Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-9knnw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-21T20:52:02.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Federal Policy For Pneumococcal Immunization and Its Implementation in the Medicare Program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Michael A. Riddiough
Michael A. Riddiough*
Affiliation:
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, Washington, D.C
*
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, 1155 Fifteenth St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Congress has authorized the Medicare program to pay for the cost of pneumococcal vaccine and its administration. The history of this legislation demonstrates that chance and political considerations quite separate from the scientific issues on vaccination played an important role in the development of this policy. It demonstrates both the need for and the difficulty of achieving more effective coordination of the activities related to national policies on vaccines and immunization.

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , August 1982 , pp. 309 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Office of Technology Assessment, US Congress. A review of selected federal vaccine and immunization policies. US Government Printing Office, 1979.Google Scholar
2. Willems, JS, Sanders, CR, Riddiough, MA, et al: Cost effectiveness of vaccination against pneumococcal pneumonia. N Engl J Med 303:553–559, 1980.Google Scholar
3. Recommendation of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP). Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine. Morb Mort Weekly Rep 30:410–419, 1981.Google Scholar