Fangjun Zhou’s research while affiliated with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other places

On March 13, 2020, the United States declared a national emergency concerning the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak (1). In response, many state and local governments issued shelter-in-place or stay-at-home orders, restricting nonessential activities outside residents' homes (2). CDC initially issued guidance recommending postponing routine adult vaccinations, which was later revised to recommend continuing to administer routine adult vaccines (3). In addition, factors such as disrupted operations of health care facilities and safety concerns regarding exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, resulted in delay or avoidance of routine medical care (4), likely further affecting delivery of routine adult vaccinations. Medicare enrollment and claims data of Parts A (hospital insurance), B (medical insurance), and D (prescription drug insurance) were examined to assess the change in receipt of routine adult vaccines during the pandemic. Weekly receipt of four vaccines (13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine [PCV13], 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine [PPSV23], tetanus-diphtheria or tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine [Td/Tdap], and recombinant zoster vaccine [RZV]) by Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years during January 5-July 18, 2020, was compared with that during January 6-July 20, 2019, for the total study sample and by race and ethnicity. Overall, weekly administration rates of the four examined vaccines declined by up to 89% after the national emergency declaration in mid-March (1) compared with those during the corresponding period in 2019. During the first week following the national emergency declaration, the weekly vaccination rates were 25%-62% lower than those during the corresponding week in 2019. After reaching their nadirs of 70%-89% below 2019 rates in the second to third week of April 2020, weekly vaccination rates gradually began to recover through mid-July, but by the last study week were still lower than were those during the corresponding period in 2019, with the exception of PPSV23. Vaccination declined sharply for all vaccines studied, overall and across all racial and ethnic groups. While the pandemic continues, vaccination providers should emphasize to patients the importance of continuing to receive routine vaccinations and provide reassurance by explaining the procedures in place to ensure patient safety (3).

Objective: To access urban-rural disparities in vaccination service use among Medicaid-enrolled adolescents and examine its association with residence county characteristics. Study design: We used the 2016 Medicaid T-MSIS Analytic File to estimate adolescents’ use of vaccination services, defined as the proportion of adolescents aged 11-18 years with ≥ 1 vaccination visit in a county. We used linear regression and Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition method to examine the association between county characteristics and urban-rural disparities in vaccination service use. Results: The analysis included 2,473 counties located in 38 states. The mean proportion of adolescents making ≥ 1 vaccination visit at the county level was low (36.09%) and was lower in rural than in urban counties (31.99% versus 36.85%, P < 0.01). Number of primary care physicians (PCPs) was positively associated with vaccination service use in rural counties; in urban counties, % households without a vehicle was negatively associated with vaccination service use. The decomposition results showed that 66.78% (3.24 percentage points) of the urban-rural disparities in vaccination service use could be attributed to urban-rural differences in the county characteristics included in the study. Characteristics measuring access to care (number of PCPs), social and economic factors (% adults with at least a bachelor’s degree and % children in poverty), quality of care (influenza vaccination rates and preventable hospital stays), and demographics (% non-Hispanic black, % Hispanic, and % females) played a role in urban-rural disparities. Conclusions: Differences in county characteristics could partly explain the observed urban-rural disparities in vaccination service use among low-income adolescents.

Background Universal influenza vaccination has been recommended since 2010, yet influenza vaccination rates among children aged 6 months to 17 years remain low compared with other routinely recommended childhood vaccines. Objective Assess in-plan vaccination coverage, opportunities, and missed opportunities during the 2016–2017 influenza season. Study Design Retrospective analyses using 2016–2017 MarketScan® data for 2,768,799 privately insured children aged 1–17 years by the end of 2016 who were continuously enrolled in the same insurance plan during the 2016–2017 influenza season (defined as August 1, 2016 through May 31, 2017). We assessed in-plan vaccination coverage (percentage receiving ≥ 1 dose of influenza vaccine from August 2016-May 2017) and vaccination opportunities (percentage with ≥ 1 provider visit between September 2016 – May 2017). Among children who remained unvaccinated at the end of the season, those with ≥ 1 influenza vaccination opportunity between September 2016-May 2017 were determined to have a missed opportunity. Results In-plan vaccination coverage during the 2016–17 season was 67.7% in infants (born 2015), 49.5% in toddlers (born 2012–2014), 35.0% in school-aged children (born 2004–2011), and 22.3% in teenagers (born 1999–2003). Like vaccination coverage, vaccination opportunities decreased with age (infants: 97.7%, toddlers: 91.9%, school-aged children: 82.6%, teenagers: 79.3%). Among unvaccinated children, 93.1%, 84.1%, 73.6% and 73.6% of each age group had a missed opportunity for influenza vaccination. Conclusion Opportunities for and coverage with influenza vaccination vary even among privately insured children. Along with continued efforts to reduce missed opportunities, effective strategies to bring children to their doctor for annual influenza vaccination are needed, particularly for older children.

This study aims to evaluate the cost-benefit of vaccination services, mostly partial series administration, provided by a mobile clinic program (MCP) in Houston for children of transient and low-income families. The study included 469 patients who visited the mobile clinics on regular service days in 2 study periods in 2014 and 836 patients who attended vaccination events in the summer of 2014. The benefit of partial series vaccination was estimated based on vaccine efficacy/effectiveness data. Our conservative cost-benefit estimates show that, compared with office-based settings, every dollar spent on vaccination by the MCP would result in $0.9 societal cost averted as an incremental benefit in regular service days and$3.7 during vaccination-only events. To further improve the cost-benefit of vaccination services in the MCP, decision-makers and stakeholders may consider improving work efficiency during regular service days or hosting more vaccination events.

On August 8, 2016, a confirmed case of mumps was reported to the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) in an adult resident of Springdale, Arkansas. By July 2017, nearly 3,000 cases of mumps were reported to ADH from 37 of the 75 counties in Arkansas. Over 50% of cases were in the Arkansas Marshallese community, a close-knit community characterized by large, and extended families sharing the same living space and communal activities. In a statewide effort, ADH collaborated with CDC, the Republic of the Marshall Island's (RMI) Ministry of Health, and the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) to rapidly respond to and contain the outbreak. We assessed the economic burden to ADH of the outbreak response in terms of containment and vaccination costs, as well as response costs incurred by CDC, RMI, and ADE. The 2016-2017 Arkansas mumps outbreak was the second largest US mumps outbreak in over 30 years and was unique in size, spread, and population affected. Total public health response costs as a result of the outbreak were over $2.1 million, approximately$725 per case. The costs incurred to control this outbreak reflect the response strategies tailored to the affected populations, including consideration of social, cultural, and political factors in controlling transmission and requirements of distinctive strategies for public health outreach. Aside from the burden these outbreaks have on the affected population, we demonstrate the potential for high economic burden of these outbreaks to public health.

Vaccination coverage among adults remains low in the United States. Understanding the barriers to provision of adult vaccination is an important step to increasing vaccination coverage and improving public health. To better understand financial factors that may affect practice decisions about adult vaccination, this study sought to understand how costs compared with payments for adult vaccinations in a sample of U.S. physician practices. We recruited a convenience sample of 19 practices in nine states in 2017. We conducted a time-motion study to assess the time costs of vaccination activities and conducted a survey of practice managers to assess materials, management, and dose costs and payments for vaccination. We received complete cost and payment data from 13 of the 19 practices. We calculated annual income from vaccination services by comparing estimated costs with payments received for vaccine doses and vaccine administration. Median annual total income from vaccination services was $90,343 at family medicine practices (range:$3968–249,628), 28,267 at internal medicine practices (−32,659–141,034) and $2886 at obstetrics and gynecology practices (−$73,451–$23,820). Adult vaccination was profitable at the median of our sample, but there is wide variation in profitability due to differences in costs and payment rates across practices. This study provides evidence on the financial viability of adult vaccination and supports actions for improving financial viability. These results can help inform practices’ decisions whether to provide adult vaccines and contribute to keeping adults up-to-date with the recommended vaccination schedule.

This study aims to assess payments to private providers for HPV vaccination. We used the 2007-2014 MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database and included 3,456,180 HPV vaccination visits made by adolescents aged 11-17 years and enrolled in a non-capitated insurance plan in 37 states. We examined insurance reimbursements and its time trend for vaccine purchase and vaccine administration. Using the vaccine purchase price published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the vaccination payment recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), we evaluated the financial concerns of administering HPV vaccines among private providers. In 2007-2014, the mean vaccine purchase reimbursement was $159.17 and the mean vaccine administration reimbursement was$23.91. During the study period, vaccine purchase reimbursements did not significantly change, but vaccine administration reimbursements increased. On average, 89.9% of the HPV claims received vaccine purchase reimbursements greater than the CDC-published price and 14.1% of HPV claims received vaccine purchase reimbursements above the AAP-recommended payment. Our results suggest that private providers are likely to receive sufficient reimbursements to cover the costs of administering HPV vaccines. However, the profit margin is likely to be small.

Introduction: Financial concerns are frequently cited by providers as a barrier to adult vaccination. This study assessed insurance reimbursements to providers for administering vaccines to adults in the private sector. Methods: This study, conducted in 2018, used the 2016 MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database and included vaccination visits made by adults aged 19-64 years. Four routinely recommended vaccines targeted at adults were included - tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap), tetanus and diphtheria toxoids (Td), zoster, and influenza. The mean reimbursement for vaccine purchase and administration were reported and were examined by state, metropolitan statistical area, provider type, and insurance plan type. Using the private vaccine purchase price published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the study reported the proportion of vaccination visits receiving reimbursements above the CDC-published price. Results: The mean vaccine administration reimbursement was $25.80 for the first dose and$14.71 for additional doses in the same visit. The mean vaccine purchase reimbursement was $44.15 for Tdap,$25.78 for Td, and $216.05 for zoster vaccine; the unweighted mean for the four influenza vaccines examined was$17.25. Reimbursements varied widely by state. Vaccine reimbursements exceeded the CDC-published price for most visits where Tdap (71.4%), zoster (87.8%), and three of four influenza (61.5%-88.5%) vaccines were administered, but only 25.8% of visits where Td was given. Conclusions: On average, reimbursements for administering vaccines to privately insured adults were adequate for most private practices. However, providers’ financial concerns may vary across geographic locations.

Introduction: Vaccinations are recommended to prevent serious morbidity and mortality. However, providers' concerns regarding costs and payments for providing vaccination services are commonly reported barriers to adult vaccination. Information on the costs of providing vaccination is limited, especially for adults. Methods: We recruited 4 internal medicine, 4 family medicine, 2 pediatric, 2 obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) practices, and 2 community health clinics in North Carolina to participate in a study to assess the economic costs and benefits of providing vaccination services for adults and children. We conducted a time-motion assessment of vaccination-related activities in the provider office and a survey to providers on vaccine management costs. We estimated mean cost per vaccination, minimum and maximum payments received, and income. Results: Across all provider settings, mean cost per vaccine administration was $14 with substantial variation by practice setting (pediatric:$10; community health clinics: $15; family medicine:$17; OBGYN: $23; internal medicine:$23). When receiving the maximum payment, all provider settings had positive income for vaccination services. When receiving the minimum reported payments for vaccination services, pediatric and family medicine practices had positive income, internal medicine, and OBGYN practices had approximately equal costs and payments, and community health clinics had losses or negative income. Conclusions: Overall, vaccination service providers appeared to have small positive income from vaccination services. In some cases, providers experienced negative income, which underscores the need for providers and policymakers to design interventions and system improvements to make vaccination services financially sustainable for all provider types.

Background: The U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recently developed recommendations for use of a new recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV). Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of vaccination with RZV compared with zoster vaccine live (ZVL) and no vaccination, the cost-effectiveness of vaccination with RZV for persons who have previously received ZVL, and the cost-effectiveness of preferential vaccination with RZV over ZVL. Design: Simulation (state-transition) model using U.S. epidemiologic, clinical, and cost data. Data sources: Published data. Target population: Hypothetical cohort of immunocompetent U.S. adults aged 50 years or older. Time horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Societal and health care sector. Intervention: Vaccination with RZV (recommended 2-dose regimen), vaccination with ZVL, and no vaccination. Outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results of base-case analysis: For vaccination with RZV compared with no vaccination, ICERs ranged by age from $10 000 to$47 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), using a societal perspective and assuming 100% completion of the 2-dose RZV regimen. For persons aged 60 years or older, ICERs were less than $60 000 per QALY. Vaccination with ZVL was dominated by vaccination with RZV for all age groups 60 years or older. Results of sensitivity analysis: Results were most sensitive to changes in vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection, herpes zoster incidence, and probability of postherpetic neuralgia. Vaccination with RZV after previous administration of ZVL yielded an ICER of less than$60 000 per QALY for persons aged 60 years or older. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, RZV remained the preferred strategy in at least 95% of simulations, including those with 50% completion of the second dose. Limitation: Few data were available on risk for serious adverse events, adherence to the recommended 2-dose regimen, and probability of recurrent zoster. Conclusion: Vaccination with RZV yields cost-effectiveness ratios lower than those for many recommended adult vaccines, including ZVL. Results are robust over a wide range of plausible values. Primary funding source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.