Did US cities’ indoor vaccine mandates affect COVID-19 vaccination rates and outcomes?

Research published in Contemporary Economic Policy reveals that despite widespread adoption of indoor vaccine mandates in major US cities during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is no consistent evidence that these policies significantly increased vaccination rates or reduced COVID-19–related outcomes. The findings contrast with those from other countries, as national mandates abroad boosted vaccine uptake.

For the study, investigators estimated how mandates that restricted access to indoor venues for unvaccinated individuals impacted first-dose uptake, COVID-19 cases, and deaths across 9 US cities through what’s called the synthetic difference-in-differences method. The method estimates the effect of a city’s indoor vaccine mandate by constructing a “synthetic” control for the city using a weighted average of untreated metropolitan areas that closely matched pre-mandate trends in the outcome of interest.

The scientists found no consistent pattern of statistically significant impacts of the mandates on first-dose vaccine uptake, COVID-19 cases, or deaths across the 9 cities. The results challenge assumptions about the effectiveness of local public health interventions and suggest that local mandates may be less impactful when vaccine coverage is already high, when people can sidestep restrictions by traveling to nearby cities, and when the political environment is highly polarized. The findings could be useful for developing future public health strategies and policies.

“We wanted to take a careful, data-driven look at what these policies actually accomplished in the US context. By the time most cities introduced indoor vaccine mandates, vaccination rates were already high, and many unvaccinated individuals were deeply hesitant or resistant, leaving limited room for further gains,” said corresponding author Elijah Neilson, PhD, of Southern Utah University. “Our findings don’t suggest that mandates can’t work—only that their effectiveness depends on timing, context, and how easily people can sidestep local restrictions.”

URL upon publication: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/coep.70016

Additional Information
NOTE: The information contained in this release is protected by copyright. Please include journal attribution in all coverage. For more information or to obtain a PDF of any study, please contact: Sara Henning-Stout, newsroom@wiley.com.

About the Journal
First published in 1982, Contemporary Economic Policy publishes scholarly research and analysis on important policy issues facing society. The journal provides insight into the complexity of policy decisions and communicates evidence-based solutions in a form accessible to economists and policy makers. Contemporary Economic Policy provides a forum for debate by enhancing our understanding of key issues and methods used for policy analysis.

About Wiley      
Wiley is a global leader in authoritative content and research intelligence for the advancement of scientific discovery, innovation, and learning. With more than 200 years at the center of the scholarly ecosystem, Wiley combines trusted publishing heritage with AI-powered platforms to transform how knowledge is discovered, accessed, and applied. From individual researchers and students to Fortune 500 R&D teams, Wiley enables the transformation of scientific breakthroughs into real-world impact. From knowledge to impact—Wiley is redefining what's possible in science and learning. Visit us at Wiley.com and Investors.Wiley.com. Follow us on Facebook, X, LinkedIn and Instagram.