Ecological countermeasures to prevent pathogen spillover and subsequent pandemics

Substantial global attention is focused on how to reduce the risk of future pandemics. Reducing this risk requires investment in prevention, preparedness, and response. Although preparedness and response have received significant focus, prevention, especially the prevention of zoonotic spillover, remains largely absent from global conversations. This oversight is due in part to the lack of a clear definition of prevention and lack of guidance on how to achieve it. To address this gap, we elucidate the mechanisms linking environmental change and zoonotic spillover using spillover of viruses from bats as a case study. We identify ecological interventions that can disrupt these spillover mechanisms and propose policy frameworks for their implementation. Recognizing that pandemics originate in ecological systems, we advocate for integrating ecological approaches alongside biomedical approaches in a comprehensive and balanced pandemic prevention strategy.

Healthcare lobbying on upstream social determinants of health in the US

Healthcare stakeholders are increasingly investing to address social determinants of health (SDOH) as they seek to improve health outcomes and reduce total healthcare costs in their communities. Policy heavily shapes SDOH, and healthcare lobbying on SDOH issues may offer large impacts through positive policy change. Federal lobbying disclosures from the ten highest spending health insurance and healthcare provider organizations and related associations between 2015 and 2019 were reviewed to identify lobbying reported on the salient SDOH issues, defined based on the Accountable Health Communities Model health-related social needs screening tool. Five of the organizations reported lobbying on some SDOH issues, including financial strain, employment, food insecurity, and interpersonal safety, but none reported lobbying on other issues, such as non-healthcare-related employment, housing instability, transportation, or education. Lobbying has been a missed opportunity for addressing SDOH. Healthcare organizations have the opportunity to expand their lobbying on upstream SDOH policy issues to increase the impact of their SDOH strategy and further improve population health.

Technically Accessible, Practically Ineligible: The Effects of Medicaid Expansion Implementation on Chronic Homelessness

CONTEXT

Homeless policy advocates viewed Medicaid expansion as an opportunity to enhance health care access for this vulnerable population. We studied Medicaid expansion implementation to assess the extent to which broadening insurance eligibility affected the functioning of municipal homelessness programs targeting chronic homelessness in the context of two separate governance systems.

METHODS

We employed a comparative case study of San Francisco, California, and Shreveport, Louisiana, which were selected as exemplar cases from a national sample of cities across the United States. We conducted elite interviews with a range of local-level stakeholders and combined this data with primary-source documentation.

FINDINGS

Medicaid expansion did not substantially enhance the functioning of homelessness programs and policies because of Medicaid access challenges and governance conflicts. Administrative burden and funding limitations contributed to limited provider networks, inadequate service coverage, and lack of linkages between Medicaid enrollment and homelessness programming. Governance conflicts reinforced these functional challenges, with homelessness under the administration of local municipalities and nongovernmental organizations while states administer Medicaid.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving access to health care services for persons experiencing homelessness cannot occur without intentional coordination between sectors and levels of government and thus necessitates the development of targeted policies and programs to overcome these challenges.

Paradoxes of professional autonomy: a qualitative study of U.S. neonatologists from 1978-2017

The professional autonomy of physicians often requires they take responsibility for life and death decisions, but they must also find ways to avoid bearing the full weight of such decisions. We conducted in-person, semi-structured interviews with neonatologists (n = 20) in four waves between 1978 and 2017 in a single Midwestern U.S. city. Using open coding analysis, we found over time that neonatologists described changes in their sense of professional autonomy and responsibility for decisions with life and death consequences. Through the early 1990s, as neonatology consolidated as a profession, physicians simultaneously enjoyed high levels of professional discretion and responsibility and were often constrained by bioethics and the law. By 2010s, high involvement of parents and collaboration with multiple subspecialties diffused the burden felt by individual practitioners, but neonatology's professional autonomy was correlatively diminished. Decision-making in the NICU over four decades reveal a complex relationship between the professional autonomy of neonatologist and the burden they bear, with some instances of ceding autonomy as a protective measure and other situations of unwelcomed erosion of professional autonomy that neonatologists see as complicating provision of care.

The USA

Background

In the United States, political regimes directly influence health policy agenda setting, adoption and reform. The priorities of health policy shift across administrations and over time as political parties evolve, polarization occurs, and key political actors change. What is less clear is the degree to which other ideologies - such as nationalism and populism - shape the types of policies that are pursued and adopted in health care. We hypothesize that trends in nationalism and populism in the US across presidential administrations influence the scope of access across different populations in health policies. Additionally, we argue that the rise of populism and nationalism in the United States under the Trump administration has led to restrictions on accessing health programs through targeted limitations placed on certain populations.

Methods

We apply a comparative historical analysis framework to track changes in healthcare policy over time that reflect populist or nationalist agendas. We analyze health policies enacted and pursued by presidential administrations as well as trends in populism and nationalism across presidential administrations in the U.S.

Results

Results demonstrate that as populist sentiments rise, a parallel trend of increased othering in health policies takes place. This othering appears to reflect policies targeting supporters through both policy spoils and values while constraining opposing groups (e.g. increased restrictions on out-group members such racial/ethnic minorities).

Conclusions

Our results highlight the tension that exists in populist and nationalist health policy. Populist and nationalist leaders need to strike a balance between ensuring that their “people” continue to have access to health programs, requiring targeted limits placed within programs. Much of the limitations placed on populations are accomplished through submerged mechanisms and by devolving administration and governance to state and local governments.

Addressing Major Health Disparities Related to Coronavirus for People With Behavioral Health Conditions Requires Strength-Based Capacity Building and Intentional Community Partnership

Far from being an equalizer, as some have claimed, the COVID‐19 pandemic has exposed just how vulnerable many of our social, health, and political systems are in the face of major public health shocks. Rapid responses by health systems to meet increased demand for hospital beds while continuing to provide health services, largely via a shift to telehealth services, are critical adaptations. However, these actions are not sufficient to mitigate the impact of coronavirus for people from marginalized communities, particularly those with behavioral health conditions, who are experiencing disproportional health, economic, and social impacts from the evolving pandemic. Helping these communities weather this storm requires partnering with existing community‐based organizations and local governments to rapidly and flexibly meet the needs of vulnerable populations.

Quantifying inequities in US federal response to hurricane disaster in Texas and Florida compared with Puerto Rico

If disaster responses vary in their effectiveness across communities, health equity is affected. This paper aims to evaluate and describe variation in the federal disaster responses to 2017 Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, compared with the need and severity of storm damage through a retrospective analysis. Our analysis spans from landfall to 6 months after landfall for each hurricane. To examine differences in disaster responses across the hurricanes, we focus on measures of federal spending, federal resources distributed and direct and indirect storm-mortality counts. Federal spending estimates come from congressional appropriations and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) records. Resource estimates come from FEMA documents and news releases. Mortality counts come from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports, respective vital statistics offices and news articles. Damage estimates came from NOAA reports. In each case, we compare the responses and the severity at critical time points after the storm based on FEMA time logs. Our results show that the federal government responded on a larger scale and much more quickly across measures of federal money and staffing to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma in Texas and Florida, compared with Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. The variation in the responses was not commensurate with storm severity and need after landfall in the case of Puerto Rico compared with Texas and Florida. Assuming that disaster responses should be at least commensurate to the degree of storm severity and need of the population, the insufficient response received by Puerto Rico raises concern for growth in health disparities and increases in adverse health outcomes.