Assessing interstate racial and socioeconomic disparities in newborn screening policies in the United States.

Introduction: This paper explores racial and socioeconomic disparities in newborn screening (NBS) policies across the United States. While inter-state inequality in healthcare policies is often considered a meaningful source of systemic inequity in healthcare outcomes, to the best of our knowledge, no research has explored racial and socioeconomic disparities in newborn screening policies based on state of residence. Methods: We investigate these disparities by calculating weighted average exposure to specific NBS tests by racial and socioeconomic group. We additionally estimate count models of the number (and type) of NBS conditions screened for by state racial and socioeconomic composition. Results: Adding to the knowledge base that social determinants of health and health disparities are linked, our analysis surprisingly reveals little evidence of substantial inter-state inequity in newborn screenings along racial and socioeconomic lines. Discussion: While there is substantial nationwide racial and socioeconomic inequity in terms of infant health, the distribution of state-level policies does not appear to be structured in a manner to be a driver of these disparities. Our findings suggest that efforts to reduce inequities in outcomes related to NBS should shift focus toward the delivery of screening results and follow-up care as discussion builds on expanding NBS to include more conditions and genomic testing.

VA Providers' Perceptions of Cannabis Use Policies in a Legalized and Nonlegalized State.

Background: Providers in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system are caught between two opposing sets of laws regarding cannabis and cannabidiol (CBD) use by their patients. As VA is a federal agency, it must abide by federal regulations, including that the Food and Drug Administration classifies cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug and therefore cannot recommend or help Veterans obtain it. Meanwhile, 38 states have passed legislation, legalizing medical use of cannabis. Objective: The goal of this project is to examine how VA providers understand state and federal laws, and VA policies about cannabis and CBD use, and to learn more about providers' experiences with patients who use cannabis and CBD within a legalized and nonlegalized state. Materials and Methods: We identified 432 health care providers from two VA facilities in northern Illinois (IL) where medical and recreational cannabis is legal, and two VA facilities in southern Wisconsin (WI) where medical and recreational cannabis is illegal. Participants were invited via e-mail to complete an anonymous online survey, including 31 closed- and open-ended questions about knowledge of state and federal laws and VA policies regarding cannabis and CBD oil, thoughts about the value of cannabis or CBD for treating medical conditions, and behaviors regarding cannabis use by their patients. Results: We received 50 responses (IL N=20, WI N=30). Providers in both states were knowledgeable about cannabis laws in their state but unsure whether they could recommend cannabis. There were more providers who were unclear if they could have a conversation about cannabis with their VA patients in WI compared with IL. Providers were more likely to agree than disagree that cannabis can be beneficial, χ2 (1, 49)=4.74, p=0.030. Providers in both states (81.6%) believe cannabis use is acceptable for end-of-life care, but responses varied for other conditions and symptoms. Discussion: Findings suggest that VA providers could use more guidance on what is allowable within their VA facilities and how state laws affect their practice. Education about safety related to cannabis and other drug interactions would be helpful. There is limited information about possible interactions, warranting future research.

US state laws on medical freedom and investigational stem cell procedures: a call to focus on state-based legislation.

The premature marketing of investigational stem cell interventions (SCIs) is a growing market in the US. Several US states have passed legislation to permit and promote unproven and experimental SCIs for individuals with terminal or chronic diseases. These SCI medical freedom laws, which are largely based on right-to-try legislation, increase access to experimental SCIs with little to no oversight. They undermine federal regulatory authority and can compromise patient safety and informed decision-making. SCI medical freedom laws have gone largely unnoticed by scientific societies interested in the responsible translation of stem cell medicine. In this article, we analyze state SCI medical freedom laws and describe their detrimental impact on patients and society. We contend that scientific and medical societies are uniquely poised to advocate against state-based policy promoting unproven SCIs but recognize resource and other constraints to advocate for or against legislation in 50 states. We recommend societies establish coalitions and share resources to address state-based SCI medical freedom laws and other legislation surrounding unproven SCIs.

Hitting closer to home: State policies' impacts on health by race and legal status.

While the proliferation of inclusionary and exclusionary state policies has led to an increasingly heterogeneous patchwork of state climates, state policy and the climates they create have become increasingly important for health outcomes. We leverage the heterogeneity across state policy climates to test the relationship between state-level policies and health inequality across the US. We include 24 state policies related to public health and safety, immigration enforcement, integration, and healthcare to capture the state climate. Using the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), a nationally representative study of households in the U.S., we estimate multilevel regression models to assess the relationship between state policy climate and healthcare utilization. We further examine differential effects of the policy climate across various vulnerable groups, by examining differences by citizenship status and race. We find that more exclusionary policies may be detrimental to healthcare utilization for all residents regardless of race and legal status- but ultimately racial minorities and noncitizens see the greatest benefits from inclusive policy climates.

Beliefs and Attitudes about Vermont's Buprenorphine Decriminalization Law among Clinicians Who Prescribe Buprenorphine.

BACKGROUND: On June 1, 2021, Vermont repealed all criminal penalties for possessing 224 milligrams or less of buprenorphine. We examined the potential impact of decriminalization with a survey of Vermont clinicians who prescribed buprenorphine within the past year. METHODS: All 638 Vermont clinicians with a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine were emailed the survey by Vermont Department of Health; 117 responded. We estimated the prevalence of the following four outcomes, for all responding clinicians and stratified by clinician demographics and practice characteristics: awareness of decriminalization, beliefs about the effects of decriminalization, support for decriminalization, and changes in practice resulting from decriminalization. RESULTS: 72 (62%) prescribers correctly stated that Vermont does not have criminal penalties for buprenorphine possession. 107 (91%) support decriminalization. 56 (48%) believe that, because buprenorphine is decriminalized, their patients are more likely to give, sell, or trade the buprenorphine that is prescribed to them to someone else. However, only 5 providers (4%) said they now prescribe to fewer patients. CONCLUSION: The great majority of Vermont clinicians who prescribe buprenorphine support its decriminalization and have not changed their prescribing practices because of decriminalization.

In 2021, Vermont repealed criminal penalties for buprenorphine possession.We surveyed Vermont (n = 117) buprenorphine prescribers about decriminalization.91% of providers support decriminalization.48% of providers believe decriminalization will increase diversion of medications.Only 4% of providers prescribe to fewer patients because of decriminalization.

Comunicação pública da ciência e da saúde no pós-pandemia / Post-pandemic science and health public communication / Comunicación pública de la ciencia y de la salud tras la pandemia

A pandemia de covid-19 demonstrou a relevância da comunicação pública da saúde e da ciência, mas também evidenciou suas fragilidades. No Brasil, como em outras partes do mundo, a desinformação foi institucionalizada, com grave impacto na saúde dos cidadãos. Após a pandemia, coloca-se o desafio de estruturar políticas públicas de comunicação para combater a desinformação e de fortalecer a carreira de comunicador público como suporte a essas políticas. A mobilização de organizações da sociedade civil ligadas ao tema produziu um projeto de Lei Geral da Comunicação Pública que tramita na Câmara dos Deputados. Também permitiu incluir o estabelecimento de uma política de comunicação para o Sistema Único de Saúde entre as diretrizes aprovadas pela 17ª Conferência Nacional de Saúde

The covid-19 pandemic demonstrated the relevance of public health and science communication, but also highlighted its weaknesses. In Brazil, as in other parts of the world, disinformation has been institutionalized, with a serious impact on the health of citizens. After the pandemic, there is a challenge of structuring public communication policies to combat disinformation and to strengthen the career of public communicator to support these policies. The mobilization of civil society organizations linked to these issues produced a public communication bill which is currently discussed in the Chamber of Deputies. It also made it possible to include the establishment of a communication policy for the Unified Health System among the guidelines approved by the 17th National Health Conference

La pandemia de covid-19 demostró la relevancia de la comunicación pública de la salud y de la ciencia, pero también puso de relieve sus debilidades. En Brasil, como en otras partes del mundo, la desinformación ha sido institucionalizada, con un grave impacto en la salud de los ciudadanos. Después de la pandemia, queda el desafío de estructurar políticas públicas de comunicación para combatir la desinformación y también de estructurar la carrera de comunicador público para apoyar estas políticas. La movilización de organizaciones de la sociedad civil vinculadas al tema ha producido un proyecto de Ley General de Comunicación Pública que se encuentra en trámite en la Cámara de Diputados. También permitió incluir el establecimiento de una política de comunicación para el Sistema Único de Salud entre las directrices aprobadas por la XVII Conferencia Nacional de Salud

State Higher Education Funding during COVID-19: Exploring State-Level Characteristics Influencing Financing Decisions.

Building on research examining state financing for higher education, our qualitative comparative case study investigates state policymakers' decisions for funding public higher education during the COVID-19 crisis in California and Texas. These states were purposively selected based on the size of their postsecondary sector, state partisanship, and higher education funding responses during the pandemic. Moreover, these states represent two of the largest public postsecondary enrollments nationally and serve a racially and ethnically diverse student population. Guiding our study is the Hearn and Ness (2018) framework investigating the ecology of state higher education policymaking, which offers four contextual categories that influence state policy decisions: socioeconomic context, organizational and policy context, politicoinstitutional context, and external context. This framework suggests underlying factors influencing the state funding process, while also providing an opportunity to expand on this theory through the unique COVID-19 context. We used deductive and inductive techniques to analyze 28 interviews with a range of actors, including state elected officials, state government staff, and higher education officials. We also examined 69 documents (state budgets, news articles, and state executive orders) to triangulate and verify our interview data. Two areas served as key events that ultimately influenced higher education funding decisions in California and Texas: (1) the preference of certain higher education institutions and (2) the availability and application of federal dollars. Furthermore, the organizational and policy context and the politico-institutional context, as defined by the Hearn and Ness framework, provided additional state-level factors that resulted in distinct responses. This study offers practical and theoretical contributions to higher education policy and practice, including highlighting the decision-making and prioritization processes of state policymakers when facing an unprecedented pandemic and crisis, and discussing common and unique factors influencing higher education policymaking in two different state contexts.

Economic Value of Initial Implementation Activities for Proposed Ban on Sales of Over-The-Counter Diet Pills and Muscle-Building Supplements to Minors.

Introduction: Over-the-counter diet pills, weight-loss supplements, and muscle-building supplements often contain harmful ingredients and are associated with eating disorder diagnoses and other negative health outcomes. This study estimated the value of state initial implementation activities, for example, regulation development, to implement a ban on the sale of dangerous over-the-counter diet pills and muscle-building supplements to minors. Methods: We enumerated minimum, best, and maximum values for 22 inputs among 11 activities state employees may undertake if the legislation were signed into law. For employment costs, we estimated staff hours on the basis of data from 10 key informants and obtained salary ranges from a state government website. Data were collected and analyzed between September 2021 and January 2022. We calculated 95% CIs using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations that varied inputs simultaneously and probabilistically. We conducted two sensitivity analyses using all minimum and all maximum salaries. Results: The estimated value of state start-up activities was $47,536 (95% CI=$36,831-$57,381). Inputs with the largest impact on this estimate corresponded to combinations of the highest salary and greatest hours per task. Conclusions: The state's one-time opportunity cost to initiate this age-restriction policy would be minimal considering potential health gains. Sensitivity analyses did not change the conclusion, especially if the state produces subregulations linked to existing law rather than new regulations.

Association Between Partisan Affiliation of State Governments and State Mortality Rates Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Policy Points The increasing political polarization of states reached new heights during the COVID-19 pandemic, when response plans differed sharply across party lines. This study found that states with Republican governors and larger Republican majorities in legislatures experienced higher death rates during the COVID-19 pandemic-and in preceding years-but these associations often lost statistical significance after adjusting for the average income and health status of state populations and for the policy orientations of the states. Future research may help clarify whether the higher death rates in these states result from policy choices or have other explanations, such as the tendency of voters with lower incomes or poorer health to elect Republican candidates. CONTEXT: Increasing polarization of states reached a high point during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the party affiliation of elected officials often predicted their policy response. The health consequences of these divisions are unclear. Prior studies compared mortality rates based on presidential voting patterns, but few considered the partisan orientation of state officials. This study examined whether the partisan orientation of governors or legislatures was associated with mortality outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Data on deaths and the partisan orientation of governors and legislators were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Conference of State Legislatures, respectively. Linear regression was used to measure the association between Republican representation (percentage of seats held) in legislatures and (1) age-adjusted, all-cause mortality rates (AAMRs) in 2015-2021 and (2) excess death rates during three phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, controlling for median household income, the prevalence of four risk factors (obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart attack, stroke), and state policy orientation. Associations between excess death rates and the governor's party were also examined. FINDINGS: States with Republican governors or greater Republican representation in legislatures experienced higher AAMRs during 2015-2021, lower excess death rates during Phase 1 of the COVID-19 pandemic (weeks ending March 28, 2020, through June 13, 2020), and higher excess death rates in Phases 2 and 3 (weeks ending June 20, 2020, through April 30, 2022; p < 0.05). Most associations lost statistical significance after adjustment for control variables. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality was higher in states with Republican governors and greater Republican legislative representation before and during much of the pandemic. Observed associations could be explained by the adverse effects of policy choices, reverse causality (e.g., popularity of Republican candidates in states with lower socioeconomic and health status), or unmeasured factors that predominate in states with Republican leaders.

Caught Between a Well-Intentioned State and a Hostile Federal System: Local Implementation of Inclusive Immigrant Policies.

Policy Points Inclusive state immigrant policies that expand rights and resources for immigrants may improve population health, but little is known about their local-level implementation. Local actors that have anti-immigrant attitudes can hinder the implementation of state policies, whereas the persistent influence of anti-immigrant federal policies reinforces barriers to accessing health and other resources granted by state policies. Local actors that serve immigrants and support state policy implementation lack the resources to counter anti-immigrant climates and federal policy threats. CONTEXT: In the United States, inclusive state-level policies can advance immigrant health and health care access by extending noncitizens' access to public benefits, workplace rights, and protections from immigration enforcement. Although state policies carry promise as structural population health interventions, there has been little examination of their implementation at the local level. Local jurisdictions play multiple roles in state policy implementation and possess distinct immigration climates. Examining the local implementation of state immigrant policy can address challenges and opportunities to ensure the health benefits of inclusive policies are realized equitably across states' regions. METHODS: To examine the local implementation of state immigrant policies, we selected a purposive sample of California counties with large immigrant populations and distinct social and political dynamics and conducted and analyzed in-depth interviews with 20 community-based organizations that provided health, safety net, and other services. FINDINGS: We found that there were tensions between the inclusionary goals of state immigrant policies and local anti-immigrant climates and federal policy changes. First, there were tensions between state policy goals and resistance from local law enforcement agencies and policymakers (e.g., Board of Supervisors). Second, because of the ongoing threats from federal immigration policies, there was a mismatch between the services and resources provided by state policies and local community needs. Finally, organizations that served immigrants were responsible for contributing to policy implementation but lacked resources to meet community needs while countering local resistance and federal policy threats. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes knowledge regarding the challenges that emerge after state immigrant policies are enacted. The tensions among state immigrant policies, local immigration climates, and federal policy changes indicate that state immigrant policies are not implemented equally across state communities, resulting in challenges and limited benefits from policies for many immigrant communities.

Exploring the impact of the New York State repeal of nonmedical vaccination exemptions on student enrollment, absenteeism, and school workload: Perspectives from a survey of school administrators.

In June 2019, New York State (NYS) adopted Senate Bill 2994A eliminating nonmedical vaccine exemptions from school entry laws. Since student noncompliance with the law required school exclusion, we sought to evaluate the law's effects on student enrollment and absenteeism, and school workloads related to its implementation. In November 2019, we sent an electronic survey to NYS (excluding New York City) schools. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, outreach was curtailed in March 2020 with 525 (14%) of 3,759 eligible schools responding. To account for non-response, results were analyzed using inverse probability weighting. After weighting, 39% (95% CI: 34%, 44%) of schools reported enrollment changes and 31% (95% CI: 26%, 36%) of schools reported absenteeism related to the law. In addition, 95% (95% CI: 93%, 98%) of schools reported holding meetings and/or preparing correspondence about the law, spending a mean of 14 (95% CI: 11, 18) hours on these communication efforts. Schools in the highest pre-mandate nonmedical exemption tertile (vs. lowest) were more likely to report enrollment and absenteeism changes, and higher workloads. While our results should be interpreted with caution, changes in student enrollment, absenteeism, and school workloads may represent important considerations for policymakers planning similar legislation.

State Policies on Child Maltreatment and Racial Disproportionality.

Over the past several decades researchers have documented disproportionality for Black families across multiple decision-making points within the child welfare system. Yet, few studies have examined how specific state policies may impact disproportionality across decision points. The racial disproportionality index (RDI) was calculated for Black children in each state and Washington DC (N = 51) based on the proportion of children who were received a referral to CPS, a substantiated investigation, or entered foster care. A series of bivariate analyses (one-way ANOVAs; independent sample t-tests) were used to explore the relationship between the RDI and these decision points. Further analyses were conducted between the RDI and state policies (e.g., child maltreatment definitions, mandated reporting, and alternative response). Our results suggest there is an overrepresentation of Black children in CPS across the three decision points. This overrepresentation continues with specific state policies such as a state using harsh punishment in their definition of child maltreatment. Recommendations are provided for policy and research, including a suggestion for further exploration of state policies and county-level disproportionality indexes.

Attitudes and beliefs about Vermont's 2021 buprenorphine decriminalization law among residents who use illicit opioids.

BACKGROUND: In July 2021, Vermont removed all criminal penalties for possessing 224mg or less of buprenorphine. METHODS: Vermont residents (N=474) who used illicit opioid drugs or received treatment for opioid use disorder in the past 90 days were recruited for a mixed-methods survey on the health and criminal legal effects of decriminalization. Topics assessed included: motivations for using non-prescribed buprenorphine, awareness of and support for decriminalization, and criminal legal system experiences involving buprenorphine. We examined the frequencies of quantitative measures and qualitatively summarized themes from free-response questions. RESULTS: Three-quarters of respondents (76%) reported lifetime use of non-prescribed buprenorphine. 80% supported decriminalization, but only 28% were aware buprenorphine was decriminalized in Vermont. Respondents described using non-prescribed buprenorphine to alleviate withdrawal symptoms and avoid use of other illicit drugs. 18% had been arrested while in buprenorphine, with non-White respondents significantly more likely to report such arrests (15% v 33%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Decriminalization of buprenorphine may reduce unnecessary criminal legal system involvement, but its health impact was limited by low awareness at the time of our study.

Opioid use disorder treatment and the role of New Jersey Medicaid policy changes: perspectives of office-based buprenorphine providers.

Background: In the US, seventy percent of drug-related deaths are attributed to opioids. In response to the ongoing opioid crisis, New Jersey's (NJ) Medicaid program implemented the MATrx model to increase treatment access for Medicaid participants with opioid use disorder (OUD). The model's goals include increasing the number of office-based treatment providers, enhancing Medicaid reimbursement for certain treatment services, and elimination of prior authorizations for OUD medications.Objectives: To explore office-based addiction treatment providers' experiences delivering care in the context of statewide policy changes and their perspectives on treatment access changes and remaining barriers.Methods: This qualitative study used purposive sampling to recruit office-based New Jersey medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) providers . Twenty-two providers (11 females, 11 males) discussed treatment experiences since the policy changes in 2019, including evaluations of the current state of OUD care in New Jersey and perceived outcomes of the MATrx model policy changes.Results: Providers reported the MOUD climate in NJ improved as Medicaid implemented policies intended to reduce barriers to care and increase treatment access. Elimination of prior authorizations was noted as important, as it reduced provider burden and allowed greater focus on care delivery. However, barriers remained, including stigma, pharmacy supply issues, and difficulty obtaining injectable or non-generic medication formulations.Conclusion: NJ policies may have improved access to care for Medicaid beneficiaries by reducing barriers to care and supporting providers in prescribing MOUD. Yet, stigma and lack of psychosocial supports still need to be addressed to further improve access and care quality.

The Buffering Effect of State Eviction and Foreclosure Policies for Mental Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States.

The COVID-19 pandemic spurred an economic downturn that may have eroded population mental health, especially for renters and homeowners who experienced financial hardship and were at risk of housing loss. Using household-level data from the Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey (n = 805,223; August 2020-August 2021) and state-level data on eviction/foreclosure bans, we estimated linear probability models with two-way fixed effects to (1) examine links between COVID-related financial hardship and anxiety/depression and (2) assess whether state eviction/foreclosure bans buffered the detrimental mental health impacts of financial hardship. Findings show that individuals who reported difficulty paying for household expenses and keeping up with rent or mortgage had increased anxiety and depression risks but that state eviction/foreclosure bans weakened these associations. Our findings underscore the importance of state policies in protecting mental health and suggest that heterogeneity in state responses may have contributed to mental health inequities during the pandemic.

The Impact of the New York Nurse Practitioner Modernization Act on the Employment of Nurse Practitioners in Primary Care.

Expanding scope of practice (SOP) for nurse practitioners (NPs) may increase NP employment in primary care practices which can help meet the growing demand in primary care. We examined the impact of enacting less restrictive NP practice restrictions-NP Modernization Act-in New York State (NYS) on the overall employment of primary care NPs and specifically in underserved areas. We used longitudinal data from the SK&A outpatient database (2012-2018) to identify primary care practices in NYS and in the comparison states (Pennsylvania [PA] and New Jersey [NJ]). Using a difference-in-differences design with an event study specification, we compared changes in (1) the presence and (2) total counts of NPs in primary care practices in NYS and neighboring comparison states (ie, PA and NJ) before and after the policy change. The NP Modernization Act was associated with a 1.3 percentage point lower probability of a practice employing at least one NP on average across each of the 3 post-periods (95% CI: -.024, -.002). NP Modernization Act was associated with 0.065 fewer NPs on average across the post-period (95% CI: -.119, -.011). Results were similar in underserved areas. NP employment in primary care practices in NYS was lower after the NP Modernization Act than would have been expected based counterfactual of comparison states. The negative relationship may be explained by gains in provider efficiency which leads to reduced NP hiring in primary care. More research is needed to understand the relationship between SOP regulations, NP supply, and access to care.

Effects of state opioid prescribing cap laws on providers' opioid prescribing patterns among patients with chronic non-cancer pain.

Prior work suggests opioid prescribing cap laws are not associated with changes in opioid prescribing among patients with chronic pain. It is unknown how these effects differ by provider specialty, provider opioid prescribing volume, or patient insurer. This study assessed effects of state opioid prescribing cap laws on opioid prescribing among providers of patients with chronic non-cancer pain, by high volume prescribing, provider specialty, and patient insurer. We identified 224,290 providers of patients with low back pain, fibromyalgia, or headache from the IQVIA administrative database. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we examined impacts of opioid prescribing cap laws implemented between 2016 and 2018 on the annual proportion of a provider's patient panel who received any opioid prescription, as well as on dose and duration of opioid prescriptions. For providers overall, high volume prescribers, all specialties, and patient insurance categories, prescribing cap laws were associated with non-significant changes of <1.0, 1.5, and 3.5 percentage points in the proportion of chronic non-cancer patients receiving any opioid prescription, a prescription with 7 days' supply, or with >50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day, per year, respectively. There were two exceptions with high dose prescribing: prescribing cap laws were associated with a 1.5 percentage point increase in the proportion of high-volume prescribers' patient panel receiving an opioid prescription with ≥50 MME/day, and a 3.0 percentage point decrease in the same measure among surgeons. Among nearly all measured subgroups of providers and patient insurers, opioid prescribing cap laws were not associated with changes in opioid prescribing.

Left Behind: Medicaid Immigrant Exclusions and Access to Maternal Health Care Across the Reproductive-Perinatal Continuum.

Noncitizen immigrants are often excluded from accessing critical safety-net programs, such as Medicaid. Access to health care plays a central role in current policy debates on maternal health. Yet, immigrant exclusions are rarely considered in maternal health policy research. Through open-ended interviews with 31 policymakers, researchers, and program administrators, we examined state variations in approaches to providing care for pregnant, post, and intrapartum immigrant women. We found four themes: (a) a patchwork safety-net exists that provides some access to immigrants ineligible for Medicaid; (b) patchwork coverage leads to patchwork care, which can contribute to maternal health inequities; (c) immigrant Medicaid policy is assembled along a hierarchy of deservingness based on documentation status; (d) Trump-era public charge rules and political climate may have a substantial chilling effect on benefit uptake regardless of eligibility. We discuss implications for efforts to expand Medicaid postpartum and address the maternal health crisis.

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.