Advancing Commercial Tobacco Control and Health Equity Through Policy, Systems, and Environmental Change.

Commercial tobacco products have been protected from regulation, yet are designed to addict, are deadly, and are promoted to young people whose brains are not yet fully developed. Until everyone is protected from addiction and exposure, we must keep working toward fairness and value-based policy, systems, and environmental change.

Characteristics of an Outbreak of E-cigarette, or Vaping, Product Use-Associated Lung Injury-North Carolina, 2019.

BACKGROUND In August 2019, the North Carolina Division of Public Health (NCDPH) began investigating e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) cases as part of a national response. We describe clinical, epidemiologic, and laboratory findings of North Carolina EVALI patients.METHODS NCDPH requested that physicians report cases of respiratory illness or bilateral pulmonary infiltrates or opacities in patients who reported using e-cigarette, or vaping, products and had no infection or alternative plausible diagnoses. We reviewed medical records, interviewed patients, and tested vaping products for substances.RESULTS During August 13, 2019-February 18, 2020, 78 EVALI cases were reported in North Carolina. Median age of cases was 24 years (range: 13-72 years); 49 (63%) patients were male. Symptoms included cough (n = 70; 90%), shortness of breath (n = 66; 85%), and gastrointestinal symptoms (n = 63; 81%). Seventy-five patients (96%) were hospitalized, 32 (41%) required intensive care, and 12 (16%) required mechanical ventilation; none died. Among 20 patients interviewed, most reported using tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (n = 16; 80%) or nicotine-containing products (n = 14; 70%). All obtained THC-containing products from informal sources, such as family, friends, or dealers, as THC is illegal in North Carolina. Among 82 products tested, 74 (90%) contained THC, cannabidiol, or cannabinol; 54 (66%) contained vitamin E acetate.LIMITATIONS In North Carolina, EVALI is not reportable by law, and THC is illegal. Thus, cases and exposures are likely underreported.CONCLUSIONS THC-containing products, particularly those containing vitamin E acetate, are associated with EVALI. Persons should not use these products, particularly from informal sources. Continued communication of health risks to persons who use e-cigarette, or vaping, products is essential.

A qualitative study of the process of adoption, implementation and enforcement of smoke-free policies in privately-owned affordable housing.

BACKGROUND: Household smoke-free home rules cannot fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke (SHS) if they live in multi-unit housing (MUH). Instead, property-level smoke-free policies are needed to prevent SHS incursion into apartment units and to keep common areas smoke-free. Smoke-free policies are usually at the discretion of property management companies and owners within the context of market-rate and privately-owned affordable housing in the U.S. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews on the policy development, implementation and enforcement experiences of 21 different privately-owned affordable housing management companies were conducted with representatives from properties in North Carolina and Georgia who had established smoke-free policies before 2016. RESULTS: The decision to adopt was typically made by corporate leadership, board members, owners or property managers, with relatively little resident input. Policy details were influenced by property layout, perceptions of how best to facilitate compliance and enforcement, and cost of creating a designated smoking area. Policies were implemented through inclusion in leases, lease addenda or house rules with 6 months' notice most common. Participants thought having a written policy, the norms and culture of the housing community, public norms for smoke-free environments, and resident awareness of the rules and their consequences, aided with compliance. Violations were identified through routine inspections of units and resident reporting. Resident denial and efforts to hide smoking were shared as challenges to enforcement, along with a perception that concrete evidence would be needed in eviction court and that simply the smell of SHS was insufficient evidence of violation. Over half had terminated leases or evicted residents due to violations of the smoke-free policy. The most common benefits cited were reduced turnover cost and time, and lower vacancy rates. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the smoke-free policy process in privately-owned affordable housing can help practitioners encourage policies within subsidized housing contexts. The study identified salient benefits (e.g., reduced cost, time, and vacancies) that can be highlighted when encouraging MUH partners to adopt policies. Additionally, study findings provide guidance on what to consider when designing smoke-free policies (e.g., layout, costs), and provide insights into how to enhance compliance (e.g., resident awareness) and manage enforcement (e.g., routine inspections).

Redefining the Team in Team-Based Care: Role of Public Health.

In North Carolina, our public health infrastructure consists of a state health department and 85 local health departments representing all 100 counties. The state health department, local health departments, health systems, and clinical providers work literally and figuratively as a team to improve the health of our citizens. In this article, we provide examples of the critical role of public health practitioners as part of the broader team addressing health, specifically in the areas of chronic disease, communicable disease, oral health, environmental health, and maternal and child health.

Developing Smoke-Free Policies in Public Housing: Perspectives From Early Adopters in 2 Southern States.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: In 2016, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a new rule requiring smoke-free policies in conventional public housing by July 2018 (HUD, 2016). This process evaluation describes the policy development experiences of conventional and nonconventional public housing authorities (PHAs) in North Carolina and Georgia that had established smoke-free policies before the HUD rule. INTERVENTION APPROACH: HUD began to issue guidance that encouraged smoke-free policies in public housing in 2009, and most early adopters were outside of the Southeast. Documenting the process early adopters in the Southeast used to develop their policies provides useful lessons for conventional PHAs and those with properties not covered by the rule. EVALUATION METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with PHA representatives from 23 PHAs with some level of smoking restriction, along with residents from 14 of these PHAs, from January to August 2016. RESULTS: Organizational leaders and board members were usually the primary players in making the decision to adopt a policy, with approval processes consistent with any type of policy adoption. Common reasons for establishing the policy included costs of turning a unit; health of children, nonsmokers, and staff; HUD guidance; and concerns or experience with fire caused by cigarettes. Levels of restriction were influenced by layout of the property, perceptions of compliance and enforcement challenges, concerns about smokers congregating, resident mobility, weather concerns, consistency with HUD guidance, and availability of funds for designated smoking areas. Resident input was obtained through general meetings, resident advisory boards or councils, surveys, and formal comment periods. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Understanding the process of policy development and adoption enables public health practitioners to be more effective partners in advising on the flexible components of the HUD smoke-free rule and accelerating the adoption of comprehensive policies within nonconventional PHAs.

The impact of smoke-free legislation on population health in North Carolina.

Since the first Surgeon General's report documented the health impact of smoking 50 years ago, North Carolina has made much progress in reducing tobacco use. This article focuses on tobacco-related policies and legislation that have contributed to this progress and discusses measures that could be taken to further reduce tobacco use.

Medical costs of secondhand-smoke exposure in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: The health hazards of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) are well-defined. Less is known about the economic costs. We performed an analysis of the medical costs of SHS in North Carolina that was based on a similar study conducted in Minnesota. METHODS: We used 2006 Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina claims data and national and state surveillance data to calculate the treated prevalence of medical conditions that have been found to be related to exposure to SHS, as established by a 2006 report from the US surgeon general. We used the population attributable risk for these conditions to calculate the number of individuals whose episodes of illness could be attributed to exposure to SHS. We adjusted these treatment costs for other types of insurance provided in the state, using Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data. RESULTS: The total annual cost of treatment for conditions related to SHS exposure in North Carolina was estimated to be $293,304,430, in 2009 inflation-adjusted dollars. Sensitivity analysis showed a range of $208.2 million to $386.3 million. The majority of individuals affected were children, but the greatest costs were for cardiovascular conditions. CONCLUSION: These cost data provide additional rationale for regulating smoking in all work sites and public places.