Cartoon – The Meeting Agenda
Cartoon – Importance of Team Leadership
Cartoon – Leadership by Words
Cartoon – They know about Plan “A”
California AG conditionally approves $350M sale of nonprofit to Prime Healthcare
Prime will acquire St. Francis for a net of $350 million, with a $200 million base cash price and $60 million for accounts receivable.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has conditionally approved Verity Health’s application to transfer ownership of St. Francis Medical Center to Prime Healthcare. The Attorney General’s decision follows an earlier decision by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Central District of California granting Verity’s request to reject the existing collective bargaining agreements which impose legacy cost structures that it said contributed to bankruptcy.
Becerra noted that his approval of the sale of St. Francis to Prime Healthcare “protect(s) access to care for the Los Angeles communities served” by St. Francis.
“The COVID-19 public health crisis has brought home the importance of having access to lifesaving hospital care nearby in our communities,” he said. “St. Francis Medical Center is not just an asset, it is an indispensable neighbor, it is the workers who serve the patients, and the doctors who save lives. We conditionally approve this sale to keep it that way.”
Prime Healthcare has built a reputation for saving financially distressed hospitals across the U.S., touting improved clinical quality. Healthgrades said Prime had hospitals named among the nation’s 100 best 53 times, and has been the recipient of several Patient Safety Excellence Awards.
The Attorney General’s office conducted an exhaustive review of the transaction for the past several months and carefully considered public input on the proposed transaction. The Attorney General’s approval includes conditions for the sale which Prime is currently reviewing. Pending a final ruling by the Bankruptcy Court, the transaction is expected to be completed this summer.
THE LARGER TREND
In early April, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court approved the Asset Purchase Agreement for the sale of St. Francis Medical Center to Prime. Under the agreement, Prime will acquire St. Francis for a net consideration of over $350 million, including a $200 million base cash price and $60 million for accounts receivable. In addition, Prime has committed to invest $47 million in capital improvements and extend offers of employment to nearly all staff.
The court also recently granted Verity’s request to reject the existing collective bargaining agreements with two unions that represent associates at St. Francis Medical Center, SEIU and UNAC. The court noted that Prime Healthcare was the only party to submit a qualifying bid for St. Francis and that without rejecting the existing CBAs, “St. Francis would not continue to operate as a going concern, and all of the UNAC (and SEIU) represented employees would lose their jobs.”
The court also noted that Prime and Verity had made multiple efforts to negotiate in good faith with the unions, and the parties devoted “hundreds of hours to negotiations,” but ultimately were unable to agree on new CBAs. Further, the court determined that one of the reasons for the hospital’s bankruptcy was the “legacy cost structure imposed by the existing CBAs.”
It then staid that the proposals were rejected “without good cause” by the unions. Prime said it negotiated in good faith and proposed increasingly generous offers to UNAC and SEIU with wages far above its existing agreements at its Los Angeles-area hospitals. Prime’s latest offer to SEIU maintained existing wages for roughly 90% of SEIU members, and increased wages for some of them. Prime said these wages would be substantially higher than those recently voted by SEIU members at three of Prime’s Los Angeles hospitals.
ON THE RECORD
“Receiving conditional approval is an important step in ensuring Prime is able to preserve the St. Francis mission for the benefit of associates, members of the medical staff and most importantly the patients and Southeast Los Angeles community that has relied on St. Francis for 75 years,” said Rich Adcock, CEO of Verity Health.
“We are honored to be selected to continue the St. Francis legacy and are working to review the conditions and finalize the sale as quickly as possible,” said Dr. Sunny Bhatia, CEO, Region I and chief medical officer of Prime Healthcare. “St. Francis’ mission is especially critical during this pandemic and we honor the service of all caregivers. Prime has already started investments at St. Francis that will enhance patient care as we commit to continue every service line, community benefit program, charity care and expand new services to the community.”
Will Telemedicine Be the Blockbuster or Netflix of Healthcare?
New approaches need to recognize patients’ wants and needs
One component of Blockbuster’s financial model was the late fees it charged to customers who did not return a video tape to the store in time. These fees accounted for up to 16% of its revenue. In 1997, Reed Hastings was one of the customers affected by these fees. After one late rental, he was charged a hefty $40 late fee. His frustration inspired him to help create a company that would have no late charges. This new company also had the audacious idea to send DVDs straight to the customer’s home for a flat monthly fee. The company that Reed Hastings co-founded was Netflix.
Over time, Netflix changed and adapted with new technology and shifting consumer preferences. It moved on from mailing DVDs to using a streaming platform. It developed an algorithm to help make personalized video recommendations to Netflix users. It started producing its own video content. Over time, the company planted itself firmly within many homes and routines. Conversely, Blockbuster adapted to new platforms too slowly and too late. After its peak in 2004, Blockbuster started losing market share and relevance. Today, there is only one Blockbuster store left, a curious tourist attraction in Bend, Oregon.
Markets and industries change all the time. Distinguishing these important changes from temporary fads is essential. History has many examples of companies and organizations that did not sense important changes, did not change their approach, and as a result, ended up obsolete and irrelevant. A similar shift is happening today in healthcare, but there is more at stake than a late fee. Like Netflix, the healthcare industry needs to shift and adapt to consumer preferences.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had an immediate impact on the health of our country and has also indelibly changed how patients interact with the healthcare system. Hospitals and providers around the country have had to quickly develop new strategies to connect with patients – to comply with social distancing guidelines, in an effort to slow down the spread of the virus. Consistent communication and accessibility is vital, especially given the disturbing trends in decreased preventive care visits and delayed emergency care. One solution is telehealth.
During this pandemic, we have seen that remote patient monitoring is valuable for patients with a wide variety of needs: certainly, those quarantined with coronavirus, but for healthy patients too – children in need of regularly scheduled well-child visits and adults who need routine care. Many patients have experienced telehealth for the first time and many have positive impressions, with nearly three quarters of patients who had a recent telehealth visit describing it as good or very good, according to a recent survey.
Even after the COVID-19 pandemic settles, these “temporary” approaches will permanently change patient attitudes towards technology and force healthcare providers to reexamine their approach to care. Telehealth will remain a convenient option and, in some cases, a necessary way to receive care. Embedding telehealth into standard practice of care enables providers to expand the access to people who otherwise might forgo care, and to people who may face barriers getting to a clinic, for example patients with inflexible job schedules or limited transportation.
Patients and providers are not the only people recognizing the benefits; government officials are too. While reimbursement rules were temporarily expanded to include telehealth, some states, such as Colorado and Idaho, are making COVID-19 telehealth expansions permanent.
There are many parallels to borrow from the Blockbuster example. As healthcare providers, we cannot be complacent and stick with old business models because they are what we are used to. We cannot wait for people to come to us. We cannot ignore these changing times and consumers’ changing preferences. In fact, if we adapt and provide care in ways that patients prefer, we could improve health outcomes.
The healthcare institutions that will grow and be successful during this time are those who are more like Netflix. Instead of waiting for patients to decide to seek healthcare when it may be too late (e.g., just like a Blockbuster “late fee”), we will actively reach out and remind our patients about the importance of timely healthcare services. Instead of ignoring changes in patient preferences and new technology, we will adapt quickly to new platforms for healthcare visits. Instead of waiting for patients to feel comfortable to return to a healthcare facility, we will show patients what our healthcare system is doing to ensure patient safety and protection from COVID-19. Most importantly, instead of being complacent, we will accept and develop new ways of providing care.
There was once a time that we thought that getting in a car, driving to a strip mall, and walking through aisles with thousands of video tapes was the only option to watch a movie at home. Now, many of us can get thousands of titles on our televisions, computers, and phones through several movie streaming platforms. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced healthcare systems to quickly adapt to new constraints; however, it may really be an opportunity to develop new models of care, to engage with our patients, and to make healthcare more accessible. As healthcare providers, we need to make the choice to be more like Netflix, and less like Blockbuster.
5 COVID-19 myths politicians have repeated that just aren’t true
https://theconversation.com/5-covid-19-myths-politicians-have-repeated-that-just-arent-true-141972
The number of new COVID-19 cases in the U.S. has jumped to around 50,000 a day, and the virus has killed more than 130,000 Americans. Yet, I still hear myths about the infection that has created the worst public health crisis in America in a century.
The purveyors of these myths, including politicians who have been soft peddling the impact of the coronavirus, aren’t doing the country any favors.
Here are five myths I hear as director of health policy at the University of Southern California’s Schaeffer Center that I would like to put to rest.
Myth: COVID-19 is not much worse than the flu
President Donald Trump and plenty of pundits predicted early on that COVID-19 would prove no more lethal than a bad flu. Some used that claim to argue that stay-at-home orders and government-imposed lockdowns were un-American and a gross overreaction that would cost more lives than they saved.
By the end of June, however, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that national antibody testing indicated 5% to 8% of Americans had already been infected with the virus. With over 130,000 confirmed COVID-19-related deaths – and that’s likely an undercount – the case fatality rate is around 0.49% to 0.78% or about four to eight times that of the flu.
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who also downplayed COVID-19 as the death toll grew, calling it a “little flu,” announced on July 7 that he had tested positive for the coronavirus.
Myth: Cases are increasing because testing is increasing
At one point, the idea that COVID-19 case numbers were high because of an increase in testing made intuitive sense, especially in the early stages of the pandemic when people showing up for tests were overwhelmingly showing symptoms of possible infection. More testing meant health officials were aware of more illnesses that would have otherwise gone under the radar. And testing predominately sick and symptomatic people can result in an overestimate of its virulence.
Now, with millions of tests conducted and fewer than 10% coming back positive, the U.S. knows what it is facing. Testing today is essential to finding the people who are infected and getting them isolated.
Unfortunately, Trump has been a leading purveyor of the myth that we test too much. Fortunately, his medical advisers disagree.
Myth: Lockdowns were unnecessary
Given the current spike in infections after reopening the economy, more people are arguing that the lockdowns were unsuccessful in crushing the virus and shouldn’t have been implemented at all. But what would the country look like today if state governments had tried to build herd immunity by letting the disease spread rather than promoting social distancing, prohibiting large gatherings and telling the elderly to stay home?
Most epidemiologists who study pandemics believe that reaching herd immunity could only be achieved at enormous cost in terms of illness and death. About 60% or 70% of Americans would have to become infected before the spread of the virus diminished. That would result in 1 to 2 million U.S. deaths and 5 to 10 million hospitalizations.
These are horrific, yet conservative estimates, given that mortality rates would surely rise if that many people were infected and hospitals were overrun.
Myth: The epidemiological models are always wrong
It is not surprising that many people are confused by the proliferation of predictions about the course of the virus. How many people become infected depends on how individuals, governments and institutions respond, which is hard to predict.
Faced with the warning early in the pandemic that 1 to 2 million Americans could die if the U.S. simply let the coronavirus run its course, federal and state governments imposed restrictions to constrain the spread of the virus. Then, they relaxed those restrictions as new cases ebbed and pressure mounted to reopen the economy.
Now, they must consider reimposing some of those restrictions as infection rates rise in a majority of states, including Texas, Arizona, Florida and California. The models were based on data and assumptions at that time, and likely influenced responses which in turn changed underlying conditions. For example, new cases of COVID-19 are rising in the U.S., while fatalities are falling. This reflects a shift in infection rates toward younger populations, as well as improved treatment as providers learn more about the virus.
Just like an investment disclaimer that past returns do not guarantee future performance, modeling a pandemic should be seen as suggestive of what might happen given current information and not a law of nature.
Myth: It’s a second wave
Sadly, the myth here is that we have contained the virus enough to buy time to prepare for a second wave. In fact, the first wave just keeps getting bigger.
A second wave would require a trough in the first wave, but there is little evidence of that from either an epidemiologic or economic perspective.
During the 1918-1919 flu pandemic, the weekly UK death toll from influenza and pneumonia, shown here, reflected three clear waves. Taubenberger JK, Morens DM. 1918 Influenza: the Mother of All Pandemics. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(1)
The U.S. recorded a record number of new cases during the first week of July, exceeding 50,000 per day for four straight days. The rising number of cases led several states to halt or roll back their reopening plans in hopes of stemming the spread of the virus.
Meanwhile, most consumers are reticent to return to “normal” economic activity: Fewer than one-third of adults surveyed by Morning Consult in early July were comfortable going to a shopping mall. Only 35% were comfortable going out to eat, and 18% were comfortable going to the gym. For almost half of the population, an effective treatment or vaccine may be the only way they will feel comfortable returning to “normal” economic activity.
COVID-19 is an immediate threat that requires a unified, science-based response from governments and citizens to be successful. But it is also an opportunity to rethink how we prepare for future pandemics. Some misinformation is inevitable as a new virus emerges, but perpetuating myths for political or other reasons ultimately costs lives.
Coronavirus’s painful side effect is deep budget cuts for state and local government services
Nationwide, state and local government leaders are warning of major budget cuts as a result of the pandemic. One state – New York – even referred to the magnitude of its cuts as having “no precedent in modern times.”
Declining revenue combined with unexpected expenditures and requirements to balance budgets means state and local governments need to cut spending and possibly raise taxes or dip into reserve funds to cover the hundreds of billions of dollars lost by state and local government over the next two to three years because of the pandemic.
Without more federal aid or access to other sources of money (like reserve funds or borrowing), government officials have made it clear: Budget cuts will be happening in the coming years.
And while specifics are not yet available in all cases, those cuts have already included reducing the number of state and local jobs – from firefighters to garbage collectors to librarians – and slashing spending for education, social services and roads and bridges.
In some states, agencies have been directed to cut their budget as much as 15% or 20% – a tough challenge as most states prepared budgets for a new fiscal year that began July 1.
As a scholar of public administration who researches how governments spend money, here are the ways state and local governments have reduced spending to close the budget gap.
Cutting jobs
State and local governments laid off or furloughed 1.5 million workers in April and May.
They are also reducing spending on employees. According to surveys, government workers are feeling personal financial strain as many state and local governments have cut merit raises and regular salary increases, frozen hiring, reduced salaries and cut seasonal employees.
Washington state, for example, cut both merit raises and instituted furloughs.
A survey from the National League of Cities shows 32% of cities will have to furlough or lay off employees and 41% have hiring freezes in place or planned as a result of the pandemic.
Employment reductions have met some resistance. In Nevada, for example, a state worker union filed a complaint against the governor to the state’s labor relations board for violating a collective bargaining statute by not negotiating on furloughs and salary freezes.
Most of the employee cuts have been made in education. Teachers, classroom aids, administrators, staff, maintenance crews, bus drivers and other school employees have seen salary cuts and layoffs.
The job loss has hurt public employees beyond education, too: librarians, garbage collectors, counselors, social workers, police officers, firefighters, doctors, nurses, health aides, park rangers, maintenance crews, administrative assistants and others have been affected.
Residents also face the consequences of these cuts: They can’t get ahold of staff in the city’s water and sewer departments to talk about their bill; they can’t use the internet at the library to look for jobs; their children can’t get needed services in school.
Most of these cuts have been labeled temporary, but with the extensions to stay-at-home orders and a mostly closed economy, it will be some time before these employees are back to work.
Suspending road, bridges, building and water system projects
As another way to reduce costs quickly, a National League of Cities survey shows 65% of the municipalities surveyed are stopping temporarily, or completely, capital expenditure and infrastructure projects like roads, bridges, buildings, water systems or parking garages.
In New York City, there is a US$2.3 billion proposed cut to the capital budget, a fund that supports large, multiyear investments from sidewalk and road maintenance, school buildings, senior centers, fire trucks, sewers, playgrounds, to park upkeep. There are potentially serious consequences for residents. For example, New York housing advocates are concerned that these cuts will hurt plans for 21,000 affordable homes.
Suspending these big money projects will save the government money in the short term. But it will potentially harm the struggling economy, since both public and private sectors benefit from better roads, bridges, schools and water systems and the jobs these projects create.
Delaying maintenance also has consequences for the deteriorating infrastructure in the U.S. The costs of unaddressed repairs could increase future costs. It can cost more to replace a crumbling building than it does to fix one in better repair.
Cities and towns hit
In many states, the new budgets severely cut their aid to local governments, which will lead to large local cuts in education – both K-12 and higher education – as well as social programs, transportation, health care and other areas.
New York state’s budget proposes that part of its fiscal year 2021 budget shortfall will be balanced by $8.2 billion in reductions in aid to localities. This is the state where the cuts were referred to in the budget as “not seen in modern times.” This money is normally spent on many important services that residents need everyday –mass transit, adult and elderly care, mental health support, substance abuse programs, school programs like special education, children’s health insurance and more. Lacking any of these support services can be devastating to a person, especially in this difficult time.
Fewer workers, less money
As teachers and administrators figure out how to teach both online and in person, they and their schools will need more money – not less – to meet students’ needs.
Libraries, which provide services to many communities, from free computer use to after-school programs for children, will have to cut back. They may have fewer workers, be open for fewer hours and not offer as many programs to the public.
Parks may not be maintained, broken playground equipment may stay that way, and workers may not repave paths and mow lawns. Completely separate from activists’ calls to shift police funding to other priorities, police departments’ budgets may be slashed just for lack of cash to pay the officers. Similar cuts to firefighters and ambulance workers may mean poorly equipped responders take longer to arrive on a scene and have less training to deal with the emergency.
To keep with developing public safety standards, more maintenance staff and materials will be needed to clean and sanitize schools, courtrooms, auditoriums, correctional facilities, metro stations, buses and other public spaces. Strained budgets and employees will make it harder to complete these new essential tasks throughout the day.
To avoid deeper cuts, state and local government officials are trying a host of strategies including borrowing money, using rainy day funds, increasing revenue by raising tax rates or creating new taxes or fees, ending tax exemptions and using federal aid as legally allowed.
Colorado was able to hold its budget to only a 3% reduction, relying largely on one-time emergency reserve funds. Delaware managed to maintain its budget and avoided layoffs largely through using money set aside in a reserve account.
Nobody knows how long the pandemic, or its economic effects, will last.
In the worst-case scenario, budget officials are prepared to make steeper cuts in the coming months if more assistance does not come from the federal government or the economy does not recover quickly enough to restore the flow of money that governments need to operate.
The Constitution doesn’t have a problem with mask mandates
Many public health professionals and politicians are urging or requiring citizens to wear face masks to help slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus.
Some Americans have refused, wrongly claiming mask decrees violate the Constitution. An internet search turns up dozens of examples.
“Costco Karen,” for instance, staged a sit-in in a Costco entrance in Hillsboro, Oregon after she refused to wear a mask, yelling “I am an American … I have rights.”
A group called Health Freedom Idaho organized a protest against a Boise, Idaho, mask mandate. One protester said, “I’m afraid where this country is headed if we just all roll over and abide by control that goes against our constitutional rights.”
As one protester said, “The coronavirus doesn’t override the Constitution.”
Speaking as a constitutional law scholar, these objections are nonsense.
The objections
It is not always clear why anti-maskers think government orders requiring face coverings in public spaces or those put in place by private businesses violate their constitutional rights, much less what they think those rights are. But most of the mistaken objections fall into two categories:
Mandatory masks violate the First Amendment right to speech, assembly, and especially association and mandatory masks violate a person’s constitutional right to liberty and to make decisions about how to their own health and bodily integrity.
They’re not mutually exclusive claims: A lawsuit filed by four Florida residents against Palm Beach County, for example, argues that mask mandates “interfere with … personal liberty and constitutional rights,” such as freedom of speech, right to privacy, due process, and the “constitutionally protected right to enjoy and defend life and liberty.” The lawsuit asks the court to issue a permanent injunction against the county’s mask mandate.
Responding to a reporter who asked why President Donald Trump appeared unconcerned about the absence of masks and social distancing at a campaign rally in Tulsa, Vice President Mike Pence said: “I want to remind you again freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble is in the Constitution of the U.S. Even in a health crisis, the American people don’t forfeit our constitutional rights.”
What the First Amendment does – and doesn’t – do
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, petition, assembly and religion.
There are two reasons why mask mandates don’t violate the First Amendment.
First, a mask doesn’t keep you from expressing yourself. At most, it limits where and how you can speak. Constitutional law scholars and judges call these “time, place, and manner” restrictions. If they do not discriminate on the basis of the content of the speech, such restrictions do not violate the First Amendment. An example of a valid time, place and manner restriction would be a law that limits political campaigning within a certain distance of a voting booth.
Additionally, the First Amendment, like all liberties ensured by the Constitution, is not absolute.
All constitutional rights are subject to the goverment’s authority to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. This authority is called the “police power.” The Supreme Court has long held that protecting public health is sufficient reason to institute measures that might otherwise violate the First Amendment or other provisions in the Bill of Rights. In 1944, in the case of Prince v. Massachusetts, for example, the Supreme Court upheld a law that prohibited parents from using their children to distribute religious pamphlets on public streets.
The right to liberty
Some anti-maskers object that masks violate the right to liberty.
The right to liberty, including the right to make choices about one’s health and body, is essentially a constitutional principle of individual autonomy, neatly summarized as “My body, my choice.”
The 1905 case of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts shows why mask mandates don’t violate any constitutional right to privacy or health or bodily integrity. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld a smallpox vaccination requirement in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The court said that the vaccination requirement did not violate Jacobsen’s right to liberty or “the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best.”
As the court wrote, “There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members.” In a 1995 New York case, a state court held that an individual with active tuberculosis could be forcibly detained in a hospital for appropriate medical treatment.
Even if you assume that mask mandates infringe upon what the Supreme Court calls “fundamental rights,” or rights that the court has called the “very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty,” it has consistently ruled states can act if the restrictions advance a compelling state interest and do so in the least restrictive manner.
Rights are conditional
As the Jacobsen ruling and the doctrine of time, place and manner make clear, the protection of all constitutional liberties rides upon certain necessary – but rarely examined – assumptions about communal and public life.
One is that is constitutional rights – whether to liberty, speech, assembly, freedom of movement or autonomy – are held on several conditions. The most basic and important of these conditions is that our exercise of rights must not endanger others (and in so doing violate their rights) or the public welfare. This is simply another version of the police power doctrine.
Unfortunately, a global pandemic in which a serious and deadly communicable disease can be transmitted by asymptomatic carriers upsets that background and justifies a wide range of reasonable restrictions on our liberties. Believing otherwise makes the Constitution a suicide pact – and not just metaphorically.
Coronavirus numbers confusing you? Here’s how to make sense of them
Turn on the TV news, or look at a news website, and you’ll see charts, graphics, and dashboards that supposedly indicate the latest with COVID-19 – statistics revealing the number of tests, cases, hospitalizations and deaths, along with where they happened and whether they are rising or falling.
Different stories are told depending on the dashboard. But one thing is certain: These indicators lag behind the actions we take, or don’t take, on COVID-19. As researchers who focus on public health, we can tell you that a fully accurate, real-time snapshot of the progress of the virus isn’t possible.
Some don’t get tested
There are many reasons for this. Here’s one: diagnostic testing data are incomplete. Someone infected with COVID-19 must first come in contact with the virus either through the air or (less likely) environmental surfaces. Symptoms show between two and 14 days later. But at least 40% of those infected will never manifest symptoms, or show such mild ones they don’t even suspect they have COVID-19. So they may never get tested, which means they won’t show up in the total number of tests, or the total number of cases.
Another example: because of the lack of testing availability – a widespread problem in the U.S. since the start of the pandemic – not everyone who should be tested gets a test.
And another: the tests themselves are not perfect. Up to one-third who get a negative result may actually be infected. This happens because they are tested before they have a viral load sufficient enough for detection. Or maybe the sampling is not adequate. Or perhaps the test itself simply failed.
Case numbers don’t tell the full story
This is why problems arise when we use case numbers to determine disease levels in a community. Case counts actually reflect what was happening in a community weeks earlier. Four weeks, for instance, could elapse between the time a person is exposed to the virus and when they are reported as a case. Even the best testing results often take a week to report to public health authorities, and longer to appear on dashboards. Some testing results, seriously delayed, may take ten days or more.
Other factors impact the metrics. Laboratory results, often released in batches, may introduce artificial variation in case numbers. Someone who tested two days ago, then got a result back immediately, might be added on the same day as someone who was sick two weeks ago, but whose test results were delayed. To smooth out these variations, it helps to look at a rolling seven-day case average.
Hospitalization is a clearer metric for assessing the level of community disease. Those who are seriously ill, in most cases, will be hospitalized whether previously tested or not. Data suggests roughly one in five infected persons are hospitalized. Individuals seem to do okay for the first week, with more life-threatening symptoms showing in the second. That means hospitalizations represent exposures that happened three or four weeks earlier.
Again, a seven-day rolling average evens out artificial variations. There is one caveat for this: Though hospitalization is a useful metric, only about 20% of infected people need it. That means hospitalization numbers alone underestimate the number of people infected and what age groups they represent.
States vary on cause of death
The death numbers are not a reliable indicator either. In some states, to count as a COVID-19 death, the deceased must have had a test reporting positive. In other states, probable cases are reported.
As clinicians learn how to better treat COVID-19, fatality rates are dropping. Deaths, the longest lagging indicator, reflect people who were infected six or eight weeks earlier. When comparing one region to another, deaths are best expressed as rates – a ratio of deaths to population.
Another issue: News reports do not always clearly distinguish between diagnostic testing, which shows if you currently have COVID-19, and antibody testing, which shows if you had it in the past, and now harbor antibodies that can fight it. So far, however, antibody testing has not provided a useful picture of who has been infected and who has not. Once that happens, it could provide researchers and clinicians with some indicators on how widely the virus has spread.
Though the dashboards are ubiquitous on television, none of these frequently used indicators they feature is perfect. Still, taken together, they provide a reasonable approximation of COVID-19 transmission in communities. But as authorities make decisions, they should take into account the numbers are weeks old.
What does this mean to you? Understanding these limitations may help you understand your risk. We are still in the midst of a pandemic that is not under control. Being educated will help all of us from becoming a part of tomorrow’s lagging indicators.
