Benefit-Cost Analysis of the HHS COVID-19 Campaign: April 2021-March 2022.

INTRODUCTION: This study estimated the benefits and costs of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' We Can Do This COVID-19 public education campaign (the Campaign) and associated vaccination-related impacts. METHODS: Weekly media market and national Campaign expenditures were used to estimate weekly first-dose vaccinations that would not have occurred absent the Campaign, weekly Campaign-attributed complete vaccinations, and corresponding COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths averted. Benefits were valued using estimated morbidity and mortality reductions and associated values of a statistical life and a statistical case. Costs were estimated using Campaign paid media expenditures and corresponding vaccination costs. The net Campaign and vaccination benefit and return on investment were calculated. Analyses were conducted from 2022 to 2024. RESULTS: Between April 2021 and March 2022, an estimated 55.9 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines would not have been administered absent the Campaign. Campaign-attributed vaccinations resulted in 2,576,133 fewer mild COVID-19 cases, 243,979 fewer nonfatal COVID-19 hospitalizations, and 51,675 lives saved from COVID-19. The total Campaign benefit was $740.2 billion, and Campaign and vaccination costs totaled $8.3 billion, with net benefits of approximately $732.0 billion. For every $1 spent, the Campaign and corresponding vaccination costs resulted in benefits of approximately $89.54. CONCLUSIONS: The We Can Do This COVID-19 public education campaign saved more than 50,000 lives and prevented hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations and millions of COVID-19 cases, representing hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits in less than one year. Findings suggest that public education campaigns are a cost-effective approach to reducing COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.

The Intersection of Cardiovascular Health and Maternal Health: Portfolio Analysis of Federal Grant Funding 2016-2021.

Background: The United States has high and increasing rates of maternal morbidity and mortality, large proportions of which are related to cardiovascular health (CVH). Methods: We searched for National Institutes of Health (NIH) supported research as well as that of two other Agencies in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for fiscal years (FY) 2016-2021. Grants included maternal health conditions or exposures across all pregnancy stages, but excluded grants that focused entirely on birth, neonatal, infant/childhood outcomes. Results were manually curated by reviewing the abstract and specific aims. Grants deemed to be relevant were grouped by category. Results: Between FY 2016-2021, overall Maternal Health grants remained unchanged at an average of 1.4% of total DHHS grant funding. Maternal CVH-specific (MCVH) funding amounted to $278,926,105 for 755 grants, $191,344,649 was for 534 Type-1 grants, representing a twofold increase. Non-NIH DHHS agencies most commonly funded general Maternal Health related to CVH; NIH focused funding classified as hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, maternal morbidity and mortality, obesity, and diabetes. Non-NIH DHSS Agencies most commonly funded clinical applied research. In addition to clinical applied grants, NIH funded substantial proportions of grants classified as basic research, clinical trials, and/or translational. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) MCVH grants studied participants in the pre-partum period (78.5%), followed by the post-partum period (50.5%), with relatively few in pre-pregnancy and peri-partum periods (10.8% and 9.7%, respectively); at the NIH level, the peri-partum period had better representation at 20.3%, whereas the pre-pregnancy period remained low at 9.9%. Conclusions: Federal grant funding for maternal health including MCVH increased at the same rate as its funding for overall research, and represented only 1.4% of overall total funding. The pre-pregnancy period was understudied in overall NIH funding and represents a gap area whereby funding agencies could further foster research advances.

Inventory of Survey Databases for Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and Filipino Health Disparities Research.

The aim of this scoping review was to assist researchers who want to use survey data, either in academic or community settings, to identify and comprehend health disparities affecting Native Hawaiian (NH), Pacific Islander (PI), and/or Filipino populations, as these are groups with known and numerous health disparities. The scoping review methodology was used to identify survey datasets that disaggregate data for NH, PI, or Filipinos. Healthdata.gov was searched, as there is not an official index of databases. The website was established by the United States (US) Department and Health and Human Services to increase accessibility of health data for entrepreneurs, researchers, and policy makers, with the ultimate goal of improving health outcomes. Using the search term 'survey,' 332 datasets were retrieved, many of which were duplicates from different years. Datasets were included that met the following criteria: (1) related to health; (2) disaggregated NH, PI, and/or Filipino subgroups; (3) administered in the US; (4) publicly available; (5) individual-level data; (6) self-reported information; and (7) contained data from 2010 or later. Fifteen survey datasets met the inclusion criteria. Two additional survey datasets were identified by colleagues. For each dataset, the dataset name, data source, years of the data availability, availability of disaggregated NH, PI, and/or Filipino data, data on health outcomes and social determinants of health, and website information were documented. This inventory of datasets should be of use to researchers who want to advance understanding of health disparities experienced by NH, PI, and Filipino populations in the US.

Will ARPA-H work?

A new federal agency-approved last month by the United States Congress-is already off to a rocky start. The Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), proposed by President Biden in 2021, aims to tackle the most intractable biomedical problems by funding innovative, high-risk, high-reward research and swiftly turning discoveries into treatments and cures. But Congress gave the agency a much smaller budget than sought by the administration-$ 1 billion over 3 years, a fraction of the $6.5 billion requested. And as happens whenever there is new money and a new federal agency, a political scrum has erupted over who should control ARPA-H. It is now expected to answer to both the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). If it is to deliver on its mission, ARPA-H needs to be an autonomous entity that approaches biomedical research in a way never done before by the federal government. The stakes are high: If ARPA-H fails to produce new clinical advances relatively quickly, it will erode trust in US science. It's time for clear thinking and action about what it will take to make ARPA-H successful.

The influence of the U.S. response to COVID-19 in Global Health. / A influência da resposta dos EUA à COVID-19 no contexto da Saúde Global.

The American response to the pandemic involves a prominent volume of federal resources, especially for developing and acquiring products for internal use, such as diagnostics or vaccines. Investment mechanisms and historical aspects justify this expenditure. Thus, the social construction of nationalism in American society hinders access to health technologies. The review of such aspects shows how the United States (U.S.) secured a large number of potential products, ensuring excessive local production. This unilateral foreign policy has influenced other countries or regional blocs and undermined global cooperation and solidarity, affecting the collective health of several nations.

A resposta americana à pandemia envolve um proeminente volume de recursos federais, em especial destinados ao desenvolvimento e aquisição de produtos no uso interno, como diagnósticos ou vacinas. As justificativas para esse desembolso se baseiam em mecanismos de investimentos e aspectos históricos. Assim, a construção social do nacionalismo na formação na sociedade americana prejudica o acesso a tecnologias em saúde. A revisão desses aspectos demonstra como os Estados Unidos (EUA) garantiram compra de grande quantitativo de produtos em potencial, inclusive assegurando excessiva produção local. Essa política externa unilateral tem influenciado outros países ou blocos regionais e prejudicado a cooperação e a solidariedade global com impacto na saúde coletiva de diversas nações.

A influência da resposta dos EUA à COVID-19 no contexto da Saúde Global / The influence of the U.S. response to COVID-19 in Global Health

Resumo A resposta americana à pandemia envolve um proeminente volume de recursos federais, em especial destinados ao desenvolvimento e aquisição de produtos no uso interno, como diagnósticos ou vacinas. As justificativas para esse desembolso se baseiam em mecanismos de investimentos e aspectos históricos. Assim, a construção social do nacionalismo na formação na sociedade americana prejudica o acesso a tecnologias em saúde. A revisão desses aspectos demonstra como os Estados Unidos (EUA) garantiram compra de grande quantitativo de produtos em potencial, inclusive assegurando excessiva produção local. Essa política externa unilateral tem influenciado outros países ou blocos regionais e prejudicado a cooperação e a solidariedade global com impacto na saúde coletiva de diversas nações.

Abstract The American response to the pandemic involves a prominent volume of federal resources, especially for developing and acquiring products for internal use, such as diagnostics or vaccines. Investment mechanisms and historical aspects justify this expenditure. Thus, the social construction of nationalism in American society hinders access to health technologies. The review of such aspects shows how the United States (U.S.) secured a large number of potential products, ensuring excessive local production. This unilateral foreign policy has influenced other countries or regional blocs and undermined global cooperation and solidarity, affecting the collective health of several nations.