The studies will be published in a long article in the September 28 issue of American Journal of Preventive Medicine. We recommend the article if you have not read the IOM report, as it contains many of the same findings, recommendations and conclusions. Alabama, California, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas and Washington and Los Angeles and San Diego Counties were chosen for several reasons. All range widely in population, in non-federal immunization funding and in overall public health structure. Taken together, the composite shows a general picture of how federal immunization funds are used by states across the country.
States vary tremendously in expenditures of state funds for immunizations.
Only four states have direct state funding for more than 40 percent of their immunization program infrastructure. Twenty-one states provide no direct state infrastructure funding. He shared that when he'd approached his colleagues with a bar graph showing his or her state's decreasing immunization funding over the decade, it was an eye-opener for them. Dr. Bernard Guyer, co-author of the IOM report and professor and chair at the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, followed Senator Durbin, reporting that the report's findings led the committee to conclude that funding has been unstable in the last 10 years and that both states and the federal government must spend more on immunization infrastructure. Sheila Burke, another member of IOM s Committee on Immunization Finances and Practices, spoke next.