Quorum says it may have to file for bankruptcy

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/quorum-10k-delay-bankruptcy-warning/575491/

Dive Brief:

  • For-profit hospital operator Quorum Health said in a recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it may have to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to address current liquidity needs while continuing to care for patients and keep its hospitals operating.
  • The company said it’s in ongoing discussions with certain debt holders concerning a recapitalization or financial reorganization transaction.
  • Quorum also announced in the SEC filing that it will be late to file its annual 10-K report, covering financials for its fiscal year ending December 31, 2019.

Dive Insight:

COVID-19 has upended hospitals’ typical operations, prompting many to halt lucrative elective surgeries and cancel doctors visits to preserve staff and resources. Some worry those patients and revenue may never come back as unemployment claims go up and people lose their employer-sponsored health coverage. 

Tennessee-based Quorum Health, which operates 24 hospitals in 14 states, may have already been more ill-positioned financially than other systems for such a pandemic.

Quorum missed Wall Street earnings expectations in its most recent financials for the third quarter of 2019, posting a net loss of almost $76 million and a revenue decline almost 9% year over year. The company now said it’s delaying its 10K report with its most recent financials due to restructuring talks, but has 15 days to do so.

The for-profit chain went public in May 2016 with 38 hospitals – 14 of which have since shuttered. In 2017 private equity firm KKR took a 5.6% stake in the system for $11.3 million. 

Beyond being Quorum’s largest debt-holder today, KKR also owns about 9% of its public shares. In December, the firm offered to buy Quorum out and take the hospital chain private at $1 a share.

While negotiating with debt holders and weighing its options, Quorum intends to maintain all operations at its hospitals without any interruption in service, CEO Robert Fish said in a statement.

“Our facilities play a critically important role in their communities and the fight against COVID-19,” Fish said. “We are intensely focused on ensuring our employees have the resources they need to provide quality care to the patients and communities they serve, now and well into the future.”

 

 

 

The Navy Fired the Captain of the Theodore Roosevelt. See How the Crew Responded.

The Navy Fired Captain Crozier After His Letter on the Coronavirus ...

The rousing show of support provided another gripping scene to emerge from the coronavirus pandemic: the rank and file cheering a boss they viewed as putting their safety ahead of his career.

It was a send-off for the ages, with hundreds of sailors aboard the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt cheering Capt. Brett E. Crozier, the commander who sacrificed his naval career by writing a letter to his superiors demanding more help as the novel coronavirus spread through the ship.

The rousing show of support provided the latest gripping scene to emerge from the coronavirus pandemic: the rank and file shouting their admiration for a boss they viewed as putting their safety ahead of his career.

The memes were quick to sprout on social media. On Reddit, one depicted Captain Crozier forced to choose between rescuing his career or his sailors from a burning building; he chooses his sailors. On Twitter, a slew of videos showed Captain Crozier’s walk down the gangway in Guam, most of them depicting him as a hero struck down by his superiors for trying to save the lives of his crew. “Wrongfully relieved of command but did right by sailors,” wrote Twitter user Dylan Castillo, alongside a video of Captain Crozier leaving his ship.

But in removing Captain Crozier from command, senior Navy officials said they were protecting the historic practice that complaints and requests have to go up a formal chain of command. They argued that by sending his concerns to 20 or 30 people in a message that eventually leaked to news organizations, Captain Crozier showed he was no longer fit to lead the fast-moving effort to treat the crew and clean the ship.

His removal from prestigious command of an aircraft carrier with almost 5,000 crew members has taken on an added significance, as his punishment is viewed by some in the military as indicative of the government’s handling of the entire pandemic, with public officials presenting upbeat pictures of the government’s response, while contrary voices are silenced.

The cheering by the sailors is the most public repudiation of military practices to battle the virus since the pandemic began. At the Pentagon, officials expressed concern about the public image of a Defense Department not doing enough to stay ahead of the curve on the virus.

Notably, the defense of the firing offered by senior Pentagon officials has centered around Captain Crozier not following the chain of command in writing his letter, which found its way to newspapers. In a circuitous explanation, Thomas B. Modly, the acting Navy secretary, said that Captain Crozier’s immediate superior did not know that the captain was going to write the letter, offering that act as an error in leadership and one of the reasons the Navy had lost confidence in the Roosevelt captain.

But a Navy official familiar with the situation but not authorized to speak publicly about it said that the captain had repeatedly asked his superiors for speedy action to evacuate the ship. His letter, the official said, came because the Navy was still minimizing the risk.

Mr. Modly insisted that his firing the captain for writing a letter asking for more help does not mean that subordinate officers are not allowed to raise criticisms and ask for assistance. “To our commanding officers,” Mr. Modly told reporters on Thursday, “it would be a mistake to view this decision as somehow not supportive of your duty to report problems, request help, protect your crews, challenge assumptions as you see fit.”

But the removal of Captain Crozier will likely have a chilling effect on the willingness of commanders to bring bad news to their superiors.

“There’s no question they had the authority to remove him,” Kathleen H. Hicks, a former top Pentagon official in the Obama administration, said in an email. “The issue is one of poor judgment in choosing to do so. They are fueling mistrust in leader transparency, among service members, families, and surrounding/hosting communities.”

 

 

 

Cartoon – Famous Last Words

Granlund cartoon: Famous last words - Opinion - Morning Sun ...

 

How Epidemics of the Past Changed the Way Americans Lived

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-epidemics-past-forced-americans-promote-health-ended-up-improving-life-this-country-180974555/?fbclid=IwAR1_2pHlIidRC01Bjxr7IFOpUBq1ShM8xXXGBkPFT8J6ZK1PtGgtNh9NJ0s

How Epidemics of the Past Changed the Way Americans Lived ...

Past public health crises inspired innovations in infrastructure, education, fundraising and civic debate.

At the end of the 19th century, one in seven people around the world had died of tuberculosis, and the disease ranked as the third leading cause of death in the United States. While physicians had begun to accept German physician Robert Koch’s scientific confirmation that TB was caused by bacteria, this understanding was slow to catch on among the general public, and most people gave little attention to the behaviors that contributed to disease transmission. They didn’t understand that things they did could make them sick. In his book, Pulmonary Tuberculosis: Its Modern Prophylaxis and the Treatment in Special Institutions and at Home, S. Adolphus Knopf, an early TB specialist who practiced medicine in New York, wrote that he had once observed several of his patients sipping from the same glass as other passengers on a train, even as “they coughed and expectorated a good deal.” It was common for family members, or even strangers, to share a drinking cup.

With Knopf’s guidance, in the 1890s the New York City Health Department launched a massive campaign to educate the public and reduce transmission. The “War on Tuberculosis” public health campaign discouraged cup-sharing and prompted states to ban spitting inside public buildings and transit and on sidewalks and other outdoor spaces—instead encouraging the use of special spittoons, to be carefully cleaned on a regular basis. Before long, spitting in public spaces came to be considered uncouth, and swigging from shared bottles was frowned upon as well. These changes in public behavior helped successfully reduce the prevalence of tuberculosis.

As we are seeing with the coronavirus today, disease can profoundly impact a community—upending routines and rattling nerves as it spreads from person to person. But the effects of epidemics extend beyond the moments in which they occur. Disease can permanently alter society, and often for the best by creating better practices and habits. Crisis sparks action and response. Many infrastructure improvements and healthy behaviors we consider normal today are the result of past health campaigns that responded to devastating outbreaks.

In the 19th century, city streets in the U.S. overflowed with filth. People tossed their discarded newspapers, food scraps, and other trash out their windows onto the streets below. The plentiful horses pulling streetcars and delivery carts contributed to the squalor, as each one dropped over a quart of urine and pounds of manure every day. When a horse died, it became a different kind of hazard. In “Portrait of an Unhealthy City,” Columbia University professor David Rosner writes that since horses are so heavy, when one died in New York City, “its carcass would be left to rot until it had disintegrated enough for someone to pick up the pieces. Children would play with dead horses lying on the streets.” More than 15,000 horse carcasses were collected and removed from New York streets in 1880. Human waste was a problem, too. Many people emptied chamber pots out their windows. Those in tenement housing did not have their own facilities, but had 25 to 30 people sharing a single outhouse. These privies frequently overflowed until workers known as “night soil men” arrived to haul away the dripping barrels of feces, only to dump them into the nearby harbor.

As civic and health leaders began to understand that the frequent outbreaks of tuberculosis, typhoid and cholera that ravaged their cities were connected to the garbage, cities began setting up organized systems for disposing of human urine and feces. Improvements in technology helped the process along. Officials began introducing sand filtration and chlorination systems to clean up municipal water supplies. Indoor toilets were slow to catch on, due to cost, issues with controlling the stench, and the need for a plumbing system. Following Thomas Crapper’s improved model in 1891, water closets became popular, first among the wealthy, and then among the middle-class. Plumbing and sewage systems, paired with tenement house reform, helped remove excrement from the public streets.

Disease radically improved aspects of American culture, too. As physicians came to believe that good ventilation and fresh air could combat illness, builders started adding porches and windows to houses. Real estate investors used the trend to market migration to the West, prompting Eastern physicians to convince consumptives and their families to move thousands of miles from crowded, muggy Eastern cities to the dry air and sunshine in places like Los Angeles and Colorado Springs. The ploy was so influential that in 1872, approximately one-third of Colorado’s population had tuberculosis, having moved to the territory seeking better health.

Some of this sentiment continues today. While we know that sunshine doesn’t kill bacteria, good ventilation and time spent outside does benefit children and adults by promoting physical activity and improving spirits—and access to outdoor spaces and parks still entices homebuyers. This fresh-air “cure” also eventually incited the study of climate as a formal science, as people began to chart temperature, barometric pressure and other weather patterns in hopes of identifying the “ideal” conditions for treating disease.

Epidemics of the past established an ethos of altruism in the U.S. During the 1793 yellow fever epidemic, Philadelphians selflessly stepped up to save their city. With no formal crisis plan, Mayor Matthew Clarkson turned to volunteers collect clothing, food and monetary donations; to pitch a makeshift hospital; and to build a home for 191 children temporarily or permanently orphaned by the epidemic. Members of the Free African Society, an institution run by and for the city’s black population, were particularly altruistic, providing two-thirds of the hospital staff, transporting and burying the dead and performing numerous other medical tasks.

A 20th-century diphtheria outbreak in a small region in the Alaska Territory inspired a national rally of support—and created the Iditarod, the famous dog sled race. When cases of “the children’s disease” began to mount in Nome, Alaska, in January 1925, the town was in trouble. Diphtheria bacteria produces a toxin, making it especially deadly, unless the antitoxin serum is administered. This serum had been readily available for decades, but Nome’s supply had run short, and the town was inaccessible by road or sea in the winter. Leaping into action, 20 of the area’s finest dogsled teams and mushers carried a supply of the serum all the way from Fairbanks—674 miles—in record time, facing temperatures of more than 60 degrees below zero. Their delivery on February 2nd, plus a second shipment a week later, successfully halted the epidemic, saving Nome’s children from suffocation. Newspapers across the country covered the rescue. It was also memorialized in movies (including the animated Balto), with a Central Park statue—and, most notably, with the annual Iditarod race. The significant challenges of delivery by dogsled also sparked investigation into the possibilities of medical transport by airplane, which takes place all the time in remote areas today but was still in its infancy at the time.

Diseases fueled the growth of fundraising strategies. The polio epidemic of 1952 sickened more than 57,000 people across the United States, causing 21,269 cases of paralysis. The situation became so dire that at one point, the Sister Kenny Institute in Minneapolis, a premier polio treatment facility, temporarily ran out of cribs for babies with the disease. In response, the National Foundation of Infantile Paralysis (NFIP), which had been founded in 1938 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and later came to be known as the March of Dimes, distributed around $25 million through its local chapters. It provided iron lungs, rocking chairs, beds and other equipment to medical facilities, and assigned physicians, nurses, physical therapists, and medical social workers where they were needed. The March of Dimes success has served as the gold standard in public health education and fundraising since its heyday in the 1940s and 1950s.

Public health emergencies have inspired innovations in education. Starting in 1910, Thomas Edison’s lab, which had invented one of the first motion picture devices in the 1890s, partnered with anti-TB activists to produce short films on tuberculosis prevention and transmission—some of the first educational movies. Screened in public places in rural areas, the TB movies were also the first films—of any type—that viewers had ever seen. The anti-tuberculosis crusade was also a model for later NFIP efforts to combat polio that relentlessly put that disease at the front of public agenda until an effective vaccination was developed and implemented, and set a standard for future public health campaigns.

Past epidemics fueled the growth of civic debate and journalism in the U.S., too. As far back as colonial times, newspapers built their audiences by providing an outlet for debate on controversial issues, including disease. Founders of the New England Courant—the first paper in Colonial America to print the voices and perspectives of the colonists—launched their paper as a vehicle to oppose smallpox inoculation during the 1721 Boston epidemic. As smallpox ravaged the city, a Boston doctor named Zabdiel Boylston began using inoculation, a practice in which people are intentionally infected with a disease, to produce milder cases and reduce mortality risk. Backed by those opposed to the practice, James Franklin started the Courant to serve as a tool to fight it. Inoculation’s success was demonstrated in 1721 and later smallpox epidemics, eventually convincing even staunch opponents of its value—but by inspiring an outlet to air their concerns, the anti-inoculation camp had made an important contribution to public discourse.

Since colonial times, newspapers, pamphlets, and a host of other outlets have continued to thrive and evolve during outbreaks—updating the public on believed transmission and remedies, announcing store closing and quarantine restrictions, advertising outbreak-related job openings (florists, nurses, grave diggers, coffin makers, to name a few), and serving as spaces for public debate. The cycle continues today, as media powers and regular citizens flock to social media to discuss COVID-19—disseminating information, speculating on its origins, expressing fear of its unknowns.

 

 

 

 

‘I just don’t understand why we’re not doing that’: Fauci calls for nationwide stay-at-home order, despite Trump’s resistance

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/03/i-just-dont-understand-why-were-not-doing-that-fauci-calls-nationwide-stay-at-home-despite-trumps-resistance/?fbclid=IwAR0wkT53s_ATpUIp8aOHIU00KufxsoX8m5HgukQYwAtdZFMMhEJbmBsjTg0&utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

Fauci differs with Trump on nationwide stay-at-home orders - The ...

Trump has said certain states can treat the coronavirus outbreak differently. Fauci publicly disagreed Thursday night.

As certain states have continued to lag behind others in issuing stay-at-home orders, the White House has also resisted a more drastic step: demanding that states get with the program.

Vice President Pence made it clear Wednesday that President Trump has decided he doesn’t want to tell states what to do. “At the president’s direction, the White House coronavirus task force will continue to take the posture that we will defer to state and local health authorities on any measures that they deem appropriate,” Pence said.

Pressed again on Thursday after Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) finally got on board with a stay-at-home order, Trump again signaled that the task force won’t seek to compel states. “I think it’s about 85 percent of the states have got the stay at home,” Trump said. “Brian’s a great governor; it’s his decision.”

The thing is, though, Trump is wrong. Eighty-five percent of states are not on board. A New York Times compilation shows that 12 states still have not taken this step. Localities within some of those state have, and the vast majority of the United States is under such orders, population-wise, but this is still not a blanket policy being applied across the country.

And for the first time, Anthony S. Fauci is signaling his frustration with that. After the White House had for days played off this question, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases appeared on CNN on Thursday night and for the first time made his position on that issue clear.

“If you look at what’s going on in this country, I just don’t understand why we’re not doing that,” he told Anderson Cooper. “We really should be.”

The question was about a federal mandate and not whether states should take this step themselves, and Fauci was careful to recognize valid questions about states’ rights. But he was also clear that he thinks this should be a nationwide policy, one way or another.

“I think so, Anderson,” Fauci added at another point. “I don’t understand why that’s not happening.”

Part of the reason it’s not happening is that this request has not been enunciated by the president like it was by Fauci on Thursday night. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) said earlier this week that he was waiting for Trump to tell him what to do. DeSantis eventually succumbed to the pressure himself, but in making his announcement, he cited Trump’s tone about the severity of the issue.

In other words, what the president says matters. And just like Florida and Georgia, all of the 12 remaining holdout states are run by Republican governors. Trump’s say-so would likely carry significant weight with them.

But Trump isn’t just declining to lean on them; he also continues to cling to the idea that certain areas of the country can treat the outbreak differently because they aren’t yet as hard-hit. Asked Wednesday why he wasn’t telling every state to do this, Trump said it was “because states are different.”

“There are some states that don’t have much of a problem,” Trump said. “There is some — well, they don’t have the problem. They don’t have thousands of people that are positive or thousands of people that even think they might have it, or hundreds of people in some cases.”

Trump added: “You have to give a little bit of flexibility. We have a state in the Midwest or if Alaska, as an example, doesn’t have a problem, it’s awfully tough to say close it down.”

About 24 hours later, Fauci offered a diametrically opposed view on this question, saying that every state should have a stay-at-home order. The statement both reinforced that there are certain disconnects between the president and his top health officials and added to pressure on everyone to fall in line.

Plenty of governors have resisted this step, only to succumb to the realities in their states. Fauci is essentially asking: Why are you waiting to be the next one?

 

 

 

 

Drivers of health and the coronavirus

Drivers of health and the coronavirus

Truck drivers under increased pressure due to coronavirus

I don’t have time for a fully formed post or column on this, but I want to make note of a few ways in which the COVID-19 pandemic is intersecting with drivers of health (which include social determinants and health system factors). The following list is not necessarily exhaustive and my focus is on the U.S.

  • Right now the health system cannot offer anything to prevent the consequences of COVID-19 infection. Prevention is entirely within the realm of public health measures and personal behaviors. In this way, this is a lot like HIV/AIDS before the mid-1990s. If one were engaged in an exercise of attributing COVID-19 deaths to various factors, personal behavior — degree of social distancing, hand washing, etc. — would get a significant share.
  • But, individuals do not fully control their own COVID-19 destiny. Not everyone can avoid all risk of exposure. Food and other necessities need to be brought into the house. We want some people to work (e.g., health care workers, those involved in producing and transporting food and medical supplies). Not everyone can control the behavior of everyone else in their household. Teens and young adults might sneak out, despite what their parents say.
  • Among those at highest risk will be people who don’t have the privilege of working from home. They need income and can’t get it without leaving the house. Peeling this onion leads back to the customary markers of socioeconomic status (education, income, rank/class, etc.) as drivers of health.
  • Those with privilege are more likely to find ways to get testing, care, and going forward, probably will be among the first (after health care workers) to get vaccinated. This is how it has always been in the U.S.
  • Policy clearly plays a role. Where leaders were slower to implement changes to increase or require social distancing, outbreaks are more widespread (relative to the counterfactual of those changes made sooner). Even national policy makers were slow to recognize the importance of preparing for a pandemic. Mistakes were made. Balls were dropped. So, policy/government is a driver, of course.
  • Finally, the health system clearly plays a role, not in prevention but in treatment. People can be saved, if the resources are there to save them and they can be accessed. Where and for whom health care is more available and accessible, people will be better off. This is complex because of the intersection of the effectiveness of health care, its accessibility (which is reduced for people losing job-based insurance, otherwise un- or under-insured, or without the resources to pay cost sharing, etc.), and the degree to which the health system has prepared for such a pandemic (which intersects with policy and health economics). So, the health system should get some blame/credit for deaths/saved lives, but it’s not so clear how much.

Fundamentally, it’s interesting how much we are reliant on collective resources — government through policy and shared health care infrastructure. The best thing we can do for ourselves individually is to engage in safe behaviors. But we also need collective action for our future well being. Yes/and, not either/or.

 

 

 

HP unveils advanced security for remote workers — and shows how to disinfect your laptop

https://www.venture-med.com/hp-unveils-advanced-security-for-remote-workers-and-shows-how-to-disinfect-your-laptop/

HP has unveiled advanced security for businesses and their remote workforces and disclosed an extensive guide to disinfecting your laptop and other computer equipment.

The new offerings include HP Pro Security Edition, HP Proactive Security, and HP Sure Click Enterprise. These are aimed at the security threats that evolve and disrupt business every day.

With the recent surge of remote workers — due to work-from-home rules forced upon us by COVID-19 — HP said we must all be aware of the increased risks of working from home. Over 80% of home office routers have been found to be vulnerable to potential cyberattacks.

Emails also pose a significant risk to organizations, with over 90% of PC infections originating from attachments and 96% of security  breaches not discovered until months later. There are 5 billion new threats per month, based on HP’s estimates.

“Our HP Pro Security Edition takes Sure Sense and Sure Click and bundles [them] with our system,” said Andy Rhodes, global head of commercial PCs, in a press briefing. “Endpoints are still an enormous risk — 90% of infections originate with emails. Every user is at risk here.”

HP Pro Security for small businesses.

With public health concerns over COVID-19 spreading worldwide, HP wants customers to have the information they need to effectively clean HP devices and maintain a healthy work environment.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends cleaning surfaces, followed by disinfection, as a best practice for the prevention of COVID-19 and other viral respiratory illnesses in households and community settings.

In fact, HP has issued its own whitepaper for cleaning your devices.

“We get asked [about] this every day,” said Rhodes. “If you use the wrong disinfectant, you can actually damage the product.”

A CDC-recommended disinfectant that is also within HP’s cleaning guidelines is an alcohol solution consisting of 70% isopropyl alcohol and 30% water.

The steps below use the CDC-recommended alcohol solution to clean high-touch, external surfaces on HP products:

  1. Wear disposable gloves made of latex (or nitrile gloves if you are latex-sensitive) when cleaning and disinfecting surfaces.
  2. Turn off the device and disconnect AC power (printers should be unplugged from the outlet). Remove batteries from items like wireless keyboards. Never clean a product while it is powered on or plugged in.
  3. Disconnect any external devices.
  4. Moisten a microfiber cloth with a mixture of 70% isopropyl alcohol and 30% water. Do not use fibrous materials, such as paper towels or toilet paper. The cloth should be moist, but not dripping wet. (Isopropyl alcohol is sold in most stores, usually in a 70% isopropyl alcohol/30% water solution. It may also be marketed as rubbing alcohol.)
  5. Do not spray any liquids directly onto your device.
  6. Gently wipe the moistened cloth on the surfaces to be cleaned. Do not allow any moisture to drip into areas like keyboards, display panels, or USB ports located on the printer control panels, as moisture entering the inside of an electronic product can cause extensive damage to the product.
  7. Start with the display or printer control panel (if applicable) and end with any flexible cables, like power, keyboard, and USB cables.
  8. When cleaning a display screen or printer control panel, carefully wipe in one direction, moving from the top of the display to the bottom.
  9. Ensure surfaces have completely air-dried before turning the device on after cleaning. No moisture should be visible on the surfaces of the product before it is powered on.
  10. After disinfecting, copier/scanner glass should be cleaned again using an office glass cleaner sprayed onto a clean rag to remove streaking. Streaking on the copier/scanner glass from the CDC-recommended cleaning solution could cause copy quality defects.
  11. Gloves should be discarded after each cleaning. Clean hands immediately after gloves are removed.