Why thousands cheered a tragedy: unpacking America’s healthcare anguish

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-thousands-cheered-tragedy-unpacking-americas-robert-pearl-m-d–apdhc/

The murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024 represented a horrific and indefensible act of violence. As a physician and healthcare leader, I initially declined to comment on the killing. I felt that speculating about the shooter’s intent would only sensationalize a terrible act.

Regardless of the circumstances, vigilante violence has no place in a free and just society.

Now, more than a month later, I feel compelled to address one aspect of the story that has been widely misunderstood: the public’s reaction to the news of Thompson’s murder. Specifically, why tens of thousands of individuals “liked” and “laughed” at a post on Facebook announcing the CEO’s death.

What causes someone to ‘like’ murder?

News analysts have attributed the social media response to America’s “simmering anger” and “frustration” with a broken healthcare system, pointing to rising medical costs, insurance red tape and time-consuming prior authorization requirements as justifications.

These are all, indeed, problems and may explain some of public’s reaction. Yet these descriptions grossly understate the lived reality for most of those affected. When I speak with individuals who have lost a child, parent or spouse because of what they perceive as an unresponsive and uncaring system, their pain is raw, intense. What they feel isn’t frustration—it’s agony.

By framing healthcare’s failures in terms of statistical measures and policy snafus, we reduce a deeply personal crisis to an intellectual exercise. And it’s this very detached, cognitive approach that has allowed our nation to disregard the emotional devastation endured by millions of patients and their families.

When journalists, healthcare leaders and policymakers cite eye-popping statistics on healthcare expenditures, highlight exorbitant insurer profits or deride the bloated salaries of executives, they leave out a vital part of the story. They omit the unbearable human suffering behind the numbers. And I fear that until we approach healthcare as a moral crisis—not merely an economic or political puzzle to solve—our nation will never act with the urgency required to relieve people’s profound pain.

A pain beyond reason

In Dante’s Inferno, hell is a place where suffering is eternal and the cries of the damned go unheard. For countless Americans who feel trapped in our healthcare system, that metaphor rings true. Their anguish and pleas for mercy are met with silence.

It is this sense of abandonment and powerlessness, not mere frustration, that fuels both a desperate rage and an anger at a system and its leaders who appear not to care. The response isn’t one of glee—it’s a visceral reaction born of pain and unrelenting remorse.

As a clinician, I’ve seen life-destroying pain in my patients—and even within my own family. When my cousin Alan died in his twenties from a then-incurable cancer, my aunt and uncle were powerless to save him. Their grief was profound, unrelenting and eternal. They never recovered from the loss. But Alan’s death, heartbreaking as it was, stemmed from the limits of science at the time.

What millions of Americans endure today is different. Their loved ones die not because cures don’t exist but because the healthcare system treats them like a number. Bureaucratic inefficiencies, profit-driven delays and systemic indifference produce avoidable tragedies.

To appreciate this depth of pain, imagine standing behind a chain-link fence, watching someone you love being tortured. You scream and plead for help, but no one listens. That is what healthcare feels like for too many Americans. And until all of us acknowledge and feel their pain, little will improve.

Curing America’s indifference

When we focus solely on cold numbers—the millions who’ve lost Medicaid coverage, the hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths each year, or the life-expectancy gap between the U.S. and other nations—we strip healthcare of its humanity.

But once we stop framing these failures as bureaucratic inefficiencies or frustrations and, instead, focus on the devastation of having to watch a loved one suffer and die needlessly, we are forced to confront a moral imperative. Either we must act with urgency and resolve the problem or admit we simply don’t care.

In the halls of Congress, lawmakers continue to weigh modest reforms to prior authorization requirements and Medicaid spending—baby steps that won’t fix a system in crisis. The truth is that without bold, transformative action, healthcare will remain unaffordable and inaccessible for millions of families whose anguish will grow.

Here are three examples of the scale of transformation required:

  1. Reverse the obesity epidemic with a two-part strategy. Congress will need to tax ultra-processed, sugary foods that drive hundreds of billions of dollars in healthcare costs each year. In parallel, lawmakers should cap the manufacturer-set price of weight-loss medications like Ozempic and Wegovy to be no higher than in peer nations.
  2. Change clinician payments from volume to value. Current fee-for-service payment systems incentivize unnecessary tests, treatments and procedures rather than better health outcomes. Transitioning to pay-for-value would reward healthcare providers, and specifically primary care physicians, who successfully prevent chronic diseases, better manage existing conditions, and reduce complications such as heart attacks, strokes and kidney failure.
  3. Empower patients and save lives with generative AI. Tools like ChatGPT can help reduce the staggering 400,000 annual deaths from misdiagnoses and 250,000 more from preventable medical errors. By integrating AI into healthcare, we can enable at-home care, continuous disease monitoring and personalized treatment, making medical care safer, more accessible and more efficient.

If elected officials, payers and regulators fail to act, they will have chosen to perpetuate the unbearable pain and suffering patients and families endure daily. They need to hear the cries of people. The time for transformative action is now.

Ryder Cup Lessons for Team USA Healthcare

Saturday, Congress voted overwhelming (House 335-91, Senate 88-9) to keep the government funded until Nov. 17 at 2023 levels. No surprise.  Congress is supposed to pass all 12 appropriations bills before the start of each fiscal year but has done that 4 times since 1970—the last in 1997. So, while this chess game plays out, the health system will soldier on against growing recognition it needs fixing.

In Wednesday night’s debate, GOP Presidential aspirant Nicki Haley was asked what she would do to address the spike in personal bankruptcies due to medical debt. Her reply:

“We will break all of it [down], from the insurance company, to the hospitals, to the doctors’ offices, to the PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers], to the pharmaceutical companies. We will make it all transparent because when you do that, you will realize that’s what the problem is…we need to bring competition back into the healthcare space by eliminating certificate of need systems… Once we give the patient the ability to decide their healthcare, deciding which plan they want, that is when we will see magic happen, but we’re going to have to make every part of the industry open up and show us where their warts are because they all have them”

It’s a sentiment widely held across partisan aisles and in varied degrees among taxpayers, employers and beyond. It’s a system flaw and each sector is complicit.

What seems improbable is a solution that rises above the politics of healthcare where who wins and loses is more important than the solutions themselves.

Perhaps as improbable as the European team’s dominating performance in the 44th Ryder Cup Championship played in Rome last week especially given pre-tournament hype about the US team.

While in Rome last week, I queried hotel employees, restaurant and coffee shop owners, taxi drivers and locals at the tournament about the Italian health system. I saw no outdoor signage for hospitals and clinics nor TV ads for prescriptions and OTC remedies. Its pharmacies, clinics and hospitals are non-descript, modest and understated. Yet groups like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD) rank Servizio Sanitario Nazionale (SSN), the national system authorized in December 1978, in the top 10 in the world (The WHO ranks it second overall behind France).

“It covers all Italian citizens and legal foreign residents providing a full range of healthcare services with a free choice of providers. The service is free of charge at the point of service and is guided by the principles of universal coverage, solidarity, human dignity, and health. In principle, it serves as Italy’s public healthcare system.” Like U.S. ratings for hospitals, rankings for the Italian system vary but consistently place it in the top 15 based on methodologies comparing access, quality, and affordability.

The U.S., by contrast, ranks only first in certain high-end specialties and last among developed systems in access and affordability.

Like many systems of the world, SSN is governed by a national authority that sets operating principles and objectives administered thru 19 regions and two provinces that deliver health services under an appointed general manager. Each has significant independence and the flexibility to determine its own priorities and goals, and each is capitated based on a federal formula reflecting the unique needs and expected costs for that population’s health. 

It is funded through national and regional taxes, supplemented by private expenditure and insurance plans and regions are allowed to generate their own additional revenue to meet their needs. 74% of funding is public; 26% is private composed primarily of consumer out-of-pocket costs. By contrast, the U.S. system’s funding is 49% public (Medicare, Medicaid et al), 24% private (employer-based, misc.) and 27% OOP by consumers.

Italians enjoy the 6th highest life expectancy in the world, as well as very low levels of infant mortality. It’s not a perfect system: 10% of the population choose private insurance coverage to get access to care quicker along with dental care and other benefits. Its facilities are older, pharmacies small with limited hours and hospitals non-descript.

But Italians seem satisfied with their system reasoning it a right, not a privilege, and its absence from daily news critiques a non-concern.

Issues confronting its system—like caring for its elderly population in tandem with declining population growth, modernizing its emergency services and improving its preventive health programs are understood but not debilitating in a country one-fifth the size of the U.S. population.

My take:

Italy spends 9% of its overall GDP on its health system; the $4.6 trillion U.S spends 18% in its GDP on healthcare, and outcomes are comparable.  Our’s is better known but their’s appears functional and in many ways better.

Should the U.S.copy and paste the Italian system as its own? No. Our societies, social determinants and expectations vary widely. Might the U.S. health system learn from countries like Italy? Yes.

Questions like these merit consideration:

Might the U.S. system perform better if states had more authority and accountability for Medicare, CMS, Veterans’ health et al?

Might global budgets for states be an answer?

Might more spending on public health and social services be the answer to reduced costs and demand?

Might strict primary care gatekeeping be an answer to specialty and hospital care?

Might private insurance be unnecessary to a majority satisfied with a public system?

Might prices for prescription drugs, hospital services and insurance premiums be regulated or advertising limited?

Might employers play an expanded role in the system’s accountability?

Can we afford the system long-term, given other social needs in a changing global market?

Comparisons are constructive for insights to be learned. It’s true in healthcare and professional golf. The European team was better prepared for the Ryder Cup competition. From changes to the format of the matches, to pin placements and second shot distances requiring precision from 180-200 yards out on approach shots: advantage Europe. Still, it was execution as a team that made the difference in its dominating 16 1/2- 11 1/2 win —not the celebrity of any member.

The time to ask and answer tough questions about the sustainability of the U.S. system and chart a path forward. A prepared, selfless effort by a cross-sector Team Healthcare USA is our system’s most urgent need. No single sector has all the answers, and all are at risk of losing.

Team USA lost the Ryder Cup because it was out-performed by Team Europe: its data, preparation and teamwork made the difference.

Today, there is no Team Healthcare USA: each sector has its stars but winning the competition for the health and wellbeing of the U.S. populations requires more.

2023 Nobel Prize in Medicine: Karikó, Weissman awarded prize for mRNA research

Two pioneers of mRNA research — the technology that helped the world tame the virus behind the Covid-19 pandemic — won the 2023 Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology on Monday.

Overcoming a lack of broader interest in their work and scientific challenges, Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman made key discoveries about messenger RNA that enabled scientific teams to start developing the tool into therapies, immunizations, and — as the pandemic spread in 2020 — vaccines targeting the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech partnership unveiled their mRNA-based Covid-19 shots in record time thanks to the foundational work of Karikó and Weissman, helping save millions of lives.

Karikó, a biochemist, and Weissman, an immunologist, performed their world-changing research on the interaction between mRNA and the immune system at the University of Pennsylvania, where Weissman, 64, remains a professor in vaccine research. Karikó, 68, who later went to work at BioNTech, is now a professor at Szeged University in her native Hungary, and is an adjunct professor at Penn’s Perelman School of Medicine. 

The duo will receive 11 million Swedish kronor, or just over $1 million. Their names are added to a list of medicine or physiology Nobel winners that prior to this year included 213 men and 12 women.

The award was announced by Thomas Perlmann, secretary general of Nobel Assembly, in Stockholm. Perlmann said he had spoken to both laureates, describing them as grateful and surprised even though the pair has won numerous awards seen as precursors and had been tipped as likely Nobel recipients at some point.  

Every year, the committee considers hundreds of nominations from former Nobel laureates, medical school deans, and prominent scientists from fields including microbiology, immunology, and oncology. Members try to identify a discovery that has altered scientists’ understanding of a subject. And according to the criteria laid out in Alfred Nobel’s will, that paradigm-shifting discovery also has to have benefited humankind.

The Nobel committee framed Karikó and Weissman’s work as a prime example of complementary expertise, with Karikó focused on RNA-based therapies and Weissman bringing a deep knowledge about immune responses to vaccines.

But it was not an easy road for the scientists. Karikó encountered rejection after rejection in the 1990s while applying for grants. She was even demoted while working at Penn, as she toiled away on the lower rungs of academia.

But the scientists persisted, and made a monumental discovery published in 2005 based on simply swapping out some of the components of mRNA.

With instructions from DNA, our cells make strands of mRNA that are then “read” to make proteins. The idea underlying an mRNA vaccine then is to take a piece of mRNA from a pathogen and slip it into our bodies. The mRNA will lead to the production of a protein from the virus, which our bodies learn to recognize and fight should we encounter it again in the form of the actual virus.

It’s an idea that goes back to the 1980s, as scientific advances allowed researchers to make mRNA easily in their labs. But there was a problem: The synthetic mRNA not only produced smaller amounts of protein than the natural version in our cells, it also elicited a potentially dangerous inflammatory immune response, and was often destroyed before it could reach target cells.

Karikó and Weissman’s breakthrough focused on how to overcome that problem. mRNA is made up of four nucleosides, or “letters”: A, U, G, and C. But the version our bodies make includes some nucleosides that are chemically modified — something the synthetic version didn’t, at least until Karikó and Weissman came along. They showed that subbing out some of the building blocks for modified versions allowed their strands of mRNA to sneak past the body’s immune defenses.

While the research did not gain wide attention at the time, it did catch the attention of scientists who would go on to found Moderna and BioNTech. And now, nearly 20 years later, billions of doses of mRNA vaccines have been administered.

For now, the only authorized mRNA products are the Covid-19 shots. But academic researchers and companies are exploring the technology as a potential therapeutic platform for an array of diseases and are using it to develop cancer vaccines as well as immunizations against other infectious diseases, from flu to mpox to HIV. An mRNA vaccine is highly adaptable compared to earlier methods, which makes it easier to alter the underlying recipe of the shot to keep up with viral evolution.

As she gained global fame, Karikó has been open about the barriers she encountered in her scientific career, which raised broader issues about the challenges women and immigrants can face in academia. But she’s said she always believed in the potential of her RNA research.

“I thought of going somewhere else, or doing something else,” Karikó told STAT in 2020, recalling the moment she was demoted. “I also thought maybe I’m not good enough, not smart enough. I tried to imagine: Everything is here, and I just have to do better experiments.”

We’ve become even less prepared for the next pandemic

https://mailchi.mp/28f390732e19/the-weekly-gist-march-10-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

Published this week in the Washington Post, this sobering article surveys the dismantling of our nation’s patchwork public health infrastructure, driven by a backlash to COVID pandemic restrictions. Positioning themselves as defenders of freedom, a coalition of conservative and libertarian activists, legislators, and judges have neutered many of the nation’s public health authorities. State health officials and governors in over half the country are now unable to issue mask mandates or order school closures without the permission of their state legislatures.

While the implications for a hypothetical “next COVID” are dire, we’re already seeing the consequences today: officials in Columbus, OH can no longer, for example, quarantine a child with measles, or shut down a restaurant experiencing a hepatitis A outbreak. 

The Gist: The anti-public health backlash in the wake of COVID has now been codified, with far reaching consequences for future disease outbreaks. COVID protections for hospital-based healthcare providers are winding down, even in states like California which quickly embraced masking.

But now in over half the country, many reasonable responses to unknown future health threats won’t even be on the table, or will involve debate and legislative action, wasting precious response time. 

Can updated boosters prevent another Covid-19 surge? Why some experts are skeptical.

Most experts agree that updated bivalent Covid-19 boosters provide additional protection against serious illness and death among vulnerable populations—but evidence suggests that increased booster uptake may not prevent a “wave of Covid” infections this winter, Apoorva Mandavilli writes for the New York Times.

Can bivalent boosters prevent another surge of infections?

While the Biden administration’s plan to prevent another surge of Covid-19 infections relies on increasing Americans’ uptake of the updated booster doses of the PfizerBioNTech and Moderna vaccines, some experts doubt the strategy.

According to John Moore, a virologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, boosters provide additional protection to vulnerable populations—including older adults, immunocompromised individuals, and pregnant people—who should get boosted to prevent severe illness and death.

However, the benefit is not as clear for healthy, younger Americans who “are rarely at risk of severe illness or death from Covid, and at this point most have built immunity through multiple vaccine doses, infections or both,” Mandavilli writes.

“If you’re at medical risk, you should get boosted, or if you’re at psychological risk and worrying yourself to death, go and get boosted,” Moore said. “But don’t believe that will give you some kind of amazing protection against infection, and then go out and party like there’s no tomorrow.”

Separately, Peter Marks, FDA‘s top vaccine regulator, noted the limited data available data for the updated boosters.

“It’s true, we’re not sure how well these vaccines will do yet against preventing symptomatic disease,” he said, especially as the newer variants spread.

However, Marks added, “even modest improvements in vaccine response to the bivalent boosters could have important positive consequences on public health. Given the downside is pretty low here, I think the answer is we really advocate people going out and consider getting that booster.”

How much additional protection do updated shots provide?

While Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna recently reported that their bivalent boosters produced antibody levels that were four to six times higher than the original vaccine, their results were based on BA.4 and BA.5 antibodies, instead of the more prevalent BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 variants.

According to Mandavilli, “[a] spate of preliminary research suggests that the updated boosters, introduced in September, are only marginally better than the original vaccines at protecting against the newer variants — if at all.”

These small studies have not been reviewed for publication in a journal—but they all came to similar conclusions.

“It’s not likely that any of the vaccines or boosters, no matter how many you get, will provide substantial and sustained protection against acquisition of infection,” said Dan Barouch, head of Beth Israel Deaconess Center for Virology and Vaccine Research, who helped develop Johnson & Johnson‘s vaccine.

Notably, Barouch’s team recently discovered that BQ.1.1 is around seven times more resistant to the body’s immune defenses than BA.5, and 175 times more resistant than the original strain of the coronavirus. “It has the most striking immune escape, and it’s also growing the most rapidly,” he said. BQ.1 will likely follow a similar pattern.

“By now, most Americans have some degree of immunity to the coronavirus, and it does not surprise scientists that the variant that best evades the body’s immune response is likely to outrun its rivals,” Mandavilli writes.

The new vaccine increases antibodies, but the fact it is bivalent may not be significant. In August, a study by Australian immunologists suggested that any kind of booster would offer extra protection. In addition, the study noted that a variant-specific booster would likely not be more effective than the original vaccine.

“The bulk of the benefit is from the provision of a booster dose, irrespective of whether it is a monovalent or bivalent vaccine,” according to the World Health Organization.

Florian Krammer, an immunologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, noted that despite recent research, which evaluated immune response soon after vaccination, immune response may improve over time.

“We will see with larger studies and studies at a later time point if there is a good or a significant benefit, but I think it’s certainly not worse,” he added. “I don’t see much risk when you get the vaccine, so you might as well get the benefit.”

“What we need to do right now to get us through the next few months when I think we are in yet another wave of incipient wave of Covid,” Marks added. “And then we need to look forward, and lean into how we’re going to do things differently moving forward.”

Will we see an increase in vaccine uptake?

Currently, FDA allows the booster dose at least two months after a Covid-19 infection or previous does. However, some studies suggest boosting too early could have negative consequences. “Lengthening the interval between boosts to five or six months may be more effective, giving the immune system more time to refine its response,” Mandavilli writes.

Still, “adding yet another shot to the regimen seems unlikely to motivate Americans to opt for the immunization,” no matter the schedule, she adds.

“Each new booster we roll out is going to have a lower and lower uptake, and we’re already pretty close to the floor,” said Gretchen Chapman, an expert in health behavior at Carnegie Mellon University.

Ultimately, “[w]e should not spend a lot of political capital trying to get people to get this bivalent booster, because the benefits are limited,” Chapman added. “It’s more important to get folks who never got the initial vaccine series vaccinated than to get people like me to get their fifth shot.” 

U.S. declares public health emergency over monkeypox

The Biden administration has declared the monkeypox outbreak a public health emergency — a move that gives officials more flexibility to tackle the virus’ spread.

Why it matters: New YorkCalifornia and Illinois all declared public health emergencies related to monkeypox in the last two weeks. The World Health Organization has already declared monkeypox a global emergency.

Details: Department of Health and Human Services secretary Xavier Becerra made the announcement Thursday in a briefing on monkeypox.

  • Federal health officials can now expedite preventative measures to treat monkeypox without going through a full federal review, the Washington Post reports.

What they’re saying: “We’re prepared to take our response to the next level in addressing this virus,” Becerra said Thursday. “We urge every American to take monkeypox seriously and to take responsibility to help us tackle this virus.”

  • Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the declaration will help “exploit the outbreak” and potentially increase access to care for those at risk.
  • Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, the White House national monkeypox response deputy coordinator, said “today’s actions will allow us to meet the needs of communities impacted by the virus … and aggressively work to stop this outbreak.”

State of play: Dr. Robert Califf, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, said the U.S. is “at a critical inflection point” in the monkeypox outbreak, requiring “additional solutions to address the rise in infection rates.”

  • There are 6,600 cases of monkeypox in the U.S. as of Thursday, Becerra said.
  • There were less than 5,000 cases of monkeypox last week, he added.

The big picture: Biden’s decision to declare monkeypox a public emergency allows him to raise awareness of the virus and unlock more flexibility for spending on ways to treat and tackle the virus.

  • About 20% of Americans are worried they’ll contract monkeypox, Axios previously reported. But there are still some gaps in Americans’ knowledge of the virus and how it impacts our population.

What’s next: U.S. health officials said that 800,000 monkeypox vaccine doses will be made available for distribution. But in hotspot states for the monkeypox outbreak, there’s a drastic disconnect between the number of doses that local health officials say they need versus what they have been allotted.

  • The U.S. will receive another 150,000 monkeypox vaccine doses in the strategic national stockpile in September, Dawn O’Connell, administrator at HHS’ Administration for Strategic Preparedness & Response, told reporters Thursday. These were previously scheduled to arrive in October.

US House Passes a Massive Spending Bill—but Leaves out Billions in Covid Aid

https://link.wired.com/view/5db707423f92a422eaeaf234g2an9.rsw/db0c8990

The House passed a sweeping spending bill last night that omitted billions in Covid-19 aid. Biden administration officials had said the funds were urgently needed to maintain supplies of essential treatments and support further vaccine development, but Republicans disagreed. Some public health experts have expressed dismay that the pandemic relief money was cut, given the likelihood that new variants will continue to emerge. After all, viruses keep evolving until they run out of hosts to infect, and there are billions of people around the world—and millions in the US—who haven’t been vaccinated against Covid-19.

Cases continue to decline in the US, and a number of top voices in public health recently put out a report mapping when and how the country can transition out of the pandemic. Their recommendations include vaccinating at least 85 percent of the US population by 2023, improving indoor air quality in public buildings, and allocating additional funding for Covid-19 response and to prepare for future pandemics.

How the pandemic may fundamentally change the health-care system

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/11/how-pandemic-may-fundamentally-change-health-care-system/

Welcome to Friday’s Health 202, where today we have a special spotlight on the pandemic two years in.

🚨 The federal government is about to be funded. The Senate sent the long-term spending bill to President Biden’s desk last night after months of intense negotiations. 

Two years since the WHO declared a pandemic, what health-care system changes are here to stay?

Nurses screened patients at a drive-through testing site in March 2020. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Exactly two years ago, the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus a pandemic and much of American life began grinding to a halt. 

That’s when the health-care system, which has never been known for its quickness, sped up. The industry was forced to adapt, delivering virtual care and services outside of hospitals on the fly. Yet, the years-long pandemic has exposed decades-old cracks in the system, and galvanized efforts to fix them.

Today, as coronavirus cases plummet and President Biden says Americans can begin resuming their normal lives, we explore how the pandemic could fundamentally alter the health-care system for good. What changes are here to stay — and what barriers are standing in the way?

A telehealth boom

What happened: Telehealth services skyrocketed as doctors’ offices limited in-person visits amid the pandemic. The official declaration of a public health emergency eased long-standing restrictions on these virtual services, vastly expanding Medicare coverage. 

But will it stick? Some of these changes go away whenever the Biden administration decides not to renew the public health emergency (PHE). The government funding bill passed yesterday extends key services roughly five months after the PHE ends, such as letting those on Medicare access telehealth services even if they live outside a rural area.

But some lobbyists and lawmakers are pushing hard to make such changes permanent. Though the issue is bipartisan and popular, it could be challenging to pass unless the measures are attached to a must-pass piece of legislation. 

  • “Even just talking to colleagues, I used to have to spend three or four minutes while they were trying desperately not to stare at their phone and explain to them what telehealth was … remote patient monitoring, originating sites, and all this wonky stuff,”said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), a longtime proponent of telehealth.
  • “Now I can go up to them and say, ‘So telehealth is great, right?’ And they say, ‘yes, it is.’ ”
A new spotlight on in-home care

What happened: The infectious virus tore through nursing homes, where often fragile residents share rooms and depend on caregivers for daily tasks. Ultimately, nearly 152,000 residents died from covid-19.

The devastation has sparked a rethinking of where older adults live and how they get the services they need — particularly inside their own homes. 

  • “That is clearly what people prefer,” said Gail Wilensky, an economist at Project HOPE who directed the Medicare and Medicaid programs under President George H.W. Bush. “The challenge is whether or not it’s economically feasible to have that happen.”

More money, please: Finding in-home care — and paying for it — is still a struggle for many Americans. Meanwhile, many states have lengthy waitlists for such services under Medicaid.

Experts say an infusion of federal funds is needed to give seniors and those with disabilities more options for care outside of nursing homes and assisted-living facilities. 

For instance, Biden’s massive social spending bill included tens of billions of dollars for such services. But the effort has languished on Capitol Hill, making it unclear when and whether additional investments will come. 

A reckoning on racial disparities

What happened: Hispanic, Black, and American Indian and Alaska Native people are about twice as likely to die from covid-19 than White people. That’s according to age-adjusted data from a recent Kaiser Family Foundation report

In short, the coronavirus exposed the glaring inequities in the health-care system. 

  • “The first thing to deal with any problem is awareness,” said Georges Benjamin, the executive director of the American Public Health Association. “Nobody can say that they’re not aware of it anymore, that it doesn’t exist.”

But will change come? Health experts say they hope the country has reached a tipping point in the last two years. And yet, any real systemic change will likely take time. But, Benjamin said, it can start with increasing the number of practitioners from diverse communities, making office practices more welcoming and understanding biases. 

We need to, as a matter of course, ask ourselves who’s advantaged and who’s disadvantaged” when crafting new initiatives, like drive-through testing sites, Benjamin said. “And then how do we create systems so that the people that are disadvantaged have the same opportunity.”

More than 90% of the U.S. population lives in an area with a “low” or “medium” risk of COVID-19

More than 90% of the U.S. population lives in an area with a “low” or “medium” risk of COVID-19, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced yesterday. Last week, the CDC changed the way it assesses county-level COVID-19 risk, using data on hospitalizations and health care capacity in addition to case counts. The CDC now recommends universal indoor masking only for counties that are at “high” risk under this system—which means that the vast majority of Americans are not currently advised to wear masks inside.

COVID-19 deaths pass peak from delta surge

https://click1.email.thehill.com/ViewMessage.do;jsessionid=69623F0C51A9AD108D92583CE78B74C7

Welcome to Wednesday’s Overnight Health Care, where we’re following the latest moves on policy and news affecting your health. Subscribe here: thehill.com/newsletter-signup

Masks come to the Super Bowl: Fans attending the big game next month will be given KN95 masks.  

Despite omicron being less severe on average, the sheer number of cases has driven deaths past the peak from last year’s delta surge.  

The average number of U.S. COVID-19 deaths this week surpassed the height of the delta surge earlier this fall and is at its highest point since last winter, when the nation was coming out of the peak winter surge. 

The seven-day average of deaths hit 2,166 on Monday, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Average daily deaths in mid-September before the omicron variant was discovered peaked at around 1,900. 

While increasing evidence shows omicron may be less likely to cause death or serious illness than delta, the sheer infectiousness and the speed at which it spreads has overwhelmed hospitals, primarily with people who have not been vaccinated. 

The U.S. saw the highest numbers of deaths in the pandemic just over a year ago, before vaccines were widely available, when the daily average reached 3,400. The last time the U.S. topped 2,000 deaths was last February, as the country was slowly coming down from the January peak. 

Caution urged: Infections are falling in states that were hardest hit earlier, as well as broadly across the nation. Hospitalizations are also falling, but deaths are a lagging indicator and are still increasing. CDC Director Rochelle Walsenky said deaths have increased about 21 percent over the past week. 

The fact that the omicron variant tends to cause less severe disease on average also helped avoid an even greater crisis that would have occurred if it was as severe as the delta variant.