The Pressing Need for Public Health Investment

Syringes with prepared doses of the Johnson & Johnson Janssen Covid-19 vaccine and bandages

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the need for substantial investment in public health. Journalist Anna Maria Barry-Jester, in an investigation published in California Healthline and the Los Angeles Times last week, reported that the need is pressing and that the time is ripe to formulate solutions.

“As we’ve continued to make progress in bringing the COVID-19 emergency under control, many California leaders are turning their attention to the future,” Barry-Jester wrote.

This year’s state budget set aside $3 million for an assessment of California’s public health infrastructure. “Public health leaders believe it will show that staffing and training are major issues,” Barry-Jester reported.

Starting in July 2022, annual state budgets will include $300 million to be spent to improve public health infrastructure.

The pandemic highlighted two significant public health needs in California. One is basic investment in public health infrastructure, as highlighted by Barry-Jester. The other is to address housing, diet, livable wages, and access to quality health care as part of an overarching public health strategy — a necessity highlighted by the stark racial, ethnic, and economic disparities among those who contracted and died from COVID-19.

Many Reasons for Staff Attrition

Before the pandemic, the state’s public health infrastructure already required shoring up. The COVID-19 crisis hammered the already underfunded and understaffed county and state public health systems.

In California, public health workers are leaving their jobs in droves. Counties are “losing experienced staffers to retirement, exhaustion, partisan politics, and higher-paying jobs,” Barry-Jester reported.

The exodus from public health predated this surge of resignations. Since the early days of the pandemic, experienced California public health leaders have been leaving the field, including 17 county public health officers and 27 county-level directors or assistant directors of public health. Both the director and the deputy director of the state’s department of public health resigned during the pandemic.

“Public health nurses, microbiologists, epidemiologists, health officers, and other staff members who fend off infectious diseases like tuberculosis and HIV, inspect restaurants, and work to keep communities healthy are abandoning the field,” Barry-Jester wrote. “The collective expertise lost with those departures is hard to overstate.”

Public health laboratories illustrate how much we rely on public health infrastructure for our everyday safety. The labs are largely invisible to the public but touch every aspect of daily life. “Public health labs sample shellfish to make sure it is safe for eating. They monitor drinking water and develop tests for emerging health threats such as antibiotic-resistant viruses. They also test for serious diseases, such as measles and COVID-19. And they typically do it at a fraction of the cost of commercial labs — and faster.”

Yet labs across the state are unable to hire and retain staff, and they are in danger of closing. “The biggest threat to [public health labs] right now is not the next emerging pathogen,” said Donna Ferguson, director of the public health lab in Monterey County, “but labs closing due to lack of staffing.”

Addressing Social Needs as Public Health Strategy

The pandemic highlighted the effects of income inequality and racial disparities on health in California. Data from the California Department of Public Health highlight the stark disparities in COVID-19 outcomes. The COVID-19 death rate for Latinx people is 19% higher than the statewide death rate, and the death rate for Black people is 16% higher. The case rate for Pacific Islanders is 45% higher than the statewide rate, while the rate of Pacific Islanders earning less than $40,000 annually is 33% higher than average.

Michael Goran, MD, professor of pediatric medicine at the University of Southern California, explained the connections among long-term health, social factors, and COVID-19 infection among Latinx people.

“There is an 80% higher rate of diabetes among Hispanics compared to non-Hispanic whites. We think early life nutrition is very important but also the environment where people live, which can include a combination of factors like poor access to healthy food, poor access to resources, air pollution, even chemical contaminants in the environment we found contribute to this disparity,” he told Los Angeles Times reporter Alejandra Reyes-Velarde.

These chronic diseases then put Latinx people at higher risk for worse COVID outcomes. “One of the most common recurring risk factors, not so much for rates of infection but the severity of the infection, is blood-glucose levels,” he said. “Individuals with higher blood-glucose levels seem to have a more severe response to COVID-19 infection, and of course, higher blood glucose is what contributes to diabetes.”

Health Affairs study from the early days of the pandemic, which drew on data from California’s Sutter hospitals, noted that Black people are similarly at higher risk from the chronic illnesses that make people more susceptible to poor outcomes from COVID infections, including type 2 diabetes and congestive heart failure, as do other populations disproportionately harmed by COVID-19.

“Underfunded and Neglected”

A recent New York Times investigation highlights that California is not alone in dealing with a public health system pushed to the edge by the pandemic.

“Already underfunded and neglected even before the pandemic, public health has been further undermined in ways that could resound for decades to come,” wrote journalists Mike Baker and Danielle Ivory. The Times investigation of hundreds of health departments in all 50 states revealed that “local public health across the country is less equipped to confront a pandemic now than it was at the beginning of 2020.”

Threats, harassment, and anger directed at public health officials and workers drove many out of the field since the beginning of the pandemic and was identified as an ongoing problem by Baker and Ivory. “We have learned all the wrong lessons from the pandemic,” Adriane Casalotti told them. Casalotti is the chief of public and government affairs for the National Association of County and City Health Officials, an organization representing the nearly 3,000 local health departments across the nation. “We are attacking and removing authority from the people who are trying to protect us.”

Officials interviewed by Baker and Ivory noted that while additional funds are crucial to rebuilding public health departments, they aren’t sufficient to address the problems that have long weighed down the system or those that emerged during the pandemic.

Melissa Lyon, public health director for Erie County, Pennsylvania, put it this way: “If a ship is sinking, throwing treasure chests of gold at the ship is not going to help it float.”

The Great Resignation has burdened those left behind 

Forbes India - Jobs: What Is Fuelling The Great Resignation In America?

The workers who have stayed on at their jobs amid the Great Resignation are struggling to fill the gaps left by former colleagues, CNBC reported Nov. 2. 

The effects of the Great Resignation continue to be felt by companies after a record high of 4.3 million workers quit their jobs in August alone. The workers who remained in their roles, though, are struggling with their new increased workload.

A report by the Society for Human Resource Management that surveyed 1,150 employed Americans in July as well as 220 executives illuminated some of the challenges of the workers who stayed. 

It found that 52 percent of workers who stayed with their companies have taken on more responsibilities, with 30 percent of remaining employees stating they struggle to complete necessary tasks. A majority of workers are questioning whether their pay is high enough, and 27 percent feel less loyalty to their company. 

This worker dissatisfaction opens up a vicious cycle, Johnny Taylor Jr., president and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management, told CNBC.

“The employees who remain now say, ‘I’m working too hard, I don’t have balance in my life, etc.’ And so then they want to leave and thus a vicious cycle continues” Mr. Taylor told CNBC

Thus, it’s more important now than ever for employers to exercise empathy and listen to what their employees are experiencing in the wake of workplace shifts. 

“Invest in them today,” Alex Durand, a career transition and leadership coach, told CNBC. “Show them you care before they tell you they are leaving.”

UPMC workers to strike Nov. 18

Workers at Pittsburgh-based UPMC plan to strike over wages and benefits, the Post-Gazette reported Nov. 5. 

Service Employees International Union Healthcare Pennsylvania, which does not represent the workers but is supporting them, told Becker’s Hospital Review the strike would involve workers at UPMC hospitals in Pittsburgh, including transporters, dietary workers, housekeepers, nurses, patient care techs, medical assistants, pharmacy techs, surgical techs, valets, therapists, health unit coordinators and administrative assistants. Workers plan to strike for one day on Nov. 18.

The workers are demanding a $20 per hour minimum wage, affordable high-quality healthcare, elimination of all medical debt and respect for union rights, according to a union news release.

Their strike notice came after UPMC announced Nov. 2 that the health system is giving 92,000 staff members a bonus of $500 to thank them for their work during the pandemic. UPMC will issue the bonuses on Nov. 26. The health system also announced improvements to employee compensation and benefit programs, including raising the entry level wage to $15.75 in January, according to the Post-Gazette

“There was no ‘thank you pay’ until we started organizing to strike,” Juilia Centofanti, pharmacy tech at UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, said in a news release.

Ms. Centofanti added that employees are “owed this [$20 per hour wage] and so much more,” and said she “will continue organizing with my co-workers for the pay, safer staffing and union rights we deserve.”

In announcing the bonuses, Leslie Davis, president and CEO of UPMC, told workers, “Over the past 20 months, you have risen in truly exceptional ways to meet challenges we could have never anticipated. With your critical support, UPMC continues to care for so many.”

A UPMC spokesperson declined to comment to Becker’s on Nov. 5.

UPMC is a $23 billion healthcare provider and insurer. SEIU Healthcare Pennsylvania has been trying to organize about 3,500 hourly workers at UPMC Presbyterian and Shadyside hospitals for nearly a decade, but has not yet held a unionization vote, according to the Post-Gazette.

Read the full report here.

The M&A power behind the Blues

Featured image

Health insurers licensed by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association face steep financial penalties from that organization if they merge with a competitor that doesn’t sell BCBS insurance, Axios’ Bob Herman writes.

Why it matters: Blue Cross Blue Shield is one of the most recognizable health insurance names in the country, and the powerful association behind that brand wants to keep its dominance in local markets.

Case in point: Triple-S Management, a BCBS affiliate in Puerto Rico, sold itself in August to the parent company of the Florida Blues for $900 million.

  • If Triple-S sold itself to a non-BCBS company, therefore terminating its license with the BCBSA, Triple-S would have faced a $96 million surcharge, according to merger documents filed by Triple-S.
  • The $96 million charge, based on a fee of $98.33 per member, was called a “re-establishment fee.”

What they’re saying: “The license agreements between the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and its licensees include various financial and other provisions that apply to terminations, mergers and sales of licensees,” BCBSA said in a statement.

  • “BCBSA is unable to confirm the financial implications of any other transactions that Triple-S may have considered in deciding to enter into this transaction.”

Parents Still Have a Thanksgiving Problem

a turkey with vaccine syringes as tail feathers

A first COVID shot will give kids some protection, but none of them will be fully vaccinated until the beginning of December.

For many, many months now, 7-year-old Alain Bell has been keeping a very ambitious list of the things he wants to do after he gets his COVID-19 shots: travel (to Disneyworld or Australia, ideally); play more competitive basketball; go to “any restaurants that have french fries, which are my favorite food,” he told me over the phone.

These are very good kid goals, and they are, at last, in sight. On Tuesday evening, about as early as anyone in the general public could, Alain nabbed his first dose of Pfizer’s newly cleared pediatric COVID-19 vaccine. The needle delivered “a little poke,” he said, but also a huge injection of excitement and relief. Since his father, a critical-care physician, was vaccinated last December (the first time I interviewed Alain), “I’ve been impatient,” Alain said. “I really wanted to get mine.” Now he is finally on his way to joining the adults. When he heard on Tuesday that his shot was imminent, he let out a scream of joy, at “a pitch I have never heard him use before,” his mother, Kristen, told me.

There’s an air of cheer among the grown-ups as well. “It’s cause for celebration,” says Angie Kell, who lives in Utah with her spouse and their soon-to-be-vaccinated 6-year-old son, Beck. Their family, like many others, has been reining in their behavior for months to accommodate their still-vulnerable kid, unable to enjoy the full docket of post-inoculation liberties that so many have. Once Beck is vaccinated, though, they can leave mixed-immunity limbo: “We might have an opportunity to live our lives,” Kell told me.

The past year has been trying for young children, a massive test of patience—not always a kid’s strongest skill. And there’s yet another immediate hurdle to clear: the plodding accumulation of immunological defense. Alain has another 15 days to go until his second dose; after that, it’ll be two more weeks before he reaches a truly excellent level of protection. Only then, on December 7, will he count as fully vaccinated by CDC standards and be able to start adopting the behavioral changes the agency has green-lit. In the intervening weeks, he and the many other 5-to-11-year-olds in his position will remain in a holding pattern. Their wait isn’t over yet.

The timing of this semi-immune stretch might feel particularly frustrating, especially with the winter holidays approaching: At this point, essentially no young kids are slated to be fully vaccinated by Thanksgiving or Hanukkah, except the ones who were enrolled in clinical trials. One shot can offer a level of protection, but experts advise waiting to change behavior for a reason—the extra safeguards that set in about two weeks after the second shot really are that much better, and absolutely worth sitting tight for.

“It takes time for immune cells to get into a position where they’re ready to pounce,” Gigi Gronvall, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told me. COVID-19 vaccines teach immune cells to thwart the coronavirus, a process that, like most good boot camps, takes many days to unfold. The second shot is essential to clinch the lesson in the body’s memory, encouraging cells to take the threat more seriously for longer. Immune cells also improve upon themselves over time—the more, the better in these early stages. Gronvall’s own 11-year-old son is also about to get his first shot, and she doesn’t want to risk stumbling so close to the finish line. “I can’t know exactly what his immune system is going to do” after the first dose alone, she said.

Evidence from Pfizer’s original clinical trial, conducted only in adults, hinted that a first, decent defensive bump takes hold after the first shot. Kit Longley, Pfizer’s senior manager of science media relations, pointed to those data when I asked how kids at various points along the vaccination timeline should be approaching behavioral change. “Protection in the vaccinated cohort begins to separate from the placebo arm as early as 12 to 14 days after the first dose,” he told me.

The adult clinical-trial data were collected last year, though, long before the rise of the Delta variant. A more recent study, conducted in the United Kingdom, showed that one dose of Pfizer reduced the risk of symptomatic COVID-19 by only 35.6 percent when the cause was Delta, and by only 47.5 percent with Alpha. (And remember that those numbers apply best on a population scale—not for a single, individual child.) After adding a second dose, though, effectiveness rocketed up to about 90 or 95 percent against either variant. “You really need two doses for adequate, good protection,” Samuel Dominguez, a pediatric-infectious-disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Colorado, told me.

Immunity is so far looking strong in young kids: In a recent trial of thousands of children ages 5 to 11, Pfizer’s vaccine was more than 90 percent effective at blocking symptomatic cases of COVID-19, including ones caused by Delta. Longley said Pfizer expects that the timing of protection will be similar between children and adults—a first dose should lower everyone’s risk to some degree. But the company’s pediatric trial picked up only a few COVID-19 casesnone of them occurred until about three weeks after the first dose was given, or later. So it’s hard to say anything definitive about when “enough” immunity really kicks in for kids.

Some parents are counting on a level of early protection from one shot, including my cousin Joanne Sy, whose 8-year-old son, Jonah, received his first injection on Friday. “He will have good immunity after one dose,” she told me, hopefully enough to guard him on a trip they’re taking to New York for Thanksgiving two weeks from now. “We’re still going to be cautious,” Sy told me: They’ll be watching the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade from a hotel room rather than the streets, and wearing masks, at least on the plane. “But we just need to move forward.”

The calculus is playing out differently for Christy Robinson of Arlington, Virginia, who will again be “hunkering down” with her husband and two daughters, June and Iris, 7 and 5, respectively, this Thanksgiving. The kids got their first Pfizer shot on Saturday, setting their household up for full, full vaccination by mid-December, just in time to hold an indoor gathering with their aunts, uncles, and cousins for Christmas. (Some quick arithmetic: To be fully vaccinated by December 25, a kid would need their first dose by November 20.) June’s also eager to “see my friends inside, because it’s cold outside,” she told me—plus go to movie theaters, and Build-A-Bear, and a trampoline park, and IHOP, and the nail salon.

By the end of this conversation, Robinson looked amused and maybe a little regretful that my question had prompted such an extravagant list. As their mother, she’s especially excited for the possibility of no longer having to quarantine her daughters after viral exposures at school. Heftier decisions are ahead too. She and her husband are still weighing whether to bring their daughters into closer, more frequent indoor contact with their grandparents, who are vaccinated but could still get seriously sick if someone ferries the virus into their midst.

And that risk—of transmitting the virus—is worth keeping in mind, with so much SARS-CoV-2 “still circulating around,” cautions Tina Tan, a pediatrician and infectious-disease specialist at Northwestern University. Immunized people are at much lower risk of picking up the virus and passing it on. There still aren’t enough of them, though, to reliably tamp down spread; uptake of shots among young kids, too, is expected to be sluggish in the months to come. Even fully vaccinated families won’t be totally in the clear while our collective defenses remain weak.

That doesn’t mean Thanksgiving has to be a bust—or even a repeat of 2020, before the vaccines rolled out. The Bells will be cautiously gathering with a few loved ones; all the adults in attendance will be immunized and everyone will get tested beforehand. “Then they can come inside the house, mask off,” Taison Bell, Alain’s father, told me. None of those measures is completely reliable on its own; together, though, they’ll hopefully keep the virus out.

The road ahead might feel a little bumpy for Alain, who’s celebrating his 8th birthday at the end of November, a few days after his second shot. (He’s getting the gift of immunity this year, his father joked.) The Bells will do something special “around when he hits full vaccination,” Kristen said, “with something Alain hasn’t gotten to do in the last two years.” But Alain, who has asthma, which can make COVID-19 worse, knows that his own injections won’t wipe the slate clean for him, or those around him. Some people in his neighborhood have caught the virus even after getting vaccinated, and he understands that he could too.

Alain will keep masking, and treading carefully at school, and even a bit at home. His 3-year-old sister, Ruby, hasn’t yet been able to get a shot. (I asked her how she felt about Alain’s vaccine; she responded, almost imperceptibly, “Jealous.”) Until another regulatory green light comes, she will still be waiting, which means that her family will be too.

U.S. economy adds 531,000 jobs in huge hiring rebound

U.S. economy adds 531,000 jobs in huge hiring rebound

The job market added a stunning 531,000 jobs last month. The unemployment rate ticked down to 4.6% — a new pandemic-era low.

Why it matters: America’s job market recovery has been on track all along.

Between the lines: Revisions to prior months are often overlooked. Not this month: Upgrades to both August and September were so enormous — fully 366,000 jobs higher than originally reported — that they have definitively reversed the narrative that there was a Delta-induced hiring slump in late summer.

By the numbers: America has now recovered 80% of the jobs lost at the depth of the recession in 2020.

The big picture: Leisure and hospitality added 164,000 jobs last month — but jobs growth was widespread. The disappointment — again — came in public sector education. State and local education shed a combined 65,000 jobs.

  • Wages are still rising: Average hourly earnings rose another 11 cents an hour in October, to $30.96. That’s enough to keep up with inflation.

What to watch: Millions of workers remain on the sidelines — and there wasn’t much improvement in pulling them back into the workforce.

The bottom line: “The Fall hiccup is now at best a Fall deep breath,” tweeted University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers.

The Association Between Continuity of Marketplace Coverage During Pregnancy and Receipt of Prenatal Care

The Association Between Continuity of Marketplace Coverage During Pregnancy  and Receipt of Prenatal Care | The Incidental Economist

Pregnancy is a significant life event, one that typically leads to substantially more interaction with the health care system than average. In the United States (US), pregnant people usually have about one health care visit per month of pregnancy, during which they receive a myriad of services. However, access to high quality prenatal care — and enough of it — is often limited by one’s health insurance coverage.

When the Affordable Care Act was enacted, it established the individual Marketplaces from which those who are ineligible for Medicaid, Medicare, and/or employer-sponsored insurance can purchase coverage. However, pregnancy is not considered a qualifying life event, so an individual cannot just sign up for coverage once they find out they’re pregnant; they must wait until the next open enrollment period or the birth of their child, whichever comes first. Thus, they may be stuck without coverage during pregnancy. This can have a significant impact on access to appropriate prenatal care.

New Research

recent study in Health Affairs looked at Marketplace enrollment patterns for pregnant people and the impact of Marketplace insurance coverage on their health and care utilization.

The authors are Sarah Gordon and Melissa Garrido from Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH) Health, Law, Policy, and Management Department (HLPM) and VA Boston Healthcare System; Charlotte Alger from BUSPH HLPM; and Eugene Declercq from BUSPH Community Health Sciences Department.

The authors used data from the Pregnancy Risk Surveillance and Monitoring System (PRAMS) from 2016 to 2018. Developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, PRAMS is a self-reported survey within 40 states and New York City and is representative of 83 percent of all US births. State health departments pull a representative sample of recent births from birth certificate registries and reach out via mail and telephone to the selected mothers. The survey asks respondents about health status and behaviors, health care use, and insurance coverage.

With these data, they studied two questions. First, they assessed how likely pregnant people were to be enrolled in Marketplace insurance coverage preconception, during pregnancy, and/or postpartum. Sample size for this question was 6491 and the authors used simple descriptive analysis techniques.

Second, they studied how Marketplace enrollment impacted individuals’ receipt of prenatal care, such as the number of prenatal visits, receipt of care within the first trimester, and receipt of specific health care services like flu shots and screenings for intimate partner violence and depression. The sample size for this question was 3443, limited to individuals who reported Marketplace coverage during pregnancy. The authors used logistic regression models and inverse probability of treatment weights to conduct these analyses.

Findings

For enrollment, the authors found that about one third of respondents had continual Marketplace coverage, from preconception to postpartum. Of those who were only enrolled in the Marketplace preconception, over 70 percent reported Medicaid coverage during pregnancy. Of those who were only enrolled in the Marketplace postpartum, almost 50 percent reported Medicaid coverage and one third reported employer-sponsored insurance coverage during pregnancy.

For impact of enrollment during pregnancy, the authors compared those with continuous coverage (preconception to postpartum) to those who only enrolled in the Marketplace during pregnancy. Those with continuous Marketplace coverage were more likely to have “adequate” or “more than adequate” prenatal care use. (The authors defined these classifications using the Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization Index which measures timing and quantity of care.) Those with continuous coverage were also more likely to initiate prenatal care in the first trimester, though over 80 percent of respondents in both groups did so. The authors did not find any significant differences in the likelihood of receipt of particular prenatal services, such as flu shots or social/mental health screenings.

Limitations

There were several limitations to this study due to the nature of the PRAMS data set. For example, PRAMS is self-reported, subject to both recall bias and response bias. Plus, the survey is not conducted in all states and, thus, assumptions must be made about generalizability. Lastly, PRAMS simply includes a finite set of questions; this is certainly understandable but does limit researchers’ analyses.

Discussion

With the connection between insurance coverage and access to care clear, several notable policy questions arise from this study. Classifying pregnancy as a qualifying life event is perhaps the most obvious. As mentioned previously, pregnancy is not a qualifying life event, though the birth of a child is. (Only two states have implemented policies to the contrary.) Allowing an individual to sign up for health insurance coverage once pregnant, rather than waiting until birth or the next open enrollment period, could improve access to prenatal care and even improve maternal and child health outcomes.

Another related policy implication is determining what type of insurance is ideal for pregnant individuals. The authors found that individuals without Marketplace coverage often have other types of coverage, at least temporarily. What type of insurance is best or most cost-effective for pregnant people — and the benefits of coverage continuity regardless of type — could be studied further.

The study did not touch on the quality of prenatal care but that is also worth discussion. In the US, pregnant people tend to receive far more prenatal care than other countries but that doesn’t mean the quality is better, nor do maternal health outcomes suggest that’s true. In fact, the US’ maternal health outcomes are some of the worst in the industrial world.

Pregnancy is full of changes, expenses, and challenges. Determining how Marketplace insurance coverage — which has been around for a decade — access to care, and maternal and child health outcomes all interact from preconception to postpartum warrants more study.