Vaccinating across the aisle: using co-partisan source cues to encourage COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the ideological right.

Overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States will require most Americans to vaccinate against the disease. However, considerable research suggests that a significant proportion of Americans intend to forego vaccination, putting pandemic recovery at risk. Republicans are one of the largest groups of COVID-19 vaccine hesitant individuals. Therefore, identifying strategies to reduce vaccine hesitancy within this group is vital to ending the pandemic. In this study, we investigate the effectiveness of messages from co-partisan sources in reducing vaccine hesitancy. In a large (N = 3000) and demographically representative survey, we find that exposing "Middle-of-the-Road" partisans to pro-vaccine messages from co-partisan source cues reduces vaccine hesitancy. However, for those who identify as "Strong" or "Weak" partisans, we find no statistically significant differences in vaccination intentions when exposed to pro-vaccine messages from co-partisan sources. We conclude by discussing how our findings are helpful for vaccine communication efforts.

"The CDC Won't Let Me Be": The Opinion Dynamics of Support for CDC Regulatory Authority.

CONTEXT: The CDC's ability to respond to communicable disease threats has recently met significant political and legal opposition. The authors unpack the influence of political ideology on support for CDC authority, and they experimentally assess whether highlighting ideology's role in responding to health threats might bolster CDC support. METHODS: The authors fielded a demographically representative online survey experiment to 5,483 US adults. They assessed the sociopolitical correlates of CDC attitudes via multivariate regression analyses limited to a study-wide treatment group. Additionally, they tested the effectiveness of their experimental treatments via multivariate models that interact indicators of stimulus exposure with political ideology. FINDINGS: Although most Americans support the CDC's role in responding to health crises, self-identified conservatives are significantly less likely to do so. This effect holds when accounting for respondents' limited government and anti-expert attitudes, which the authors replicated in nationally representative data. Encouragingly, though, emphasizing the CDC's role in combating the spread of COVID-19 is associated with significantly stronger levels of support on the ideological right. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to communicate the CDC's importance in responding to health threats can help bridge existing ideological divides and might create an incentive for policy makers to codify the agency's regulatory powers.

More Than Words? How Highlighting Target Populations Affects Public Opinion about the Medicaid Program.

CONTEXT: The Medicaid program provides health insurance coverage to a diverse set of demographics. We know little about how the policy community describes these populations (e.g., on Medicaid-related websites or in public opinion polls and policy writings) or whether and how these descriptions may affect perceptions of the program, its beneficiaries, and potential policy changes. METHODS: To investigate this issue, we developed and fielded a nationally representative survey of 2,680 Americans that included an experiment for priming respondents by highlighting different combinations of target populations of the Medicaid program as found in the Medicaid policy discourse. FINDINGS: Overall, we find that Americans view Medicaid and its beneficiaries rather favorably. However, there are marked differences based on partisanship and racial animosity. Emphasizing citizenship and residency requirements at times improved these perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: Racial perceptions and partisanship are important correlates in Americans' views about Medicaid and its beneficiaries. However, perceptions are not immutable. In general, the policy community should shift toward using more comprehensive descriptions of the Medicaid population that go beyond the focus on low income and that include citizenship and residency requirements. Future research should expand this work by studying descriptions in the broader public discourse.

Physician Trust in the News Media and Attitudes toward COVID-19.

CONTEXT: Previous research has established the importance of primary care physicians in communicating public health directives. The implicit assumption is that, because of their expertise, doctors provide accurate and up-to-date information to their patients independent of partisan affiliation or media trust. METHODS: The authors conducted an online survey of 625 primary care physicians and used the results to test (1) whether physician trust in media outlets is consistent with their political partisanship, and (2) whether trust in media outlets influences (a) personal concern that someone in their family will get sick, (b) perceptions about the seriousness of the pandemic as portrayed in the media, and (c) trust in federal government agencies and scientists. FINDINGS: Physicians are better positioned to critically evaluate health-related news, but they are subject to the same biases that influence public opinion. Physicians' partisan commitments influence media trust, and media trust influences concern that a family member will get sick, perceptions regarding the seriousness of the pandemic, and trust in federal government agencies and scientists. CONCLUSIONS: Physician trust in specific media outlets shapes their understanding of the pandemic, and-to the extent that they trust conservative media outlets-it may limit their effectiveness as health policy messengers.

Public Attitudes, Inequities, and Polarization in the Launch of the 988 Lifeline.

CONTEXT: To address the considerable burden of mental health need in the United States, Congress passed the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act in 2020. The Act rebranded the national suicide prevention lifeline as 988 - a 3-digit number akin to 911 for individuals to call in the case of a mental health emergency. Surprisingly little is known about American attitudes towards this new lifeline. METHODS: We rely on a demographically representative sample of 5,482 US adults conducted from June 24-28, 2022. We examine the influence of mental health status, partisan identification, and demographic characteristics on public awareness, public support, and intended use of the new 988 lifeline. FINDINGS: We find that while only a quarter of Americans are aware of the lifeline, support for the 988 lifeline is widespread, with over 75% of Americans indicating they would be likely to use the new number if needed. We identify key disparities in awareness, support, and intended use, with Republicans, individuals with low socio-economic status, and Blacks less supportive and in some cases less likely to use the 988 lifeline. CONCLUSIONS: Our results point to the need for additional interventions that increase public awareness of 988 and reduce disparities in program knowledge, support, and intended use.

Promoting COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: recommendations from the Lancet Commission on Vaccine Refusal, Acceptance, and Demand in the USA.

Since the first case of COVID-19 was identified in the USA in January, 2020, over 46 million people in the country have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Several COVID-19 vaccines have received emergency use authorisations from the US Food and Drug Administration, with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine receiving full approval on Aug 23, 2021. When paired with masking, physical distancing, and ventilation, COVID-19 vaccines are the best intervention to sustainably control the pandemic. However, surveys have consistently found that a sizeable minority of US residents do not plan to get a COVID-19 vaccine. The most severe consequence of an inadequate uptake of COVID-19 vaccines has been sustained community transmission (including of the delta [B.1.617.2] variant, a surge of which began in July, 2021). Exacerbating the direct impact of the virus, a low uptake of COVID-19 vaccines will prolong the social and economic repercussions of the pandemic on families and communities, especially low-income and minority ethnic groups, into 2022, or even longer. The scale and challenges of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign are unprecedented. Therefore, through a series of recommendations, we present a coordinated, evidence-based education, communication, and behavioural intervention strategy that is likely to improve the success of COVID-19 vaccine programmes across the USA.

Community health worker roles and their evolving interprofessional relationships in the United States.

In the United States, growing attention to the cost of care, the social determinants of health, prevention, and population health, signals a refocusing of efforts on value-based care. Just as Accountable Care Organizations and alternative payment models exemplify this shift in attention, so does the increasing integration of Community Health Workers (CHWs) into the US health care system. CHWs are often referred to as "bridge figures," helping clients to navigate what are oftentimes complicated pathways to access a variety of needed services. The integration of CHWs into interprofessional care teams is a process that takes time, and can lead to conflict as traditional care models are disrupted. Through focus groups with CHWs in rural and urban areas of four states, this work identifies and describes three early stages in the evolving interprofessional relationships between CHWs and other care providers. These stages are characterized by: (1) a lack of knowledge and understanding of CHW roles, (2) conflict and competition, and (3) engagement and integration of CHWs into patient care teams. A better understanding of the evolving process of CHW integration is critical to facilitate education and training that will more quickly encourage the development and efficacy of modern models of interprofessional care that include CHWs.

Disparities in maternal influenza immunization among women in rural and urban areas of the United States.

Pregnant women and their infants are at high risk of influenza-associated complications. Although maternal immunization offers optimal protection for both, immunization rates remain low in the U.S. Women in rural communities may represent a difficult to reach group, yet immunization rates among rural-residing women have not been well evaluated. We analyzed data from the 2016-2018 Phase-8 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System for 19 U.S. states, including 45,018 women who recently gave birth to a live infant. We compared the prevalence of influenza vaccination prior to or during pregnancy and receipt of a vaccine recommendation from a healthcare provider for rural vs. urban-residing women. We used average marginal predictions derived from multivariate logistic regression models to generate weighted adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) and corresponding 95% CIs. Of the 45,018 respondents, 6575 resided in a rural area; 55.1% (95% CI: 53.3, 56.9) of rural-residing women and 61.3% (95% CI: 60.6, 61.9) of urban-residing women received an influenza vaccine prior to or during pregnancy. The prevalence of vaccination was 4% lower among rural-residing women (aPR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.93, 0.99). The greatest difference in rural vs. urban immunization rates were observed for Hispanic women and women with no health insurance. Our results indicate that pregnant women residing in rural communities have lower rates of immunization. To prevent maternal and infant health disparities, it is important to better understand the barriers to maternal immunization along with efforts to overcome them.

Lingering Legacies: Public Attitudes about Medicaid Beneficiaries and Work Requirements.

CONTEXT: This article provides a detailed picture of the mindset of Americans about Medicaid work requirements and the important roles that perception of deservingness and racial bias play in public attitudes. METHODS: The authors conducted a large original survey to investigate public attitudes toward work requirements. They analyzed the predictors of overall support for work requirements, correlates of who should be exempt from them, and attitudes toward work supports that make compliance with work requirements easier. FINDINGS: The authors found that public opinion is split relatively evenly when it comes to Medicaid work requirements in the abstract. When Americans are confronted with the complexities of the issue, important nuances emerge. The authors also found consistent evidence that support for work requirements is higher among conservatives, those who see Medicaid as a short-term program, and racially resentful non-Hispanic whites. They show that groups that have historically been framed as deserving see high levels of support for their exemption (e.g., the disabled and senior citizens). Finally, the authors found that Americans are supportive of policies that provide individuals with help when transitioning into the workforce. CONCLUSIONS: Americans' views of Medicaid and the populations it serves are complex and continue to be influenced by perceptions of deservingness and race.

Suicidal Ideation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Investigating Mental Health, COVID-19 Health Beliefs, and News Media Consumption in the United States Population in the Year 2020.

This study examines the role of general news media consumption during COVID-19 in aggravating mental health and suicide risk in the US population. In a sample of U.S. adults (N = 5,010), we investigated how mental health, COVID-19 health beliefs, and general news consumption influenced the odds of suicidal ideation using hierarchical logistic regression models. Both worsening mental health overall and specifically in regard to COVID-19 increased suicidal ideation. Perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 infection did not increase suicidal ideation, yet higher levels of COVID-19 self-efficacy reduced suicidal ideation. Overall news consumption did not affect suicidal ideation, but media-specific post-hoc analyses revealed that TV news watching decreased suicidal ideation as much as high levels of COVID-19 self-efficacy decreased suicidal ideation. Furthermore, online news consumption increased suicidal ideation as much as worsening mental health overall increased suicidal ideation. Further implications are discussed.

Immigrant health access in Texas: policy, rhetoric, and fear in the Trump era.

BACKGROUND: Since the 2016 presidential election, reports have suggested that President Trump's rhetoric and his administration's proposed policies could be exacerbating barriers to accessing health care for undocumented as well as lawfully present immigrants and their families in the United States. However, very little empirical work has analyzed this possibility or detailed how these reports and rhetoric have altered the health seeking behavior of mixed immigration status families. METHODS: Using a series of focus groups throughout Texas in both English and Spanish, this qualitative study analyzes changes to health access for immigrants. We consulted Community Health Workers to better understand the barriers encountered by their otherwise hard-to-reach undocumented clients and their families as they interface with the health system, revealing key insights about the changing nature of barriers to access under the Trump administration. RESULTS: We identify four key themes about the changing nature of immigrant health access in the United States: growing fear of interacting with health and social services; that social networks are paradoxically limiting health access in the current political climate; that the administration's rhetoric and proposed policies are impeding health seeking behavior; and that children are encountering new barriers to social program participation. CONCLUSIONS: The Trump administration, its proposed immigration policies, and his rhetoric are posing new and significant barriers to health access for immigrants and their families.

The Future of Health Care Reform: What Is Driving Enrollment?

Against a backdrop of ongoing operational challenges, insurance market turbulence, and the ever present pull of partisanship, enrollment in the ACA's programs has soared and significant variations have developed across states in terms of their pace of coverage expansion. Our article explores why ACA enrollment has varied so dramatically across states. We explore the potential influence of party control, presidential cueing, administrative capacity, the reverberating effects of ACA policy decisions, affluence, and unemployment on enrollment. Our multivariate analysis finds that party control dominated early state decision making, but that relative enrollment in insurance exchanges and the Medicaid expansion are driven by a changing mix of political and administrative factors. Health politics is entering a new era as Republicans replace the ACA and devolve significant discretion to states to administer Medicaid and other programs. Our findings offer insights into future directions in health reform and in learning and diffusion.

Interest Group Conflict Over Medicaid Expansion: The Surprising Impact of Public Advocates.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the potential economic, policy, and political influences on the decisions of the 50 US states to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. METHODS: We related a measure of relative state progress toward Medicaid expansion updated to 2015 to each state's economic circumstances, established policy frameworks in states, partisan control of state government, and lobbyists for businesses, medical professionals, unions, and public interest organizations. RESULTS: The 9201 lobbyists working on health care reform in state capitols exerted a strong and significant impact on Medicaid expansion. Controlling for confounding factors (including partisanship and existing policy frameworks), we found that business and professional lobbyists exerted a negative effect on state Medicaid expansion and, unexpectedly, that public interest advocates exerted a positive effect. CONCLUSIONS: There are 3.1 million adults who lack coverage because they live in the 20 states that refused to expand Medicaid. Although political party and lobbyists for private interests present significant barriers in these states, legislative lobbying on behalf of the uninsured appears likely to be effective.

Why states expand Medicaid: party, resources, and history.

After the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March 2010 and the affirmation of its constitutionality by the Supreme Court in 2012, key decisions about the implementation of health care reform are now in the hands of states. But our understanding of these decisions is hampered by simplistic sortings of state directions into two or three simple, rigid categories. This article takes a different approach--it tracks the variations in relative state progress in implementing Medicaid expansion across a continuum of activities and steps in the decision-making process. This new measure reveals wide variation not only among states that have adopted Medicaid expansion but also among those that have rejected it but have also made progress. We use this new measure to spotlight cross-pressured Republican states that have adopted Medicaid expansion or have prepared to move forward and to explore possible explanations for implementation that extend beyond a simple focus on party control.