Search

Background: In 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services released guidelines allowing waiver-eligible providers seeking to treat up to 30 patients to be exempt from waiver training (WT) and the counseling and other ancillary services (CAS) attestation. This study evaluates if states and the District of Columbia had more restrictive policies preventing adoption of the 2021 federal guidelines. Methods: First, the Westlaw database was searched for buprenorphine regulations. Second, state medical, osteopathic, physician assistant, nursing boards, and single state agencies (SSA) were surveyed to assess for the WT and CAS requirements and if they were discussing the 2021 guidelines. Results were recorded and compared by state and waiver-eligible provider types. Results: The Westlaw search revealed seven states with regulations requiring the WT and ten states requiring CAS. Survey results showed ten state boards/SSAs required WT for at least one waiver-eligible practitioner type and eleven state boards/SSAs required CAS. In some states, the WT and CAS requirements only applied in special circumstances. Eleven states had discrepancies between the Westlaw and survey results among three waiver-eligible provider types. Conclusions: Despite the 2021 federal change intended to increase access to buprenorphine, several states had regulations and/or provider boards and SSAs that were not supportive. Now, the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act of 2022 eliminated the federal x-waiver requirement to prescribe buprenorphine. However, these states may continue to have barriers to treatment access despite the MAT Act. Strategies to engage states with these restrictive policies are needed to improve buprenorphine treatment capacity.

Observational studies are needed to demonstrate real-world vaccine effectiveness (VE) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outcomes. Our objective was to conduct a review of published SARS-CoV-2 VE articles, supplemented by preprints, during the first 6 months of COVID-19 vaccine availability. This review compares the effectiveness of completing the primary COVID-19 vaccination series against multiple SARS-CoV-2 disease presentations and disease severity outcomes in three population groups (general population, frontline workers, and older adults). Four hundred and seventy-one published articles and 47 preprints were identified. After title and abstract screening and full article review, 50 studies (28 published articles, 22 preprints) were included. VE results were reported for five COVID-19 vaccines and four combinations of COVID-19 vaccines. VE results for BNT162b2 were reported in 70.6% of all studies. Seventeen studies reported variant specific VE estimates; Alpha was the most common. This comprehensive review demonstrates that COVID-19 vaccination is an important tool for preventing COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among fully vaccinated persons aged 16 years and older and serves as an important baseline from which to follow future trends in COVID-19 evolution and effectiveness of new and updated vaccines.

Objectives. To evaluate COVID-19 disparities among non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) and non-Hispanic White persons in urban areas. Methods. Using COVID-19 case surveillance data, we calculated cumulative incidence rates and risk ratios (RRs) among non-Hispanic AI/AN and non-Hispanic White persons living in select urban counties in the United States by age and sex during January 22, 2020, to October 19, 2021. We separated cases into prevaccine (January 22, 2020-April 4, 2021) and postvaccine (April 5, 2021-October 19, 2021) periods. Results. Overall in urban areas, the COVID-19 age-adjusted rate among non-Hispanic AI/AN persons (n = 47 431) was 1.66 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.36, 2.01) times that of non-Hispanic White persons (n = 2 301 911). The COVID-19 prevaccine age-adjusted rate was higher (8227 per 100 000; 95% CI = 6283, 10 770) than was the postvaccine rate (3703 per 100 000; 95% CI = 3235, 4240) among non-Hispanic AI/AN compared with among non-Hispanic White persons (2819 per 100 000; 95% CI = 2527, 3144; RR = 1.31; 95% CI = 1.17, 1.48). Conclusions. This study highlights disparities in COVID-19 between non-Hispanic AI/AN and non-Hispanic White persons in urban areas. These findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccination and other public health efforts among urban AI/AN communities can reduce COVID-19 disparities in urban AI/AN populations. ( Am J Public Health . 2022;112(10):1489-1497. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306966).