| Literature DB >> 33727113 |
Matthew A Crane1, Elana Jaffe2, Richard H Beigi3, Ruth A Karron4, Carleigh B Krubiner5, Chizoba B Wonodi6, Ruth R Faden5.
Abstract
Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33727113 PMCID: PMC7955581 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.03.015
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol ISSN: 0002-9378 Impact factor: 8.661
State prioritization of pregnant individuals for coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination
| State | Priority (phase) | Current eligibility | Population | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Yes (1c) | No | 4,903,185 | |
| Alaska | Yes (1b) | Yes | 731,545 | |
| Arizona | No | No | 7,278,717 | |
| Arkansas | Yes (1c) | No | 3,017,804 | |
| California | Yes (1c) | No | 39,512,223 | |
| Colorado | Yes (1b) | Yes | 5,758,736 | |
| Connecticut | No | No | 3,565,287 | |
| Delaware | No | No | 973,764 | |
| Florida | No | No | 21,477,737 | |
| Georgia | No | No | 10,617,423 | |
| Hawaii | No | No | 1,415,872 | |
| Idaho | No | No | 1,787,065 | |
| Illinois | Yes (1b+) | Yes | 12,671,821 | |
| Indiana | No | No | 6,732,219 | |
| Iowa | Yes (1b) | Yes | 3,155,070 | |
| Kansas | Yes (3) | No | 2,913,314 | |
| Kentucky | Yes (1c) | Yes | 4,467,673 | |
| Louisiana | Yes (1b) | Yes | 4,648,794 | |
| Maine | No | No | 1,344,212 | |
| Maryland | No | No | 6,045,680 | |
| Massachusetts | Yes (2) | Yes | 6,892,503 | |
| Michigan | Yes (1c) | No | 9,986,857 | |
| Minnesota | Yes (1b) | No | 5,639,632 | |
| Mississippi | Yes | Yes | 2,976,149 | |
| Missouri | Yes (1b) | Yes | 6,137,428 | |
| Montana | No | No | 1,068,778 | |
| Nebraska | No | No | 1,934,408 | |
| Nevada | Yes | Yes | 3,080,156 | |
| New Hampshire | Yes (1b) | Yes | 1,359,711 | |
| New Jersey | Yes (1b) | Yes | 8,882,190 | |
| New Mexico | Yes (1b) | Yes | 2,096,829 | |
| New York | Yes (1b) | Yes | 19,453,561 | |
| North Carolina | Yes (group 4) | No | 10,488,084 | |
| North Dakota | Yes (1b) | Yes | 762,062 | |
| Ohio | Yes (1c) | Yes | 11,689,100 | |
| Oklahoma | No | No | 3,956,971 | |
| Oregon | Yes (1b) | Yes | 4,217,737 | |
| Pennsylvania | Yes (1a) | Yes | 12,801,989 | |
| Rhode Island | Yes | No | 1,059,361 | |
| South Carolina | Yes (1b) | No | 5,148,714 | |
| South Dakota | Yes (1d) | Yes | 884,659 | |
| Tennessee | Yes (1c) | No | 6,829,174 | |
| Texas | Yes (1b) | Yes | 28,995,881 | |
| Utah | No | No | 3,205,958 | |
| Vermont | Yes (5A) | No | 623,989 | |
| Virginia | Yes (1b) | Yes | 8,535,519 | |
| Washington | Yes (1b) | No | 7,614,893 | |
| Washington D.C. | Yes (1c) | Yes | 705,749 | |
| West Virginia | Yes (2a) | Yes | 1,792,147 | |
| Wisconsin | No | No | 5,822,434 | |
| Wyoming | Yes (1b) | Yes | 578,759 |
Results of the review of state prioritization planning for pregnant individuals. Data were collected on March 6, 2021, and may not represent recent changes in planning or eligibility.
COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019.
Crane. Prioritization of pregnant individuals in state plans for coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021.
Phase listed refers to the first phase or subphase in which pregnant individuals are prioritized for vaccination. These have been rounded to the nearest subphase when divided into subphase tiers. States which do not follow a clear, phased approach to vaccination but still prioritize pregnant individuals are listed only as “Yes.” When pregnant individuals are prioritized across multiple phases, they are listed here under the earliest phase in which they are enumerated
Eligibility varies in some states at the county level. Results here refer to eligibility of pregnant individuals in at least some counties within a state, even if there are additional requirements such as multiple, high-risk health states or an age threshold. States were not enumerated if they rely on reference from a physician to determine vulnerability to COVID-19 without specific mention of pregnancy
Population counts obtained from 2019 US Census Bureau Data (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-kits/2019/national-state-estimates.html)
At the time of plan analysis, Arizona was transitioning toward an age-based approach to COVID-19 vaccine eligibility and not all government resources had been updated to reflect this policy adjustment. Our analysis reflects the anticipated age-based approach.