Regulatory agencies have long adopted a three-tier framework for risk assessment. We build on this structure to propose a tiered approach for resilience assessment that can be integrated into the existing regulatory processes. Comprehensive approaches to assessing resilience at appropriate and operational scales, reconciling analytical complexity as needed with stakeholder needs and resources available, and ultimately creating actionable recommendations to enhance resilience are still lacking. Our proposed framework consists of tiers by which analysts can select resilience assessment and decision support tools to inform associated management actions relative to the scope and urgency of the risk and the capacity of resource managers to improve system resilience. The resilience management framework proposed is not intended to supplant either risk management or the many existing efforts of resilience quantification method development, but instead provide a guide to selecting tools that are appropriate for the given analytic need. The goal of this tiered approach is to intentionally parallel the tiered approach used in regulatory contexts so that resilience assessment might be more easily and quickly integrated into existing structures and with existing policies.

Objective A recent HIV outbreak in a rural network of persons who inject drugs (PWID) underscored the intersection of the expanding epidemics of opioid abuse, injection drug use (IDU), and associated increases in hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections. We sought to identify U.S. communities especially vulnerable to rapid spread of IDU-associated HIV, if introduced, and new or continuing high rates of HCV infections. Design We conducted a multi-step analysis to identify which indicator variables were highly associated with IDU. We then used these indicator values to calculate vulnerability scores for each county to identify which were most vulnerable. Methods We used confirmed cases of acute HCV infection reported to the National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System, 2012–2013, as a proxy outcome for IDU, and 15 county-level indicators available nationally in Poisson regression models to identify indicators associated with higher county acute HCV infection rates. Using these indicators, we calculated composite index scores to rank each county’s vulnerability. Results A parsimonious set of six indicators were associated with acute HCV infection rates (proxy for IDU): drug overdose deaths, prescription opioid sales, per capita income, white, non-Hispanic race/ethnicity, unemployment, and buprenorphine prescribing potential by waiver. Based on these indicators, we identified 220 counties in 26 states within the 95th percentile of most vulnerable. Conclusions Our analysis highlights U.S. counties potentially vulnerable to HIV and HCV infections among PWID in the context of the national opioid epidemic. State and local health departments will need to further explore vulnerability and target interventions to prevent transmission.

and ensuring equitable COVID-19 vaccine access remains a national priority.* COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minority groups and those who are economically and socially disadvantaged (1,2). Thus, achieving not just vaccine equality (i.e., similar allocation of vaccine supply proportional to its population across jurisdictions) but equity (i.e., preferential access and administration to those who have been most affected by COVID-19 disease) is an important goal. The CDC social vulnerability index (SVI) uses 15 indicators grouped into four themes that comprise an overall SVI measure, resulting in 20 metrics, each of which has national and state-specific county rankings. The 20 metric-specific rankings were each divided into lowest to highest tertiles to categorize counties as low, moderate, or high social vulnerability counties. These tertiles were combined with vaccine administration data for 49,264,338 U.S. residents in 49 states and the District of Columbia (DC) who received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose during December 14, 2020-March 1, 2021. Nationally, for the overall SVI measure, vaccination coverage was higher (15.8%) in low social vulnerability counties than in high social vulnerability counties (13.9%), with the largest coverage disparity in the socioeconomic status theme (2.5 percentage points higher coverage in low than in high vulnerability counties). Wide state variations in equity across SVI metrics were found. Whereas in the majority of states, vaccination coverage was higher in low vulnerability counties, some states had equitable coverage at the county level. CDC, state, and local jurisdictions should continue to monitor vaccination coverage by SVI metrics to focus public health interventions to achieve equitable coverage with COVID-19 vaccine.COVID-19 vaccine administration data are reported to CDC by multiple entities via immunization information systems (IIS), the Vaccine Administration Management System, or direct data submission. † Vaccination coverage was defined as the number of residents who

No abstract