Six Majority Beliefs about the U.S. Health System Compromise its Value Proposition

Last week was notable for healthcare because current events thrust it into the limelight…

Hospitals and emergency responders in Maine: Media attention to Gaza and the Speaker-less U.S. House of Representatives was temporarily suspended as the deaths of 18 in the U.S.’ 36h mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine took center stage. The immediate overload on Lewiston’s Central Maine Medical Center and Mass General where the 13 injured were treated (including 4 still hospitalized) drew media attention—largely gone by Friday when the shooter’s death by suicide was confirmed.

The New Speaker of the House: The GOP House of Representatives elected Mike Johnson, the 4-term Representative from Shreveport to the post vacant since October 3.

Johnson is no stranger to partisan positions on healthcare issues. As Chairman of the conservative-leaning Republican Steering Committee from 2019-2021, he led the group’s platform to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and supports a national restriction on abortions despite Senate GOP Leader McConnell’s preference it be left to states to decide.

With the prospect of a government shutdown November 17 due to inaction on the FY2024 federal budget, the 52-year-old lawyer faces delicate maneuvering around $106 billion proposed for Israel, the Ukraine, Taiwan and border security alongside appropriations for the health system that consumes 28% of entire federal outlays.

Health organizational business strategy announcements: Friction between physicians and hospital officials in Asheville (Mission) and Minnesota (Allina) attracted national coverage and brought attention to staffing, cultural and financial circumstances in these prominent organizations. —and on the heels of the Kaiser Permanente strike settlement. The divorce from Mass General by Dana Farber in Boston and announcements by GNC, Best Buy, Optum (re-branding NaviHealth) and Sanofi hit last week’s news cycle.

And indirectly, the 3Q 2023 GDP report by the Department of Commerce raised eyebrows: it was up 4.9%–far higher than expected prompting speculation that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will raise interest rates (again) at its meeting this week or next month. That means borrowing costs for struggling hospitals, nursing homes and consumers needing loans will go up along with household medical debt.

As news cycles go, this one was standard fare for healthcare: with the exception of business plan announcements by organizations or as elements of tragedies like Lewiston, Gaza or a pandemic,

the business of the health system—how it operates is largely uncovered and often subject to misinformation or disinformation.

That’s the problem: it’s background noise to most voters who can be stoked to action over a single issue when prompted by special interests (i.e., Abortion rights, surprise billing, price transparency et al) but remain inattentive and marginally informed about the bigger role it plays in our communities and country and where it’s heading long-term.

The narrative common to most boils down to these:

  • The U.S. health system is good, but it’s complicated. ‘How good’ depends on your insurance and your health—both are key.
  • The U.S. health system is expensive and profitable. It pays its executives well and its frontline workers unfairly.
  • The delivery system focuses on the sick and injured; prevention and public health matter less.
  • Hospitals and physicians are vital to the system; health insurers keep their costs down.
  • The U.S. system pays lip service to “customer service” and ‘engaged consumers.” It is spin not supported by actions.
  • The U.S. system needs to change dramatically.

In the next 3 weeks, attention will be on the federal budget: healthcare will be in the background unless temporarily an element of a mass tragedy. Each trade group will tout its accomplishments to regulators and pimp their advocacy punch list. Each company will gin-out news releases and commentary about the future of the system will default to think tanks and focused on a single issue of interest.

That’s the problem. In this era of social media, polarization, and mass transparency, these old ways of communicating no longer work. Left unattended, they undermine the value proposition on which the U.S. system is based.

As HLTH 2023 Convenes, Three Themes speak Volumes about Where U.S, Healthcare is Headed

In Las Vegas this week, 10,000 healthcare entrepreneurs, investors, purchasers and industry onlookers are gathered to celebrate the business of U.S. healthcare. It follows the inaugural Nashville Healthcare Sessions last month that drew a crowd to Music City touting “the premier healthcare conference set in the most relevant, exciting, and welcoming city in the south.“

Besides their locations and exceptional marketing, three notable themes are prominent that speak volumes about where this industry is:

1- The focus is systemness—integrated, connected, data-driven and scalable. Traditional divides that separate health and social services, hospitals and insurers, biotherapeutics and companion diagnostics are obsolete and access to private capital and swift execution vitals. And embedded in systemness is an expanded role of human resources that create workforces that are right-sized, diverse, AI-enabled and productive.
2-Technologies focused on end user value are gaining traction. Solutions that enable better, quicker, more accurate and affordable transactions with consumers are prominent. While traditional providers—hospitals, physicians, long-term care providers and public health programs– see HIT and AI investments as ways to make their work more efficient and satisfying, disruptors are focused on the untapped consumer market that’s dissatisfied with the status quo.
3-Access to smart capital is key. The venture capital and private equity markets in healthcare services are weathering corrections that have deflated returns and forced many to pullback or exit. The possibility of regulatory reforms involving greater transparency, carried interest restrictions and minimum hold periods means stronger funds with experienced operating partners and stable LP funding will be advantaged. In Vegas, they’ll be working the hallways to find tuck-ins for their platform bets and courting not-for-profit hospitals needing non-operating income to fund their growth and diversification efforts.

Those attending recognize the U.S. health industry faces unprecedented challenges:

  • Growing employer activism against lack of price transparency and inexplicably high unit costs for hospital care, prescription drugs, insurer overhead and mal-effect of consolidation in each sector.
  • Medical inflation that’s persistent but disproportionately absorbed by fewer and fewer employers and individuals who lack bargaining power.
  • Value-based purchasing activities that have failed to achieve desired cost containment goals.
  • Public dissatisfaction with the “system” and growing receptivity to alternatives.
  • Growing hostility in media coverage about hospitals, especially large not-for-profit hospitals, deemed to be profitable and wasteful.
  • Increased tension between providers (hospitals, medical groups) and insurers.
  • Increased regulation in states and court rulings that change (or have the potential to alter) how care is defined, provided, funded and legally authorized.

HLTH and Session attendees recognize the uncertainties of the political, economic and global markets in which healthcare operates. Israel will be front of mind to all as the fast-paced HLTH proceedings continue this week. 

The root causes of the system’s poor performance are understood and considered: they’re daunting. But that does not impede the willingness of private investors to make bets presuming the future of the U.S. healthcare is not a repeat of its past.

Contrary to pop culture, what happens in Vegas this week will not stay in Vegas: that’s the point. The health system is not working well. While some HLTH and Sessions attendees are no doubt focused on incremental innovations to improve the performance of their legacy organizations, others are looking beyond. And, if industries akin to healthcare like financial services and higher education are instructive, the latter are better prepared to respond than the former.

PS: Nearly 50 years to the day after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Israel was again taken by surprise by a sudden attack. Unlike the series of clashes with Palestinian forces in Gaza over the past few years, this appears to be a full-scale conflict mounted by Hamas and its allies including Iran. 

Thousands are dead, more are injured and the health systems in both will be overwhelmed by the need. Health systems matter!

Senate Finance Hearing on Hospital Consolidation: Political Theatre or Something More?

Last Thursday, the Senate Finance Committee heard testimony from experts who offered damning testimony about hospital consolidation (excerpts below).  Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-OR) gaveled the session to order with this commentary:

“I’d like to talk about health care costs and quality. Advocates for proposed mergers often say they will bring lower health costs due to increased efficiency. Time after time, it’s simply not proven to be the case. When hospitals merge, prices go up, not down. When insurers merge, premiums go up, not down. And quality of care is not any better with this higher cost. “

Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-ID) offered a more conciliatory assessment in his opening statement: “In exploring and addressing these problems, we have the opportunity to build on our efforts to improve medication access and affordability by taking a broader look at the health care system through a similarly bipartisan, consensus-based lens…We need to examine the drivers of consolidation, as well as its effects on care quality and costs, both for patients and taxpayers. We also need to develop focused, bipartisan and bicameral solutions that reduce out-of-pocket spending while protecting access to lifesaving services.”

Congress’ concern about consolidation in healthcare is broad-based. Pharmacy benefits managers and health insurers face similar scrutiny. Drug price control referenda have passed in several states and a federal cap was included in the Inflation Reduction Act.

The reality is this: the entire U.S. health system is on trial in the court of public opinion for ‘careless disregard for affordability’. And hospitals are seen as part of the problem justifying consolidation as a defense mechanism.

What followed in this 3-hour hearing was testimony from 3 experts critical of hospital consolidation, a Colorado community hospital CEO who opined to competition with big hospital systems and a Peterson Foundation spokesperson who offered that data access and transparency are necessary to mitigate consolidation’s downside impact.

None of their testimony was surprising. Nor were questions from the 25 members of the committee. It’s a narrative that played out in House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committee hearings last month. It’s likely to continue.

Often, Congressional Hearings on healthcare issues amount to little more than political theatre. In this one, four key themes emerged:

  1. Consolidation among hospitals has adversely impacted quality of care and affordability of healthcare. Prices have gone up without commensurate improvements in quality harming consumers.
  2. Larger organizations use horizontal and vertical integration to strengthen their positions relative to smaller competitors. Physician employment by hospitals is concerning. Rural and safety net hospitals are impaired most.
  3. Anti-trust efforts, price transparency mandates, data sharing and value-based programs have not been as effective as anticipated.
  4. Physicians are victims of consolidation and corporatization in U.S. healthcare. They’re paid less because others are paid more.

While committee members varied widely in the intensity of their animosity toward hospitals, a consensus emerged that the hospital status quo is not working for voters and consumers.

My take:

Consolidation is part of everyday life. Last Tuesday’s bombshell announcement of the merger of the PGA Tour and the Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund caught the golfing world by surprise. Anti-trust issues and monopolistic behaviors are noticed by voters and lawmakers. Hospital consolidation is no exception festering suspicions among lawmakers and voters that the public’s good is ill-served. And studies showing that charity care among not-for-profit hospitals is lower than for-profit confuse and complicate.

As I listened to the hearing, I had questions…

  • Were all relevant perspectives presented?
  • Was the information provided by witnesses and cited in Committee member questioning accurate?
  • Will meaningful action result?

But having testified before Congressional Committees, I find myself dismissive of most hearings which seem heavy on political staging but light on meaningful insight. Many are little more than political theatre. Hospital consolidation seems different. There seems to be growing consensus that it’s harmful to some and costly to all.

Sadly, this hearing is the latest evidence that the good will built by hospital heroics in the pandemic is now forgotten. It’s clear hospital consolidation is an issue that faces strong and increased headwinds with evidence mounting—accurate or not– showing more harm than good.

Consumers are skeptical of “hospitals”—just not their own

https://mailchi.mp/89b749fe24b8/the-weekly-gist-february-17-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

Health systems have recently been the subject of high-profile media accusations that they prioritize “profits over patients”, as an unflattering New York Times series has framed it.

New consumer survey data from strategic healthcare communications consulting firm Jarrard Inc. shows that while consumers find some merit in these claims, they tend to see their local hospital in a better light. As shown in the graphic above, a majority of US adults believe that, on a national level, hospitals are more focused on making money than caring for patients, and that they don’t do enough to help low-income people access high quality care.

Despite only one in five survey participants having seen news stories alleging hospitals fail to provide enough charity care in exchange for tax breaks, 65 percent of survey respondents find those allegations believable.

But while the consumer perception of hospitals may be suffering nationally, the responses were quite different when consumers were asked about their preferred local hospital. More than half strongly agreed that their preferred local hospital is a good community partner—one that puts patient care ahead of making money.

(Just as with Congress: people love to criticize the institution, while continuing to return their own representatives to Washington.) While the negative national attention can be disheartening, at the end of the day, to consumers, healthcare is local, and health systems must continue to build direct consumer relationships to strengthen patient loyalty. 

So, Is the Pandemic Over Yet?

In his second State of the Union speech on Feb. 7, President Joe Biden made it clear that the Administration is moving into the next phase of the COVID-19 pandemic—one in which the threats of disease and death are considerably diminished, and therefore no longer require the resources and urgent allocation of funds that the previous two years have.

“While the virus is not gone…we have broken COVID’s grip on us,” Biden said. “And soon we’ll end the public health emergency.”

The President outlined his reasons for not renewing the COVID-19 national and public health emergencies when they expire on May 11, which have been extended every 90 days since they were established in 2020. The decision represents a de-escalation in the way the government is treating the pandemic.

But health experts say now is not the time to let down our collective guard on SARS-CoV-2. “I don’t believe the virus has gotten the memo that the pandemic is winding down,” says Dr. Jeffrey Glenn, director of the Stanford Biosecurity and Pandemic Preparedness Initiative.

“There is a disconnect between the broad perception that the pandemic is behind us, and focusing on getting back to life as it was pre-pandemic,” says Wafaa El-Sadr, founder and director of the International Center for AIDS Care and Treatment Programs (ICAP) at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. “But the reality is that we still continue to have substantial transmission and deaths due to COVID in the U.S., and we are in a situation where the virus will be with us for a long time.”

Even when the emergency states end, therefore, the pandemic will not be over, they and others say.

One reason is that the definition of a “pandemic” is primarily based on the breadth and speed of a virus’ spread, and the amount of the world affected by a pathogen. It’s only partially related to the severity of disease caused by a virus like SARS-CoV-2, or even the amount of immunity a population may have against it.

By that main criterion, COVID-19 is still very much with us, with around 200,000 new cases and 1,000 deaths a day globally. The latest Omicron variants quashed any hope of the pandemic ending any time soon. While they do not cause more serious infections than past variants, they have mastered the challenge of hopping more efficiently from one infected person to another.

Even though the pandemic is far from over, many health experts agree that ending the U.S. national emergencies is justified at this point. When these measures were first implemented in 2020, most people were immunological sitting ducks for the virus. The declarations were designed to devote financial resources and personnel to controlling the impact of infections on the population’s health as much as possible by shoring up the health care system and later by providing free vaccinations. U.S. officials decided to end the national and public health emergencies in May primarily because most people have either been vaccinated or have recovered from an infection (or both), so the population’s immunity stands at a higher level. COVID-19 cases—both overall and the severe kind—have declined considerably since those early days.

But the continuing stream of infections means that the virus is still reproducing and churning out mutations. So far, those variants haven’t caused more serious disease—but that’s purely by chance, which makes public health experts uncomfortable with declaring victory just yet. Even though COVID-19 cases are no longer inundating most hospitals, that means it’s time to rethink the COVID-19 response, not abandon it.

The best way forward at this point is to refine and target COVID-19 services to optimize the chances of controlling the virus where it may be causing the most health problems. “I think we need to move away from universal guidance on vaccines and boosters and mitigation measures where everybody gets the same guidance, to a more differentiated and tailored approach based on the different characteristics—both socioeconomic and clinical—of different groups of people,” says El-Sadr. “We are at a different moment in the pandemic, so the moment is now for a different message.”

That message isn’t to put COVID-19 completely behind us, but to move forward armed with the lessons we’ve learned from our experience—the most important of which is never to underestimate SARS-CoV-2.

‘Hospital purgatory’: Confidence in healthcare plunges as criticism grows louder and larger

Payers, pharmacy benefit managers and drug manufacturers are no strangers to heavy criticism from the public and providers alike. Now another sector of the healthcare system has found itself increasingly caught in the crosshairs of constituents looking to point a finger for the rising cost of care: hospitals.

As sharp words against the industry bubble up more often and encompass a wider variety of issues, it marks an important turn in the ethos of American healthcare. Most policymakers have historically wanted hospitals on their side, and health systems are often the largest employer within their communities and in many states.

“In my career, I’ve never seen things more aligned to the detriment of hospitals than it is now,” Paul Keckley, PhD, said. Dr. Keckley is a widely known industry analyst and editor of The Keckley Report, a weekly newsletter discussing healthcare policy and current trends. 

Confidence in the medical system as a whole fell from 51 percent in 2020 to a record low of 38 percent in 2022. Though the healthcare system is among all major U.S. institutions facing record-low public confidence, are hospitals ready for an era of widespread distrust? 

We’re going into hospital purgatory. It’s a period in which old rules may not work in the future,” Dr. Keckley said. “The only thing we know for sure is that it’s not going to get easier.”

State-versus-hospital fights have popped up throughout the U.S. over the past year. Most recently, in Colorado, a back and forth unfolded between Gov. Jared Polis and the state’s hospital association over who is ultimately responsible for high care costs. In a speech Jan. 17, the Democratic governor accused Colorado’s hospitals of overcharging patients and sitting on significant cash reserves.

“It’s time that we hold them accountable,” he said.

The Colorado Hospital Association says the data supporting those claims does not reflect the several ongoing industry challenges, among them labor shortages, regulatory burdens and inflationary pressures.

“Unfortunately, we continue to hear rhetoric against the hospitals and health systems that have worked diligently on healthcare quality, access and affordability,” CHA said in a statement to Becker’s. “Colorado’s hospitals and health systems have been working with the administration on many of these programs, including reinsurance, hospital discounted care, price transparency, out-of-network patient protections, and more.”

Some 1,500 miles eastward, another incident of hospital-community conflict grew. In January, Pennsylvania lawmakers promoted a nonpartisan report that accuses UPMC of building a monopoly in the state through consolidation over the last decade — the Pittsburgh-based system refuted the claims, saying they were based on “flawed data.”

To the south, North Carolina officials accused the state’s seven largest health systems in June of using pandemic aid to enrich themselves. Hospitals said the accusations were based on “cherry-picked data” spun in a way that does not reflect their ongoing challenges.

As state- and market-level fights against hospitals intensify and grab national attention, hospitals and health systems may find themselves less familiar in steadying public perception than their payer and pharmaceutical counterparts, who are no strangers to vocal opponents.  

“With public opinion shifting a bit amid COVID, and with some anecdotal evidence that hospitals are doing some bad things, state policymakers feel that they are enjoying the political will to make these gestures,” Ge Bai, PhD, said. “It’s also a key issue for voters. Even if they don’t do anything in reality, the gesture will probably get political capital.”

Dr. Bai is a professor of accounting and health policy at Baltimore-based Johns Hopkins University. She believes a key underlying factor driving hospital critiques as of late is the reduced public confidence in medicine by way of the pandemic. 

“The hospital industry has moved away from its traditional charitable mission and toward a business orientation that is undeniable,” she said. “With the [pandemic] dust settling, I think a lot of people realize the clinicians are the heroes, but hospitals are maybe not as altruistic as they once thought.”

In 2021, over 70 percent of Americans said they trusted physicians and nurses, but only 22 percent said the same about hospital executives, according to a study from the University of Chicago and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. 

“It’s a tough job and a complicated business to run, and everybody in the community has an opinion about it based on anecdotal evidence,” Dr. Keckley said. “I think much of the blame too for hospitals taking a lot of hits has been boards that are not prepared to govern.”

For both Drs. Keckley and Bai, there are other major issues they each point to as contributing factors to the growing wariness around hospital operations: 

  • A lack of compliance with CMS price transparency rules. Some of the most recent studies estimate hospital compliance rates could range from 16 percent to 55 percent, while hospitals say the issue has been mischaracterized. CMS has penalized very few hospitals for noncompliance since the rule took effect in 2021.
  • The decades-long trend of consolidation hitting a tipping point. With consolidation, hospitals have long argued the trend would lead to more efficiency, care access, quality of care and lower costs. One of the most comprehensive consolidation studies to date was released Jan. 24 in JAMA and concluded that merged health systems have led to “marginally better care at significantly higher costs.”

    “Hospitals are doing exactly what they’re supposed to do — make money to survive and expand,” Dr. Bai said. “Instead of blaming individual players, we have to raise the bar and think about who created the system in the first place that makes competition so difficult — the government.”
  • State retirement benefits plans struggling financially. Though not a new trend, unfunded healthcare benefits promised to retired public employees and their dependents continues to grow around the country, incentivizing state lawmakers to look in new directions to save on costs. Unfunded retiree healthcare liabilities across all states surpassed $1 trillion in 2019, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council.
  • Competition from other healthcare sectors. Competition for patients has arrived from other healthcare sectors, especially from payers. In 2023, UnitedHealth Group’s Optum owns or is affiliated with the most physicians in the country at 60,000, though it’s likely higher after several large acquisitions last year.

“The center of gravity in healthcare has shifted from hospitals that muscled their way into scaling,” Dr. Keckley said. “The reality is that providing hospital services in non-hospital settings that are safe, effective and less costly is where the market, and insurers, are going.”

Despite the uptick in states and Americans that have gone into fault-finding mode against hospitals and those running them, operating a financially successful hospital or health system in 2023 is a monumental task, perhaps even close to impossible for many. Last year, approximately half of U.S. hospitals finished the year with a negative margin, making it “the worst financial year” for the industry since the start of the pandemic, according to Kaufman Hall’s latest “National Flash Hospital Report.”

“Hospitals aren’t going into this with a huge amount of goodwill at their backs, and I think that’s what they need to be prepared for,” Dr. Keckley said. “You can’t just go in and tell the story of ‘look at what we do for the community’ or ‘look at all the people we employ’ — that is not going to work anymore.”

New booster works against dominant Covid strain

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/25/bivalent-covid-booster-xbb-1-5-00079451?mkt_tok=ODUwLVRBQS01MTEAAAGJjU7308C9Y8wCxfUFTmF9l2n7GDK3ejZuigdebwgFj9OOr5ffXWyONZ2UpDkMVbgp0t6zGmmGbBdM0Vd7yn0Wf61hb_mHhXcbSfFlK5F-tKyN

A new CDC study has found that the Covid-19 bivalent booster reduces the risk of symptomatic infection from the most common subvariant circulating in the U.S. right now by about half.

Additional new data, set to be published on the CDC website on Wednesday, also shows that individuals who received an updated vaccine reduced their risk of death by nearly 13 fold, when compared to the unvaccinated, and by two fold when compared to those with at least one monovalent vaccine but no updated booster.

CDC officials said during a briefing on Wednesday that the new findings were “reassuring.” But only 15.3 percent of eligible Americans — or about 50 million people — have received the new shot, which was rolled out in September.

Meanwhile, the highly transmissible Omicron subvariant XBB.1.5 — nicknamed “the Kraken” by some — is now the dominant SARS-CoV-2 strain in the U.S., projected by the CDC to make up just over 49 percent of cases in the country as of last week.

Earlier this month, the WHO said XBB.1.5 is the most transmissible variant to date, and is circulating in dozens of countries. Though a catastrophic wave has not emerged in the U.S. yet, there has nevertheless been a spike in deaths this month, with an average of 564 people dying of Covid-19 each day as of Jan. 18, compared with an average of 384 around the same time in December.

The new vaccine efficacy study, which used data from the national pharmacy program for Covid testing, found that the bivalent booster provided 48 percent greater protection against symptomatic infection from the XBB and XBB.1.5 subvariants among people who had the booster in the previous two to three months, compared with people who had only previously received two to four monovalent doses.

It also provided 52 percent greater protection against symptomatic infection from the BA.5 subvariant, though according to CDC estimates, BA.5 only accounted for about 2 percent of U.S. cases last week.

CDC officials cautioned that the findings reflected a population-level rate of protection, and that individual risk of infection varies.

“It’s hard to interpret it as an individual’s risk, because every individual is different,” said Ruth Link-Gelles, the author of the vaccine effectiveness study published in MMWR Wednesday. “Their immune system is different, their past history of prior infection is different. They may have underlying conditions that put them at more or less risk of COVID-19 disease.”

She also said it was unclear, given the limitations of the study, how long the bivalent booster protection will last.

“It’s too early to know how waning will happen with the bivalent vaccine,” she said. “What we’ve seen in the past is that your protection lasts longer for more severe illness. So even though you may have diminished protection over time against symptomatic infection, you’re likely still protected against more severe disease for a longer period of time.”

How bad is China’s covid outbreak?

China is in the middle of what may be the world’s largest covid-19 outbreak after authorities abruptly loosened almost three years of strict pandemic restrictions in December following nationwide protests against the measures.

The sudden dismantling of China’s “zero covid” regime — enforced through mass lockdowns, testing and contact tracing — has left the country’s health system unprepared and overwhelmed. It has alarmed international health experts concerned about Beijing’s transparency and caused diplomatic friction as countries enforce travel restrictions on arrivals from China.

How many people have been infected?

So far, there are no reliable national figures for the number of people among China’s 1.4 billion population who have been infected in the current outbreak. After admitting the difficulty of tracking infections, China’s National Health Commission stopped reporting daily tallies in December.

The data is still maintained by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, based on counts from hospitals and local health commissions. But because mandatory mass testing has been dropped, the official figure is believed to massively underestimate the rate of infection. As of Jan. 8, there have been a little more than 500,000 confirmed covid cases since the pandemic began, according to the CDC.

Statements from local governments indicate that the true number of infections is exponentially higher. Officials in Henan province estimated this week that 89 percent of the province’s 99 million residents have been infected. In Zhejiang province, officials said the province was seeing over a million new infections a day in late December. As of Jan. 8, all 31 provinces, municipalities and regions had reported covid infections, according to the CDC.

How serious is the outbreak?

The number of deaths remains unknown, even as evidence is mounting that the true death count is much higher than what has been reported — a little more than 5,200 deaths since the pandemic began and fewer than 40 since zero-covid restrictions were lifted on Dec. 7.

As of Dec. 25, the takeup of intensive care beds in secondary and tertiary hospitals across the country was about 54 percent, but that figure has since increased to 80 percent, Jiao Yahui, director of the Department of Medical Affairs of the National Health Commission, said in an interview with state broadcaster CCTV on Sunday.

Officials reassured the public by noting that the fatality rate of the coronavirus’s omicron variant is 0.1 percent. The current outbreak has mostly consisted of the omicron subvariants BA.5.2 and BF.7, the State Council Information Office said in a news conference Monday.

The lack of testing combined with the narrow definition of what counts as a covid death — positive patients who die of respiratory failure — continue to skew the statistics. Officials have said they will investigate fatalities and release the results in the future.

What is the government saying?

Authorities say the worst of the outbreak is over for Chinese cities where infections spread quickly in December. Now, they are preparing for a new surge in rural areas around the upcoming Lunar New Year holiday that begins Jan. 21.

State media has reported that cases in most major cities have started to decline. Yin Yong, acting mayor of Beijing, told CCTV on Monday that the city had reached its peak and that authorities were turning their focus to monitoring potential new coronavirus variants or subvariants of omicron, and to mitigating the impact of covid on the elderly and other vulnerable groups.

Officials also said the peak had been reached in the province of Jiangsu in late December, while in Zhejiang, authorities said, “the first wave of infections has passed smoothly,” according to Health Times, a publication managed by People’s Daily. The state-run Farmers’ Daily said that visits to 51 villages across 31 provinces showed that most residents had been infected and had recovered.

Data released by Baidu, the main search engine in China, showed that the number of searches related to covid symptoms and medical supplies had dropped since peaking in mid-December.

Yet in Henan, officials said hospitals remain overcrowded because of a rise in critical cases in the past week. Researchers at the Institute of Public Health at Nankai University in Tianjin, using data from fever clinics, project that the nationwide peak will be between Dec. 20 and Jan. 15, with two smaller peaks in the first half of this year.

Officials have predicted a second wave over the Lunar New Year holiday, when the total number of passenger trips by residents is expected to reach 2.1 billion as pent-up demand for travel is unleashed. At this point, more contagion could spread to rural areas, where severe shortages of anti-fever drugs and medical staff have been reported.

How did zero covid affect the outbreak?

China’s pursuit of zero covid, eliminating the spread of the virus through lockdowns, mandatory quarantines, travel restrictions and mass testing, has proved to be a double-edged sword. While the approach kept infections and death rates low throughout most of the pandemic, it left the Chinese population with little natural immunity to the virus.

Many elderly residents — already skeptical of vaccines, which have had a troubled past in China — did not get vaccinated, feeling that they would be protected by the zero-covid strategy. Only 40 percent of residents above the age of 80 have had booster shots.

Under China’s covid policy, the population was immunized with domestically made vaccines that are not as effective against the omicron variant as mRNA vaccines. China has yet to approve foreign mRNA vaccines, and a domestically made one is still under production.

What does this mean for the rest of the world?

Concerns about the possibility of a new variant emerging in China have prompted countries including the United States, Japan and South Korea, and many European countries, to require extra screening for arrivals from China.

Wu Zunyou, the chief epidemiologist at the CDC, told CCTV in a report published Sunday that no new variants have emerged and that new strains are being collected every day to monitor changes.

“All the strains we found so far have already been shared with international sharing platforms,” he said. “They are the ones either reported abroad, or have been introduced to China after spreading overseas. So far, no newly emerged mutated strains have been found in China.”

The World Health Organization has called on China to share more real-time data on the outbreak. Michael Ryan, the health emergencies director, said at a news conference in Geneva on Wednesday that the WHO “still believes that deaths are heavily underreported from China.” He added: “We still do not have adequate information to make a full comprehensive risk assessment.”

Beijing has criticized travel restrictions on people arriving from China imposed by other countries as “ridiculous” and politically motivated. It has threatened countermeasures and this week suspended short-term visas for Japanese and South Korean citizens.

The current “tripledemic” is putting pressure on hospitals  

https://mailchi.mp/e44630c5c8c0/the-weekly-gist-december-16-2022?e=d1e747d2d8

Hospitals across the country are being hit with a spike in respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza cases, while still dealing with a steady flow of COVID admissions, in what’s been dubbed a tripledemic. The graphic above uses hospitalization data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to show that each disease has been sending similar shares of the population to hospitals across late fall, with flu hospitalizations having just overtaken COVID admissions after Thanksgiving.

These numbers reflect that we’re experiencing the worst RSV season in at least five years, and we’re set to endure the worst flu season since 2009-10. As RSV is most severe in very young children, its recent surge has revealed another capacity shortage in our nation’s hospitals: pediatric beds. From 2008 to 2018, pediatric inpatient bed counts fell by 19 percent, as hospitals shifted resources to higher revenue services. 

This strategy has now come to a head in many parts of the country, as RSV has driven pediatric bed usage rates to a recent high. (The Department of Health and Human Services’ pediatric capacity data only dates back to August 2020.) With three straight weeks of declining RSV hospitalizations, there is reason to hope that pediatric care units will soon feel a reprieve. However, flu season has yet to reach its peak, prompting calls for a return to widespread mask-wearing and a renewed emphasis on flu shots, given that more than half of Americans have not yet gotten vaccinated this season. 

Twitter no longer policing COVID misinformation

https://mailchi.mp/0622acf09daa/the-weekly-gist-december-2-2022?e=d1e747d2d8

Amid a flurry of policy changes initiated by Elon Musk since his takeover of the social media company last month, Twitter has ceased its formal efforts to combat COVID misinformation. To date, Twitter had removed over 100K posts for violating its COVID policy. The company will now rely on its users to combat disinformation through its “Birdwatch” program, which lets users rate the accuracy of tweets and submit corrections. Many of the 11K accounts suspended for spreading COVID misinformation, including those of politicians like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), have also been reinstated. 

The Gist: We’ve seen the damage caused by inaccurate or deliberately misleading COVID information, which has likely played a role in the US’s lower vaccination rates compared to other high-income countries. Around one in five Americans use Twitter, far fewer than Facebook or YouTube, but the platform is seen as highly influential, both for the reach of its content and also its moderation decisions. 

This policy change is worrisome, not only because COVID is still taking the lives of hundreds of Americans daily, but also because COVID misinformation catalyzes broader healthcare misinformation, including antivax sentiments and an overall mistrust of medical experts.