2009- Reduce Public Health Impacts of Climate Change

Actions to Reduce Public Health Impacts of Climate Change

Problem: The World Health Organization’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in their fourth report on the issue that warming of the earth over the past century is “unequivocal” and that warming can be attributed to humans with a greater than 90% level of certainty (IPCC, 2007).

“Warming will occur through the next century even with significant reductions in new emissions, due to the prolonged residence time in the atmosphere of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs, e.g., carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone), and the slow response time of the ocean. (Hansen, 2005 and Dessai, 2003) Public health impacts associated with moderate degrees of global warming include increases in (1) heat‐related morbidity and mortality, (Ebi et al., 2006 and Meehl et al., 2004); (2) the health consequences of increases in the frequency of strong typhoons, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events, (Milly et al., 2002, Running, 2006 and Emanuel, 2005); (3) increases in the intensity and range of transmission of vector‐borne and other infectious diseases, (Epstein, 2001, Gubler, et al., 2001, Rose et al. 2001, Fleury et al. 2006, Kovats et al. 2004, Bradshaw et al. 2001, Epstein et al. 1998, Loevinsohn, 1994, and Hjelle et al. 2000); (4) respiratory and cardiovascular illness associated with increases in ozone air pollution related to higher ambient temperatures (Knowlton et al. 2004, and Hogrefe et al. 2004); and (5) malnutrition from threatened agriculture and fisheries, especially in developing countries. (Gregory et al. 2005, and Parry et al. 2005)” (APHA, 2007).

“Biological responses to climate change also have negative implications for human health, due to loss of ecosystem services (such as water purification), loss of species for medical research (such as marine and rainforest species for cancer therapies), altered infectious disease dynamics due to changes in temperature and precipitation patterns and ecosystem disruption, and disruption of food supplies due to desertification, changes in distribution of cultivatable land, and collapse of marine fisheries. (Schivian, 2002, Parmasan, et al. 2003, Root et al. 2003, Bradshaw et al. 2001, Epstein et al. 1998, and Loevinsohn, 1994). The adverse public health and environmental impacts of projected changes in global climate are likely to be especially severe among populations already living in extreme poverty throughout the developing world. The World Health Organization has concluded that most of the contemporaneous health‐related impacts associated with global climate change are occurring in developing countries, with adverse impacts in 2000 estimated at approximately 5.5 million disability‐adjusted life years (Campbell‐Lendrum, 2003). The adverse public health impacts of projected changes in global climate also are anticipated to be especially severe among susceptible subpopulations, especially children, the elderly, those with underlying chronic diseases, and those in impoverished communities, particularly the urban poor, within the United States (Longstreth, 1999).” (APHA, 2007)

“Worldwide agriculture and land‐use change are estimated to cause about one third of global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions (Paustian K, et al., 2006) whereas in the United States, agriculture contributes an estimated 8% of greenhouse gas emissions (Paustian K., et al., 2006). Agriculture’s effect on climate change is caused both by emissions (such as burning fossil fuels) and reduced storage of gases in soils and other media. Meat production is a particularly powerful contributor; the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UN FAO) estimates that approximately 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide come from livestock production (Steinfeld H., et al., 2006). One study compared greenhouse gases from the average American diet and a same‐ calorie vegetarian diet and found that the difference, summed across the population, would account for 6% of all US greenhouse gas emissions (Eshel G. et al., 2006). Despite this impact on climate change risk, the contributions of the food system and meat consumption are generally left out of the discussion on global climate change.” (APHA[2], 2007).

The State of Arizona is expected to experience adverse consequences from climate change. Researchers at the University of Arizona predict less winter snowfall, increased winter rainfall, and earlier snow melt resulting in reduced stream flow and more extensive/stronger forest fires (Garfin and Lenart, 2007, and Westerling et al. 2006).

Higher temperatures would speed up evaporation, lower reservoirs, slow groundwater recharge, concentrate water pollutant levels, and increase salinity (Garfin, 2007 and Arizona Office of the Governor, 2006). In addition, higher temperatures increase water consumption. Researchers at Arizona State University have shown that a one degree Fahrenheit increase in daily low temperature results in an additional 290 gallons of water consumed per day in the Phoenix, Arizona area for a typical single family unit. (Guhatahakurta, and Gober, 2007).

The State of Arizona is among many states, including coastal states that expect to experience costly and health threatening impacts from climate change (NACO, 2009).

Many states and cities are taking independent action to contribute their efforts towards reducing GHG emissions. States and cities need to ensure that their early actions are taken into account in the design of regional and federal programs. “The patchwork quilt that can result when states take individual approaches to the climate issue can be inefficient and pose challenges for business. Comprehensive federal legislation would provide consistency and certainty for businesses.” (Rabe, B. 2006).

Statement of Desired Action: “The public health community must communicate the critical importance of primary prevention, namely the mitigation of climate change, in addition to preparing to provide secondary and tertiary prevention of climate change health effects.” (APHA, 2007). AzPHA should support policies that reduce GHGs through reduced usage of energy, fossil fuel combustion, and personal motor vehicle use. “The public health community should advocate for mitigation and avoidance of climate change, track the impacts of climate change on human health, and assist with adaptation, to the degree possible, to those health effects caused by changes in climate that can not be prevented. The public health community also should assess and communicate the potential short‐term public health benefits, as well as the potential adverse public health impacts, of GHG mitigation strategies.” (APHA, 2007) AzPHA should support policies that create incentives for residential and industrial energy efficiency and increased use of alternative energy production, such as wind and solar power. Further, AzPHA should support policies that result in advanced technologies to reduce or capture carbon emissions from energy production; more efficient transportation; reduced consumption of fossil fuels; increases in fuel economy; investment in research and development in low‐carbon energy, transportation, agriculture, and manufacturing technologies including land‐use policy, agricultural policy and international policy.

“Public health as a discipline will benefit from education, prevention and policy that can be put into place now to address adaptation and mitigation of climate change to reduce the likelihood of disaster, to reduce health consequences and to assure that people are working together to lessen the detrimental impacts on their communities and reducing their own personal impact on our environment.” (NACCHO, 2007)

Relationship to AzPHA Priorities: This resolution is consistent with AzPHA priorities. Strategic Direction 4 of the organization’s Strategic Plan is to increase impact on public health policy and one of the organization’s legislative priorities is to support and protect healthy environments including safe water, clean air and urban planning.

Fiscal and Public Health Impact: The costs of policies directed at reducing GHG emissions include research and development for inventing new technologies, initial higher cost of implementing new technologies, and increased electricity rates for residential and industrial consumers. Benefits of policies to reduce GHG emissions include reduced air pollution, increased motor vehicle fuel economy, less electricity usage, creation of revenues and profits associated with energy saving and alternative energy inventions and technologies, and reduced medical care costs associated with better public health. An example of these impacts is from the Clean Car Rule that was adopted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) in 2008. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Arizona Secretary of State, 2008), ADEQ stated that the increased vehicle cost would be offset by lower vehicle operating costs and projected carbon dioxide emissions from light‐duty vehicles in Arizona will be reduced from 34.1 million metric tons to 28.5 million metric tons by 2020, or a 16.4 percent reduction. In addition to lower carbon dioxide emissions, new vehicles subject to the Clean Car standards will emit less ozone‐ forming pollutants (1,436 tons of nitrogen oxides in 2018) and cancer‐causing hazardous air pollutants. ADEQ cited a 2008 study (Jacobson, 2008) which estimated 1,000 additional deaths annually for each increase of one degree Celsius caused by carbon dioxide.
Costs and benefits for reducing GHG emissions will vary greatly from one technology to another. However, ozone is an air pollutant that has several direct connections to sources of GHG’s. In 2008, the U.S. EPA reduced the allowable ambient air standard for ozone over an 8‐hour exposure period from 0.080 to 0.075 ug/m3. The EPA estimated the costs for the new standard would range from $7.6 billion to $8.8 billion in 2020. The estimated health‐ related benefits ranged from $2.0 billion to $17 billion in 2020 (U.S. EPA, 2008).
In addition to increased medical care costs associated with unmitigated climate change, there are expected escalating losses from weather related events. The costs come in the form of higher premiums, lowered coverage limits and increased restrictions in coverage. Individuals, businesses and governments may experience additional financial liability in response to private insurers restricting coverage and withdrawing from markets (Insurance Journal, 2005).

The Sierra Club asserts that renewable energy and energy efficiency policies could save a typical family $350 per year in lower energy bills by 2020 (Sierra Club, 2009). Organizations Supporting and Opposing Suggested Actions: Members of the Arizona State Legislature have opposed ADEQ actions related to climate change. For example, HB 2467, HCR 2023, and SB1147 introduced during the 2009 legislature, sought to prohibit ADEQ from taking actions to reduce GHG emissions (AzPHA, 2009). The Arizona Automobile Dealers Association opposed the ADEQ Clean Car rule during the public comment period for the rule. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, automobile manufacturers, power industry companies and others have opposed federal efforts to develop policies to control GHG’s.

Groups supporting policies to reduce GHG emissions are equally numerous. The 2009 Arizona Legislature considered a senate resolution SCR 1013 promoting the development of renewable energy technology and applications in Arizona (AzPHA, 2009). Other organizations supporting policies that aim to control GHG’s include the World Health Association, American Public Health Association, National Association of City and County Health Officials, National Association of Counties, Sierra Club and numerous environmental advocacy organizations.
Actions Needed: AzPHA should adopt a resolution including specific actions that the organization and it members may take to reduce GHG emissions.

References:
American Public Health Association, 2007, Addressing the Urgent Threat of Global Climate Change to Public Health and the Environment, Policy No. 20078.
American Public Health Association [2], 2007, Toward a Healthy, Sustainable Food System, Policy No. 200712.
Arizona Office of the Governor, Climate Change Advisory Group [CCAG], 2006,“Climate Change Action Plan,” August 2006, 27.
Arizona Public Health Association, 2009, AZPHA Bill Tracking June 9, 2009
Arizona Secretary of State, 2008, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Article 18, Clean Car Standards, February 1, 2008, Vol 14, Issue 5
Bradshaw WE, Holzapfel CM. 2001, Genetic shift in photoperiodic response correlated to global warming. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.; 98(25):14509‐14511.
Campbell‐Lendrum D, Pruss‐Ustun A, Corvalan C., 2003, How much disease could climate change cause? In: McMichael AJ, Campbell‐Lendrum D, Corvalan C, Ebi KL, Githeko AK, Scheraga JS, eds. Climate Change and Health: Risks and Responses. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2003:133–155.
Chivian E, ed. Biodiversity: Its Importance to Human Health. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Medical School; 2002. Available at: http://chge.med.harvard.edu/publications/documents/Biodiversity_v2_screen.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2007.
Dessai S., 2003, Heat stress and mortality in Lisbon Part II. An assessment of the potential impacts of climate change. Int J Biometeorol. 2003;48:37–44.
Ebi KL, Mills DM, Smith JB, Grambsch A., 2006, Climate change and human health impacts in the United States: an update on the results of the U.S. national assessment. Environ Health Perspect. 114:1318–1324.
Emanuel K. 2005, Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature. 2005; 436:686–688.
Epstein PR., 2001, Climate change and emerging infectious diseases. Microbes Infect. 3:747–754.
Epstein P, Diaz H, Elias S, et al. 1998, Biological and physical signs of climate change: focus on mosquito borne diseases. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.79:409–417
Eshel G, Martin P., 2006, Diet, energy and global warming. Earth Interactions, 10(9):1–17.
Fleury M, Charron DF, Holt JD, Allen OB, Maarouf AR.,2006, A time series analysis of the relationship of ambient temperature and common bacterial enteric infections in two Canadian provinces. Int J Biometeorol, 60:385–391.
Garfin, G. and M. Lenart, 2007, “Effects on Southwest Water Resources,” Southwest Hydrology, January/February 2007, 16‐17, 34
Garfin, G., 2007, “Southwest drought regimes might worsen with climate change,” Southwest Climate Outlook, April 2007, 11
Gregory PJ, Ingram, JS, Brklacich M., 2005, Climate Change and Food Security. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci., 360(1463):2139–2148.
Gubler DJ, Reiter P, Ebi KL, Yap W, Nasci R, Patz J, 2001, A Climate variability and change in the United States: potential impacts on vector‐and rodent‐borne diseases. Environ Health Perspect, 109(suppl 2): 223–233.
Guhatahakurta, S. and P. Gober, 2007, “The Impact of Phoenix Urban Heat Island on Residential Water Use,” Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 73, issue 3, 317‐ 329, September 2007
Hansen J, Nazarenko L, Ruedy R, et al., 2005, Earth’s energy imbalance: confirmation and implications. Science, 308(5727):1431–1435. Epub April 28, 2005
Hjelle B, GE Glass, 2000, Outbreak of hantavirus infection in the Four Corners region of the United States in the wake of the 1997–1998 El Nino‐southern oscillation. J Infect Dis.
181:1569–1573
Hogrefe C, Lynn B, Civerolo K, et al., 2004, Simulating changes in regional air pollution due to changes in global and regional climate and emissions. J Geophys Res. 109:22301.
IPCC, 2007, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.
Insurance Journal, 2005, “New Report Warns of Rising Threat to Industry from Climate Change,” 9/08/05.
Jacobson, M., 2008, Carbon Dioxide Emissions Linked to Human Mortality, Science Daily, January 4, 2008
Knowlton K, Rosenthal J, Hogrefe C, et al., 2004, Assessing ozone‐related health impacts under a changing climate. Environ Health Perspect, 112:1557–1563.
Kovats RS, Edwards SJ, Hajat S, Armstrong B, Ebi KL, Menne B, 2004, The effect of temperature on food poisoning: a time‐series analysis of salmonellosis in ten European countries. Epidemiol Infect. 132, 443–453.
Loevinsohn ME., 1994, Climate warming and increased malaria incidence in Rwanda. Lancet, 343:714–718
Longstreth J., 1999, Public health consequences of global climate change in the United States‐ some regions may suffer disproportionately. Environ Health Perspect. 107(suppl 1):169–179.
Meehl GA, Tebaldi C., 2004, More intense, more frequent, and longer lasting heat waves in the 21st century. Science, 305:994–997.
Milly, PCD, Wetherald RT, Dunne KA, Delworth T L., 2005, Increasing risk of great floods in a Parry M, Rosenzweig C, Livermore M. Climate change, global food supply and risk of hunger. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci., 360(1463):2125–2138.
National Association of City and County Health Officials, 2007, Statement of Policy: Local Public Health Role in Addressing Climate Change, Policy No. 07‐09
National Association of Counties, 2009, Environment, Energy, and Land Use Resolution on Federal Assistance Related to Climate Change, Adopted July 28, 2009
Parmesan C, Yohe G., 2003, A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature, 421:37–42.changing climate
Paustian K, Antle JM, Sheehan J, Paul EA., 2006, Agriculture’s Role in Greenhouse Gas Mitigation. Philadelphia: Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Rabe, B. 2006, Race to the Top: The Expanding Role of U.S. State Renewable Portfolio Standards. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA.
Root TL, Price JT, Hall KR, Schneider SH, Rosenzweig C, Pounds JA., 2003, Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature, 421:57–60
Rose JB, Epstein PR, Lipp EK, Sherman BH, Bernard SM, Patz JA., 2001, Climate variability and change in the United States: potential impacts on water and food borne diseases caused by microbiologic agents. Environ Health Perspect., 109(suppl 2):211–221.
Running S.W., 2006, Is global warming causing more, larger wildfires? Science, 313:927– 928.
Sierra Club, Clean Power Comes on Strong, downloaded August 29, 2009 from: http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/cleanenergy/renewablesfactsheet.pdf
Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, de Haan C., 2006, Livestock’s Long Shadow. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006.
Available at: www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm. Accessed March 13, 2007.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008, Ozone Rule Slides, downloaded March 23, 2008 from: http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/2008_03_text_slides.pdf
Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, T.W. Swetnam, 2006, “Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity” Science, volume 313, August 2006, 940‐943

RESOLUTION: Actions to Reduce Climate Change
September 11, 2009

Whereas, Scientific certainty regarding the role of human activities in changing the world’s climate has been established; and

Whereas, warming will occur through the next century even with significant reductions in new emissions, due to the prolonged residence time in the atmosphere of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs, e.g., carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone), and the slow response time of the ocean; and

Whereas, public health impacts associated with moderate degrees of global warming include increases in (1) heat‐related morbidity and mortality; (2) the health consequences of increases in the frequency of strong typhoons, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events; (3) increases in the intensity and range of transmission of vector‐borne and other infectious diseases; (4) respiratory and cardiovascular illness associated with increases in ozone air pollution related to higher ambient temperatures; and (5) malnutrition from threatened agriculture and fisheries, especially in developing countries; and

Whereas, biological responses to climate change also have negative implications for human health, due to loss of ecosystem services (such as water purification), loss of species for medical research (such as marine and rainforest species for cancer therapies), altered infectious disease dynamics due to changes in temperature and precipitation patterns and ecosystem disruption, and disruption of food supplies due to desertification, changes in distribution of cultivatable land, and collapse of marine fisheries;

Whereas, the adverse public health and environmental impacts of projected changes in global climate are likely to be especially severe among populations already living in extreme poverty throughout the developing world, and, as the World Health Organization has concluded, most of the contemporaneous health‐related impacts associated with global climate change are occurring in developing countries, with adverse impacts in 2000 estimated at approximately 5.5 million disability‐adjusted life years; and

Whereas, the adverse public health impacts of projected changes in global climate also are anticipated to be especially severe among susceptible subpopulations, especially children, the elderly, those with underlying chronic diseases, and those in impoverished communities, particularly the urban poor, within the United States; and

Whereas, the public health workforce must include practitioners who are able to communicate the impacts of projected changes in global climate to their communities and constituents;

Whereas, the State of Arizona is expected to experience adverse consequences from climate change including reduced stream flow, more extensive/stronger forest fires, more evaporation, lower reservoirs, slow groundwater recharge, concentration of water pollutant levels, increased salinity and increased water consumption.

Therefore Be It Resolved that the Arizona Public Health Association supports cost effective policies that reduce GHGs through reduced usage of energy, fossil fuel combustion, and personal motor vehicle use.

Further Be It Resolved that the Arizona Public Health Association supports the ongoing collection and analysis of data related to the potential public health benefits, as well as the potential adverse public health impacts, of GHG mitigation strategies.

Further Be It Resolved that the Arizona Public Health Association supports cost effective policies that create incentives for residential and industrial energy efficiency and increased use of alternative energy production, such as wind and solar power.

Further Be It Resolved that the Arizona Public Health Association supports cost effective policies that result in advanced technologies for more efficient transportation and reduction or capture of carbon emissions from energy production.

Further Be It Resolved that the Arizona Public Health Association supports cost effective land‐use policies that reduce GHG emissions.
Further Be It Resolved that the Arizona Public Health Association supports cost effective agricultural policies that reduce GHG emissions.
Further Be It Resolved that the Arizona Public Health Association supports education about the food supply system’s contribution to greenhouse gases and the benefits of eating more locally produced food and reducing industrial meat consumption.

Further Be It Resolved that the Arizona Public Health Association supports developing capable public health leadership and personnel to assure the capacity of public health departments, agencies and programs to respond to the health effects of climate change.

Further Be It Resolved that the Arizona Public Health Association supports federal assistance to states and communities to provide financial and technical assistance to governments to help develop and implement local climate change adaption and mitigation plans and projects, including smart growth initiatives, mass transit development, renewable energy deployment, acquisition of high efficiency fleet vehicles and protection of water supplies.

Further Be It Resolved that the Arizona Public Health Association supports cost effective international policies that reduce GHG emissions.

Submitted by Al Brown
September, 2009

155~2009_(1)Climate Change Resolution (enviroment, climate change)

2013- Increasing Efforts to Encourage Governmental Health Departments to Seek Accreditation

AzPHA Recommends Adopting APHA Policy #201119:

Increasing Efforts to Encourage Governmental Health Departments to Seek Accreditation

There is an important opportunity to demonstrate the value that various sectors play in ensuring the optimal health of populations across the United States. The often-­‐overlooked conduit for this critical function across cities, towns, and counties has been through health departments working in concert with state-­‐level and federal entities. According to the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), there are more than 2700 local health departments in the United States.[1] These agencies provide the essential services of public health on a day-­‐to-­‐day basis. Similar to the experience of state-­‐level health departments, most of these entities gained more visibility during the national response to the declared global pandemic of H1N1 influenza in 2009. One of the more significant challenges for the existing infrastructure of local health departments has been the diversity of governance structures for governmental public health across the United States and the lack of standardization of performance of these local health departments.

Problem Statement

Public Health agencies comprise one component of the US health system that has yet to develop an accreditation system particular to its specific needs.[2,3] Local and state health departments face systemic and organizational obstacles that compromise their effectiveness and capacity to respond to public need, yet leaders of those agencies find themselves increasingly pressed for accountability and demonstrated return on policy and financial investments. Formal accreditation of local and state public health agencies would provide evidence that the agencies have met accepted professional standards of performance based on well-­‐established, predetermined criteria.[4] Meeting the benchmark of professional acceptance represented by accreditation would provide the public with assurance that the governmentally organized and funded entities designed to protect their health and to prevent the spread of disease are performing at acceptable levels.

Background

The first mention of accreditation as a potential system to strengthening public health infrastructure dates back to an article by Bernard Turnock and Arden Handler in 1996.[5] The authors questioned whether the uniqueness of health departments in the United States was leading to the “disarray” and weakening of the public health infrastructure as described in the 1988 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, The Future of Public Health[6]. Turnock and Handler called for a core function–based approach to accrediting health departments.[5] Their article was followed in 1998 by a call by Halverson et al. for performance measurement and accreditation.[7] As in the previous article, the authors stated that accreditation could contribute to stronger health systems in the United States. The Future of the Public’s Health in the 21st Century, a report published by the IOM in 2002, recommended that a national steering committee be established to explore the benefits of accreditation and noted that “accreditation is a useful tool for improving the quality of services provided to the public by setting standards and evaluating performance against those standards.”[8(p157)]

The NACCHO Board passed Resolution 04-­‐06[9] in July 2004, supporting the establishment of a voluntary accreditation program with the potential of moving to a national program of accreditation.[9] An October 2004 technical report to The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) recommended that there no longer be an emphasis on the uniqueness of local health departments.[10]

In December 2004, RWJF convened the Exploring Accreditation Committee (EAC). The final report of the committee, “Final Recommendations for a Voluntary National Accreditation Program for State and Local Health Departments,”[11] laid out the framework for a voluntary health department accreditation. In August 2005, the planning committee of the EAC established a steering committee that included representatives from federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The steering committee’s decisions were informed by 4 work groups comprising public health practitioners from all levels of government and academia: Governance and Implementation, Finance and Incentives, Research and Evaluation, and Standards and Development. Parallel to the work of the Exploring Accreditation Steering Committee was another RWJF project that funded 16 selected states with experience in public health assessment, accreditation, and quality improvement. The goal of this project was to continue these core activities and share their experiences with other states through 3 phases of the Multistate Learning Collaborative (MLC) during the period July 2005 through April 2011. MLC Phase 1 (MLC-­‐1) states provided empirical and practical information about what worked and what did not to the Exploring Accreditation Steering Committee, thus contributing to its decision to recommend that a national voluntary public health accreditation program for state and local health departments be implemented.[12] The work accomplished by the MLC-­‐1 and MLC-­‐2 states accelerated the emphasis on quality improvement in public health and the move toward public health accreditation. MLC-­‐3 states focused not only on quality improvement but conducted self-­‐assessments on accreditation readiness through the use of tools developed by national organizations. The work of the MLC states also informed the work of the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB), established in 2007 by RWJF and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to manage and promote the national voluntary public health accreditation program. Experience by the MLC states working with the standards developed by CDC’s National Public Health Performance Standards Program and local certification standards led to the development of the draft PHAB standards and measures. The draft PHAB standards were vetted at national meetings attended by the 16 MLC state representatives, who suggested revisions of the measures before publication. In addition to the vetting by the MLC participants, the PHAB standards were made available for public comment over a period of 3 months, during which intensive feedback was submitted from various sources. This feedback, along with expert reviews, helped shape the PHAB standards.

The Exploring Accreditation Steering Committee met in April 2006 to discuss the recommendations from all work groups and to develop a proposed model for voluntary health department accreditation. In August 2006, a final model was proposed for implementing accreditation across local health departments. The PHAB was formed in 2007 to carry out the daunting task of implementing accreditation. The PHAB founding organizations included RWJF, CDC, NACCHO, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO), the National Association of Local Boards of Health (NALBOH), and the American Public Health Association (APHA). On March 24, 2011, CDC issued a press release supporting and encouraging health departments to seek accreditation.[13] APHA has a long history of encouraging the professionalization of public health workers and their associations. APHA Policy Statement 5610, “Professional Qualifications of Public Health Personnel,”[14] published in 1956, and Policy Statement 6007, “Strengthening Professional Public Health Associations,”[15] published in 1960, call for strengthening the public health workforce and systems through benchmarks and measures. Support for accreditation of local and state public health departments echoes those long-­‐held positions with a continued call for improving the delivery of public health programs and services.

Factors Influencing Accreditation

Development of the accreditation standards required many work group and board discussions on whether one set of standards could fit the large variety of organizations that comprise the public health system. The PHAB Board has taken a strong position that there be one set of standards for all local health departments and one set of standards for all state health departments. These standards, as outlined by the PHAB Board in Part A of the “Proposed Local Standards and Measures,” and in the state, tribal, and territorial health department standards, address the variety in the governance structures of health departments by assessing the public health infrastructure and financial management systems and by defining the public health authority; they also provide an orientation for governing entities regarding their responsibilities and those of the public health agency.[16] The measures that determine compliance with the standard will provide adequate flexibility for the variability in types of state and local governance and organizations. A beta test of the accreditation process was conducted in 2010 using the proposed standards and measures. Thirty health departments (8 state, 19 local, and 3 tribal) representing the variability in the public health system were selected to participate in an effort to understand how the measures and the processes under consideration might apply in a real-­‐world setting. This process led to the development of Version 1.0 of the PHAB Standards and Measures, which was released in July 2011; minor updates were published December 22, 2011.[17] In the end, the most important question was whether beta test participants, including both beta test sites and site visitors, felt that the accreditation process worked. Indeed, the majority of respondents to a post-­‐beta test site and site visitor survey indicated that only minor changes to the piloted accreditation processes were needed prior to implementation.[18]

Importance of Accreditation

Public health is recognized for its role in preventing the spread of disease and injury, promoting healthier lifestyles, and protecting the community at large. The past decade has seen emerging diseases and public health emergencies at an unprecedented rate in the form of terrorist attacks, natural disasters, manmade disasters, and pandemics. Public health is valued as a critical component of a broader coordinated system of response to threats ranging from anthrax attacks to H1N1 influenza. The landmark legislation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act led to the establishment of a Prevention and Public Health Fund. For Fiscal Year 2011, funding opportunity announcements through the fund’s Improvement Initiative funding stream included one to support activities that are preparatory to accreditation.[19] The goal of the national public health accreditation program is to improve and protect the health of the public by advancing the quality and performance of all health departments in the country—state, local, territorial, and tribal.[17] Experts predict that an accreditation system will help public health departments to continuously improve the quality of the services they deliver to the community.[20] Nonprofit hospitals are required to complete community health assessments every 3 years and show improvements in order to meet Internal Revenue Service criteria to maintain nonprofit status. Each hospital must identify and prioritize community benefit initiatives through a community health assessment process based on population data, particularly from the public health sector.[21] While the majority of hospitals in the United States seek and maintain accreditation through The Joint Commission, there is no similar system for public health systems to demonstrate their level of performance. Hospitals accredited by The Joint Commission enjoy a “deemed status” whereby they are automatically eligible for Medicare funding,[22] but there is no similar provision for public health departments in terms of seeking and becoming eligible for federal funding. Similarly, the US Department of Education has incentives whereby postsecondary institutions receiving accreditation through the Council for Higher Education Accreditation become eligible to receive many federal educational grants and student loans.[23] The proposed PHAB accreditation model has the potential to become a comparable accreditation system for governmental health departments and raise their profile to be on par with other public service systems. With the significant increases in minority and foreign-­‐born populations across the United States over the last couple of decades, one of the goals of the Healthy People blueprint has been the elimination of health disparities. This reality prompted the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), along with the Office of Minority Health, to design and implement the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health Care (CLAS) in 2001. The aim of the standards is to contribute to the elimination of racial and ethnic health disparities and to improve the health of all Americans.[24] They are also intended to be used by accreditation and credentialing agencies to assess and compare providers who say they offer culturally competent services and to ensure quality for diverse populations. PHAB Standard 11.1 aims to “Develop and maintain an operational infrastructure to support the performance of public health functions.” Measure 11.1.3 A reflects the board’s commitment to ensuring provision of effective services by assessing agencies on their ability to “maintain socially, culturally, and linguistically appropriate approaches in health department processes, programs, and interventions, relevant to the population served in its jurisdiction.” [17(p227)] The PHAB accreditation can assist with reinforcing the CLAS standards, thereby addressing some of the gaps that exist in the training of health professionals for providing culturally competent care.
Health departments now face harsh economic challenges and increasing burdens.

Why should health departments consider accreditation during this time of stress? For many public health departments, accreditation will help define survival, using nationally recognized standards to declare a required essential framework of services for their communities; it also means an improvement in quality and accountability. Recognizing that “place matters” for the various factors that influence one’s overall health status, public health accreditation ensures that people across the country can expect the same quality of public health programs and services no matter where they live—a bustling metropolitan city, a farming town, or anything in between. The public health accreditation logic model put forward by the Exploring Accreditation Steering Committee asserts that accreditation leads to strengthened health departments and services, thereby leading to better health outcomes in the community.[11] Accreditation has been proposed as a process supporting quality improvement and performance management initiatives.[20] Accreditation has been linked to strengthened public health outcomes. Joly et al. propose a logic model in which undergoing accreditation has the potential to strengthen public health systems and lead to improved health outcomes. They state that accreditation, with its inherent focus on quality improvement, has the potential to lead to better health outcomes in the long term.[25]
PHAB’s beta test, conducted in 2010, was intended to mimic the accreditation process as closely as possible in order to improve the final process, not to create changes in health departments. Nevertheless, some of the 30 state, tribal, and local departments participating in the PHAB beta test experienced increased employee morale, communication, accountability, and credibility as a result of their participation in the process.[26] Accreditation has also been proposed as a mechanism to promote cooperation between state and local health departments, thus leading to better alignment of services and strengthened systems.[11] The latest version of the National Public Health Performance Standards Program (NPHPSP) is designed to sustain accreditation. It adds credibility to the process and enables coordination between NPHPSP and accreditation standards.[27] The principles of quality improvement are embedded in the accreditation program and supported by CDC.[28] The mission of PHAB is to advance the continuous quality improvement of governmental health departments, and the PHAB board of directors has set the accreditation model on a cornerstone of continuous quality improvement.[20] Quality improvement approaches have the potential to strengthen governmental health systems and lead to improved performance.

The process of undergoing accreditation appears to be an intervention in and of itself. Short-­‐term benefits for the participating health departments include increased accountability and increased knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses, whereas projected long-­‐term outcomes include strengthened public health systems, increased investment in public health, and increased public recognition of public health’s role and value. Some of the participating agencies are already experiencing some of the short-­‐term benefits.[29]

Considering the improvement and accountability structure offered by accreditation, APHA proposes to do the following.

a. Encourage governmental health departments to participate in the accreditation process by completing prerequisite work to collect and demonstrate necessary evidence to meet PHAB standards and measures and to ultimately support successful application for national accreditation.
HHS, including CDC, should encourage health departments to undergo accreditation, but the process at this point should remain voluntary. Health departments should be made aware of the benefits of accreditation, which in turn will encourage them to seek accreditation voluntarily. This will allow health departments to recognize the value of accreditation while incorporating standards into day-­‐to-­‐day operations.

b. Support PHAB in its efforts to encourage health departments to seek accreditation.
Given the national coalition that has pledged its support for the efforts by the Public Health Accreditation Board, PHAB’s efforts should continue to be endorsed by national associations, including APHA, ASTHO, NACCHO, NALBOH, and the National Indian Health Board (NIHB), and supported by RWJF and CDC. Health departments lacking the resources needed to seek accreditation should be provided technical support.

c. Request authorization of federal funds to support implementing accreditation on a national level.
Health departments need to be supported financially in their efforts to seek accreditation. Accreditation can lead to better alignment of state, tribal, local, and territorial health services, thereby leading to a strengthened national public health system. The federal government should support such efforts to improve the health of the nation on a systemwide level.

d. Advocate for support for research to explore the linkages between accreditation and various components of performance management and quality improvement. Funding agencies should support researchers exploring the role and impact of accreditation on performance management in public health systems. New research findings will add to the body of knowledge about the benefits and outcomes of accreditation and will help health departments in the future to make informed decisions about accreditation.

e. Urge funding sources to support governmental health departments that seek, achieve, and maintain accreditation status by providing incentives.
HHS, including CDC, should provide incentives to governmental health departments to seek, achieve, and maintain accreditation. Local governing bodies should be encouraged to support health departments that seek, achieve, and maintain accreditation. In addition, the federal government and local governing bodies should encourage and support health departments that are not accredited to seek accreditation in the future.

Public health is recognized for its role in preventing the spread of disease and injury, promoting healthier lifestyles, and protecting the community at large. Assessing the return on investment for programs and services enhances the ability of public health agencies to deliver the greatest benefit to the community. Emerging quality and performance assessment practices offer promise for further improvement in public health practice. The voluntary public health accreditation process represents a significant vehicle to structure public health quality and accountability efforts.[30]

References
1. National Association of County & City Health Officials. 2010 National Profile of Local Health Departments. August 2011. Available at: http://www.naccho.org/topics/infrastructure/profile/resources/2010report/uplo ad/2010_Profile_main_report-­‐web.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2012.
2. Mays GP. Can accreditation work in public health? Lessons from other service industries. Working paper prepared for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. November 2004. Available at: http://www.phaboard.org/wp-­‐ content/uploads/CanAccreditationWorkinPublicHealth.pdf. Accessed January 5, 2012.
3. Turnock BJ, Handler AS. From measuring to improving public health. Ann Rev Public Health. 1997;18:261–282.
4. The Free Dictionary. Available at: http://medical-­‐ dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/accreditation. Accessed February 11, 2011.
5. Turnock BJ, Handler A. Is public health ready for reform? The case for accrediting local health departments. J Public Health Manag Pract. 1996;2(3):41–45.
6. Committee for the Study of the Future of Public Health, Division of Health Care Services, Institute of Medicine. The Future of PublicHealth. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1988.
7. Halverson P, Nicola R, Baker E. Performance measurement and accreditation of public health organizations: a call to action. J Public Health Manag Pract. 1998;4(4):5–7.
8. Committee on Assuring the Health of the Public in the 21st Century, Board of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Institute of Medicine. The Future of the Public’s Health in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2002.
9. National Association of County and City Health Officials. Statement of Policy 04-­‐ 06: Voluntary Accreditation of Local Health Departments. Available at: http://www.naccho.org/advocacy/positions/upload/04-­‐06-­‐Accreditation-­‐rev.pdf. Accessed February 1, 2011.
10. Thielen L. Exploring public health experience with standards and accreditation: is it time to stop talking about how every health department is unique? Working paper prepared for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. October 2004. Available at: http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/other/publichealthaccreditation.pdf. Accessed January 5, 2012.

11. Exploring accreditation: final recommendations for a voluntary national accreditation program for state and local public health departments. Winter 2006– 2007. Available at: http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/explore_accreditation.pdf. Accessed January 5, 2012.
12. Mays G, Beitsch LM, Corso L, Chang C, Brewer R. States gathering momentum: promising strategies for accreditation and assessment activities in multistate learning collaborative applicant States. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2007;13(4):364–373.
13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. New accreditation opportunity for state, local, tribal health departments [press release]. March 24, 2011. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2011/p0324_publichealthdeptaccreditation.h tml. Accessed January 6, 2012.
14. American Public Health Association. Policy Statement 5610. Available at: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=381. Accessed January 3, 2012.
15. American Public Health Association. Policy Statement 6007. Available at: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=446. Accessed January 3, 2012.
16. Proposed Local Standards and Measures. Adopted by the PHAB Board of Directors, July 16, 2009. For PHAB Beta Test. Available at: http://www.in.gov/isdh/files/PHABLocalJuly2009-­‐finaleditforbeta.pdf. Accessed January 6, 2012.
17. Public Health Accreditation Board. Standards & Measures Version 1.0. Approved May 2011. Available at: http://www.phaboard.org/wp-­‐content/uploads/PHAB-­‐ Standards-­‐and-­‐Measures-­‐Version-­‐1.0.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2012.
18. NORC at the University of Chicago. Evaluation of the Public Health Accreditation Board beta test [Brief report; July 2011]. Available at: http://www.phaboard.org/wp-­‐ content/uploads/EvaluationofthePHABBetaTestBriefReportAugust2011.pdf. Accessed January 6, 2012.
19. Trust for America’s Health. Chart of FY 2011 Prevention Fund FOAs [funding opportunity announcements]. June 28, 2011. Available at: http://www.healthyamericans.org/assets/files/Chart of FY2011 Prevention Fund FOAs.pdf. Accessed January 6, 2012.
20. Bender K, Halverson P. Quality improvement and accreditation: what might it look like? J Public Health Manag Pract. 2010;16(1):79–82.
21. Internal Revenue Service. Available at: www.irs.gov. Accessed May 10, 2011.
22. The Joint Commission. Available at: http://www.jointcommission.org. Accessed February 14, 2011.
23. Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Available at: http://www.chea.org. Accessed February 14, 2011.
24. National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Healthcare—Executive Summary. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services, OPHS, Office of Minority Health; March 2001.
25. Joly BM, Polyak G, Davis MV, et al. Linking accreditation and public health outcomes: a logic model approach. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2007;13(4):349–

356.
26. Public Health Accreditation Board. Accreditation: why it’s important now. Available at: http://www. improveph.org/accreditation/important.asp. Accessed January 6, 2012.
27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The National Public Health Performance Standards Program (NPHPSP) version 2. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nphpsp/TheInstruments.html. Accessed February 3, 2011.
28. Lenaway D, Corso L, Buchanan S, Thomas C, Astles R. Quality improvement and performance: CDC’s strategies to strengthen public health. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2010;16(1):11–13.
29. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Office for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support. November 2010. National voluntary accreditation for public health departments. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ostlts/accreditation/benefits.html. Accessed January 6, 2012.
30. American Public Health Association. APHA Policy Statement 201015: Securing the Long-­‐Term Sustainability of State and Local Health Departments. 2010. Available at: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1404. Accessed January 4, 2012.]

156~2013_(1)AzPHA HA Policy #201119_Accreditation PH Board(public health infrastructure)

2013- Annual Influenza Vaccination Requirements for Health Workers

Annual Influenza Vaccination Requirements for Health Workers

Policy Date: 8-5-13

Purpose: Recognizing immunization as a premier public health intervention of the 20th century, the Arizona Public Health Association (AzPHA) has advocated for effective implementation of universal immunization and recommended requiring all health workers, as well as students in these fields, to be immunized against all vaccine-preventable diseases. This position statement examines influenza prevention in the United States today in the context of this longstanding AzPHA position. Immunizing health workers against influenza has an impact on the workers themselves and their coworkers and families, on patients in the healthcare facilities and community-based settings where they work, on overall community wide immunity, and on the health system’s capacity to provide safe care and its readiness to meet both routine and emergent service demands. This Policy closely models one adopted by the American Public Health Association in 2010. 1

The Problem

Influenza and its complications account for the greatest number of vaccine-preventable deaths worldwide: one-quarter to one-half million deaths occur every year from approximately 3 to 5 million infections that cause severe disease and hospitalization 10–12 In the United States, influenza annually affects approximately 15% of adults; 15 to 60 million cases lead to 250,000 or more hospitalizations and from 20,000 to more than 40,000 deaths.15–23 In Arizona, the most recent influenza season (2011-2012) was mild with only Influenza- related death toll estimates in some years have reached as high as 80,000 nationally. Together with pneumonia, it is the 8th leading cause of death in the United States and the 5th leading cause of death among those 65 years old and older24—with annual direct medical costs of $3 billion to
$10.4 billion and $16.3 billion in indirect costs.25–30 Local epidemics are frequent.

As its population ages, the United States has been experiencing higher influenza-related mortality, including influenza pneumonia and cardiopulmonary disease. Although not more susceptible to infection, people older than 65 years are typically at highest risk for complications and death from the disease. From 1979 to 2000, influenza hospitalization rates for elderly patients were 17 times higher than the average rate, and more than 90% of the patients who died were elderly.31–33 Yet more than half of influenza-related hospitalizations are reported in people younger than 65 years.20,32 Estimated rates of influenza-associated hospitalization and death start to rise around 50 years of age and continue upward thereafter.24,32,33

Pregnant women experience more complications than others with influenza. Besides being less likely to become infected with influenza during infancy, the newborns of women who had influenza vaccine when pregnant weigh more and are healthier at birth than those whose mothers did not.34,35

Influenza can trigger the complications of chronic disorders. People with diabetes; cardiovascular disease; or chronic lung, renal, or liver conditions are at higher risk for influenza morbidity and complications.36–51 During periods of high influenza incidence, hospitalizations of adults with these high-risk medical conditions may increase 2- to 5-fold, depending on age group. People with cancer and other immunocompromising conditions are especially susceptible to severe complications.45,46,47 With an estimated 7% to 10% death rate, cancer patients are 10 times more likely to die than others hospitalized with flu-related infections, and this mortality impact is particularly notable among those younger than 65 years.45 Residents in long-term care facilities have a greater risk for infection because they live in close quarters in closed settings and have contact with numerous caregivers. Because residents often have multiple underlying medical problems, long-term care facility outbreaks are associated with significant morbidity and mortality.20,52–55

Protecting Health Workers From Influenza

Health workers include all workers who, during the course of their work, have direct or indirect contact with the recipients of a preventive or restorative health service or related social or counseling services or with their caregivers, family members, or household members—regardless of the location where they perform their work. This contact may be a part of their normal work duties or may occur incidental to work activities—routinely or infrequently. They include full- time and part-time employees, contract or per diem workers, independent consultants, volunteers, trainees, and students. Those not directly involved in direct care may, nevertheless, be exposed to infected people; infectious materials; or contaminated supplies, equipment, or environmental surfaces (e.g., food and housekeeping service workers).

AzPHA advocates protecting health workers on the job. This includes putting worker health and safety first, ensuring protection through tough enforcement of existing regulations, establishing new worker protections, and increasing worker participation in workplace safety and health programs.55 Any workplace can be a setting for influenza transmission (not just healthcare facilities). Health workers can likewise be exposed to influenza anywhere in the community.
Occupational exposure to infected patients, however, especially those with unrecognized infection, heightens risk for health workers. If infected at work, they can, in turn, unknowingly transmit infection to coworkers and carry infection home to family members.

Up to 25% of unvaccinated health workers may be infected each year.40,58,59 Health workers themselves (and their family members) frequently have medical conditions that raise their risk for influenza morbidity and mortality.60 In addition, the frequently noted aging of the healthcare workforce places an increasingly greater number and proportion of health workers in a higher- risk category.

Influenza infection is readily spread by respiratory droplets. It mainly spreads from person to person when a host coughs or sneezes, with greater contagion in semiclosed or crowded environments. Less efficient transmission also may occur through indirect contact, such as touching something already laden with virus, then touching the eyes or nose. Symptoms usually appear 1 to 4 days after infection, and an infected person is contagious during this asymptomatic period. Approximately 20% of cases remain subclinical.11,20 Thus, we cannot rely on signs of another person’s illness to alert us to use protective barriers, nor is an infected person necessarily even aware of having been exposed.

Annual vaccination is the most effective method for preventing influenza infection and its severe complications.21,22,61–69 Primary prevention by vaccination is therefore at the top of the influenza infection control hierarchy. Influenza vaccination of healthcare workers is the single most important measure for preventing occupation-acquired and nosocomial influenza from both known and unexpected sources. Other measures, such as hand hygiene and barrier precautions, are additional protective steps, not alternatives. Masks or respirators, whether worn by people with influenza-like illness (ILI) symptoms or those who are in proximity to them, are not as protective as preexposure immunization, especially given the high proportion of asymptomatic infectious people. Influenza occurs in healthcare workers even when there is high personal protective equipment (PPE) adherence.59 Improving influenza vaccination rates in health workers is thus essential for their safety and for infection control.

Social Justice Perspective—For Workers and Patients

Addressing the risk to patients is an especially salient social justice issue when poverty, poor health infrastructure, low health literacy, or lack of information influence their susceptibility status.70–72 In turn, unvaccinated people can experience a double jeopardy disparity when, in a healthcare setting, they are exposed to infected personnel—the healthcare system fails them twice.

Unvaccinated status may reflect a disparity in access to the primary care that should afford a person timely counsel from a healthcare provider to get vaccinated.73 Access to health care is a predictor of influenza vaccination, even among those at high risk for complications.43,71,74 Access limitations exist not only for people in medically underserved or low socioeconomic communities, but also for many others who, for whatever reason, lack a medical home or may not know that gratis vaccination is available or where to find it. A high proportion of health workers represent minority ethnic groups, including many immigrants, and health workers from different racial and ethnic groups have significantly different immunization vaccination rates.38,39,43, 44,73–75

Chronic conditions that put people at higher risk for influenza-related morbidity and mortality, such as diabetes and asthma, are more prevalent in African Americans and Hispanics than in Whites. Yet influenza vaccination rates are lower in these populations, including among those with greater influenza risks, such as the elderly and people with diabetes or heart, lung, or renal disease.38,39,43,44,48–50,71,73–77 African Americans have a higher influenza hospitalization rate than other races/ethnicities.

The strongest and most frequently asserted ethical principle is that the healthcare provider’s primary duty is to protect and avoid harming those served, often articulated as “First,
do no harm.” The healthcare consumer has the right to assume that health workers, and the organizations that employ them, will take all reasonable measures to avoid transmitting communicable pathogens for which safe and effective vaccines exist.78–81 Bioethicist Arthur Caplan maintains, “Getting a flu shot is the least those who claim to be bound by professional ethics ought to do.”82 American Nurses Association President Rebecca Patton enjoins her colleagues, “As nurses, we have an ethical obligation to protect ourselves, our patients, and our families from illness. Vaccination is one simple step we can take to do that.”83 Matthew Wynia, Director of the American Medical Association Institute for Bioethics, adds that “patients should be informed when they are seeing a healthcare worker who has refused vaccination.”81

The public reporting of staff vaccination rates at healthcare facilities as both a quality measure and a matter of transparency to inform communities, patients, and visitors has also been recommended 21,40,78,81 as a component of retrospective patient safety “report cards” with real- time, facility wide, and unit-specific posting during influenza seasons. Current Medicare-Medicaid requirements for reporting of nursing home residents’ vaccination rates could be expanded to include staff coverage too.

Improving Vaccination Coverage of Health Workers

Improving influenza vaccination rates in health workers provides benefits to workers, patients, and health service agencies. Preventing both community and workplace influenza transmission to health workers is essential both for maintaining a safe work environment in healthcare settings and for ensuring staffing capacity. ILI-related absenteeism can cause or exacerbate significant staffing shortages, which can be especially problematic during influenza’s peak periods.28,29,59,60,84–86 Staff immunization is highly cost-effective and can be cost saving.25,26 Additional costs for healthcare organizations implicit during and after a nosocomial influenza outbreak are also relevant considerations.26,28,29

Since 1984, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has continually recommended universal annual influenza vaccination for health workers.87 At the millennium, 60% was targeted as the national 2010 health objective for healthcare personnel and all adults younger than 64 years, with a 90% goal for older adults.77 Since 2007, the Joint Commission has required accredited hospitals and long- term care facilities to offer influenza vaccination to staff and independent licensed practitioners as a patient safety and infection control standard.88,89 Unions, too, urge strong enforcement of prevention steps to protect health workers, including influenza vaccination,56,90,91 encouraging members working in health services to get influenza vaccination and calling for healthcare employers to provide free vaccination to employees.91 Nevertheless, the vaccination rate among health workers has remained dismally low, typically less than 30% (often much lower) and infrequently reaching 50%, even in hospital units caring for high-risk patients.92 In fact, as a group, health workers are among the most poorly covered.68 By mid-January 2010, after unprecedented intense, communitywide promotion efforts across the country, the highest level ever was reached, though it was still less than 70%.97

The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) took the position that “education and adherence to infection control practices should be mandatory” in 2006 but questioned whether evidence regarding the benefit of healthcare worker vaccination to patient safety was then currently adequate to override workers’ autonomy to refuse.127 Since then, more than 100 institutions across at least 30 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia—small and large, public and voluntary—have successfully implemented mandates.79 Reports from these institutions and multifacility systems indicate that mandates are a highly effective intervention, resulting in the highest reported rates for any intervention designed to improve coverage.79,118,124–130 As more employers establish and implement requirements, reports demonstrate their effectiveness with little, if any, negative impacts. A CDC-sponsored RAND Corporation study found that when healthcare employers required staff to be vaccinated against seasonal flu, the vaccination rates were twice as high as when employers recommended vaccination but did not require it.97 During the 2010-2011 influenza season, coverage for influenza vaccination among health care workers was estimated at 63.5%. Coverage was 98.1% among health care workers who had an employer requirement for vaccination.

Patient Safety Concerns in Healthcare Settings

The patient safety issue has been highlighted by the Joint Commission, the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America, IDSA, ACP, the Association of Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, ACOEM, the National Patient Safety Foundation, the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, the Immunization Action Coalition, the Society of Healthcare Epidemiologists of America, and the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee of the CDC.78,79,88–90,118,122,127,143–145 The consensus among these national agencies and organizations is that influenza vaccination of health workers is crucial. Unvaccinated workers can introduce infection or propagate an outbreak in any facility or congregate community setting.
Barrier precautions must be considered for unvaccinated workers (regardless of the reason for not being immunized) when they are within a specified proximity of susceptible patients.78,79,85,123

Unfortunately, neither nosocomial influenza nor staff vaccination status has been routinely tracked at hospitals, but available data nevertheless demonstrate a link between staff vaccination and nosocomial infection.117,149–152 A national survey of 50 university-affiliated hospitals found 62% monitored healthcare-associated influenza, documenting a range of 0 to 5 cases per 10,000 inpatient days.119 A tertiary medical center that tracked hospital-acquired influenza for more than a decade found a strong association with the vaccination rate of healthcare workers: The nosocomial infection rate was totally eliminated when the staff vaccination rate rose 63% above its baseline rate.131

Immunizing staff even adds complementary protection to the most vulnerable and those with weaker immune responses to vaccination.21,31,42,43,50,70–76,131,153 Epidemiology shows that staff immunization is necessary to control outbreaks in nursing homes, even when there are high immunization rates of residents.31,70–76,131,153,142 A RAND Corporation study of 301 nursing homes found that, regardless of facility size, only the immunization of both staff and residents reduced the rate of ILI cluster outbreaks.131 Even when 60% of patients have been vaccinated, vaccinating staff enhances mortality reduction.130 These findings are especially relevant when the season’s vaccine is not well matched to the most common virus strain; that is, even higher vaccine uptake is then needed to achieve group protection (herd immunity).

Community/General Population—Beyond Hospital Walls

Health work settings include not only acute and chronic care facilities (e.g., hospitals, nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities, long-term residential facilities, rehabilitation care centers, residential substance abuse treatment programs) but also outpatient facilities (e.g., medical and dental offices, clinics and community health centers, urgent care centers) emergency services, and community-based residential settings ranging from group homes to assisted living facilities. Of no less concern is the safety of workers in home care, school health services, shelters for the homeless, mental health centers, senior centers, day care centers for adults or children, and the like, along with the safety of the people served in these settings. Nursing home assistants have been called the forgotten workers, but home care workers are the truly invisible, whether caring for children or elders, and are least likely to have employer-paid health insurance or other healthcare benefits, such as vaccination. Often providing the only support for the community’s frail, disabled, or homebound, they have an essential role in the health sector. Unlike in hospitals, clinics, and medical offices, the home care worker typically has less control over environmental infection control than workers in other settings, usually works alone and without supervision or collegial assistance, and may have to improvise when supplies run out. Likewise, the “medical rooms” or “nurse’s offices” in schools usually have not been designed to facilitate respiratory infection control.

Ethical Rationale for a Mandatory Approach

Public health’s societal reach has strong ethical foundations. Vaccination mandates represent an important area of focus for ethics, equity, and public health practice, acting as an equalizer for those who fall through the cracks.70,202,203 With few exceptions,204–206 ethical reviews that weigh the pros and cons of requiring healthcare worker influenza vaccination conclude with support for the mandatory approach.82,164,207–213 For example, Anikeeva and colleagues noted in the American Journal of Public Health that “It is unlikely that purely voluntary programs [though preferable] will achieve vaccination rates that are sufficient to meet the ethical obligations of beneficence and nonmaleficence [E]vidence shows that the most successful
option for increasing vaccination rates is to make annual immunization of health care workers mandatory” with sanctions for refusal.214p28 Statdtlander responded, further asserting that from the individual patient and public/societal perspectives, the unvaccinated healthcare worker pursues his or her own interest and misses the opportunity to demonstrate personal and professional integrity.80 Matthew Wynia, director of the American Medical Association Institute for Bioethics, likewise asserted that mandates are “sorely needed” and that there should be “significant barriers to opting out.”81

The ACP call for making healthcare worker influenza vaccination mandatory emphasizes the ethical underpinning: “Vaccinating healthcare workers against influenza represents a duty of care, and a standard of quality care, so it should be reasonable that this duty should supersede healthcare worker personal preference.”122p2

For organizations with a healthcare mission, a population focus on health (i.e., public health) is an aspect of organizational ethics.221 Achieving near universal influenza vaccination rates is thus part of the moral grounding of healthcare organizations, integral to a contract of solidarity with their communities, not merely an aspirational idea. The community at large may regard health workers’ actions and their employers’ requirements as an indicator of whether to place importance on particular preventive health guidance. Indeed, healthcare providers are cited as the most frequent source of information about vaccines and vaccination, even by unvaccinated people and the parents of unvaccinated children.222 Thus, it is posited that health workers have a responsibility to the public—to patients and society at large—to demonstrate confidence in and adherence to scientific standards.222 This concern takes on particular resonance in the context of the current ACIP/CDC recommendation for universal immunization against influenza of everyone older than 6 months.223

Stepwise implementation and initial soft enforcement may be effective. Some employers have first boosted coverage by initially coupling recommendations for vaccination with education and promotion campaigns and then advancing in a subsequent season to requiring signed declinations with individual employee health counseling, perhaps along with supervisory feedback before moving to fully implement a vaccination requirement that precludes declining for other than religious grounds.65,118,128,135 Leapfrogging directly to a fully mandatory policy can be a more practical and cost-effective approach for others and may be more efficient when a large proportion of the community or an institution’s staff is susceptible.

Conclusion

Requirements for influenza vaccination are congruent with existing standards of prevention practice for other conditions. Requiring vaccination for workers in clinical settings is a long-time, widely used standard practice when healthcare workers can be vectors of infection, particularly airborne pathogens. For example, requirements for measles, varicella, and rubella immunization are virtually unquestioned and have been effective in controlling outbreaks and reducing nosocomial transmission. Some states already mandate influenza vaccination for workers in long- term care facilities, and several have requirements for acute care facilities.59,224,225 More consistent enforcement is needed, along with adequate funding for monitoring and evaluation.
Vaccination requirements must be part of comprehensive worker and patient safety programs, which start with promoting an organizational culture of safety that involves all levels of staff in planning, implementation, and evaluation. A culture of safety permeates the organization from the top and colors every decision within it.226 It reflects a commitment that all are entitled to the highest quality protection.201 Providers are accountable to the service-seeking public to ensure optimal safety conditions. There must be broad stakeholder engagement across the health sector, including public health and related regulatory agencies, to prevent the spread of infection and reducing harm from complications. Recognizing employee vaccination as an important safety measure, all steps needed to maximize coverage must be taken.89

Mandates provide the blueprint for accountability; they also require cooperation. They involve an intensive education effort, logistical planning, and outreach to make vaccine administration conveniently accessible. As with other initiatives, the implementation of mandates requires tailoring to specific settings, individual institutions, and their employees. A one-size-fits-all approach cannot suit the needs of the varied population of health workers and diverse institutional cultures.

Continuing evaluation to determine the effectiveness of institutional mandates and external regulations or legislation, which should address appropriate data collection for evaluative monitoring—with standardized, uniform definitions for tracking criteria—capable of producing the scientific evidence needed for risk assessment and capable of assigning responsibility is essential. Annual, discriminate monitoring of mandatory and nonmandatory program implementation and outcomes is needed to track costs and workers’ participation in education activities, vaccination status, medical contraindications, medical waivers, reasons for requests to decline vaccination, illness and absenteeism during influenza season, and responses to and satisfaction with vaccination program components. Evaluation studies using large administrative databases must, therefore, be key components of public policy for immunization. Nosocomial influenza monitoring must likewise be part of routine institutional surveillance.

Requiring vaccination of health workers is not a panacea for influenza control and should not divert attention from other important infection control measures. Mandates rest on the premise that a sufficiently vaccinated workforce is a critical component of maintaining and promoting the public’s health. Whereas health workers may choose to pursue other individual health behaviors, their vaccination choices, and the potential result of those choices, affect all others with whom they come in contact.

Therefore, the Arizona Public Health Association—
• Urges providers, employers, and other organizations to implement comprehensive infection control programs that include vaccination requirements along with vaccination training and education, respiratory protection, standard respiratory precautions, and housekeeping routines in keeping with infection control standards.
• Emphasizes that vaccination of health workers is important not only for patient safety but also for their own protection and calls for strengthening both the health sector’s commitment to safe working environments and its capacity to achieve national goals for protecting the health workforce from influenza through education and convenient access to employer-provided vaccination.
• Strongly recommends that institutions that train health professionals, deliver health care, or provide laboratory or other medical support services require immunizations for personnel at risk for contracting or transmitting vaccine-preventable illnesses.
• Encourages institutional, employer, and public health policy to require influenza vaccination of all health workers as a precondition of employment and thereafter on an annual basis, unless a medical contraindication recognized in national guidelines is documented in the worker’s health record. An educational component should be created for health workers to learn about vaccine safety science.
• Urges providers of health and related social services, professional associations, and unions to promote greater influenza vaccination uptake by healthcare workers as an essential component of worker safety programs.
• Encourages other organizations and associations involved in promoting public health and those representing health workers to endorse positions that promote annual influenza vaccination of

health workers, including affirmative support for requirements such as public position statements, public service ads, testimony in public and government forums, and friend-of-court briefs when legal challenges to them are raised.
• Recommends that schools and programs of public health, medicine, nursing, dentistry, and other health professions and occupations promote awareness of the science underlying the safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination and the ethical responsibility of health workers to put the interests of public health and safety ahead of personal preference and convenience.
• Advises that requirements should not place additional burdens on workers and emphasizes that employers of health personnel have the responsibility to offer vaccine and facilitate vaccine administration at worksites or other convenient locations and times. Employer responsibility for administering vaccine to staff should not be deferred to local health departments.
• Advocates for assurance of compensation to health workers and their families if serious vaccine-associated adverse events arise, with explicit inclusion in the federal vaccine injury compensation system.
• Calls for posting staff influenza vaccination rates at health facilities and related Web sites and including this measure in quality assurance, facility accreditation, and patient safety report cards.
• Urges strong surveillance of both occupational and nosocomial influenza rates and related complications, as well as continuing evaluation of health worker vaccination programs, including required efforts.
• Supports continued prioritization of health worker and first responder vaccination in emergency preparedness plans as well as seasonal epidemics.

References
1. American Public Health Association. APHA policy statement 2010. Annual Influenza Vaccination Requirements for Health Workers. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2010. Available at: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1410 http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/oids/epi/flu/pdf/influenza/influenza11-12-summary.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/HealthcareWorkers.htm
American Public Health Association. APHA policy statement 2006-3: Preparing for Pandemic Influenza. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2006. Available at: www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1327. Accessed June 16, 2010.
2. American Public Health Association. APHA policy statement 2005-2: Developing a comprehensive public health approach to influenza. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2005. Available at: www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1307. Accessed June 16, 2010.
3. American Public Health Association. APHA policy statement 2004-11: Threats to Public Health Science. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2004. Available at: www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1297. Accessed June 16, 2010.
7. American Public Health Association. APHA policy statement 89-06: Recommendations for adult immunization. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1989. Available at: www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1185. Accessed June 16, 2010.
8. American Public Health Association. APHA Vision and Mission. Available at: www.apha.org/about/gov/execboard/executiveboardvisionmission.htm. Accessed June 16, 2010.
9. American Public Health Association. Overview. Available at: www.apha.org/about. Accessed June 16, 2010.

10. World Health Organization. Influenza. 2010. Available at: www.euro.who.int/en/what-we- do/health-topics/diseases-and-conditions/influenza, Accessed May 18, 2010.
11. World Health Organization. Reducing Excess Mortality From Common Illnesses During an Influenza Pandemic. WHO/HSE/EPR/DCE/2008.6. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2008. Available at: www.who.int/diseasecontrol_emergencies/common_illnesses2008_6.
pdf. Accessed December 2, 2010.
12. World Health Organization. Influenza Fact Sheet (Fact Sheet No. 211). Available at: www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs211/en/index.html. Accessed February 5, 2010.
131. Morens DM, Fauci AS. The 1918 influenza pandemic: insights for the 21st century. J Infect Dis. 2007;195:1018–1028.
14. WHO. Guidelines for the Use of Seasonal Influenza Vaccination in Humans at Risk of H5N1 Infection. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2004.
15. Thompson WW, Shay DK, Weintraub E, et al. Mortality associated with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in the United States. JAMA. 2003;289:179–186.
16. Roush SW, Murphy TV. Preventable Disease Table Working Group. Historical comparisons of morbidity and mortality for vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States. JAMA. 2007;298:2155–2163.
17. Thompson WW, Shay DK, Weintraub E, et al. Influenza-associated hospitalizations in the United States. JAMA. 2004;292:1333–1340.
18. Doshi P. Trends in recorded influenza mortality: United States, 1900–2004. Am J Public Health. 2008;98:939–945.
197. Fiore AE, Bridges CB, Cox NJ. Seasonal influenza vaccines. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2009;333:43–82.
20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: influenza activity—United States, 2004– 05 season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2005;54(8):193–216.
21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza vaccination of health-care personnel: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2006;55(RR-2):1–16.
22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2005;54(RR-8):6.
23. Walter ND, Taylor TH, Shay DK, et al. Influenza circulation and the burden of invasive pneumococcal pneumonia during a nonpandemic period in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50:175–183.
24. Heron M, Hoyert DL, Murphy SL, Xu J, Kochanek KD, Tejada-Vera B. Deaths: final data for 2006. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2009;57(14):1–135. Available at: www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2010.
25. Burls A, Jordan R, Barton P, et al. Vaccinating healthcare workers against influenza to protect the vulnerable—Is it a good use of healthcare resources? A systematic review of the evidence and an economic evaluation. Vaccine. 2006;24:4212–4221.
26. Molinari N-AM, Ortega-Sanchez IR, Messonnier ML, et al. The annual impact of seasonal influenza in the US: Measuring disease burden and costs. Vaccine. 2007;25:5086–5096.
27. Salgado CD, Farr BM, Hall KK, Hayden FG. Influenza in the acute hospital setting. Lancet Infect Dis. 2002;2:145–155.
28. Fralick RA. Absenteeism among hospital staff during influenza epidemic [letter]. CMAJ. 1985;133(7):641–642.
29. Hammond GW, Cheang M. Absenteeism among hospital staff during an influenza epidemic: implications for immunoprophylaxis. CMAJ. 1984;131(5):449–452.
30. Keech M, Beardsworth P. The impact of influenza on working days lost: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:911–924.

31. Shugarman L, Hales C, Setodji C, Bardenheier B, Lynn J. The influence of staff and resident immunization rates on influenza-like illness outbreaks in nursing homes. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2006;7(9):562–567.
32. Talbot HK, Williams JV, Zhu Y, Poehling KA, Griffin MR, Edwards KM. Failure of routine diagnostic methods to detect influenza in hospitalized older adults. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31:683–688.
33. Simonsen I, Reichert TA, Viboud C, Blackwelder WC, Taylor RJ, Miller MA. Impact of influenza vaccination on seasonal mortality in the US elderly population. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:265–272.
34. Vazquez M, Benowitz I, Esposito D, DePeau K, Martinello RA, Shapiro ED. Flu vaccine given to women during pregnancy keeps women out of the hospital. Paper presented at: Infectious Diseases Society of America meeting; October 29, 2009; Philadelphia, Pa.
35. Zaman K, Roy E, Arifeen SE, et al. 2008. Effectiveness of maternal influenza immunization in mothers and infants. N Engl J Med. 2008;350:1554–1564.
36. Bertoni AG, Saydah S, Brancati FL. Diabetes and the risk of infection-related mortality in the US. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:1044–1049.
37. Carman WF, Elder AG, Wallace LA, et al. Effects of influenza vaccination of health-care workers on mortality of elderly people in long-term care: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2000;355(9198):93–97.
38. Egede LE, Zheng D. Racial/ethnic differences in adult vaccination among individuals with diabetes. Am J Pub Health. 2003; 93(2):324–328.
39. Rangel MC, Shoenbach VJ, Weigle KA, Hogan VK, Strauss RP, Bangdiwala SI. Racial and ethnic disparities in influenza vaccination among elderly adults. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:426– 431.
40. Hoffmann CJ, Perl TM. The next battleground for patient safety: influenza immunization of healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidem. 2005;26(11):850–851.
41. Koziel H, Hoziel MJ. Pulmonary complications of diabetes mellitus—pneumonia. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 1995;9:65–96.
42. Polgreen PM, Septimus EJ, Parry MF, et al. Relationship of influenza vaccination declination statements and influenza vaccination rates for healthcare workers in 22 US hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29(7):675–657.
43. Singleton JA, Wortley P, Lu PJ. Influenza vaccination of persons with cardiovascular disease in the United States. Tex Heart Inst J. 2004;31(1):22–27.
44. Zimmerman RK, Hoberman A, Nowalk MP, et al. Improving influenza vaccination rates of high-risk inner-city children over 2 intervention years. Ann Fam Med. 2006;4(6):534–540.
45. Cooksley CD, Avritscher EBC, Bekele BN, Rolston KV, Geraci JM, Elting LS. Epidemiology and outcomes of serious influenza-related infections in the cancer population. Cancer. 2005;104(3):618–628.
46. Earle CC. Influenza vaccination in elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(6):1161–1166.\
47. Mah MW, Hagen NA, Karen P-S, et al. Understanding influenza vaccination attitudes at a Canadian cancer center. Am J Infect Control. 2005;33(4):243–250.
48. Shih, Y-C T, Pan I-W. Influenza vaccination among individuals with cancer and their family members. Am J Prev Med. 2010; 38(1)61–69.
49. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza and pneumococcal vaccination rates among persons with diabetes mellitus—United States, 1997. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999;48:961–967.
50. Ajani UA, Ford ES, Mokdad AH. Examining the coverage of influenza vaccination among people with cardiovascular disease in the United States. Am Heart J. 2005;149:254–259.
51. McCullers JA, Speck KM, Williams BF, Liang H, Mirro J. Increased influenza vaccination of healthcare workers at a pediatric cancer hospital: results of a comprehensive influenza

vaccination campaign. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006; 27:77–79.
52. Hurley JC, Flockhart S. An influenza outbreak in a regional residential facility. J Infect Prev. 2010;11(2):58–61.
53. Kimura AC, Nguyen CN, Higa JI, Hurwitz EL, Vugia DJ. The effectiveness of vaccine day and educational interventions on influenza vaccine coverage among health care workers at long- term care facilities. Am J Public Health. 2007;97;684–690.
54. Thompson WW, Moore MR, Weintraub E, et al. Estimating influenza-associated deaths in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2009;99:S225–S230.
55. Harrison R, Monforton C, O’Connor T, Graham T. Protecting workers on the job: 7 priorities for federal action in 2009. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association (APHA), National Council for Occupational Safety and Health (COSH). Available at: www.apha.org/NR/rdonlyres/FCA6DC31-545A-4561-BB58- FD924EA7A37D/0/ProtectingWorkersontheJobJan2009.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2010.
56. Borwegen W. Hazards for health care workers. Paper presented at: Annual Scientific Meeting—NYNJ Education and Research Consortium, Mt. Sinai Medical Center; April 9, 2010; New York, NY.
57. Janocha JA, Smith RT. Workplace safety and health in the health care and social assistance industry, 2003-07. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, originally posted August 30, 2010. Available at: www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/print/sh20100825ar01p1.htm. Accessed March 1, 2011.
58. Kieny MP. The pandemic influenza vaccine challenge. Vaccine. 2008;26S:D3–D4.
59. Birkhead G. Influenza vaccination of health care personnel: a patient safety issue. Paper presented at: Annual Scientific Meeting–NYNJ Education and Research Consortium, Mt. Sinai Medical Center, April 9, 2010, New York, NY.
60. Walker FJ, Singleton JA, Lu P, Wooten KG, Strikas RA. Influenza vaccination of healthcare workers in the United States, 1989–2002. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27:257–265.
61. Wilde JA, McMillan JA, Serwint J, Butta J, O’Riordan MA, Steinhoff MC. Effectiveness of influenza vaccine in health care professionals: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1999;281(10):4212– 4221.
62. Poland GA. If you could halve the mortality rate, would you do it? Clin Infect Dis. 2002;35:378–380.
63. Poland GA. Health care workers and influenza vaccine: first do no harm, then do the right thing. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2004;44(5):637–638.
64. Poland GA, Tosh P, Jacobson RM. Requiring influenza vaccination for health care workers: seven truths we must accept. Vaccine. 2005; 23:2251–2255.
65. National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. Improving Influenza Vaccination Rates in Health Care Workers: Strategies to Increase Protection for Workers and Patients. Washington, DC: National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, 2004. Available at: www.nfid.org/pdf/publications/hcwmonograph.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2010.
66. Myers AL, Lantos J, Douville L, Jackson MA. Healthcare worker knowledge and attitudes regarding influenza immunization and childhood vaccination. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31:643–646.
67. Nichol KL. Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccination. Vaccine. 2008;26S:D17– D22.
68. Nichol KL, D’Heilly SJ, Greenberg ME, Ehlinger E. Burden of influenza-like illness and effectiveness of influenza vaccination among working adults 50–64 years. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:292–298.
69. Nichol KL. Improving influenza vaccination rates among adults. Cleveland Clinic J Med. 2006;73(11):1009–1015.
70. Ransom J, Swain GR, Duchin JS. Ethics, public health, and immunization mandates. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2006; 14(4):410–412.
71. Bouye K, Truman BI, Hutchins S, et al. Pandemic influenza preparedness and response

among public-housing residents, single-parent families, and low-income populations. Am J Public Health. 2009;99:S287–S293.
72. Yamada T. Poverty, wealth, and access to pandemic influenza vaccines. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1129–1131.
73. Sebelius K. Speech. National Immunization Conference; April 19, 2010; Atlanta Ga. Available at: www.hhs.gov/secretary/about/speeches/sp20100419.html. Accessed May 16, 2010.
74. Logan Jennifer L. Disparities in influenza immunization among US adults. J Natl Med Assoc. 2009;101:161–166.
75. Li Y, Mukamel DB. Racial disparities in receipt of influenza and pneumococcus vaccinations among US nursing-home residents. Am J Public Health. 2000;100:S256–S262.
76. Yogev R. Influenza vaccine confusion: a call for an alternative evidence-based approach. Pediatrics. 2005;116:1214–1215.
77. Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2000. Also available at: www.healthypeople.gov/publications/. Accessed November 29, 2009.
78. National Patient Safety Foundation. Mandatory flu vaccinations for healthcare workers. Press release, November 18, 2009. Available at: www.npsf.org/pr/pressrel/2009-11-18.php. Accessed January 17, 2010.
79. Immunization Action Coalition. Patient safety clarion call: honoring mandatory influenza vaccination for healthcare workers. Press release, October 12, 2009. www.immunize.org/press/pr_honorroll.asp. Accessed January 4, 2010.
80. Stadtlander, CTK-H. Influenza vaccination and health care workers: what about the patients? [electronic letter]. Am J Public Health. 2009; 99. Available at: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/eletters/99/1/24. Accessed December 4, 2009.
81. Wynia MK. Mandating vaccination: what counts as a ‘mandate’ in public health and when should they be used? Am J Bioethics. 2007;7(12):2–6.
82. Caplan A. Opinion: health workers must get flu shot or quit. MSNBC.com, October 8, 2009. Available at: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33210502/ns/health-health_care/. Accessed January 4, 2010.
83. American Nurses Association. ANA urges registered nurses to get the H1N1 vaccine. Press release, October 27,2009. Accessed November 5, 2009 at www.nursingworld.org/FunctionalMenuCategories/MediaResources/PressReleases/2009-PR.aspx
84. Polgreen PM, Chen Y, Beekmann S, et al. Elements of influenza vaccination programs that predict higher vaccination rates: results of an emerging infections network survey. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46(1):14–19.
85. Treanor JD. Influenza–the goal of control. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357:1439–1441.
86. Chan SS. Does vaccinating ED health care workers against influenza reduce sickness absenteeism? Am J Emerg Med. 2007;25;808–811.
87. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendation of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP)— prevention and control of influenza. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1984;33(19):253–260, 265–266. Available at: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00022714.htm. Accessed February 8, 2010.
88. Joint Commission. Joint Commission establishes infection control standard to address influenza vaccines for staff. Press release June 13, 2006. Available at: www.infectioncontroltoday.com/news/2006/06/joint-commission-establishes-infection-con- 102263.aspx. Accessed February 1, 2010.
89. Joint Commission Division on Quality Measurement and Research. Providing a Safer Environment for Healthcare Personnel and Patients Through Influenza Vaccination: Strategies for Research and Practice. Chicago, Ill: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; 2009.
90. Borwegen W. Comments at IOM Workshop on current research issues–personal protective

equipment for healthcare workers to prevent transmission of pandemic influenza and other viral respiratory infections; June 3, 2010, Washington, DC.
91. O’Neill S. Improving Influenza Vaccination Rates. Washington, DC: Service Employees International Union. Available at: http://sboh.wa.gov/Meetings/2007/03- 14/docs/Tab09c_Imm_SO_PPP.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2010.
92. Bryant K, Stover B, Cain L, Levine GL, Siegel J, Jarvis WR. Improving influenza immunization rates among healthcare workers caring for high-risk pediatric patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25(11):912–917
93. Beekman S, Talbot T, Septimus E, Parry M, Chen YY, Polgreen P, IDSA Emerging Infections Network. Use of influenza vaccination declination statements in 17 US hospitals: Results of an IDSA emerging infections network survey. Poster presentation. National Influenza Vaccine Summit, April 2007. Available at: http://ein.idsociety.org/file_storage/publications/IDSA07%20Flu%20Declination.pdf. Accessed February 10, 2010.
94. Talbot TR. Improving rates of influenza vaccination among healthcare workers: educate; motivate; mandate? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29(2):107–108.
95. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interventions to increase influenza vaccination of health-care workers—California and Minnesota. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2005;54(8);196–199.
96. Doratotaj S, Macknin M, Worley S. A novel approach to improve influenza vaccination rates among health care professionals: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Am J Infect Control. 2008;36:301–303.
97. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim results: Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent and seasonal influenza vaccination coverage among health care personnel—United States, August 2009–January 2010. MMWR. 2010;59:357–368.
98. Martinello RA, Jones L, Topal JE. Correlation between healthcare workers’ knowledge of influenza vaccine and vaccine receipt. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24(11):845–847.
99. Milunic SL, Quilty JF, Super DM, Noritz GH. Patterns of influenza vaccination among medical students. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(1):85–88.
100. Sartor C, Tissot-Dupont H, Zandotti C, Martin F, Roques P, Drancourt M. Use of a mobile cart influenza program for vaccination of hospital employees. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25:918–922.
101. Sartor C, Zandotti C, Romain F, et al. Disruption of services in an internal medicine unit due to a nosocomial influenza outbreak. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2002;23(10):615–619.
102. Tapiainen T, Bar G, Schaad UB, Heininger U. Influenza vaccination among healthcare workers in a university children’s hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005;26(11):855–858.
103. Clark SJ, Cowan AE, Wortley PM. Worksite policies related to influenza vaccination: a cross-sectional survey of US registered nurses. Hum Vaccin. 2009;5(8):545–550.
104. Clark SJ, Cowan AE, Wortley PM. Influenza vaccination attitudes and practices among US registered nurses. Am J Infect Control. 2009;37:551–556.
105. Bautista D, Vila B, Uso R, Tellez M, Zanon V. Predisposing, reinforcing, and enabling factors influencing influenza vaccination acceptance among healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006; 17:73–76.
106. Borlaug G, Newman A, Pfister J, Davis JP. Factors that influenced rates of influenza vaccination among employees of Wisconsin acute care hospitals and nursing homes during the 2005–2006 influenza season. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(12):1398–1400.
107. Godin G, Vézina-Im LA, Naccache H. Determinants of influenza vaccination among healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010; 31:681–693.
108. Blank DL, Bodansky DMS, Forbes A, et al. Influenza vaccination of future healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study of uptake, knowledge and attitudes. Vaccine. 28;4668–4672.
109. Hollmeyer HG, Hayden F, Poland G, Buchholz U. Influenza vaccination of health care workers in hospitals—a review of studies on attitudes and predictors. Vaccine. 2009;27(30):3935–3944.
110. LaVela S, Smith B, Weaver FM, Legro MW, Goldstein B, Nichol KL. Attitudes and practices regarding influenza vaccination among healthcare workers providing services to individual with spinal cord injuries and disorders. Infect Control and Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25(11):933–940.
111. Loulergue P, Moulin F, Vidal-Trecan G, et al. Knowledge, attitudes and vaccination coverage of healthcare workers regarding occupational vaccinations. Vaccine. 2009;27(31):4240– 4243.
112. Mah MW, Hagen NA, Karen P-S, et al. Understanding influenza vaccination attitudes at a Canadian cancer center. Am J Infect Control. 2005;33(4):243–250.
113. Piccirillo B, Gaeta T. Survey on use of and attitudes toward influenza vaccination among emergency department staff in a New York metropolitan hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27(6):618–622.
114. Willis BC, Wortley PM. Nurses’ attitudes and beliefs about influenza and the influenza vaccine: a summary of focus groups in Alabama and Michigan. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35:20– 24.
115. Wodi AP, Samy S, Ezeanolue E, et al. Influenza vaccine: immunization rates, knowledge, and attitudes of resident physicians in an urban teaching hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005;26(11):867–873.
116. Hofmann F, Ferracin C, Marsh G, Dumas R. Influenza vaccination of healthcare workers: a literature review of attitudes and beliefs. Infection. 2006;34(3):142–147.
117. Lester RT, McGeer A, Tomlinson G, Detsky A. Use of, effectiveness of, and attitudes regarding influenza vaccine among house staff. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24(11):839–844.
118. National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. Immunizing Healthcare Personnel Against Influenza: A Report on Best Practices. Bethesda, Md: National Foundation for Infectious Diseases; 2008. Available at: www.nfid.org/HCWtoolkit/BestPracticesToolkitDocument.pdf. Accessed November 28, 2009.
119. Talbot TR, Dellit T, Hebden J, Sama D, Cuny J. Factors associated with increased healthcare worker influenza vaccination rates: results from a national survey of university hospitals and medical centers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(5):456–462.
120. Nowalk MP, Lin CJ, Toback SL, et al. Improving influenza vaccination rates in the workplace a randomized trial. Am J Prev Med. 2009;38(3):237–246
121. Ofstead CL, Tucker SJ, Beebe TJ, Poland GA. Influenza vaccination among registered nurses: information receipt, knowledge, and decision-making at an institution with a multifaceted educational program. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29(2):99–106.
122. American College of Physicians. ACP Policy on influenza vaccination of health care workers. www.acponline.org/clinical_information/resources/adult_immunization/flu_policy_hcw.pdf. Accessed November 24, 2009.
123. Infectious Diseases Society of America. IDSA policy on mandatory immunization of health care workers against seasonal and 2009 H1N1 influenza. IDSA. September 30, 2009. Available at: www.idsociety.org/HCWimmunization/. Accessed December 2, 2010. Arlington, VA: Infectious Diseases Society of America; 2009.
124. Poland GA, Jacobson RM. Understanding those who do not understand: a brief review of the anti-vaccine movement. Vaccine. 2001;19(17–19):2440–2445.
125. Steiner M, Vermeulen LC, Mullahy J, Hayney MS. Factors influencing decisions regarding influenza vaccination and treatment: a survey of healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2002;23(10):625–627.
126. Sladek RM, Bond MJ, Phillips PA. Why don’t doctors wash their hands? A correlational study of thinking styles and hand hygiene. Am J Infect Control. 2008;36:399–406.
127. American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Position statement: seasonal influenza prevention in health care workers. Elk Grove Village, IL: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine; 2006. Available at: www.acoem.org/guidelines.aspx?id=5362. Accessed December 2, 2010.
128. Babcock HM, Gemeinhart N, Jones M, Dunagan WC, Woeltje KF. Mandatory influenza vaccination of health care workers: translating policy to practice. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(4):459–464.
129. Hagar BA. 2007 National Influenza Vaccine Summit Immunization Excellence Awards— Virginia Mason Medical Center’s mandatory vaccination campaign. Available at: www.preventinfluenza.org/summits/2007/Session_Four/Hagar_2007.pdf. Accessed January 13, 2010.
130. Helms CM, Polgreen PM. Should influenza immunization be mandatory for healthcare workers? BMJ. 2008;337:a2142.
131. Ajenjo MC, Woeltje KF, Babcock HM, Gemeinhart N, Jones M, Fraser VJ. Influenza vaccination among healthcare workers: ten-year experience of a large healthcare organization. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(3):233–240.
132. Lugo NR. Will carrots or sticks raise influenza immunization rates of health care personnel? Am J Infect Control. 2007;35(1):1–6.
133. Ribner BS, Hall C, Steinberg JP, et al. Use of a mandatory declination form in a program for influenza vaccination of healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29(4):302– 308.
134. Lugg MM. Employee influenza immunizations and declination forms: third time lucky? Paper presented at: National Immunization Conference; March 31, 2009; Dallas, Tex.
135. Hood J, smith A. Developing a “best practice” influenza vaccination program for health care workers–an evidence-based, leadership-modeled program. AAOHN J. 2009;57:308–312.
136. Palmore TN, Vandersluis JP, Morris J, et al. A successful mandatory influenza vaccination campaign using an innovative electronic tracking system. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009;30(12):1137–1142.
137. Talbot TR. Do declination statements increase health care worker influenza vaccination rate? Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49:773–779.
138. Omer SB, Salmon DA, Orenstein WA, deHart P, Halsey N. Vaccine refusal, mandatory immunization, and the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1981– 1988.
139. Salmon DA, Moulton LH, Omer SB, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of school nurses and personnel and association with nonmedical immunization exemptions. Pediatrics. 2004;113(6):e552–e559.
140. Johns Hopkins Center for Law and the Public Health. www.vaccinesafety.edu.
141. May T, Silverman RD. Clustering of exemptions as a collective action threat to herd immunity. Vaccine. 2003;21:1048–1051.
142. Burgio GR, Marseglia GL. Primum non nocere in vaccinology. Vaccine. 2002; 20:S55–S57.
143. Association of Professionals in Infection Control. APIC position paper: influenza immunization of healthcare personnel. Available at: www.apic.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PracticeGuidance/Topics/Influenza/APIC_Position_Pap er_Influenza_11_7_08final_revised.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2010. Washington, DC: Association of Professionals in Infection Control; 2008.
144. Infectious Diseases Society of America. Pandemic Influenza Task Force. Pandemic and seasonal influenza principles for US action. Press release, January 25, 2007.
145. Talbot TR, Bradley SF, Cosgrove SE, Ruef C, Siegel J, Weber DJ. Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America Position paper: Influenza vaccination of healthcare workers and vaccine allocation for healthcare workers during vaccine shortages. Arlington, Va: The Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America; 2005. Available at: www.shea- online.org/Assets/files/HCW_Flu_Position_Paper_FINAL_9-28.pdf. Accessed November 20, 2009.
146. Maltezou HC, Drancourt M. Nosocomial influenza in children. J Hosp Infect. 2003;55:83– 91.
147. Hayward AC, Harling R, Wetten S, et al. Effectiveness of an influenza vaccine programme for care home staff to prevent death, morbidity, and health service use among residents: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2006;333(7581):1241.
148. Health Protection Agency. Influenza A outbreak in a community hospital in southeast Wales where few healthcare workers had received immunization, February 2005. CDR Weekly. 2005;15(8). Available at: www.hpa.org.uk/cdr/archives/archive05/News/
news0805.htm#flu_A. Accessed December 13, 2009.
149. Thomas D, Chantry K, Aubrey F, et al. Influenza immunisation uptake in carers. Vaccine. 2008;26:6746–6748.
150. Thomas R, Jefferson T, Demicheli V, Rivetti D. Influenza vaccination for health-care workers who work with elderly people in institutions: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis. 2006;6:273–279.
151. Thomas RE, Jefferson T, Lasserson TJ. Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who work with the elderly. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Issue 2, 2010.
152. Cunney RJ. Bialachowski A, Thornley D, Smaill FM, Pennie RA. An outbreak of influenza A in a neonatal intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2000;21:449–454.
154. Finch M. Point: Mandatory influenza vaccination for all health care workers? Seven reasons to say “no.” Clin Infect Dis. 2006;42:1141–1143.
153. Zadeh MM, Buxton BC, Thompson WW, Arden NH, Fukuda K. Influenza outbreak detection and control measures in nursing homes in the United States. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48:1310–1315.
155. Saxen H, Virtanen M. Randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind study on the efficacy of influenza immunization on absenteeism of health care workers. Pediatr Infect Disease J. 1999;18:779–783.
156. Graham H. Where is the future of public health? Milbank Q. 2010;88:149–168.
157. Fedson DS. Measuring protection: efficacy vs effectiveness. Dev Biol Stand. 1998;95:195– 201.
158. Poland GA, Jacobson RM. Protecting patients from harm: legislating vaccinations for healthcare. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32(6) 544–546
159. Swain GR, Burns KA, Etkind P. Preparedness: medical ethics versus public health ethics. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008;14(4):354–357.
160. Marwick C. Nosocomial TB control guidelines debated: will OSHA’s proposed regulations prevail? JAMA. 2000;284(13):1657.
161. Daugherty EL, Perl TM, Needham DM, Rubinson L, Bilderback A, Rand CS. The use of personal protective equipment for control of influenza among critical care clinicians: a survey study. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:1210–1216.
162. Tavolacci MP, Ladner J, Bailly L, Merle V, Pitrou I, Czernichow P. Prevention of nosocomial infection and standard precautions: knowledge and source of information among healthcare students. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29(7):642–647
163. Bronson Methodist Hospital, Kalamazoo MI. The Flu Vaccination Challenge Virtual Poster Presentation “Best Practices,” Joint Commission Resources, 2009. Available at: www.jcrinc.com/Flu-Vaccination-Challenge-Virtual-Poster-Presentations/. Accessed April 10, 2010.
164. Caplan AL. Do your duty and roll up your sleeves: the ethics of vaccine mandates. Paper presented at: Cutting Edge Issues in Contemporary Bioethics; April 22, 2010; State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY.
165. Stewart AM, Rosenbaum S. Vaccinating the health-care workforce: state law vs. institutional requirements. Public Health Rep. 2010; 125:615–618.
167. van Delden J, Ashcroft R, Dawson A, Marckmann G, Upshur R, Verjweij. The ethics of mandatory vaccination against influenza for health care workers. Vaccine. 2008;26:5562–5566
168. Chan-Tompkins NH, Sahud A, Pucci D, Herbert C. Employee thoughts on influenza vaccine: here we go again. Letter. Infect Control Hospital Epidemiol. 2008;29:186–189.
169. Harris KM, Maurer J, Lurie N. Do people who intend to get a flu shot actually get one? J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24:1311–1313.
170. American Hospital Association. Workforce [Advocacy Issue Paper]. undated. www.aha.org/aha_app/issues/Workforce/index.jsp. Accessed on May 25, 2010.
171. Lieberman D. Testimony of the New York Civil Liberties Union before the New York State Assembly Committees on Health, Labor, Education, Higher Education, and Workplace Safety regarding the New York State Department of Health’s Adoption of an Emergency Regulation Mandating Influenza Vaccination for Health Care Personnel. October 13, 2009; Albany NY.
172. Song JY, Park CW, Jeong HW, Cheong HJ, Kim WJ, Kim SR. Effect of a hospital campaign for influenza vaccination of healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27(6):612– 617.
173. Abramson ZH, Levi O. Influenza vaccination among primary healthcare workers. Vaccine. 2008;26(20):2482–2489.
174. Weingarten S, Riedinger M, Bolton L, Miles P, Ault M. Barriers to influenza vaccine acceptance. A survey. Am J Infect Control. 1989;17(4):202–207.
175. Canning HS, Phillips J, Allsup S. Health care worker beliefs about influenza vaccine and reasons for non-vaccination—a cross-sectional survey. J Clin Nurs. 2004;14:922–925.
176. Goldstein AO, Kincade JE, Gamble G, Bearman RS. Policies and practices for improving influenza immunization rates among healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25(11):908–911
177. Poland GA, Ofstead CL, Tucker SJ, Beebe TJ. Receptivity to mandatory influenza vaccination policies for healthcare workers among registered nurses working on inpatient units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;29:170–173.
178. Friedlander ER. Opposition to immunization: a pattern of deception. Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. 2001;5(1):18–23.
179. Stewart AM. Mandatory vaccination of health care workers. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(21):2015–2017.
180. Field v Daines. No. 114033–2009, filed Oct. 6, 2009 (N.Y. Sup Ct).
181. Newman A. NY health workers protest mandatory vaccines. New American. 2009,4:53. Available at: www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/2014-ny-health-workers- protest-mandatory-vaccines.Accessed January 8, 2010.
182. Ovsyannikova IG, Jacobson RM, Poland GA. Variation in vaccine response in normal populations. Pharmacogenomics. 2004;5(4);417–427.
183. Health Care Personnel Influenza Vaccination Requirements, New York State Laws. August 13, 2009. N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 10: 66–3.1 et seq.: www.health.state.ny.us/diseases/communicable/influenza/seasonal/providers/health_care_person nel_influenza_immunization_requirements.htm. Accessed November 20, 2009.
184. Ritterband v. Axelrod. 562 NYS2d 605, filed November 13, 1990 (N.Y. Sup Ct 1990).
185. Cookson C. Benefit and risk of vaccination as seen by the general public and the media. Vaccine. 2002;20:S85–S88.
186. Ernst E. Rise in popularity of complementary and alternative medicine: reasons and consequences for vaccination. Vaccine. 2002;20:S90–S93.
187. Manneh S. CDC to Detroit media: trust is crucial to dispel H1N1 hype. New America Media. Posted December 13, 2009. Available at: http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=16956d4a3d6be096a1d9ed2c68fd2bb3. Accessed December 2, 2010.
188. Manneh S. Santa Clara health officials warn against H1N1 fatigue. New America Media. Posted December 24, 2009. Available at: http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=62d2a36aa3d952195fd1c84 42b413a09. Accessed December 2, 2010.
189. McLennan S, Gillett G, Celi LA. Healer, heal thyself: health care workers and the influenza vaccination. Am J Infection Control. 2008;36(1):1–4.
190. Norton SP, Scheifele DW, Bettinger JA, West RM. Influenza vaccination in paediatric nurses: cross-sectional study of coverage, refusal, and factors in acceptance. Vaccine. 2008;26:2942–2948.
191. Wolfe R. Vaccine safety activists on the internet. Expert Rev Vaccine. 2001;1(3):249–252.
192. Spier R. Perception of risk of vaccine adverse events: a historical perspective. Vaccine. 2002;20:S78–S84.
193. Kata A. A postmodern Pandora’s box: anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet. Vaccine. 2009;28(7):1709–1716.
194. Haver P, DeStefano F, Angulo FJ, et al. Guillian-Barré syndrome following influenza vaccination. JAMA. 2004;292(20):2478–2481.
195. Stowe J, Andrews N, Wise L, Miller E. Investigation of the temporal association of Guillian- Barré syndrome with influenza vaccine and influenza-like illness using the United Kingdom general practice research database. Am J Epidemiology. 2009;169(3):382–388.
196. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. General questions and answers on Guillain- Barré syndrome (GBS). December 15,2009. www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/gbs_qa.htm. Accessed May 3, 2010.
197. Juurlink DN, Stukel TA, Kwong J, et al. Guillian-Barré syndrome after influenza vaccination in adults: a population-based study. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:2217–2221.
198. McGrogan A, Madle GC, Seaman HE, deVriers CS. The epidemiology of Guillian-Barré syndrome worldwide. Neuropidemiology. 2009;32:150–163.
199. Schonberger IB, Bregman DJ, Sullivan-Bolyai JZ, et al. Guillian-Barré syndrome following vaccination in the national influenza immunization Program, United States, 1976–1977. Am J Epidemiol. 1979;110:105–123.
200. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preliminary results: surveillance for Guillian- Barré syndrome after receipt of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 monovalent vaccine—United States, 2009–2010. MMWR. 2010;59:657–661.
201. Goldfrank LR. How safe should the work environment be? For the patient? For the worker? J Emerg Med. 2008;34:235.
202. Ulmer JB, Liu MA. Ethical issues for vaccines and immunization. Nat Rev Immunol. 2002;2:291–296.
203. Jimenez J. Vaccines—a wonderful tool for equity in health. Vaccine. 2001;19:2201–2205.
204. Isaacs D, Leask J. Should influenza immunization be mandatory for healthcare workers? No. BMJ. 2008;337:a2143.
205. Steckel CM. Mandatory influenza immunization for health care workers—An ethical discussion. AAOHN J. 2007;55(1):34–39.
206. Annas GJ. Opinion: Don’t force medical pros to get H1N1 vaccine [op-ed]. October 3, 2009. www.newsday.com. Available at: www.newsday.com/opinion/opinion-don-t-force-medical-pros- to-get-h1n1-vaccine-1.1496620. Accessed December 2, 2010.
207. Szczepanski A. Mandatory flu vaccine policies: are they coming your way? Michigan Nurses. 2009;82(2):13.
208. Backer H. Counterpoint: in favor of mandatory influenza vaccine for all health care workers. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;42:1144–1147.
209. Gazmararian JA, Coleman M, Prill M, et al. Influenza vaccination of health care workers: policies and practices of hospitals in a community setting. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35(7):441–

447.
210. van den Hoven MA, Verweij MF. Should we promote influenza vaccination of health care workers in nursing homes? Some ethical arguments in favour of immunization. Age and Aging. 2003;32:487–488.
211. Tilburt JC, Mueller PS, Ottenberg AL, Poland GA, Koenig BA. Facing the challenges of influenza in healthcare settings: the ethical rationale for mandatory seasonal influenza vaccination and its implications for future pandemics. Vaccine. 2008;26S:D27–D30.
212. Rea E, Upshur R. Semmelweis revisited: the ethics of infection prevention among health care workers. CMAJ. 2001;164(10):1447–1448.
213. Olsen DP. Should RNs be forced to get the flu vaccine? Am J Nurs. 2006;106:76–79.
214. Anikeeva O, Braunack-Mayer A, Rogers W. Requiring influenza vaccination for health care workers. Am J Public Health. 2009:99:24–29.
215. Kenny NP, McInychuk RM, Asada Y. The promise of public health: ethical reflections. Revue Canadienne de Sante Publique. 2006;97(5):402–404.
216. Kass NE. An ethics framework for public health. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(11):1776– 1782.
217. Field RI, Caplan A. A proposed ethical framework for vaccine mandates. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2008;18(2):111–124.
218. Burris S. The invisibility of public health: population-level measures in a politics of market individualism. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:1607–1610.
219. Coker R. Public health, civil liberties, and tuberculosis. BMJ. 199;518:1434–1435.
220. Buchanan DR. Autonomy, paternalism, and justice: ethical priorities. Am J Public Health. 2008;98:15–21.
221. Ozar D, Berg J, Werhane PH, Emanuel L. Organizational ethics in health care: toward a model for ethical decision making by provider organizations. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2000.
222. Daines RF. Open letter to healthcare workers in New York State. September 24, 2009. Albany, NY: New York State Department of Health.
223. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Recommended adult immunization schedule. MMWR. 2010;59:1–4.
224. Lindley MC, Yonek J, Ahmed F, Perz JF, Williams Torres G. Measurement of influenza vaccination coverage among healthcare personnel in US hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009;30(12):1150–1157.
225. Lindley MC, Horlick, GA, Shefer AM, Shaw FE, Gorji M. Assessing State Immunization Requirements for Healthcare Workers and Patients. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32(6):459–465.
226. Tribble D. Building a culture of safety. Patient Safety and Quality Healthcare. May/June 2010:8–9.

157~2013_(1)AzPHA Annual Influenza Vaccination Requirements (immunization, infectious disease)

2015- Expanded Family and Medical Leave

The Arizona Public Health Association (AzPHA) supports the adoption of the following APHA Policy Statement 20001 – Expanded Family and Medical Leave and APHA Policy Statement 20063 – Preparing for Pandemic Influenza.

Abstract:

The United States falls far behind other developed countries with respect to paid leave for illnesses or to care for a family member. Approximately 40% of private-­‐sector workers in the United States do not have paid sick leave, and the disparity is more pronounced among those employed in low-­‐wage jobs. Lack of paid sick leave can have substantial adverse consequences for public health, including the spread of infectious disease. During the 2009–2010 H1N1 pandemic alone, an estimated 7 million additional individuals were infected and 1,500 deaths occurred because contagious employees did not stay home from work to recover. In addition to inadequate paid sick leave policies, only 11% of US workers are employed in firms that offer paid family leave. Today, more than 65 million US residents serve as unpaid family caregivers to an adult or a child. Unpaid leave benefits provided by the 1993 federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) apply, however, to less than 60% of US workers because employers with fewer than 50 employees are exempt from the law. The FMLA should be enhanced to include provisions for paid leave and cover a larger share of the US workforce. The definition of “immediate family” should be expanded as well. Laws should be passed at the city, state, and/or federal level requiring all employers to allow employees to accrue paid sick leave and use it to care for themselves, a family member, or a designated person with a familial-­‐type relationship.

Problem Statement

The failure of the United States to ensure paid sick and family leave for all US workers harms individual workers and the public’s health. Low-­‐income families disproportionately bear the economic hardship and negative health impacts of this policy failure.

Lack of paid sick leave: Individuals without paid sick leave are forced to make a choice every time they are ill: stay home to recover or go to work because they cannot afford a smaller paycheck. Given this choice, many US workers decide to work while they are sick. As a result, they compromise their health as well as the wellness of those they encounter at work, on transportation systems, and elsewhere in their community.

The United States is the only developed country that does not require employers to provide paid sick leave.2 Nearly 40% of the country’s private-­‐sector workers do not have paid sick leave.3 Moreover, the portion of workers without paid sick leave is much higher in certain industries and occupations. Among private-­‐sector workers earning wages in the lowest 25th percentile, only 29% are offered paid sick leave from their employers.3 Individuals in lower socioeconomic groups and those without health insurance, factors directly associated with employment policies, are much less likely to have paid sick leave.4–8

An evaluation of sick leave policies in 22 countries revealed that the United States was one of only three countries that had no national policy requiring employers to provide at least 5 paid sick days for workers to recover from influenza. The United States is the only country that does not provide paid sick leave for a worker undergoing a 50-­‐day cancer treatment.9
Lack of paid sick leave can have substantial adverse consequences for public health, including the spread of infectious disease and obstacles to preventive care. In a national survey of more than 4,300 restaurant workers, 88% of them reported not having paid sick leave. Consequently, 63% admitted that they cooked and served food while sick.10

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated the number of additional cases of illness during the 2009–2010 H1N1 pandemic associated with contagious individuals who did not stay home from work to recover. Infected employees who reported to work are estimated to have caused the infection of an additional 7 million people11 and 1,500 deaths.12 Following the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, researchers interviewed a nationally representative sample of US adults to assess social determinants of potential exposure to the virus. Workplace policies such as lack of paid sick leave were correlated with a higher incidence of influenza-­‐like illness. The authors estimated a population-­‐attributable risk of 5 million additional cases of influenza-­‐like illness in the US population owing to the absence of workplace policies such as paid sick leave.13 A study that modeled influenza epidemic scenarios showed that universal paid sick days reduced workplace infections by 6% .14

Social distancing, a measure to limit contact between infected and susceptible individuals, is one measure recommended to reduce influenza transmission. Both the World Health Organization’s and CDC’s influenza pandemic preparedness guidance documents identify social distancing as a way to reduce disease incidence.15,16 Employment policies, such as access to paid sick leave, will enhance or impede the efficacy of social distancing strategies. Staying home and forgoing a day or more’s pay is not feasible for many individuals, especially those in low-­‐wage occupations or insecure employment situations. Risk of wage loss, termination, and other job security concerns will limit the practicality of personal quarantine measures.17 APHA policy 20063 (Preparing for Pandemic Influenza) recognizes the need for employment policies that provide individuals with financial security to enable them to stay at home when they or a family member are sick.1

Lack of paid sick leave may also be an obstacle to public health goals such as preventive care services and interventions. An analysis of data from the 2008 National Health Interview Survey revealed a statistically significant difference according to sick leave status between groups of US female workers undergoing mammography and Pap testing at the recommended time intervals. The percentage of workers seeking these services, after control for sociodemographic and health care–related factors, was significantly higher among workers with paid sick leave.18 These workers were also more likely to have had at least one visit to a health care provider during the previous 12-­‐month period.18 In a nationally representative study of 1,963 full-­‐time and part-­‐time employees, only 56% reported being able to take paid time off to see a doctor.19

Differences also exist in use of outpatient versus emergency room services depending on workers’ access to sick leave. One study showed that, among US workers with health insurance, access to paid sick day benefits was significantly associated with increased use of outpatient care and reduced use of emergency care.4 Moreover, employers’ adoption of paid sick leave policies may reduce workplace injuries. According to CDC researchers, workers with paid sick days are 28% less likely to be injured at work.20

Lack of paid and unpaid family leave policies: Major health-­‐related life events in a family, such as pregnancy, birth or adoption of a child, diagnosis of a life-­‐threatening disease, a serious injury leading to lengthy rehabilitation, or the death of a family member, constitute significant sources of physical, emotional, and financial stress. Managing these life events while also meeting responsibilities at work can take its toll on a person’s health.21 Paid family leave would alleviate tensions between competing work and family responsibilities.22–24

Maternity leave is one of the most studied forms of employment leave, and, depending on its duration, it is associated with a variety of public health benefits.25,26 These benefits include prolonged gestation and reductions in cesarean deliveries,27 more well-­‐baby visits,28 decreased infant mortality,29,30 longer periods of breastfeeding,31–34 and improved mental health of new mothers.26,35 In some studies, these positive effects are identified only when the maternity leave is paid.28,29,33–36

The importance of parental care for ill or injured children has been reported for decades.37 The public health benefits include improved pediatric medical and surgical experiences38–42 and better management of chronic diseases.43–45
The United States is currently the only industrialized country in the world without paid maternity leave, although some states have laws granting it.46 Maternity leave is particularly important to allow a woman to recover from childbirth and care for her newborn, including breastfeeding. Lack of paid maternity leave could perpetuate inequities among lower income women who cannot afford unpaid time off.

Women with children who have paid leave are less likely to require public assistance, and they have higher wages the following year.47 Census data show that in 2006–2008, 45% of women who worked during their first pregnancy had paid leave after delivery, while 37% had unpaid leave. Six percent quit their job, 8% had disability leave, 3% were let go from their job, and 6% had other leave (the total exceeds 100% owing to multiple responses).48

An estimated 65.7 million US residents serve as unpaid family caregivers to an adult or a child with special needs.49 Caregivers have a mean age of 48 years and are predominantly female (66%), and 73% were employed at some time while caregiving.49 About one-­‐third of caregivers report their situation to be highly stressful.49 Only 11% of US workers, however, are employed in firms that offer paid family leave.50 Unpaid leave benefits provided by the 1993 federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) are available to fewer than 60% of workers[51] because the law extends only to employers with 50 or more employees. Under the FMLA, employees must have at least 12 months of service with the firm and must have worked at least 1,250 hours over the past 12 months (e.g., 24 hours per week) to be eligible for unpaid leave.52
Data from the US Department of Labor indicate that workers covered by and eligible for FMLA benefits are more likely to be more advantaged than other workers.53 About three-­‐quarters of them identify themselves as White non-­‐Hispanic and have significantly more annual family income than non-­‐eligible and non-­‐covered workers. In addition, they are significantly more likely to have graduated from college (27%) or to have attended graduate school (13.2%).54 Other researchers have reported similar results. Access to paid leave has been shown to be lower in low-­‐income families and among families in which the parents work for small employers.8,55 Moreover, the FMLA can be used only to care for family members with “major illnesses,” and working parents report that it does not help them address the majority of their children’s sick care needs.56 More than 48% of children in the United States are from households in which both parents work full time. In 1988, the figure was 39%.57 Parents in many families are unable to care for a sick child without missing work and pay.6

A 2009 analysis of the 22 nations ranked highest on the United Nations’ Human Development Index revealed that the United States is the only country that does not require employers to provide paid sick leave. Five countries mandate that employers cover workers’ wages when they are out sick, 5 countries have social insurance systems wherein sick pay is funded by tax revenues, and the remaining nations have a combination of employer mandates and social insurance. These countries’ policies also distinguish benefits depending on the nature of the illness, from a short-­‐term bout with influenza to longer-­‐term treatment for an illness (e.g., cancer). Eligibility requirements differ among countries: in Finland, the worker must have at least 1 month of job tenure; in Greece, the worker must have 1 year of service; and in the United Kingdom, Australia, and 5 other countries, there is no minimum tenure requirement. The sickness pay benefit (e.g., 100% of typical wage, flat rate) and waiting period to apply for the benefit also differ among countries.9
The United States lags behind in parental leave as well. A 2009 assessment by the United Nations’ International Labor Organization (ILO) showed that the United States was one of only 5 countries of 167 studied that did not have some form of paid maternity leave;58 in 2010, Australia passed a new parental leave law and left the United States as the only industrialized nation that does not provide paid leave to parents of a newborn.59 A mother or father in the United States who is employed at a business with 50 or more employees may be eligible under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act for up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave.47 The ILO assessment noted that 53% of the countries with paid leave policies financed the benefit through a social security program, while 17% relied on a mix of employer and social security funding. It also reported on paid paternity leave policies in 48 countries, ranging from 2 days for new fathers in Guatemala and Paraguay to 10 days in Latvia, Belgium, and Sweden and 3 months in Iceland.58 Proposed Recommendations Statement

Recommendations for paid sick leave policies: San Francisco’s 2006 paid sick leave law is a good model for city/county, state, and federal legislation. It requires all employers to offer paid sick leave, which workers can use to care for themselves or a family member. The list of persons for whom an employee can care while using paid sick leave is extensive, including children, parents, siblings, grandparents, and grandchildren of relationships resulting from adoption, step-­‐relationships, and foster care relationships (as well as biological relationships); an employee without a spouse or domestic partner can designate a person for whom the employee can care while using sick time. After a 90-­‐day probationary period, employees accrue 1 day of paid leave for each 30 hours worked; employers with fewer than 10 employees must provide at least 40 hours per year, and those with 10 or more employees must provide 72.60

Connecticut,61 the District of Columbia,62 Jersey City,63 New York City,64,65 Portland,66,67 and Seattle68 have also passed laws requiring employers to offer paid sick leave, although they do not cover all employer sizes or industry sectors. The laws in Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Portland, and Seattle, in addition to granting employees paid leave for medical needs, allow paid leave to be used to recover from or seek assistance related to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.61,62,67,68 One element in the New York, Portland, and Seattle laws that should be a model for future laws is the provision that accrued time may be used to care for a child whose school or place of care is closed as a result of a public health emergency.65,67,68
Compelling evidence of the effectiveness of paid sick leave laws comes from a health impact assessment conducted in association with the federal Healthy Families Act of 2009, which would have required employers with 15 or more workers to allow employees to earn up to 56 hours of paid sick leave annually, and to use the time to care for themselves, a family member, or those whose close relationship is the equivalent of a family relationship. In the health impact assessment, researchers found consistent evidence that the law would result in more workers taking needed leave from work to recover from illness, receive preventive care, and care for ill dependents and that it would reduce transmission of influenza in the community, foodborne disease in restaurants, and gastrointestinal infections in health care facilities.69 They also found sufficient evidence that it would have a strong impact in guarding against workers’ loss of income. The authors concluded that “the best available public health evidence demonstrates that the Healthy Families Act of 2009 would have significant and beneficial public health impacts.”69A 2010 survey of San Francisco employees conducted years after the city’s paid sick leave law went into effect also showed evidence of public health benefits; researchers reported that parents with paid sick days were 20% less likely than those without to send a child with a contagious illness to school.70

Recommendations for family and medical leave: In the 20 years since the federal Family and Medical Leave Act became law, it has been used more than 100 million times by working men and women to care for an ailing loved one.71,72 It has significant limitations, however, including its exclusion of 40% of the workforce because they are employed by small firms. Furthermore, many workers cannot afford to take unpaid leave. If not replaced by a more comprehensive policy, the FMLA should be expanded and enhanced. It should include provisions for paid leave for family-­‐ or medical-­‐related situations and cover a larger share of the US workforce. “Family” definitions should be expanded to cover additional relatives—including siblings, adult children, grandparents and grandchildren, and parents-­‐in-­‐law—as well as domestic partners, and the law should ensure that same-­‐sex couples unable to marry legally can care for relatives who would be considered stepchildren or parents-­‐in-­‐law if the couple were married. The family and medical leave laws adopted by most other industrialized countries can serve as models for the United States.

One solution to the FMLA’s shortcomings could be the establishment of a family and medical leave insurance system. A nationwide system could use small paycheck contributions from employees and employers to create a self-­‐sustaining fund that would replace a portion of workers’ wages while they areon leave. Leave could be used for an employee’s own serious health issues or for an employee to care for a new child or for a family member (or person with a familial-­‐type relationship) with a serious health issue.73
The paid leave laws described in this section use gender-­‐neutral language when referring to parents caring for children, and they specify that “children” include birth, adopted, and foster children. Future laws should do so as well.

Opposing Arguments/Evidence

The major employer and industry trade associations are likely to oppose proposals mandating that businesses provide family and/or sick leave to employees. When the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act was debated, these groups argued that the costs to employers would be significant and the impact on the US economy and job growth would be stifling.74 Since the FMLA’s enactment, concerns have been expressed about employees abusing the law by taking leave for reasons other than non-­‐serious illnesses. Opposition by business groups to California’s paid family leave law prior to its enactment in 2002 claimed that it would result in an “unfair burden,” competitive disadvantage, and a “slippery slope towards the Nanny State.”75
More recently, opponents—generally business groups—have echoed concerns about the costs of paid sick days to business owners and warned that businesses would be discouraged from locating within certain city or state boundaries.75–79 An analysis by a national small business trade association on the economic impact of a national, mandatory paid sick leave requirement for employers with 15 or more employees estimated potential job losses, lost production, and declines in US gross domestic product.80 The analysis, however, failed to assess the potential economic gains, both quantitative and qualitative, of paid sick leave policies. These benefits include infection control, higher earnings, reduced employee turnover and absenteeism, and health care cost savings.81

Not all small-­‐business groups oppose paid sick leave; in fact, some have voiced support for paid leave laws.82–84 One group supporting passage of Portland’s law noted that “[a] minimum standard for earning sick days levels the playing field for employers who already provide this benefit.”85 Providing paid leave can also improve employee retention, which reduces businesses’ hiring and training costs.86 The American Sustainable Business Council, the Main Street Alliance, and the Social Venture Network have launched the “Better Workplaces, Better Businesses” website to collect resources and a national listing of businesses and organizations voicing support for paid leave policies.87

Concerns about employee abuse and negative impacts on businesses have not been borne out by research.86 The Department of Labor found that 99% of surveyed employees who took FMLA leave for medical conditions reported doing so for a condition requiring a doctor’s care, and 67% reported that they or their family member were in a hospital overnight.88

Economic impact: Providing paid sick leave and family leave will increase employee compensation costs for employers, but the cost per worker is modest. A cost-­‐benefit analysis of the paid sick leave law in Connecticut reported an average weekly cost per worker of $6.87, or 19 cents per hour.83 More importantly, the average benefit to firms, such as increased productivity and reduced turnover, was estimated at $12.32 per worker.89,90 After implementation of a paid family leave policy in California, 89% of employers reported either positive or no noticeable effects on productivity, and more than 90% reported positive or no effects on profitability.86

Interviews with 26 San Francisco employers conducted in 2008, approximately 9 months after the city’s paid sick leave law went into effect, revealed that most experienced minimal to moderate effects on their overall business and bottom line.91 A 2010 survey of 727 San Francisco employers and 1,194 employees showed that the typical worker had used only 3 paid sick days during the past year, well below the maximum of 5 or 9 days, and 6 of 7 employers reported no negative impacts on profitability.70 The Drum Major Institute used data from the California Employment Development Department to investigate whether warnings of job loss after implementation of San Francisco’s paid leave law were borne out; to the contrary, the analysis showed that in the 3 years following the law’s implementation, both total employment and the number of businesses grew more quickly in San Francisco than in the surrounding 5 counties.92

Alternative Strategies

In the absence of a national law ensuring paid sick and family leave to all workers, alternatives have addressed subsets of workers. Many employers offer paid sick leave as an employment benefit. The state of Connecticut and the cities of Portland, Seattle, and the District of Columbia require—and Jersey City and New York City will soon require—many but not all employers to provide paid sick leave,61,62,65,67 and the city of San Francisco requires it of all employers.60 Philadelphia requires employers who contract with or receive funds from the city to offer paid sick days to employees working on city-­‐funded contracts or projects.93,94 The Philadelphia City Council passed paid sick leave legislation in 2011 and 2013, but the mayor vetoed both bills.76,95
Paid sick leave legislation has been introduced or on the ballot, but not passed, in Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.96 In 2008, voters in Milwaukee, WI, approved a ballot measure requiring employers to offer paid sick leave, but before it could be implemented the state legislature passed a law that prohibits local authorities from enacting paid leave laws.97

California, Hawaii, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico have existing State Disability Insurance (SDI) programs that can provide infrastructure for paid sick leave or family leave.98 SDI is generally funded by payroll deductions from employees and provides partial wage replacement for individuals unable to work because of a pregnancy or a non-­‐work-­‐related disability. With a law passed in 2002, California established a paid family leave program as a component of the state’s disability insurance program.99 In 2008, New Jersey passed a law creating the Family Leave Insurance Program.100 In 2013, Rhode Island adopted legislation to establish a temporary caregiver insurance program as part of its temporary disability insurance program.101 All 3 states’ programs are funded by worker payroll contributions and provide benefits equivalent to a portion of workers’ salaries for up to 4 weeks (in Rhode Island) or 6 weeks (in California and New Jersey) each year for employees who miss work to care for new children or seriously ill family members, including domestic partners.99–101

City-­‐ and state-­‐level alternatives are worthwhile in the absence of federal requirements guaranteeing paid sick and family leave for all employees, but as long as a significant share of the population is not covered, disparities will persist.

Action Steps

APHA urges the US Congress to:
• Amend the Family and Medical Leave Act to apply to more employers than it currently does, working toward the goal of applying it to all employers; to expand the definition of family members to include households with same-­‐sex couples and reflect a broader range of caregiver relationships; and to apply to part-­‐time and recently hired workers.
• Pass a federal law, modeled on San Francisco’s, requiring all employers to allow employees to accrue paid sick leave and use it to care for themselves, a family member, or a designated person with a familial-­‐type relationship. The Healthy Families Act, which APHA already supports, would represent a major step forward.
• Pass legislation making paid medical and family-­‐caregiving leave available to all workers regardless of employer size or sector. State insurance systems funded by worker payroll contributions, such as those already in use in California and New Jersey, could serve as models.

In the absence of federal legislation that fully addresses the problem of inadequate paid sick and family leave, APHA urges state and local governments that do not already have paid sick and family leave policies to:
• Adopt laws, ordinances, or policies requiring employers to provide paid leave for employees who are new parents and to provide paid sick leave to employees to care for themselves, a family member, or a designated person with a familial-­‐type relationship.
• Support efforts to advance government-­‐administered family and medical leave insurance. Governments can use San Francisco’s paid sick leave law and California’s family and medical leave system as models in addition to using materials from the National Council of State Legislatures.
• Adopt laws and policies that require contractors hired by a government entity to provide paid sick leave to their employees; Philadelphia’s law can serve as a model.
APHA urges individual employers and business trade associations to:
• Establish policies for themselves or their members to allow employees to accrue paid sick leave and use it to care for themselves, a family member, or a designated person with a familial-­‐type relationship.
AzPHA urges individual employers and business trade associations to:
• AzPHA recommends that all employers provide sick leave for their employees; up to seven (7) days per year for employers with ten (10) or more employees, and employers with less than ten (10) offer up to five (5) days per year.
• Establish policies for themselves or their members to allow employees to accrue paid sick leave and use it to care for themselves, a family member, or a designated person with a familial-­‐type relationship.
APHA urges individual consumers and consumer advocacy groups to:
• Encourage consumers to use resources that provide information on the paid leave policies of restaurants and other businesses and patronize businesses that provide paid sick leave to their employees.90,91

References
1. American Public Health Association. Policy No. 20063. Available at: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1327. Accessed December 12, 2013.
2. Heymann J, Rho HJ, Schmitt J, Earle A. Contagion Nation: A Comparison of Paid Sick Day Policies in 22 Countries. Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research; 2009.
3. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employee benefits in the United States, March 2012, Table 6. Selected paid leave benefits. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ebs2.nr0.htm. Accessed December 12, 2013.
4. Cook WK. Paid sick days and health care use: an analysis of the 2007 National Health Interview Survey data. Am J Ind Med. 2011;54(10):771–779.
5. Levine L. Leave benefits in the United States. Available at: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34088_20080507.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
6. Gould E, Filion K, Green A. The need for paid sick days: the lack of federal policy further erodes family economic security. Available at: http://www.epi.org/files/temp2011/BriefingPaper319-­‐2.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
7. Accessed December 12, 2013.

8. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. National Compensation Survey, Table 32: leave benefits—access, civilian workers. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2012/ebbl0050.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
9. Heymann J, Rho HJ, Schmitt J, Earle A. Ensuring a healthy and productive workforce: comparing the generosity of paid sick day and sick leave policies in 22 countries. Int J Health Serv. 2010;40(1):1– 22.
10. Restaurant Opportunities Centers United. Serving while sick: high risk and low benefits for the nation’s restaurant workforce, and their impact on the consumer. Available at: http://rocunited.org/roc-­‐serving-­‐while-­‐sick/. Accessed December 12, 2013.
11. Drago R, Miller K. Sick at work: infected employees in the workplace during the H1N1 epidemic. Available at: http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/sick-­‐at-­‐work-­‐infected-­‐employees-­‐in-­‐the-­‐ workplace-­‐during-­‐the-­‐h1n1-­‐pandemic. Accessed December 12, 2013.
12. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated CDC estimates of 2009 H1N1 influenza cases, hospitalizations and deaths in the United States, April 2009–April 10, 2010. Available at: www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/estimates_2009_h1n1.htm. Accessed December 12, 2013.
13. Kumar S, Quinn SC, Kim KH, Daniel LH, Freimuth VS. The impact of workplace policies and other social factors on self-­‐reported influenza-­‐like illness incidence during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(1):134–140.
14. Kumar S, Grefenstette JJ, Galloway D, Albert SM, Burke DS. Policies to reduce influenza in the workplace: impact assessments using an agent-­‐based model. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(8):1406– 1411.
15. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim pre-­‐pandemic planning guidance: community strategy for pandemic influenza mitigation in the United States—early targeted layered use of non-­‐pharmaceutical interventions. Available at: http://www.flu.gov/planning-­‐ preparedness/community/community_mitigation.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
16. World Health Organization. Global influenza preparedness plan. Available at: http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/influenza/WHO_CDS_CSR_GIP_2005_5.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
17. Blumenshine P, Reingold A, Egerter S, Mockenhaupt R, Braveman P, Marks J. Pandemic influenza planning in the United States from a health disparities perspective. Emerg Infect Dis. 2008;14(5):709– 715.
18. Peipins LA, Soman A, Berkowitz Z, White MC. The lack of paid sick leave as a barrier to cancer screening and medical care-­‐seeking: results from the National Health Interview Survey. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:520.
19. Collins SR, Davis K, Doty MM, Ho A. Wages, health benefits, and workers’ health. Available at: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Issue-­‐Briefs/2004/Oct/Wages-­‐-­‐Health-­‐Benefits-­‐-­‐ and-­‐Workers-­‐Health.aspx. Accessed December 12, 2013.
20. Asfaw A, Pana-­‐Cryan R, Rosa R. Paid sick leave and non-­‐fatal occupational injuries. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(9):e59–e64.
21. Human Rights Watch. Failing its families: lack of paid leave and work-­‐family supports in the U.S. Available at: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0211webwcover.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
22. Strazdins L, Obrien LV, Lucas N, Rodgers B. Combining work and family: rewards or risks for children’s mental health? Soc Sci Med. 2013;87:99–107.

23. Barish J, Hochschild AR. Extending family leave: your baby or your job. San Francisco Chronicle. September 19, 2002:A23.
24. Heymann J, Earle A, Hayes J. How does the United States measure up? Available at: http://www.mcgill.ca/files/ihsp/WFEI2007.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
25. Shepherd-­‐Banigan M, Bell JF. Paid leave benefits among a national sample of working mothers with infants in the United States. Matern Child Health J. 2013 [Epub ahead of print].
26. Staehelin K, Bertea PC, Stutz EZ. Length of maternity leave and health of mother and child—a review. Int J Public Health. 2007;52(4):202–209.
27. Guendelman S, Pearl M, Graham S, Hubbard A, Hosang N, Kharrazi M. Maternity leave in the ninth month of pregnancy and birth outcomes among working women. Womens Health Issues. 2009;19(1):30–37.
28. Hamman MK. Making time for well-­‐baby care: the role of maternal employment. Matern Child Health J. 2011;15:1029–1036.
29. Ruhm CJ. Parental leave and child health. J Health Econ. 2000;19(6):931–960.
30. Rossin M. The effects of maternity leave on children’s birth and infant health outcomes in the United States. J Health Econ. 2011;30(2):221–239.
31. Ogbuanu C, Glover S, Probst J, Liu J, Hussey J. The effect of maternity leave length and time of return to work on breastfeeding. Pediatrics. 2011;127(6):e1414–e1427.
32. McCarter-­‐Spaulding D, Lucas J, Gore R. Employment and breastfeeding outcomes in a sample of black women in the United States. J Natl Black Nurses Assoc. 2011;22(2):38–45.
33. Cooklin AR, Rowe H J, Fisher JRW. Paid parental leave supports breastfeeding and mother-­‐infant relationship: a prospective investigation of maternal postpartum employment. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2012;36(3):249–256.
34. Baker M, Milligan K. Maternal employment, breastfeeding, and health: evidence from maternity leave mandates. J Health Econ. 2008;27(4):871–887.
35. Chatterji P, Markowitz S. Family leave after childbirth and the mental health of new mothers. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2012;15(2):61–76.
36. Tanaka S. Parental leave and child health in OECD across countries. Econ J. 2005;15(501):F7–F28.
37. Heymann J, Earle A, McNeill K. The impact of labor policies on the health of young children in the context of globalization. Annu Rev Public Health. 2013;34:355–373.
38. Gauderer MW, Lorig JL, Eastwood DW. Is there a place for parents in the operating room? J Pediatr Surg. 1989;24(7):705–707.
39. George A, Hancock J. Reducing pediatric burn pain with parent participation. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1993;14(1):104–107.
40. Kristensson-­‐Hallström I, Elander G, Malmfors G. Increased parental participation in a paediatric surgical day-­‐care unit. J Clin Nurs. 1997;6(4):297–302.
41. Palmer SJ. Care of sick children by parents: a meaningful role. J Adv Nurs. 1993;18:185–191.
42. Taylor MR, O’Connor P. Resident parents and shorter hospital stay. Arch Dis Child. 1989;64:274– 276.
43. Hamlett KW, Pellegrini DS, Katz KS. Childhood chronic illness as a family stressor. J Pediatr Psychol. 1992;17(1):33–47.

44. Hauser ST, Jacobson AM, Lavori P, et al. Adherence among children and adolescents with insulin-­‐dependent diabetes mellitus over a four-­‐year longitudinal follow-­‐up: II. Immediate and long-­‐ term linkages with the family milieu. J Pediatr Psychol. 1990;15(4):527–542.
45. LaGreca AM, Auslander WF, Greco P, Spetter D, Fisher EB, Santiago JV. I get by with a little help from my family and friends: adolescents’ support for diabetes care. J Pediatr Psychol. 1995;20(4):449–476.
46. Glynn S, Farrell J. The United States needs to guarantee paid maternity leave. Available at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2013/03/08/55683/the-­‐united-­‐states-­‐needs-­‐ to-­‐guarantee-­‐paid-­‐maternity-­‐leave/. Accessed December 12, 2013.
47. Houser L, Vartanian T. Pay Matters: The Positive Economic Impacts of Paid Family Leave for Families, Businesses and the Public. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Women and Work; 2012.
48. Laughlin L. Maternity Leave and Employment Patterns of First Time Mothers, 1961–2008. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau; 2011.
49. National Alliance for Caregiving. Caregiving in the U.S. Available at: http://www.caregiving.org/pdf/research/CaregivingUSAllAgesExecSum.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
50. National Partnership for Women and Families. The case for paid family and medical leave. Available at: http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/PFML_The_Case_FINAL.pdf?docID=7848. Accessed December 12, 2013.
51. US Department of Labor. Family and medical leave in 2012: technical report. Available at: http://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/fmla/FMLATechnicalReport.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
52. Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-­‐3). Available at: http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/statutes/fmla.htm. Accessed December 12, 2013.
53. Houser L, Vartanian TP. Policy matters: public policy, paid leave for new parents, and economic security for U.S. workers. Available at: http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/RutgersCWW_Policy_Matters_April2012.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
54. US Department of Labor. Balancing the needs of families and employers: family and medical leave surveys. Available at: http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/chapter3.htm. Accessed December 12, 2013.
55. Clemans-­‐Cope L, Perry CD, Kenney GM, Pelletier JE, Pantell MS. Access to and use of paid sick leave among low-­‐income families with children. Pediatrics. 2008;122(2):e480–e486.
56. Heymann JS, Earle A, Egleston B. Parental availability for the care of sick children. Pediatrics. 1996;98:226–230.
57. US Council of Economic Advisers. Work-­‐life balance and the economics of workplace flexibility. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/100331-­‐cea-­‐economics-­‐workplace-­‐ flexibility.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
58. International Labour Organization. Maternity at work: a review of national legislation. Available at: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/w cms_124442.pdf Accessed December 12, 2013.

59. Ludden J. U.S. only industrialized nation with no paid leave for new parents. Available at: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-­‐way/2010/06/17/127904924/u-­‐s-­‐now-­‐only-­‐industrialized-­‐nation-­‐ without-­‐paid-­‐leave-­‐for-­‐new-­‐parents. Accessed December 12, 2013.
60. San Francisco Administrative Code, Chapter 12W: sick leave. Available at: http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/administrative/chapter12wsickleave*?f=templa tes$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca. Accessed December 12, 2013.
61. State of Connecticut. An act mandating employers provide paid sick leave to employees. Available at: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/BA/2011SB-­‐00913-­‐R01-­‐BA.htm. Accessed December 12, 2013.
62. District of Columbia. Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act of 2008. Available at: dcregs.dc.gov/Notice/DownLoad.aspx?NoticeID=405089. Accessed December 12, 2013.
63. McDonald TT. Jersey City mayor signs paid sick time bill into law. Available at: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2013/10/jersey_city_mayor_signs_paid_sick_time_bill_into_la w.html. Accessed December 12, 2013.
64. Taylor K. City council approves bill mandating sick-­‐day pay. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/nyregion/new-­‐york-­‐council-­‐approves-­‐paid-­‐sick-­‐leave-­‐ measure.html. Accessed December 12, 2013.
65. New York City Council. A local law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to the provision of sick time earned by employees. Available at: http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/View.ashx?M=F&ID=2496409&GUID=FD68E4C2-­‐37D9-­‐4E2F-­‐85FA-­‐ 00219FD8E4F7. Accessed December 12, 2013.
66. Kost R. Portland City Council votes unanimously to approve sick leave. Available at: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/03/portland_city_council_votes_un.html. Accessed December 12, 2013.
67. City of Portland. Portland City Code: Chapter 9.01, protected sick time. Available at: http://www.portlandonline.com/fritz/index.cfm?c=49205&a=439978. Accessed December 12, 2013.
68. City of Seattle. Seattle Municipal Code: paid sick time and paid safe time. Available at: http://clerk.seattle.gov/public/toc/14-­‐16.htm. Accessed December 12, 2013.
69. Cook WK, Heller J, Bhatia R, Farhang L. A health impact assessment of the Healthy Families Act of 2009. Available at: http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/WF_PSD_HFA_HealthImpactAssessment_HIA_0 90611.pdf?docID=5101. Accessed December 12, 2013.
70. Drago R, Lovell V. San Francisco’s paid sick leave ordinance: outcomes for employers and employees. Available at: http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/San-­‐Fran-­‐PSD. Accessed December 12, 2013.
71. Lenhoff DR, Bell L. Government support for working families and communities: family and medical leave as a case study. Available at:
72. http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/FMLA.CaseStudy.Lenhoff-­‐ Bell.pdf?docID=11841. Accessed December 12, 2013.
73. National Partnership for Women and Families. The Family and Medical Leave Act at 20: 100 million reasons to celebrate and move forward. Available at: http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/FMLA_at_20_Backgrounder.pdf?docID=11861. Accessed December 12, 2013.

74. Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act of 2013 discussion draft. Available at: http://www.nationalpartnership.org/research-­‐library/work-­‐family/paid-­‐leave/family-­‐act-­‐draft.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
75. Scharlach AE, Grosswald B. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Soc Serv Rev. 1997;71:337–338.
76. Berkeley Media Studies Group. Making the case for paid family leave: how California’s landmark law was framed in the news. Available at: http://www.usbreastfeeding.org/Portals/0/Coalitions/2010-­‐NCSBC/Presentation-­‐Handouts/Plenary-­‐ BMSG-­‐Handout-­‐2.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
77. Graham T, Von Bergen JM. Nutter vetoes paid-­‐sick-­‐time bill. Available at: http://articles.philly.com/2011-­‐06-­‐29/news/29717420_1_paid-­‐sick-­‐leave-­‐bill-­‐paid-­‐sick-­‐time-­‐mayor-­‐ nutter. Accessed December 12, 2013.
78. Damron D, Haughney K. Florida chamber targets local sick-­‐time laws. Available at: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-­‐sick-­‐time-­‐florida-­‐chamber-­‐ 20130116,0,828943.story. Accessed December 12, 2013.
79. Altimari D, Keating C. Paid sick leave passed by 18 to 17. Available at: http://articles.courant.com/2011-­‐05-­‐25/health/hc-­‐paid-­‐sick-­‐days-­‐leave-­‐0526-­‐20110525_1_party-­‐ lines-­‐democrats-­‐sens-­‐senate. Accessed December 12, 2013.
80. Kost R. With one hearing down, Portland City Council pushes forward on earned sick leave rule. Available at:
81. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/01/with_one_hearing_down_portland.ht ml. Accessed December 12, 2013.
82. Chow MJ. The economic impact of H.R. 2460 and mandatory paid sick leave on U.S. small businesses. Available at: http://www.nfib.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=PWrtuuzDJto%3d&tabid=1340. Accessed December 12, 2013.
83. Miller K. Responding to business lobby research produced to discredit paid sick day laws.
84. Available at: http://www.masspaidleave.org/assets/files/Responding%20to%20Business%20Lobby%20Research%2 0on%20PSD.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
85. Main Street Alliance of Oregon. Understanding earned sick time in Portland: a guide for businesses. Available at: http://oregon.mainstreetalliance.org/files/2013/01/Earned_Sick_Time_Business_Web_Final.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
86. DeBenedetto P. Small businesses push Quinn to support paid sick leave proposal. Available at: http://www.dnainfo.com/new-­‐york/20121003/new-­‐york-­‐city/small-­‐businesses-­‐push-­‐quinn-­‐support-­‐ paid-­‐sick-­‐leave-­‐proposal. Accessed December 12, 2013.
87. Community Works of Connecticut. Small business network for paid sick days. Available at: http://everybodybenefits.org/small-­‐business-­‐network-­‐for-­‐paid-­‐sick-­‐days/. Accessed December 12, 2013.
88. Everybody Benefits. Tell Portland City Council: paid sick days now! Available at: everybodybenefitsoregon.org/. Accessed December 12, 2013.

89. Appelbaum E, Milkman R. Leaves that pay: employer and worker experiences with paid family leave in California. Available at: www.cerp.net/documents/publications/paid-­‐family-­‐leave-­‐1-­‐2011.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
90. Better Workplaces, Better Businesses. About Better Workplaces, Better Businesses. Available at: http://betterwbb.org/about-­‐2/. Accessed December 12, 2013.
91. Cantor D, Waldfogel J, Kerwin J, Wright MM, Levin K, Rauch J, Hagerty T, Kudela MS. Balancing the needs of families and employers: family and medical leave surveys. Available at: http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/toc.htm. Accessed December 12, 2013.
92. Awuor G, Arellano A. Costs and benefits of paid sick leave: reviewing the research. Available at: http://bellpolicy.org/sites/default/files/PaidSickLeave_1.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
93. Miller K, Williams C. Valuing good health in Connecticut: the costs and benefits of paid sick days. Available at: http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/valuing-­‐good-­‐health-­‐in-­‐connecticut-­‐the-­‐costs-­‐ and-­‐benefits-­‐of-­‐paid-­‐sick-­‐days. Accessed December 12, 2013.
94. Boots SW, Martinson K, Danziger A. Employers’ perspectives on San Francisco’s paid sick leave policy. Available at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411868_sanfranciso_sick_leave.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
95. Petro J. Paid sick leave does not harm business growth or job growth. Available at: http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/Petro_DMI_Paid_Sick_Leave_Does_Not_Harm_ 2010_Unabbr_.pdf?docID=7721. Accessed December 12, 2013.
96. Ballard Spahr. New ordinances impacting city contractors/recipients of city financial aid. Available at: http://www.ballardspahr.com/~/media/Files/Alerts/2012-­‐06-­‐26-­‐Overview-­‐New-­‐ Ordinances.ashx. Accessed December 12, 2013.
97. City of Philadelphia. Bill No. 130004. Available at: https://business.phila.gov/Documents/Bill%20No%20130004%20Summary.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
98. Stamm D. Paid sick leave veto override falls 1 vote short. Available at: http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Paid-­‐Sick-­‐Leave-­‐Bill-­‐Veto-­‐Stands-­‐202535031.html. Accessed December 12, 2013.
99. National Partnership for Women and Families. State and local action on paid sick days. Available at: http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/NP_PSD_Tracking_Doc.pdf?docID=1922. Accessed December 12, 2013.
100. Pabst G. Judge says city’s sick days ordinance is “over.” Available at: http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/126353488.html. Accessed December 12, 2013.
101. Boushey H, Glynn SJ. Comprehensive paid family and medical leave for today’s families and workplaces. Available at: http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-­‐ content/uploads/2012/09/BousheyUniversalFamilyLeavePaper.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
102. Employment Development Department, State of California. Fact sheet: paid family leave (PFL). Available at: http://www.edd.ca.gov/pdf_pub_ctr/de8714cf.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
103. White K, Houser L, Nisbet E. Policy in action: New Jersey’s family leave insurance program at age three. Available at: http://www.njtimetocare.com/sites/default/files/FLI%20Report%201-­‐ 31%20release%202-­‐5-­‐13%20posted.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2013.
104. Gregg K. Governor Chafee signs bill expanding TDI benefits. Available at: http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-­‐news/content/20130711-­‐governor-­‐chafee-­‐signs-­‐bill-­‐ expanding-­‐tdi-­‐benefits.ece. Accessed December 12, 2013.

158~2015_(1)AzPHA_SICK LEAVE_ Policy Statement 20001 (legislation, labor)

2015- Supporting Regulation of Electronic Cigarettes

August 18, 2015

The Arizona Public Health Association (AzPHA) supports the adoption of the following APHA Policy Statement 20149 – Supporting Regulation of Electronic Cigarettes and its action step recommendations.

Policy Statement: 20149

Abstract:

Electronic smoking devices, or electronic nicotine delivery systems, include but are not limited to electronic cigarettes (e-­‐cigarettes), vape sticks, hookah pens, and personalized vaping units. These battery-­‐powered devices deliver an aerosol vapor, typically composed of nicotine, propylene glycol, and other chemicals. According to the World Health Organization, the safety of electronic cigarettes and their efficacy in smoking cessation programs have not been scientifically demonstrated, and what evidence exists is somewhat contradictory. Several studies have suggested that e-­‐cigarettes may be effective as a smoking cessation tool. In the United States, use of e-­‐cigarettes has increased among both minors and adult current and former smokers in recent years. In April 2014, the Food and Drug Administration proposed regulations that would extend its authority over e-­‐cigarettes not marketed for therapeutic purposes. Currently, at least 38 states place restrictions on the sale of e-­‐cigarettes to minors, more than 100 cities have moved to prohibit the use of e-­‐cigarettes in public places, and several corporations have banned them in the workplace. Given the potential threat to lung health and the need for rigorous scientific research on the safety and effectiveness of e-­‐cigarettes, the American Public Health Association supports efforts to regulate e-­‐cigarettes as a tobacco product, urges applying advertising and promotion restrictions on e-­‐cigarettes, encourages public places and workplaces to ban their use, and calls for evidence-­‐based research on their therapeutic value as part of a smoking cessation program.

Problem Statement

The category of products known as electronic smoking devices or electronic nicotine delivery systems includes but is not limited to electronic cigarettes (e-­‐cigarettes), vape sticks, hookah pens, and personalized vaping units. E-­‐cigarettes heat chemical solutions to produce an inhalable aerosol vapor of nicotine and other chemicals including propylene glycol and glycerin.[1,2] Although the vapor does not appear to contain carcinogens, the health effects of vapor exposures among both users and nonusers are unclear. Unlike conventional tobacco cigarettes, e-­‐cigarettes do not generate side-­‐stream vapor (aerosol between puffs). However, e-­‐cigarette users exhale secondhand vapors.[3]

There is evidence that both adults and young people in the United States are initiating e-­‐cigarette use at increasing rates. Also, research suggests that use of e-­‐cigarettes may lead minors to try other tobacco products, including conventional tobacco cigarettes.

Many e-­‐cigarette manufacturers promote their products as a healthier alternative to and substitute for conventional tobacco cigarettes,[4] marketing them as a method to reduce or quit conventional tobacco smoking.[5] This harm reduction orientation considers the net costs and benefits relative to conventional tobacco smoking. Some scientists have also adopted this harm reduction approach, recognizing the burden of global tobacco-­‐related morbidity and mortality. Thus, the public health value of e-­‐cigarettes hinges on documenting their therapeutic benefit.

Currently in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can regulate only e-­‐cigarettes that manufacturers market as therapeutic. In 2010, a federal court in Sottera v. FDA[6] ruled that the FDA needed to establish regulations for tobacco products such as e-­‐cigarettes that are marketed without therapeutic claims, that is, tobacco products that are sold over the counter or in vending machines. Subsequently, in April 2014, the FDA proposed a rule that would extend its tobacco authority to cover commercial sales of e-­‐cigarettes as nontherapeutic tobacco products.[4] This FDA action focuses on e-­‐cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy, acknowledging that if significant numbers of conventional tobacco cigarette smokers use e-­‐cigarettes to quit and new e-­‐cigarette users do not include children and adolescents who also begin using tobacco, the net impact at the population level could be positive. However, the FDA notes that the impact could be negative if the opposite is true: if current tobacco smokers continue to use both conventional tobacco and e-­‐cigarettes or a significant number of people, especially young people, initiate tobacco use via e-­‐cigarettes.[6] The FDA’s proposal would not seek to restrict online sales of e-­‐cigarettes, curb television advertising, or ban the widespread use of exotic flavors.[7]
E-­‐cigarettes were introduced in the United States in 2007. In a 2010–2011 national consumer-­‐based survey of US adults 18 years or older, 6% of all adults and 21% of current conventional tobacco smokers reported that they had ever used e-­‐cigarettes.[8] Initiation among young people has been rapid, with a statistically significant doubling of use in 2011–2012. This total includes the percentage of all students in grades 6–12 who had ever used e-­‐cigarettes (6.8%), who currently used e-­‐cigarettes (2.1%), and who currently used both e-­‐cigarettes and conventional tobacco cigarettes (1.6%).[9] An analysis of the results of the 2011 and 2012 National Youth Tobacco Survey revealed that current e-­‐cigarette use was associated with heavier smoking among conventional tobacco cigarette smokers (those who had smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime and had smoked in the preceding 30 days).[10] Another study analyzed data from the 2014 National Youth Tobacco Survey to determine the prevalence of use of 10 tobacco products including electronic cigarettes. The results showed that 45% of high school students and 1.1% of middle school students reported using e-­‐cigarettes in the preceding 30 days. [43]

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), neither the safety of e-­‐cigarettes nor their efficacy in smoking cessation programs has been scientifically demonstrated.[11] Studies focusing on the biochemical constituents, physiological and psychological effects, and health risks and benefits of e-­‐ cigarettes vary in terms of their methodological rigor, including sample sizes, recruitment techniques, and control for potential confounding variables.[12] In October 2014, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control acknowledged the need for regulation of e-­‐cigarettes along the lines of policies concerning other tobacco products, including banning or restricting promotion, advertising, and sponsorship.[13]

Secondhand exposure: Although e-­‐cigarettes do not generate side-­‐stream aerosols between puffs, users do release aerosols upon exhalation.[3] Several laboratory smoking chamber studies have compared secondhand exposure to e-­‐cigarette aerosols with secondhand exposure to conventional tobacco cigarette smoke. Results have shown that nicotine and probable carcinogens are released but at much lower levels than those associated with conventional tobacco cigarettes.[3,14,15] However, other studies have documented particle size distributions similar to those of conventional tobacco cigarettes, with some e-­‐cigarettes delivering more particles than conventional cigarettes.[16,17] A comprehensive review of research on e-­‐cigarettes concluded that e-­‐cigarette aerosol is not merely “water vapor” as is often claimed in the marketing of these products.[5] Almost all human health research on e-­‐cigarettes has focused on health risks and benefits among users. Full-­‐scale epidemiological population studies of nonusers exposed to e-­‐cigarette aerosols have not been reported.

Children and youth: Exposure to nicotine liquids is another health concern. Because the nicotine solution is sold in bottles and cartridges, accidental poisoning is a public health hazard for infants and young children. According to the American Association of Poison Control Centers, the number of poisoning cases linked to e-­‐cigarette liquids tripled to 1,351 between 2011 and 2012,[18,19]and, similarly, the number of cases referred to hospitals in 2013 was triple that of 2012. Many of the cases were among infants and young children drawn to the liquids’ bright colors and fragrant flavorings.[20,21] A recent report reviewing 78 publications on e-­‐cigarettes showed that youth are rapidly adopting e-­‐cigarettes, which tend to contain candy flavors, and that young people who use e-­‐ cigarettes are heavier, not lighter, smokers of conventional tobacco cigarettes.[22]

Cessation research: Although cessation research is limited, some of the most rigorous studies suggest that e-­‐cigarettes are comparable to, but not more effective than, other means of quitting smoking of conventional tobacco cigarettes. Because smokers of conventional cigarettes become addicted to nicotine, nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) such as gum, patches, nasal spray, inhalers, and tablets or lozenges can double a smoker’s chances of quitting.[23]

The results of a randomized and controlled trial among adults that controlled for gender and level of nicotine dependence and biochemically verified continuous abstinence at 6 months showed that nicotine e-­‐cigarettes were not superior to patches or placebo e-­‐cigarettes.[24] All were modestly effective in helping smokers to quit. Somewhat different findings were reported in a less rigorous cross-­‐ sectional study that included approximately 5,000 adults who smoked and had made at least one attempt to quit with an e-­‐cigarette only, NRT only, or no aid at all. This study, which controlled for confounding variables including nicotine dependence, revealed that e-­‐cigarette users were more likely to self-­‐report abstinence over a 12-­‐month period than either of the other two groups.[12] A longitudinal Internet survey of people enrolled on websites dedicated to e-­‐cigarettes and smoking cessation showed that almost all respondents who used e-­‐cigarettes daily took the same number of puffs each day over the yearlong study. Among dual users of e-­‐cigarettes and conventional tobacco cigarettes at baseline, 22% had stopped smoking after 1 month and 46% after 1 year. However, dual users who were still smoking conventional tobacco cigarettes did not reduce their cigarette consumption over the year.[25] These studies suggest that e-­‐cigarettes are, at best, on a par with other NRT products sold commercially; additional research is needed to confirm that e-­‐cigarettes can wean smokers from conventional tobacco cigarettes and reduce or eliminate their nicotine dependence.

Advertising and marketing: At present, e-­‐cigarettes hold a competitive advantage over conventional tobacco cigarettes in terms of advertising and marketing. The Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1970, the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement of 1998, and the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Act of 2009 prohibit the advertising and marketing of conventional tobacco cigarettes on television and in print media with high youth readership; they also prohibit cigarette manufacturers from sponsoring sporting events and music festivals. Historically, manufacturers of conventional tobacco cigarettes have used an advertising and marketing strategy of product differentiation (e.g., offering filter tips and menthol flavors) and market segmentation (e.g., targeting youth and women).[26,27] Many current e-­‐cigarette advertising and marketing campaigns resemble those used over the years to promote conventional tobacco cigarettes, especially to teenagers.[28] For example, recent e-­‐cigarette marketing campaigns have included celebrity endorsements in high-­‐profile commercials and the airing of these commercials during live broadcasts such as the Golden Globe Awards, The Late Show with David Letterman, and The View.[29] This role modeling may induce minors to try e-­‐cigarettes.

As of August 2014, at least 38 states prohibited sales of electronic cigarettes or vaping/alternative tobacco products to minors,[30] and more than 100 municipalities, including New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, prohibited the use of e-­‐cigarettes in 100% smoke-­‐free indoor environments.[4] Minnesota[31] and North Carolina[32] have taxed the nicotine liquid used in e-­‐cigarettes. In addition, price increases have been shown to reduce youth initiation and adult consumption rates.[33]

Opposing Evidence/Alternative Points of View

Other researchers, as well as the tobacco industry, have been less cautious in promoting e-­‐cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy. They claim that e-­‐cigarettes can be effective in the fight against tobacco-­‐ related morbidity and mortality and will expand the potential for harm reduction strategies and substantial health gains.[34] In addition, a 2010–2012 survey of 1,567 adult daily smokers conducted in Hawaii concluded that respondents who tried e-­‐cigarettes to quit smoking were more serious about wanting to quit than other smokers. Smokers who used NRTs were more likely to have also used e-­‐ cigarettes as cessation aids.[35]

The efficacy of existing tobacco cessation therapies should be considered in evaluating the therapeutic role of e-­‐cigarettes. A 2008 Cochrane Collaboration review[36] of 132 NRT trials showed that heavier smokers may need higher doses of nicotine than those provided by gum, patches, or tablets/lozenges. Smokers who use NRT to quit are likely to further increase their chance of success by using a combination of the nicotine patch and a faster acting form of nicotine. Similarly, those who want to quit may use e-­‐cigarettes to receive higher doses of nicotine in a faster acting form. Current conventional tobacco smokers may also find e-­‐cigarettes more desirable since they mimic smoking. However, as noted above, more recent cessation research suggests that e-­‐cigarettes alone are not any more effective than other strategies.

The health effects of the aerosol vapors have also been questioned. A study conducted for an e-­‐ cigarette advocacy group examined e-­‐cigarette users’ exposure to propylene glycol and glycerin. The study calculated occupational threshold limit values (TLVs) to evaluate the potential risks to e-­‐cigarette users and reported no evidence that use of e-­‐cigarettes produces inhalable contaminants that exceed TLV limits among users.[37] However, a comprehensive appraisal of peer-­‐reviewed published research concluded that it was inappropriate to apply TLV limits to exposures among coworkers and people with medical conditions.[5] Moreover, according to this review, industry claims that e-­‐cigarettes help smokers quit are not supported by the evidence

Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona, who is now on the board of e-­‐cigarette maker NJOY, supports e-­‐cigarettes provided that NJOY requests FDA regulation, conducts its own research, and publishes that research in peer-­‐reviewed journals, even if the findings hurt the bottom line. He also stipulates that NJOY not use his name or refer to the surgeon general in its advertising campaigns and that the company not market to minors.[38] Carmona notes some evidence that gums, patches, and sprays are effective as smoking cessation tools but are not effective enough. He adds that although early evidence suggests that e-­‐cigarettes can enhance tobacco cessation, more research is needed.

In May 2014, 53 nicotine science and public policy specialists[39] wrote the director of WHO arguing that regulation should exploit the considerable health opportunity to reduce harm from combustible tobacco products. They argued that (1) outcome measures, rather than focusing on nicotine use per se, should focus primarily on reducing smoking to decrease the prevalence of disease and premature death; (2) it is counterproductive to ban the advertising of e-­‐cigarettes and other low-­‐risk alternatives to smoking; (3) it is inappropriate to apply legislation designed to protect bystanders or workers from tobacco cigarette smoke to e-­‐cigarette aerosol vapors; and (4) the tax regime for nicotine products should reflect risk and be organized to create incentives for users to switch from smoking to low-­‐risk harm reduction products. The American Heart Association (AHA) has called for including e-­‐cigarettes under state and federal laws on smoke-­‐free air; marketing, advertising, and sales to minors; quality control over manufacturing; and standards for contaminants.[40] Although noting that current evidence does not support the use of e-­‐cigarettes as a primary cessation aid, AHA would support patients’ wish to use e-­‐cigarettes to help them quit if they did not succeed with initial cessation treatments, provided that they are warned that e-­‐cigarettes may contain low levels of toxic chemicals and have not been proven as cessation devices and that they are advised to consider setting a quit date for using e-­‐cigarettes as a cessation method.

However, some within the public health community have argued that supporting a harm reduction approach that encourages smokers who could not quit to switch to a less harmful, “safer” cigarette has not worked in the past.[41,42] This suggests that e-­‐cigarettes may not be the panacea of smoking cessation.

Action Steps

Therefore, APHA urges:
1. The Food and Drug Administration to establish regulations that hold e-­‐cigarettes to at least the same marketing and advertising rules as conventional tobacco cigarettes. This would include media advertising and appropriate warning labels, prohibiting flavors, banning sports and entertainment sponsorships, and placing e-­‐cigarette products behind counters in stores.
2. The Consumer Product Safety Commission to add nicotine to its list of substances covered by regulations and to require special packaging, such as childproof packaging and warning labels, on nicotine solution cartridges to prevent childhood poisoning.
3. States and municipalities to enact and enforce laws restricting sales of e-­‐cigarettes to minors, prohibiting the distribution of all free samples of and coupons for e-­‐cigarettes, and prohibiting the use of e-­‐cigarettes in all enclosed areas of public access and places of employment. These standards should be incorporated into existing clean indoor air laws.
4. States and municipalities to impose a tax on the nicotine liquid used in e-­‐cigarettes.
5. Congress to amend the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act to include e-­‐cigarette products, which would prohibit Internet venders from distributing them through the US Postal Service.
6. Employers to prohibit the use of e-­‐cigarettes on their premises.
7. Federal agencies and voluntary health organizations to fund research on the short-­‐ and long-­‐term health effects of e-­‐cigarettes on users and nonusers and the efficacy of e-­‐cigarettes as a harm reduction/smoking cessation strategy.

References
1. Stephens KC, Law R, Taylor E, et al. Calls to poison centers for exposures to electronic cigarettes— United States, September 2010–February 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014;63:292–293.
2. ProVape. Premium e-­‐liquid. Available at: http://www.provape.com/premium-­‐ecigarette-­‐liquid-­‐ s/44.htm. Accessed December 11, 2014.

3. Czogala J, Goniewicz ML, Fidelus B, Zielinska-­‐Danch W, Travers MJ, Sobczak A. Secondhand exposure to vapors from electronic cigarettes. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014;16:655–662.

4. US Food and Drug Administration. Deeming tobacco products to be subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; regulations on the sale and distribution of tobacco products and required warning statements for tobacco products. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/UCM394 933.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2014.

5. Grana R, Benowitz N, Glantz SA. E-­‐cigarettes: a scientific review. Circulation. 2014;129:1972–1986.

6. Sottera Inc. v. FDA, 627 F3d 891 (DC Cir., 2010).

7. Brady D. Booming e-­‐cigarette market in need of greater oversight, studies say. Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-­‐science/booming-­‐e-­‐cigarette-­‐market-­‐largely-­‐ unregulated-­‐studies-­‐say/2014/06/16/e2a4c5ee-­‐f589-­‐11e3-­‐a606-­‐946fd632f9f1_story.html. Accessed December 11, 2014.

8. King BA, Alam S, Promoff G, Arrazola R, Dube SR. Awareness and ever use of electronic cigarettes among US adults, 2010–2011. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15:1623–1627.

9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Electronic cigarette use among middle and high school students—United States, 2011–2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013;62:729–730.

10. Dutra LM, Glantz SA. Electronic cigarettes and tobacco cigarette use among US adolescents: a cross-­‐ sectional study. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168:610–617.

11. World Health Organization. Electronic cigarettes or electronic nicotine delivery systems. Available at: http://www.who.int/tobacco/communications/statements/eletronic_cigarettes/en. Accessed December 11, 2014.

12. Brown J, Beard E, Kotz D, Michie S, West R. Real-­‐world effectiveness of e-­‐cigarettes when used to aid smoking cessation: a cross-­‐sectional population study. Addiction. 2014;109:1531–1540.

13. World Health Organization. WHO tobacco treaty makes significant progress despite mounting pressure from tobacco industry. Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/cop6-­‐tobacco-­‐control/en/. Accessed December 11, 2014.

14. Schober W, Szendrei K, Matzen W, et al. Use of electronic cigarettes (e-­‐cigarettes) impairs indoor air quality and increases FeNO levels of e-­‐cigarette consumers. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2014;217:628–637.

15. Schripp T, Markewitz D, Uhde E, Salthammer T. Does e-­‐cigarette consumption cause passive vaping?
Indoor Air. 2013;23:25–31.

16. Fuoco FC, Buonanno G, Stabile L, Vigo P . Influential parameters on particle concentration and size distribution in the mainstream of e-­‐cigarettes. Environ Pollut. 2014;184:523–529.

17. Ingebrethsen BJ, Cole SK, Alderman SL. Electronic cigarette aerosol particle size distribution measurements. Inhal Toxicol. 2012;24:976–984.

18. Bronstein AC, Spyker DA, Cantilena LR Jr, Rumack BH, Dart RC. 2011 annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System (NPDS): 29th annual report. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2012;50:911–1164.

19. Mowry JB, Spyker DA, Cantilena LR Jr, Bailey JE, Ford M. 2012 annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System (NPDS): 30th annual report. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2013;51:949–1229.

20. Richtel M. Selling a poison by the barrel: liquid nicotine for e-­‐cigarettes. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/business/selling-­‐a-­‐poison-­‐by-­‐the-­‐barrel-­‐liquid-­‐nicotine-­‐for-­‐e-­‐ cigarettes.html?_r=0. Accessed December 11, 2014.

21. Carter SM, Chapman S. Smokers and non-­‐smokers talk about regulatory options in tobacco control. Tob Control. 2006;15:398–404.

22. Grana R, Benowitz N, Glantz SA. Background paper on e-­‐cigarettes (electronic nicotine delivery systems). Available at: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/13p2b72n#page-­‐2. Accessed December 11, 2014.

23. National Cancer Institute. Dispelling myths about nicotine replacement therapy. Available at: http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/documents/MythsaboutNRTFactSheet.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2014.

24. Bullen C, Howe C, Laugesen M., et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;382:1629–1637.

25. Ettera J-­‐F, Bullen C. A longitudinal study of electronic cigarette users. Addict Behav. 2014;39:491– 494.

26. Alan S. A marketing history of the US tobacco industry: from colonial times to the Great Depression. Available at: http://faculty.quinnipiac.edu/charm/CHARM%20proceedings/CHARM%20article%20archive%20pdf%20f ormat/Volume%207%201995/237%20alan.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2014.

27. Brandt AM. The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product That Defined America. New York, NY: Basic Books; 2007.

28. Waxman H, DeGette D, Pallone F Jr. Letter to Margaret Hamburg, US Food and Drug Administration. Available at: http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hamburg-­‐ Adolescent-­‐Use-­‐of-­‐E-­‐Cigarette-­‐2013-­‐9-­‐16.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2014.

29. Wilson J. Advertising effects of e-­‐cigarettes on youth: why media psychologists should care. Available at: http://div46amplifier.com/2014/05/16/advertising-­‐effects-­‐of-­‐e-­‐cigarettes-­‐on-­‐youth-­‐why-­‐media-­‐ psychologists-­‐should-­‐care/. Accessed December 11, 2014.

30. National Conference of State Legislatures. Alternative nicotine products: electronic cigarettes. Available at: http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/alternative-­‐nicotine-­‐products-­‐e-­‐cigarettes.aspx. Accessed December 11, 2014.

31. Minnesota Department of Revenue. E-­‐cigarettes are taxable in Minnesota. Available at: http://www.revenue.state.mn.us/businesses/tobacco/Pages/e-­‐Cig.aspx. Accessed December 11, 2014.

32. Maguire M. North Carolina lawmakers adopt tax on electronic cigarettes. Available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/29/us-­‐usa-­‐cigarettes-­‐north-­‐carolina-­‐ idUSKBN0E92C020140529. Accessed December 11, 2014.

33. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. State cigarette minimum price laws—United States, 2009. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5913a2.htm. Accessed December 11, 2014.

34. Cahn Z, Siegel M. Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control: a step forward or a repeat of past mistakes? J Public Health Policy. 2011;32:16–31.

35. Pokhrel P, Fagan P, Little MA, Kawamoto CT, Herzog TA. Smokers who try e-­‐cigarettes to quit smoking: findings from a multiethnic study in Hawaii. Am J Public Health. 2013;103:e57–e62.

36. Stead LF, Perera R, Bullen C, Mant D, Lancaster T. Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation (review). Available at: http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/userfiles/ccoch/file/World%20No%20Tobacco%20Day/CD000146. pdf. Accessed December 11, 2014.

37. Burstyn I. Peering through the mist: what does the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tell us about health risks? Available at: http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/publichealth/ms08.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2014.

38. Schmidt C. A former surgeon general lends his support to e-­‐cigarettes. Science. 2014;343:589.

39. Abrams D, Drucker E, Kozlowski L, et al. Statement from specialists in nicotine science and public health policy. Available at: http://nicotinepolicy.net/documents/letters/MargaretChan.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2014.

40. American Heart Association. American Heart Association issues e-­‐cigarette recommendations. Available at: http://newsroom.heart.org/news/american-­‐heart-­‐association-­‐issues-­‐e-­‐cigarette-­‐ recommendations. Accessed December 11, 2014.

41. Parascandola M. Lessons from the history of tobacco harm reduction: the National Cancer Institute’s Smoking and Health Program and the “less hazardous cigarette.” Nicotine Tob Res. 2005;7:779–789.

42. Fairchild A, Colgrove J. Out of the ashes: the life, death, and rebirth of the “safer” cigarette in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:192–204.

43. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco use among middle and high school students – United States, 2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014;63:1021–1026

159~2015_(1)AzPHA_E CIGARETTE_ Policy Statement 20149 (tobacco, public safety)

2016- Support Universal Access or Oral Healthcare for Pregnant Women in Arizona

Proposed Resolution to Support Universal Access or Oral Healthcare for Pregnant Women in Arizona

Background and Summary

Oral health is an important component of general health and should be maintained during pregnancy and through a woman’s lifespan. Good oral health may has a positive effect on cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other disorders. Perinatal and infant oral health is key in order for achieve a lifetime free from preventable oral disease.

Physiologic changes during pregnancy can result in oral health changes during pregnancy including gingivitis, benign oral gingival lesions, tooth mobility, tooth erosion, dental caries, and periodontitis. Approximately 40% of pregnant women have some form of periodontal disease.

Scientific research indicates periodontal disease may raise the risk of pre-­‐term birth, low birth-­‐weight and preeclampsia. Further, dental caries are an infectious disease which can be transmitted from a mother to her baby after its birth-­‐ increasing the risk for early childhood caries. Pregnancy is a unique time when medical and dental professionals can treat a woman’s oral disease while she is working to make healthy choices for her baby. This treatment may reduce the likelihood that her baby is exposed to bacteria which may cause early childhood caries.

Access to dental care is directly related to income level and the poorest women are least likely to receive oral health care. In Arizona, low income pregnant women enrolled in the state’s Medicaid program do not have access to the kinds of the preventative and therapeutic care critical to maintaining good oral health for the mother and infant.

Proposed Resolution September 2016

Whereas, the Arizona Public Health Association recognizes that oral health is an important component of general health and should be maintained during pregnancy and through a woman’s lifespan; and

Whereas, good oral health may has a positive effect on cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other disorders and perinatal and infant oral health is key in order for achieve a lifetime free from preventable oral disease; and
Whereas, physiologic changes during pregnancy can result in oral health changes during pregnancy including gingivitis, benign oral gingival lesions, tooth mobility, tooth erosion, dental caries, and periodontitis; and

Whereas, access to dental care is directly related to income level and the poorest women are least likely to receive oral health care.

Therefore, be it resolved that the Arizona Public Health Association supports universal oral healthcare coverage of women before, during, and after pregnancy in order to optimize their general and oral health of the mother and infant.

160~2016_(1)AZPHA Oral Health Resolution (maternal and child health, oral health)

2016- Reducing Non Medically Indicated Elective Inductions of Labor

August 25, 2016
The Arizona Public Health Association (AzPHA) supports the adoption of the following APHA Policy Statement 20141 – Reducing Non Medically Indicated Elective Inductions of Labor and its action step recommendations.

Policy Statement: 20141

Abstract

Rates of induced labor have risen dramatically in the United States, and this increase has been seen at all gestational ages, including the preterm period (less than 37 weeks of gestation) and, in particular, the late preterm period (34 through 36 weeks of gestation). An elective induction is defined as the process of artificially stimulating labor with medicine or other methods before labor has started on its own. Many commonly cited indications for labor induction are poorly supported by evidence, and patients often report that they are unaware of the risks and benefits of the procedure. Evidence suggests that there are no benefits to the mother or baby from an elective induction but that there are several increased risks, such as cesarean delivery. Quality improvement measures, such as establishing hospital protocols for scheduling inductions, have been shown to reduce the number of non-medically indicated inductions.

Relationship to Existing APHA Policy Statements
• APHA Policy Statement 200318: Safe Motherhood in the United States: Reducing Maternal Mortality and Morbidity
• APHA Policy Statement 20062: Reducing Racial/Ethnic and Socioeconomic Disparities in Preterm and Low Birthweight Births
• APHA Policy Statement 8529(PP): Preventing Low Birthweight
• APHA Policy Statement 8904: Reduction of Unnecessary Cesarean Section Births
• APHA Policy Statement 9615(PP): Supporting National Standards of Accountability for Access and Quality in Managed Health Care

Problem Statement

US statistics on induced labor: Over the past 25 years, rates of induced labor have increased dramatically in the United States. For example, estimates show an increase in labor inductions from 9.4% of births in 1990 to 23.2% in 2009.[1,2] Rates of labor induction also vary from state to state, from a relatively low rate of 13.2% in California to a high of 35.2% in Utah.[3] Rates of induction have increased in all ethnic and racial groups but are highest among non-Hispanic White women, who account for 27% of elective inductions.[1] Evidence shows that non-Hispanic White women with private or commercial insurance coverage and more than 12 years of education are more likely to have an induction than women covered by Medicaid.[4–9] Although rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes are often higher among economic and racial minority groups, evidence suggests that socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity are not significant predictors of elective inductions of labor.[9] Data also suggest that the overall increase in labor inductions is attributable to higher rates of elective inductions as opposed to those that are medically necessary or indicated.[10–12] Of particular concern is research showing that induction rates have increased substantially at all gestational ages, including the preterm (less than 37 weeks of gestation) and late preterm (34 through 36 weeks of gestation) periods, as preterm induction may negatively influence infant development and health.[1] Birth data from 2009 showed a slight decline since 2006 in preterm and early-term births, which may have been attributable to “recent efforts to reduce ‘elective’ deliveries at less than full term.”[2]

Common reasons for elective inductions of labor: Reasons for the increases in elective labor induction are multifaceted and can be difficult to identify from the available data.[11,13] The literature suggests that many women’s perceptions of the benefits and risks of labor induction may not be accurate, and such misconceptions probably contribute to increased patient demand for the procedure.[14] In the 2005 Listening to Mothers survey, 78% of mothers believed that it was necessary to know every potential complication before having a labor induction. However, most of the respondents were unable to correctly answer basic questions about the risks associated with inductions.[15] According to a survey of pregnant women, more than 90% of respondents believed that it was safe to deliver their baby before 39 weeks without medical indications, and more than 75% believed that full term was 34 to 38 weeks.[14]

Additional evidence shows that a growing number of women request an elective induction to shorten their pregnancy, for convenience, or to ensure that a preferred doctor will be present during labor and delivery.[16] The practices and preferences of individual physicians have been identified as affecting a woman’s decision to have an induction as well.[12,17] Research also has identified connections between lax enforcement of hospital policies relating to elective induction of labor and rising rates of inductions.[16] At least one study proposes that elective inductions are more often suggested by a medical professional rather than requested by the patient. For example, 75% of women in that study who had a non-medically indicated labor induction reported that their care provider made the suggestion, with only 25% requesting induced labor.[17]

Recommended medical indications for induction of labor: Commonly cited medical indications for labor induction are not absolute, and, in the case of many conditions, the benefits are not supported by empirical evidence.[11,18] A systematic “best evidence” review of articles published between 1980 and 2008 revealed that only two medical indications for induction of labor—pregnancy beyond 41 weeks and prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) at term[19]—were empirically supported. This best evidence review also showed that labor induction is harmful or offers no benefits (or both) for a number of commonly cited conditions, including intrauterine growth restriction before 37 weeks, gestational diabetes requiring insulin, twin pregnancies, and preterm PROM.[19]

Predicted macrosomia, PROM, and postterm pregnancy are three of the most commonly cited reasons for an induction; however, inductions for these indications remain controversial and are subject to a great deal of variation in practice.[20–24] The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) lists the following conditions as examples of indications for non-medically indicated early-term deliveries:
(1) preeclampsia, eclampsia, gestational hypertension, or complicated chronic hypertension; (2) oligohydramnios; (3) prior classical cesarean delivery or prior myomectomy; (4) placenta previa or placenta accreta; (5) multiple gestations; (6) fetal growth restriction; (7) pregestational diabetes with vascular disease; (8) poorly controlled pregestational or gestational diabetes; (9) placental abruption; (10) chorioamnionitis; (11) premature rupture of membranes; (12) cholestasis of pregnancy;
(13) alloimmunization of pregnancy with known or suspected fetal effects; and (14) fetal congenital malformations.[25]

Maternal health risks: Evidence-based research has shown the risks of labor induction to mother and baby before 39 weeks while failing to establish potential benefits to either party.[10,11,16, 21,26,27] Further complicating the issue is that different methods of induction may involve different potential risks and benefits. Research on these uncertainties, as well as on the effects of different combinations of methods used for labor induction, is scarce and inconclusive.[28]

Numerous studies suggest that elective inductions performed between 37 and 39 weeks of gestation are associated with a range of increased obstetric interventions.[6,12,15,21,29] In particular, the literature documents an increased risk for cesarean section, with some studies estimating that induction almost doubles a woman’s chance of having a cesarean.[6,13,15,29–31] However, a meta-analysis produced mixed results, with randomized controlled trials showing that the risk of cesarean delivery was lower among those who had an induction and observational studies demonstrating higher rates of cesarean deliveries with elective inductions. The authors cautioned that almost all of the reviewed studies were of low quality or were subject to confounding biases.[32]

Other potential risks to the mother from labor induction include an increased likelihood of postpartum hemorrhage, amniotic fluid embolism, an increased need for blood transfusion, hematoma, wound dehiscence, anemia, endometriosis, urinary tract infection, sepsis hysterectomy, a prolonged latent phase with intrapartum infection, and uterine ruptures.[6,11,15,21,23,29,33–36] A study employing an outcome index of postpartum complications such as hematoma, wound dehiscence, anemia, endometritis, urinary tract infection, wound infection, and septicemia showed a significantly higher overall risk of complications among women who underwent elective inductions (27%) than among women with spontaneous labor (18%).[37] Although some of these occurrences are quite rare, as elective inductions are preventable, it is important for mothers to know the full extent and scope of possible complications so that they can make an informed decision.[15,21]

Neonatal health risks: Elective inductions, particularly those that occur before 39 weeks of gestation, pose unnecessary risks to the fetus. An ACOG work group recommends that the label “term” be replaced with the designations early term (37 weeks, 0 days, through 38 weeks, 6 days, of gestation), full term (39 weeks, 0 days, through 40 weeks, 6 days, of gestation), late term (41 weeks, 0 days, through 41 weeks, 6 days, of gestation), and postterm (42 weeks, 0 days, of gestation and beyond) to more accurately describe deliveries occurring at or beyond 37 weeks of gestation.[38]

Data suggest that elective inductions before 39 weeks lead to more adverse neonatal outcomes than births that occur at 39 weeks.[21,38] A recent toolkit produced by the California Department of Public Health affirms that no studies have demonstrated a decrease in neonatal morbidity from elective deliveries prior to 39 weeks.[21,27] Rather, evidence suggests that elective inductions before 39 weeks significantly increase infants’ risk of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) upon birth.[21,39] For example, a study of 2,877 women who had elective inductions in one of 27 hospitals owned by the Hospital Corporation of America showed that the primary outcome of elective inductions was admission to the NICU.[39]

Studies examining fetal lung maturity and elective inductions recommend restricting inductions to at least 39 weeks in all cases without a medical indication.[38,40] Although infants are not considered premature after 37 weeks of gestation, they are significantly more likely to show signs of pulmonary immaturity at birth if they are born before 39 weeks.[40] In addition, documenting lung maturity may not always be reliable, and, even in cases of confirmed lung maturity, birth before 39 weeks has been associated with increased neonatal morbidity, including compromised fetal neural development, an increased risk of brain injury, and possible long-term neurodevelopmental abnormalities.[21,40]

Health care use and additional costs associated with labor induction: Induction of labor requires additional medical interventions and resources above and beyond normal spontaneous labor. This has implications for health care overuse and health care costs. Research suggests that elective induction of labor increases delivery costs by 17.4% over spontaneous labor.[28] Nearly $1 billion could be saved annually in the United States if the rate of early-term delivery were reduced to 1.7%.[39]

In most cases, an induction requires a bare minimum of an IV line and electronic maternal and fetal heart rate monitoring.[10,15,23] Because artificially induced contractions frequently peak sooner and remain intense longer than natural contractions, epidural rates are often increased among women with labor

inductions.[10,11,23,41] A number of observational studies have revealed higher rates of use of epidural anesthesia among women with an elective induction than among those with spontaneous labor.[6,28,29,35,41,42] Another intervention associated with elective inductions is the use of a vacuum or forceps during vaginal births.[15] One study showed a significantly higher rate of vacuum-assisted deliveries among women undergoing elective inductions (53.4%) than among women with spontaneous labor (33.3%).[29]

With respect to cesarean deliveries among women with elective inductions of labor, additional health care staff and resources are needed to perform C-sections and to manage postsurgery care, treat maternal and neonatal complications, and care for infants in the NICU. US data from 2012 reveal that 32.8% of all deliveries involve cesarean sections, and rates of primary C-sections have remained relatively stable.[43,44] In 2011, the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative issued a white paper regarding cesarean sections and related outcomes. One clinical improvement strategy to reduce cesarean delivery rates is elimination of elective inductions before 41 weeks, particularly among first-time mothers with an unfavorable cervix.[45] Longer hospital stays, increased risk of the baby’s admittance to the NICU if the induction occurs before 39 weeks of gestation, and increased risk of the mother’s admittance to the intensive care unit are associated with labor induction.[11,29,39]

Organizations and agencies with relevant positions, campaigns, or policies: Since 1979, ACOG has consistently advised against non-medically indicated elective deliveries prior to 39 weeks of gestation.[21] The ACOG guidelines provide room for induction of labor in the case of “soft indications” (e.g., a history of fast labor, maternal psychosocial discomfort) only when the gestational age has been firmly established as 39 or more weeks and the mother has been informed of the risks and benefits of and the alternatives to induction.[18] Numerous professional, nongovernmental, government, and international health organizations have followed ACOG’s lead and formally advocate against elective inductions before 39 weeks. These organizations include the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN); the American College of Nurse Midwives (ACNM); the March of Dimes; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the Joint Commission; the National Quality Forum; the Leapfrog Group; and the World Health Organization.

Many of these organizations have created public awareness campaigns aimed at women and expectant mothers. In 2012, AWHONN used its “Go the Full 40” campaign to encourage pregnant women to wait for spontaneous labor to occur.[46] Also, the March of Dimes partnered with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to produce a public awareness campaign stressing the importance of “staying pregnant” for at least 39 weeks and developed a community-based partnership model (“Healthy Babies are Worth the Wait”) among health professionals and community organizations to further its goal of reducing preterm births.[47] As part of the American Board of

Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation’s Choosing Widely campaign, ACOG produced a list of “Five Things Physicians and Patients Should Question,” with the first item being to not schedule non-medically indicated elective inductions of labor or cesarean deliveries before the gestational age of 39 weeks.[48] A second element of the ABIM Foundation’s campaign, developed in conjunction with the American Academy of Family Physicians, ACOG, and Consumer Reports, is an initiative called “Delivering Your Baby: Why Scheduling Early Delivery Is Not a Good Idea,” which stresses the importance of waiting for spontaneous labor to occur. As part of this campaign, women and their health care providers are urged to refrain from scheduling non-medically indicated elective inductions of labor before 39 weeks, 0 days, of gestation and to refrain from scheduling elective inductions of labor between 39 weeks, 0 days, and 41 weeks, 0 days, unless the cervix is deemed “favorable.”[49]

Other efforts have been directed more toward establishing guidelines and regulations at the provider or health care setting levels (particularly hospitals). In 2012, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) issued a policy statement (“Improving Pregnancy Outcomes”) that cited the need to reduce non-medically indicated elective inductions and cesarean sections prior to 39 weeks of gestation and suggested that such an aim could be reached by “working closely with patients, providers, hospitals, private insurers, and Medicaid to make 39 weeks of gestation the standard of care.”[50] In that same year, then-ASTHO president David Lakey issued a challenge to state and territorial health officials to reduce their preterm birth rates by 8% (relative to their 2009 rates).[51]

In 2012, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services launched two programs to promote testing of various clinical models designed to reduce preterm births: Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns, which seeks to test three enhanced prenatal care models with the goal of reducing preterm births among Medicaid-enrolled women, and the Hospital Engagement Network program, which has engaged more than 3,700 hospitals nationally in working on a series of quality outcomes, including reductions in early elective deliveries.[52] The Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense addressed labor induction in their 2009 clinical practice guidelines for management of pregnancy, stating that labor induction should be offered to women at 41 weeks, 0 days, of gestation; induction after 39 weeks may be considered for patients with a favorable cervix; and women should be properly educated regarding the risks and discomforts of induction.[53]

A collaborative effort including such organizations as the March of Dimes, the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative, and the California Department of Public Health produced a toolkit called “Elimination of Non-Medically Indicated (Elective) Deliveries Before 39 Weeks Gestational Age.”[21] This toolkit, as part of a larger rapid-cycle change approach, has been used in 26 hospitals in Illinois, Texas, New York, California, and Florida and has shown reductions in elective scheduled early-term deliveries ranging from 4.8% to 27.8%.[54]

The World Health Organization also recently published a guide on recommendations for labor induction.[26] In 2010, the Joint Commission first issued a set policy on elective deliveries with the goal of decreasing such deliveries, including inductions performed between 37 and 39 weeks of gestation. As part of this policy, hospitals are directed to track data on elective deliveries, and induction rates will serve as a key quality indicator of obstetric care.[3] As of January 1, 2014, these guidelines became mandatory for hospitals with 1,100 or more births per year.[55] This policy was also adopted by the National Quality Forum and the Hospital Corporation of America.58 The Leapfrog Group, in its decision to adopt the policy, cited decreases in elective inductions as a key quality indicator.[34]

Evidence-Based Strategies to Address the Problem

Evidence-based strategies include supporting and encouraging collaborative efforts among major stakeholders such as care providers, perinatal hospital leaders and administrators, childbirth educators, insurance companies, policymakers, and parents.[57] For example, the Ohio Perinatal Quality Collaborative implemented efforts to improve documentation of and criteria for labor inductions, and this process resulted in a decrease in inductions without medical indications (from 13% to 8%) and in a reduction of the number of infants born between 36 and 38 weeks of gestation who were admitted to the NICU.[57]

Data show that elective inductions decrease when hospitals implement elective birth policies, scheduling guidelines, and protocols for approving exceptions for non- medically necessary deliveries prior to 39 weeks of gestation. The Ohio collaborative collected and reported data showing formal documentation of indications for inductions or cesarean births, gestational ages, and criteria for determination. Rates of elective deliveries prior to 39 weeks of gestation were compared between hospitals that were and were not participating in the collaborative. As a result of the changes in practice instituted, the rate of births scheduled between 36 weeks, 1 day, and 38 weeks, 6 days, of gestation without medical indications decreased from 25% to less than 5% within the 14-month data collection period.[57]

A Utah-based organization, Intermountain Healthcare, implemented or reformed patient education, data feedback, and care guidelines to address elective inductions. This campaign, as well as the implementation of strict hospital protocols prohibiting the use of elective inductions prior to 39 weeks, was successful in reducing inductions in some hospital settings.[58] The Trinity Health System in Michigan implemented a similar “hard-stop” policy designed to prevent physicians from scheduling non-medically indicated deliveries before 39 weeks, effectively reducing its rate of elective deliveries from 15% in 2009 to less than 1% in 2012.[59] The Tennessee-based Hospital Corporation of America and the Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems have also enacted hard-stop policies to prevent elective inductions, producing results as favorable as an 86% decline in such deliveries.[59,60]

Alternative health care providers and settings, such as midwives, doulas, birthing centers, and home births (for women with no risks), also show encouraging evidence of lower elective induction rates. ACNM advocates against the practice of elective induction of labor and states that induction is an option that should be carefully weighed against expectant management, with spontaneous labor being preferable in almost all situations without medical indications.[61] A 2005 study of more than 5,000 US and Canadian women showed a much lower rate of labor induction (9.6%) among women who delivered at home with the assistance of a certified professional midwife than among those who gave birth in a hospital setting.[62] Another study compared women who used a birth center and received midwifery care with a control group of women who gave birth in hospitals but were eligible for birth center care. After adjustment for race, ethnicity, parity, history of cesarean delivery, age, marital status, country of origin, smoking status, and height, the data showed a labor induction rate of only 8% in birth centers, as compared with 15% in hospitals.[63] A more recent study published in 2014 also documented that non-medically indicated inductions were less likely to occur in hospitals in which 30% or more of births were assisted by a nurse-midwife.[64]

Opposing Arguments/Evidence

There is limited agreement and inconclusive data in the literature as to the benefits to the mother and baby of a non-medically indicated elective induction, regardless of gestational age. Evidence-based research recognizes labor induction’s risk of harm to mother and baby before 39 weeks while failing to establish potential benefits to either party.[10,11,16,21,26] Further complicating the issue is that different methods of induction may involve different risks and potential benefits. Research on these uncertainties, as well as the effects of different combinations of methods used for labor induction, is scarce and inconclusive.[28]

As noted, predicted macrosomia, PROM, and postterm pregnancy are the most commonly reported reasons for induction, yet all three remain controversial and are subject to a great deal of variation in practice.[20] In particular, there is debate on whether or not macrosomia is an acceptable medical indication for induction, with many believing that it is not.[21] As many as 70% of women who are told that they are carrying a macrosomic baby are actually carrying a normal-weight baby.[23,24] According to the findings of one review, inducing labor when a macrosomic baby is suspected does not improve neonatal outcomes and appears to increase the likelihood of a cesarean birth.[10]

Induction for PROM is another source of controversy. While induction for PROM is recommended by ACOG, ACNM has drawn different conclusions.[61,65] Both ACOG and ACNM have cited evidence from the 1996 TERMPROM study, the largest trial to date on this issue, in justifying their respective positions.[66] ACOG concluded that women who had expectant management of labor were more likely to have a uterine infection than women who had labor induced as soon as possible after PROM.[66] However, the ACNM position statement points to important limitations that affect the external validity of the study findings and their implications for current maternity care practices. Notably, the study’s definition of uterine infection (a temperature equal to or greater than 37.5°C or 38°C) was not consistent with its definition in current practice (a temperature greater than 38°C), which could lead to overdiagnosis. Women with PROM also receive multiple digital vaginal exams, which are known to increase the risk of infection. The risks of harm and the potential benefits should be considered in making a decision about induction of labor or expectant management in the case of PROM.[66]

Action Steps

The following action steps, grouped by theme, are recommended.

Action steps for hospitals:
1. Hospitals with less than 1,100 births annually are not mandated to comply with the Joint Commission’s policy on elective deliveries but should be encouraged to do so. Hospitals with 1,100 births or more each year should already be in compliance with this policy (as of January 1, 2014) and should be urged to implement strict hospital protocols prohibiting the use of elective inductions prior to 39 weeks, except where medically indicated.

2. Hospitals of all sizes are urged to establish strict elective delivery policies, scheduling guidelines, and protocols for approving exceptions to non-medically necessary deliveries before 39 weeks of gestation. It has been shown that such obstetric quality improvement measures and indicators are successful in reducing inductions of labor in some hospital settings.[54]

3. Hospitals are encouraged to hold annual training sessions or meetings to provide information to physicians with admitting privileges on induction guidelines, policies, and procedures.

4. Hospitals are encouraged to post the flow chart for induction of labor contained in the Joint Commission’s policy on elective deliveries in a visible place where physicians will regularly see it.

5. Where state laws permit, hospitals are urged to allow nurse-midwives, doulas, and other alternative health care providers in the delivery room to support women who want to use these types of providers but still want to deliver in a hospital setting.

Action steps to improve patient education and awareness:

6. Childbirth preparation organizations (e.g., the International Childbirth Educators

Association and the Childbirth and Postpartum Professional Association) are encouraged to incorporate accurate information about the risks and benefits of elective induction of labor into their childbirth education courses.

7. Women and their partners should be encouraged to attend childbirth education classes that provide accurate information about the risks and benefits of elective induction of labor.[53]

8. Hospitals and physicians should implement mandated informed consent discussions with patients regarding the risks and benefits to mother and baby of elective deliveries before 39 weeks of gestation.[24] The patient should be counseled by her health care provider regarding the indications for induction, the agents and methods of labor stimulation, and the possible health outcomes.

9. There should be increased support for already-existing public awareness campaigns on the importance of waiting at least until 40 weeks of gestation and spontaneous labor, and relevant organizations and agencies should be encouraged to create similar campaigns or partner with existing ones.

Action steps to improve the knowledge and evidence base on elective inductions of labor:

10. Hospitals, state health departments, and/or federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should work to improve collection of data on the number of elective deliveries before 39 weeks and outcomes at the hospital level so as to guide policy, intervention reviews, and leadership decision making. Data showing formal documentation of indications for inductions, gestational ages, and criteria for determination should be collected and reported.

11. There should be support for high-quality research on the benefits and risks of inductions of labor relative to spontaneous labor, as well as studies of the impact of different types and combinations of methods. Existing research in this area is scarce and generally of low quality, with often inconclusive results.[13]

12. Funding agencies are encouraged to support research projects and trials investigating the overall effects of elective inductions of labor.

Action steps for health care providers:
13. Physicians should be encouraged to discontinue the use of elective inductions in the absence of medical indications. Research shows that physician influence is a strong predictor of whether or not a woman will decide to be induced.[17]

14. If they have not already done so, professional organizations that serve physicians, nurses, midwives, and doulas should be encouraged to adopt official measures and

policies on the use of elective inductions in the absence of medical indications. These policies should be clearly communicated to their members.

15. Health care providers should be encouraged to value a patient’s informed consent over provider convenience or scheduling preferences.

Action steps for maternal and child health policy change, advocacy, insurance, and systems change groups:
16. These groups should support and encourage collaborative efforts among major stakeholders such as care providers, perinatal hospital leaders and administrators, childbirth educators, insurance companies, policymakers, and parents.

17. These groups should advocate for state legislators to fund data collection on the number of elective deliveries before 39 weeks and outcomes at the hospital level to guide policy, intervention reviews, and leadership decision making. Also, they should advocate for collection and reporting of data showing formal documentation of indications for inductions, gestational ages, and criteria for determination.

18. These groups should advocate for policies at the state and federal levels that encourage payment models promoting reductions in primary and secondary cesarean sections.

19. These groups should urge all private and public insurance plans to expand patients’ choices with respect to birthing preferences and to provide market-value reimbursement rates for nurse-midwives, doulas, and other alternative health care providers.

References
1. Martin J, Hamilton B, Sutton P, et al. Births: Final Data for 2006. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Health Statistics; 2009.
2. Martin J, Hamilton B, Ventura M, et al. Births: Final Data for 2009. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Health Statistics; 2011.
3. Sakala C, Corry MP. Evidence-based maternity care: what it is and what it can achieve. Available at: http://www.milbank.org/uploads/documents/0809MaternityCare/0809MaternityCare.html
. Accessed January 10, 2015.
4. Turcotte L, Robst J, Polacheck S. Medical interventions among pregnant women in fee-for-service and managed care insurance: a propensity score analysis. Appl Econ. 2006;38:1513–1525.
5. Coonrod DV, Bay RC, Kishi GY. The epidemiology of labor induction: Arizona 1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182:1355–1361.
6. Glantz JC. Elective induction vs. spontaneous labor associations and outcomes. J Reprod Med. 2005;50:235–240.

7. Chung J, Garite T, Kirk A, Hollard A, Wing D, Lagrew D. Intrinsic racial differences in the risk of cesarean delivery are not explained by differences in caregivers or hospital site of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1323–1328.
8. Murthy K, Grobman WA, Lee TA, Holl JL. Trends in induction of labor at early-term gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:435.e1–435.e6.
9. Wilson, Barbara L. Birth outcome following labor induction. Available at: http://nursing.utah.edu/clinical- services/birthcare/2013womconfpdf/Barbara%20Wilson%20- ACNM%20Regional%20Conf%20April%202013.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2015.
10. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Thinking about having your labor induced? A guide for pregnant women. Available at: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/135/353/induction%20of%20labor%20c onsumer%20guide.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2015.
11. King VJ, Pilliod RP, Little A. Medicaid Evidence-Based Decisions Project (MED) rapid review: elective inductions of labor. Available at: http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/research/centers-institutes/evidence-based-policy- center/med/index.cfm. Accessed January 10, 2015.
12. Luthy DA, Malmgren JA, Zingheim RW. Cesarean delivery after elective induction in nulliparous women: the physician effect. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191:1511–1515.
13. Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ, et al. Maternal and Neonatal Out¬comes of Elective Induction of Labor. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2009.
14. Goldenberg RL, McClure EM, Bhattacharya A, Groat TD, Stahl PJ. Women’s perceptions regarding the safety of births at various gestational ages. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:1254–1258.
15. Childbirth Connection. Quick facts about induction of labor. Available at: http://www.childbirthconnection.org/pdfs/InductionQuickFacts.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2015.
16. Moore J, Low L. Factors that influence the practice of elective induction of labor: what does the evidence tell us? J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2012;26:242–250.
17. Simpson KR, Newman G, Chirino OR. Patient education to reduce elective inductions. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2010;35:188–194.
18. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:386–397.
19. Mozurkewich E, Chilimigras J, Koepke E, Keeton K, King VJ. Indications for induction of labour: a best-evidence review. BJOG. 2009;116:626–636.
20. Goer H, Romano A. Optimal Care in Childbirth: The Case for a Physiologic Approach. Seattle, WA: Classic Day Publishing; 2012.
21. Main E, Oshiro B, Chagolla B, Bingham D, Dang-Kilduff L, Kowalewski L. Elimination of non-medically indicated (elective) deliveries before 39 weeks gestational age. Available at: http://www.leapfroggroup.org/media/file/LessThan39WeeksToolkit.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2015.

22. Zamorsky MA, Biggs WS. Management of suspected fetal macrosomia. Am Fam Phys. 2001;63:302–306.
23. Amis D. Care practice #1: labor begins on its own. J Perinat Educ. 2007;16:16–20.
24. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Management of postterm pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:639–646.
25. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Nonmedically indicated early-term deliveries. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121:911–915.
26. WHO Recommendations for Induction of Labor. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2011.
27. Jensen JR, White WM, Coddington CC. Maternal and neonatal complications of elective early-term deliveries. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013;88:1312–1317.
28. Vahratian A, Zhang J, Troendle JF, Sciscione AC, Hoffman MK. Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:698–704.
29. Seyb ST, Berka RJ, Socol ML, Dooley SL. Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94:600–607.
30. Guerra GV, Cecatti JG, Souza JP, et al. Elective induction versus spontaneous labour in Latin America. Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89:657–665.
31. Signore C. No time for complacency: labor inductions, cesarean deliveries, and the definition of “term.” Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:4–6.
32. Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ, et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of elective induction of labor. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/evidence- based-reports/eil-evidence-report.pdf. Accessed January 15, 2015.
33. Kramer MS, Rouleau J, Baskett TF, Joseph KS. Amniotic-fluid embolism and medical induction of labor: a retrospective, population-based cohort study. Lancet. 2006;368:1444–1448.
34. Leapfrog Group. Early elective deliveries (between 37 and 39 completed weeks of gestation). Available at: http://www.leapfroggroup.org/media/file/FactSheetElectiveDeliveries011712.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2015.
35. Cammu H, Martens G, Ruyssinck G, Amy JJ. Outcome after elective labor induction in nulliparous women: a matched cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:240–4.
36. Kaufman KE, Bailit JL, Grobman W. Elective induction: an analysis of economic and health consequences. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:858–863.
37. Dunne C, Da Silva O, Schmidt G, Natale R. Outcomes of elective labour induction and elective caesarean section in low-risk pregnancies between 37 and 41 weeks’ gestation. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009;31:1124–1130.
38. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Definition of term pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:1139–1140.
39. Clark S, Miller D, Belford M, Dildy G, Frye D, Meyers J. Neonatal and maternal outcomes associated with elective term delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200:156.e1–156.e4.
40. Bates E, Rouse D, Chapman V, Mann ML, Carlo W, Tita A. Fetal lung maturity

testing before 39 weeks and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:S17.
41. Goer H, Leslie MS, Romano AM. Step 6: does not routinely employ practices, procedures unsupported by scientific evidence. J Perinat Educ. 2007;16(suppl 1):32S– 64S.
42. Hoffman MK, Vahratian A, Sciscione AC, Troendle JF, Zhang J. Comparison of labor progression between induced and noninduced multiparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1029–1034.
43. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Births: methods of delivery. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/delivery.htm. Accessed January 10, 2015.
44. Osterman MJK, Martin JA. Primary cesarean delivery rates, by state: results from the revised birth certificate, 2006–2012. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_01.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2015.
45. Main EK, Morton CH, Hopkins D, Giuliani G, Melsop K, Gould JB. Cesarean Deliveries, Outcomes, and Opportunities for Change in California: Toward a Public Agenda for Maternity Care Safety and Quality. Palo Alto, CA: California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative; 2011.
46. Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses. Babies need 40 weeks. Nurs Womens Health. 2012;16:166–169.
47. March of Dimes. Why at least 39 weeks is best for your baby. Available at: http://www.marchofdimes.com/pregnancy/why-at-least-39-weeks-is-best-for-your- baby.aspx. Accessed January 10, 2015.
48. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Five things physicians and patients should question. Available at: http://www.choosingwisely.org/doctor-patient- lists/american-college-of-obstetricians-and-gynecologists/. Accessed on November 11, 2013.
49. Consumer Reports. Delivering your baby: why scheduling early delivery is not a good idea. Available at: http://consumerhealthchoices.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/03/ChoosingWiselyMaternityACOGAAFP.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2015.
50. Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. Improving birth outcomes: position statement. Available at: http://www.astho.org/Policy-and-Position- Statements/Improving-Birth-Outcomes/?terms=labor+induction. Accessed January 10, 2015.
51. Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. President’s Challenge. Accessed at: http://www.astho.org/t/pres_chal.aspx?id=6484. Accessed January 10, 2015.
52. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Reducing early elective deliveries in Medicaid and CHIP. Available at: http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program- Information/By-Topics/Quality-of-Care/Downloads/EED-Brief.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2015.
53. Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense. Clinical practice guideline for management of pregnancy. Available at: http://www.healthquality.va.gov/guidelines/WH/up/mpg_v2_1_full.pdf. Accessed

January 10, 2015.
54. Oshiro BT, Kowaleski L, Sappenfield W, et al. A multistate quality improvement program to decrease elective deliveries before 39 weeks of gestation. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121:1025–1031.
55. Joint Commission. Specifications manual for Joint Commission national quality core measures. Available at: https://manual.jointcommission.org/releases/TJC2013A/MIF0166.html. Accessed January 10, 2015.
56. National Qualify Forum. Endorsement summary: perinatal and reproductive health measures. Available at: http://www.qualityforum.org. Accessed January 10, 2015.
57. Ohio Perinatal Quality Collaborative Writing Committee. A statewide initiative to reduce inappropriate births at 36 0/7–38 6/7 weeks’ gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202:243.e1–243.e8.
58. Oshiro BT, Henry E, Wilson J, et al. Decreasing elective deliveries before 39 weeks of gestation in an integrated health care system. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:804–811.
59. Hostetter M, Klien S. Quality matters in focus: targeting maternal care. Available at: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Newsletters/Quality-Matters/2013/February- March/In-Focus.aspx. Accessed January 10, 2015.
60. Rogovoy J. One year after “hard stop,” Oregon hospitals lower early elective births by as much as 86%. Available at: http://www.oahhs.org/news-and-publications/press- releases/one-year-after-hard-stop-oregon-hospitals-lower-early-elective. Accessed January 10, 2015.
61. American College of Nurse-Midwives. ACNM position statement: premature rupture of membranes at term. Available at: http://www.midwife.org/ACNM/files/ACNMLibraryData/UPLOADFILENAME/0000000002 33/PROM%20Mar%202012.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2015.
62. Johnson KC, Daviss BA. Outcomes of planned home births with certified professional midwives: large prospective study in North America. BMJ. 2005;330:1416.
63. Jackson DJ, Lang JM, Swartz WH, et al. Outcomes, safety, and resource utilization in a collaborative care birth center program compared with traditional physician-based perinatal care. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:999–1006.
64. Womack LS, Sappenfield WM, Clark CL, et al. Maternal and hospital characteristics of non-medically indicated deliveries prior to 39 weeks. Matern Child Health J. 2014;18:1893–1904.
65. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:1007–1019.
66. Hannah ME, Ohlsson A, Farine D, et al. Induction of labor compared with expectant management for prelabor rupture of the membranes at term. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1005–1010.

161~2016_(1)APHA Induction of Labor(maternal and child health, disparities, healthcare)

2016- Decreasing Prescription (Opioids) Drug Misuse

August 25, 2016
The Arizona Public Health Association (AzPHA) supports the adoption of the following APHA Policy Statement 20154 – Prevention and Intervention Strategies to Decrease Misuse of Prescription Pain Medication and its action step recommendations.

Policy Statement: 20154

Abstract

The United States is undergoing an epidemic of deaths caused by prescription drug overdoses. Every 19 minutes, someone in the United States dies from an unintentional prescription drug overdose. One major contributing factor to the rise in such deaths is the increased use of opioid analgesics. This policy statement recommends legislative and educational strategies to combat misuse of prescription pain medications.

Legislation needs to address physical and mental status examination laws, doctor shopping laws, tamper-resistant prescription form requirements, regulation of pain management clinics, prescription drug monitoring laws, prescription drug overdose emergency response immunity, and access to naloxone. Education must be required for health care prescribers and for the general public. Community education efforts could focus on safe storage, use, and disposal of prescription medications. Pain medication prescription prescribers must be educated on identification and treatment of pain, alternative modalities, substance abuse screening, and mental illness assessments and treatment for vulnerable populations.

Relationship to Existing APHA Policy Statements

This policy has been identified as a policy statement gap for 2015 (a related policy is 20133, Reducing Opioid Overdose through Education and Naloxone Distribution).

Existing policies focus predominantly on naloxone distribution programs. A more comprehensive policy statement with additional actions that should be taken at the local, state, and national levels was requested. These additional actions are included in this policy.

Problem Statement

According to a report released in 2013 by the Trust for America’s Health, “prescription drug abuse has quickly become a top public health concern, as the number of drug overdose deaths—a majority of which are from prescription drugs—[has] doubled in 29 states since 1999. The rates [have] quadrupled in four of these states and tripled in 10 more of these states.”[1] Enough prescription painkillers were prescribed in 2010 to medicate every American adult around the clock for 1 month. Although most of these pills were prescribed for a medical purpose, many ended up in the hands of people who abused them.[2]

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), prescription drug abuse was the fastest growing drug problem in the United States as of 2012.[3] Many people who use heroin in the United States today used prescription opioids first.[4] Although the number of drug deaths related to prescription opioids has stabilized,mortality rates associated with heroin have increased over the last 3 years.[4] One major contributing factor to this growing drug problem in the United States is the increased use and prescribing of opioid analgesics, which, over the past decade, have caused more overdose deaths than heroin and cocaine combined.[3] One CDC report noted that, for every overdose death, there are 10 treatment admissions for abuse, 32 emergency department visits for misuse or abuse, 130 people who abuse or are dependent, and 825 people who take prescription painkillers for nonmedical use.[2] In that report, nonmedical use was defined as “use of a prescription pain reliever without a prescription belonging to the respondent or use for the experience or feeling the drug causes.”[2]

Not only are the morbidity and mortality rates associated with prescription drugs a top public health concern, but the costs imposed on the US economy are also substantial. A 2011 study estimated that, in 2006, nonmedical use of prescription painkillers imposed a cost of $53.4 billion on the US economy, including $42 billion in lost productivity, $8.2 billion in increased criminal justice costs, $2.2 billion for drug abuse treatment, and $944 million in medical complications.[2]

As a result of the growing drug problem in the United States and the associated costs incurred by the US economy, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, the CDC, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), and state and local public health agencies have made reducing prescription drug abuse a top priority to address associated rates of morbidity and mortality.[1] In addition, in 2014, the Association for State and Territorial Health Officials implemented the 15 by 15 challenge, intended to reduce prescription drug misuse and deaths by 15% by 2015.[5]

The Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) Center of Excellence describes the prescription drug abuse epidemic as a factor of increased prescribing of prescription drugs: “The rise in the misuse and abuse of prescription drugs, opiates in particular, has been attributed to their increased availability over the last decade, a result of increased prescribing. Increased prescribing in turn has been driven by more aggressive treatment of pain in response to patient advocacy groups, the development of new formulations of opiate analgesics to meet this demand, and increased marketing of opiates by pharmaceutical companies. Hydrocodone-acetaminophen, sold under the brand name Vicodin™, is among the most widely prescribed medications in the US in any drug category. Synthetic opioids such as OxyContin™, oxycodone and methadone are more frequently prescribed to treat non-cancer pain than in prior decades. Because of their psychoactive and addictive properties, these drugs, along with tranquilizers (e.g., benzodiazepines such as Xanax, Klonopin, and Valium) and stimulants (Ritalin, Adderall) have high street value. They are diverted for illicit use by means of sharing among friends and family, doctor shopping, prescription fraud, and theft.”[6]

Opioid painkillers are only one group of prescription drugs that have potential for misuse or abuse. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) has grouped the most commonly used addictive drugs into 13 different categories, one of which is prescription and over-the-counter medications.[7] Although the prescription drug abuse epidemic may be commonly discussed in terms of opioid analgesics, there are several other groups of prescription and over-the-counter medications that may be subject to misuse and abuse. For example, stimulants such as amphetamines and methylphenidates are commonly prescribed to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and have the potential for abuse. In addition, depressants may be used to treat anxiety- or sleep- related disorders and contribute to the prescription drug abuse problem in the United States. Prescription-strength cold medicines may contain ingredients such as promethazine or codeine, both of which can illicit euphoric or sedative effects.

Furthermore, common over-the-counter drugs that contain ingredients such as dextromethorphan and pseudoephedrine may be subject to misuse and abuse.[7] Thus, it is important for initiatives aimed at curbing the prescription drug abuse epidemic to address the abuse and misuse of all groups of prescription and over-the-counter medications that have the potential for abuse.
Policy efforts aimed at reducing the impact of morbidity and mortality related to prescription drug abuse commonly focus on the supply side of the “drug abuse supply- and-demand equation.”[8] However, there is some literature that questions the effectiveness of heavy supply-side-focused initiatives.[9] The concern is that these initiatives may limit access to medications for patients who have legitimate chronic pain. Some policy initiatives, however, may have the potential to reduce the supply of prescription drugs and thus reduce the potential for drug diversion that leads to misuse and abuse. According to Twillman et al., policy initiatives that focus on the supply of prescription drugs should consider (1) abuse-deterrent opioid formulations, (2) increased medication storage security at home, (3) drug take-back opportunities, (4) improved clinician education, and (5) improved effectiveness of prescription drug monitoring programs.[8] These five solutions strive to reduce access to prescription drugs that may be used for reasons other than their originally intended purpose. For example, improved clinician education aims to teach clinicians “to prescribe only the number of doses they expect patients to need in acute pain settings and the importance of avoiding excess prescribing.”[9] Similarly, PDMP electronic databases provide supplemental information on controlled substance prescriptions and allow for detection of and intervention among individuals attempting to fraudulently obtain such prescriptions. Although supply-side initiatives are a major focus in prescription drug abuse efforts, the demand side of the equation is equally important.

Policymakers and public health officials must also aim to reduce the demand for prescription drugs to prevent individuals from developing the disease of addiction. Primary drug abuse prevention efforts that aim to educate patients and their families form the foundation for reducing prescription drug demand. Research efforts must focus on understanding how to improve the effectiveness of primary drug abuse prevention programs.[9] Furthermore, these programs must become more prominent throughout the country to prevent the development of addiction. Although the goal is to completely prevent abuse of prescription drugs, treatment services must be available to those who have abused or are currently abusing these drugs. Therefore, demand reduction strategies must ensure that there is an adequate supply of substance abuse treatment programs and mental health professionals to provide these services.

Prescription drug misuse and abuse disproportionately affect men as compared with women. According to SAMHSA, the rate of nonmedical use of prescription psychotherapeutic drugs is 2.6% among men and 2.3% among women.[10,11] SAMHSA also identifies young adults, veterans, and military service members, as well as older adults, as being disproportionately affected by prescription drug misuse and abuse.[11] In fact, many young people believe prescription drugs to be safer than illegal drugs. In 2014, youths 12 to 17 years of age and young adults 18 to 25 years of age were more likely to have misused prescription drugs in the past year than adults 26 years or older.[11]

On the other end of the spectrum, NIDA notes that prescription drug misuse and abuse are increasing among people in their 50s.[11] This population is at higher risk for medication misuse than the general population, largely as a result of increased rates of pain, sleep disorders/insomnia, and anxiety.[11] In addition, elderly individuals are typically more sensitive to medications because of their slower metabolism.[11] Furthermore, the elderly population may be more likely to take multiple medications concurrently for the treatment or management of several comorbidities, a practice referred to as polypharmacy. According to a systematic literature review conducted in 2005, polypharmacy is correlated with adverse health outcomes among elderly individuals.[12] These adverse outcomes are likely due to the increased risk of drug interactions between multiple medications and the complexity of the treatment and management of multiple comorbidities. Therefore, improved health outcomes in this population may depend on successful care coordination and reductions in cases of polypharmacy.

Intervention strategies that aim to curb the prescription drug abuse epidemic must (1) improve legislation and enforcement of existing laws, (2) improve medical practice with respect to prescribing opioids, (3) educate prescribers regarding the underappreciated risks and benefits of high-dose opioid therapy, and (4) include secondary and tertiary prevention measures to improve access to substance abuse services and overdose harm reduction programs.[3] In addition, policy initiatives must not focus solely on the supply side of the prescription drug abuse equation, which could reduce access to treatment among patients who have a legitimate need for medications to control chronic pain. As such, policy initiatives focused on demand must also be considered, with particular attention to populations disproportionately affected by prescription drug misuse and abuse.

Evidence-Based Strategies to Address the Problem

The prescription drug abuse injury policy report published by the Trust for America’s Health in 2013 described several strategic interventions considered to be the most promising to fight prescription drug abuse.[1] Unfortunately, many of these intervention

strategies are relatively new, and therefore strong research and evidence are limited.[1] However, the Trust for America’s Health convened a group of medical, law enforcement, and public health experts to identify the most promising policies and approaches to reducing prescription drug abuse on the basis of available research and data.[1] As a result, these strategies may be considered as informed by evidence.

The strategies can be broken into two categories. The first category includes strategies aimed at prevention of drug misuse and abuse, such as implementation and mandatory use of PDMP initiatives, adoption of doctor shopping laws and medical provider education laws, and implementation of physical exam requirements. The second category of interventions aims to increase access to and support for substance abuse services. These strategies include adoption of good Samaritan laws, laws that support access to rescue drugs, and other overdose harm reduction programs. This category also recommends that resources be allocated for development and continued support of substance abuse services. Specifically, SAMHSA has reported a growing workforce crisis in the addictions field due to high turnover rates, worker shortages, an inadequately qualified and aging workforce, and stigma.[13]
In combination with counseling, medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction in opioid treatment programs can reduce prescription overdose deaths. Best practice guidelines, available through SAMHSA, include individually designed programs with detoxification and medically supervised withdrawal and maintenance medications. Also recommended are psychosocial counseling and treatment for any co-occurring disorders, vocational and rehabilitation services, and case management services.[14] Other recommendations are listed below.

• Legislation requiring a practitioner to examine or evaluate the physical and mental status of a patient before prescribing or dispensing controlled substances. “Practitioner” broadly refers to physicians, dentists, pharmacists, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, or any other individuals permitted to prescribe, dispense, and distribute a controlled substance.[15]

• Legislation addressing doctor shopping to prevent patients from obtaining controlled substances from multiple providers. Although all states follow the Narcotic Drug Act of 1932 or the Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1970, according to which no person “shall obtain or attempt to obtain a narcotic drug, or procure or attempt to procure the administration of a narcotic drug…by fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or subterfuge,” only 20 states have additional regulations to specifically prevent doctor shopping.[16] PDMPs are useful in allowing access to information across state lines, and prescribers should be required to check this information before the initial prescription is given and at least every 3 months thereafter.[17] Also, if patients are receiving multiple prescriptions, providers need to be knowledgeable regarding how to refer them for treatment.

• Legislation regulating “pill mills,” pain management clinics where large numbers of prescriptions are provided. Actions can include requiring clinics to register with the state or obtain a license or certificate. Also, owners can be required to be licensed prescribers and in good standing in the state, and unannounced inspections can be conducted as a means of verifying documentation and responding to complaints. Florida has experienced a decrease in overdose- related mortality as a result of its actions in this area.[18]

• Education for prescribers on appropriate diagnosis and treatment of chronic pain. One study of physicians revealed a knowledge gap related to abuse-deterrent formulations and the amount of recreational abuse stemming from diversions of legitimate prescriptions.[19]

• Education for providers on alternative modalities such as physical therapy, acupuncture, and nonnarcotic therapy. Providers who prescribe extended- release/long-acting opioid analgesics to treat chronic pain need to consider other drugs that can interact and cause respiratory depression.[20] A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of complementary and alternative medicines for cancer pain indicated some success with hypnosis, imagery, acupuncture, and healing touch.[21]

• Use of naloxone by first responders as well as family and friends of individuals addicted to opioids or other narcotics. Family and friends of those at risk of opioid overdose must be educated on the signs of overdose emergency and must be told to call 911 and administer naloxone. They and the naloxone prescriber need to be protected by immunity from prosecution.[22]

• Increased preparation of substance abuse treatment specialists and increased availability of treatment facilities. The National Association of Community Health Centers[23] found that 43% of physicians working in federally qualified health centers were interested in being trained to provide medication-assisted treatments for people with addictive disorders. SAMHSA workforce initiatives should be encouraged, including partnerships with community-based providers and organizations, efforts to increase the diversity of the behavioral health workforce, and initiatives to expand the numbers of on-site and distance education programs. Prescribers need to practice compassionate weaning if access to prescription drugs is restricted.[14]
The World Health Organization (WHO) has outlined several recommendations on treatment options and prevention of opioid overdose, including increasing the number of opioid dependency treatment programs. WHO also recommends reducing inappropriate opioid prescribing, making naloxone available to those who might witness an opioid overdose, and offering more psychosocial support to maintain treatment options.

WHO’s suggested treatment options include methadone, buprenorphine, and detoxification. Initial treatment would involve non-opioid medications, to be followed by weak opioids and, subsequently, stronger opioids.[24]
The Scottish government has funded a national take-home naloxone program since 2011 to educate families, friends, and caregivers on causes of overdose and administration of naloxone. All individuals released from prison who were on an opioid drug are given naloxone as they leave. This policy has led to a 20% to 30% reduction in opiate-related deaths among the prison release population.[25]

The International Narcotics Control Board has reported actions to overcome prescription drug abuse that include preventing forging of prescriptions and decreasing thefts from pharmacies, hospitals, and doctors’ offices. The board also discourages doctor shopping and illegal Internet pharmacy operations.[26]

Opposing Arguments/Evidence

A 2011 Institute of Medicine report addressed relieving pain. Tens of millions of Americans are affected by pain, contributing to morbidity, mortality, disability, demands on the health care system, and economic costs. Disparities in the treatment of pain exist, and serious undertreatment of pain has been reported among children, the elderly, and racial and ethnic minority groups.[27] Restricting access to pain medications through legislative or criminal justice actions to prevent doctor shopping or close “pill mills” can further decrease legitimate pain medication access.[28]

Failure to adequately medicate a patient can place a physician at risk for malpractice. In addition to being charged with negligence, physicians have been sued as a result of complaints regarding both overtreatment and undertreatment of pain.[29]

Objections to distributing naloxone to nonmedical personnel also persist despite a lack of scientific evidence to support such objections. In fact, naloxone is safe, effective, and easy to administer via nasal spray or intramuscular injection. It has been argued that naloxone can encourage opiate users to increase their drug consumption, but the evidence contradicts this claim.[30–32] Legislators, police, and prosecutors still need to be convinced that naloxone programs are effective. Naloxone distribution has been an important step in harm reduction to help reach the goal of stopping dependence on and misuse of opiate substances. Syringe exchange programs and opiate substitution therapy are other examples of harm reduction strategies. Studies of naloxone distribution and overdose prevention programs report reductions in self-reported drug use. As noted in one report, “[i]t is unethical to allow a narrow focus on the harms of drug use to overshadow an opportunity to save human lives.”[22]

Action Steps

Therefore, APHA:
• Urges public health and public policy education programs to prioritize and implement evidence-based community and provider training programs on mental health, nonpharmacological pain treatment alternatives, substance abuse, and overdose prevention. Among those with prescriptive authority, gaps in education can be assessed and continuing education provided at the time of licensing renewal. States can use resources from the National Conference of State Legislatures to assess legislation addressing these actions and gaps.[33]
• Urges public education on nonsharing of prescription medications as well as safe storage, use, and disposal of medications. Messaging must come from multiple public health partners and resources, including public radio and television, billboards, and social media. Some states are using pledges to not share and website messaging (e.g., on state and local health department and public safety department sites).
• Urges pain prescription providers to become more knowledgeable on identifying and treating pain with alternative modalities and to coordinate pain management with complementary and integrative care providers.
• Urges providers to be educated on and require the use of PDMPs before prescribing pain medications and to increase integration of patients’ information into their electronic health records. Prescribers need to be educated on referral and treatment options if concerns are identified on the PDMP assessment.
• Urges federal and state legislators to prioritize resources for development and continued support of evidence-based substance abuse treatment programs that include medication-assisted treatment and supportive counseling.
• Urges state legislation to require individuals to have physical and mental examinations before they are prescribed pain medications. Also, there is a need for legislation addressing doctor shopping, “pill mills,” and use of tamper-resistant prescriptions. Plans to accommodate patients who need new providers must be coordinated with these actions.
• Urges state legislators to enact laws increasing distribution of and access to naloxone among first responders, family members, and friends of individuals who may be misusing opioids.
References

1. Trust for America’s Health. Prescription drug abuse: strategies to stop the epidemic. Available at:http://healthyamericans.org/reports/drugabuse2013/. Accessed December 5, 2015.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital signs: overdoses of prescription opioid pain relievers—United States, 1999–2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011;60:1487.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC grand rounds: prescription drug overdoses—a U.S. epidemic. JAMA. 2012;61:10–13.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2013 drug overdose mortality data announced. Available at:http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2015/p0114-drug- overdose.html. Accessed December 5, 2015.
5. Association of State and Territorial Health Officers. ASTHO 2014 president’s challenge: highlights from state/territory pledges. Available

at: http://www.astho.org/annual-meeting-2014/presentations/state-pledges-prescription- drug-misuse-session/. Accessed December 5, 2015.
6. Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Center of Excellence at Brandeis. Prescription drug abuse epidemic. Available at: http://www.pdmpexcellence.org/drug-abuse- epidemic. Accessed December 5, 2015.
7. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Most commonly used addictive drugs. Available at:http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/media-guide/most-commonly-used-addictive- drugs. Accessed December 5, 2015.
8. Twillman RK, Kirch R, Gilson A. Efforts to control prescription drug abuse: why clinicians should be concerned and take action as essential advocates for rational policy. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:369–376.
9. Brownhill JF. An analytic assessment of US drug policy. J Soc Polit Econ Stud. 2005;30:398.
10. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Abuse and Health: Summary of National Findings. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2013.
11. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Specific populations and prescription drug misuse and abuse. Available
at: http://www.samhsa.gov/prescription-drug-misuse-abuse/specific-populations. Accessed December 5, 2015.
12. Frazier SC. Health outcomes and polypharmacy in elderly individuals: an integrated literature review. J Gerontol Nurs. 2005;31:4–11.
13. US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Report to Congress on the nation’s substance abuse and mental health workforce issues. Available at:http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content/PEP13-RTC-BHWORK/PEP13-RTC- BHWORK.pdf. Accessed December 5, 2015.
14. US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Quick guide for clinicians based on TIP 45: detoxification and substance abuse treatment. Available at: https://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content/SMA06-4225/SMA06-4225.pdf . Accessed December 5, 2015.
15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prescription drug physical examination requirements. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/pdpe-requirements.pdf. Accessed December 5, 2015.
16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prescription drugs: doctor shopping laws. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/menu-shoppinglaws.pdf. Accessed December 5, 2015.
17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Addressing prescription drug abuse in the United States: current activities and future opportunities. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/hhs_prescription_drug_abuse_report_09.2013.pdf
. Accessed December 5, 2015.
18. Pain Medicine News. Study finds decreasing number of pill mills and drug overdose deaths in Florida. Available
at: http://www.painmedicinenews.com/ViewArticle.aspx?d=Policy+%26+Management&d
_id=83&i=January+2015&i_id=1139&a_id=29251. Accessed December 5, 2015.

19. Lowry F. Doctors have knowledge gaps about opioid abuse. Available at:http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/824702. Accessed December 5, 2015.
20. Rosenberg EI, Genao I, Chen I, et al. Complementary and alternative medicine use by primary care patients with chronic pain. Pain Med. 2008;9:1065–1073.
21. Bardia A, Barton DL, Prokop LJ, Bauer BA, Moynihan TJ. Medicine therapies in relieving cancer pain: a systematic review. Available
at: http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/24/34/5457.full. Accessed December 5, 2015.
22. Bazazi AR, Zaller ND, Fu JJ, Rich JD. Preventing opiate overdose deaths: examining objections to take-home naloxone. J Healthcare Poor Underserved. 2010;21:1108–1113.
23. National Association of Community Health Centers. NACHC 2010 assessment of behavioral health services in federally qualified health centers. Available at: https://www.nachc.com/client/NACHC%202010%20Assessment%20of%20Behavioral% 20Health%20Services%20in%20FQHCs_1_14_11_FINAL.pdf. Accessed December 5, 2015.
24. World Health Organization. Information sheet on opioid overdose. Available at:http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/information-sheet/en/. Accessed December 5, 2015.
25. Bird SM, Parma MKB, Strong J. Take-home naloxone to prevent fatalities from opiate overdose: protocol for Scotland’s public health policy evaluation, and a new measure to assess impact. Informa Healthcare. 2015;22:66–76.
26. International Narcotics Control Board. Annual report 2009. Available at: https://www.incb.org/documents/Publications/AnnualReports/AR2009/AR_09_English.p df. Accessed December 5, 2015.
27. Institute of Medicine. Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for Transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2011.
28. Worley J. Prescription drug monitoring programs, a response to doctor shopping: purpose, effectiveness, and directions for future research. Issues Ment Health
Nurs. 2012;33:319–328.
29. Kirschner N, Ginsburg J, Sulmasy LS. Prescription drug abuse: executive summary of a policy position paper for the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:198–200.
30. Maxwell S, Bigg D, Stanczyiewicz K, et al. Prescribing naloxone to actively injecting heroin users: a program to reduce heroin overdose deaths. J Addict Dis. 2006;25:89– 96.
31. Seal KH, Thawley R, Gee L, et al. Naloxone distribution and administration program in New York City. Subst Use Misuse. 2008;43:858–870.
32. Wagner KD, Valente TW, Casanov M, et al. Evaluation of an overdose prevention and response training programme for injection drug users in the Skid Row area of Los Angeles, CA. Int J Drug Policy. 2010;21:186–193.
33. National Conference of State Legislatures. Prevention of prescription drug overdose and abuse. Available at:http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/prevention-of-prescription- drug-overdose-and-abuse.aspx#1

169~2018_(1) AzPHA Title X Resolution(reproduceive health, education)

162~2016_(1)APHA Decreasing RX Drug Misuse (medication, healthcare)

2016- – Support for Community Health Worker Leadership in Determining Workforce Standards for Training and Credentialing and its action step requirements.

August 25, 2016
The Arizona Public Health Association (AzPHA) supports the adoption of the following APHA Policy Statement 201414 – Support for Community Health Worker Leadership in Determining Workforce Standards for Training and Credentialing and its action step requirements.

Policy Statement: 201414

Abstract

Community health workers (CHWs) are frontline public health professionals who are known by many job titles, but they share the characteristics of being trusted and culturally responsive within the communities they serve. CHWs are included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as health professionals who serve as members of health care teams, and a recent change to Medicaid rules allows for the possibility of reimbursement for preventive services offered by CHWs. These developments may prompt further movement toward developing training and credentialing standards for the CHW workforce. Numerous stakeholders may be interested in addressing these issues, but there is significant evidence that CHWs are both capable of and best suited for leading collaborative efforts to determine their scope of practice, developing standards for training, and advocating for policies regarding credentialing. As individual states make decisions about whether and how to regulate the CHW workforce, policies are needed to support CHW leadership in determining, in collaboration with other public health colleagues, whether standards for training and credentialing are appropriate and what these standards should be.
Relationship to Existing APHA Policy Statements
In 2009, APHA adopted Policy Statement 20091, Support for Community Health Workers to Increase Health Access and to Reduce Health Inequities. The policy addressed numerous issues related to the community health worker (CHW) workforce. Importantly, the statement included a definition of CHWs developed within the APHA Community Health Workers Section, with national representation of CHWs and their advocates. The definition is as follows:

“Community Health Workers (CHWs) are frontline public health workers who are trusted members of and /or have an unusually close understanding of the community served.
This trusting relationship enables CHWs to serve as a liaison/link/intermediary between health/social services and the community to facilitate access to services and improve the quality and cultural competence of service delivery. CHWs also build individual and community capacity by increasing health knowledge and self-sufficiency through a range of activities such as outreach, community education, informal counseling, social support and advocacy.”

Policy Statement 20091 encouraged employers and academic institutions to support initial and continuing education for CHWs. However, the policy did not specifically address the issue of CHWs’ participation in determining standards for CHW training and credentialing. This statement complements and supplements Policy Statement 20091 by providing recommendations regarding CHW involvement in the development and oversight of training and credentialing standards. This resolution does not replace any existing policies.

Problem Statement

“Community health worker” is an umbrella term for dozens of paid and volunteer job titles that constitute a vital part of the public health workforce.[1] Some examples of commonly used job titles are community health representatives, health outreach workers, lay health workers, community health advisors, peer health educators, and promotores.[1] CHWs’ defining feature is their trusted relationships with the communities they serve.[2] Their roles include, but are not limited to, health coaching, connecting underserved communities to health and human service systems, advocating for individual and community needs, providing social support, increasing the cultural competence of service delivery, service coordination,[1] and participating in research.[3]
Since the advent of CHW programs in the United States in the 1950s,[4] the field has evolved in a piecemeal fashion, with CHW initiatives waxing and waning depending on community needs and on funding streams from local, state, federal, and private sources.[5] CHWs have worked on a variety of programs in numerous settings, and they have filled a wide range of roles.[1] Nonetheless, there is evidence that the workforce is becoming more professionalized. Recent research demonstrates that activities of CHWs in the United States have become more standardized over time, and experts have argued for conceptualizing CHWs as a workforce.[6] CHWs have organized themselves into professional groups in at least 20 states and the District of Columbia.[7] In 2009, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) recognized CHWs as a distinct occupation by creating a standard occupational classification for the field,[8] and in 2010 DOL added CHWs to its list of apprenticeable occupations.[9] The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act specifically lists CHWs as health professionals who function as members of health care teams.[10] Another key development for the workforce is a 2013 change to federal Medicaid rules that opened the door for potential reimbursement for preventive services offered by CHWs.[11] This rule change may spur the hiring of new CHWs, and DOL estimates that there will be a 25% increase in demand for these workers by 2022.[12]

Increased demand for CHW services raises the issue of how to ensure that members of the paid workforce are adequately prepared. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and other federal agencies, along with state and local governments, academic institutions, CHWs, or other stakeholders, may seek to standardize training for CHW practices or advocate for the requirement of CHW credentialing. Such decisions require

careful consideration for several reasons. For example, the CHW role requires a fundamentally different skill set than other health professions. Training for other health professions focuses primarily on development of advanced clinical skills and knowledge. Preparing CHWs, in contrast, requires first carefully selecting people with essential qualities that employers seek (e.g., community trust and shared life experiences) and then offering them training in various nonclinical skills through widely recommended popular education techniques.[13,14] In addition, CHWs work in a variety of settings. Training must be appropriate for those who function as members of health care teams as well as those who work in a myriad of other community-based settings.

Practices regarding CHW training and credentialing vary widely throughout the United States.[15] As with the licensing of clinical professions, governmental recognition of standards for the CHW workforce has been established on a state-by-state basis. In some areas, CHWs may receive informal, on-the-job training, while in other places CHW courses are offered by community colleges, area health education centers, proprietary training institutions, or community-based agencies.[15] Only a few states require CHWs to attend a state-certified training program, and CHWs receive an associated credential upon successful program completion.[16–19] As of July 2014, only Texas and Ohio had adopted statewide certification for CHWs, but CHW policy initiatives were under way in other states. State legislation calling for the development of state standards for CHWs has been passed in Illinois,[20] Maryland,[21] Massachusetts,[22] New Mexico,[23] and Oregon.[24]

The establishment of education and credentialing programs for CHWs also requires responsiveness to the circumstances of individuals who are best suited for this work. While the commonality in background between CHWs and the communities they serve is essential to their effectiveness, this also means that education and credentialing programs must avoid creating barriers to entry related to financial resources, educational attainment, language preference/proficiency, race/ethnicity, culture, or immigration status.

Therefore, it is vital that the estimated 120,000 CHWs in the United States[1] lead discussions about how and whether CHW workforce standards should be developed, as they and future CHWs will be affected by these decisions. CHWs have special insight into the training and professional development needs of the workforce. Furthermore, as the CHW field becomes increasingly recognized as a profession, self-determination of training standards is a logical next step, consistent with theory on emergence of professions[25] and current practices in other health professions.[26] Given that many stakeholders may be interested in setting CHW workforce standards, policies are necessary to ensure that CHWs lead the development of such standards when and if they are created.

Evidence-Based Strategies to Address the Problem

There is strong evidence that CHWs are well suited to lead conversations about workforce definitions and standards. CHWs have contributed to developing culturally appropriate training protocols at the community level.[27–33] A CHW-led national initiative funded by the US Department of Education made recommendations for establishing CHW capacity-building programs at community colleges. However, this initiative stopped short of recommending any specific curriculum, advocating instead that such issues be resolved at the state and local levels with the leadership and participation of CHWs.[34] While other occupational groups such as medical interpreters[35] and health educators[36] have chosen to create professional standards and credentialing at a national level, the breadth of CHWs’ scope of practice and the many local variations in titles and job duties suggest that a state-level CHW workforce may be more appropriate.

CHWs have also organized themselves to make recommendations (and, in some cases, pass laws) regarding workforce standards in their respective states according to local needs. In New York, for example, CHWs conducted research that established a professional scope of practice and provided guidance for CHW training content and methodology.[37] Ultimately, as a result of considerations related to potential effects on the local CHW workforce, they opted not to require or offer a credential.[13,37] In Minnesota, CHWs participated in developing a CHW certificate curriculum that is offered for credit in community colleges.[38] CHWs in Massachusetts drafted a bill and were successful in advocacy efforts to pass legislation on voluntary CHW certification.[22,39] This legislation created a CHW board of certification that is required to include, among its 11 members, “no fewer than four community health workers selected from recommendations offered by the Massachusetts Association of Community Health Workers.”[22] A recently enacted law in New Mexico requires that three of the nine members of the state’s newly created Board of Certification of Community Health Workers be CHWs.[23] Similarly, legislation in Oregon established a commission to recommend CHW education and training requirements and mandated that at least 50% of members be traditional health workers, including CHWs.[24] In addition, CHWs in Michigan are developing an optional credentialing process,[40] as are CHWs in several other states. Texas requires CHW representation on the statewide advisory committee related to CHW training and certification.[41] CHWs in other states have recommended that CHWs participate in any board that develops policies regarding certification.[16,17,34]

It is common practice for workforce standards for a given occupation to be overseen by boards composed primarily of members of that profession. Among 60 boards of nursing in the United States, more than 90% report that at least half of their members are from the nursing profession.[42] Similarly, in more than 90% of the 70 medical boards in the United States and its territories, physicians account for more than half of the members.[43] Social workers make up the majority of the membership of the Association of Social Work Boards, which oversees upwards of 60 US and Canadian regulatory bodies for the profession.[44]

Opposing Arguments

Some may argue that policies regarding CHW participation in the development of workforce standards are not necessary. However, in at least one state, Ohio, CHW standards are already determined by the state board of nursing rather than CHWs themselves.[19] This situation could be replicated in other states, particularly those in which CHWs are not yet organized into professional groups. In addition, CHWs are generally members of underserved and underrepresented groups.[1] Without codification of their participation, members of this workforce could face cultural, linguistic, and other barriers that would limit their ability to participate in conversations about their own workforce standards.

In addition, CHWs’ participation in workforce decisions could address some of the larger issues that have caused opposition to formalized training and credentialing. For example, some experts have noted concern that participation in required courses or credentialing could create barriers to workforce entry or cause CHWs to lose their trusted status among the communities they serve.[45] People who do not identify themselves as CHWs, even if they fill similar roles, may resist being considered part of the workforce and potentially being subject to training and credentialing requirements.[46] These challenges can be overcome if CHWs of various backgrounds participate in discussions about whether formalized training and credentialing are appropriate and for whom. When such programs are deemed to be fitting, CHW input could help develop guidelines to ensure that incumbent workers receive recognition for prior learning and practice-based experience. CHWs can also advise on training and credentialing costs, continuing education, cultural appropriateness, and linguistic accessibility among CHWs with limited English proficiency.

Finally, it is important to note that CHW leadership in addressing issues related to training and credentialing does not preclude equitable collaboration with outside entities or experts who may contribute a wealth of knowledge on relevant topics such as health service delivery models, public health competencies, training curriculum development, and public health policy. Previous collaborations among CHWs, researchers, government agencies, and other stakeholders demonstrate that such groups can create effective CHW capacity-building programs[28–33] and generate policy change regarding credentialing.[37]

Action Steps

Therefore, APHA:
• Encourages local and state CHW professional associations to organize CHWs in developing a consensus about the desirability of training standards and credentialing, including decisions about the most appropriate organizational location for the administration of a credentialing program, if established.

• Calls on local and state CHW professional groups to consider creating policies regarding CHW training standards and credentialing, if appropriate for local conditions, in collaboration with CHW advocates and other stakeholders.
• Urges state governments and other entities considering creating policies regarding CHW training standards and credentialing to engage in collaborative CHW-led efforts with local CHWs and/or CHW professional groups. If CHWs and other entities partner in pursuing policy development on these topics, a working group composed of at least 50% self-identified CHWs should be established.
• Encourages state governments and any other entities drafting new policies regarding CHW training standards and credentialing to include in the policies the creation of a governing board in which at least half of the members are CHWs. This board should, to the extent possible, minimize barriers to participation and ensure a representation of CHWs that is diverse in terms of language preference, disability status, volunteer versus paid status, source of training, and CHW roles.

References
1. US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Health Professions. Community Health Worker National Workforce Study. Available at: http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/healthworkforce/reports/chwstudy2007.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2015.
2. American Public Health Association. Policy Statement 20091. Available at: http://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy- database/2014/07/09/14/19/support-for-community-health-workers-to-increase-health- access-and-to-reduce-health-inequities. Accessed January 17, 2015.
3. Otiniano AD, Carroll-Scott A, Toy P, Wallace SP. Supporting Latino communities’ natural helpers: a case study of promotoras in a research capacity building course. J Immigr Minor Health. 2012;14:657–663.
4. Hoff W. Role of the community health aide in public health programs. Public Health Rep. 1969;84:998–1002.
5. Dower C, Knox M, Lindler V, O’Neil E. Advancing community health worker practice and utilization: the focus on financing. Available at: http://futurehealth.ucsf.edu/Content/29/2006- 12_Advancing_Community_Health_Worker_Practice_and_Utilization_The_Focus_on_F inancing.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2015.
6. Ingram M, Reinschmidt KM, Schachter KA, et al. Establishing a professional profile of community health workers: results from a national study of roles, activities and training. J Community Health. 2012;37:529–537.
7. American Public Health Association. Community Health Workers Section. Available at: http://www.apha.org/apha-communities/member-sections/community-health-workers. Accessed January 17, 2015.
8. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Standard Occupational Classification: community health workers. Available at:

http://www.bls.gov/soc/2010/soc211094.htm. Accessed January 17, 2015.
9. US Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. Bulletin 2010-21. Available at: http://www.doleta.gov/oa/bul10/Bulletin-2010- 21OccCommunityHealthWorker.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2015.
10. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42 USC § 18001 et seq.
11. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicaid and children’s health insurance programs: essential health benefits in alternative benefit plans, eligibility notices, fair hearing and appeal processes, and premiums and cost sharing; exchanges: eligibility and enrollment. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/07/15/2013-16271/medicaid-and-
childrens-health-insurance-programs-essential-health-benefits-in-alternative-benefit. Accessed January 17, 2015.
12. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Health educators and community health workers. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/community-and-social- service/health-educators.htm#tab-6. Accessed January 17, 2015.
13. Matos S, Findley S, Hicks A, Legendre Y, Do Canto L. Paving a path to advance the community health worker workforce in New York State: a new summary report and recommendations. Available at: http://nyshealthfoundation.org/uploads/resources/paving-path-advance-community- health-worker-october-2011.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2015.
14. Wiggins N. Popular education for health promotion and community empowerment: a review of the literature. Health Promot Int. 2012;27:356–371.
15. Kash BA, May ML, Tai-Seale M. Community health worker training and certification programs in the United States: findings from a national survey. Health Policy. 2007;80:32–34.
16. Martin MA. CHW certification and credentialing: states’ perspectives on successful practices and lessons learned. Available at: https://apha.confex.com/apha/140am/webprogram/Session35081.html. Accessed January 17, 2015.
17. Mayfield-Johnson S. CHW certification and credentialing: what have we learned and how will we proceed? Available at: https://apha.confex.com/apha/140am/webprogram/Session36221.html. Accessed January 17, 2015.
18. Texas Department of State Health Services. Promotor(a) or Community Health Worker Training and Certification Program. Available at: http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/mch/chw.shtm. Accessed January 17, 2015.
19. Ohio Board of Nursing. Community health workers. Available at: http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/4723-26. Accessed January 17, 2015.
20. Illinois General Assembly. Public Act 098-0796. Available at: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=098-0796. Accessed January 17, 2015.
21. General Assembly of Maryland. Workgroup on Workforce Development for Community Health Workers. Available at:

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014rs/chapters_noln/ch_181_sb0592e.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2015.
22. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. An act establishing a board of certification of community health workers. Available at: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2010/Chapter322. Accessed January 17, 2015.
23. New Mexico State Legislature. Community Health Workers Act. Available at: http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/14%20Regular/final/SB0058.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2015.
24. Oregon State Legislature. 2013 regular session. Available at: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Measures/Text/HB3407/Enrolled. Accessed January 17, 2015.
25. Evetts K. The sociological analysis of professionalism: occupational change in the modern world. Int Sociol. 2003;18:395–415.
26. World Medical Association. WMA declaration of Madrid on professionally led regulation. Available at: http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/r4/. Accessed January 17, 2015.
27. Wennerstrom A, Johnson L, Gibson K, Batta SE, Springgate BF. Community health workers leading the charge on workforce development: lessons from New Orleans. J Community Health. 2014;39:1140–1149.
28. Ruiz Y, Matos S, Kapadia S, et al. Lessons learned from a community-academic initiative: the development of a core competency-based training for community- academic initiative community health workers. Am J Public Health. 2012;102:2372– 2379.
29. Cristopher S, Burhansstipanov L, Know His Gun-McCormick A. Using a CBPR approach to an interviewer training manual with members of the Apsáalooke Nation. In: Israel BA, Eng E, Schultz AJ, Parker EA, eds. Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2005:128–145.
30. Two Feathers J, Kieffer EC, Palmisano G, et al. The development, implementation, and process evaluation of the REACH Detroit Partnership’s diabetes lifestyle intervention. Diabetes Educator. 2007;33:509–520.
31. Harvey I, Schulz A, Israel B, et al. The Healthy Connections Project: a community- based participatory research project involving women at risk for diabetes and hypertension. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2009;3:287–300.
32. Parker EA, Israel BA, Robins TG, et al. Evaluation of Community Action Against Asthma: a community health worker intervention to improve children’s asthma-related health by reducing household environmental triggers for asthma. Health Educ Behav. 2008;35:376–395.
33. Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Israel BA, Allen A, Decarlo M, Lockett M. Addressing social determinants of health through community-based participatory research: the East Side Village Health Worker Partnership. Health Educ Behav. 2002;29:326–341.
34. Community Health Worker National Education Collaborative. Key considerations for opening doors: developing community health worker education programs. Available at:

http://www.chw-nec.org/pdf/Guidebook.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2015.
35. National Board of Certification for Medical Interpreters. History. Available at: http://www.certifiedmedicalinterpreters.org/history. Accessed January 17, 2015.
36. Cottrell RR, Auld ME, Birch DA, Taub A, King LR, Allegrante JP. Progress and directions in professional credentialing for health education in the United States. Health Educ Behav. 2012;39: 681–694.
37. Findley SE, Matos A, Hicks AL, Campbell A, Moore A, Diaz D. Building a consensus on community health workers’ scope of practice: lessons from New York. Am J Public Health. 2012;102:1981–1987.
38. Rosenthal EL, Brownstein JN, Rush CH, et al. Community health workers: part of the solution. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29:1338–1342.
39. Mason T, Wilkinson GW, Nannini A, Martin CM, Fox DJ, Hirsch G. Winning policy change to promote community health workers: lessons from Massachusetts in the health reform era. Am J Public Health. 2011;101:2211–2216.
40. Michigan Community Health Worker Alliance. Governance. Available at: http://www.michwa.org/about/governance/. Accessed January 17, 2015.
41. Texas Administrative Code § 146.1–146.12. Available at: http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p
_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=25&pt=1&ch=146&rl=2. Accessed January 17, 2015.

42. National Council of State Boards of Nursing. Member board profiles. Available at: https://www.ncsbn.org/Board_Structure.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2015.
43. Federation of State Medical Boards. Membership composition. Available at: https://www.fsmb.org/Media/Default/PDF/FSMB/Advocacy/GRPOL_Board_Composition
_Table_2013.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2015.
44. Association of Social Work Boards. Governance. Available at: http://www.aswb.org/about/governance/. Accessed January 17, 2015.
45. Rush CH. Basics of community health worker credentialing. Available at: http://www.chw- nec.org/pdf/Basics%20of%20Community%20Health%20Worker%20Credentialing.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2015.
46. Keane D, Neilsen C, Dower C. Community health workers and promotores in California. Available at: http://calhealthworkforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/2004- 09_Community_Health_Workers_and_Promotores_in_California.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2015.

163~2016_(1)APHA CHWs (education, PH infrastucture

2016- Regulating Marijuana

August 25, 2016
The Arizona Public Health Association (AzPHA) supports the adoption of the following APHA Policy Statement 201410 – Regulating Commercially Legalized Marijuana as a Public Health Priority and its action step recommendations.

Policy Statement: 201410

Abstract

As of 2014 four states, Colorado, Washington, Alaska, and Oregon, and the District of Columbia have legalized the sale and use of marijuana through a commercial market, and many other states are considering the option. So far the federal government has not challenged state laws legalizing commercial marijuana as long as states maintain strict rules involving sales and distribution. This policy statement calls for a public health approach to regulating and controlling commercially legalized marijuana and urges that regulation of legalized marijuana be viewed as a public health priority. Regulation will provide oversight of a market that is currently uncontrolled and can help address the unforeseen effects of marijuana legalization. If marijuana is legalized, federal, state, and local governments should develop, adopt, monitor, and evaluate strict regulatory mechanisms to control marijuana production, sales, and use while advancing the public health goals of preventing access by minors, protecting and informing consumers of legalized marijuana, and protecting third parties from unwanted consequences of legalized marijuana use. These mechanisms may include taxes, age limits, product labeling requirements, product quality testing, potency limits, labeling requirements, motor vehicle operation restrictions, and advertising restrictions.

Relationship to Existing APHA Policy Statements
• APHA Policy Statement 8817(PP): A Public Health Response to the War on Drugs: Reducing Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Problems among the Nation’s Youth
• APHA Policy Statement 7121: Substance Abuse as a Public Health Problem
• APHA Policy Statement 7014: Marijuana and the Law
• APHA Policy Statement 201312: Defining and Implementing a Public Health Response to Drug Use and Misuse

Problem Statement

Marijuana is the most widely used illegal drug in the United States. In 2012, more than 111 million Americans 12 years or older (nearly 43% of this population) admitted to having tried marijuana in their lifetime, and almost 19 million had used it in the preceding month.[1,2] More than half of US states and the District of Columbia currently provide legal protections for patients whose doctors recommend the medical use of marijuana. After voters in Colorado and Washington elected to legalize marijuana, these states began to establish regulatory schemes for its cultivation, distribution, and retail sale to those 21 years of age and older. Under these and other regulatory proposals,

marijuana would be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol, with age limits, licensing controls, and other regulatory and public health mechanisms. The federal government decided to not challenge state laws legalizing commercial marijuana as long as states maintain strict rules involving sales and distribution. The areas of regulatory emphasis for the federal government include preventing distribution to minors, preventing revenue from being directed to illegal enterprises, stopping drugged driving, ensuring that marijuana does not cross to states where it is illegal, preventing marijuana activity from being used as a cover for other illegal drug activity, and stopping marijuana from being grown on public land.[3] While the decision to not challenge state adoption of commercial marijuana was an executive branch decision, the recent change in the political control of Congress is unlikely to alter the federal government’s stance. Since Washington and Colorado became the first states to legalize marijuana, other states have considered commercial legalization of the drug, with legislative proposals in Oklahoma, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Vermont and voter initiative efforts in Alaska, California, Missouri, Rhode Island, and Oregon.[4]

With the onset of commercial legalization of marijuana, several questions arise: How will access and availability to adolescents be prevented? How will the impact on vulnerable populations be addressed? What types of quality and informational controls will protect consumers? How will unwanted exposures and driving impairment be handled?

Increased availability: The national Monitoring the Future study has consistently shown that roughly 80% of 12th graders, 70% of 10th graders, and 40% of 8th graders in the United States report that marijuana is either “fairly easy” or “very easy” to obtain.[5–7] Concern exists that commercial legalization will increase the availability of marijuana to adolescents. The density of marijuana retailers is also an issue that needs to be addressed by regulation. If retailers congregate in a few locations, the populations in those areas will be more exposed to use, misuse, and abuse of marijuana. Advertising by retailers will also need to be examined, especially in light of studies revealing that alcohol and tobacco advertising is more prevalent in communities of color and areas of lower income.[8]

Passive exposures: As with the smoking of tobacco, passive exposure to marijuana smoke among children, tenants of multiunit housing developments, and nonsmokers is a concern. Protection for workers who cultivate commercial marijuana is also a concern since they may be exposed to pesticides, fertilizers, and other unhealthy adulterants.
For example, a group of workers at a medical marijuana cultivator in Maine filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board because of the cultivator’s use of pesticides and the workers’ exposure to mold.[9]

Quality control and consumer protection: Because marijuana remains illicit, there are no mechanisms for its production to be monitored, its potency and quality to be

standardized and tested, or its labeling for potential health effects before being sold. Research has shown that potency can vary widely depending on the strain of marijuana and that the drug can be contaminated by fungi and bacteria, heavy metals, pesticides, growth enhancers, and substances (e.g., glass beads) that are intended to increase its weight or give the appearance of a higher potency.[10] A failure to provide accurate and credible information about marijuana’s potency and quality can lead to consumer harm.

Motor vehicle safety: The “evidence of cannabis’s culpability in on-road driving accidents and injury is far less robust, with some reviews acknowledging an association between cannabis consumption and an increased risk of motor vehicle crashes while others have not.”[11] Evidence does show that marijuana can “increase driving reaction times, impair time and distance estimation, and decrease motor coordination for up to three hours after dosage impairment.”[12] One “meta-analysis of studies examining acute cannabis consumption and motor vehicle collisions [revealed] a near doubling of risk of a driver being involved in a motor vehicle collision resulting in serious injury or death.”[13] An examination of data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System showed that “detection of cannabis in drugged drivers [involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes] increased from 28.8% in 1993 to 36.9% in 2010.”[12] During the same period, detection of cocaine fell from 20.6% to 9.8%, while detection of prescription drugs increased from 42.2% to 46.5%.[12] However, the researchers were unable to show causality between marijuana or other drug use and involvement in fatal vehicle crashes.[12] As with other substances and products that impair the operation of motor vehicles, the issue of commercial marijuana use and motor vehicle safety will need to be addressed through federal, state, and local regulatory schemes.

Health effects: The health effects of smoking marijuana are not fully understood. A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association investigated the association between marijuana use and lung function in a cohort of more than 5,000 US adults over a period of 20 years; the study’s results suggested that “occasional use of marijuana…may not be associated with adverse consequences on pulmonary function.”[14] However, marijuana, like tobacco, contains toxic gases and other substances that can cause harm to the pulmonary system.[15] A recent review published in the New England Journal of Medicine documented the effects of long-term or heavy marijuana use, including addiction for about 9% of all regular users, altered brain development and cognitive impairment among adolescent users, chronic bronchitis symptoms, and an increased risk of chronic psychosis disorders among those who are predisposed to such orders. Short-term effects include short-term memory impairment, impaired motor control, altered judgment, and, for some, paranoia and psychosis with high doses.[16]

Strategies to Address the Problem
Jurisdictions that legalize or consider the legalization of commercial marijuana should

develop, adopt, monitor, and evaluate regulatory schemes for marijuana production, sale, and use that protect and promote public health. Regulation of commercial marijuana can have positive effects on public health. For example, evidence from the Netherlands—which has adopted a de facto legalization policy regarding retail sales and regulatory guidelines that include limits on the amount a person can buy in a day, a ban on advertisements, and a prohibition on sales to individuals under 18 years of age—indicates that the Dutch use marijuana at lower rates than some other European countries, do not escalate early use relative to other countries in Europe and the United States, and do not use marijuana as a gateway drug.[17]

A strict, rigorous regulatory response to commercial sales of marijuana should focus on access to and availability of the drug among adolescents, informing and protecting consumers, and protecting third parties and vulnerable populations from the potential consequences of marijuana use (e.g., passive exposure and impaired driving).
Regulatory interventions might include but should not be limited to age restrictions; taxation; time and date limitations for sales; potency and quality standardization, testing, and monitoring; advertising and packaging restrictions; place of use restrictions; extension of liability for injury to retailers; labor protections; and continued monitoring and evaluation of regulatory interventions. Many of these interventions are used to control alcohol and tobacco use and could also be used to control the use, misuse, and abuse of commercial marijuana.

Age restrictions: Age restrictions and enhanced enforcement of age restrictions can be used to limit the use of marijuana by adolescents, just as they are used to control tobacco use and alcohol use among adolescents, which have declined significantly over the past several years. According to the Monitoring the Future study, daily use of cigarettes by 12th graders decreased from 26.9% in 1975 to 8.5% in 2013, while the 30- day prevalence of use of alcohol by 12th graders decreased from 54% in 1991 to 39.2% in 2013.[18,19] Studies and estimates show the impact of minimum legal drinking ages (MLDAs) for alcohol and minimum legal purchase ages (MLPAs) for tobacco on alcohol- related motor vehicle crashes and the prevalence of adolescent smoking. According to estimates from a 2001 systematic review of interventions designed to reduce alcohol- impaired driving, fatal and nonfatal vehicle crashes increase by 10% with lower MLDAs and decrease by 16% with higher MLDAs (i.e., age 21).[20] In another study, the researchers concluded that raising the MLPA in the United States from 18 to 21 years would reduce the prevalence of smoking among 15- to 17-year-olds to 7.5% after 75 years as a result of delayed smoking initiation, removal of social sources of cigarettes (i.e., friends who are 18 to 20 years old), and better recognition by retailers of adolescent purchasers (i.e., it would be easier for retailers to distinguish between a 16- year-old and a 21-year-old than a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old).[21] Maintaining retailer compliance with MLDA laws through enhanced enforcement of these laws against retailers and underage purchasers also reduces access to alcohol among minors.[22]

Taxation: Taxing commercial marijuana to price adolescents out of the market may also prevent many adolescents from using marijuana. Increasing the price of cigarettes through taxes can cause adolescents to stop smoking.[23] One study of state tobacco taxes showed that every $1.00 in increased state tax could potentially result in a 5.9% decrease in past-month smoking and a 4.1% decrease in frequent smoking among US high school youth.[24] Also, according to a meta-analysis of 112 studies on alcohol, higher taxes tend to reduce alcohol consumption among adult and teenage social drinkers as well as problem drinkers.[25]

Time and date restrictions: Marijuana use, misuse, and abuse can also be addressed by instituting time and place restrictions on commercial sales and imposing liability risks on commercial marijuana retailers. For example, alcohol control measures that limit the number of days and hours that alcohol can be sold as well as restricting the location and density of alcohol outlets can help decrease alcohol consumption and consumption- related harms.[26–29]

Retailer liability: Dram shop liability laws are effective in reducing and preventing harms associated with alcohol consumption by deterring overservice of alcohol to customers.[30] These laws allow licensed establishments such as restaurants, bars, and liquor stores that sell or serve alcohol to individuals to be held liable for any injuries or deaths that result from a customer’s intoxication. Although litigation involving dram shops can be expensive and inefficient,[31] extending dram shop liability to marijuana retailers may serve as a way to reduce marijuana use, misuse, and abuse.

Standardizing, testing, and monitoring potency and quality: Regulatory frameworks can also be developed to standardize and determine the quality of commercial marijuana to protect consumers from adulterants (e.g., pesticides, mold, mildew, toxins) and inform them of the product’s potency. Similar requirements are in already in place for alcohol sales. For example, federal law and agency rules require alcohol beverage labels to include the brand name, the class and type of alcohol, the alcoholic content, the name and address of the bottler or packer, the country of origin, and a disclosure of additives and sulfites.[30,32,33] Also, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act allows the US Food and Drug Administration to set standards for nicotine levels in tobacco products.[34]

Warning labels: Marijuana products could also be labeled to warn consumers of health risks. Tobacco products in the United States must display the surgeon general’s warning about the risk of tobacco use. Labels on alcohol must also contain a specific warning about health risks.[35,36] While research has shown little effect on drinking behavior from alcohol labels, tobacco labeling’s impact on consumer attitudes and behaviors is more apparent.[37]

Advertising restrictions: Advertising restrictions can also be used to control marijuana use and protect consumers, just as they are used for alcohol and tobacco. Restricting advertisements can have profound health effects. For example, according to one study, a complete ban on alcohol advertising would result in 7,609 fewer deaths and a 16.4% drop in alcohol-related life-years lost.[38] Current First Amendment protections for corporate speech would likely prevent advertising regulations aimed at adult consumers but would allow restrictions on advertising aimed at adolescents and children.[39] Consideration should also be given to the impact advertising may have on communities of color and/or groups of low socioeconomic status.

Impaired driving: Concerns about driving while impaired by marijuana can be addressed with current laws against driving under the influence or by amending those laws to include marijuana impairment. One option may be to increase “penalties for drugged driving in localities with greater accessibility to [marijuana].”[12] Some states have adopted per se drugged driving laws, meaning that any trace of illicit drugs in a driver is considered a drugged driving violation. While such a standard may be useful when prosecuting a drugged driving case, a recent study questions the effectiveness of per se drugged driving laws in lowering traffic fatality rates.[40] Research should be conducted on reliable and valid methods of determining marijuana impairment. Also, similar to the case with alcohol, education on marijuana use and driving should be available.

Passive exposure: Regulatory policies should be developed to limit passive exposures to marijuana. Passive exposures can also be addressed through prohibiting use of the drug in public locations and in the presence of minor children, as well as through restricting its use in multi-unit housing to avoid smoke drifting to neighboring units. In addition, states and localities can amend existing smoke-free laws to include marijuana smoke. Also, federal and state laws regulating the use of pesticides and fertilizers and the passive exposure of workers to such chemicals and other unsafe working conditions need to be extended to individuals working for marijuana cultivators.

Monitoring and evaluating regulatory schemes: Since the regulatory scheme for commercially legal marijuana is untested and involves many unknown elements, a final strategy is to monitor and evaluate the public health impact of regulations. Regulations can then be modified according to evidence regarding their effects on public health.

Opposing Arguments/Evidence
Arguments opposing public health regulations often center on personal autonomy, the freedom to do business, and economic costs to consumers and businesses. Those who oppose regulating passive exposure to marijuana smoke and marijuana-impaired driving will focus on the lost autonomy of people who use marijuana in the presence of children, use the drug in multi-unit housing complexes, and drive after becoming impaired. Rates of alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities have decreased since 1982, with some of the credit being given to laws aimed at deterring intoxicated driving.[41]

Laws aimed at deterring marijuana-impaired driving could lead to similar trends. Also, smoke-free laws are associated with lower risks of smoking-related cardiac, cerebrovascular, and respiratory diseases.[42]

Advertising and information restrictions along with required disclosures such as warning labels may be viewed as government interference with the protected right to free speech. However, these restrictions are designed to counter statements and messages that encourage harmful behavior, and, as noted above, a ban on alcohol advertising would result in fewer deaths and alcohol-related life-years lost.[38]

Age restrictions limit the accessibility of marijuana to adolescents, and opponents view these restrictions as an infringement upon the autonomy of youth. Restrictions that are set at 21 years of age may also be opposed because they limit access among adults (i.e., people 18 to 20 years of age). As noted, however, age restrictions could reduce health risks associated with alcohol and tobacco use among adolescents. For example, age restrictions on the use of alcohol and tobacco have been shown to decrease the prevalence of alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes and the prevalence of adolescent smoking.[21,22] These same regulatory measures could apply to marijuana.

Regulation of commercial marijuana’s quality and potency and limitations on times and dates of marijuana sales could be perceived as impairing business interests and leading to increased consumer costs. However, these actions could provide protections to consumers and limit the accessibility of marijuana among adolescents. Today, many types of commercial products are subject to content and disclosure requirements to protect consumers and allow them to make informed decisions. For example, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act requires tobacco companies to disclose the contents of cigarettes and allows the Food and Drug Administration to determine nicotine levels.[34]

Regulatory opponents will argue that protecting marijuana cultivation workers from dangerous working conditions by regulating pesticide exposures interferes with business activities and interests and increases consumer costs. However, popular organophosphate pesticides are associated with “nausea, dizziness, vomiting, headaches, abdominal pain, and skin and eye problems [as well as] chronic health problems or health symptoms such as respiratory problems, memory disorders, dermatologic conditions, cancer, depression, neurologic deficits, miscarriages, and birth defects.” It is clear that limiting workers’ exposure to harmful pesticides would create safer and healthier work environments.[43]

Finally, those who oppose regulating commercial marijuana through taxation may contend that taxation adds to consumer costs and interferes with business interests. Evidence in the realm of alcohol control demonstrates that taxation reduces the use of alcohol. For example, a systematic review of 112 studies examining the association

between taxes on and prices of alcohol and alcohol sales and use revealed significant relationships between taxes or prices and overall consumption and heavy drinking.[25]

Despite any opposition to the regulation of legalized marijuana, there is strong evidence from the areas of tobacco control and alcohol control that a regulatory scheme for commercial marijuana would have an impact on marijuana accessibility and use.

Action Steps

APHA believes that, in jurisdictions that legalize the commercial sale of marijuana, the preponderance of evidence supports regulating marijuana as an important public health policy.

Therefore, APHA
• Urges federal, state, and local governments to:
o Regulate commercially legalized marijuana as a public health priority and develop, adopt, monitor, and evaluate regulatory controls for commercially legalized marijuana that reduce and prevent the drug’s use, misuse, and abuse.
o Support and fund research into the health effects of marijuana use, misuse, and abuse.
o Coordinate their efforts to effectively regulate commercial marijuana in an effort to reduce and prevent its use, misuse, and abuse.
o Regulate commercially legalized marijuana in partnership with state and local health departments, including the provision of resources to local and state public health agencies for the purpose of reducing and preventing marijuana’s use, misuse, and abuse.
o Tax commercial marijuana and dedicate the revenue to funding prevention, treatment, research, and regulatory frameworks to offset the costs and effects incurred through the increased availability of marijuana and other products containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
o Develop and fund standards for the quality and potency of commercial marijuana and ensure safe working conditions for those cultivate marijuana.
o Exercise their authority to limit and restrict the advertising of commercial marijuana and develop required written disclosures to protect commercial marijuana consumers.
o Develop standards for determining impaired operation of motor vehicles.
o Ensure the development and availability of linguistically competent educational and informational materials for individuals with limited English proficiency.
• Calls on the federal and state governments and all federal and state agencies involved in research, policies, and programs related to marijuana to develop an evidence base regarding the public health benefits of regulating commercial marijuana.
• Calls for states that may consider legalizing commercial marijuana to refer to evidence-based regulatory controls for legalized marijuana and review and assess the regulatory frameworks of those states that have already legalized the drug.

References
1. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. Table 1.24A: Marijuana use in lifetime, past year, and past month among persons aged 12 or older, by demographic characteristics: numbers in thousands, 2011 and 2012. Available at: http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2012SummNatFindDetTables/DetTabs/NSDUH- DetTabsSect1peTabs1to46-2012.htm#Tab1.24A. Accessed January 16, 2015.
2. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. Table 1.24B: Marijuana use in lifetime, past year, and past month among persons aged 12 or older, by demographic characteristics: percentages, 2011 and 2012. Available at: http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2012SummNatFindDetTables/DetTabs/NSDUH- DetTabsSect1peTabs1to46-2012.htm#Tab1.24B. Accessed January 16, 2015.
3. US Department of Justice. Guidance regarding marijuana enforcement. Available at: http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf. Accessed January 16, 2015.
4. Mother Jones. Will your state be next to legalize pot? Available at: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/pot-marijuana-legalization-map-states. Accessed January 16, 2015.
5. Monitoring the Future. Trends in availability of drugs as perceived by 12th graders. Available at: http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data/13data/13drtbl14.pdf. Accessed January 16, 2015.
6. Monitoring the Future. Trends in availability of drugs as perceived by 10th graders. Available at: http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data/13data/13drtbl13.pdf. Accessed January 16, 2015.
7. Monitoring the Future. Trends in availability of drugs as perceived by 8th graders. Available at: http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data/13data/13drtbl12.pdf. Accessed January 16, 2015.
8. Barbeau EM, Wolin KY, Naumova EN, Balbach E. Tobacco advertising in communities: associations with race and class. Prev Med. 2005;40:16–22.
9. Quimby B. Pot dispensary workers rally in Portland. Available at: http://www.pressherald.com/2013/04/06/medical-pot-workers-protest-in-portland/. Accessed January 16, 2015.
10. McLaren J, Swift W, Dillon P, Allsop S. Cannabis potency and contamination: a review of the literature. Addiction. 2008;103:1100–1109.
11. Armentano P. Cannabis and psychomotor performance: a rational review of the evidence and implications for public policy. Drug Test Anal. 2013;5:52–56.
12. Wilson FA, Stimpson JP, Pagan JA. Fatal crashes from drivers testing positive for drugs in the U.S., 1993–2010. Public Health Rep. 2014;129:342–350.
13. Asbridge M, Hayden JA, Cartwright JL. Acute cannabis consumption and motor vehicle collision risk: systematic review of observational studies and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2012;344:e536.
14. Pletcher MJ, Vittinghoff E, Kalhan R, Richman J, Safford M, Sidney S, Lin F,

Kertesz S. Association between marijuana exposure and pulmonary function over 20 years. JAMA. 2012;307:173–181.
15. Tashkin DP. Airway effects of marijuana, cocaine, and other inhaled illicit agents. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2001;7:43–61.
16. Volkow ND, Baler RD, Compton WM, Weiss SR. Adverse health effects of marijuana use. New Engl J Med. 2014;370:2219–2227.
17. MacCoun RJ. What can we learn from the Dutch cannabis coffeeshop system? Addiction. 2011;106:1899–1910.
18. Monitoring the Future. Trends in prevalence of use of cigarettes in grades 8, 10, and
12. Available at: http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data/13data/13tobtbl1.pdf. Accessed January 16, 2015.
19. Monitoring the Future. Trends in 30-day prevalence of use of various drugs in grades 8, 10, and 12. Available at: http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data/13data/13drtbl3.pdf. Accessed January 16, 2015.
20. Shults RA, Elder RW, Sleet DA, et al. Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce alcohol-impaired driving. Am J Prev Med. 2001;21:66–88.
21. Ahmad S, Billimek J. Limiting youth access to tobacco: comparing the long-term health impacts of increasing cigarette excise taxes and raising the legal smoking age to 21 in the United States. Health Policy. 2007;80:378–391.
22. Elder RW, Lawrence B, Janes G, et al. Enhanced enforcement of laws prohibiting sale of alcohol to minors: systematic review of effectiveness for reducing sales and underage drinking. Transp Res E-Circular. 2007;E-C123:181–188.
23. Ding A. Youth are more sensitive to price changes in cigarettes than adults. Yale J Biol Med. 2003;76:115–124.
24. Carpenter C, Cook P. Cigarette taxes and youth smoking: new evidence from national, state, and local youth risk behavior surveys. J Health Econ. 2008;27:287–299.
25. Wagenaar AC, Salois MJ, Komro KA. Effects of beverage alcohol price and tax levels on drinking: a meta-analysis of 1003 estimates from 112 studies. Addiction. 2009;104:179–190.
26. Middleton JC, Hahn RA, Kuzara JL, et al. Effectiveness of policies maintaining or restricting days of alcohol sales on excessive alcohol consumption and related harms. Am J Prev Med. 2010;39:575–589.
27. Hahn RA, Kuzara JL, Elder R, et al. Effectiveness of policies restricting hours of alcohol sales in preventing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms. Am J Prev Med. 2010;39:590–604.
28. Ashe M, Jernigan D, Kline R, Galaz R. Land use planning and the control of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and fast food restaurants. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1404–1408.
29. Campbell CA, Hahn RA, Elder R, et al. The effectiveness of limiting alcohol outlet density as a means of reducing excessive alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37:556–569.
30. Federal Alcohol Administration Act, 27 USC §§ 201 et seq.
31. Rammohan V, Hahn RA, Elder R, et al. Effects of dram shop liability and enhanced

overservice law enforcement initiatives on excessive alcohol consumption and related harms: two Community Guide systematic reviews. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41:334–343.
32. Labeling and Advertising of Malt Beverages, 27 CFR Part 7.
33. Labeling and Advertising of Distilled Spirits, 27 CFR Part 5.
34. US Food and Drug Administration. Overview of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInform ation/UCM336940.pdf. Accessed January 16, 2015.
35. Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1988, 27 USC §§ 213 et seq.
36. Alcoholic Beverage Health Warning Statement, 27 CFR Part 16.
37. Wilkinson C, Room R. Warnings on alcohol containers and advertisements: international experience and evidence on effects. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2009;28:426–435.
38. Hollingworth W, Ebel BE, McCarty CA, et al. Prevention of deaths from harmful drinking in the United States: the potential effects of tax increases and advertising bans on young drinkers. J Stud Alcohol. 2006;67:300–308.
39. Lorillard v. Reilly, 533 US 525 (2001).
40. Anderson DM, Rees DI. Per se drugged driving laws and traffic fatalities. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2189786. Accessed January 16, 2015.
41. US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Statistical analysis of alcohol-related driving trends, 1982–2005. Available at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810942.pdf. Accessed January 16, 2015.
42. Tan CE, Glantz SA. Association between smokefree legislation and hospitalizations for cardiac, cerebrovascular and respiratory diseases: a meta-analysis. Circulation. 2012;126:2177–2183.
43. McCauley LA, Anger WK, Keifer M, Langley R, Robson MG, Rohlman D. Studying health outcomes in farmworker populations exposed to pesticides. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;116:953–960.

164~2016_(1)APHA Regulating Marijuana(public safety, marijuana)