Laws Governing State Health Official Appointments: A Legal and Historical Review.

OBJECTIVE: The current study presents the legal epidemiological review of State Health Official (SHO) appointment laws, including the evolution of educational and experience requirements of SHOs over time. Findings can inform the discussion about state laws and the substantive, multidisciplinary qualifications essential to successfully leading state public health agencies in the 21st century. METHODS: Standard policy surveillance methods were used to collect and assess the statutes governing SHO appointment and eligibility from all 50 states and the District of Columbia between 1995 and 2020. RESULTS: SHOs are most frequently appointed by their jurisdiction's Health Secretary (n = 17), followed by Governor nominations with legislative approval (n = 15), and 13 states where the Governor is the sole SHO appointing authority. While a large majority of jurisdictions require certain professional and/or educational minimum qualifications to serve as an SHO, 11 states have no professional or experiential minimum qualifications. The most common minimum requirement found was possessing a medical degree, which is required in 22 jurisdictions (including Washington, District of Columbia). Twelve of these states require the physician to have additional education or experience, such as the possession of experience in public health (n = 5), experience in both public health and management (n = 3), or holding an additional health-related degree (n = 2). Four states added a medical degree as a requirement for SHOs over the last 25 years, while 5 states removed their medical degree requirement. CONCLUSIONS: States should reassess their eligibility requirements for SHO service in light of the advancement and demands of public health leadership in the 21st century, as many states continue to look to those with medical training as the primary source for such leadership.

Factors that differentiate COVID-19 vaccine intentions among Indiana parents: Implications for targeted vaccine promotion.

Given low rates of uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine for children 12-17 and 5-11 years old, research is needed to understand parental behaviors and behavioral intentions related to COVID-19 vaccination for their children. In the state of Indiana, we conducted a non-random, online survey of parents or caregivers (N = 10,266) about their COVID-19 vaccine intentions or behaviors, demographic characteristics, and potential motivating reasons for getting the vaccine. In terms of behaviors/intentions, 44.8% of participants indicated they were vaccine acceptors (i.e., had already had their children vaccinated or would as soon as it was possible), 13.0% indicated they were vaccine hesitators (i.e., wanted to wait and see), and 42.2% indicated they were vaccine rejecters (i.e., would not vaccinate or only would if mandated). Compared to vaccine rejecters, vaccine hesitators were more likely to be motivated by perceptions of vaccine safety and efficacy, normative influences such as close friends/family who had been vaccinated and a recommendation from a provider, as well as if they were vaccinated themselves. These findings have implications for the development of targeted vaccine promotion strategies, such as social norms messaging and a focus on vaccine safety, in order to increase COVID-19 vaccination for eligible children.

The Challenges of Conducting Intrastate Policy Surveillance: A Methods Note on County and City Laws in Indiana.

Policy surveillance is critical in examining the ways law functions as a structural and social determinant of health. To date, little policy surveillance research has focused on examining intrastate variations in the structure and health impact of laws. Intrastate policy surveillance poses unique methodological challenges because of the complex legal architecture within states and inefficient curation of local laws.We discuss our experience with these intrastate policy surveillance challenges in Indiana, a state with 92 counties and several populous cities, a complicated history of home rule, systemically underfunded local governments, and variations in demography, geography, and technology adoption. In our case study, we expended significant time and resources to obtain county and city ordinances through online code libraries, jurisdiction Web sites, and (most notably) visits to offices to scan documents ourselves.A concerted effort is needed to ensure that local laws of all kinds are stored online in organized, searchable, and open access systems. Such an effort is vital to achieve the aspirational goals of policy surveillance at the intrastate level.

Adolescent Consent for Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Ethical, Legal, and Practical Considerations.

We address ethical, legal, and practical issues related to adolescent self-consent for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. HPV vaccination coverage continues to lag well behind the national goal of 80% series completion. Structural and behavioral interventions have improved vaccination rates, but attitudinal, behavioral, and access barriers remain. A potential approach for increasing access and improving vaccination coverage would be to permit adolescents to consent to HPV vaccination for themselves. We argue that adolescent self-consent is ethical, but that there are legal hurdles to be overcome in many states. In jurisdictions where self-consent is legal, there can still be barriers due to lack of awareness of the policy among healthcare providers and adolescents. Other barriers to implementation of self-consent include resistance from antivaccine and parent rights activists, reluctance of providers to agree to vaccinate even when self-consent is legally supported, and threats to confidentiality. Confidentiality can be undermined when an adolescent's self-consented HPV vaccination appears in an explanation of benefits communication sent to a parent or if a parent accesses an adolescent's vaccination record via state immunization information systems. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to a substantial drop in HPV vaccination, there may be even more reason to consider self-consent. The atmosphere of uncertainty and distrust surrounding future COVID-19 vaccines underscores the need for any vaccine policy change to be pursued with clear communication and consistent with ethical principles.

Improving concussion education: consensus from the NCAA-Department of Defense Mind Matters Research & Education Grand Challenge.

Early disclosure of possible concussive symptoms has the potential to improve concussion-related clinical outcomes. The objective of the present consensus process was to provide useful and feasible recommendations for collegiate athletic departments and military service academy leaders about how to increase concussion symptom disclosure in their setting. Consensus was obtained using a modified Delphi process. Participants in the consensus process were grant awardees from the National Collegiate Athletic Association and Department of Defense Mind Matters Research & Education Grand Challenge and a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders from collegiate athletics and military service academies. The process included a combination of in-person meetings and anonymous online voting on iteratively modified recommendations for approaches to improve concussion symptom disclosure. Recommendations were rated in terms of their utility and feasibility in collegiate athletic and military service academy settings with a priori thresholds for retaining, discarding and revising statements. A total of 17 recommendations met thresholds for utility and feasibility and are grouped for discussion in five domains: (1) content of concussion education for athletes and military service academy cadets, (2) dissemination and implementation of concussion education for athletes and military service academy cadets, (3) other stakeholder concussion education, (4) team and unit-level processes and (5) organisational processes. Collectively, these recommendations provide a path forward for athletics departments and military service academies in terms of the behavioural health supports and institutional processes that are needed to increase early and honest disclosure of concussion symptoms and ultimately to improve clinical care outcomes.

Improving Concussion Education: Consensus From the NCAA-Department of Defense Mind Matters Research & Education Grand Challenge.

Early disclosure of possible concussive symptoms has the potential to improve concussion-related clinical outcomes. The objective of the present consensus process was to provide useful and feasible recommendations for collegiate athletic departments and military service academy leaders about how to increase concussion symptom disclosure in their setting. Consensus was obtained using a modified Delphi process. Participants in the consensus process were grant awardees from the National Collegiate Athletic Association and Department of Defense Mind Matters Research & Education Grand Challenge and a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders from collegiate athletics and military service academies. The process included a combination of in-person meetings and anonymous online voting on iteratively modified recommendations for approaches to improve concussion symptom disclosure. Recommendations were rated in terms of their utility and feasibility in collegiate athletic and MSA settings with a priori thresholds for retaining, discarding, and revising statements. A total of 17 recommendations met thresholds for utility and feasibility and are grouped for discussion in five domains: (1) content of concussion education for athletes and MSA cadets, (2) dissemination and implementation of concussion education for athletes and military service academy cadets, (3) other stakeholder concussion education, (4) team and unit-level processes, and (5) organizational processes. Collectively, these recommendations provide a path forward for athletics departments and military service academies in terms of the behavioral health supports and institutional processes that are needed to increase early and honest disclosure of concussion symptoms and ultimately to improve clinical care outcomes.

Characterizing variability in state-level regulations governing opioid treatment programs.

INTRODUCTION: The opioid use crisis has left nearly 1 million people in need of treatment. States have focused primarily on policies aimed at decreasing the prevalence of opioid use disorder. However, opioid treatment programs (OTPs), an evidence-based modality which can prevent and decrease opioid-related mortality and morbidity, remain highly complex with variation in treatment by state. Evidence-based state-level regulation of OTPs can be a powerful tool and may help improve the unmet need for treatment. This study characterized the variability in state laws that regulate OTPs and examines how this variability is associated with state characteristics. Our data provides an opportunity for policymakers to consider regulations that increase access to care and retention in OTPs, which could improve population health. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Utilizing policy mapping techniques, we identified all regulations governing OTPs in effect on January 1, 2017 and determined whether the most common regulations were consistent with best practices. We then examined how the number and type of regulations were associated with state characteristics. All policy mapping research was conducted between November 2017 and March 2019. RESULTS: We identified 89 different regulations, the most common of which exists in fewer than half of all states; and most exist in <25% of states. Eighteen of the 30 most common regulations were inconsistent with best practice recommendations. Overall, variability in the number and type of OTP regulations was related to geographic location as opposed to state size. CONCLUSIONS: Wide-ranging variability exists in the regulations of OTPs across the U.S. Most state OTP regulations are not congruent with best practices.

Receipt of training about medication for opioid use disorder from pharmaceutical manufacturers: A preliminary study of Florida criminal problem-solving and dependency court staff.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: People with opioid use disorder are prevalent in criminal problem-solving courts and dependency courts, which have rehabilitative aims. Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is the standard of care. Court staff set treatment policies for court clients. They may receive training from MOUD manufacturers, but no studies have examined court staff receipt of such training. DESIGN AND METHODS: To examine receipt of training from MOUD manufacturers, we designed a cross-sectional survey for court staff. We distributed it online to all Florida court staff in criminal problem-solving or dependency courts (n = 585). Outcome variables were receipt of training from one or more MOUD manufacturers and training source. Covariates included dichotomous measures of court type, staff role, gender and rurality. Logistic regression models estimated the relationship between receipt of training and covariates. RESULTS: Twenty-one percent of Florida criminal problem-solving and dependency court staff completed the survey. The most common receipt of training was from the manufacturer of extended-release naltrexone (36%), followed by buprenorphine (24%) and methadone (11%). Fifty-seven percent of those who received training received it from more than one MOUD manufacturer. Criminal problem-solving court staff were more likely than dependency court staff to receive training from MOUD manufacturers. Court program co-ordinators were more likely than other staff roles to receive training from MOUD manufacturers. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A large minority of respondents received training from a MOUD manufacturer, primarily from extended-release naltrexone's manufacturer, raising concerns regarding information accuracy and conflicts of interest. Court staff should seek MOUD training from academic institutions and non-profit organisations instead.

Court personnel attitudes towards medication-assisted treatment: A state-wide survey.

BACKGROUND: Despite its efficacy, medication-assisted treatment (MAT) is rarely available in the criminal justice system in the United States, including in problem-solving courts or diversionary settings. Previous studies have demonstrated criminal justice administrators' hostility towards MAT, especially in prisons and jails. Yet, few studies have examined attitudes among court personnel or compared beliefs among different types of personnel. Also, few studies have explored the relationship between MAT education/training and attitudes. Finally, few studies have directly compared attitudes towards methadone, oral buprenorphine, and extended-release naltrexone in the criminal justice system. METHODS: We modified a survey by Matusow et al. (2013) to explore justice professionals' MAT attitudes, including associations with demographic variables, court role, and previous MAT education/training. After piloting the survey, we distributed it to a convenience sample of justice professionals registered for an educational summit held in Indiana in 2018. Data was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical methods. RESULTS: 231 Indiana court employees who had registered for a state MAT educational summit completed the survey prior to the summit, including judges, probation officers, law enforcement personnel, attorneys, probation officers, program directors, counselors, and case managers. Overall, participants had significantly more positive attitudes towards extended-release naltrexone than towards other medications (p value <0.01). Court employee average attitudes towards methadone were significantly more negative than average attitudes towards oral buprenorphine; and average attitudes towards oral buprenorphine were significantly more negative than average attitudes towards extended-release naltrexone (p value <0.01). Employment as a prosecutor or law enforcement officer was associated with more negative attitudes towards oral buprenorphine and methadone (p value <0.05). Exposure to previous MAT training was associated with more positive attitudes for all medications (p value <0.05). Compared to participants with graduate degrees, participants with less education had significantly more negative attitudes towards extended-release naltrexone (p < 0.05). Gender, age, rurality, and personal/family recovery history were not associated with differences in attitudes. CONCLUSION: As expected, court employees' attitudes significantly differ by medication, with average attitudes towards agonist medications being more negative than attitudes towards extended-release naltrexone. Despite a larger evidence base for the efficacy of methadone and oral buprenorphine, justice personnel may have more positive attitudes towards extended-release naltrexone due to targeted marketing by the pharmaceutical manufacturer, fears about diversion or misuse of agonist medications, and historic criminal justice hostility towards agonist medications. Importantly, previous education/training regarding MAT is associated with more positive attitudes, suggesting that more awareness-raising or capacity building educational interventions are needed, especially for prosecutors and law enforcement personnel.

Controlling Measles through Politics and Policy.

Vaccination is one of history's most successful public health interventions. Since 2000, vaccination campaigns against measles, which is highly contagious but preventable through the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, have reduced both the global incidence of the disease and measles deaths by 80 percent. However, progress toward measles elimination has slid backward in several previously well-protected global regions. With more communities below or at risk of falling below the 95 percent immunization rates required for herd immunity-due more and more to vaccine skepticism and declination rather than lack of access-many U.S. states and countries must reappraise their vaccination policies and programs.

Pain clinic definitions in the medical literature and U.S. state laws: an integrative systematic review and comparison.

BACKGROUND: In response to widespread opioid misuse, ten U.S. states have implemented regulations for facilities that primarily manage and treat chronic pain, called "pain clinics." Whether a clinic falls into a state's pain clinic definition determines the extent to which it is subject to oversight. It is unclear whether state pain clinic definitions model those found in the medical literature, and potential differences lead to discrepancies between scientific and professionally guided advice found in the medical literature and actual pain clinic practice. Identifying discrepancies could assist states to design laws that are more compatible with best practices suggested in the medical literature. METHODS: We conducted an integrative systematic review to create a taxonomy of pain clinic definitions using academic medical literature. We then identified existing U.S. state pain clinic statutes and regulations and compared the developed taxonomy using a content analysis approach to understand the extent to which medical literature definitions are reflected in state policy. RESULTS: In the medical literature, we identified eight categories of pain clinic definitions: 1) patient case mix; 2) single-modality treatment; 3) multidisciplinary treatment; 4) interdisciplinary treatment; 5) provider supervision; 6) provider composition; 7) marketing; and 8) outcome. We identified ten states with pain clinic laws. State laws primarily include the following definitional categories: patient case mix; single-modality treatment, and marketing. Some definitional categories commonly found in the medical literature, such as multidisciplinary treatment and interdisciplinary treatment, rarely appear in state law definitions. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to our knowledge to develop a taxonomy of pain clinic definitions and to identify differences between pain clinic definitions in U.S. state law and medical literature. Future work should explore the impact of different legal pain clinic definitions on provider decision-making and state-level health outcomes.