Polarized Perspectives on Health Equity: Results from a Nationally Representative Survey on U.S. Public Perceptions of COVID-19 Disparities in 2023.

Republicans and Democrats responded in starkly different ways to the COVID-19 pandemic, from their attitudes in 2020 about whether the virus posed a threat to whether the pandemic ended in 2023. The consequences of COVID-19 for health equity has been a central concern in public health, and the concept of health equity has also been beset by partisan polarization. In this essay, we present and discuss nationally-representative survey data from 2023 on U.S. public perceptions of disparities in COVID-19 mortality (building on a multi-wave previous survey effort), as well as causal attributions for racial disparities, the contribution of structural racism, and broader attitudes about public health authority. We find anticipated gulfs in perspectives between Democrats on the one hand, and Independents and Republicans on the other. The results offer a somewhat pessimistic view on the likelihood of finding common ground in how the general public understands health inequities or the role of structural racism in perpetuating them. However, we show that those who acknowledge racial disparities in COVID-19 are more likely to support state public health authority to act for other infectious disease threats. We explore the implications of these public opinion data for advocacy, communication, and future needed research.

Strategic Messaging to Promote Policies that Advance Racial Equity: What Do We Know, and What Do We Need to Learn?

Policy Points Many studies have explored the impact of message strategies to build support for policies that advance racial equity, but few studies examine the effects of richer stories of lived experience and detailed accounts of the ways racism is embedded in policy design and implementation. Longer messages framed to emphasize social and structural causes of racial inequity hold significant potential to enhance support for policies to advance racial equity. There is an urgent need to develop, test, and disseminate communication interventions that center perspectives from historically marginalized people and promote policy advocacy, community mobilization, and collective action to advance racial equity. CONTEXT: Long-standing racial inequities in health and well-being are shaped by racialized public policies that perpetuate disadvantage among Black, Brown, Indigenous, and people of color. Strategic messaging can accelerate public and policymaker support for public policies that advance population health. We lack a comprehensive understanding of lessons learned from work on policy messaging to advance racial equity and the gaps in knowledge it reveals. METHODS: A scoping review of peer-reviewed studies from communication, psychology, political science, sociology, public health, and health policy that have tested how various message strategies influence support and mobilization for racial equity policy domains across a wide variety of social systems. We used keyword database searches, author bibliographic searches, and reviews of reference lists from relevant sources to compile 55 peer-reviewed papers with 80 studies that used experiments to test the effects of one or more message strategies in shaping support for racial equity-related policies, as well as the cognitive/emotional factors that predict their support. FINDINGS: Most studies report on the short-term effects of very short message manipulations. Although many of these studies find evidence that reference to race or use of racial cues tend to undermine support for racial equity-related policies, the accumulated body of evidence has generally not explored the effects of richer, more nuanced stories of lived experience and/or detailed historical and contemporary accounts of the ways racism is embedded in public policy design and implementation. A few well-designed studies offer evidence that longer-form messages framed to emphasize social and structural causes of racial inequity can enhance support for policies to advance racial equity, though many questions require further research. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude by laying out a research agenda to fill numerous wide gaps in the evidentiary base related to building support for racial equity policy across sectors.

The Perils of Medicalization for Population Health and Health Equity.

Policy Points Medicalization is a historical process by which personal, behavioral, and social issues are increasingly viewed through a biomedical lens and "diagnosed and treated" as individual pathologies and problems by medical authorities. Medicalization in the United States has led to a conflation of "health" and "health care" and a confusion between individual social needs versus the social, political, and economic determinants of health. The essential and important work of population health science, public health practice, and health policy writ large is being thwarted by a medicalized view of health and an overemphasis on personal health services and the health care delivery system as the major focal point for addressing societal health issues and health inequality. Increased recognition of the negative consequences of a medicalized view of health is essential, with a focus on education and training of clinicians and health care managers, journalists, and policymakers.

Who does COVID-19 hurt most? Perceptions of unequal impact and political implications.

While the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on U.S. population health has been devastating, it has not affected everyone equally. The risks of hospitalization and death from the disease are relatively low for the population as a whole, but much higher for specific subpopulations defined by age, health status, and race or ethnicity. The extent to which Americans perceive these disparities is an open question, with potentially important political implications. Recognition of unequal impacts may prime concerns about justice and fairness, making Americans more concerned and willing to support government intervention. On the other hand, belief that the pandemic primarily threatens "other people" or out-groups may reduce, rather than increase, a person's concern. Partisanship and media consumption habits are also likely to play a role in these perceptions, as they do in most issues related to COVID-19. In this paper, we use original survey data from the Cooperative Election Study (N = 1000) to explore Americans' perceptions of which groups are most harmed by the pandemic, the demographic and political determinants of these perceptions, and the relationship of these perceptions with their opinions about COVID-related mitigation policy. We find that, on average, people perceived accurately that certain groups (e.g., Black Americans, older people) were more affected, but these group perceptions varied by demographic and political characteristics of respondents. We find, in contrast with recent experimental evidence, that the perception that populations of color were harmed was associated with more support for pandemic mitigation strategies. More research should investigate the relationships among pandemic politics and the racial dynamics of the target populations most affected.

Local TV News Coverage of Racial Disparities in COVID-19 During the First Wave of the Pandemic, March-June 2020.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted health and social outcomes for people of color in the United States. This study examined how local TV news stories attributed causes and solutions for COVID-19-related racial health and social disparities, and whether coverage of such disparities changed after George Floyd's murder, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We systematically validated keywords to extract relevant news content and conducted a content analysis of 169 discrete local TV news stories aired between March and June 2020 from 80 broadcast networks within 22 purposefully selected media markets. We found that social determinants of COVID-19 related racial disparities have been part of the discussion in local TV news, but racism as a public health crisis was rarely mentioned. Coverage of racial disparities focused far more attention on physical health outcomes than broader social impacts. Stories cited more structural factors than individual factors, as causes of these disparities. After the murder of George Floyd, stories were more likely to mention Black and Latinx people than other populations impacted by COVID-19. Only 9% of local news stories referenced racism, and stories referenced politicians more frequently than public health experts.

Serving the public? A content analysis of COVID-19 public service announcements airing from March - December of 2020 in the U.S.

The objective of this research was to examine the health messages conveyed in public service announcements (PSAs) affiliated with the U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. To do so, we conducted a content analysis of 132 federally-affiliated PSAs that were aired 170,820 times between March 12 and December 16, 2020. Using a quantitative coding instrument, we analyzed health behavioral guidance, messages about groups, people depicted, and other PSA features. We calculated frequencies of exposure to messages at the airing-level to account for the varying number of times each PSA was aired. Far more PSAs aired between March and June than between July and December. The most common health guidance was to stay at home (80.7%), practice social distancing (61.9%), and wash hands (54.5%); 36.1% of airings included guidance to wear masks. Few PSAs referenced group differences in risk of infection or transmission, nor did they reference scientific evidence or the future availability of vaccines. PSAs aired in 2020 missed opportunities to convey important information to the public and to center health equity in public communication.

Association of Funding Cuts to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Navigator Program With Privately Sponsored Television Advertising.

Importance: Many individuals eligible for coverage in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace remain unenrolled because of information barriers. Whether the private sector or the public sector should conduct outreach to address these barriers is a topic of active debate. Objective: To determine whether cuts to the funding of the ACA navigator program were associated with changes in the volume of private sector advertising. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using data from the 2015 to 2019 open enrollment periods, this economic evaluation analyzed the changes in advertising associated with 2017 to 2019 cuts to navigator program funding. A difference-in-difference analysis was used to compare outcomes before and after the cuts in counties with higher and lower exposure to the navigator program. Health insurance advertising was measured using data from Kantar/Campaign Media Analysis Group in collaboration with the Wesleyan Media Project, the most comprehensive data available on local broadcast and national cable advertising. The data set included all counties that met the eligibility criteria for the navigator program from 2015 through 2019. Data were analyzed from August 2021 to May 2022. Exposures: Counties were classified as having higher or lower exposure to the navigator program according to the intensity of program activity in 2016, before the funding cuts. Counties served only by statewide navigator programs were categorized as lower exposure, while those also served by local navigator programs were categorized as higher exposure. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of privately sponsored television advertisement airings for the ACA individual health insurance marketplace during the 2015 to 2019 open enrollment periods in each county, adjusted for population. Results: All counties in 33 states that met the eligibility criteria for the navigator program from 2015 through 2019 were included in the analysis (2435 counties). Cuts to the navigator program were not associated with changes in the number of privately sponsored health insurance advertisements aired. Results were similar under several alternative approaches including an event study specification. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of the association between television advertising and navigator funding in the ACA marketplaces, private sector entities did not increase their advertising to compensate for declines in government-sponsored navigator activity. This finding can inform policy debates about the extent to which the private sector adjusts in response to changes in government outreach, and thus improve the design of state waivers and federal funding allocations.

Americans' perceptions of health disparities over the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from three nationally-representative surveys.

COVID-19 has illuminated health inequity in the United States. The burdens of disease are much higher among Black and Indigenous people and other people of color. Disparities by income are also profound, as lower-wage workers were less able to adopt mitigating behaviors compared to higher-income counterparts. These disparities became part of public health discourse in 2020, with commentators frequently highlighting the connection between racism, socioeconomic position, and COVID-19. But what proportion of the public-and among key subgroups-recognized these social group disparities, relative to disparities associated with age and chronic illness, and did public recognition change over the first year of the pandemic? To address these questions, we analyzed data from three nationally-representative cross-sectional public opinion surveys, collected using the NORC AmeriSpeak panel in April 2020 (N = 1007), August 2020 (N = 2716), and April 2021 (N = 1020). The key outcomes were respondents' agreement with statements about disparities in COVID-19 mortality by age, chronic illness, income, and race. We found little change from 2020 to 2021 in Americans' recognition of disparities. At all three time points, most respondents acknowledged age and chronic illness disparities, while no more than half at any time point recognized income- and race-based disparities. Political party affiliation was not statistically associated with agreement with age or illness-related disparities, but was strongly associated with views about income- and race-based disparities. Efforts to promote recognition of racial and socioeconomic health disparities in the United States need to be mindful of the ways in which public understanding of health inequities is linked to partisanship.

Designing and Implementing a Curriculum to Support Health Equity Research Leaders: The Interdisciplinary Research Leaders Experience.

Health inequities in the United States are well-documented. However, research that is focused on solutions, rather than just describing the problem, and research that is designed explicitly to inform needed policy and practice change, is still too rare. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Interdisciplinary Research Leaders (IRL) program launched in 2016 with the goal of filling this gap: to generate community-engaged research to catalyze policy action in communities, while promoting leadership among researchers and community partners. In this paper, we describe the creation and implementation of a curriculum for IRL program participants over the first 5 years of the program. The curriculum-spanning domains of leadership, policy, communication, community engagement, and research methodologies-was designed to cultivate leaders who use research evidence in their efforts to promote change to advance health equity in their communities. The curriculum components implemented by IRL might be applied to other educational programs or fellowships to amplify and accelerate the growth of leaders nationwide who can use research and action to respond to grave and ongoing threats to community health.

Partisan differences in the effects of economic evidence and local data on legislator engagement with dissemination materials about behavioral health: a dissemination trial.

BACKGROUND: State legislators make policy decisions that influence children's exposure to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), such as child maltreatment, and their effects on behavioral health. Effective dissemination of scientific research can increase the likelihood that legislators' decisions are aligned with evidence to prevent ACEs and their consequences, and effective dissemination requires legislators to engage with dissemination materials. Informed by the elaboration likelihood model of persuasive communication and Brownson's Model of Dissemination Research, we tested the hypothesis that inclusion of economic evidence and local data would increase legislator engagement with dissemination materials about evidence-supported policies related to ACEs and behavioral health. METHODS: A three-arm randomized dissemination trial was conducted. A university researcher e-mailed dissemination materials which contained evidence about ACEs and behavioral health problems to state legislators (two e-mails sent 2 weeks apart, 12,662 e-mails delivered to 6509 legislators). The e-mail subject lines, text, and policy brief content were manipulated across the study arms. The intervention condition received state-tailored data about rates of ACEs and state-tailored economic evidence about the costs of ACEs for public systems, the enhanced control condition received state-tailored data and not economic evidence, and the control condition received national data and not economic evidence. Outcomes were rates of e-mail views, policy brief link clicks, requests for researcher consultation, and mentions of child maltreatment terms in legislators' social media posts. RESULTS: For the first e-mail, the e-mail view rate was 42.6% higher in the intervention than in the enhanced control condition (22.8% vs. 14.8%) and 20.8% higher than in the control condition (22.8% vs. 18.5%) (both p < .0001). Similar results were observed for the second e-mail. These differences remained significant after adjustment for demographic differences across study conditions in individual-level models, but not multilevel models. There was a significant interaction between the experimental condition and political party (p < .0001) in which the intervention increased e-mail view rates among Democrats but not Republicans. The intervention had no effect on policy brief link clicks or requests for consultation and a mixed effect on social media posts. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of state-tailored economic evidence in dissemination materials can increase engagement with research evidence among Democrat, but not Republican, legislators. Dissemination strategies tailored for legislators' political party affiliation may be needed.

Health Insurance Ad Messages Targeted to English- and Spanish-Speaking Populations in a Period of Limited Federal Investment in Marketplace Outreach.

Federal funding cuts to enrollment outreach and marketing of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace options in 2017 has raised questions about the adequacy of the information the public has received, especially among populations vulnerable to uninsurance. Using health insurance ads aired from January 1, 2018, through December 21, 2018, we conducted a content analysis focused on (a) the messaging differences by ad language (English vs. Spanish) and (b) the messaging appeals used by nonfederally sponsored health insurance ads in 2018. The results reveal that privately sponsored ads focused on benefit appeals (e.g., prescription drugs), while publicly sponsored ads emphasized financial assistance subsidies. Few ads, regardless of language, referenced the ACA explicitly and privately sponsored Spanish-language ads emphasized benefits (e.g., choice of doctor) over enrollment-relevant details. This study emphasizes that private-sponsored television marketing may not provide specific and actionable health insurance information to the public, especially for the Spanish-speaking populations.

Selecting evidence to frame the consequences of adverse childhood experiences: testing effects on public support for policy action, multi-sector responsibility, and stigma.

While clinical and public health researchers have produced a high volume of research evidence about the consequences of ACEs, there is limited research on public understanding of ACEs or how to most effectively communicate about this body of science. The objective of this study was to determine which messages describing evidence about the consequences of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) affect public perceptions. We conducted an online experiment with a nationally-representative sample of U.S. adults in July-August 2020. Participants were randomized to control groups receiving messages describing ACE prevalence or resilience, or treatment groups receiving messages describing consequences of ACEs on mental health and substance use, economics, racial equity, or biology. We compared respondents' perceptions of prevention policies and likelihood of policy engagement, attributions of multi-sector responsibility, and blame and stigma across experimental groups. Messages about economic consequences increased respondents' support for policy and attributions of multi-sector responsibility relative to control groups, while also increasing parental blame. The message describing racial equity lowered respondents' perceptions of importance of state policy action and attributions of responsibility to health care. None of the messages affected stigmatizing attitudes. Describing the economic consequences of ACEs on public systems boosts public support for policy action. More research is needed on how the public responds to messaging connecting systemic racism with childhood adversity and health.

Changes in Marketplace competition and television advertising by insurers.

OBJECTIVES: The Trump administration ended television advertising for the Health Insurance Marketplace prior to the 2018 open enrollment period, leaving insurers as the predominant source of health insurance advertising. Prior research findings are mixed on the effectiveness of private advertising on Marketplace enrollment, but no work to date has examined how competitive changes in health insurance markets are related to marketing patterns. This study provides the first evidence on how insurers are altering their marketing in response to changes in competition. STUDY DESIGN: This study links data capturing Marketplace participation (CMS Qualified Health Plan Landscape files) by county and health insurance advertising (Kantar Media/Campaign Media Analysis Group) by media market for the 2014 through 2018 open enrollment periods. METHODS: We used population-weighted county fixed effects models to estimate the relationship between year-over-year changes in Marketplace competition and changes in (1) total private advertising and (2) advertising per insurer. RESULTS: Going from multiple insurers to a single insurer resulted in 465 fewer private ads aired within a county during open enrollment (P < .01), a 17% to 38% reduction. Losing monopoly status is associated with a drop in advertising of 452 airings per insurer (P < .01), and becoming a monopolist is associated with 293 more airings per insurer (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Insurers are not replacing the decline in government-sponsored advertising. We find that insurers behave as if they are responding to strategic incentives, advertising more when they become a monopolist but not filling the hole left by their former competitor, which has implications for the volume of messages seen by consumers.

Targeting of Enrollment Assistance Resources in Health Insurance Television Advertising: A Comparison of Spanish- Vs. English-Language Ads.

Latinx adults, especially immigrants, face higher uninsurance and lower awareness of the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) provisions and resources compared to other racial/ethnic groups. Television advertising of ACA health plans has directed many consumers to application assistance and enrollment, but little is known about how ads targeted Latinx consumers. We used Kantar Media/CMAG data from the Wesleyan Media Project to assess Spanish- vs. English-language ad targeting strategies and to assess which enrollment assistance resources (in person/telephone vs. online) were emphasized across three Open Enrollment Periods (OEP) (2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16). We examined differences in advertisement sponsorship and volume of Spanish- versus English-language ads across the three OEPs. State-based Marketplaces sponsored 47% of Spanish-language airings; insurance companies sponsored 55% of English-language airings. The proportion of Spanish-language airings increased over time (8.8% in OEP1, 11.1% in OEP2, 12.0% in OEP3, p <.001). Spanish-language airings had 49% lower (95%CI: 0.50,0.53) and 2.20 times higher odds (95%CI: 2.17,2.24) of mentioning online and telephone/in-person enrollment assistance resources, respectively. While there was a significant decrease in mention of telephone/in-person assistance over time for English-language airings, these mentions increased significantly in Spanish-language airings. Future research should examine the impact of the drastic federal cuts to ACA outreach and marketing.

Americans' perceptions of disparities in COVID-19 mortality: Results from a nationally-representative survey.

As with many other infectious and chronic conditions, the COVID-19 crisis in the United States (U.S.) reveals severe inequities in health. The objective of this study was to describe public perceptions of disparities in mortality from COVID-19 and examine correlates of those perceptions. We fielded a nationally-representative survey in late April 2020, asking participants how much they agreed with four statements describing group-level COVID-19 disparities: older people compared to younger, people with chronic health conditions compared to those without, poorer people compared to wealthier, and Black people compared to white people. We also measured personal characteristics, experience with COVID-19, and information sources. Overall agreement with age- and health condition-related disparities was high (>80%) while agreement with socioeconomic (SES) and racial disparities was lower (52%). Higher education and income were generally associated with greater agreement with disparities. Partisanship and information sources used were associated with perceptions of SES- and racial-disparities, with Democrats and those attune to national news-but not Fox cable news-more likely to perceive these disparities. As of April 2020, information about age- and health condition-related disparities in COVID-19 was well known by the U.S. public, while information about social disparities was less recognized and varied along socioeconomic and partisan lines.

Access and enrollment in safety net programs in the wake of COVID-19: A national cross-sectional survey.

The global COVID-19 pandemic is causing unprecedented job loss and financial strain. It is unclear how those most directly experiencing economic impacts may seek assistance from disparate safety net programs. To identify self-reported economic hardship and enrollment in major safety net programs before and early in the COVID-19 pandemic, we compared individuals with COVID-19 related employment or earnings reduction with other individuals. We created a set of questions related to COVID-19 economic impact that was added to a cross-sectional, nationally representative online survey of American adults (age ≥18, English-speaking) in the AmeriSpeak panel fielded from April 23-27, 2020. All analyses were weighted to account for survey non-response and known oversampling probabilities. We calculated unadjusted bivariate differences, comparing people with and without COVID-19 employment and earnings reductions with other individuals. Our study looked primarily at awareness and enrollment in seven major safety net programs before and since the pandemic (Medicaid, health insurance marketplaces/exchanges, unemployment insurance, food pantries/free meals, housing/renters assistance, SNAP, and TANF). Overall, 28.1% of all individuals experienced an employment reduction (job loss or reduced earnings). Prior to the pandemic, 39.0% of the sample was enrolled in ≥1 safety net program, and 50.0% of individuals who subsequently experienced COVID-19 employment reduction were enrolled in at least one safety net program. Those who experienced COVID-19 employment reduction versus those who did not were significantly more likely to have applied or enrolled in ≥1 program (45.9% versus 11.7%, p<0.001) and also significantly more likely to specifically have enrolled in unemployment insurance (29.4% versus 5.4%, p < .001) and SNAP (16.8% versus 2.8%, p = 0.028). The economic devastation from COVID-19 increases the importance of a robust safety net.