Coronavirus cases could reach 150,000 a day this fall, widely followed Morgan Stanley analyst says

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/23/coronavirus-cases-could-reach-150000-a-day-this-fall-morgan-stanley-analyst-says.html

KEY POINTS
  • Morgan Stanley’s biotechnology analyst, Matthew Harrison, said 150,000 daily new U.S. coronavirus cases are possible in the fall without better control of the virus.
  • The analyst has gained a wide following on Wall Street for his success in predicting the course of the pandemic and government responses.
  • Harrison previously projected a “second wave” in the fall with daily new cases between 40,000 and 50,000 nationwide.
  • However, the recent hot spots — Arizona, Texas, Florida and California — have shown a high rate of infection, which led the analyst to adjust to a more pessimistic view on the pandemic.

The spread of the coronavirus could be elevated this fall with as many as 150,000 daily cases in the U.S., according to Morgan Stanley’s biotechnology analyst, Matthew Harrison.

“We update our scenarios to account for the higher sustained infection rate,” Harrison said in a note Thursday. “Our bull [most optimistic] case reflects similar virus control to Europe while our base [most likely] case assumes a near-term plateau followed by increased spread in the fall. [About] 150,000 daily new cases are possible without better control of the virus.”

Harrison previously projected a “second wave” in the autumn with daily new cases totaling between 40,000 and 50,000 nationwide. However, the recent emergence of hot spots — Arizona, Texas, Florida and California — has reflected a high rate of infection, which led the analyst to adjust to a more pessimistic view on the pandemic.

The analyst has gained a wide following on Wall Street for his success in predicting the course of the pandemic and government responses. For example, in April, Harrison warned that the reopening of the U.S. economy would be a slow and tedious process.

“Our assumption of a growing reproduction number, and consequently increasing daily cases, throughout the rest of the year is based on the fact that traditionally the spread of viruses is elevated in the fall compared to the summer primarily due to more people in enclosed spaces,” Harrison said.

A recent resurgence in new cases has forced a number of states to roll back their reopening plans, which weighed on the stock market that rallied massively in the second quarter on hopes for a fast economic recovery. 

Texas and Florida hit grim records earlier this week for daily coronavirus deaths based on a seven-day moving average.The virus has infected an average of 66,805 people per day in the U.S. over the past seven days, up more than 7% compared with a week ago, according to a CNBC analysis of data compiled by Johns Hopkins University.

On Wednesday, California reported a record spike in daily infections and passed New York as the U.S. state with the most confirmed infections since the pandemic began. 

To be sure, Harrison said his projection doesn’t take into account any pharmacological intervention such as vaccines or strict lockdown measures that could potentially dampen the infection rate.

There has been a slew of positive news on the vaccine front this week. The U.S. agreed to pay drugmaker Pfizer and German partner BioNTech nearly $2 billion for 100 million coronavirus vaccines if their candidate proves both safe and effective.

Meanwhile, another vaccine candidate from Oxford University and AstraZeneca showed a positive immune response in an early trial. Earlier this week, British pharmaceutical company Synairgen claimed that its new respiratory coronavirus treatment has reduced the number of hospitalized Covid-19 patients needing intensive care in a clinical trial.

Goldman Sachs biotech analyst Salveen Richter said the Covid-19 vaccine market will be similar to the flu vaccine market, which requires an annual or periodic vaccination. The analyst also cited data showing the global vaccine market will grow to at least $40 billion in 2023 from $35 billion in 2018.

 

 

Fauci on coronavirus: ‘I don’t really see us eradicating it’

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/public-global-health/508530-fauci-on-coronavirus-i-dont-really-see-us-eradicating?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202020-07-23%20Healthcare%20Dive%20%5Bissue:28659%5D&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive

Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious diseases expert, said Wednesday he doesn’t think COVID-19 will ever be fully eradicated but noted it can be controlled.

“I don’t see this disappearing the way SARS 1 did,” Fauci said during a livestreamed event hosted by the TB Alliance, a nonprofit focused on finding better tuberculosis treatments.

The SARS outbreak that started in 2003 lasted several months and mostly affected Asian countries before eventually vanishing. But in the process the disease sickened more than 8,000 people in 29 countries and claimed 774 lives.

Because COVID-19 is more contagious, it has had a far greater impact, with more than 15 million cases worldwide, including 618,000 deaths.

“It is so efficient in its ability to transmit from human to human that I think we ultimately will get control of it. I don’t really see us eradicating it,” Fauci said.

President Trump has repeatedly said the virus will eventually disappear, even though that is rare for most infectious diseases.

Fauci, who is a member of the White House coronavirus task force, recently responded to Trump’s characterization of him as “a little bit of an alarmist” on the pandemic by saying he prefers to think of himself as “a realist.”

During Wednesday’s interview, Fauci described ways that the U.S. can get the coronavirus under control.

“I think with a good combination of good public health measures, a degree of global herd immunity and a good vaccine, which I do hope and feel cautiously optimistic we will get, I think when you put all three of those together we will get very good control of this. Whether it’s this year or next year, I’m not certain,” he added.

“We’ll bring it down to such a low level that we will not be in the position we are right now for an extended period of time.”

 

 

 

Why COVID-19’s biggest impact on healthcare may not be until 2022

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/why-covid-19s-biggest-impact-on-healthcare-may-not-be-until-2022/582129/

This perfect storm of a shift in payer mix, the impending insolvency of Medicare and the inability of states to absorb the growing costs of Medicaid represent a tsunami of challenges.

With COVID-19 there has been unprecedented stress placed upon the healthcare system. The human and financial toll of the current crisis has been extraordinary. Yet, little attention has been focused on the impact of this virus on the viability of our healthcare financing system.

Three significant shifts in healthcare financing are occurring as a result of the pandemic’s economic impact. First, as a result of job losses, there will be a shift in commercial insurance to government-funded insurance programs. Second, revenue for funding Medicare, based on payroll taxes, will be significantly decreased. Finally, states will have less tax revenue to pay for Medicaid, threatening the viability of this program as well.

More than 30 million Americans have filed for unemployment since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a recent report, about 27 million people may lose their employer-sponsored insurance. 

This will result in millions of people seeking coverage through Medicaid programs, the individual marketplace or simply becoming uninsured. Healthcare providers have relied upon margins from commercial insurance to offset costs from poorer reimbursing government funded programs and uncompensated care.

With more than 156 million Americans receiving employer sponsored insurance at the start of this year, and given recent projected job losses, providers may see a 17% shift in payer mix. The reliance on commercial insurance and cost shifting has become a necessary way for providers to financially sustain operations. 

With a 35% margin with commercial insurance compared to Medicare, a 17% shift in payer mix on a trillion dollar spend would result in a substantial reduction in financial resources available to hospitals.

Almost half of healthcare expenditures already come from government programs. Medicare, the largest of these programs, is principally supported by taxes on payroll and social security benefits. With COVID-related job losses there will be a corresponding reduction in payroll tax revenues to the Medicare system. Reports from the Congressional Research Service submitted to Congress in May, with data used prior to COVID-19, projected that Medicare would become insolvent in 2026.

Analyses performed show that there will be a gap in Medicare revenues during the next three years (from the pre-COVID projections) of close to $150 billion. The result is that Medicare will become insolvent as early as 2022. Even by applying more conservative projections, such as recovering all job losses by the end of 2020 and payroll tax revenue holding steady at pre-COVID levels, Medicare still becomes insolvent in 2023.

State revenues, too, will be under real pressure with reduced tax revenues resulting from the current economic downturn. Medicaid programs are supported in part by federal funds, but also from general funds from the state. 
On average, states are projecting about a 10% reduction in revenues in 2020, rising to almost a 25% reduction in 2021. Even without considering the growth in Medicaid enrollment hitting states, this reduced tax revenue will make sustaining current Medicaid program funding increasingly difficult.

This perfect storm of a shift in payer mix, the impending insolvency of Medicare by 2022 and the inability of states to absorb the growing costs of Medicaid represent a tsunami of challenges for the health system. Looking at this new reality, it is clear that our system for financing healthcare is severely broken and we must identify solutions to sustain access to medical care for our citizens.

This will be a challenge of a generation and we will need strength, courage and bold ideas to get through this. Pandemics have a way of changing a society’s political, economic and sociologic outlooks, and COVID-19 will be no different. 

 

 

 

Is telehealth as good as in-person care?

https://theconversation.com/is-telehealth-as-good-as-in-person-care-a-telehealth-researcher-explains-how-to-get-the-most-out-of-remote-health-care-142230

Is telehealth as good as in-person care? A telehealth researcher ...

COVID-19 has led to a boom in telehealth, with some health care facilities seeing an increase in its use by as much as 8,000%.

This shift happened quickly and unexpectedly and has left many people asking whether telehealth is really as good as in-person care.

Over the last decade, I’ve studied telehealth as a Ph.D. researcher while using it as a registered nurse and advanced practice nurse. Telehealth is the use of phone, video, internet and technology to perform health care, and when done right, it can be just as effective as in-person health care. But as many patients and health care professionals switch to telehealth for the first time, there will inevitably be a learning curve as people adapt to this new system.

So how does a patient or a provider make sure they are using telehealth in the right way? That is a question of the technology available, the patient’s medical situation and the risks of going – or not going – to a health care office.

Man holding phone with health data.

Telehealth technologies

There are three main types of telehealth: synchronous, asynchronous and remote monitoring. Knowing when to use each one – and having the right technology on hand – is critical to using telehealth wisely.

Synchronous telehealth is a live, two-way interaction, usually over video or phone. Health care providers generally prefer video conferencing over phone calls because aside from tasks that require physical touch, nearly anything that can be done in person can be done over video. But some things, like the taking of blood samples, for example, simply cannot be done over video.

Many of the limitations of video conferencing can be overcome with the second telehealth approach, remote patient monitoring. Patients can use devices at home to get objective data that is automatically uploaded to health care providers. Devices exist to measure blood pressure, temperature, heart rhythms and many other aspects of health. These devices are great for getting reliable data that can show trends over time. Researchers have shown that remote monitoring approaches are as effective as – and in some cases better than – in-person care for many chronic conditions.

Some remaining gaps can be filled with the third type, asynchronous telehealth. Patients and providers can use the internet to answer questions, describe symptoms, refill prescription refills, make appointments and for other general communication.

Unfortunately, not every provider or patient has the technology or the experience to use live video conferencing or remote monitoring equipment. But even having all the available telehealth technology does not mean that telehealth can solve every problem.

A father and son on a video call with a doctor.

Ongoing care and first evaluations

Generally, telehealth is right for patients who have ongoing conditions or who need an initial evaluation of a sudden illness.

Because telehealth makes it easier to have have frequent check-ins compared to in-person care, managing ongoing care for chronic illnesses like diabetesheart disease and lung disease can be as safe as or better than in-person care.

Research has shown that it can also be used effectively to diagnose and even treat new and short-term health issues as well. The tricky part is knowing which situations can be dealt with remotely.

Imagine you took a fall and want to get medical advice to make sure you didn’t break your arm. If you were to go to a hospital or clinic, almost always, the first health care professional you’d see is a primary care generalist, like me. That person will, if possible, diagnose the problem and give you basic medical advice: “You’ve got a large bruise, but nothing appears to be broken. Just rest, put some ice on it and take a pain reliever.” If I look at your arm and think you need more involved care, I would recommend the next steps you should take: “Your arm looks like it might be fractured. Let’s order you an X-ray.”

This first interaction can easily be done from home using telehealth. If a patient needs further care, they would simply leave home to get it after meeting with me via video. If they don’t need further care, then telehealth just saved a lot of time and hassle for the patient.

Research has shown that using telehealth for things like minor injuries, stomach pains and nausea provides the same level of care as in-person medicine and reduces unnecessary ambulance rides and hospital visits.

Some research has shown that telehealth is not as effective as in-person care at diagnosing the causes of sore throats and respiratory infections. Especially now during the coronavirus pandemic, in-person care might be necessary if you are having respiratory issues.

And finally, for obviously life-threatening situations like severe bleeding, chest pain or shortness of breath, patients should still go to hospitals and emergency rooms.

A woman asks a health care worker a question while staying socially distanced.

Balancing risk

With the right technology and in the right situations, telehealth is an incredibly effective tool. But the question of when to use telehealth must also take into account the risk and burden of getting care.

COVID-19 increases the risks of in-person care, so while you should obviously still go to a hospital if you think you may be having a heart attack, right now, it might be better to have a telehealth consultation about acne – even if you might prefer an in-person appointment.

Burden is another thing to consider. Time off work, travel, wait times and the many other inconveniences that go along with an in-person visit aren’t necessary simply to get refills for ongoing medication. But, if a provider needs to draw a patient’s blood to monitor the safety or effectiveness of a prescription medicine, the burden of an in-person visit to the lab is likely worth the increased risk.

Of course, not all health care can be done by telehealth, but a lot can, and research shows that in many cases, it’s just as good as in-person care. As the pandemic continues and other problems need addressing, think about the right telehealth fit for you, and talk to your health care team about the services offered, your risks and your preferences. You might find that that there are far fewer waiting rooms in your future.

 

 

 

 

New unemployment insurance claims rise for the first time since March

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/23/another-14-million-workers-filed-unemployment-benefits-last-week-pandemic-continues-weigh-labor-market/

 

Some 1.4 million workers filed for unemployment last week, the first increase in months, as the pandemic continues to weigh on the labor market

The number of new unemployment claims rose for the first time in months last week, to 1.4 million — a troubling sign for the labor market that’s weathering a new round of closures as the pandemic spreads.

For the week ending July 18, about 109,000 more jobless claims were filed compared to the week prior, according to the Department of Labor.

“What you’re seeing is that, as the economy slows, the pace of claims picks back up — which really puts at risk the monthly jobs report over the next few months,” said Joseph Brusuelas, the chief economist at RSM. “The July numbers are going to be tenuous, but it’s August that I’m worried about.”

The number of workers continually claiming unemployment insurance went down, however, a statistic that lags by a week, to 16.1 million workers for the week ending July 11, from 17.4 million for the week ending July 4.

In addition to the 1.4 million seeking unemployment nationwide last week, another 980,000 new Pandemic Unemployment Assistance claims were filed, the benefits offered to self-employed and gig workers.

The numbers come as millions of unemployed workers are about to exhaust stimulus payments from two federal benefits programs whose expiration economists have warned could have dire effects on the economy.

Brusuelas said the numbers are a sign that the burst of economic activity that marked the country’s reopening has waned, and that shrinking consumer demand remained a significant risk for businesses and the workers they employ across the country.

“We are going to see a much slower pace of growth the reset of the year,” he said. “While we still are retaining our call for a swoosh-shaped recovery, one has to acknowledge a w-shaped recovery is possible.”

The extra $600 a week in unemployment benefits that the federal government has offered to supplement more modest state unemployment benefits will end this week, as lawmakers wrangle over legislation that could extend it.

Including the new benefits available to gig workers and the self-employed, more than 53 million applications have been filed for some form of unemployment insurance during the pandemic.

 

 

Cartoon – Pandemic Management

Reflections on an Ad Industry at War With Itself | MediaVillage