After the first
several months of the pandemic, decisions were left to the states about the
most effective policies to balance health risks. What should be done to monitor and control
the spread? Should people be mandated to
stay home? Should there be a lockdown of
the economy and if so when and how should it be opened? Should the wearing of masks be mandated? Should schools close and if so for how
long? How can vaccination levels be
increased? What can be done to develop
trust with the public and manage misinformation? How to balance the protection
of the public health with individual freedom?
All of these decisions had tradeoffs with different consequences that in
some cases seemed to be contradictory, and there were no obvious answers. COVID-19 put stress on healthcare in every
state as they responded to the pandemic differently.
It
was, to be sure, a learning experience with different states and their
governors and legislators making their own policy choices and employing
different strategies with varying degrees of success. And, they are still learning. In a way this “pandemic federalism” provided a
laboratory to look back and try to understand what worked and what did not with
the purpose of improving pandemic management in the future.
What are the key measures related to the management of
the pandemic?
In the initial phases of the pandemic there were extensive
efforts to measure the spread and the severity of the disease, which included
such things as monitoring infection rates, testing levels, positivity rates,
hospitalizations, intensive care usage, mortality rates, and eventually
vaccination rates. It was also
recognized that COVID-19 could have a devastating impact on the economy, resulting
in loss of employment and income, with implications for businesses and
individuals. Finally, it became apparent
that there were broader societal implications in terms of such things as
emotional well-being, food insecurity, educational development, drug usage, and
affordable housing.
Accordingly, in order to evaluate state efforts in managing the
pandemic, there needed to be a broad definition of “key indicators,” which fall
into three interrelated categories:
Health related
indicators, including mortality
directly related to COVID-19, measures to monitor the prevalence and severity
of the illness (i.e., testing levels, hospital and intensive care usage), “excess mortality” or death rates that exceed
historical norms, and vaccination rates.
Economic
indicators, including unemployment
rates and changes in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), both of which have an impact on health and well-being.[1]
Social Determinant of Health (SDOH), [2] including such things as
access to healthcare, economic stability (unemployment, poverty, food
security), quality housing, and access to education, all of which were impacted
by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Measuring the relative performance of Utah with other
states
No
comprehensive studies address all of the key indicators mentioned above. However, we evaluated three studies that analyzed
some of these key indicators:
The Politico Study—COVID’s Deadly Trade-offs, by the Numbers
Politico is a political
journalism company that covers politics and policy.
They “primarily distribute content online but also with printed
newspapers, radio and podcasts.”[6] Politico refers to their study as a scorecard
with the stated purpose of demonstrating how state decisions impacted lives,
jobs, education, and social well-being. The scorecard analyzes data in four
areas that include at least one measure in each of the three categories
mentioned above.
Educational
measures included
changes in reading and math achievement,[17][18][19]
and in person days of instruction.[20] It should be noted that there were no current
federal test scores that reflect performance of all students and all
states. Accordingly, private sources
were aggregated to create the largest data base possible. The completeness of the data varied by state,
which made the education score less reliable.
Summary Results of the Politico Scorecard
The following table summarizes the results for the 10 top
performing states according to the Politico analysis. Outcomes of the data analysis generate a score in
each area between zero and 100. Scores
in each of the categories are then averaged generating a total score which is
the basis for the final rankings.
Top Ten Performing States Average Score
Politico State Scorecard
Rank
State
Overall Average Score
Health Score/Rank
Economy Score/Rank
Social Score/Rank
Education Score/Rank
1
Nebraska
73
56/20
90/1
49/30
95/4
2
Maryland
66
73/11
42/36
85/2
NA
2
Utah
66
61/15
89/2
48/33
66/18
2
Idaho
66
40/20
86/4
40/37
97/3
5
Minnesota
63
78/8
48/31
50/28
75/13
6
South Dakota
61
31/35
89/2
25/47
99/1
7
Washington
61
79/6
73/9
65/13
25/48
8
Vermont
60
98/1
29/43
62/15
51/30
9
Kansas
59
38/36
71/2
50/47
79/10
10
Montana
59
23/45
85/5
46/34
83/6
Best
73
98
89
89
99
Median
54
47
36
42
93
Lowest
28
12
0
18
22
Utah Performance
Politico Key Indicators in Each Area of
Focus
(Out of a potential 100)
Health
Economy
ScoreOut of 100
UtahRank
ScoreOut of 100
UtahRank
Deaths
96
2
State GDP Growth
93
2
Hospital Admissions
76
11
Unemployment
75
9
Vaccination Levels
28
33
Job Creation
99
1
Testing Effort
46
18
Social Well-Being
Education
ScoreOut of 100
UtahRank
ScoreOut of 100
Utah Rank
Violent Crime
24
39
Math Score
23
29
Food Insecurity
45
32
Reading Score
67
18
Household Expense
72
12
In-person days of Instruction
99
1
Discussion
In
the Politico analysis, Utah was tied for second of the 50 states with an
overall score of 66 out of 100. Utah
scored high on the economy, ranking high on all three measures and 2nd
overall. For social well-being Utah
ranked much lower overall (33rd) with low scores for violent crime
and food insecurity and a relatively high score for household expenses. Utah’s health score ranked 15th
overall with a score of 61, with very high scores for fewer deaths (95) and fewer hospital admissions (76) but very low for
immunizations (28) ranking 33rd.
For education, Utah had a score of 61 ranking 18th with the
highest score (99) for public school in person instruction, with
lower scores for math achievement (23) and reading (16). No state scored high
across all four categories and although the overall Utah score of 66 out of 100
ranks high compared to other states, it is not impressive. According to the Politico analysis, every
state has the potential for significant improvement, including Utah.
The
strength of the Politico analysis was the inclusion of measures for social
well-being, which during the course of the pandemic became very important as
broader societal implications of COVID became apparent. The challenge is
determining which social indicators are most related to the pandemic and could
be influenced by state decision makers. The Politico analysis had some
weaknesses. The economic data was not
adjusted for differences in the economies of different states, and mortality
data was not adjusted for age and pre-pandemic diabetes levels, both of which
proved to be important factors in the severity of the disease for certain
population cohorts. Politico also expanded their analysis of educational
impacts beyond days of in-person education to include math and reading
performance. This is perhaps an
innovative appropriate consideration.
However, by Politico’s own admission, the data was not available to
support their analysis. For example, there
were states with virtually no in-person days of instruction that show no
learning loss related to math and education while other states including Utah
scored low with high levels of in-person days. The
Politico analysis was contradicted by the recently completed National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) produced by the National Center of Educational Statistics (NCES).[21] It is not clear why Politico
chose violent crime as an indicator for social well-being because it is not apparent
how violent crime was impacted by state decision making. Politico used the
experimental Household Pulse Survey conducted by the Census Bureau to measure food security and ability to cover household expenses.[22] The low Utah score for food security raises
an important question about how Politico measured relative state performance
because in a much more robust study by Feeding America, Utah ranked
very high.[23]
NBER Study—The Final Report Card on the State Response
to COVID-19
The
NBER is a private nonprofit
research organization that has the purpose of “undertaking and disseminating unbiased economic
research among public policymakers, business professions and the academic
community.”[24] As a part of this effort, new research
(working papers) by NBER affiliates are circulated for discussion and comment. These papers, which
have been produced by professional researchers, have not been peer reviewed.[25] The final Report Card on the State Response to COVID-19 is one of these working papers.
Economic
performance was evaluated using unemployment and GDP by state,
adjusted for industry composition. This
is because “state populations are heterogenous and their economies emphasize different
industries.” The pandemic had a much
more negative impact on economic output in some industries (such as
entertainment, energy, production, mining, hotels, and food) that made this
adjustment essential.
Mortality
included COVID-associated deaths
reported to the CDC and all-cause excess mortality. Both measures wereadjusted for
age and pre-pandemic prevalence of diabetes and obesity, which are highly
correlated with higher death rates from the virus.
Summary Results of the NBER Study
The following table summarizes the results for the ten best performing
states as well as performance in each category.
The overall ranking and combined rankings within each category were
calculated by using a Z-score (which shows relative performance compared to the
mean). The Z-scores of the three
components were equally weighted and transformed to a zero to 100 scale to
illustrate relative overall performance.
The mean and lowest scores are also included for reference.
The Top Ten
Performing States
NBER Working
Paper Analysis
Rank
State
Combined AdjustedZ-Score
Scaled (0-100)Combined Score
Economy Z Score/Rank
Percent Cumulative In-Person Days/Rank
MortalityZ-Score/Rank
1
Utah
3.46
100
1.42/4
87.3%/5
0.84/8
2
Nebraska
3.25
97.0
1.47/3
87.0%/6
0.58/11
3
Vermont
3.34
96.9
0.26/19
79.5%/11
2.13/2
4
Montana
2.29
83.4
1.91/1
85.7%/7
-0.75/40
5
South Dakota
2.08
80.4
1.77/2
89.3%/4
-0.98/44
6
Florida
2.04
79.9
0.57/13
96.2%/3
-0.13/28
7
New Hampshire
1.99
79.2
0.35/18
68.9%/28
1.61/3
8
Maine
1.95
78.6
0.63/11
58.1%/31
1.41/4
9
Arkansas
1.85
77.7
0.69/10
96.8%/2
-0.43/37
10
Idaho
1.63
74.1
1.23/5
70.6%/20
-0.07/26
Best
3.46
100
1.91
87.3%
2.70
Median
-0.16
48.8
-0.07
46.0%
0.54
Low
-3.61
0
-2.04
27.0%
-1.34
Utah Performance
NEBR Key
Indicators Detailed
NBER Key
Indicators
Utah
Utah Rank
Best State
Worst State
Economy Average Z-Score
1.42
4
1.91
-1.74
Percent GDP Growth
0.6%
2
0.8%
-6.4%
Unemployment Increase
1.5%
6
0.2%
4.7%
Percent Cumulative In-Person Days in School
87.3%
5
100%
19.2%
Mortality Average Z-Score
0.84
8
0.41
-1.99
Mortality Rate/100,000
252.7
13
126.5
391.4
Excess Mortality
10.6
7
1.8
30.8%
Total Score Scaled
100
1
100
0
Discussion
Utah achieved the top rank
overall in the NBER study and received a grade of A+ for overall performance along
with two other states. Utah scored
relatively high for each key indicator, ranking 4th for economic
performance, 5th for health (mortality) and eighth for education. The strength of the NBER study is the
sophistication of research techniques and the quality of the data included in
the analysis. Their study recognized
that state populations are heterogeneous and their economies emphasize
different industries that were affected differently by the pandemic. Accordingly, unemployment and GDP data were
adjusted for the industry composition of each state. Additionally, because age and pre-pandemic
obesity and diabetes are highly correlated with higher COVID death rates the
mortality data was adjusted to reflect this difference. These adjustments are important because Utah
has a fairly diverse economy and the population is young and healthy. Accordingly, Utah was ranked lower on the
economy than in the Politico study (4th vs. 2nd) and
significantly lower for mortality (13th vs. 2nd).
The weakness of the NBER
study is the limited number of indicators measured. For health, there were two measures, deaths
and excess mortality, whereas the Politico analysis used two additional
measures and the Commonwealth used six.
For education, a single metric was used (in-persons days of
instruction), whereas Politico added measures of educational performance. NBER took the position that other respected studies
concluded that COVID and school closures had a negative impact on learning[28] and that other measures were unnecessary. For the economy, in addition to unemployment
and GDP growth, Politico used data on job creation that were not part of the
NBER study.
Commonwealth Fund—2022
Scorecard on Health System Performance:How did
States do During the COVID-19 Pandemic?
The Commonwealth Fund is a private foundation whose stated purpose is to “promote
a high-performing health care system that achieves better access, improved
quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society’s most vulnerable,
including low-income people, the uninsured, and people of color.”[29] The Commonwealth Fund study is unique in that
it focuses only on how COVID impacted health system performance and does not
address other economic and social issues. This analysis was an expansion of
their 2022 scorecard on health system performance that added seven COVID-specific
measures in the following areas: Vaccination rates; COVID-related
hospitalization rates and health system stress; and COVID-related mortality. These measures were used to construct a
composite ranking of state health system performance. The summary analysis of
these measures referenced below can be found in the appendices to the study.[30]
Vaccination performance included two measures: the
percentage of adults vaccinated against COVID-19 with a booster and the number
of days until 70 percent of the population age 12 and older was fully vaccinated.
COVID-19 hospitalization rates were based on the hospital
admission rate per 100,000 population and were intended to be a measure of the
prevalence and severity of the disease.
Health system stress was based on two measures: the number
of days ICUs exceeded 80 percent capacity and the number of days hospitals
experienced staffing shortages.
Excess mortality was measured using two
indicators: the number of deaths beyond the norm for the period of the pandemic
and deaths from COVID-19 in nursing homes, per 100 beds.
Summary Results—The Commonwealth Fund Study
The following table includes the top 10
performing states in the Commonwealth study.
Rank
State
1
Hawaii
2
Maine
3
Vermont
4
Washington
5
Oregon
6
Maryland
7
Utah
8
Massachusetts
9
Minnesota
10
Connecticut
The following table summarizes how Utah ranked
in each of the key indicators that were included in the Commonwealth study,
with the addition of drug overdose deaths, which was not included in the COVID-19
dimension ranking but was included in the health lives ranking. This is an important indicator of the social
impact of COVID.
Utah Results/Ranking
Health System Performance
Key Indicator
UtahResults
UtahRank
United StatesAverage
BestState Result
% Adults vaccinated with booster
38%
22
37%
55%
Number of days until 70% of state Population age 12 and over was
fully vaccinated
360
24
354
182
Number of days with high ICU stress during the pandemic
24
13
112
0
Number of days with hospital staffing shortages
0
1
50
0
(16 States)
COVID-19 hospital admissions per 100,000 population
1075
12
1,443
564
Excess deaths per 100,000
population
210
5
345
110
Deaths from COVID-19 in nursing homes per 100 beds
69
8
94
19
Drug overdose deaths per 100,000 population
20.5
16
28.3
10.3
Discussion
The Commonwealth Fund analysis does include direct
measures of health (excess mortality and nursing home deaths) but is primarily a
study of preparedness in that it focused on the ability of state health care
systems to manage the pandemic. It is
not obvious how state level decisions were related to the health system
preparedness of the individual states but preparedness[D1] was a critical factor in
overall management of the pandemic. The
Commonwealth Fund has considerable experience and expertise in the assessment
of state level data, and the data used for their rankings is reliable. Utah was ranked 7th overall and was
in the top quartile for the other measures with the exception of those related
to vaccination levels and drug overdoses. Utah’s high relative performance is most
likely more related to the preparation and quality of the health care system itself
and not state level decision making.
Aside from the limited scope of the study, there
really is no notable weakness in the data analysis; for health-related
indicators it is comprehensive and reliable. For indicators that were the same,
there was consistency with the other studies except for vaccination levels
where the Commonwealth ranking for Utah was higher than the Politico. This is most likely because of different
methodologies used by each study.
SUMMARY
The following table is a comparative summary of
the Utah ranking in each study.
Selective Comparative Rankings for Utah in Each Study
Indicator
Politico
NBER
Commonwealth
COMBINED OVERALL RANKING
2
Tied with three states
1
Overall Economy
2
4
GDP
2
2
Unemployment
9
6
Job Creation
2
Overall Health
15
8
7
Mortality
2
13
Excess Mortality
7
5
Hospital Admissions
11
12
Testing/Hospitalization Ratio
17
Adults Vaccinated
33
22
Days to 70% Vaccinations
24
Days ICU Stress
13
Hospital Staffing Shortage
1
Nursing Home Deaths
8
Overall Education
18
5
Math
29
Reading
18
In-Person Days of
Instruction
1
5
Did state interventions make a difference?
The introduction to this paper noted that
decision making for managing the pandemic was left to the states and there were
a range of different approaches to the management of the disease. The comparative studies that are summarized in
this paper were intended to highlight the relationship between state level
decision making and the impact of these decisions on selected indicators of
performance. The
studies varied considerably, however, in documenting the relationship between
state interventions (or lack thereof) and state level performance for the
indicators used in their analysis. The following are selected observations
by the authors of each of the studies.
Politico
States that imposed more
restraints such as stay at home orders and mask mandates had lower rates of
deaths and hospital admissions but had poorer economic outcomes.
States that had fewer shutdowns and more
rural geography tended to fare better economically than more urban states that
imposed more public health restrictions.
Isolated states (Hawaii and Alaska) and those
with smaller population and geographic footprints fared better.
States whose economies are
heavily dependent on tourism suffered the most economically.
No state performed well in
every policy area.
Overall, rural states tended to fare better
than more urbanized states on economic and educational outcomes.
Many rural states, despite
being less densely populated, ranked poorly in health outcomes.
Schools which had more days of in-person
school had less learning loss in their students.
NBER
Economic and educational
performance were impacted by decisions made by policy makers and were
positively correlated, (correlation coefficient = 0.43).
The correlation between
health and economic indicators was essentially zero, which suggests that states
that withdrew from economic activity did not significantly improve health by
doing so. (Hawaii is a notable exception.
It ranked last on the economic index and sixth from last on schooling
but first on health.)
There is no clear pattern in which states had
high and low mortality. Whether or not political
leaders can be considered responsible for mortality outcomes is therefore
unclear.
The economy and education scores were likely
influenced by decisions made by policymakers but it is unclear if that is the
case for mortality measures.
School closures may ultimately prove to be
the costliest decision of the pandemic era in both economic and mortality
terms.
State decision making did
negatively impact deaths in nursing homes in some states.
There was little health
benefit to closing schools.
Commonwealth Fund
The COVID-19 pandemic
created considerable stress on healthcare in every state. However, states responded differently with
different results.
COVID-19 vaccines were
effective in decreasing transmission of the virus and reducing hospitalizations
and deaths for those that were infected with the virus.
States that were well
organized and responded quickly to get shots in the arm had higher vaccination
rates.
All states have made
progress in vaccinating their residents against COVID-19 but there are opportunities for improvement.
COVID-19 pushed hospitals
to the breaking point as many operated close to capacity while being
understaffed.
The death toll from COVID-19
was high and extended beyond deaths directly. attributable to the virus; and
every state experienced higher than expected mortality from all causes.
The number of excess deaths
varied fivefold across states.
Summary
There is some degree of consistency between the
three studies where there are common indicators. Where there are
inconsistencies it is because of the indicators selected and the quality of
data used to measure each indicator. For example, Politico concluded that
states’ restrictions and lockdowns improved health outcomes while NBER’s
findings were just the opposite. The NBER analysis was supported by statistical
analysis. It is not apparent how
Politico reached its conclusions. It is clear that state level rankings can be
impacted by which indicators are selected and the quality of the data used to
support the analysis. Comparative rankings with other states are one way to
look at the analysis; the other and perhaps more important is what the data say
about potential for improvement. It is important for every state, including
Utah, to carefully look at ways to improve the management of future pandemics
and even how to increase ongoing public health efforts to improve population
health.
How does the Utah experience measure up compared
to other states
Utah decision
makers were relatively
aggressive in eliminating mask mandates, limiting lockdowns of the economy and
opening schools. Overall, Utah fared
well in each of the three studies, ranking 1st in NBER, tied for 2nd
in Politico and 7th in Commonwealth. Utah ranked well for economic
performance in both the Politico and NBER studies and high for both mortality
and excess mortality indicators in both the NBER and Commonwealth
analysis. Utah also ranked high for
educational performance in the NBER study and in-person education days in the
Politico analysis. In the
recent NAEP study Utah’s learning performance was comparable to other states
for the 4th grade and was better than other states at the 8th
grade level and was the only state that showed no learning loss for math education.[31]
State decision making may have contributed to
Utah’s relative performance for both economic and educational measures but was likely
not a factor for low mortality and health system performance. Utah’s youngest
median age (31.4) and healthy population, combined with the quality of health
care in Utah, were most likely positive contributing factors to Utah’s low
mortality rate and overall health performance.
The quality and performance of the Utah Health Care System was well documented
in the Commonwealth study.
Potential for Improvement
The most notable weakness in Utah’s performance
related to measures of COVID-19 vaccinations, ranking 33rd in
Politico and 22nd and 24th in the Commonwealth study. Vaccination rates were well below top
performing states as noted in the following table.
Effort of Top Ten States and Utah
Getting Their Populations Vaccinated
State
Days Until 70%of population
over age 12 Vaccinated
Vermont
182
Massachusetts
195
Connecticut
197
Maine
199
Rhode Island
221
Maryland
236
New Jersey
243
Washington
251
New Mexico
254
New York
258
Utah
360
Utah required 360 days to get
70% of the population over age 12 vaccinated, 178 more days than the top
performing state, Vermont, and 102 days more than New York, which ranked
tenth. It should be noted that both Maine,
and Washington also performed well economically. It should also be noted that Utah’s vaccination
rates for childhood infectious diseases appear to be declining and for school year 2020-21 were below the national average and the median for
other states.[32]
Why does it matter?
Historically the development of safe and effective vaccines
against serious and deadly diseases has been “one of the foremost scientific advances of the 21st
century”.”[33]
Importantly, vaccinations have also proven to be the most significant intervention in
getting the pandemic under control. The
Commonwealth Fund estimated that “from December 2020 through November 2022 the
COVID-19 vaccination program prevented more than 18.5 million additional
hospitalizations and 3.2 million additional deaths. Without vaccinations, there would have been
nearly 120 million more COVID-19 infections.”[34]
The Utah Department of Health did
an excellent job in producing Utah specific data that illustrates the power of
the COVID-19 vaccines in preventing hospitalizations and deaths in Utah during
the Omicron period since December 21, 2021.[36]
Unvaccinated Utahns Had
2.1 X greater risk of being hospitalized than those who were
fully vaccinated
3.5 X times greater risk of dying than those who were fully
vaccinated
3.6 X greater risk of being hospitalized than those who were
boosted
14 X times great risk of dying than those who were boosted
We are concerned
that vaccine hesitancy in the U.S and in Utah during the pandemic will cause us
to forget the significant impact that vaccinations have had on our well-being
today and be a negative factor as we continue management of Covid-19 and plan
to improve future responses to pandemics.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The overall relative performance
of Utah in managing the COVID-19 pandemic was positive in
comparison to other states. Economic performance was
among the best in the country and was a major focus of decision makers. And, it is important to note that there is a
strong relationship between the strength of the economy and several measures of
population health. Decisions to open the
schools have proven to be well founded and were encouraged by policy makers.
“Health Performance” was
relatively high as measured by low mortality and lower than average rates of
inpatient hospitalizations. The quality of the Utah Healthcare system was a
significant factor in Utah’s performance and decisions
by policy makers probably had no positive impact.
Higher vaccination rates would
have most likely resulted in lower hospitalization rates and fewer deaths. The broader
problem of declining vaccination rates
for childhood infectious diseases and the specific challenge of getting the
population vaccinated for COVID-19 may be related and should be a significant
public policy concern. In spite of the
remarkable historical achievements, the pandemic has had the unanticipated
effect of discrediting public health in the U.S. In many states, including
Utah, the traditional role of public health has been challenged. This
may have impacted vaccine hesitancy in Utah.
It is recommended that
a study forum be created consisting of professionals with credible experience
and expertise in preventive health, COVID-19 management and the use of vaccines
to improve population health. The study
should focus on declining immunization levels in Utah, why vaccinations for
COVID-19 were lower than hoped for and how to better define the role of public
health in the future.
Dr. Xu has more than 25 years’ successful experiences and achievements in innovation and administration of developing interoperable information systems and analyzing integrated health data for public health policy and practice. Before her retirement in 2018, she directed the Center for Health Data and Informatics in Utah Department of Health (UDOH), oversaw the statewide enterprise data management and data sharing and served on the UDOH Executive Leadership Team. Dr. Xu also served as the State HIT Coordinator working with ONC, a member of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials’ Informatics Policy Committee, and the UDOH member on the Board of Directors for the Utah Health Information Network, the Utah’s Health Information Exchange (HIE). Innovation and collaboration are two passionate driving forces in Wu’s career. Having collaborated with colleagues in UDOH, Utah and other states since 1997, Dr. Xu has served as P.I., Co-P.I. or grant manager for 21 competitive federal grants. She also provided advice/consultation at the National Quality Forum’s patient safety panel, the Public Health Informatics Institute’s special conferences, CDC informatics fellowship program, and ASTHO state informatics directors network. Under her leadership, UDOH has been recognized as one of the three informatics savvying state health departments in the nation. As an Adjunct Assistant Professor at the University of Utah’s Departments of Biomedical Informatics, Internal Medicine/Clinical Epidemiology, and Sociology, Dr. Xu, with her academic colleagues, also published applied researches in peer-reviewed journals. Dr. Xu received the 2018 Utah Governor’s Awards for Excellence: 1) Individual Award for Outstanding Public Service and 2) Team Award for Outstanding Technology Innovation.
Wu joined the Utah Citizens Counsel in 2019. She will work with the health subcommittee and focus on health equality and health policies to improve health systems and health status of Utahns. Wu is a member of the National Committee of Vital and Health Statistics (2020-2024).
Wu grew up in Beijing, China. During the Cultural Revolution, Wu was sent down to countryside and worked in the field. Under the reform policy, Wu received her B.A. in History from Sichuan University, China, 1980; M.A. in Political Sciences, Tianjin Normal University, China in 1983. Wu came to the U.S. for education and received her Ph.D. degree in Sociology with specialty in health demography from Utah State University in 1996,
I was raised in South Cottonwood on a large plot of land that was first homesteaded by my Great-Grandfather, who came to Utah in 1855. My Dad always had a large garden which required a lot of weeding and watering, not to mention an acre or so of non-native Kentucky Blue Grass to be mowed each week. I spent the rest of my youth wading and swimming in Little Cottonwood Creek. Later, I moved with Sandy, my wife, to Sandy, where we raised our five children and where we now live.
After receiving degrees from the University of Utah and Brigham Young University, I spent my career working for the Utah Legislature on the staff of the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, first as a Policy Analyst and later as Deputy Director where I directed the finances and operations of the office. Staffing assignments included various committees dealing with environmental, education, health, human services, and taxation issues. I retired from the office in 2017.
During my career with the Legislature I was also active in the National Conference of State Legislatures where I served as chair of the Research and Committee Staff Section and on other committees.
The Utah Citizens’ Counsel (UCC) is an independent, non-partisan group of senior community advocates dedicated to improving public policy on complex issues through dialogue, creative problem solving, education, and consensus building.
The Utah Citizens’ Counsel (UCC) is an independent, non-partisan group of senior community advocates dedicated to improving public policy on complex issues through dialogue, creative problem solving, education, and consensus building.
