COVID-19 vaccine prioritization of incarcerated people relative to other vulnerable groups: An analysis of state plans.
Age Factors
Aged
COVID-19
/ epidemiology
COVID-19 Vaccines
/ administration & dosage
Family
Health Care Rationing
/ organization & administration
Humans
Middle Aged
Pandemics
/ prevention & control
Police
/ statistics & numerical data
Prisoners
/ statistics & numerical data
Risk Factors
United States
/ epidemiology
Vaccination
/ standards
Vulnerable Populations
/ statistics & numerical data
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
10
02
2021
accepted:
28
05
2021
entrez:
15
6
2021
pubmed:
16
6
2021
medline:
30
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Carceral facilities are epicenters of the COVID-19 pandemic, placing incarcerated people at an elevated risk of COVID-19 infection. Due to the initial limited availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, all states have developed allocation plans that outline a phased distribution. This study uses document analysis to compare the relative prioritization of incarcerated people, correctional staff, and other groups at increased risk of COVID-19 infection and morbidity. We conducted a document analysis of the vaccine dissemination plans of all 50 US states and the District of Columbia using a triple-coding method. Documents included state COVID-19 vaccination plans and supplemental materials on vaccine prioritization from state health department websites as of December 31, 2020. We found that 22% of states prioritized incarcerated people in Phase 1, 29% of states in Phase 2, and 2% in Phase 3, while 47% of states did not explicitly specify in which phase people who are incarcerated will be eligible for vaccination. Incarcerated people were consistently not prioritized in Phase 1, while other vulnerable groups who shared similar environmental risk received this early prioritization. States' plans prioritized in Phase 1: prison and jail workers (49%), law enforcement (63%), seniors (65+ years, 59%), and long-term care facility residents (100%). This study demonstrates that states' COVID-19 vaccine allocation plans do not prioritize incarcerated people and provide little to no guidance on vaccination protocols if they fall under other high-risk categories that receive earlier priority. Deprioritizing incarcerated people for vaccination misses a crucial opportunity for COVID-19 mitigation. It also raises ethical and equity concerns. As states move forward with their vaccine distribution, further work must be done to prioritize ethical allocation and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to incarcerated people.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Carceral facilities are epicenters of the COVID-19 pandemic, placing incarcerated people at an elevated risk of COVID-19 infection. Due to the initial limited availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, all states have developed allocation plans that outline a phased distribution. This study uses document analysis to compare the relative prioritization of incarcerated people, correctional staff, and other groups at increased risk of COVID-19 infection and morbidity.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We conducted a document analysis of the vaccine dissemination plans of all 50 US states and the District of Columbia using a triple-coding method. Documents included state COVID-19 vaccination plans and supplemental materials on vaccine prioritization from state health department websites as of December 31, 2020. We found that 22% of states prioritized incarcerated people in Phase 1, 29% of states in Phase 2, and 2% in Phase 3, while 47% of states did not explicitly specify in which phase people who are incarcerated will be eligible for vaccination. Incarcerated people were consistently not prioritized in Phase 1, while other vulnerable groups who shared similar environmental risk received this early prioritization. States' plans prioritized in Phase 1: prison and jail workers (49%), law enforcement (63%), seniors (65+ years, 59%), and long-term care facility residents (100%).
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrates that states' COVID-19 vaccine allocation plans do not prioritize incarcerated people and provide little to no guidance on vaccination protocols if they fall under other high-risk categories that receive earlier priority. Deprioritizing incarcerated people for vaccination misses a crucial opportunity for COVID-19 mitigation. It also raises ethical and equity concerns. As states move forward with their vaccine distribution, further work must be done to prioritize ethical allocation and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to incarcerated people.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34129620
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253208
pii: PONE-D-21-04563
pmc: PMC8205184
doi:
Substances chimiques
COVID-19 Vaccines
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0253208Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : T32 AI102623
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : 5K23DA045934-02
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Carolyn Sufrin is an ex-officio member of ACOG’s Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women, serving as ACOG’s liaison to the board of directors of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC). She also serves as an independent consultant/expert witness for the non-profit organization NCCHC Resources, Inc. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Références
Eur J Public Health. 2006 Aug;16(4):441-4
pubmed: 16431869
Public Health Rep. 1993 May-Jun;108(3):305-14
pubmed: 8497568
Environ Pollut. 2020 Nov;266(Pt 1):115161
pubmed: 32645554
Am J Public Health. 2010 Nov;100(11):2103-10
pubmed: 20864714
Health Policy Plan. 2021 Feb 16;35(10):1424-1431
pubmed: 33175972
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Aug 21;69(33):1139-1143
pubmed: 32817597
N Engl J Med. 2021 Apr 29;384(17):1583-1585
pubmed: 33657290
Womens Health Issues. 2007 Jul-Aug;17(4):193-201
pubmed: 17572105
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Jan 01;69(5152):1657-1660
pubmed: 33382671
Public Health Rep. 2016 Jul-Aug;131(4):574-82
pubmed: 27453602
Ann Epidemiol. 2000 Feb;10(2):74-80
pubmed: 10691060
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009 Nov;63(11):912-9
pubmed: 19648129
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Apr 02;70(13):473-477
pubmed: 33793457
Lancet. 2020 Dec 12;396(10266):1870
pubmed: 33308455
N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 12;383(20):1897-1899
pubmed: 33085884
PLoS Med. 2010 Dec 21;7(12):e1000381
pubmed: 21203587
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Dec 11;69(49):1857-1859
pubmed: 33301429
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012 Apr 6;61(13):229-32
pubmed: 22475851
Health Aff (Millwood). 2020 Aug;39(8):1412-1418
pubmed: 32496864
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2006 Apr 21;55(15):421-6
pubmed: 16628181
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 28;382(22):2075-2077
pubmed: 32240582
J Quant Criminol. 2016;32(4):515-530
pubmed: 27928196
EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Dec 23;31:100659
pubmed: 33385124
PLoS One. 2018 Jun 11;13(6):e0198258
pubmed: 29889837
JAMA. 2020 Aug 11;324(6):602-603
pubmed: 32639537