Provider time and costs to vaccinate adult patients: Impact of time counseling without vaccination

Amid provider reports of financial barriers as an impediment to adult immunization, this study explores the time and costs of vaccination in adult provider practices. Both a Vaccination Time-Motion Study and Vaccine Practice Management Survey were conducted (March – October 2017) in a convenience sample of 19 family medicine (FM), internal medicine (IM), and obstetrician-gynecology (OBGYN) practices, in nine states. Practices were directly observed during a one week period; estimates were collected of time spent on activities that could not be directly observed. Cost estimates were calculated by converting staff time for performed activities. In the time-motion study, FM and IM practices spent similar time conducting vaccination activities (median?=?5?min per vaccination), while OBGYN practices spent more time (median?=?29?min per vaccination). Combining results from the time-motion study and the practice management survey, the median costs of vaccination remained similar for FM practices and IM practices at $7 and $8 per vaccination, respectively, but was substantially higher for OBGYN practices at $43 per vaccination. Factors that contributed to higher costs among OBGYN practices were the increased time to counsel patients, administer vaccines, and to plan and manage vaccine supplies. In addition, 68% of OBGYN patients who were offered and counseled to receive vaccines declined to receive them. Counseling patients who ultimately do not go on to receive a vaccine may be an important cost factor. Lower costs of vaccination services may be achieved by increasing efficiencies in workflow or the volume of vaccinations.     

A comparative cost analysis of the Vaccination Program for US-bound Refugees

BackgroundVaccination Program for US-bound Refugees (VPR) currently provides one or two doses of some age-specific Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)-recommended vaccines to US-bound refugees prior to departure.MethodsWe quantified and compared the full vaccination costs for refugees using two scenarios: (1) the baseline of no VPR and (2) the current situation with VPR. Under the first scenario, refugees would be fully vaccinated after arrival in the United States. For the second scenario, refugees would receive one or two doses of selected vaccines before departure and complete the recommended vaccination schedule after arrival in the United States. We evaluated costs for the full vaccination schedule and for the subset of vaccines provided by VPR by four age-stratified groups; all costs were reported in 2015 US dollars. We performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and break-even analyses to evaluate the robustness of results.ResultsVaccination costs with the VPR scenario were lower than costs of the scenario without the VPR for refugees in all examined age groups. Net cost savings per person associated with the VPR were ranged from $225.93 with estimated Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA) or Medicaid payments for domestic costs to $498.42 with estimated private sector payments. Limiting the analyses to only the vaccines included in VPR, the average costs per person were 56% less for the VPR scenario with RMA/Medicaid payments. Net cost savings with the VPR scenario were sensitive to inputs for vaccination costs, domestic vaccine coverage rates, and revaccination rates, but the VPR scenario was cost savings across a range of plausible parameter estimates.ConclusionsVPR is a cost-saving program that would also reduce the risk of refugees arriving while infected with a vaccine preventable disease.     

Program cost analysis of influenza vaccination of health care workers in Albania

BackgroundSince 2012, WHO has recommended influenza vaccination for health care workers (HCWs), which has different costs than routine infant immunization; however, few cost estimates exist from low- and middle-income countries. Albania, a middle-income country, has self-procured influenza vaccine for some HCWs since 2014, supplemented by vaccine donations since 2016 through the Partnership for Influenza Vaccine Introduction (PIVI). We conducted a cost analysis of HCW influenza vaccination in Albania to inform scale-up and sustainability decisions.MethodsWe used the WHO’s Seasonal Influenza Immunization Costing Tool (SIICT) micro-costing approach to estimate incremental costs from the government perspective of facility-based vaccination of HCWs in Albania with trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine for the 2018–19 season based on 2016–17 season data from administrative records, key informant consultations, and a convenience sample of site visits. Scenario analyses varied coverage, vaccine presentation, and vaccine prices.ResultsIn the baseline scenario, 13,377 HCWs (70% of eligible HCWs) would be vaccinated at an incremental financial cost of US$61,296 and economic cost of US$161,639. Vaccine and vaccination supplies represented the largest share of financial (89%) and economic costs (44%). Per vaccinated HCW financial cost was US$4.58 and economic cost was US$12.08 including vaccine and vaccination supplies (US$0.49 and US$6.76 respectively without vaccine and vaccination supplies). Scenarios with higher coverage, pre-filled syringes, and higher vaccine prices increased total economic and financial costs, although the economic cost per HCW vaccinated decreased with higher coverage as some costs were spread over more HCWs. Across all scenarios, economic costs were <0.07% of Albania’s estimated government health expenditure, and <5.07% of Albania’s estimated immunization program economic costs.ConclusionsCost estimates can help inform decisions about scaling up influenza vaccination for HCWs and other risk groups.     

Billing and payment of commercial and Medicaid health plan adult vaccination claims in Michigan since the Affordable Care Act

BackgroundProvider concern regarding insurance non-payment for vaccines is a common barrier to provision of adult immunizations. We examined current adult vaccination billing and payment associated with two managed care populations to identify reasons for non-payment of immunization insurance claims.MethodsWe assessed administrative data from 2014 to 2015 from Blue Care Network of Michigan, a nonprofit health maintenance organization, and Blue Cross Complete of Michigan, a Medicaid managed care plan, to determine rates of and reasons for non-payment of adult vaccination claims across patient-care settings, insurance plans, and vaccine types. We compared commercial and Medicaid payment rates to Medicare payment rates and examined patient cost sharing.ResultsPharmacy-submitted claims for adult vaccine doses were almost always paid (commercial 98.5%; Medicaid 100%). As the physician office accounted for the clear majority (79% commercial; 69% Medicaid) of medical (non-pharmacy) vaccination services, we limited further analyses of both commercial and Medicaid medical claims to the physician office setting. In the physician office setting, rates of payment were high with commercial rates of payment (97.9%) greater than Medicaid rates (91.6%). Reasons for non-payment varied, but generally related to the complexity of adult vaccine recommendations (patient diagnosis does not match recommendations) or insurance coverage (complex contracts, multiple insurance payers). Vaccine administration services were also generally paid. Commercial health plan payments were greater for both vaccine dose and vaccine administration than Medicare payments; Medicaid paid a higher amount for the vaccine dose, but less for vaccine administration than Medicare. Patients generally had very low (commercial) or no (Medicaid) cost-sharing for vaccination.ConclusionsAdult vaccine dose claims were usually paid. Medicaid generally had higher rates of non-payment than commercial insurance.     

Medicaid provider reimbursement policy for adult immunizations

BackgroundState 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.ObjectiveDetermine how Medicaid programs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia approach provider reimbursement for adult immunizations.DesignObservational analysis using document review and a survey.Setting and participantsMedicaid administrators in 50 states and the District of Columbia.MeasurementsWhether 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.ResultsMedicaid 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.LimitationsStudy 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.ConclusionsMedicaid 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.     

An extended cost-effectiveness analysis of publicly financed HPV vaccination to prevent cervical cancer in China

IntroductionCervical cancer screening and existing health insurance schemes in China fall short of reaching women with prevention and treatment services, especially in rural areas where the disease burden is greatest. We conducted an extended cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA) to evaluate public financing of HPV vaccination to prevent cervical cancer, adding new dimensions to conventional cost-effectiveness analysis through an explicit inclusion of equity and impact on financial risk protection.MethodsWe synthesized available epidemiological, clinical, and economic data from China using an individual-based Monte Carlo simulation model of cervical cancer to estimate the distribution of deaths averted by income quintile, comparing vaccination plus screening against current practice. We also estimated reductions in cervical cancer incidence, net costs to the government (HPV vaccination costs minus cervical cancer treatment costs averted), and patient cost savings, as well as the incremental government health care costs per death averted.ResultsHPV vaccination is cost-effective across all income groups when the cost is less than US $50 per vaccinated girl. Compared to screening alone, adding preadolescent HPV vaccination followed by cervical cancer screening in adulthood could reduce cancer by 44 percent across all income groups, while providing relatively higher financial protection to the poorest women. The absolute numbers of cervical cancer deaths averted and the financial risk protection from HPV vaccination are highest among women in the lowest quintile; women in the bottom income quintiles received higher benefits than those in the upper wealth quintiles. Patient cost savings represent a large proportion of poor women's average per capita income, reaching 60 percent among women in the bottom income quintile and declining to 15 percent among women in the wealthiest quintile.     

Costs of delivering human papillomavirus vaccination using a one- or two-dose strategy in Tanzania

ObjectiveAs part of the Dose Reduction Immunobridging and Safety Study of Two HPV Vaccines in Tanzanian Girls (DoRIS; NCT02834637), the current study is one of the first to evaluate the financial and economic costs of the national rollout of an HPV vaccination program in school-aged girls in sub-Saharan Africa and the potential costs associated with a single dose HPV vaccine program, given recent evidence suggesting that a single dose may be as efficacious as a two-dose regimen.MethodsThe World Health Organization’s (WHO) Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Costing (C4P) micro-costing tool was used to estimate the total financial and economic costs of the national vaccination program from the perspective of the Tanzanian government. Cost data were collected in 2019 via surveys, workshops, and interviews with local stakeholders for vaccines and injection supplies, microplanning, training, sensitization, service delivery, supervision, and cold chain. The cost per two-dose and one-dose fully immunized girl (FIG) was calculated.ResultsThe total financial and economic costs were US$10,117,455 and US$45,683,204, respectively, at a financial cost of $5.17 per two-dose FIG, and an economic cost of $23.34 per FIG. Vaccine and vaccine-related costs comprised the largest proportion of costs, followed by service delivery. In a one-dose scenario, the cost per FIG reduced to $2.51 (financial) and $12.18 (economic), with the largest reductions in vaccine and injection supply costs, and service delivery.ConclusionsThe overall cost of Tanzania’s HPV vaccination program was lower per vaccinee than costs estimated from previous demonstration projects in the region, especially in a single-dose scenario. Given the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization’s recent recommendation to update dosing schedules to either one or two doses of the HPV vaccine, these data provide important baseline data for Tanzania and may serve as a guide for improving coverage going forward. The findings may also aid in the prioritization of funding for countries that have not yet added HPV vaccines to their routine immunizations.     

Japanese encephalitis vaccination in the Philippines: A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing alternative delivery strategies

IntroductionJapanese encephalitis (JE) is a mosquito-borne viral infection of the brain that can cause permanent brain damage and death. In the Philippines, efforts are underway to deliver a live attenuated JE vaccine (CD-JEV) to children under five years of age (YOA), who are disproportionately infected. Multiple vaccination strategies are being considered.MethodsWe conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing three vaccination strategies to the current state of no vaccination from the societal and government perspectives: (1) national routine vaccination only, (2) sub-national campaign followed by national routine, and (3) national campaign followed by national routine. We developed a Markov model to estimate impact of vaccination or no vaccination over the child’s lifetime horizon, assuming an annual incidence of 10.6 cases per 100,000.Costs of illness ($859/case), vaccine ($0.50/dose), routine vaccination ($0.95/dose), and campaign vaccination ($0.98/dose) were based on hospital financial records, expert opinion and literature. The societal perspective included transportation and opportunity costs of caregiver time, in addition to costs incurred by the health system.ResultsJE vaccination via national campaign followed by national routine delivery was the most cost-effective strategy modeled with a cost per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted of $233 and $29 from the government and societal perspectives, respectively. Results were similar for other delivery strategies with cost/DALY ranging from $233 to $265 from the government perspective and $29–$57 from the societal perspective. JE vaccination was projected to prevent 27,856–37,277 cases, 5571–7455 deaths, and 173,233–230,704 DALYs among children under five over 20 consecutive birth cohorts. Total incremental costs of vaccination versus no vaccination over 20 birth cohorts were $6.6–$9.8 million from the societal perspective ($230 K–$440 K annually) and $45.9–$53.9 million ($2.2 M–$2.7 M annually) from the governmental perspective.ConclusionVaccination with CD-JEV in the Philippines is projected to be cost-effective, reducing long-term costs associated with JE illness and improving health outcomes compared to no vaccination.     

Hepatitis B vaccination coverage rates among adults in rural China: Are economic barriers relevant?

Background

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections cause major health problems in China. The Expanded Program of Immunization has succeeded in reducing infection rates among infants and children, but HBV vaccination coverage rates among adults remain low.

Objective

The objective was to investigate how individual adult HBV vaccination decisions are influenced by economic factors, socioeconomic status, and demographic characteristics, and to assess how potential vaccination policies could affect HBV vaccination coverage rates among adults.

Methods

We interviewed 22,618 adults, aged 15–59 years, from 7948 households, in 45 villages from 7 provinces. A questionnaire was used to collect information. The actual vaccine status was modeled using a polychotomous logistic regression with three outcomes; unvaccinated, partial vaccination, and complete vaccination. A subsample of unvaccinated adults gave responses to a hypothetical vaccination policy that offered HBV vaccination free of charge and various amounts of money to compensate for direct and indirect vaccination-related costs.

Results

The polychotomous logistic regression results suggest that vaccination user fees, time needed to get a vaccination, and vaccination-related travel costs were negatively associated with HBV vaccination coverage rates. Higher income was associated with higher coverage rates, and coverage rates decrease with age, with no significant difference between the genders. In the subsample that responded to the hypothetical policy, 55–72% (depending on the amount of money offered as compensation) stated they would accept a vaccination if it was offered free of charge.

Conclusions

Our polychotomous logistic regression results suggest that higher HBV vaccination coverage rates among adults are obtainable and that user fees, time needed to get a vaccination, and travel costs have acted as economic barriers to vaccination. This is supported by the responses to the hypothetical policy, which suggest that adult coverage rates could surge if HBV vaccine is offered at no cost.     

Sustainability of school-located influenza vaccination programs in Florida

BackgroundSchool-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) programs are a promising strategy for increasing vaccination coverage among schoolchildren. However, questions of economic sustainability have dampened enthusiasm for this approach in the United States. We evaluated SLIV sustainability of a health department led, county-wide SLIV program in Alachua County, Florida. Based on Alachua's outcome data, we modeled the sustainability of SLIV programs statewide using two different implementation costs and at different vaccination rates, reimbursement amount, and Vaccines for Children (VFC) coverage.MethodsMass vaccination clinics were conducted at 69 Alachua County schools in 2013 using VFC (for Medicaid and uninsured children) and non-VFC vaccines. Claims were processed after each clinic and submitted to insurance providers for reimbursement ($5 Medicaid and $47.04 from private insurers). We collected programmatic expenditures and volunteer hours to calculate fixed and variable costs for two different implementation costs (with or without in-kind costs included). We project program sustainability for Florida using publicly available county-specific student populations and health insurance enrollment data.ResultsApproximately 42% (n = 12,853) of pre-kindergarten – 12th grade students participated in the SLIV program in Alachua. Of the 13,815 doses provided, 58% (8042) were non-VFC vaccine. Total implementation cost was $14.95/dose or $7.93/dose if “in-kind” costs were not included. The program generated a net surplus of $24,221, despite losing $4.68 on every VFC dose provided to Medicaid and uninsured children. With volunteers, 99% of Florida counties would be sustainable at a 50% vaccination rate and average reimbursement amount of $3.25 VFC and $37 non-VFC. Without volunteers, 69% of counties would be sustainable at 50% vaccination rate if all VFC recipients were on Medicaid and its reimbursement increased from $5 to $10 (amount private practices receive).Conclusions and relevanceKey factors that contributed to the sustainability and success of an SLIV program are: targeting privately insured children and reducing administration cost through volunteers. Counties with a high proportion of VFC eligible children may not be sustainable without subsidies at $5 Medicaid reimbursement.     

Cost effectiveness analysis of elementary school-located vaccination against influenza—Results from a randomized controlled trial

School-located vaccination against influenza (SLV-I) has been suggested to help meet the need for annual vaccination of large numbers of school-aged children with seasonal influenza vaccine. However, little is known about the cost and cost-effectiveness of SLV-I. We conducted a cost-analysis and a cost-effectiveness analysis based on a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an SLV-I program implemented in Monroe County, New York during the 2009–2010 vaccination season. We hypothesized that SLV-I is more cost effective, or less-costly, compared to a conventional, office-located influenza vaccination delivery. First and second SLV-I clinics were offered in 21 intervention elementary schools (n = 9027 children) with standard of care (no SLV-I) in 11 control schools (n = 4534 children). The direct costs, to purchase and administer vaccines, were estimated from our RCT. The effectiveness measure, receipt of ≥1 dose of influenza vaccine, was 13.2 percentage points higher in SLV-I schools than control schools. The school costs ($9.16/dose in 2009 dollars) plus project costs ($23.00/dose) plus vendor costs excluding vaccine purchase ($19.89/dose) was higher in direct costs ($52.05/dose) than the previously reported mean/median cost [$38.23/$21.44 per dose] for providing influenza vaccination in pediatric practices. However SLV-I averted parent costs to visit medical practices ($35.08 per vaccine). Combining direct and averted costs through Monte Carlo Simulation, SLV-I costs were $19.26/dose in net costs, which is below practice-based influenza vaccination costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated to be $92.50 or $38.59 (also including averted parent costs). When additionally accounting for the costs averted by disease prevention (i.e., both reduced disease transmission to household members and reduced loss of productivity from caring for a sick child), the SLV-I model appears to be cost-saving to society, compared to “no vaccination”. Our findings support the expanded implementation of SLV-I, but also the need to focus on efficient delivery to reduce direct costs.     

Cost-effectiveness of seasonal inactivated influenza vaccination among pregnant women

ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of seasonal inactivated influenza vaccination among pregnant women using data from three recent influenza seasons in the United States.Design, setting, and participantsWe developed a decision-analytic model following a cohort of 5.2 million pregnant women and their infants aged <6 months to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of vaccinating women against seasonal influenza during pregnancy from a societal perspective. The main outcome measures were quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and cost-effectiveness ratios. Data sources included surveillance data, epidemiological studies, and published vaccine cost data. Sensitivity analyses were also performed. All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually.Main outcome measuresTotal costs (direct and indirect), effects (QALY gains, averted case numbers), and incremental cost-effectiveness of seasonal inactivated influenza vaccination among pregnant women (cost per QALY gained).ResultsUsing a recent benchmark of 52.2% vaccination coverage among pregnant women, we studied a hypothetical cohort of 2,753,015 vaccinated pregnant women. With an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 73% among pregnant women and 63% among infants <6 months, QALY gains for each season were 305 (2010–2011), 123 (2011–2012), and 610 (2012–2013). Compared with no vaccination, seasonal influenza vaccination during pregnancy was cost-saving when using data from the 2010–2011 and 2012–2013 influenza seasons. The cost-effectiveness ratio was greater than $100,000/QALY with the 2011–2012 influenza season data, when CDC reported a low attack rate compared to other recent seasons.ConclusionsInfluenza vaccination for pregnant women can reduce morbidity from influenza in both pregnant women and their infants aged <6 months. Seasonal influenza vaccination during pregnancy is cost-saving during moderate to severe influenza seasons.     

Vaccination of Sexually Active Homosexual Men Against Hepatitis A: Analysis of Costs and Benefits

Objective: To estimate costs and benefits of vaccinating young homosexual men against hepatitis A. Design and setting: A decision-analytic model was used to assess vaccination from the societal perspective. Effects of vaccination at age 20 were modeled through each person's lifetime, with costs discounted at 3% annually. Intervention: Two doses of formalin-inactivated vaccine (Havrix, Smithkline Beecham Pharmaceuticals) administered by intramuscular injection 6–12 months apart. Results: Vaccination of 10,000 men would cost $959,000. Over the lifetimes of cohort members, hepatitis A-related hospitalizations would decline from 366 to 76, and treatment costs would decline from $2,577,000 to $363,000. Treatment cost reduction would fully offset vaccination costs within 10 years. Productivity losses associated with hepatitis A morbidity, primarily work absenteeism, would decline by $5,231,000. Vaccination would prevent an estimated 8.6 premature deaths, saving 213 life-years and $2,836,000 in mortality-related productivity losses. Results are only modestly affected when model assumptions are varied within plausible ranges. Conclusions: Hepatitis A vaccine provides improved patient outcomes and cost reduction. From a societal perspective, vaccination provides $10.72 in economic benefits for every $1 spent on vaccination. Physicians should counsel homosexual men to be vaccinated against hepatitis A. Health insurers would find it in their own financial interest to cover vaccination.     

The potential impact of increased recombinant zoster vaccine coverage on the burden of herpes zoster among adults aged 50–59 years

IntroductionRecombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) is recommended in the US for prevention of herpes zoster (HZ) in adults aged ≥50 years. Vaccination rates remain suboptimal for adults 50–59 years compared with adults ≥50 years overall. The objective of this study was to model changes in outcomes associated with improved RZV vaccination coverage in US adults 50–59 years.MethodsA multicohort Markov model compared a scenario using real-world vaccination coverage for US adults 50–59 years in 2020 versus scenarios assuming higher coverage. Outcomes, based on a lifetime horizon, included HZ cases and complications avoided, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), and costs. Model inputs included HZ epidemiology, RZV vaccine efficacy, coverage, adverse events, and costs, based on published literature and US sources. Some inputs were updated from previous models, including real-world estimates of RZV coverage, series completion, and reflecting longer-term data on waning of vaccine efficacy. The model utilized a cohort size of 42,756,488 individuals based on the 2020 US population census.ResultsThe model projected that increasing RZV coverage in adults 50–59 years from 7.3 % to 14.6 % (to coverage for adults 60–64 years in 2020) would avoid an additional 504,468 HZ cases, 42,077 postherpetic neuralgia cases, and 56,247 cases of other HZ-associated complications. The increase in vaccine coverage would result in higher vaccination-related costs of $1,172,411,566, but the avoided HZ cases and complications would be expected to result in direct cost savings of $721,973,386 and indirect cost savings of $593,497,480 from avoided productivity loss. Overall, a gain of 5,230 discounted QALYs and cost savings of $143,059,299 from a societal perspective would be realized.ConclusionModestly higher RZV coverage in US adults 50–59 years could reduce the clinical burden associated with HZ and may result in societal cost savings. These findings demonstrate the potential value of increasing RZV vaccination in this population.     

Impact of Critical Access Hospital Conversion on Beneficiary Liability

ABSTRACT: Context: While the Medicare Critical Access Hospital (CAH) program has improved the financial viability of small rural hospitals and enhanced access to care in rural communities, the program puts beneficiaries at risk for paying a larger share of the cost of services covered under the Medicare part B benefit. Purpose: This paper examines the impact of hospital conversion to CAH status on beneficiary out‐of‐pocket coinsurance payments for hospital outpatient services. Methods: The study is based on a retrospective observational design using administrative data from Medicare hospital cost reports and fee‐for‐service beneficiary claims from 1999 to 2003. The study compares changes in beneficiary co‐payments before versus after CAH conversion with payment trends among small rural non‐converting hospitals over the same period. Findings: Conversion to CAH status is associated with an increase in beneficiary coinsurance payments per outpatient visit of $17.19, equivalent to 34% of the sample average. However, CAH designation had no significant effect on the share of outpatient costs paid by the beneficiary. Most of the increase in beneficiary liability associated with conversion is attributable to the provision of more services per outpatient visit. Conclusions: While this and other studies show that conversion to CAH status results in more intensive outpatient care, CAH conversion does not appear to inadvertently create financial barriers to accessing ambulatory services in remote rural communities by forcing beneficiaries to pay a higher share of their Medicare part B costs.     

Is further research on adult pneumococcal vaccine uptake improvement programs worthwhile? Α value of information analysis

BackgroundPneumococcal vaccination policy for US adults is evolving, but previous research has shown that programs to increase vaccine uptake are economically favorable, despite parameter uncertainty. Using value of information (VOI) analysis and prior analyses, we examine the value of further research on vaccine uptake program parameters.MethodsIn US 50–64-year-olds, current vaccine recommendations with and without an uptake program were analyzed. In older adults, current recommendations and an alternative strategy (polysaccharide vaccine for all, adding conjugate vaccine only for the immunocompromised) with and without uptake programs were examined. Uptake program parameters were derived from a clinical trial (absolute uptake increase 12.3% [range 0–25%], per-person cost $1.78 [range $0.70–$2.26]), with other parameters obtained from US databases. VOI analyses incorporated probabilistic sensitivity analysis outputs into R-based regression techniques.ResultsIn 50–64-year-olds, an uptake program cost $54,900/QALY gained compared to no uptake program. For ages ≥65, the program cost $287,000/QALY gained with the alternative strategy and $765,000/QALY with current recommendations. In younger adults, population-level expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was $59.7 million at $50,000/QALY gained and $2.8 million at $100,000/QALY gained. In older adults, EVPI values ranged from ~$1 million to $34.5 million at $100,000 and $200,000/QALY thresholds. The population expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI) for combined uptake program cost and uptake improvement parameters in the younger population was $368,700 at $50,000/QALY and $43,900 at $100,000/QALY gained thresholds. In older adults, population EVPPI for vaccine uptake program parameters was $0 at both thresholds, reaching a maximum value of $445,000 at a $225,000/QALY threshold. Other model parameters comprised larger components of the global EVPI.ConclusionVOI results do not support further research on pneumococcal vaccine uptake programs in adults at commonly cited US cost-effectiveness benchmarks. Further research to reduce uncertainty in other aspects of adult pneumococcal vaccination is justifiable.     

Medicare payment for selected adverse events: building the business case for investing in patient safety

This study estimates that Medicare extra payments under the hospital prospective payment system (PPS) range from about $700 per case of decubitus ulcer to $9,000 per case of postoperative sepsis in the five types of adverse events identifiable in Medicare claims. Medicare extra payment for the five types of events totals more than $300 million per year, accounting for 0.27 percent of annual Medicare hospital spending. But these extra payments cover less than a third of the extra costs incurred by hospitals in treating these adverse events. We conclude that both Medicare and hospitals gain financially by improving patient safety.     

Health benefits, risks, and cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination of children

We estimated cost-effectiveness of annually vaccinating children not at high risk with inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) to range from US $12,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved for children ages 6-23 months to $119,000 per QALY saved for children ages 12-17 years. For children at high risk (preexisting medical conditions) ages 6-35 months, vaccination with IIV was cost saving. For children at high risk ages 3-17 years, vaccination cost $1,000-$10,000 per QALY. Among children notat high risk ages 5-17 years, live, attenuated influenza vaccine had a similar cost-effectiveness as IIV. Risk status was more important than age in determining the economic effects of annual vaccination, and vaccination was less cost-effective as the child's age increased. Thus, routine vaccination of all children is likely less cost-effective than vaccination of all children ages 6-23 months plus all other children at high risk.     

Cost-benefit analysis of vaccination against four preventable diseases in older adults: Impact of an aging population

ObjectiveThis exploratory study estimates the economic value of the current vaccination program and increased coverage against four preventable diseases in older adults in the United States (US).MethodsA population-based, age-structured economic model was used to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of vaccination against influenza, pertussis, herpes zoster, and pneumococcal disease among US adults aged 50 years and older, accounting for aging of the population. The model used separate decision trees for each disease to project the discounted number of vaccinated individuals, number of disease cases, and direct medical and indirect costs (2018 US$) over a 30-year period. Benefit-cost ratios (BCRs) and net present values were calculated for two primary analyses comparing current vaccination coverage versus no vaccination and comparing increased coverage versus current coverage. Key parameter values were varied in deterministic sensitivity analyses.ResultsCurrent adult vaccination coverage (vs. no vaccination) is estimated to result in nearly 65 million averted disease cases, $185 billion averted costs of cases, and $136 billion in incremental vaccination costs over a 30-year period from a societal perspective (BCR = 1.4). Increased vaccination coverage (vs. current coverage) is associated with over 33 million additional averted disease cases, $96 billion additional averted costs of cases, and nearly $83 billion in incremental vaccination costs, resulting in a societal BCR of 1.2 over 30 years. Deterministic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that results were most sensitive to disease incidence, vaccine efficacy, and productivity costs for time required for vaccination.ConclusionsStudy results highlight the economic value of vaccination programs for older adults in the US and indicate that efforts to further increase vaccination coverage may be warranted and economically justifiable.