physician specialty, practice affiliation, and level of financial decision-making. RESULTS: Of 242 practices approached, 43% (n = 104) completed the survey. Reported payment levels and perceived profit varied by payer type. Only for preferred provider organizations did a plurality of respondents report profiting on adult vaccination services. Over half of respondents reported losing money vaccinating adult Medicaid beneficiaries. One-quarter to one-third of respondents reported not knowing about Medicare Part D payment levels for vaccine purchase and vaccine administration, respectively. Few respondents reported negotiating with manufacturers or insurance plans on vaccine purchase prices or payments for vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Practices vaccinating adults may benefit from education and technical assistance related to vaccine financing and billing and greater use of purchasing strategies to decrease upfront vaccine cost.

Primary care physicians' perspective on financial issues and adult immunization in the Era of the Affordable Care Act.

BACKGROUND: Financial barriers to adult vaccination are poorly understood. Our objectives were to assess among general internists (GIM) and family physicians (FP) shortly after Affordable Care Act (ACA) implementation: (1) proportion of adult patients deferring or refusing vaccines because of cost and frequency of physicians not recommending vaccines for financial reasons; (2) satisfaction with reimbursement for vaccine purchase and administration by payer type; (3) knowledge of Medicare coverage of vaccines; and (4) awareness of vaccine-specific provisions of the ACA. METHODS: We administered an Internet and mail survey from June to October 2013 to national networks of 438 GIMs and 401 FPs. RESULTS: Response rates were 72% (317/438) for GIM and 59% (236/401) for FP. Among physicians who routinely recommended vaccines, up to 24% of GIM and 30% of FP reported adult patients defer or refuse certain vaccines for financial reasons most of the time. Physicians reported not recommending vaccines because they thought the patient's insurance would not cover it (35%) or the patient could be vaccinated more affordably elsewhere (38%). Among physicians who saw patients with this insurance, dissatisfaction ('very dissatisfied') was highest for payments received from Medicaid (16% vaccine purchase, 14% vaccine administration) and Medicare Part B (11% vaccine purchase, 11% vaccine administration). Depending on the vaccine, 36-71% reported not knowing how Medicare covered the vaccine. Thirty-seven percent were 'not at all aware' and 19% were 'a little aware' of vaccine-specific provisions of the ACA. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are refusing and physicians are not recommending adult vaccinations for financial reasons. Increased knowledge of private and public insurance coverage for adult vaccinations might position physicians to be more likely to recommend vaccines and better enable them to refer patients to other vaccine providers when a particular vaccine or vaccines are not offered in the practice.

Primary Care Physicians' Perspectives About HPV Vaccine.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Because physicians' practices could be modified to reduce missed opportunities for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, our goal was to: (1) describe self-reported practices regarding recommending the HPV vaccine; (2) estimate the frequency of parental deferral of HPV vaccination; and (3)identify characteristics associated with not discussing it. METHODS: A national survey among pediatricians and family physicians (FP) was conducted between October 2013 and January 2014. Using multivariable analysis, characteristics associated with not discussing HPV vaccination were examined. RESULTS: Response rates were 82% for pediatricians (364 of 442) and 56% for FP (218 of 387). For 11-12 year-old girls, 60% of pediatricians and 59% of FP strongly recommend HPV vaccine; for boys,52% and 41% ostrongly recommen. More than one-half reported ≥25% of parents deferred HPV vaccination. At the 11-12 year well visit, 84% of pediatricians and 75% of FP frequently/always discuss HPV vaccination. Compared with physicians who frequently/always discuss , those who occasionally/rarely discuss(18%) were more likely to be FP (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.0 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1-3.5), be male (aOR: 1.8 [95% CI: 1.1-3.1]), disagree that parents will accept HPV vaccine if discussed with other vaccines (aOR: 2.3 [95% CI: 1.3-4.2]), report that 25% to 49% (aOR: 2.8 [95% CI: 1.1-6.8]) or ≥50% (aOR: 7.8 [95% CI: 3.4-17.6]) of parents defer, and express concern about waning immunity (aOR: 3.4 [95% CI: 1.8-6.4]). CONCLUSIONS: Addressing physicians' perceptions about parental acceptance of HPV vaccine, the possible advantages of discussing HPV vaccination with other recommended vaccines, and concerns about waning immunity could lead to increased vaccination rates.