Abstract
Introduction In the first half of 2023, many US healthcare facilities updated their policies on the required use of face masks by patients and employees. Despite statewide lifts of mask mandates in healthcare settings, the decisions by individual healthcare facilities have remained controversial and inconsistent. We sought to understand these decisions by examining COVID-19 case rates, hospitalization rates, and political affiliation, among counties where hospitals reported updated masking policies in news or social media posts.
Methods We searched Twitter, Facebook, and Google for news stories related to changes in US healthcare facility masking policies between February 1st and April 30th, 2023. We extracted county-level COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations using data from the CDC and political affiliation was measured using the 2020 presidential election results. We performed logistic regression using COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and political affiliation as predictors and a complete lifting of masking requirements as the outcome.
Results We found that the odds of lifting the mask requirement was not associated with COVID-19 cases (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 - 1.02, p-value = 0.54), or hospitalizations (OR 1.06 95% CI 0.88-1.27, p-value = 0.33). We found that for every 10% increase in Republican votes in the 2020 presidential election, there was a 1.33 (95% CI 1.07 - 1.64, p-value = 0.01) increase in odds of having lifted masking requirements completely.
Discussion We found that the odds of lifting the face mask requirement in healthcare facilities was not associated with COVID-19 cases or hospitalizations but was associated with county-level political affiliation. Our results raise the concern that public health measures may be increasingly seen as political gestures or a response to local political factors.
Competing Interest Statement
Vinay Prasad′s Disclosures. (Research funding) Arnold Ventures (Royalties) Johns Hopkins Press, Medscape, and MedPage (Honoraria) Grand Rounds/lectures from universities, medical centers, non-profits, and professional societies. (Consulting) UnitedHealthcare and OptumRX. (Other) Plenary Session podcast has Patreon backers, YouTube, and Substack. All other authors have no financial nor non-financial conflicts of interest to report.
Funding Statement
None. VP is funded by Arnold Ventures to study Low Value Care. This study received no specific funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data are publicly available
