Findings from case studies of state and local immunization programs

Abstract

Background: As part of its examination of federal support for immunization services during the past decade, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on Immunization Finance Policies and Practices (IFPP) commissioned eight case studies of the states of Alabama, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington; and a two-county study of Los Angeles and San Diego in California. Specifically, the IOM Committee and these studies reviewed the use of Section 317 grants by the states. Section 317 is a discretionary grant program that supports vaccine purchase and other immunization-related program activities. These studies afforded the Committee an in-depth look at local policy choices, the performance of immunization programs, and federal and state spending for immunization during the past decade. Methods: The case-study reports were developed through interviews with state and local health department officials, including immunization program directors, Medicaid agency staff, budget analysts, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention public health advisors to the jurisdiction. Other sources included state and federal administrative records and secondary sources on background factors and state-level trends. The case studies were supplemented by site visits to Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Newark, and San Diego. Observations: The nature of immunization “infrastructure” supported by the Section 317 program is shifting from primarily service delivery to a broader set of roles that puts the public effort at the head of a broad immunization partnership among public health, health financing, and other entities in both the public and private sectors. The rate and intensity of transition vary across the case-study areas. In the emerging pattern, service delivery increasingly takes place in the private sector and is related to managed care. “Infrastructure” is moving beyond supporting a core state staff and local health department service delivery to include such activities as immunization registries, quality improvement, and coordination with programs outside public health agencies. At the same time, the recent decline in federal Section 317 support is forcing difficult choices between old and new activities at the state and local levels. Conclusions: Immunization programs function as an organic component of the local health care financing and delivery systems of which they are a part. Immunization efforts are organized and conducted within distinctive state and local fiscal, economic, and health care contexts. Section 317 Financial Assistance grants, while playing a vital role in supporting immunization “infrastructure,” have been too unstable and unpredictable to elicit the strategic planning, programming, and own-source spending that would be optimal for state and local programs. The predominant immunization function of state and local public health agencies is becoming assurance of age-appropriate immunization throughout the lifespan. To be successful in this emerging role, the health agencies must be supported with appropriate staffing, interagency collaboration, and clearly articulated authority.