BACKGROUND: The \"community-based workforce\" is an umbrella term used by a workgroup of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) leaders to characterize a variety of job titles and descriptions for positions in the public health, health care delivery, and human service sectors across local communities.
METHODS: Definitions, expectations of the scope of work, and funding opportunities for this workforce vary. To address some of these challenges, a workgroup of HHS agencies met to define the roles of this workforce and identify existing opportunities for training, career advancement, and compensation.
CONCLUSIONS: The community-based workforce has demonstrated success in improving poor health outcomes and addressing the social determinants of health for decades. However, descriptions of this workforce, expectations of their roles, and funding opportunities vary. The HHS workgroup identified that comprehensive approaches are needed within HHS and via public health sectors to meet these challenges and opportunities.
CONCLUSIONS: Using the common term \"community-based workforce\" across HHS can encourage alignment and collaboration. As the environment for this public health and health care community-based workforce shifts, it will be important to understand the value and opportunities available to ensure long-term sustainability for this workforce to continue to advance health equity.

This Viewpoint describes the newly finalized Reproductive Privacy Rule, a HIPAA regulatory update intended to prevent law enforcement in abortion-restrictive states from obtaining reproductive care medical records to prosecute patients and physicians.

暂无摘要。

The United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees the safety and quality of drugs and vaccines that are used in the U.S. Administration of the FDA falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The regulatory oversight of the FDA is complex and comprehensive, requiring the various roles and responsibilities to be divided across six main centers. The activities of two of these centers, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) are the primary focus of this review.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: This study estimated the benefits and costs of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services\' We Can Do This COVID-19 public education campaign (the Campaign) and associated vaccination-related impacts.
METHODS: Weekly media market and national Campaign expenditures were used to estimate weekly first-dose vaccinations that would not have occurred absent the Campaign, weekly Campaign-attributed complete vaccinations, and corresponding COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths averted. Benefits were valued using estimated morbidity and mortality reductions and associated values of a statistical life and a statistical case. Costs were estimated using Campaign paid media expenditures and corresponding vaccination costs. The net Campaign and vaccination benefit and return on investment were calculated. Analyses were conducted from 2022 to 2024.
RESULTS: Between April 2021 and March 2022, an estimated 55.9 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines would not have been administered absent the Campaign. Campaign-attributed vaccinations resulted in 2,576,133 fewer mild COVID-19 cases, 243,979 fewer nonfatal COVID-19 hospitalizations, and 51,675 lives saved from COVID-19. The total Campaign benefit was $740.2 billion, and Campaign and vaccination costs totaled $8.3 billion, with net benefits of approximately $732.0 billion. For every $1 spent, the Campaign and corresponding vaccination costs resulted in benefits of approximately $89.54.
CONCLUSIONS: The We Can Do This COVID-19 public education campaign saved more than 50,000 lives and prevented hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations and millions of COVID-19 cases, representing hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits in less than one year. Findings suggest that public education campaigns are a cost-effective approach to reducing COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.

暂无摘要。

Background: The United States has high and increasing rates of maternal morbidity and mortality, large proportions of which are related to cardiovascular health (CVH). Methods: We searched for National Institutes of Health (NIH) supported research as well as that of two other Agencies in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for fiscal years (FY) 2016-2021. Grants included maternal health conditions or exposures across all pregnancy stages, but excluded grants that focused entirely on birth, neonatal, infant/childhood outcomes. Results were manually curated by reviewing the abstract and specific aims. Grants deemed to be relevant were grouped by category. Results: Between FY 2016-2021, overall Maternal Health grants remained unchanged at an average of 1.4% of total DHHS grant funding. Maternal CVH-specific (MCVH) funding amounted to $278,926,105 for 755 grants, $191,344,649 was for 534 Type-1 grants, representing a twofold increase. Non-NIH DHHS agencies most commonly funded general Maternal Health related to CVH; NIH focused funding classified as hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, maternal morbidity and mortality, obesity, and diabetes. Non-NIH DHSS Agencies most commonly funded clinical applied research. In addition to clinical applied grants, NIH funded substantial proportions of grants classified as basic research, clinical trials, and/or translational. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) MCVH grants studied participants in the pre-partum period (78.5%), followed by the post-partum period (50.5%), with relatively few in pre-pregnancy and peri-partum periods (10.8% and 9.7%, respectively); at the NIH level, the peri-partum period had better representation at 20.3%, whereas the pre-pregnancy period remained low at 9.9%. Conclusions: Federal grant funding for maternal health including MCVH increased at the same rate as its funding for overall research, and represented only 1.4% of overall total funding. The pre-pregnancy period was understudied in overall NIH funding and represents a gap area whereby funding agencies could further foster research advances.

Although chemical and radiological agents cause toxicity through different mechanisms, the multiorgan injuries caused by these threats share similarities that convene on the level of basic biological responses. This publication will discuss these areas of convergence and explore \"multi-utility\" approaches that could be leveraged to address common injury mechanisms underlying actions of chemical and radiological agents in a threat-agnostic manner. In addition, we will provide an overview of the current state of radiological and chemical threat research, discuss the US Government\'s efforts toward medical preparedness, and identify potential areas for collaboration geared toward enhancing preparedness and response against radiological and chemical threats. We also will discuss previous regulatory experience to provide insight on how to navigate regulatory paths for US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval/licensure/clearance for products addressing chemical or radiological/nuclear threats. This publication follows a 2022 trans-agency meeting titled, \"Overlapping Science in Radiation and Sulfur Mustard Exposures of Skin and Lung: Consideration of Models, Mechanisms, Organ Systems, and Medical Countermeasures,\" sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Discussions from this meeting explored the overlapping nature of radiation and chemical injury and spurred increased interest in how preparedness for one threat leads to preparedness for the other. Herein, subject matter experts from the NIAID and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), a part of the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR), summarize the knowledge gained from recently funded biomedical research, as well as insights from the 2022 meeting. These topics include identification of common areas for collaboration, potential use of biomarkers of injury to identify injuries caused by both hazards, and common and widely available treatments that could treat damage caused by radiological or chemical threats.