The Cost of Cost-Sharing: The Impact of Medicaid Benefit Design on Influenza Vaccination Uptake.

Prior research indicates that cost-sharing and lack of insurance coverage reduce preventive services use among low-income persons. State Medicaid policy may affect the uptake of recommended adult vaccinations. We examined the impact of three aspects of Medicaid benefit design (coverage for vaccines, prohibiting cost-sharing, and copayment amounts) on vaccine uptake in the fee-for-service Medicaid population 19-64 years old. We combined previously published reports to obtain state Medicaid policy information from 2003 and 2012. Data on influenza vaccination uptake were taken from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. We used a differences-in-differences framework, controlling for national trends and state differences, to estimate the effect of each benefit design factor on vaccination uptake in different Medicaid-eligible populations. Each additional dollar of copayment for vaccination decreased influenza vaccination coverage 1-6 percentage points. The effects of covering vaccines or prohibiting cost-sharing were mixed. Imposing copayments for vaccination is associated with lower vaccination coverage. These findings have implications for the implementation of Medicaid expansion in states that currently impose copayments.

State Law and Standing Orders for Immunization Services.

INTRODUCTION: This study determined whether state laws permit the implementation of standing orders programs (SOPs) for immunization practice. SOPs are an effective strategy to increase uptake of vaccines. Successful SOPs require a legal foundation authorizing delegation of immunization services performed by a wide range of providers, administered to broad patient populations, in several settings. Without legal permission to administer vaccines, non-physician health professionals (NPHPs) are unable to provide preventive services. METHODS: From 2012 through 2013, researchers analyzed the legal environment in 50 states and the District of Columbia to determine whether NPHPs are authorized to (1) assess patient immunization status; (2) prescribe vaccines; and (3) administer vaccines under their own practice license or delegated authority. Laws governing the following NPHPs were included: (1) medical assistants; (2) midwives; (3) nurses in advanced practice; (4) registered, practical, and vocational nurses; (5) physician assistants; and (6) pharmacists. Additionally, the review determined which vaccines may be administered, permissible patient populations, and allowable practice settings for each category of NPHP. RESULTS: The laws are highly variable, and no state authorizes all NPHPs to conduct all elements of immunization practice for all patients. The laws frequently indicate where NPHPs may or may not administer vaccines and outline permissible vaccines, eligible patients, and required level of supervision. CONCLUSIONS: The variation in the laws could potentially present a challenge to successful implementation of public health goals to improve immunization rates. Expanded authorization of SOPs in all states could increase health practitioners' ability to deliver recommended vaccines.

Medicaid provider reimbursement policy for adult immunizations.

BACKGROUND: State Medicaid programs establish provider reimbursement policy for adult immunizations based on: costs, private insurance payments, and percentage of Medicare payments for equivalent services. Each program determines provider eligibility, payment amount, and permissible settings for administration. Total reimbursement consists of different combinations of Current Procedural Terminology codes: vaccine, vaccine administration, and visit. OBJECTIVE: Determine how Medicaid programs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia approach provider reimbursement for adult immunizations. DESIGN: Observational analysis using document review and a survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Medicaid administrators in 50 states and the District of Columbia. MEASUREMENTS: Whether fee-for-service programs reimburse providers for: vaccines; their administration; and/or office visits when provided to adult enrollees. We assessed whether adult vaccination services are reimbursed when administered by a wide range of providers in a wide range of settings. RESULTS: Medicaid programs use one of 4 payment methods for adults: (1) a vaccine and an administration code; (2) a vaccine and visit code; (3) a vaccine code; and (4) a vaccine, visit, and administration code. LIMITATIONS: Study results do not reflect any changes related to implementation of national health reform. Nine of fifty one programs did not respond to the survey or declined to participate, limiting the information available to researchers. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid reimbursement policy for adult vaccines impacts provider participation and enrollee access and uptake. While programs have generally increased reimbursement levels since 2003, each program could assess whether current policies reflect the most effective approach to encourage providers to increase vaccination services.

Vaccination benefits and cost-sharing policy for non-institutionalized adult Medicaid enrollees in the United States.

Medicaid is the largest funding source of health services for the poorest people in the United States. Medicaid enrollees have greater health care, needs, and higher health risks than other individuals in the country and, experience disproportionately low rates of preventive care. Without, Medicaid coverage, poor uninsured adults may not be vaccinated or would, rely on publicly-funded programs that provide vaccinations. We examined each programs' policies related to benefit coverage and, copayments for adult enrollees. Our study was completed between October 2011 and September 2012 using a document review and a survey of Medicaid administrators that assessed coverage and cost-sharing policy for fee-for-service programs. Results were compared to a similar review, conducted in 2003. Over the past 10 years, Medicaid programs have typically maintained or expanded vaccination coverage benefits for adults and nearly half have explicitly prohibited copayments. The 17 programs that cover all recommended vaccines while prohibiting, copayments demonstrate a commitment to providing increased access to vaccinations for adult enrollees. When developing responses to fiscal and political challenges, the programs that do not cover all ACIP recommended adult vaccines or those that permit copayments for vaccinations, should consider all strategies to increase vaccinations and reduce costs to enrollees.

State law and influenza vaccination of health care personnel.

Nosocomial influenza outbreaks, attributed to the unvaccinated health care workforce, have contributed to patient complications or death, worker illness and absenteeism, and increased economic costs to the health care system. Since 1981, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended that all HCP receive an annual influenza vaccination. Health care employers (HCE) have adopted various strategies to encourage health care personnel (HCP) to voluntarily receive influenza vaccination, including: sponsoring educational and promotional campaigns, increasing access to seasonal influenza vaccine, permitting the use of declination statements, and combining multiple approaches. However, these measures failed to significantly increase uptake among HCP. As a result, beginning in 2004, health care facilities and local health departments began to require certain HCP to receive influenza vaccination as a condition of employment and annually. Today, hundreds of facilities throughout the country have developed and implemented similar policies. Mandatory vaccination programs have been endorsed by professional and non-profit organizations, state health departments, and public health. These programs have been more effective at increasing coverage rates than any voluntary strategy, with some health systems reporting coverage rates up to 99.3%. Several states have enacted laws requiring HCEs to implement vaccination programs for the workforce. These laws present an example of how states will respond to threats to the public's health and constrain personal choice in order to protect vulnerable populations. This study analyzes laws in twenty states that address influenza vaccination requirements for HCP who practice in acute or long-term care facilities in the United States. The laws vary in the extent to which they incorporate the six elements of a mandatory HCP influenza vaccination program. Four of the twenty states have adopted a broad definition of HCP or HCE. While 16/20 of the laws require employers to "provide," "arrange for," "ensure," "require" or "offer" influenza vaccinations to HCP, only four states explicitly require HCEs to cover the cost of vaccination. Fifteen of the twenty laws allow HCP to decline the vaccination due to medical contraindication, religious or philosophical beliefs, or by signing a declination statement. Finally, three states address how to sanction noncompliant HCPs. The analysis also discusses the development of a model legal policy that legislators could use as they draft and revise influenza prevention guidelines in health care settings.