Category Archives: Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS)

White House tells hospitals to bypass CDC on COVID-19 data reporting

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Coronavirus, Credibility, Crisis, Crisis Management, Data Governance, Data Integrity, Data Interpretation, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), False Narrative, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Mislead, Misleading, Mistrust, Mixed Message, Silencing, Transparency, Trust, Truth • Leave a comment

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/507321-white-house-tells-hospitals-to-bypass-cdc-on-covid-data-reporting?fbclid=IwAR2Q0n6LNYQa1p6rPQeRGUPi-54i8uTAyRxcmTcZXC6Q9mbVRZx3e1GH518

White House tells hospitals to bypass CDC on COVID-19 data ...

Hospitals will begin sending coronavirus-related information directly to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), not the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under new instructions from the Trump administration.

The move will take effect on Wednesday, according to a new guidance and FAQ document for hospitals and clinical labs quietly posted on the HHS website.

Previously, hospitals reported to the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network, which the agency describes as the nation’s most widely used health care-associated infection tracking system.

The CDC tracked information including how many beds are available, the number of ventilators available and how many COVID-19 patients the hospitals have.

Beginning Wednesday, hospitals will report the same data but will bypass the CDC and send it to HHS directly. 

According to HHS, the goal is to streamline data collection, which will be used to inform decisions at the federal level such as allocation of supplies, treatments and other resources.

But the move comes amid concerns that the White House has been sidelining the CDC and after Trump administration officials attacked Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert and a member of the White House coronavirus task force.

 

 

Trump sidelines public health advisers in growing rift over coronavirus response

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Coronavirus, Data Integrity, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Economic Crisis, Economy Reopening, Evidence-Based Care, Evidence-based Leadership, Evidence-Based Plan, Evidence-Based Policy, False Hope, False Narrative, Health Policy, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Integrity, Intimidation, Leadership Culture, Leadership Decentralized, Mislead, Misleading, Mortality, National Strategy, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Physician, Public Health, Public Safety, Retaliation, Scientists, Transparency, Trust, Truth, Womens Health • Leave a comment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/trump-sidelines-public-health-advisers-in-growing-rift-over-coronavirus-response/2020/07/09/ad803218-c12a-11ea-9fdd-b7ac6b051dc8_story.html?fbclid=IwAR0MI5VGiJQmUsyEpzYDj09Q0VVxxYMlHwx-UjfHdmMu1PdGD6uIzv8R2fM&utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

The Health 202: Health officials promise to ramp up pandemic ...

The June 28 email to the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was ominous: A senior adviser to a top Health and Human Services Department official accused the CDC of “undermining the President” by putting out a report about the potential risks of the coronavirus to pregnant women.

The adviser, Paul Alexander, criticized the agency’s methods, and said its warning to pregnant women “reads in a way to frighten women . . . as if the President and his administration can’t fix this and it is getting worse.”

As the country enters a frightening phase of the pandemic with new daily cases surpassing 62,000 on Wednesday, the CDC, the nation’s top public health agency, is coming under intense pressure from President Trump and his allies, who are downplaying the dangers in a bid to revive the economy ahead of the Nov. 3 election. In a White House guided by the president’s instincts, rather than by evidence-based policy, the CDC finds itself forced constantly to backtrack or sidelined from pivotal decisions.

The latest clash between the White House and its top public health advisers erupted Wednesday, when the president slammed the agency’s recommendation that schools planning to reopen should keep students’ desks six feet apart, among other steps to reduce infection risks. In a tweet, Trump — who has demanded schools at all levels hold in-person classes this fall — called the advice “very tough & expensive.”

“While they want them open, they are asking schools to do very impractical things. I will be meeting with them!!!” Trump tweeted Wednesday. Within hours, Vice President Pence had asserted the agency would release new guidance next week.

“The president said today we just don’t want the guidance to be too tough,” Pence told reporters. “And that’s the reason next week the CDC is going to be issuing a new set of tools.”

Analysts say the deepening divide is undermining the authority of one of the world’s premier public health agencies, which previously led fights against malaria, smallpox and HIV/AIDS. Amid the worst public health crisis in a century, the CDC has in recent months altered or rescinded recommendations on topics including wearing masks and safely reopening restaurants and houses of worship as a result of conflicts with top administration officials.

“At a time when our country needs an orchestrated, all-hands-on deck response, there is simply no hand on the tiller,” said Beth Cameron, former senior director for global health security and biodefense on the White House National Security Council.

In the absence of strong federal leadership, state and local officials have been left to figure things out for themselves, leading to conflicting messaging and chaotic responses. Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. out of the World Health Organization further undermined efforts to influence global strategies against the coronavirus, including how vaccines will be distributed.

The CDC, meanwhile, is increasingly isolated — a function both of its growing differences with the White House and of its own significant missteps earlier in the outbreak.

Those stumbles include the botched rollout of test kits likely contaminated at a CDC lab in late January, which led to critical delays in states’ ability to know where the virus was circulating. And the CDC’s initial decision to test only a narrow set of people gave the virus a head start spreading undetected across the country.

During a May lunch with Senate Republicans, Trump told the group the CDC “blew it” on the coronavirus test and that he’d installed a team of “geniuses” led by his son-in-law Jared Kushner to handle much of the response,” according to two people familiar with the lunch who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

“There is a view the CDC is staffed with deep state Democrats that are trying to tweak the administration,” said one adviser who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to reveal private conversations.

White House officials, who see the president’s reelection prospects tied to economic recovery, also say they’ve been deeply frustrated by what they view as career staffers at the agency determined “to keep things closed,” according to a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to reveal internal deliberations.

Trump believes the CDC is “ineffective” and a “waste of time,” but doesn’t blame CDC Director Robert Redfield and generally likes him, said another official speaking on the condition of anonymity. “He just thinks he is a poor communicator,” the official added.

Joe Grogan, former head of the White House Domestic Policy Council, said Redfield had fans inside the White House who work on “addiction issues, on life issues, on HIV issues,” among other topics.

But he said Redfield has few political appointees to help him run a complex agency. “How do you run a place like that with … [few] appointees?” Grogan asked.

HHS Secretary Alex Azar called the director “a key scientific guide for the President and his administration, a trusted source for the American people, and a closely engaged partner of state and local governments.”

But Redfield is not a voice in coronavirus task force meetings, and “is never really in the Oval [Office] with the president,” said another senior administration official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the internal dynamics.

Even Redfield’s supporters say he has failed to be an effective advocate for the agency.

“Bob Redfield’s commitment to public health is completely strong,” said William Schaffner, a veteran infectious-disease specialist at Vanderbilt University. But he said Redfield lacks the standing, deftness, and communication capacity to persuade skeptical audiences, including those in the White House, that protecting public health and fostering economic recovery are not opposing goals.

Redfield, for his part, downplayed Trump’s criticism of the CDC school reopeniing guidelines after a coronavirus task force briefing Wednesday, saying the agency and the president were “totally aligned.”

“We’re both trying to open the schools,” he said.

White House spokesman Judd Deere also disputed big differences, saying in a statement the White House and the CDC “have been working together in partnership since the very beginning of this pandemic to carry out the President’s highest priority: the health and safety of the American public.

“The CDC is the nation’s trusted health protection agency and its infectious disease and public health experts have helped deliver critical solutions to save lives. We encourage all Americans to continue to follow the CDC’s guidelines and use best-practices they have learned, such as social distancing, face coverings, and good hygiene, to maintain public health and continue our Transition to Greatness.”

But some health experts were indignant the agency had been ordered to rewrite guidance to reopen schools to “make it easier and cost less” — a demand that effectively “turns science on its head,” said Tom Inglesby, director of Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Health Security.

“CDC should be giving their best judgments on how to lower risks to make schools safer,” he said. “That’s their job. If they aren’t allowed to do that, the public will lose confidence in the guidance.”

Why are they ‘not shouting “fire”?’

The diminished role of the 74-year-old agency has bewildered infectious-disease experts, as well as members of the public seeking guidance.

After six states set one-day case records on July 3, Carlos del Rio, executive associate dean at Emory University’s School of Medicine, tweeted at Tom Frieden, a former CDC director, “Tom, where is @CDCgov ? Why are they not out there shouting ‘fire’?”

Frieden shot back: “They are still there, still doing great work, just not being allowed to talk about it, not being allowed to guide policy, not being allowed to develop, standardize, and post information that would give, by state and county, the status of the epidemic and of our control measures.”

Jeffrey Duchin, the health officer at Seattle and King County health department, added: “Agree. Muzzled, neutered and exiled.”

The agency has been largely invisible. After more than three months of silence, it resumed briefings for the public last month. There have been two.

By comparison, when the H1N1 swine flu pandemic hit the United States in the spring of 2009, the CDC held briefings almost every day for six consecutive weeks.

During this outbreak, the agency’s regular briefings ended abruptly after White House officials were angered when a top CDC leader warned that Americans could face “significant disruption” to their lives as a result of the virus’s spread to the United States.

CDC officials say they are still getting their message out, pointing to more than 2,000 documents providing pandemic-related information about reopening and staying safe for dozens of groups and venues, including funeral home directors, amusement parks, and pet owners. Each Friday, the CDC also posts CovidView, a weekly report of selected data and trends on testing, hospitalizations, and reported deaths.

But the information is posted without additional explanation or analysis.

“I want to hear a real person give me three minutes based on these findings,” said del Rio, also a global health and infectious-disease professor at Emory. “I want to see them in the news, being interviewed, giving us the data.”

Scientists at the CDC and former colleagues speak of deep frustration and low morale over its inability to fully share and explain scientific and medical information.

Researchers are fearful for their jobs and want to protect the integrity of the data they release. “If you want to say something, you’re thinking, ‘what’s the White House going to say and how are they going to use it,’ ” said one longtime scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.

The lack of briefings has fostered misunderstandings at times. In early April, for instance, when the agency reversed its position and recommended the use of cloth face coverings, CDC scientists gave no public briefings explaining why they made the change.

“It’s not rocket science,” said Nancy Cox, a virologist and former CDC official who led the influenza program for 22 years and was part of the agency’s response during the 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic. “But the reasoning behind those changes should be explained as clearly as possible and then you can get everyone on board.”

In the CDC’s absence, academic medical centers, public health and professional disease groups have filled the void by holding coronavirus briefings and providing analysis of key issues, data and research studies. Frieden, the president of Resolve to Save Lives, a New York nonprofit, has also been posting long Twitter threads analyzing the weekly CDC data released on Fridays.

Speaking ‘with an unfettered voice’

Alarmed at the agency’s diminished role, nearly 350 public health organizations sent a letter Tuesday to Azar urging him to advocate for the CDC. The agency must be allowed to speak based on the best available science “and with an unfettered voice,” said John Auerbach, president and chief executive of Trust for America’s Health, a public health nonprofit that led the effort.

House Democrats echoed those concerns in a separate letter to Azar last month. Reps. Diana DeGette of Colorado and Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said they were troubled by reports that administration officials are considering narrowing the CDC’s mission and embedding more political appointees at the Atlanta-based agency.

Traditionally the CDC has one political appointee, the director. Now it has Redfield and five other political appointees, including two advisers who were added in recent weeks.

“Now more than ever, the American people need a robust and effective CDC that is not repeatedly undermined by others in the administration, including the President and the Vice President,” the letter said.

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows views the agency as a problem and has criticized the CDC repeatedly to other administration officials, said a senior administration official.

White House and HHS officials are discussing what the CDC’s “core mission needs to be,” said one adviser familiar with the talks who spoke on the condition of anonymity to comment on policy deliberations. The discussions were first reported by Politico.

Over the years, the agency that was founded to fight malaria now works on virtually every aspect of public health. “It has tried to be everything to everyone,” the adviser said, suggesting the agency might need to refocus more narrowly.

On the global front, administration officials are also weighing a $2.5 billion initiative called the President’s Response to Outbreaks that would move a significant portion of national and international pandemic responses to the State Department, according to a draft obtained by The Post. Details were first reported by Devex.

“There is no clear leadership role for CDC” in this plan, said Jennifer Kates, a senior vice president for global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “In global health, you need an engaged CDC.”

Taken together, the administration efforts seem “designed to position CDC to the margins,” said one federal health official who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.

‘Boogeyman where there aren’t any’

The report that drew the email attack, accusing the agency of undermining the president, had provided detailed but incomplete information about pregnancy risks related to the coronavirus. It found pregnant women with covid-19 were more likely to be hospitalized, admitted to an intensive care unit, and to need ventilator support than infected women who are not pregnant.

The sender, Alexander, a specialist in health research methods, is a senior adviser to Michael Caputo, a longtime Trump ally who was recently appointed assistant HHS secretary for public affairs , which includes the CDC.

The email was directed to Redfield and Caputo.

Even amid the intense criticism of the agency, the email “crosses the line,” said the official, who was aware of the content.

Like all of the CDC’s reports, the analysis itself noted several limitations. One key one that researchers acknowledged was that they did not have data to indicate whether the pregnant women were hospitalized because of labor and delivery, or because they had covid-19.

Administration officials are “seeing political boogeymen where there aren’t any,” the federal health official said, adding that such narratives could further hamper the U.S. response.

“It could feed the fire to limit the flow of scientific data and communication to the general population,” the official said. “People are getting sick and dying. Can we just focus on the science?”

Alexander said in his email that the lack of data about why women were hospitalized was a “key issue.”

“The CDC is undermining the President by what they put out, this is my opinion and sense, and I am reading it and can see the subtle and direct hits,” he wrote.

Alexander, also a part-time assistant professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, did not respond to emails and telephone calls seeking comment.

Caputo said in an interview that he agreed with Alexander. The CDC represents itself as the gold standard for public health agencies, he said, “but in the case of pregnancy analysis, it wasn’t even bronze.”

He called CDC’s track record “spotty” and “questionable,” pointing to Zika diagnostic testing errors in 2016.

“In many cases over the years, regardless of administration, the CDC has undermined presidents and themselves,” Caputo said, referring to leaked drafts of CDC guidances. “Who says the CDC is the sole font of wisdom when it comes to detecting and fighting deadly pathogens?”

Experts say that even with some big unanswered questions, the pregnancy findings represent the best available evidence and are important. The lack of data reflects decades of long-neglected national surveillance on pregnancy.

“I don’t think this is frightening women,” said Denise Jamieson, who heads the obstetrics and gynecology department at Emory University and Emory Healthcare. True, the report “suffers from completeness of data,” she said. But now doctors can be more confident that pregnant women are more likely to have severe disease and use “this really important information” to counsel patients, she said.

 

 

U.S. Tops Three Million Known Infections as Coronavirus Surges

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Economic Crisis, Economy Reopening, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Intensive Care (ICU), Mortality, National Strategy, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Social Distancing • Leave a comment

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2020-07-07/us-coronavirus-cases-hit-3-million-stoking-fears-of-overwhelmed-hospitals

U.S. tops three million known infections as coronavirus surges ...

 The U.S. coronavirus outbreak crossed a grim new milestone of over 3 million confirmed cases on Tuesday as more states reported record numbers of new infections, and Florida faced an impending shortage of intensive care unit hospital beds.

Authorities have reported alarming upswings of daily caseloads in roughly two dozen states over the past two weeks, a sign that efforts to control transmission of the novel coronavirus have failed in large swaths of the country.

California, Hawaii, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma and Texas on Tuesday shattered their previous daily record highs for new cases. About 24 states have also reported disturbingly high infection rates as a percentage of diagnostic tests conducted over the past week.

In Texas alone, the number of hospitalized patients more than doubled in just two weeks.

The trend has driven many more Americans to seek out COVID-19 screenings. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said on Tuesday it was adding short-term “surge” testing sites in three metropolitan areas in Florida, Louisiana and Texas.

In Houston, a line of more than 200 cars snaked around the United Memorial Medical Center as people waited for hours in sweltering heat to get tested. Some had arrived the night before to secure a place in line at the drive-through site.

“I got tested because my younger brother got positive,” said Fred Robles, 32, who spent the night in his car. “There’s so many people that need to get tested, there’s nothing you can do about it.”

Dean Davis, 32, who lost his job due to the pandemic, said he arrived at the testing site at 3 a.m. on Tuesday after he waited for hours on Monday but failed to make the cutoff.

“I was like, let me get here at three, maybe nobody will be here,” Davis said. “I got here, there was a line already.”

In Florida, more than four dozen hospitals across 25 of 67 counties reported their intensive care units had reached full capacity, according to the state’s Agency for Health Care Administration. Only 17% of the total 6,010 adult ICU beds statewide were available on Tuesday, down from 20% three days earlier.

Additional hospitalizations could strain healthcare systems in many areas, leading to an uptick in deaths from the respiratory illness that has killed more than 131,000 Americans to date.

A widely cited mortality model from the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) projected on Tuesday that U.S. deaths would reach 208,000 by Nov. 1, with the outbreak expected to gain new momentum heading into the fall.

A hoped-for summertime decline in transmission of the virus never materialized as previously predicted, the IHME said.

“The U.S. didn’t experience a true end of the first wave of the pandemic,” IHME Director Dr. Christopher Murray said in a statement. “This will not spare us from a second surge in the fall, which will hit particularly hard in states currently seeing high levels of infections.”

‘PRESSURE ON GOVERNORS’

U.S. President Donald Trump, who has pushed for restarting the U.S. economy and urged Americans to return to their normal routines, said on Tuesday he would lean on state governors to open schools in the fall.

Speaking at the White House, Trump said some people wanted to keep schools closed for political reasons. “No way, so we’re very much going to put pressure on governors and everybody else to open the schools.”

New COVID-19 infections are rising in 42 states, based on a Reuters analysis of the past two weeks. By Tuesday afternoon, the number of confirmed U.S. cases had surpassed 3 million, affecting nearly one of every 100 Americans and a population roughly equal to Nevada’s.

In Arizona, another hot spot, the rate of coronavirus tests coming back positive rose to 26% for the week ended July 5, leading two dozen states with positivity rates exceeding 5%. The World Heath Organization considers a rate over 5% to be troubling.

The surge has forced authorities to backpedal on moves to reopen businesses, such as restaurants and bars, after mandatory lockdowns in March and April reduced economic activity to a virtual standstill and put millions of Americans out of work.

The Texas state fair, which had been scheduled to open on Sept. 25, has been canceled for the first time since World War Two, organizers announced on Tuesday.

In Ohio, Governor Mike DeWine said the state was ordering people in seven counties to wear face coverings in public starting on Wednesday evening.

 

 

 

Nonprofit health systems — despite huge cash reserves — get billions in CARES funding

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Cash, Cash Reserves, Coronavirus, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Financially Distressed, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicare Advance Payments, Net Income, Nonoperating Income, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Oversight, The CARES Act, Uncertainty • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/nonprofit-health-systems-despite-huge-cash-reserves-get-billions-in-car/580078/

CLICK ON LINK ABOVE FOR ACCESS TO GRAPHICS

Next Steps for Public Policy | Cato Institute

Healthcare Dive’s findings revive concerns that greater examination of hospital finances is needed before divvying up COVID-19 rescue funding allocated by Congress.
The nation’s largest nonprofit health systems, led by Kaiser Permanente, Ascension and Providence, have received more than $7.1 billion in bailout funds from the federal government so far, as the novel coronavirus forced them to all but shutter their most profitable business lines.

At the same time, some of these same behemoth systems sit on billions in cash, and even greater amounts when taking into account investments that can be liquidated over time. That raises questions about how much money these systems actually need from the federal government given they have hundreds of days worth of cash on hand. Indeed, some big systems, like Kaiser Permanente, are already returning some of the funds.

And it revives concerns that greater examination of hospital finances is needed before divvying up rescue packages.

Nonprofits with more cash and greater net income tend to have received less funding — but not always

This is the second story of a Healthcare Dive series examining the bailout funds health systems received amid the COVID-19 pandemic. In this report, we focus on the 20 largest nonprofits by revenue and the amount of Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding they have received compared to the amount of cash on hand and recent financial performance. Healthcare Dive used bond filings filed as of June 12 to compile the amount of CARES funding received by health systems. In some instances, we relied on data from Good Jobs First, which also tracks the money. In addition to bond filings, we relied on annual audited financial statements and analyst reports to compile financial performance and days cash on hand.

Cash reserves

The cash hospitals have on hand has become an important metric to watch over the past few months as many have seen reserves dwindle to pay everyday expenses as revenue has dried up. At the same time, hospital volumes have plunged due to the economy grinding to a halt.

“You can’t write a payroll check off of accounts receivables, you have to write it off your cash and cash equivalents.” Rick Gundling, senior vice president of healthcare financial practices for Healthcare Financial Management Association, told Healthcare Dive.

In the early days of the outbreak in the U.S., some hospital executives sounded the alarm over dire financial straits, particularly small, rural hospitals whose executives warned they were weeks away from not making payroll. These pleas helped push Congress to pass massive rescue packages, with providers earmarked for $175 billion thus far.

Nonprofit health systems tend to keep more cash on hand than publicly-traded hospital chains. That’s because investor-owned facilities can raise capital more quickly, mainly through the stock market, while nonprofits have to rely on the bond market and their own operations, Gundling said.

Another important avenue that can boost cash is investments. It’s common for large nonprofits to rake in more in net income than they do from their core operations of running hospitals and caring for patients, in large part due to their investments in the stock market.

For example, Chicago-based CommonSpirit posted an operating loss of $602 million during its fiscal year 2019 but net income far exceeded that, totaling $9 billion. It was buoyed by investments and its recent merger, bringing together Catholic Health Initiatives and Dignity Health, according to its audited financial statement for the year ended June 30, 2019.

Many nonprofit health systems rake in more in net income than they do from their core operations

Ascension, the second-largest nonprofit system, received about $492 million in CARES funding, according to Good Jobs First. Ascension reported having 231 days cash on hand. Its unrestricted cash and investments totaled a sum of $15.5 billion as of March 31.

Kaiser, the nation’s largest nonprofit system, has about 200 days of cash on hand as of its fiscal year end, Dec. 31, according to a recent report from Fitch Ratings.

Providence, the third-largest nonprofit and first U.S. health system to treat a COVID-19 patient, reported 182 days of cash on hand as of March 31, according to a May bond filing.

However, Cleveland Clinic has the most cash on hand when measured in days among the top 20 nonprofits.

Cleveland Clinic had 337 days of cash on hand at the end of March, according to an unaudited financial statement from May. That’s nearly an entire year’s worth of operating expenses. The system has received $199 million in CARES funding, according to that same filing.

Rochester, Minnesota-based Mayo Clinic had the second most days of cash on hand with 252. Mayo Clinic has received $220 million in grant money, according to a May financial filing.

“You would never see that much cash on an investor-owned hospital,” Gundling said. “Generally, they want to pour that cash back into the services,” he said.

NYC Health + Hospitals, also the nation’s largest municipal health system, had the fewest days of cash on hand and it received $745 million in CARES funding, the second-most compared to other systems.

How health systems’ funding and cash on hand compare

Samantha Liss (@samanthann) | Twitter

Risks of accepting bailout money

Sitting on a pile of money and accepting the bailout funds is already raising eyebrows.

“There is significant headline risk,” Michael Abrams, co-founder and partner at Numerof & Associates, told Healthcare Dive.

Worried about the optics, other institutions with considerable reserves or endowments have returned federal bailout funds, including Harvard University and major health insurers.

Providers are returning relief funds, too. Kaiser Permanente, the nation’s largest nonprofit by revenue, told the San Francisco Business Times it has returned more than $500 million in CARES funding. CEO Greg Adams the system “will do fine” despite the setback from the pandemic.

Mara McDermott, vice president of McDermott+Consulting, agrees there is a risk in accepting the grant money if systems possess such large reserves. Yet, she also cautioned that the healthcare ecosystem is so much more complicated.

“Regardless of the structure, it requires a deeper dive into need and that’s not what HHS did. They just wrote checks,” McDermott told Healthcare Dive.

Just because a parent company has a large cash reserve, it doesn’t mean that the money is readily available on a daily basis to a smaller practice it may own down the chain and one that hasn’t had any patients since March, she said.

“It’s easy to point the finger… but it’s much more complex than that,” she said.

The first tranche of money HHS sent to hospitals was based on Medicare fee-for-service business, and later on net patient service revenue. These formulas were criticized for putting some hospitals at an advantage compared to others, particularly those with larger shares of Medicaid patients. HHS has since released more targeted funding for providers in hot spots such as New York and plans to funnel funding to those serving a large share of Medicaid members in an attempt to address earlier concerns.

Still, without certainty of how long this public health crisis will last, no one knows how much cash on hand will ultimately be enough.

“A year’s cash on hand sounds like a lot of money but when you expend hundreds of millions of dollars a month, it won’t take you long to burn through that,” Scott Graham, CEO of Three Rivers Hospital, a 25-bed facility in rural Washington state, told Healthcare Dive.

Graham had feared in March that without quick intervention from the government, his hospital was near closure with just a few weeks cash on hand. The federal grant money has bought his hospital some time, about six months if volumes stay where they are, longer if they tick back up.

“I think what HHS did was right at the moment because we needed to ensure that the healthcare system survived this. It’s one thing for a small rural hospital to close, it’s another thing for the entire health system to collapse,” he said.

 

In blow to hospitals, judge rules for HHS in price transparency case

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, American Hospital Association (AHA), Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), District Court of Appeals, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Lawsuit, Price Transparency, Rev Cycle Management, Revenue Cycle, Surprise Bills • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/in-blow-to-hospitals-judge-rules-for-hhs-in-price-transparency-case/580395/

UPDATE: June 24, 2020: The American Hospital Association said it will appeal Tuesday’s ruling  that upholds the Trump administration’s mandate to force hospitals to disclose negotiated rates with insurers. The hospital lobby said it was disappointed in the ruling and will seek expedited review. AHA said the mandate “imposes significant burdens on hospitals at a time when resources are stretched thin and need to be devoted to patient care.”

If AHA seeks to have the rule stayed pending an appellate ruling, the decision on such a request “is likely to be almost as significant as this ruling is, since absent a stay, the rule will likely go into effect before the appellate court rules,” James Burns, a law partner at Akerman, told Healthcare Dive.

Dive Brief:

  • A federal judge ruled against the American Hospital Association on Tuesday in its lawsuit attempting to block an HHS rule pushing for price transparency. The judge ruled in favor of the department, which requires hospitals to reveal private, negotiated rates with insurers beginning Jan. 1.
  • U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols, an appointee of President Donald Trump, was swayed neither by AHA’s argument that forcing hospitals to publicly disclose rates violates their First Amendment rights by forcing them to reveal proprietary information nor by the claim that it would chill negotiations between providers and payers. The judge characterized the First Amendment argument as “half-hearted.”
  • Nichols seem convinced that the requirement will empower patients, noting in Tuesday’s summary judgment in favor of the administration that “all of the information required to be published by the Final Rule can allow patients to make pricing comparisons between hospitals.”

Dive Insight:

The ruling is a blow for hospitals, which have been adamantly opposed to disclosing their privately negotiated rates since HHS first unveiled its proposal in July 2019. AHA did not immediately reply to a request for comment on whether it planned to appeal.

The legal debate hinges on the definition of “standard charges”, which is mentioned in the Affordable Care Act, though it was left largely undefined in the text. Trump issued an executive order last year that included negotiated rates as part of that definition.

Cynthia Fisher, founder of patienrightsadvocate.com, which filed an amicus brief in support of HHS, told Healthcare Dive on Tuesday the ruling could make shopping for health services more like buying groceries or retail.

“For the first time we will be able to know prices before we get care,” she said. “This court ruling rejects every claim to keep the secret hidden prices from consumers until after we get care.”

 

 

 

 

Hospitals tell court price transparency laws violate 1st Amendment

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, American Hospital Association (AHA), Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), District Court of Appeals, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Lawsuit, Price Transparency, Rev Cycle Management, Revenue Cycle, Surprise Bills • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/AHA-HHS-price-transparency-oral-arguments/577613/

Dive Brief:

  • In the first round of oral arguments in their lawsuit against HHS over a rule requiring hospitals to reveal the secret rates they negotiate with insurers for services, hospital groups argued the requirement exceeds the government’s authority and violates the First Amendment by compelling hospitals to publicly post confidential and proprietary information​.
  • The American Hospital Association, along with other industry groups and health systems that brought the lawsuit, argued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Thursday that medical bills aren’t considered commercial speech and don’t fall under the same regulations that traditional advertisements, flyers and other forms of commercial speech offering or promoting services do.
  • “There’s not another market that looks like the market for hospital services,” said U.S. Department of Justice Attorney Michael Baer, who was representing HHS. A majority of patients final bills’ include the negotiated rate, information that should be available to patients, acting as consumers, prior to receiving care, he said.

Dive Insight:

Thursday’s hearing was the first step in what’s likely to be a drawn out legal fight. Negotiated rates between hospitals and insurers have long been private, and hospitals want to keep it that way. 

When HHS passed the final price transparency rule last year, the hospital groups filed a lawsuit in December, warning that requiring disclosure of negotiated rates will confuse patients, overwhelm hospitals and thwart competition. The rule would go into effect Jan. 1, 2021.

According to the lawsuit, the rule creates undue burden on hospitals and health systems, which can have more than 100 contracts with insurers. There can even be multiple contracts with an individual carrier to account for the various product lines, including Medicare Advantage, HMO or PPO.

The rule would require various pricing information, including gross charges, payer-specific rates, minimum and maximum negotiated charges and the amount the hospital is willing to accept in cash from a patient.

Some payers and employer groups have also protested the new rule, calling it wrong-headed.

When the rule initially passed last year, HHS argued that patients already see this pricing data when they receive their explanation of benefits, pushing back against the idea that it’s proprietary business information. They said this information needs to come before a procedure, not after.​

HHS maintains that the rule is intended to give patients better access to payment information so they can make informed decisions as consumers. 

“Patients deserve to know how much it’s going to cost when they get hospital care,” Baer said. “They deserve to know before they open a medical bill or before they choose where they want to receive care.”

 

 

 

 

Re-examining the delivery of high-value care through COVID-19

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Access, Access & Quality of Healthcare, Affordability, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Clinical Unmet Needs, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Emergency Care, Evidence, Evidence-Based Care, Evidence-Based Plan, Health Insurance Benefit Design, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Prices, High Value Care, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Low-Value Care, Medicaid, Medicare, Non-Essential Care, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Population Health, Primary Care, Quality, Quality of Care, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured, Unnecessary Care, Vaccination • Leave a comment

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/502851-examining-the-delivery-of-high-value-care-through-covid-19#bottom-story-socials

Re-examining the delivery of high-value care through COVID-19 ...

Over the past months, the country and the economy have radically shifted to unchartered territory. Now more than ever, we must reexamine how we spend health care dollars. 

While the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed challenges with health care in America, we see two overarching opportunities for change:

1) the under-delivery of evidence-based care that materially improves the lives and well-being of Americans and

2) the over-delivery of unnecessary and, sometimes, harmful care.

The implications of reallocating our health care spending to high-value services are far-ranging, from improving health to economic recovery. 

To prepare for coronavirus patients and preserve protective equipment, clinicians and hospitals across the country halted non-urgent visits and procedures. This has led to a substantial reduction in high-value care: emergency care for strokes or heart attacks, childhood vaccinations, and routine chronic disease management. However, one silver lining to this near shutdown is that a similarly dramatic reduction in the use of low-value services has also ensued.

As offices and hospitals re-open, we have a once in a century opportunity to align incentives for providers and consumers, so patients get more high-value services in high-value settings, while minimizing the resurgence of low-value care. For example, the use of pre-operative testing in low-risk patients should not accompany the return of elective procedures such as cataract removal. Conversely, benefit designs should permanently remove barriers to high-value settings and services, like patients receiving dialysis at home or phone calls with mental health providers.   

People with low incomes and multiple chronic conditions are of particular concern as unemployment rises and more Americans lose their health care coverage. Suboptimal access and affordability to high-value chronic disease care prior to the COVID-19 pandemic was well documented  As financially distressed providers re-open to a new normal, hopeful to regain their financial footing, highly profitable services are likely to be prioritized.

Unfortunately, clinical impact and profitability are frequently not linked. The post-COVID reopening should build on existing quality-driven payment models and increase reimbursement for high-value care to ensure that compensation better aligns with patient-centered outcomes.

At the same time, the dramatic fall in “non-essential care” included a significant reduction in services that we know to be harmful or useless. Billions are spent annually in the US on routinely delivered care that does not improve health; a recent study from 4 states reports that patients pay a substantial proportion (>10 percent) of this tab out-of-pocket. This type of low-value care can lead to direct harm to patients — physically or financially or both — as well as cascading iatrogenic harm, which can amplify the total cost of just one low-value service by up to 10 fold. Health care leaders, through the Smarter Health Care Coalition, have hence called on the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Azar to halt Medicare payments for services deemed low-value or harmful by the USPSTF. 

As offices and hospitals reopen with unprecedented clinical unmet needs, we have a unique opportunity to rebuild a flawed system. Payment policies should drive incentives to improve individual and population health, not the volume of services delivered. We emphasize that no given service is inherently high- or low-value, but that it depends heavily on the individual context. Thus, the implementation of new financial incentives for providers and patients needs to be nuanced and flexible to allow for patient-level variability. The added expenditures required for higher reimbursement rates for highly valuable services can be fully paid for by reducing the use of and reimbursement for low-value services.  

The delivery of evidence-based care should be the foundation of the new normal. We all agree that there is more than enough money in U.S. health care; it’s time that we start spending it on services that will make us a healthier nation.

 

 

 

Supreme Court’s LGBTQ ruling may sideline Trump’s health care rules

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Discrimination, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Nondiscrimination, Supreme Court • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-lgbtq-trump-health-care-e1328769-3e2f-4dc8-986d-f167de65191e.html

Supreme Court's LGBTQ ruling may sideline Trump's health care ...

The Supreme Court’s historic ruling on LGBTQ nondiscrimination could sideline the Trump administration’s new policies on health care and adoption.

Why it matters: The ruling’s ripple effects will be felt immediately, and could ultimately derail regulations the administration had finalized just days ago.

The big picture: Federal civil rights law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, and the Supreme Court said Monday that “sex” includes sexual orientation and gender identity.

  • Monday’s case was specifically about employment, but the same legal interpretation will likely carry over to other areas, most notably health care — and that could cause problems for some of the Trump administration’s policies.

Between the lines: Just a few days before the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Department of Health and Human Services rolled back Obama-era rules that banned health care providers from denying care to trans patients.

  • That was based on the Trump administration’s interpretation of what constitutes “sex” discrimination — that it only encompasses biological traits defined at birth. That is, broadly, the same interpretation the high court rejected on Monday.

What’s next: The court’s ruling does not automatically invalidate the health care rules, but would make them much harder to defend in court. And if the administration doesn’t withdraw the rules, those lawsuits are coming.

  • “The court here today clearly articulated that discrimination based on sexual orientation, discrimination based on gender identity, are forms of sex discrimination,” said Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign.
  • “So, we are expecting the administration to rescind their rule immediately,” he said. “If they don’t, we are prepared to continue to use all of our resources, including litigation, to sue them and make sure that the rule is never implemented,”

HHS declined to answer questions about the regulations in light of Monday’s ruling.

Federal adoption guidelines could also be affected by the court’s decision.

  • The Trump administration has been working on rules that would make it easier for adoption and foster agencies to refuse to work with same-sex couples. Those rules would also face lawsuits if and when they’re finalized.
  • The specific legal foundations at issue there are somewhat different, but now that the Supreme Court has said civil-rights law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual identity and gender identity, any policy allowing such discrimination is going to face a steeper climb in the courts.

The bottom line: It may take a while for some of these issues to work their way through the courts, but the Supreme Court’s ruling Monday will make many forms of LGBTQ discrimination harder to defend, and in the scheme of things, that will likely happen pretty quickly.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

White House goes quiet on coronavirus as outbreak spikes again across the U.S.

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Credibility, Crisis, Crisis Management, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Economy Reopening, Employee Benefits, Employee Furlough, Employee Hiring Freeze, Employee Layoffs, Employee Pay Cuts, Employee Protections, Expert, Expert Opinion, Health Policy, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Leadership Decentralized, Mortality, National Strategy, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Scientists, Social Distancing, Transparency, Trust, Truth • Leave a comment

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/10/white-house-stops-talking-about-coronavirus-309993?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Mnuchin%3A+More+Stimulus++Definitely++Needed&utm_campaign=TFT+Newsletter+06102020

White House goes quiet on coronavirus as outbreak spikes again ...

The coronavirus is still killing as many as 1,000 Americans per day — but the Trump administration isn’t saying much about it.

It’s been more than a month since the White House halted its daily coronavirus task force briefings. Top officials like infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci have largely disappeared from national television — with Fauci making just four cable TV appearances in May after being a near fixture on Sunday shows across March and April — and are frequently restricted from testifying before Congress. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump is preparing to resume his campaign rallies after a three-month hiatus, an attempted signal to voters that normalcy is returning ahead of November’s election, and that he’s all but put the pandemic behind him.

“We’ve made every decision correctly,” Trump claimed in remarks in the Rose Garden Friday morning. “We may have some embers or some ashes or we may have some flames coming, but we’ll put them out. We’ll stomp them out.”

Inside the White House, top advisers like Jared Kushner privately assured colleagues last month that the outbreak was well in hand — citing data on declines in community spread — and that the long-feared “second wave” may have even been averted, according to three current and former officials.

However, new data from states like Florida and mass protests across the country are renewing concerns about the virus’s spread. Texas, for instance, has reported two straight days of record-breaking coronavirus hospitalizations — highs that come shortly after the state kicked off the third stage of its reopening plan.

Those officials also acknowledge that the Covid-19 task force has scaled back its once-daily internal meetings — the task force now meets twice per week — but insist that the pandemic response remains a priority. One official with direct knowledge of the administration’s strategy cited efforts to scale up testing, accelerate the development of treatments and vaccines and perform other behind-the-scenes work to get ready for a potential fall surge.

“We’re delivering the supplies and resources that states asked for,” said the official. “This doesn’t need to be the public ‘coronavirus show’ every day anymore.”

“You can’t win,” said a senior administration official. “Some people complained for weeks that ‘we don’t want so much White House involvement,’ and that ‘the President should stop doing daily briefings,’ and then they turn around and complain that there aren’t enough or as many briefings.”

But the White House’s apparent eagerness to change the subject comes as new coronavirus clusters — centered around meatpacking plants, prisons and other facilities — drive spikes in disparate states like Utah and Arkansas. Meanwhile, states and major cities are lifting lockdowns and reopening their economies, prompting public health experts to fret that additional outbreaks are imminent. And several Democratic governors also have defied their own states’ social distancing restrictions to join mass protests over police brutality, where hundreds of thousands of Americans have spilled into the streets, further raising public health risks.

The fear is that all the mixed signals will only confuse people, stoke public skepticism over the health threat and promote the belief the worst is over just as the outbreak enters a dangerous new phase.

“Cases are rising, including from cases in congregate settings,” said Luciana Borio, who led pandemic preparedness for the National Security Council between 2017 and 2019. “We still have a pandemic.”

Nine current and former administration officials, as well as outside experts, further detailed how the White House is steadily ramping down the urgency to fight a threat that continues to sicken more than 100,000 Americans per week and is spiking in more than 20 states.

For instance, the administration in recent days told state health officials that it planned to reorganize its pandemic response, with HHS and its agencies taking over the bulk of the day-to-day responsibilities from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

“The acuity of the response is not what it was, so they’re trying to go back to a little more of a normal ongoing presence,” said Marcus Plescia, the chief medical officer of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.

The coronavirus task force, which used to send daily updates to state officials, has done so with less regularity over the last several weeks, Plescia said. And the CDC has restructured its daily conference calls with states, moving away from the practice of giving top-down briefings to encouraging state officials to offer updates on what they’re seeing in their parts of the country.

One current and one former FEMA official also said they’re keen to have HHS resume its leadership role in containing the coronavirus so FEMA can make contingencies for a summer of hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters.

“Given the likelihood that we will soon see both hurricanes and coronavirus, HHS should manage the ongoing pandemic response so FEMA can prepare for coming ‘coronacanes,’” Daniel Kaniewski, who served as the top deputy at FEMA through January, wrote last week. “But they need to act soon. Coronacanes are in the forecast.”

Meanwhile, officials in at least 19 states have recorded two-week trends of increasing coronavirus cases, including spikes of more than 200 percent in Arizona and more than 180 percent in Kentucky. Two months after the White House issued so-called gating criteria that it recommended states hit before resuming business and social activities, only a handful of states — like Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and South Dakota — currently meet all of those benchmarks, according to CovidExitStrategy.org.

Officials within Trump’s health department are strategizing over how to convey the current level of risk, given data that Americans have put off emergency care and other potential medical needs, fearful of contracting Covid-19. “Our message now is that people should start returning to their health care providers to get the screenings, vaccines, care, or emergency services that they need,” Laura Trueman, the HHS official in charge of external affairs, wrote in an office-wide email to colleagues and shared with external groups on June 3, which was obtained by POLITICO.

Dan Abel, a longtime Coast Guard vice admiral, also has been installed at HHS with a small team, where he’s coordinating daily Covid-19 calls with HHS Secretary Alex Azar and the department’s division leaders, according to four officials with knowledge of the calls — an arrangement that’s raised some questions.

“Why is a Coast Guard admiral leading meetings between the HHS secretary and his senior staff?” asked one senior official, suggesting it created an unnecessary layer of management.

Meanwhile, the department is steadily turning back to its many pre-Covid-19 priorities. At the Food and Drug Administration, officials are returning to hot-button issues like tobacco and CBD regulations. Some staff in the health department’s emergency response arm are pivoting away from Covid-19 and back toward natural disasters as hurricane season begins.

At the same time, the Centers for Disease Control — traditionally the beating heart of the nation’s infectious disease response — remains largely demoralized and often sidelined in fighting what CDC director Robert Redfield last week acknowledged as the nation’s biggest health challenge in more than a century, and one he said is “moving through our social consciousness, our outward expression, and our grief.” That grim message has conflicted with Trump’s frequent vows of victory over the coronavirus.

“We were able to close our country, save millions of lives, open,” Trump said in Friday’s Rose Garden remarks. “And now the trajectory is great.”

“I fully recognize the anguish our Nation is experiencing & am deeply saddened by the many lives lost to COVID19,” Redfield tweeted just minutes later. “I call upon the American people to remain vigilant in protecting the vulnerable – protect your community, grandparents and loved ones from COVID-19.”

Redfield and other top officials also have spent the past week reckoning with the implications of widespread protests over police brutality, from meeting with staff to discuss longstanding concerns about systemic racism in health care to acknowledging the probability that those protests will spark new outbreaks.

HHS also on Monday sent members of Congress a fact sheet on its response to racial disparities in Covid-19 care — a much scrutinized issue in public health, with African Americans contracting and dying from the virus at much higher rates.

But on Capitol Hill, watchdogs say that fact sheets don’t cut it, and they’re frustrated by the lack of access to experts and insight into how the administration is handling a historic pandemic.

“Some are acting like the battle has been won when in reality it’s just beginning,” said a senior Democratic staffer. “The White House still won’t let task force members testify at hearings in June even though they have disappeared from TV and it’s not clear how often they are meeting.”

Fauci, meanwhile, has continued to issue a string of dire warnings in his lower-profile media appearances and at an industry conference on Tuesday.

“We have something that turned out to be my worst nightmare,” Fauci said in virtual remarks aired at a conference of the biotech industry’s Washington trade group, recounting how quickly the virus spread around the globe, outpacing Ebola and HIV. “And it isn’t over yet.”

The White House has maintained that chief of staff Mark Meadows has needed to clear officials like Fauci to testify, so they can stay focused on other priorities, and a spokesperson insisted that Trump has still prioritized the coronavirus fight even as the White House shifts toward focusing on revitalizing the economy.

Several officials have suggested that the task force’s lower profile has been helpful for the response, especially because the daily Covid-19 press briefings were often hijacked by Trump’s meandering remarks or the day’s other political news.

“In some ways, it actually has been easier to get Covid-related work done,” said one HHS staffer who’s helped support the Covid-19 response. “The task force briefings and the prep sessions for them took up a lot of principals’ time, and staff would sometimes have to crash on putting together materials for them.”

But the white-hot spotlight on the coronavirus also brought urgency and intensity, and the increasingly scattered nature of the current response could present new challenges if there’s an uptick in cases.

“This is when a one-government approach is needed more now than ever,” said Howard Koh, who served as President Barack Obama’s HHS assistant secretary for health. “Get all those people together in one room every day at the highest level and track outcomes and address all the questions and try to maximize coordination as much as possible.”