User login
News and Views that Matter to Pediatricians
The leading independent newspaper covering news and commentary in pediatrics.
U.S. reports first death from COVID-19, possible outbreak at long-term care facility
The first death in the United States from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was a Washington state man in his 50s who had underlying health conditions, state health officials announced on Feb 29. At the same time, officials there are investigating a possible COVID-19 outbreak at a long-term care facility.
Washington state officials reported two other presumptive positive cases of COVID-19, both of whom are associated with LifeCare of Kirkland, Washington. One is a woman in her 70s who is a resident at the facility and the other is a woman in her 40s who is a health care worker at the facility.
Additionally, many residents and staff members at the facility have reported respiratory symptoms, according to Jeff Duchin, MD, health officer for public health in Seattle and King County. Among the more than 100 residents at the facility, 27 have respiratory symptoms; while among the 180 staff members, 25 have reported symptoms.
Overall, these reports bring the total number of U.S. COVID-19 cases detected by the public health system to 22, though that number is expected to climb as these investigations continue.
The general risk to the American public is still low, including residents in long-term care facilities, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during the Feb. 29 press briefing. Older people are are higher risk, however, and long-term care facilities should emphasize handwashing and the early identification of individuals with symptoms.
Dr. Duchin added that health care workers who are sick should stay home and that visitors should be screened for symptoms, the same advice offered to limit the spread of influenza at long-term care facilities.
The CDC briefing comes after President Trump held his own press conference at the White House where he identified the person who had died as being a woman in her 50s who was medically at risk.
During that press conference, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said that the current pattern of disease with COVID-19 suggests that 75%-80% of patients will have mild illness and recover, while 15%-20% will require advanced medical care.
For the most part, the more serious cases will occur in those who are elderly or have underlying medical conditions. There is “no indication” that individuals who recover from the virus are becoming re-infected, Dr. Fauci said.
The administration also announced a series of actions aimed at slowing the spread of the virus and responding to it. On March 2, President Trump will meet with leaders in the pharmaceutical industry at the White House to discuss vaccine development. The administration is also working to ensure an adequate supply of face masks. Vice President Mike Pence said there are currently more than 40 million masks available, but that the administration has received promises of 35 million more masks per month from manufacturers. Access to masks will be prioritized for high-risk health care workers, Vice President Pence said. “The average American does not need to go out and buy a mask,” he added.
Additionally, Vice President Pence announced new travel restrictions with Iran that would bar entry to the United States for any foreign national who visited Iran in the last 14 days. The federal government is also advising Americans not to travel to the regions in Italy and South Korea that have been most affected by COVID-19. The government is also working with officials in Italy and South Korea to conduct medical screening of anyone coming into the United States from those countries.
The first death in the United States from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was a Washington state man in his 50s who had underlying health conditions, state health officials announced on Feb 29. At the same time, officials there are investigating a possible COVID-19 outbreak at a long-term care facility.
Washington state officials reported two other presumptive positive cases of COVID-19, both of whom are associated with LifeCare of Kirkland, Washington. One is a woman in her 70s who is a resident at the facility and the other is a woman in her 40s who is a health care worker at the facility.
Additionally, many residents and staff members at the facility have reported respiratory symptoms, according to Jeff Duchin, MD, health officer for public health in Seattle and King County. Among the more than 100 residents at the facility, 27 have respiratory symptoms; while among the 180 staff members, 25 have reported symptoms.
Overall, these reports bring the total number of U.S. COVID-19 cases detected by the public health system to 22, though that number is expected to climb as these investigations continue.
The general risk to the American public is still low, including residents in long-term care facilities, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during the Feb. 29 press briefing. Older people are are higher risk, however, and long-term care facilities should emphasize handwashing and the early identification of individuals with symptoms.
Dr. Duchin added that health care workers who are sick should stay home and that visitors should be screened for symptoms, the same advice offered to limit the spread of influenza at long-term care facilities.
The CDC briefing comes after President Trump held his own press conference at the White House where he identified the person who had died as being a woman in her 50s who was medically at risk.
During that press conference, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said that the current pattern of disease with COVID-19 suggests that 75%-80% of patients will have mild illness and recover, while 15%-20% will require advanced medical care.
For the most part, the more serious cases will occur in those who are elderly or have underlying medical conditions. There is “no indication” that individuals who recover from the virus are becoming re-infected, Dr. Fauci said.
The administration also announced a series of actions aimed at slowing the spread of the virus and responding to it. On March 2, President Trump will meet with leaders in the pharmaceutical industry at the White House to discuss vaccine development. The administration is also working to ensure an adequate supply of face masks. Vice President Mike Pence said there are currently more than 40 million masks available, but that the administration has received promises of 35 million more masks per month from manufacturers. Access to masks will be prioritized for high-risk health care workers, Vice President Pence said. “The average American does not need to go out and buy a mask,” he added.
Additionally, Vice President Pence announced new travel restrictions with Iran that would bar entry to the United States for any foreign national who visited Iran in the last 14 days. The federal government is also advising Americans not to travel to the regions in Italy and South Korea that have been most affected by COVID-19. The government is also working with officials in Italy and South Korea to conduct medical screening of anyone coming into the United States from those countries.
The first death in the United States from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was a Washington state man in his 50s who had underlying health conditions, state health officials announced on Feb 29. At the same time, officials there are investigating a possible COVID-19 outbreak at a long-term care facility.
Washington state officials reported two other presumptive positive cases of COVID-19, both of whom are associated with LifeCare of Kirkland, Washington. One is a woman in her 70s who is a resident at the facility and the other is a woman in her 40s who is a health care worker at the facility.
Additionally, many residents and staff members at the facility have reported respiratory symptoms, according to Jeff Duchin, MD, health officer for public health in Seattle and King County. Among the more than 100 residents at the facility, 27 have respiratory symptoms; while among the 180 staff members, 25 have reported symptoms.
Overall, these reports bring the total number of U.S. COVID-19 cases detected by the public health system to 22, though that number is expected to climb as these investigations continue.
The general risk to the American public is still low, including residents in long-term care facilities, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during the Feb. 29 press briefing. Older people are are higher risk, however, and long-term care facilities should emphasize handwashing and the early identification of individuals with symptoms.
Dr. Duchin added that health care workers who are sick should stay home and that visitors should be screened for symptoms, the same advice offered to limit the spread of influenza at long-term care facilities.
The CDC briefing comes after President Trump held his own press conference at the White House where he identified the person who had died as being a woman in her 50s who was medically at risk.
During that press conference, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said that the current pattern of disease with COVID-19 suggests that 75%-80% of patients will have mild illness and recover, while 15%-20% will require advanced medical care.
For the most part, the more serious cases will occur in those who are elderly or have underlying medical conditions. There is “no indication” that individuals who recover from the virus are becoming re-infected, Dr. Fauci said.
The administration also announced a series of actions aimed at slowing the spread of the virus and responding to it. On March 2, President Trump will meet with leaders in the pharmaceutical industry at the White House to discuss vaccine development. The administration is also working to ensure an adequate supply of face masks. Vice President Mike Pence said there are currently more than 40 million masks available, but that the administration has received promises of 35 million more masks per month from manufacturers. Access to masks will be prioritized for high-risk health care workers, Vice President Pence said. “The average American does not need to go out and buy a mask,” he added.
Additionally, Vice President Pence announced new travel restrictions with Iran that would bar entry to the United States for any foreign national who visited Iran in the last 14 days. The federal government is also advising Americans not to travel to the regions in Italy and South Korea that have been most affected by COVID-19. The government is also working with officials in Italy and South Korea to conduct medical screening of anyone coming into the United States from those countries.
Isotretinoin data provide postmeal absorption guidance
LAHAINA, HAWAII – Recent , Hilary E. Baldwin, MD, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.
It is recommended that isotretinoin, which is fat-soluble, be taken with food, preferably high-fat foods. So it has been unclear what the effect would be when taken with lower-fat food, such as low-fat cereal and raspberries, for example, Dr. Baldwin, medical director of the Acne Treatment and Research Center in New York, pointed out.
“We’ve been trying for years to figure out how we’re going to get around this,” and there have not been any relevant data available until recently, other than in the setting of taking isotretinoin on an empty stomach or with a high-fat meal, she commented.
She referred to a open-label, single-dose, randomized crossover study that compared the bioavailability of the lidose formulation of isotretinoin (Absorica) and brand name Accutane, at a dose of 40 mg either on top of a fatty meal (the Food and Drug Administration-stipulated high-fat, high-calorie diet) or after a 10-hour fast; 60 patients did all four arms, with a 21-day washout period between them (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Nov;69[5]:762-7).
In the fed state, both isotretinoin formulations were absorbed to the same extent, “but in the fasting state, there was a considerable difference,” Dr. Baldwin said. Absorption of both dropped in the fasting state, but the drop was more extreme with Accutane, “about a 50% difference between the two, in terms of how much drug was getting into the system,” she noted.
That is important because weight-based dosing is considered with isotretinoin, so at the end of treatment, a patient who has been taking it on an empty stomach may be getting a 60% lower dose than prescribed, “which could lead to a lessening of the effectiveness of the drug and also an increase in relapse over time.”
But how would a low-fat meal, like low-fat cereal and raspberries, affect the absorption, and ultimate efficacy?
This question was addressed in an open-label, single-arm study of 163 patients with acne, who were taking the lidose isotretinoin formulation without food, at the standard dose, for no longer than 20 weeks. Whether they relapsed was evaluated in a 2-year observational phase of the study, Dr. Baldwin said.
At the end of the trial, the drug was considered effective, with improvements in IGA (the 5-point Investigator’s Global Assessment scale). But the change from baseline was maintained at the 2-year posttreatment period, so the benefits of treatment lasted, which indicates that patients can take it “on top of absolutely no food whatsoever ... so if they eat anything, we are headed in the right direction,” including a low-fat meal. During the 2-year period, most patients did not need to be retreated. Of those people who needed treatment, only 4.2% needed treatment with isotretinoin, which is better than the historical relapse rates with isotretinoin, she noted.
Dr. Baldwin’s disclosures included being on the speakers’ bureau, serving as an advisor, and/or an investigator for companies that include Almirall, BioPharmx, Foamix, Galderma, Ortho Dermatologics, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, and La Roche–Posay.
SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
LAHAINA, HAWAII – Recent , Hilary E. Baldwin, MD, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.
It is recommended that isotretinoin, which is fat-soluble, be taken with food, preferably high-fat foods. So it has been unclear what the effect would be when taken with lower-fat food, such as low-fat cereal and raspberries, for example, Dr. Baldwin, medical director of the Acne Treatment and Research Center in New York, pointed out.
“We’ve been trying for years to figure out how we’re going to get around this,” and there have not been any relevant data available until recently, other than in the setting of taking isotretinoin on an empty stomach or with a high-fat meal, she commented.
She referred to a open-label, single-dose, randomized crossover study that compared the bioavailability of the lidose formulation of isotretinoin (Absorica) and brand name Accutane, at a dose of 40 mg either on top of a fatty meal (the Food and Drug Administration-stipulated high-fat, high-calorie diet) or after a 10-hour fast; 60 patients did all four arms, with a 21-day washout period between them (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Nov;69[5]:762-7).
In the fed state, both isotretinoin formulations were absorbed to the same extent, “but in the fasting state, there was a considerable difference,” Dr. Baldwin said. Absorption of both dropped in the fasting state, but the drop was more extreme with Accutane, “about a 50% difference between the two, in terms of how much drug was getting into the system,” she noted.
That is important because weight-based dosing is considered with isotretinoin, so at the end of treatment, a patient who has been taking it on an empty stomach may be getting a 60% lower dose than prescribed, “which could lead to a lessening of the effectiveness of the drug and also an increase in relapse over time.”
But how would a low-fat meal, like low-fat cereal and raspberries, affect the absorption, and ultimate efficacy?
This question was addressed in an open-label, single-arm study of 163 patients with acne, who were taking the lidose isotretinoin formulation without food, at the standard dose, for no longer than 20 weeks. Whether they relapsed was evaluated in a 2-year observational phase of the study, Dr. Baldwin said.
At the end of the trial, the drug was considered effective, with improvements in IGA (the 5-point Investigator’s Global Assessment scale). But the change from baseline was maintained at the 2-year posttreatment period, so the benefits of treatment lasted, which indicates that patients can take it “on top of absolutely no food whatsoever ... so if they eat anything, we are headed in the right direction,” including a low-fat meal. During the 2-year period, most patients did not need to be retreated. Of those people who needed treatment, only 4.2% needed treatment with isotretinoin, which is better than the historical relapse rates with isotretinoin, she noted.
Dr. Baldwin’s disclosures included being on the speakers’ bureau, serving as an advisor, and/or an investigator for companies that include Almirall, BioPharmx, Foamix, Galderma, Ortho Dermatologics, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, and La Roche–Posay.
SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
LAHAINA, HAWAII – Recent , Hilary E. Baldwin, MD, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.
It is recommended that isotretinoin, which is fat-soluble, be taken with food, preferably high-fat foods. So it has been unclear what the effect would be when taken with lower-fat food, such as low-fat cereal and raspberries, for example, Dr. Baldwin, medical director of the Acne Treatment and Research Center in New York, pointed out.
“We’ve been trying for years to figure out how we’re going to get around this,” and there have not been any relevant data available until recently, other than in the setting of taking isotretinoin on an empty stomach or with a high-fat meal, she commented.
She referred to a open-label, single-dose, randomized crossover study that compared the bioavailability of the lidose formulation of isotretinoin (Absorica) and brand name Accutane, at a dose of 40 mg either on top of a fatty meal (the Food and Drug Administration-stipulated high-fat, high-calorie diet) or after a 10-hour fast; 60 patients did all four arms, with a 21-day washout period between them (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Nov;69[5]:762-7).
In the fed state, both isotretinoin formulations were absorbed to the same extent, “but in the fasting state, there was a considerable difference,” Dr. Baldwin said. Absorption of both dropped in the fasting state, but the drop was more extreme with Accutane, “about a 50% difference between the two, in terms of how much drug was getting into the system,” she noted.
That is important because weight-based dosing is considered with isotretinoin, so at the end of treatment, a patient who has been taking it on an empty stomach may be getting a 60% lower dose than prescribed, “which could lead to a lessening of the effectiveness of the drug and also an increase in relapse over time.”
But how would a low-fat meal, like low-fat cereal and raspberries, affect the absorption, and ultimate efficacy?
This question was addressed in an open-label, single-arm study of 163 patients with acne, who were taking the lidose isotretinoin formulation without food, at the standard dose, for no longer than 20 weeks. Whether they relapsed was evaluated in a 2-year observational phase of the study, Dr. Baldwin said.
At the end of the trial, the drug was considered effective, with improvements in IGA (the 5-point Investigator’s Global Assessment scale). But the change from baseline was maintained at the 2-year posttreatment period, so the benefits of treatment lasted, which indicates that patients can take it “on top of absolutely no food whatsoever ... so if they eat anything, we are headed in the right direction,” including a low-fat meal. During the 2-year period, most patients did not need to be retreated. Of those people who needed treatment, only 4.2% needed treatment with isotretinoin, which is better than the historical relapse rates with isotretinoin, she noted.
Dr. Baldwin’s disclosures included being on the speakers’ bureau, serving as an advisor, and/or an investigator for companies that include Almirall, BioPharmx, Foamix, Galderma, Ortho Dermatologics, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, and La Roche–Posay.
SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM SDEF HAWAII DERMATOLOGY SEMINAR
CDC revises COVID-19 test kits, broadens ‘person under investigation’ definition
In a telebriefing on the COVID-19 outbreak, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at .
The definition has been revised “to meet the needs of this rapidly evolving situation,” she said. The new PUI definition includes travel to more geographic areas to reflect this past week’s marked uptick in coronavirus activity in Italy and Iran. In addition to these countries and China, recent travel to Japan or South Korea also constitutes an epidemiologic risk factor which, in conjunction with clinical features, warrant an individual being classified as a PUI. These five countries each now have widespread person-to-person transmission of the virus.
Dr. Messonnier left open the possibility that the PUI definition would continue to evolve if such transmission within communities becomes more common. Asked whether the small number of U.S. cases thus might be an artifact of low test volumes, she said, “We aggressively controlled our borders to slow the spread. This was an intentional U.S. strategy. The CDC has always had the capacity to test rapidly from the time the sequence was available. ...We have been testing aggressively.”
The original PUI definition, she explained, emphasized individuals with fever, cough, or trouble breathing who had traveled recently from areas with COVID-19 activity, in particular China’s Hubei province. “We have been most focused on symptomatic people who are closely linked to, or who had, travel history, but our criteria also allow for clinical discretion,” she said. “There is no substitute for an astute clinician on the front lines of patient care.”
The first COVID-19 case from person-to-person spread was reported on Feb. 27. “At this time, we don’t know how or where this person became infected,” said Dr. Messonnier, although investigations are still underway. She responded to a question about whether the CDC delayed allowing COVID-19 testing for the patient for several days, as was reported in some media accounts. “According to CDC records, the first call we got was Feb. 23,” when public health officials in California reported a severely ill person with no travel abroad and no known contacts with individuals that would trigger suspicions for coronavirus. The CDC recommended COVID-19 testing on that day, she said.
Dr. Messonnier declined to answer questions about a whistleblower report alleging improper training and inadequate protective measures for Department of Health & Human Services workers at the quarantine center at Travis Air Force Base, Calif.
Dr. Messonnier said that the CDC has been working closely with the Food and Drug Administration to address problems with the COVID-19 test kits that were unusable because of a large number of indeterminate results. The two agencies together have determined that of the three reactions that were initially deemed necessary for a definitive COVID-19 diagnosis, just two are sufficient, so new kits that omit the problematic chemical are being manufactured and distributed.
These new kits are rapidly being made available; the goal, said Dr. Messonnier, is to have to state and local public health departments equipped with test kits by about March 7.
As local tests become available, the most updated information will be coming from state and local public health departments, she stressed, adding that the CDC would continue to update case counts on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday of each week. Procedures are being developed for the management of patients presumed to have COVID-19, where local health departments see positive tests but the mandatory CDC confirmatory test hasn’t been completed.
While new cases emerge across Europe and Asia, China’s earlier COVID-19 explosion seems to be slowing. “It’s really good news that the case counts in China are decreasing,” both for the well-being of that country’s citizens, and as a sign of the disease’s potential global effects, said Dr. Messonnier. She added that epidemiologists and mathematical modelers are parsing case fatality rates as well.
She advised health care providers and public health officials to keep abreast of changes in CDC guidance by checking frequently at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html.
In a telebriefing on the COVID-19 outbreak, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at .
The definition has been revised “to meet the needs of this rapidly evolving situation,” she said. The new PUI definition includes travel to more geographic areas to reflect this past week’s marked uptick in coronavirus activity in Italy and Iran. In addition to these countries and China, recent travel to Japan or South Korea also constitutes an epidemiologic risk factor which, in conjunction with clinical features, warrant an individual being classified as a PUI. These five countries each now have widespread person-to-person transmission of the virus.
Dr. Messonnier left open the possibility that the PUI definition would continue to evolve if such transmission within communities becomes more common. Asked whether the small number of U.S. cases thus might be an artifact of low test volumes, she said, “We aggressively controlled our borders to slow the spread. This was an intentional U.S. strategy. The CDC has always had the capacity to test rapidly from the time the sequence was available. ...We have been testing aggressively.”
The original PUI definition, she explained, emphasized individuals with fever, cough, or trouble breathing who had traveled recently from areas with COVID-19 activity, in particular China’s Hubei province. “We have been most focused on symptomatic people who are closely linked to, or who had, travel history, but our criteria also allow for clinical discretion,” she said. “There is no substitute for an astute clinician on the front lines of patient care.”
The first COVID-19 case from person-to-person spread was reported on Feb. 27. “At this time, we don’t know how or where this person became infected,” said Dr. Messonnier, although investigations are still underway. She responded to a question about whether the CDC delayed allowing COVID-19 testing for the patient for several days, as was reported in some media accounts. “According to CDC records, the first call we got was Feb. 23,” when public health officials in California reported a severely ill person with no travel abroad and no known contacts with individuals that would trigger suspicions for coronavirus. The CDC recommended COVID-19 testing on that day, she said.
Dr. Messonnier declined to answer questions about a whistleblower report alleging improper training and inadequate protective measures for Department of Health & Human Services workers at the quarantine center at Travis Air Force Base, Calif.
Dr. Messonnier said that the CDC has been working closely with the Food and Drug Administration to address problems with the COVID-19 test kits that were unusable because of a large number of indeterminate results. The two agencies together have determined that of the three reactions that were initially deemed necessary for a definitive COVID-19 diagnosis, just two are sufficient, so new kits that omit the problematic chemical are being manufactured and distributed.
These new kits are rapidly being made available; the goal, said Dr. Messonnier, is to have to state and local public health departments equipped with test kits by about March 7.
As local tests become available, the most updated information will be coming from state and local public health departments, she stressed, adding that the CDC would continue to update case counts on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday of each week. Procedures are being developed for the management of patients presumed to have COVID-19, where local health departments see positive tests but the mandatory CDC confirmatory test hasn’t been completed.
While new cases emerge across Europe and Asia, China’s earlier COVID-19 explosion seems to be slowing. “It’s really good news that the case counts in China are decreasing,” both for the well-being of that country’s citizens, and as a sign of the disease’s potential global effects, said Dr. Messonnier. She added that epidemiologists and mathematical modelers are parsing case fatality rates as well.
She advised health care providers and public health officials to keep abreast of changes in CDC guidance by checking frequently at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html.
In a telebriefing on the COVID-19 outbreak, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at .
The definition has been revised “to meet the needs of this rapidly evolving situation,” she said. The new PUI definition includes travel to more geographic areas to reflect this past week’s marked uptick in coronavirus activity in Italy and Iran. In addition to these countries and China, recent travel to Japan or South Korea also constitutes an epidemiologic risk factor which, in conjunction with clinical features, warrant an individual being classified as a PUI. These five countries each now have widespread person-to-person transmission of the virus.
Dr. Messonnier left open the possibility that the PUI definition would continue to evolve if such transmission within communities becomes more common. Asked whether the small number of U.S. cases thus might be an artifact of low test volumes, she said, “We aggressively controlled our borders to slow the spread. This was an intentional U.S. strategy. The CDC has always had the capacity to test rapidly from the time the sequence was available. ...We have been testing aggressively.”
The original PUI definition, she explained, emphasized individuals with fever, cough, or trouble breathing who had traveled recently from areas with COVID-19 activity, in particular China’s Hubei province. “We have been most focused on symptomatic people who are closely linked to, or who had, travel history, but our criteria also allow for clinical discretion,” she said. “There is no substitute for an astute clinician on the front lines of patient care.”
The first COVID-19 case from person-to-person spread was reported on Feb. 27. “At this time, we don’t know how or where this person became infected,” said Dr. Messonnier, although investigations are still underway. She responded to a question about whether the CDC delayed allowing COVID-19 testing for the patient for several days, as was reported in some media accounts. “According to CDC records, the first call we got was Feb. 23,” when public health officials in California reported a severely ill person with no travel abroad and no known contacts with individuals that would trigger suspicions for coronavirus. The CDC recommended COVID-19 testing on that day, she said.
Dr. Messonnier declined to answer questions about a whistleblower report alleging improper training and inadequate protective measures for Department of Health & Human Services workers at the quarantine center at Travis Air Force Base, Calif.
Dr. Messonnier said that the CDC has been working closely with the Food and Drug Administration to address problems with the COVID-19 test kits that were unusable because of a large number of indeterminate results. The two agencies together have determined that of the three reactions that were initially deemed necessary for a definitive COVID-19 diagnosis, just two are sufficient, so new kits that omit the problematic chemical are being manufactured and distributed.
These new kits are rapidly being made available; the goal, said Dr. Messonnier, is to have to state and local public health departments equipped with test kits by about March 7.
As local tests become available, the most updated information will be coming from state and local public health departments, she stressed, adding that the CDC would continue to update case counts on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday of each week. Procedures are being developed for the management of patients presumed to have COVID-19, where local health departments see positive tests but the mandatory CDC confirmatory test hasn’t been completed.
While new cases emerge across Europe and Asia, China’s earlier COVID-19 explosion seems to be slowing. “It’s really good news that the case counts in China are decreasing,” both for the well-being of that country’s citizens, and as a sign of the disease’s potential global effects, said Dr. Messonnier. She added that epidemiologists and mathematical modelers are parsing case fatality rates as well.
She advised health care providers and public health officials to keep abreast of changes in CDC guidance by checking frequently at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html.
REPORTING FROM A CDC BRIEFING
Children bearing the brunt of declining flu activity
National flu activity decreased for the second consecutive week, but pediatric mortality is heading in the opposite direction, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Influenza-like illness (ILI) represented 5.5% of all visits to outpatient health care providers during the week ending Feb. 22, compared with 6.1% the previous week, the CDC’s influenza division reported Feb. 28. The ILI visit rate had reached 6.6% in early February after dropping to 5.0% in mid-January, following a rise to a season-high 7.1% in the last week of December.
Another measure of ILI activity, the percentage of laboratory specimens testing positive, also declined for the second week in a row. The rate was 26.4% for the week ending Feb. 22, which is down from the season high of 30.3% reached 2 weeks before, the influenza division said.
ILI-related deaths among children, however, are not dropping. The total for 2019-2020 is now up to 125, and that “number is higher for the same time period than in every season since reporting began in 2004-05, except for the 2009 pandemic,” the CDC noted.
Hospitalization rates, which have been fairly typical in the general population, also are elevated for young adults and school-aged children, the agency said, and “rates among children 0-4 years old are now the highest CDC has on record at this point in the season, surpassing rates reported during the second wave of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.”
National flu activity decreased for the second consecutive week, but pediatric mortality is heading in the opposite direction, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Influenza-like illness (ILI) represented 5.5% of all visits to outpatient health care providers during the week ending Feb. 22, compared with 6.1% the previous week, the CDC’s influenza division reported Feb. 28. The ILI visit rate had reached 6.6% in early February after dropping to 5.0% in mid-January, following a rise to a season-high 7.1% in the last week of December.
Another measure of ILI activity, the percentage of laboratory specimens testing positive, also declined for the second week in a row. The rate was 26.4% for the week ending Feb. 22, which is down from the season high of 30.3% reached 2 weeks before, the influenza division said.
ILI-related deaths among children, however, are not dropping. The total for 2019-2020 is now up to 125, and that “number is higher for the same time period than in every season since reporting began in 2004-05, except for the 2009 pandemic,” the CDC noted.
Hospitalization rates, which have been fairly typical in the general population, also are elevated for young adults and school-aged children, the agency said, and “rates among children 0-4 years old are now the highest CDC has on record at this point in the season, surpassing rates reported during the second wave of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.”
National flu activity decreased for the second consecutive week, but pediatric mortality is heading in the opposite direction, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Influenza-like illness (ILI) represented 5.5% of all visits to outpatient health care providers during the week ending Feb. 22, compared with 6.1% the previous week, the CDC’s influenza division reported Feb. 28. The ILI visit rate had reached 6.6% in early February after dropping to 5.0% in mid-January, following a rise to a season-high 7.1% in the last week of December.
Another measure of ILI activity, the percentage of laboratory specimens testing positive, also declined for the second week in a row. The rate was 26.4% for the week ending Feb. 22, which is down from the season high of 30.3% reached 2 weeks before, the influenza division said.
ILI-related deaths among children, however, are not dropping. The total for 2019-2020 is now up to 125, and that “number is higher for the same time period than in every season since reporting began in 2004-05, except for the 2009 pandemic,” the CDC noted.
Hospitalization rates, which have been fairly typical in the general population, also are elevated for young adults and school-aged children, the agency said, and “rates among children 0-4 years old are now the highest CDC has on record at this point in the season, surpassing rates reported during the second wave of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.”
Pence named COVID-19 point person as CDC reports possible community spread
Vice President Mike Pence will be the White House point person quarterbacking the administration’s response to COVID-19, although President Donald Trump was quick to dismiss the notion that he is a so-called coronavirus “czar.”
President Trump introduced Vice President Pence in this role during a Feb. 26 press conference. The same night, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced the first case of possible community spread of the novel coronavirus in the United States.
“I am going to be putting our vice president, Mike Pence, in charge, and Mike will be working with the professionals, the doctors, and everybody else that is working” on this, President Trump said.
“Mike is going to be in charge and Mike will report back to me, but he’s got a certain talent for this,” President Trump continued, noting that while Vice President Pence was governor of Indiana, his was the first state to have a patient affected by the 2014 Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) outbreak, so he has experience in a similar situation.
“I know full well the importance of presidential leadership, the importance of administration leadership, and the vital role of partnerships of state and local governments and health authorities in responding to the potential threat of dangerous infectious diseases,” Vice President Pence said.
He said that his role will be to continue to meet with the Coronavirus Task Force and bring to the president “the best options for action and to see to the safety and well being and health of the American people. I will also be continuing to reach out to governors [and] state and local officials.”
Vice President Pence said he will also be working with Congress to ensure that resources are available.
It was noted during the press conference that some members of Congress consider the $2.5 billion in emergency appropriations requested by the White House to be inadequate and that the legislative branch is working to provide more funding.
Vice President Pence’s new role does not change the command structure of the Coronavirus Task Force, which is currently led by Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar.
Speaking at the press conference, Secretary Azar noted that he is still chairman of the task force. “Having the vice president gives me the biggest stick one can have in the government on this whole-of-government approach.”
He emphatically stated, “not in the least,” in response to a question about whether he felt he was being replaced. “When this was mentioned to me, I said I was delighted that I get to have the vice president helping in this way. Delighted.”
The announcement came as President Trump continued to downplay the threat of the coronavirus to U.S. citizens, going so far as to contradict CDC officials who have stated that it is a matter of when, not if, there will be community spread in the United States.
“I don’t think it’s inevitable,” President Trump said. “I think that there’s a chance that it could get worse. There’s a chance it could get fairly substantially worse, but nothing’s inevitable.”
Immediately after President Trump wrapped up his statement, however, the CDC formally announced the first case of possible community spread of the coronavirus. In a statement issued to the press, the agency announced the 15th confirmed case in the United States, a person in California “who reportedly did not have relevant travel history or exposure to another known patient” with the coronavirus.
“This case was detected through the U.S. public health system – picked up by astute clinicians,” CDC added, noting it will continue to provide updates on the evolving situation.
Vice President Mike Pence will be the White House point person quarterbacking the administration’s response to COVID-19, although President Donald Trump was quick to dismiss the notion that he is a so-called coronavirus “czar.”
President Trump introduced Vice President Pence in this role during a Feb. 26 press conference. The same night, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced the first case of possible community spread of the novel coronavirus in the United States.
“I am going to be putting our vice president, Mike Pence, in charge, and Mike will be working with the professionals, the doctors, and everybody else that is working” on this, President Trump said.
“Mike is going to be in charge and Mike will report back to me, but he’s got a certain talent for this,” President Trump continued, noting that while Vice President Pence was governor of Indiana, his was the first state to have a patient affected by the 2014 Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) outbreak, so he has experience in a similar situation.
“I know full well the importance of presidential leadership, the importance of administration leadership, and the vital role of partnerships of state and local governments and health authorities in responding to the potential threat of dangerous infectious diseases,” Vice President Pence said.
He said that his role will be to continue to meet with the Coronavirus Task Force and bring to the president “the best options for action and to see to the safety and well being and health of the American people. I will also be continuing to reach out to governors [and] state and local officials.”
Vice President Pence said he will also be working with Congress to ensure that resources are available.
It was noted during the press conference that some members of Congress consider the $2.5 billion in emergency appropriations requested by the White House to be inadequate and that the legislative branch is working to provide more funding.
Vice President Pence’s new role does not change the command structure of the Coronavirus Task Force, which is currently led by Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar.
Speaking at the press conference, Secretary Azar noted that he is still chairman of the task force. “Having the vice president gives me the biggest stick one can have in the government on this whole-of-government approach.”
He emphatically stated, “not in the least,” in response to a question about whether he felt he was being replaced. “When this was mentioned to me, I said I was delighted that I get to have the vice president helping in this way. Delighted.”
The announcement came as President Trump continued to downplay the threat of the coronavirus to U.S. citizens, going so far as to contradict CDC officials who have stated that it is a matter of when, not if, there will be community spread in the United States.
“I don’t think it’s inevitable,” President Trump said. “I think that there’s a chance that it could get worse. There’s a chance it could get fairly substantially worse, but nothing’s inevitable.”
Immediately after President Trump wrapped up his statement, however, the CDC formally announced the first case of possible community spread of the coronavirus. In a statement issued to the press, the agency announced the 15th confirmed case in the United States, a person in California “who reportedly did not have relevant travel history or exposure to another known patient” with the coronavirus.
“This case was detected through the U.S. public health system – picked up by astute clinicians,” CDC added, noting it will continue to provide updates on the evolving situation.
Vice President Mike Pence will be the White House point person quarterbacking the administration’s response to COVID-19, although President Donald Trump was quick to dismiss the notion that he is a so-called coronavirus “czar.”
President Trump introduced Vice President Pence in this role during a Feb. 26 press conference. The same night, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced the first case of possible community spread of the novel coronavirus in the United States.
“I am going to be putting our vice president, Mike Pence, in charge, and Mike will be working with the professionals, the doctors, and everybody else that is working” on this, President Trump said.
“Mike is going to be in charge and Mike will report back to me, but he’s got a certain talent for this,” President Trump continued, noting that while Vice President Pence was governor of Indiana, his was the first state to have a patient affected by the 2014 Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) outbreak, so he has experience in a similar situation.
“I know full well the importance of presidential leadership, the importance of administration leadership, and the vital role of partnerships of state and local governments and health authorities in responding to the potential threat of dangerous infectious diseases,” Vice President Pence said.
He said that his role will be to continue to meet with the Coronavirus Task Force and bring to the president “the best options for action and to see to the safety and well being and health of the American people. I will also be continuing to reach out to governors [and] state and local officials.”
Vice President Pence said he will also be working with Congress to ensure that resources are available.
It was noted during the press conference that some members of Congress consider the $2.5 billion in emergency appropriations requested by the White House to be inadequate and that the legislative branch is working to provide more funding.
Vice President Pence’s new role does not change the command structure of the Coronavirus Task Force, which is currently led by Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar.
Speaking at the press conference, Secretary Azar noted that he is still chairman of the task force. “Having the vice president gives me the biggest stick one can have in the government on this whole-of-government approach.”
He emphatically stated, “not in the least,” in response to a question about whether he felt he was being replaced. “When this was mentioned to me, I said I was delighted that I get to have the vice president helping in this way. Delighted.”
The announcement came as President Trump continued to downplay the threat of the coronavirus to U.S. citizens, going so far as to contradict CDC officials who have stated that it is a matter of when, not if, there will be community spread in the United States.
“I don’t think it’s inevitable,” President Trump said. “I think that there’s a chance that it could get worse. There’s a chance it could get fairly substantially worse, but nothing’s inevitable.”
Immediately after President Trump wrapped up his statement, however, the CDC formally announced the first case of possible community spread of the coronavirus. In a statement issued to the press, the agency announced the 15th confirmed case in the United States, a person in California “who reportedly did not have relevant travel history or exposure to another known patient” with the coronavirus.
“This case was detected through the U.S. public health system – picked up by astute clinicians,” CDC added, noting it will continue to provide updates on the evolving situation.
Community-wide initiative ups teen LARC adoption sixfold
In Rochester, N.Y., a comprehensive community initiative that raised awareness about and delivered training in the use of long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) significantly upped LARC adoption among sexually active female high schoolers.
Over the course of the 3-year project, LARC use rose from about 4% to 24% in this group, a statistically significant increase (P less than .0001). During the same time period, LARC use increased nationally, as well, but at a lower rate, rising from 2% to 5% for the same population, while New York state saw LARC use rise from 2% to 5%.
In New York City, where an unrelated LARC awareness campaign was conducted, LARC use went from 3% to 5% over the study period for sexually active female high school students. Comparing the trend in LARC use in Rochester to the secular trend in these control groups showed significantly higher uptake over time in Rochester (P less than .0001).
Through a series of lunch-and-learn talks given to adults who work with adolescents in community-based settings and in medical settings, the Greater Rochester LARC Initiative reached more than 1,300 individuals during July 2014-June 2017, C. Andrew Aligne, MD, MPH, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and coauthors reported in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Of the 81 total talks delivered, 50 were in medical settings, reaching 703 attendees ranging from front-office personnel to primary care physicians, advanced practice clinicians, and nurses; the talks in community-based settings reached 662 attendees.
“We use the term ‘community detailing’ to describe the design of the intervention because it was an innovative hybrid of academic detailing and community health education,” explained Dr. Aligne and colleagues. This approach is a unique, feasible, and effective approach to unintended adolescent pregnancy programs. “The community detailing approach could be a useful complement to programs for preventing unintended adolescent pregnancy.”
The study’s primary outcome measure was LARC use among sexually active female high school students as identified by responses on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Statistics’ Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS).
YRBS data were examined for the years 2013, 2015, and 2017, spanning the period before and after the LARC initiative was begun. A separate question about LARC use wasn’t included in the 2013 YRBS survey, so the investigators used a generous estimate that two-thirds of respondents who reported using the “other” contraceptive category for that year were using LARCs. That category was chosen by a total of 6% of respondents, and encompassed LARC use along with use of the patch, ring, diaphragm, and fertility awareness, explained Dr. Aligne and collaborators.
Addressing the problem of failure to use a condom with LARC use, Dr. Aligne and collaborators found overall low rates of dual-method use, but higher rates in Rochester than in the comparison groups. In Rochester, 78% of respondents reported that they also did not use condoms. This figure was lower than the 91% reported for the United States as a whole, and also was lower than the 93% reported in New York City and the 85% reported in New York state. No increase in sexually transmitted infections was seen in Rochester’s sexually active high school females during the study period.
“Our main finding of increased LARC use is consistent with the literature demonstrating that many sexually active young women, including adolescents, will choose LARC if they are given access not only to birth control itself, but also to accurate information about various contraceptive methods,” concluded Dr. Aligne and his associates.
A practical strength of the Greater Rochester LARC initiative was that it capitalized on existing resources, such as New York state’s preexisting program for free access to contraception and similar provisions in the Affordable Care Act. Also, local Title X clinics that were enrolled in New York’s free contraception initiative already had practitioners who were trained and able to provide same-day LARC insertion.
Pediatricians engaged in the initiative were able to receive free training from LARC manufacturers, as mandated by the Food and Drug Administration. Through collaboration with implant manufacturers, Rochester LARC Initiative staff were able to piggyback on training sessions to add education about contraception counseling and the importance of offering access to all contraception methods.
Taken as a whole, the LARC Initiative could be scaled up, wrote Dr. Aligne and his coauthors, a potential boon in the 21 states where qualifying individuals younger than 19 years of age are eligible for Medicaid reimbursement for family planning services. “Even though easy LARC access is far from universal, there are vast areas of the nation where cost need not be seen as an insurmountable barrier.” Dr. Aligne and coauthors also addressed the fraught history of reproductive justice in the United States, cautioning that universal LARC adoption was not – and should not be – the goal of such initiatives. “There is a history of reproductive coercion in the U.S. including forced sterilization of women of color; therefore, it is critical that LARC methods not be imposed on any particular group. On the other hand, LARC should not be withheld deliberately from adolescents who want it, as this is another form of injustice,” they wrote. “The goal should be to empower individuals to decide what is right for them in a context of social and reproductive justice.”
Using the nationally administered YRBS was a significant strength of the study, commented Dr. Aligne and his collaborators. “This allowed us to employ the study design of pre-post with a nonrandomized control group,” the investigators noted, adding that the “relatively rigorous” methodology reduced the risk of problems with internal validity, and also allowed comparisons between changes in Rochester and those at the state and national level.
However, the researchers acknowledged that the study was not a randomized trial, and there’s always the possibility of unknown confounders contributing to LARC uptake during the study period. Also, the YRBS is a self-report instrument and only includes those enrolled in school.
Dr. Aligne reported that his spouse received compensation for providing contraceptive implant insertion training, as did two coauthors. The LARC initiative was supported by a grant from the Greater Rochester Health Foundation.
SOURCE: Aligne CA et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan 22. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.01.029.
In Rochester, N.Y., a comprehensive community initiative that raised awareness about and delivered training in the use of long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) significantly upped LARC adoption among sexually active female high schoolers.
Over the course of the 3-year project, LARC use rose from about 4% to 24% in this group, a statistically significant increase (P less than .0001). During the same time period, LARC use increased nationally, as well, but at a lower rate, rising from 2% to 5% for the same population, while New York state saw LARC use rise from 2% to 5%.
In New York City, where an unrelated LARC awareness campaign was conducted, LARC use went from 3% to 5% over the study period for sexually active female high school students. Comparing the trend in LARC use in Rochester to the secular trend in these control groups showed significantly higher uptake over time in Rochester (P less than .0001).
Through a series of lunch-and-learn talks given to adults who work with adolescents in community-based settings and in medical settings, the Greater Rochester LARC Initiative reached more than 1,300 individuals during July 2014-June 2017, C. Andrew Aligne, MD, MPH, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and coauthors reported in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Of the 81 total talks delivered, 50 were in medical settings, reaching 703 attendees ranging from front-office personnel to primary care physicians, advanced practice clinicians, and nurses; the talks in community-based settings reached 662 attendees.
“We use the term ‘community detailing’ to describe the design of the intervention because it was an innovative hybrid of academic detailing and community health education,” explained Dr. Aligne and colleagues. This approach is a unique, feasible, and effective approach to unintended adolescent pregnancy programs. “The community detailing approach could be a useful complement to programs for preventing unintended adolescent pregnancy.”
The study’s primary outcome measure was LARC use among sexually active female high school students as identified by responses on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Statistics’ Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS).
YRBS data were examined for the years 2013, 2015, and 2017, spanning the period before and after the LARC initiative was begun. A separate question about LARC use wasn’t included in the 2013 YRBS survey, so the investigators used a generous estimate that two-thirds of respondents who reported using the “other” contraceptive category for that year were using LARCs. That category was chosen by a total of 6% of respondents, and encompassed LARC use along with use of the patch, ring, diaphragm, and fertility awareness, explained Dr. Aligne and collaborators.
Addressing the problem of failure to use a condom with LARC use, Dr. Aligne and collaborators found overall low rates of dual-method use, but higher rates in Rochester than in the comparison groups. In Rochester, 78% of respondents reported that they also did not use condoms. This figure was lower than the 91% reported for the United States as a whole, and also was lower than the 93% reported in New York City and the 85% reported in New York state. No increase in sexually transmitted infections was seen in Rochester’s sexually active high school females during the study period.
“Our main finding of increased LARC use is consistent with the literature demonstrating that many sexually active young women, including adolescents, will choose LARC if they are given access not only to birth control itself, but also to accurate information about various contraceptive methods,” concluded Dr. Aligne and his associates.
A practical strength of the Greater Rochester LARC initiative was that it capitalized on existing resources, such as New York state’s preexisting program for free access to contraception and similar provisions in the Affordable Care Act. Also, local Title X clinics that were enrolled in New York’s free contraception initiative already had practitioners who were trained and able to provide same-day LARC insertion.
Pediatricians engaged in the initiative were able to receive free training from LARC manufacturers, as mandated by the Food and Drug Administration. Through collaboration with implant manufacturers, Rochester LARC Initiative staff were able to piggyback on training sessions to add education about contraception counseling and the importance of offering access to all contraception methods.
Taken as a whole, the LARC Initiative could be scaled up, wrote Dr. Aligne and his coauthors, a potential boon in the 21 states where qualifying individuals younger than 19 years of age are eligible for Medicaid reimbursement for family planning services. “Even though easy LARC access is far from universal, there are vast areas of the nation where cost need not be seen as an insurmountable barrier.” Dr. Aligne and coauthors also addressed the fraught history of reproductive justice in the United States, cautioning that universal LARC adoption was not – and should not be – the goal of such initiatives. “There is a history of reproductive coercion in the U.S. including forced sterilization of women of color; therefore, it is critical that LARC methods not be imposed on any particular group. On the other hand, LARC should not be withheld deliberately from adolescents who want it, as this is another form of injustice,” they wrote. “The goal should be to empower individuals to decide what is right for them in a context of social and reproductive justice.”
Using the nationally administered YRBS was a significant strength of the study, commented Dr. Aligne and his collaborators. “This allowed us to employ the study design of pre-post with a nonrandomized control group,” the investigators noted, adding that the “relatively rigorous” methodology reduced the risk of problems with internal validity, and also allowed comparisons between changes in Rochester and those at the state and national level.
However, the researchers acknowledged that the study was not a randomized trial, and there’s always the possibility of unknown confounders contributing to LARC uptake during the study period. Also, the YRBS is a self-report instrument and only includes those enrolled in school.
Dr. Aligne reported that his spouse received compensation for providing contraceptive implant insertion training, as did two coauthors. The LARC initiative was supported by a grant from the Greater Rochester Health Foundation.
SOURCE: Aligne CA et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan 22. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.01.029.
In Rochester, N.Y., a comprehensive community initiative that raised awareness about and delivered training in the use of long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) significantly upped LARC adoption among sexually active female high schoolers.
Over the course of the 3-year project, LARC use rose from about 4% to 24% in this group, a statistically significant increase (P less than .0001). During the same time period, LARC use increased nationally, as well, but at a lower rate, rising from 2% to 5% for the same population, while New York state saw LARC use rise from 2% to 5%.
In New York City, where an unrelated LARC awareness campaign was conducted, LARC use went from 3% to 5% over the study period for sexually active female high school students. Comparing the trend in LARC use in Rochester to the secular trend in these control groups showed significantly higher uptake over time in Rochester (P less than .0001).
Through a series of lunch-and-learn talks given to adults who work with adolescents in community-based settings and in medical settings, the Greater Rochester LARC Initiative reached more than 1,300 individuals during July 2014-June 2017, C. Andrew Aligne, MD, MPH, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and coauthors reported in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Of the 81 total talks delivered, 50 were in medical settings, reaching 703 attendees ranging from front-office personnel to primary care physicians, advanced practice clinicians, and nurses; the talks in community-based settings reached 662 attendees.
“We use the term ‘community detailing’ to describe the design of the intervention because it was an innovative hybrid of academic detailing and community health education,” explained Dr. Aligne and colleagues. This approach is a unique, feasible, and effective approach to unintended adolescent pregnancy programs. “The community detailing approach could be a useful complement to programs for preventing unintended adolescent pregnancy.”
The study’s primary outcome measure was LARC use among sexually active female high school students as identified by responses on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Statistics’ Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS).
YRBS data were examined for the years 2013, 2015, and 2017, spanning the period before and after the LARC initiative was begun. A separate question about LARC use wasn’t included in the 2013 YRBS survey, so the investigators used a generous estimate that two-thirds of respondents who reported using the “other” contraceptive category for that year were using LARCs. That category was chosen by a total of 6% of respondents, and encompassed LARC use along with use of the patch, ring, diaphragm, and fertility awareness, explained Dr. Aligne and collaborators.
Addressing the problem of failure to use a condom with LARC use, Dr. Aligne and collaborators found overall low rates of dual-method use, but higher rates in Rochester than in the comparison groups. In Rochester, 78% of respondents reported that they also did not use condoms. This figure was lower than the 91% reported for the United States as a whole, and also was lower than the 93% reported in New York City and the 85% reported in New York state. No increase in sexually transmitted infections was seen in Rochester’s sexually active high school females during the study period.
“Our main finding of increased LARC use is consistent with the literature demonstrating that many sexually active young women, including adolescents, will choose LARC if they are given access not only to birth control itself, but also to accurate information about various contraceptive methods,” concluded Dr. Aligne and his associates.
A practical strength of the Greater Rochester LARC initiative was that it capitalized on existing resources, such as New York state’s preexisting program for free access to contraception and similar provisions in the Affordable Care Act. Also, local Title X clinics that were enrolled in New York’s free contraception initiative already had practitioners who were trained and able to provide same-day LARC insertion.
Pediatricians engaged in the initiative were able to receive free training from LARC manufacturers, as mandated by the Food and Drug Administration. Through collaboration with implant manufacturers, Rochester LARC Initiative staff were able to piggyback on training sessions to add education about contraception counseling and the importance of offering access to all contraception methods.
Taken as a whole, the LARC Initiative could be scaled up, wrote Dr. Aligne and his coauthors, a potential boon in the 21 states where qualifying individuals younger than 19 years of age are eligible for Medicaid reimbursement for family planning services. “Even though easy LARC access is far from universal, there are vast areas of the nation where cost need not be seen as an insurmountable barrier.” Dr. Aligne and coauthors also addressed the fraught history of reproductive justice in the United States, cautioning that universal LARC adoption was not – and should not be – the goal of such initiatives. “There is a history of reproductive coercion in the U.S. including forced sterilization of women of color; therefore, it is critical that LARC methods not be imposed on any particular group. On the other hand, LARC should not be withheld deliberately from adolescents who want it, as this is another form of injustice,” they wrote. “The goal should be to empower individuals to decide what is right for them in a context of social and reproductive justice.”
Using the nationally administered YRBS was a significant strength of the study, commented Dr. Aligne and his collaborators. “This allowed us to employ the study design of pre-post with a nonrandomized control group,” the investigators noted, adding that the “relatively rigorous” methodology reduced the risk of problems with internal validity, and also allowed comparisons between changes in Rochester and those at the state and national level.
However, the researchers acknowledged that the study was not a randomized trial, and there’s always the possibility of unknown confounders contributing to LARC uptake during the study period. Also, the YRBS is a self-report instrument and only includes those enrolled in school.
Dr. Aligne reported that his spouse received compensation for providing contraceptive implant insertion training, as did two coauthors. The LARC initiative was supported by a grant from the Greater Rochester Health Foundation.
SOURCE: Aligne CA et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan 22. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.01.029.
FROM AJOG
Are patient portals living up to the hype? Ask your mother-in-law!
While preparing to write this technology column, I received a great deal of insight from the unlikeliest of sources: my mother-in-law.
Now don’t get me wrong – she’s a truly lovely, intelligent, and capable woman. I have sought her advice often on many things and have always been impressed by her wisdom and pragmatism, but I’ve just never thought of asking her for her opinion on medicine or technology, as I considered her knowledge of both subjects to be limited.
This occasion changed my opinion. In fact, I believe that, as health care IT becomes more complex, people like my mother-in-law may be exactly who we should be looking to for answers.
A few weeks ago, my mother-in-law and I were discussing her recent trip to the doctor. When she mentioned some lab tests, I suggested that we log in to her patient portal to view the results. This elicited several questions and a declaration of frustration.
“Which portal?” she asked. “I have so many and can’t keep all of the websites and passwords straight! Why can’t all of my doctors use the same portal, and why do they all have different password requirements?”
As she spoke these words, I was immediately struck with an unfortunate reality of EHRs: We have done a brilliant job creating state-of-the-art digital castles and have filled them with the data needed to revolutionize care and improve population health – but we haven’t given our patients the keys to get inside.
We must ask ourselves if, in trying to construct fortresses of information around our patients, we have lost sight of the individuals in the center. I believe that we can answer this question and improve the benefits of patient portals, but we all must agree to a few simple steps to streamline the experience for everyone.
Make it easy
A study recently published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine surveyed several hospitals on their usage of patient portals. After determining whether or not the institutions had such portals, the authors then investigated to find out what, if any, guidance was provided to patients about how to use them.
Their findings are frustrating, though not surprising. While 89% of hospitals had some form of patient portal, only 65% of those “had links that were easily found, defined as links accessible within two clicks from the home page.”
Furthermore, even in cases where portals were easily found, good instructions on how to use them were missing. Those instructions that did exist centered on rules and restrictions and laying out “terms and conditions” and informing patients on “what not to do,” rather than explaining how to make the most of the experience.
According to the authors, “this focus on curtailing behavior, and the hurdles placed on finding and understanding guidance, suggest that some hospitals may be prioritizing reducing liability over improving the patient experience with portals.”
If we want our patients to use them, portals must be easy to access and intuitive to use. They also must provide value.
Make it meaningful
Patient portals have proliferated exponentially over the last 10 years, thanks to government incentive programs. One such program, known as “meaningful use,” is primarily responsible for this, as it made implementation of a patient portal one of its core requirements.
Sadly, in spite of its oft-reviled name, the meaningful use program never defined patient-friendly standards of usability for patient portals. As a result, current portals just aren’t very good. Patients like my mother-in-law find them to be too numerous, too unfriendly to use, and too limited, so they are not being used to their full potential.
In fact, many institutions may choose not to enable all of the available features in order to limit technical issues and reduce the burden on providers. In the study referenced above, only 63% of portals offered the ability for patients to communicate directly with their physicians, and only 43% offered the ability to refill prescriptions.
When enabled, these functions improve patient engagement and efficiency. Without them, patients are less likely to log on, and physicians are forced to rely on less-efficient telephone calls or traditional letters to communicate results to their patients.
Put the patient, not the portal, at the center
History has all but forgotten the attempts by tech giants such as Google and Microsoft to create personal health records. While these initially seemed like a wonderful concept, they sadly proved to be a total flop. Some patients embraced the idea, but security concerns and the lack of buy-in from EHR vendors significantly limited their uptake.
They may simply have been ahead of their time.
A decade later, wearable technology and telemedicine are ushering in a new era of patient-centric care. Individuals have been embracing a greater share of the responsibility for their own personal health information, yet most EHRs lack the ability to easily incorporate data acquired outside physicians’ offices.
It’s time for EHR vendors to go all in and change that. Instead of enslaving patients to the tyranny of fragmented health records, they should prioritize the creation of a robust, standardized, and portable health record that travels with the patient, not the other way around.
Have any other ideas on how to improve patient engagement? We’d love to hear about them and share them in a future column.
If you want to contribute but don’t have any ideas, we have a suggestion: Ask your mother-in-law. You may be surprised at what you learn!
Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health.
Reference
Lee JL et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05528-z.
While preparing to write this technology column, I received a great deal of insight from the unlikeliest of sources: my mother-in-law.
Now don’t get me wrong – she’s a truly lovely, intelligent, and capable woman. I have sought her advice often on many things and have always been impressed by her wisdom and pragmatism, but I’ve just never thought of asking her for her opinion on medicine or technology, as I considered her knowledge of both subjects to be limited.
This occasion changed my opinion. In fact, I believe that, as health care IT becomes more complex, people like my mother-in-law may be exactly who we should be looking to for answers.
A few weeks ago, my mother-in-law and I were discussing her recent trip to the doctor. When she mentioned some lab tests, I suggested that we log in to her patient portal to view the results. This elicited several questions and a declaration of frustration.
“Which portal?” she asked. “I have so many and can’t keep all of the websites and passwords straight! Why can’t all of my doctors use the same portal, and why do they all have different password requirements?”
As she spoke these words, I was immediately struck with an unfortunate reality of EHRs: We have done a brilliant job creating state-of-the-art digital castles and have filled them with the data needed to revolutionize care and improve population health – but we haven’t given our patients the keys to get inside.
We must ask ourselves if, in trying to construct fortresses of information around our patients, we have lost sight of the individuals in the center. I believe that we can answer this question and improve the benefits of patient portals, but we all must agree to a few simple steps to streamline the experience for everyone.
Make it easy
A study recently published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine surveyed several hospitals on their usage of patient portals. After determining whether or not the institutions had such portals, the authors then investigated to find out what, if any, guidance was provided to patients about how to use them.
Their findings are frustrating, though not surprising. While 89% of hospitals had some form of patient portal, only 65% of those “had links that were easily found, defined as links accessible within two clicks from the home page.”
Furthermore, even in cases where portals were easily found, good instructions on how to use them were missing. Those instructions that did exist centered on rules and restrictions and laying out “terms and conditions” and informing patients on “what not to do,” rather than explaining how to make the most of the experience.
According to the authors, “this focus on curtailing behavior, and the hurdles placed on finding and understanding guidance, suggest that some hospitals may be prioritizing reducing liability over improving the patient experience with portals.”
If we want our patients to use them, portals must be easy to access and intuitive to use. They also must provide value.
Make it meaningful
Patient portals have proliferated exponentially over the last 10 years, thanks to government incentive programs. One such program, known as “meaningful use,” is primarily responsible for this, as it made implementation of a patient portal one of its core requirements.
Sadly, in spite of its oft-reviled name, the meaningful use program never defined patient-friendly standards of usability for patient portals. As a result, current portals just aren’t very good. Patients like my mother-in-law find them to be too numerous, too unfriendly to use, and too limited, so they are not being used to their full potential.
In fact, many institutions may choose not to enable all of the available features in order to limit technical issues and reduce the burden on providers. In the study referenced above, only 63% of portals offered the ability for patients to communicate directly with their physicians, and only 43% offered the ability to refill prescriptions.
When enabled, these functions improve patient engagement and efficiency. Without them, patients are less likely to log on, and physicians are forced to rely on less-efficient telephone calls or traditional letters to communicate results to their patients.
Put the patient, not the portal, at the center
History has all but forgotten the attempts by tech giants such as Google and Microsoft to create personal health records. While these initially seemed like a wonderful concept, they sadly proved to be a total flop. Some patients embraced the idea, but security concerns and the lack of buy-in from EHR vendors significantly limited their uptake.
They may simply have been ahead of their time.
A decade later, wearable technology and telemedicine are ushering in a new era of patient-centric care. Individuals have been embracing a greater share of the responsibility for their own personal health information, yet most EHRs lack the ability to easily incorporate data acquired outside physicians’ offices.
It’s time for EHR vendors to go all in and change that. Instead of enslaving patients to the tyranny of fragmented health records, they should prioritize the creation of a robust, standardized, and portable health record that travels with the patient, not the other way around.
Have any other ideas on how to improve patient engagement? We’d love to hear about them and share them in a future column.
If you want to contribute but don’t have any ideas, we have a suggestion: Ask your mother-in-law. You may be surprised at what you learn!
Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health.
Reference
Lee JL et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05528-z.
While preparing to write this technology column, I received a great deal of insight from the unlikeliest of sources: my mother-in-law.
Now don’t get me wrong – she’s a truly lovely, intelligent, and capable woman. I have sought her advice often on many things and have always been impressed by her wisdom and pragmatism, but I’ve just never thought of asking her for her opinion on medicine or technology, as I considered her knowledge of both subjects to be limited.
This occasion changed my opinion. In fact, I believe that, as health care IT becomes more complex, people like my mother-in-law may be exactly who we should be looking to for answers.
A few weeks ago, my mother-in-law and I were discussing her recent trip to the doctor. When she mentioned some lab tests, I suggested that we log in to her patient portal to view the results. This elicited several questions and a declaration of frustration.
“Which portal?” she asked. “I have so many and can’t keep all of the websites and passwords straight! Why can’t all of my doctors use the same portal, and why do they all have different password requirements?”
As she spoke these words, I was immediately struck with an unfortunate reality of EHRs: We have done a brilliant job creating state-of-the-art digital castles and have filled them with the data needed to revolutionize care and improve population health – but we haven’t given our patients the keys to get inside.
We must ask ourselves if, in trying to construct fortresses of information around our patients, we have lost sight of the individuals in the center. I believe that we can answer this question and improve the benefits of patient portals, but we all must agree to a few simple steps to streamline the experience for everyone.
Make it easy
A study recently published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine surveyed several hospitals on their usage of patient portals. After determining whether or not the institutions had such portals, the authors then investigated to find out what, if any, guidance was provided to patients about how to use them.
Their findings are frustrating, though not surprising. While 89% of hospitals had some form of patient portal, only 65% of those “had links that were easily found, defined as links accessible within two clicks from the home page.”
Furthermore, even in cases where portals were easily found, good instructions on how to use them were missing. Those instructions that did exist centered on rules and restrictions and laying out “terms and conditions” and informing patients on “what not to do,” rather than explaining how to make the most of the experience.
According to the authors, “this focus on curtailing behavior, and the hurdles placed on finding and understanding guidance, suggest that some hospitals may be prioritizing reducing liability over improving the patient experience with portals.”
If we want our patients to use them, portals must be easy to access and intuitive to use. They also must provide value.
Make it meaningful
Patient portals have proliferated exponentially over the last 10 years, thanks to government incentive programs. One such program, known as “meaningful use,” is primarily responsible for this, as it made implementation of a patient portal one of its core requirements.
Sadly, in spite of its oft-reviled name, the meaningful use program never defined patient-friendly standards of usability for patient portals. As a result, current portals just aren’t very good. Patients like my mother-in-law find them to be too numerous, too unfriendly to use, and too limited, so they are not being used to their full potential.
In fact, many institutions may choose not to enable all of the available features in order to limit technical issues and reduce the burden on providers. In the study referenced above, only 63% of portals offered the ability for patients to communicate directly with their physicians, and only 43% offered the ability to refill prescriptions.
When enabled, these functions improve patient engagement and efficiency. Without them, patients are less likely to log on, and physicians are forced to rely on less-efficient telephone calls or traditional letters to communicate results to their patients.
Put the patient, not the portal, at the center
History has all but forgotten the attempts by tech giants such as Google and Microsoft to create personal health records. While these initially seemed like a wonderful concept, they sadly proved to be a total flop. Some patients embraced the idea, but security concerns and the lack of buy-in from EHR vendors significantly limited their uptake.
They may simply have been ahead of their time.
A decade later, wearable technology and telemedicine are ushering in a new era of patient-centric care. Individuals have been embracing a greater share of the responsibility for their own personal health information, yet most EHRs lack the ability to easily incorporate data acquired outside physicians’ offices.
It’s time for EHR vendors to go all in and change that. Instead of enslaving patients to the tyranny of fragmented health records, they should prioritize the creation of a robust, standardized, and portable health record that travels with the patient, not the other way around.
Have any other ideas on how to improve patient engagement? We’d love to hear about them and share them in a future column.
If you want to contribute but don’t have any ideas, we have a suggestion: Ask your mother-in-law. You may be surprised at what you learn!
Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health.
Reference
Lee JL et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05528-z.
Docs spurn state attempts to criminalize treatment of transgender kids
Many US endocrinologists are crying foul as a growing number of state lawmakers are attempting to enact legislation that would prohibit, and in some cases criminalize, medical treatment for minors with gender dysphoria.
As of press time, 13 states had introduced such bills, and legislators in two additional states said they were drafting bills. So far, one — in South Dakota — was defeated in a Senate committee, and another, in Florida, was essentially tabled without being enacted.
They all have a common goal of preventing minors from receiving puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or gender-affirmation surgery.
“These things are being proposed based on a lot of misinformation,” said Stephen Rosenthal, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and a past president of the Pediatric Endocrine Society.
Lawmakers “are not looking at the scientific evidence that supports current clinical practice guidelines,” Rosenthal, who treats transgender children, told Medscape Medical News.
And “People just aren’t really understanding the harm that regulating this kind of medicine would do,” stressed Cassandra Brady, MD, assistant professor of pediatric endocrinology at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Memphis, Tennessee.
The bills come at a time when gender identity clinics for minors around the world have seen a significant uptick in cases. And, as widely reported by Medscape Medical News, some clinicians have begun to question whether treatment decisions are outpacing science.
Queries about use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones have embroiled the United Kingdom’s only publicly funded Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) in controversy, for example, with five clinicians resigning last year over concerns about overuse of the treatments.
And earlier this month, the UK National Health Service (NHS) announced an independent review of services including the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in youth with gender dysphoria.
Meanwhile, the topic has ignited debate in Sweden, where a report from the Board of Health and Welfare confirmed a 1,500% rise between 2008 and 2018 in gender dysphoria diagnoses among 13- to 17-year-olds born as girls, as detailed by The Guardian.
Indeed, there is some indication of a so-called “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” in born females who say they wish to become males and some clinicians have said this represents a “social” phenomenon.
But guidelines from US clinical organizations – including the American Academy of Pediatrics issued in 2018, the Endocrine Society as reported by Medscape Medical News in 2017, and the US Professional Association for Transgender Health (USPATH) – all support the use of medical treatment in adolescents with gender dysphoria who have received mental health evaluations from appropriately trained professionals.
More data needed but evidence to intervene is compelling
Joshua Safer, MD, FACP, FACE, executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, New York City, says the data “even if it’s rudimentary, are convincing that there is a biological component to gender identity.”
Attempts to manipulate gender identity in people who are born intersex, for example, have uniformly failed, he noted.
Yet it’s still not known what causes gender identity – whether it might be a result of a cluster of genes or a bundle in the brain, or some other biological process – said Safer, who treats transgender adults, but not children, and is also a coauthor of the aforementioned Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on Endocrine Treatment of Gender Dysphoric/Gender Incongruent Persons.
This is an area for future research, he noted.
Nevertheless, “The data for interventions for transgender people ... is compelling,” he added, noting evidence for improved mental health morbidity among those gender-questioning people who have medical interventions.
“Those data are modest at this point and we need better data, but they do all move in the same direction,” he asserted.
Meanwhile, a large group of around 1,800 parents of transgender and nonbinary children have called on legislators to withdraw the proposals in an open letter organized by the Human Rights Campaign.
“We know better than anyone what our children need in order to thrive: access to best practice, evidence-based gender-affirming healthcare,” the parents write.
“These healthcare decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, in careful consultation with a medical team, and with the goal of reducing the physical and emotional distress experienced by many transgender children,” they continue.
“They should not be made by politicians who think they know better than medical professionals,” they add.
The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has also condemned state efforts “to block access to these recognized interventions,” it said in a statement.
Proponents of laws speak of harms
Most of the state proposals portray medical interventions as harmful to minors.
Missouri’s proposed legislation labels surgical or hormonal treatment for a child under age 18 “abuse or neglect”; a physician or anyone who assists or provides for the child would be charged with a felony.
One of the first bills was introduced in South Dakota in January. House bill 1057 would have charged clinicians providing gender-affirming care in anyone under age 16 with a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison and a $2,000 fine.
The bill was defeated in the Senate after the South Dakota State Medical Association and several other physicians, families, and adolescents testified against the proposal, according to the Argus Leader.
The Endocrine Society applauded the failure and noted in a statement that it “supports physicians’ ability to provide the best evidence-based treatment to their patients,” and that “these decisions should be made by the family and physician, and not dictated by policymakers.”
Jack Turban, MD, a resident physician in child and adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who conducted a pivotal study of some 26,000 transgender adults showing that early administration of puberty blockers led to lower odds of lifetime suicidal ideation, also expressed dismay over the bills in an opinion piece for the New York Times.
“The potential benefits of providing gender-affirmative care typically outweigh the minor risks associated with treatment,” wrote Turban.
“State legislators need to educate themselves about these young people and their medical care before introducing legislation that will hurt them,” he added.
Few states seem to have approached clinicians for feedback
In Tennessee, lawmakers have approached some clinicians at Vanderbilt and have appreciated the feedback they’ve received so far, said Brady.
But that may be an exception. It seems that few medical organizations have been consulted in the crafting of bills in the other states: Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. Lawmakers in Ohio and Utah also are drafting proposals.
Physicians could be charged with a felony in Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, and reportedly, in the Ohio proposal under development.
The bills have been introduced at the behest of some conservative groups that doubt the existence of gender dysphoria or who have questions about treatment: the Eagle Forum, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Kelsey Coalition.
In a recent tweet clarifying its position on state efforts, the Kelsey Coalition said it “supports all bills that protect children, even those that may provide criminal penalties, because we believe these medical interventions should never be performed on children.”
“However, we do not support state bills that are not victim-led or used for political gain,” they added.
Existing knowledge imperfect but treatment indicated for some
The bills have also garnered support from some endocrinologists who have raised concerns about puberty blockers and other medical treatments for gender dysphoria.
One is Michael K. Laidlaw, MD, a Rocklin, California–based endocrinologist who has not treated transgender people but frequently writes about the subject, most recently calling the use of puberty blockers “a public health emergency.”
Laidlaw joined several other clinicians who do not treat transgender people in testifying in favor of the South Dakota bill.
Last year, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News, Laidlaw, along with others, criticized the Endocrine Society’s 2017 Clinical Practice Guideline on Treating Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons in a letter to the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
They stated that there is no lab, imaging, or other objective test to diagnose someone as transgender and that “the consequences of this gender-affirmative therapy are not trivial and include potential sterility, sexual dysfunction, thromboembolic and cardiovascular disease, and malignancy.”
Laidlaw told Medscape Medical News at the time that “If we’re talking about [transgender] adults [who have gone through puberty of their biological sex] and who can make a decision, if they have been truly notified of the risks and benefits [of cross-sex hormones] and have also had psychological evaluation, and they decide, ‘This is still the right course for me,’ then I don’t have any objection.”
But considering the use of cross-sex hormones in children and adolescents is “quite a different story,” he contended.
In May 2019, Rosenthal, Safer and colleagues responded to Laidlaw’s letter in the same journal, stating that for the right person, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are appropriate, and that medications can improve mental health outcomes.
“We agree that research to validate the safety and efficacy of all forms of treatment is desirable,” they wrote, noting some of that research is underway.
“However, we believe physicians would fall short in their duty of care if they withheld hormonal treatment of gender dysphoria/incongruence in pubertal youth, when indicated, given the existing state of knowledge, imperfect though it is.”
Research to validate safety and efficacy of transgender TX underway
Rosenthal’s center at UCSF is one of four in the United States that has been carrying out a National Institutes of Health-funded long-term observational study of the impact of early medical intervention on transgender adolescents.
It will take time to get those results, but in the meantime, clinicians should act on what is known now, said Rosenthal.
“We already have very compelling data to suggest that the benefits [of treatment] outweigh the potential harms,” he said.
Rosenthal told Medscape Medical News that Laidlaw has advanced the notion that clinicians who prescribe puberty blockers are forcing those individuals into a transgender outcome.
“We don’t push anybody down any path,” he said. “The guidelines make these treatments available in a very specific subset of people who are evaluated by skilled mental health professionals,” said Rosenthal.
Both he and Safer acknowledge that puberty blockers do have the potential for some harm. For instance, a frank discussion needs to happen about the likely lack of future fertility, said Rosenthal.
“Everything we do in medicine has a theoretical risk of harm,” noted Safer.
However, he said, to deny a puberty blocker to an individual approaching puberty who is distraught about growing breasts — but then to possibly have to surgically remove them later — is in itself doing harm.
“Puberty blockers are exactly the epitome of ‘do no harm’ in this case,” argued Safer.
The medications are reversible, he said, adding that they also give an individual and the family time to think through whether the adolescent is transgender, and, if yes, what they want to do in terms of taking cross-sex hormones in the future or getting other interventions.
Safer acknowledged that this doesn’t mean there aren’t still some concerns, however.
For instance, once puberty blockers — which have the potential to interfere with bone development — are started, “How much harm are you willing to risk? Maybe a couple of years is okay, but maybe 6 years is not,” he said.
“So, we do discuss how quickly...you have to get to your next decision point, whether it be to actually introduce hormones or not to introduce hormones,” he explained.
State proposals will have chilling effect on gender-questioning kids
Clinicians say that even if the proposals do not become law, just the fact of their existence could have a chilling effect on gender-questioning children, their families, and doctors considering whether to provide treatment.
“They’re already in a hard position,” Brady said of her patients.
“They’re coming here to seek something for a life that they’ve already not wanted to live and then we have people who are trying to put a real big block on that – I see that obviously affecting their mental health,” she observed.
“I can’t imagine how their lives would be without this care,” Brady said.
With the bills being out there, “two things can happen – one is, it can be very depressing and limiting, but it can also embolden people,” Rosenthal told Medscape Medical News.
“The people behind these things are the same people that have tried to stop our research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH),” he explained.
“These people are going to do everything they can, whether it’s to go state by state to try and exhaust us, or go to the NIH and try to get them to pull the plug on our research,” said Rosenthal.
Safer believes it’s ill-considered to try to legislate any aspect of medicine.
“The pitfalls of trying to legislate these things are myriad,” he said.
“Across all of medicine, interventions are very customized. Can you imagine a state legislature trying to legislate the optimal approach in medicines that can and cannot be given to people with diabetes? How crazy that would be,” he noted.
Rosenthal has served on an advisory panel for Endo Pharmaceuticals and is a grantee of the NIH. Safer has also served on an advisory panel for Endo Pharmaceuticals. Brady has reported no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Many US endocrinologists are crying foul as a growing number of state lawmakers are attempting to enact legislation that would prohibit, and in some cases criminalize, medical treatment for minors with gender dysphoria.
As of press time, 13 states had introduced such bills, and legislators in two additional states said they were drafting bills. So far, one — in South Dakota — was defeated in a Senate committee, and another, in Florida, was essentially tabled without being enacted.
They all have a common goal of preventing minors from receiving puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or gender-affirmation surgery.
“These things are being proposed based on a lot of misinformation,” said Stephen Rosenthal, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and a past president of the Pediatric Endocrine Society.
Lawmakers “are not looking at the scientific evidence that supports current clinical practice guidelines,” Rosenthal, who treats transgender children, told Medscape Medical News.
And “People just aren’t really understanding the harm that regulating this kind of medicine would do,” stressed Cassandra Brady, MD, assistant professor of pediatric endocrinology at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Memphis, Tennessee.
The bills come at a time when gender identity clinics for minors around the world have seen a significant uptick in cases. And, as widely reported by Medscape Medical News, some clinicians have begun to question whether treatment decisions are outpacing science.
Queries about use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones have embroiled the United Kingdom’s only publicly funded Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) in controversy, for example, with five clinicians resigning last year over concerns about overuse of the treatments.
And earlier this month, the UK National Health Service (NHS) announced an independent review of services including the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in youth with gender dysphoria.
Meanwhile, the topic has ignited debate in Sweden, where a report from the Board of Health and Welfare confirmed a 1,500% rise between 2008 and 2018 in gender dysphoria diagnoses among 13- to 17-year-olds born as girls, as detailed by The Guardian.
Indeed, there is some indication of a so-called “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” in born females who say they wish to become males and some clinicians have said this represents a “social” phenomenon.
But guidelines from US clinical organizations – including the American Academy of Pediatrics issued in 2018, the Endocrine Society as reported by Medscape Medical News in 2017, and the US Professional Association for Transgender Health (USPATH) – all support the use of medical treatment in adolescents with gender dysphoria who have received mental health evaluations from appropriately trained professionals.
More data needed but evidence to intervene is compelling
Joshua Safer, MD, FACP, FACE, executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, New York City, says the data “even if it’s rudimentary, are convincing that there is a biological component to gender identity.”
Attempts to manipulate gender identity in people who are born intersex, for example, have uniformly failed, he noted.
Yet it’s still not known what causes gender identity – whether it might be a result of a cluster of genes or a bundle in the brain, or some other biological process – said Safer, who treats transgender adults, but not children, and is also a coauthor of the aforementioned Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on Endocrine Treatment of Gender Dysphoric/Gender Incongruent Persons.
This is an area for future research, he noted.
Nevertheless, “The data for interventions for transgender people ... is compelling,” he added, noting evidence for improved mental health morbidity among those gender-questioning people who have medical interventions.
“Those data are modest at this point and we need better data, but they do all move in the same direction,” he asserted.
Meanwhile, a large group of around 1,800 parents of transgender and nonbinary children have called on legislators to withdraw the proposals in an open letter organized by the Human Rights Campaign.
“We know better than anyone what our children need in order to thrive: access to best practice, evidence-based gender-affirming healthcare,” the parents write.
“These healthcare decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, in careful consultation with a medical team, and with the goal of reducing the physical and emotional distress experienced by many transgender children,” they continue.
“They should not be made by politicians who think they know better than medical professionals,” they add.
The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has also condemned state efforts “to block access to these recognized interventions,” it said in a statement.
Proponents of laws speak of harms
Most of the state proposals portray medical interventions as harmful to minors.
Missouri’s proposed legislation labels surgical or hormonal treatment for a child under age 18 “abuse or neglect”; a physician or anyone who assists or provides for the child would be charged with a felony.
One of the first bills was introduced in South Dakota in January. House bill 1057 would have charged clinicians providing gender-affirming care in anyone under age 16 with a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison and a $2,000 fine.
The bill was defeated in the Senate after the South Dakota State Medical Association and several other physicians, families, and adolescents testified against the proposal, according to the Argus Leader.
The Endocrine Society applauded the failure and noted in a statement that it “supports physicians’ ability to provide the best evidence-based treatment to their patients,” and that “these decisions should be made by the family and physician, and not dictated by policymakers.”
Jack Turban, MD, a resident physician in child and adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who conducted a pivotal study of some 26,000 transgender adults showing that early administration of puberty blockers led to lower odds of lifetime suicidal ideation, also expressed dismay over the bills in an opinion piece for the New York Times.
“The potential benefits of providing gender-affirmative care typically outweigh the minor risks associated with treatment,” wrote Turban.
“State legislators need to educate themselves about these young people and their medical care before introducing legislation that will hurt them,” he added.
Few states seem to have approached clinicians for feedback
In Tennessee, lawmakers have approached some clinicians at Vanderbilt and have appreciated the feedback they’ve received so far, said Brady.
But that may be an exception. It seems that few medical organizations have been consulted in the crafting of bills in the other states: Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. Lawmakers in Ohio and Utah also are drafting proposals.
Physicians could be charged with a felony in Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, and reportedly, in the Ohio proposal under development.
The bills have been introduced at the behest of some conservative groups that doubt the existence of gender dysphoria or who have questions about treatment: the Eagle Forum, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Kelsey Coalition.
In a recent tweet clarifying its position on state efforts, the Kelsey Coalition said it “supports all bills that protect children, even those that may provide criminal penalties, because we believe these medical interventions should never be performed on children.”
“However, we do not support state bills that are not victim-led or used for political gain,” they added.
Existing knowledge imperfect but treatment indicated for some
The bills have also garnered support from some endocrinologists who have raised concerns about puberty blockers and other medical treatments for gender dysphoria.
One is Michael K. Laidlaw, MD, a Rocklin, California–based endocrinologist who has not treated transgender people but frequently writes about the subject, most recently calling the use of puberty blockers “a public health emergency.”
Laidlaw joined several other clinicians who do not treat transgender people in testifying in favor of the South Dakota bill.
Last year, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News, Laidlaw, along with others, criticized the Endocrine Society’s 2017 Clinical Practice Guideline on Treating Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons in a letter to the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
They stated that there is no lab, imaging, or other objective test to diagnose someone as transgender and that “the consequences of this gender-affirmative therapy are not trivial and include potential sterility, sexual dysfunction, thromboembolic and cardiovascular disease, and malignancy.”
Laidlaw told Medscape Medical News at the time that “If we’re talking about [transgender] adults [who have gone through puberty of their biological sex] and who can make a decision, if they have been truly notified of the risks and benefits [of cross-sex hormones] and have also had psychological evaluation, and they decide, ‘This is still the right course for me,’ then I don’t have any objection.”
But considering the use of cross-sex hormones in children and adolescents is “quite a different story,” he contended.
In May 2019, Rosenthal, Safer and colleagues responded to Laidlaw’s letter in the same journal, stating that for the right person, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are appropriate, and that medications can improve mental health outcomes.
“We agree that research to validate the safety and efficacy of all forms of treatment is desirable,” they wrote, noting some of that research is underway.
“However, we believe physicians would fall short in their duty of care if they withheld hormonal treatment of gender dysphoria/incongruence in pubertal youth, when indicated, given the existing state of knowledge, imperfect though it is.”
Research to validate safety and efficacy of transgender TX underway
Rosenthal’s center at UCSF is one of four in the United States that has been carrying out a National Institutes of Health-funded long-term observational study of the impact of early medical intervention on transgender adolescents.
It will take time to get those results, but in the meantime, clinicians should act on what is known now, said Rosenthal.
“We already have very compelling data to suggest that the benefits [of treatment] outweigh the potential harms,” he said.
Rosenthal told Medscape Medical News that Laidlaw has advanced the notion that clinicians who prescribe puberty blockers are forcing those individuals into a transgender outcome.
“We don’t push anybody down any path,” he said. “The guidelines make these treatments available in a very specific subset of people who are evaluated by skilled mental health professionals,” said Rosenthal.
Both he and Safer acknowledge that puberty blockers do have the potential for some harm. For instance, a frank discussion needs to happen about the likely lack of future fertility, said Rosenthal.
“Everything we do in medicine has a theoretical risk of harm,” noted Safer.
However, he said, to deny a puberty blocker to an individual approaching puberty who is distraught about growing breasts — but then to possibly have to surgically remove them later — is in itself doing harm.
“Puberty blockers are exactly the epitome of ‘do no harm’ in this case,” argued Safer.
The medications are reversible, he said, adding that they also give an individual and the family time to think through whether the adolescent is transgender, and, if yes, what they want to do in terms of taking cross-sex hormones in the future or getting other interventions.
Safer acknowledged that this doesn’t mean there aren’t still some concerns, however.
For instance, once puberty blockers — which have the potential to interfere with bone development — are started, “How much harm are you willing to risk? Maybe a couple of years is okay, but maybe 6 years is not,” he said.
“So, we do discuss how quickly...you have to get to your next decision point, whether it be to actually introduce hormones or not to introduce hormones,” he explained.
State proposals will have chilling effect on gender-questioning kids
Clinicians say that even if the proposals do not become law, just the fact of their existence could have a chilling effect on gender-questioning children, their families, and doctors considering whether to provide treatment.
“They’re already in a hard position,” Brady said of her patients.
“They’re coming here to seek something for a life that they’ve already not wanted to live and then we have people who are trying to put a real big block on that – I see that obviously affecting their mental health,” she observed.
“I can’t imagine how their lives would be without this care,” Brady said.
With the bills being out there, “two things can happen – one is, it can be very depressing and limiting, but it can also embolden people,” Rosenthal told Medscape Medical News.
“The people behind these things are the same people that have tried to stop our research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH),” he explained.
“These people are going to do everything they can, whether it’s to go state by state to try and exhaust us, or go to the NIH and try to get them to pull the plug on our research,” said Rosenthal.
Safer believes it’s ill-considered to try to legislate any aspect of medicine.
“The pitfalls of trying to legislate these things are myriad,” he said.
“Across all of medicine, interventions are very customized. Can you imagine a state legislature trying to legislate the optimal approach in medicines that can and cannot be given to people with diabetes? How crazy that would be,” he noted.
Rosenthal has served on an advisory panel for Endo Pharmaceuticals and is a grantee of the NIH. Safer has also served on an advisory panel for Endo Pharmaceuticals. Brady has reported no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Many US endocrinologists are crying foul as a growing number of state lawmakers are attempting to enact legislation that would prohibit, and in some cases criminalize, medical treatment for minors with gender dysphoria.
As of press time, 13 states had introduced such bills, and legislators in two additional states said they were drafting bills. So far, one — in South Dakota — was defeated in a Senate committee, and another, in Florida, was essentially tabled without being enacted.
They all have a common goal of preventing minors from receiving puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or gender-affirmation surgery.
“These things are being proposed based on a lot of misinformation,” said Stephen Rosenthal, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and a past president of the Pediatric Endocrine Society.
Lawmakers “are not looking at the scientific evidence that supports current clinical practice guidelines,” Rosenthal, who treats transgender children, told Medscape Medical News.
And “People just aren’t really understanding the harm that regulating this kind of medicine would do,” stressed Cassandra Brady, MD, assistant professor of pediatric endocrinology at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Memphis, Tennessee.
The bills come at a time when gender identity clinics for minors around the world have seen a significant uptick in cases. And, as widely reported by Medscape Medical News, some clinicians have begun to question whether treatment decisions are outpacing science.
Queries about use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones have embroiled the United Kingdom’s only publicly funded Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) in controversy, for example, with five clinicians resigning last year over concerns about overuse of the treatments.
And earlier this month, the UK National Health Service (NHS) announced an independent review of services including the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in youth with gender dysphoria.
Meanwhile, the topic has ignited debate in Sweden, where a report from the Board of Health and Welfare confirmed a 1,500% rise between 2008 and 2018 in gender dysphoria diagnoses among 13- to 17-year-olds born as girls, as detailed by The Guardian.
Indeed, there is some indication of a so-called “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” in born females who say they wish to become males and some clinicians have said this represents a “social” phenomenon.
But guidelines from US clinical organizations – including the American Academy of Pediatrics issued in 2018, the Endocrine Society as reported by Medscape Medical News in 2017, and the US Professional Association for Transgender Health (USPATH) – all support the use of medical treatment in adolescents with gender dysphoria who have received mental health evaluations from appropriately trained professionals.
More data needed but evidence to intervene is compelling
Joshua Safer, MD, FACP, FACE, executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, New York City, says the data “even if it’s rudimentary, are convincing that there is a biological component to gender identity.”
Attempts to manipulate gender identity in people who are born intersex, for example, have uniformly failed, he noted.
Yet it’s still not known what causes gender identity – whether it might be a result of a cluster of genes or a bundle in the brain, or some other biological process – said Safer, who treats transgender adults, but not children, and is also a coauthor of the aforementioned Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on Endocrine Treatment of Gender Dysphoric/Gender Incongruent Persons.
This is an area for future research, he noted.
Nevertheless, “The data for interventions for transgender people ... is compelling,” he added, noting evidence for improved mental health morbidity among those gender-questioning people who have medical interventions.
“Those data are modest at this point and we need better data, but they do all move in the same direction,” he asserted.
Meanwhile, a large group of around 1,800 parents of transgender and nonbinary children have called on legislators to withdraw the proposals in an open letter organized by the Human Rights Campaign.
“We know better than anyone what our children need in order to thrive: access to best practice, evidence-based gender-affirming healthcare,” the parents write.
“These healthcare decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, in careful consultation with a medical team, and with the goal of reducing the physical and emotional distress experienced by many transgender children,” they continue.
“They should not be made by politicians who think they know better than medical professionals,” they add.
The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has also condemned state efforts “to block access to these recognized interventions,” it said in a statement.
Proponents of laws speak of harms
Most of the state proposals portray medical interventions as harmful to minors.
Missouri’s proposed legislation labels surgical or hormonal treatment for a child under age 18 “abuse or neglect”; a physician or anyone who assists or provides for the child would be charged with a felony.
One of the first bills was introduced in South Dakota in January. House bill 1057 would have charged clinicians providing gender-affirming care in anyone under age 16 with a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison and a $2,000 fine.
The bill was defeated in the Senate after the South Dakota State Medical Association and several other physicians, families, and adolescents testified against the proposal, according to the Argus Leader.
The Endocrine Society applauded the failure and noted in a statement that it “supports physicians’ ability to provide the best evidence-based treatment to their patients,” and that “these decisions should be made by the family and physician, and not dictated by policymakers.”
Jack Turban, MD, a resident physician in child and adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who conducted a pivotal study of some 26,000 transgender adults showing that early administration of puberty blockers led to lower odds of lifetime suicidal ideation, also expressed dismay over the bills in an opinion piece for the New York Times.
“The potential benefits of providing gender-affirmative care typically outweigh the minor risks associated with treatment,” wrote Turban.
“State legislators need to educate themselves about these young people and their medical care before introducing legislation that will hurt them,” he added.
Few states seem to have approached clinicians for feedback
In Tennessee, lawmakers have approached some clinicians at Vanderbilt and have appreciated the feedback they’ve received so far, said Brady.
But that may be an exception. It seems that few medical organizations have been consulted in the crafting of bills in the other states: Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. Lawmakers in Ohio and Utah also are drafting proposals.
Physicians could be charged with a felony in Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, and reportedly, in the Ohio proposal under development.
The bills have been introduced at the behest of some conservative groups that doubt the existence of gender dysphoria or who have questions about treatment: the Eagle Forum, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Kelsey Coalition.
In a recent tweet clarifying its position on state efforts, the Kelsey Coalition said it “supports all bills that protect children, even those that may provide criminal penalties, because we believe these medical interventions should never be performed on children.”
“However, we do not support state bills that are not victim-led or used for political gain,” they added.
Existing knowledge imperfect but treatment indicated for some
The bills have also garnered support from some endocrinologists who have raised concerns about puberty blockers and other medical treatments for gender dysphoria.
One is Michael K. Laidlaw, MD, a Rocklin, California–based endocrinologist who has not treated transgender people but frequently writes about the subject, most recently calling the use of puberty blockers “a public health emergency.”
Laidlaw joined several other clinicians who do not treat transgender people in testifying in favor of the South Dakota bill.
Last year, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News, Laidlaw, along with others, criticized the Endocrine Society’s 2017 Clinical Practice Guideline on Treating Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons in a letter to the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
They stated that there is no lab, imaging, or other objective test to diagnose someone as transgender and that “the consequences of this gender-affirmative therapy are not trivial and include potential sterility, sexual dysfunction, thromboembolic and cardiovascular disease, and malignancy.”
Laidlaw told Medscape Medical News at the time that “If we’re talking about [transgender] adults [who have gone through puberty of their biological sex] and who can make a decision, if they have been truly notified of the risks and benefits [of cross-sex hormones] and have also had psychological evaluation, and they decide, ‘This is still the right course for me,’ then I don’t have any objection.”
But considering the use of cross-sex hormones in children and adolescents is “quite a different story,” he contended.
In May 2019, Rosenthal, Safer and colleagues responded to Laidlaw’s letter in the same journal, stating that for the right person, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are appropriate, and that medications can improve mental health outcomes.
“We agree that research to validate the safety and efficacy of all forms of treatment is desirable,” they wrote, noting some of that research is underway.
“However, we believe physicians would fall short in their duty of care if they withheld hormonal treatment of gender dysphoria/incongruence in pubertal youth, when indicated, given the existing state of knowledge, imperfect though it is.”
Research to validate safety and efficacy of transgender TX underway
Rosenthal’s center at UCSF is one of four in the United States that has been carrying out a National Institutes of Health-funded long-term observational study of the impact of early medical intervention on transgender adolescents.
It will take time to get those results, but in the meantime, clinicians should act on what is known now, said Rosenthal.
“We already have very compelling data to suggest that the benefits [of treatment] outweigh the potential harms,” he said.
Rosenthal told Medscape Medical News that Laidlaw has advanced the notion that clinicians who prescribe puberty blockers are forcing those individuals into a transgender outcome.
“We don’t push anybody down any path,” he said. “The guidelines make these treatments available in a very specific subset of people who are evaluated by skilled mental health professionals,” said Rosenthal.
Both he and Safer acknowledge that puberty blockers do have the potential for some harm. For instance, a frank discussion needs to happen about the likely lack of future fertility, said Rosenthal.
“Everything we do in medicine has a theoretical risk of harm,” noted Safer.
However, he said, to deny a puberty blocker to an individual approaching puberty who is distraught about growing breasts — but then to possibly have to surgically remove them later — is in itself doing harm.
“Puberty blockers are exactly the epitome of ‘do no harm’ in this case,” argued Safer.
The medications are reversible, he said, adding that they also give an individual and the family time to think through whether the adolescent is transgender, and, if yes, what they want to do in terms of taking cross-sex hormones in the future or getting other interventions.
Safer acknowledged that this doesn’t mean there aren’t still some concerns, however.
For instance, once puberty blockers — which have the potential to interfere with bone development — are started, “How much harm are you willing to risk? Maybe a couple of years is okay, but maybe 6 years is not,” he said.
“So, we do discuss how quickly...you have to get to your next decision point, whether it be to actually introduce hormones or not to introduce hormones,” he explained.
State proposals will have chilling effect on gender-questioning kids
Clinicians say that even if the proposals do not become law, just the fact of their existence could have a chilling effect on gender-questioning children, their families, and doctors considering whether to provide treatment.
“They’re already in a hard position,” Brady said of her patients.
“They’re coming here to seek something for a life that they’ve already not wanted to live and then we have people who are trying to put a real big block on that – I see that obviously affecting their mental health,” she observed.
“I can’t imagine how their lives would be without this care,” Brady said.
With the bills being out there, “two things can happen – one is, it can be very depressing and limiting, but it can also embolden people,” Rosenthal told Medscape Medical News.
“The people behind these things are the same people that have tried to stop our research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH),” he explained.
“These people are going to do everything they can, whether it’s to go state by state to try and exhaust us, or go to the NIH and try to get them to pull the plug on our research,” said Rosenthal.
Safer believes it’s ill-considered to try to legislate any aspect of medicine.
“The pitfalls of trying to legislate these things are myriad,” he said.
“Across all of medicine, interventions are very customized. Can you imagine a state legislature trying to legislate the optimal approach in medicines that can and cannot be given to people with diabetes? How crazy that would be,” he noted.
Rosenthal has served on an advisory panel for Endo Pharmaceuticals and is a grantee of the NIH. Safer has also served on an advisory panel for Endo Pharmaceuticals. Brady has reported no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Supreme Court roundup: Latest health care decisions
The Trump administration can move forward with expanding a rule that makes it more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States if they receive health care assistance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote.
The Feb. 21 order allows the administration to broaden the so-called “public charge rule” while legal challenges against the expanded regulation continue in the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decision, which lifts a preliminary injunction against the expansion, applies to enforcement only in Illinois, where a district court blocked the revised rule from moving forward in October 2019. The Supreme Court’s measure follows another 5-4 order in January, in which justices lifted a nationwide injunction against the revised rule.
Under the long-standing public charge rule, immigration officials can refuse to admit immigrants into the United States or can deny them permanent legal status if they are deemed likely to become a public charge. Previously, immigration officers considered cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or long-term institutionalized care, as potential public charge reasons for denial.
The revised regulation allows officials to consider previously excluded programs in their determination, including nonemergency Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and several housing programs. Use of these programs for more than 12 months in the aggregate during a 36-month period may result in a “public charge” designation and lead to green card denial.
Eight legal challenges were immediately filed against the rule changes, including a complaint issued by 14 states. At least five trial courts have since blocked the measure, while appeals courts have lifted some of the injunctions and upheld enforcement.
In its Jan. 27 order lifting the nationwide injunction, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote that nationwide injunctions are being overused by trial courts with negative consequences.
“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw – they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” he wrote. “It has become increasingly apparent that this court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”
In the court’s Feb. 21 order lifting the injunction in Illinois, justices gave no explanation for overturning the lower court’s injunction. However, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply-worded dissent, criticizing her fellow justices for allowing the rule to proceed.
“In sum, the government’s only claimed hardship is that it must enforce an existing interpretation of an immigration rule in one state – just as it has done for the past 20 years – while an updated version of the rule takes effect in the remaining 49,” she wrote. “The government has not quantified or explained any burdens that would arise from this state of the world.”
ACA cases still in limbo
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has not decided whether it will hear Texas v. United States, a case that could effectively dismantle the Affordable Care Act.
The high court was expected to announce whether it would take the high-profile case at a private Feb. 21 conference, but the justices have released no update. The case was relisted for consideration at the court’s Feb. 28 conference.
Texas v. United States stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Because the Trump administration declined to defend the law, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.
In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. The Democratic attorneys general and governors appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the challenge, the court could fast-track the case and schedule arguments for the current term or wait until its next term, which starts in October 2020. If justices decline to hear the case, the challenge will remain with the district court for more analysis about the law’s severability.
Another ACA-related case – Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. – also remains in limbo. Justices heard the case, which was consolidated with two similar challenges, on Dec. 10, 2019, but still have not issued a decision.
The consolidated challenges center on whether the federal government owes insurers billions based on an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help health plans mitigate risk under the law. The ACA’s risk corridor program required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged and they want the Supreme Court to force the government to reimburse them to the tune of $12 billion.
The Department of Justice counters that the government is not required to pay the insurers because of appropriations measures passed by Congress in 2014 and in later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.
The federal government and insurers have each experienced wins and losses at the lower court level. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.
A Supreme Court decision in the case could come as soon as Feb. 26.
Court to hear women’s health cases
Two closely watched reproductive health cases will go before the court this spring.
On March 4, justices will hear oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, regarding the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Doctors who perform abortions without admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles face fines and imprisonment, according to the state law, originally passed in 2014. Clinics that employ such doctors can also have their licenses revoked.
June Medical Services LLC, a women’s health clinic, sued over the law. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and upheld Louisiana’s law. The clinic appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Louisiana officials argue the challenge should be dismissed, and the law allowed to proceed, because the plaintiffs lack standing.
The Supreme Court in 2016 heard a similar case – Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – concerning a comparable law in Texas. In that case, justices struck down the measure as unconstitutional.
And on April 29, justices will hear arguments in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, a consolidated case about whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Entities that object to providing contraception on the basis of religious beliefs can opt out of complying with the mandate, according to the 2018 regulations. Additionally, nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate can skip compliance. A number of states and entities sued over the new rules.
A federal appeals court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward, ruling the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the Trump administration did not follow appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules and that the regulations were not authorized under the ACA.
Justices will decide whether the parties have standing in the case, whether the Trump administration followed correct rule-making procedures, and if the regulations can stand.
The Trump administration can move forward with expanding a rule that makes it more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States if they receive health care assistance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote.
The Feb. 21 order allows the administration to broaden the so-called “public charge rule” while legal challenges against the expanded regulation continue in the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decision, which lifts a preliminary injunction against the expansion, applies to enforcement only in Illinois, where a district court blocked the revised rule from moving forward in October 2019. The Supreme Court’s measure follows another 5-4 order in January, in which justices lifted a nationwide injunction against the revised rule.
Under the long-standing public charge rule, immigration officials can refuse to admit immigrants into the United States or can deny them permanent legal status if they are deemed likely to become a public charge. Previously, immigration officers considered cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or long-term institutionalized care, as potential public charge reasons for denial.
The revised regulation allows officials to consider previously excluded programs in their determination, including nonemergency Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and several housing programs. Use of these programs for more than 12 months in the aggregate during a 36-month period may result in a “public charge” designation and lead to green card denial.
Eight legal challenges were immediately filed against the rule changes, including a complaint issued by 14 states. At least five trial courts have since blocked the measure, while appeals courts have lifted some of the injunctions and upheld enforcement.
In its Jan. 27 order lifting the nationwide injunction, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote that nationwide injunctions are being overused by trial courts with negative consequences.
“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw – they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” he wrote. “It has become increasingly apparent that this court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”
In the court’s Feb. 21 order lifting the injunction in Illinois, justices gave no explanation for overturning the lower court’s injunction. However, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply-worded dissent, criticizing her fellow justices for allowing the rule to proceed.
“In sum, the government’s only claimed hardship is that it must enforce an existing interpretation of an immigration rule in one state – just as it has done for the past 20 years – while an updated version of the rule takes effect in the remaining 49,” she wrote. “The government has not quantified or explained any burdens that would arise from this state of the world.”
ACA cases still in limbo
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has not decided whether it will hear Texas v. United States, a case that could effectively dismantle the Affordable Care Act.
The high court was expected to announce whether it would take the high-profile case at a private Feb. 21 conference, but the justices have released no update. The case was relisted for consideration at the court’s Feb. 28 conference.
Texas v. United States stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Because the Trump administration declined to defend the law, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.
In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. The Democratic attorneys general and governors appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the challenge, the court could fast-track the case and schedule arguments for the current term or wait until its next term, which starts in October 2020. If justices decline to hear the case, the challenge will remain with the district court for more analysis about the law’s severability.
Another ACA-related case – Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. – also remains in limbo. Justices heard the case, which was consolidated with two similar challenges, on Dec. 10, 2019, but still have not issued a decision.
The consolidated challenges center on whether the federal government owes insurers billions based on an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help health plans mitigate risk under the law. The ACA’s risk corridor program required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged and they want the Supreme Court to force the government to reimburse them to the tune of $12 billion.
The Department of Justice counters that the government is not required to pay the insurers because of appropriations measures passed by Congress in 2014 and in later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.
The federal government and insurers have each experienced wins and losses at the lower court level. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.
A Supreme Court decision in the case could come as soon as Feb. 26.
Court to hear women’s health cases
Two closely watched reproductive health cases will go before the court this spring.
On March 4, justices will hear oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, regarding the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Doctors who perform abortions without admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles face fines and imprisonment, according to the state law, originally passed in 2014. Clinics that employ such doctors can also have their licenses revoked.
June Medical Services LLC, a women’s health clinic, sued over the law. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and upheld Louisiana’s law. The clinic appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Louisiana officials argue the challenge should be dismissed, and the law allowed to proceed, because the plaintiffs lack standing.
The Supreme Court in 2016 heard a similar case – Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – concerning a comparable law in Texas. In that case, justices struck down the measure as unconstitutional.
And on April 29, justices will hear arguments in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, a consolidated case about whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Entities that object to providing contraception on the basis of religious beliefs can opt out of complying with the mandate, according to the 2018 regulations. Additionally, nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate can skip compliance. A number of states and entities sued over the new rules.
A federal appeals court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward, ruling the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the Trump administration did not follow appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules and that the regulations were not authorized under the ACA.
Justices will decide whether the parties have standing in the case, whether the Trump administration followed correct rule-making procedures, and if the regulations can stand.
The Trump administration can move forward with expanding a rule that makes it more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States if they receive health care assistance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote.
The Feb. 21 order allows the administration to broaden the so-called “public charge rule” while legal challenges against the expanded regulation continue in the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decision, which lifts a preliminary injunction against the expansion, applies to enforcement only in Illinois, where a district court blocked the revised rule from moving forward in October 2019. The Supreme Court’s measure follows another 5-4 order in January, in which justices lifted a nationwide injunction against the revised rule.
Under the long-standing public charge rule, immigration officials can refuse to admit immigrants into the United States or can deny them permanent legal status if they are deemed likely to become a public charge. Previously, immigration officers considered cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or long-term institutionalized care, as potential public charge reasons for denial.
The revised regulation allows officials to consider previously excluded programs in their determination, including nonemergency Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and several housing programs. Use of these programs for more than 12 months in the aggregate during a 36-month period may result in a “public charge” designation and lead to green card denial.
Eight legal challenges were immediately filed against the rule changes, including a complaint issued by 14 states. At least five trial courts have since blocked the measure, while appeals courts have lifted some of the injunctions and upheld enforcement.
In its Jan. 27 order lifting the nationwide injunction, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote that nationwide injunctions are being overused by trial courts with negative consequences.
“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw – they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” he wrote. “It has become increasingly apparent that this court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”
In the court’s Feb. 21 order lifting the injunction in Illinois, justices gave no explanation for overturning the lower court’s injunction. However, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply-worded dissent, criticizing her fellow justices for allowing the rule to proceed.
“In sum, the government’s only claimed hardship is that it must enforce an existing interpretation of an immigration rule in one state – just as it has done for the past 20 years – while an updated version of the rule takes effect in the remaining 49,” she wrote. “The government has not quantified or explained any burdens that would arise from this state of the world.”
ACA cases still in limbo
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has not decided whether it will hear Texas v. United States, a case that could effectively dismantle the Affordable Care Act.
The high court was expected to announce whether it would take the high-profile case at a private Feb. 21 conference, but the justices have released no update. The case was relisted for consideration at the court’s Feb. 28 conference.
Texas v. United States stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Because the Trump administration declined to defend the law, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.
In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. The Democratic attorneys general and governors appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the challenge, the court could fast-track the case and schedule arguments for the current term or wait until its next term, which starts in October 2020. If justices decline to hear the case, the challenge will remain with the district court for more analysis about the law’s severability.
Another ACA-related case – Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. – also remains in limbo. Justices heard the case, which was consolidated with two similar challenges, on Dec. 10, 2019, but still have not issued a decision.
The consolidated challenges center on whether the federal government owes insurers billions based on an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help health plans mitigate risk under the law. The ACA’s risk corridor program required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged and they want the Supreme Court to force the government to reimburse them to the tune of $12 billion.
The Department of Justice counters that the government is not required to pay the insurers because of appropriations measures passed by Congress in 2014 and in later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.
The federal government and insurers have each experienced wins and losses at the lower court level. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.
A Supreme Court decision in the case could come as soon as Feb. 26.
Court to hear women’s health cases
Two closely watched reproductive health cases will go before the court this spring.
On March 4, justices will hear oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, regarding the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Doctors who perform abortions without admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles face fines and imprisonment, according to the state law, originally passed in 2014. Clinics that employ such doctors can also have their licenses revoked.
June Medical Services LLC, a women’s health clinic, sued over the law. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and upheld Louisiana’s law. The clinic appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Louisiana officials argue the challenge should be dismissed, and the law allowed to proceed, because the plaintiffs lack standing.
The Supreme Court in 2016 heard a similar case – Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – concerning a comparable law in Texas. In that case, justices struck down the measure as unconstitutional.
And on April 29, justices will hear arguments in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, a consolidated case about whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Entities that object to providing contraception on the basis of religious beliefs can opt out of complying with the mandate, according to the 2018 regulations. Additionally, nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate can skip compliance. A number of states and entities sued over the new rules.
A federal appeals court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward, ruling the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the Trump administration did not follow appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules and that the regulations were not authorized under the ACA.
Justices will decide whether the parties have standing in the case, whether the Trump administration followed correct rule-making procedures, and if the regulations can stand.
COVID-19: Time to ‘take the risk of scaring people’
It’s past time to call the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, a pandemic and “time to push people to prepare, and guide their prep,” according to risk communication experts.
Medical messaging about containing or stopping the spread of the virus is doing more harm than good, write Peter Sandman, PhD, and Jody Lanard, MD, both based in New York City, in a recent blog post.
“We are near-certain that the desperate-sounding last-ditch containment messaging of recent days is contributing to a massive global misperception,” they warn.
“The most crucial (and overdue) risk communication task … is to help people visualize their communities when ‘keeping it out’ – containment – is no longer relevant.”
That message is embraced by several experts who spoke to Medscape Medical News.
“I’m jealous of what [they] have written: It is so clear, so correct, and so practical,” said David Fisman, MD, MPH, professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, Canada. “I think WHO [World Health Organization] is shying away from the P word,” he continued, referring to the organization’s continuing decision not to call the outbreak a pandemic.
“I fully support exactly what [Sandman and Lanard] are saying,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, professor of environmental health sciences and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
Sandman and Lanard write. “Hardly any officials are telling civil society and the general public how to get ready for this pandemic.”
Effective communication should inform people of what to expect now, they continue: “[T]he end of most quarantines, travel restrictions, contact tracing, and other measures designed to keep ‘them’ from infecting ‘us,’ and the switch to measures like canceling mass events designed to keep us from infecting each other.”
Among the new messages that should be delivered are things like:
- Stockpiling nonperishable food and prescription meds.
- Considering care of sick family members.
- Cross-training work personnel so one person’s absence won’t derail an organization’s ability to function.
“We hope that governments and healthcare institutions are using this time wisely,” Sandman and Lanard continue. “We know that ordinary citizens are not being asked to do so. In most countries … ordinary citizens have not been asked to prepare. Instead, they have been led to expect that their governments will keep the virus from their doors.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s past time to call the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, a pandemic and “time to push people to prepare, and guide their prep,” according to risk communication experts.
Medical messaging about containing or stopping the spread of the virus is doing more harm than good, write Peter Sandman, PhD, and Jody Lanard, MD, both based in New York City, in a recent blog post.
“We are near-certain that the desperate-sounding last-ditch containment messaging of recent days is contributing to a massive global misperception,” they warn.
“The most crucial (and overdue) risk communication task … is to help people visualize their communities when ‘keeping it out’ – containment – is no longer relevant.”
That message is embraced by several experts who spoke to Medscape Medical News.
“I’m jealous of what [they] have written: It is so clear, so correct, and so practical,” said David Fisman, MD, MPH, professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, Canada. “I think WHO [World Health Organization] is shying away from the P word,” he continued, referring to the organization’s continuing decision not to call the outbreak a pandemic.
“I fully support exactly what [Sandman and Lanard] are saying,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, professor of environmental health sciences and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
Sandman and Lanard write. “Hardly any officials are telling civil society and the general public how to get ready for this pandemic.”
Effective communication should inform people of what to expect now, they continue: “[T]he end of most quarantines, travel restrictions, contact tracing, and other measures designed to keep ‘them’ from infecting ‘us,’ and the switch to measures like canceling mass events designed to keep us from infecting each other.”
Among the new messages that should be delivered are things like:
- Stockpiling nonperishable food and prescription meds.
- Considering care of sick family members.
- Cross-training work personnel so one person’s absence won’t derail an organization’s ability to function.
“We hope that governments and healthcare institutions are using this time wisely,” Sandman and Lanard continue. “We know that ordinary citizens are not being asked to do so. In most countries … ordinary citizens have not been asked to prepare. Instead, they have been led to expect that their governments will keep the virus from their doors.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s past time to call the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, a pandemic and “time to push people to prepare, and guide their prep,” according to risk communication experts.
Medical messaging about containing or stopping the spread of the virus is doing more harm than good, write Peter Sandman, PhD, and Jody Lanard, MD, both based in New York City, in a recent blog post.
“We are near-certain that the desperate-sounding last-ditch containment messaging of recent days is contributing to a massive global misperception,” they warn.
“The most crucial (and overdue) risk communication task … is to help people visualize their communities when ‘keeping it out’ – containment – is no longer relevant.”
That message is embraced by several experts who spoke to Medscape Medical News.
“I’m jealous of what [they] have written: It is so clear, so correct, and so practical,” said David Fisman, MD, MPH, professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, Canada. “I think WHO [World Health Organization] is shying away from the P word,” he continued, referring to the organization’s continuing decision not to call the outbreak a pandemic.
“I fully support exactly what [Sandman and Lanard] are saying,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, professor of environmental health sciences and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
Sandman and Lanard write. “Hardly any officials are telling civil society and the general public how to get ready for this pandemic.”
Effective communication should inform people of what to expect now, they continue: “[T]he end of most quarantines, travel restrictions, contact tracing, and other measures designed to keep ‘them’ from infecting ‘us,’ and the switch to measures like canceling mass events designed to keep us from infecting each other.”
Among the new messages that should be delivered are things like:
- Stockpiling nonperishable food and prescription meds.
- Considering care of sick family members.
- Cross-training work personnel so one person’s absence won’t derail an organization’s ability to function.
“We hope that governments and healthcare institutions are using this time wisely,” Sandman and Lanard continue. “We know that ordinary citizens are not being asked to do so. In most countries … ordinary citizens have not been asked to prepare. Instead, they have been led to expect that their governments will keep the virus from their doors.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.