, this report was posted as an MMWR Early Release on the MMWR website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr). CDC recommends a combination of evidence-based strategies to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1). Because the virus is transmitted predominantly by inhaling respiratory droplets from infected persons, universal mask use can help reduce transmission (1). Starting in April, 39 states and the District of Columbia (DC) issued mask mandates in 2020. Reducing person-to-person interactions by avoiding nonessential shared spaces, such as restaurants, where interactions are typically unmasked and physical distancing (≥6 ft) is difficult to maintain, can also decrease transmission (2). In March and April 2020, 49 states and DC prohibited any on-premises dining at restaurants, but by mid-June, all states and DC had lifted these restrictions. To examine the association of state-issued mask mandates and allowing on-premises restaurant dining with COVID-19 cases and deaths during March 1-December 31, 2020, countylevel data on mask mandates and restaurant reopenings were compared with county-level changes in COVID-19 case and death growth rates relative to the mandate implementation and reopening dates. Mask mandates were associated with decreases in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, and 81-100 days after implementation. Allowing any on-premises dining at restaurants was associated with increases in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 41-60, 61-80, and 81-100 days after reopening, and increases in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 61-80 and 81-100 days after reopening. Implementing mask mandates was associated with reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whereas reopening restaurants for on-premises dining was associated with increased transmission. Policies that require universal mask use and restrict any on-premises restaurant dining are important components of a comprehensive strategy to reduce exposure to and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (1). Such efforts are increasingly important given the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States (3,4). County-level data on state-issued mask mandates and restaurant closures were obtained from executive and administrative orders

RESULTSThe results of the survey are divided into three main sections:(1) Opinion on the care of the cancer patient.

ImportanceSome US states have issued COVID-19 vaccine mandates; however, the association of these mandates with vaccination rates remains unknown.ObjectiveTo examine the association between announcing state-issued COVID-19 vaccine mandates that did not provide a test-out option for workers and the vaccine administration rates in terms of state-level first-dose vaccine administration and series completion coverage.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study used publicly available, state-level aggregated panel data to fit linear regression models with 2-way fixed effects (state and time) estimating vaccine coverage changes 8 weeks before and 8 weeks after a state-issued COVID-19 vaccine mandate was announced. Mandates were announced on or after July 26, 2021, and were included only if they went into effect before December 31, 2021. Data were included from 13 state-level jurisdictions with a vaccine mandate in effect as of December 31, 2021, that did not allow recurring testing in lieu of vaccination (mandate group), and 14 state-level jurisdictions that allowed a test-out option and/or did not restrict vaccine requirements (comparison group).Interventions/ExposuresThe event of interest was the announcement of a state-issued COVID-19 vaccine mandate applicable to specific groups of workers.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe outcome measures were state-level daily COVID-19 vaccine first-dose administration and series completion coverage, reported as mean percentage point changes.ResultsOf 5 508 539 first-dose administrations in the 8-week postannouncement period, an estimated 634 831 (11.5%) were associated with the mandate announcement. First-dose administration coverage among 13 jurisdictions increased starting at 3 weeks after the mandate announcement, with statistically significant differences of 0.20, 0.33, 0.39, 0.45, 0.49, and 0.59 percentage points higher than the referent category coverage of 62.9%. Increases in vaccine series completion coverage were observed from 5 to 8 weeks after the announcement, but statistically significant differences from the referent category coverage of 56.3% were observed only during weeks 7 and 8 after the announcement (both differed by 0.2 percentage points; P = .05 and P = .02, respectively).Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this cross-sectional event study suggest that the announcement of state-issued vaccine mandates may be associated with short-term increases in vaccine uptake. This observed association may be a product of both a direct outcome experienced by groups governed by the mandate as well as the spillover outcome due to a government signaling the importance of vaccination to the general population of the state.

BackgroundOver the past two decades, we have seen a nationwide increase in the use of medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) to address health disparities affecting vulnerable populations. These partnerships increase medical teams’ capacity to address social and environmental threats to patients’ health, such as unsafe housing conditions, through partnership with legal professionals. Despite expansions in the use of MLP care models in health care settings, the health outcomes efficacy of MLPs has yet to be examined, particularly for complex chronic conditions such as HIV.MethodsThis on-going mixed-methods study utilizes institutional case study and intervention mapping methodologies to develop an HIV-specific medical legal partnership logic model. Up-to-date, the organizational qualitative data has been collected. The next steps of this study consists of: (1) recruitment of 100 MLP providers through a national survey of clinics, community-based organizations, and hospitals; (2) in-depth interviewing of 50 dyads of MLP service providers and clients living with HIV to gauge the potential large-scale impact of legal partnerships on addressing the unmet needs of this population; and, (3) the development of an MLP intervention model to improve HIV care continuum outcomes using intervention mapping.DiscussionThe proposed study is highly significant because it targets a vulnerable population, PLWHA, and consists of formative and developmental work to investigate the impact of MLPs on health, legal, and psychosocial outcomes within this population. MLPs offer an integrated approach to healthcare delivery that seems promising for meeting the needs of PLWHA, but has yet to be rigorously assessed within this population.

Introduction: Phylogenetic analyses can provide insights on HIV tansmission dynamics. Country and state-level differences in HIV criminalization and disclosure laws and advances in next generation sequencing could impact perceived study risks. Methods: We present study opt-out rates and the reasons provided during enrollment for a study conducted in Boston (6/2017-8/2018).Results: Of 90 patients approached to participate, 45 did not consent to participate. Reasons for not participating included unwillingness to discuss their HIV status, privacy and confidentiality concerns, disinterest, and lack of time.Conlusions: Given low participation rates and concerns related to HIV disclosure, privacy, and confidentiality, these questions remain (1) should informed consent be required for all phylogenetic analyses, including deidentified and surveillance data? (2) what additional steps can researchers take to protect the privacy of individuals, particularly in contexts where HIV is criminalized or there have been civil/criminal cases investigating HIV transmission? And (3) what role can community members play to minimize the potential risks, particularly for those most marginalized? These questions require input from both researchers and community members living with HIV/AIDS.