Trends in Opioid Use Disorder Outpatient Treatment and Telehealth Utilization Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The authors examined trends in opioid use disorder treatment and in-person and telehealth modalities before and after COVID-19 pandemic onset among patients who had received treatment prepandemic. METHODS: The sample included 13,113 adults with commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage and receiving opioid use disorder treatment between March 2018 and February 2019. Trends in opioid use disorder outpatient treatment, treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and in-person and telehealth modalities were examined 1 year before pandemic onset and 2 years after (March 2019-February 2022). RESULTS: From March 2019 to February 2022, the proportion of patients with opioid use disorder outpatient and MOUD visits declined by 2.8 and 0.3 percentage points, respectively. Prepandemic, 98.6% of outpatient visits were in person; after pandemic onset, at least 34.9% of patients received outpatient care via telehealth. CONCLUSIONS: Disruptions in opioid use disorder outpatient and MOUD treatments were marginal during the pandemic, possibly because of increased telehealth utilization.

Information Challenges Associated With Accessing and Sharing of Patient Information in Disasters: A Qualitative Analysis.

As disasters increase in frequency and severity, so too does the health impact on affected populations. Disasters exacerbate the already challenging health information-sharing landscape. A reduced capacity to access and share patient information may have negative impacts on providers' ability to care for patients individually and to address disaster health outcomes at the population level. Between October 2018 and July 2019, we conducted 21 semistructured interviews with physicians experienced in providing healthcare during disasters to understand the challenges related to patient information sharing in disaster responses. Key informants noted challenges with patient information management-including accessing, sharing, and transferring information-and that it was a barrier to providing effective clinical care in disasters. Three major areas were identified as challenges: (1) lack of systematic mechanisms for patient information sharing during disaster handoffs, (2) lack of access to a patient's past medical history, and (3) population-level impacts of patient information-sharing breakdowns in disasters. Reducing barriers to effective patient information sharing is a critical need during disasters. Requirements generally fall to overburdened clinicians, and novel solutions that ease this responsibility and leverage existing infrastructure should be explored. Work conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic may inform new solutions. Integrated approaches that support information sharing in real time will improve patient care at the individual level and can support operational improvements to current and future disaster responses.

Effects of U.S. State Medical Cannabis Laws on Treatment of Chronic Noncancer Pain.

BACKGROUND: State medical cannabis laws may lead patients with chronic noncancer pain to substitute cannabis in place of prescription opioid or clinical guideline-concordant nonopioid prescription pain medications or procedures. OBJECTIVE: To assess effects of state medical cannabis laws on receipt of prescription opioids, nonopioid prescription pain medications, and procedures for chronic noncancer pain. DESIGN: Using data from 12 states that implemented medical cannabis laws and 17 comparison states, augmented synthetic control analyses estimated laws' effects on receipt of chronic noncancer pain treatment, relative to predicted treatment receipt in the absence of the law. SETTING: United States, 2010 to 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 583 820 commercially insured adults with chronic noncancer pain. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription, nonopioid prescription pain medication, or procedure for chronic noncancer pain; volume of each treatment type; and mean days' supply and mean morphine milligram equivalents per day of prescribed opioids, per patient in a given month. RESULTS: In a given month during the first 3 years of law implementation, medical cannabis laws led to an average difference of 0.05 percentage points (95% CI, -0.12 to 0.21 percentage points), 0.05 percentage points (CI, -0.13 to 0.23 percentage points), and -0.17 percentage points (CI, -0.42 to 0.08 percentage points) in the proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription, any nonopioid prescription pain medication, or any chronic pain procedure, respectively, relative to what we predict would have happened in that month had the law not been implemented. LIMITATIONS: This study used a strong nonexperimental design but relies on untestable assumptions involving parallel counterfactual trends. Statistical power is limited by the finite number of states. Results may not generalize to noncommercially insured populations. CONCLUSION: This study did not identify important effects of medical cannabis laws on receipt of opioid or nonopioid pain treatment among patients with chronic noncancer pain. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Use of Law by US States During the COVID-19 Pandemic With Respect to People Who Were Undocumented.

Objectives. To systematically identify and analyze US state-level legislation concerning people who were undocumented during the COVID-19 pandemic, from January 2020 through August 2021. Methods. Using standard public health law research methods, we searched Westlaw's online database between November 2021 and January 2022 to identify legislation addressing COVID-19 and people who were undocumented. We abstracted relevant information, analyzed the data, and identified primary themes for each bill and resolution. Results. Sixty-six bills and resolutions, from 13 states, met the inclusion criteria. Legislation addressed 5 primary themes: eligibility and access to health-related services (n = 16), health and personal information (n = 10), housing assistance (n = 13), job security and employment benefits (n = 14), and monetary assistance (n = 13). Conclusions. Approximately one quarter of state legislatures introduced bills or resolutions regarding people who were undocumented and COVID-19. State-level laws are an important tool to mitigate the disproportionate impact of public health emergencies on vulnerable groups. Public Health Implications. As states shift attention away from the exigencies of COVID-19, this research provides insight into how law might be used to protect those who are undocumented throughout the full cycle of future public health emergencies. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(12):1757-1764. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307090).

The Missing COVID-19 Demographic Data: A Statewide Analysis of COVID-19-Related Demographic Data From Local Government Sources and a Comparison With Federal Public Surveillance Data.

Objectives. To collect and standardize COVID-19 demographic data published by local public-facing Web sites and analyze how this information differs from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) public surveillance data. Methods. We aggregated and standardized COVID-19 data on cases and deaths by age, gender, race, and ethnicity from US state and territorial governmental sources between May 24 and June 4, 2021. We describe the standardization process and compare it with the CDC's process for public surveillance data. Results. As of June 2021, the CDC's public demographic data set included 80.9% of total cases and 46.7% of total deaths reported by states, with significant variation across jurisdictions. Relative to state and territorial data sources, the CDC consistently underreports cases and deaths among African American and Hispanic or Latino individuals and overreports deaths among people older than 65 years and White individuals. Conclusions. Differences exist in amounts of data included and demographic composition between the CDC's public surveillance data and state and territory reporting, with large heterogeneity across jurisdictions. A lack of standardization and reporting mechanisms limits the production of complete real-time demographic data.

Effects of State Opioid Prescribing Laws on Use of Opioid and Other Pain Treatments Among Commercially Insured U.S. Adults.

BACKGROUND: There is concern that state laws to curb opioid prescribing may adversely affect patients with chronic noncancer pain, but the laws' effects are unclear because of challenges in disentangling multiple laws implemented around the same time. OBJECTIVE: To study the association between state opioid prescribing cap laws, pill mill laws, and mandatory prescription drug monitoring program query or enrollment laws and trends in opioid and guideline-concordant nonopioid pain treatment among commercially insured adults, including a subgroup with chronic noncancer pain conditions. DESIGN: Thirteen treatment states that implemented a single law of interest in a 4-year period and unique groups of control states for each treatment state were identified. Augmented synthetic control analyses were used to estimate the association between each state law and outcomes. SETTING: United States, 2008 to 2019. PATIENTS: 7 694 514 commercially insured adults aged 18 years or older, including 1 976 355 diagnosed with arthritis, low back pain, headache, fibromyalgia, and/or neuropathic pain. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription or guideline-concordant nonopioid pain treatment per month, and mean days' supply and morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of prescribed opioids per day, per patient, per month. RESULTS: Laws were associated with small-in-magnitude and non-statistically significant changes in outcomes, although CIs around some estimates were wide. For adults overall and those with chronic noncancer pain, the 13 state laws were each associated with a change of less than 1 percentage point in the proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription and a change of less than 2 percentage points in the proportion receiving any guideline-concordant nonopioid treatment, per month. The laws were associated with a change of less than 1 in days' supply of opioid prescriptions and a change of less than 4 in average monthly MME per day per patient prescribed opioids. LIMITATIONS: Results may not be generalizable to non-commercially insured populations and were imprecise for some estimates. Use of claims data precluded assessment of the clinical appropriateness of pain treatments. CONCLUSION: This study did not identify changes in opioid prescribing or nonopioid pain treatment attributable to state laws. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Disparities in SARS-CoV-2 Testing for Hispanic/Latino Populations: An Analysis of State-Published Demographic Data.

Racial and ethnic minorities in the United States have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, experiencing increased risk of infection, hospitalization, and death. In this study, we sought to examine race- and ethnicity-based differences in SARS-CoV-2 testing. We used publicly available US state dashboards to extract demographic data for COVID-19 cases and tests. Poisson regression models were used to model the effect of race and ethnicity on the number of SARS-CoV-2 tests performed per case. In total, just 8 states reported testing data by race and ethnicity. In regression models, race and ethnicity was a significant predictor of testing rate per case. In all states, Hispanic/Latino patients had a significantly lower testing rate than their non-Hispanic/Latino counterparts, with an incident rate ratio varying from 0.45 to 0.81, depending on the state and referent race category. These results suggest disparities in testing access among Hispanic/Latino individuals, who are already at a disproportionate risk for infection and severe outcomes.

Studying how state health services delivery policies can mitigate the effects of disasters on drug addiction treatment and overdose: Protocol for a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: The United States is experiencing a drug addiction and overdose crisis, made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic. Relative to other types of health services, addiction treatment and overdose prevention services are particularly vulnerable to disaster-related disruptions for multiple reasons including fragmentation from the general medical system and stigma, which may lead decisionmakers and providers to de-prioritize these services during disasters. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. states implemented multiple policies designed to mitigate disruptions to addiction treatment and overdose prevention services, for example policies expanding access to addiction treatment delivered via telehealth and policies designed to support continuity of naloxone distribution programs. There is limited evidence on the effects of these policies on addiction treatment and overdose. This evidence is needed to inform state policy design in future disasters, as well as to inform decisions regarding whether to sustain these policies post-pandemic. METHODS: The overall study uses a concurrent-embedded design. Aims 1-2 use difference-in-differences analyses of large-scale observational databases to examine how state policies designed to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on health services delivery influenced addiction treatment delivery and overdose during the pandemic. Aim 3 uses a qualitative embedded multiple case study approach, in which we characterize local implementation of the state policies of interest; most public health disaster policies are enacted at the state level but implemented at the local level by healthcare systems and local public health authorities. DISCUSSION: Triangulation of results across methods will yield robust understanding of whether and how state disaster-response policies influenced drug addiction treatment and overdose during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results will inform policy enactment and implementation in future public health disasters. Results will also inform decisions about whether to sustain COVID-19 pandemic-related changes to policies governing delivery addiction and overdose prevention services long-term.

Protocol: mixed-methods study of how implementation of US state medical cannabis laws affects treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and adverse opioid outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Thirty-three US states and Washington, D.C., have enacted medical cannabis laws allowing patients with chronic non-cancer pain to use cannabis, when recommended by a physician, to manage their condition. However, clinical guidelines do not recommend cannabis for treatment of chronic non-cancer pain due to limited and mixed evidence of effectiveness. How state medical cannabis laws affect delivery of evidence-based treatment for chronic non-cancer pain is unclear. These laws could lead to substitution of cannabis in place of clinical guideline-discordant opioid prescribing, reducing risk of opioid use disorder and overdose. Conversely, state medical cannabis laws could lead to substitution of cannabis in place of guideline-concordant treatments such as topical analgesics or physical therapy. This protocol describes a mixed-methods study examining the implementation and effects of state medical cannabis laws on treatment of chronic non-cancer pain. A key contribution of the study is the examination of how variation in state medical cannabis laws' policy implementation rules affects receipt of chronic non-cancer pain treatments. METHODS: The study uses a concurrent-embedded design. The primary quantitative component of the study employs a difference-in-differences design using a policy trial emulation approach. Quantitative analyses will evaluate state medical cannabis laws' effects on treatment for chronic non-cancer pain as well as on receipt of treatment for opioid use disorder, opioid overdose, cannabis use disorder, and cannabis poisoning among people with chronic non-cancer pain. Secondary qualitative and survey methods will be used to characterize implementation of state medical cannabis laws through interviews with state leaders and representative surveys of physicians who treat, and patients who experience, chronic non-cancer pain in states with medical cannabis laws. DISCUSSION: This study will examine the effects of medical cannabis laws on patients' receipt of guideline-concordant non-opioid, non-cannabis treatments for chronic non-cancer pain and generate new evidence on the effects of state medical cannabis laws on adverse opioid outcomes. Results will inform the dynamic policy environment in which numerous states consider, enact, and/or amend medical cannabis laws each year.

The state of the evidence on the association between state cannabis laws and opioid-related outcomes: A review.

Purpose of Review: This review summarizes studies examining impacts of medical and recreational cannabis laws on opioid prescribing, opioid use, opioid use disorder, opioid-related service utilization, and opioid-involved mortality. We also discuss research challenges and recommendations for future work. Recent Findings: Twenty-one U.S. based studies published between 2014-2021 that assessed state cannabis laws' association with opioid-related outcomes were reviewed. Study results were largely inconclusive. We identified six challenges of existing work: 1) inability to directly measure cannabis/opioid substitution; 2) use of general population samples and lack of individual-level longitudinal studies; 3) challenges disentangling effects of cannabis laws from other state laws; 4) methodological challenges with staggered policy implementation; 5) limited consideration of cannabis law provisions; 6) lack of triangulation across data sources. Summary: While existing research suggests the potential for cannabis laws to reduce high-risk opioid prescribing and other opioid-related adverse outcomes, studies should be interpreted in light of limitations.

US State-Level Preemption Legislation, 2017-2018: Implications for Public Health Policy and Practice.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to systematically identify US state-level proposed legislation focused on preemption and introduced over a 2-year period. We analyzed each bill's objectives and intended impacts on local public health policy making and practice. DESIGN/SETTING: Using standardized search terms, we used the LexisNexis State Capital database to identify state-level bills relating to preemption that were introduced between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018. Information was abstracted from relevant bills via an electronic data collection form. Abstracted information was analyzed using descriptive statistics to identify preemption-related patterns and trends. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four bills were included in our analysis. The bills were introduced in 35 states and 28 received sufficient votes to pass into law. The majority of the 134 bills (89%), and all of the bills that passed into law (100%), removed or restricted local authority to regulate. Of the bills that became law, the most common topic areas in which local regulatory authority was restricted were firearms (14%), business and professions (11%), and employment (11%). CONCLUSIONS: Lawmakers at the state level are introducing and passing legislation that preempts local regulatory authority on a variety of public health topics. To preserve local control, local leaders should anticipate the introduction of state preemption legislation, engage with public health stakeholders, and work to counter bills that would restrict local authority.

Sodium menu labelling: priorities for research and policy.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the different Na menu labelling approaches that have been considered by state and local policymakers in the USA and to summarise the evidence on the relationship between Na menu labelling and Na content of menu items offered by restaurants or purchased by consumers. DESIGN: Proposed and enacted Na menu labelling laws at the state and local levels were reviewed using legal databases and an online search, and a narrative review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted on the relationship between Na menu labelling and Na content of menu items offered by restaurants or purchased by consumers. SETTING: Local and state jurisdictions in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2020, thirty-eight laws - eleven at the local level and twenty-seven at the state level - were proposed to require Na labelling of restaurant menu items. By 2020, eight laws were enacted requiring chain restaurants to label the Na content of menu items. Five studies were identified that evaluated the impact of Na menu labelling on Na content of menu items offered by restaurants or purchased by consumers in the USA. The studies had mixed results: two studies showed a statistically significant association between Na menu labelling and reduced Na content of menu items; three showed no effects. CONCLUSION: Data suggest that Na menu labelling may reduce Na in restaurant menu items, but further rigorous research evaluating Na menu labelling effects on Na content of menu items, as well as on the Na content in menu items purchased by consumers, is needed.

Trends in the healthiness of U.S. fast food meals, 2008-2017.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine trends in the healthiness of U.S. fast food restaurant meals from 2008 to 2017, using the American Heart Association's Heart-Check meal certification criteria. METHODS: Data were obtained from MenuStat, an online database of the leading 100 U.S. restaurant chains menu items, for the years 2008 and 2012 through 2017. All possible meal combinations (entrées + sides) were created at the 20 fast food restaurants that reported entrée and side calories, total fat, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, protein, and fiber. Chi-square tests compared the percent of meals meeting each American Heart Association (AHA) nutrient criterion; and the number of AHA criteria met for each year, by menu focus type. RESULTS: Compared with 2008, significantly fewer fast food meals met the AHA calorie criterion in 2015, 2016, and 2017, and significantly fewer met the AHA total fat criterion in 2015 and 2016. Significantly more meals met the AHA trans fat criterion from 2012 to 2017, compared to 2008. There were no significant changes over time in the percent of meals meeting AHA criteria for saturated fat, cholesterol, or sodium. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to improve the healthiness of fast food meals should focus on reducing calories, total fat, saturated fat, and sodium.

Governors' Use of Executive Orders and Proclamations in Hurricane Response, 2006-2018.

Hurricanes can destroy or overwhelm communities and cause or exacerbate health conditions. Legal mechanisms and practices may aid or impede hurricane response. In the United States, where states have primary public health responsibility, state governors possess legal powers to address hurricanes. They often exercise these powers using executive orders and proclamations-legal mechanisms that direct public and private parties. Although executive orders and proclamations are critical for hurricane preparedness and response, how governors use them to respond to hurricanes is not fully understood. Using legal epidemiology, we systematically identified and analyzed hurricane-related executive orders and proclamations issued in the United States from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2018. We found 468 relevant executive orders and proclamations, 14% of which were issued, at least in part, to benefit a jurisdiction other than the issuer's state. We observed variations in when and where such orders and proclamations were issued. Executive orders and proclamations were most commonly used to direct government response or recovery (32%), handle and administer government resources (31%), and suspend legal requirements perceived to inhibit response (27%). Fewer orders and proclamations regulated private parties (10%). Understanding how governors use executive orders and proclamations to respond to hurricanes can bolster future preparedness and response efforts.

Implementation and enforcement of state opioid prescribing laws.

BACKGROUND: In response to the role overprescribing has played in the U.S. opioid crisis, in the past decade states have enacted four main types of laws to curb opioid prescribing: mandatory prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) enrollment laws requiring clinicians to register with a PDMP; mandatory PDMP query laws requiring clinicians to check a PDMP prior to prescribing opioids; pill mill laws regulating pain management clinics; and opioid prescribing cap laws limiting the dose/duration of opioid prescriptions. While 47 states now have one or more of these laws in place, little is known about implementation and enforcement strategies, facilitators, and barriers. METHODS: From November 2017 to February 2019, we interviewed 114 professionals involved in state opioid prescribing law implementation and enforcement in 20 states and identified common themes. RESULTS: Implementation efforts focused on awareness campaigns and targeted training of key front-line implementers. Enforcement strategies included active, complaint-based, and automated strategies. Collaboration across agencies and stakeholders, particularly health agencies and law enforcement, was identified as an important facilitator of implementation and enforcement. Two key interrelated barriers were identified: the complexity of state opioid prescribing laws in terms of which providers, patients, and prescriptions they applied to, and IT infrastructure. CONCLUSION: Despite differing approaches, our findings suggest similar barriers to implementation and enforcement across state opioid prescribing laws. Strategies are needed to ease implementation and enforcement of laws that apply only to specific sub-sets of providers, patients, or prescriptions and address issues of access and data utilization of the PDMP.

Healthiness of US Chain Restaurant Meals in 2017.

BACKGROUND: Given the popularity of restaurants as a meal source in the United States, it is important to understand the healthiness of their offerings. OBJECTIVE: This study's purpose was to examine the healthiness of meals at national US chain restaurants in 2017 using the American Heart Association's (AHA) Heart-Check meal certification criteria. DESIGN: Data for this cross-sectional study were obtained from MenuStat, an online database that includes nutrition information for menu items from the 100 restaurant chains with the largest sales in the United States in 2017. All possible meal combinations (meals defined as including an entrée and side item) were created at the 73 restaurants that reported nutrition information aligning with the AHA criteria: calories, total fat, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, protein, and fiber. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE: Healthy meal (0=did not meet AHA criteria; 1=did meet AHA criteria). STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: We used χ2 tests to compare the percent of restaurant meals and meal components compliant with each AHA criterion and the percent of restaurant meals and meal components meeting varying numbers of AHA criteria across restaurant service types (ie, fast food, full service, fast casual). RESULTS: Among all restaurants, the median calories, total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium of meals exceeded the AHA criteria. Fewer than 20% of meals met the saturated fat and sodium criteria; 22% of restaurant meals met zero to one AHA criteria, 50% met two to four AHA criteria, 20% met five to six AHA criteria, and 8% met all seven AHA criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Given the popularity of restaurants as a source of meals, efforts are needed to improve the healthiness of restaurant meals.

An integrative review of the limited evidence on international travel bans as an emerging infectious disease disaster control measure.

In our increasingly interconnected world, the potential for emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) to spread globally is of paramount concern. Travel bans-herein defined as the complete restriction of travel from at least one geographic region to at least one other international geographic region-are a potential policy solution to control the global spread of disease. The social, economic, and health-related consequences of travel bans, as well as the available evidence on the effectiveness of travel restrictions in preventing the global spread of influenza, have been previously described. However, the effectiveness of travel bans in reducing the spread of noninfluenza EIDs, characterized by different rates and modes of transmission, is less well understood. This study employs an integrative review approach to summarize the minimal evidence on effectiveness of travel bans to decrease the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS), Ebola virus disease (EVD), and Zika virus disease (ZVD). We describe and qualify the evidence presented in six modeling studies that assess the effectiveness of travel bans in controlling these noninfluenza EID events. We conclude that there is an urgent need for additional research to inform policy decisions on the use of travel bans and other control measures to control noninfluenza EIDs in advance of the next outbreak.

Judicial Opinions Arising from Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Activities.

Legal Perspectives is aimed at informing healthcare providers, emergency planners, public health practitioners, and other decision makers about important legal issues related to public health and healthcare preparedness and response. The articles describe these potentially challenging topics and conclude with the authors' suggestions for further action. The articles do not provide legal advice. Therefore, those affected by the issues discussed in this column should seek further guidance from legal counsel. Readers may submit topics of interest to the column's editor, Lainie Rutkow, JD, PhD, MPH, at lrutkow@jhu.edu. This article describes and analyzes the body of emergency preparedness, response, and recovery litigation that has arisen since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Search terms were developed to identify judicial opinions related to emergency preparedness, response, and recovery activities. Using the Thomson Reuters Westlaw legal database, searches were conducted to collect judicial opinions related to disasters that occurred in the United States between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2015. An electronic form was used for data abstraction. Cases that did not directly involve emergency response, preparedness, or recovery activities were excluded. Data were summarized with descriptive statistics. We identified 215 cases for data abstraction. Many of the cases stemmed from preparedness, response, and recovery activities related to hurricanes (57.7%) and terrorist attacks (16.7%). The most prevalent emergency response activities at issue were disaster mitigation (29.3%), disaster clean-up (21.9%), a defendant's duty to plan (14.4%), evacuation (12.6%), and conditions of incarceration (12.1%). Although it can be anticipated that litigation will arise out of all phases of disaster preparedness, response, and recovery, policymakers can anticipate that the most litigation will result from pre-event mitigation and post-event recovery activities, and allocate resources accordingly.

Local Public Health Policymakers' Views on State Preemption: Results of a National Survey, 2018.

Objectives. To learn about local health policymakers' experiences and responses to preemption-the ability of a higher level of government to limit policy activity at a lower level. Methods. Between March and June 2018, we conducted an anonymous Web-based survey of mayors and health officials in US cities with populations of 150 000 or more. We used descriptive statistics to analyze multiple-choice responses. We analyzed open text responses qualitatively. Results. Survey response rates were 28% (mayors) and 32% (health officials). Nearly all respondents found preemption to be an obstacle to local policymaking. When faced with preemption, 72% of health officials and 60% of mayors abandoned or delayed local policymaking efforts. Conclusions. Preemption is viewed as an impediment across a range of public health issues and may stifle local policy activity (i.e., have a chilling effect). Those working at the local level should consider the potential for preemption whenever seeking to address public health concerns in their communities. Public Health Implications. Local governments should engage with advocates, practitioners, and public health lawyers to learn about successful and failed efforts to meet public health objectives when faced with preemption.