Identifying COVID-19 Vaccine Deserts and Ways to Reduce Them: A Digital Tool to Support Public Health Decision-Making.

A private-academic partnership built the Vaccine Equity Planner (VEP) to help decision-makers improve geographic access to COVID-19 vaccinations across the United States by identifying vaccine deserts and facilities that could fill those deserts. The VEP presented complex, updated data in an intuitive form during a rapidly changing pandemic situation. The persistence of vaccine deserts in every state as COVID-19 booster recommendations develop suggests that vaccine delivery can be improved. Underresourced public health systems benefit from tools providing real-time, accurate, actionable data. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(4):363-367. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307198).

Equitable allocation of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States.

Many vaccine rationing guidelines urge planners to recognize, and ideally reduce, inequities. In the United States, allocation frameworks are determined by each of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 64 jurisdictions (50 states, the District of Columbia, five cities and eight territories). In this study, we analyzed vaccine allocation plans published by 8 November 2020, tracking updates through to 30 March 2021. We evaluated whether jurisdictions adopted proposals to reduce inequity using disadvantage indices and related place-based measures. By 30 March 2021, 14 jurisdictions had prioritized specific zip codes in combination with metrics such as COVID-19 incidence, and 37 jurisdictions (including 34 states) had adopted disadvantage indices, compared to 19 jurisdictions in November 2020. Uptake of indices doubled from 7 to 14 among the jurisdictions with the largest shares of disadvantaged communities. Five applications were distinguished: (1) prioritizing disadvantaged groups through increased shares of vaccines or vaccination appointments; (2) defining priority groups or areas; (3) tailoring outreach and communication; (4) planning the location of dispensing sites; and (5) monitoring receipt. To ensure that equity features centrally in allocation plans, policymakers at the federal, state and local levels should universalize the uptake of disadvantage indices and related place-based measures.

When government agencies turn to unregulated drug sources: Implications for the drug supply chain and public health are grave.

OBJECTIVE: To highlight how sourcing practices for lethal injections drugs are undermining state and federal regulatory structures established to preserve the security and integrity of the medicines supply chain in the United States. SUMMARY: Unable to find sources for execution products approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), some states have started sourcing the required drugs or active ingredients from unapproved foreign manufacturers or have contracted with small compounding pharmacists to compound them. Many states have passed legislation barring the disclosure of information regarding the origin and chain of custody for prisons' stocks of compounded lethal injection drugs. This creates a regulatory vacuum and prevents the responsible authorities (e.g., FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, state boards of pharmacy) from performing their crucial roles to ensure quality and supply chain transparency for medicines in circulation. CONCLUSION: By purchasing medicines from non-FDA-approved suppliers and enacting lethal injection sourcing secrecy laws, states are undermining the robust enforcement of chain of custody and pharmaceutical supply chain transparency. The secrecy surrounding the execution drug procurement risks creating illicit supply channels. Once an illicit supply channel is established with a supplier, it creates risks that other drug products move through it, particularly in a context where the FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, and state boards of pharmacy are prevented from performing their usual regulatory duties. Lawmakers have the obligation and authority to step in and close this regulatory gap to promote public health and safety.

Addressing the challenges of diagnostics demand and supply: insights from an online global health discussion platform.

Several barriers challenge development, adoption and scale-up of diagnostics in low and middle income countries. An innovative global health discussion platform allows capturing insights from the global health community on factors driving demand and supply for diagnostics. We conducted a qualitative content analysis of the online discussion 'Advancing Care Delivery: Driving Demand and Supply of Diagnostics' organised by the Global Health Delivery Project (GHD) (http://www.ghdonline.org/) at Harvard University. The discussion, driven by 12 expert panellists, explored what must be done to develop delivery systems, business models, new technologies, interoperability standards, and governance mechanisms to ensure that patients receive the right diagnostic at the right time. The GHD Online (GHDonline) platform reaches over 19 000 members from 185 countries. Participants (N=99) in the diagnostics discussion included academics, non-governmental organisations, manufacturers, policymakers, and physicians. Data was coded and overarching categories analysed using qualitative data analysis software. Participants considered technical characteristics of diagnostics as smaller barriers to effective use of diagnostics compared with operational and health system challenges, such as logistics, poor fit with user needs, cost, workforce, infrastructure, access, weak regulation and political commitment. Suggested solutions included: health system strengthening with patient-centred delivery; strengthened innovation processes; improved knowledge base; harmonised guidelines and evaluation; supply chain innovations; and mechanisms for ensuring quality and capacity. Engaging and connecting different actors involved with diagnostic development and use is paramount for improving diagnostics. While the discussion participants were not representative of all actors involved, the platform enabled a discussion between globally acknowledged experts and physicians working in different countries.

From scaling up to sustainability in HIV: potential lessons for moving forward.

BACKGROUND: In 30 years of experience in responding to the HIV epidemic, critical decisions and program characteristics for successful scale-up have been studied. Now leaders face a new challenge: sustaining large-scale HIV prevention programs. Implementers, funders, and the communities served need to assess what strategies and practices of scaling up are also relevant for sustaining delivery at scale. METHODS: We reviewed white and gray literature to identify domains central to scaling-up programs and reviewed HIV case studies to identify how these domains might relate to sustaining delivery at scale. RESULTS: We found 10 domains identified as important for successfully scaling up programs that have potential relevance for sustaining delivery at scale: fiscal support; political support; community involvement, integration, buy-in, and depth; partnerships; balancing flexibility/adaptability and standardization; supportive policy, regulatory, and legal environment; building and sustaining strong organizational capacity; transferring ownership; decentralization; and ongoing focus on sustainability. We identified one additional potential domain important for programs sustaining delivery at scale: emphasizing equity. CONCLUSIONS: Today, the public and private sector are examining their ability to generate value for populations. All stakeholders are aiming to stem the tide of the HIV epidemic. Implementers need a framework to guide the evolution of their strategies and management practices. Greater research is needed to refine the domains for policy and program implementers working to sustain HIV program delivery at scale.

Strategic, value-based delivery in global health care: innovations at Harvard University and Brigham and Women's Hospital.

Investments in global health have more than doubled over the past decade, generating a cadre of new institutions. To date, most of the funded research in global health has focused on discovery, and, more recently, on the development of new tools, which has tightened the implementation bottleneck. This article introduces the concept of global health delivery and the need to catalog and analyze current implementation efforts to bridge gaps in delivery. Global health delivery is complex and context-dependent and requires an interdisciplinary effort, including the application of strategic principles. Furthermore, delivery is necessary to ensure that the investments in research, discovery, and development generate value for patients and populations. This article discusses the application of value-based delivery to global health. It provides some examples of approaches to aggregating implicit knowledge to inform practice. With global health delivery, the aim is to transform global health scale-up from a series of well-intentioned but often disconnected efforts to a value-based movement based upon 21st-century technology, standards, and efficiency.

Identifying homelessness at an urban public hospital: a moving target?

Hospitals do not routinely collect data about homelessness. The objectives of the present study were to (1) describe rate of patient reports of homelessness among inpatients at a public hospital, (2) assess the agreement between patient report of housing status on a study questionnaire with clinical and administrative data about homelessness, and (3) assess changes in housing status during hospitalization. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of inpatients at an urban public hospital to assess housing status; we then examined subjects' medical charts to assess agreement with the questionnaire on housing status. Of inpatients, 25.6% were homeless at discharge. An additional 19.4% were marginally housed. One third of homeless persons had their housing status change during their hospitalization. Administrative data identified 25.6% and physicians' notes identified 22.5% as homeless. Clinical, administrative, and survey data did not agree. Homelessness and changes in housing status are common among inpatients at an urban public hospital. Poor agreement on who is homeless limits the usefulness of data.