The US Federal Retail Pharmacy Program: Optimizing COVID-19 Vaccine Delivery Through a Strategic Public-Private Partnership.

To help achieve the initial goal of providing universal COVID-19 vaccine access to approximately 258 million adults in 62 US jurisdictions, the federal government launched the Federal Retail Pharmacy Program (FRPP) on February 11, 2021. We describe FRPP's collaboration among the federal government, US jurisdictions, federal entity partners, and 21 national chain and independent pharmacy networks to provide large-scale access to COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in communities disproportionately affected by COVID-19 (eg, people aged ≥65 years, people from racial and ethnic minority groups). FRPP initially provided 10 000 vaccination sites for people to access COVID-19 vaccines, which was increased to >35 000 vaccination sites by May 2021 and sustained through January 31, 2022. From February 11, 2021, through January 31, 2022, FRPP vaccination sites received 293 million doses and administered 219 million doses, representing 45% of all COVID-19 immunizations provided nationwide (38% of all first doses, 72% of all booster doses). This unprecedented public-private partnership allowed the federal government to rapidly adapt and scale up an equitable vaccination program to reach adults, later expanding access to vaccine-eligible children, during the COVID-19 pandemic. As the largest federal COVID-19 vaccination program, FRPP exemplifies how public-private partnerships can expand access to immunizations during a public health emergency. Pharmacies can help meet critical national public health goals by serving as convenient access points for sustained health services. Lessons learned from this effort-including the importance of strong coordination and communication, efficient reporting systems and data quality, and increasing access to and demand for vaccine, among others-may help improve future immunization programs and support health system resiliency, emphasizing community-level access and health equity during public health emergencies.

Alternative Methods for Grouping Race and Ethnicity to Monitor COVID-19 Outcomes and Vaccination Coverage.

Population-based analyses of COVID-19 data, by race and ethnicity can identify and monitor disparities in COVID-19 outcomes and vaccination coverage. CDC recommends that information about race and ethnicity be collected to identify disparities and ensure equitable access to protective measures such as vaccines; however, this information is often missing in COVID-19 data reported to CDC. Baseline data collection requirements of the Office of Management and Budget's Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity (Statistical Policy Directive No. 15) include two ethnicity categories and a minimum of five race categories (1). Using available COVID-19 case and vaccination data, CDC compared the current method for grouping persons by race and ethnicity, which prioritizes ethnicity (in alignment with the policy directive), with two alternative methods (methods A and B) that used race information when ethnicity information was missing. Method A assumed non-Hispanic ethnicity when ethnicity data were unknown or missing and used the same population groupings (denominators) for rate calculations as the current method (Hispanic persons for the Hispanic group and race category and non-Hispanic persons for the different racial groups). Method B grouped persons into ethnicity and race categories that are not mutually exclusive, unlike the current method and method A. Denominators for rate calculations using method B were Hispanic persons for the Hispanic group and persons of Hispanic or non-Hispanic ethnicity for the different racial groups. Compared with the current method, the alternative methods resulted in higher counts of COVID-19 cases and fully vaccinated persons across race categories (American Indian or Alaska Native [AI/AN], Asian, Black or African American [Black], Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander [NH/PI], and White persons). When method B was used, the largest relative increase in cases (58.5%) was among AI/AN persons and the largest relative increase in the number of those fully vaccinated persons was among NH/PI persons (51.6%). Compared with the current method, method A resulted in higher cumulative incidence and vaccination coverage rates for the five racial groups. Method B resulted in decreasing cumulative incidence rates for two groups (AI/AN and NH/PI persons) and decreasing cumulative vaccination coverage rates for AI/AN persons. The rate ratio for having a case of COVID-19 by racial and ethnic group compared with that for White persons varied by method but was <1 for Asian persons and >1 for other groups across all three methods. The likelihood of being fully vaccinated was highest among NH/PI persons across all three methods. This analysis demonstrates that alternative methods for analyzing race and ethnicity data when data are incomplete can lead to different conclusions about disparities. These methods have limitations, however, and warrant further examination of potential bias and consultation with experts to identify additional methods for analyzing and tracking disparities when race and ethnicity data are incomplete.

Strategies for Optimizing the Supply of N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic.

N95 respirators are personal protective equipment most often used to control exposures to infections transmitted via the airborne route. Supplies of N95 respirators can become depleted during pandemics or when otherwise in high demand. In this paper, we offer strategies for optimizing supplies of N95 respirators in health care settings while maximizing the level of protection offered to health care personnel when there is limited supply in the United States during the 2019 coronavirus disease pandemic. The strategies are intended for use by professionals who manage respiratory protection programs, occupational health services, and infection prevention programs in health care facilities to protect health care personnel from job-related risks of exposure to infectious respiratory illnesses. Consultation with federal, state, and local public health officials is also important. We use the framework of surge capacity and the occupational health and safety hierarchy of controls approach to discuss specific engineering control, administrative control, and personal protective equipment measures that may help in optimizing N95 respirator supplies.

Reported variability in healthcare facility policies regarding healthcare personnel working while experiencing influenza-like illnesses: An emerging infections network survey.

BACKGROUND: Presenteeism, or working while ill, by healthcare personnel (HCP) experiencing influenza-like illness (ILI) puts patients and coworkers at risk. However, hospital policies and practices may not consistently facilitate HCP staying home when ill. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods survey in March 2018 of Emerging Infections Network infectious diseases physicians, describing institutional experiences with and policies for HCP working with ILI. RESULTS: Of 715 physicians, 367 (51%) responded. Of 367, 135 (37%) were unaware of institutional policies. Of the remaining 232 respondents, 206 (89%) reported institutional policies regarding work restrictions for HCP with influenza or ILI, but only 145 (63%) said these were communicated at least annually. More than half of respondents (124, 53%) reported that adherence to work restrictions was not monitored or enforced. Work restrictions were most often not perceived to be enforced for physicians-in-training and attending physicians. Nearly all (223, 96%) reported that their facility tracked laboratory-confirmed influenza (LCI) in patients; 85 (37%) reported tracking ILI. For employees, 109 (47%) reported tracking of LCI and 53 (23%) reported tracking ILI. For independent physicians, not employed by the facility, 30 (13%) reported tracking LCI and 11 (5%) ILI. CONCLUSION: More than one-third of respondents were unaware of whether their institutions had policies to prevent HCP with ILI from working; among those with knowledge of institutional policies, dissemination, monitoring, and enforcement of these policies was highly variable. Improving communication about work-restriction policies, as well as monitoring and enforcement, may help prevent the spread of infections from HCP to patients.

Evolution of ebola virus disease from exotic infection to global health priority, Liberia, mid-2014.

Over the span of a few weeks during July and August 2014, events in West Africa changed perceptions of Ebola virus disease (EVD) from an exotic tropical disease to a priority for global health security. We describe observations during that time of a field team from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and personnel of the Liberian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. We outline the early epidemiology of EVD within Liberia, including the practical limitations on surveillance and the effect on the country's health care system, such as infections among health care workers. During this time, priorities included strengthening EVD surveillance; establishing safe settings for EVD patient care (and considering alternative isolation and care models when Ebola Treatment Units were overwhelmed); improving infection control practices; establishing an incident management system; and working with Liberian airport authorities to implement EVD screening of departing passengers.

Rapid intervention to reduce Ebola transmission in a remote village - Gbarpolu County, Liberia, 2014.

As late as September 14, 2014, Liberia's Gbarpolu County had reported zero cases of Ebola virus disease (Ebola). On October 25, the Bong County Health Team, a local health department in the Liberian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MOHSW), received confirmation of Ebola in a man who had recently left Geleyansiesu, a remote village of approximately 800 residents, after his wife and daughter had died of illnesses consistent with Ebola. MOHSW requested assistance from CDC, the World Health Organization, and other international partners to investigate and confirm the outbreak in Geleyansiesu and begin interventions to interrupt transmission. A total of 22 cases were identified, of which 18 (82%) were laboratory confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction. There were 16 deaths (case-fatality rate = 73%). Without road access to or direct telecommunications with the village, interventions had to be tailored to the local context. Public health interventions included 1) education of the community about Ebola, transmission of the virus, signs and symptoms, the importance of isolating ill patients from family members, and the potential benefits of early diagnosis and treatment; 2) establishment of mechanisms to alert health authorities of possibly infected persons leaving the village to facilitate safe transport to the closest Ebola treatment unit (ETU); 3) case investigation, contact tracing, and monitoring of contacts; 4) training in hygienic burial of dead bodies; 5) active case finding and diagnosis; and 6) isolation and limited no-touch treatment in the village of patients unwilling or unable to seek care at an ETU. The findings of this investigation could inform interventions aimed at controlling focal outbreaks in difficult-to-reach communities, which has been identified as an important component of the effort to eliminate Ebola from Liberia.

Ebola virus disease cases among health care workers not working in Ebola treatment units--Liberia, June-August, 2014.

West Africa is experiencing the largest Ebola virus disease (Ebola) epidemic in recorded history. Health care workers (HCWs) are at increased risk for Ebola. In Liberia, as of August 14, 2014, a total of 810 cases of Ebola had been reported, including 10 clusters of Ebola cases among HCWs working in facilities that were not Ebola treatment units (non-ETUs). The Liberian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare and CDC investigated these clusters by reviewing surveillance data, interviewing county health officials, HCWs, and contact tracers, and visiting health care facilities. Ninety-seven cases of Ebola (12% of the estimated total) were identified among HCWs; 62 HCW cases (64%) were part of 10 distinct clusters in non-ETU health care facilities, primarily hospitals. Early recognition and diagnosis of Ebola in patients who were the likely source of introduction to the HCWs (i.e., source patients) was missed in four clusters. Inconsistent recognition and triage of cases of Ebola, overcrowding, limitations in layout of physical spaces, lack of training in the use of and adequate supply of personal protective equipment (PPE), and limited supervision to ensure consistent adherence to infection control practices all were observed. Improving infection control infrastructure in non-ETUs is essential for protecting HCWs. Since August, the Liberian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare with a consortium of partners have undertaken collaborative efforts to strengthen infection control infrastructure in non-ETU health facilities.

Cluster of Ebola cases among Liberian and U.S. health care workers in an Ebola treatment unit and adjacent hospital -- Liberia, 2014.

The ongoing Ebola virus disease (Ebola) epidemic in West Africa, like previous Ebola outbreaks, has been characterized by amplification in health care settings and increased risk for health care workers (HCWs), who often do not have access to appropriate personal protective equipment. In many locations, Ebola treatment units (ETUs) have been established to optimize care of patients with Ebola while maintaining infection control procedures to prevent transmission of Ebola virus. These ETUs are considered essential to containment of the epidemic. In July 2014, CDC assisted the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare of Liberia in investigating a cluster of five Ebola cases among HCWs who became ill while working in an ETU, an adjacent general hospital, or both. No common source of exposure or chain of transmission was identified. However, multiple opportunities existed for transmission of Ebola virus to HCWs, including exposure to patients with undetected Ebola in the hospital, inadequate use of personal protective equipment during cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces in the hospital, and potential transmission from an ill HCW to another HCW. No evidence was found of a previously unrecognized mode of transmission. Prevention recommendations included reinforcement of existing infection control guidance for both ETUs and general medical care settings, including measures to prevent cross-transmission in co-located facilities.

Developing an incident management system to support Ebola response -- Liberia, July-August 2014.

The ongoing Ebola virus disease (Ebola) outbreak in West Africa is the largest and most sustained Ebola epidemic recorded, with 6,574 cases. Among the five affected countries of West Africa (Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Nigeria, and Senegal), Liberia has had the highest number cases (3,458). This epidemic has severely strained the public health and health care infrastructure of Liberia, has resulted in restrictions in civil liberties, and has disrupted international travel. As part of the initial response, the Liberian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MOHSW) developed a national task force and technical expert committee to oversee the management of the Ebola-related activities. During the third week of July 2014, CDC deployed a team of epidemiologists, data management specialists, emergency management specialists, and health communicators to assist MOHSW in its response to the growing Ebola epidemic. One aspect of CDC's response was to work with MOHSW in instituting incident management system (IMS) principles to enhance the organization of the response. This report describes MOHSW's Ebola response structure as of mid-July, the plans made during the initial assessment of the response structure, the implementation of interventions aimed at improving the system, and plans for further development of the response structure for the Ebola epidemic in Liberia.

Assessment of ebola virus disease, health care infrastructure, and preparedness - four counties,Southeastern Liberia, august 2014.

Ebola virus disease (Ebola) is a multisystem disease caused by a virus of the genus Ebolavirus. In late March 2014, Ebola cases were described in Liberia, with epicenters in Lofa County and later in Montserrado County. While information about case burden and health care infrastructure was available for the two epicenters, little information was available about remote counties in southeastern Liberia. Over 9 days, August 6-14, 2014, Ebola case burden, health care infrastructure, and emergency preparedness were assessed in collaboration with the Liberian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare in four counties in southeastern Liberia: Grand Gedeh, Grand Kru, River Gee, and Maryland. Data were collected by health care facility visits to three of the four county referral hospitals and by unstructured interviews with county and district health officials, hospital administrators, physicians, nurses, physician assistants, and health educators in all four counties. Local burial practices were discussed with county officials, but no direct observation of burial practices was conducted. Basic information about Ebola surveillance and epidemiology, case investigation, contact tracing, case management, and infection control was provided to local officials.