Suchergebnisse

Forty million U.S. residents lost their jobs in the first two months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In response, the Federal Government expanded unemployment insurance benefits in both size ($600/week supplement) and scope (to include caregivers and self-employed workers). We assessed the relationship between unemployment insurance and food insecurity among people who lost their jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic in the period when the federal unemployment insurance supplement was in place. We analyzed data from the Understanding Coronavirus in America (UAC) cohort, a longitudinal survey collected by the University of Southern California Center for Economic and Social Research (CESR) every two weeks between April 1 and July 8, 2020. We limited the sample to individuals living in households earning less than $75,000 in February 2020 who lost their jobs during COVID-19. Using difference-in-differences and event study regression models, we evaluated the association between receipt of unemployment insurance and self-reported food insecurity and eating less due to financial constraints. We found that 40.5% of those living in households earning less than $75,000 and employed in February 2020 experienced unemployment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of those who lost their jobs, 31% reported food insecurity and 33% reported eating less due to financial constraints. Food insecurity peaked in April 2020 and declined over time, but began to increase again among people receiving unemployment insurance during the final wave of the survey ahead of the federal supplement to unemployment insurance ending. Food insecurity and eating less were more common among people who were non-White, lived in lower-income households, younger, and who were sexual or gender minorities. Receipt of unemployment insurance was associated with a 4.4 percentage point (95% CI: −7.8 to −0.9 percentage points) decline in food insecurity (a 30.3% relative decline compared to the average level of food insecurity during the study ...

AbstractIntroductionMore than 70% of new HIV diagnoses in the United States were among men who have sex with men (MSM) in 2019. Pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a transformative innovation for reducing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections. Structural stigma against sexual minorities, including in the form of state‐level policies, may affect PrEP implementation. We evaluated whether lower structural stigma reflected by earlier year of state same‐sex marriage legalization was associated with increased male PrEP prescriptions and male PrEP‐to‐need ratio (PnR), a ratio of PrEP prescriptions to new HIV diagnoses.MethodsWe used 2012−2019 AIDSVu data on male PrEP prescriptions and male PnR in each US state and year. We used generalized estimating equations to evaluate the relationship between the timing of implementing state same‐sex marriage policies and the outcomes of male PrEP prescriptions per 100,000 people and the male PnR. We adjusted for calendar year, Medicaid expansion and the political party of the governor in each state.ResultsState implementation of same‐sex marriage policies in earlier, relative to later, periods was associated with increases in the rate of male PrEP prescriptions and in the male PnR. Specifically, implementing state same‐sex marriage policies between 2004 and 2011 and between 2012 and 2013 were each associated with greater rates of male PrEP prescriptions relative to implementing same‐sex marriage policies between 2014 and 2015. Implementing state same‐sex marriage policies between 2004 and 2011 as well as between 2012 and 2013 were both significantly associated with a greater male PnR relative to implementing same‐sex marriage policies between 2014 and 2015. By 2019, the difference in male PrEP prescriptions was 137.9 (97.3−175.5) per 100,000 in states that implemented same‐sex marriage in 2004−2011 and 27.2 (23.3−30.5) per 100,000 in states that implemented same‐sex marriage from 2012 to 2013, relative to states that implemented same‐sex marriage in 2014−2015.ConclusionsEarlier implementation of state same‐sex marriage policies was associated with greater rates of male PrEP prescriptions. Reducing state‐level structural stigma may improve HIV prevention among MSM in the United States.

AbstractWe assessed how many US deaths would have been averted each year, 1933–2021, if US age-specific mortality rates had equaled the average of 21 other wealthy nations. We refer to these excess US deaths as "missing Americans." The United States had lower mortality rates than peer countries in the 1930s–1950s and similar mortality in the 1960s and 1970s. Beginning in the 1980s, however, the United States began experiencing a steady increase in the number of missing Americans, reaching 622,534 in 2019 alone. Excess US deaths surged during the COVID-19 pandemic, reaching 1,009,467 in 2020 and 1,090,103 in 2021. Excess US mortality was particularly pronounced for persons under 65 years. In 2020 and 2021, half of all US deaths under 65 years and 90% of the increase in under-65 mortality from 2019 to 2021 would have been avoided if the United States had the mortality rates of its peers. In 2021, there were 26.4 million years of life lost due to excess US mortality relative to peer nations, and 49% of all missing Americans died before age 65. Black and Native Americans made up a disproportionate share of excess US deaths, although the majority of missing Americans were White.