The elimination of risks for population health is a challenging task for the Biden administration, which implies the need to prioritize specific principles over other ideas. From this perspective, the third, fourth, and seventh items from the list of the ten Essential Public Health Services seem more beneficial than the others. The rationale for their selection is related to the fact that they mean practical measures, which are critical at the time of the pandemic, in contrast to research and new suggestions on improving operating systems. Thus, the fourth statement correlates with the emerged hazards for people, which have not been previously addressed by the field of healthcare. The third task reflects the necessity to efficiently inform citizens about new methods of protecting their health due to COVID-19. Finally, the seventh point is advantageous for making vital services accessible to all categories of patients because of the possibility of long-term consequences for their wellbeing.
In turn, the least important provisions of the Essential Public Health Services are those connected to the elaboration of generalized plans and regular procedures on measuring essential indicators. As mentioned above, these initiatives are not in priority when there are more urgent tasks to perform, and, hence, their implementation should be postponed. From this point of view, the first, third, and eighth items do not seem to be necessary under the specified circumstances. As per the first statement, monitoring health is important, but it is more critical to eliminate the threats before introducing such systems. The second point implying investigation and diagnosis means the focus on less hazardous conditions compared to COVID-19 and, therefore, is irrational. As for the eighth provision, it is inapplicable to the current situation as not the skills of the personnel but their insufficient numbers seem to present a greater threat to the population.