National Academies Press: OpenBook

Setting the Course: A Strategic Vision for Immunization: Part 2: Summary of the Austin Workshop (2002)

Chapter: National Perspectives on the Immunization System

« Previous: Background
Suggested Citation:"National Perspectives on the Immunization System." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Setting the Course: A Strategic Vision for Immunization: Part 2: Summary of the Austin Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10495.
×

National Perspectives on the Immunization System

Discussion of national aspects of the immunization system provided a backdrop for consideration of the public health situation in Texas. Dr. Smith noted that immunization has substantially reduced rates of illness from infectious diseases (Table 1). As the measles epidemic from 1989 to 1991 demonstrated, however, some vaccine-preventable diseases remain a threat if rates of immunization coverage are low. Despite improvements made during the 1990s, national immunization coverage rates for 2-year-olds and adults aged 65 years and older have not yet reached the current public health sector objective of 90 percent. Dr. Smith pointed to even lower immunization rates for adults ages 18 to 64, with only 26 percent of this group having received a vaccination against influenza in the previous year. Immunization levels are also persistently lower among low-income children and adults. For example, a study in Indianapolis and the surrounding county found that 53 percent of poor 2-year-olds had up-to-date immunizations, whereas the NIS estimate for the county as a whole was 78 percent (Bates and Wolinsky, 1998). Nationally, a 9-percentage-point disparity in immunization rates exists between children in households with incomes below the poverty level and children in higher-income households.

Dr. Rodewald reviewed key features of federal financial support through the Section 317 program and VFC for the immunization system. Under the Section 317 program, each state and territory and five large urban areas receive annual grants for the purchase of vaccines and funding for the infrastructure that supports the operation of immunization

Suggested Citation:"National Perspectives on the Immunization System." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Setting the Course: A Strategic Vision for Immunization: Part 2: Summary of the Austin Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10495.
×

TABLE 1 Change in Annual Morbidity from Vaccine-Preventable Diseases: Prevaccine Baseline and 2000

Disease or Organism

Prevaccine Baseline Date

Average No. of Annual Baseline Cases

No. of Cases in 2000

% Decrease

Diphtheria

1920–1922

175,885

1

100.00

Haemophilus influenzae, type b and unknown (< 5 years)

1985

20,000

167

99.20

Measles

1958–1962

503,282

86

99.98

Mumps

1968

152,209

338

99.80

Pertussis

1922–1925

147,271

7,867

95.00

Poliomyelitis

1951–1954

16,316

0

100.00

Rubella

1966–1968

47,745

176

99.60

 

SOURCE: Adapted from CDC (2002).

program activities. The Section 317 program awards are the major source of federal support for essential activities of the immunization system such as surveillance for rates of vaccine coverage and efforts to improve coverage. For the 2001 grant year, CDC awarded $176.1 million for immunization program operations and $175.6 million for vaccine purchase. VFC, a federal entitlement program, funds the purchase of vaccines for use by participating health care providers to serve eligible children. CDC estimates that more than 40,000 private providers are participating in VFC. These providers vaccinate about 90 percent of all preschool-age children, using vaccines purchased with funds from a combination of sources from the private and public sectors. Most states use Section 317 program funds to obtain additional doses of vaccines that are recommended for preschool-age children but that are not covered by VFC. The Section 317 program also allows for the purchase of some vaccines for adolescents and adults, but use of Section 317 program funds for this purpose is limited.

Federal contracts with vaccine manufacturers make it possible for states to obtain discounted prices for vaccines under the Section 317 program and VFC. Some states also use state funds to purchase additional vaccines at these contract prices. More than half of all vaccines are purchased under these federal contracts: 36 percent through VFC and 15 percent through the Section 317 program. Under the federal contract, the current cost of the vaccines recommended for complete immunization of preschool-age children is nearly $400 per child, almost half of which is accounted for by the recent addition of four doses of the pneumococcal

Suggested Citation:"National Perspectives on the Immunization System." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Setting the Course: A Strategic Vision for Immunization: Part 2: Summary of the Austin Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10495.
×

conjugate vaccine. The increased cost of recommended vaccines has significant budgetary implications, and Dr. Rodewald noted the need for better tools to estimate annual vaccine requirements. In addition, vaccine shortages (e.g., the influenza vaccine and the diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and activated pertussis vaccine [DTaP]) pose problems of ensuring equitable allocation and appropriate targeting of available vaccine supplies.

For the immunization infrastructure component of the Section 317 program, CDC is encouraging grantees to pursue evidence-based strategies for improving immunization rates. Recommendations from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (2000) include, among others, reducing out-of-pocket costs to families, implementing reminder/recall systems to notify families that a child is due or past due for vaccination, and giving providers feedback from assessments of rates of immunization coverage among their patients.

OVERVIEW OF STATE CONCERNS

Gary Freed, of the University of Michigan, reviewed the findings from a series of interviews with immunization program officials in all 50 states. Conducted as part of the data collection effort for Calling the Shots (IOM, 2000), these interviews helped document features of state immunization programs and state responses to changes in federal immunization policies and funding for vaccines and immunization programs. For vaccine purchase, Dr. Freed and colleagues found that states relied heavily on federal funding, with 11 states allocating no additional state funds for this purpose. In 21 states, including Texas, between 2 and 10 percent of the funding for publicly purchased vaccines came from state funds. The remaining states provided larger amounts of funding. State officials cited several factors that had placed new demands on budgets for vaccine purchase during the 1990s, including the addition of new and more expensive vaccines to the recommended schedule of immunizations, delays in VFC coverage of and federal contracts for new vaccines, and demand for vaccines not included in VFC.

In Texas, for example, the hepatitis A vaccine is recommended for some children but it is not a vaccine included in VFC. State officials also reported pressure from health care providers to supply publicly purchased vaccine for children who are not eligible for VFC. In addition, they felt that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) failed to give adequate consideration to the financial impact of its recommendations to add vaccines to the immunization schedule and, therefore, to the set of vaccines for which children were eligible under public programs.

Suggested Citation:"National Perspectives on the Immunization System." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Setting the Course: A Strategic Vision for Immunization: Part 2: Summary of the Austin Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10495.
×

Dr. Freed noted that variations in the levels of state investments in immunization program operations and infrastructure exist, with these variations reflecting factors such as the state’s child population and the state’s organization of immunization services. Overall, Dr. Freed noted, about half of the states provide no funding for immunization infrastructure. States that fund public clinics for the delivery of immunization services may require larger budgets for immunization infrastructure than states that primarily rely on private providers. Immunization programs in some states also benefit from in-kind support provided by other state agencies, such as the education department if school personnel are responsible for assessing the immunization status of children entering school.

State officials reported seeing CDC as a key partner in immunization activities. State priorities, however, were not necessarily consistent with those established by CDC in conjunction with Section 317 program grants for the immunization infrastructure. In rural states, for example, CDC’s emphasis on “pockets of need”—areas with especially low immunization rates, often in inner cities—is less relevant. Because states rely heavily on CDC funding for their immunization infrastructure support, the influx of funding in the early 1990s was welcome, but subsequent reductions have forced states to reevaluate their program priorities and often to reduce services. Some states, for example, have had to reduce staff and operating hours at immunization clinics or reduce efforts to support connections with Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) clinics.

Section 317 program funding for immunization program infrastructure was reduced in the mid-1990s in part because many states were not able to spend their grants in a timely fashion. The interviews with state immunization program officials revealed that various administrative obstacles had contributed to this problem. On the federal side, the program required that grant funds be used within the grant year, but awards were often delayed and the federal government could give no assurances regarding future funding. Without assurances of stable and sustained funding, states were frequently reluctant about or even prohibited from hiring new staff or undertaking multiyear projects, such as immunization registry development. In states like Texas with a 2-year legislative and budget cycle, immunization programs had no way to adjust their budgets to make use of the additional funding. Dr. Freed also observed that term limits for state legislators pose a challenge for immunization programs. New legislators may be uninformed about immunization issues. Furthermore, it can be difficult for legislators to see either the positive or the negative effects of funding decisions during their time in office because it may take two or three legislative sessions for the effects to become evident.

Suggested Citation:"National Perspectives on the Immunization System." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Setting the Course: A Strategic Vision for Immunization: Part 2: Summary of the Austin Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10495.
×
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"National Perspectives on the Immunization System." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Setting the Course: A Strategic Vision for Immunization: Part 2: Summary of the Austin Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10495.
×
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"National Perspectives on the Immunization System." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Setting the Course: A Strategic Vision for Immunization: Part 2: Summary of the Austin Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10495.
×
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"National Perspectives on the Immunization System." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Setting the Course: A Strategic Vision for Immunization: Part 2: Summary of the Austin Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10495.
×
Page 15
Next: Immunization Issues in Texas »
Setting the Course: A Strategic Vision for Immunization: Part 2: Summary of the Austin Workshop Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $29.00 Buy Ebook | $23.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!

Immunization is essential to disease prevention efforts in public health, but the U.S. health care system faces financial challenges that are affecting the delivery of immunization services. An earlier report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM), Calling the Shots: Immunization Finance Policies and Practices, pointed to the instability of the fundamental infrastructure that supports immunization programs throughout the United States, including growing financial burdens and operational complexities in immunization services, shortcomings in public- and private-sector investments in vaccine purchases and immunization programs, and fluctuations in insurance plans in the public and private health care sectors that create uncertainties regarding coverage of vaccine purchase and service delivery arrangements. In October 2001, a group of about 50 health officials, public health experts, health care providers, health plan representatives and purchasers, state legislative officials, and community leaders met at the Texas Medical Association in Austin to explore the implications of the IOM findings and recommendations for Texas. The 1-day workshop was the second in a series of four meetings organized by IOM with support from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to foster informed discussions about challenges for immunization finance and future strategies for strengthening immunization activities and the public health infrastructure that supports those activities.

This report of the Austin workshop summarizes the findings of the previous IOM report and reviews continuing challenges in immunization finance for the nation and for individual states, with a particular focus on Texas. The report also highlights strategies proposed by individual workshop participants that can be used to address those challenges. Several presenters and discussants emphasized that adequate funding is necessary for immunization programs but that financial resources alone are not sufficient to guarantee success. Similarly, they indicated that no single agency or group in the public or the private sector should expect, or should be expected, to solve immunization problems. Speakers from both public and private health agencies observed that collaboration, consultation, and partnership efforts across levels of government and between the public and private sectors are essential.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!