Distributing Local Resources for Public Health Preparedness Grants: A Data-Driven Approach.

OBJECTIVES: To simulate allocations of Public Health Emergency Preparedness funds to counties using alternative metrics of need, minimum allocation amounts, and the proportion earmarked for discretionary considerations. DESIGN: We developed a county-level community resilience index of 57 New York State counties using publicly available indicators, which we incorporated into an interactive spreadsheet of 8 hypothetical allocation formulas with different combinations of population size, the index and its 5 domains, and population density. Simulations were compared with the 2013-2014 fiscal year grant allocation. RESULTS: New York allocated $6.27 million to counties outside New York City, with a median allocation of $78 038, ranging from $50 825 to $556 789. These allocations would vary under different strategies, with the largest changes among sparsely populated counties that currently receive a minimum allocation of $50 825. Allocations were sensitive to changes in minimum allocation, amount earmarked for discretionary allocation, and need indicator. CONCLUSIONS: Population-based approaches are commonly used but ignore important dimensions of need. It is feasible to include robust local community resilience measures in formulas, and interactive spreadsheet models can help stakeholders evaluate the consequences of alternative funding strategies.

COVID-19 Outcomes Among Persons Living With or Without Diagnosed HIV Infection in New York State.

Importance: New York State has been an epicenter for both the US coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and HIV/AIDS epidemics. Persons living with diagnosed HIV may be more prone to COVID-19 infection and severe outcomes, yet few studies have assessed this possibility at a population level. Objective: To evaluate the association between HIV diagnosis and COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalization, and in-hospital death in New York State. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study, conducted in New York State, including New York City, between March 1 and June 15, 2020, matched data from HIV surveillance, COVID-19 laboratory-confirmed diagnoses, and hospitalization databases to provide a full population-level comparison of COVID-19 outcomes between persons living with diagnosed HIV and persons living without diagnosed HIV. Exposures: Diagnosis of HIV infection through December 31, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalization, and in-hospital death. COVID-19 diagnoses, hospitalizations, and in-hospital death rates comparing persons living with diagnosed HIV with persons living without dianosed HIV were computed, with unadjusted rate ratios and indirect standardized rate ratios (sRR), adjusting for sex, age, and region. Adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) for outcomes specific to persons living with diagnosed HIV were assessed by age, sex, region, race/ethnicity, transmission risk, and CD4+ T-cell count-defined HIV disease stage, using Poisson regression models. Results: A total of 2988 persons living with diagnosed HIV (2109 men [70.6%]; 2409 living in New York City [80.6%]; mean [SD] age, 54.0 [13.3] years) received a diagnosis of COVID-19. Of these persons living with diagnosed HIV, 896 were hospitalized and 207 died in the hospital through June 15, 2020. After standardization, persons living with diagnosed HIV and persons living without diagnosed HIV had similar diagnosis rates (sRR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.91-0.97]), but persons living with diagnosed HIV were hospitalized more than persons living without diagnosed HIV, per population (sRR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.29-1.47]) and among those diagnosed (sRR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.37-1.56]). Elevated mortality among persons living with diagnosed HIV was observed per population (sRR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.07-1.40]) and among those diagnosed (sRR, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.13-1.48]) but not among those hospitalized (sRR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.83-1.09]). Among persons living with diagnosed HIV, non-Hispanic Black individuals (aRR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.40-1.81]) and Hispanic individuals (aRR, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.83-2.37]) were more likely to receive a diagnosis of COVID-19 than White individuals, but they were not more likely to be hospitalized once they received a diagnosis or to die once hospitalized. Hospitalization risk increased with disease progression to HIV stage 2 (aRR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.11-1.49]) and stage 3 (aRR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.38-2.07]) relative to stage 1. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, persons living with diagnosed HIV experienced poorer COVID-related outcomes relative to persons living without diagnosed HIV; Previous HIV diagnosis was associated with higher rates of severe disease requiring hospitalization, and hospitalization risk increased with progression of HIV disease stage.

Association of US Households' Disaster Preparedness With Socioeconomic Characteristics, Composition, and Region.

Importance: Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the US government has promoted household disaster preparedness, but preparedness remains low. Objective: To identify disparities in disaster preparedness among US households. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from a nationally representative sample of US households from the 2017 American Housing Survey's topical section on preparedness to assess associations of disaster preparedness with households' socioeconomic characteristics, composition, and region. Logistic regressions were used to assess associations of household characteristics with overall preparedness, resource- and action-based preparedness, and specific preparedness items. Data analyses were completed on March 27, 2020. Exposures: Combined household income, head of household's education level, race/ethnicity, marital status of head of household, head of household aged 65 years or older, presence of children or a household member with a disability, and region. Main Outcomes and Measures: Nine actionable preparedness items, such as having an emergency carry-on kit (resource), food and water stockpiles (resource), and alternative communication plans and meeting locations (action). Items were summed for the measures of overall, resource-based, and action-based preparedness, with preparedness defined as meeting at least half of the criteria. Results: Among 16 725 included households, 9103 household heads were men (54.4%), 11 687 were married (69.9%), and 10 749 (66.1%) had some college education or higher. In all, 1969 household heads (11.8%) were black, while 2696 were Hispanic/Latino (16.1%); 3579 household heads (21.4%) were 65 years or older. A total of 7163 households (42.8%) included children, and 3533 households (21.2%) included a person with a disability. Households were more likely to fulfill at least half of the criteria for resource-based preparedness (10 950 households [65.5%]) than for action-based preparedness (6876 households [41.1%]). Wealthy households and those with household heads aged 65 years or older were more likely to fulfill at least half of resource-based items (wealthy households: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] by logged income, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.13-1.22]; household heads age ≥65 years: aOR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.29-1.55) but less likely to fulfill action-based items (wealthy households: aOR: 0.96 [95% CI, 0.93-0.99]; household heads age ≥65 years: aOR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.84-0.99]). Households with black household heads were more likely to fulfill items directly related to emergencies (carry-on emergency kit: aOR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.14-1.39]; alternative communication plan: aOR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.39-1.72]; alternative meeting location: aOR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.07-1.31]) but less likely to fulfill resource-based items (at least half of resource items: aOR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.80-0.99]). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that types of preparedness vary by household characteristics. Targeted strategies are needed to promote preparedness across communities.

Elevated COVID-19 outcomes among persons living with diagnosed HIV infection in New York State: Results from a population-level match of HIV, COVID-19, and hospitalization databases.

BACKGROUND: New York State (NYS) has been an epicenter for both COVID-19 and HIV/AIDS epidemics. Persons Living with diagnosed HIV (PLWDH) may be more prone to COVID-19 infection and severe outcomes, yet few population-based studies have assessed the extent to which PLWDH are diagnosed, hospitalized, and have died with COVID-19, relative to non-PLWDH. METHODS: NYS HIV surveillance, COVID-19 laboratory confirmed diagnoses, and hospitalization databases were matched. COVID-19 diagnoses, hospitalization, and in-hospital death rates comparing PLWDH to non-PLWDH were computed, with unadjusted rate ratios (RR) and indirect standardized RR (sRR), adjusting for sex, age, and region. Adjusted RR (aRR) for outcomes among PLWDH were assessed by age/CD4-defined HIV disease stage, and viral load suppression, using Poisson regression models. RESULTS: From March 1-June 7, 2020, PLWDH were more frequently diagnosed with COVID-19 than non-PLWDH in unadjusted (RR [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.43[1.38-1.48), 2,988 PLWDH], but not in adjusted comparisons (sRR [95% CI]: 0.94[0.91-0.97]). Per-population COVID-19 hospitalization was higher among PLWDH (RR [95% CI]: 2.61[2.45-2.79], sRR [95% CI]: 1.38[1.29-1.47], 896 PLWDH), as was in-hospital death (RR [95% CI]: 2.55[2.22-2.93], sRR [95%CI]: 1.23 [1.07-1.40], 207 PLWDH), albeit not among those hospitalized (sRR [95% CI]: 0.96[0.83-1.09]). Among PLWDH, hospitalization risk increased with disease progression from HIV Stage 1 to Stage 2 (aRR [95% CI]:1.27[1.09-1.47]) and Stage 3 (aRR [95% CI]: 1.54[1.24-1.91]), and for those virally unsuppressed (aRR [95% CI]: 1.54[1.24-1.91]). CONCLUSION: PLWDH experienced poorer COVID-related outcomes relative to non-PLWDH, with 1-in-522 PLWDH dying with COVID-19, seemingly driven by higher rates of severe disease requiring hospitalization.

Theory and Metrics of Community Resilience: A Systematic Literature Review Based on Public Health Guidelines.

A systematic literature review on quantitative methods to assess community resilience was conducted following Institute of Medicine and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute standards. Community resilience is the ability of a community to bounce back or return to normal after a disaster strikes, yet there is no agreement on what this actually means. All studies reviewed addressed natural disasters, but the methodological approaches can be applied to technological disasters, epidemics, and terrorist attacks. Theoretical frameworks consider the association between vulnerability, resilience, and preparedness, yet these associations vary across frameworks. Because of this complexity, indexes based on composite indicators are the predominant methodological tool used to assess community resilience. Indexes identify similar dimensions but observe resilience at both the individual and geographical levels, reflecting a lack of agreement on what constitutes a community. A consistent, cross-disciplinary metric for community resilience would allow for identifying areas to apply short-term versus long-term interventions. A comparable metric for assessing geographic units in multiple levels and dimensions is an opportunity to identify regional strengths and weaknesses, develop timely targeted policy interventions, improve policy evaluation instruments, and grant allocation formulas design. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:756-763).