Extramural US Federal Research Grants For Health Outcomes Associated With Climate Change Inadequate, Too Narrow In Focus.

Climate change causes and exacerbates disease, creates and worsens health disparities, disrupts health care delivery, and imposes a significant disease burden in the US and globally. Critical knowledge gaps hinder an evidence-based response and are perpetuated by scarce federal research funds. We identified and described extramural US federal research funding (that is, grants provided to organizations and institutions outside of federal agencies) that both addressed health outcomes associated with climate change and was awarded between 2010 and 2020. During this eleven-year period, 102 grants met our criteria, totaling approximately $58.7 million, or approximately $5.3 million per year (2020 adjusted US dollars). Federal investments in climate change and health research during this period failed to address the breadth of climate-sensitive exposures, health outcomes, and impacts on vulnerable populations. Moving forward, in addition to increasing investment in climate and health research across all known hazards, critical attention should be placed on vulnerable populations and health equity. To achieve this, increased federal research coordination and cooperation are needed, as well as a mechanism to track this funding.

Climate Change Adaptation Activities and Needs in US State and Territorial Health Agencies.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize US State and Territorial Health Agencies' (S/THA) climate change adaptation activities and priorities to facilitate appropriate investments, skills development, and support that will strengthen health sector capacity in response to a changing climate. DESIGN: In 2021, we conducted an online survey of S/THA staff requesting information on current activities related to climate change and health, the state of climate and health programming, and anticipated needs and priorities for assistance. We analyzed survey results using descriptive statistics. SETTING: US State and Territorial Health Agencies. PARTICIPANTS: We received responses from 41 of 59 S/THAs (69.5%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Implementation of S/THA climate and health programs (CHPs); engagement in climate and health activities; maintenance of hazard early warning systems and action plans; employment of climate and health communications strategies; capability to assess risks and adaptation needs related to various climate-sensitive conditions; priorities and plans for climate change adaptation in relation to climate-sensitive health risks; climate change adaptation-related partnerships and collaborations; requests of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) for advancing climate change adaptation activities; and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on climate change work. RESULTS: Nineteen S/THAs reported having CHPs, the majority of which are federally funded. On average, S/THAs without CHPs reported engagement in fewer climate and health activities and more early warning activities. The S/THAs reported the highest levels of concerns regarding non-vector-borne infectious disease (66%), vector-borne infectious diseases (61%), and extreme heat (61%) hazards. CONCLUSIONS: As S/THAs with CHPs report substantially greater climate and health capacity than those without, additional federal and state investments (eg, Building Resilience Against Climate Effects [BRACE]) are urgently needed to catalyze climate and health capacity.

Barriers and facilitators to state public health agency climate and health action: a qualitative assessment.

BACKGROUND: As the health implications of climate change become more apparent, agencies and institutions across the United States are developing recommendations for state and territorial health agencies (S/THAs) to implement evidence-informed climate and health adaptation strategies. The CDC established the Building Resilience Against Climate Effects (BRACE) framework in 2010 to encourage local and state public health engagement in climate change adaptation. However, even after a decade of the BRACE initiative, the elements that affect the adoption and implementation of climate and health programming by S/THAs are not well understood. METHODS: Using an implementation science framework, this study sought to further understand and define the barriers and facilitators that determine the breadth and success of climate change and health activities undertaken by state health agencies (SHAs). We conducted focus groups with representatives from SHAs with and without climate and health programs, and analyzed data using the framework method for qualitative research. RESULTS: This study identified funding, state and agency-level prioritization, staff capability and capacity, and political will and polarization as factors that influence the readiness for implementation and implementation climate for climate and health activities. CONCLUSIONS: As the impacts of climate change intensify, S/THAs will need to expand resources and capacity, and seek advocacy and assistance from external organizations in order to support the level of engagement required to strengthen climate resilience. Findings from this study have implications for public health policy and highlight potential pathways to expand support for climate and health activities in S/THAs in the U.S.

Association Between the 2021 Heat Wave in Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington, and Emergency Department Visits.

This study used a health care claims data set of enrollees in commercial and Medicare Advantage insurance plans to assess the association between the June 2021 heat wave and the rates of emergency department visits in Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington.

Addressing Capacity Constraints of Rural Local Health Departments to Support Climate Change Adaptation: Action Is Needed Now.

Looming climate change health impacts among rural communities will require a robust health system response. To reduce health inequities and promote climate justice, rural local health departments (LHDs) must be adequately resourced and supported to engage in climate change mitigation and adaptation policy and program development and implementation. In the United States, small local tax bases, overreliance on revenue from fee-based services, and limited federal funding to support climate change and health programming, have left rural LHDs with limited and inflexible human, financial, and political capital to support engagement in local climate change activities. Because of the urgent demands stemming from climate change, additional investments and supports are needed to rapidly build the capacity and capability of rural LHDs. Federal and state approaches to public health funding should consider the unique climate change and health risks of rural communities. Further, cross-jurisdictional shared service arrangements and state-level support to build rural LHDs' technical capacity, and research on local impacts and culturally appropriate solutions, must be prioritized.

Using Implementation Science For Health Adaptation: Opportunities For Pacific Island Countries.

The health risks of a changing climate are immediate and multifaceted. Policies, plans, and programs to reduce climate-related health impacts exist, but multiple barriers hinder the uptake of these strategies, and information remains limited on the factors affecting implementation. Implementation science-a discipline focused on systematically examining the gap between knowledge and action-can address questions related to implementation and help the health sector scale up successful adaptation measures in response to climate change. Implementation science, in the context of a changing climate, can guide decision makers in introducing and prioritizing potential health adaptation and disaster risk management solutions, advancing sustainability initiatives, and evaluating and improving intervention strategies. In this article we highlight examples from Pacific Island countries and outline approaches based on implementation science to enhance the capacity of health systems to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from climate-related exposures.

Improving and Expanding Estimates of the Global Burden of Disease Due to Environmental Health Risk Factors.

BACKGROUND: The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study, coordinated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), produces influential, data-driven estimates of the burden of disease and premature death due to major risk factors. Expanded quantification of disease due to environmental health (EH) risk factors, including climate change, will enhance accuracy of GBD estimates, which will contribute to developing cost-effective policies that promote prevention and achieving Sustainable Development Goals. OBJECTIVES: We review key aspects of the GBD for the EH community and introduce the Global Burden of Disease-Pollution and Health Initiative (GBD-PHI), which aims to work with IHME and the GBD study to improve estimates of disease burden attributable to EH risk factors and to develop an innovative approach to estimating climate-related disease burden-both current and projected. METHODS: We discuss strategies for improving GBD quantification of specific EH risk factors, including air pollution, lead, and climate change. We highlight key methodological challenges, including new EH risk factors, notably evidence rating and global exposure assessment. DISCUSSION: A number of issues present challenges to the scope and accuracy of current GBD estimates for EH risk factors. For air pollution, minimal data exist on the exposure-risk relationships associated with high levels of pollution; epidemiological studies in high pollution regions should be a research priority. For lead, the GBD's current methods do not fully account for lead's impact on neurodevelopment; innovative methods to account for subclinical effects are needed. Decisions on inclusion of additional EH risk-outcome pairs need to be guided by findings of systematic reviews, the size of exposed populations, feasibility of global exposure estimates, and predicted trends in exposures and diseases. Neurotoxicants, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and climate-related factors should be high priorities for incorporation into upcoming iterations of the GBD study. Enhancing the scope and methods will improve the GBD's estimates and better guide prevention policy. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP5496.

Using Uncertain Climate and Development Information in Health Adaptation Planning.

To aid health adaptation decision-making, there are increasing efforts to provide climate projections at finer temporal and spatial scales. Relying solely on projected climate changes for longer-term decisions makes the implicit assumption that sources of vulnerability other than climate change will remain the same, which is not very probable. Over longer time horizons, this approach likely over estimates the extent to which climate change could alter the magnitude and pattern of health outcomes, introducing systematic bias into health management decisions. To balance this potential bias, decision-makers also need projections of other drivers of health outcomes that are, like climate change, recognized determinants of some disease burdens. Incorporating projections via an iterative process that allows for regular updates based on new knowledge and experience has the potential to improve the utility of fine-scale climate projections in health system adaptation to climate change.

Building Resilience Against Climate Effects­a novel framework to facilitate climate readiness in public health agencies.

Climate change is anticipated to have several adverse health impacts. Managing these risks to public health requires an iterative approach. As with many risk management strategies related to climate change, using modeling to project impacts, engaging a wide range of stakeholders, and regularly updating models and risk management plans with new information-hallmarks of adaptive management-are considered central tenets of effective public health adaptation. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has developed a framework, entitled Building Resilience Against Climate Effects, or BRACE, to facilitate this process for public health agencies. Its five steps are laid out here. Following the steps laid out in BRACE will enable an agency to use the best available science to project likely climate change health impacts in a given jurisdiction and prioritize interventions. Adopting BRACE will also reinforce public health's established commitment to evidence-based practice and institutional learning, both of which will be central to successfully engaging the significant new challenges that climate change presents.

Climate change and emergency medicine: impacts and opportunities.

There is scientific consensus that the climate is changing, that human activity plays a major role, and that the changes will continue through this century. Expert consensus holds that significant health effects are very likely. Public health and health care systems must understand these impacts to properly pursue preparedness and prevention activities. All of medicine will very likely be affected, and certain medical specialties are likely to be more significantly burdened based on their clinical activity, ease of public access, public health roles, and energy use profiles. These specialties have been called on to consider the likely impacts on their patients and practice and to prepare their practitioners. Emergency medicine (EM), with its focus on urgent and emergent ambulatory care, role as a safety-net provider, urban concentration, and broad-based clinical mission, will very likely experience a significant rise in demand for its services over and above current annual increases. Clinically, EM will see amplification of weather-related disease patterns and shifts in disease distribution. In EM's prehospital care and disaster response activities, both emergency medical services (EMS) activity and disaster medical assistance team (DMAT) deployment activities will likely increase. EM's public health roles, including disaster preparedness, emergency department (ED)-based surveillance, and safety-net care, are likely to face increasing demands, along with pressures to improve fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, EM's roles in ED and hospital management, particularly related to building and purchasing, are likely to be impacted by efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance energy efficiency. Climate change thus presents multiple clinical and public health challenges to EM, but also creates numerous opportunities for research, education, and leadership on an emerging health issue of global scope.