IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i7p3483-d525248.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Rapid Review of COVID-19 Vaccine Prioritization in the U.S.: Alignment between Federal Guidance and State Practice

Author

Listed:
  • Vageesh Jain

    (Institute for Global Health, University College London, London WC1N 1EH, UK)

  • Lara Schwarz

    (Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA)

  • Paula Lorgelly

    (Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, UK)

Abstract

Background: Population groups to be prioritized for COVID-19 vaccinations in the U.S. have been determined at the Federal level, but there is variation in how States have implemented guidance. This review examines how the position of population groups in vaccine priority lists varies between Federal guidance and State practice. Methods: An online search of State vaccination prioritization plans was conducted. Data were extracted on each population group included and their relative position. A standardized ranking method was applied to provide a directional measure of variability in prioritization between State and Federal guidance, for each population group. Results: Healthcare workers and those in long-term care facilities were largely prioritized in line with Federal guidance. Aside from early education staff, essential workers were often excluded at State level. Almost all States included the 65–74 year age group and most assigned them to a higher position than recommended in Federal guidance. Those with underlying medical conditions were similarly highly prioritized, although there was more variability across States. Some socially vulnerable groups (not included in Federal guidance) were highly prioritized by many States. Conclusions: The prioritization of groups for COVID-19 vaccination has been highly variable despite clear Federal guidance. Future guidance must be relevant to local needs, values, and constraints, to minimize any unwarranted heterogeneity in vaccine access across populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Vageesh Jain & Lara Schwarz & Paula Lorgelly, 2021. "A Rapid Review of COVID-19 Vaccine Prioritization in the U.S.: Alignment between Federal Guidance and State Practice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-10, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:7:p:3483-:d:525248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/7/3483/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/7/3483/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shah, Koonal K. & Cookson, Richard & Culyer, Anthony J. & Littlejohns, Peter, 2013. "NICE's social value judgements about equity in health and health care," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 145-165, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Derek Huang & Huanyu Tao & Qilong Wu & Sheng-You Huang & Yi Xiao, 2021. "Modeling of the Long-Term Epidemic Dynamics of COVID-19 in the United States," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Lucia D. Willems & Vernandi Dyzel & Paula S. Sterkenburg, 2022. "COVID-19 Vaccination Intentions amongst Healthcare Workers: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-20, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Matthias Benzer, 2020. "NICE and Society: Health Technology Appraisal and the Cultivation of Social Relations," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 25(2), pages 165-183, June.
    3. Shehzad Ali & Aki Tsuchiya & Miqdad Asaria & Richard Cookson, 2017. "How Robust Are Value Judgments of Health Inequality Aversion? Testing for Framing and Cognitive Effects," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 635-646, August.
    4. Mason, Helen & van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Brouwer, Werner & Donaldson, Cam, 2016. "From representing views to representativeness of views: Illustrating a new (Q2S) approach in the context of health care priority setting in nine European countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 205-213.
    5. Francesco Paolucci & Ken Redekop & Ayman Fouda & Gianluca Fiorentini, 2017. "Decision Making and Priority Setting: The Evolving Path Towards Universal Health Coverage," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 697-706, December.
    6. Aris Angelis & Ansgar Lange & Panos Kanavos, 2018. "Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 123-152, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:7:p:3483-:d:525248. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.