Projected Health Outcomes Associated With 3 US Supreme Court Decisions in 2022 on COVID-19 Workplace Protections, Handgun-Carry Restrictions, and Abortion Rights.

Importance: Several recent US Supreme Court rulings have drawn criticism from the medical community, but their health consequences have not been quantitatively evaluated. Objective: To model health outcomes associated with 3 Supreme Court rulings in 2022 that invalidated workplace COVID-19 vaccine or mask-and-test requirements, voided state handgun-carry restrictions, and revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytical modeling study estimated outcomes associated with 3 Supreme Court rulings in 2022: (1) National Federation of Independent Business v Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which invalidated COVID-19 workplace protections; (2) New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc v Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police (Bruen), which voided state laws restricting handgun carry; and (3) Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs), which revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Data analysis was performed from July 1, 2022, to April 7, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: For the OSHA ruling, multiple data sources were used to calculate deaths attributable to COVID-19 among unvaccinated workers from January 4 to May 28, 2022, and the share of these deaths that would have been prevented by the voided protections. To model the Bruen decision, published estimates of the consequences of right-to-carry laws were applied to 2020 firearm-related deaths (and injuries) in 7 affected jurisdictions. For the Dobbs ruling, the model assessed unwanted pregnancy continuations, resulting from the change in distance to the closest abortion facility, and then excess deaths (and peripartum complications) from forcing these unwanted pregnancies to term. Results: The decision model projected that the OSHA decision was associated with 1402 additional COVID-19 deaths (and 22 830 hospitalizations) in early 2022. In addition, the model projected that 152 additional firearm-related deaths (and 377 nonfatal injuries) annually will result from the Bruen decision. Finally, the model projected that 30 440 fewer abortions will occur annually due to current abortion bans stemming from Dobbs, with 76 612 fewer abortions if states at high risk for such bans also were to ban the procedure; these bans will be associated with an estimated 6 to 15 additional pregnancy-related deaths each year, respectively, and hundreds of additional cases of peripartum morbidity. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that outcomes from 3 Supreme Court decisions in 2022 could lead to substantial harms to public health, including nearly 3000 excess deaths (and possibly many more) over a decade.

COVID-19 Risk by Workers' Occupation and Industry in the United States, 2020‒2021.

Objectives. To assess the risk of COVID-19 by occupation and industry in the United States. Methods. Using the 2020-2021 National Health Interview Survey, we estimated the risk of having had a diagnosis of COVID-19 by workers' industry and occupation, with and without adjustment for confounders. We also examined COVID-19 period prevalence by the number of workers in a household. Results. Relative to workers in other industries and occupations, those in the industry "health care and social assistance" (adjusted prevalence ratio = 1.23; 95% confidence interval = 1.11, 1.37), or in the occupations "health practitioners and technical," "health care support," or "protective services" had elevated risks of COVID-19. However, compared with nonworkers, workers in 12 of 21 industries and 11 of 23 occupations (e.g., manufacturing, food preparation, and sales) were at elevated risk. COVID-19 prevalence rose with each additional worker in a household. Conclusions. Workers in several industries and occupations with public-facing roles and adults in households with multiple workers had elevated risk of COVID-19. Public Health Implications. Stronger workplace protections, paid sick leave, and better health care access might mitigate working families' risks from this and future pandemics. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(6):647-656. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307249).

Uptake and Equity in Influenza Vaccination Among Veterans with VA Coverage, Veterans Without VA Coverage, and Non-Veterans in the USA, 2019-2020.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is a primary method of reducing the burden of influenza, yet uptake is neither optimal nor equitable. Single-tier, primary care-oriented health systems may have an advantage in the efficiency and equity of vaccination. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of Veterans' Health Administration (VA) coverage with influenza vaccine uptake and disparities. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. PARTICIPANTS: Adult respondents to the 2019-2020 National Health Interview Survey. MAIN MEASURES: We examined influenza vaccination rates, and racial/ethnic and income-based vaccination disparities, among veterans with VA coverage, veterans without VA coverage, and adult non-veterans. We performed multivariable logistic regressions adjusted for demographics and self-reported health, with interaction terms to examine differential effects by race/ethnicity and income. KEY RESULTS: Our sample included n=2,277 veterans with VA coverage, n=2,821 veterans without VA coverage, and n=46,456 non-veterans. Veterans were more often White and male; among veterans, those with VA coverage had worse health and lower incomes. Veterans with VA coverage had a higher unadjusted vaccination rate (63.0%) than veterans without VA coverage (59.1%) and non-veterans (46.5%) (p<0.05 for each comparison). In our adjusted model, non-veterans were 11.4 percentage points (95% CI -14.3, -8.5) less likely than veterans with VA coverage to be vaccinated, and veterans without VA coverage were 6.7 percentage points (95% CI -10.3, -3.0) less likely to be vaccinated than those with VA coverage. VA coverage, compared with non-veteran status, was also associated with reduced racial/ethnic and income disparities in vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: VA coverage is associated with higher and more equitable influenza vaccination rates. A single-tier health system that emphasizes primary care may improve the uptake and equity of vaccination for influenza, and possibly other pathogens, like SARS-CoV2.

Community Health, Health Care Access, And COVID-19 Booster Uptake In Massachusetts.

Booster vaccination offers vital protection against COVID-19, particularly for communities in which many people have chronic conditions. Although vaccination has been widely and freely available, people who have experienced barriers to care might be deterred from being vaccinated. We examined the relationship between COVID-19 booster uptake and small area-level demographics, chronic disease prevalence, and measures of health care access in 462 Massachusetts communities during the period September 2021-April 2022. Unadjusted analyses found that booster uptake was higher in older and wealthier areas, lower in areas with more Hispanic and Black residents, and lower in areas with a high prevalence of chronic conditions. In both unadjusted and adjusted analyses, uptake was lower in communities with more uninsured residents and those in which fewer residents received routine medical check-ups. Adjusted analyses found that areas with more vaccine providers and primary care physicians had higher booster uptake, but this association was not significant in unadjusted analyses. Results suggest a need for innovative outreach efforts, as well as structural changes such as expansion of health care coverage and universal access to care to mitigate the inequitable burden of COVID-19.

Immigrant Essential Workers Likely Avoided Medicaid And SNAP Because Of A Change To The Public Charge Rule.

During the COVID-19 pandemic in the US, essential workers have provided health care, food, and other necessities, often incurring considerable risk. At the pandemic's start, the federal government was in the process of tightening the "public charge" rule by adding nutrition and health benefits to the cash benefits that, if drawn, could subject immigrants to sanctions (for example, green card denial). Census Bureau data indicate that immigrants accounted for 13.6 percent of the population but 17.8 percent of essential workers in 2019. About 20.0 million immigrants held essential jobs, and more than one-third of these immigrants resided in US states bordering Mexico. Nationwide, 12.3 million essential workers and 18.9 million of their household members were at risk because of the new sanctions. The rule change (which was subsequently revoked) likely caused 2.1 million essential workers and household members to forgo Medicaid and 1.3 million to forgo Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program assistance on the eve of the pandemic, highlighting the potential of immigration policy changes to exacerbate health risks.

Public policy and health in the Trump era

This report by the Lancet Commission on Public Policy and Health in the Trump Era assesses the repercussions of President Donald Trump's health-related policies and examines the failures and social schisms that enabled his election. Trump exploited low and middle-income white people's anger over their deteriorating life prospects to mobilise racial animus and xenophobia and enlist their support for policies that benefit high-income people and corporations and threaten health. Although Trump's actions were singularly damaging, many of them represent an aggressive acceleration of neoliberal policies that date back 40 years. The suffering and dislocation inflicted by COVID-19 has exposed the frailty of the US social and medical order, and the interconnectedness of society. A new politics is needed, whose appeal rests on a vision of shared prosperity and a kind society. Health-care workers have much to contribute in formulating and advancing that vision, and our patients, communities, and planet have much to gain from it. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

Pricing Universal Health Care: How Much Would The Use Of Medical Care Rise?

The return of a Democratic administration to the White House, coupled with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic-induced contractions of job-based insurance, may reignite debate over public coverage expansion and its costs. Decades of research demonstrate that uninsured people and people with copays and deductibles use less care than people with first-dollar coverage. Hence, most economic analyses of Medicare for All proposals and other coverage expansions project increased utilization and associated costs. We review the utilization surges that such analyses have predicted and contrast them with the more modest utilization increments observed after past coverage expansions in the US and other affluent nations. The discrepancy between predicted and observed utilization changes suggests that analysts underestimate the role of supply-side constraints-for example, the finite number of physicians and hospital beds. Our review of the utilization effects of past coverage expansions suggests that a first-dollar universal coverage expansion would increase ambulatory visits by 7-10 percent and hospital use by 0-3 percent. Modest administrative savings could offset the costs of such increases.

Health Care Crisis Unabated: A Review of Recent Data on Health Care in the United States.

We review recently published studies of US health policy and the nation's health care system. Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, health inequalities were widening and care was inequitably distributed. Although the Affordable Care Act's coverage expansion improved access to care and timely cancer diagnoses, a large proportion of US residents continued to avoid medical care due to concerns about costs, and access to mental health services remains particularly inadequate. Yet more evidence of private insurers' profit-driven misbehaviors and of corruption among medical leaders continues to emerge. Misguided incentives and lax regulation encourages nominally nonprofit health care providers to mimic for-profits' misconduct, and rapacious investors own and control an increasing share of physicians' practices. Pharmaceutical firms wield outsize political influence and devote far more funds to rewarding investors than to research and development effort. Yet despite vigorous efforts by pharma and other commercial interests to denigrate national health insurance, polls indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to increasing support for such reform.