Dataset Information

State Policies on Access to Vaccination Services for Low-Income Adults.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

State vaccination benefits coverage and access for adult Medicaid beneficiaries vary substantially. Multiple studies have documented lower vaccination uptake in publicly insured adults compared with privately insured adults.

Objective

To evaluate adult Medicaid beneficiaries' access to adult immunization services through review of vaccination benefits coverage in Medicaid programs across the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Design, setting, and participants

A public domain document review with supplemental semistructured telephone survey was conducted between June 1, 2018, and June 14, 2019, to evaluate vaccination services benefits in fee-for-service and managed care organization arrangements for adult Medicaid beneficiaries in the 50 states and the District of Columbia (total, 51 Medicaid programs).

Exposures

Document review of benefits coverage for adult immunization services and supplemental survey with validation of document review findings.

Main outcomes and measures

Benefits coverage for adult Medicaid beneficiaries and reimbursement amounts for vaccine purchase and administration.

Results

Public domain document review was completed for all 51 jurisdictions. Among these, 44 Medicaid programs (86%) validated document review findings and completed the survey. Only 22 Medicaid programs (43%) covered all 13 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices-recommended adult immunizations under both fee-for-service and managed care organization arrangements. Most fee-for-service arrangements (37 of 49) reimbursed health care professionals using any of the 4 approved vaccine administration codes; however, 8 of 49 programs did not separately reimburse for vaccine administration to adult Medicaid beneficiaries. Depending on administration route, median reimbursement for adult vaccine administration ranged from $9.81 to $13.98 per dose. Median per-dose reimbursement for adult vaccine purchase was highest for 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine ($204.87) and lowest for Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine ($18.09). Median reimbursement was below the private sector price for 7 of the 13 included vaccines.

Conclusions and relevance

Even in programs with complete vaccination benefits coverage, reimbursement amounts to health care professionals for vaccine purchase and administration may not fully cover vaccination provision costs. Reimbursement amounts below costs may reduce incentives for health care professionals to vaccinate low-income adults and thereby limit Medicaid adult beneficiary access to vaccination.

SUBMITTER: Granade CJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7186857 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe Medicare Advantage (MA) program has doubled in size during the past decade, and enrollment among adults with low income has increased rapidly. Such adults face significant barriers in accessing care, leading to poorer health outcomes. Therefore, understanding how health care access, preventive care, and care affordability compare for adults with low income who are enrolled in MA vs traditional Medicare (TM) is critically important.ObjectiveTo compare measures of health care access, preventive care use, and affordability of care between adults with low income who are enrolled in MA vs TM.Design, setting, and participantsThis nationally representative cross-sectional study used the 2019 National Health Interview Survey to compare 2622 adults aged 65 years or older with low income who were enrolled in MA vs TM. Data were analyzed from December 5, 2021, to April 10, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresMeasures of health care access, preventive care use, and health care affordability.ResultsThe study cohort included 2622 adults aged 65 years or older with low income, resulting in a weighted cohort of 14 222 243 adults, of whom 5 641 049 (39.7%) were enrolled in MA and 8 581 194 (60.3%) in TM. The overall age of the cohort was 74.6 years (95% CI, 74.3-74.9). Between the MA and TM groups, the mean age (74.5 years [95% CI, 74.1-75.0] vs 74.7 years [95% CI, 74.3-75.1]; P = .63) and sex distribution (63.6% women [95% CI, 59.8%-67.3%] vs 60.4% women [95% CI, 57.4%-63.3%]; P = .17) were similar, but adults with low income in MA were more likely to be non-Hispanic Asian (7.6% [95% CI, 5.0%-10.1%] vs 3.8% [95% CI, 2.4%-5.3%]; P = .01) or Hispanic (18.1% [95% CI, 14.3%-21.9%] vs 9.4% [95% CI, 7.2%-11.7%]; P < .001). Adults with low income in MA compared with those enrolled in TM were more likely to have a usual place of care (97.7% vs 94.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.37 [95% CI, 1.38-4.07]), but similarly likely to have a recent physician visit (95.5% vs 93.5%; aOR, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.88-2.17]) and to delay medical care (5.3% vs 5.7%; aOR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.56-1.24]) or not seek medical care (5.6% vs 5.9%; aOR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.56-1.30]) due to costs. For preventive care measures, adults with low income in MA were more likely than those in TM to have undergone a recent cholesterol screening (98.7% vs 96.6%; aOR, 2.58 [95% CI, 1.27-5.22]). However, there were no significant differences between the MA and TM groups in the likelihood of diabetes screening (90.6% vs 87.6%; aOR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.87-1.66]), blood pressure screening (96.8% vs 95.2%; aOR, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.84-2.23]), or receipt of an influenza vaccination in the past year (66.3% vs 63.8%; aOR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.93-1.45]). Adults with low income in MA or TM were similarly likely to be concerned about paying medical bills (47.3% vs 44.2%; aOR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.88-1.35]) or have problems paying medical bills (17.1% vs 17.2%; aOR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.69-1.27]) and were also similarly likely to delay filling prescriptions (7.4% vs 6.2%; aOR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.78-1.92]) or to not fill prescriptions (7.8% vs 7.4%; aOR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.70-1.45]) due to costs.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study of Medicare beneficiaries with low income, key measures of health care access, preventive care use, and health care affordability generally did not differ between those enrolled in MA vs TM.

Project description:Injury is a leading cause of the global disease burden, accounting for 10 percent of all deaths worldwide. Despite 90 percent of these deaths occurring in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), the majority of trauma research and infrastructure development has taken place in high-income settings. Furthermore, although accessible services are of central importance to a mature trauma system, there remains a paucity of literature describing the spatial accessibility of emergency services in LMICs. Using data from the Service Provision Assessment component of the Demographic and Health Surveys of Namibia and Haiti we defined the capabilities of healthcare facilities in each country in terms of their preparedness to provide emergency services. A Geographic Information System-based network analysis method was used to define 5- 10- and 50-kilometer catchment areas for all facilities capable of providing 24-hour care, higher-level resuscitative services or tertiary care. The proportion of a country's population with access to each level of service was obtained by amalgamating the catchment areas with a population layer. A significant proportion of the population of both countries had poor spatial access to lower level services with 25% of the population of Haiti and 51% of the population of Namibia living further than 50 kilometers from a facility capable of providing 24-hour care. Spatial access to tertiary care was considerably lower with 51% of Haitians and 72% of Namibians having no access to these higher-level services within 50 kilometers. These results demonstrate a significant disparity in potential spatial access to emergency services in two LMICs compared to analogous estimates from high-income settings, and suggest that strengthening the capabilities of existing facilities may improve the equity of emergency services in these countries. Routine collection of georeferenced patient and facility data in LMICs will be important to understanding how spatial access to services influences outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundGlobally 214 million women of reproductive age in developing regions have unmet needs in modern contraceptives. Intrauterine contraception (IUC) is highly effective, has few medical contraindications, low discontinuation, and is a low cost modern contraceptive method. However, there is relatively low use of IUDs in LMICs. One reason for this may be policies that restrict IUD availability and use. This study assess national policies pertaining to IUD from a diverse set of countries.MethodsBetween December 2015 and February 2016, a 12-question survey pertaining to IUD policy was sent to WHO regional and country representatives.ResultsSixty-nine surveys were used from countries through WHO regional offices. Among those surveyed, 87% (n = 60) had policies pertaining to IUD use. Among them, 84% (n = 58) reported that hormonal IUDs were available, but only 42% (n = 29) had them in the public sector. Free IUDs in the public sector were available in 75% (n = 52) of countries. For IUD promotion, 75% (n = 52) of countries reported cooperation with NGOs, and 48% (n = 33) received free devices from donors. Policy restrictions beyond the WHO guidelines existed in 15 countries and included restrictions to use for women who were nulliparous, adolescent, unmarried, or had multiple partners.ConclusionsNational policy is important in facilitating modern contraceptive uptake. While many countries who responded in the survey, have policies about IUD use in place, 16% still had none on IUD. Another gap identified was low availability of hormonal IUDs, especially in the public sector. Private sector remains untapped potential in expanding method choice by making IUDs available and accessible in developing countries. Most countries do have policy in place to facilitate IUD use, though there are still gaps in the accessibility of IUDs in many countries. Lastly there is a need to revisit restrictive policies that prevent IUD use for specific populations of women for whom IUDs can be beneficial in realizing their reproductive needs.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe social needs among low-income adults and estimate the relationship between level of unmet social needs and key indicators of health care access and quality.Data sourceNational survey data from 12 states from the 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, which added a "Social Determinants of Health" Module in 2017.Study designWe examined differences in eight measures of health care access and quality (eg, check-up in last 12 months, inability to see doctor due to cost, receipt of eye examination for diabetics) for low-income adults with 0, 1, 2-3, and 4+ unmet social needs based on 7 social needs measures. We used adjusted logistic regression models to estimate the association between level of unmet need and each outcome.Principal findingsMost common unmet social needs included not having enough money for balanced meals (33 percent) or food (32 percent). After adjusting for observable characteristics, higher levels of unmet social need were associated with poorer access and quality. Compared to those with no reported unmet needs, having 4+ unmet needs was significantly associated with reduced probability of having a yearly check-up (65 percent vs 78 percent, adjusted difference = -7.1 percentage points (PP)), receiving a flu vaccine (33 percent vs 42 percent, adjusted difference = -5.4 PP), having a personal doctor (74 percent vs 80 percent, adjusted difference = -3.1 PP), and having a foot (63 percent vs 80 percent, adjusted difference = -12.8 PP) or eye examination (61 percent vs 73 percent, adjusted difference = -12.6 PP) for diabetic patients, and increased probability of being unable to see a doctor due to cost (44 percent vs 9 percent, adjusted difference = 27.9 PP) and having diabetes affect the eyes (22 percent vs 19 percent, adjusted difference = 8.0 PP) at α = 0.05.ConclusionsHigher levels of unmet social needs were associated with poorer access to and quality of care among low-income adults. Addressing social needs both inside and outside of health care settings may help mitigate these negative effects. Additional research on if and how to effectively do so is critical.