Understanding Factors Influencing Decision Making by State Health Officials in a Public Health Emergency.

State and territorial health officials (STHOs) play a critical role in leading public health emergency response in their respective states. Through an exploratory qualitative study with 21 current or former STHOs, we sought to understand the issues that impact STHO decision making in public health responses. Initial findings suggest the need for structured decision making tools for use by leaders responding to public health emergencies, including COVID-19. Such tools could lead to more systematic responses by STHOs during public health crises.

The Exodus Of State And Local Public Health Employees: Separations Started Before And Continued Throughout COVID-19.

Understanding the size and composition of the state and local governmental public health workforce in the United States is critical for promoting and protecting the health of the public. Using pandemic-era data from the Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey fielded in 2017 and 2021, this study compared intent to leave or retire in 2017 with actual separations through 2021 among state and local public health agency staff. We also examined how employee age, region, and intent to leave correlated with separations and considered the effect on the workforce if trends were to continue. In our analytic sample, nearly half of all employees in state and local public health agencies left between 2017 and 2021, a proportion that rose to three-quarters for those ages thirty-five and younger or with shorter tenures. If separation trends continue, by 2025 this would represent more than 100,000 staff leaving their organizations, or as much as half of the governmental public health workforce in total. Given the likelihood of increasing outbreaks and future global pandemics, strategies to improve recruitment and retention must be prioritized.

Connecting the Dots: Public Health, Clinical, and Community Connections to Improve Contraception Access

The Association of State and Territorial Health Officials Increasing Access to Contraception Learning Community project, conducted in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of Reproductive Health, implemented a series of learning communities with 27 multidisciplinary teams (from 26 states and one territory) between 2014 and 2018 to improve access to the full range of contraceptive methods. The Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, the National Association for County and City Health Officials, and the National Association of Community Health Workers will partner to build the community health workforce through collaboration with community-based organizations.8 In this next phase of "life with COVID," the expanded community workforce has an opportunity to pivot to addressing other public health priorities such as contraception access with trusted frontline workers in communities serving as a link between health and social services. During the COVID-19 pandemic, public health, clinical, and community organizations have been leading data collection activities to better understand the digital literacy and telehealth experiences of patients and providers and have been working closely with providers to expand services and the capacity of communities to deliver them.9 Examples include public health efforts to accomplish digital inclusion and telehealth equity assessments, the creation of "heat maps" identifying barriers and access points for unavailable specialty services,10 and training and employment of community members in places such as libraries as digital navigators to support telehealth services.11 Early in 2020, the Office of Population Affairs of the US Department of Health and Human Services authorized telehealth as an option for Title X family planning clinics across the country and announced $35 million in grants for the Title X program to support telehealth as a means of sustaining access to contraceptive health services.12 Including contraception access within such endeavors can enhance access to services, support clinical reach, and build capacity within communities.

Implementation of a Nationwide Knowledge-Based COVID-19 Contact Tracing Training Program, 2020.

In the United States, the public health response to control COVID-19 required rapid expansion of the contact tracing workforce from approximately 2200 personnel prepandemic to more than 100 000 during the pandemic. We describe the development and implementation of a free nationwide training course for COVID-19 contact tracers that launched April 28, 2020, and summarize participant characteristics and evaluation findings through December 31, 2020. Uptake of the online asynchronous training was substantial: 90 643 registrants completed the course during the first 8 months. In an analysis of a subset of course participants (n = 13 697), 7724 (56.4%) reported having no prepandemic public health experience and 7178 (52.4%) reported currently serving as case investigators, contact tracers, or both. Most participants who completed a course evaluation reported satisfaction with course utility (94.8%; 59 497 of 62 753) and improved understanding of contact tracing practice (93.0%; 66 107 of 71 048). These findings suggest that the course successfully reached the intended audience of new public health practitioners. Lessons learned from this implementation indicate that an introductory course level is appropriate for a national knowledge-based training that aims to complement jurisdiction-specific training. In addition, offering a range of implementation options can promote course uptake among public health agency staff. This course supported the emerging needs of the public health practice community by training a workforce to fill an important gap during the COVID-19 pandemic and could serve as a feasible model for enhancing workforce knowledge for future and ongoing public health threats.

Harassment of Health Officials: A Significant Threat to the Public's Health

Local and state public health officials, who before the pandemic mainly worked behind the scenes to protect the public's health, were quickly thrust into the spotlight alongside their governors, mayors, and county commissioners to explain public health mitigation efforts such as business and school closures, mandatory mask orders, and social distancing recommendations. Before COVID-19, state and territorial health officials faced opposition from members of the public for supporting efforts to ban youth vaping and the sale of flavored e-cigarettes, for failing to support (and in some states for supporting) the use of cannabis for medical or recreational use, for enforcing vaccination requirements for school entry, or for supporting taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages. A VIEW FROM THE FIELD As the executive director of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO), I have seen firsthand the stress, strain, and cognitive dissonance that results from the denigration and defamation of our public health leaders. By November 2021, almost every state legislature has seen the introduction of a bill to weaken or remove the emergency powers of governors and/or local or state health officials.11 Successful efforts to reduce the power of public health authorities are a Pyrrhic victory: knee-jerk reactions that incite one's political base but with potentially deadly consequences for all of us when health officials' hands are tied in new outbreaks.

Containing COVID-19 Through Contact Tracing : A Local Health Agency Approach.

Containing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) through case investigation and contact tracing is a crucial strategy for governmental public health agencies to control the spread of COVID-19 infection in the United States. Because of the recency of the pandemic, few examples of COVID-19 contact-tracing models have been shared among local, state, and federal public health officials to date. This case study of the Anne Arundel County Department of Health (Maryland) illustrates one model of contact-tracing activity developed early in the outbreak. We describe the contact-tracing effort's place within the broader county health agency Incident Command System, as well as the capabilities needed, team composition, special considerations, and major lessons learned by county health officials. Other local, state, tribal, territorial, and federal health officials and policy makers can use this case study to innovate, iterate, and further refine contact-tracing efforts to prevent the spread of COVID-19 infection and support community members in isolation or quarantine.

COVID-19 Case Investigation and Contact Tracing: Early Lessons Learned and Future Opportunities.

CONTEXT: Case investigation and contact tracing are fundamental public health strategies for controlling and preventing the spread of infectious diseases. Although the principles behind these strategies are not new, the capacity and operational requirements needed to support disease investigation during the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic are unprecedented. This article analyzes the implementation of case investigation and contact tracing in controlling COVID-19 transmission during the early stages of the US pandemic response (January 20 through August 31, 2020). PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION: Governmental public health agencies mobilized to expand case investigation and contact tracing programs in the early months of the pandemic. In doing so, they encountered a range of challenges that included rapidly scaling up the workforce; developing and subsequently revising guidance and protocols specific to COVID-19 as more was learned about the virus over time; defining job functions; encouraging public acceptance of and participation in case investigation and contact tracing; and assessing the utility of these activities during both the containment and mitigation phases of outbreak response. COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing programs presented an array of opportunities for health departments to innovate, especially around technology to support public health efforts, as well as opportunities to address health equity and advance community resilience. CONCLUSION: Lessons learned from disease intervention specialists, guidance and resources from federal agencies and national partners, and peer-to-peer exchange of promising practices can support jurisdictions encountering early implementation challenges. Further research is needed to assess COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing program models and innovations, as well as strategies for implementing these activities during containment and mitigation phases.

Variation Among Public Health Interventions in Initial Efforts to Prevent and Control the Spread of COVID-19 in the 50 States, 29 Big Cities, and the District of Columbia.

US states and big cities acted to protect the residents of their jurisdictions from the threat of SARS-CoV-2 infection and reduce COVID-19 transmission. As there were no known pharmacologic interventions to prevent COVID-19 at the outset of the pandemic, public health and elected leaders implemented a host of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to slow the spread of the virus. This article discusses variation among states and cities in their implementation of 3 NPIs: stay-at-home/shelter-in-place orders, gathering restrictions, and mask mandates. We illustrate how frequently each was used by states and big cities, discuss state and local authorities to implement such interventions, and consider how these NPIs and accompanying public adherence to public health orders may vary considerably in different regions of the country and by local and state laws specific to state preemption of public health authority.