1 / 27

Immunization Recall: Realizing the Financial Benefit to the Pediatrician

Immunization Recall: Realizing the Financial Benefit to the Pediatrician. 43 rd National Immunization Conference Leila C. Sahni* Immunization Project, Texas Children’s Hospital March 30, 2009. *No financial disclosures or conflicts of interest. Objectives.

lavender
Download Presentation

Immunization Recall: Realizing the Financial Benefit to the Pediatrician

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Immunization Recall: Realizing the Financial Benefit to the Pediatrician 43rd National Immunization Conference Leila C. Sahni* Immunization Project,Texas Children’s Hospital March 30, 2009 *No financial disclosures or conflicts of interest

  2. Objectives • To identify and immunize children ages 19-35 months who are in need of routinely recommended immunizations; • To examine the revenue generated from the increased office visits prompted by the recall initiative. Texas Children’s Hospital

  3. What is reminder recall? Texas Children’s Hospital

  4. Reminder Recall: An Overview • Reminder recall systems notify patients who are due (reminder) or overdue (recall) for immunizations • An immunization best practice and a proven method of raising childhood immunization rates • Routinely implemented in dental and veterinary practices, but have yet to be widely adopted by pediatric health care providers Szilagyi PG. Pediatrics 1994;94:517-523.

  5. What does the literature say about reminder recall? Texas Children’s Hospital

  6. Effectiveness of Reminder Recall • Reminder recall systems are effective among both pediatric and adult populations • Effective in all medical settings (private practices, academic medical centers, and public health department clinics) • Effective for both routinely-recommended vaccines and targeted populations • Increases in immunization rates after implementation range from 5-20% Alto W et al. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1994;7 (6):472-477. Buffington J et al. JGIM. 1991;6 (3):204-209. Jacobson Vann JC & Szilagyi PG. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005, Art. No.: CD003941

  7. Methods of Contact • All types of reminder and recall are effective • Person-to-person telephone reminders are the most effective • Letter reminders are more effective than postcards • Multiple reminders are more effective than single reminders Buchner D et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1987;35(8):755-760 Campbell J, et al. Clin Pediatr. 1994:268-272. Hogg, et al. Can Fam Physician 1998;44:81-88. Lieu TA, et al. Pediatrics 1998;101 (4): e3-13.

  8. Additional Benefits of Reminder Recall Systems • Patients who are immunization-delayed are often overdue for other preventive services, such as well-child care and hearing screenings • Reminder recall systems targeting immunizations can increase other aspects of preventive care if implemented in primary care settings Fairbrother G, et al. Pediatrics 1996;97:785-790 Rodewald LE, et al. Arch of Ped and Adol Med 1995;149:393-397. Rodewald LE, et al. Pediatrics 1999;103:31-38.

  9. If reminder recall systems are effective, why aren’t they used more frequently? Texas Children’s Hospital

  10. Barriers to Recall • Providers may not perceive that studies apply to their practices • Recommendations about how to implement reminder recall systems are vague • Primary care practices have traditionally lacked the capability to track responses and measure effectiveness • Complexity of childhood immunization schedule Linkins RW, et al. Pediatr Ann 1998;27:349-354. Taskforce on Community Preventive Services. MMWR 1999;48:1-15. Udovich S & Lieu TA. Pediatr Ann. 1998;27:355-361.

  11. Can immunization registries assist in performing reminder recall activities? Texas Children’s Hospital

  12. Registry-Based Reminder Recall • Lists of immunization-delayed children are readily available in electronic format • Forecasting algorithms are accurate and minimize medical decision-making • Letters and mailing labels for immunization-delayed children can be printed easily Texas Children’s Hospital

  13. An Example of Recall • Summer of 2007; 19-35 month olds from 8 participating practices • 2,980 potentially immunization-delayed children were identified from the local immunization registry • 968 (32%) were UTD after chart review, 255 (8%) MOGE, 205 (7%) inactive • 1,556 children were recalled • 695 appointments were scheduled by recalled children, with an average of $135 billed per appointment

  14. Does Recall Make Financial Sense? • Recall activities were conducted in 10 Texas Children’s Pediatric Associates practices • A list of children ages 19-35 months at each participating practice who, based on registry data, were behind on their immunizations was generated • 4,471 children at study sites were identified as needing immunizations Texas Children’s Hospital

  15. Methods and Timeline • June – August, 2008: • Students compared registry-generated lists of immunization-delayed children to the practices’ medical records • Parents of immunization-delayed children were contacted by mail and phone twice • Recall was conducted for a six-week period from June – August, 2008

  16. Methods and Timeline • October, 2008: • Billing information was reviewed to determine the amount of reimbursement for any type of visit (either well-child care, sick, follow-up or nursing visit) that resulted from the recall initiative • The additional revenue generated by the practice as a result of implementation of the recall initiative was calculated

  17. Initial Record Review In need of immunizations (n=2,196) 53% Texas Children’s Hospital

  18. Recall Results • 182/1,096 (17%) observed patients scheduled appointments • 280/1,100 (25%) enhanced patients scheduled appointments • Patients who received enhanced recall were significantly more likely to schedule an appointment and return for immunizations (p<0.0001) Texas Children’s Hospital

  19. Recall Program Expenses • Recall-associated expenses $5,746.75 • Student salaries $5,196.75 • Letters and postage $550.00 • Vaccine costs $4,306.00 Total: $10,052.75 Texas Children’s Hospital

  20. Recall Program Outcomes

  21. The Bottom Line • Reimbursements for patients receiving enhanced recall were $11,958 more than for children in the observed group • Costs of the program were $5,746.75 • Vaccine costs totaled $4,306.00 • Total costs: $10,052.75 • Net reimbursement per appointment: $19.44 • Reducing student salaries to minimum wage ($6.55/hr) increased reimbursement to $31.47

  22. Recall Observations • Recall was more effective at the beginning of the summer • Observed children who scheduled appointments did so at the end of the summer • Appointment scheduling increased as the number of contacts increased • Letters were no more effective than phone calls • Many patients scheduled appointments at the time they were contacted by phone

  23. Areas for Future Study • Implementation of recall using a fully-populated EMR or immunization registry with an advanced forecasting algorithm could eliminate the need to review charts • Eliminating student costs increased reimbursement to $72.47 per additional appointment • Use of autodialers to further minimize costs associated with contacting immunization-delayed patients • Effect of public/private payor mix on reimbursement rates

  24. In Summary • Registry-based recall can aid in increasing childhood immunization rates, thus protecting against vaccine-preventable diseases • Immunization recall can be cost beneficial, especially if: • Implemented during early summer months when patient volume is traditionally low; • Automated systems are fully utilized; • Additional staff support and salaries are minimized

  25. Contributors • Leila Sahni, Immunization Action Plan Coordinator • Monica Banes, Nurse Health Educator • Julie Boom, Medical Director • Nathan Bunker, Senior Programmer • Daniel Fischer, Database Coordinator • Wen Li, Registry Security and Data Analyst • Kay Tittle, President, TCPA

  26. Questions? Leila C. Sahni Texas Children’s Hospital lcsahni@texaschildrens.org (832) 824-2057

More Related