Bill would bar NIH and CDC from funding lab research in China.

House of Representatives measure catalyzed in part by suspicions that Wuhan lab leak led to pandemic.

Economic stressors and the enactment of CDC-recommended COVID-19 prevention behaviors: The impact of state-level context.

In order to combat the spread of the novel coronavirus, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed a list of recommended preventative health behaviors for Americans to enact, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and limiting nonessential trips from home. Drawing upon scarcity theory, the purpose of this study was to examine whether the economic stressors of perceived job insecurity and perceived financial insecurity are related to employee self-reports of enacting such behaviors. Moreover, we tested propositions regarding the impact of two state-level contextual variables that may moderate those relationships: the generosity of unemployment insurance benefits and extensiveness of statewide COVID-19-related restrictions. Using a multilevel data set of N = 745 currently employed U.S. workers nested within 43 states, we found that both job insecurity and financial insecurity were negatively related to the enactment of the CDC-recommended guidelines. However, the state-level variables acted as cross-level moderators, such that the negative relationship between job insecurity and compliance with the CDC guidelines was attenuated within states that have a more robust unemployment system. However, working in a state with more extensive COVID-19 restrictions seemed to primarily benefit more financially secure workers. When statewide policies were more restrictive, employees reporting more financial security were more likely to enact the CDC-recommended guidelines compared to their financially insecure counterparts. We discuss these findings in light of the continuing need to develop policies to address the public health crisis while also protecting employees facing economic stressors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

A model for bringing TB expertise to HIV providers: Medical consultations to the CDC-funded Regional Tuberculosis Training and Medical Consultation Centers, 2013-2017.

BACKGROUND: Persons living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are at a greater risk of developing tuberculosis (TB) compared to people without HIV and of developing complications due to the complexity of TB/HIV coinfection management. METHODS: During 2013-2017, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded 5 TB Regional Training and Medical Consultation Centers (RTMCCs) (now known as TB Centers of Excellence or COEs) to provide medical consultation to providers for TB disease and latent TB infection (LTBI), with data entered into a Medical Consultation Database (MCD). Descriptive analyses of TB/HIV-related consultations were conducted using SAS® software, version [9.4] to determine the distribution of year of consultation, medical setting and provider type, frequency of consultations regarding a pediatric (<18 years) patient, and to categorize key concepts and themes arising within consultation queries and medical consultant responses. RESULTS: Of 14,586 consultations captured by the MCD in 2013-2017, 544 (4%) were categorized as TB/HIV-related, with 100 (18%) received in 2013, 129 (24%) in 2014, 104 (19%) in 2015, 117 (22%) in 2016, and 94 (17%) in 2017. Most TB/HIV consultations came from nurses (54%) or physicians (43%) and from local (65%) or state health departments (10%). Only 17 (3%) of HIV-related consultations involved pediatric cases. Off the 544 TB/HIV consultations, 347 (64%) concerned the appropriate treatment regimen for TB/HIV or LTBI/HIV for a patient on or not on antiretroviral therapy (ART). CONCLUSIONS: The data support a clear and ongoing gap in areas of specialized HIV knowledge by TB experts that could be supplemented with proactive educational outreach. The specific categories of TB/HIV inquiries captured by this analysis are strategically informing future targeted training and educational activities planned by the CDC TB Centers of Excellence, as well as guiding HIV educational efforts at regional and national TB meetings.

Human Immunodeficiency Virus Testing, Diagnosis, Linkage to Care, and Prevention Services Among Persons Who Inject Drugs, United States, 2012-2017.

BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing and early diagnosis is associated with effective disease management and reduction in HIV transmission among persons who inject drugs (PWID). We examined trends in HIV testing outcomes among PWID during 2012-2017. METHODS: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-funded HIV testing data submitted by 61 health departments and 150 directly-funded community-based organizations during 2012-2017 were analyzed. We calculated estimated annual percentage changes (EAPC) to assess trends for HIV testing and testing outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 19 739 857 CDC-funded HIV tests were conducted during 2012-2017. Of these, 529 349 (2.7%) were among PWID. The percentage of newly diagnosed HIV increased from .7% in 2012 to .8% in 2017 (EAPC, 4.15%). The percentage interviewed for partner services increased from 46.7% in 2012 to 66.3% in 2017 (EAPC, 1.81%). No significant change was identified in trends for linkage to HIV medical care ≤90 days after diagnosis (EAPC, 0.52%) or referral to HIV prevention services (EAPC, 0.98%). CONCLUSIONS: Human immunodeficiency virus testing data revealed an increasing trend in newly diagnosed HIV among PWID but not linkage to HIV medical care or referral to prevention services. Expanding efforts to increase HIV testing and enhance linkage to services can lead to reductions in HIV transmission and improved health outcomes.

Expenditures on Screening Promotion Activities in CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program, 2009-2014.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2009 to reduce disparities in colorectal cancer screening and increase screening and follow-up as recommended. We estimate the cost for evidence-based intervention and non-evidence-based intervention screening promotion activities and examine expenditures on screening promotion activities. We also identify factors associated with the costs of these activities. METHODS: By using cost and resource use data collected from 25 state grantees over multiple years (July 2009 to June 2014), we analyzed the total cost for each screening promotion activity. Multivariate analysis was used to assess the factors associated with screening promotion costs reported by grantees. RESULTS: The promotion activities with the largest allocation of funding across the years and grantees were mass media, patient navigation, outreach and education, and small media. Across all years of the program and across grantees, the amount spent on specific promotion activities varied widely. The factor significantly associated with promotion costs was region in which the grantee was located. CONCLUSION: CDC's CRCCP grantees spent the largest amount of the screening promotion funds on mass media, which is not recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force. Given the large variation across grantees in the use of and expenditures on screening promotion interventions, a systematic assessment of the yield from investment in specific promotion activities could better guide optimal resource allocation.

Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM) position statement: restore CDC funding for firearms and gun violence prevention research.

The Society for Behavioral Medicine (SBM) urges restoration of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funding for firearms and gun violence prevention research. Gun violence in the United States is an important and costly public health issue in need of research attention. Unfortunately, there have been no concerted CDC-funded research efforts in this area since 1996, due to the passage of the Dickey Amendment. To remedy the information-gathering restrictions caused by the Dickey Amendment bans, it is recommended that Congress remove 'policy riders' on federal appropriations bills that limit firearms research at the CDC; expand NVDRS firearms-related data collection efforts to include all fifty states; fund CDC research on the risk and protective factors of gun use and gun violence prevention; fund research on evidence-based primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention and treatment initiatives for communities that are seriously impacted by the effects of gun violence; and support the development of evidence-based policy and prevention recommendations for gun use and ownership.

Previously Diagnosed HIV-Positive Persons: The Role of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Funded HIV Testing Programs in Addressing Their Needs.

BACKGROUND: Increased HIV testing efforts have resulted in retesting previously diagnosed persons. This study examined Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-funded HIV testing programs to evaluate how the needs of previously diagnosed persons are being addressed. METHODS: The following were examined by demographic and test setting among previously diagnosed HIV-positive persons in 2015: CDC-funded HIV testing, previously diagnosed HIV positivity, current care status, and linkage to care. In addition, trends of HIV positivity and previously diagnosed HIV-positivity were examined from 2011 to 2015. RESULTS: In 2015, CDC funded 3,026,074 HIV tests, and 27,729 were HIV-positive tests. Of those, 13,528 (48.8%) were previously diagnosed persons. Only 11.6% of previously diagnosed persons reported already being in HIV care; after excluding them, 62.1% of previously diagnosed persons were linked within 90 days. In addition, the percentage of previously diagnosed persons steadily increased from 2011 (25.9%) to 2015 (34.1%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of all HIV-positive tests were among previously diagnosed persons, but only 11.6% were already in HIV care. Linkage is necessary among persons who already know their HIV status because they either were never linked or need to be reengaged into care. Barriers in linkage and retention among this group also need to be addressed.

The Use of a Shared Services Model for Mycobacteriology Testing: Lessons Learned.

OBJECTIVES: Public health laboratories (PHLs) provide essential services in the diagnosis and surveillance of diseases of public health concern, such as tuberculosis. Maintaining access to high-quality laboratory testing is critical to continued disease detection and decline of tuberculosis cases in the United States. We investigated the practical experience of sharing tuberculosis testing services between PHLs through the Shared Services Project. METHODS: The Shared Services Project was a 9-month-long project funded through the Association of Public Health Laboratories and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during 2012-2013 as a one-time funding opportunity to consortiums of PHLs that proposed collaborative approaches to sharing tuberculosis laboratory services. Submitting PHLs maintained testing while simultaneously sending specimens to reference laboratories to compare turnaround times. RESULTS: During the 9-month project period, 107 Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex submissions for growth-based drug susceptibility testing and molecular detection of drug resistance testing occurred among the 3 consortiums. The median transit time for all submissions was 1.0 day. Overall, median drug susceptibility testing turnaround time (date of receipt in submitting laboratory to result) for parallel testing performed in house by submitting laboratories was 31.0 days; it was 43.0 days for reference laboratories. The median turnaround time for molecular detection of drug resistance results was 1.0 day (mean = 2.8; range, 0-14) from specimen receipt at the reference laboratories. CONCLUSIONS: The shared services model holds promise for specialized tuberculosis testing. Sharing of services requires a balance among quality, timeliness, efficiency, communication, and fiscal costs.

Cost of a measles outbreak in a remote island economy: 2014 Federated States of Micronesia measles outbreak.

After 20years with no reported measles cases, on May 15, 2014 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was notified of two cases testing positive for measles-specific immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM). Under the Compact of Free Association, FSM receives immunization funding and technical support from the United States (US) domestic vaccination program managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In a collaborative effort, public health officials and volunteers from FSM and the US government worked to respond and contain the measles outbreak through an emergency mass vaccination campaign, contact tracing, and other outbreak investigation activities. Contributions were also made by United Nations Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and World Health Organization (WHO). Total costs incurred as a result of the outbreak were nearly $4,000,000; approximately $10,000 per case. Direct medical costs (≈$141,000) were incurred in the treatment of those individuals infected, as well as lost productivity of the infected and informal caregivers (≈$250,000) and costs to contain the outbreak (≈$3.5 million). We assessed the economic burden of the 2014 measles outbreak to FSM, as well as the economic responsibilities of the US. Although the US paid the majority of total costs of the outbreak (≈67%), examining each country's costs relative to their respective economy illustrates a far greater burden to FSM. We demonstrate that while FSM was heavily assisted by the US in responding to the 2014 Measles Outbreak, the outbreak significantly impacted their economy. FSM's economic burden from the outbreak is approximately equivalent to their entire 2016 Fiscal Year budget dedicated to education.

How Is CDC Funded to Respond to Public Health Emergencies? Federal Appropriations and Budget Execution Process for Non-Financial Experts.

The federal budgeting process affects a wide range of people who work in public health, including those who work for government at local, state, and federal levels; those who work with government; those who operate government-funded programs; and those who receive program services. However, many people who are affected by the federal budget are not aware of or do not understand how it is appropriated or executed. This commentary is intended to give non-financial experts an overview of the federal budget process to address public health emergencies. Using CDC as an example, we provide: (1) a brief overview of the annual budget formulation and appropriation process; (2) a description of execution and implementation of the federal budget; and (3) an overview of emergency supplemental appropriations, using as examples the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, the 2014-15 Ebola outbreak, and the 2016 Zika epidemic. Public health emergencies require rapid coordinated responses among Congress, government agencies, partners, and sometimes foreign, state, and local governments. It is important to have an understanding of the appropriation process, including supplemental appropriations that might come into play during public health emergencies, as well as the constraints under which Congress and federal agencies operate throughout the federal budget formulation process and execution.