Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Fairness and efficiency considerations in COVID-19 vaccine allocation strategies: a case study comparing front-line workers and 65-74 year olds in the United States

View ORCID ProfileEva Rumpler, Justin M. Feldman, Mary T. Bassett, View ORCID ProfileMarc Lipsitch
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.03.22270414
Eva Rumpler
1Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Eva Rumpler
  • For correspondence: erumpler@hsph.harvard.edu
Justin M. Feldman
2Harvard FXB Center for Health and Human Rights, Boston, MA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mary T. Bassett
2Harvard FXB Center for Health and Human Rights, Boston, MA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marc Lipsitch
1Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Marc Lipsitch
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

1 Abstract

The COVID-19 epidemic in the United States has been characterized by two stark disparities. COVID-19 burden has been unequally distributed among racial and ethnic groups and at the same time the mortality rates have been sharply higher among older age groups. These disparities have led some to suggest that inequalities could be reduced by vaccinating front-line workers before vaccinating older individuals, as older individuals in the US are disproportionately Non-Hispanic White.

We compare the performance of two distribution policies, one allocating vaccines to front-line workers and another to older individuals aged 65-74-year-old. We estimate both the number of lives saved and the number of years of life saved under each of the policies, overall and in every race/ethnicity groups, in the United States and every state.

We show that prioritizing COVID-19 vaccines for 65-74-year-olds saves both more lives and more years of life than allocating vaccines front-line workers in each racial/ethnic group, in the United States as a whole and in nearly every state. When evaluating fairness of vaccine allocation policies, the overall benefit to impact of each population subgroup should be considered, not only the proportion of doses that is distributed to each subgroup. Further work can identify prioritization schemes that perform better on multiple equity metrics.

Competing Interest Statement

Eva Rumpler has no conflicts of interest to disclose. Justin Feldman reports grants to institution from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and payments from the New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene and employment by the Center for Policing Equity. Mary Bassett reports grants to institution from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Marc Lipsitch reports grants from CDC, grants from NIH, grants from UK NIHR, grants from Pfizer, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Sanofi Pasteur, personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, personal fees from Peter Diamandis/Abundance Platinum, outside the submitted work; and unpaid advice to One Day Sooner, Pfizer, Janssen, Astra-Zeneca, COVAX (United Biomedical).

Funding Statement

ER and ML were supported by the Morris-Singer Fund. This work was supported in part by Award Number U01CA261277 from the US National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Morris-Singer Fund or the National Institutes of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This study involves only openly available data obtained from the American Community Survey (ACS) and the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which can be obtained from https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Deaths-involving-coronavirus-disease-2019-COVID-19/ks3g-spdg, https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/NVSS-Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Place-of-Death/4va6-ph5s, and https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data.html.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

  • Added sensitivity analyses varying R from (1, 2, 3, 4). Added uncertainty intervals around the estimates in Tables Tables 3 and 4, as well as Supplementary Tables 4, 5, 6, and 7 and updated the Methods section to explain how they were generated. Some additions modification of the text. Updates to all Figures.

Data Availability

This study involves only openly available data obtained from the American Community Survey (ACS) and the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which can be obtained from https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Deaths-involving-coronavirus-disease-2019-COVID-19/ks3g-spdg, https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/NVSS-Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Place-of-Death/4va6-ph5s, and https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data.html.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Deaths-involving-coronavirus-disease-2019-COVID-19/ks3g-spdg

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/NVSS-Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Place-of-Death/4va6-ph5s

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data.html

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted September 28, 2022.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Fairness and efficiency considerations in COVID-19 vaccine allocation strategies: a case study comparing front-line workers and 65-74 year olds in the United States
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Fairness and efficiency considerations in COVID-19 vaccine allocation strategies: a case study comparing front-line workers and 65-74 year olds in the United States
Eva Rumpler, Justin M. Feldman, Mary T. Bassett, Marc Lipsitch
medRxiv 2022.02.03.22270414; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.03.22270414
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Fairness and efficiency considerations in COVID-19 vaccine allocation strategies: a case study comparing front-line workers and 65-74 year olds in the United States
Eva Rumpler, Justin M. Feldman, Mary T. Bassett, Marc Lipsitch
medRxiv 2022.02.03.22270414; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.03.22270414

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Epidemiology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (230)
  • Allergy and Immunology (507)
  • Anesthesia (111)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1264)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (207)
  • Dermatology (148)
  • Emergency Medicine (283)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (538)
  • Epidemiology (10056)
  • Forensic Medicine (5)
  • Gastroenterology (502)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2486)
  • Geriatric Medicine (240)
  • Health Economics (482)
  • Health Informatics (1653)
  • Health Policy (757)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (638)
  • Hematology (250)
  • HIV/AIDS (538)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (11896)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (627)
  • Medical Education (255)
  • Medical Ethics (75)
  • Nephrology (269)
  • Neurology (2304)
  • Nursing (140)
  • Nutrition (354)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (458)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (537)
  • Oncology (1259)
  • Ophthalmology (377)
  • Orthopedics (134)
  • Otolaryngology (226)
  • Pain Medicine (158)
  • Palliative Medicine (50)
  • Pathology (326)
  • Pediatrics (737)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (315)
  • Primary Care Research (282)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2295)
  • Public and Global Health (4850)
  • Radiology and Imaging (846)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (493)
  • Respiratory Medicine (657)
  • Rheumatology (289)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (241)
  • Sports Medicine (228)
  • Surgery (273)
  • Toxicology (44)
  • Transplantation (131)
  • Urology (100)