COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.

Savannah Bergquist, Thomas Otten, Nick Sarich
Author Information
  1. Savannah Bergquist: Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley, United States.
  2. Thomas Otten: Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, EUR, Netherlands.
  3. Nick Sarich: Management Center Innsbruck, MCI, Austria.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The paper highlights US health policy and technology responses to the COVID-19 pandemic from January 1, 2020 - August 9, 2020.
METHODS: A review of primary data sources in the US was conducted. The data were summarized to describe national and state-level trends in the spread of COVID-19 and in policy and technology solutions.
RESULTS: COVID-19 cases and deaths initially peaked in late March and April, but after a brief reduction in June cases and deaths began rising again during July and continued to climb into early August. The US policy response is best characterized by its federalist, decentralized nature. The national government has led in terms of economic and fiscal response, increasing funding for scientific research into testing, treatment, and vaccines, and in creating more favorable regulations for the use of telemedicine. State governments have been responsible for many of the containment, testing, and treatment responses, often with little federal government support. Policies that favor economic re-opening are often followed by increases in state-level case numbers, which are then followed by stricter containment measures, such as mask wearing or pausing re-opening plans.
CONCLUSIONS: While all US states have begun to "re-open" economic activities, this trend appears to be largely driven by social tensions and economic motivations rather than an ability to effectively test and surveil populations.

Keywords

References

  1. JAMA Health Forum. 2020 May 1;1(5):e200628 [PMID: 36218504]
  2. JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2052-2059 [PMID: 32320003]
  3. Am J Public Health. 2018 Oct;108(10):1394-1400 [PMID: 30138057]
  4. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Sep 1;174(9):819-820 [PMID: 32286618]
  5. JAMA. 2018 Mar 13;319(10):1024-1039 [PMID: 29536101]
  6. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 5;382(10):929-936 [PMID: 32004427]
  7. JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2003-2004 [PMID: 32356866]
  8. JAMA. 2020 Jul 7;324(1):23-24 [PMID: 32442303]
  9. Health Aff (Millwood). 2020 Jul;39(7):1229-1236 [PMID: 32379502]
  10. JAMA Health Forum. 2020 Apr 1;1(4):e200419 [PMID: 36218612]
  11. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Mar;7(3):228-229 [PMID: 32032543]
  12. J Polit Econ. 2017 Feb;125(1):1-39 [PMID: 28713176]
  13. Asian J Psychiatr. 2020 Jun;51:102085 [PMID: 32413616]
  14. JAMA. 2020 Jul 21;324(3):227-228 [PMID: 32530457]
  15. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Aug 2;2(8):e198577 [PMID: 31390034]
  16. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Jul 17;69(28):933-937 [PMID: 32673303]
  17. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 Aug;68(8):1653-1656 [PMID: 32484912]
  18. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Jul 1;27(7):1132-1135 [PMID: 32324855]
  19. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Jun 12;69(23):699-704 [PMID: 32525856]
  20. JAMA. 2016 Apr 26;315(16):1750-66 [PMID: 27063997]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0USpolicyCOVID-19economictechnologyresponsespandemic2020Augustdatanationalstate-levelcasesdeathsresponsegovernmenttestingtreatmentcontainmentoftenre-openingfollowedUnitedStatesOBJECTIVES:paperhighlightshealthJanuary1-9METHODS:reviewprimarysourcesconductedsummarizeddescribetrendsspreadsolutionsRESULTS:initiallypeakedlateMarchAprilbriefreductionJunebeganrisingJulycontinuedclimbearlybestcharacterizedfederalistdecentralizednatureledtermsfiscalincreasingfundingscientificresearchvaccinescreatingfavorableregulationsusetelemedicineStategovernmentsresponsiblemanylittlefederalsupportPoliciesfavorincreasescasenumbersstrictermeasuresmaskwearingpausingplansCONCLUSIONS:statesbegun"re-open"activitiestrendappearslargelydrivensocialtensionsmotivationsratherabilityeffectivelytestsurveilpopulationsCoronavirusFederalistPandemic

Similar Articles

Cited By