You’ve probably seen the news that last weekend, President Joe Biden and Congressional leaders reached a deal to raise the U.S. government’s debt ceiling. The deal passed both houses and Biden signed it yesterday.
In order to reach this bipartisan deal, Biden had to make a lot of compromises—including limiting funding for COVID-19 and other public health needs. The deal could make it harder for state and local governments to distribute COVID-19 vaccines, track disease through programs like wastewater surveillance, and prepare for future health threats.
The federal government is essentially taking back $27 billion of COVID-19 funds that it provided to various federal agencies, according to reporting by Ximena Bustillo and Tamara Keith at NPR. The move focuses on funds for programs that concluded or have “no immediate demands,” per a White House document shared by NPR.
But programs with “no immediate demands” could easily have demands in the coming months. One of NPR’s examples is funding for the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to research and distribute vaccines, which can be distributed to other agencies (the CDC, NIH, FDA, state and local health departments, etc.). Vaccine distribution might not be a big need right now, but it likely will be in the fall, when new COVID-19 boosters become available.
Another potential need could be wastewater surveillance for COVID-19 and other health threats. The CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System (NWSS) was funded through 2025 by the American Rescue Plan, but it’s possible some of those funds could be in the HHS money pulled back by the debt ceiling deal. This would obviously be a huge loss for the U.S.’s ability to get early warning about future COVID-19 surges, as well as warnings about other pathogens. (Shout-out to Sean Kennedy for pointing this one out.)
In addition, the debt ceiling deal may lead to a smaller budget for the NIH, as Sarah Owermohle reports in STAT News. This could have implications for the agency’s ability to fund research into many pressing diseases, including Long COVID. The NIH has already wasted a lot of its Long COVID funding so far, according to my reporting, so it would be pretty bad news if more support for this research is not available.
The White House has claimed that Biden’s deal preserves funds for some key COVID-19 issues, according to NPR, including next-generation vaccines and Long COVID research. It’s hard to verify this, though, because of how convoluted federal COVID-19 funding has been. From a recent brief by the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials:
“Given the way Congress appropriated COVID-19 funding, and the way funding was later transferred between federal accounts and agencies, it is extremely difficult to discern which federal public health programs are affected by the rescissions.”
Public health funding often follows a cycle of “panic and neglect.” When a crisis occurs, governments panic and put tons of money into the immediate response. But after that crisis fades, it falls into neglect, with less money devoted to preparedness—even though preparedness efforts could help avert the next crisis. We’re clearly in that neglect part of the cycle for COVID-19 now; the debt ceiling deal is just the latest example.
Last week, I gave you an overview of the changes coming with the end of the federal public health emergency (PHE), highlighting some shifts in publicly available COVID-19 services and data. This week, I’d like to focus on the health equity implications of the PHE’s end.
COVID-19 led the U.S. healthcare system to do something unprecedented: make key health services freely available to all Americans. Of course, this only applied to a few specific COVID-related items—vaccines, tests, Paxlovid—and people still had to jump through a lot of hoops to get them. But it’s still a big deal, compared to how fractured our healthcare is for everything else.
The PHE allowed the U.S. to make those COVID-19 services free by giving the federal government authority to buy them in bulk. The federal government also provided funding to help get those vaccines, tests, and treatments to people, through programs like mass vaccination sites and mobile Paxlovid delivery. Through these programs, healthcare and public health workers got the resources to be creative about breaking down access barriers.
Now that the emergency is ending, those extra supplies and resources are going away. COVID-19 is going to be treated like any other disease. And as a result, people who are already vulnerable to other health issues will become more at risk for COVID-19.
I wrote about this health equity problem in a recent story for Amsterdam News, a local paper in New York City that serves the city’s Black community. The story talks about how COVID-19 services in NYC are changing with the end of the PHE, and who will be most impacted by those changes. It’s part of a larger series in the paper covering the PHE’s end.
Most of the story is NYC-specific, but I wanted to share a few paragraphs that I think will resonate more widely:
Jasmin Smith, a former contact tracer who lives in Brooklyn, worries that diminished public resources will contribute to increased COVID-19 spread and make it harder for people with existing health conditions to participate in common activities, like taking the subway or going to the grocery store.
COVID-19 safety measures “make the world more open to people like myself who are COVID-conscious and people who might be immunocomprmised, disabled, chronically ill,” Smith said. “When those things go away, your world becomes smaller and smaller.”
The ending federal public health emergency has also contributed to widespread confusion and anxiety about COVID-19 services, [said Dr. Wafaa El-Sadr, a professor of epidemiology and global health at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health]. “People have so many questions about this transition,” she said, and local leaders could do more to answer these questions for New Yorkers.
The near future of COVID-19 care in the U.S. could reflect existing health disparities for other endemic diseases, like the seasonal flu and HIV/AIDS, [said Steven Thrasher, a professor at Northwestern University and author of the book, The Viral Underclass]. For example, people with insurance and a primary care physician are more likely to get their annual flu shots, he said, while those without are more likely to face severe outcomes from the disease.
After May 11, COVID-19 outcomes are likely to fall along similar lines. “More people have died of AIDS after there were HIV medications,” Thrasher said. “More people have died of COVID when there were vaccines in this country than before.”
For more news and commentary on COVID-19 emergencies ending, I recommend:
We’re now less than one week out from May 11, when the federal public health emergency (or PHE) for COVID-19 will end. While this change doesn’t actually signify that COVID-19 is no longer worth worrying about, it marks a major shift in how U.S. governments will respond to the ongoing pandemic, including how the disease is tracked and what public services are available.
I’ve been writing about this a lot in the last couple of months, cataloging different aspects of the federal emergency’s end. But I thought it might be helpful for readers if I compiled all the key information in one place. This post also includes a few new insights about how COVID-19 surveillance will change after May 11, citing the latest CDC reports.
What will change overall when the PHE ends?
The ending of the PHE will lead to COVID-19 tests, treatments, vaccines, and data becoming less widely available across the U.S. It may also have broader implications for healthcare, with telehealth policies shifting, people getting kicked off of Medicaid, and other changes.
Free COVID-19 vaccines, tests, and treatments will run out after the federal government’s supplies are exhausted. (Health experts project that this will likely happen sometime in fall 2023.) At that point, these services will get more expensive and harder to access as they transition to private healthcare markets.
We will have fewer COVID-19 metrics (and less complete data) to rely on as the CDC and other public health agencies change their surveillance practices. More on this below.
Manyvaccination requirements are being lifted. This applies to federal government mandates as well as many from state/local governments and individual businesses.
The FDA will phase out its Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for COVID-19 products, encouraging manufacturers to apply for full approval. (This doesn’t mean we’ll suddenly stop being able to buy at-home tests—there’s going to be a long transition process.)
Healthcare worker shortages may get worse. During the pandemic emergency, some shifts to work requirements allowed facilities to hire more people, more easily; as these policies are phased out, some places may lose those workers.
Millions of people will lose access to Medicaid. A federal rule tied to the PHE forbade states from kicking people off this public insurance program during the pandemic, leading to record coverage. Now, states are reevaluating who is eligible. (This process actually started in April, before the official PHE end.)
Telehealth options may become less available. As with healthcare hiring, policies during the PHE made it easier for doctors to provide virtual care options, like video-call appointments and remote prescriptions. Some of these COVID-era rules will be rolled back, while others may become permanent.
People with Long COVID will be further left behind, as the PHE’s end leads many people to distance themselves even more from the pandemic—even though long-haulers desperately need support. This will also affect people who are at high risk for COVID-19 and continue to take safety precautions.
Pandemic research and response efforts may be neglected. Lee referenced the “panic and neglect” cycle for public health funding: a pattern in which governments provide resources when a crisis happens, but then fail to follow through during less dire periods. The PHE’s end will likely lead us (further) into the “neglect” part of this cycle.
A lot of the information isn’t new, such as the phasing out of Community Level metrics for counties (which I covered last week). But it’s helpful to have all the details in one place. Here are a few things that stuck out to me:
Hospital admissions will be the CDC’s primary metric for tracking trends in COVID-19 spread rather than cases. While more reliable than case counts, hospitalizations are a lagging metric—it takes typically days (or weeks) after infections go up for the increase to show up at hospitals, since people don’t seek medical care immediately. The CDC will recieve reports from hospitals at a weekly cadence, rather than daily, after May 11, likely increasing this lag and making it harder for health officials to spot new surges.
National case counts will no longer be available as PCR labs will no longer be required to report their data to the CDC. PCR test totals and test positivity rates will also disappear for the same reason, as will the Community Levels that were determined partially by cases. The CDC will also stop reporting real(ish)-time counts of COVID-associated deaths, relying instead on death certificates.
Deaths will be the primary metric for tracking how hard COVID-19 is hitting the U.S. The CDC will get this information from death certificates via the National Vital Statistics System. While deaths are reported with a significant lag (at least two weeks), the agency has made a lot of progress on modernizing this reporting system during the pandemic. (See this December 2021 post for more details.)
The CDC will utilize sentinel networks and electronic health records to gain more information about COVID-19 spread. This includes the National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System, a network of about 450 laboratories that submit testing data to the CDC (previously established for other endemic diseases like RSV and norovirus). It also includes the National Syndromic Surveillance Program, a network of 6,300 hospitals that submit patient data to the agency.
Variant surveillancewill continue, using a combination of PCR samples and wastewater data. The CDC’s access to PCR swab samples will be seriously diminished after May 11, so it will have to work with public health labs to develop national estimates from the available samples. Wastewater will help fill in these gaps; a few wastewater testing sites already send the CDC variant data. And the CDC will continue offering tests to international travelers entering the country, for a window into global variant patterns.
The CDC will continue tracking vaccinations, vaccine effectiveness, and vaccine safety. Vaccinations are generally tracked at the state level (every state health agency, and several large cities, have their own immunization data systems), but state agencies have established data sharing agreements with the CDC that are set to continue past May 11. The CDC will keep using its established systems for evaluating how well the vaccines work and tracking potential safety issues as well.
Long COVID notably is not mentioned in the CDC’s reports. The agency hasn’t put much focus on tracking long-term symptoms during the first three years of the pandemic, and it appears this will continue—even though Long COVID is a severe outcome of COVID-19, just like hospitalization or death. A lack of focus on tracking Long COVID will make it easier for the CDC and other institutions to keep minimizing this condition.
On May 11, the CDC plans to relaunch its COVID-19 tracker to incorporate all of these changes. The MMWR on surveillance changes includes a list of major pages that will shift or be discontinued at this time.
Overall, the CDC will start tracking COVID-19 similar to the way it tracks other endemic diseases. Rather than attempting to count every case, it will focus on certain severe outcomes (i.e., hospitalizations and deaths) and extrapolate national patterns from a subset of healthcare facilities with easier-to-manage data practices. The main exception, I think, will be a focus on tracking potential new variants, since the coronavirus is mutating faster and more aggressively than other viruses like the flu.
What should I do to prepare for May 11?
If you’ve read this far, you’re probably concerned about how all these shifts will impact your ability to stay safe from COVID-19. Unfortunately, the CDC, like many other public agencies, is basically leaving Americans to fend for themselves with relatively little information or guidance.
But a lot of information sources (like this publication) are going to continue. Here are a few things I recommend doing this week as the PHE ends:
Look at your state and local public health agencies to see how they’re responding to the federal shift. Some COVID-19 dashboards are getting discontinued, but many are sticking around; your local agency will likely have information that’s more tailored to you than what the CDC can offer.
Stock up on at-home tests and masks. This is your last week to order free at-home/rapid tests from your insurance company if you have private insurance. It’s also a good time to buy tests and masks; many distributors are having sales right now.
Figure out where you might get a PCR test and/or Paxlovid if needed. These services will be harder to access after May 11; if you do some logistical legwork now, you may be more prepared for when you or someone close to you gets sick. The People’s CDC has some information and links about this.
Contact your insurance company to find out how their COVID-19 coverage policies are changing, if you have private insurance. Folks on Medicare and Medicaid: this Kaiser Family Foundation article has more details about changes for you.
Ask people in your community how you can help. This is a confusing and isolating time for many Americans, especially people at higher risk for COVID-19. Reaching out to others and offering some info or resources (maybe even sharing this post!) could potentially go a long way.
That was a lot of information packed into one post. If you have questions about the ending PHE (or if I missed any important details), please email me or leave a comment below—and I’ll try to answer in next week’s issue.
This past Monday, the White House announced that the federal public health emergency for COVID-19 will end in May. While this decision might be an accurate reflection of how most of the U.S. is treating COVID-19 right now, it has massive implications for Americans’ access to tests, treatments, vaccines—and data.
Outside of a public health emergency, the CDC has limited authority to collect data from state and local health agencies. And even during the emergency, the CDC’s authority has been minimal enough that national datasets for some key COVID-19 metrics (like breakthrough cases and wastewater surveillance) have been very spotty.
When the federal emergency ends, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) may lose its ability to require reporting of some key data, including: PCR test results (from states), hospital capacity information and COVID-19 patient numbers (from individual hospitals), COVID-19 cases and deaths in nursing homes.
It’s possible that the HHS and/or CDC will negotiate new data reporting requirements with states and other entities that don’t rely on the public health emergency. They have about three months to do this. I haven’t seen much news on that yet, but I’ll keep an eye out and share updates as I find them.
Regardless, I expect that reporting COVID-19 numbers to federal data systems will become even more voluntary than it already is for health agencies, hospitals, congregate facilities, and other settings. We will likely have to rely more on targeted surveillance systems (which compile data from a subset of healthcare facilities) rather than comprehensive national datasets, similar to our current surveillance systems for the flu and other endemic diseases.
At the same time, the public health emergency’s end will lead to changes in the distribution of vaccines, tests, and treatments. The Kaiser Family Foundation has a helpful explanation of exactly what’s changing. Here are the highlights:
Vaccines will remain free to all as long as the stockpile of doses purchased by the federal government lasts. However, the ending emergency will likely impact the government’s ability to buy more vaccines—including future boosters that might be targeted to new variants. Vaccine manufacturers are planning to raise their prices, and cost will become a burden for uninsured and underinsured people.
At-home, rapid tests will no longer be covered by traditional Medicare, while Medicare Advantage coverage will vary by plan. Most private insurance providers will likely still cover the tests, but prices may go up (similarly to the prices for vaccines).
PCR tests are also likely no longer going to be covered by a lot of insurance plans and/or are going to get more expensive. Notably, Medicaid will continue covering both at-home and PCR tests through September 2024.
Treatments (primarily Paxlovid right now) will remain free for doses purchased by the federal government, similar to the situation with vaccines. After the federally-purchased supply runs out, however, we will similarly see rising costs and dwindling access.
In short, the end of the public health emergency will make it harder for Americans to get tested, receive treatments, and stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines. The testing access changes, in particular, will lead to official case numbers becoming even less accurate, as fewer people seek out tests. At the same time, Americans will lose access to the data we need to know how much of a threat COVID-19 presents in the first place.
It’s also worth noting that, on the same day the White House announced the end of its emergency declaration, the World Health Organization announced the opposite: the global public health emergency is continuing, though it may end later in 2023. As Americans largely ignore COVID-19, millions of people around the world are unvaccinated, facing new surges, dealing with new variants, etc.
COVID-19 clearly remains a looming threat at the global level. In the U.S., we technically have the best vaccines and treatments to deal with the disease—but these tools are going underutilized, and the Biden administration’s decision this week will only make it harder for people to get them. Maybe we shouldn’t have to rely on an emergency declaration to get basic data and access to health measures in the first place.
It’s the fourth year of the pandemic. I’ve written this statement in a few pitches and planning documents recently, and was struck by how it feels simultaneously unbelievable—wasn’t March 2020, like, yesterday?—and not believable enough—haven’t we been doing this pandemic thing for an eternity already?
As someone who’s been reporting on COVID-19 since the beginning, a new year is a good opportunity to parse out that feels-like-eternity. So this week, I reflected on the major trends and topics I hope to cover in 2023—both building on my work from prior years and taking it in new directions.
(Note: I actually planned to do this post last week, but then XBB.1.5 took higher priority. Hence its arrival two weeks into the new year.)
Expansions of wastewater, and other new forms of disease surveillance
As 2022 brought on the decline of large-scale PCR testing, wastewater surveillance has proven itself as a way to more accurately track COVID-19 at the population level—even as some health departments remain wary of its utility. We also saw the technology’s use for tracking monkeypox, polio, and other conditions: the WastewaterSCAN project, for example, now reports on six different diseases.
This year, I expect that wastewater researchers and public agencies will continue expanding their use of this surveillance technology. That will likely mean more diseases as well as more specific testing locations, in addition to entire sewersheds. For example, we’re already seeing wastewater testing on airplanes. I’m also interested in following other, newer methods for tracking diseases, such as air quality monitors and wearable devices.
At the same time, these surveillance technologies will continue to face challenges around standardization and public buy-in. The CDC’s big contract with Biobot expires this month, and I’ve already noticed a decline in sites with recent data on the agency’s dashboard—will CDC officials and local agencies step in to fill gaps, or will wastewater testing become even more sporadic?
New variants, and how we track them
For scientists who track the coronavirus’ continued evolution, 2022 was the year of Omicron. We didn’t see all-new virus lineages sweeping the world; instead, Omicron just kept mutating, and mutating, and mutating. It seems likely that this pattern will continue in 2023, but experts need to continue watching the mutation landscape and preparing for anything truly concerning.
With declining PCR testing, public agencies and companies that track variants have fewer samples to sequence. (This led to challenges for the CDC team tracking XBB.1.5 over the holidays.) As a result, I believe 2023 will see increased creativity in how we keep an eye on these variants—whether that’s sequencing wastewater samples, taking samples directly from healthcare settings, increased focus on travel surveillance, or other methods.
Public health experts—and journalists like myself—also need to rethink how we communicate about variants. It’s no longer true that every new, somewhat-more-contagious variant warrants alarm bells: variants can take off in some countries or regions while having relatively little impact in others, thanks to differences in prior immunity, seasonality, behavior, etc. But new variants still contribute to continued reinfections, severe symptoms, Long COVID, and other impacts of COVID-19. Grid’s Jonathan Lambert recently wrote a helpful article exploring these communication challenges.
Long COVID and related chronic diseases
As regular readers likely know, Long COVID has been an increased topic of interest for me over the last two years. I’ve covered everything from disability benefits to mental health challenges, and am now leading a major project at MuckRock that will focus on government accountability for the Long COVID crisis.
Long COVID is the epidemic following the pandemic. Millions of Americans are disabled by this condition, whether they’ve been pushed out of work or are managing milder lingering symptoms. Some people are approaching their three-year anniversary of first getting sick, yet they’ve received a fraction of the government response that acute COVID-19 got. Major research projects are going in the wrong directions, while major media publications often publish articles with incorrect science.
For me, seeing poor Long COVID coverage elsewhere is great motivation to continue reporting on this topic myself, at MuckRock and other outlets. I’m also planning to spend more time reading about (and hopefully covering) other chronic diseases that are co-diagnosed with Long COVID, like ME/CFS and dysautonomia.
Ending the federal public health emergency.
Last year, we saw many state and local health agencies transition from treating COVID-19 as a health emergency to treating it as an endemic disease, like the many others that they respond to on a routine basis. This transition often accompanied changes in data reporting, such as shifts from daily to weekly COVID-19 updates.
This year, the federal government will likely do the same thing. POLITICO reported this week that the Biden administration is renewing the federal public health emergency in January, but will likely allow it to expire in the spring or summer. The Department of Health and Human Services has committed to telling state leaders about this expiration 60 days before it happens.
I previously wrote about what the end of the federal emergency could mean for COVID-19 data: changes will include less authority for the CDC, less funding for state and local health departments, and vaccines and treatments controlled by private markets rather than the federal government. I anticipate following up on this reporting when the emergency actually ends.
Transforming the U.S. public health system
Finally, I intend to follow how public health agencies learn from—or fail to learn from—the pandemic. COVID-19 exposed so many cracks in America’s public health system, from out-of-date electronic records systems to communication and trust issues. The pandemic should be a wakeup call for agencies to get their act together, before a new crisis hits.
But will that actually happen? Rachel Cohrs has a great piece in STAT this week about the challenges that systemic public health reform faces, including a lack of funding from Congress and disagreements among experts on what changes are necessary. Still, the window for change is open right now, and it may not be at this point in 2024.
In 2022, wastewater data in NYC have more accurately reflected COVID-19 spread in the city than case data. See the full story (on MuckRock or Gothamist) for the interactive chart; links are below.
My second big story this week is a detailed report about New York City’s wastewater surveillance program, highlighting its lack of transparency. You can read the story on Gothamist and/or on MuckRock. I’m particularly excited to share this one with NYC-based readers, as it uncovers a public program that’s been running under our feet for nearly three years.
Longtime readers might remember that, back in April, I noticed that NYC wastewater data had disappeared from the CDC’s national dashboard. And the city’s data stayed unavailable even when other locations (which were similarly interrupted by the CDC’s switch between wastewater contractors) resumed reporting to the dashboard.
That observation piqued my curiosity about how, exactly, NYC agencies are testing our wastewater—and what they’re doing with the data. So, I started investigating, with the support of MuckRock and Gothamist/WNYC. My project eventually revealed the answers to my questions: while NYC has set up an impressive, novel program to test all 14 city wastewater treatment plants for COVID-19, the health department doesn’t appear to be taking advantage of these results.
In a joint statement, NYC’s health and environmental protection agencies said that they still see wastewater surveillance as a “developing field” and are skeptical about its utility for public health. Even though NYC’s program has been running since early 2020 and cost over $1 million. And even though other wastewater programs across the U.S. and internationally have demonstrated the potential of this type of data.
Here are the story’s main findings, as drafted for MuckRock’s version of the article:
New York City’s Department of Environmental Protection created a brand-new program to test city wastewater for COVID-19 in 2020, working with limited lab equipment and personnel to sample from 14 sewage treatment plants across the city. In doing so, the city brushed off assistance offered from “multitudes of academics” and private sector researchers, and set up its program in-house. It has cost more than $1 million over the past three years.
But the city didn’t publicly post any wastewater data until January 2022, almost two years after testing started. Unlike other large cities, such as Boston, New York City lacks a public dashboard for wastewater data. The city’s data available on dashboards run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and New York State are often delayed by a week or more, making it less useful for New Yorkers seeking advanced warning about potential new surges.
In other parts of the U.S. — and at Columbia University in uptown Manhattan — wastewater surveillance is used for public health strategies, such as encouraging people to get PCR tests or sending extra resources to hospitals before a surge. However, New York City’s health and environmental agencies say they still consider wastewater research a “developing field” and aren’t using it for policy decisions.
In response to our questions, city health and environment agency officials argued that wastewater results “do not generally provide a complete picture” of how COVID-19 is spreading and said, unlike in other parts of the country, trends in city wastewater data tend to align with case counts rather than predicting them. But wastewater has shown a higher level of COVID-19 spread than PCR testing, as the latter became less available in 2022, according to Gothamist and MuckRock analyses. This pattern suggests that the sewage numbers may more accurately reflect actual disease patterns.
A bill introduced to the New York City Council in August would make the wastewater surveillance program permanent, expand it to other public health threats as needed, and require the health department to report data on a public dashboard.
For readers outside NYC, I think this story provides an informative case study of the hurdles that wastewater surveillance for COVID-19 (and other diseases) will need to clear.
First, you have the resource challenges. If the NYC Department of Environmental Protection, which oversees the largest municipal water network in the country, had a hard time getting equipment and personnel for testing—imagine the challenges facing small, rural public health departments.
Next, after testing is set up, you have to interpret the data. NYC’s health department seems to be somewhat stuck on this step, with no public dashboard and its insistence that city residents should look at clinical case data—which we know are a significant undercount of true infections—rather than wastewater data. To be fair, wastewater data are new terrain for public health experts, with a lot of analytical issues. (See my MuckRock/FiveThirtyEight story from the spring for more details on this.)
And finally, you have to communicate the data. How do you share wastewater results with the public in a way that is clear, real-time, local—and acknowledging necessary caveats? This is a tough challenge that health agencies across the U.S. are just starting to tackle, in tandem with the private companies that work on wastewater analysis.
As I said in the radio story accompanying my piece, I hope that, someday, we can get wastewater surveillance updates as easily and regularly as we get weather updates. That future feels a long way off right now, but I intend to keep reporting on the journey in 2023.
If you live somewhere with a thriving (or faltering) wastewater surveillance program, reach out and tell me about it!
CDC awards $3 billion to improve public health infrastructure: The CDC announced this week that it has awarded state and local public health agencies a total of $3.2 billion to support hiring and training new workers, along with other infrastructure needs. The agency published a breakdown of all the agencies that received awards, although it has not included specific details on what funds will be used for in each place. Local reporters, if your health department received funding, this might be worth looking into!
CDC expands wastewater testing for polio: Another notable CDC announcement this week: the agency is expanding its wastewater surveillance for polio to two new areas, Oakland County, Michigan and Philadelphia. Testing wastewater for polio is more complicated than testing it for the coronavirus, as STAT News’ Helen Branswell explains in this article; as a result, the CDC is expanding this surveillance in a more limited capacity than what it’s doing for other viruses, like monkeypox and the flu.
Majority of COVID-19 deaths are now among vaccinated people: A new report from the Kaiser Family Foundation explains why more than 50% of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. in recent months were among people who had received at least two vaccine doses. According to KFF, factors driving this trend include the rising share of Americans who are vaccinated, waning protection from initial doses, and low uptake of booster shots—particularly of the Omicron-specific boosters that provide better protection against newer variants. More reason to get the new booster if you haven’t yet!
Paid sick leave correlates with higher vaccination rates: Speaking of vaccination: a new study from researchers at Drexel University and Boston University found that large U.S. cities with city-wide paid sick leave policies had higher vaccination rates than those without such policies. The correlation was particularly evident in neighborhoods with higher social vulnerability, the researchers found. Expanding paid sick leave could help reduce inequities in vaccination coverage, the paper’s authors recommend.
No monoclonal antibody drugs are currently authorized in the U.S.: This week, the FDA announced that bebtelovimab, a monoclonal antibody made by Eli Lilly, is no longer authorized for COVID-19 treatments in the U.S. The drug was designed based on older versions of the Omicron variant and doesn’t perform well against BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, the sublineages that are currently causing the majority of new cases in the U.S. As a result, no monoclonal antibodies are currently authorized, though Paxlovid and other treatments are still available.
COVID-19 Data Dispatch 