Search

Supplementary immunization activities (SIAs) aim to interrupt measles transmission by reaching susceptible children, including children who have not received the recommended two routine doses of MCV before the SIA. However, both strategies may miss the same children if vaccine doses are highly correlated. How well SIAs reach children missed by routine immunization is a key metric in assessing the added value of SIAs.Children aged 9 months to younger than 5 years were enrolled in cross-sectional household serosurveys conducted in five districts in India following the 2017-2019 measles-rubella (MR) SIA. History of measles containing vaccine (MCV) through routine services or SIA was obtained from documents and verbal recall. Receipt of a first or second MCV dose during the SIA was categorized as "added value" of the SIA in reaching un- and under-vaccinated children.A total of 1,675 children were enrolled in these post-SIA surveys. The percentage of children receiving a 1st or 2nd dose through the SIA ranged from 12.8% in Thiruvananthapuram District to 48.6% in Dibrugarh District. Although the number of zero-dose children prior to the SIA was small in most sites, the proportion reached by the SIA ranged from 45.8% in Thiruvananthapuram District to 94.9% in Dibrugarh District. Fewer than 7% of children remained measles zero-dose after the MR SIA (range: 1.1-6.4%) compared to up to 28% before the SIA (range: 7.3-28.1%).We demonstrated the MR SIA provided considerable added value in terms of measles vaccination coverage, although there was variability across districts due to differences in routine and SIA coverage, and which children were reached by the SIA. Metrics evaluating the added value of an SIA can help to inform the design of vaccination strategies to better reach zero-dose or undervaccinated children.

ObjectiveTo characterize appointment access for Medicaid-insured patients seeking care at urology practices affiliated with private equity firms in light of the recent national trends in practice consolidation.MethodsWe identified 214 urology offices affiliated with private equity firms that were geographically matched with 231 non-private equity affiliated urology offices. Using a standardized script, researchers posed as an adult patient with either Medicaid or commercial insurance in the clinical setting of new onset, painless hematuria. The primary outcome was whether the patient's insurance was accepted for an appointment. The secondary outcome was appointment wait time.ResultsWe conducted 815 appointment inquiry calls to 214 private equity (PE) and 231 non-PE-affiliated urology offices across 12 states. Appointment availability was higher for commercially-insured patients (99.0%; 95% CI: 98.1%-99.9%) vs Medicaid-insured patients (59.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 55.0%-64.6%) (P < .0001). Medicaid acceptance was higher at non-PE affiliated (66.8%; CI 60.4%-73.2%) than PE-affiliated practices (52.1%; 95% CI 45.0%-59.2%) (P = .003). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, state Medicaid expansion status (odds ratio [OR] 2.20; CI 1.14-4.28; P = .020) was independently associated with Medicaid appointment availability, whereas PE-affiliation (OR 0.55; CI 0.37-0.83; P = .004) was independently associated with lower Medicaid access. Appointment wait times did not differ significantly for commercially-insured vs Medicaid patients (19.2 vs 20.1 days; p = .59), but PE-affiliated practices offered shorter mean wait times than non-PE offices (17.5 vs 21.4 days; P = .017).ConclusionAccess disparities for urologic evaluation in patients with Medicaid insurance at urology practices and were more pronounced at private equity acquired practices.