Category Archives: 2020 Election Issues

Surprise medical bills in the coronavirus era

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Balance Billing, Clinical Testing, Consumer Protection, Consumerism, Coronavirus, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Prices, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Rev Cycle Management, Revenue Cycle, Social Distancing, Surprise Bills • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/surprise-medical-bills-coronavirus-c61a5529-3272-4edd-b660-35dc61f751b4.html

Surprise medical bills in the coronavirus era - Axios

Rep. Katie Porter recently received an explanation of benefits from her insurer saying that, in addition to the $20 co-pay she paid when she got her coronavirus test, she may be on the hook for an additional $56.60.

The catch: The law requires insurers to cover coronavirus testing without cost-sharing. Porter knows that because she voted for it.

Why it matters: Containing the coronavirus depends on knowing who has it, and it’s going to be much harder to get people to get tested if they think they’ll have to pay for it. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that patients may be vulnerable to surprise coronavirus bills.

Between the lines: Porter, who received a coronavirus test on March 23, has insurance through UnitedHealthcare and shared her explanation of benefits with Axios. Congress has required both the test itself and the associated care to be covered without cost-sharing.

  • In a statement, UnitedHealth Group said it has waived member cost-sharing for coronavirus testing and treatment.
  • “Some members received bills early on when there were not yet specific COVID-19 billing codes and during a period in which code adoption was first taking place,” the company said, adding that it’s waiving those charges and evaluating claims from earlier this year to make sure they were handled correctly.
  • “We are not authorized to talk about [Porter’s] specific situation without permission, however, what likely occurred is that her provider used the wrong billing code for the visit. To confirm if that’s the case and have it corrected, we encourage Rep. Porter to contact us so we can clarify with her directly.”

Yes, but: There’s a huge question of who should have to pay for coronavirus testing as it becomes more prolific, and many insurers — United included — have said that they’ll only cover tests that are “medically necessary,” at least without cost-sharing. It’s unclear who will pay for tests that aren’t deemed medically necessary.

  • The federal government hasn’t said who should pay for testing when, whether it be insurers, employers or the government itself. Insurers are questioning whether they should be on the hook for the hundreds of thousands of tests of asymptomatic people that public health experts say will need to be conducted every day.
  • Even though Congress has tried to resolve payment disputes between insurers and out-of-network labs, there’s a loophole that would allow patients to receive balance bills from out-of-network labs in some circumstances.
  • If a patient sees an out-of-network doctor for a coronavirus test, they’re vulnerable to receiving a surprise medical bill from this provider — just as they are under normal, non-coronavirus conditions, said Loren Adler, associate director of the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy.

What they’re saying: “We will not be able to truly reopen and rebuild if Americans rightly fear costly medical bills for visiting their health care providers for coronavirus tests,” Porter writes in a letter to top Health and Human Services officials being sent today, asking the administration to implement the law more forcefully.

  • She also asked for “formal, explicit guidance for insurers, providers, employers like nursing homes and assisted living facilities, and testing companies, as well as all 50 states…to ensure patients and workers are not asked to pay any costs.”

 

 

 

 

Public Health Officials Face Wave Of Threats, Pressure Amid Coronavirus Response

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Blame, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Economic Crisis, Economy Reopening, Hydroxychloroquine, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Intimidation, Pandemic, Partisanship, Public Funding, Public Good, Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Social Distancing, Threats, Whistleblower • Leave a comment

Public Health Officials Face Wave Of Threats, Pressure Amid Coronavirus Response

Public health officials face wave of threats, pressure amid ...

Emily Brown was director of the Rio Grande County Public Health Department in Colorado until May 22, when the county commissioners fired her after battling with her over coronavirus restrictions. “They finally were tired of me not going along the line they wanted me to go along,” she says.

Emily Brown was stretched thin.

As the director of the Rio Grande County Public Health Department in rural Colorado, she was working 12- and 14-hour days, struggling to respond to the pandemic with only five full-time employees for more than 11,000 residents. Case counts were rising.

She was already at odds with county commissioners, who were pushing to loosen public health restrictions in late May, against her advice. She had previously clashed with them over data releases and had haggled over a variance regarding reopening businesses.

But she reasoned that standing up for public health principles was worth it, even if she risked losing the job that allowed her to live close to her hometown and help her parents with their farm.

Then came the Facebook post: a photo of her and other health officials with comments about their weight and references to “armed citizens” and “bodies swinging from trees.”

The commissioners had asked her to meet with them the next day. She intended to ask them for more support. Instead, she was fired.

“They finally were tired of me not going along the line they wanted me to go along,” she said.

In the battle against COVID-19, public health workers spread across states, cities and small towns make up an invisible army on the front lines. But that army, which has suffered neglect for decades, is under assault when it’s needed most.

Officials who usually work behind the scenes managing everything from immunizations to water quality inspections have found themselves center stage. Elected officials and members of the public who are frustrated with the lockdowns and safety restrictions have at times turned public health workers into politicized punching bags, battering them with countless angry calls and even physical threats.

On Thursday, Ohio’s state health director, who had armed protesters come to her house, resigned. The health officer for Orange County, California, quit Monday after weeks of criticism and personal threats from residents and other public officials over an order requiring face coverings in public.

As the pressure and scrutiny rise, many more health officials have chosen to leave or been pushed out of their jobs. A review by KHN and The Associated Press finds at least 27 state and local health leaders have resigned, retired or been fired since April across 13 states.

In California, senior health officials from seven counties, including the Orange County officer, have resigned or retired since March 15. Dr. Charity Dean, the second in command at the state Department of Public Health, submitted her resignation June 4.

These officials have left their posts due to a mix of backlash and stressful, nonstop working conditions, all while dealing with chronic staffing and funding shortages.

Some health officials have not been up to the job during the biggest health crisis in a century. Others previously had plans to leave or cited their own health issues.

But Lori Tremmel Freeman, CEO of the National Association of County and City Health Officials, said the majority of what she calls an “alarming” exodus resulted from increasing pressure as states reopen. Three of those 27 were members of her board and well known in the public health community — Rio Grande County’s Brown; Detroit’s senior public health adviser, Dr. Kanzoni Asabigi; and the head of North Carolina’s Gaston County Department of Health and Human Services, Chris Dobbins.

Asabigi’s sudden retirement, considering his stature in the public health community, shocked Freeman. She also was upset to hear about the departure of Dobbins, who was chosen as health director of the year for North Carolina in 2017. Asabigi and Dobbins did not reply to requests for comment.

“They just don’t leave like that,” Freeman said.

Public health officials are “really getting tired of the ongoing pressures and the blame game,” Freeman said. She warned that more departures could be expected in the coming days and weeks as political pressure trickles down from the federal to the state to the local level.

From the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, federal public health officials have complained of being sidelined or politicized. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been marginalized; a government whistleblower said he faced retaliation because he opposed a White House directive to allow widespread access to the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment.

In Hawaii, U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard called on the governor to fire his top public health officials, saying she believed they were too slow on testing, contact tracing and travel restrictions. In Wisconsin, several Republican lawmakers have repeatedly demanded that the state’s health services secretary resign, and the state’s conservative Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that she had exceeded her authority by extending a stay-at-home order.

With the increased public scrutiny, security details — like those seen on a federal level for Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top infectious disease expert — have been assigned to state health leaders, including Georgia’s Dr. Kathleen Toomey after she was threatened. Ohio’s Dr. Amy Acton, who also had a security detail assigned after armed protesters showed up at her home, resigned Thursday.

In Orange County, in late May, nearly a hundred people attended a county supervisors meeting, waiting hours to speak against an order requiring face coverings. One person suggested that the order might make it necessary to invoke Second Amendment rights to bear arms, while another read aloud the home address of the order’s author — the county’s chief health officer, Dr. Nichole Quick — as well as the name of her boyfriend.

Quick, attending by phone, left the meeting. In a statement, the sheriff’s office later said Quick had expressed concern for her safety following “several threatening statements both in public comment and online.” She was given personal protection by the sheriff.

But Monday, after yet another public meeting that included criticism from members of the board of supervisors, Quick resigned. She could not be reached for comment. Earlier, the county’s deputy director of public health services, David Souleles, retired abruptly.

An official in another California county also has been given a security detail, said Kat DeBurgh, the executive director of the Health Officers Association of California, declining to name the county or official because the threats have not been made public.

DeBurgh is worried about the impact these events will have on recruiting people into public health leadership.

“It’s disheartening to see people who disagree with the order go from attacking the order to attacking the officer to questioning their motivation, expertise and patriotism,” said DeBurgh. “That’s not something that should ever happen.”

Many local health leaders, accustomed to relative anonymity as they work to protect the public’s health, have been shocked by the growing threats, said Theresa Anselmo, the executive director of the Colorado Association of Local Public Health Officials.

After polling local health directors across the state at a meeting last month, Anselmo found about 80% said they or their personal property had been threatened since the pandemic began. About 80% also said they’d encountered threats to pull funding from their department or other forms of political pressure.

To Anselmo, the ugly politics and threats are a result of the politicization of the pandemic from the start. So far in Colorado, six top local health officials have retired, resigned or been fired. A handful of state and local health department staff members have left as well, she said.

“It’s just appalling that in this country that spends as much as we do on health care that we’re facing these really difficult ethical dilemmas: Do I stay in my job and risk threats, or do I leave because it’s not worth it?” Anselmo asked.

Some of the online abuse has been going on for years, said Bill Snook, a spokesperson for the health department in Kansas City, Missouri. He has seen instances in which people took a health inspector’s name and made a meme out of it, or said a health worker should be strung up or killed. He said opponents of vaccinations, known as anti-vaxxers, have called staffers “baby killers.”

The pandemic, though, has brought such behavior to another level.

In Ohio, the Delaware General Health District has had two lockdowns since the pandemic began — one after an angry individual came to the health department. Fortunately, the doors were locked, said Dustin Kent, program manager for the department’s residential services unit.

Angry calls over contact tracing continue to pour in, Kent said.

In Colorado, the Tri-County Health Department, which serves Adams, Arapahoe and Douglas counties near Denver, has also been getting hundreds of calls and emails from frustrated citizens, deputy director Jennifer Ludwig said.

Some have been angry their businesses could not open and blamed the health department for depriving them of their livelihood. Others were furious with neighbors who were not wearing masks outside. It’s a constant wave of “confusion and angst and anxiety and anger,” she said.

Then in April and May, rocks were thrown at one of their office’s windows — three separate times. The office was tagged with obscene graffiti. The department also received an email calling members of the department “tyrants,” adding “you’re about to start a hot-shooting … civil war.”  Health department workers decamped to another office.

Although the police determined there was no imminent threat, Ludwig stressed how proud she was of her staff, who weathered the pressure while working round-the-clock.

“It does wear on you, but at the same time we know what we need to do to keep moving to keep our community safe,” she said. “Despite the complaints, the grievances, the threats, the vandalism — the staff have really excelled and stood up.”

The threats didn’t end there, however: Someone asked on the health department’s Facebook page how many people would like to know the home addresses of the Tri-County Health Department leadership. “You want to make this a war??? No problem,” the poster wrote.

Back in Colorado’s Rio Grande County, some members of the community have rallied in support of Brown with public comments and a letter to the editor of a local paper. Meanwhile, COVID-19 case counts have jumped from 14 to 49 as of Wednesday.

Brown is grappling with what she should do next: dive back into another strenuous public health job in a pandemic, or take a moment to recoup?

When she told her 6-year-old son she no longer had a job, he responded: “Good — now you can spend more time with us.”

 

 

 

 

A 70-year-old man was hospitalized with COVID-19 for 62 days. Then he received a $1.1 million hospital bill, including over $80,000 for using a ventilator.

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Coronavirus, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Prices, Intensive Care (ICU), Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Preexisting Conditions, Rev Cycle Management, Revenue Cycle, Survival Guilt, Ventilators • Leave a comment

https://www.yahoo.com/news/70-old-man-hospitalized-covid-170112895.html

Man, 70, hospitalized with COVID-19 for 62 days gets $1.1 million ...

  • A man in Washington state who spent more than two months in the hospital and more than a month in the Intensive Care Unit with COVID-19 received a 181-page itemized bill that totals more than $1.1 million, The Seattle Times reported.
  • Michael Flor, 70, will likely foot little of the bill due to his being insured through Medicare, according to the report.
  • “I feel guilty about surviving,” Flor told The Seattle Times. “There’s a sense of ‘why me?’ Why did I deserve all this? Looking at the incredible cost of it all definitely adds to that survivor’s guilt.”

A 70-year-old man in Seattle, Washington, was hit with a $1.1 million 181-page long hospital bill following his more than two-month stay in a local hospital while he was treated for — and nearly died from — COVID-19. 

“I opened it and said ‘holy (expletive)!’ ” the patient, Michael Flor, who received the $1,122,501.04 bill told The Seattle Times.

He added: “I feel guilty about surviving. There’s a sense of ‘why me?’ Why did I deserve all this? Looking at the incredible cost of it all definitely adds to that survivor’s guilt.”

According to the report, Flor will not have to pay for the majority of the charges because he has Medicare, which will foot the cost of most if not all of his COVID-19 treatment. The 70-year-old spent 62 days in the Swedish Medical Center in Issaquah, Washington, 42 days of which he spent isolated in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). 

Of the more than one month he spent in a sealed-off room in the ICU, Flor spent 29 days on a ventilator. According to the Seattle Times, a nurse on one occasion even helped him call his loved ones to say his final goodbyes, as he believed he was close to death from the virus.

While in the ICU, Flor was billed $9,736 each day; more than $80,000 of the bill is made up of charges incurred from his use of a ventilator, which cost $2,835 per day, according to the report. A two-day span of his stay in the hospital when his organs, including his kidneys, lungs, and heart began to fail, cost $100,000, according to the report.  

In total, there are approximately 3,000 itemized charges on Flor’s bill — about 50 charges for each day of his hospital stay, according to The Seattle Times. Flor will have to pay for little of the charges — including his Medicare Advantage policy’s $6,000 out-of-pocket charges — due to $100 billion set aside by Congress to help hospitals and insurance companies offset the costs of COVID-19.

Flor is recovering in his home in West Seattle, according to the report.

 

 

 

 

States are wrestling on their own with how to expand testing, with little guidance from the Trump administration

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Economic Crisis, Economy Reopening, Health Policy, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Leadership Decentralized, Mortality, National Strategy, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Social Distancing • Leave a comment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/states-are-wrestling-on-their-own-with-how-to-expand-testing-with-little-guidance-from-the-trump-administration/2020/06/09/d02672f4-9bab-11ea-ad09-8da7ec214672_story.html?utm_campaign=Newsletter%20Weekly%20Roundup%3A%20Healthcare%20Dive%3A%20Daily%20Dive%2006-13-2020&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Sailthru

States are wrestling on their own with how to expand testing, with ...

In Maryland, drive-through coronavirus testing sites are now open to all residents, whether or not they show signs of illness.

In Oregon, by contrast, officials have said that generally only people with symptoms of covid-19, the illness associated with the coronavirus, should be tested — even in the case of front-line health-care workers.

In Rhode Island, officials have proactively tested all of the state’s 7,500 nursing home residents, including those with no symptoms, and are developing plans to test more people in high-risk workplaces, such as restaurants and grocery stores.

The wide range of approaches across the country comes as the federal government has offered little guidance on the best way to test a broad swath of the population, leaving state public health officials to wrestle on their own with difficult questions about how to measure the spread of the virus and make decisions about reopening their economies.

Faced with conflicting advice from experts in the field, states are using different tests that vary in reliability and have adopted a variety of policies about who else should get tested and when — particularly when it comes to asymptomatic people who are considered low-risk for the illness.

“The states are on their own,” said Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious diseases at the Association of Public Health Laboratories, noting that the kind of guidance the federal government routinely gives in screening for flu and other outbreaks “has been absent” in the covid-19 pandemic. “There has been no coordination.”

That means that while tests are available to anyone who wants them in states such as Kentucky and Georgia and some large cities such as Detroit and Los Angeles, state officials in Idaho and Louisiana continue to recommend that only sick people get tested.

The lack of a unified national strategy has left Americans uncertain about whether and how to be tested and is hampering reopening plans, experts warn.

Many officials now worry that protests in more than 100 U.S. cities in recent days after the death of George Floyd in police custody, which have drawn thousands of people packed closely together, could spark new infections.

So far, about 460,000 Americans are being tested a day — 0.15 percent of the population, and still shy of the 900,000 to 30 million that experts say need to be tested daily to capture the extent of the virus’s spread.

“The case numbers we’re seeing are probably massively undercounted,” said Divya Siddarth, a researcher who helped devise a testing strategy for Harvard University’s Safra Center that emphasizes finding and suppressing the disease in areas with fewer cases. “These [lower prevalence] regions are likely to reopen, and they’ve barely done any tests.”

The lack of clear information is forcing businesses large and small, schools, universities and professional sports organizations to make their own decisions about how much testing they need to be safe.

Some institutions have announced their own plans for universal testing. The National Hockey League, for example, has said it plans to test all players daily as part of a plan to resume play in June. The University of Arizona has developed its own antibody test that’s available to all students and local health-care workers.

Under a law passed earlier this year, the Trump administration is required to develop a national testing strategy. But an 81-page document submitted to Congress by the Department of Health and Human Services late last month was not released publicly and offered few detailed recommendations.

The Washington Post obtained a copy of the plan, which set a goal for states of testing at least 2 percent of their residents in May and June. But how to meet that benchmark and whether to go further was left up to state leaders who were required to submit plans this month to HHS for review.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended universal testing for residents of nursing homes, which have been especially hit hard by the coronavirus. But the HHS document said the CDC was still working on guidelines for other large populations of mostly asymptomatic people — including at universities, prisons and “critical infrastructure worksites” — as well as those for integrating testing into reopening work places.

Mia Palmieri Heck, a spokeswoman for HHS, said the federal government “has provided prescriptive criteria about testing asymptomatic individuals when they affect highly vulnerable populations such as individuals who live in nursing homes, working in or visiting health-care clinics or communal dining spaces.” She added that federal experts have also been advising states on developing plans to more broadly test people without symptoms to determine community spread.

The question of asymptomatic testing is particularly tricky given that the CDC late last month said that its researchers now believe as many as 35 percent of people infected with the coronavirus never show symptoms of disease.

Typifying the kind of conflicting information facing states, a World Health Organization official sparked global confusion on Monday when she said it is “very rare” for people with no symptoms to transmit the disease. After significant pushback from researchers, the official said Tuesday that scientists continue to believe that people without symptoms do in fact spread the virus — but more research is needed to understand by how much.

She noted that some modeling shows as much as 41 percent of transmission may be due to asymptomatic people.

“In some ways, this may be the Achilles’ heel of the entire testing challenge for this virus,” said Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, who has advocated for increasing the number of people getting tested.

Local and state health officials worry that the lack of coherent strategy could result in tests becoming widely available for the affluent, while remaining limited for those with fewer resources, including minority communities that have already been disproportionately affected by the virus.

At the University of Arizona, officials plan to reserve molecular swab tests, which determine if a person is currently infected, for symptomatic students and their contacts. Each test is about $50 to $75 dollars; there are 60,000 students, staff and faculty and each would have to be tested repeatedly.

“Maybe the NFL can afford that; we can’t, and I don’t know any university that can,” said Robert C. Robbins, the university’s president.

‘Box the virus in’

When coronavirus cases began to mount in March, a severe shortage of test kits and supplies meant tests were sharply rationed. Even after it was clear that the virus was spreading in the United States, the CDC at first recommend only testing people who had visited China or been in contact with someone who had.

Later, federal officials suggested that younger, healthy people did not necessarily need testing even if they were experiencing coronavirus symptoms, reasoning that the tests should be reserved for hospitalized patients for whom a positive result might make a difference in treatment plan.

As tests have become more available, officials have begun to recommend that anyone who is experiencing signs of illness, even a mild cough or sore throat, get one.

The goal is to identify and quarantine people with the disease, and then use contact tracers to track down people who have interacted with that person and quarantine them as well.

“Testing is just part of a comprehensive strategy,” former CDC director Tom Frieden said. “As you emerge from that sheltering situation, you box the virus in.”

But when it comes to testing people without symptoms, state recommendations vary.

About at least half of states aim to test people identified as contacts of known positive cases, according to a Post tally, as was recommended in new guidance from the CDC this week. But many others tell those people to self-isolate for 14 days.

“Every state is figuring this out on its own, little bit by little bit,” said Philip Chan, medical director for the Rhode Island Department of Health.

Nearly all states have set aside thousands of tests for people in congregate settings — residential settings where large numbers of people live in proximity, especially nursing homes and prisons.

But only a handful of states have so far satisfied the CDC goal to test everyone living in a nursing home, where the age and underlying medical conditions of residents make them especially vulnerable to covid-19 outbreaks.

Some states have also prioritized testing front-line health-care workers and other people working elbow-to-elbow in manufacturing facilities, particularly meatpacking plants, which have been hit hard by the virus.

Even states that have conducted widespread testing in such facilities face difficult questions about whether a single round of testing is sufficient, given that people could easily contract the virus at any time, including after testing negative.

“There’s not a lot of communication between the states and there’s not a lot of specifics, so everybody’s kind of going on their own,” Wroblewski said.

A tricky disease

A number of states and large cities, such as Detroit and Los Angeles, have opened drive-through testing sites like those offered in Maryland, a mode of mass testing used effectively overseas in South Korea and elsewhere.

Experts have warned that drive-through sites often fail to collect enough information from those tested to follow up effectively. They also prioritize people who choose to show up, tending to mean tests go to better educated and informed residents and not necessarily those most likely to have been exposed to the virus.

In Macon, Ga., the Moonhanger Group set up drive-through testing for employees returning to work at their four restaurants. But they did not wait for the results, or for all employees to get tested, before reopening on May 26.

“We were confident, based on the low number of positive results reported in Bibb county, that none of our employees would test positive and we hoped to share that news with the public,” owner Wes Griffith wrote on Facebook. “Unfortunately and surprisingly, we have employees who have tested positive. All of them were a-symptomatic.” Griffith did not respond to a request for comment.

Three of the four restaurants had to quickly close again, pending further testing.

In Georgia, public officials are advertising on radio and social media to encourage anyone to get tested at drive-through sites.

Those tested have included political leaders, who got tested largely to encourage others to do so too, only to find themselves “shocked” when their results came back positive, said Phillip Coule, chief medical officer of the Augusta University Health System, which is partnering with the state on testing.

“It’s a great demonstration of how tricky this disease is,” he said.

Other states have downplayed asymptomatic testing as unreliable or a poor use of resources.

Coule noted that the message, “If you want a test, you can get a test,” puts the onus for deciding who should get tested on individuals, rather than prioritizing the highest-risk or the most vulnerable. One of his patients, he noted, sought a test because he wanted to honeymoon in St. Lucia and needed a negative result to enter the country.

Oregon only opened testing to front-line workers and long-term care residents without symptoms in April and continues not to recommend asymptomatic testing, saying on the state website that it is “not useful” because the false negative rate is high. Viral tests have been estimated to have up to a 20 percent false negative rate.

At a recent news conference, Oregon Health Authority Chief Medical Officer Dana Hargunani said people without symptoms are “unlikely or certainly less likely to cause transmission of the virus.”

‘It’s like a war’

For states looking to figure out who to test and when, advice from national experts has been abundant — but not always consistent.

Proposals from academics and other experts vary widely in their recommendations of the numbers of tests that should be performed each day, and many do not offer guidance about who should be tested.

Some researchers have recommended focusing on parts of the country that have few cases in hopes of stamping out the disease.

“We should quickly get resources to places where the disease can be suppressed, then backfill tests in the places currently overwhelmed,” said Glen Weyl, an economist at Microsoft, who worked on the Harvard University proposal. “It’s like a war — you have to more troops than the enemy in order to win a battle.”

Other researchers have proposed blanketing the country with tests, with a focus on places experiencing clear outbreaks.

Paul Romer, an economist at New York University, said there should be mass testing in hot spots that is quickly expanded to near-universal, constant testing for everyone — 23 million tests a day, noting that the cost of tests have dropped.

“It would be feasible if we just invested and made it happen,” he said.

Other countries have used aggressive and organized testing to help stop the spread of the virus. South Korea — where the first case of the coronavirus was diagnosed on the same day as in the United States — quickly started mass testing at drive-through sites to spot and isolate cases.

The government has also instituted a sophisticated and aggressive effort to trace contacts of any known case, to squelch outbreaks. After several people who visited nightclubs in Seoul tested positive in early May, the government within two weeks tracked down 46,000 people who might have been exposed and tested them all.

In Wuhan, China, the site of the world’s first major coronavirus outbreak, government officials said they tested nearly 10 million of the city’s 11 million residents since mid-May, part of an effort to test universally and ensure the city doesn’t experience a new wave of infections.

Still, many experts agree that completely random asymptomatic testing is not an effective strategy.

A report issued late last month by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota called for ramping up testing nationwide, including in some congregate settings and as part of public health research. But the report found that widespread testing of people without symptoms was not advisable in most workplaces, in schools or in the broader community.

Researchers at the center found such testing could waste precious resources and could cause problems for communities, given that the tests are not fully reliable.

“There’s been far too much of this group think around, ‘test, test, test,’ without understanding what it’s accomplishing,” said Michael Osterholm, the director of the center. “You need the right test, at the right time, for the right reasons.”

The report’s central recommendation: that HHS form a blue-ribbon commission with national experts to formulate advice for states.

 

 

Masks now seen as vital tool in coronavirus fight

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Economic Crisis, Economy Reopening, Health Policy, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Mortality, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Social Distancing, World Health Organization (WHO) • Leave a comment

Masks now seen as vital tool in coronavirus fight

Masks now seen as vital tool in coronavirus fight | TheHill

Evidence is mounting that widespread mask-wearing can significantly slow the spread of coronavirus and help reduce the need for future lockdowns. 

Public health authorities did not initially put an emphasis on masks, but that’s changed and there is now increasing consensus that they play an important role in hindering transmission of the virus at a time when wearing one has become politicized as some states and businesses have made them a requirement for certain activities.

Wearing a mask is also seen by experts as a relatively easy action that could help avoid much costlier responses like stay at home orders and closing businesses.

“It’s a lot less economically disruptive to wear a mask than to shut society, so I can’t understand some of the resistance to mask wearing,” Tom Frieden, the former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said on a call with reporters on Thursday.

Experts say mask-wearing is not the only response needed to slow the spread of the virus. Avoiding crowds and staying six feet apart from others is also important, as is an effective system of testing and contact tracing so people can quarantine and prevent further spread. 

A study from University of Cambridge researchers this week found that widespread mask-wearing can help prevent a resurgence of the virus with less reliance on lockdowns that have proven economically devastating.

The modeling in the study found that if 50 percent or more of the population routinely wore masks, each infected person would on average spread the virus to less than one additional person, causing the outbreak to decline, the university said.

“We have little to lose from the widespread adoption of facemasks, but the gains could be significant,” Renata Retkute, one of the authors of the study, said in a statement. 

Scott Gottlieb, the former FDA Commissioner for President Trump, pointed to the study on Twitter this week and wrote: “More widespread masking with higher quality masks could help mitigate a second wave.”

It cannot be ruled out that further lockdowns will be needed, but wearing a mask is one part of a strategy to help avoid them, according to Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

“I think it could substantially help open workplaces, but I’d still want to maximize distancing,” he said.

The emphasis on masks has been slow to develop in some places. The World Health Organization did not issue a recommendation for the general public to wear masks until last week, previously only saying people who are sick and those caring for them should use masks.

In the early days of the outbreak in the United States, there was also concern about the general public using up masks that were in short supply for health workers. 

“Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!” Surgeon General Jerome Adams tweeted at the end of February. “They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!”

That has changed, though, and the general public is now recommended to wear a simple cloth covering that could even be homemade, while leaving more advanced N95 masks for health care workers. The CDC now recommends wearing a mask in public when it is hard to stay six feet away from others, such as in grocery stores and pharmacies. Experts add that wearing a mask is mostly to protect others, not oneself.

“I don’t think it was so obvious from the beginning,” Sharfstein said, pushing back on critics who say authorities were slow to issue mask recommendations. “But it’s become more obvious,” he added.

Public health experts are lamenting, though, that mask-wearing has become politicized as opponents call requirements they wear one an infringement on their personal freedoms. 

President Trump did not publicly wear a mask during a May visit to a Ford factory despite the company policy requiring one. He also called it “unusual” that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden wore a mask during a Memorial Day ceremony, though he said he “wasn’t criticizing.”

In Arizona, which has seen a surge in coronavirus cases recently, Gov. Doug Ducey (R) was pressed at a news conference on Thursday by a reporter who asked, “When was the last time you wore a face mask, governor?”

“I’ve got my face masks with me today,” Ducey said, taking some out of his pocket. “And when I’m not physically distancing, I wear them and wash them often.”

Some states, like Massachusetts and New York, have mandated masks when people are in public and cannot stay six feet apart. Asked if he would mandate masks in Arizona, Ducey did not answer directly, but said, “I want people to wear masks when they can’t socially distance.”

Carlos del Rio, a professor of epidemiology at Emory University, compared the situation with mask-wearing to the early days of seatbelts.

“Imagine if today was the ‘60s and we were starting to use seatbelts and you would have some politicians say, ‘Oh, seatbelts don’t make a difference; I like my freedom; I don’t like to be tied down when I’m driving,’” he said. 

But, he added: “Over and over the evidence is showing masks work; masks make a difference.”

“I didn’t jump on masks immediately,” he said. “But after a while, I said, ‘Yeah this is what we all need to be doing,’ but I think it took some time.”