Approximately 60 million persons in the United States live in rural counties, representing almost one fifth (19.3%) of the population.* In September 2020, COVID-19 incidence (cases per 100,000 population) in rural counties surpassed that in urban counties (1). Rural communities often have a higher proportion of residents who lack health insurance, live with comorbidities or disabilities, are aged ≥65 years, and have limited access to health care facilities with intensive care capabilities, which places these residents at increased risk for COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality (2,3). To better understand COVID-19 vaccination disparities across the urban-rural continuum, CDC analyzed county-level vaccine administration data among adults aged ≥18 years who received their first dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, or a single dose of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Johnson & Johnson) during December 14, 2020-April 10, 2021 in 50 U.S. jurisdictions (49 states and the District of Columbia [DC]). Adult COVID-19 vaccination coverage was lower in rural counties (38.9%) than in urban counties (45.7%) overall and among adults aged 18-64 years (29.1% rural, 37.7% urban), those aged ≥65 years (67.6% rural, 76.1% urban), women (41.7% rural, 48.4% urban), and men (35.3% rural, 41.9% urban). Vaccination coverage varied among jurisdictions: 36 jurisdictions had higher coverage in urban counties, five had higher coverage in rural counties, and five had similar coverage (i.e., within 1%) in urban and rural counties; in four jurisdictions with no rural counties, the urban-rural comparison could not be assessed. A larger proportion of persons in the most rural counties (14.6%) traveled for vaccination to nonadjacent counties (i.e., farther from their county of residence) compared with persons in the most urban counties (10.3%). As availability of COVID-19 vaccines expands, public health practitioners should continue collaborating with health care providers, pharmacies, employers, faith leaders, and other community partners to identify and address barriers to COVID-19 vaccination in rural areas (2).

The U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program began in December 2020, and ensuring equitable COVID-19 vaccine access remains a national priority.* COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minority groups and those who are economically and socially disadvantaged (1,2). Thus, achieving not just vaccine equality (i.e., similar allocation of vaccine supply proportional to its population across jurisdictions) but equity (i.e., preferential access and administra-tion to those who have been most affected by COVID-19 disease) is an important goal. The CDC social vulnerability index (SVI) uses 15 indicators grouped into four themes that comprise an overall SVI measure, resulting in 20 metrics, each of which has national and state-specific county rankings. The 20 metric-specific rankings were each divided into lowest to highest tertiles to categorize counties as low, moderate, or high social vulnerability counties. These tertiles were combined with vaccine administration data for 49,264,338 U.S. residents in 49 states and the District of Columbia (DC) who received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose during December 14, 2020-March 1, 2021. Nationally, for the overall SVI measure, vaccination coverage was higher (15.8%) in low social vulnerability counties than in high social vulnerability counties (13.9%), with the largest coverage disparity in the socioeconomic status theme (2.5 percentage points higher coverage in low than in high vulnerability counties). Wide state variations in equity across SVI metrics were found. Whereas in the majority of states, vaccination coverage was higher in low vulnerability counties, some states had equitable coverage at the county level. CDC, state, and local jurisdictions should continue to monitor vaccination coverage by SVI metrics to focus public health interventions to achieve equitable coverage with COVID-19 vaccine.

In December 2020, two COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) received Emergency Use Authorization from the Food and Drug Administration.*(,)(†) Both vaccines require 2 doses for a completed series. The recommended interval between doses is 21 days for Pfizer-BioNTech and 28 days for Moderna; however, up to 42 days between doses is permissible when a delay is unavoidable.(§) Two analyses of COVID-19 vaccine administration data were conducted among persons who initiated the vaccination series during December 14, 2020-February 14, 2021, and whose doses were reported to CDC through February 20, 2021. The first analysis was conducted to determine whether persons who received a first dose and had sufficient time to receive the second dose (i.e., as of February 14, 2021, >25 days from receipt of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine or >32 days from receipt of Moderna vaccine had elapsed) had received the second dose. A second analysis was conducted among persons who received a second COVID-19 dose by February 14, 2021, to determine whether the dose was received during the recommended dosing interval, which in this study was defined as 17-25 days (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 24-32 days (Moderna) after the first dose. Analyses were stratified by jurisdiction and by demographic characteristics. In the first analysis, among 12,496,258 persons who received the first vaccine dose and for whom sufficient time had elapsed to receive the second dose, 88.0% had completed the series, 8.6% had not received the second dose but remained within the allowable interval (≤42 days since the first dose), and 3.4% had missed the second dose (outside the allowable interval, >42 days since the first dose). The percentage of persons who missed the second dose varied by jurisdiction (range = 0.0%-9.1%) and among demographic groups was highest among non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) persons (5.1%) and persons aged 16-44 years (4.0%). In the second analysis, among 14,205,768 persons who received a second dose, 95.6% received the dose within the recommended interval, although percentages varied by jurisdiction (range = 79.0%-99.9%). Public health officials should identify and address possible barriers to completing the COVID-19 vaccination series to ensure equitable coverage across communities and maximum health benefits for recipients. Strategies to ensure series completion could include scheduling second-dose appointments at the first-dose administration and sending reminders for second-dose visits.

In December 2020, two COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) were authorized for emergency use in the United States for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).* Because of limited initial vaccine supply, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) prioritized vaccination of health care personnel(†) and residents and staff members of long-term care facilities (LTCF) during the first phase of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program (1). Both vaccines require 2 doses to complete the series. Data on vaccines administered during December 14, 2020-January 14, 2021, and reported to CDC by January 26, 2021, were analyzed to describe demographic characteristics, including sex, age, and race/ethnicity, of persons who received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine (i.e., initiated vaccination). During this period, 12,928,749 persons in the United States in 64 jurisdictions and five federal entities(§) initiated COVID-19 vaccination. Data on sex were reported for 97.0%, age for 99.9%, and race/ethnicity for 51.9% of vaccine recipients. Among persons who received the first vaccine dose and had reported demographic data, 63.0% were women, 55.0% were aged ≥50 years, and 60.4% were non-Hispanic White (White). More complete reporting of race and ethnicity data at the provider and jurisdictional levels is critical to ensure rapid detection of and response to potential disparities in COVID-19 vaccination. As the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program expands, public health officials should ensure that vaccine is administered efficiently and equitably within each successive vaccination priority category, especially among those at highest risk for infection and severe adverse health outcomes, many of whom are non-Hispanic Black (Black), non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN), and Hispanic persons (2,3).

Preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in correctional and detention facilities* can be challenging because of population-dense housing, varied access to hygiene facilities and supplies, and limited space for isolation and quarantine (1). Incarcerated and detained populations have a high prevalence of chronic diseases, increasing their risk for severe COVID-19-associated illness and making early detection critical (2,3). Correctional and detention facilities are not closed systems; SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, can be transmitted to and from the surrounding community through staff member and visitor movements as well as entry, transfer, and release of incarcerated and detained persons (1). To better understand SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in these settings, CDC requested data from 15 jurisdictions describing results of mass testing events among incarcerated and detained persons and cases identified through earlier symptom-based testing. Six jurisdictions reported SARS-CoV-2 prevalence of 0%-86.8% (median = 29.3%) from mass testing events in 16 adult facilities. Before mass testing, 15 of the 16 facilities had identified at least one COVID-19 case among incarcerated or detained persons using symptom-based testing, and mass testing increased the total number of known cases from 642 to 8,239. Case surveillance from symptom-based testing has likely underestimated SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in correctional and detention facilities. Broad-based testing can provide a more accurate assessment of prevalence and generate data to help control transmission (4).

Chronic pain is a common reason for medical visits, but prevalence estimates vary between studies and have rarely included drug treatment data. This study aimed to examine characteristics of chronic pain and its relation to demographic and health factors, and factors associated with treatment of pain with opioid analgesics. A chronic pain module was added to the 2007 Kansas Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (response rate=61%). Data on prevalence, duration, frequency, and severity of chronic pain, demographics, and health were collected from a representative sample of 4090 adults 18years and older by telephone. Logistic regression was used to examine the association of both chronic pain and opioid use with demographic and health factors. Chronic pain was reported by 26.0% of the participants and was associated with activity limitations (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=3.6, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 2.8-4.5), arthritis (AOR=3.3, 95% CI 2.6-4.0), poor mental health (AOR=2.0, 95% CI 1.4-2.8), poor overall health (AOR=1.9; 95% CI 1.5-2.5), and obesity (AOR=1.6; 95% CI 1.2-2.0). Of the 33.4% of people with pain who use prescription pain medication, 45.7% took opioids, including 36.7% of those with mild pain. Chronic pain affects a quarter of adults in Kansas and is associated with poor health. Opioid analgesics are the mainstay of prescribed pharmacotherapy in this group, even among those reporting mild pain. Chronic pain affects 26.0% of adults in the state of Kansas, USA. Overall, 45.7% of people who take prescription drugs for chronic pain reported taking opioid analgesics.

OBJECTIVE: Between 1999 and 2006, there was a 120% increase in the rate of unintentional drug overdose deaths in the United States. This study identifies the prevalence of mental illness, a risk factor for substance abuse, and chronic pain among prescription drug overdose deaths in West Virginia and ascertains whether psychotropic drugs contributing to the deaths were used to treat mental illness or for nonmedical purposes. METHOD: In 2007, we abstracted data on mental illness, pain, and drugs contributing to death from all unintentional prescription drug overdose deaths in 2006 recorded by the West Virginia Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. Decedent prescription records were obtained from the state prescription drug monitoring program. RESULTS: Histories of mental illness and pain were documented in 42.7% and 56.6% of 295 decedents, respectively. Psychotropic drugs contributed to 48.8% of the deaths, with benzodiazepines involved in 36.6%. Benzodiazepines contributing to death were not associated with mental illness (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-1.8), while all other psychotropic drugs were (AOR = 3.9; 95% CI, 2.0-7.6). Of decedents with contributory benzodiazepines, 46.3% had no prescription for the drug. CONCLUSIONS: Mental illness may have contributed to substance abuse associated with deaths. Clinicians should screen for mental illness when prescribing opioids and recommend psychotherapy as an adjunct or an alternate to pharmacotherapy. Benzodiazepines may have been used nonmedically rather than as a psychotropic drug, reflecting drug diversion. Restricting benzodiazepine prescriptions to a 30-day supply with no refills might be considered.