We rarely see the impact of policies reflected in data in real time. The COVID-19 pandemic changed that. In the present moment, a range of government, private, and academic sources catalogue household-level health and economic information to enable rapid policy analysis and response. To continue promoting periodic findings, identifying vulnerable populations, and maintaining a focus on public health, frequent national data collection needs to be improved and expanded permanently.
Knowledge accumulates over time, facilitating new advancements and advocacy. While mRNA biotechnology was not usable decades ago, years of public research helped unlock highly effective COVID-19 vaccines. The same can be true for advancing effective socioeconomic policies. More national, standardized data like the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey will accelerate progress. At the same time, there are significant issues with national data sources. For instance, COVID-19 data reported by the CDC faced notable quality issues and inconsistencies between states.
Policymakers can’t address problems that they don’t know exist. Researchers can’t identify problems and solutions without adequate data. We can better study how policies impact population health and inform legislative action with greater federal funding dedicated to wide-ranging, systematized population surveys.
Broader data collection enables more findings and policy development
Evidence-based research is at the core of effective policy action. Surveillance data indicates what problems families face, who is most affected, and which interventions can best promote health and economic well-being. These collections can inform policy responses by reporting information on the demographics disproportionately affected by socioeconomic disruptions. Race and ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, household composition, and work occupation all provide valuable details on who has been left behind by past and present legislative choices.
Since March 2020, COVID-19 cases and deaths, changes in employment, and food and housing security have been tracked periodically with detailed demographic information through surveys like the Both cumulative statistical compilations and representative surveillance polling have been instrumental to analyses. Our team has recorded over 200 state-level policies in the COVID-19 US State Policy (CUSP) database to further research and journalistic investigations. We have learned a number of policy lessons, from the health protections of eviction moratoria to the food security benefits of social insurance expansions. Not to be forgotten is the importance of documented evidence to these insights.
Without this comprehensive tracking, it would be difficult to determine the number of evictions occurring despite active moratoria, what factors contribute to elevated risk of COVID-19, and the value of pandemic unemployment insurance programs in states. The wider number of direct and indirect health outcomes measured have bolstered our understanding of the suffering experienced by different demographic groups. These issues are receiving legislative attention, in no small part due to the broad statistical collection and subsequent analytical research on these topics.
Insufficient data results in inadequate understanding of policy issues
The more high-quality data there is, the better. With the state-level policies present in CUSP, our team and other research groups quantified the impact of larger unemployment insurance benefit sizes, greater minimum wages, mask mandates, and eviction freezes. These analyses have been utilized by state and federal officials. None would have been possible without increased data collection.
However, our policy investigations are constrained by the data availability and quality on state and federal government websites, which may be improved with stimulus funds allocated to modernize our public health data infrastructure. Some of the most consequential decision-making right now relates to vaccine distribution and administration, but it is difficult to disaggregate state-level statistics. Many states lack demographic information on vaccine recipients as well as those that have contracted or died from COVID-19. Even though racial disparities are present in COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths nationally, we can’t always determine the extent of these inequities locally. These present issues are a microcosm of pre-existing problems.
Data shortcomings present for years, in areas like occupational safety, are finally being spotlighted due to the pandemic. Minimal national and state workplace health data translated to insufficient COVID-19 surveillance in workplace settings. Studies that show essential workers are facing elevated risk of COVID-19 are often limited in scope to individual states or cities, largely due to the lack of usable and accessible data. More investment is needed going forward beyond the pandemic to better document a Otherwise there will continue to be serious blind spots in the ability to evaluate policy decisions, enforce better workplace standards, and hold leaders accountable for choices.
These are problems with a simple solution: collect more information. Now is not the time to eliminate valuable community surveys and aggregate compilations, but to expand on them. More comprehensive data will provide a spotlight on current and future legislative choices and improve the understanding of policies in new ways. It is our hope that are built upon and become the new norm.
Disclosure: Funding received from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation was used to develop the COVID-19 US State Policy Database.
Across the street from the Buckingham Palace Garden and an ocean away from its Ohio headquarters, Cleveland Clinic is making a nearly $1 billion bet that Europeans will embrace a hospital run by one of America’s marquee health systems.
Cleveland Clinic London, scheduled to open for outpatient visits later this year and for overnight stays in 2022, will primarily offer elective surgeries and other profitable treatments for the heart, brain, joints and digestive system. The London strategy attempts to attract a well-off, privately insured population: American expatriates, Europeans drawn by the clinic’s reputation, and Britons impatient with the waits at their country’s National Health Service facilities. The hospital won’t offer less financially rewarding business lines, like emergency services.
“There are very few people out there in the world who would not choose to have Cleveland Clinic as their health care provider,” said chief executive Dr. Tomislav Mihaljevic.
Facing the prospect of stagnant or declining revenues at home, around three dozen of America’s elite hospitals and health systems are searching with a missionary zeal for patients and insurers able to pay high prices that will preserve their financial successes.
For years, a handful of hospitals have partnered with foreign companies or offered consulting services in places like Dubai, where Western-style health care was rare and money plentiful. Now a few, like the clinic, are taking on a bigger risk — and a potentially larger financial reward.
These foreign forays prompt questions about why American nonprofit health systems, which pay little or no taxes in their hometowns, are indulging in such nakedly commercial ventures overseas. The majority of U.S. hospitals are exempt from taxes because they provide charity care and other benefits to their communities. Nonprofit hospitals routinely tout these contributions, though studies have found they often amount to less than the tax breaks.
Despite their tax designation, nonprofit hospitals are as aggressive as commercial hospitals in seeking to dominate their health care markets and extract prices as high as possible from private insurers. Though they do not pay dividends, some nonprofits amass large surpluses most years even as more and more patients are covered by Medicare and Medicaid, the U.S. government’s insurance programs for the elderly, disabled and poor, which pay less than commercial insurance. Cleveland Clinic, one of the wealthiest, ran an 11% margin in the first three months of this year and paid Mihaljevic $3.3 million in 2019, the most recent salary disclosed.
The advantages of international expansion for their local communities are tenuous. Venturing overseas does not provide Americans with the direct or trickle-down benefits that investing locally does, such as construction work and health care jobs. Even when hospitals abroad add to the bottom line, the profits funneled home are minimal, according to the few financial documents and tax returns that disclose details of the operations.
“It’s a distraction from the local mission at a minimum,” said Paul Levy, a former chief executive at Boston’s Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and now a consultant. “People get into them at the beginning, thinking this is easy money. The investment bankers get involved because they get the financing, and the senior faculty get on board and say, ‘This is great; it means I can go to Italy for two years’ — and there’s not a real business plan.”
There are financial hazards. For instance, Cleveland Clinic has warned bondholders that its performance could suffer if its London project does not launch as planned. There are also risks to a system’s reputation if a foreign venture goes awry.
Finance experts temper expectations that operations of overseas hospitals will have a major bearing on a system’s balance sheet. “Even though they do well, they’re small hospitals — they’re never part of the overall picture,” said Olga Beck, a senior director at Fitch Ratings. “It does help [the U.S. operations] because it gives a global name and presence in other markets.”
Hospital executives say their foreign ventures provide an additional source of revenue, thus adding stability, and benefit the care of their hometown patients.
“As we go to different areas around the world, we learn and we continuously improve for all our patients,” said Dr. Brian Donley, CEO of Cleveland Clinic London. He said the clinic has learned from U.K. practices more efficient ways to sterilize surgical instruments and perform X-rays.
For decades, wealthy foreigners — who are willing to pay the list prices for specialized surgeries and cancer care that domestic insurers bargain down — have been appealing targets for U.S. hospitals. Hospitals like MedStar Health’s Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, D.C., assist foreign patients with special offices staffed by people with job titles such as “international services coordinator” and “international services finance administrator.”
Between July 2019 and June 2020, U.S. hospitals treated more than 53,000 foreign patients, charging them more than $2.8 billion, according to a survey of members by the Chicago-based U.S. Cooperative for International Patient Programs. In addition, instead of just importing patients, 37 of 51 health systems in the survey said they offer international advisory or consulting services abroad.
“‘Send us your patients’ is pretty much a dying approach,” said Steven Thompson, a consultant who has spearheaded international programs for Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins Medicine and Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “People see it on both sides for what it is: a one-way relationship.”
One of the oldest foreign ventures is the organ transplant program the Pittsburgh-based nonprofit system UPMC has run in Palermo, Italy, since 1997, when Sicily’s government and Italian insurers realized it would be cheaper to perform those procedures there than continue to send patients to the U.S. Since then, UPMC’s Palermo facility has performed more than 2,300 transplants.
In this initial expansion, the U.S. hospital was providing a highly specialized type of surgery — one that UPMC is renowned for — that was not available locally. But UPMC, one of the most entrepreneurial U.S. health systems, didn’t stop there. In Ireland, UPMC owns a cancer center and provides care for concussions through sports medicine clinics. Since 2018, the system has acquired hospitals in Waterford, Clane and Kilkenny. They are staffed mostly by independent Irish physicians, but UPMC regularly sends over its leading U.S. specialists to lend expertise, according to Wendy Zellner, a UPMC spokesperson.
UPMC has company in Ireland: in 2019, Bon Secours Mercy Health, a Roman Catholic system with hospitals in Eastern states, merged with a five-hospital Catholic system there.
Over the past two decades, UPMC did advisory and consulting work in 15 countries but ultimately decided to narrow its involvement to four: Italy, Ireland, China and Kazakhstan, where UPMC is helping a university develop a medical teaching hospital. Charles Bogosta, president of UPMC International, said UPMC wanted to focus its efforts where it was confident it could improve the quality of care, bolster UPMC’s reputation and earn profit margins greater than its U.S. hospitals do.
UPMC officials said the economics are favorable abroad because labor is cheaper and the mix of patients is heavily tilted toward those with commercial insurance, which pays better than government programs.
“What we’ve been doing overseas has been really helpful in addressing what everyone in the U.S. is trying to do, which is come up with diversified revenue sources,” Bogosta said.
Even so, that extra revenue remains a small part of UPMC’s earnings. The health system’s foreign hospital business generated gross revenues of $96 million, or 1% of UPMC’s $9.3 billion total hospital revenues in 2019, according to a KHN analysis of a UPMC financial disclosure. Since that figure is before accounting for the costs of running the hospitals, taxes and other expenses, the actual profits the foreign hospitals might send back to Pittsburgh are much smaller. In Ireland, where corporations are required to disclose audited financial statements, UPMC Investments Ltd., an umbrella group that owns the Waterford hospital operation and property, reported net profits of about a half-million dollars in 2019 on more than $47 million in gross revenues.
In an email, Zellner said the Ireland statements “do not give you the totality of the picture in Ireland or International, where our results are far better than these documents would suggest.” UPMC declined to provide more detailed financial data.
Like other systems, UPMC has expanding ambitions in China. In 2019 it signed an agreement with the multinational corporation Wanda Group to help manage several “world-class” hospitals, starting with one opening in Chengdu next year.
But foreign ventures can misfire. “These partnerships can turn into nightmares, as Hopkins has learned,” Thompson wrote in a 2012 article for the Harvard Business Review that described his observations as the founder and first CEO of Johns Hopkins Medicine International, a for-profit venture jointly owned by Johns Hopkins Medicine and Johns Hopkins University.
Anadolu Medical Center, which Hopkins helped establish in Istanbul in 2005, was “plagued by quality problems,” including overbooked operating rooms and physicians who refused to follow evidence-based procedures and quality protocols, he wrote. Thompson attributed the problem to the Turkish mandate that the hospital be run by a Turkish citizen and wrote that the problems did not dissipate until Hopkins was allowed to install its own manager in the second-highest position and dissolve the top position to get around the citizenship requirement “while remaining in technical compliance with the law.”
While “the project is now thriving,” he warned that “lending the Hopkins name to a hospital that delivers unimpressive care could significantly damage our 135-year-old brand — and that’s a real danger in developing areas, especially in a project’s early days.”
Hopkins has remained skittish about outright ownership or even management responsibilities. Instead, it has affiliations with hospitals and health systems in 13 countries, including Vietnam, China, Turkey, Lebanon, Brazil and Saudi Arabia. Hopkins does not run any of the hospitals but helps develop hospital master plans and clinical programs, trains doctors, and advises on patient safety and infection control.
Even so, in 2014 it created a joint venture with the oil and gas company Saudi Aramco to provide health care to 255,000 employees and their dependents and retirees. Hopkins, which owns a fifth of the venture, said all foreign net revenue is returned to the system’s parent organizations to fund research, expansion of care and scholarships. But its public records report meager income from its foreign subsidiary, just $7 million in 2018 — a tenth of a percent of the health system’s $7 billion revenues.
Charles Wiener, the current president of Johns Hopkins Medicine International, focused on other benefits. “If we can put in robust quality and safety at one of our affiliates, their patients do better,” he said. “If we can export our education and training models, we believe that allows our people to benefit from learning from other cultures, and some of their people come here to train.”
Cleveland Clinic London is unusual in that U.S. health systems rarely build a hospital abroad from scratch without a local partner. The clinic chose that more cautious approach with Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, a 364-bed hospital owned by the Mubadala Investment Co. that the clinic manages. It also has a consulting practice that is helping a Singapore health care company build a hospital in Shanghai.
Foreign enterprises appeal to the clinic because it has limited growth opportunities in Ohio, where the population is growing slowly and aging, meaning more patients are leaving high-paying commercial insurers for lower-paying Medicare. The clinic has expanded in Florida, acquiring five hospitals to take advantage of population increases and wealthier patients there.
The London project will have 184 beds and eight operating rooms. Donley said it will be staffed primarily by U.K. physicians, including ones who also work for the National Health Service.
“The clinic has a long track record of being able to execute on its strategies,” said Lisa Martin, an analyst at the bond rating agency Moody’s Investors Service. “The London project is obviously the biggest venture and the biggest financial risk that they’ve made abroad.”
CORRECTION: This story was corrected on June 22, 2021, at 9:20 a.m. ET. MedStar Health’s Georgetown University Hospital does not solicit foreign patients.
Here are 10 hospitals and health systems with strong operational metrics and solid financial positions, according to reports from Fitch Ratings and Moody’s Investors Service.
1. Altamonte Springs, Fla.-based AdventHealth has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook from Moody’s. The credit rating agency said the system benefits from strong operating cash flow margins, low operating leverage and a large scale with presence in multiple states.
2. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook from Moody’s. The credit rating agency said the rating is reflective of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s strong market position and brand equity as a top U.S. children’s hospital with advanced clinical research. The pediatric hospital network also has strong liquidity.
3. Cleveland Clinic has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook from Moody’s. The credit rating agency said the health system benefits from its reputation as an international brand, which will allow it to grow revenue outside of the Ohio market. Moody’s said it maintains good cash flow margins and therefore very strong liquidity.
4. Cottage Health in Santa Barbara, Calif., has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook from Fitch. The credit rating agency said Cottage benefits from consistently strong profitability, a strong balance sheet and leading market position. Fitch also said the health system has broad reach in a service area that has high demand for acute care services.
5. Froedtert Health in Wauwatosa, Wis., has an “AA” rating and stable outlook from Fitch. The credit rating agency said the rating reflects the health system’s solid market position and robust liquidity position, as well as its strong utilization trends and operational metrics in recent years.
6. Indiana University Health in Indianapolis has an “AA” rating and positive outlook from Fitch. The credit rating agency said the health system has a long track record of strong operating margins and a “remarkably solid” balance sheet. The system also benefits as the largest healthcare system and academic medical center in Indiana, according to Fitch.
7. Vineland, N.J.-based Inspira Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook from Fitch. The credit rating agency said the rating is supported by Inspira’s stable financial profile, leading market position, large medical staff and expansive outpatient network. Fitch also said Inspira saw a strong operating performance through the construction and transition of its new campus, an IT implementation and through the peak of the pandemic.
8. Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, S.D., has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook from Fitch. The credit rating agency said the “AA-” rating reflects Sanford’s leading inpatient market share in multiple states and strong financial profile. Fitch also said Sanford’s growing health plan and plan for continued improvement and balance sheet growth are credit positives.
9. Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Mich., has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The credit rating agency said the health system has a stable operating performance and strong balance sheet metrics. In particular, the system generated positive margins even without federal aid in fiscal year 2020. Moody’s said the health system will continue to benefit from a strong market share for patient care in western Michigan.
10. Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook from Moody’s. The credit rating agency said the children’s hospital network benefits from favorable leverage metrics and strong liquidity. Moody’s also said Texas Children’s has very strong patient demand and high acuity services as the academic medical center for Baylor College of Medicine’s pediatric department in Houston.
Medicare Advantage (MA) focused companies, like Oak Street Health (14x revenues), Cano Health (11x revenues), and Iora Health (announced sale to One Medical at 7x revenues), reflect valuation multiples that appear irrational to many market observers. Multiples may be exuberant, but they are not necessarily irrational.
One reason for high valuations across the healthcare sector is the large pools of capital from institutional public investors, retail investors and private equity that are seeking returns higher than the low single digit bond yields currently available. Private equity alone has hundreds of billions in investable funds seeking opportunities in healthcare. As a result of this abundance of capital chasing deals, there is a premium attached to the scarcity of available companies with proven business models and strong growth prospects.
Valuations of companies that rely on Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement have traditionally been discounted for the risk associated with a change in government reimbursement policy. This “bop the mole” risk reflects the market’s assessment that when a particular healthcare sector becomes “too profitable,” the risk increases that CMS will adjust policy and reimbursement rates in that sector to drive down profitability.
However, there appears to be consensus among both political parties that MA is the right policy to help manage the rise in overall Medicare costs and, thus, incentives for MA growth can be expected to continue. This factor combined with strong demographic growth in the overall senior population means investors apply premiums to companies in the MA space compared to traditional providers.
Large pools of available capital, scarcity value, lower perceived sector risk and overall growth in the senior population are all factors that drive higher valuations for the MA disrupters.However, these factors pale in comparison the underlying economic driver for these companies. Taking full risk for MA enrollees and dramatically reducing hospital utilization, while improving health status, is core to their business model. These companies target and often achieve reduced hospital utilization by 30% or more for their assigned MA enrollees.
In 2019, the average Medicare days per 1,000 in the U.S. was 1,190. With about $14,700 per Medicare discharge and a 4.5 ALOS, the average cost per Medicare day is approximately $3,200. At the U.S. average 1,190 Medicare hospital days per thousand, if MA hospital utilization is decreased by 25%, the net hospital revenue per 1,000 MA
enrollees is reduced by about $960,000. If one of the MA disrupters has, for example, 50,000 MA lives in a market, the decrease in hospital revenues for that MA population would be about $48 million. This does not include the associated physician fees and other costs in the care continuum. That same $48 million + in the coffers of the risk-taking MA disrupters allows them deliver comprehensive array of supportive services including addressing social determinants of health. These services then further reduce utilization and improves overall health status, creating a virtuous circle. This is very profitable.
MA is only the beginning. When successful MA businesses expand beyond MA, and they will, disruption across the healthcare economy will be profound and painful for the incumbents. The market is rationally exuberant about that prospect.
One half of America is protected. The other is approaching a perilous moment in the pandemic.
Lineage B.1.617.2, now known as the Delta variant, was first detected in India, in December, 2020. An evolved version of sars-CoV-2, Delta has at least a dozen mutations, including several on its spike protein that make it vastly more contagious and possibly more lethal and vaccine-resistant than other strains. In India,the Delta variant contributed to the most devastating coronavirus wave the world has seen so far; now, it has been detected in dozens of countries, including the United States. In the U.S., it accounts for a minority of cases—but it is rapidly outcompeting other variants, and will likely soon become our dominant lineage.
Much of what we know about Delta is preliminary, and based on reports from India and, more recently, the U.K., where it now accounts for more than ninety per cent of new cases. Four-fifths of British adults have received at least one shot of a covid-19 vaccine, and more than half are fully vaccinated—but the variant has spread widely enough among those who remain vulnerable to fuel a quadrupling of cases and a doubling of hospitalizations in the past month. The vast majority of Delta-variant cases seem to have occurred in adults under fifty, whose rates of vaccination remain lower than those of older people. Last week, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that the U.K.’s full reopening, originally scheduled for June 21st, would be postponed.
Earlier this year, scientists estimated that lineage B.1.1.7—the Alpha variant, first isolated in England—could be some sixty per cent more transmissible than the original version of sars-CoV-2.Now, experts believe that the Delta variant is sixty per cent more transmissible than Alpha—making it far more contagious than the virus that tore through the world in 2020. It hasn’t yet been conclusively shown that Delta is more lethal, but early evidence from the U.K. suggests that, compared to Alpha, it doubles the risk of a person’s being hospitalized. Even if the variant turns out to be no deadlier within any one person, its greater transmissibility means that it can inflict far more damage across a population, depending on how many people remain unvaccinated when it strikes.
In this regard, India’s apocalyptic surge is Exhibit A. In May, at the crest of the wave, the role of the Delta variant was still unclear. A number of factors—the return of large gatherings, a decline in mask-wearing, and a sluggish vaccination campaign—had made a disaster of some kind more or less unavoidable. But it now seems likely that the rise of Delta accelerated the crisis into a shockingly rapid and widespread viral catastrophe. In the course of weeks, millions of people were infected and tens of thousands died; the country’s medical system buckled under the weight of a mutated virus. One of the most disturbing aspects of India’s surge was that many children fell ill. And yet there is currently no data to suggest that Delta causes severe illness in a greater proportion of kids; instead, it seems likely that the sheer transmissibility of the variant simply resulted in a higher absolute number of infected children.
One vitally important finding to emerge from the U.K. and India is that the covid vaccines are still spectacularly effective against Delta. According to one study from the U.K., a full course of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is ninety-six per cent effective at preventing hospitalizations due to the Delta variant; AstraZeneca’s vaccine is in the same ballpark, reducing the chance of hospitalization by ninety-two per cent. But these findings come with caveats. The first is that, with Delta, partial immunization appears to be less effective at preventing disease: a different study found that, for people who have received only the first shot, the vaccines were just thirty-three per cent effective at preventing symptomatic illness. (A first dose still appears to offer strong protection against hospitalization or death.) The second is that even full courses of the vaccines appear somewhat less effective at preventing infection from Delta. This may be especially true of the non-mRNA vaccines. A team of scientists in Scotland has found that both doses of AstraZeneca’s vaccine reduced the chance of infection with Delta by just sixty per cent—a respectable showing, but less impressive than what the same vaccine offers against other strains of the virus. (The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine demonstrated seventy-nine per cent efficacy against Delta infection—a significant, but smaller, decrease.)
Taken together, these findings have led some experts to propose adjustments in vaccination strategy. Muge Cevik, an infectious-diseases expert at St. Andrews University and an adviser to the British government, told me that, given the arrival of Delta, it was important to ask “what our main aim of vaccination is.” She went on, “If our primary objective is to reduce hospitalizations and deaths, a first dose still gives very good protection. If it’s to stamp out transmission, then the second dose becomes quite important. I think that, especially in hot spots, we need to expedite second shots.” Others have proposed the idea of mRNA-vaccine booster shots for Americans who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which, like AstraZeneca’s, uses non-mRNA technology. The C.D.C.’s official guidelines tell Americans that “the best covid-19 vaccine is the first one that is available to you. Do not wait for a specific brand.” But that advice was minted when vaccine supply was constrained. The accumulated evidence has led many people to wonder whether the mRNA vaccines, from Moderna and Pfizer, are preferable to the one offered by Johnson & Johnson, and whether the Delta variant makes them even more so.
“It’s likely that J. & J. offers strong protection against severe disease, but because it’s a one-shot regimen it might not offer the same protection against infection for a highly transmissible variant like Delta,” Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, told me. “A second shot reëxposes the immune system to the vaccine, and allows the body to make even better antibodies.” Rasmussen received the J. & J. vaccine; she lives in Canada, where health authorities have encouraged people to mix and match the vaccines. “I’m considering topping off my immune system with a dose of Pfizer,” she said. “It’s something worth thinking about.”
To a significant degree, the emergence of a variant like Delta was predictable, and, with rapid and widespread immunization, the threat that it poses can be subdued. But its arrival is still incredibly consequential. Delta drives an even wider wedge between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. They have already been living in separate worlds, facing vastly different risks of illness and death; now, their risk levels will diverge further. People who’ve been fully vaccinated can, by and large, feel confident in the immunity that they’ve received. But those who remain susceptible should understand that, for them, this is probably the most dangerous moment of the pandemic.
“The good news is that we have vaccines that can squash the Delta variant,” Eric Topol, the director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, told me. “The bad news is that not nearly enough people have been vaccinated. A substantial share of Americans are sitting ducks.” He went on, “We haven’t built a strong enough vaccination wall yet. We need a Delta wall”—a level of vaccination that will prevent the new variant from spreading. “There are still large unvaccinated pockets in the country where this could get ugly,” Topol added. Because about half of Americans are vaccinated, and millions more have some immunity from prior infection, the Delta variant “won’t cause monster spikes that overwhelm the health system,” Topol said. But Delta spreads so easily among the unvaccinated that some communities could experience meaningful increases in death and disease this summer and fall.
In America, the speed of vaccination is slowing. In some states, mainly in the South, only about a third of the population has been fully vaccinated. Big differences in the covid-19 toll are already visible: cases and hospitalizations have plummeted in some places with higher vaccination rates but are holding steady or rising in others. Fortunately, nearly ninety per cent of older Americans—the group most at risk for severe covid—have received at least one shot, and three-quarters are fully vaccinated. But, as is clear from the Indian and U.K. experiences, the Delta variant could still lead to major spikes in infection among younger, unvaccinated people.
In a recent piece, I likened a society that’s reopening while partially vaccinated to a ship approaching an iceberg. The ship is the return to normal life and the viral exposure that it brings; the iceberg is the population of unvaccinated people. Precautions such as social distancing can slow the speed of the ship, and vaccination can shrink the size of the iceberg. But, in any reopening society that’s failed to vaccinate everyone, a collision between the virus and the vulnerable is inevitable.
Because of its exceptional transmissibility, the Delta variant is almost certain to intensify the force of the collision. The U.K., by postponing a full reopening, is trying to soften the blow. But the U.S. is pressing ahead—perhaps out of hubris, or because officials hope that our vaccination campaign can outrun the spread of Delta. Last week, New York and California, among the pandemic’s hardest-hit states, did away with virtually all restrictions. Meanwhile, states with half the vaccination rates of New York or California have been open for weeks. A lot depends on where, and how fast, Delta is spreading.
Federal, state, and local officials are trying to accelerate vaccination. Governors have announced incentives such as lotteries, college scholarships, gift cards, and free beer for those who get immunized; California alone plans to spend more than a hundred million dollars on vaccine incentives. The Biden Administration has made immunizing seventy per cent of American adults by the Fourth of July a central priority, and has declared June a “national month of action.” The Administration has offered tax credits to employers that provide paid time off for people to get immunized, erected mass-vaccination sites, sent funds to community health centers, and partnered with local organizations, celebrities, and volunteers to get shots in arms. The White House recently announced that four of the nation’s largest child-care providers would offer free services to parents who want to get immunized before July 4th; Uber and Lyft have been offering free rides to vaccination sites for weeks.
And yet, the pace of vaccinations hasn’t picked back up. Topol, for his part, believes that a major impediment to wider vaccination is the fact that the F.D.A. has not yet fully approved the covid vaccines; right now, they’ve received only an emergency-use authorization, or E.U.A. About a third of unvaccinated Americans say that F.D.A. approval would make them more likely to get immunized. Full approval could also pave a clearer path for vaccine mandates in schools, businesses, and the military. Topol argues that mandates would allow us to build a Delta wall more quickly—along with walls for Epsilon, Zeta, and the rest of the Greek alphabet. Both Pfizer and Moderna have applied for F.D.A. approval, but it’s unclear how soon they will receive it; the usual process takes six to ten months. “Hundreds of millions of people have safely taken these vaccines, but there’s still a perception among some that they’re experimental,” Topol said. “E.U.A. versus full approval may sound like semantics, but it’s actually a B.F.D.”
Globally, more people died of the coronavirus in the first half of this year than in all of last year—an astounding fact, given the emergence of the vaccines. The tragic truth is that, for much of the world, the vaccines may as well not exist. On the one hand, the U.S. is vaccinating children as young as twelve; on the other hand, health-care workers, elderly people, and cancer patients in many other countries remain defenseless. Three-quarters of covid-vaccine shots have been administered in just ten countries, whereas the poorest nations have received less than one half of one per cent of the supply. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the W.H.O. director-general, has called this a “scandalous inequity.”
The Biden Administration recently announced that the U.S. would donate half a billion doses to the global vaccination effort; it hopes to deliver two hundred million by the end of the year. The U.K. and other European countries have also committed hundreds of millions of doses to covax, the international initiative to distribute vaccines to low- and middle-income countries. These efforts are important, and they will help immensely—but not for months, and perhaps not until 2022. In the meantime, many countries will continue to grapple with the social and economic challenges created by variant-catalyzed surges and the public-health measures needed to thwart them. Even where the political will for continuing such measures exists, it’s not infinite; countries can’t remain in lockdown forever.
In a sense, Delta is the first post-vaccination variant. Pockets of the human race—perhaps five hundred million people out of 7.6 billion—are protected against it, despite its transmissibility; for them, the pandemic’s newest chapter is something of an epilogue, since the main story has, in effect, already concluded. But, for those who remain unvaccinated, by choice or by chance, Delta represents the latest installment in an ongoing series of horrors. It’s a threat more sinister than any other—one that imperils whatever precarious equilibrium has taken root. In a partially vaccinated world, Delta exposes the duality in which we now live and die.
HENRY KOTULA 