Perceived impacts of COVID-19 on wellbeing among US working-age adults with ADL difficulty.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted people with disabilities. Working-age adults with ADL difficulty may face unique challenges and heightened health risks because of the pandemic. It is critical to better understand the impacts of COVID-19 on social, financial, physical, and mental wellbeing among people with disabilities to inform more inclusive pandemic response policies. OBJECTIVE: This study compares perceived COVID-19 physical and mental health, social, and financial impacts for US working-age adults with and without ADL difficulty. METHODS: We analyzed data from a national survey of US working-age adults (aged 18-64) conducted in February and March 2021 (N = 3697). We used logistic regression to compare perceived COVID-19-related impacts on physical and mental health, healthcare access, social relationships, and financial wellbeing among those with and without ADL difficulty. RESULTS: Adults with ADL difficulty were more likely to report negative COVID-19 impacts for many but not all outcomes. Net of covariates, adults with ADL difficulty had significantly greater odds of reporting COVID-19 infection (OR = 2.1) and hospitalization (OR = 6.7), negative physical health impacts (OR = 2.0), and negative impacts on family relationships (OR = 1.6). However, they had significantly lower odds of losing a friend or family member to COVID-19 (OR = 0.7). There were no significant differences in perceived impacts on mental health, ability to see a doctor, relationships with friends, or financial wellbeing. CONCLUSIONS: Working-age adults with ADL difficulty experienced disproportionate health and social harm due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To address these disparities, public health response efforts and social policies supporting pandemic recovery must include disability perspectives.

The Devastating Economic Impact of COVID-19 on Older Black and Latinx Adults: Implications for Health and Well-Being.

OBJECTIVES: While disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections and mortality have been documented for older Black and Latinx populations, pandemic-related economic impacts have been less studied for these groups. Minoritized older adults may be particularly vulnerable to financial hardships given their precarious socioeconomic positions. Thus, we aim to highlight the devastating economic impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent economic recession on older Black and Latinx adults, with a particular focus on the foreign-born population. METHODS: This study used data from the 2020 COVID-19 module of the Health and Retirement Study. The sample included adults older than 50 years of age who were U.S.-born non-Latinx White and Black, U.S.-born Latinx, and foreign-born Latinx (n = 2,803). We estimated age-standardized prevalence and means of variables indicating financial impact and economic hardship during the pandemic. We further examined differences in these measures across racial/ethnic and nativity groups. RESULTS: Our findings document stark racial/ethnic inequalities in the pandemic's economic impact on older adults. Results show the pandemic has negatively affected older Black and Latinx adults across a host of economic factors (e.g., paying bills, affording health-related needs, or purchasing food), with foreign-born Latinx experiencing greater economic hardships relative to other groups. DISCUSSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, older Black and Latinx adults are experiencing disparate economic effects, including lacking money to cover basic needs, compared to older White adults. The implications of the economic shocks of the pandemic for the health and well-being of older Black and Latinx adults warrant policy-oriented action toward promoting equity.

Public Health Requirements and Authorities in State Statutory Disaster Recovery Law: A Cross-Sectional Legal Assessment.

State statutory laws serve as a vital tool for public health entities to assist communities with recovery from disasters. However, no systematic assessment has examined the content of state law addressing disaster recovery or explored if and how the public health role is discussed in state law addressing disaster recovery. This study examined public health-related requirements, authorities, and activities in state disaster recovery laws. Nexis Uni, a legal database, was used to identify codified state statutory laws that authorize or require specific state or local public health entity actions, or set conditions where public health entity actions could be authorized/required, related to disaster recovery planning, implementation, or evaluation (ie, health disaster recovery laws). Disaster recovery laws were reviewed and coded to identify health-related requirements, authorities, and activities planned for recovery. Most states (n = 47) have disaster recovery laws, and 17 states were found to have 30 codified statutory health disaster recovery laws. Half (n = 15) of identified laws require a public health liaison to or representation on a recovery committee or other organization/body working on recovery planning or implementation activities. State disaster recovery laws have limited public health requirements, authorities, and activities. Further research is needed to assess the potential public health benefits of components of state law supporting public health involvement in disaster recovery. The development and dissemination of best practices or model laws and tools to provide opportunities for public health actors to inform recovery decision making may enhance the potential for health promotion during disaster recovery.

Opportunities and Challenges for Dietary Arsenic Intervention.

The diet is emerging as the dominant source of arsenic exposure for most of the U.S. population. Despite this, limited regulatory efforts have been aimed at mitigating exposure, and the role of diet in arsenic exposure and disease processes remains understudied. In this brief, we discuss the evidence linking dietary arsenic intake to human disease and discuss challenges associated with exposure characterization and efforts to quantify risks. In light of these challenges, and in recognition of the potential longer-term process of establishing regulation, we introduce a framework for shorter-term interventions that employs a field-to-plate food supply chain model to identify monitoring, intervention, and communication opportunities as part of a multisector, multiagency, science-informed, public health systems approach to mitigation of dietary arsenic exposure. Such an approach is dependent on coordination across commodity producers, the food industry, nongovernmental organizations, health professionals, researchers, and the regulatory community. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3997.

Mitigating dietary arsenic exposure: Current status in the United States and recommendations for an improved path forward.

Inorganic arsenic (iAs) is a well-characterized carcinogen, and recent epidemiologic studies have linked chronic exposures to non-cancer health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, skin lesions and respiratory disorders. Greater vulnerability has been demonstrated with early life exposure for health effects including lung and bladder cancer, immunotoxicity and neurodevelopment. Despite its well-known toxicity, there are important gaps in the regulatory oversight of iAs in food and in risk communication. This paper focuses on the US regulatory framework in relation to iAs in food and beverages. The state of existing regulatory agency toxicological assessments, monitoring efforts, standard setting, intervention policies and risk communication are explored. Regarding the approach for standard setting, risk-based evaluations of iAs in particular foods can be informative but are insufficient to create a numeric criterion, given current uncertainties in iAs toxicology and the degree to which traditional risk targets can be exceeded by dietary exposures. We describe a process for prioritizing dietary exposures for different lifestages and recommend a relative source contribution-based approach to setting criteria for arsenic in prioritized foods. Intervention strategies begin with an appropriately set criterion and a monitoring program that documents the degree to which this target is met for a particular food. This approach will promote improvements in food production to lower iAs contamination for those foods which initially do not meet the criterion. Risk communication improvements are recommended to ensure that the public has reliable information regarding sources and alternative dietary choices. A key recommendation is the consideration of meal frequency advice similar to what is currently done for contaminants in fish. Recent action level determinations by FDA for apple juice and infant rice cereal are evaluated and used as illustrations of how our recommended approach can further the goal of exposure mitigation from key sources of dietary iAs in the US.