Biomedical subjects

Kellyn A Pearson

Publications and source records attributed to Kellyn A Pearson.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2004

The cost of giving childhood vaccinations: differences among provider types.

OBJECTIVE: To describe costs to providers of delivering childhood immunizations. METHODS: We collected variable costs--costs that vary with the amount of services rendered--including cost of practitioner and staff time and supplies, using a cost accounting method, from 12 practices (4 pediatric practices, 4 family practices, and 4 public health agencies) in rural and urban areas in Colorado. For private practices, we estimated fixed costs--costs that do not vary with the amount of services, eg, rent and insurance). We also collected reimbursement information for vaccinations for private practices. RESULTS: Variable costs per shot (excluding vaccine cost) were 8.15 dollars for pediatric practices, 5.79 dollars for family practices, and 5.41 dollars for public health agencies. Total costs per shot, including fixed costs, were 10.67 dollars for pediatric practices and 7.57 dollars for family practices. Average reimbursement for pediatricians and private family practices was 8.27 dollars and 6.68 dollars, respectively. For pediatric practices, average variable costs were barely exceeded by average reimbursement, and reimbursement was 22% less than average total costs. This contrasts with an earlier study of the rural practices investigated here, in which there was a comfortable margin between reimbursement and variable costs. CONCLUSION: The decline in the ratio of reimbursement to cost for private practices, particularly for pediatric practices, suggests that referral to public agencies by private providers for vaccinations may increase and that if vaccinations are not as frequently provided in the child's medical home, then the currently high childhood immunization rates may be in jeopardy.

Child Health Services↗

PubMed2004

The regional immunization registry as a public health tool for improving clinical practice and guiding immunization delivery policy.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the distribution of immunization records among 3 health care delivery sectors and the impact of a regional immunization registry on "up to date" rates. METHODS: Immunization registry records in 2 regions were categorized as having originated in private practices, community health centers, or public health clinics. "Up to date" rates were calculated after we sequentially added immunization records from the 3 sectors. RESULTS: The percentage of children with immunizations documented in multiple sectors increased with age from 7 to 24 months, and children who were seen in multiple sectors were more likely to be up to date. There were relative increases in "up to date" rates of 50% for children aged 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: The regional immunization registry is a powerful public health tool for increasing documented "up to date" rates and providing insights into patterns of immunization delivery.

Child, Preschool↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Using an immunization registry: effect on practice costs and time.

INTRODUCTION: Immunization registries can consolidate immunization records scattered among different providers, allowing immunization documentation for legal purposes, generation of needed-immunization lists, inventory management, and outreach for underimmunized children. They have been endorsed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and health professionals as a means of sustaining high immunization rates. However, some providers perceive the cost of registry use as a barrier to participation. We sought to determine the effects of registry use on cost and time. METHODS: We used a pre-post design and a cost-accounting approach to measure labor costs and time for immunization-related activities possibly affected by registry use before development of a regional registry in Colorado and after the registry was being fully used. Two rural family practices, 2 rural community health centers (CHCs), 3 urban pediatric practices, and 2 rural public health agencies participated in both periods. RESULTS: Cost per shot increased slightly in the postregistry period for private practices and CHCs ($0.56 per shot in 2001 dollars) and public health agencies ($0.38). Since costs can increase for several reasons, including salary increases above inflation, we analyzed time spent per shot and found that staff time decreased for private practices and CHCs but increased substantially for public health agencies. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings suggest to private practices that registry participation can provide a net benefit by making the vaccination process more efficient and, absent above-average salary increases, less costly. Public health agencies, however, would have to rely exclusively on the registry and eschew the use of paper vaccination records to realize efficiencies seen by other practice types.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Quality improvement in immunization delivery following an unsuccessful immunization recall.

OBJECTIVES: Within a clinic serving disadvantaged children, 1) to evaluate a multifaceted quality improvement (QI) project to improve immunization (IZ) up-to-date (UTD) rates and 2) to assess the efficacy of IZ reminder/recall performed following QI. METHODS: A year-long QI project followed by a trial of reminder/recall. QI interventions were targeted at previously identified barriers to IZ and were designed specifically to improve the efficacy of reminder/recall. QI interventions were designed to 1) increase the use of medical record releases to document IZs received elsewhere; 2) improve the accuracy of parental contact information; and 3) reduce missed opportunities by utilizing chart prompts, provider education, and provider reminders. Following QI, we conducted a randomized trial of reminder/recall. RESULTS: UTD rates for 7-11 month olds increased from 21% before the QI project to 52% after (P <.0001); rates for 12-18 month olds increased from 16% before QI to 44% after (P <.0001); 19-25 month olds 18% before to 33% after (P <.001). After QI, an average of 61 records per month were updated with IZs received elsewhere. However, the accuracy of parental contact information worsened (29% unreachable before QI vs 44% after, P <.001) and missed opportunities did not improve (8% before vs 6% after, P = not significant [NS]). A subsequent trial of reminder/recall did not increase UTD rates, with 17% of recalled children brought UTD vs 16% of controls (P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Clinic-based QI increased documented UTD rates in a disadvantaged patient population. However, IZ reminder/recall did not further increase UTD rates above the rates achieved by the QI process.

Delivery of Health Care↗