May 11, 2023, marked the end of the federal COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE). During the PHE, regulatory flexibilities allowed telehealth to more effectively connect physicians providing care and patients seeking it. This paper discusses the implications of the end of the PHE on telehealth coverage, payment, reimbursement, and licensure, and exposes inconsistencies and inequities in extant state regulations.

Early in the pandemic, pre-print servers sped rapid evidence sharing. A collaborative of major medical journals supported their use to ensure equitable access to scientific advancements. In the intervening three years, we have made major advancements in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and learned about the benefits and limitations of pre-prints as a mechanism for sharing and disseminating scientific knowledge.

Pre-prints increase attention, citations, and ultimately impact policy, often before findings are verified. Evidence suggests that pre-prints have more spin relative to peer-reviewed publications. Clinical trial findings posted on pre-print servers do not change substantially following peer-review, but other study types (e.g., modeling and observational studies) often undergo substantial revision or are never published.

Nuanced policies about sharing results are needed to balance rapid implementation of true and important advancements with accuracy. Policies recommending immediate posting of COVID-19-related research should be re-evaluated, and standards for evaluation and sharing of unverified studies should be developed. These may include specifications about what information is included in pre-prints and requirements for certain data quality standards (e.g., automated review of images and tables); requirements for code release and sharing; and limiting early postings to methods, results, and limitations sections.

Academic publishing needs to innovate and improve, but assessments of evidence quality remains a critical part of the scientific discovery and dissemination process.

Engaging communities is a key factor in efficient response to public health emergencies (PHE). Previous and recent outbreaks have shown that civil society organizations (CSOs) can mobilize the communities to better prepare and respond to a PHE. Consequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Africa (AFRO) implemented an initiative to partner with community leaders by engaging CSOs. The Civil Society Organization Initiative (CSO Initiative) aims to work directly with well-established community-based organizations to accelerate whole-of-society preparation and response. Twenty-three CSOs from 12 WHO African Region Member States have been supported financially and technically to implement effective community-based interventions to respond to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. After 1 year of implementation (2021), the successes, challenges, and recommendations for maximizing future engagements with CSOs are outlined. As the COVID-19 outbreak is again underlining, partnering with established CSOs to engage diverse social groups from various communities can help provide a timely and efficient response to a PHE.

From its inception, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a disruptive force on U.S. health care and public health systems. President Biden’s announced termination of the national public health emergency on May 11, 2023 portends a return to normalcy and relief for Americans from the greatest infectious disease scourge the nation has ever faced. In reality, closing out this pandemic presents a tempest of legal and practical complications.

The Translational Science TS22 conference in Chicago in April 2022 was the first time post-pandemic that members of the Association of Clinical and Translational Science were able to meet up in person to share scientific advances. Given the remaining level of risk due to COVID-19, the meeting was designed as hybrid allowing virtual participation to some of the presentations. Prior to the meeting, JCTS Junior Editors were invited to report on the plenary sessions of the meeting. The present perspective constitutes a summary of three plenary sessions.

This essay explores judicial responses to legal restrictions on worship during the COVID-19 pandemic and draws two lessons, one comparative and one relating specifically to U.S. law. As a comparative matter, courts across the globe have approached the problem in essentially the same way, through intuition and balancing. This has been the case regardless of what formal test applies, the proportionality test outside the United States, which expressly calls for judges to weigh the relative costs and benefits of a restriction, or the Employment Division v. Smith test inside the United States, which rejects judicial line-drawing and balancing in favor of predictable results. Judges have reached different conclusions about the legality of restrictions, of course, but doctrinal nuances have made little apparent difference. With respect to the United States specifically, the pandemic has revealed deep divisions about religion and religious freedom, among other things—divisions that have inevitably influenced judicial attitudes toward restrictions on worship. The COVID-19 crisis has revealed a cultural and political rift that makes consensual resolution of conflicts over religious freedom problematic, and perhaps impossible, even during a once-in-a-century pandemic.

During emergency responses, public health leaders frequently serve in incident management roles that differ from their routine job functions. Leaders’ familiarity with incident management principles and functions can influence response outcomes. Therefore, training and exercises in incident management are often required for public health leaders. To describe existing methods of incident management training and exercises in the literature, we queried 6 English language databases and found 786 relevant articles. Five themes emerged: (1) experiential learning as an established approach to foster engaging and interactive learning environments and optimize training design; (2) technology-aided decision support tools are increasingly common for crisis decision-making; (3) integration of leadership training in the education continuum is needed for developing public health response leaders; (4) equal emphasis on competency and character is needed for developing capable and adaptable leaders; and (5) consistent evaluation methodologies and metrics are needed to assess the effectiveness of educational interventions.

These findings offer important strategic and practical considerations for improving the design and delivery of educational interventions to develop public health emergency response leaders. This review and ongoing real-world events could facilitate further exploration of current practices, emerging trends, and challenges for continuous improvements in developing public health emergency response leaders.

There have been multiple inconsistencies in the manner the COVID-19 pandemic has been investigated and managed by countries. Population-based management (PBM) has been inconsistent, yet serves as a necessary first step in managing public health crises. Unfortunately, these have dominated the landscape within the United States and continue as of this writing. Political and economic influences have greatly influenced major public health management and control decisions. Responsibility for global public health crises and modeling for management are the responsibility of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Health Regulations Treaty (IHR). This review calls upon both to reassess their roles and responsibilities that must be markedly improved and better replicated world-wide in order to optimize the global public health protections and its PBM.

In 1994, the first World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction held in Yokohama, Japan affirmed that “Disaster prevention, mitigation, and preparedness are better than disaster response in achieving the goals and objectives of the decade. Disaster response alone is not sufficient, as it yields only temporary results in a very high cost.” Since then, disaster risk reduction has become the mainstay for international development related to disasters.

According to the National Research Council (Washington, DC USA), “Disaster research, which has focused historically on emergency response and recovery, is incomplete without the simultaneous study of the societal hazards and risks associated with disasters, which includes data on the vulnerability of people living in hazard prone areas.” Despite over 25 years of global policy development, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (Washington, DC USA) recently noted that, “while some disaster management and public health preparedness programming may be viewed as tangentially related, a multi-sectoral and inter-disciplinary national platform for coordination and policy guidance on involving disaster risk reduction in the United States does not exist.” Today, one of the world’s “seven targets in seven years” as agreed upon in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction is to substantially reduce global mortality by 2030. Significant reductions in health risk (including mortality) have historically required a comprehensive approach for disease management that includes both a preventive and a curative approach. Disaster risk management has arisen as a primary means for the world’s populations to address disaster losses, including those related to health. Prevention has been proven as an effective approach for managing health risk. This report describes the role of disease prevention in managing health risk due to disasters.

KeimM. Managing Disaster-Related Health Risk: A Process for Prevention. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(3):326-334.

The Zika virus was largely unknown to many health care systems before the outbreak of 2015. The unique public health threat posed by the Zika virus and the evolving understanding of its pathology required continuous communication between a health care delivery system and a local public health department. By leveraging an existing relationship, NYC Health+Hospitals worked closely with New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to ensure that Zika-related processes and procedures within NYC Health+Hospitals facilities aligned with the most current Zika virus guidance. Support given by the public health department included prenatal clinical and laboratory support and the sharing of data on NYC Health+Hospitals Zika virus screening and testing rates, thus enabling this health care delivery system to make informed decisions and practices. The close coordination, collaboration, and communication between the health care delivery system and the local public health department examined in this article demonstrate the importance of working together to combat a complex public health emergency and how this relationship can serve as a guide for other jurisdictions to optimize collaboration between external partners during major outbreaks, emerging threats, and disasters that affect public health. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2018;12:689-691)

Introduction: In 2015, there were 476 apparent illicit drug overdose deaths, prompting BC’s Provincial Health Officer to declare a public health emergency on 14 Apr 2016. Paramedics of BC’s Ambulance Service (BCAS) are on the front lines in this crisis. Here we examine recent trends in the number of suspected overdose events attended by the BCAS and the use of naloxone, an opioid antagonist, by BCAS paramedics. Methods: The BC Centre for Disease Control receives a weekly data feed from BC Emergency Health Services that includes all records from the BCAS Patient Care Record where: naloxone was administered by paramedics; the primary impression code indicates poisoning or overdose; or, the originating call is associated with ingestion poisoning (‘card 23’). Here, we report a descriptive analysis of these data for suspected drug overdose events during the period January 1, 2010 to September 30, 2016. Results: Between January 2010 and September 2016 BCAS paramedics attended 164,227 suspected overdose events; 12% of these events (n=16,944) included naloxone administration by BCAS paramedics. Paralleling the rise in illicit drug overdose deaths in BC, naloxone administration by paramedics has been increasing rapidly, doubling from approximately 180/month in 2014, to 370/month in 2016. When naloxone was administered by paramedics, 90% of these patients were transported, whereas 77% were transported when naloxone was not administered. Administrations occurred most frequently on Friday and Saturday evenings. Almost half (46%) of all naloxone administrations by paramedics were recorded as being in a home or residence; 18% were recorded as occurring on a street or highway. The proportion of naloxone administrations among males has increased yearly. In 2010, 58% of naloxone administrations were in males compared to 69% in 2016. Conclusion: The number of overdose deaths in BC has risen drastically in recent years and the proportion of ambulance calls requiring administration of naloxone by BCAS has climbed correspondingly. The vast majority of overdose cases-especially those requiring naloxone-are transported to the emergency department. With the overdose crisis showing little sign of abating, the administration of naloxone by BC paramedics will continue to be a critical element of the provincial response.