The intersection of health and housing: Analysis of the research portfolios of the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

BACKGROUND: Housing is a major social determinant of health that affects health status and outcomes across the lifespan. OBJECTIVES: An interagency portfolio analysis assessed the level of funding invested in "health and housing research" from fiscal years (FY) 2016-2020 across the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to characterize the existing health and housing portfolio and identify potential areas for additional research and collaboration. METHODS/RESULTS: We identified NIH, HUD, and CDC research projects that were relevant to both health and housing and characterized them by housing theme, health topic, population, and study design. We organized the assessment of the individual housing themes by four overarching housing-to-health pathways. From FY 2016-2020, NIH, HUD, and CDC funded 565 health and housing projects combined. The Neighborhood pathway was most common, followed by studies of the Safety and Quality pathway. Studies of the Affordability and Stability pathways were least common. Health topics such as substance use, mental health, and cardiovascular disease were most often studied. Most studies were observational (66%); only a little over one fourth (27%) were intervention studies. DISCUSSION: This review of the research grant portfolios of three major federal funders of health and housing research in the United States describes the diversity and substantial investment in research at the intersection between housing and health. Analysis of the combined portfolio points to gaps in studies on causal pathways linking housing to health outcomes. The findings highlight the need for research to better understand the causal pathways from housing to health and prevention intervention research, including rigorous evaluation of housing interventions and policies to improve health and well-being.

Estimating the Effects of Hypothetical Alcohol Minimum Unit Pricing Policies on Alcohol Use and Deaths: A State Example.

OBJECTIVE: Alcohol minimum unit pricing (MUP) policies establish a floor price beneath which alcohol cannot be sold. The potential effectiveness of MUP policies for reducing alcohol-attributable deaths in the United States has not been quantitatively assessed. Therefore, this study estimated the effects of two hypothetical distilled spirits MUP policies on alcohol sales, consumption, and alcohol-attributable deaths in one state. METHOD: The International Model of Alcohol Harms and Policies tool was used to estimate the effects of two hypothetical MUP per standard drink policies (40-cent and 45-cent) pertaining to distilled spirits products at off-premises alcohol outlets in Michigan during 2020. Prevalence estimates on drinking patterns among Michigan adults were calculated by sex and age group. Prices per standard drink and sales of 9,747 spirits products were analyzed using National Alcohol Beverage Control Association data. Analyses accounted for other alcoholic beverage type sales using cross-price elasticities. RESULTS: Increasing the MUP of the 3.5% of spirits with the lowest prices per standard drink to 40 cents could reduce total alcohol per capita consumption in Michigan by 2.6% and prevent 232 (5.3%) alcohol-attributable deaths annually. A 45-cent MUP would affect 8.0% of the spirits and reduce total alcohol per capita consumption by 3.9%, preventing 354 (8.1%) deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Modestly increasing the prices of the lowest-priced spirits with an MUP policy in a single state could save hundreds of lives annually. This suggests that alcohol MUP policies could be an effective strategy for improving public health in the United States, consistent with the World Health Organization's recommendation.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Outpatient Treatment of COVID-19 - United States, January-July 2022.

In December 2021 and early 2022, four medications received emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration for outpatient treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in patients who are at high risk for progressing to severe disease; these included nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) and molnupiravir (Lagevrio) (both oral antivirals), expanded use of remdesivir (Veklury; an intraveneous antiviral), and bebtelovimab (a monoclonal antibody [mAb]).* Reports have documented disparities in mAb treatment by race and ethnicity (1) and in oral antiviral treatment by zip code-level social vulnerability (2); however, limited data are available on racial and ethnic disparities in oral antiviral treatment.† Using electronic health record (EHR) data from 692,570 COVID-19 patients aged ≥20 years who sought medical care during January-July 2022, treatment with Paxlovid, Lagevrio, Veklury, and mAbs was assessed by race and ethnicity, overall and among high-risk patient groups. During 2022, the percentage of COVID-19 patients seeking medical care who were treated with Paxlovid increased from 0.6% in January to 20.2% in April and 34.3% in July; the other three medications were used less frequently (0.7%-5.0% in July). During April-July 2022, when Paxlovid use was highest, compared with White patients, Black or African American (Black) patients were prescribed Paxlovid 35.8% less often, multiple or other race patients 24.9% less often, American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (AIAN/NHOPI) patients 23.1% less often, and Asian patients 19.4% less often; Hispanic patients were prescribed Paxlovid 29.9% less often than non-Hispanic patients. Racial and ethnic disparities in Paxlovid treatment were generally somewhat higher among patients at high risk for severe COVID-19, including those aged ≥50 years and those who were immunocompromised. The expansion of programs focused on equitable awareness of and access to outpatient COVID-19 treatments, as well as COVID-19 vaccination, including updated bivalent booster doses, can help protect persons most at risk for severe illness and facilitate equitable health outcomes.

Leveraging Social and Structural Determinants of Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: A Systems-Level Opportunity to Improve Public Health.

CONTEXT: Social and structural determinants of health (SDOH) have become part of the public health and health care landscape. The need to address SDOH is reinforced by morbidity and mortality trends, including a recent multiyear decrease in life expectancy and persistent health disparities. Leadership on SDOH-related efforts has come from public health, health care, private philanthropy, and nongovernmental entities. STRATEGY: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been addressing SDOH through both disease- or condition-specific programs and crosscutting offices. Guidance from public health partners in the field has led the CDC to consider more strategic approaches to incorporating SDOH into public health activities. IMPLEMENTATION: The CDC's crosscutting SDOH Workgroup responded to external recommendations to develop a specific vision and plan that aims to integrate SDOH into the agency's infrastructure. The group also sponsors CDC forums for sharing research and trainings on embedding SDOH in programs. The group created a Web site to centralize CDC SDOH research, data sources, practice tools, programs, and policies. PROGRESS: The CDC has shown strong leadership in prioritizing SDOH in recent years. Individual programs and crosscutting offices have developed various models aimed at ensuring that public health research and practice address SDOH. DISCUSSION: Building sustainable SDOH infrastructures in public health institutions that reach across multiple health topics and non-health organizations could increase chances of meeting public health morbidity and mortality reduction goals, including decreasing health disparities. Although public health priorities and socioeconomic trends will change over time, experience suggests that social and structural factors will continue to influence the public's health. The CDC and state, tribal, local, and territorial public health institutions have played important leadership roles in the system of community and service organizations that interface with communities they mutually serve to address SDOH. Continued capacity-building could help grow and sustain an SDOH infrastructure that advances this work.

Impact of laws aimed at healthcare-associated infection reduction: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are preventable. Globally, laws aimed at reducing HAIs have been implemented. In the USA, these laws are at the federal and state levels. It is not known whether the state interventions are more effective than the federal incentives alone. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to explore the impact federal and state HAI laws have on state departments of health and hospital stakeholders in the USA and to explore similarities and differences in perceptions across states. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted. In 2012, we conducted semistructured interviews with key stakeholders from states with and without state-level laws to gain multiple perspectives. Interviews were transcribed and open coding was conducted. Data were analysed using content analysis and collected until theoretical saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Ninety interviews were conducted with stakeholders from 12 states (6 states with laws and 6 states without laws). We found an increase in state-level collaboration. The publicly reported data helped hospitals benchmark and focus leaders on HAI prevention. There were concerns about the publicly reported data (eg, lack of validation and timeliness). Resource needs were also identified. No major differences were expressed by interviewees from states with and without laws. CONCLUSIONS: While we could not tease out the impact of specific interventions, increased collaboration between departments of health and their partners is occurring. Harmonisation of HAI definitions and reporting between state and federal laws would minimise reporting burden. Continued monitoring of the progress of HAI prevention is needed.

Potential strategies to eliminate built environment disparities for disadvantaged and vulnerable communities.

In 2006, the Federal Collaboration on Health Disparities Research (FCHDR) identified the built environment as a priority for eliminating health disparities, and charged the Built Environment Workgroup with identifying ways to eliminate health disparities and improve health outcomes. Despite extensive research and the development of a new conceptual health factors framework, gaps in knowledge exist in areas such as disproportionate environmental and community hazards, individual and cumulative risks, and other factors. The FCHDR provides the structure and opportunity to mobilize and partner with built environment stakeholders, federal partners, and interest groups to develop tools, practices, and policies for translating and disseminating the best available science to reduce health disparities.

Eliminating health disparities through transdisciplinary research, cross-agency collaboration, and public participation.

Despite efforts to the contrary, disparities in health and health care persist in the United States. To solve this problem, federal agencies representing different disciplines and perspectives are collaborating on a variety of transdisciplinary research initiatives. The most recent of these initiatives was launched in 2006 when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Office of Public Health Research and the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Minority Health brought together federal partners representing a variety of disciplines to form the Federal Collaboration on Health Disparities Research (FCHDR). FCHDR collaborates with a wide variety of federal and nonfederal partners to support and disseminate research that aims to reduce or eliminate disparities in health and health care. Given the complexity involved in eliminating health disparities, there is a need for more transdisciplinary, collaborative research, and facilitating that research is FCHDR's mission.