PH WINS 2021 Methodology Report.

CONTEXT: The Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey (PH WINS) was fielded in 2014 and 2017 and is the largest survey of the governmental public health workforce. It captures individual employees' perspectives on key issues such as workplace engagement and satisfaction, intention to leave, training needs, ability to address public health issues, as well as collects demographic information. This article describes the methods used for the 2021 PH WINS fielding. PH WINS: PH WINS 2021 was fielded to a nationally representative sample of staff in State Health Agency-Central Offices (SHA-COs) and local health departments (LHDs) from September 13, 2021, to January 14, 2022. The instrument was revised to assess the pandemic's potential toll on the workforce, including deployment to COVID-19 response roles and well-being, and the country's renewed focus on health equity and "Racism as a Public Health Crisis." PH WINS 2021 had 3 sampling frames: SHAs, Big Cities Health Coalition (BCHC) members, and LHDs. All participating agencies were surveyed using a census approach. PARTICIPATION: Overall, staff lists for 47 SHAs, 29 BCHC members, and 259 LHDs were collected, and the survey was sent to 137 446 individuals. PH WINS received a total of 44 732 responses, 35% of eligible respondents. The nationally representative SHA-CO frame includes a total of 14 957 individuals, and the nationally representative LHD frame includes 26 933 individuals from 439 LHDs (decentralized and nondecentralized). CONSIDERATIONS FOR ANALYSIS: PH WINS now offers a multiyear, nationally representative sample of both SHA-CO and LHD staff. Both practice and academia can use PH WINS to better understand the strengths, needs, and opportunities of the workforce. When using PH WINS for additional data analysis, there are a number of considerations both within the 2021 data set and when conducting multiyear and multiple cross-sectional analyses.

Turnover, COVID-19, and Reasons for Leaving and Staying Within Governmental Public Health.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Public health workforce recruitment and retention continue to challenge public health agencies. This study aims to describe the trends in intention to leave and retire and analyze factors associated with intentions to leave and intentions to stay. DESIGN: Using national-level data from the 2017 and 2021 Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Surveys, bivariate analyses of intent to leave were conducted using a Rao-Scott adjusted chi-square and multivariate analysis using logistic regression models. RESULTS: In 2021, 20% of employees planned to retire and 30% were considering leaving. In contrast, 23% of employees planned to retire and 28% considered leaving in 2017. The factors associated with intentions to leave included job dissatisfaction, with adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 3.8 (95% CI, 3.52-4.22) for individuals who were very dissatisfied or dissatisfied. Odds of intending to leave were significantly high for employees with pay dissatisfaction (AOR = 1.83; 95% CI, 1.59-2.11), those younger than 36 years (AOR = 1.58; 95% CI, 1.44-1.73) or 65+ years of age (AOR = 2.80; 95% CI, 2.36-3.33), those with a graduate degree (AOR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.26), those hired for COVID-19 response (AOR = 1.74; 95% CI, 1.49-2.03), and for the BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color) (vs White) staff (AOR = 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.15). The leading reasons for employees' intention to stay included benefits such as retirement, job stability, flexibility (eg, flex hours/telework), and satisfaction with one's supervisor. CONCLUSIONS: Given the cost of employee recruitment, training, and retention of competent employees, government public health agencies need to address factors such as job satisfaction, job skill development, and other predictors of employee retention and turnover. IMPLICATIONS: Public health agencies may consider activities for improving retention by prioritizing improvements in the work environment, job and pay satisfaction, and understanding the needs of subgroups of employees such as those in younger and older age groups, those with cultural differences, and those with skills that are highly sought-after by other industries.

A Systematic Review on Professional Regulation and Credentialing of Public Health Workforce.

The public health workforce (PHW) counts a great variety of professionals, and how services are delivered differs in every country. The complexity and the diversity of PHW professions also reflect structural problems of supply and demand of PHW in various organizations and health care systems. Therefore, credentialing, regulation, and formal recognition are essential for a competent and responsive PHW to address public health challenges. To ensure comparability of the credentialing and regulation systems for the PHW and to enable its collective action at the macro level in the event of a health crisis, we systematically analyzed documented evidence on the PHW. A systematic review was selected to answer the research questions: (1) what are the most effective aspects and characteristics in identified programs (standards or activities) in professional credentialing and regulation of the PHW and (2) what are common evidence-based aspects and characteristics for the performance standards to support a qualified and competent PHW? The identification of professional credentialing systems and available practices of the PHW was performed systematically using a systematic review of international resources in the specialized literature published in English. The PRISMA framework was used to verify the reporting of combined findings from three databases: Google Scholar (GS), PubMed (PM), and Web of Science (WoS). The original search covered the period from 2000 until 2022. Out of 4839 citations based on the initial search, 71 publications were included in our review. Most of the studies were conducted in the US, UK, New Zealand, Canada, and Australia; one study was conducted in an international context for professional credentialing and regulation of the PHW. The review presents specific professional regulation and credentialing approaches without favoring one of the proposed methods. Our review was limited to articles focused on professional credentialing and regulation of the PHW in the specialized literature published in English and did not include a review of primary PHW development sources from international organizations. The process and requirements are unique processes displaying knowledge, competencies, and expertise, regardless of the field of practice. Continuous education, self-regulatory, and evidence-based approach can be seen as common characteristics for the performance standards on both community and national levels. Certification and regulation standards should be based on competencies that are currently used in practice. Therefore, answering questions about what criteria would be used, what is the process operation, what educational background the candidate should have, re-examination, and training are essential for a competent and responsive PHW and could stimulate the motivation of the PHW.

The State of the US Public Health Workforce: Ongoing Challenges and Future Directions.

Between the 2009 Great Recession and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the US state and local governmental public health workforce lost 40,000 jobs. Tens of thousands of workers also left during the pandemic and continue to leave. As governmental health departments are now receiving multimillion-dollar, temporary federal investments to replenish their workforce, this review synthesizes the evidence regarding major challenges that preceded the pandemic and remain now. These include the lack of the field's ability to readily enumerate and define the governmental public health workforce as well as challenges with the recruitment and retention of public health workers. This review finds that many workforce-related challenges identified more than 20 years ago persist in the field today. Thus, it is critical that we look back to be able to then move forward to successfully rebuild the workforce and assure adequate capacity to protect the public's health and respond to public health emergencies.

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.

A Uniform Chart of Accounts: Strengthening Public Health Practice and Research Through Standardized Financial Data.

CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic made the long-standing need for a national uniform financial reporting standard for governmental public health agencies clear, as little information was available to quantify state and local public health agencies' financial needs during the pandemic response. Such a uniform system would also inform resource allocation to underresourced communities and for specific services, while filling other gaps in practice, research, and policy making. This article describes lessons learned and recommendations for ensuring broad adoption of a national Uniform Chart of Accounts (UCOA) for public health departments. PROGRAM: Leveraging previous efforts, the UCOA for public health systems was developed through collaboration with public health leaders. The UCOA allows state and local public health agencies to report spending on activities and funding sources, along with practice-defined program areas and capabilities. IMPLEMENTATION: To date, 78 jurisdictions have utilized the UCOA to crosswalk financial information at the program level, enabling comparisons with peers. EVALUATION: Jurisdictions participating in the UCOA report perceptions of substantial up-front time investment to crosswalk their charts of accounts to the UCOA standard but derive a sense of valuable potential for benchmarking against peers, ability to engage in resource allocation, use of data for accountability, and general net positive value of engagement with the UCOA. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE: The UCOA is considered a need among practice partners. Implementing the UCOA at scale will require government involvement, a reporting requirement and/or incentives, technical assistance, financial support for agencies to participate, and a means of visualizing the data.

COVID-19 Revealed Shortcomings Of The US Public Health System And The Need To Strengthen Funding And Accountability.

The US governmental public health system, which includes federal, state, and local agencies, is seen by many observers as having a money problem, stemming from a lack of resources. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this lack of resources has had unfortunate consequences for the communities that public health practice leaders are expected to protect. Yet the money problem is complex and involves understanding the nature of chronic public health underinvestment, identifying what money is spent in public health and what the country gets for it, and determining how much money is needed to do the work of public health in the future. This Commentary elucidates each of these issues and provides recommendations for making public health services more financially sustainable and accountable. Well-functioning public health systems require adequate funding, but a modernized public health financial data system is also key to the systems' success. There is a great need for standardization and accountability in public health finance, along with incentives and the generation of research evidence demonstrating the value of and most effective delivery for a baseline of public health services that every community should expect.

Staffing Up and Sustaining the Public Health Workforce.

OBJECTIVES: Estimate the number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) needed to fully implement Foundational Public Health Services (FPHS) at the state and local levels in the United States. METHODS: Current and full implementation cost estimation data from 168 local health departments (LHDs), as well as data from the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials and the National Association of County and City Health Officials, were utilized to estimate current and "full implementation" staffing modes to estimate the workforce gap. RESULTS: The US state and local governmental public health workforce needs at least 80 000 additional FTEs to deliver core FPHS in a post-COVID-19 landscape. LHDs require approximately 54 000 more FTEs, and states health agency central offices require approximately 26 000 more. CONCLUSIONS: Governmental public health needs tens of thousands of more FTEs, on top of replacements for those leaving or retiring, to fully implement core FPHS. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE: Transitioning a COVID-related surge in staffing to a permanent workforce requires substantial and sustained investment from federal and state governments to deliver even the bare minimum of public health services.

Voluntary Separations and COVID-19: A Snapshot of Turnover Intention in the Federal Workforce in the First Year of the Pandemic.

Voluntary separations can exact heavy tolls on organizations that affect their efficiency or effectiveness. This historical retrospective investigates how the COVID-19 pandemic may have influenced federal employees' intention to leave for reasons other than retirement. We examined the 2020 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) with a particular focus on agencies likely heavily impacted by the pandemic, including the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We used inferential statistics and a logistic model to identify correlations for intent to leave, considering changes related to the pandemic. Intentions to leave notably increased after the pandemic for most respondents, and overall intentions to leave were lower for USDA, HHS, and EPA staff than for all federal employees. Reasons included perceived unavailability of protections from COVID-19 exposure, disruptions to work by the pandemic, and increased work demands due to the pandemic.

COVID-19 Vaccination and Racial/Ethnic Inequities in Mortality at Midlife in Minnesota.

INTRODUCTION: Recent research underscores the exceptionally young age distribution of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. compared with that of international peers. This paper characterizes how high levels of COVID-19 mortality at midlife ages (45-64 years) are deeply intertwined with continuing racial inequity in COVID-19 mortality. METHODS: Mortality data from Minnesota in 2020-2022 were analyzed in June 2022. Death certificate data (COVID-19 deaths N=12,771) and published vaccination rates in Minnesota allow vaccination and mortality rates to be observed with greater age and temporal precision than national data. RESULTS: Black, Hispanic, and Asian adults aged <65 years were all more highly vaccinated than White populations of the same ages during most of Minnesota's substantial and sustained Delta surge and all the subsequent Omicron surges. However, White mortality rates were lower than those of all other groups. These disparities were extreme; at midlife ages (ages 45-64 years), during the Omicron period, more highly vaccinated populations had COVID-19 mortality that was 164% (Asian-American), 115% (Hispanic), or 208% (Black) of White COVID-19 mortality at these ages. In Black, Indigenous, and People of Color populations as a whole, COVID-19 mortality at ages 55-64 years was greater than White mortality at 10 years older. CONCLUSIONS: This discrepancy between vaccination and mortality patterning by race/ethnicity suggests that if the current period is a pandemic of the unvaccinated, it also remains a pandemic of the disadvantaged in ways that can decouple from vaccination rates. This result implies an urgent need to center health equity in the development of COVID-19 policy measures.

Public Health Workforce Gaps, Impacts, and Improvement Strategies from COVID-19.

The public health workforce has been instrumental in protecting residents against population health threats. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of the public health workforce and exposed gaps in the workforce. Public health practitioners nationwide are still coming to understand these gaps, impacts, and lessons learned from the pandemic. This study aimed to explore Minnesota's local public health practitioners' perceptions of public health workforce gaps, the impacts of these workforce gaps, and the lessons learned in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted seven concurrent focus groups with members of the Local Public Health Association of Minnesota (LPHA; n = 55) using a semi-structured focus group guide and a survey of the local agencies (n = 70/72 respondents, 97% response rate). Focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using deductive and inductive coding (in vivo coding, descriptive coding), followed by thematic analysis. The quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive analyses and were integrated with the qualitative data. Participants indicated experiencing many workforce gaps, workforce gaps impacts, and described improvement strategies. Overall, many of the workforce gaps and impacts resulting from COVID-19 discussed by practitioners in Minnesota are observed in other areas across the nation, making the findings relevant to public health workforce nationally.

Public Health Workforce Development During and Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic: Findings From a Qualitative Training Needs Assessment.

CONTEXT: The Region V Public Health Training Center (RVPHTC) serves the public health workforce in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. An important tool in priority-setting workforce development is the training needs assessment (TNA), which is vital to identifying and addressing the capacity-building needs of the public health workforce. PROGRAM: In 2021, we conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with key partners in the local, state, and tribal health workforce. IMPLEMENTATION: Findings reflect the results of 23 interviews administered from March to May 2021. Questions solicited in-depth input related to key training gaps identified in our 2020 quantitative TNA; the impact of COVID-19 on the public health workforce; general needs, including preferred training modalities; needs by audience type; and the current capacity for public health agencies to support student development. EVALUATION: Key training needs of the public health workforce identified by the 2021 TNA include the strategic skills domains of (1) resource management; (2) change management; (3) justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion; and (4) effective communication. The first 3 domains were also noted as having the greatest training need in our 2020 quantitative TNA of local health department leadership. DISCUSSION: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for training in effective communication in new ways and the continued need for training support in the skill domains prioritized in the 2020 assessment. Findings demonstrate the need for capacity building around crosscutting skills and the intersection of strategic skill domains if the field is to be prepared for future threats to public health.

Workplace Perceptions and Experiences Related to COVID-19 Response Efforts Among Public Health Workers - Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey, United States, September 2021-January 2022.

The COVID-19 pandemic has strained many essential frontline professionals, including public health workers*; however, few studies have evaluated the specific challenges facing public health workers during this period. Data from the 2021 Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey (PH WINS), a nationally representative survey of individual state and local governmental public health agency workers, provide insight into public health workers' demographic characteristics and experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, tenure, and intention to leave their organization† (1). Surveyed governmental public health workers identified predominantly as non-Hispanic White (White), women, and aged >40 years; however, workforce characteristics differed by agency type. Overall, 72% of respondents reported working fully or partially in a COVID-19 response role at any point during March 2020-January 2022. An estimated 44% of workers reported that they were considering leaving their jobs within the next 5 years for retirement or other reasons. Of those considering leaving, 76% began thinking about leaving since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. When asked what was needed, besides funding, to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, 51% selected additional staff capacity. Survey findings highlight the importance of focused attention on recruitment and retention that promotes diversity (2) and workers with public health experience, which will be critical as the workforce rebuilds as the COVID-19 pandemic evolves.

Educated Citizenry or Workforce Pipeline Development? Questions for the Future of Undergraduate Public Health in the United States

Priortothe COVID-19 pandemic (academic year 2019-2020), master's degrees in public health saw the first sustained year-to-year drop in applications since data have been recorded, whereas conferrals of UGPHDs continued to grow, although the pace of acceleration slowed substantially.5 However, COVID-19-related interest in public health and a temperamental economy yielded an all-time high pool of graduate public health applicants beginning in March 2020, providing a reprieve from the expected stagnation of graduate applications.3,5-7 Although demographic changes and economic pressures are still expected to reduce the number of high school graduates, undergraduates, and thus master's degree students in the medium term,7 the immediate future of academic public health in the aftermath of the pandemic faces much uncertainty.8,9 Conferrals of UGPHDs now eclipse those for master's degrees, but only a small percentage of the governmental public health workforce-even among new entrants-has a bachelor's or master's degree in public health.10 Data from the Associations of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH) show that a relatively small percentage of those with either undergraduate or graduate degrees in public health end up in governmental public health practice.11 ASPPH data on undergraduates show that first jobs out of school were in for-profit organizations (38%), health care (27%), academic institutions (10%), government (10%), and all others (15%). Reports from the Institute of Medicine and ASPPH have long laid out a vision wherein master's-trained students represent the future leadership of the governmental public health workforce.2,4 However, data indicate that most public health graduates at any degree level do not go into governmental public health, and particularly at the undergraduate level. [...]the identity of the undergraduate degree becomes paramount, especially as vision documents for the field and accreditation requirements for the degree are aimed at preparing students for the governmental public health workforce. A final point in the consideration of value is that motivations matter to job satisfaction, perhaps as much as compensation.6 As such, assessments of value to any degree should consider both the monetary and nonmonetary benefits ofthe degree and potential employment outcomes. 6.What is a reasonable upper bound on the expected number of undergraduate degrees in public health each year? Among profession-focused degrees, in 2020, ratios for bachelor's versus master's degrees were 5 to 1 for nursing, 2.8 to 1 for computer science, and 1.4 to 1 for business degrees;however, for humanities-based degrees a distinctly different picture emerges, with ratios of 22 to 1 for sociology and 23 to 1 for political science degrees.7 Although it seems functionally impossible to have 20 UGPHDs awarded for every one master's degree in public health, it may be plausible to see a ratio of 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1, contingent on employment outcomes and loan repayment options.3,12 CONCLUSIONS Undergraduate public health education is clearly here to stay, and needs to be a core part of academic public health's plans for the future.

A First Look: Disparities in COVID-19 Mortality Among US-Born and Foreign-Born Minnesota Residents.

This research brief provides one of the first examinations of the impact of COVID-19 mortality on immigrant communities in the United States. In the absence of national data, we examine COVID-19 deaths in Minnesota, historically one of the major U.S. refugee destinations, using individual-level death certificates obtained from the Minnesota Department of Health Office of Vital Records. Minnesota's foreign-born crude COVID-19 death rates were similar to rates for the US-born, but COVID-19 death rates adjusted for age and gender were twice as high among the foreign-born. Among foreign-born Latinos, in particular, COVID-19 mortality was concentrated in relatively younger, prime working age men. Moreover, the place-based and temporal patterns of COVID-19 mortality were quite distinct, with the majority of US-born mortality concentrated in long-term care facilities and late in 2020, and foreign-born mortality occurring outside of residential institutions and earlier in the pandemic. The disparate impacts of COVID-19 for foreign-born Minnesotans demonstrate the need for targeted public health planning and intervention in immigrant communities. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11113-021-09668-1.

Past local government health spending was not correlated with COVID-19 control in US counties.

CONTEXT: Wide variation in state and county health spending prior to 2020 enables tests of whether historically better state and locally funded counties achieved faster control over COVID-19 in the first 6 months of the pandemic in the Unites States prior to federal supplemental funding. OBJECTIVE: We used time-to-event and generalized linear models to examine the association between pre-pandemic state-level public health spending, county-level non-hospital health spending, and effective COVID-19 control at the county level. We include 2,775 counties that reported 10 or more COVID-19 cases between January 22, 2020, and July 19, 2020, in the analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Control of COVID-19 was defined by: (i) elapsed time in days between the 10th case and the day of peak incidence of a county's local epidemic, among counties that bent their case curves, and (ii) doubling time of case counts within the first 30 days of a county's local epidemic for all counties that reported 10 or more cases. RESULTS: Only 26% of eligible counties had bent their case curve in the first 6 months of the pandemic. Government health spending at the county level was not associated with better COVID-19 control in terms of either a shorter time to peak in survival analyses, or doubling time in generalized linear models. State-level public spending on hazard preparation and response was associated with a shorter time to peak among counties that were able to bend their case incidence curves. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing resource availability for public health in local jurisdictions without thoughtful attention to bolstering the foundational capabilities inside health departments is unlikely to be sufficient to prepare the country for future outbreaks or other public health emergencies.

Funding Public Health: Achievements and Challenges in Public Health Financing Since the Institute of Medicine's 2012 Report.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to review changes in public health finance since the 2012 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report "For the Public's Health: Investing in a Healthier Future." DESIGN: Qualitative study involving key informant interviews. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sample of US public health practitioners, leaders, and academics expected to be knowledgeable about the report recommendations, public health practice, and changes in public health finance since the report. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative feedback about changes to public health finance since the report. RESULTS: Thirty-two interviews were conducted between April and May 2019. The greatest momentum toward the report recommendations has occurred predominantly at the state and local levels, with recommendations requiring federal action making less progress. In addition, much of the progress identified is consensus building and preparation for change rather than clear changes. Overall, progress toward the recommendations has been slow. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the achievements reported by respondents were characterized as increased dialogue and individual state or local progress rather than widespread, identifiable policy or practice changes. Participants suggested that public health as a field needs to achieve further consensus and a uniform voice in order to advocate for changes at a federal level. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE: Slow progress in achieving 2012 IOM Finance Report recommendations and lack of a cohesive voice pose threats to the public's health, as can be seen in the context of COVID-19 emergency response activities. The pandemic and the nation's inadequate response have highlighted deficiencies in our current system and emphasize the need for coordinated and sustained core public health infrastructure funding at the federal level.

The Cost of Providing the Foundational Public Health Services in Ohio.

OBJECTIVES: To examine levels of expenditure and needed investment in public health at the local level in the state of Ohio pre-COVID-19. DESIGN: Using detailed financial reporting from fiscal year (FY) 2018 from Ohio's local health departments (LHDs), we characterize spending by Foundational Public Health Services (FPHS). We also constructed estimates of the gap in public health spending in the state using self-reported gaps in service provision and a microsimulation approach. Data were collected between January and June 2019 and analyzed between June and September 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-four of the 113 LHDs in the state of Ohio covering a population of almost 9 million Ohioans. RESULTS: In FY2018, Ohio LHDs spent an average of $37 per capita on protecting and promoting the public's health. Approximately one-third of this investment supported the Foundational Areas (communicable disease control; chronic disease and injury prevention; environmental public health; maternal, child, and family health; and access to and linkages with health care). Another third supported the Foundational Capabilities, that is, the crosscutting skills and capacities needed to support all LHD activities. The remaining third supported programs and activities that are responsive to local needs and vary from community to community. To fully meet identified LHD needs in the state pre-COVID-19, Ohio would require an additional annual investment of $20 per capita on top of the current $37 spent per capita, or approximately $240 million for the state. CONCLUSIONS: A better understanding of the cost and value of public health services can educate policy makers so that they can make informed trade-offs when balancing health care, public health, and social services investments. The current environment of COVID-19 may dramatically increase need, making understanding and growing public health investment critical.

COVID-19 Mortality At The Neighborhood Level: Racial And Ethnic Inequalities Deepened In Minnesota In 2020.

Substantial racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality have been observed at the state and national levels. However, less is known about how race and ethnicity and neighborhood-level disadvantage may intersect to contribute to both COVID-19 mortality and excess mortality during the pandemic. To assess this potential interaction of race and ethnicity with neighborhood disadvantage, we link death certificate data from Minnesota from the period 2017-20 to the Area Deprivation Index to examine hyperlocal disparities in mortality. Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) standardized COVID-19 mortality was 459 deaths per 100,000 population in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods compared with 126 per 100,000 in the most advantaged. Total mortality increased in 2020 by 14 percent for non-Hispanic White people and 41 percent for BIPOC. Statistical decompositions show that most of this growth in racial and ethnic disparity is associated with mortality gaps between White people and communities of color within the same levels of area disadvantage, rather than with the fact that White people live in more advantaged areas. Policy interventions to reduce COVID-19 mortality must consider neighborhood context.