Category Archives: Safety Net Hospitals

100,000 Lives Lost to COVID-19. What Did They Teach Us?

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Crisis, Economic Recovery, Emergency Preparedness, First Responders, Front Lines, Health Policy, Healthcare Providers, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Leadership Decentralized, Mortality, National Strategy, Nurses, Nursing Home, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Physician, Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Safety Net Hospitals, Safety-Net Providers, Scientists, Sick Leave, Social Determinants of Health, Social Distancing, Supply Chain, Vulnerable Populations • Leave a comment

https://www.propublica.org/article/100000-lives-lost-to-covid-19-what-did-they-teach-us?utm_source=pardot&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailynewsletter&utm_content=feature

May 27 data: Four new Utah COVID-19 deaths as US count tops ...

Each person who has died of COVID-19 was somebody’s everything. Even as we mourn for those we knew, cry for those we loved and consider those who have died uncounted, the full tragedy of the pandemic hinges on one question: How do we stop the next 100,000?

The United States has now recorded 100,000 deaths due to the coronavirus.

It’s a moment to collectively grieve and reflect.

Even as we mourn for those we knew, cry for those we loved and consider also those who have died uncounted, I hope that we can also resolve to learn more, test better, hold our leaders accountable and better protect our citizens so we do not have to reach another grim milestone.

Through public records requests and other reporting, ProPublica has found example after example of delays, mistakes and missed opportunities. The CDC took weeks to fix its faulty test. In Seattle, 33,000 fans attended a soccer match, even after the top local health official said he wanted to end mass gatherings. Houston went ahead with a livestock show and rodeo that typically draws 2.5 million people, until evidence of community spread shut it down after eight days. Nebraska kept a meatpacking plant open that health officials wanted to shut down, and cases from the plant subsequently skyrocketed. And in New York, the epicenter of the pandemic, political infighting between Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio hampered communication and slowed decision making at a time when speed was critical to stop the virus’ exponential spread.

COVID-19 has also laid bare many long-standing inequities and failings in America’s health care system. It is devastating, but not surprising, to learn that many of those who have been most harmed by the virus are also Americans who have long suffered from historical social injustices that left them particularly susceptible to the disease.

This massive loss of life wasn’t inevitable. It wasn’t simply unfortunate and regrettable. Even without a vaccine or cure, better mitigation measures could have prevented infections from happening in the first place; more testing capacity could have allowed patients to be identified and treated earlier.

The COVID-19 pandemic is not over, far from it.

At this moment, the questions we need to ask are: How do we prevent the next 100,000 deaths from happening? How do we better protect our most vulnerable in the coming months? Even while we mourn, how can we take action, so we do not repeat this horror all over again?

Here’s what we’ve learned so far.

Though we’ve long known about infection control problems in nursing homes, COVID-19 got in and ran roughshod.

From the first weeks of the coronavirus outbreak in the United States, when the virus tore through the Life Care Center in Kirkland, Washington, nursing homes and long-term care facilities have emerged as one of the deadliest settings. As of May 21, there have been around 35,000 deaths of staff and residents in nursing homes and long-term care facilities, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.

Yet the facilities have continued to struggle with basic infection control. Federal inspectors have found homes with insufficient staff and a lack of personal protective equipment. Others have failed to maintain social distancing among residents, according to inspection reports ProPublica reviewed. Desperate family members have had to become detectives and activists, one even going as far as staging a midnight rescue of her loved one as the virus spread through a Queens, New York, assisted living facility.

What now? The risk to the elderly will not decrease as time goes by — more than any other population, they will need the highest levels of protection until the pandemic is over. The CEO of the industry’s trade group told my colleague Charles Ornstein: “Just like hospitals, we have called for help. In our case, nobody has listened.” More can be done to protect our nursing home and long term care population. This means regular testing of both staff and residents, adequate protective gear and a realistic way to isolate residents who test positive.

Racial disparities in health care are pervasive in medicine, as they have been in COVID-19 deaths.

African Americans have contracted and died of the coronavirus at higher rates across the country. This is due to myriad factors, including more limited access to medical care as well as environmental, economic and political factors that put them at higher risk of chronic conditions. When ProPublica examined the first 100 recorded victims of the coronavirus in Chicago, we found that 70 were black. African Americans make up 30% of the city’s population.

What now? States should make sure that safety-net hospitals, which serve a large portion of low-income and uninsured patients regardless of their ability to pay, and hospitals in neighborhoods that serve predominantly black communities, are well-supplied and sufficiently staffed during the crisis. More can also be done to encourage African American patients to not delay seeking care, even when they have “innocent symptoms” like a cough or low-grade fever, especially when they suffer other health conditions like diabetes.

Racial disparities go beyond medicine, to other aspects of the pandemic. Data shows that black people are already being disproportionately arrested for social distancing violations, a measure that can undercut public health efforts and further raise the risk of infection, especially when enforcement includes time in a crowded jail.

Essential workers had little choice but to work during COVID-19, but adequate safeguards weren’t put in place to protect them.

We’ve known from the beginning there are some measures that help protect us from the virus, such as physical distancing. Yet millions of Americans haven’t been able to heed that advice, and have had no choice but to risk their health daily as they’ve gone to work shoulder-to-shoulder in meat-packing plants, rung up groceries while being forbidden to wear gloves, or delivered the mail. Those who are undocumented live with the additional fear of being caught by immigration authorities if they go to a hospital for testing or treatment.

What now? Research has shown that there’s a much higher risk of transmission in enclosed spaces than outdoors, so providing good ventilation, adequate physical distancing, and protective gear as appropriate for workers in indoor spaces is critical for safety. We also now know that patients are likely most infectious right before or at the time when symptoms start appearing, so if workplaces are generous about their sick leave policies, workers can err on the side of caution if they do feel unwell, and not have to choose between their livelihoods and their health. It’s also important to have adequate testing capacity, so infections can be caught before they turn into a large outbreak.

Frontline health care workers were not given adequate PPE and were sometimes fired for speaking up about it.

While health workers have not, thankfully, been dying at conspicuously higher rates, they continue to be susceptible to the virus due to their work. The national scramble for ventilators and personal protective equipment has exposed the just-in-time nature of hospitals’ inventories: Nurses across the country have had to work with expired N95 masks, or no masks at all. Health workers have been suspended, or put on unpaid leave, because they didn’t see eye to eye with their administrators on the amount of protective gear they needed to keep themselves safe while caring for patients.

First responders — EMTs, firefighters and paramedics — are often forgotten when it comes to funding, even though they are the first point of contact with sick patients. The lack of a coherent system nationwide meant that some first responders felt prepared, while others were begging for masks at local hospitals.

What now? As states reopen, it will be important to closely track hospital capacity, and if cases rise and threaten their medical systems’ ability to care for patients, governments will need to be ready to pause or even dial back reopening measures. It should go without saying that adequate protective gear is a must. I also hope that hospital administrators are thinking about mental health care for their staffs. Doctors and nurses have told us of the immense strain of caring for patients whom they don’t know how to save, while also worrying about getting sick themselves, or carrying the virus home to their loved ones. Even “heroes” need supplies and support.

What we still have to learn:

There continue to be questions on which data is lacking, such as the effects of the coronavirus on pregnant women. Without evidence-based research, pregnant women have been left to make decisions on their own, sometimes trying to limit their exposure against their employer’s wishes.

Similarly, there’s a paucity of data on children’s risk level and their role in transmission. While we can confidently say that it’s rare for children to get very ill if they do get infected, there’s not as much information on whether children are as infectious as adults. Answering that question would not just help parents make decisions (Can I let my kid go to day care when we live with Grandma?) but also help officials make evidence-based decisions on how and when to reopen schools.

There’s some research I don’t want to rush. Experts say the bar for evidence should be extremely high when it comes to a vaccine’s safety and benefit. It makes sense that we might be willing to use a therapeutic with less evidence on critically ill patients, knowing that without any intervention, they would soon die. A vaccine, however, is intended to be given to vast numbers of healthy people. So yes, we have to move urgently, but we must still take the time to gather robust data.

Our nation’s leaders have many choices to make in the coming weeks and months. I hope they will heed the advice of scientists, doctors and public health officials, and prioritize the protection of everyone from essential workers to people in prisons and homeless shelters who does not have the privilege of staying home for the duration of the pandemic.

The coronavirus is a wily adversary. We may ultimately defeat it with a vaccine or effective therapeutics. But what we’ve learned from the first 100,000 deaths is that we can save lives with the oldest mitigation tactics in the public health arsenal — and that being slow to act comes with a terrible cost.

I refuse to succumb to fatalism, to just accepting the ever higher death toll as inevitable. I want us to make it harder for this virus to take each precious life from us. And I believe we can.

 

 

 

Perspective: The Pandemic Has Created a Food Insecurity Crisis. The Federal Response Has Been Swift, but Is it Enough?

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), Coronavirus, Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP), Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Crisis, Economic Recovery, Economic Stimulus, Employee Furlough, Employee Hiring Freeze, Employee Layoffs, Employee Pay Cuts, Employee Protections, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act, Health Policy, National School Lunch Program (NSLP), Pandemic, Pandemic EBT (P-EBT), Public Health, Public Safety, Safety Net Hospitals, Safety-Net Providers, Social Determinants of Health, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women Infants and Children (WIC), Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance • Leave a comment

https://altarum.org/news/pandemic-has-created-food-insecurity-crisis-federal-response-has-been-swift-it-enough?utm_source=Altarum+Updates&utm_campaign=05b6c1511b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_05_20_07_13&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4220252dfe-05b6c1511b-347615961

The Pandemic Has Created a Food Insecurity Crisis. The Federal ...

Our ability to access nutritious food is a critical factor to our health and well-being, which is why it has been alarming to see images in recent weeks of cars lining up by the thousands at food banks across the country. Indeed, a university survey taken since the onset of the crises found nearly 4 in 10 Americans reported having moderate to high levels of food insecurity, compared to 11 percent of households who were food insecure in 2018, according to the USDA Economic Research Service.

In response, the federal government has given states administrative relief and funding through various Covid-19 response packages. USDA also has authorized temporary waivers that grant states greater flexibility to address the increased demands and to align with shelter-in-place and social-distancing orders.

USDA also created two new programs: the Pandemic EBT (P-EBT) and the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP). P-EBT allows states to issue eligible households an EBT card, a type of debit card used to purchase food, with the value of the free school breakfast and lunch reimbursement rates for the number of weekdays that schools are closed due to Covid-19 (estimated to be around $5.70 per day).

As of the first week of May, 18 states have been approved to provide benefits through P-EBT and 20 additional states have submitted plans for approval. CFAP aims not only to assist families in accessing food but also ranchers and farmers who have an excess supply. Through CFAP, the USDA will procure an estimated $100 million per month of fresh fruits and vegetables and $300 million per month in dairy and meat products for food banks and other nonprofits providing food to Americans in need.

Are these measures enough? Let’s examine the changes, particularly the USDA waivers for the federal food assistance programs.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, provides financial support to supplement the food budget of needy families. USDA waivers that increased flexibility in the administration of SNAP include:

  • waived the requirements for in-person interviews during the SNAP enrollment process,
  • provided emergency supplementary benefits up to the maximum benefit a household can receive for up to two months,
  • removed the requirement for SNAP recipients to re-certify midway through their participation,
  • provided flexibility for jobless workers to remain eligible, and
  • expanded the SNAP online grocery purchase pilot from the original eight states adding an additional 12 states and the District of Columbia.

These efforts are a step in the right direction to ease family burdens, but the supplemental benefits and program flexibilities are time-limited by the federal public health emergency declaration for Covid-19. Also, the 40 percent of SNAP households who already receive the maximum benefit are excluded from the supplemental benefits. Especially as we are experience the sharpest increase in food costs in decades, we need to provide additional support to the lowest income SNAP recipients. To assist families during the longer economic recovery, advocates and policy experts are calling for the following expansions to ensure these benefits cover a larger share of the people who need them:

  • boost the benefit for households by 15 percent (an additional $25 per person per month),
  • increase the minimum benefit per month from $16 to $30, and
  • suspend implementation of all administrative rules that restrict access for millions of Americans.

The Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women Infants and Children (WIC), a public health nutrition program that provides nutrition education, breastfeeding support and nutritious foods to low-income pregnant women and mothers of small children, has been providing services remotely. USDA waivers that increased flexibility in the administration of WIC include:

  • waived requirements for the physical presence for certification,
  • waiver for deferment of measurements and blood tests,
  • ability to issue benefits remotely, and
  • food package substitutions.

That’s a good start and more can be done. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recommends temporarily extending WIC certification periods for infants to two years as well as extending WIC eligibility from age five to age six. The National WIC Association is also advocating for an increase in the Cash Value Benefit to enhance fruit and vegetable purchases by WIC families.

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and Breakfast Programs, Summer Food Service Program, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), which serve low-income school children, quickly revamped and developed innovative ways to distribute meals to families, often expanding their regular productions. USDA waivers that increased flexibility to help better serve families during the pandemic include:

  • ability to serve non-congregate meals,
  • allowing for pick-up and delivery of meals,
  • allowing modification in the meals components requirements,
  • waiving time elements and meal spacing requirements,
  • allowing virtual desk enrollment of new CACFP providers, and
  • waive requirement that afterschool meals and snacks be accompanied by educational activities.

CACFP provides meals to preschool-aged children in Child Care Centers and licensed child care family homes.  During the pandemic, most centers have been closed, while a majority of family homes remained open and provided services for essential workers.

According to Paula James, director of child health and nutrition at CocoKids in northern California, about 68 percent of the Contra Costa county’s family homes participating in CACFP remained open in April, and these waivers were helpful. Moving forward, she believes CACFP should continue the allowance of virtual enrollment and expand the use of that technology to regular monitoring site visits, specifically in rural areas or locations where safety could be a concern.  While the pandemic has provided the opportunity to test technological advances that could streamline program operations in the future, it also revealed some systemic weaknesses, including that CACFP has no centralized database system, which is needed at the state level and requires federal guidance. Lack of technology throughout the program was a hinderance to providing additional services to families during COVID-19.  “Continued use of technology into the future will be very important,” said James.

What more can be done? The federal government should extend COVID-19 related waivers for all nutrition programs until September 30, the date provided by congressional authority. While the public health restrictions may be lifting across the states, the economic fallout will likely be felt by families for many months to come.

In addition, states should leverage communication, technology, all federal supports, and evaluation to ensure they are successfully reaching as many in need as possible. This includes:

  • conducting a public information campaign to alert newly unemployed families in need about available food assistance programs and how to apply and access benefits;
  • utilizing technology solutions to provide remote program services and enrollment including mobile uploading of required documents;
  • taking advantage and apply for all available waiver options from the federal government; and
  • evaluating the revised work systems and if appropriate, take actions to allow for permanent program changes.

This week House Democrats passed the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act, the fifth Covid-related legislative package, which includes a boost in funding for SNAP, WIC, and Child Nutrition Programs. The bill also provides support to local food banks and emergency food providers. Any bill that goes to the president should include these food access supports.

It is critical to strengthen federal food assistance programs and the social safety net while working to address the root causes of poverty to reduce health and social disparities. To learn how Altarum can assist your state in program assessment, planning, evaluation, training and analytic support for quality services, contact Tara Fowler, PhD, director of the Center for Healthy Women and Children, at tara.fowler@altarum.org.

 

 

 

Medicaid Providers At The End Of The Line For Federal COVID Funding

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Employee Furlough, Employee Hiring Freeze, Employee Layoffs, Employee Pay Cuts, Health Policy, Medicaid, Medicaid Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicaid Expansion, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Safety Net Hospitals, Safety-Net Providers • Leave a comment

https://khn.org/news/medicaid-providers-at-the-end-of-the-line-for-federal-covid-funding/

Medicaid Providers At The End Of The Line For Federal COVID ...

Casa de Salud, a nonprofit clinic in Albuquerque, New Mexico, provides primary medical care, opioid addiction services and non-Western therapies, including acupuncture and reiki, to a largely low-income population.

And, like so many other health care providers that serve as a safety net, its revenue — and its future — are threatened by the COVID-19 epidemic.

“I’ve been working for the past six weeks to figure out how to keep the doors open,” said the clinic’s executive director, Dr. Anjali Taneja. “We’ve seen probably an 80% drop in patient care, which has completely impacted our bottom line.”

In March, Congress authorized $100 billion for health care providers, both to compensate them for the extra costs associated with caring for patients with COVID-19 and for the revenue that’s not coming in from regular care. They have been required to stop providing most nonemergency services, and many patients are afraid to visit health care facilities.

But more than half that money has been allocated by the Department of Health and Human Services, and the majority of it so far has gone to hospitals, doctors and other facilities that serve Medicare patients. Officials said at the time that was an efficient way to get the money beginning to move to many providers. That, however, leaves out a large swath of the health system infrastructure that serves the low-income Medicaid population and children. Casa de Salud, for example, accepts Medicaid but not Medicare.

State Medicaid directors say that without immediate funding, many of the health facilities that serve Medicaid patients could close permanently. More than a month ago, bipartisan Medicaid chiefs wrote the federal government asking for immediate authority to make “retainer” payments — not related to specific care for patients — to keep their health providers in business.

“If we wait, core components of the Medicaid delivery system could fail during, or soon after, this pandemic,” wrote the National Association of Medicaid Directors.

So far, the Trump administration has not responded, although in early April it said it was “working rapidly on additional targeted distributions” for other providers, including those who predominately serve Medicaid patients.

In an email, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said officials there will “continue to work with states as they seek to ensure continued access to care for Medicaid beneficiaries through and beyond the public health emergency.”

CMS noted that states have several ways of boosting payments for Medicaid providers, but did not directly answer the question about the retainer payments that states are seeking the authority to make. Nor did it say when the funds would start to flow to Medicaid providers who do not also get funding from Medicare.

The delay is frustrating Medicaid advocates.

“This needs to be addressed urgently,” said Joan Alker, executive director of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families in Washington, D.C. “We are concerned about the infrastructure and how quickly it could evaporate.”

In the administration’s explanation of how it is distributing the relief funds, Medicaid providers are included in a catchall category at the very bottom of the list, under the heading “additional allocations.”

“To not see anything substantive coming from the federal level just adds insult to injury,” said Todd Goodwin.

He runs the John F. Murphy Homes in Auburn, Maine, which provides residential and day services to hundreds of children and adults with developmental and intellectual disabilities. He said his organization — which has already furloughed almost 300 workers and spent more than $200,000 on COVID-related expenses including purchases of essential equipment such as masks and protective equipment that will not be reimbursable — has not been eligible for any of the various aid programs passed by Congress. It gets most of its funding from Medicaid and public school systems.

The organization has tapped a line of credit to stay afloat. “But if we’re not here providing these services, there’s no Plan B,” he said.

Even providers who largely serve privately insured patients are facing financial distress. Dr. Sandy Chung is CEO of Trusted Doctors, which has about 50 physicians in 13 offices in the Northern Virginia suburbs around Washington, D.C. She said about 15% of its funding comes from Medicaid, but the drop off in private and Medicaid patients has left the group “really struggling.”

“We’ve had to furlough staff, had to curtail hours, and we may have to close some locations,” she said.

Of special concern are children because Medicaid covers nearly 40% of them across the county. Chung, who also heads the Virginia chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said that vaccination rates are off 30% for infants and 75% for adolescents, putting them and others at risk for preventable illnesses.

The biggest rub, she added, is that with the economy in free fall, more people will qualify for Medicaid coverage in the coming weeks and months.

“But if you don’t have providers around anymore, then you will have a significant mismatch,” she said.

Back in Albuquerque, Taneja is working to find whatever sources of funding she can to keep the clinic open. She secured a federal loan to help cover her payroll for a couple of months, but worries what will happen after that. “It would kill me if we’ve survived 15 years in this health care system, just to not make it through COVID,” she said.

 

 

 

 

Trump will urge Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Dept of Justice (DOJ), Employee Furlough, Employee Hiring Freeze, Employee Layoffs, Employee Pay Cuts, Employee Protections, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Rural Health, Rural Hospital, Safety Net Hospitals, Safety-Net Providers, Supreme Court, Surprise Bills, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/06/trump-supreme-court-obamacare-240366?utm_source=The+Fiscal+Times&utm_campaign=f343554e9c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_05_06_09_42&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_714147a9cf-f343554e9c-390702969

Trump will urge Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare - YouTube

Attorney General Bill Barr had urged the White House to soften its attack on the law during the pandemic.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday said his administration will urge the Supreme Court to overturn Obamacare, maintaining its all-out legal assault on the health care law amid a pandemic that will drive millions of more Americans to depend on its coverage.

The administration appears to be doubling down on its legal strategy, even after Attorney General William Barr this week warned top Trump officials about the political ramifications of undermining the health care safety net during the coronavirus emergency.

Democrats two years ago took back the House of Representatives and statehouses across the country by promising to defend Obamacare, in particular its insurance protections that prevent sick people from being denied coverage or charged more because of a health condition. The issue may prove to be even more salient in November amid the Covid-19 outbreak that health experts believe will persist through the fall.

The Justice Department had a Wednesday deadline to change its position in a case brought by Republican-led states, but Trump told reporters Wednesday afternoon his administration would stand firm. DOJ declined to comment.

“Obamacare is a disaster, but we’ve made it barely acceptable,” Trump said.

The Supreme Court later this fall will hear a lawsuit from the GOP-led states that argue the Affordable Care Act was rendered invalid after Congress eliminated its tax penalty for not having health insurance. A coalition of Democratic state attorneys general and the Democratic-led House of Representatives are defending the law in court.

The Trump administration had previously shifted its legal position in this case, but appears to have decided against doing so again. DOJ originally argued the courts should throw out just Obamacare’s preexisting condition protections, before last year urging that the entire law be struck down.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case during its next term starting in October, but it hasn’t scheduled arguments yet. A decision is unlikely before the Nov. 3 election. The court has previously upheld Obamacare in two major challenges that threatened the law’s survival.

About 20 million people have been covered by Obamacare, and the law is expected to provide a major safety net during the economic freefall brought on by the coronavirus. Millions more are expected to join the Medicaid rolls, especially in states that joined Obamacare’s expansion to poor adults. Others who lost workplace health insurance can sign up on the law’s health insurance marketplaces, though the Trump administration isn’t doing much to advertise coverage options.

House Democrats in a filing to the Supreme Court on Wednesday said the pandemic showcased why justices should preserve the law.

“Although Congress may not have enacted the ACA with the specific purpose of combatting a pandemic, the nation’s current public-health emergency has made it impossible to deny that broad access to affordable health care is not just a life-or death matter for millions of Americans, but an indispensable precondition to the social intercourse on which our security, welfare, and liberty ultimately depend,” their brief read.

Obamacare has grown more popular since the GOP’s failed repeal bid during Trump’s first year in office, though the law is still broadly disliked by Republicans. Many Democrats are eager to again run on their defense of Obamacare this fall. That includes presumptive presidential nominee Joe Biden, who has advocated for building on the health care law rather than pursuing a comprehensive progressive overhaul like “Medicare for All.”

Top Trump officials have long been split on the legal strategy in the Obamacare lawsuit. Barr and Alex Azar, the Health and Human Services secretary, both opposed a broader attack on the law, but White House officials have been more supportive, seeing it as a chance to fulfill Trump’s pledge to repeal Obamacare. Barr, in a Monday meeting with Vice President Mike Pence and other White House officials, made an eleventh-hour plea for the administration to soften its legal stance ahead of the Supreme Court’s briefing deadline.

 

 

 

States cut Medicaid as millions of jobless workers look to safety net

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Economy, Employee Benefits, Employee Furlough, Employee Hiring Freeze, Employee Layoffs, Employee Pay Cuts, Employee Protections, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicaid, Rural Health, Rural Hospital, Safety Net Hospitals, Safety-Net Providers • Leave a comment

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/05/05/states-cut-medicaid-programs-239208?utm_source=The+Fiscal+Times&utm_campaign=f343554e9c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_05_06_09_42&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_714147a9cf-f343554e9c-390702969

Medicaid Cuts Could Hurt Seniors Most | Muskegon Tribune

Three states have cut back state spending on the program since the pandemic hit, and more are warning of painful cuts to benefits and services.

States facing sudden drops in tax revenue amid the pandemic are announcing deep cuts to their Medicaid programs just as millions of newly jobless Americans are surging onto the rolls.

And state officials are worried that they’ll have to slash benefits for patients and payments to health providers in the safety net insurance program for the poor unless they get more federal aid.

State Medicaid programs in the previous economic crisis cut everything from dental services to podiatry care — and reduced payments to hospitals and doctors in order to balance out spending on other needs like roads, schools and prisons. Medicaid officials warn the gutting could be far worse this time, because program enrollment has swelled in recent years largely because of Obamacare’s expansion.

The looming crisis facing Medicaid programs “is going to be the ’09 recession on steroids,” said Matt Salo, head of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. “It’s going to hit hard, and it’s going to hit fast.”

Medicaid programs, among the largest budget items in most states, provide health insurance to roughly 70 million poor adults, children, the disabled and pregnant women. The federal government on average pays roughly 60 percent of program costs, with poorer states receiving a higher share. States have the latitude to adjust benefits, payments to health care providers and eligibility requirements with oversight by the federal government.

Now, governors are turning to Congress for help as it weighs a new package to rescue state budgets battered by the pandemic. They’re asking lawmakers to provide a bigger boost to Medicaid payments and provide hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to shore up state budgets.

Medicaid naturally faces heightened demand as economic conditions worsen. But that leaves states facing more need at the same time that they have less money.

“The cruel nature of the economic downturn is that at a time when you need a social safety net is also the time when government revenues shrink,” Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, said Tuesday as he announced $210 million in cuts to his state’s Medicaid program in the next two months.

The vast majority of a $229 million spending cut made by Colorado Democratic Gov. Jared Polis last week came from Medicaid, though new federal funds will forestall an immediate reduction in benefits or payments to health providers. State legislative committee staff have warned Medicaid enrollment there could spike by 500,000 by the end of the year.

In Georgia, where Medicaid enrollment is projected to rise by as much as 567,000, Republican Gov. Brian Kemp and legislative leaders have instructed every state agency to prepare for 14 percent reductions across the board.

House Democrats are pushing to deliver a $1 trillion-plus package in aid to state and local governments and to support safety net programs, which could alleviate pressure on states to make deep cuts to health care during a pandemic. Some Republican lawmakers have questioned the need for more aid, after Congress has shoveled out trillions of dollars in rescue funding.

Congress already gave states a temporary 6 percent increase in the federal portion of Medicaid spending in an earlier coronavirus package. That prompted Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, a Republican, to cut state Medicaid spending $31 million last month, saying the temporary federal boost would make up the difference.

State officials largely agreed the increase was helpful but said it likely will be washed out by an expected enrollment surge. The nation’s governors say Congress — in addition to providing at least $500 billion in direct support to states — must double the Medicaid funding boost to 12 percent as it did in the previous recession. At least one Republican senator facing a tough reelection fight, Cory Gardner of Colorado, said his state sorely needs extra Medicaid funding to avoid “harmful budget cuts.”

Anywhere from 11 million to 23 million more people could sign up for Medicaid over the next several months. The demand will be even greater in roughly three-quarters of states that expanded Medicaid enrollment to poor adults under the Affordable Care Act.

The portion of state budgets devoted to Medicaid spending has grown quickly since the previous recession, making it a riper target for cuts. Medicaid spending on average accounted for 15.7 percent of state budgets in fiscal 2009, a number that jumped to 19.7 percent in fiscal 2019.

Medicaid enrollment data in some states often lags, making it difficult to determine how much national sign-ups have climbed since jobless claims began surging two months ago. Some states have begun to report notable surges, however, and larger increases are expected in the coming months.

Arizona in the past two months saw 78,000 people enroll in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which receives more generous funding from the federal government. Virginia has seen a 20 percent increase in enrollment applications since mid-March.

In New Mexico, where 42 percent of the population was already enrolled in Medicaid, sign-ups in the first two weeks of April surged by about 10,000 more people than were expected before the pandemic.

New Mexico’s top Medicaid official said the budget is a significant concern for a state heavily reliant on oil and natural gas. She worries a prolonged economic downturn could force the state to roll back pay increases to Medicaid providers enacted last year, and another planned pay raise for next year is almost certainly off the table.

States that accepted the temporary Medicaid payment increase from Congress are barred from cutting back enrollment while they’re receiving the enhanced funds. That leaves states with the option of cutting benefits or provider payments to find Medicaid savings, which could ignite fierce brawls in state capitals.

Michigan state Rep. Mary Whiteford, the Republican chairwoman of a health care appropriations panel, said the state’s Medicaid enrollment could increase from 2.4 million to 2.8 million by the end of the year.

“We are just planning for major cuts moving forward,” Whiteford said.

Before the pandemic, states had socked away $72 billion in rainy day funds — an all-time high, said Brian Sigritz of the National Association of State Budget Officers. But that figure was easily dwarfed by the $150 billion Congress provided to state and local governments in an earlier package, and it’s far short of what states are demanding.

“Now, we’re looking at greater declines than what we saw during the Great Recession and increased spending,” Sigritz said. “If there aren’t more federal funds, states will have to look at cutting funding for key services: public safety, education, health care. That’s where the money is.”

 

 

Tentative steps toward recovering from a deadly pandemic

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Economy, Elective Procedures, Elective Surgery, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Medicare, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Safety Net Hospitals, Safety-Net Providers, Social Distancing, The CARES Act • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/0d4b1a52108c/the-weekly-gist-april-24-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

Baby Steps – Selah Someonetotalkto's Blog

The death toll from the novel coronavirus continued to mount this week, with more than 50,000 deaths reported in the US, and over 900,000 confirmed cases nationwide. Globally, the disease has infected more than 2.7M people and killed nearly 200,000. On Tuesday, public health officials in California announced that two people who died in Santa Clara County in early February were victims of COVID-19, making them the earliest known fatalities in the US, and altering experts’ understanding of how long the disease has been spreading in the country. New modeling from researchers at Northeastern University this week suggested that the virus may have been spreading widely in several cities by early February, but went undetected because of restrictions on testing.

National attention has remained focused on the subject of testing, as states and localities scramble to secure enough testing supplies and equipment to allow them to understand community spread and identify new cases. President Trump signed an emergency $484B relief bill on Friday that will provide $25B to ramp up testing, give additional aid to businesses forced to shutter, and send hospitals $75B in additional emergency funding.

The new money for hospitals is in addition to $100B already approved by Congress for a “provider relief fund” as part of the CARES Act. Having already distributed $30B of the initial grant money to hospitals, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was expected to pay out an additional $20B today, this time according to a formula based on the net patient revenue of each hospital, rather than the earlier approach based on Medicare billings. The shift is expected to address concerns among children’s hospitals, safety-net providers, and others who were disadvantaged by the Medicare-based approach. It is unclear how the newly approved $75B of additional funding will be allocated.

Meanwhile, states began to plan for the reopening of their economies, with most governors taking a measured approach in coordination with neighboring states. A handful of states moved to loosen stay-at-home restrictions in advance of meeting the Trump administration’s “gating” criteria, including Florida, which reopened some beaches for recreational use, Oklahoma, and Georgia, which controversially allowed gyms, bowling alleys, hair and nail salons, and tattoo parlors to reopen on Friday.

Many states began to put in place plans to restart elective surgeries, which had been curtailed by a patchwork of differing state and local directives. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released guidelines this week to help local officials decide when and how to restart surgeries. Whether for healthcare services or other types of economic activity, states will (and should) be guided by the ability to conduct widespread testing, robust contact tracing, and isolation of those infected with the virus. Ensuring that ability will likely make the next phase of the pandemic a protracted and frustrating “dance” of fits and starts, likely to last into the summer months and beyond.

 

 

 

State-by-state breakdown of 354 rural hospitals at high risk of closing

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Access, Access & Quality of Healthcare, Access to Capital, Bankruptcy, Cash, Cash Reserves, Debt Levels, Financially Distressed, Health Policy, Hospital, Hospital Bankruptcy, Hospital Closure, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Rev Cycle Management, Rural Health, Rural Hospital, Safety Net Hospitals, Safety-Net Providers • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/state-by-state-breakdown-of-354-rural-hospitals-at-high-risk-of-closing.html?utm_medium=email

What Rural Hospital Closures Mean for EMS Professionals

Twenty-five percent of the 1,430 rural hospitals in the U.S. are at high risk of closing unless their finances improve, according to an annual analysis from Guidehouse, a consulting firm. 

The 354 rural hospitals at high risk of closing are spread across 40 states and represent more than 222,000 annual discharges. According to the analysis, 287 of these hospitals — 81 percent — are considered highly essential to the health and economic wellbeing of their communities.

Several factors are putting rural hospitals at risk of closing, according to the analysis, which looked at operating margin, days cash on hand, debt-to-capitalization ratio, current ratio and inpatient census to determine the financial viability of rural hospitals. Declining inpatient volume, clinician shortages, payer mix degradation and revenue cycle management challenges are among the factors driving the rural hospital crisis.

The Guidehouse study analyzed the financial viability of rural hospitals prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the authors noted that the rural hospital crisis could significantly worsen due to the pandemic or any downturn in the economy. 

Here are the number and percentage of rural hospitals at high risk of closing in each state based on the analysis:

Tennessee
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 19 (68 percent)

Alabama
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 18 (60 percent)

Oklahoma
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 28 (60 percent)

Arkansas
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 18 (53 percent)

Mississippi
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 25 (50 percent)

West Virginia
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 9 (50 percent)

South Carolina
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 4 (44 percent)

Georgia
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 14 (41 percent)

Kentucky
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 18 (40 percent)

Louisiana
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 11 (37 percent)

Maine
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 7 (33 percent)

Indiana
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 8 (31 percent)

Kansas
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 26 (31 percent)

New Mexico
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 3 (30 percent)

Michigan
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 13 (29 percent)

Missouri
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 10 (26 percent)

Virginia
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 5 (25 percent)

Oregon
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 4 (24 percent)

California
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 6 (23 percent)

North Carolina
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 6 (23 percent)

Florida
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 2 (22 percent)

North Dakota
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 7 (21 percent)

Ohio
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 6 (20 percent)

Vermont
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 2 (20 percent)

Idaho
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 4 (19 percent)

Pennsylvania
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 4 (19 percent)

Washington
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 5 (18 percent)

Wyoming
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 3 (18 percent)

Texas
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 14 (16 percent)

Colorado
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 4 (14 percent)

Illinois
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 7 (14 percent)

Montana
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 7 (14 percent)

Nebraska
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 8 (13 percent)

New York
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 4 (13 percent)

Iowa
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 9 (12 percent)

Minnesota
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 8 (11 percent)

Alaska
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 1 (10 percent)

Arizona
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 1 (10 percent)

New Hampshire
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 1 (9 percent)

Wisconsin
Rural hospitals at high risk of closing: 5 (9 percent)

 

 

 

Small hospitals’ bailout concerns

Posted on by • Posted in Bankruptcy, Cash, Cash Reserves, Chapter 11, Coronavirus, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Health Policy, Hospital, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Rural Health, Rural Hospital, Safety Net Hospitals, Safety-Net Providers • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-61745839-012e-4bd1-8843-24917a73b6e2.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Country Closures: Rural Communities Adapt As More Hospitals Shut Down

Congress is about to provide $100 billion for hospitals and other health care providers to cope with the fallout from the coronavirus, but small hospitals have no idea how to access those funds — and many need the money immediately, Axios’ Bob Herman reports.

What they’re saying: “A lot of rural hospitals out there need a cash infusion today,” Alan Morgan, CEO of the National Rural Health Association, told Axios. “How is it going to happen? What is the process? There are way more questions than answers.”

Details: The stimulus bill says “the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, on a rolling basis, review applications and make payments” to hospitals and other providers, out of a $100 billion fund.

  • HHS did not respond to questions about how that process would work.

Between the lines: Many hospitals are part of large, profitable systems that benefit from their area’s demographics. The coronavirus will cause them financial distress, but they are not in danger of going under.

  • Rural and safety net hospitals, which treat disproportionate amounts of older and low-income patients, have a lot less wiggle room to call off elective procedures as they wait for a coronavirus surge.
  • Many small hospitals can’t get new loans from banks and could miss payroll as soon as next week.

The bottom line: Bob asked Morgan how this process was supposed to work. “I don’t know,” he said, “and we are greatly concerned.”

 

 

 

 

Experts agree that Trump’s coronavirus response was poor, but the US was ill-prepared in the first place

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Coronavirus, Health Insurance Benefit Design, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Life Expectancy, Market Consolidation, Market Failure, Market Power, Mortality, Out of Pocket Expenses, Out-of-Network, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Safety Net Hospitals, Safety-Net Providers, Sick Leave, Surprise Bills, Underinsured, Uninsured, Vaccination, Vaccine • Leave a comment

https://theconversation.com/experts-agree-that-trumps-coronavirus-response-was-poor-but-the-us-was-ill-prepared-in-the-first-place-133674?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20March%2017%202020%20-%201565314971&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20March%2017%202020%20-%201565314971+Version+A+CID_6ce2ffeb273f535ccdcb368c4649a7ee&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=Experts%20agree%20that%20Trumps%20coronavirus%20response%20was%20poor%20but%20the%20US%20was%20ill-prepared%20in%20the%20first%20place

As the coronavirus pandemic exerts a tighter grip on the nation, critics of the Trump administration have repeatedly highlighted the administration’s changes to the nation’s pandemic response team in 2018 as a major contributor to the current crisis. This combines with a hiring freeze at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, leaving hundreds of positions unfilled. The administration also has repeatedly sought to reduce CDC funding by billions of dollars. Experts agree that the slow and uncoordinated response has been inadequate and has likely failed to mitigate the coming widespread outbreak in the U.S.

As a health policy expert, I agree with this assessment. However, it is also important to acknowledge that we have underfunded our public health system for decades, perpetuated a poorly working health care system and failed to bring our social safety nets in line with other developed nations. As a result, I expect significant repercussions for the country, much of which will disproportionately fall on those who can least afford it.

Decades of underfunding

Spending on public health has historically proven to be one of humanity’s best investments. Indeed, some of the largest increases in life expectancy have come as the direct result of public health interventions, such as sanitation improvements and vaccinations.

Even today, return on investments for public health spending is substantial and tends to significantly outweigh many medical interventions. For example, one study found that every US$10 per person spent by local health departments reduces infectious disease morbidity by 7.4%.

However, despite their importance to national well-being, public health expenditures have been neglected at all levels. Since 2008, for example, local health departments have lost more than 55,000 staff. By 2016, only about 133,000 full-time equivalent staff remained. State funding for public health was lower in 2016-2017 than in 2008-2009. And the CDC’s prevention and public health budget has been flat and significantly underfunded for years. Overall, of the more than $3.5 trillion the U.S. spends annually on health care, a meager 2.5% goes to public health.

Not surprisingly, the nation has experienced a number of outbreaks of easily preventable diseases. Currently, we are in the middle of significant outbreaks of hepatitis A (more than 31,000 cases), syphilis (more than 35,000 cases), gonorrhea (more than 580,000 cases) and chlamydia (more than 1,750,000 cases). Our failure to contain known diseases bodes ill for our ability to rein in the emerging coronavirus pandemic.

Failures of health care systems

Yet while we have underinvested in public health, we have been spending massive and growing amounts of money on our medical care system. Indeed, we are spending more than any other country for a system that is significantly underperforming.

To make things worse, it is also highly inequitable. Yet, the system is highly profitable for all players involved. And to maximize income, both for- and nonprofits have consistently pushed for greater privatization and the elimination of competitors.

As a result, thousands of public and private hospitals deemed “inefficient” because of unfilled beds have closed. This eliminated a significant cushion in the system to buffer spikes in demand.

At any given time, this decrease in capacity does not pose much of a problem for the nation. Yet in the middle of a global pandemic, communities will face significant challenges without this surge capacity. If the outbreak mirrors anything close to what we have seen in other countries, “there could be almost six seriously ill patients for every existing hospital bed.” A worst-case scenario from the same study puts the number at 17 to 1. To make things worse, there will likely be a particular shortage of unoccupied intensive care beds.

Of course, the lack of overall hospitals beds is not the most pressing issue. Hospitals also lack the levels of staffing and supplies needed to cope with a mass influx of patients. However, the lack of ventilators might prove the most daunting challenge.

Limits of the overall social safety net

While the U.S. spends trillions of dollars each year on medical care, our social safety net has increasingly come under strain. Even after the Affordable Care Act, almost 30 million Americans do not have health insurance coverage. Many others are struggling with high out-of-pocket payments.

To make things worse, spending on social programs, outside of those protecting the elderly, has been shrinking, and is significantly smaller than in other developed nations. Moreover, public assistance is highly uneven and differs significantly from state to state.

And of course, the U.S. heavily relies on private entities, mostly employers, to offer benefits taken for granted in other developed countries, including paid sick leave and child care. This arrangement leaves 1 in 4 American workers without paid sick leave, resulting in highly inequitable coverage. As a result, many low-income families struggle to make ends meet even when times are good.

Can the US adapt?

I believe that the limitations of the U.S. public health response and a potentially overwhelmed medical care system are likely going to be exacerbated by the blatant limitations of the U.S. welfare state. However, after weathering the current storm, I expect us to go back to business as usual relatively quickly. After all, that’s what happened after every previous pandemic, such as H1N1 in 2009 or even the 1918 flu epidemic.

The problems are in the incentive structure for elected officials. I expect that policymakers will remain hesitant to invest in public health, let alone revamp our safety net. While the costs are high, particularly for the latter, there are no buildings to be named, and no quick victories to be had. The few advocates for greater investments lack resources compared to the trillion-dollar interests from the medical sector.

Yet, if altruism is not enough, we should keep reminding policymakers that outbreaks of communicable diseases pose tremendous challenges for local health care systems and communities. They also create remarkable societal costs. The coronavirus serves as a stark reminder.

 

 

Seattle Coronavirus Care: Short in Staff, Supplies and Space

Posted on by • Posted in Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Coronavirus, Emergency Care, Emergency Preparedness, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Leadership, Leadership Flexibility, Leadership Implementation, Mandatory Overtime, Pandemic, Safety Net Hospitals, Safety-Net Providers, Supply Chain, Telemedicine • Leave a comment

https://www.governing.com/now/Seattle-Coronavirus-Care-Short-in-Staff-Supplies-and-Space.html?utm_term=READ%20MORE&utm_campaign=Pandemic%20Provides%20Defining%20Moment%20for%20Government%20Leaders&utm_content=email&utm_source=Act-On+Software&utm_medium=email

Image result for Seattle Coronavirus Care: Short in Staff, Supplies and Space

At ground zero of America’s coronavirus outbreak, Seattle is overwhelmed by patients needing care. Social distancing and persistent hand washing is no longer enough. “The next step is to start thinking about alternate care systems.”

Amid the first signs that the novel coronavirus was spreading in the Seattle area, a senior officer at the University of Washington Medical Center sent an urgent note to staffers.

“We are currently exceptionally full and are experiencing some challenges with staffing,” Tom Staiger, UW Medical Center’s medical director, wrote on Feb. 29. He asked hospital staff to “expedite appropriate discharges asap,” reflecting the need for more beds.

That same day, health officials announced King County’s — and the nation’s — first death from the coronavirus. Now as cases of virus-stricken patients suffering from COVID-19 multiply, government and hospital officials are facing the real-life consequences of shortcomings they’ve documented on paper for years.

Medical supplies have run low. Administrators are searching for ways to expand hospital bed capacity. Health care workers are being asked to work extra shifts as their peers self-isolate.

And researchers this week made stark predictions for COVID-19’s impact on King and Snohomish counties, estimating 400 deaths and some 25,000 infections by April 7 without social-distancing measures.

“If you start doing that math in your head, based on every person who was infected infecting two other people, you can see every week you have a doubling in the number of new cases,” state health oficer Dr. Kathy Lofy said.

Hand-washing, staying home from work and other measures were no longer enough to sufficiently slow the virus, Lofy said.

Hospital administrators are rapidly changing protocols as the outbreak stresses the system, while frontline health care workers are beginning to feel the effects of disruptions to daily life. UW Medicine on Thursday told employees it would begin postponing elective procedures, beginning March 16.

“We’ve seen what has happened in other countries where they’ve had really rapid spread. The health care system has become overwhelmed,” Lofy said. “We want to do everything we can to prevent that from happening here.”

“We’re Always Full”

King and Snohomish counties offer some 4,900 staffed hospital beds, of which about 940 are used for critical care, according to the researchers — with the Institute for Disease Modeling, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center — who modeled the outbreak’s potential growth. “… This capacity may quickly be filled,” they wrote.

Some of Seattle’s largest hospitals were already near capacity before the outbreak. Harborview Medical Center in downtown Seattle operated at 95 percent of its capacity in 2019, based on its licensed 413 beds and the days of patient care it reported to the Department of Health.

Of 81 hospitals that reported data for all of 2019, excluding psychiatric hospitals, the median hospital operated at 50 percent of its licensed capacity, according to a Seattle Times analysis. Many hospitals staff fewer beds than the maximum their license allows for, so the actual occupancy rate is likely higher.

Katharine Liang, a psychiatry resident physician who works rotations for Seattle-area hospitals, said requests for UW Medicine staffers to discharge patients in a timely fashion are not uncommon as administrators seek extra beds.

“The safety net hospitals, we’re always full,” Liang said, referring to medical centers that care for patients without insurance or means to pay.

Susan Gregg, a spokeswoman for UW Medicine, which operates UW Medical Center, Harborview Medical Center, Valley Medical Center and Northwest Hospital, said that each hospital had a surge-capacity plan being adapted for the outbreak.

“Our daily planning sessions monitor our available beds, supply usage and human resources,” Gregg said in a statement.

While Washington state has a robust system for detecting and monitoring infectious diseases, it has struggled to build the capacity to respond to emergencies like the coronavirus outbreak, according to a review of public data and interviews.

On a per-person basis, the state lags most others in nurses and hospital rooms designed to isolate patients with infectious, airborne diseases, according to a nationwide index of health-security measures.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched this initiative — called the National Health Security Preparedness Index — in 2013 to comprehensively evaluate the nation’s readiness for public health emergencies.

The state’s greatest strength, according to the index, is in its ability to detect public-health threats and contain them — scoring 8.5 points out of a possible 10, above the national average.

“It’s a leading state now in terms of how testing capabilities are playing out” for COVID-19, said Glen Mays, a professor at the Colorado School of Public Health who directs the index work.

With the scope of the outbreak becoming clear, the focus is turning to an area that is the state’s weakest on the index: providing access to medical care during emergencies.

When it comes to nurses per 100,000 people, Washington state ranked near the bottom — 46th among states and the District of Columbia — in 2018. It ranked 43rd nationally in the number of hospital isolation rooms — commonly referred to as “negative pressure” rooms, which draw in air to prevent an airborne disease from spreading — per 100,000 people and in neighboring states.

“It’s an area of concern,” Mays said of the state’s health care delivery capacity.

This vulnerability is well known to state policymakers. John Wiesman, Washington state’s health secretary, serves on the national advisory committee of the index and has championed its use as a tool for improvement, Mays said. He recalled Washington seeking lessons from other states that have been more successful and building a “medical reserve corps,” another area where the state has lagged.

The state scored 2.5 points for managing volunteers in an emergency in 2013. In 2018, it had improved to just 2.6.

Health Workers Strained

Less than a week after diagnosed cases of COVID-19 grew rapidly in the Seattle area, administrators at several area hospitals had to hunt for additional medical supplies and called for rationing. They also established fast-shifting isolation policies for sick or potentially exposed staffers.

“Hospitals are being very vigilant. If you have the slightest signs of illness, don’t come to work,” said Alexander Adami, a UW Medicine resident, on Monday.

On March 6, UW Medicine directed employees who tested positive for COVID-19, the illness caused by coronavirus, to remain isolated at home for a minimum of seven days after symptoms developed, according to internal UW documents. Hospital workers told workers with symptoms who hadn’t been tested to remain isolated until they were three days without symptoms. Those who tested negative, or had influenza, could return after 24 hours.

Quarantines for sick workers means others must backfill.

“Programs are having to pull residents in other blocks in other hospitals and other clinics to fill gaps,” Adami said. “There simply aren’t enough people.”

School closures further complicate staffing.

Liang, the resident physician who works rotations for several area hospitals, said she had been pulled into an expanded backup pool on short notice to cover shifts.

Liang is the mother of a 1-year-old. On Wednesday, her family’s day care closed, as it typically does when Seattle schools close. Gov. Jay Inslee has ordered all schools in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties to close until late April.

“I’m not really sure what we’re going to do going forward,” Liang said. “My demands at home are increasing, and now, at the same time because of the same problem, my demands at the hospital are increasing as well.”

Adami, a second-year internal medicine resident, said residents were used to taxing hours, and demands had not been much more excessive than usual, but he remained concerned for the future.

“I would be worried about: We eventually get to the point where there are so many health care workers who become sick we have to accept things like saying, All right: Do you have a fever? No? Take a mask and keep working, because there are people to care for,” he said.

One sign of demand: Some hospitals are asking workers at greater risk of COVID-19 to continue in their roles, even after public health officials encouraged people in these at-risk groups among the broader public to stay home.

Staff over the age of 60 “should continue to work per their regular schedules,” a UW Medicine policy statement said. People who are pregnant, immunocompromised or over 60 and with underlying health conditions were “invited to talk to their team leader or manager about any concerns,” noting that hospital workers’ personal protective equipment would minimize exposure risks.

A registered nurse at Swedish First Hill who is over 60 and who has a history of cardiac issues said she told a manager last week of her concern about working with potential or confirmed COVID-19 patients.

She said a manager adjusted her schedule for an initial shift, but couldn’t guarantee that she would be excused from caring for these patients.

Hours later, the nurse said she suffered a cardiac event and was later admitted to another hospital with a stress-induced cardiomyopathy. The nurse did not want to be named for fear of reprisal by Swedish.

“I’m afraid for my life to work in there,” the nurse said. “I don’t think we’re being adequately protected.”

The nurse is now on medical leave.

In a statement, Swedish said it could not comment on an individual caregiver’s specific circumstances, but that employees at a higher risk are able to request reassignment and if it can not be accommodated, they can take a leave of absence.

“Providing a safe environment for our caregivers and patients is always our top priority, but especially during the current COVID-19 outbreak,” according to the statement.

Anne Piazza, senior director of strategic initiatives for the the Washington State Nurses Association said she had heard from a “flood” of nurses with similar concerns.

Additionally, “we are seeing increased demand for nurse staffing and that we do have reports of nurses being required to work mandatory overtime.”

Wuhan was Overwhelmed

China might provide an example of what could happen to the U.S. hospital system if the pace of transmission escalates, according to unpublished work from researchers with Johns Hopkins University, Harvard University and other institutions.

In Wuhan, the people seeking care for COVID-19 symptoms quickly outpaced local hospitals’ ability to keep up, the researchers found. Even after the city went on lockdown in late January, the number of people needing care continued to rise.

Between Jan. 10 and the end of February, physicians served an average of 637 intensive-care unit patients and more than 3,450 patients in serious condition each day.

But by the epidemic’s peak, nearly 20,000 people were hospitalized on any given day. In response, two new hospitals were built to exclusively serve COVID-19 patients; in all, officials dedicated more than 26,000 beds at 48 hospitals for people with the virus. An additional 13,000 beds at quarantine centers were set aside for patients with mild symptoms.

The researchers analyzed what might happen if a Wuhan-like outbreak happened here.

“Our critical-care resources would be overwhelmed,” said Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security who helped lead the study.

“The lesson here, though, is we have an opportunity to learn from their experience and to intervene before it gets to that point.”

Preparing For The Worst

Hospital administrators are stretching to make the most of their staff, avoid burnout and find space for patients flooding into hospitals.

As of Thursday afternoon, there hadn’t been an unusual uptick in hospitals asking emergency responders to divert patients elsewhere, according to Beth Zborowski, a spokeswoman for the Washington State Hospital Association.

Zborowski said administrators are getting creative to deal with shortages of supplies, staff and space, such as potentially hiring temporary workers.

The state is trying to reduce regulations to help scale up staffing.

The state health department’s Nursing Commission said last Friday it would give “top priority” to reviewing applications for temporary practice permits for nurses to help during the COVID-19 crisis.

After the governor’s emergency proclamation, the Department of Health also said it was allowing volunteer out-of-state health practitioners who are licensed elsewhere to practice without a Washington license.

All the doctors with UW Medicine have been trained, or are being trained on how to care for patients via telemedicine. The number of people using the service has increased tenfold since public health officials urged patients to not visit emergency rooms or visit clinics for minor issues, said Dr. John Scott, director of digital health at UW Medicine.

Some hospitals are creating wards for COVID-19 patients. EvergreenHealth, in Kirkland, converted its 8th floor for the use of these patients.

King County officials last week purchased a motel, which could allow patients to recover outside a clinical setting and free up beds.

“These are places for people to recover and convalesce who are not at grave medical risk, and therefore do not need to be in a hospital,” said Alex Fryer, spokesperson for King County Executive Dow Constantine.

Supply problems are ongoing, even after the federal government fulfilled a first shipment that included tens of thousands of N95 respirator masks, surgical masks and disposable gowns from a federal stockpile.

Piazza said the nursing association continues to receive reports that members at area hospitals are being asked to reuse or share personal protective equipment, wear only one mask a shift or conserve masks for use exclusively with COVID-19 confirmed patients.

“We need to address the safety of frontline caregivers,” Piazza said.

State officials placed a second order for supplies last weekend.

Casey Katims, director of federal affairs for Inslee, said three trucks of medical supplies from the federal stockpile arrived Thursday morning, including 129,380 N-95 respirators; 308,206 surgical masks; 58,688 face shields; 47,850 surgical gowns; and 170,376 glove pairs.

If the measures taken now aren’t enough, state officials have contingency plans they’ve been working on “for a while now,” said Lofy, the state health officer.

“The next step is to start thinking about alternate care systems or alternate care facilities. These are facilities that could potentially be used outside the clinic or the health care system walls.”