The role of funded partnerships in working towards decreasing COVID-19 vaccination disparities, United States, March 2021-December 2022.

During the COVID-19 vaccination rollout from March 2021- December 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded 110 primary and 1051 subrecipient partners at the national, state, local, and community-based level to improve COVID-19 vaccination access, confidence, demand, delivery, and equity in the United States. The partners implemented evidence-based strategies among racial and ethnic minority populations, rural populations, older adults, people with disabilities, people with chronic illness, people experiencing homelessness, and other groups disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. CDC also expanded existing partnerships with healthcare professional societies and other core public health partners, as well as developed innovative partnerships with organizations new to vaccination, including museums and libraries. Partners brought COVID-19 vaccine education into farm fields, local fairs, churches, community centers, barber and beauty shops, and, when possible, partnered with local healthcare providers to administer COVID-19 vaccines. Inclusive, hyper-localized outreach through partnerships with community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, vaccination providers, and local health departments was critical to increasing COVID-19 vaccine access and building a broad network of trusted messengers that promoted vaccine confidence. Data from monthly and quarterly REDCap reports and monthly partner calls showed that through these partnerships, more than 295,000 community-level spokespersons were trained as trusted messengers and more than 2.1 million COVID-19 vaccinations were administered at new or existing vaccination sites. More than 535,035 healthcare personnel were reached through outreach strategies. Quality improvement interventions were implemented in healthcare systems, long-term care settings, and community health centers resulting in changes to the clinical workflow to incorporate COVID-19 vaccine assessments, recommendations, and administration or referrals into routine office visits. Funded partners' activities improved COVID-19 vaccine access and addressed community concerns among racial and ethnic minority groups, as well as among people with barriers to vaccination due to chronic illness or disability, older age, lower income, or other factors.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Breast Cancer Screening and Operative Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted many areas of health care and had a significant impact on care delivery, including breast cancer. METHODS: To better understand the changes to detection and treatment of breast cancer at our institution, we analyzed mammogram rates (screening and diagnostic) and breast cancer operations in 2019-2020. Mammography rates were calculated using county level census data for eligible women (Z-test). For breast cancer staging, a stage severity score was analyzed with a Mann-Whitney U-test (two-tail, P < .05) with proportions derived from WFBH operative volume quarterly reports. Results: Data revealed a relative decline from 2019 to 2020 in breast cancer screening. Screening mammograms decreased by 44% or 1558 fewer screening mammograms (Z = 4.75, P < .00001) and by 21% or 771 fewer for diagnostic mammograms (Z = 2.16, P = .03). With regards to breast cancer operations, we did not identify a statistically significant difference in number of new breast cancer operations at WFBH with 340 cases in 2020 as compared to 384 cases in 2019 (P = .9905). We compared a breast cancer severity score (weighted by stage at time of operation), which did not reveal statistically significant difference in clinical stage of breast cancer at time of operation (P = .71, U = 28). CONCLUSION: Mammography was impacted more than breast surgery cases by the COVID-19 pandemic. More data needs to be collected to evaluate future morbidity and mortality related to breast cancer operations and persistent disparities related to delay in breast cancer care due to COVID-19.

Beacon communities aim to use health information technology to transform the delivery of care.

The Beacon Community Program, authorized under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), aims to demonstrate the potential for health information technology to enable local improvements in health care quality, cost efficiency, and population health. If successful, these communitywide efforts will yield important lessons that will assist other communities seeking to harness technology to achieve and sustain health care improvements. This paper highlights key programmatic details that reflect the meaningful use of technology in the fifteen Beacon communities. It describes the innovations they propose and provides insight into current and future challenges.

Evidence-based decision making: global evidence, local decisions.

Variations in health care services have been well documented worldwide. The result is that increased health care spending is not uniformly associated with improved health. Interest in increasing the value obtained from health care investments has stimulated efforts to develop the best science and apply it to health care delivery. Advances in communications and information technology have made such developments of the scientific basis for health care a truly global enterprise, but its application must remain local. Consumers' use of evidence-based information to choose providers, make treatment decisions, and play a more active role represents the ultimate local application of scientific information.

The burden of selected digestive diseases in the United States.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Gastrointestinal (GI) and liver diseases inflict a heavy economic burden. Although the burden is considerable, current and accessible information on the prevalence, morbidity, and cost is sparse. This study was undertaken to estimate the economic burden of GI and liver disease in the United States for use by policy makers, health care providers, and the public. METHODS: Data were extracted from a number of publicly available and proprietary national databases to determine the prevalence, direct costs, and indirect costs for 17 selected GI and liver diseases. Indirect cost calculations were purposefully very conservative. These costs were compared with National Institutes of Health (NIH) research expenditures for selected GI and liver diseases. RESULTS: The most prevalent diseases were non-food-borne gastroenteritis (135 million cases/year), food-borne illness (76 million), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD; 19 million), and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS; 15 million). The disease with the highest annual direct costs in the United States was GERD ($9.3 billion), followed by gallbladder disease ($5.8 billion), colorectal cancer ($4.8 billion), and peptic ulcer disease ($3.1 billion). The estimated direct costs for these 17 diseases in 1998 dollars were $36.0 billion, with estimated indirect costs of $22.8 billion. The estimated direct costs for all digestive diseases were $85.5 billion. Total NIH research expenditures were $676 million in 2000. CONCLUSIONS: GI and liver diseases exact heavy economic and social costs in the United States. Understanding the prevalence and costs of these diseases is important to help set priorities to reduce the burden of illness.