Duration of Behavioral Policy Interventions and Incidence of COVID-19 by Social Vulnerability of US Counties, April-December 2020.

OBJECTIVE: State-issued behavioral policy interventions (BPIs) can limit community spread of COVID-19, but their effects on COVID-19 transmission may vary by level of social vulnerability in the community. We examined the association between the duration of BPIs and the incidence of COVID-19 across levels of social vulnerability in US counties. METHODS: We used COVID-19 case counts from USAFacts and policy data on BPIs (face mask mandates, stay-at-home orders, gathering bans) in place from April through December 2020 and the 2018 Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted multilevel linear regression to estimate the associations between duration of each BPI and monthly incidence of COVID-19 (cases per 100 000 population) by SVI quartiles (grouped as low, moderate low, moderate high, and high social vulnerability) for 3141 US counties. RESULTS: Having a BPI in place for longer durations (ie, ≥2 months) was associated with lower incidence of COVID-19 compared with having a BPI in place for <1 month. Compared with having no BPI in place or a BPI in place for <1 month, differences in marginal mean monthly incidence of COVID-19 per 100 000 population for a BPI in place for ≥2 months ranged from -4 cases in counties with low SVI to -401 cases in counties with high SVI for face mask mandates, from -31 cases in counties with low SVI to -208 cases in counties with high SVI for stay-at-home orders, and from -227 cases in counties with low SVI to -628 cases in counties with high SVI for gathering bans. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing COVID-19 prevention measures for longer durations may help reduce COVID-19 transmission, especially in communities with high levels of social vulnerability.

Trends in Percentages of the US Population Covered by State-Issued COVID-19 Nonpharmaceutical Interventions, March 1, 2020-August 15, 2021.

Trends in the percentages of the US population covered by state-issued nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), including restaurant and bar restrictions, stay-at-home orders, gathering limits, and mask mandates, were examined by using county-specific data sets on state-issued orders for NPIs from March 1, 2020, to August 15, 2021. Most of the population was covered by multiple NPIs early in the pandemic. Most state-issued orders were lifted or relaxed as COVID-19 cases decreased during summer 2020. Few states reimplemented strict NPIs during later surges in US COVID-19 cases over the winter of 2020-2021. The exceptions were mask mandates, which covered about 80% of the population between August 2020 and February 2021, and the most restrictive gathering limits, which covered a maximum of 66% of the population in early 2020 and 68% of the population in winter 2020-2021. Most NPIs were lifted by the end of the analysis period.

State-Level Estimates of the Prevalence of Parent-Reported ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment Among U.S. Children and Adolescents, 2016 to 2019.

OBJECTIVE: To provide state-level estimates of diagnosed ADHD and associated treatment among children in the United States in 2016 to 2019. METHOD: This study used the National Survey of Children's Health to produce national and state-level estimates of lifetime diagnosis and current ADHD among all children aged 3 to 17 years (n=114,476), and national and state-level estimates of medication and behavioral treatment use among children with current ADHD. RESULTS: The state-level estimates of diagnosed ADHD ranged from 6.1% to 16.3%. Among children with current ADHD, state-level estimates of ADHD medication usage ranged from 37.8% to 81.4%, and state-level estimates of behavioral treatment ranged from 38.8% to 61.8%. CONCLUSION: There was substantial state-level variation for indicators of ADHD diagnosis and associated treatment. These state-level results can be used by policymakers, public health practitioners, health care providers, and other stakeholders to help address the service needs of children with ADHD in their states.

Availability of Adult Vaccination Services by Provider Type and Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Knowledge regarding the benefits for adult vaccination services under Medicaid's fee-for-service arrangement is dated; little is known regarding the availability of vaccination services for adult Medicaid beneficiaries in MCO arrangements. This study evaluates the availability of provider reimbursement benefits for adult vaccination services under fee-for-service and MCO arrangements for different types of healthcare providers and settings. METHODS: A total of 43 Medicaid directors across the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia participated in a semistructured survey conducted from June 2018 to June 2019 (43/51). The frequency of Medicaid fee-for-service and MCO arrangements reporting reimbursement for adult vaccination services by various provider types and settings were assessed in 2019. Elements of vaccination services examined in this study were vaccine purchase, vaccine administration, and vaccination-related counseling. RESULTS: Under fee-for-service, 41 Medicaid programs reimburse primary care providers for adult vaccine purchase (41/43); fewer programs reimburse vaccine administration and vaccination-related counseling (33/43 and 30/43, respectively). Similar results were observed for obstetricians-gynecologists, nurse practitioners, and pharmacies. Although 24 fee-for-service (24/43) and 23 MCO (23/34) arrangements cover adult vaccination services in most settings, long-term care facilities have the lowest reported reimbursement eligibility. CONCLUSIONS: In most jurisdictions, vaccination services for adult Medicaid beneficiaries are available for a variety of healthcare provider types and settings under both fee-for-service and MCO arrangements. However, because provider reimbursement benefits remain inconsistent for adult vaccination counseling services and within long-term care facilities, access to adult vaccination services may be reduced for Medicaid beneficiaries who depend on these resources.

Timing of State and Territorial COVID-19 Stay-at-Home Orders and Changes in Population Movement - United States, March 1-May 31, 2020.

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is thought to spread from person to person primarily by the respiratory route and mainly through close contact (1). Community mitigation strategies can lower the risk for disease transmission by limiting or preventing person-to-person interactions (2). U.S. states and territories began implementing various community mitigation policies in March 2020. One widely implemented strategy was the issuance of orders requiring persons to stay home, resulting in decreased population movement in some jurisdictions (3). Each state or territory has authority to enact its own laws and policies to protect the public's health, and jurisdictions varied widely in the type and timing of orders issued related to stay-at-home requirements. To identify the broader impact of these stay-at-home orders, using publicly accessible, anonymized location data from mobile devices, CDC and the Georgia Tech Research Institute analyzed changes in population movement relative to stay-at-home orders issued during March 1-May 31, 2020, by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories.* During this period, 42 states and territories issued mandatory stay-at-home orders. When counties subject to mandatory state- and territory-issued stay-at-home orders were stratified along rural-urban categories, movement decreased significantly relative to the preorder baseline in all strata. Mandatory stay-at-home orders can help reduce activities associated with the spread of COVID-19, including population movement and close person-to-person contact outside the household.

State Policies on Access to Vaccination Services for Low-Income Adults.

Importance: State vaccination benefits coverage and access for adult Medicaid beneficiaries vary substantially. Multiple studies have documented lower vaccination uptake in publicly insured adults compared with privately insured adults. Objective: To evaluate adult Medicaid beneficiaries' access to adult immunization services through review of vaccination benefits coverage in Medicaid programs across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Design, Setting, and Participants: A public domain document review with supplemental semistructured telephone survey was conducted between June 1, 2018, and June 14, 2019, to evaluate vaccination services benefits in fee-for-service and managed care organization arrangements for adult Medicaid beneficiaries in the 50 states and the District of Columbia (total, 51 Medicaid programs). Exposures: Document review of benefits coverage for adult immunization services and supplemental survey with validation of document review findings. Main Outcomes and Measures: Benefits coverage for adult Medicaid beneficiaries and reimbursement amounts for vaccine purchase and administration. Results: Public domain document review was completed for all 51 jurisdictions. Among these, 44 Medicaid programs (86%) validated document review findings and completed the survey. Only 22 Medicaid programs (43%) covered all 13 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices-recommended adult immunizations under both fee-for-service and managed care organization arrangements. Most fee-for-service arrangements (37 of 49) reimbursed health care professionals using any of the 4 approved vaccine administration codes; however, 8 of 49 programs did not separately reimburse for vaccine administration to adult Medicaid beneficiaries. Depending on administration route, median reimbursement for adult vaccine administration ranged from $9.81 to $13.98 per dose. Median per-dose reimbursement for adult vaccine purchase was highest for 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine ($204.87) and lowest for Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine ($18.09). Median reimbursement was below the private sector price for 7 of the 13 included vaccines. Conclusions and Relevance: Even in programs with complete vaccination benefits coverage, reimbursement amounts to health care professionals for vaccine purchase and administration may not fully cover vaccination provision costs. Reimbursement amounts below costs may reduce incentives for health care professionals to vaccinate low-income adults and thereby limit Medicaid adult beneficiary access to vaccination.

Trends Over Time and Jurisdiction Variability in Supplemental Security Income and State Supplementary Payment Programs for Children With Disabilities.

CONTEXT: Nearly 1.2 million children with disabilities received federally administered Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments in 2017. Based on a robust review of research and evaluation evidence and microsimulations, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee identified modifications to SSI (ie, increasing the federal SSI benefit maximum by one-third or two-thirds) as 1 of 10 strategies that could reduce the US child poverty rate, improving child health and well-being on a population level. OBJECTIVE: Describing the availability and amount of SSI and State Supplementary Payment (SSP) program benefits to support families of children with disabilities may be a first step toward evaluating The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine-proposed modification to SSI as a potential poverty alleviation and health improvement tool for children with disabilities and their families. DESIGN: We used public health law research methods to characterize the laws (statutes and state agency regulations) governing the federal SSI program and SSP programs in the 50 states and District of Columbia from January 1, 1996, through November 1, 2018. RESULTS: The number of jurisdictions offering supplementary payments (SSP) was relatively stable between 1996 and 2018. In 2018, 23 US jurisdictions legally mandated that SSP programs were available for children. Among the states with SSP payment amounts in their codified laws, SSP monthly benefit amounts ranged from $8 to $64.35 in 1996 and $3.13 to $60.43 in 2018. CONCLUSION: Our initial exploration of SSI-related policies as a tool for improving the economic stability of children with disabilities and their families suggests that current SSPs, in combination with SSI, would not rise to the level of SSI increases proposed by The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Understanding more about how SSI and SSP reach children and work in combination with other federal and state income security programs may help identify policies and strategies that better support children with disabilities in low-income households.

How Are Telehealth Laws Intersecting With Laws Addressing the Opioid Overdose Epidemic?

Opioid-involved drug overdose deaths have been a growing concern in the United States for several decades. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified several strategies to address the opioid overdose epidemic, including increased availability of and access to medication-assisted treatment and guidance on safer opioid prescribing practices. Telehealth offers the potential for increasing access and availability to these strategies, and laws governing telehealth have implications for their utilization. To understand how state telehealth laws intersect with the opioid overdose epidemic, we conducted a legal mapping study, a type of legal epidemiological assessment, of statutes and regulations that intersect at telehealth and opioids. This search yielded 28 laws from 17 states. These laws intersect both telehealth and the opioid overdose epidemic in different ways including prescribing limitations, opioid treatment through medication and counseling, patient plan review, and professional collaboration. Continued legal and policy surveillance is needed to be able to evaluate the impact of law in addressing opioid overdose outcomes.

Broadband Access as a Public Health Issue: The Role of Law in Expanding Broadband Access and Connecting Underserved Communities for Better Health Outcomes.

Broadband internet access is a super-determinant of health that plays an important role in healthcare and public health outcomes. Laws and policies shape implementation and use of broadband for healthcare and public health. Connecting broadband and telehealth laws with their health impacts, through legal epidemiological research, enables states to make evidence-based decisions to improve health outcomes for underserved populations.

Policy Levers to Promote Access to and Utilization of Children's Mental Health Services: A Systematic Review.

Policies have potential to help families obtain behavioral healthcare for their children, but little is known about evidence for specific policy approaches. We reviewed evaluations of select policy levers to promote accessibility, affordability, acceptability, availability, or utilization of children's mental and behavioral health services. Twenty articles met inclusion criteria. Location-based policy levers (school-based services and integrated care models) were associated with higher utilization and acceptability, with mixed evidence on accessibility. Studies of insurance-based levers (mental health parity and public insurance) provided some evidence for affordability outcomes. We found no eligible studies of workforce development or telehealth policy levers, or of availability outcomes.

Evaluation of State-Mandated Reporting of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome - Six States, 2013-2017.

From 2004 to 2014, the incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) in the United States increased 433%, from 1.5 to 8.0 per 1,000 hospital births. The latest national data from 2014 indicate that one baby was born with signs of NAS every 15 minutes in the United States (1). NAS is a drug withdrawal syndrome that most commonly occurs among infants after in utero exposure to opioids, although other substances have also been associated with NAS. Prenatal opioid exposure has also been associated with poor fetal growth, preterm birth, stillbirth, and possible specific birth defects (2-5). NAS surveillance has often depended on hospital discharge data, which historically underestimate the incidence of NAS and are not available in real time, thus limiting states' ability to quickly direct public health resources (6,7). This evaluation focused on six states with state laws implementing required NAS case reporting for public health surveillance during 2013-2017 and reviews implementation of the laws, state officials' reports of data quality before and after laws were passed, and advantages and challenges of legally mandating NAS reporting for public health surveillance in the absence of a national case definition. Using standardized search terms in an online legal research database, laws in six states mandating reporting of NAS from medical facilities to state health departments (SHDs) or from SHDs to a state legislative body were identified. SHD officials in these six states completed a questionnaire followed by a semistructured telephone interview to clarify open-text responses from the questionnaire. Variability was found in the type and number of surveillance data elements reported and in how states used NAS surveillance data. Following implementation, five states with identified laws reported receiving NAS case reports within 30 days of diagnosis. Mandated NAS case reporting allowed SHDs to quantify the incidence of NAS in their states and to inform programs and services. This information might be useful to states considering implementing mandatory NAS surveillance.