With Federal Guidance Evolving and Vaccine Supplies Uncertain, States’ COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution Plans Remain Works in Progress
This map and chart show how each state prioritized their populations in their vaccine distribution plans, submitted to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in October 2020.
As COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations and deaths soar and federal guidance evolves, states are finetuning their vaccine distribution plans as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) appears poised to approve a vaccine later this week. The timely, safe, and equitable distribution of the vaccines falls squarely on states and their providers, who are already stretched thin in dealing with the pandemic and need billions of federal funds to distribute the vaccines successfully in the months ahead.
Fueled by the challenges that confronted the distribution of testing supplies and personal protective equipment (PPE) earlier this year, and the knowledge that vaccine demand vastly exceeds current supply, states are developing distribution plans that will target high priority populations without clearly scheduled deliveries.
Supported by $200 million from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act for vaccination preparedness, state plans that addressed ordering, storage, handling, and distribution priorities were submitted to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in October. Each state’s plan takes federal recommendations into consideration but are unique and reflect their workforce and population priorities.
CDC’s Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP), which states historically rely on for vaccine guidance, will hold an emergency meeting to vote on their prioritization and vaccine recommendations after FDA votes to approve the vaccine later this week. However, if distribution begins 24 hours after FDA approval as planned, many states may receive the vaccine before ACIP issues recommendations.
How State Distribution Plans Vary
A National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) analysis finds that as of October, no two states have prioritized their populations in exactly the same way. While most state allocation plans are informed by federal guidance (CDC and/or NASEM), many have enhanced their plans based on recommendations from their own advisory boards or equity committees.
It is expected that as more information on vaccine doses and recommendations is released by federal panels, states may increase the specificity of their prioritization criteria.
Key differences between state distribution plans include:
- Number of phases: States vary in the number of phases they plan for allocation, from two phases (Maryland, Nebraska) to five phases (Montana, New York). Most states have three or four phases, with some of them subcategorized further into A, B, and C.
- Delineation of phases: Several states have not yet delineated which populations fall within each phase or have only identified Phase 1 target audiences. These states are either waiting for more federal guidance or are working with state task forces and committees to determine their phased approach.
- Estimates of numbers within each priority group: Roughly 40 percent of state plans report how many individuals are in each priority population. Others are still determining how many people they expect to vaccinate during each phase. These details could influence distribution plans as states would need adequate supply of vaccines for all individuals within a particular phase. States plan to use various GIS mapping techniques and other software to identify where priority populations live within the state.
- Targeting specific high-risk populations: Some states include racial and ethnic minority groups, tribal populations, and rural populations within a specific phase. Others plan to recruit vaccine providers serving rural or underserved areas early on, but do not specifically list these groups as a target population within any particular phase.
- Nuance of priority populations: States vary significantly in how they delineate target populations for each phase. For example, some states group all essential workers, or all inhabitants of congregate care facilities, in one phase. Others target distribution for specific populations with more nuance, like prioritizing people in congregate settings who are 65 or older over younger adults living in congregate facilities (like homeless shelters or prisons). This will place more responsibility on facilities and health care systems to decide on a nuanced distribution strategy during the initial distribution period.
Across the board, Phase 1 prioritizes vaccinating health care workers (HCWs). While all states prioritize HCW, some specifically identify who qualifies as an HCW (e.g., clinical staff vs. support staff who work in a medical facility, including janitorial and administrative staff). ACIP’s vote on Dec. 1, 2020, recommended states include residents of long-term care facilities (LTCF), such as skilled nursing facilities, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, in Phase 1A of the distribution along with the previously recommended HCW. States who do not already list residents of LTCF in their initial phase will need to decide if they will incorporate ACIP’s recommendation into their distribution strategy and change their plans.
Not all states reported on all populations. Of the states that provided detailed information about how distribution would be prioritized within phases, NASHP found:
- Forty-two states included HCW in Phase 1A of distribution.
- Nineteen states included residents of LTCF in Phase 1A, and 21 states included LTCF residents in Phase 1B, six states designated that population in Phase 2 and one state designated for Phase 3.
- Six states (Delaware, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Utah) further sub-prioritized distribution to HCW, by specifying paid and unpaid employees who are at highest risk of coming into contact with someone with COVID-19 to receive the vaccine first in Phase 1A, followed by other essential HCWs critical to maintaining the health care system, including administrative and janitorial staff, in Phase 1B.
- Ten states do not yet specify sub-prioritization of Phase 1 in their plans.
What is the initial vaccine distribution strategy?
Of those states that have issued guidance on how to sub-prioritize HCW, they have done so in three ways:
- Based their distribution on population. Allocation within the state will be proportional to the number of health care workers in the area.
- Designed distribution based on COVID-19 prevalence. Hospitals and facilities that have more cases of COVID-19 will get more doses of vaccine. In Utah, priority distribution will go to the top four hospitals treating the most COVID-19 patients, and in New York, HCW in areas with high COVID-19 prevalence are anticipated to receive the vaccine before HCW in areas with lower case rates.
- Use job responsibility. Certain HCWs will be prioritized over others. In Pennsylvania, the first doses will go to providers working in emergency departments, on inpatient floors, and in intensive care units.
In Kentucky, according to Gov. Andy Beshear, the first doses of the vaccines will be shipped to 11 hospitals. Kentucky is expecting to receive 38,025 doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and 76,700 doses of the Moderna vaccine. The Pfizer vaccine doses will be used to vaccinate 26,000 of the state’s nursing home residents and staff, and 12,000 more of the Pfizer doses will go to the frontline HCWs at greatest risk of exposure. California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced the state expects to receive 327,000 initial doses in mid-December, but the state is home to 2.4 million HCWs, with 1 million working in acute care hospitals and around 150,000 working in nursing homes. Tennessee anticipates receiving 56,550 doses of the Pfizer vaccine in the first immediate phase and the state plans to reserve one tray of 975 doses in case any vaccine spoils when shipped to facilities. Tennessee also plans to set aside 5 percent of its first shipment of the Moderna vaccine in case of spoilage (about 5,000 doses), with the rest of the doses going to each county health department.
Additionally, states will have to decide whether to save some of their initial doses for a second round of immunization for the first priority groups, or use their entire supply of vaccine and hope they are able to receive a second shipment in time to give HCWs their second dose within the required timeframe. Current guidance, as reflected in some state plans like Washington’s and Tennessee’s, suggest that the federal government plans to hold back doses and send a second shipment at a later date that is intended for second doses for these first individuals. The states do not know when to expect the next shipment of doses, or how many they will get in the follow up shipments.
How are states prioritizing other key populations?
State plans vary in specificity of phases for vaccinating other specific critical populations and are dynamic documents that are constantly updated. For states that did delineate, NASHP noted these trends:
- Teachers are a high-priority population. Twenty-two states plan to vaccinate teachers at some point during their Phase 1 distribution and 12 states list teachers in Phase 2.
- Incarcerated populations and correctional officers are usually in Phase 1 or 2. Nine states plan to vaccinate incarcerated people at some point in phase 1, 27 states plan to vaccine incarcerated people in Phase 2, and two states plan to vaccinate them in Phase 3. In contrast, 10 states plan to vaccinate correctional officers in Phase 1, and 13 states have plans to do so in Phase 2.
- Most states include individuals living in homeless shelters in phase 3. Eight states plan to vaccinate individuals living in homeless shelters at some point in Phase 1, 22 states plan to do so in Phase 2, and three states plan to do so in Phase 3.
What support do states need for successful distribution?
States have been planning for vaccine distribution for months, but acknowledge that their plans are working documents, and will need to be refined as more federal guidance and more information about the number of doses states can expect to receive become available. Key considerations include:
- ACIP’s upcoming vote following emergency use approval by the FDA regarding who should receive the vaccines and in what order, and then continued guidance as the situation evolves. As more data from the vaccines’ Phase 3 clinical trials become available, more changes might be made in distribution recommendations.
- Federal leadership and potential new funding to strengthen state and local distribution infrastructure as CARES Act funding expires on Dec. 31, 2020. States need to procure more personal protective equipment , set up socially distanced mass-vaccination sites, provide public information to encourage immunization and complete the logistics of delivering and tracking to priority populations.
- Other vaccines in the pipeline which may affect the timeline of the phases for each state, and equitable distribution of the vaccine.
While the vaccine will ultimately be available to everyone, states must make important policy decisions to ensure timely, ethical, and equitable distribution of the vaccine during initial phases when supply is limited
As states continue determining their priority populations and phased approaches, they anxiously await a stimulus package from Congress that includes much needed support for vaccine distribution. As the vaccine becomes available and states begin to roll out administration, NASHP will continue to track all aspects of the COVID-19 vaccine distribution process and engage with states to address challenges.
Support for this work was provided by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
For individuals living with complex, often chronic conditions, and their families, palliative care can provide relief from symptoms, improve satisfaction and outcomes, and help address critical mental and spiritual needs during difficult times. Now more than ever, there is growing recognition of the importance of palliative care services for individuals with serious illness, such as advance care planning, pain and symptom management, care coordination, and team-based, multi-disciplinary support. These services can help patients and families cope with the symptoms and stressors of disease, better anticipate and avoid crises, and reduce unnecessary and/or unwanted care. While this model is grounded in evidence that demonstrates improved quality of life, better outcomes, and reduced cost for patients, only a fraction of individuals who could benefit from palliative care receive it. 
