[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
May 1, 1996

Childhood Immunization Registries-Reply

Author Affiliations

Georgetown University Law Center Washington, DC
Harvard School of Public Health Boston, Mass

JAMA. 1996;275(17):1313. doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530410026023

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


In Reply.  —Clarification of the ideas presented in our article on IIS by Dr Orenstein and colleagues is most welcome. The CDC's National Immunization Program supported our study and contributed richly to its intellectual development. Orenstein and colleagues raise 2 central issues in the conceptualization of IIS—implementation of IIS at the state, as opposed to the national level, and the adequacy of privacy protection for children and their families.Orenstein and colleagues make a strong case for state data systems to accommodate local solutions and preferences. While state-based data systems achieve many benefits, variability in state rules can render them less effective from a public health perspective. The flow of immunization information is rarely restricted to the state in which it is generated. Families move from state to state, and the ability to track children and meet their medical needs wherever they live remains an important feature of IIS. Managed