How Governor Directives Changed Health Workforce Flexibility in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: In times of heightened population health needs, the health workforce must respond quickly and efficiently, especially at the state level. We examined state governors' executive orders related to 2 key health workforce flexibility issues, scope of practice (SOP) and licensing, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an in-depth document review of state governors' executive orders introduced in 2020 in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We conducted a thematic content analysis of the executive order language using an inductive process and then categorized executive orders by profession (advanced practice registered nurses, physician assistants, and pharmacists) and degree of flexibility granted; for licensing, we indicated yes or no for easing or waiving cross-state regulatory barriers. RESULTS: We identified executive orders in 36 states containing explicit directives addressing SOP or out-of-state licensing, with those in 20 states easing regulatory barriers pertaining to both workforce issues. Seventeen states issued executive orders expanding SOP for advanced practice nurses and physician assistants, most commonly by completely waiving physician practice agreements, while those in 9 states expanded pharmacist SOP. Executive orders in 31 states and the District of Columbia eased or waived out-of-state licensing regulatory barriers, usually for all health care professionals. CONCLUSION: Governor directives issued through executive orders played an important role in expanding health workforce flexibility in the first year of the pandemic, especially in states with restrictive practice regulations prior to COVID-19. Future research should examine what effects these temporary flexibilities may have had on patient and practice outcomes or on permanent efforts to relax practice restrictions for health care professionals.

When Adolescents Disagree with Their Vaccine-Hesitant Parents about COVID-19 Vaccination.

AbstractAs we journey into the fourth year of the COVID-19 pandemic, a majority of Americans express relief at a "return to normal," experience pandemic fatigue, or embrace the idea of living with COVID-19 in much the same way we live with the seasonal flu. But transition to a new phase of life with SARS-CoV-2 does not diminish the importance of vaccination. The US Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration recently recommended another round of booster dose for persons age 5 and up, or an initial series for those not previously vaccinated, with an updated bivalent formula that protects against both the original virus strain and Omicron subvariants that are now the dominant source of infection. By most accounts most of the population has been or will become infected with SARS-CoV-2. Suboptimal uptake of the COVID-19 vaccines among the approximately 25 million adolescents in the United States is a significant obstacle to population coverage, public health, and the health and well-being of adolescents. A major cause of low adolescent uptake is parental vaccine hesitancy. This article discusses parental vaccine hesitancy and argues that permitting independent adolescent consent to COVID-19 vaccination should be an ethical and policy priority as we continue to confront the threat of Omicron and other variants of the coronavirus. We discuss the central role of the pediatric healthcare team in caring for adolescent patients who disagree with their parents about vaccination.

How Preemption Can Lead to Inequity.

American cities and localities have historically been places of innovation and incubation when it comes to advancing equity and inclusion. Now, local governments in many states are leading the fight for stronger public health protections against COVID-19-through mask mandates, stay-at-home orders, and paid leave provisions, among other actions. However, state lawmakers have long used preemption-state laws that block, override, or limit local ordinances-to stifle local government action, often under pressure from corporate interests and political ideology. Through preemption, state lawmakers have obstructed local communities-often majority-minority communities-from responding to the expressed needs and values of their residents through policies. In this article, we first look at the context behind preemption and its disparate effects. After establishing a conceptual framework for measuring disparities, we discuss how the current COVID-19 pandemic is disproportionately harming the same communities that have been preempted from taking local action, limiting their ability to effectively combat the public health crisis. We argue that all stakeholders interested in health equity have a role to play in addressing the misuse of state preemption.

Imposing a health insurance surcharge on the unvaccinated.

COVID-19 hospitalizations among unvaccinated individuals cost billions of dollars. More employers are considering imposing a premium surcharge on employees participating in the company's health plan who are not vaccinated against COVID-19. These employers see this approach as similar to health premium surcharges for tobacco use, justifying the higher premiums on the basis that unvaccinated individuals could cause the plan to experience higher hospitalization and related costs. However, imposing a surcharge on unvaccinated employees will require employers to think through legal and policy implications and the interests of their employees and their businesses. Employers should weigh their vaccination goals against these interests and consider whether a legally compliant surcharge would further their goals. Employers should carefully consider the prevailing culture among their employees and assess whether the policy would be effective and noncoercive. Premium surcharges may be effective for some but not all employers.

Perceptions and patient care needs among hepatitis B patients during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus of 2019 (COVID-19) has been and continues to be a rapidly developing public health crisis, that has also disrupted routine and maintenance health care for people living with chronic conditions. Some of these chronic conditions also put individuals at increased risk of COVID-19 complications, particularly if the condition is not under control. For these reasons, the exploratory study reported here examined the needs and preparedness of patients at a community health organization that specifically provides hepatitis B virus (HBV) care for high-risk groups that had previously tested positive for HBV. METHODS: Current study utilized exploratory analysis of qualitative COVID-19-related statements collected during calls to a total of 44 patients reached during April and May, 2020 in the Washington D.C. area. Researchers worked with a community based non-profit organization to reach current HBV + and HCV + patients to provide retention in care and assess patient needs in maintaining management of their condition adapted to include offering medication refills, telehealth, and other resources. We gathered emergent themes, using socio-ecological framework, regarding capacity and needs for managing their chronic condition in a vulnerable population during the initial, most interrupted, time period of a global public health crisis. RESULTS: From the notes of the calls, five thematic categories emerged: COVID-19 prevention awareness, assistance program access, medical resource access, access to knowledge and awareness about assistance programs, and needs and barriers. From these five themes, providers can develop strategies to better prepare their patients and provide care to patients with chronic conditions during major disruptions. CONCLUSIONS: Future recommendations include increasing hepatitis and COVID-19 vaccine efforts, collaborating with community partners, and screening and understanding social determinants of health that affect racial and ethnic minorities.

Liability Waivers for COVID-19: Law, Policy, and Practice.

As businesses reopen, the practice of asking customers to sign COVID-19 liability waivers is increasing throughout the United States. Although the courts have not yet decided the enforceability of COVID-19-related liability waivers, existing case law, as well as new executive and legislative actions, suggests that such waivers may offer some protection to businesses from liability. Nevertheless, we believe that the legal and ethical rationales underlying liability waivers are not applicable to a pandemic. We further argue that the challenging nature of and the substantial unknowns about the novel coronavirus make waivers contrary to public policy. Fears over floods of litigation appear thus far unfounded, and businesses should not be relieved from their obligation of taking reasonable safety precautions. Waivers are not a panacea to reopen businesses in an ongoing pandemic, and the ultimate protection against liability is to operate in a manner that minimizes the spread of the virus consistent with evidence-based guidelines.

Ebola, Zika, Corona What Is Next for Our World?

In the past century, there have been several pandemics. Within the context of global health, these pandemics have often been viewed from the lens of determinants such as population, poverty, and pollution. With an ever-changing world and the COVID-19 pandemic, the current global determinants of public health need to be expanded. In this editorial, we explore and redefine the major determinants of global public health to prevent future pandemics. Policymakers and global leaders should keep at heart the determinants suggested hereby in any planning, implementation, and evaluation of efforts to improve global public health and prevent pandemics.