Explore the vast range of titles available.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has placed epidemic modeling at the forefront of worldwide public policy making. Nonetheless, modeling and forecasting the spread of COVID-19 remains a challenge. Here, we detail three regionalscale models for forecasting and assessing the course of the pandemic. This work demonstrates the utility of parsimonious models for early-time data and provides an accessible framework for generating policy-relevant insights into its course. We show how these models can be connected to each other and to time series data for a particular region. Capable of measuring and forecasting the impacts of social distancing, these models highlight the dangers of relaxing nonpharmaceutical public health interventions in the absence of a vaccine or antiviral therapies.

In this article, we examine the role of nongovernmental entities (NGEs; nonprofits, religious groups, and businesses) in disaster response and recovery. Although media reports and the existing scholarly literature focus heavily on the role of governments, NGEs provide critical services related to public safety and public health after disasters. NGEs are crucial because of their ability to quickly provide services, their flexibility, and their unique capacity to reach marginalized populations. To examine the role of NGEs, we surveyed 115 NGEs engaged in disaster response. We also conducted extensive field work, completing 44 hours of semistructured interviews with staff from NGEs and government agencies in postdisaster areas in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, Northern California, and Southern California. Finally, we compiled quantitative data on the distribution of nonprofit organizations. We found that, in addition to high levels of variation in NGE resources across counties, NGEs face serious coordination and service delivery problems. Federal funding for expanding the capacity of local Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster groups, we suggest, would help NGEs and government to coordinate response efforts and ensure that recoveries better address underlying social and economic vulnerabilities.

Background Unprecedented increases in substance-related overdose fatalities have been observed in Texas and the U.S. since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and have made clear there is considerable need to reduce harms associated with drug use. At the federal level, initiatives have called for widespread dissemination and implementation of evidence-based harm reduction practices to reduce overdose deaths. Implementation of harm reduction strategies is challenging in Texas. There is a paucity of literature on understanding current harm reduction practices in Texas. As such, this qualitative study aims to understand harm reduction practices among people who use drugs (PWUD), harm reductionists, and emergency responders across four counties in Texas. This work would inform future efforts to scale and spread harm reduction in Texas. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with N  = 69 key stakeholders (25 harm reductionists; 24 PWUD; 20 emergency responders). Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded for emergent themes, and analyzed using Applied Thematic Analysis with Nvivo 12. A community advisory board defined the research questions, reviewed the emergent themes, and assisted with interpretation of the data. Results Emergent themes highlighted barriers to harm reduction at micro and macro levels, from the individual experience of PWUD and harm reductionists to systemic issues in healthcare and the emergency medical response system. Specifically, (1) Texas has existing strengths in overdose prevention and response efforts on which to build, (2) PWUD are fearful of interacting with healthcare and 911 systems, (3) harm reductionists are in increasing need of support for reaching all PWUD communities, and (4) state-level policies may hinder widespread implementation and adoption of evidence-based harm reduction practices. Conclusions Perspectives from harm reduction stakeholders highlighted existing strengths, avenues for improvement, and specific barriers that currently exist to harm reduction practices in Texas.

I argue that health insurance emerged as an important aspect of Nixon’s domestic policy agenda as a result of “policy escalation.” By policy escalation, I mean a cascading line of reasoning that causes policy makers focused on one apparently discrete issue to formulate approaches for dealing with other interconnecting policy areas. Policy escalation serves as an internal agenda-setting mechanism: as policy makers contemplate policy changes, they may attempt to imagine the ways in which change will affect the rationale, fiscal position, and execution of programs in other policy areas. In the case of health insurance, the Nixon administration’s proposal for replacing Aid to Families with Dependent Children with a guaranteed minimum income forced policy makers to consider how the new program would interact with the existing Medicaid program. Consideration of this question ultimately led them to formulate an approach to overhauling the nation’s entire health insurance system.

This book review essay discusses Transparency in Health and Health Care in the United States (2019), edited by Holly Fernandez Lynch, I. Glenn Cohen, Carmel Shachar, and Barbara Evans.

Surgeon General Thomas Parran Jr was once viewed as a path-breaking leader, but his legacy is now highly contested. Scholars of national health insurance have viewed Parran as an impediment to government-backed insurance, and revelations about his role in the Tuskegee Study and in the Public Health Service’s experiments in Guatemala have cast a shadow over his career. Surgeon General from 1936 to 1948, Parran led the Public Health Service during the development of key features of the modern American health system and was involved in critical debates over the role of the national government in health. I argue that Parran is best understood not as an opponent of insurance but as the proponent of an approach to health policy that sought to link public health and individual medicine. A pragmatic bureaucrat, Parran believed that effective policymaking required compromise with the American Medical Association.

Until the 1930s, malaria was endemic throughout large swaths of the American South. We used a Poisson mixture model to analyze the decline of malaria at the county level in Alabama (an archetypical Deep South cotton state) during the 1930s. Employing a novel data set, we argue that, contrary to a leading theory, the decline of malaria in the American South was not caused by population movement away from malarial areas or the decline of Southern tenant farming. We elaborate and provide evidence for an alternate explanation that emphasizes the role of targeted New Deal–era public health interventions and the development of local-level public health infrastructure. We show that, rather than disappearing as a consequence of social change or economic improvements, malaria was eliminated in the Southern United States in the face of economic dislocation and widespread and deep-seated poverty.