Emergency powers and the pandemic: Reflecting on state legislative reforms and the future of public health response.

The first 2 years of combatting the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated an unprecedented use of emergency powers. States responded with an equally unprecedented flurry of legislative changes to the legal underpinnings of emergency response and public health authorities. In this article, we provide a brief background on the framework and use of governors and state health officials' emergency powers. We then analyze several key themes, including both the enhancement and restriction of powers, emerging from emergency management and public health legislation introduced in state and territorial legislatures. During the 2020 and 2021 state and territorial legislative sessions, we tracked legislation related to the emergency powers of governors and state health officials. Legislators introduced hundreds of bills impacting these powers, some enhancing and others restricting emergency powers. Enhancements included increasing vaccine access and expanding the pool of eligible medical professions that could administer vaccinations, strengthening public health investigation and enforcement authority for state agencies, and preclusion of local orders by orders at the state level. Restrictions included establishing oversight mechanisms for executive actions, limits on the duration of the emergency, limiting the scope of emergency powers allowed during a declared emergency, and other restraints. By -describing these legislative trends, we hope to inform governors, state health officials, -policymakers, and emergency managers about how changes in the law may impact future public health and emergency response capabilities. Understanding this new legal landscape is critical to effectively preparing for future threats.

The Association Between State-Issued Mask Mandates and County COVID-19 Hospitalization Rates.

CONTEXT: Mask mandates are one form of nonpharmaceutical intervention that has been utilized to combat the spread of SARS-CoV2, the virus that causes COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the association between state-issued mask mandates and changes in county-level and hospital referral region (HRR)-level COVID-19 hospitalizations across the United States. DESIGN: Difference-in-difference and event study models were estimated to examine the association between state-issued mask mandates and COVID-19 hospitalization outcomes. PARTICIPANTS: All analyses were conducted with US county-level data. INTERVENTIONS: State-issued mask mandates. County-level data on the mandates were collected from executive orders identified on state government Web sites from April 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Daily county-level (and HRR-level) estimates of inpatient beds occupied by patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 were collected by the US Department of Health and Human Services. RESULTS: The state issuing of mask mandates was associated with an average of 3.6 fewer daily COVID-19 hospitalizations per 100 000 people (P < .05) and a 1.2-percentage-point decrease in the percentage of county beds occupied with COVID-19 patients (P < .05) within 70 days of taking effect. Event study results suggest that this association increased the longer mask mandates were in effect. In addition, the results were robust to analyses conducted at the HRR level. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that state-issued mask mandates were associated with reduction in COVID-19 hospitalizations across the United States during the earlier portion of the pandemic. As new variants of the virus cause spikes in COVID-19 cases, reimposing mask mandates in indoor and congested public areas, as part of a layered approach to community mitigation, may reduce the spread of COVID-19 and lessen the burden on our health care system.

Association of Trends in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Seroprevalence and State-Issued Nonpharmaceutical Interventions: United States, 1 August 2020 to 30 March 2021.

BACKGROUND: We assess if state-issued nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are associated with reduced rates of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection as measured through anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) seroprevalence, a proxy for cumulative prior infection that distinguishes seropositivity from vaccination. METHODS: Monthly anti-N seroprevalence during 1 August 2020 to 30 March 2021 was estimated using a nationwide blood donor serosurvey. Using multivariable logistic regression models, we measured the association of seropositivity and state-issued, county-specific NPIs for mask mandates, gathering bans, and bar closures. RESULTS: Compared with individuals living in a county with all three NPIs in place, the odds of having anti-N antibodies were 2.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0-2.3) times higher for people living in a county that did not have any of the 3 NPIs, 1.6 (95% CI: 1.5-1.7) times higher for people living in a county that only had a mask mandate and gathering ban policy, and 1.4 (95% CI: 1.3-1.5) times higher for people living in a county that had only a mask mandate. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with studies assessing NPIs relative to COVID-19 incidence and mortality, the presence of NPIs were associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence indicating lower rates of cumulative infections. Multiple NPIs are likely more effective than single NPIs.

Trends in Percentages of the US Population Covered by State-Issued COVID-19 Nonpharmaceutical Interventions, March 1, 2020-August 15, 2021.

Trends in the percentages of the US population covered by state-issued nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), including restaurant and bar restrictions, stay-at-home orders, gathering limits, and mask mandates, were examined by using county-specific data sets on state-issued orders for NPIs from March 1, 2020, to August 15, 2021. Most of the population was covered by multiple NPIs early in the pandemic. Most state-issued orders were lifted or relaxed as COVID-19 cases decreased during summer 2020. Few states reimplemented strict NPIs during later surges in US COVID-19 cases over the winter of 2020-2021. The exceptions were mask mandates, which covered about 80% of the population between August 2020 and February 2021, and the most restrictive gathering limits, which covered a maximum of 66% of the population in early 2020 and 68% of the population in winter 2020-2021. Most NPIs were lifted by the end of the analysis period.

The Differential Impact of Reopening States With and Without COVID-19 Face Mask Mandates on County-Level Consumer Spending.

OBJECTIVES: By the end of 2020, 38 states and the District of Columbia had issued requirements that people wear face masks when in public settings to counter SARS-CoV-2 transmission. To examine the role face mask mandates played in economic recovery, we analyzed the interactive effect of having a state face mask mandate in place on county-level consumer spending after state reopening, adjusting for county rates of new COVID-19 cases and deaths, time trends, and county-specific effects. METHODS: We collected county-specific data from state executive orders, consumer spending data from the Opportunity Insights Economic Tracker, and COVID-19 case and death data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 tracker. Using an event study approach, we compared county-level changes in consumer spending before and after state-issued closure orders were lifted and assessed the interactive effect of state-issued face mask mandates. RESULTS: The lifting of state-issued closures was associated with an average increase in consumer spending across all counties studied within 1 month. However, the increase was 1.2-1.7 percentage points higher in counties with a state face mask mandate in place than in counties without a state face mask mandate. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to their public health benefits, face mask mandates may have assisted economic recovery during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting they are a strong public health strategy for policy makers to consider now and for potential future pandemics arising from airborne viruses.

Social vulnerability and county stay-at-home behavior during COVID-19 stay-at-home orders, United States, April 7-April 20, 2020.

PURPOSE: Early COVID-19 mitigation relied on people staying home except for essential trips. The ability to stay home may differ by sociodemographic factors. We analyzed how factors related to social vulnerability impact a community's ability to stay home during a stay-at-home order. METHODS: Using generalized, linear mixed models stratified by stay-at-home order (mandatory or not mandatory), we analyzed county-level stay-at-home behavior (inferred from mobile devices) during a period when a majority of United States counties had stay-at-home orders (April 7-April 20, 2020) with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (CDC SVI). RESULTS: Counties with higher percentages of single-parent households, mobile homes, and persons with lower educational attainment were associated with lower stay-at-home behavior compared with counties with lower respective percentages. Counties with higher unemployment, higher percentages of limited-English-language speakers, and more multi-unit housing were associated with increases in stay-at-home behavior compared with counties with lower respective percentages. Stronger effects were found in counties with mandatory orders. CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic factors impact a community's ability to stay home during COVID-19 stay-at-home orders. Communities with higher social vulnerability may have more essential workers without work-from-home options or fewer resources to stay home for extended periods, which may increase risk for COVID-19. Results are useful for tailoring messaging, COVID-19 vaccine delivery, and public health responses to future outbreaks.

The Impact of Covid-19 State Closure Orders on Consumer Spending, Employment, and Business Revenue.

CONTEXT: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, states across the United States implemented various strategies to mitigate transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of COVID-19-related state closures on consumer spending, business revenue, and employment, while controlling for changes in COVID-19 incidence and death. DESIGN: The analysis estimated a difference-in-difference model, utilizing temporal and geographic variation in state closure orders to analyze their impact on the economy, while controlling for COVID-19 incidence and death. PARTICIPANTS: State-level data on economic outcomes from the Opportunity Insights data tracker and COVID-19 cases and death data from usafacts.org. INTERVENTIONS: The mitigation strategy analyzed within this study was COVID-19-related state closure orders. Data on these orders were obtained from state government Web sites containing executive or administrative orders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes include state-level estimates of consumer spending, business revenue, and employment levels. RESULTS: Analyses showed that although state closures led to a decrease in consumer spending, business revenue, and employment, they accounted for only a small portion of the observed decreases in these outcomes over the first wave of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of COVID-19 on economic activity likely reflects a combination of factors, in addition to state closures, such as individuals' perceptions of risk related to COVID-19 incidence, which may play significant roles in impacting economic activity.

Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Allowing On-Premises Restaurant Dining with County-Level COVID-19 Case and Death Growth Rates - United States, March 1-December 31, 2020.

CDC recommends a combination of evidence-based strategies to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1). Because the virus is transmitted predominantly by inhaling respiratory droplets from infected persons, universal mask use can help reduce transmission (1). Starting in April, 39 states and the District of Columbia (DC) issued mask mandates in 2020. Reducing person-to-person interactions by avoiding nonessential shared spaces, such as restaurants, where interactions are typically unmasked and physical distancing (≥6 ft) is difficult to maintain, can also decrease transmission (2). In March and April 2020, 49 states and DC prohibited any on-premises dining at restaurants, but by mid-June, all states and DC had lifted these restrictions. To examine the association of state-issued mask mandates and allowing on-premises restaurant dining with COVID-19 cases and deaths during March 1-December 31, 2020, county-level data on mask mandates and restaurant reopenings were compared with county-level changes in COVID-19 case and death growth rates relative to the mandate implementation and reopening dates. Mask mandates were associated with decreases in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, and 81-100 days after implementation. Allowing any on-premises dining at restaurants was associated with increases in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 41-60, 61-80, and 81-100 days after reopening, and increases in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 61-80 and 81-100 days after reopening. Implementing mask mandates was associated with reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whereas reopening restaurants for on-premises dining was associated with increased transmission. Policies that require universal mask use and restrict any on-premises restaurant dining are important components of a comprehensive strategy to reduce exposure to and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (1). Such efforts are increasingly important given the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States (3,4).

Differences in rapid increases in county-level COVID-19 incidence by implementation of statewide closures and mask mandates - United States, June 1-September 30, 2020.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Community mitigation strategies could help reduce COVID-19 incidence, but there are few studies that explore associations nationally and by urbanicity. In a national county-level analysis, we examined the probability of being identified as a county with rapidly increasing COVID-19 incidence (rapid riser identification) during the summer of 2020 by implementation of mitigation policies prior to the summer, overall and by urbanicity. METHODS: We analyzed county-level data on rapid riser identification during June 1-September 30, 2020 and statewide closures and statewide mask mandates starting March 19 (obtained from state government websites). Poisson regression models with robust standard error estimation were used to examine differences in the probability of rapid riser identification by implementation of mitigation policies (P-value< .05); associations were adjusted for county population size. RESULTS: Counties in states that closed for 0-59 days were more likely to become a rapid riser county than those that closed for >59 days, particularly in nonmetropolitan areas. The probability of becoming a rapid riser county was 43% lower among counties that had statewide mask mandates at reopening (adjusted prevalence ratio = 0.57; 95% confidence intervals = 0.51-0.63); when stratified by urbanicity, associations were more pronounced in nonmetropolitan areas. CONCLUSIONS: These results underscore the potential value of community mitigation strategies in limiting the COVID-19 spread, especially in nonmetropolitan areas.

Decline in COVID-19 Hospitalization Growth Rates Associated with Statewide Mask Mandates - 10 States, March-October 2020.

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is transmitted predominantly by respiratory droplets generated when infected persons cough, sneeze, spit, sing, talk, or breathe. CDC recommends community use of face masks to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (1). As of October 22, 2020, statewide mask mandates were in effect in 33 states and the District of Columbia (2). This study examined whether implementation of statewide mask mandates was associated with COVID-19-associated hospitalization growth rates among different age groups in 10 sites participating in the COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) in states that issued statewide mask mandates during March 1-October 17, 2020. Regression analysis demonstrated that weekly hospitalization growth rates declined by 2.9 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.3-5.5) among adults aged 40-64 years during the first 2 weeks after implementing statewide mask mandates. After mask mandates had been implemented for ≥3 weeks, hospitalization growth rates declined by 5.5 percentage points among persons aged 18-39 years (95% CI = 0.6-10.4) and those aged 40-64 years (95% CI = 0.8-10.2). Statewide mask mandates might be associated with reductions in SARS-CoV-2 transmission and might contribute to reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization growth rates, compared with growth rates during <4 weeks before implementation of the mandate and the implementation week. Mask-wearing is a component of a multipronged strategy to decrease exposure to and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and reduce strain on the health care system, with likely direct effects on COVID-19 morbidity and associated mortality.

Hurricane Evacuation Laws in Eight Southern U.S. Coastal States - December 2018.

National Preparedness month is observed every September as a public service reminder of the importance of personal and community preparedness for all events; it coincides with the peak of the hurricane season in the United States. Severe storms and hurricanes can have long-lasting effects at all community levels. Persons who are prepared and well-informed are often better able to protect themselves and others (1). Major hurricanes can devastate low-lying coastal areas and cause injury and loss of life from storm surge, flooding, and high winds (2). State and local government entities play a significant role in preparing communities for hurricanes and by evacuating coastal communities before landfall to reduce loss of life from flooding, wind, and power outages (3). Laws can further improve planning and outreach for catastrophic events by ensuring explicit statutory authority over evacuations of communities at risk (4). State evacuation laws vary widely and might not adequately address information and communication flows to reach populations living in disaster-prone areas who are at risk. To understand the range of evacuation laws in coastal communities that historically have been affected by hurricanes, a systematic policy scan of the existing laws supporting hurricane evacuation in eight southern coastal states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas) was conducted. After conducting a thematic analysis, this report found that all eight states have laws to execute evacuation orders, traffic control (egress/ingress), and evacuation to shelters. However, only four of the states have laws related to community outreach, delivery of public education programs, and public notice requirements. The findings in this report suggest a need for authorities in hurricane-prone states to review how to execute evacuation policies, particularly with respect to community outreach and communication to populations at risk. Implementation of state evacuation laws and policies that support hurricane evacuation management can help affected persons avoid harm and enhance community resiliency (5). Newly emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases, such as SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), have and will continue to additionally challenge hurricane evacuations.

Timing of State and Territorial COVID-19 Stay-at-Home Orders and Changes in Population Movement - United States, March 1-May 31, 2020.

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is thought to spread from person to person primarily by the respiratory route and mainly through close contact (1). Community mitigation strategies can lower the risk for disease transmission by limiting or preventing person-to-person interactions (2). U.S. states and territories began implementing various community mitigation policies in March 2020. One widely implemented strategy was the issuance of orders requiring persons to stay home, resulting in decreased population movement in some jurisdictions (3). Each state or territory has authority to enact its own laws and policies to protect the public's health, and jurisdictions varied widely in the type and timing of orders issued related to stay-at-home requirements. To identify the broader impact of these stay-at-home orders, using publicly accessible, anonymized location data from mobile devices, CDC and the Georgia Tech Research Institute analyzed changes in population movement relative to stay-at-home orders issued during March 1-May 31, 2020, by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories.* During this period, 42 states and territories issued mandatory stay-at-home orders. When counties subject to mandatory state- and territory-issued stay-at-home orders were stratified along rural-urban categories, movement decreased significantly relative to the preorder baseline in all strata. Mandatory stay-at-home orders can help reduce activities associated with the spread of COVID-19, including population movement and close person-to-person contact outside the household.

Timing of Community Mitigation and Changes in Reported COVID-19 and Community Mobility - Four U.S. Metropolitan Areas, February 26-April 1, 2020.

Community mitigation activities (also referred to as nonpharmaceutical interventions) are actions that persons and communities can take to slow the spread of infectious diseases. Mitigation strategies include personal protective measures (e.g., handwashing, cough etiquette, and face coverings) that persons can use at home or while in community settings; social distancing (e.g., maintaining physical distance between persons in community settings and staying at home); and environmental surface cleaning at home and in community settings, such as schools or workplaces. Actions such as social distancing are especially critical when medical countermeasures such as vaccines or therapeutics are not available. Although voluntary adoption of social distancing by the public and community organizations is possible, public policy can enhance implementation. The CDC Community Mitigation Framework (1) recommends a phased approach to implementation at the community level, as evidence of community spread of disease increases or begins to decrease and according to severity. This report presents initial data from the metropolitan areas of San Francisco, California; Seattle, Washington; New Orleans, Louisiana; and New York City, New York* to describe the relationship between timing of public policy measures, community mobility (a proxy measure for social distancing), and temporal trends in reported coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. Community mobility in all four locations declined from February 26, 2020 to April 1, 2020, decreasing with each policy issued and as case counts increased. This report suggests that public policy measures are an important tool to support social distancing and provides some very early indications that these measures might help slow the spread of COVID-19.