Planning influenza vaccination programs: a cost benefit model

Clinical Outcomes & Analytic Services, Walgreens Co,, 1415 Lake Cook Rd,, MS L444, Deerfield, IL, 60015, USA. .
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation (Impact Factor: 0.87). 07/2012; 10(1):10. DOI: 10.1186/1478-7547-10-10
Source: PubMed


Although annual influenza vaccination could decrease the significant economic and humanistic burden of influenza in the United States, immunization rates are below recommended levels, and concerns remain whether immunization programs can be cost beneficial. The research objective was to compare cost benefit of various immunization strategies from employer, employee, and societal perspectives.
An actuarial model was developed based on the published literature to estimate the costs and benefits of influenza immunization programs. Useful features of the model included customization by population age and risk-level, potential pandemic risk, and projection year. Various immunization strategies were modelled for an average U.S. population of 15,000 persons vaccinated in pharmacies or doctor's office during the 2011/12 season. The primary outcome measure reported net cost savings per vaccinated (PV) from the perspective of various stakeholders.
Given a typical U.S. population, an influenza immunization program will be cost beneficial for employers when more than 37% of individuals receive vaccine in non-traditional settings such as pharmacies. The baseline scenario, where 50% of persons would be vaccinated in non-traditional settings, estimated net savings of $6 PV. Programs that limited to pharmacy setting ($31 PV) or targeted persons with high-risk comorbidities ($83 PV) or seniors ($107 PV) were found to increase cost benefit. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the scenario-based findings.
Both universal and targeted vaccination programs can be cost beneficial. Proper planning with cost models can help employers and policy makers develop strategies to improve the impact of immunization programs.

Download full-text


Available from: Michael Taitel, Oct 02, 2015
17 Reads
  • Source
    The Journal of Infectious Diseases 10/2012; 206(12). DOI:10.1093/infdis/jis623 · 6.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AbStRACt Background: In the past decade the upsurge of influenza throughout the globe was significant and in recent years this has resurfaced showing failures of all the preventive and therapeutic measures against it. Thus, this study was undertaken to evaluate the effect of homoeopathic medicines in the treatment of Influenza like illness (primary objective) and to compare the complication rate among patients receiving homoeopathic medication as compared to the patients receiving placebo and also to compare the efficacy of LM potency vis-à-vis Centesimal potency (secondary objective). Material and Methods: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, triple arm placebo controlled trial conducted at nine Institutes and Units of Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy (CCRH) from June 2009 to December 2010. The patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were randomized to LM, Centesimal and Placebo groups. Homoeopathic interventions were given as per the principles of homoeopathy. Symptoms of Influenza like illness (ILI) were assessed as per validated scales. Data analysis was done using statistical package of SPSS 20.0 version. Each symptom was compared for 10 days among the allocated groups by using Kruskal wallis test and bonferroni correction for the multiple comparisons. Results: Out of 739 screened cases, 447 cases were eligible for enrolment comprising of LM (n=152), (n=147) and placebo (n=148) cases. There was a significant difference in temperature from 2 nd