State law and influenza vaccination of health care personnel
George Washington University, School of Public Health and Health Services, Department of Health Policy, 2021 K St. NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20006, United States. Electronic address: . Vaccine
(Impact Factor: 3.62).
12/2012; 31(5). DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.11.063
Nosocomial influenza outbreaks, attributed to the unvaccinated health care workforce, have contributed to patient complications or death, worker illness and absenteeism, and increased economic costs to the health care system. Since 1981, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended that all HCP receive an annual influenza vaccination. Health care employers (HCE) have adopted various strategies to encourage health care personnel (HCP) to voluntarily receive influenza vaccination, including: sponsoring educational and promotional campaigns, increasing access to seasonal influenza vaccine, permitting the use of declination statements, and combining multiple approaches. However, these measures failed to significantly increase uptake among HCP. As a result, beginning in 2004, health care facilities and local health departments began to require certain HCP to receive influenza vaccination as a condition of employment and annually. Today, hundreds of facilities throughout the country have developed and implemented similar policies. Mandatory vaccination programs have been endorsed by professional and non-profit organizations, state health departments, and public health. These programs have been more effective at increasing coverage rates than any voluntary strategy, with some health systems reporting coverage rates up to 99.3%. Several states have enacted laws requiring HCEs to implement vaccination programs for the workforce. These laws present an example of how states will respond to threats to the public's health and constrain personal choice in order to protect vulnerable populations. This study analyzes laws in twenty states that address influenza vaccination requirements for HCP who practice in acute or long-term care facilities in the United States. The laws vary in the extent to which they incorporate the six elements of a mandatory HCP influenza vaccination program. Four of the twenty states have adopted a broad definition of HCP or HCE. While 16/20 of the laws require employers to "provide," "arrange for," "ensure," "require" or "offer" influenza vaccinations to HCP, only four states explicitly require HCEs to cover the cost of vaccination. Fifteen of the twenty laws allow HCP to decline the vaccination due to medical contraindication, religious or philosophical beliefs, or by signing a declination statement. Finally, three states address how to sanction noncompliant HCPs. The analysis also discusses the development of a model legal policy that legislators could use as they draft and revise influenza prevention guidelines in health care settings.
Available from: Alex Dubov
- "Massachusetts has a requirement to provide seasonal influenza vaccinations to all healthcare providers along with annual reporting of the vaccination rates. Similar requirements exist in fourteen other states . State-sponsored influenza vaccination mandates range from a simple recommendation to " offer " , " provide " or " ensure " flu vaccines to actual mandates that impose consequences for non-compliant healthcare workers. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: According to the CDC report for the 2012-2013 influenza season, there was a modest increase in the vaccination coverage rate among healthcare workers from 67% in 2011-2012, to 72% in 2012-2013 to the current 75% coverage. This is still far from reaching the US National Healthy People 2020 goal of 90% hospitals vaccination rates. The reported increase in coverage is attributed to the growing number of healthcare facilities with vaccination requirements with average rates of 96.5%. However, a few other public health interventions stir so much controversy and debate as vaccination mandates. The opposition stems from the belief that a mandatory flu shot policy violates an individual right to refuse unwanted treatment. This article outlines the historic push to achieve higher vaccination rates among healthcare professionals and a number of ethical issues arising from attempts to implement vaccination mandates. It then turns to a review of cognitive biases relevant in the context of decisions about influenza vaccination (omission bias, ambiguity aversion, present bias etc.) The article suggests that a successful strategy for policy-makers and others hoping to increase vaccination rates is to design a "choice architecture" that influences behavior of healthcare professionals without foreclosing other options. Nudges incentivize vaccinations and help better align vaccination intentions with near-term actions.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Available from: Chyongchiou Jeng (C.J.) Lin
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
Overall annual influenza vaccination rate has slowly increased among health care workers but still remains below the national goal of 90%.
To compare hospitals that mandate annual health care worker (HCW) influenza vaccination with and without consequences for noncompliance, a 34-item survey was mailed to an infection control professional in 964 hospitals across the United States in 4 waves. Respondents were grouped by presence of a hospital policy that required annual influenza vaccination of HCWs with and without consequences for noncompliance. Combined with hospital characteristics from the American Hospital Association, data were analyzed using χ(2) or Fisher exact tests for categorical variables and t tests for continuous variables.
One hundred fifty hospitals required influenza vaccination, 84 with consequences (wear a mask, termination, education, restriction from patient care duties, unpaid leave) and 66 without consequences for noncompliance. Hospitals whose mandates have consequences for noncompliance included a broader range of personnel, were less likely to allow personal belief exemptions, or to require formal declination. The change in vaccination rates in hospitals with mandates with consequences (19.5%) was nearly double that of the hospitals with mandates without consequences (11%; P=.002). Presence of a state law regulating HCW influenza vaccination was associated with an increase in rates for mandates with consequences nearly 3 times the increase for mandates without consequences.
Hospital mandates for HCW influenza vaccination with consequences for noncompliance are associated with larger increases in HCW influenza vaccination rates than mandates without such consequences.
Available from: Denis Leclerc
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
Nanoparticles composed of the coat protein of a plant virus (papaya mosaic virus; PapMV) and a single-stranded RNA (ssRNA) trigger a strong innate immune stimulation in the lungs of the animals a few hours following instillation. A rapid recruitment of neutrophils, monocytes/macrophages and lymphocytes follows. This treatment was able to provide protection to an influenza challenge that lasts at least 5 days. Protection could be recalled for longer periods by repeating the instillations once per week for more than 10 weeks. The treatment also conferred protection to a lethal challenge with Streptococcus pneumoniae--the major cause of bacterial pneumonia. Finally, we also showed that the nanoparticles could be used to treat mice infected with influenza and significantly decrease morbidity. These data strengthen the potential for using PapMV nanoparticles as non-specific inducers of the innate immune response in lungs during viral pandemics or to combat bioterrorist attack.
From the clinical editor:
In this study, virus-like nanoparticles were utilized to induce innate immune responses in a mouse model. They were also demonstrated to provide enhanced immune responses during actual pneumonia and ongoing viral infection. Strategies like this may become very helpful in human applications, including bioterrorism countermeasures.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.