Collaborators - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mia_John
slide1 l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Collaborators PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Collaborators

play fullscreen
1 / 43
Download Presentation
Collaborators
503 Views
Download Presentation

Collaborators

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Offering Free Vaccination Eliminates Disparities in Adult Immunization But Low Cost Vaccination Does NotFree vs. CheapDaniel B. Fishbein, William B. Cassidy, Dale Bell Marioneaux, Monica Pradhan, Mark Messonnier, Doug Schwalm, Noelle-Angelique Molinari, Carla Winston

  2. CDC Bayo Willis Edith Gary Pascale Wortley Mary McCauley Ronald Nuse Task Force on Community Preventive Services LSU Pam Saloom Glenn Jones Kim Nguyen Larie Witt Cathy Henderson J. Nelson Perrett Sara D’Autramont Collaborators NVPO

  3. Institute of Medicine • “Priorities should shift from documenting disparities to assessing interventions strategies …..that separate the contribution of the patient, provider, and institution.” “Unequal Treatment” Institute of Medicine 2002

  4. Outline • Why do disparities exist? • Study 1: Separating the contribution of the provider in family practice clinics • Study 2: Separating the contribution of the provider II: Move to emergency rooms • Study 3: Separate the contribution of the institution: Financial disincentives • Conclusions

  5. Outline • Why do disparities exist? • Study 1: Separating the contribution of the provider in family practice clinics • Study 2: Separating the contribution of the provider II • Study 3: Separate the contribution of the institution: Financial disincentives • Conclusions

  6. Racial and Ethnic Disparities • “The conditions in which many clinical encounters take place, characterized by high timepressure, cognitive complexity, and pressures for cost containment – may enhance the likelihood (of) care poorly matched to minority patients’ needs” “Unequal Treatment” Institute of Medicine 2002

  7. Time Constraints “To fully satisfy the USPSTF recommendations, 1774 hours of physicians annual time, or 7.4 hours per working day, is needed for the provision of preventive services.”

  8. Outline • Why do disparities exist? • Study 1: Separating the contribution of the provider I in family practice clinics • Study 2: Separating the contribution of the provider II • Study 3: Separate the contribution of the institution: Financial disincentives • Conclusions

  9. Assessment-Reminder (A/R) Tool • Assess patients vaccination needs • Self- or assisted-administration • Reminds patient and provider about indicated vaccinations

  10. Setting Sample and design Intervention Outcome measures Three family practice clinics, interested physicians, diverse patient populations, many “safety nets” for vaccination Convenience sample of 100 intervention and 100 control patients at each clinic Assessment reminder form (6 vaccines) versus exercise promotion Vaccinations according to chart review Separating the Contribution of the Provider I: Family Practice Clinics

  11. Efficacy of A/R Tool * ‘Indicated’ refers to being at risk (having vaccine specific risk factor) and not being up to date based on medical record review

  12. Outline • Why do disparities exist? • Study 1: Separating the contribution of the provider I: Family practice clinics • Study 2: Separating the contribution of the provider II: Move to emergency rooms • Study 3: Separate the contribution of the institution: Financial disincentives • Conclusions

  13. Why Emergency Departments? • Easier place for us to “separate the contribution of the patient, provider, and institution” • Providers primarily focused on the chief complaint and willing to let us focus on prevention • Patients who are not critically ill have plenty of time

  14. Why Emergency Departments? • People who seek primary care in emergency departments ideal target group • More likely to be underinsured and therefore under vaccinated • Efficiency • Have time while waiting in ED, but not during the rest of their lives

  15. Trend in Emergency Department Visit Rates United States, 1992-2001 NOTE: Trend is significant (p<0.05).

  16. Emergency Department Visits By Age And Race United States, 2001

  17. Setting Sample and design Intervention Outcome measure Urban emergency department, almost all patients low income, October 2003 Convenience sample of 104 patients randomized to vaccination in the ED versus referral for vaccination Assessment reminder form (3 vaccines) and standing order Vaccination Moving To Emergency Rooms Is Every Visit a Missed Opportunity to Vaccinate?

  18. Assessment-Reminder Tool: Urban Emergency Room vs. Clinic

  19. Assessment-Reminder Tool: Urban Emergency Room vs. Clinic

  20. Outline • Why do disparities exist? • Study 1: Separating the contribution of the provider I: Family practice clinics • Study 2: Separating the contribution of the provider II: Move to emergency rooms • Study 3: Separate the contribution of the institution: Financial disincentives • Conclusions

  21. Setting Sample and design Data Outcome Urban emergency department, mix of low and middle income, many minority, December 2003-January 2004 600 consecutive patients 18-64 years, assessed by college students, randomized to free vaccine, $5 per shot, or $10 per shot (200 per group) Assessment reminder form Acceptance of vaccination Separate the contribution of the institution: Financial disincentivesWillingness to Pay For Vaccinations

  22. Demographic Characteristics, By Randomization Status p<0.05 compared to $5 group

  23. Selected Characteristics, by Race * Most white but included 7 others; 7 missing

  24. Statistically significant Associations with Acceptance of Vaccine in the ED Univariate analysis

  25. Vaccine Receipt, By Cost 2010 Target

  26. Vaccine Receipt, By Cost 2010 Target

  27. Vaccine Receipt, By Cost 2010 Target

  28. Vaccine Receipt, By Cost 2010 Target

  29. Vaccine Receipt, By Cost 2010 Target

  30. Vaccine Receipt, By Race

  31. Vaccine Receipt, By Race

  32. Vaccine Receipt, By Race P=0.003 Chi square

  33. Accepted Influenza Vaccination, Logistic Regression Not significant: age, gender, race, Medicaid, income, private insurance,

  34. Accepted Pneumococcal Vaccination, Logistic Regression Controlling for age, gender, income, private insurance, Medicaid

  35. Accepted Hepatitis B Vaccination, Logistic Regression Controlling for: age, gender, race, income, Medicaid, private insurance

  36. Cost Analysis • Total cost • Screening, administration, vaccine • Influenza: $17.72 • Pneumococcal: $28.23 • Hepatitis B: $28.45

  37. Cost Analysis • Supplies (excluding vaccine) : $7.49 • Labor $3.33 • Screening, college students (4.8 min) • Review and sign order, MD (22 sec.) • Administration, RN (5.6 minutes) • Vaccines • Influenza: $6.90 • Pneumococcal: $17.41 • Hepatitis B: $17.63

  38. Outline • Why do disparities exist? • Study 1: Separating the contribution of the provider I: Family practice clinics • Study 2: Separating the contribution of the provider II: Move to emergency rooms • Study 3: Separate the contribution of the institution: Financial disincentives • Conclusions

  39. Conclusion 1: By ED Physician • “Everybody wants something for free”

  40. Conclusion 2 • By using the A/R form and offering free vaccination in the ED, we were able to overcome many barriers to adult immunization • By offering free vaccination in the ED, we were able to increase coverage of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines to levels that exceeded 2010 targets

  41. Conclusion 3 • Offering free vaccination eliminates disparities in adult immunization but low cost vaccination does not • Many patients, including those with insurance, may be unwilling to pay for immunizations • Unless we address out of pocket costs of immunizations, we may be unable to meet our 2010 targets

  42. Development as FreedomAmartya Sen, 1999 • “…..being relatively poor in a rich country can be a great handicap ……even when that person is at a much higher level of income compared with people in less opulent countries.” • Development as Freedom • Amartya Sen, 1999