How Well Do Religious Exemptions Apply to Mandates for COVID-19 Vaccines?

In the United States, religious exemptions to health-driven mandates enjoy, and should enjoy, protected status in medical ethics and healthcare law. Religious exemptions are defined as seriously professed exceptions to state or federal laws, which appeal to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, allowing workers to request an exception to a job requirement, including a health-protective mandate, if it "conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observances". In medical ethics, such religious exceptions are usually justified on the basis of the principle of autonomy, where personally held convictions, reflected in scripture or established religious norms, are safeguarded on the basis of the first amendment, thereby constituting an important area in which societal good must yield to individual liberty. Acknowledging the longstanding category of "religious exemptions", and referencing some examples that adhere to its parameters in good faith (e.g., objections made by some institutions to HPV vaccines), I argue that, to date, no coherent basis for religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccines has been offered through appeal to the principle of autonomy, or, in a healthcare context, to "medical freedom". Indeed, proponents of characterizing these exemptions as legitimate misconstrue autonomy and abuse the reputation of the religious traditions they invoke in defense of their endeavors to opt out. The upshot is not only an error in interpreting the principle of autonomy, whereby it is issued a "blank check", but also a dishonesty in itself whereby a contested political position becomes deliberately disguised as a protected religious value. "Sincerely held beliefs", I conclude, appear no longer to constitute the standard for religious accommodation in the era of COVID-19. Individual declaration, seemingly free of any reasonable constraint, does. This is a shift that has serious consequences for public health and, more broadly, the public good.

The influence of sociodemographic factors on COVID-19 vaccine certificate acceptance: A cross-sectional study.

Vaccine certificates have been implemented worldwide, aiming to promote vaccination rates and to reduce the spread of COVID-19. However, their use during the COVID-19 pandemic was controversial and has been criticized for infringing upon medical autonomy and individual rights. We administered a national online survey exploring social and demographic factors predicting the degree of public approval of vaccine certificates in Canada. We conducted a multivariate linear regression which revealed which factors were predictive of vaccine certificate acceptance in Canada. Self-reported minority status (p < .001), rurality (p < .001), political ideology (p < .001), age (p < .001), having children under 18 in the household (p < .001), education (p = .014), and income status (p = .034) were significant predictors of attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine certificates. We observed the lowest vaccine-certificate approval among participants who: self-identify as a visible minority; live in rural areas; are politically conservative; are 18-34 years of age; have children under age 18 living in the household; have completed an apprenticeship or trades education; and those with an annual income between $100,000-$159,999. The present findings are valuable for their ability to inform the implementation of vaccine certificates during future pandemic scenarios which may require targeted communication between public health agencies and under-vaccinated populations.

The effect of vaccine mandate announcements on vaccine uptake in Canada: An interrupted time series analysis.

INTRODUCTION: In 2021, the ten provinces in Canada enacted COVID-19 vaccine mandates that restricted access to non-essential businesses and services to those that could provide proof of full vaccination to decrease the risk of transmission and provide an incentive for vaccination. This analysis aims to examine the effects of vaccine mandate announcements on vaccine uptake over time by age group and province. METHODS: Aggregated data from the Canadian COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage Surveillance System (CCVCSS) were used to measure vaccine uptake (defined as the weekly proportion of individuals who received at least one dose) among those 12 years and older following the announcement of vaccination requirements. We performed an interrupted time series analysis using a quasi-binomial autoregressive model adjusted for the weekly number of new COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths to model the effect of mandate announcements on vaccine uptake. Additionally, counterfactuals were produced for each province and age group to estimate vaccine uptake without mandate implementation. RESULTS: The times series models demonstrated significant increases in vaccine uptake following mandate announcement in BC, AB, SK, MB, NS, and NL. No trends in the effect of mandate announcements were observed by age group. In AB and SK, counterfactual analysis showed that announcement were followed by 8 % and 7 % (310,890 and 71,711 people, respectively) increases in vaccination coverage over the following 10 weeks. In MB, NS, and NL, there was at least a 5 % (63,936, 44,054, and 29,814 people, respectively) increase in coverage. Lastly, BC announcements were followed by a 4 % (203,300 people) increase in coverage. CONCLUSION: Vaccine mandate announcements could have increased vaccine uptake. However, it is difficult to interpret this effect within the larger epidemiological context. Effectiveness of the mandates can be affected by pre-existing levels of uptake, hesitancy, timing of announcements and local COVID-19 activity.

Emotions and Incivility in Vaccine Mandate Discourse: Natural Language Processing Insights.

Background: Despite vaccine availability, vaccine hesitancy has inhibited public health officials' efforts to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Although some US elected officials have responded by issuing vaccine mandates, others have amplified vaccine hesitancy by broadcasting messages that minimize vaccine efficacy. The politically polarized nature of COVID-19 information on social media has given rise to incivility, wherein health attitudes often hinge more on political ideology than science. Objective: To the best of our knowledge, incivility has not been studied in the context of discourse regarding COVID-19 vaccines and mandates. Specifically, there is little focus on the psychological processes that elicit uncivil vaccine discourse and behaviors. Thus, we investigated 3 psychological processes theorized to predict discourse incivility-namely, anxiety, anger, and sadness. Methods: We used 2 different natural language processing approaches: (1) the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count computational tool and (2) the Google Perspective application programming interface (API) to analyze a data set of 8014 tweets containing terms related to COVID-19 vaccine mandates from September 14, 2021, to October 1, 2021. To collect the tweets, we used the Twitter API Tweet Downloader Tool (version 2). Subsequently, we filtered through a data set of 375,000 vaccine-related tweets using keywords to extract tweets explicitly focused on vaccine mandates. We relied on the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count computational tool to measure the valence of linguistic anger, sadness, and anxiety in the tweets. To measure dimensions of post incivility, we used the Google Perspective API. Results: This study resolved discrepant operationalizations of incivility by introducing incivility as a multifaceted construct and explored the distinct emotional processes underlying 5 dimensions of discourse incivility. The findings revealed that 3 types of emotions-anxiety, anger, and sadness-were uniquely associated with dimensions of incivility (eg, toxicity, severe toxicity, insult, profanity, threat, and identity attacks). Specifically, the results showed that anger was significantly positively associated with all dimensions of incivility (all P<.001), whereas sadness was significantly positively related to threat (P=.04). Conversely, anxiety was significantly negatively associated with identity attack (P=.03) and profanity (P=.02). Conclusions: The results suggest that our multidimensional approach to incivility is a promising alternative to understanding and intervening in the psychological processes underlying uncivil vaccine discourse. Understanding specific emotions that can increase or decrease incivility such as anxiety, anger, and sadness can enable researchers and public health professionals to develop effective interventions against uncivil vaccine discourse. Given the need for real-time monitoring and automated responses to the spread of health information and misinformation on the web, social media platforms can harness the Google Perspective API to offer users immediate, automated feedback when it detects that a comment is uncivil.

COVID-19 vaccine uptake and attitudes towards mandates in a nationally representative U.S. sample.

Widespread uptake of COVID-19 vaccination is vital to curtailing the pandemic, yet rates remain suboptimal in the U.S. Vaccine mandates have previously been successful, but are controversial. An April 2021 survey of a nationally representative sample (N = 1208) examined vaccine uptake, attitudes, and sociodemographic characteristics. Sixty-seven percent were vaccine acceptors, 14% wait-and-see, and 19% non-acceptors. Compared to wait-and-see and non-acceptors, acceptors were more likely to have a household member over age 65, have received a flu shot, have positive COVID-19 vaccine attitudes, and view COVID-19 vaccination as beneficial. Mandate support was higher among respondents who were vaccine acceptors, had positive views about COVID-19 vaccines, believed in COVID-19 preventive strategies, perceived COVID-19 as severe, were liberal, resided in the Northeast, were non-White, and had incomes < $75,000. Public health campaigns should target attitudes that appear to drive hesitancy and prepare for varying mandate support based on demographics, COVID-19 vaccine attitudes, and the scope of the mandate.

Inframarginal externalities: COVID-19, vaccines, and universal mandates.

COVID-19 vaccine mandates are in place or being debated across the world. Standard neoclassical economics argues that the marginal social benefit from vaccination exceeds the marginal private benefit; everyone vaccinated against a given infectious disease protects others by not transmitting the disease. Consequently, private levels of vaccination will be lower than the socially optimal levels due to free-riding, which requires mandates to overcome the problem. We argue that universal mandates based on free-riding are less compelling for COVID-19. We argue that because the virus can be transmitted even after receiving the vaccine, most of the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine are internalized: vaccinated individuals are protected from the worst effects of the disease. Therefore, any positive externality may be inframarginal or policy irrelevant. Even when all the benefits are not internalized by the individual, the externalities mainly are local, mostly affecting family and closely associated individuals, requiring local institutional (private and civil society) arrangements to boost vaccine rates, even in a global pandemic. Economists and politicians must justify such universal vaccine mandates on some basis other than free-riding.

Turbulent skies ahead? Pandemic related workforce issues in air transportation

This short topical issues paper focuses on the workforce issues facing the air transport industry in the post-pandemic landscape. We consider the extent of vaccine mandates and whether these mandates will introduce workforce issues for the global air transportation industry. Then we explore the extent of virus exposure and associated workforce disruptions due to sick calls and associated quarantine guidelines. We argue that vaccine mandates will have a limited impact on air transport in the near term but do not likely have an impact on the long-term workforce shortages expected in the industry. Conversely, employee illness will have a more significant impact in the near and long-term as variants spread and airline scheduling adjusts both tactically and operationally. As aviation rebounds after the pandemic, there have been additional challenges due to workforce shortages. These shortages affect aircrew as well as ground handlers, security agents and other airport workers. Ultimately, policymakers and airlines around the globe should carefully consider the impact of policies and the mechanisms to encourage employees to protect themselves against the COVID-19 virus and future variants, with consideration of the impacts during recovery as well as during the pandemic. © 2022 Elsevier Ltd

Exploring the ethical complexity of pediatric organ transplant candidates and COVID-19 vaccination: Tensions between autonomy and beneficence, children and parents.

BACKGROUND: POT is emotionally sensitive due to cohort vulnerability, their lack of decisional capacity, and waitlist mortality. The COVID-19 pandemic has added complexity to the setting of pediatric transplantation, as well as living donation, due to tensions about COVID-19 vaccination for recipients, donors, and parent-caregivers. METHODS: In the context of COVID-19 vaccination, two ethicists present four pediatric donation and transplant dilemmas for ethical exploration and offer guidance to clinical teams, noting that mandates are controversial, and there is no global harmonization regarding requirements. RESULTS: As with all vaccinations, they are a tool of organ stewardship aimed to optimize outcomes and, in the setting of pediatrics, ensure optimal caregiving for these vulnerable recipients. Current evidence supports the ethical permissibility of COVID-19 vaccination mandates for transplant candidates aged 6 months and older. CONCLUSION: Our guidance considers the tensions of autonomy and beneficence and the ethical duty of organ stewardship. The harms of being unvaccinated and risking the harms of COVID-19 and long-COVID post-transplant support the ethical permissibility of vaccination mandates in countries where the vaccine has pediatric regulatory approval.

School staff as vaccine advocates: Perspectives on vaccine mandates and the student registration process.

Recently, several states in the US have made it more difficult to receive nonmedical exemptions to school vaccine mandates in the hope of better orienting parents towards vaccination. However, little is known about how public-facing school staff implement and enforce mandate policies, including why or how often they steer parents towards nonmedical exemptions. This study focused on Michigan, which has recently added an additional burden for families seeking nonmedical exemptions. We used an anonymous online survey to assess Michigan public-school employees (n = 157) about their knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding Michigan's school enrollment vaccine mandate policy. Our main conclusions are that frontline school staff are generally knowledgeable about vaccines and immunization policy, but are at best ambivalent about their role in immunization governance, believing that other agents should be responsible for ensuring that children are vaccinated. Furthermore, some respondents indicated low vaccine confidence, which was associated with increased ambivalence about, or opposition to, their role in immunization governance. As more jurisdictions within and beyond the US consider introducing or tightening childhood vaccine mandates, it is increasingly important to understand how these policies can be improved by attending to the attitudes and roles of relevant frontline actors.

The ethics of COVID-19 vaccine mandates for healthcare workers: Public health and clinical perspectives.

COVID-19 vaccine uptake among healthcare workers (HCWs) remains of significant public health concern due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, many healthcare institutions are considering or have implemented COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs. We assess defenses of COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs from both public health and professional ethics perspectives. We consider public health values, professional obligations of HCWs, and the institutional failures in healthcare throughout the COVID-19 pandemic which have impacted the lived experiences of HCWs. We argue that, despite the compelling urgency of maximizing COVID-19 vaccine uptake among HCWs, the ethical case for COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs in the United States is complex, and, under current circumstances, inconclusive. Nevertheless, we recognize that COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs have already been and will continue to be implemented across many healthcare institutions. Given such context, we provide suggestions for implementing COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs.

COVID-19 vaccine coverage among college students following vaccine mandates.

OBJECTIVE: Colleges are potential hotspots for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 due to lower immunization rates and possible close contacts among young adults. Some universities have implemented policies mandating COVID-19 vaccination; however, their effects remain uncertain. We estimated COVID-19 vaccination rates with and without university-mandated vaccination policies. PARTICIPANTS: A university-wide survey was conducted among 2,011 students. METHODS: Students completed an online questionnaire on sociodemographics, COVID-19 vaccine status, and vaccine intention. RESULTS: Without university vaccine mandates, 76% of students would receive a COVID-19 vaccination, and with vaccine mandates, more than 82% of students would receive vaccination. Despite this improvement, we observed fewer changes in vaccine coverage for certain subgroups of students, indicating these policies could exacerbate ongoing disparities in COVID-19 vaccination rates. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine mandates on campuses are likely to increase vaccination rates modestly. However, interventions will likely be required to supplement vaccine mandates.

Evidence on the Effects of the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate on Nursing Home Staffing Levels.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate's effects on nursing homes' nurse aide and licensed nurse staffing levels in states both with and without state-level vaccine mandates. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Economic Innovation Group. Including nursing home facility fixed effects provides evidence on the intertemporal effects of the federal vaccine mandate within nursing homes. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The sample contains 15,031 nursing homes, representing all US nursing homes with available data. METHODS: On January 13, 2022, the US Supreme Court upheld the federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers in Medicare- and Medicaid-eligible facilities, with workers generally required to be vaccinated by March 20, 2022 (ie, the compliance date). We examined actual nursing home staffing levels in 3 time periods: (1) pre-Court decision; (2) precompliance date; and (3) postcompliance date. We separately examined staffing levels for nurse aides and licensed nursing staff. Because 28% of nursing homes were in states with state-imposed vaccine mandates that predated the Supreme Court's ruling, we divided the sample into 2 groups (nursing homes in mandate states vs nonmandate states) and performed all analyses separately. RESULTS: Staff vaccination rates and staffing levels were higher in mandate states than nonmandate states in all 3 time periods. After the Court's decision, staff vaccination rates increased 5% in nonmandate states and 1% in mandate states (on average). We find little evidence that the Court's vaccine mandate ruling materially affected nurse aide and licensed nurse staffing levels, or that nursing homes in mandate states and nonmandate states were differentially affected by the Court's ruling. Staffing levels over time were generally flat, with some evidence of a modestly greater increase for nurse aide staffing in mandate states than nonmandate states, and a modestly smaller decrease for licensed nurse staffing in mandate states than nonmandate states. Finally, regression results suggest that for both nurse aides and licensed nurses, staffing levels were lower in rural and for-profit nursing homes, and higher in Medicare-only, higher quality, and hospital-based nursing homes. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Results suggest the federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate has not caused clinically material changes in nursing home's nurse aide and licensed nurse staffing levels, which continue to be primarily associated with factors that are well-known to researchers and practitioners.

Turbulent skies ahead? Pandemic related workforce issues in air transportation

This short topical issues paper focuses on the workforce issues facing the air transport industry in the post-pandemic landscape. We consider the extent of vaccine mandates and whether these mandates will introduce workforce issues for the global air transportation industry. Then we explore the extent of virus exposure and associated workforce disruptions due to sick calls and associated quarantine guidelines. We argue that vaccine mandates will have a limited impact on air transport in the near term but do not likely have an impact on the long-term workforce shortages expected in the industry. Conversely, employee illness will have a more significant impact in the near and long-term as variants spread and airline scheduling adjusts both tactically and operationally. As aviation rebounds after the pandemic, there have been additional challenges due to workforce shortages. These shortages affect aircrew as well as ground handlers, security agents and other airport workers. Ultimately, policymakers and airlines around the globe should carefully consider the impact of policies and the mechanisms to encourage employees to protect themselves against the COVID-19 virus and future variants, with consideration of the impacts during recovery as well as during the pandemic.

"I Would Rather Take the Vaccine Than Undergo Weekly Testing": Correlates of Health Workers' Support for COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates.

This study examined the support for vaccine mandates and uptake among clinical and non-clinical staff at a tertiary hospital in northern Nigeria, focusing on variation of survey responses based on job position, socio-demographic characteristics, and perceived risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Using an explanatory, sequential, mixed-methods design and deploying a pragmatic paradigm, 370 healthcare workers were administered structured questionnaires. This was followed by in-depth interviews with a sub-sample of respondents to further clarify the responses regarding support for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine mandate. Findings demonstrated that less than one-half of respondents supported the COVID-19 mandate, and only one in three had received the recommended COVID-19 vaccine doses. Support for the vaccine mandate and vaccine uptake were predicted by profession, work experience, number of children, health status, and risk perception. Support for the vaccine mandate was ascribed to ethical and professional duty, whereas opposition was associated with respect for autonomy and human rights. This study documents the need to enhance support for vaccine mandates and uptake among healthcare workers through sustainable strategies, as Nigeria's healthcare workers are considered a source of trust and role models for the rest of society.

Vaccines, Politics and Mandates: Can We See the Forest for the Trees? Comment on "Convergence on Coercion: Functional and Political Pressures as Drivers of Global Childhood Vaccine Mandates".

Under-vaccination is a complex problem that is not simple to address whether this is for routine childhood immunization or for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. Vaccination mandates has been one policy instrument used to try to increase vaccine uptake. While the concept may appear straight forward there is no standard approach. The decision to shift to a more coercive mandated program may be influenced by both functional and/or political needs. With mandates there may be patient and/or public push back. Anti-mandate protests and increased public polarization has been seen with COVID-19 vaccine mandates. This may negatively impact on vaccine acceptance ie, be counterproductive, causing more harm than overall good in the longer term. We need a better understanding of the political and functional needs that drive policy change towards mandates as well as cases studies of the shorter- and longer-term outcomes of mandates in both routine and pandemic settings.

COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates for Healthcare Professionals in the United States.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) need to be vaccinated against COVID-19 because they care for vulnerable patients. Hesitation to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine stems from the argument of bodily autonomy, novel mRNA vaccine technology, and conspiracy theories. However, vaccinations may prevent thousands of hospitalizations and deaths. HCWs have previously complied with other required vaccinations to care for children, elderly, and immunocompromised patients. Yet, COVID-19 vaccination mandates in the healthcare setting have been faced with resistance and subsequent staffing shortages. As HCWs display their hesitation to the vaccine, the community loses trust in its efficacy and safety. Speculation on pharmaceutical profiteering has also contributed to vaccine mistrust. As the pandemic continues, the healthcare field must decide on a course of action: adhere to vaccination mandates and cope with decreased staffing, repeal vaccination mandates to recover staff, rely on personal protective equipment (PPE) alone for protection, or do nothing and expect survival through herd immunity. To date, the United States has chosen to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for any healthcare worker employed by Medicare and/or Medicaid-accepting facilities, allowing allergy and religious exemptions. This COVID-19 vaccination mandate for HCWs ethically protects the vulnerable people who HCWs vow to care for.

Ethics and Effectiveness of US COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates and Vaccination Passports: A Review.

BACKGROUND: The highest-income countries procured 50 times as many COVID-19 vaccines as low-income countries, a global health inequity that resulted in only 4.6% of the poorest 5th of the world receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. High-income countries are considering vaccine mandates and passports to contain the spread of COVID-19. This study is a curated discourse aimed at examining how vaccine mandates and passports may impact global vaccine equity from an ethics perspective. STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review adapted for a debate. METHODS: In November 2021, we conducted a review of studies examining global vaccine mandates for an upper-level global health course at Northeastern University, Boston, United States (U.S.). In total, 19 upper-level students, one research assistant, and one instructor participated in the data collection, analysis, and discussion. RESULTS: The review showed vaccine mandates are ethical and effective if autonomy-centered alternatives like soft mandates are first exhausted. Unwarranted stringent public health measures degrade public trust. In the U.S. alone, COVID-19-related deaths hovered above 300 000 before COVID-19 vaccination began in mid-December 2020. Since then, the number of COVID-19 deaths more than doubled, despite the wide availability of the vaccine. For many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) vaccines are not available or easily accessible. Global collaboration to facilitate vaccine availability in LMICs should be a priority. CONCLUSIONS: It is essential to get as many people as possible vaccinated to return to some normality. However, vaccine mandates and passports need to be used only sparingly, especially when other options have been exhausted.

Attitudes to Vaccine Mandates among Late Adopters of COVID-19 Vaccines in Zimbabwe.

Despite sufficient supply, <25% of the population in sub-Saharan Africa has received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccine mandates have previously been effective in increasing vaccine uptake. Attitudes to COVID-19 vaccine mandates and vaccines for children in African populations are not well understood. We surveyed late-adopters presenting for COVID-19 vaccination one year after program initiation in Zimbabwe. Logistic regression models were developed to evaluate factors associated with attitudes to mandates. In total, 1016 adults were enrolled; 690 (67.9%) approved of mandating vaccination for use of public spaces, 686 (67.5%) approved of employer mandates, and 796 (78.3%) approved of mandating COVID-19 vaccines for schools. Individuals of lower economic status were twice as likely as high-income individuals to approve of mandates. Further, 743 (73.1%) participants indicated that they were extremely/very likely to accept vaccines for children. Approval of vaccine mandates was strongly associated with perceptions of vaccine safety, effectiveness, and trust in regulatory processes that approved vaccines. Vaccine hesitancy is an important driver of low vaccine coverage in Africa and can be mitigated by vaccine mandates. Overall, participants favored vaccine mandates; however, attitudes to mandates were strongly associated with level of education and socioeconomic status.

Framing vaccine mandates: messenger and message effects.

In September 2021, President Biden announced that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) would require large employers to ensure workers are vaccinated against Covid-19 or tested weekly. Although widely characterized as 'Biden's vaccine mandate', the policy could be described with equal accuracy as 'OSHA's testing mandate'. Some commentators speculated that reframing the policy as a testing mandate would boost support. This study investigates how framing effects shape attitudes toward vaccination policies. Before the Supreme Court struck down the vaccinate-or-test rule, we presented 1500 US adults with different descriptions of the same requirement. Reframing 'Biden's vaccine mandate' as 'OSHA's testing mandate' significantly increased support, boosting net approval by 13 percentage points. The effect was driven by changing the 'messenger frame' (replacing 'Biden' with 'OSHA') rather than changing the 'message frame' (replacing 'vaccine mandate' with 'testing mandate'). Our results suggest that messenger framing can meaningfully affect public opinion even after a policy is widely known. Our study also reveals a potential cost of presidential administration when partisan divisions are deep. Framing a regulatory policy as an extension of the president can elicit strong-here, negative-reactions that may be avoidable if the policy is framed as the work of a bureaucratic agency.

Employer requirements and COVID-19 vaccination and attitudes among healthcare personnel in the U.S.: Findings from National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module, August - September 2021.

INTRODUCTION: Employer vaccination requirements have been used to increase vaccination uptake among healthcare personnel (HCP). In summer 2021, HCP were the group most likely to have employer requirements for COVID-19 vaccinations as healthcare facilities led the implementation of such requirements. This study examined the association between employer requirements and HCP's COVID-19 vaccination status and attitudes about the vaccine. METHODS: Participants were a national representative sample of United States (US) adults who completed the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM) during August-September 2021. Respondents were asked about COVID-19 vaccination and intent, requirements for vaccination, place of work, attitudes surrounding vaccinations, and sociodemographic variables. This analysis focused on HCP respondents. We first calculated the weighted proportion reporting COVID-19 vaccination for HCP by sociodemographic variables. Then we computed unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios for vaccination coverage and key indicators on vaccine attitudes, comparing HCP based on individual self-report of vaccination requirements. RESULTS: Of 12,875 HCP respondents, 41.5% reported COVID-19 vaccination employer requirements. Among HCP with vaccination requirements, 90.5% had been vaccinated against COVID-19, as compared to 73.3% of HCP without vaccination requirements-a pattern consistent across sociodemographic groups. Notably, the greatest differences in uptake between HCP with and without employee requirements were seen in sociodemographic subgroups with the lowest vaccination uptake, e.g., HCP aged 18-29 years, HCP with high school or less education, HCP living below poverty, and uninsured HCP. In every sociodemographic subgroup examined, vaccine uptake was more equitable among HCP with vaccination requirements than in HCP without. Finally, HCP with vaccination requirements were also more likely to express confidence in the vaccine's safety (68.3% vs. 60.1%) and importance (89.6% vs 79.6%). CONCLUSION: In a large national US sample, employer requirements were associated with higher and more equitable HCP vaccination uptake across all sociodemographic groups examined. Our findings suggest that employer requirements can contribute to improving COVID-19 vaccination coverage, similar to patterns seen for other vaccines.