Importance of Local Data and Resource Allocation for Effective Successful Public Health Interventions to Reduce COVID-19 Transmission: Commentary on COVID-19 Medical Vulnerability Indicators: A Predictive Local Data Model for Equity in Public Health Decision-Making.

The article, COVID-19 Medical Vulnerability Indicators: Predictive Local Data Model for Equity in Public Health Decision-Making (2021), is an important contribution to identifying and prioritizing the needs of Los Angeles' public healthcare in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic crisis [...].

A cross-sectional study of the association of age, gender, education and economic status with individual perceptions of governmental response to COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the impact of key population variables (age, gender, income and education) on perceptions of governmental effectiveness in communicating about COVID-19, helping meet needs for food and shelter, providing physical and mental healthcare services, and allocating dedicated resources to vulnerable populations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study carried out in June 2020. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: 13 426 individuals from 19 countries. RESULTS: More than 60% of all respondents felt their government had communicated adequately during the pandemic. National variances ranged from 83.4% in China down to 37.2% in Brazil, but overall, males and those with a higher income were more likely to rate government communications highly. Almost half (48.8%) of the respondents felt their government had ensured adequate access to physical health services (ranging from 89.3% for Singapore to 27.2% for Poland), with higher ratings reported by younger and higher-income respondents. Ratings of mental health support were lower overall (32.9%, ranging from 74.8% in China to around 15% in Brazil and Sweden), but highest among younger respondents. Providing support for basic necessities of food and housing was rated highest overall in China (79%) and lowest in Ecuador (14.6%), with higher ratings reported by younger, higher-income and better-educated respondents across all countries. The same three demographic groups tended to rate their country's support to vulnerable groups more highly than other respondents, with national scores ranging from around 75% (Singapore and China) to 19.5% (Sweden). Subgroup findings are mostly independent of intercountry variations with 15% of variation being due to intercountry differences. CONCLUSIONS: The tendency of younger, better-paid and better-educated respondents to rate their country's response to the pandemic more highly, suggests that government responses must be nuanced and pay greater attention to the needs of less-advantaged citizens as they continue to address this pandemic.

Excess Medical Care Spending: The Categories, Magnitude, and Opportunity Costs of Wasteful Spending in the United States.

Landmark reports from reputable sources have concluded that the United States wastes hundreds of billions of dollars every year on medical care that does not improve health outcomes. While there is widespread agreement over how wasteful medical care spending is defined, there is no consensus on its magnitude or categories. A shared understanding of the magnitude and components of the issue may aid in systematically reducing wasteful spending and creating opportunities for these funds to improve public health.To this end, we performed a review and crosswalk analysis of the literature to retrieve comprehensive estimates of wasteful medical care spending. We abstracted each source's definitions, categories of waste, and associated dollar amounts. We synthesized and reclassified waste into 6 categories: clinical inefficiencies, missed prevention opportunities, overuse, administrative waste, excessive prices, and fraud and abuse.Aggregate estimates of waste varied from $600 billion to more than $1.9 trillion per year, or roughly $1800 to $5700 per person per year. Wider recognition by public health stakeholders of the human and economic costs of medical waste has the potential to catalyze health system transformation.

Reduction in US Health Care Spending Required to Meet the Institute of Medicine's 2030 Target.

Objectives. To quantify changes in US health care spending required to reach parity with high-resource nations by 2030 or 2040 and identify historical precedents for these changes.Methods. We analyzed multiple sources of historical and projected spending from 1970 through 2040. Parity was defined as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) median or 90th percentile for per capita health care spending.Results. Sustained annual declines of 7.0% and 3.3% would be required to reach the median of other high-resource nations by 2030 and 2040, respectively (3.2% and 1.3% to reach the 90th percentile). Such declines do not have historical precedent among US states or OECD nations.Conclusions. Traditional approaches to reducing health care spending will not enable the United States to achieve parity with high-resource nations; strategies to eliminate waste and reduce the demand for health care are essential.Public Health Implications. Excess spending reduces the ability of the United States to meet critical public health needs and affects the country's economic competitiveness. Rising health care spending has been identified as a threat to the nation's health. Public health can add voices, leadership, and expertise for reversing this course.

Permanent Supportive Housing With Housing First to Reduce Homelessness and Promote Health Among Homeless Populations With Disability: A Community Guide Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Poor physical and mental health and substance use disorder can be causes and consequences of homelessness. Approximately 2.1 million persons per year in the United States experience homelessness. People experiencing homelessness have high rates of emergency department use, hospitalization, substance use treatment, social services use, arrest, and incarceration. OBJECTIVES: A standard approach to treating homeless persons with a disability is called Treatment First, requiring clients be "housing ready"-that is, in psychiatric treatment and substance-free-before and while receiving permanent housing. A more recent approach, Housing First, provides permanent housing and health, mental health, and other supportive services without requiring clients to be housing ready. To determine the relative effectiveness of these approaches, this systematic review compared the effects of both approaches on housing stability, health outcomes, and health care utilization among persons with disabilities experiencing homelessness. DESIGN: A systematic search (database inception to February 2018) was conducted using 8 databases with terms such as "housing first," "treatment first," and "supportive housing." Reference lists of included studies were also searched. Study design and threats to validity were assessed using Community Guide methods. Medians were calculated when appropriate. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included if they assessed Housing First programs in high-income nations, had concurrent comparison populations, assessed outcomes of interest, and were written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals or government reports. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Housing stability, physical and mental health outcomes, and health care utilization. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies in the United States and Canada met inclusion criteria. Compared with Treatment First, Housing First programs decreased homelessness by 88% and improved housing stability by 41%. For clients living with HIV infection, Housing First programs reduced homelessness by 37%, viral load by 22%, depression by 13%, emergency departments use by 41%, hospitalization by 36%, and mortality by 37%. CONCLUSIONS: Housing First programs improved housing stability and reduced homelessness more effectively than Treatment First programs. In addition, Housing First programs showed health benefits and reduced health services use. Health care systems that serve homeless patients may promote their health and well-being by linking them with effective housing services.

The public health crisis of underimmunisation: a global plan of action.

Vaccination is one of public health's greatest achievements, responsible for saving billions of lives. Yet, 20% of children worldwide are not fully protected, leading to 1·5 million child deaths annually from vaccine-preventable diseases. Millions more people have severe disabling illnesses, cancers, and disabilities stemming from underimmunisation. Reasons for falling vaccination rates globally include low public trust in vaccines, constraints on affordability or access, and insufficient governmental vaccine investments. Consequently, an emerging crisis in vaccine hesitancy ranges from hyperlocal to national and worldwide. Outbreaks often originate in small, insular communities with low immunisation rates. Local outbreaks can spread rapidly, however, transcending borders. Following an assessment of underlying determinants of low vaccination rates, we offer an action based on scientific evidence, ethics, and human rights that spans multiple governments, organisations, disciplines, and sectors.

The Salzburg Statement on Vaccination Acceptance.

Immunization represents one of the greatest public health achievements. Vaccines save lives, make communities more productive and strengthen health systems. They are critical to attaining the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Vaccination also represents value for investment in public health. It is undisputedly one of the most cost-effective ways of avoiding disease, each year preventing 2-3 million deaths globally. We the concerned scientists, public health professionals, physicians, and child health advocates issue this Salzburg Statement along with the International Working Group on Vaccination and Public Health Solutions, proclaiming our unwavering commitment to universal childhood vaccination, and our pledge to support the development, testing, implementation, and evaluation of new, effective, and fact-based communication programs. Our goal is to explain vaccinations to parents or caregivers, answer their questions, address their concerns, and maintain public confidence in the personal, family and community protection that childhood vaccines provide. Every effort will also be made to communicate the dangers associated with these childhood illnesses to parents and communities since this information seems to have been lost in the present-day narrative. While vaccine misinformation has led to serious declines in community vaccination rates that require immediate attention, in other communities, particularly in low-income countries, issues such as lack of access. and unstable supply of vaccines need to be addressed.

Making Strides Toward Health Equity: The Experiences of Public Health Departments.

OBJECTIVES: We explored the definition of health equity being used by public health departments and the extent of engagement of public health departments in activities to improve health equity, as well as facilitators and barriers to this work. DESIGN: We conducted 25 semistructured qualitative interviews with lead public health officials (n = 20) and their designees (n = 5). All interviews were transcribed and thematically analyzed. SETTING: We conducted interviews with respondents from local public health departments in the United States (April 2017-June 2017). PARTICIPANTS: Respondents were from local or state public health departments that were members of the Big Cities Health Coalition, accredited or both. RESULTS: Many departments were using a definition of health equity that emphasized an equal opportunity to improve health for all, with a special emphasis on socially disadvantaged populations. Improving health equity was a high priority for most departments and targeting the social determinants of health was viewed as the optimal approach for improving health equity. Having the capacity to frame issues of health equity in ways that resonated with sectors outside of public health was seen as a particularly valuable skill for facilitating cross-sector collaborations and promoting work to improve health equity. Barriers to engaging in work to improve health equity included lack of flexible and sustainable funding sources as well as limited training and guidance on how to conduct this type of work. CONCLUSIONS: Work to improve health equity among public health departments can be fostered and strengthened by building capacity among them to do more targeted framing of health equity issues and by providing more flexible and sustained funding sources. In addition, supporting peer networks that will allow for the exchange of resources, ideas, and best practices will likely build capacity among public health departments to effectively do this work.

Quantifying the Value of Prevention: A Survey of Public Health Departments' Quantitative and Economic Modeling Capacity.

OBJECTIVE: To improve the understanding of local health departments' (LHDs') capacity for and perceived barriers to using quantitative/economic modeling information to inform policy and program decisions. DESIGN: We developed, tested, and deployed a novel survey to examine this topic. SETTING: The study's sample frame included the 200 largest LHDs in terms of size of population served plus all other accredited LHDs (n = 67). The survey was e-mailed to 267 LHDs; respondents completed the survey online using SurveyMonkey. PARTICIPANTS: Survey instructions requested that the survey be completed from the perspective of the entire health department by LHD's top executive or designate. A total of 63 unique LHDs responded (response rate: 39%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Capacity for quantitative and economic modeling was measured in 5 categories (routinely use information from models we create ourselves; routinely use information from models created by others; sometimes use information from models we create ourselves; sometimes use information from models created by others; never use information from modeling). Experience with modeling was measured in 4 categories (very, somewhat, not so, not at all). RESULTS: Few (9.5%) respondents reported routinely using information from models, and most who did used information from models created by others. By contrast, respondents reported high levels of interest in using models and in gaining training in their use and the communication of model results. The most commonly reported barriers to modeling were funding and technical skills. Nearly all types of training topics listed were of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Across a sample of large and/or accredited LHDs, we found modest levels of use of modeling coupled with strong interest in capacity for modeling and therefore highlight an opportunity for LHD growth and support. Both funding constraints and a lack of knowledge of how to develop and/or use modeling are barriers to desired progress around modeling. Educational or funding opportunities to promote capacity for and use of quantitative and economic modeling may catalyze use of modeling by public health practitioners.