A survey of US infectious disease physicians indicated that few regularly reviewed wastewater surveillance (WWS) data but many reported examples of how WWS has affected or could affect their clinical practice. WWS data can be useful for physicians, but increased communication between public health professionals and physicians regarding WWS could improve its utility.

OBJECTIVES: The risk for mpox virus (MPXV) transmission in most workplaces has not been thoroughly assessed in the context of the 2022 global mpox outbreak. Our objectives were to describe mpox case patients who worked while infectious and the subsequent workplace contact tracing efforts, risk assessments, and outcomes. METHODS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requested information from health departments in the United States in September 2022 to identify people with confirmed or probable mpox who worked outside the home while infectious, either before or after diagnosis, from June 1 through August 31, 2022. We collected and summarized data on demographic, clinical, and workplace characteristics of case patients and workplace contact investigations. We stratified data by industry and occupation categories. RESULTS: In total, 102 case patients were reported by 6 jurisdictions. The most common industries were accommodation and food services (19.8%) and professional business, management, and technical services (17.0%). Contact investigations identified 178 total contacts; 54 cases (52.9%) had no contacts identified. Of 178 contacts, 54 (30.3%) were recommended to receive postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) and 18 (10.1%) received PEP. None of the contacts developed a rash or were tested for orthopox or mpox, and none were reported to have confirmed or probable mpox. CONCLUSION: Data from 6 jurisdictions suggest that the risk of MPXV transmission from workers to others in workplace settings in many industries is low. These findings might support future updates to exposure risk classifications and work activity recommendations for patients. These findings also demonstrate the importance of collecting and analyzing occupation and industry data in case reports to better understand risks in workplaces.

Wastewater surveillance (WWS), the systematic detection of infectious agents in wastewater, provided a valuable tool for monitoring SARS-CoV-2 circulation during the COVID-19 pandemic; surveillance has expanded from 20 to 53 jurisdictions across the United States, with increasing capacity to test for more respiratory pathogens (1,2). This report highlights the use of wastewater data by the four National Wastewater Surveillance System’s (NWSS) Centers of Excellence (California; Colorado; Houston, Texas; and Wisconsin) to guide public health action during the 2022–23 respiratory disease season. This activity was reviewed by CDC, deemed not research, and was conducted consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy.*

In this case study, we aim to understand how health departments in 5 US jurisdictions addressed health inequities and implemented strategies to reach populations disproportionately affected by COVID-19 during the initial Omicron variant period. We used qualitative methods to examine health department experiences during the initial Omicron surge, from November 2021 to April 2022, assessing successful interventions, barriers, and lessons learned from efforts to promote health equity. Our findings indicate that government leadership supported prioritizing health equity from the beginning of the pandemic, seeing it as a need and vital part of the response framework. All jurisdictions acknowledged the historical trauma and distrust of the government. Health departments found that collaborating and communicating with trusted community leaders helped mitigate public distrust. Having partnerships, resources, and infrastructure in place before the pandemic facilitated the establishment of equity-focused COVID-19 response activities. Finally, misinformation about COVID-19 was a challenge for all jurisdictions. Addressing the needs of diverse populations involves community-informed decisionmaking, diversity of thought, and delivery measures that are tailored to the community. It is imperative to expand efforts to reduce and eliminate health inequities to ensure that individuals and communities recover equitably from the effects of COVID-19.

AIM: To evaluate healthcare provider awareness and uptake of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) billing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevention counselling and the delivery of prevention counselling to patients awaiting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 test results. DESIGN: Cross sectional survey of US-based healthcare providers in February 2021. METHODS: Analysis of associations with healthcare provider-reported awareness of CMS prevention counselling guidance and billing with provider type, specialty, and work setting. RESULTS: A total of 1919 healthcare providers responded to the survey. Overall, 38% (726/1919) of providers reported awareness of available CMS reimbursement for COVID-19 patient counselling and 29% (465/1614) of CMS billing-eligible providers reported billing for this counselling. Among physicians, those aware of CMS guidance were significantly more likely to bill (58%) versus those unaware (10%). Among RNSights respondents eligible for CMS billing (n = 114), 31% of those aware of the guidance reported billing as compared to 0% of those not aware.

CONTEXT: Health departments (HDs) work on the front lines to ensure the health of their communities, providing a unique perspective to public health response activities. Say Yes! COVID Test (SYCT) is a US federally funded program providing free COVID-19 self-tests to communities with high COVID-19 transmission, low vaccination rates, and high social vulnerability. The collaboration with 9 HDs was key for the program distribution of 5.8 million COVID-19 self-tests between March 31 and November 30, 2021. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to gather qualitative in-depth information on the experiences of HDs with the SYCT program to better understand the successes and barriers to implementing community-focused self-testing programs. DESIGN: Key informant (KI) interviews. SETTING: Online interviews conducted between November and December 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen program leads representing 9 HDs were purposefully sampled as KIs. KIs completed 60-minute structured interviews conducted by one trained facilitator and recorded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Key themes and lessons learned were identified using grounded theory. RESULTS: Based on perceptions of KIs, HDs that maximized community partnerships for test distribution were more certain that populations at a higher risk for COVID-19 were reached. Where the HD relied predominantly on direct-to-consumer distribution, KIs were less certain that communities at higher risk were served. Privacy and anonymity in testing were themes linked to higher perceived community acceptance. KIs reported that self-test demand and distribution levels increased during higher COVID-19 transmission levels. CONCLUSION: HDs that build bridges and engage with community partners and trusted leaders are better prepared to identify and link high-risk populations with health services and resources. When collaborating with trusted community organizations, KIs perceived that the SYCT program overcame barriers such as mistrust of government intervention and desire for privacy and motivated community members to utilize this resource to protect themselves against COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Despite high rates of reported mental health symptoms among public health workers (PHWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic, utilization of employer-offered resources was low. Our objective was to understand what barriers and deterrents exist for PHWs accessing employer-offered resources. METHODS: Four national public health organizations disseminated a national online survey of public health department employees during March-April 2021; 26 174 PHWs completed the survey. We examined 5164 write-in survey responses using thematic analysis to identify key reasons why PHWs were not accessing time off and employee assistance programs (EAPs) and to understand what resources PHWs would like to see their employers offer. RESULTS: The top reasons that PHWs reported for not taking time off during the COVID-19 pandemic were financial concerns (24.4%), fear of judgment or retaliation (20.8%), and limitations in the amount of time off offered or available (11.0%). The top reasons that PHWs reported for not using EAPs during the COVID-19 pandemic were difficulty accessing EAPs (53.1%), use of external services (21.5%), and a lack of awareness about EAPs or motivation to initiate their use (11.3%). While desired employer-offered resources varied widely, PHWs most frequently listed financial incentives, paid time off, flexible scheduling, and organizational change. CONCLUSION: Organizations can best help their employees by organizing the workforce in a way that allows PHWs to take time off, creating a positive and supportive organizational climate, regularly assessing the needs of PHWs, clearly communicating the availability of employer-offered benefits, and emphasizing the acceptability of using those benefits.

OBJECTIVES: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, several outbreaks were linked with facilities employing essential workers, such as long-term care facilities and meat and poultry processing facilities. However, timely national data on which workplace settings were experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks were unavailable through routine surveillance systems. We estimated the number of US workplace outbreaks of COVID-19 and identified the types of workplace settings in which they occurred during August-October 2021. METHODS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention collected data from health departments on workplace COVID-19 outbreaks from August through October 2021: the number of workplace outbreaks, by workplace setting, and the total number of cases among workers linked to these outbreaks. Health departments also reported the number of workplaces they assisted for outbreak response, COVID-19 testing, vaccine distribution, or consultation on mitigation strategies. RESULTS: Twenty-three health departments reported a total of 12 660 workplace COVID-19 outbreaks. Among the 12 470 workplace types that were documented, 35.9% (n = 4474) of outbreaks occurred in health care settings, 33.4% (n = 4170) in educational settings, and 30.7% (n = 3826) in other work settings, including non-food manufacturing, correctional facilities, social services, retail trade, and food and beverage stores. Eleven health departments that reported 3859 workplace outbreaks provided information about workplace assistance: 3090 (80.1%) instances of assistance involved consultation on COVID-19 mitigation strategies, 1912 (49.5%) involved outbreak response, 436 (11.3%) involved COVID-19 testing, and 185 (4.8%) involved COVID-19 vaccine distribution. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the continued impact of COVID-19 among workers, the potential for work-related transmission, and the need to apply layered prevention strategies recommended by public health officials.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, public health workers were at an increased risk for violence and harassment due to their public health work and experienced adverse mental health conditions. This article quantifies the prevalence of job-related threats, harassment, and discrimination against public health workers and measures the association of these incidents with mental health symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A nonprobability convenience sample of state, local, and tribal public health workers completed a self-administered, online survey in April 2021. The survey link was emailed to members of national public health associations and included questions on workplace violence, demographics, workplace factors, and mental health symptoms. Mental health symptoms were measured using standardized, validated tools to assess depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal ideation. Multivariable Poisson models calculated adjusted prevalence ratios of mental health symptoms, with workplace violence as the primary risk factor. Analyses were conducted in 2021-2022. RESULTS: Experiencing any type or combination of workplace violence was significantly associated with an increased likelihood of reporting depression symptoms (prevalence ratio=1.21, 95% CI=1.15, 1.27), anxiety (prevalence ratio=1.21, 95% CI=1.15, 1.27), post-traumatic stress disorder (prevalence ratio=1.31, 95% CI=1.25, 1.37), and suicidal ideation (prevalence ratio=1.26, 95% CI=1.14, 1.38), after adjusting for confounders. A dose‒response relationship was found between the number of workplace violence events experienced by a public health worker and the likelihood of reporting mental health symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Violence targeted at the public health workforce is detrimental to workers and their communities. Ongoing training, workplace support, and increased communication after a workplace violence incident may be helpful. Efforts to strengthen public health capacities and support the public health workforce are also needed.

IMPORTANCE: A lack of timely and high-quality data is an ongoing challenge for public health responses to COVID-19 among people experiencing homelessness (PEH). Little is known about the total number of cases of COVID-19 among PEH. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the number of COVID-19 cases among PEH and compare the incidence rate among PEH with that in the general population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study used data from a survey distributed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to all US state, district, and territorial health departments that requested aggregated COVID-19 data among PEH from January 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021. Jurisdictions were encouraged to share the survey with local health departments. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary study outcome was the number of cases of COVID-19 identified among PEH. COVID-19 cases and incidence rates among PEH were compared with those in the general population in the same geographic areas. RESULTS: Participants included a population-based sample of all 64 US jurisdictional health departments. Overall, 25 states, districts, and territories completed the survey, among which 18 states (72.0%) and 27 localities reported COVID-19 data among PEH. A total of 26 349 cases of COVID-19 among PEH were reported at the state level and 20 487 at the local level. The annual incidence rate of COVID-19 among PEH at the state level was 567.9 per 10 000 person-years (95% CI, 560.5-575.4 per 10 000 person-years) compared with 715.0 per 10 000 person-years (95% CI, 714.5-715.5 per 10 000 person-years) in the general population. At the local level, the incidence rate of COVID-19 among PEH was 799.2 per 10 000 person-years (95% CI, 765.5-834.0 per 10 000 person-years) vs 812.5 per 10 000 person-years (95% CI, 810.7-814.3 per 10 000 person-years) in the general population. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These results provide an estimate of COVID-19 incidence rates among PEH in multiple US jurisdictions; however, a national estimate and the extent of under- or overestimation remain unknown. The findings suggest that opportunities exist for incorporating housing and homelessness status in infectious disease reporting to inform public health decision-making.

An increase in adverse mental health symptoms occurred in the general population at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which peaked in 2020 and subsequently decreased (1-3). The pandemic exacerbated existing stress and fatigue among public health workers responding to the public health crisis.* During March-April 2021, a survey of state, tribal, local, and territorial (STLT) public health workers found that 52.8% of respondents experienced symptoms of at least one of the following mental health conditions: depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (4); however, more recent estimates of mental health symptoms among this population are limited. To evaluate trends in these conditions from the previous year, the prevalence of symptoms of mental health conditions and suicidal ideation, a convenience sample of STLT public health workers was surveyed during March 14-25, 2022. In total, 26,069 STLT public health workers responded to the survey. Among respondents,(†) 6,090 (27.7%) reported symptoms of depression, 6,467 (27.9%) anxiety, 6,324 (28.4%) PTSD, and 1,853 (8.1%) suicidal ideation. Although the prevalences of depression, anxiety, and PTSD among public health workers were lower (p<0.001)(§) among 2022 survey respondents compared with those of 2021 survey respondents (4), the prevalences of symptoms of suicidal ideation, anxiety, depression, and PTSD remained high among those who worked >60 hours per week (range = 11.3%-45.9%) and those who spent ≥76% of their work time on COVID-19 response activities (range = 9.0%-37.6%). Respondents were less likely to report mental health symptoms if they could take time off (prevalence ratio [PR] range = 0.48-0.55), or if they perceived an increase in mental health resources from their employer (PR range = 0.58-0.84). To support the mental health of public health workers, public health agencies can modify work-related factors, including making organizational changes for emergency responses and facilitating access to mental health resources and services.(¶).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between risk factors, mitigating factors, and adverse mental health outcomes among United States public health workers. METHODS: Cross-sectional online survey data were collected March to April 2021. The survey was distributed to public health workers who worked in a state, tribal, local, or territorial public health department since March 2020. RESULTS: In total, 26,174 United States state and local public health workers completed the survey. Feeling isolated was a risk factor for anxiety (PR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.74-1.95), depression (PR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.75-1.94), post-traumatic stress disorder (PR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.43-1.57), and suicidal ideation (PR, 3.23; 95% CI, 2.82-3.69). The ability to take time off was linked to fewer reported symptoms of anxiety (PR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.83-0.90), depression (PR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.89), post-traumatic stress disorder (PR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.81-0.88), and suicidal ideation (PR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.77-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, respondents who felt isolated and alone were at an increased risk for adverse mental health outcomes. Findings from this study call for public health organizations to provide their workforce with services and resources to mitigate adverse mental health outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the unemployment rate in the United States peaked at 14.8% in April 2020. We examined patterns in unemployment following this peak in counties with rapid increases in COVID-19 incidence. METHOD: We used CDC aggregate county data to identify counties with rapid increases in COVID-19 incidence (rapid riser counties) during July 1-October 31, 2020. We used a linear regression model with fixed effect to calculate the change of unemployment rate difference in these counties, stratified by the county's social vulnerability (an indicator compiled by CDC) in the two months before the rapid riser index month compared to the index month plus one month after the index month. RESULTS: Among the 585 (19% of U.S. counties) rapid riser counties identified, the unemployment rate gap between the most and least socially vulnerable counties widened by 0.40 percentage point (p<0.01) after experiencing a rapid rise in COVID-19 incidence. Driving the gap were counties with lower socioeconomic status, with a higher percentage of people in racial and ethnic minority groups, and with limited English proficiency. CONCLUSION: The widened unemployment gap after COVID-19 incidence rapid rise between the most and least socially vulnerable counties suggests that it may take longer for socially and economically disadvantaged communities to recover. Loss of income and benefits due to unemployment could hinder behaviors that prevent spread of COVID-19 (e.g., seeking healthcare) and could impede response efforts including testing and vaccination. Addressing the social needs within these vulnerable communities could help support public health response measures.

During November 19-21, 2021, an indoor convention (event) in New York City (NYC), was attended by approximately 53,000 persons from 52 U.S. jurisdictions and 30 foreign countries. In-person registration for the event began on November 18, 2021. The venue was equipped with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration, and attendees were required to wear a mask indoors and have documented receipt of at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.* On December 2, 2021, the Minnesota Department of Health reported the first case of community-acquired COVID-19 in the United States caused by the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant in a person who had attended the event (1). CDC collaborated with state and local health departments to assess event-associated COVID-19 cases and potential exposures among U.S.-based attendees using data from COVID-19 surveillance systems and an anonymous online attendee survey. Among 34,541 attendees with available contact information, surveillance data identified test results for 4,560, including 119 (2.6%) persons from 16 jurisdictions with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. Most (4,041 [95.2%]), survey respondents reported always wearing a mask while indoors at the event. Compared with test-negative respondents, test-positive respondents were more likely to report attending bars, karaoke, or nightclubs, and eating or drinking indoors near others for at least 15 minutes. Among 4,560 attendees who received testing, evidence of widespread transmission during the event was not identified. Genomic sequencing of 20 specimens identified the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant (AY.25 and AY.103 sublineages) in 15 (75%) cases, and the Omicron variant (BA.1 sublineage) in five (25%) cases. These findings reinforce the importance of implementing multiple, simultaneous prevention measures, such as ensuring up-to-date vaccination, mask use, physical distancing, and improved ventilation in limiting SARS-CoV-2 transmission, during large, indoor events.(†).

The United States and other countries are grappling with the need to treat large numbers of persons with latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) to further reduce tuberculosis (TB) incidence (1, 2). However, the success of LTBI treatment as a TB control strategy has been limited by competing priorities and by suboptimal uptake and completion. New regimens offer the promise of s horter treatment and enhanced completion (3, 4), so it is relevant to revisit screening (also referred to as targeted LTBI testing) and treatment priorities—especially given the severe fiscal constraints now confronting TB control authorities. In this context, the article by Linas and colleagues in this issue of the Journal (pp. 590) provides welcome information (5). The authors have developed a comprehensive decision analysis model, to predict costs and effectiveness of LTBI screening and treatment in various patient groups. | Two findings have very specific implications for policy and practice. The first is that in foreign-born persons, the interferon-γ release assay (IGRA) may be preferable to the tuberculin skin test (TST). This is because the IGRA has similar or slightly lower overall cost, but is more effective than the TST, primarily because it obviates the need for a return visit to obtain results. In some other groups, IGRAs are more expensive, but potentially cost-effective because of additional TB cases prevented. Much of the value of IGRAs is ascribed to reduced attrition. However, it is not entirely clear that patients who miss TST reading would initiate and complete LTBI treatment if an IGRA were used instead. Hence the apparent advantages of IGRAs may be overstated. | The second major finding, in our view, is that the relative cost-effectiveness estimates can guide programs in targeting groups for whom screening and treatment will offer the highest yield at lowest cost. Specifically, as with close contacts and HIV-infected persons, screening and treatment of foreign-born persons is likely to be relatively cost-effective—both for recent arrivals (in the United States < 5 yr), and for foreign-born persons under 45 years of age who have resided in the United States for longer. On the other hand, screening and treatment of persons with other medical or social risk factors (e.g., other immune-suppressive treatment, homelessness, injection drug use) appears less cost-effective, and is predicted to have limited impact in reducing the burden of TB in the United States.