Data Sharing in a Decentralized Public Health System: Lessons From COVID-19 Syndromic Surveillance.

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed that data sharing challenges persist across public health information systems. We examine the specific challenges in sharing syndromic surveillance data between state, local, and federal partners. These challenges are complicated by US federalism, which decentralizes public health response and creates friction between different government units. The current policies restrict federal access to state and local syndromic surveillance data without each jurisdiction's consent. These policies frustrate legitimate federal governmental interests and are contrary to ethical guidelines for public health data sharing. Nevertheless, state and local public health agencies must continue to play a central role as there are important risks in interpreting syndromic surveillance data without understanding local contexts. Policies establishing a collaborative framework will be needed to support data sharing between federal, state, and local partners. A collaborative framework would be enhanced by a governance group with robust state and local involvement and policy guardrails to ensure the use of data is appropriate. These policy and relational challenges must be addressed to actualize a truly national public health information system.

Case study on communicating with research ethics committees about minimizing risk through software: an application for record linkage in secondary data analysis.

Objective: In retrospective secondary data analysis studies, researchers often seek waiver of consent from institutional Review Boards (IRB) and minimize risk by utilizing complex software. Yet, little is known about the perspectives of IRB experts on these approaches. To facilitate effective communication about risk mitigation strategies using software, we conducted two studies with IRB experts to co-create appropriate language when describing a software to IRBs. Materials and Methods: We conducted structured focus groups with IRB experts to solicit ideas on questions regarding benefits, risks, and informational needs. Based on these results, we developed a template IRB application and template responses for a generic study using privacy-enhancing software. We then conducted a three-round Delphi study to refine the template IRB application and the template responses based on expert panel feedback. To facilitate participants' deliberation, we shared the revisions and a summary of participants' feedback during each Delphi round. Results: 11 experts in two focus groups generated 13 ideas on risks, benefits, and informational needs. 17 experts participated in the Delphi study with 13 completing all rounds. Most agreed that privacy-enhancing software will minimize risk, but regardless all secondary data studies have an inherent risk of unexpected disclosures. The majority (84.6%) noted that subjects in retrospective secondary data studies experience no greater risks than the risks experienced in ordinary life in the modern digital society. Hence, all retrospective data-only studies with no contact with subjects would be minimal risk studies. Conclusion: First, we found fundamental disagreements in how some IRB experts view risks in secondary data research. Such disagreements are consequential because they can affect determination outcomes and might suggest IRBs at different institutions might come to different conclusions regarding similar study protocols. Second, the highest ranked risks and benefits of privacy-enhancing software in our study were societal rather than individual. The highest ranked benefits were facilitating more research and promoting responsible data governance practices. The highest ranked risks were risk of invalid results from systematic user error or erroneous algorithms. These societal considerations are typically more characteristic of public health ethics as opposed to the bioethical approach of research ethics, possibly reflecting the difficulty applying a bioethical approach (eg, informed consent) in secondary data studies. Finally, the development of privacy-enhancing technology for secondary data research depends on effective communication and collaboration between the privacy experts and technology developers. Privacy is a complex issue that requires a holistic approach that is best addressed through privacy-by-design principles. Privacy expert participation is important yet often neglected in this design process. This study suggests best practice strategies for engaging the privacy community through co-developing companion documents for software through participatory design to facilitate transparency and communication. In this case study, the final template IRB application and responses we released with the open-source software can be easily adapted by researchers to better communicate with their IRB when using the software. This can help increase responsible data governance practices when many software developers are not research ethics experts.

Views on increased federal access to state and local National Syndromic Surveillance Program data: a nominal group technique study with state and local epidemiologists.

BACKGROUND: US public health authorities use syndromic surveillance to monitor and detect public health threats, conditions, and trends in near real-time. Nearly all US jurisdictions that conduct syndromic surveillance send their data to the National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP), operated by the US. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, current data sharing agreements limit federal access to state and local NSSP data to only multi-state regional aggregations. This limitation was a significant challenge for the national response to COVID-19. This study seeks to understand state and local epidemiologists' views on increased federal access to state NSSP data and identify policy opportunities for public health data modernization. METHODS: In September 2021, we used a virtual, modified nominal group technique with twenty regionally diverse epidemiologists in leadership positions and three individuals representing national public health organizations. Participants individually generated ideas on benefits, concerns, and policy opportunities relating to increased federal access to state and local NSSP data. In small groups, participants clarified and grouped the ideas into broader themes with the assistance of the research team. An web-based survey was used to evaluate and rank the themes using five-point Likert importance questions, top-3 ranking questions, and open-ended response questions. RESULTS: Participants identified five benefit themes for increased federal access to jurisdictional NSSP data, with the most important being improved cross-jurisdiction collaboration (mean Likert = 4.53) and surveillance practice (4.07). Participants identified nine concern themes, with the most important concerns being federal actors using jurisdictional data without notice (4.60) and misinterpretation of data (4.53). Participants identified eleven policy opportunities, with the most important being involving state and local partners in analysis (4.93) and developing communication protocols (4.53). CONCLUSION: These findings identify barriers and opportunities to federal-state-local collaboration critical to current data modernization efforts. Syndromic surveillance considerations warrant data-sharing caution. However, identified policy opportunities share congruence with existing legal agreements, suggesting that syndromic partners are closer to agreement than they might realize. Moreover, several policy opportunities (i.e., including state and local partners in data analysis and developing communication protocols) received consensus support and provide a promising path forward.

A Study of Publicly Available Resources Addressing Legal Data-Sharing Barriers: Systematic Assessment.

BACKGROUND: United States data protection laws vary depending on the data type and its context. Data projects involving social determinants of health often concern different data protection laws, making them difficult to navigate. OBJECTIVE: We systematically aggregated and assessed useful online resources to help navigate the data-sharing landscape. METHODS: We included publicly available resources that discussed legal data-sharing issues with some health relevance and published between 2010 and 2019. We conducted an iterative search with a common string pattern using a general-purpose search engine that targeted 24 different sectors identified by Data Across Sectors for Health. We scored each online resource for its depth of legal and data-sharing discussions and value for addressing legal barriers. RESULTS: Out of 3710 total search hits, 2721 unique URLs were reviewed for scope, 322 received full-text review, and 154 were selected for final coding. Legal agreements, consent, and agency guidance were the most widely covered legal topics, with HIPAA (The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 2 being the top 3 federal laws discussed. Clinical health care was the most prominent sector with a mention in 73 resources. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic study of publicly available resources on legal data-sharing issues. We found existing gaps where resources covering certain laws or applications may be needed. The volume of resources we found is an indicator that real and perceived legal issues are a substantial barrier to efforts in leveraging data from different sectors to promote health.

The Changing Nature of Telehealth Use by Primary Care Physicians in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth utilization was growing slowly and steadily, although differentially across medical specialties in the United States. The pandemic dramatically expanded physician use of telehealth, but our understanding of how much telehealth use has changed in primary care in the United States, the correlates of physician telehealth uptake, and the frequency with which primary care physicians intend to use telehealth after the pandemic are unknown. This paper is designed to assess these important questions. METHODS: Using data from an original national survey of 625 primary care physicians conducted from May 14 to May 25, 2021, we investigate the frequency of physician telehealth use before and during the pandemic and intended use after the pandemic. We also assess the correlates of changes in telehealth use by physicians, comparing telehealth use before the pandemic to use during and after the pandemic. RESULTS: The proportion of primary care physicians using telehealth often, jumped from 5.3% (95% CI 3.5, 7.0) before the pandemic to 46.2% (95% CI 42.3, 50.2) during the pandemic. More importantly, over 70% of physicians intended to use telehealth at least occasionally after the pandemic compared to just 18.7% before, with younger physicians, physicians without telehealth training in medical school, and Asian physicians most likely to increase their telehealth use long-term. DISCUSSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred expansion in telehealth use by primary care physicians that will continue to shape care delivery well beyond the pandemic. Policy change could be needed to facilitate this growth of telehealth long-term.

Community health worker roles and their evolving interprofessional relationships in the United States.

In the United States, growing attention to the cost of care, the social determinants of health, prevention, and population health, signals a refocusing of efforts on value-based care. Just as Accountable Care Organizations and alternative payment models exemplify this shift in attention, so does the increasing integration of Community Health Workers (CHWs) into the US health care system. CHWs are often referred to as "bridge figures," helping clients to navigate what are oftentimes complicated pathways to access a variety of needed services. The integration of CHWs into interprofessional care teams is a process that takes time, and can lead to conflict as traditional care models are disrupted. Through focus groups with CHWs in rural and urban areas of four states, this work identifies and describes three early stages in the evolving interprofessional relationships between CHWs and other care providers. These stages are characterized by: (1) a lack of knowledge and understanding of CHW roles, (2) conflict and competition, and (3) engagement and integration of CHWs into patient care teams. A better understanding of the evolving process of CHW integration is critical to facilitate education and training that will more quickly encourage the development and efficacy of modern models of interprofessional care that include CHWs.

Changes to Timeliness and Completeness of Infectious Disease Reporting in Texas After Implementation of an Epidemiologic Capacity Program.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to characterize the changes in timeliness and completeness of disease case reporting in Texas in response to an increasing number of foodborne illnesses and high-consequence infectious disease investigations and the Texas Department of State Health Services' new state-funded epidemiologist (SFE) program. METHODS: We extracted electronic disease case reporting data on 42 conditions from 2012 through 2016 in all local health department (LHD) jurisdictions. We analyzed data on median time for processing reports and percentage of complete reports across time and between SFE and non-SFE jurisdictions using Mann-Whitney t tests and z scores. RESULTS: The median time of processing improved from 13 days to 10 days from 2012 to 2016, and the percentage of disease case reports that were complete improved from 19.6% to 27.7%. Most reports were for foodborne illnesses; both timeliness (11 to 7 days) and completeness (20.9% to 23.5%) improved for these reports. CONCLUSIONS: Disease reporting improvements in timeliness and completeness were associated with the SFE program and its enhancement of epidemiologic capacity. SFEs were shown to improve surveillance metrics in LHDs, even in jurisdictions with a high volume of case reports. Adding epidemiologist positions in LHDs produces a tangible outcome of improved disease surveillance.

Epidemiology Surveillance and Capacity Improvement: A Characterization of Texas, 2017.

OBJECTIVES: In response to increasing caseloads of foodborne illnesses and high consequence infectious disease investigations, the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) requested funding from the Texas Legislature in 2013 and 2015 for a new state-funded epidemiologist (SFE) program. METHODS: Primary cross-sectional survey data were collected from 32 of 40 local health departments (LHDs) via an online instrument and analyzed to quantify roles, responsibilities, and training of epidemiologists in Texas in 2017 and compared to similar state health department assessments. RESULTS: Sixty-six percent of SFEs had epidemiology-specific training (eg, master's in public health) compared to 45% in state health department estimates. For LHDs included in this study, the mean number of epidemiologists per 100 000 was 0.73 in medium LHDs and 0.46 in large LHDs. SFE positions make up approximately 40% of the LHD epidemiology workforce of all sizes and 56% of medium-sized LHD epidemiology staff in Texas specifically. CONCLUSIONS: Through this program, DSHS increased epidemiology capacity almost twofold from 0.28 to 0.47 epidemiologists per 100 000 people. These findings suggest that capacity funding programs like this improve epidemiology capacity in local jurisdictions and should be considered in other regions to improve general public health preparedness and epidemiology capacity.

Identifying and prioritizing benefits and risks of using privacy-enhancing software through participatory design: a nominal group technique study with patients living with chronic conditions.

OBJECTIVE: While patients often contribute data for research, they want researchers to protect their data. As part of a participatory design of privacy-enhancing software, this study explored patients' perceptions of privacy protection in research using their healthcare data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted 4 focus groups with 27 patients on privacy-enhancing software using the nominal group technique. We provided participants with an open source software prototype to demonstrate privacy-enhancing features and elicit privacy concerns. Participants generated ideas on benefits, risks, and needed additional information. Following a thematic analysis of the results, we deployed an online questionnaire to identify consensus across all 4 groups. Participants were asked to rank-order benefits and risks. Themes around "needed additional information" were rated by perceived importance on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Participants considered "allowance for minimum disclosure" and "comprehensive privacy protection that is not currently available" as the most important benefits when using the privacy-enhancing prototype software. The most concerning perceived risks were "additional checks needed beyond the software to ensure privacy protection" and the "potential of misuse by authorized users." Participants indicated a desire for additional information with 6 of the 11 themes receiving a median participant rating of "very necessary" and rated "information on the data custodian" as "essential." CONCLUSIONS: Patients recognize not only the benefits of privacy-enhancing software, but also inherent risks. Patients desire information about how their data are used and protected. Effective patient engagement, communication, and transparency in research may improve patients' comfort levels, alleviate patients' concerns, and thus promote ethical research.

US Privacy Laws Go Against Public Preferences and Impede Public Health and Research: Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Reaping the benefits from massive volumes of data collected in all sectors to improve population health, inform personalized medicine, and transform biomedical research requires the delicate balance between the benefits and risks of using individual-level data. There is a patchwork of US data protection laws that vary depending on the type of data, who is using it, and their intended purpose. Differences in these laws challenge big data projects using data from different sources. The decisions to permit or restrict data uses are determined by elected officials; therefore, constituent input is critical to finding the right balance between individual privacy and public benefits. OBJECTIVE: This study explores the US public's preferences for using identifiable data for different purposes without their consent. METHODS: We measured data use preferences of a nationally representative sample of 504 US adults by conducting a web-based survey in February 2020. The survey used a choice-based conjoint analysis. We selected choice-based conjoint attributes and levels based on 5 US data protection laws (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, Privacy Act of 1974, Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Common Rule). There were 72 different combinations of attribute levels, representing different data use scenarios. Participants were given 12 pairs of data use scenarios and were asked to choose the scenario they were the most comfortable with. We then simulated the population preferences by using the hierarchical Bayes regression model using the ChoiceModelR package in R. RESULTS: Participants strongly preferred data reuse for public health and research than for profit-driven, marketing, or crime-detection activities. Participants also strongly preferred data use by universities or nonprofit organizations over data use by businesses and governments. Participants were fairly indifferent about the different types of data used (health, education, government, or economic data). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show a notable incongruence between public preferences and current US data protection laws. Our findings appear to show that the US public favors data uses promoting social benefits over those promoting individual or organizational interests. This study provides strong support for continued efforts to provide safe access to useful data sets for research and public health. Policy makers should consider more robust public health and research data use exceptions to align laws with public preferences. In addition, policy makers who revise laws to enable data use for research and public health should consider more comprehensive protection mechanisms, including transparent use of data and accountability.

Communicating With Patients About Software for Enhancing Privacy in Secondary Database Research Involving Record Linkage: Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial prior research on the perspectives of patients on the use of health information for research. Numerous communication barriers challenge transparency between researchers and data participants in secondary database research (eg, waiver of informed consent and knowledge gaps). Individual concerns and misconceptions challenge the trust in researchers among patients despite efforts to protect data. Technical software used to protect research data can further complicate the public's understanding of research. For example, MiNDFIRL (Minimum Necessary Disclosure For Interactive Record Linkage) is a prototype software that can be used to enhance the confidentiality of data sets by restricting disclosures of identifying information during the record linkage process. However, software, such as MiNDFIRL, which is used to protect data, must overcome the aforementioned communication barriers. One proposed solution is the creation of an interactive web-based frequently asked question (FAQ) template that can be adapted and used to communicate research issues to data subjects. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to improve communication with patients and transparency about how complex software, such as MiNDFIRL, is used to enhance privacy in secondary database studies to maintain the public's trust in researchers. METHODS: A Delphi technique with 3 rounds of the survey was used to develop the FAQ document to communicate privacy issues related to a generic secondary database study using the MiNDFIRL software. The Delphi panel consisted of 38 patients with chronic health conditions. We revised the FAQ between Delphi rounds and provided participants with a summary of the feedback. We adopted a conservative consensus threshold of less than 10% negative feedback per FAQ section. RESULTS: We developed a consensus language for 21 of the 24 FAQ sections. Participant feedback demonstrated preference differences (eg, brevity vs comprehensiveness). We adapted the final FAQ into an interactive web-based format that 94% (31/33) of the participants found helpful or very helpful. The template FAQ and MiNDFIRL source code are available on GitHub. The results indicate the following patient communication considerations: patients have diverse and varied preferences; the tone is important but challenging; and patients want information on security, identifiers, and final disposition of information. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study provide insights into what research-related information is useful to patients and how researchers can communicate such information. These findings align with the current understanding of health literacy and its challenges. Communication is essential to transparency and ethical data use, yet it is exceedingly challenging. Developing FAQ template language to accompany a complex software may enable researchers to provide greater transparency when informed consent is not possible.

How Do Infectious Disease Epidemiologist Positions Increase Public Health Capacity? Results from a Qualitative Study of Local Health Departments.

The purpose of this study was to characterize changes in and impacts on epidemiologic capacity in local health departments after the implementation of a state-funded epidemiologist program using qualitative data. The study used key informant interviews in Texas health departments, which were conducted and inductively analyzed to identify themes. Five predominant themes emerged from interviews on the impact of state-funded epidemiologists on the epidemiology capacity of local health departments. State-funded epidemiologists were seen as increasing overall epidemiology capacity in local health departments. Specifically, they improved timeliness of infectious disease reporting and quality and thoroughness of disease investigations. They also improved community stakeholder relationships with local health departments and communications across local, regional, and state public health agencies. Key informants at all levels described positive effects of the state-funded epidemiologists on disease surveillance. Local epidemiology capacity has increased, and, in turn, Texas public health surveillance capacity has improved at the local, regional, and state levels. Funding programs like this should be considered when public health capacity is low and in need of an increase.

Cross Sector Data Sharing: Necessity, Challenge, and Hope.

Existing data sources have tremendous potential to inform public health activities. However, a patchwork of data protection laws impede data sharing efforts. Nevertheless, a data-sharing initiative in Peoria, IL was able to overcome challenges to set up a cross-sectoral data system to coordinate mental health, law enforcement, and healthcare services.

The Association Between State-Level Health Information Exchange Laws and Hospital Participation in Community Health Information Organizations.

Evidence suggests that health information exchange (HIE) is an effective strategy to improve efficiency and quality of care, as well as reduce costs. A complex patchwork of federal and state legislation has developed over time to encourage HIE activity. Hospitals and health systems have adopted various HIE models to meet the requirements of these statutes and regulations. Given the complexity of HIE laws, it is important to understand how these legal levers influence HIE engagement. We combined data from two unique data sources to examine the association between state-level HIE laws and hospital engagement in community HIEs. Our results identified three legal provisions of state laws (HIE authorization, financial & non-financial incentives, opt-out consent) that increased the likelihood of community HIE engagement. Other provisions decreased the likelihood of engagement. This analysis provides foundational evidence about the utility of HIE laws. More research is needed to determine causal relationships.

Authority of Pharmacists to Administer Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Alignment of State Laws With Age-Level Recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: One strategy to increase the uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine among adolescents is through the use of pharmacists. Our objectives were to (1) use a publicly available database to describe the statutory and regulatory authority of pharmacists to administer the HPV vaccine in the United States and (2) discuss how the current status of laws may influence achievement of the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80% HPV vaccination rate for teenagers aged 13-15. METHODS: Using information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Public Health Law Program database, we identified state laws in effect as of January 1, 2016, giving pharmacists authority to administer vaccines. We used a standardized analysis algorithm to determine whether states' laws (1) authorized pharmacists to administer HPV vaccine, (2) required third-party authorization for pharmacist administration, and (3) restricted HPV vaccine administration by pharmacists to certain patient age groups. RESULTS: Of 50 states and the District of Columbia, 40 had laws expressly granting pharmacists authority to administer HPV vaccine to patients, but only 22 had laws that authorized pharmacists to vaccinate preadolescents aged 11 or 12 (ie, the CDC-recommended age group). Pharmacists were granted prescriptive authority by 5 states, and they were given authority pursuant to general (non-patient-specific) third-party authorization (eg, a licensed health care provider) by 32 states or patient-specific third-party authorization by 3 states. CONCLUSIONS: Most states permitted pharmacists to administer HPV vaccines only to boys and girls older than 11 or 12, which may hinder achievement of the Healthy People 2020 goal for HPV vaccination. Efforts should be made to strengthen the role of pharmacists in addressing this public health issue.

Falling short: how state laws can address health information exchange barriers and enablers.

Objective: Research on the implementation of health information exchange (HIE) organizations has identified both positive and negative effects of laws relating to governance, incentives, mandates, sustainability, stakeholder participation, patient engagement, privacy, confidentiality, and security. We fill a substantial research gap by describing whether comprehensive state and territorial HIE legal frameworks address identified legal facilitators and barriers. Materials and Methods: We used the Westlaw database to identify state and territorial laws relating to HIEs in effect on June 7, 2016 (53 jurisdictions). We blind-coded all laws and addressed coding discrepancies in peer-review meetings. We recorded a consensus code for each law in a master database. We compared 20 HIE legal attributes with identified barriers to and enablers of HIE activity in the literature. Results: Forty-two states, the District of Columbia, and 2 territories have laws relating to HIEs. On average, jurisdictions address 8.32 of the 20 criteria selected in statutes and regulations. Twenty jurisdictions unambiguously address ≤5 criteria in statutes and regulations. None of the significant legal criteria are unambiguously addressed in >60% of the 53 jurisdictions. Discussion: Laws can be barriers to or enablers of HIEs. However, jurisdictions are not addressing many significant issues identified by researchers. Consequently, there is a substantial risk that existing legal frameworks are not adequately supporting HIEs. Conclusion: The current evidence base is insufficient for comparative assessments or impact rankings of the various factors. However, the detailed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention dataset of HIE laws could enable investigations into the types of laws that promote or impede HIEs.

Transitioning From Paper to Digital: State Statutory and Regulatory Frameworks for Health Information Technology.

OBJECTIVES: In all health system sectors, electronic health information (EHI) is created, used, released, and reused. We examined states' efforts to address EHI uses in law to provide an understanding of the EHI legal environment. METHODS: Attorney researchers used WestlawNext to search for EHI-related statutes and regulations of the US states, US territories, and the District of Columbia in effect as of January 2014. The researchers independently catalogued provisions by the EHI use described in the law. Researchers resolved discrepancies through peer review meetings and recorded the consensus codes for each law. RESULTS: This study identified 2364 EHI-related laws representing 49 EHI uses in 54 jurisdictions. A total of 18 EHI uses were regulated by ≥10 jurisdictions. More than 750 laws addressed 2 or more EHI uses. Jurisdictions varied by the number of EHI laws in effect, with a mean of 44 laws. Texas had the most EHI laws (n = 145). Hawaii and South Carolina had the fewest (n = 14 each). CONCLUSIONS: The EHI legal landscape is complex. The large quantity and diversity of laws complicate legal analysis, likely delay implementation of public health solutions, and might be detrimental to the development of emerging health information technology. Research is needed to understand the effect of EHI-related laws.

Expanding state laws and a growing role for pharmacists in vaccination services.

OBJECTIVES: Gaps in vaccination coverage leave populations vulnerable to illnesses. Since the 1990s, there has been a growing movement to improve vaccination access by giving pharmacists the authority to administer vaccines according to state laws. Understanding the variation of pharmacist vaccination laws over time is critical to understanding the effect of improving access to vaccination services. METHODS: We identified relevant statutes and regulations with the use of Westlaw legal databases. A 4-stage coding process identified 220 legal variables of pharmacist vaccination authority. Each jurisdiction's laws were coded against these 220 legal variables. The resulting legal dataset was then evaluated to determine whether jurisdictions expanded or restricted pharmacist vaccination authorities over time. RESULTS: From 1971 to 2016, jurisdictions made 627 changes to statutes and regulations relating to pharmacist vaccination authority. There were 85 expansions, 3 restrictions, and 22 regulatory clarifications. Eight changes were deemed to be unclear, and 479 changes did not substantively alter the scope of pharmacist vaccination authority. CONCLUSION: Collectively, the laws in 50 states and DC paint a clear picture: the scope of pharmacists' vaccination authority is expanding. Jurisdictions are allowing pharmacists to administer more vaccines to younger patients with less direct prescriber oversight. This clear expansion of pharmacist vaccination authority stands in contrast to the reservations expressed by some physician groups for pharmacists as vaccination providers. However, laws in some states still do not permit pharmacists to vaccinate according to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations.

The Latest in Vaccine Policies: Selected Issues in School Vaccinations, Healthcare Worker Vaccinations, and Pharmacist Vaccination Authority Laws.

This paper discusses recent changes to state legal frameworks for mandatory vaccination in the context of school and healthcare worker vaccination. It then discusses state laws that allow pharmacists the authority to vaccinate.