Vaccination Coverage by Age 24 Months Among Children Born in 2015 and 2016

National Immunization Survey-Child, United States, 2016-2018

Holly A. Hill, MD, PhD; James A. Singleton, PhD; David Yankey, PhD; Laurie D. Elam-Evans, PhD; S. Cassandra Pingali, MPH, MS; Yoonjae Kang, MPH

Disclosures

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2019;68(41):913-918. 

In This Article

Discussion

Vaccination coverage by the second birthday among children born during 2015–2016 remained high, with small increases in coverage with hepatitis A and B and influenza vaccines; only 1.3% of children received no vaccinations. However, several opportunities for improvement were apparent. Coverage was lower for children without private health insurance, especially those with no insurance, as well as those living below the poverty level and in more rural areas. Vaccination coverage also varied by state, with 20 states having MMR coverage <90%. Coverage with ≥2 doses of influenza vaccine was the lowest among all recommended childhood vaccines.

The importance of achieving and sustaining high vaccination coverage across all communities is illustrated by the 22 measles outbreaks occurring in the United States in 2019, with 1,249 measles cases identified during January 1–October 1, 2019.[3] Most cases have been among persons who were not vaccinated against measles. Pockets of low vaccination coverage, because of lack of access to vaccination services or to hesitancy resulting from the spread of inaccurate information about vaccines, increase the likelihood of a measles outbreak. Strategies are needed to increase access to vaccination services, identify communities at risk, and implement initiatives to counter inaccurate vaccine information.[4]

Lower vaccination coverage among children who are uninsured, insured by Medicaid or other nonprivate insurance, living below the poverty level, and living in rural areas suggests challenges with access to affordable vaccinations or optimal vaccination services. Uninsured children are eligible for vaccine at no cost through the Vaccines for Children¶¶ program, but efforts to promote the program might not be reaching this population and therefore might need to be modified. Targeted programs to address logistical issues such as expanded office hours and transportation to vaccination appointments could facilitate access to vaccination services, regardless of the child's type of insurance. Providers need to use every patient encounter to screen for and offer vaccinations. An analysis of NIS-Child data for children born during 2005–2015 found that disparities in coverage with ≥4 doses of diphtheria, tetanus toxoids, and acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP) for those with Medicaid compared with those with private health insurance could have been reduced by 42% had opportunities for receipt of the fourth DTaP dose not been missed during visits when other vaccinations were received.[5]

The transition to reporting by birth year rather than by survey year more directly assesses recent changes in vaccination coverage and provides more interpretable estimates and more accurate comparisons to evaluate immunization information systems.[2,6,7] With a standard age at assessment (e.g., 24 months), estimates by birth year might be slightly lower for some vaccines than were estimates by survey year, which on average, assessed vaccination by age 27.5 months. Trends in vaccination coverage by birth year and survey year are similar.[8] Other changes include addition of assessment of ≥2 HepA doses by age 35 months to better reflect current ACIP recommendations and the addition of vaccination with 2 doses of influenza vaccine by age 24 months.***

The findings in this report are subject to at least two limitations. First, as with previous NIS-Child estimates by survey year, vaccination coverage estimates by birth year might be biased because of an incomplete sample frame, nonresponse, and underascertainment of vaccination.[6] No evidence for change in survey accuracy from 2017 to 2018 was detected. Second, starting in 2018, the NIS-Child sample was drawn only from cellular telephone numbers. Vaccination coverage trends should thus be viewed with caution, although the effect of dropping the landline sample is likely small.

Improvements in childhood vaccination coverage will require that parents and other caregivers have access to vaccination providers and believe in the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. Increased opportunity for vaccination can be facilitated through expanded access to health insurance, greater promotion of available vaccines through the Vaccines for Children program, and solutions to logistical challenges such as transportation, child care, and time off from work. Providers can improve vaccination coverage overall and reduce disparities by administering all recommended vaccines during office visits. Compelling and accessible educational materials, combined with effective techniques for providers to use when discussing vaccination, can be used to counter inaccurate claims and communicate the value of vaccines in protecting the health of children.[9] In addition, actionable data at a local level are needed so that interventions can be targeted to areas at risk for outbreaks of measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases. More immunization information systems will contribute to this effort because they streamline their data collection processes and improve data quality†††.[10] Given low survey response rates, CDC is working to better assess accuracy of NIS-Child vaccination coverage estimates, evaluate new survey approaches (e.g., switching to an address-based sample frame), and integrate data from immunization information systems and, potentially, other data sources.[7]

¶¶ https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/index.html.
*** This measure of influenza vaccination differs from other estimates from NIS-Flu (see https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/coverage-1718estimates-children.htm): it is based on provider-reported vaccinations instead of relying on parental report; and it reflects vaccinations that might have been received over two influenza seasons, while NIS-Flu estimates are for one season. Receipt of two influenza vaccinations by age 24 months is also a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set measure (https://www.ncqa.org/hedis/measures/childhood-immunization-status/); this measure can be used to identify commercial and Medicaid health plans within states with lower vaccination coverage.
††† General information about immunization information systems is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/iis/about.html. Guidance on using immunization information systems to identify geographic areas of populations at risk for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases is available at https://repository.immregistries.org/files/resources/5bae51a16a09c/identifying_immunization_pockets_of_need-_final2.pdf.

Comments

3090D553-9492-4563-8681-AD288FA52ACE

processing....