Category Archives: Health Policy

How Many More Will Die From Fear of the Coronavirus?

Posted on by • Posted in Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Deferred Healthcare, Emergency Care, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Fear, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Mortality, Office Visit, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Physician, Preexisting Conditions, Preventable Disease, Preventative Care, Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Social Distancing, Telemedicine, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured, Unintended Consequences, Virtual Healthcare, Virtual Visit • Leave a comment

Fear of contracting the coronavirus has resulted in many people missing necessary screenings for serious illnesses, like cancer and heart disease.

Seriously ill people avoided hospitals and doctors’ offices. Patients need to return. It’s safe now.

More than 100,000 Americans have died from Covid-19. Beyond those deaths are other casualties of the pandemic — Americans seriously ill with other ailments who avoided care because they feared contracting the coronavirus at hospitals and clinics.

The toll from their deaths may be close to the toll from Covid-19. The trends are clear and concerning. Government orders to shelter in place and health care leaders’ decisions to defer nonessential care successfully prevented the spread of the virus. But these policies — complicated by the loss of employer-provided health insurance as people lost their jobs — have had the unintended effect of delaying care for some of our sickest patients.

To prevent further harm, people with serious, complex and acute illnesses must now return to the doctor for care.

Across the country, we have seen sizable decreases in new cancer diagnoses (45 percent) and reports of heart attacks (38 percent) and strokes (30 percent). Visits to hospital emergency departments are down by as much as 40 percent, but measures of how sick emergency department patients are have risen by 20 percent, according to a Mayo Clinic study, suggesting how harmful the delay can be. Meanwhile, non-Covid-19 out-of-hospital deaths have increased, while in-hospital mortality has declined.

These statistics demonstrate that people with cancer are missing necessary screenings, and those with heart attack or stroke symptoms are staying home during the precious window of time when the damage is reversible. In fact, a recent poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians and Morning Consult found that 80 percent of Americans say they are concerned about contracting the coronavirus from visiting the emergency room.

Unfortunately, we’ve witnessed grievous outcomes as a result of these delays. Recently, a middle-aged patient with abdominal pain waited five days to come to a Mayo Clinic emergency department for help, before dying of a bowel obstruction. Similarly, a young woman delayed care for weeks out of a fear of Covid-19 before she was transferred to a Cleveland Clinic intensive care unit with undiagnosed leukemia. She died within weeks of her symptoms appearing. Both deaths were preventable.

The true cost of this epidemic will not be measured in dollars; it will be measured in human lives and human suffering. In the case of cancer alone, our calculations show we can expect a quarter of a million additional preventable deaths annually if normal care does not resume. Outcomes will be similar for those who forgo treatment for heart attacks and strokes.

Over the past 12 weeks, hospitals deferred nonessential care to prevent viral spread, conserve much-needed personal protective equipment and create capacity for an expected surge of Covid-19 patients. During that time, we also have adopted methods to care for all patients safely, including standard daily screenings for the staff and masking protocols for patients and the staff in the hospital and clinic. At this point, we are gradually returning to normal activities while also mitigating risk for both patients and staff members.

The Covid-19 crisis has changed the practice of medicine in fundamental ways in just a matter of months. Telemedicine, for instance, allowed us to pivot quickly from in-person care to virtual care. We have continued to provide necessary care to our patients while promoting social distancing, reducing the risk of viral spread and recognizing patients’ fears.

Both Cleveland Clinic and Mayo Clinic have gone from providing thousands of virtual visits per month before the pandemic to hundreds of thousands now across a broad range of demographics and conditions. At Cleveland Clinic, 94 percent of diabetes patients were cared for virtually in April.

While virtual visits are here to stay, there are obvious limitations. There is no substitute for in-person care for those who are severely ill or require early interventions for life-threatening conditions. Those are the ones who — even in the midst of this pandemic — must seek the care they need.

Patients who need care at a clinic or hospital or doctor’s office should know they have reduced the risk of Covid-19 through proven infection-control precautions under guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We’re taking unprecedented actions, such as restricting visiting hours, screening patient and caregiver temperatures at entrances, encouraging employees to work from home whenever possible, providing spaces that allow for social distancing, and requiring proper hand hygiene, cough etiquette and masking.

All of these strategies are intended to significantly reduce risk while allowing for vital, high-quality care for our patients.

The novel coronavirus will not go away soon, but its systemic side effects of fear and deferred care must.

We will continue to give vigilant attention to Covid-19 while urgently addressing the other deadly diseases that haven’t taken a pause during the pandemic. For patients with medical conditions that require in-person care, please allow us to safely care for you — do not delay. Lives depend on it.

 

 

 

South Asia emerges as a new coronavirus hotspot

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Crisis, Economic Recovery, Economy Reopening, False Hope, Health Policy, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Leadership Decentralized, Mortality, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Social Distancing, Wishful Thinking • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/india-coronavirus-cases-south-asia-pakistan-5447da22-7418-43f7-a17a-d247b92e4205.html

Featured image

India opened up restaurants, shopping malls and places of worship today even as it recorded a record-high 9,971 new coronavirus cases, the third-most worldwide behind Brazil and the U.S.

Why it matters: Lockdowns are being lifted in South Asia — home to one-quarter of the world’s population — not because countries are winning the battle against COVID-19, but because they simply can’t sustain them any longer.

Flashback: For a time, South Asia was cited as a source of optimism because relatively few cases and deaths were being recorded despite large, dense populations.

  • Lockdowns came relatively early, with varying severity (India’s was considerably stricter than Pakistan’s, for example).
  • Outbreaks have continued to accelerate, however. Pakistan’s daily case count is now on par with the U.K.’s and six times Germany’s, adjusted for population.
Data: The Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins; Chart: Naema Ahmed/Axios
Data: The Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins; Chart: Naema Ahmed/Axios

Limited testing means South Asia’s outbreaks could actually be far more severe. India, for example, is testing at one-twentieth the rate of the U.S.

  • John Clemens, an epidemiologist at ICDDR,B (formerly the International Centre for Diarrheal Disease Research, Bangladesh), estimates that Bangladesh’s capital, Dhaka, may have up to 750,000 cases — 12 times the official tally, per the Economist.
  • The official numbers still show India, Pakistan and Bangladesh with the third-, seventh- and tenth-most new cases in the world over the past three days, respectively.

Bhramar Mukherjee, a professor at the University of Michigan who has been modeling India’s outbreak, tells Axios that while some states have hit initial peaks, she doesn’t expect a national peak until late July or August.

  • While the transmission rate has slowed, “you see this steady rise in cases because the population is so large.” She expects the numbers to fall slowly after the peak, unlike the trajectory in Europe.
  • The numbers can be unreliable, Mukherjee says, with some states fearing that testing symptomatic people will cause them to “look bad” as cases rise.
  • She also worries that India didn’t use the lockdown period to build up testing and hospital capacity.
  • “It’s really chaos unfolding in Mumbai and Delhi, and I think unfortunately India is going to be at the top of the list in terms of cases,” she says.

Zoom in: Mumbai has launched an app to help people locate hospitals with empty beds, but such is the scarcity that they’re often full by the time patients arrive, WSJ reports. Some die without ever receiving treatment.

  • Morgues are overfull t00. There are reports of patients being treated in rooms that also contain dead bodies.
  • Public hospitals in Delhi, home to 26 million people, are also reportedly full and turning people away.

The coronavirus likely arrived in Mumbai with wealthy people returning from abroad, before spreading among poorer people and to slums where social distancing is hardly an option.

  • That pattern has been seen elsewhere in the developing world, including in cities like Rio de Janeiro.
  • There’s an additional complication in India’s case, though. After initially failing to account for migrant workers when implementing the lockdown, the government started to transport them to their home villages on special busses and trains.
  • The virus traveled too. 71% of cases recorded in Bihar, a state in eastern India, have been linked to returning workers, Foreign Policy reports.

The bottom line: South Asian governments attempted to balance health and hunger, knowing they could only shut down their largely informal economies for so long.

  • But with health care systems already stretched and case counts continuing to rise, they’re opening up with more hope than confidence.

 

Hospitals Got Bailouts and Furloughed Thousands While Paying C.E.O.s Millions

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Balance Sheet, Cash, Cash Reserves, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Employee Benefits, Employee Furlough, Employee Hiring Freeze, Employee Layoffs, Employee Pay Cuts, Employee Protections, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Executive Compensation, Financially Distressed, For-Profit, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Job, Job Market, Job Search, Job Security, Labor Spend Management, Labor Union, Nurses, Nurses Union, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Supply Chain, The CARES Act, Worker Protection • Leave a comment

Hospitals Got Bailouts and Furloughed Thousands While Paying ...

Dozens of top recipients of government aid have laid off, furloughed or cut the pay of tens of thousands of employees.

HCA Healthcare is one of the world’s wealthiest hospital chains. It earned more than $7 billion in profits over the past two years. It is worth $36 billion. It paid its chief executive $26 million in 2019.

But as the coronavirus swept the country, employees at HCA repeatedly complained that the company was not providing adequate protective gear to nurses, medical technicians and cleaning staff. Last month, HCA executives warned that they would lay off thousands of nurses if they didn’t agree to wage freezes and other concessions.

A few weeks earlier, HCA had received about $1 billion in bailout funds from the federal government, part of an effort to stabilize hospitals during the pandemic.

HCA is among a long list of deep-pocketed health care companies that have received billions of dollars in taxpayer funds but are laying off or cutting the pay of tens of thousands of doctors, nurses and lower-paid workers. Many have continued to pay their top executives millions, although some executives have taken modest pay cuts.

The New York Times analyzed tax and securities filings by 60 of the country’s largest hospital chains, which have received a total of more than $15 billion in emergency funds through the economic stimulus package in the federal CARES Act.

The hospitals — including publicly traded juggernauts like HCA and Tenet Healthcare, elite nonprofits like the Mayo Clinic, and regional chains with thousands of beds and billions in cash — are collectively sitting on tens of billions of dollars of cash reserves that are supposed to help them weather an unanticipated storm. And together, they awarded the five highest-paid officials at each chain about $874 million in the most recent year for which they have disclosed their finances.

At least 36 of those hospital chains have laid off, furloughed or reduced the pay of employees as they try to save money during the pandemic.

Industry officials argue that furloughs and pay reductions allow hospitals to keep providing essential services at a time when the pandemic has gutted their revenue.

But more than a dozen workers at the wealthy hospitals said in interviews that their employers had put the heaviest financial burdens on front-line staff, including low-paid cafeteria workers, janitors and nursing assistants. They said pay cuts and furloughs made it even harder for members of the medical staff to do their jobs, forcing them to treat more patients in less time.

Even before the coronavirus swept America, forcing hospitals to stop providing lucrative nonessential surgery and other services, many smaller hospitals were on the financial brink. In March, lawmakers sought to address that with a vast federal economic stimulus package that included $175 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services to hand out in grants to hospitals.

But the formulas to determine how much money hospitals receive were based largely on their revenue, not their financial needs. As a result, hospitals serving wealthier patients have received far more funding than those that treat low-income patients, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

One of the bailout’s goals was to avoid job losses in health care, said Zack Cooper, an associate professor of health policy and economics at Yale University who is a critic of the formulas used to determine the payouts. “However, when you see hospitals laying off or furloughing staff, it’s pretty good evidence the way they designed the policy is not optimal,” he added.

The Mayo Clinic, with more than eight months of cash in reserve, received about $170 million in bailout funds, according to data compiled by Good Jobs First, which researches government subsidies of companies. The Mayo Clinic is furloughing or reducing the working hours of about 23,000 employees, according to a spokeswoman, who was among those who went on furlough. A second spokeswoman said that Mayo Clinic executives have had their pay cut.

Seven chains that together received more than $1.5 billion in bailout funds — Trinity Health, Beaumont Health and the Henry Ford Health System in Michigan; SSM Health and Mercy in St. Louis; Fairview Health in Minneapolis; and Prisma Health in South Carolina — have furloughed or laid off more than 30,000 workers, according to company officials and local news reports.

The bailout money, which hospitals received from the Health and Human Services Department without having to apply for it, came with few strings attached.

Katherine McKeogh, a department spokeswoman, said it “encourages providers to use these funds to maintain delivery capacity by paying and protecting doctors, nurses and other health care workers.” The legislation restricts hospitals’ ability to use the bailout funds to pay top executives, although it doesn’t stop recipients from continuing to award large bonuses.

The hospitals generally declined to comment on how much they are paying their top executives this year, although they have reported previous years’ compensation in public filings. But some hospitals furloughing front-line staff or cutting their salaries have trumpeted their top executives’ decisions to take voluntary pay cuts or to contribute portions of their salary to help their employees.

The for-profit hospital giant Tenet Healthcare, which has received $345 million in taxpayer assistance since April, has furloughed roughly 11,000 workers, citing the financial pressures from the pandemic. The company’s chief executive, Ron Rittenmeyer, told analysts in May that he would donate half of his salary for six months to a fund set up to assist those furloughed workers.

But Mr. Rittenmeyer’s salary last year was a small fraction of his $24 million pay package, which consists largely of stock options and bonuses, securities filings show. In total, he will wind up donating roughly $375,000 to the fund — equivalent to about 1.5 percent of his total pay last year.

A Tenet spokeswoman declined to comment on the precise figures.

The chief executive at HCA, Samuel Hazen, has donated two months of his salary to a fund to help HCA’s workers. Based on his pay last year, that donation would amount to about $237,000 — or less than 1 percent — of his $26 million compensation.

“The leadership cadre of these organizations are going to need to make sacrifices that are commensurate with the sacrifices of their work force, not token sacrifices,” said Jeff Goldsmith, the president of Health Futures, an industry consulting firm.

Many large nonprofit hospital chains also pay their senior executives well into the millions of dollars a year.

Dr. Rod Hochman, the chief executive of the Providence Health System, for instance, was paid more than $10 million in 2018, the most recent year for which records are available. Providence received at least $509 million in federal bailout funds.

A spokeswoman, Melissa Tizon, said Dr. Hochman would take a voluntary pay cut of 50 percent for the rest of 2020. But that applies only to his base salary, which in 2018 was less than 20 percent of his total compensation.

Some of Providence’s physicians and nurses have been told to prepare for pay cuts of at least 10 percent beginning in July. That includes employees treating coronavirus patients.

Stanford University’s health system collected more than $100 million in federal bailout grants, adding to its pile of $2.4 billion of cash that it can use for any purpose.

Stanford is temporarily cutting the hours of nursing staff, nursing assistants, janitorial workers and others at its two hospitals. Julie Greicius, a spokeswoman for Stanford, said the reduction in hours was intended “to keep everyone employed and our staff at full wages with benefits intact.”

Ms. Greicius said David Entwistle, the chief executive of Stanford’s health system, had the choice of reducing his pay by 20 percent or taking time off, and chose to reduce his working hours but “is maintaining his earning level by using paid time off.” In 2018, the latest year for which Stanford has disclosed his compensation, Mr. Entwistle earned about $2.8 million. Ms. Greicius said the majority of employees made the same choice as Mr. Entwistle.

HCA’s $1 billion in federal grants appears to make it the largest beneficiary of health care bailout funds. But its medical workers have a long list of complaints about what they see as penny-pinching practices.

Since the pandemic began, medical workers at 19 HCA hospitals have filed complaints with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration about the lack of respirator masks and being forced to reuse medical gowns, according to copies of the complaints reviewed by The Times.

Ed Fishbough, an HCA spokesman, said that despite a global shortage of masks and other protective gear, the company had “provided appropriate P.P.E., including a universal masking policy implemented in March requiring all staff in all areas to wear masks, including N95s, in line with C.D.C. guidance.”

Celia Yap-Banago, a nurse at an HCA hospital in Kansas City, Mo., died from the virus in April, a month after her colleagues complained to OSHA that she had to treat a patient without wearing protective gear. The next month, Rosa Luna, who cleaned patient rooms at HCA’s hospital in Riverside, Calif., also died of the virus; her colleagues had warned executives in emails that workers, especially those cleaning hospital rooms, weren’t provided proper masks.

Around the time of Ms. Luna’s death, HCA executives delivered a warning to officials at the Service Employees International Union and National Nurses United, which represent many HCA employees. The company would lay off up to 10 percent of their members, unless the unionized workers amended their contracts to incorporate wage freezes and the elimination of company contributions to workers’ retirement plans, among other concessions.

Nurses responded by staging protests in front of more than a dozen HCA hospitals.

“We don’t work in a jelly bean factory, where it’s OK if we make a blue jelly bean instead of a red one,” said Kathy Montanino, a nurse treating Covid-19 patients at HCA’s Riverside hospital. “We are dealing with people’s lives, and this company puts their profits over patients and their staff.”

Mr. Fishbough, the spokesman, said HCA “has not laid off or furloughed a single caregiver due to the pandemic.” He said the company had been paying medical workers 70 percent of their base pay, even if they were not working. Mr. Fishbough said that executives had taken pay cuts, but that the unions had refused to take similar steps.

“While we hope to continue to avoid layoffs, the unions’ decisions have made that more difficult for our facilities that are unionized,” he said. The dispute continues.

Apparently anticipating a strike, a unit of HCA recently created “a new line of business focused on staffing strike-related labor shortages,” according to an email that an HCA recruiter sent to nurses.

The email, reviewed by The Times, said nurses who joined the venture would earn more than they did in their current jobs: up to $980 per shift, plus a $150 “Show Up” bonus and a continental breakfast.

 

 

 

 

COVID-19 Can Last for Several Months

Posted on by • Posted in Asymptomatic Transmission, Coronavirus, Health Policy, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Mortality, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Social Distancing, World Health Organization (WHO) • Leave a comment

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/covid-19-coronavirus-longterm-symptoms-months/612679/

COVID-19 Can Last for Several Months - The Atlantic - Medium

The disease’s “long-haulers” have endured relentless waves of debilitating symptoms—and disbelief from doctors and friends.

For Vonny LeClerc, day one was March 16.

Hours after British Prime Minister Boris Johnson instated stringent social-distancing measures to halt the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, LeClerc, a Glasgow-based journalist, arrived home feeling shivery and flushed. Over the next few days, she developed a cough, chest pain, aching joints, and a prickling sensation on her skin. After a week of bed rest, she started improving. But on day 12, every old symptom returned, amplified and with reinforcements: She spiked an intermittent fever, lost her sense of taste and smell, and struggled to breathe.

When I spoke with LeClerc on day 66, she was still experiencing waves of symptoms. “Before this, I was a fit, healthy 32-year-old,” she said. “Now I’ve been reduced to not being able to stand up in the shower without feeling fatigued. I’ve tried going to the supermarket and I’m in bed for days afterwards. It’s like nothing I’ve ever experienced before.” Despite her best efforts, LeClerc has not been able to get a test, but “every doctor I’ve spoken to says there’s no shadow of a doubt that this has been COVID,” she said. Today is day 80.

COVID-19 has existed for less than six months, and it is easy to forget how little we know about it. The standard view is that a minority of infected people, who are typically elderly or have preexisting health problems, end up in critical care, requiring oxygen or a ventilator. About 80 percent of infections, according to the World Health Organization, “are mild or asymptomatic,” and patients recover after two weeks, on average. Yet support groups on Slack and Facebook host thousands of people like LeClerc, who say they have been wrestling with serious COVID-19 symptoms for at least a month, if not two or three. Some call themselves “long-termers” or “long-haulers.”

I interviewed nine of them for this story, all of whom share commonalities. Most have never been admitted to an ICU or gone on a ventilator, so their cases technically count as “mild.” But their lives have nonetheless been flattened by relentless and rolling waves of symptoms that make it hard to concentrate, exercise, or perform simple physical tasks. Most are young. Most were previously fit and healthy. “It is mild relative to dying in a hospital, but this virus has ruined my life,” LeClerc said. “Even reading a book is challenging and exhausting. What small joys other people are experiencing in lockdown—yoga, bread baking—are beyond the realms of possibility for me.”

Even though the world is consumed by concern over COVID-19, the long-haulers have been largely left out of the narrative and excluded from the figures that define the pandemic. I can pull up an online dashboard that reveals the numbers of confirmed cases, hospitalizations, deaths, and recoveries—but LeClerc falls into none of those categories. She and others are trapped in a statistical limbo, uncounted and thus overlooked.

Some have been diagnosed through tests, while others, like LeClerc, have been told by their doctors that they almost certainly have COVID-19. Still, many long-haulers have faced disbelief from friends and medical professionals because they don’t conform to the typical profile of the disease. People have questioned how they could possibly be so sick for so long, or whether they’re just stressed or anxious. “It feels like no one understands,” said Chloe Kaplan from Washington, D.C., who works in education and is on day 78. “I don’t think people are aware of the middle ground, where it knocks you off your feet for weeks, and you neither die nor have a mild case.”

The notion that most cases are mild and brief bolsters the belief that only the sick and elderly need isolate themselves, and that everyone else can get infected and be done with it. “It establishes a framework in which ‘not hiding’ from the disease looks a manageable and sensible undertaking,” writes Felicity Callard, a geographer at the University of Glasgow, who is on day 77. As the pandemic discourse turns to talk of a second wave, long-haulers who are still grappling with the consequences of the first wave are frustrated. “I’ve been very concerned by friends and family who just aren’t taking this seriously because they think you’re either asymptomatic or dead,” said Hannah Davis, an artist from New York City, who is on day 71. “This middle ground has been hellish.”

It “has been like nothing else on Earth,” said Paul Garner, who has previously endured dengue fever and malaria, and is currently on day 77 of COVID-19. Garner, an infectious-diseases professor at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, leads a renowned organization that reviews scientific evidence on preventing and treating infections. He tested negative on day 63. He had waited to get a COVID-19 test partly to preserve them for health-care workers, and partly because, at one point, he thought he was going to die. “I knew I had the disease; it couldn’t have been anything else,” he told me. I asked him why he thought his symptoms had persisted. “I honestly don’t know,” he said. “I don’t understand what’s happening in my body.”

On March 17, a day after LeClerc came down with her first symptoms, SARS-CoV-2 sent Fiona Lowenstein to the hospital. Nine days later, after she was discharged, she started a Slack support group for people struggling with the disease. The group, which is affiliated with a wellness organization founded by Lowenstein called Body Politic, has been a haven for long-haulers. One channel for people whose symptoms have lasted longer than 30 days has more than 3,700 members.

“The group was a savior for me,” said Gina Assaf, a design consultant in Washington, D.C., who is now on day 77. She and other members with expertise in research and survey design have now sampled 640 people from the Body Politic group and beyond. Their report is neither representative nor peer-reviewed, but it provides a valuable snapshot of the long-hauler experience.

Of those surveyed, about three in five are between the ages of 30 and 49. About 56 percent have not been hospitalized, while another 38 percent have visited the ER but were not admitted. About a quarter have tested positive for COVID-19 and almost half have never been tested at all. Some became sick in mid-March, when their home countries were severely short on tests. (Most survey respondents live in the U.S. and the U.K.) Others were denied testing because their symptoms didn’t match the standard set. Angela Meriquez Vázquez, a children’s activist in Los Angeles, had gastrointestinal problems and lost her sense of smell, but because she didn’t have a cough and her fever hadn’t topped 100 degrees Fahrenheit, she didn’t meet L.A.’s testing criteria. By the time those criteria were loosened, Vázquez was on day 14. She got a test, and it came back negative. (She is now on day 69.)

A quarter of respondents in the Body Politic survey have tested negative, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have COVID-19. Diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 miss infections up to 30 percent of the time, and these false negatives become more likely a week after a patient’s first symptoms appear. In the Body Politic survey, respondents with negative test results were tested a week after those with positive ones, on average, but the groups did not differ in their incidence of 60 different symptoms over time. Those matching patterns strongly suggest that those with negative tests are indeed dealing with the same disease. They also suggest that the true scope of the pandemic has been underestimated, not just because of the widespread lack of testing but because many people who are getting tested are receiving false negatives.

COVID-19 affects many different organs—that much is now clear. But in March, when many long-haulers were first falling sick with gut, heart, and brain problems, the disease was still regarded as a mainly respiratory one. To date, the only neurological symptom that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists in its COVID-19 description is a loss of taste or smell. But other neurological symptoms are common among the long-haulers who answered the Body Politic survey.

As many people reported “brain fogs” and concentration challenges as coughs or fevers. Some have experienced hallucinations, delirium, short-term memory loss, or strange vibrating sensations when they touch surfaces. Others are likely having problems with their sympathetic nervous system, which controls unconscious processes like heartbeats and breathing: They’ll be out of breath even when their oxygen level is normal, or experience what feel like heart attacks even though EKG readings and chest X-rays are clear. These symptoms wax, wane, and warp over time. “It really is a grab bag,” said Davis, who is a co-author of the Body Politic survey. “Every day you wake up and you might have a different symptom.”

It’s not clear why this happens. Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale, offers three possibilities. Long-haulers might still harbor infectious virus in some reservoir organ, which is missed by tests that use nasal swabs. Or persistent fragments of viral genes, though not infectious, may still be triggering a violent immune overreaction, as if “you’re reacting to a ghost of a virus,” Iwasaki says. More likely, the virus is gone but the immune system, having been provoked by it, is stuck in a lingering overactive state.

It’s hard to distinguish between these hypotheses, because SARS-CoV-2 is new and because the aftermath of viral infections is poorly understood. Many diseases cause long-lasting symptoms, but these might go unnoticed as trends unless epidemics are especially large. “Nearly every single person with Ebola has some long-term chronic complication, from subtle to obviously debilitating,” says Craig Spencer of the Columbia University Medical Center, who caught the virus himself in 2014. Some of those persistent problems had been noted during early Ebola outbreaks, but weren’t widely appreciated until 28,600 people were infected in West Africa from 2013 to 2016.

The sheer scale of the COVID-19 pandemic, which reached more than 6 million confirmed cases worldwide in a matter of months, means that long-haulers are now finding one another in sufficient numbers to shape their own narrative.

As the pandemic continues, long-haulers are navigating a landscape of uncertainty and fear with a map whose landmarks don’t reflect their surroundings. If your symptoms last for longer than two weeks, for how long should you expect to be sick? If they differ from the official list, how do you know which ones are important? “I’m acutely aware of my body at all times of the day,” LeClerc told me. “It shrinks your entire world to an almost reptilian response to your surroundings.”

If you’re still symptomatic, could you conceivably infect someone else if you leave your home? Garner, the infectious disease expert, is confident that this far out, he’s not shedding live virus anymore. But Meg Hamilton, who is a nursing student in Odenton, Maryland—and, full disclosure, my sister-in-law—said that her local health department considered her to be contagious as long as she had a fever; she is on day 56, and has only had a few normal temperature readings. Davis said that she and her partner, who live in different apartments, talked through the risks and decided to reunite on day 59. Until then, she had been dealing with two months of COVID-19 alone.

The isolation of the pandemic has been hard enough for many healthy people. But it has exacerbated the foggy minds, intense fatigue, and perpetual fear of erratic symptoms that long-haulers are also dealing with. “It plays with your head, man,” Garner said. Some feel guilt over being incapacitated even though their cases are “mild.” Some start doubting or blaming themselves. In her fourth week of fever, Hamilton began obsessively worrying that she had been using her thermometer incorrectly. “I also felt like I wasn’t being mentally strong enough, and by allowing myself to say that I don’t feel good, I was prolonging the fever,” she said.

Then there’s the matter of who to tell—and when. At first, Hamilton kept the news from her parents. She didn’t want them to worry, and she assumed she’d be better in two weeks. But as two weeks became three, then four, then five, the omission started feeling like an outright lie. Her concern that they would be worried morphed into concern that they would be mad. (She finally told them last week; they took it well.)

Other long-haulers have been frustrated by their friends’ and families’ inability to process a prolonged illness. “People know how to react to you having it or to you getting better,” LeClerc said. But when symptoms are rolling instead of abating, “people don’t have a response they can reach for.” They ask if she’s improving, in expectation that the answer is yes. When the answer is instead a list of ever-changing symptoms, they stop asking. Others pivot to disbelief. “I’ve had messages saying this is all in your head, or it’s anxiety,” LeClerc said.

Many such messages come from doctors and nurses. Davis described her memory loss and brain fog to a neurologist, who told her she had ADHD. “You feel really scared: These are people you’re trying to get serious help from, and they don’t even understand your reality,” she said. Vázquez said her physicians repeatedly told her she was just having panic attacks—but she knows herself well enough to discount that. “My anxiety is thought-based,” but with COVID-19, “the physical symptoms happen first,” she said.

Athena Akrami, a neuroscience professor at University College London, said two doctors suggested that she was stressed, while a fellow neuroscientist told her to calm down and take antidepressants. “I’m a very calm person, and something is wrong in my body,” said Akrami, who is now on day 79, and is also a co-author on the Body Politic survey. “As a scientist, I understand there are so many unknowns about the virus, but as a patient, I need acknowledgment.” Every day, Akrami said, “is like being in a tunnel.”

To be sure, many health-care workers are also exhausted, having spent several months fighting a new disease that they barely understand, without enough masks and other protective supplies. But well before the pandemic, the health-care profession had a long history of medical gaslighting—downplaying a patient’s physical suffering as being all in their head, or caused by stress or anxiety. Such dismissals particularly affect women, who are “less likely to be perceived as credible witnesses to our own experiences,” said LeClerc. And they’re especially common when women have subjective symptoms like pain or fatigue, as most long-haulers do. When Garner wrote about those same symptoms for the British Medical Journal’s blog, “I had an unbelievable feeling of relief,” Callard, the geographer, told me. “Since he’s a guy and a professor of infectious disease, he has the kind of epistemic authority that will be harder to discount.”

Garner’s descriptions of his illness are similar to those of many long-haulers who have been taken less seriously. “It wasn’t like he wrote those posts in some arcane language that’s steeped in authority,” said Sarah Ramey, a musician and author in Washington, D.C. “If you took his words, put my name on them, and put them up on Medium, people would say, ‘Ugh, who is this person and what is she talking about?’”

Ramey can empathize with long-haulers. In her memoir, The Lady’s Handbook for Her Mysterious Illness, she writes about her 17-year ordeal of excruciating pain, crushing fatigue, gastro-catastrophes, and medical gaslighting. “Being isolated and homebound, incredible economic insecurity, the government not doing enough, testing not being up to snuff—all of that is the lived experience of someone like me for decades,” she says. “The illness itself is horrible and ravaging, but being told you’ve made it up, over and over again, is by far the worst of it.”

Formally, Ramey has myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and complex regional pain syndrome. Informally, she’s part of a group she has dubbed WOMIs—women with mysterious illnesses. Such conditions include ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. They disproportionately affect women; have unclear causes, complex but debilitating symptoms, and no treatments; and are hard to diagnose and easy to dismiss. According to the Institute of Medicine, 836,000 to 2.5 million people in the U.S. alone have ME/CFS. Between 84 and 91 percent are undiagnosed.

That clusters of ME/CFS have followed many infectious outbreaks is noteworthy. In such events, some people get better quickly, others are sick for longer with postviral fatigue, and still others are suffering months or years later. In one Australian study, 11 percent of people infected with Ross River virus, Epstein-Barr virus, or the bacterium behind Q fever were diagnosed with ME/CFS after six months. In a study of 233 Hong Kong residents who survived the SARS epidemic of 2003, about 40 percent had chronic-fatigue problems after three years or so, and 27 percent met the CDC’s criteria for ME/CFS. Many different acute pathogens seem to trigger the same inflammatory responses that culminate in the same chronic endgame. Many individuals in this community are worried about COVID-19, according to Ramey: “You’ve got this highly infectious virus sweeping around the world, and it would be unusual if you didn’t see a big uptick in ME/CFS cases.”

ME/CFS is typically diagnosed when symptoms persist for six months or more, and the new coronavirus has barely been infecting humans for that long. Still, many of the long-haulers’ symptoms “sound exactly like those that patients in our community experience,” says Jennifer Brea, the executive director of the advocacy group #MEAction.

LeClerc, Akrami, and others have noted that their symptoms reappear when they try to regain a measure of agency by cleaning, working out, or even doing yoga. This is post-exertional malaise—the defining feature of ME/CFS. It’s a severe multi-organ crash that follows activity as light as a short walk. It’s also distinct from mere exhaustion: You can’t just push through it, and you’ll feel much worse if you try. The ME/CFS community has learned that resting as much as possible in the early months of postviral fatigue is crucial. Garner learned that lesson the hard way. After writing that “my disease has lifted,” he did a high-intensity workout, and was bedridden for three days. He is now reading literature about ME/CFS and listening to his sister, who has had the disease. “We have much to learn from that community,” he says.

The symptoms of ME/CFS have long been trivialized; its patients disbelieved; its researchers underfunded. The condition is especially underdiagnosed among black and brown communities, who are also disproportionately likely to be infected and killed by COVID-19. If the pandemic creates a large population of people who have symptoms that are similar to those of ME/CFS, it might trigger research into this and other overlooked diseases. Several teams of scientists are already planning studies of COVID-19 patients to see if any become ME/CFS patients—and why. Brea says she would welcome such a development. But she also feels “a lot of grief for people who may have to walk that path, [and] grief for the time we could have spent over the last four decades researching this so we’d have a better understanding of how to treat patients now.”

Some long-haulers will get better. The Body Politic Slack support group has a victories channel, where people post about promising moments on the road to recovery. Such stories were scarce last month, but more have appeared in the past weeks. The celebrations are always tentative, though. Good days are intermingled with terrible ones. “It’s a reverse-circling of the drain,” Vázquez said. “It has gotten better, but I track that trajectory in weeks, not days.” The COVID-19 dashboard from Johns Hopkins shows that about 2.7 million people around the world have “recovered” from the disease. But recovery is not a simple matter of flipping a switch. For some, it will take more time than the entire duration of the pandemic thus far.

Some survivors will have scar tissue from the coronavirus’s assault on their lungs. Some will still be weak after lengthy stays in ICUs or on ventilators. Some will eventually be diagnosed with ME/CFS. Whatever the case, as the pandemic progresses, the number of people with medium-to-long-term disabilities will increase. “Some science fiction—and more than a few tech bros—have led us to believe in a nondisabled future,” says Ashley Shew of Virginia Tech, who studies the intersection between technology and disability. “But whether through environmental catastrophe, or new viruses, we can expect more, exacerbated, and new disabilities.”

In the early 1950s, polio permanently disabled tens of thousands of people in the U.S. every year, most of whom were children or teenagers who “saw their futures as able and healthy,” Shew says. In the ’60s and ’70s, those survivors became pioneers of the disability-rights movement in the U.S.

Perhaps COVID-19 will similarly galvanize an even larger survivor cohort. Perhaps, collectively, they can push for a better understanding of neglected chronic diseases, and an acceptance of truths that the existing disability community have long known. That health and sickness are not binary. That medicine is as much about listening to patients’ subjective experiences as it is about analyzing their organs. That being a survivor is something you must also survive.

 

Shutdowns prevented 60 million coronavirus infections in the U.S., study finds

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/06/08/shutdowns-prevented-60-million-coronavirus-infections-us-study-finds/?fbclid=IwAR3J402h_abt63p-JDNEEBrNwrZ_nRjQza8OKxtV9xmtt4n5Oky-droY_-c&utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

Shutdowns prevented 60 million coronavirus infections in the U.S. ...

Shutdown orders prevented about 60 million novel coronavirus infections in the United States and 285 million in China, according to a research study published Monday that examined how stay-at-home orders and other restrictions limited the spread of the contagion.

A separate study from epidemiologists at Imperial College London estimated the shutdowns saved about 3.1 million lives in 11 European countries, including 500,000 in the United Kingdom, and dropped infection rates by an average of 82 percent, sufficient to drive the contagion well below epidemic levels.

The two reports, published simultaneously Monday in the journal Nature, used completely different methods to reach similar conclusions. They suggest that the aggressive and unprecedented shutdowns, which caused massive economic disruptions and job losses, were effective at halting the exponential spread of the novel coronavirus.

“Without these policies employed, we would have lived through a very different April and May,” said Solomon Hsiang, director of the Global Policy Laboratory at the University of California at Berkeley, and the leader of the research team that surveyed how six countries — China, the United States, France, Italy, Iran and South Korea — responded to the pandemic.

He called the global response to covid-19, the disease caused by the virus, “an extraordinary moment in human history when the world had to come together,” and said the shutdowns and other mitigation measures resulted in “saving more lives in a shorter period of time than ever before.”

The two reports on the effectiveness of the shutdowns come with a clear warning that the pandemic, even if in retreat in some of the places hardest hit, is far from over. The overwhelming majority of people remain susceptible to the virus. Only about 3 percent to 4 percent of people in the countries being studied have been infected to date, said Samir Bhatt, senior author of the Imperial College London study.

“This is just the beginning of the epidemic: we’re very far from herd immunity,” Bhatt said Monday in an email. “The risk of a second wave happening if all interventions and precautions are abandoned is very real.”

In a teleconference with reporters later, Bhatt said economic activity could return to some degree so long as some interventions to limit viral spread remain in place: “We’re not saying the country needs to stay locked down forever.”

The Berkeley study used an “econometric” model to estimate how 1,717 interventions, such as stay-at-home orders, business closings and travel bans, altered the spread of the virus. The researchers looked at infection rates before and after the interventions were imposed. Some of these interventions were local, and some regional or national. The researchers concluded that the six countries collectively managed to avert 62 million test-confirmed infections.

Because most people who are infected never get tested, the actual number of infections that were averted is much higher — about 530 million in the six countries, the Berkeley researchers estimated.

Timing is crucial, the Berkeley study found. Small delays in implementing shutdowns can lead to “dramatically different health outcomes.” The report, while reviewing what worked and what made little difference, is clearly aimed at the many countries still early in their battle against the coronavirus.

“Societies around the world are weighing whether the health benefits of anti-contagion policies are worth their social and economic costs,” the Berkeley team wrote. The economic costs of shutdowns are highly visible — closed stores, huge job losses, empty streets, food lines. The health benefits of the shutdowns, however, are invisible, because they involve “infections that never occurred and deaths that did not happen,” Hsiang said.

That spurred the researchers to come up with their estimates of infections prevented. The Berkeley team did not produce an estimate of lives saved.

One striking finding: School closures did not show a significant effect, although the authors cautioned that their research on this was not conclusive and the effectiveness of school closures requires further study. Banning large gatherings had more of an effect in Iran and Italy than in the other countries.

In discussing their findings Monday with reporters in the teleconference, leaders of the two research teams said challenges exist in crafting their models and thus there are uncertainties in the final estimates.

Bhatt, for example, said the model used by his team is highly sensitive to assumptions about the infection fatality rate, estimates for which have varied among researchers and from one country to another. He said his team was heartened to see that its estimates for the number of people infected so far is generally consistent with antibody surveys that attempt to calculate the attack rate of the virus.

Ian Bolliger, one of the Berkeley researchers, acknowledged the difficulty in obtaining reliable numbers for coronavirus infections given the haphazard pattern of testing for the virus. Both research teams said the peer review process had made their findings more robust.

 

 

 

 

How the CDC “missed its moment”

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Health Policy, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Leadership Decentralized, Mortality, National Strategy, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Social Distancing • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/9f24c0f1da9a/the-weekly-gist-june-5-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

CDC releases new guidance for colleges on reducing coronavirus spread

If, like us, you’ve been wondering exactly why the CDC always seems to be a step behind in responding to the pandemic, a new, in-depth New York Times piece helps elucidate the myriad challenges—structural, cultural and political—that led to the agency’s flawed response.

Given the CDC’s history, it should have been the world’s “undisputed leader” in the pandemic response. But its early reticence to absorb lessons from other countries, combined with flawed testing, slowed down responses across the nation. While much has been made of political machinations within the Trump administration, a deep-rooted bureaucratic and exacting culture left the CDC ill-suited to respond to a crisis of this scale, requiring improvisation and rapid adaptation.

Career scientists and epidemiologists clashed with CDC leader Dr. Robert Redfield, who was eclipsed by Drs. Tony Fauci and Deborah Birx in public communication. But even if it were firing on all cylinders, the CDC is only one of the many parts of government at the table for what should have been a coordinated, all-government response.

Whether led by the CDC or another entity, the pandemic response has highlighted the need for a massive overhaul of the nation’s public health system, so that future challenges—both COVID-related and beyond—are met with a rapid and coordinated response.

 

 

 

 

The patients stayed away—will they come back?

Posted on by • Posted in Clinical Testing, Communication, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Emergency Care, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Fear, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Marketing, Mortality, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Social Distancing, Trust, Urgent Care • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/9f24c0f1da9a/the-weekly-gist-june-5-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

Emergency Department Patient Resources

A new analysis from the CDC this week confirmed what we have been hearing anecdotally from health systems for several weeks—as the coronavirus lockdown took hold, there was a precipitous drop in visits to hospital emergency departments. According to the study, visits were down by 42 percent in the month of April compared to the previous year, and despite a rebound in May, were still 26 percent lower than a year ago. Visits in the Northeast dropped the most, as did those among women, and children under 14.

Although visits for minor ailments and symptoms declined the most, even more disconcerting was the drop in visits for chest pain, echoing the concern we’ve heard in many parts of the country that many patients may have suffered minor heart attacks without being treated, or may have waited to be seen until significant damage had been done.

As non-emergent visits have begun to return to many facilities, we continue to hear that emergency department and urgent care volume remains relatively low.

Survey data indicate that patients are fearful of becoming infected with coronavirus if they visit healthcare facilities—especially, it seems, ones where they’ll be forced to wait.

While many providers are investing in messaging campaigns to assure patients it’s safe to return, this nightmarish first-person account by one healthcare insider provides a useful cautionary tale.

Visiting a surgeon for a pre-op consult, she found the experience of visiting a COVID-era hospital downright dystopian. Simply touting safety precautions by itself won’t make patients more comfortable—they’ll need to see and feel that measures are in place to make time spent in a care setting as efficient and reassuring as possible. Otherwise, like the insider in question, they’ll take their business elsewhere. There’s work to be done.

 

Hospitals Emptied Out by Pandemic Push for Patients to Return

Posted on by • Posted in Co-Morbidities, Consumerism, Coronavirus, Deferred Healthcare, Distrust, Elective Procedures, Elective Surgery, Emergency Care, Fear, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Mortality, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Social Distancing • Leave a comment

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-04/dear-patient-we-want-you-back-for-that-knee-replacement

Empty Emergency Rooms Worry Doctors as Heart Attack, Stroke ...

After months of lock down, hospitals are eager to get patients back for routine care and elective procedures.

An executive at a Palm Beach hospital stands between a box of surgical masks and a Purell dispenser.

“We understand you haven’t been inside our hospitals for some time,” she says to the camera. The executive is delivering her line for a promotional video intended to get people back to hospitals after almost three months of avoiding the place at all costs. 

Moments later, the film crew records her chatting with a vascular surgeon in an idled operating room, who soothingly reassures that  a hospital is the cleanest place to be outside your home. “The hospital is safer than the grocery store,” the doctor says.

The video published on YouTube in mid-May is part of a marketing campaign by Tenet Healthcare, which operates 65 hospitals and about 250 ambulatory surgery centers. It’s one attempt to solve a problem the entire health-care industry faces: Most patients vanished when Covid-19 swept the country.

Billions in Losses

Much of routine health care came to a halt in March as hospitals cleared space for an expected wave of Covid-19 patients and authorities ordered a halt to surgeries and other procedures that could be postponed. The decline in volume has clobbered hospital finances, with the industry estimating it is losing $50 billion a month.

Emergency visits dropped by 42% in four weeks in April compared to the same period last year, the Centers for Disease Control reported June 3. The number of U.S. patients getting hospital care dropped by more than half in late March and early April compared to 2019, according to data from Strata Decision Technology, which provides software to hospitals.

Some of that rebounded modestly in May as distancing rules eased, but hospital volume is nowhere near pre-Covid levels. With the pandemic ongoing and many states still confirming hundreds of new cases daily, patients are hesitating to rush back to hospitals.

“The main thing that really is a gating factor at this point is patient comfort,” Tenet President and Chief Operating Officer Saumya Sutaria said at a recent virtual conference with investors. Tenet declined interview requests.

Free Masks

To counter the public’s fears, hospitals publicize what they’re doing to keep patients safe. They’re handing out masks at the door and spacing out chairs in waiting rooms. They’re steering Covid-19 patients to dedicated sites and testing staff regularly.

Hospitals need to show patients that their facilities are safe. At Catholic hospital chain Trinity Health, that includes moving patients through “Covid-free” zones with separate doors, elevators and waiting areas.

“We can put all of the outreach and marketing in place, but it’s only as effective as the people who execute those strategies,” said Julie Spencer Washington, Trinity’s chief marketing and communications officer.

The question for the entire industry is how quickly patients come back. The answer will depend on a constellation of related variables, including how reluctant people are to resume care, and the course of the pandemic. Future surges could force hospitals to shut down regular care again — and spook patients further.

Hospitals and doctors are going to have to do as much as they can as fast as they can until they can’t anymore,” said Lisa Bielamowicz, co-founder of consultancy Gist Healthcare.

Many patients, on the other hand, are in no rush. “They’re waiting and watching rather than pulling the trigger and going to see the doctor like they would have in the past,” Bielamowicz said.

The calculation for the health-care industry is different than for many other service businesses resuming operations. A hospital procedure or even a check-up is more intimate than a meal out.

For procedures that require in-patient rehab stints for recovery, the havoc Covid-19 has brought to nursing homes adds another layer of concern. “Those places seem like deathtraps now, so it’s much harder to bring back those patients because you need to find an alternative way for them to rehab,” Bielamowicz said.

And the biggest consumers of health care are the elderly and the chronically ill, the very people Covid-19 most threatens. “From personal discussions with my patients, the older and more co-morbidities that any individual has, the more nervous they are about returning,” said Shauna Gulley, chief clinical officer at Centura Health, which has hospitals in Colorado and Kansas.

Patients with serious ongoing needs like cancer treatment or emergencies like heart attacks and strokes have continued to get care. And many medical problems resolve on their own. The decline in those visits – for a migraine headache, for example – reduces providers’ revenue but may not harm patients in the long-term.

While people often go to the emergency room for needs better treated in other settings, now the concern is the opposite: That true medical emergencies will be neglected.

Ascension, the nation’s largest Catholic hospital chain, has purchased billboards that say “Don’t delay ER care.” On hospital websites and social media posts, Tenet facilities reminded patients that “Emergencies Can’t wait. We’re Open & Safe.”

Deferred Care

Doctors fear that some patients will defer needed care too long, allowing progressive conditions to deteriorate. Clinicians at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, have seen patients arrive sicker because they didn’t come earlier, said Ken Gibbs, the hospital’s CEO.

“There are unmet needs, I think that’s clear,” he said. “And I think the data on that will emerge, but it will take time.”

Maimonides treated 471 Covid patients at the peak on April 9, Gibbs said, and still had about 100 in late May. The hospital has applied for a waiver from New York State to resume elective surgeries, which are still on hold in New York City.

Some hospitals are preparing for a lasting dent in their revenue. For years, health economists have pointed to waste in the health-care system, with the estimated cost of unnecessary treatments in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Covid-19 may demonstrate that patients are willing to forego some of that care or opt for more conservative treatment.

People who had delayed back surgeries, for example, may now decide that doing physical therapy at home is good enough, said Marvin O’Quinn, president and chief operating officer at CommonSpirit Health, a large Catholic hospital system.

“We’ve all talked about too much intervention in health care in the past,” he said. “I think we’ll see a new normal in terms of what patients want to do and what doctors want to do, and we will have to adjust to that.”

 

 

 

 

Identifying “triple-threat” counties at higher risk of COVID outbreaks

Posted on by • Posted in Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Correctional Facilities, Crisis, Crisis Management, Health Policy, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Meatpacking Plants, Mortality, Nursing Home, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Social Determinants of Health, Social Distancing, Superspreader Facilities • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/9f24c0f1da9a/the-weekly-gist-june-5-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

“Superspreader facilities”—nursing homes, correctional facilities, and meatpacking plants—have become major COVID hotspots across the US. Many counties are dealing with a large outbreak in one type of tightly-packed facility or another.

Case in point: the outbreak at Cook County Jail in Chicago, which now accounts for a whopping 15.7 percent of all COVID cases in the state of Illinois. Some places, like Colorado’s Weld County, are managing outbreaks across all three types of superspreader facilities.

The graphic above highlights the nearly 260 counties that we’ve termed “triple-threat counties”: those which have all three types of superspreader facilities. The counties are mapped using our Gist Healthcare COVID-19 Risk Factor Index, which identifies particularly vulnerable populations using chronic disease, demographic, and acute care access variables.

The top 10 “triple-threat counties” by risk index score are all in more rural areas of the country with limited acute care access and more vulnerable populations—places where a COVID outbreak is likely to be particularly devastating. Seven of the 10 have a high percentage of African-American or Hispanic/Latino residents, groups with a an outsized burden of COVID-19 illness and death. These risk factors are intersectional; for example, food processing plants employ twice as many Hispanic workers as the national average, and a disproportionate share of long-term care workers are black.

[Click here for more information and interactive data from our analysis of the risk impact of these superspreader facilities.]

 

 

 

 

66% of counties with most COVID-19 cases lack infectious disease physician

Posted on by • Posted in Access, Access & Quality of Healthcare, Coronavirus, Health Policy, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Disease Physician, Infectious Virus, Physician, Public Health, Telemedicine • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/infection-control/66-of-counties-with-most-covid-19-cases-lack-infectious-disease-physician.html?utm_medium=email

About 208 million Americans are living in counties with no or very few infectious disease physicians, and many of these areas have been hit hardest by COVID-19, according to a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Researchers determined the density of infectious disease physicians in every U.S. county using 2017 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data. They also used aggregated data from the CDC and local public health agencies to plot the rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases in each county as of May 12.

Four study findings:

1. Of the 3,142 total counties in the U.S., 79.5 percent did not have a single infectious disease physician.

2. Among 785 counties with the highest burden of COVID-19 cases, 66 percent did not have an infectious disease physician working in the county.

3. About 9.9 percent of counties had an infectious disease physician density below the national average of 1.76 physicians per 100,000 population.

4. Only 10.5 percent of counties had an infectious disease physician density above the national average.

“The deficits in our [infectious disease] physician workforce today have left us poorly prepared for the unprecedented demand ahead,” study authors said, highlighting telemedicine as a key strategy for expanding access to this speciality.

To view the full study, click here.