Alex Klek
Problem Statement
As COVID-19 spread internationally, the World Health Organization announced the
virus as a global pandemic. The United States implemented a wide variety of strategies to help
combat the spread of the virus; including social distancing. Although it has been scientifically
proven through research that public health interventions limited the spread of Covid, but the
economic disruption due to the interventions were lopsided. The problem in question was the
relationship between the safety of public health and social safety net protection in the United
States.
Background Section
Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and public health interventions were positively
associated with limiting the spread of Covid. The United States reported 34 million confirmed
COVID infections and 600,000 deaths (Ahlers, 2021). Many strategies were implemented to
combat Covid; including the public mask mandate, closing of non-essential businesses, indoor
gathering bans, and stay at home orders. Although NPI’s forced behavioral adjustments, several
of the interventions were proven to decrease the number of COVID cases. The most effective
NPI for limiting infection rates was the stay-at-home order, the p-value was 0.0284, which
proves strongly that the order was very effective. Secondly, the public mask mandate incurred a
p-value of .0001, proving the significance of the mandated order (Ahlers, 2021). When
considering mortality rates, the stay-at-home order was the only NPI shown to decrease COVID19 mortality. No significant associations between mortality and the other NPI’s were found
through the research.
State polices and COVID-19 infection rates within the state were directly correlated. The
unemployment rate forced some states to discontinue the lock down orders and reopen earlier
than they should have. South Carolina reopened just 13 days after the stay-at-home order was put
into place and they saw a dramatic increase in daily new cases of Covid (Zhang, 2020). States
were in control of which NPI’s they would like to choose, allowing comparative data between
states and their correlating COVID infections. States that held strict and consistent NPI’s through
the entire year had much smaller peak rates during the fall/winter months compared to states
with lenient or nonexistent NPI’s (Avery, 2021).
Safety nets allowed states to enforce stay at home orders sooner and lift the policy later
due to the resources available. The combination of both public health orders and safety nets
affect the general well-being of society. States that allocated safety nets were able to keep their
communities less at risk for contracting Covid- 19 (Mildred, 2021).
Racial and ethnic minorities were affected the most by the public health interventions
implemented in the United States. This group is more likely to be low-income as well as having
pre-existing medical conditions such as obesity and diabetes (Mildred, 2021). People of color
were 2.4-2.7 times more likely to acquire Covid compared to white individuals (Zhang, 2020).
Ethnic minorities who were working during the pandemic has had more reports of unsafe
conditions and negative experiences compared to their white counterparts. People from ethnic
backgrounds were less likely to receive precautionary measure to limit the chance of becoming
infected at their work environment, including face masks and eye protection. They are also more
likely to have a household with several generations of families or multiple occupations which
increases their rate of infection and mortality (Zhang, 2020).
The lack of social safety nets when implementing NPIs negatively impacted the social
determinants of health for the population in the United States. As public schools began to close
due to the dangerous nature of Covid; many students relied on the Universal School Meals
Program. Students if applicable received a free or reduced lunch during school hours. Being
deprived of this right increased food insecurity specifically to students living in poverty. Students
living in poverty were the most impacted due to the high rate of participation of the free lunch
program, compared to students not enrolled in the lunch program. Food insecurity can lead to
malnutrition which poses risks to the child’s physical and mental health.
Children were not the only ones facing food insecurity. Households struggling with food
insecurity prior to the pandemic were more prone to deal with this issue; households that had no
prior experience with food insecurity encountered it. A survey collected at the height of the
pandemic recorded 20 million adults did not have enough food to eat in the last seven days
(CBPP, 2022). Low-income families also would utilize food banks, but during the pandemic
40% of emergency food services shut their doors due to high infection rates. In addition, 73% of
food bank closures were recorded in neighborhoods that were considered “high need” (Russo,
2021).
The United States Federal and State governments began to introduce NPI’s which was
followed with the closing of nonessential business. This in turn caused a substantial increase in
unemployment and economic burden on individuals. While financial hardships increased, the
ability to pay rent fell; 1 in 6 renters were behind in rent, (CBPP, 2022). As families faced
hardships relating to their rent, they were forced to cut funds from other areas. Grocery shopping
and purchasing food was the first cost allocated for families which foreshadows a loss of
nutritional healthy food.
Covid-19 negatively impacted individuals psychologically status due to an increase in
stress and fear. Predominantly in older adults, the stay-at-home orders increased levels of
loneliness, anxiety, depression, and poor sleep quality. Individuals were forced to adapt to the
changing mandates of social distancing causing a change in social connections between families
and friends. Platforms such as Zoom and Facetime began to become very popular to people who
had access to the resources to conduct this method of interaction. Individuals from an ethnic
background or low-income area are less likely to have access to technology to connect with
relatives. In turn giving rising to an increase level of loneliness and social isolation for this group
of individuals (Russo, 2021).
As State governments began to roll out NPI’s, the healthcare system began to change
how individuals will complete their doctor visits. Dependent on the individual’s health status,
appointments were made though telehealth services as non-emergent appointments were not
authorized to be completed in-person. Individuals who are undocumented, uninsured, and lowincome faced challenging barriers relating to accessibility of healthcare services prior to Covid.
Accessibility for these services decreased even more causing individuals to self-medicate or
prolong the prognosis of a health issue causing even more harm to the individual. Primary care
visits between April and June were much lower compared to recorded visits in past years (Russo,
2021). Screenings for breast, colon, and cervical cancer dropped by 94% between January 20,
2020 and April 21, 2020 (Cancino, 2020). Screenings are the most crucial step to identify cancer
in the very early stages as the chance of a successful treatment is much higher the earlier the
problem is identified.
Considering this is a nationwide issue with negative impacts across all people, a policy
intervention is required. All communities can benefit from financial and mental support provided
by the federal or state government. Although Covid has been declining, there is a risk of another
dangerous virus in the near future. NPI’s were effective in limiting the spread of Covid, but the
social determinants of health were negatively impacted. The combination of both public health
orders and safety nets must be investigated to find balance between limiting infection rates
without negatively impacting the publics social determinants of health.
Policy Section
The CDC issued a temporary policy called the eviction moratorium. The NPI of closing
all nonessential businesses was the main factor the policy was implemented. As renters lost their
jobs and fell into economic hardships, millions of households were at risk of being evicted. The
eviction moratorium allowed tenants not to be evicted even if they were behind on rent if the
community resided in a high-level transmission zone (NLIHC, 2023). The policy temporarily
solved the issue during the height of the pandemic as tenants were able to stay protected and
isolate at home.
The eviction moratorium has never been documented that it was used in the past in the
United States. In response to the pandemic, the CDC had the power to subject this national
moratorium with an expiration date of December 31st, 2020. President Biden extended the
moratorium until the month of July 2021, as well has providing $46.5 billion for emergency
rental assistance. The moratorium estimated to insure 90% of renters their home to stay protected
from Covid-19. The CDC than implemented a limited evection moratorium between the months
of August and October due to the rising transmission rates. During that period over 6.5 million
renter households that were behind on rent were again relieved off being evicted until the end of
October (NLIHC, 2021). Landlords were still able to evict tenants if there was criminal activity
reported on the premises, tenants damaging property, and threatening the safety and health of
other residents. (Velez, 2021). Landlords were not allowed to evict tenants due to the absence of
rent fees or late fee’s which alleviated the pressure of being evicted during the Covid outbreak.
Policy Section (2)
The U.S. Department of Health implemented a public health emergency which created
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES). A proposed solution to the
overcrowded and high prevalence of Covid in hospitals was the Telehealth policy. Telehealth
services allowed patience to conduct appointments with their doctors from a safe distance using
smartphones and computers. As non-emergent doctor visits were completed online, healthcare
facilities were experiencing less overload. The patients also had zero risk of contracting Covid19 when completing appointments online as they did not need to enter a hospital and have
physical human interaction.
As Covid-19 was becoming an apparent issue in January 2020, only 24% of US
Healthcare facilities had a definite telehealth program. The term Telemedicine was established in
the 1970’s and defined as, healing from a distance. The World Health Organization in 2007
standardized a definition as it was becoming a popular way for patients to meet with their
specialists. Telehealth refers to services across all health care professions, in comparison to
telemedicine which specifically is a service provided by physicians only. (Doraiswamy, 2020).
The Telehealth program is steadily evolving and changing to combat health disparities. The
program has become more popular due to the outbreak of Covid and continues being funded to
this day.
Policy Analysis
Public Health Impact
The Telehealth Program provided an option for patients to continue to self-isolate while
also appearing for their doctor appointments virtually. Preventing, diagnosing, and treating
disease while also combating the widespread COVID-19 virus was possible due to the Telehealth
Program. Telehealth technology can benefit nonemergent and routine care services that do not
require a direct physical physician to patient relationship. Limiting the number of patients
entering the hospital will dramatically decrease the risk of covid exposure for healthcare
professionals and their patients.
b.
The Telehealth program will benefit patients and health care workers alike as there is no
risk of contracting Covid through a smartphone or laptop. The program can reach any individual
in the United States that has the required technology and Wi-Fi. The benefits of this program
decrease the risk factor of contracting Covid, quality of care is equal to in-person care, and
individuals’ morbidity and mortality rates will decrease when this policy is implemented. The
burden would be on individuals who do not have access to the technology needed to utilize this
program. Minorities and individuals with ethnic backgrounds will have an increased risk factor
for contracting Covid due to the in-person appointments.
c.
Individuals who are enrolled in government funded programs such as Medicaid and
Medicare will highly benefit from this program. 29.3% of all Telehealth users are enrolled in
Medicaid and 27.4% off individuals utilizing the program are enrolled in Medicare. Only 9.3%
of participants were uninsured (ASPE, 2021). Individuals who are privately insured have a high
chance their service provider will cover costs relating this program. Non-Hispanic white adults
were the highest recorded participants to utilize this program, 39.2%. Non-Hispanic Blacks and
Asians were recorded at levels of 33% (CDC, 2022). Individuals with financial earnings higher
than the Federal Poverty Level were recorded to have a higher level of engagement in the
program, in comparison to their counterparts; families residing near the federal poverty level
were identified to use the program less. When relating to education level, adults with less than a
high school diploma or GED recorded at a level of 28.7%. In comparison to adults with a college
degree or higher, 43.2% (CDC, 2022). In the short period the Telehealth program has been
introduced, predominantly white and financial stable individuals are recorded to be benefiting
from this program. Individuals who are supported through government programs such as
Medicaid and Medicare as well as individuals with insurance will benefit from Telehealth.
d.
Individuals who require specialized care or has a complex medical condition will not be
able to use this program. As the program is online some patients with specialized diseases or
illnesses must physically enter the doctor’s office to complete the care they need (Watson, 2020).
These individuals may not be able to use this program for their specific needs, but they
unfortunately will not be able to utilize the program. Individuals who require to pay out of
pocket for this service due to their insurance will not benefit from this program.
e.
Telehealth resources and easy to use tool will help promote health equity among
vulnerable populations. The Telehealth program has made accessibility easier and safer for
individuals to receive the care they need from their healthcare professional. By leveling the
playing field for low-income communities and minorities it has helped them utilize this resource
and receive quality care. Without these resources individuals would need to enter hospitals to see
their healthcare professional and risk the chance of contracting Covid. Although every household
does not have the technology available to use Telehealth, it still increased access to healthcare
for many others. This population now has access to program and resources that were not
available to them in the past (Shah, 2022).
Impact on Social Determinants of Health
The Telehealth program improves multiple aspects of the social determinants of health
for patients. Telehealth directly impacts the healthcare system and how patients will be
completing their appointments. Telehealth also drives for an impact relating to an individual’s
neighborhood and physical environment. The program also impacts an individual’s community
and social context and helps alters one’s health outcomes.
i.
The Health Care System will be more easily accessible through an online program.
Individuals who reside in a rural area with limited access to a hospital will have the opportunity
to quickly speak to a health care professional. During COVID as individuals were self-isolating,
the telehealth program allowed safe access to a medical environment without the risk for
transmission. Physicians also agree that the quality of care is equal, if not better than in-person
care. (AMA, 2022). Considering Telehealth is an online-based program many individuals do not
need to worry about transportation to the health care facility. Barriers to transportation before
Telehealth lead to patients with late arrivals, missed appointments, and delayed medication use.
Issues pertaining to transportation ultimately leads and contributes to poorer health outcomes
(Oluyede, 2022). In the comfort of the patients home they can directly contact a healthcare
professional. Community and social context were improved by the telehealth program as stress
relating to Covid declined. Individuals were nervous to leave their house and enter a medical
facility as the probability of Covid being present is very high. The introduction of this program
alleviates the stress of Covid while still receiving quality care from a health professional.
ii.
This policy would only negatively impact the social determinants of health for a
vulnerable population. Individuals who require specialized care can still make an in-person
appointment and go to the healthcare facility. The quality of care from telehealth is equal to the
care one would receive if entering or seeing their personal doctor. Social determinants of health
for the majority of the population will be positively impacted and provide medical advice from a
safe distance.
Impact on Vulnerable Populations
Underserved populations such as individuals of color and ethnic backgrounds are less
likely to have the technology needed to utilize this program. Low-income communities and
individuals without a high school degree are also a vulnerable population who will not be
utilizing the program in numbers Telehealth has expected. Populations of ethnic backgrounds
with limited English proficiency (LEP) can be handicapped from using the service (Karimi,
2022). These populations are vulnerable due to this policy as they may not have the resources or
cultural background for Telehealth.
i.
Telehealth provides an option for individuals who don’t have internet access to utilize
their landline. The Telehealth platform also identifies places in the individual’s local area that
offers free internet hot spots; this includes community centers, libraries, and parks. Patients with
LEP can utilize the platforms language services such as written translation and oral
interpretation. Providers accompanying the patient will also receive resources on how to be
aware of certain cultural needs that can affect the patients care (Telehealth HHS, 2022). By
providing this population with more options and resources it allows them to utilize and benefit
from this program. The program also educates healthcare providers relating to cultural areas to
better the quality of care for racial and ethnic minorities.
ii.
Racial and ethnic backgrounds are statistically known for having a low level of education
and financial instability. The need for technology to utilize this program affects this vulnerable
community as they may not have access to the resources needed to utilize this evolving program.
Obtaining a device and internet connection can be a very difficult or impossible feat for an
individual. Individuals of an ethnic background may linguistically be vulnerable as English may
not be their native language. Individuals with LEP will experience challenges to receive the
quality of care they demand. As hospitals began shifting to telehealth programs, this vulnerable
population still experienced immense amounts of stress when entering a medical facility due to
COVID.
SDOH Impact
The social determinants of health for the vulnerable population had a positive impact due
to the Telehealth program. Access to the HealthCare system dramatically increased as these
individuals are given resources to utilize Telehealth. Their overall well-being and health should
increase due to the option to speak to a healthcare professional relatively quickly and at the
comfort of their choosing. Due to the appointment online, the neighborhood and physical
environment of the individual as a positive impact as they do not need to worry about
transportation to the Healthcare facility. The individual’s community and social context will be
positively impacted as the populations stress levels will lower as they have less worry of
transportation and the risk of contracting Covid at the hospital.
Budget Impact
The CARES act in total was approved for $2.2 trillion in funding. The CARES act
specifically provided $200 million in funding for the Telehealth program. (ED, 2023). The
benefit of this policy is mitigating the spread of Covid by utilizing the online platform
Telehealth. By decreasing the number of patients entering Hospitals and other medical facilities,
the prevalence of Covid will decrease. The cost of funding this program creates a safe
environment for patients to receive quality health care. Individuals benefit from the program by
being protected from Covid while still acquiring the care they need.
Economic Impact
The cost of Telehealth is covered by the majority of insurance providers and individuals
will be spending the same amount money for appointments. Allowing online access to doctor
appointments allowed a saving in cost for transportation. Individuals do not need to pay or worry
about the responsibility of getting to their appointments if they have internet access. Individuals
also would need to communicate with their place of employment to take time off to complete the
visit with their doctor, which incurs a loss of wages. An individual is quickly able to go to their
online appointment, then quickly clock back into work. A study including 11,600 participants
recorded $1.2 million in savings for drive time and $467,000 in savings for lost income for the
visit (Winstead, 2023). The accessibility allows individuals to save time, money, and other
benefits positively impacting the patient financially.
Policy Analysis (2)
Public Health Impact
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention implemented the evection moratorium as
a preventative strategy to prevent the transmission of Covid. The household must reside in a
community experiencing high levels of Covid to take advantage of this policy. The CDC has laid
out the framework and guidelines for the public to combat the spread of Covid. Practices of selfisolation and quarantine is the most important preventive measure an individual can take to stop
the transmission of Covid. Eviction which can than lead to homelessness increases the chances
of individuals contracting covid due to congregate settings with limited preventative resources
such as masks and hand sanitizer. Homeless shelters do not have the necessary space to house
individuals during a pandemic such as Covid. The eviction moratorium would provide a support
system for households in need; as well as protect the same households from the transmission of
Covid.
b.
Considering this policy was in effect and ultimately expired, there is data between states
and their relationship of moratorium expiration. Mortality rate ratios rapidly increased five
weeks after the state abandoned their relative moratoriums. Research shows that 16 weeks after
states lifted their respected moratorium, states recorded 2.1 times higher incidence rate and 5.4
times higher mortality rate compared to their counterparts who maintained the moratorium
(Leifheit, 2021). The eviction moratorium is a preventative strategy that will help limit the
spread of Covid. In addition to limiting the spread, the quality of life for individuals receiving
assistance from this program will increase.
c.
Households who are struggling to afford rent during the pandemic will benefit from this
policy. To receive the benefits from the eviction moratorium, the tenants must be unable to pay
rent due to income loss and must receive less than $99,000 per year (NLIHC, 2022). The tenants
must sign a declaration that will be given to their landlord stating they are eligible for the
program and telling the truth. The tenants will have their rent covered until the eviction
moratorium has expired, a break in lease leading to an immediate eviction, or the Covid rate in
the community has dropped below the threshold.
d.
Communities not residing in a high-level zone but may also still be falling behind on rent
will not receive assistance from this program. The NPI stay at home order is still in place;
landlords will evict nonpaying tenants forcing the individuals into overcrowded homeless
shelters where transmission rates of Covid are high. Individuals in communities such as this one
will not receive any assistance from the eviction moratorium. Landlords may rely on their rental
property as their main source of income. Renters failing to pay rent for multiple months can
negatively impact the landlord. The amount of past due rent must be paid in full once the
community has been lifted from the high transmission zone or the eviction moratorium has
expired. The eviction moratorium added financial stress to landlords who are used to their
routinely monthly payments from tenants.
e.
The policy will temporarily positively impact the health equity of females encountering
fears of eviction. The gendered health implications due to eviction include, physical and sexual
assault, mental illness, and reoccurring housing instability in the future. The eviction moratorium
impacts females’ health disparities that are caused by the process of eviction. Females who
experience an eviction during pregnancy are more likely for their unborn child to be preterm or
posses a low-birth weight compared to females not evicted (Pollack, 2020). By providing
females with the resources to stay in their household, these health implications will begin to
diminish Although the policy doesn’t specifically help females only, they will be able to take
advantage of the benefits and limit the health disparities they may experience.
Impact on Social Determinants of Health
The eviction moratorium impacts an individual’s social determinants of health through
economic stability, neighborhood and physical environment, and social and community context.
Households threatened with eviction experience an increase in stress and anxiety. Postponing the
worry of falling behind on rent alleviates some of the stress these households are facing.
Providing a financial crutch for households allows a support system to help battle through the
hardships and become financially comfortable. The moratorium secures housing which is a
important factor that positively impacts the social determinants of health. Housing instability can
lead to an increase in stress levels and other detrimental mental health symptoms. Tenants are
able stay in their community which is a very familiar space with support systems around them.
Although they will be isolated, social integration and community engagement will still be
available within their community (Rolfe, 2020). The process of moving into a new community
during a pandemic can be a stressful endeavor. Allowing tenants to remain in a comfortable and
safe area with their local support systems will decrease levels of stress. The eviction moratorium
positively impacts the social determinants of health of individuals struggling to pay rent due to
Covid.
Impact on Vulnerable Populations
Race, ethnic minorities, and low-income communities are a vulnerable population when
discussing housing displacement. This community has experienced decades of discrimination
through federal and state policies which has negatively impacted their chances of obtaining
homeownership. Research reports Black and Hispanic households were more than twice as likely
to have reported being behind on rent compared to white households (CFPB, 2021). The
vulnerable population will benefit the most from this policy as they are the most financially
unstable group. They are most at risk to lose their place of residence which will increase their
chances of contracting Covid along with the negative impacts relating to their social
determinants of health. These communities statistically are the ones who are in dire need of this
financial support system to get through the pandemic in a manner requested by the CDC.
i.
Funding is also allocated towards counseling and other resources relating to eviction
records. Vulnerable households dealing financial issues can speak to an informative counselor
who can guide them through the process of the moratorium. These professionals can also provide
support to help expunge past eviction records to help the individual find a new home quicker and
easier. Landlords have the option to decline an individual with a past eviction on their record
(NLIHC, 2022). Unjust and discriminatory factors may have led to that eviction; the counselor
works with the household to help alleviate and prepare them for their future goals in housing.
ii.
When the eviction moratorium was in effect, the vulnerable population would receive
many benefits from this policy. As the moratorium expired households were obligated to pay the
landlords the rent that was overdue causing a surge of evictions and Covid cases. Racial and
ethnic minorities lost their benefits once the evection moratorium expired. Four months after the
eviction moratorium expired, the United States recorded the number of deaths attributable to the
disease increased fivefold and Covid cases doubled (Smith, 2021). The vulnerable group were
the ones being evicted forced to into dangerous congregated settings where Covid is present.
How Does it Impact SDOH
As the eviction moratorium expired, it began to negatively impact racial, ethnic, and lowincome communities. The vulnerable populations economic stability, neighborhood and physical
environment, food, community, and social context were negatively impacted. The moratorium
provided them with financial support which allowed them to keep their house for the time being.
As that financial crutch was removed the population could not receive any more support for their
rent causing stress and anxiety. As they lose their home, they will lose access to necessities such
as running water and electricity. Their neighborhood and physical environment will be adjusted
and be negatively impacted as they are forced to find shelter. The vulnerable population will lose
access to kitchen equipment such as microwaves, stove tops, and ovens. Their nutrition will
begin to decline as they don’t have access to resources to make a healthy meal. The population
will also lose the support of their community and the support systems in place. (Rolfe, 2020).
Racial, ethnic, and low-income communities will be negatively impacted from this policy when
it expires.
Budget Impact
The resources and benefits from the eviction moratorium stem from the Emergency
Rental Assistance Program (ERA). The ERA has received over $46 billion in funding approved
by the federal government (USDT, 2023). The funding is being used for the payrolls of the
counselors as well as assistance payments to renters facing eviction. The benefit of this policy is
mitigating the spread of Covid by financially stabling households falling behind on rent.
Increasing the number of people isolating at home decreases their chances of contracting Covid.
Tenants and landlords economically benefit from this policy as evictions can be an expensive
process. Landlords will accrue fees during the process of evicting tenants such lawyer fees, loss
of rent for a month if not longer and damages to units. Tenants also benefit as they save costs
from securing new accommodations and moving fees (Batko, 2021).
Economic Impact
Healthcare is expensive in the United States, an individual who tests positive for Covid
may need to be hospitalized due to implications. People over the age of 65 and younger adults
with disabilities are much more likely to become seriously ill if they contract Covid. 60 million
of these individuals are covered by Medicare and will be provided support for medical bills
(Cubanski, 2022). By decreasing the number of hospital visits for individuals covered by
Medicare, the government will have less of a financial load surrounding medical bills.
Tenants will save costs on the process of moving out and finding a new accommodation
and landlords also be able to save costs from the process of evicting tenants. An estimation of 4.2
million households reported being at risk for eviction over a two-month period in midst Covid. If
all these households were evicted each unit would lose on average $2,700. Landlords on average
spend between 2,542-$12,998 per unit to evict tenant (Batko, 2021). For both tenants and
landlords, the benefits far out way the costs as they both can benefit from an unfortunate
situation.
Recommendation Section
The eviction moratorium was a great preventive strategy that ultimately positively
impacted the social determinants of health for the population. Research shows that 16 weeks
after states lifted their respected moratorium, states recorded 2.1 times higher incidence rate and
5.4 times higher mortality rate compared to their counterparts who maintained the moratorium
(Leifheit, 2021). The government needs to extend the eviction moratorium as this strategy was
very successful to mitigate Covid. Once the moratorium expired, Covid began to increase
exponentially in a matter of weeks. Counseling professionals can educate and answer lowincome households’ questions or issues relating to renting. This counseling initiative should
become permanent and always be a resource for struggling households. As the vulnerable
population experiences underlying cultural and health factors such as limited English proficiency
or possessing a medical disability; access to resources like this one will improve their social
determinants of health.
The eviction moratorium policy relating towards the landlords and their delayed payment
of rent should be adjusted. The landlord should not struggle financially and should be
compensated 30% of the rent by either the tenant or government until the debt is paid in full. The
landlord is the owner of the property and in no circumstance should be struggling due to the
eviction moratoriums laws. Providing protection for the landlords will help alleviate the financial
stress they are experiencing.
Most food banks were forced to close during the pandemic due to reports of high
infection rates. Transitioning and researching a new method to operate the service such as
contact-less hand offs will help limit the spread and keep the operation open. An increase in
funding will allow locations to open in vulnerable communities and provide healthier food. Food
insecurity was an issue repeating in many of the articles relating to my topic discussing the
prevalence and who was impacted the most by the health disparity. The combination of both
public health orders and safety nets must be investigated to find balance between limiting
infection rates without negatively impacting the publics social determinants of health. Racial,
ethnic, and low-income communities were disproportionally impacted relating to policies
implemented and ramifications of Covid. Analyzing data from the past to shape and
revolutionize our nation today is an important step towards health equity.
Bibliography
Abrams, E. M., & Szefler, S. J. (2020). COVID-19 and the impact of social determinants of
health. The Lancet. Respiratory medicine, 8(7), 659–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/S22132600(20)30234Ahlers, M. J., Aralis, H. J., Tang, W. L., Sussman, J. B., Fonarow, G. C., & Ziaeian, B. (2021).
Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions and COVID-19 Burden in the United States. medRxiv
: the preprint server for health sciences, 2021.09.26.21264142.
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.26.21264142
AMA. (2022). American Medical Association. 2021 Telehealth Survey Report.
https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/telehealth-survey-report.pdf
ASPE. (2022). HP -2022 04 national survey trends in telehealth use in 2021 ... - aspe. Assistant
Secretary For Planning And Evaluation.
https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/4e1853c0b4885112b2994680a58af9ed/
telehealth-hps-ib.pdf
Avery, A. J., Wang, J., Ma, X., Pan, Q., McGrady, E. E., Yuan, Z., Liang, Y., Nugent, R., &
Lakdawala, S. S. (2021). Variations in non-pharmaceutical interventions by state correlate
with COVID-19 disease outcomes. medRxiv:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261286v1
Batko, S., & Rogin, A. (2021). The end of the national eviction moratorium will be costly for
everyone. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/end-national-evictionmoratorium-will-be-costly-everyone
Cancino, R. S., Su, Z., Mesa, R., Tomlinson, G. E., & Wang, J. (2020). The Impact of COVID19 on Cancer Screening: Challenges and Opportunities. JMIR cancer, 6(2), e21697.
https://doi.org/10.2196/21697
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2022). Tracking the COVID-19 economy's effects on
food, housing, and employment hardships. https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-andinequality/tracking-the-covid-19-economys-effects-on-food-housing-and
CDC. (2022). Products - data briefs - number 445 - October 2022. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db445.htm#:~:text=Among%20all%20adu
lts%20aged%2018,31.7%25)%20to%20use%20telemedicine
CFPB. (2021). Housing insecurity and the COVID-19 pandemic.
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_Housing_insecurity_and_the_COVI
D-19_pandemic.pdf
Cubanski, S., Freed, M. (2022). FAQs on Medicare coverage and costs related to COVID-19
testing and treatment. KFF. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/faqson-medicare-coverage-and-costs-related-to-covid-19-testing-and-treatment/).
Doraiswamy, S., Abraham, A., Mamtani, R., & Cheema, S. (2020). Use of Telehealth During the
COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review. Journal of medical Internet research, 22(12),
e24087. https://doi.org/10.2196/24087
ED. (2023). Cares act: Higher education emergency relief fund.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/caresact.html
Karimi, M., Lee, E. C., Couture, S. J., Gonzales, A., Grigorescu, V., Smith, S. R., Lew, N. D., &
Sommers, B. D. (2022). National Survey Trends in Telehealth Use in 2021: Disparities in
Utilization and Audio vs. Video Services. ASPE.
https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/4e1853c0b4885112b2994680a58af9ed/
telehealth-hps-ib.pdf
Leifheit, K. M., Linton, S. L., Raifman, J., Schwartz, G. L., Benfer, E. A., Zimmerman, F. J., &
Pollack, C. E. (2021). Expiring eviction moratoriums and covid-19 incidence and
mortality. American journal of epidemiology.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8634574/
Mildred E. W, Zhang, X. (2021) Social Safety Nets and COVID-19 Stay Home Orders across
US States: A Comparative Policy Analysis, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis:
Research and Practice, 23:2, 176-190, DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2021.1874243
NLIHC. (2021). Overview of Eviction Moratorium. National Low Income Housing Coalition.
https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Overview-of-National-Eviction-Moratorium.pdf
NLIHC. (2022). National eviction moratorium. National Low Income Housing Coalition.
https://nlihc.org/coronavirus-and-housing-homelessness/national-eviction-moratorium
NLIHC. (2023). National eviction moratorium. National Low Income Housing Coalition.
https://nlihc.org/coronavirus-and-housing-homelessness/national-evictionmoratorium#:~:text=The%20Centers%20for%20Disease%20Control,prevent%20the%20
spread%20of%20coronavirus
Oluyede, L., Cochran, A. L., Wolfe, M., Prunkl, L., & McDonald, N. (2022). Addressing
transportation barriers to health care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives of
Care Coordinators. Transportation research. Part A, Policy and practice.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8898700
Pollack, C. E., Leifheit, K. M., & Linton, S. L. (2020). When storms collide: Evictions, covid-19,
and health equity. Health Affairs
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20200730.190964/
Rolfe, S., Garnham, L., Godwin, J., Anderson, I., Seaman, P., & Donaldson, C. (2020). Housing
as a social determinant of health and wellbeing: Developing an empirically-informed
realist theoretical framework - BMC Public Health. BioMed Central.
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-09224-0
Russo, R. G., Li, Y., Ðoàn, L. N., Ali, S. H., Siscovick, D., Kwon, S. C., & Yi, S. S. (2021).
Covid‐19, Social Determinants of health, and opportunities for preventing cardiovascular
disease: A conceptual framework. Journal of the American Heart Association, 10(24).
https://doi.org/10.1161/jaha.121.022721
Shah, D. A., Sall, D., Peng, W., Sharer, R., Essary, A. C., & Radhakrishnan, P. (2022). Exploring
the role of telehealth in providing equitable healthcare to the vulnerable patient
population during COVID-19. Journal of telemedicine and telecare.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9283958/
Smith, B. (2021, July 30). Research suggests ending eviction moratoriums led to spikes in Covid
cases and deaths. UCLA. https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ending-evictionmoratoriums-increased-covid-cases
Telehealth HHS. (2022). Improving access to telehealth. Improving access to telehealth |
Telehealth.HHS.gov. https://telehealth.hhs.gov/providers/health-equity-intelehealth/improving-access-to-telehealth
USDT. (2023). Emergency rental assistance program. U.S. Department of the Treasury.
https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-state-local-and-tribalgovernments/emergency-rental-assistance-program
Velez, E. (2021). What the eviction moratorium means for landlords. Housing Solutions Tulsa.
https://www.housingsolutionstulsa.org/what-the-eviction-moratorium-means-forlandlords
Watson, S. (2020). Telehealth: The advantages and disadvantages. Harvard Health.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/telehealth-the-advantages-anddisadvantages
Winstead, E. (2023). Telehealth can save people with cancer time and money. National Cancer
Institute. https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2023/telehealthcancer-care-saves-timemoney#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20cost%20models,11%2C600%20participants
%20in%20the%20study.
Zhang, X., & Warner, M. E. (2020). COVID-19 Policy Differences across US States:
Shutdowns, Reopening, and Mask Mandates. International journal of environmental
research and public health, 17(24), 9520. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249520
I apologize for the tardiness of my research paper. I spent much more time reframing my policy
analysis section, I sub headed as you requested to make it easier to understand what topic
and question I am answering. (Did you want the subheadings such a. b. c. etc, as I did? or
is this unnecessary and you only want the main headings). I added more evidence and
clarified many of my paragraphs in the policy analysis section and I truly do hope you
enjoy my work. I have become much more knowledgeable on this topic and can utilize
the information I learned in the future if I commit to a public health career field. Thank
you, I enjoyed your class this semester and I hope you have a great summer Professor
Lombardi!