COVID-19 ventilator rationing protocols: why we need to know more about the views of those with most to lose.

Withholding or withdrawing life-saving ventilators can become necessary when resources are insufficient. With rising cases in many countries, and likely further peaks in the coming colder seasons, ventilator triage guidance remains a central part of the COVID-19 policy response. The dominant model in ventilator triage guidelines prioritises the ethical principles of saving the most lives and saving the most life-years. We sought to ascertain to what extent this focus aligns, or conflicts, with the preferences of disadvantaged minority populations. We conducted a bibliographical search of PubMed and Google Scholar and reviewed all ventilator rationing guidelines included in major recent systematic reviews, yielding 589 studies before screening. Post screening, we found six studies comprising a total of 10 591 participants, with 1247 from disadvantaged populations. Three studies reported findings stratified by race and age, two of which stratified by income. Studies included two to seven principles; all included 'save the most lives'. Involvement of disadvantaged minority populations in eliciting preferences is very limited; few studies capture race and income. This is concerning, as despite relatively small numbers and framing effects there is an observable and plausible trend suggesting that disadvantaged groups worry that dominant principles reduce their chances of receiving a ventilator. To avoid compounding prior historical and structural disadvantage, policy makers need to engage more fully with these populations in designing and justifying ventilator rationing guidance and review their adequacy. Likewise, clinicians need to be aware that their implementation of dominant triage guidelines is viewed with higher levels of concern by minority populations.

What Should Be Roles of Federal Clinician Governors in Motivating Equity in Locally Coordinated Triage Protocols?

This commentary on a case examines racially inequitable outcomes, especially for Black patients, resulting from use of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores to triage patients during the COVID-19 pandemic and how inequitable outcomes in triage protocols could be reduced. It also considers the nature and scope of clinician governor responses to members of federally protected classes who are disadvantaged by use of the SOFA score and argues that clinician leaders of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, specifically, should provide federal guidance that motivates clear legal accountability.

Using a patient portal as a recruitment tool to diversify the pool of participants in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minorities in the United States, who are underrepresented in clinical trials. We assessed the feasibility of using the University of Pennsylvania Health System electronic health record patient portal to diversify the pool of participants in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. The patient portal was used to send invitations to eligible individuals living in zip codes with high rates of racial/ethnic minorities. The 5614 invited consisted of 96.7% black, 1.3% Hispanic/Latinx, and 1.5% white. The overall response rate was 5.4%, with lower response rates among Black (3.8%) and Hispanic/Latinx (9.6%) as compared to white individuals (91.6%). Among respondents, black individuals had lower rates of interest in participating (26.7%), as compared to white (65.8%) and Hispanic/Latinx (71.4%) individuals. Of 115 respondents who expressed interest, 9 enrolled in the clinical trial, which included 6 black, 3 white, and 1 Hispanic/Latinx. During phone outreach to nonresponders and decliners, common reasons for declining included mistrust of the COVID-19 vaccine, underlying health conditions, and logistical barriers to trial participation. Because of low rates of patient portal account activation and use, compounded with vaccine hesitancy, this method yielded a small number of interested individuals.

Associations of 4 Geographic Social Vulnerability Indices With US COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality.

Objectives. To examine and compare how 4 indices of population-level social disadvantage-the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), the COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index (CCVI), and the Minority Health-Social Vulnerability Index (MH-SVI)-are associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Methods. Spatial autoregressive models adjusted for population density, urbanicity, and state fixed effects were used to estimate associations of county-level SVI, MH-SVI, CCVI, and ADI values with COVID-19 incidence and mortality. Results. All 4 disadvantage indices had similar positive associations with COVID-19 incidence. Each index was also significantly associated with COVID-19 mortality, but the ADI had a stronger association than the CCVI, MH-SVI, and SVI. Conclusions. Despite differences in component measures and weighting, all 4 of the indices we assessed demonstrated associations between greater disadvantage and COVID-19 incidence and mortality. Public Health Implications. Our findings suggest that each of the 4 disadvantage indices can be used to assist public health leaders in targeting ongoing first-dose and booster or third-dose vaccines as well as new vaccines or other resources to regions most vulnerable to negative COVID-19 outcomes, weighing potential tradeoffs in their political and practical acceptability. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(11):1584-1588. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307018).

Public attitudes about equitable COVID-19 vaccine allocation: a randomised experiment of race-based versus novel place-based frames.

Equity was-and is-central in the US policy response to COVID-19, given its disproportionate impact on disadvantaged communities of colour. In an unprecedented turn, the majority of US states used place-based disadvantage indices to promote equity in vaccine allocation (eg, through larger vaccine shares for more disadvantaged areas and people of colour).We conducted a nationally representative survey experiment (n=2003) in April 2021 (before all US residents had become vaccine eligible), that examined respondents' perceptions of the acceptability of disadvantage indices relative to two ways of prioritising racial and ethnic groups more directly, and assessed the role of framing and expert anchors in shaping perceptions.A majority of respondents supported the use of disadvantage indices, and one-fifth opposed any of the three equity-promoting plans. Differences in support and opposition were identified by respondents' political party affiliation. Providing a numerical anchor (that indicated expert recommendations and states' actual practices in reserving a proportion of allocations for prioritised groups) led respondents to prefer a lower distribution of reserved vaccine allocations compared with the randomised condition without this anchor, and the effect of the anchor differed across the frames.Our findings support ongoing uses of disadvantage indices in vaccine allocation, and, by extension, in allocating tests, masks or treatments, especially when supply cannot meet demand. The findings can also inform US allocation frameworks in future pandemic planning, and could provide lessons on how to promote equity in clinical and public health outside of the pandemic setting.

Disadvantage Indices Deployed to Promote Equitable Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccines in the US : A Scoping Review of Differences and Similarities in Design

This scoping review identifies the construction and defined purpose of disadvantage indices deployed during the initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

Sequential organ failure assessment, ventilator rationing and evolving triage guidance: new evidence underlines the need to recognise and revise, unjust allocation frameworks.

We respond to recent comments on our proposal to improve justice in ventilator triage, in which we used as an example New Jersey's (NJ) publicly available and legally binding Directive Number 2020-03. We agree with Bernard Lo and Doug White that equity implications of triage frameworks should be continually reassessed, which is why we offered six concrete options for improvement, and called for monitoring the consequences of adopted triage models. We disagree with their assessment that we mis-characterised their Model Guidance, as included in the NJ Directive, in ways that undermine our conclusions. They suggest we erroneously described their model as a two-criterion allocation framework; that recognising other operant criterion reveals it 'likely mitigate[s] rather than exacerbate[s] racial disparities during triage', and allege that concerns about inequitable outcomes are 'without evidence'. We highlight two major studies robustly demonstrating why concerns about disparate outcomes are justified. We also show that White and Lo seek to retrospectively-and counterfactually-correct the version of the Model Guideline included in the NJ Directive. However, as our facsimile reproductions show, neither the alleged four-criteria form, nor other key changes, such as dropping the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, are found in the Directive. These points matter because (1) our conclusions hence stand, (2) because the public version of the Model Guidance had not been updated to reduce the risk of inequitable outcomes until June 2021 and (3) NJ's Directive still does not reflect these revisions, and, hence, represents a less equitable version, as acknowledged by its authors. We comment on broader policy implications and call for ways of ensuring accurate, transparent and timely updates for users of high-stakes guidelines.

Disadvantage Indices Deployed to Promote Equitable Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccines in the US: A Scoping Review of Differences and Similarities in Design.

This scoping review identifies the construction and defined purpose of disadvantage indices deployed during the initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

US adults' preferences for race-based and place-based prioritisation for COVID-19 vaccines.

Implementing equity principles in resource allocation is challenging. In one approach, some US states implemented race-based prioritisation of COVID-19 vaccines in response to vast racial inequities in COVID-19 outcomes, while others used place-based allocation. In a nationally representative survey of n=2067 US residents, fielded in mid-April 2021 (before the entire US population became eligible for vaccines), we explored the public acceptability of race-based prioritisation compared with place-based prioritisation, by offering vaccines to harder hit zip codes before residents of other zip codes. We found that in general, a majority of respondents supported the place-based approach, and a substantial proportion supported the race-based plan. Support was higher among Democrats compared with Republicans. All US residents became eligible for vaccines on 19 April 2021 but as of this writing, equitable uptake of vaccines remains urgent not only for first doses for adults but also for boosters and for children. Our findings also provide a benchmark for future pandemic planning that racial and social justice in vaccine allocation are salient considerations for the public. The findings may furthermore be of interest to policy makers designing vaccine allocation frameworks in countries with comparable health disparities across social, ethnic and racial groups, and more broadly, for those exploring ways of promoting equity in resource allocation outside of a pandemic setting.

Do Black and Indigenous Communities Receive their Fair Share of Vaccines Under the 2018 CDC Guidelines?

A major focus of debate about rationing guidelines for COVID-19 vaccines is whether and how to prioritize access for minority populations that have been particularly affected by the pandemic, and been the subject of historical and structural disadvantage, particularly Black and Indigenous individuals. We simulate the 2018 CDC Vaccine Allocation guidelines using data from the American Community Survey under different assumptions on total vaccine supply. Black and Indigenous individuals combined receive a higher share of vaccines compared to their population share for all assumptions on total vaccine supply. However, their vaccine share under the 2018 CDC guidelines is considerably lower than their share of COVID-19 deaths and age-adjusted deaths. We then simulate one method to incorporate disadvantage in vaccine allocation via a reserve system. In a reserve system, units are placed into categories and units reserved for a category give preferential treatment to individuals from that category. Using the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) as a proxy for disadvantage, we show that a 40% high-ADI reserve increases the number of vaccines allocated to Black or Indigenous individuals, with a share that approaches their COVID-19 death share when there are about 75 million units. Our findings illustrate that whether an allocation is equitable depends crucially on the benchmark and highlight the importance of considering the expected distribution of outcomes from implementing vaccine allocation guidelines.

Equitable allocation of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States.

Many vaccine rationing guidelines urge planners to recognize, and ideally reduce, inequities. In the United States, allocation frameworks are determined by each of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 64 jurisdictions (50 states, the District of Columbia, five cities and eight territories). In this study, we analyzed vaccine allocation plans published by 8 November 2020, tracking updates through to 30 March 2021. We evaluated whether jurisdictions adopted proposals to reduce inequity using disadvantage indices and related place-based measures. By 30 March 2021, 14 jurisdictions had prioritized specific zip codes in combination with metrics such as COVID-19 incidence, and 37 jurisdictions (including 34 states) had adopted disadvantage indices, compared to 19 jurisdictions in November 2020. Uptake of indices doubled from 7 to 14 among the jurisdictions with the largest shares of disadvantaged communities. Five applications were distinguished: (1) prioritizing disadvantaged groups through increased shares of vaccines or vaccination appointments; (2) defining priority groups or areas; (3) tailoring outreach and communication; (4) planning the location of dispensing sites; and (5) monitoring receipt. To ensure that equity features centrally in allocation plans, policymakers at the federal, state and local levels should universalize the uptake of disadvantage indices and related place-based measures.

Rationing, racism and justice: advancing the debate around 'colourblind' COVID-19 ventilator allocation.

Withholding or withdrawing life-saving ventilators can become necessary when resources are insufficient. In the USA, such rationing has unique social justice dimensions. Structural elements of dominant allocation frameworks simultaneously advantage white communities, and disadvantage Black communities-who already experience a disproportionate burden of COVID-19-related job losses, hospitalisations and mortality. Using the example of New Jersey's Crisis Standard of Care policy, we describe how dominant rationing guidance compounds for many Black patients prior unfair structural disadvantage, chiefly due to the way creatinine and life expectancy are typically considered.We outline six possible policy options towards a more just approach: improving diversity in decision processes, adjusting creatinine scores, replacing creatinine, dropping creatinine, finding alternative measures, adding equity weights and rejecting the dominant model altogether. We also contrast these options with making no changes, which is not a neutral default, but in separate need of justification, despite a prominent claim that it is simply based on 'objective medical knowledge'. In the regrettable absence of fair federal guidance, hospital and state-level policymakers should reflect on which of these, or further options, seem feasible and justifiable.Irrespective of which approach is taken, all guidance should be supplemented with a monitoring and reporting requirement on possible disparate impacts. The hope that we will be able to continue to avoid rationing ventilators must not stand in the way of revising guidance in a way that better promotes health equity and racial justice, both to be prepared, and given the significant expressive value of ventilator guidance.

Joining European Scientific Forces to Face Pandemics.

Despite the international guidelines on the containment of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the European scientific community was not sufficiently prepared to coordinate scientific efforts. To improve preparedness for future pandemics, we have initiated a network of nine European-funded Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Actions that can help facilitate inter-, multi-, and trans-disciplinary communication and collaboration.

Vaccine Rationing and the Urgency of Social Justice in the Covid-19 Response.

The Covid-19 pandemic needs to be considered from two perspectives simultaneously. First, there are questions about which policies are most effective and fair in the here and now, as the pandemic unfolds. These polices concern, for example, who should receive priority in being tested, how to implement contact tracing, or how to decide who should get ventilators or vaccines when not all can. Second, it is imperative to anticipate the medium- and longer-term consequences that these policies have. The case of vaccine rationing is particularly instructive. Ethical, epidemiological, and economic reasons demand that rationing approaches give priority to groups who have been structurally and historically disadvantaged, even if this means that overall life years gained may be lower.