Costs of, and reimbursement for, vaccines: A case study at the Board of Health Refugee Services in DeKalb county, Georgia

Adachi, Kenji; Coleman, Margaret S.; Hurst, Christopher de la Motte; Vargas, Monica; Oladele, Alawode; Weinberg, Michelle

doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.08.016

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Compared to a published cost estimate of refugee vaccine administration costs in Georgia ($14.50 in 2015 U.S. dollars after adjustment using the medical care consumer price index), administration charges in our analysis were approximately equivalent in one site ($15.00), higher in one ($37.50), and lower in two (for sites where vaccine administration costs are included in visit fees) [11]. A study of administration costs among different provider types found that, after adjusting 2004 costs to 2015 U.S. dollars, total administration costs to providers ranged from $15.22 per vaccine dose at pediatric practices to $7.79 at public health clinics [12].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…Here, we report on how refugees' medical records are evaluated for documentation of receipt of prior vaccinations, describe the decision-making process that guides domestic vaccination, as well as the extent to which overseas and domestic vaccine doses are documented in state immunization information systems (IIS) during the domestic medical examination [10]. Although previous publications describe site-specific vaccination processes and costs [11,12], we analyzed vaccination practices in sixteen clinics in three states and one institution during the domestic medical examination, and estimated vaccination-specific costs from the U.S. government perspective.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Vaccine delivery to newly arrived refugees and estimated costs in selected U.S. clinics, 2015

Pezzi

McCulloch

Joo

et al. 2018

Vaccine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vaccine delivery to newly arrived refugees and estimated costs in selected U.S. clinics, 2015

Pezzi

McCulloch

Joo

et al. 2018

Vaccine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two studies from the United States, Chahal et al and Jazwa et al, found that bundling screening, vaccination, and treatment together for refugees was cost-effective [ 21 , 22 ]. Adachi et al found that a clinic in the United States broke even or had a slightly positive cost-revenue structure when they provided hepatitis B vaccines to refugees of all ages as part of the standard package [ 23 ]. Two studies were from refugee camps in South Sudan and the African region, Gargano et al and Reardon et al, and supported the cost-effectiveness of hepatitis B vaccination, either in conjunction with routine immunization or pneumonia immunization [ 24 , 25 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevention, testing, and treatment interventions for hepatitis B and C in refugee populations: results of a scoping review

Saseetharran,

Hiebert,

Gupta

et al. 2023

BMC Infect Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aims Refugees are at higher risk for hepatitis B (HBV) and hepatitis C (HCV), but often face unique healthcare barriers to vaccination, testing, and treatment. This scoping review aimed to identify and characterize HBV and HCV prevention and care services serving refugee populations globally. Methods A literature search was conducted on Embase, Cochrane, and PubMed databases. Research studies published in English between January 2010 to July 2022 describing an HBV or HCV prevention, testing, or treatment intervention for refugees were included. Results There were a total of 69 articles reporting viral hepatitis prevalence, implementation of services, or economic modelling. Of the 38 implementation studies, 14 were stand-alone HBV and/or HCV interventions, while 24 studies included HBV and/or HCV in an intervention targeting multiple infectious diseases and/or parasitic infections. Interventions commonly included a testing (n = 30) or referral (n = 24) component. Frequently reported features to promote program accessibility included bilingual services (n = 25), community partnerships (n = 21), and multidisciplinary staff members (n = 18), such as cultural and/or linguistic mediators, community health workers, community health leaders, lay health workers, local health staff, members of the refugee community, and social workers. The most commonly reported challenge was the transience of refugees (n = 5). Twenty studies noted funding sources, of which twelve reported governmental funding (not including national health insurance) and eight reported that refugees received national health insurance. Conclusions This is the first scoping review to characterize the types of hepatitis prevention, screening, and treatment interventions serving refugee populations globally. Published experiences of HBV and HCV services for refugee populations remain limited. Additional efforts are needed to disseminate models of hepatitis interventions for refugees to ensure access to care for this key population. To achieve hepatitis elimination globally, best practices must be identified and shared to expand access to hepatitis services for refugee populations.

show abstract

“…233,241,242 Although immunization does not usually occur until after resettlement in the U.S., there is a four-to six-month period between their required overseas health assessment and their arrival when immunizations could be administered. 243 Immunization catch-up after arrival and resettlement may be inadequate. One study demonstrated that in 2006, only 50% of refugee children aged 0-35 months were completely up-to-date on immunizations 15 months after resettlement.…”

Section: Nvac Recommendation 25: Ensuring Immunization Coverage Amonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing the Work of the Department of Health and Human Services National Vaccine Program in Global Immunization: Recommendations of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee

2014

Public Health Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

3. Enhancing global capacity for vaccine safety monitoring and post-marketing surveillance As coverage of existing vaccines increases and new and underused vaccines are introduced to larger populations, countries will need support to monitor, identify, and respond to vaccine safety concerns and adverse events following immunizations. 16 Global approaches to vaccine safety benefit all countries, and ongoing efforts are working to overcome the barriers to vaccine safety monitoring that continue to challenge resource-poor countries. 38 HHS agencies can contribute expertise, training, and the development of standardized tools, guidelines, and processes to enhance global vaccine safety monitoring capacity and help build public trust and demand for vaccines. 3.1. The ASH should identify mechanisms to encourage ongoing collaborations and technical support between HHS agencies involved in post-licensure vaccine safety and related global agencies and partners to (1) enhance capacities to build vaccine safety surveillance systems to monitor the safety of vaccines as they are broadly administered, (2) assess and respond to vaccine safety concerns or signals, (3) effectively communicate vaccine risks, and (4) support the political will to respond to vaccine safety concerns with evidencebased decisions. 4. Building global immunization research and development capacity Continuing HHS commitments to global efforts in scientific discovery and vaccine research and development (R&D) are necessary to address remaining unmet public health needs such as the prevention of HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, neglected diseases, and other emerging infectious diseases of global health importance. However, the development of future vaccines, particularly for the prevention of diseases predominately affecting LMICs, will require innovative product development partnerships, greater global regulatory capacity, and the growing involvement of emerging vaccine manufacturers in developing countries. HHS's support of these efforts will not only increase access to new or improved vaccines and immunization technologies, but will also contribute to augmenting global vaccine manufacturing capacity. As a benefit, these efforts will help to achieve national and global influenza pandemic preparedness objectives. 4.1. The ASH should support efforts that increase global health research capacity through partnerships among health research institutions in the U.S. and abroad. These partnerships create opportunities to train the next generation of U.S. and foreign scientists to better address current and future global health needs, including the development and evaluation of new vaccines, new vaccine delivery systems, countryspecific immunization schedules, and new technologies that facilitate global immunization efforts. 4.2. The ASH should encourage HHS agencies to work closely with USAID, WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, end users (including national immunization program managers, Ministries of Health, national immunization technical advisory groups [NITAGs]), nonprofit product...

show abstract

Costs of, and reimbursement for, vaccines: A case study at the Board of Health Refugee Services in DeKalb county, Georgia

Cited by 6 publications

References 13 publications

Vaccine delivery to newly arrived refugees and estimated costs in selected U.S. clinics, 2015

Vaccine delivery to newly arrived refugees and estimated costs in selected U.S. clinics, 2015

Prevention, testing, and treatment interventions for hepatitis B and C in refugee populations: results of a scoping review

Enhancing the Work of the Department of Health and Human Services National Vaccine Program in Global Immunization: Recommendations of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About