User login
Psychiatrist alleges plagiarism by journal editor
A psychiatrist known for her expertise in gun violence prevention is alleging that the editor of a medical journal plagiarized her work and published it under his name after she withdrew her paper from the journal.
Amy Barnhorst, MD, vice chair for community mental health at the University of California, Davis, is still waiting for the Journal of Health Service Psychology, published by Springer, to take action on what she says is blatant copying of an article she and colleague Rocco Pallin, MPH, wrote in response to an invitation from the managing editor, Gary VandenBos, PhD.
Out of frustration and sheer disbelief, Dr. Barnhorst, who is also director of the BulletPoints Project, said she took to Twitter to share her experience.
“I reached a new academic milestone last week when I read a published journal article about firearm suicide and realized it was my and my colleague’s writing! Except that the authors on the paper were these two other guys we don’t know,” Dr. Barnhorst tweeted. Barnhorst did not name the journal or its editor.
“I wasn’t mad so much as befuddled,” she said in an interview. She also wondered if other people had experienced anything similar.
The tweet thread was retweeted 7,800 times and liked by almost 40,000 people.
“I got so many messages and emails and comments from people saying, ‘This [also] happened to me,’ ” Barnhorst said.
In documents shared with this news organization,
The published paper also listed a coauthor, Michael O. Miller, a retired judge who trained as a psychologist, and who has largely written about juvenile delinquency.
Dr. Barnhorst said she became aware of the VandenBos paper when he notified her that it had been posted to the journal’s website. According to Dr. Barnhorst, he said: “Thought you two might be interested to see what we came up with.” When she viewed the article in full, she said she was speechless.
“It was really stunning,” said Dr. Barnhorst, noting that the bibliography, structure, vignette, and other elements were either similar or the same.
As soon as she saw the abstract, she said she became suspicious. Even the case vignette was extremely similar.
In the VandenBos paper, the case was Scott, a white 52-year-old divorced veteran struggling over the relatively recent death of his exwife. Dr. Barnhorst and Ms. Pallin’s vignette was about Robert, a white 55-year-old widower and veteran. In both papers, the patient had problems with alcohol.
Initially, she said, she and Ms. Pallin “were trying to rationalize it or justify it or make excuses for him because it just seemed so out there.” However, the women soon concluded that they were plagiarized.
Dr. Barnhorst said she emailed the journal’s editor-in-chief, Morgan Sammons, PhD, who is also the CEO of the National Register of Health Service Psychologists.
Initially, Dr. Sammons offered her and her colleague coauthorship on the paper, which she rejected. In a subsequent phone call, Dr. Sammons said he would investigate.
Publisher investigating
According to Dr. Barnhorst, Dr. Sammons later said he would retract the paper, but only after suggesting that she not go to “external parties” with her concerns. It was at that point that she emailed Springer.
“My colleague and I believe the evidence of plagiarism is plain and anticipate that you will so conclude,” she wrote in her email to the publishing company. “We are requesting that Springer take prompt remedial action in accordance with prevailing industry standards and your policy on publishing integrity.”
Dr. Barnhorst also told the company she and Ms. Pallin could not submit their original paper for publication elsewhere until Springer made a determination on the plagiarism allegation.
A Springer spokesperson told this news organization that the company is “extremely concerned” and “committed to fully investigating the concerns raised in line with COPE [Committee on Publication Ethics] guidelines, as a matter of urgency.”
On Feb. 1, Springer added an editor’s note to the paper, which has not been taken down or officially retracted. The note said: “Concerns have been raised with this article and are being investigated. Further editorial action will be taken as appropriate once the investigation into the concerns is complete and all parties have been given an opportunity to respond in full.”
The Springer spokesperson said the company was investigating and would “take further action as appropriate once our investigation is complete.”
Neither Dr. Sammons nor Dr. VandenBos responded to requests for comment.
Dr. Barnhorst has consulted her university’s general counsel but has not taken any legal action and is not currently exploring any, she said in an interview. “It’s not a tough question whether or not this was plagiarism. We just want this article pulled down and retracted.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A psychiatrist known for her expertise in gun violence prevention is alleging that the editor of a medical journal plagiarized her work and published it under his name after she withdrew her paper from the journal.
Amy Barnhorst, MD, vice chair for community mental health at the University of California, Davis, is still waiting for the Journal of Health Service Psychology, published by Springer, to take action on what she says is blatant copying of an article she and colleague Rocco Pallin, MPH, wrote in response to an invitation from the managing editor, Gary VandenBos, PhD.
Out of frustration and sheer disbelief, Dr. Barnhorst, who is also director of the BulletPoints Project, said she took to Twitter to share her experience.
“I reached a new academic milestone last week when I read a published journal article about firearm suicide and realized it was my and my colleague’s writing! Except that the authors on the paper were these two other guys we don’t know,” Dr. Barnhorst tweeted. Barnhorst did not name the journal or its editor.
“I wasn’t mad so much as befuddled,” she said in an interview. She also wondered if other people had experienced anything similar.
The tweet thread was retweeted 7,800 times and liked by almost 40,000 people.
“I got so many messages and emails and comments from people saying, ‘This [also] happened to me,’ ” Barnhorst said.
In documents shared with this news organization,
The published paper also listed a coauthor, Michael O. Miller, a retired judge who trained as a psychologist, and who has largely written about juvenile delinquency.
Dr. Barnhorst said she became aware of the VandenBos paper when he notified her that it had been posted to the journal’s website. According to Dr. Barnhorst, he said: “Thought you two might be interested to see what we came up with.” When she viewed the article in full, she said she was speechless.
“It was really stunning,” said Dr. Barnhorst, noting that the bibliography, structure, vignette, and other elements were either similar or the same.
As soon as she saw the abstract, she said she became suspicious. Even the case vignette was extremely similar.
In the VandenBos paper, the case was Scott, a white 52-year-old divorced veteran struggling over the relatively recent death of his exwife. Dr. Barnhorst and Ms. Pallin’s vignette was about Robert, a white 55-year-old widower and veteran. In both papers, the patient had problems with alcohol.
Initially, she said, she and Ms. Pallin “were trying to rationalize it or justify it or make excuses for him because it just seemed so out there.” However, the women soon concluded that they were plagiarized.
Dr. Barnhorst said she emailed the journal’s editor-in-chief, Morgan Sammons, PhD, who is also the CEO of the National Register of Health Service Psychologists.
Initially, Dr. Sammons offered her and her colleague coauthorship on the paper, which she rejected. In a subsequent phone call, Dr. Sammons said he would investigate.
Publisher investigating
According to Dr. Barnhorst, Dr. Sammons later said he would retract the paper, but only after suggesting that she not go to “external parties” with her concerns. It was at that point that she emailed Springer.
“My colleague and I believe the evidence of plagiarism is plain and anticipate that you will so conclude,” she wrote in her email to the publishing company. “We are requesting that Springer take prompt remedial action in accordance with prevailing industry standards and your policy on publishing integrity.”
Dr. Barnhorst also told the company she and Ms. Pallin could not submit their original paper for publication elsewhere until Springer made a determination on the plagiarism allegation.
A Springer spokesperson told this news organization that the company is “extremely concerned” and “committed to fully investigating the concerns raised in line with COPE [Committee on Publication Ethics] guidelines, as a matter of urgency.”
On Feb. 1, Springer added an editor’s note to the paper, which has not been taken down or officially retracted. The note said: “Concerns have been raised with this article and are being investigated. Further editorial action will be taken as appropriate once the investigation into the concerns is complete and all parties have been given an opportunity to respond in full.”
The Springer spokesperson said the company was investigating and would “take further action as appropriate once our investigation is complete.”
Neither Dr. Sammons nor Dr. VandenBos responded to requests for comment.
Dr. Barnhorst has consulted her university’s general counsel but has not taken any legal action and is not currently exploring any, she said in an interview. “It’s not a tough question whether or not this was plagiarism. We just want this article pulled down and retracted.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A psychiatrist known for her expertise in gun violence prevention is alleging that the editor of a medical journal plagiarized her work and published it under his name after she withdrew her paper from the journal.
Amy Barnhorst, MD, vice chair for community mental health at the University of California, Davis, is still waiting for the Journal of Health Service Psychology, published by Springer, to take action on what she says is blatant copying of an article she and colleague Rocco Pallin, MPH, wrote in response to an invitation from the managing editor, Gary VandenBos, PhD.
Out of frustration and sheer disbelief, Dr. Barnhorst, who is also director of the BulletPoints Project, said she took to Twitter to share her experience.
“I reached a new academic milestone last week when I read a published journal article about firearm suicide and realized it was my and my colleague’s writing! Except that the authors on the paper were these two other guys we don’t know,” Dr. Barnhorst tweeted. Barnhorst did not name the journal or its editor.
“I wasn’t mad so much as befuddled,” she said in an interview. She also wondered if other people had experienced anything similar.
The tweet thread was retweeted 7,800 times and liked by almost 40,000 people.
“I got so many messages and emails and comments from people saying, ‘This [also] happened to me,’ ” Barnhorst said.
In documents shared with this news organization,
The published paper also listed a coauthor, Michael O. Miller, a retired judge who trained as a psychologist, and who has largely written about juvenile delinquency.
Dr. Barnhorst said she became aware of the VandenBos paper when he notified her that it had been posted to the journal’s website. According to Dr. Barnhorst, he said: “Thought you two might be interested to see what we came up with.” When she viewed the article in full, she said she was speechless.
“It was really stunning,” said Dr. Barnhorst, noting that the bibliography, structure, vignette, and other elements were either similar or the same.
As soon as she saw the abstract, she said she became suspicious. Even the case vignette was extremely similar.
In the VandenBos paper, the case was Scott, a white 52-year-old divorced veteran struggling over the relatively recent death of his exwife. Dr. Barnhorst and Ms. Pallin’s vignette was about Robert, a white 55-year-old widower and veteran. In both papers, the patient had problems with alcohol.
Initially, she said, she and Ms. Pallin “were trying to rationalize it or justify it or make excuses for him because it just seemed so out there.” However, the women soon concluded that they were plagiarized.
Dr. Barnhorst said she emailed the journal’s editor-in-chief, Morgan Sammons, PhD, who is also the CEO of the National Register of Health Service Psychologists.
Initially, Dr. Sammons offered her and her colleague coauthorship on the paper, which she rejected. In a subsequent phone call, Dr. Sammons said he would investigate.
Publisher investigating
According to Dr. Barnhorst, Dr. Sammons later said he would retract the paper, but only after suggesting that she not go to “external parties” with her concerns. It was at that point that she emailed Springer.
“My colleague and I believe the evidence of plagiarism is plain and anticipate that you will so conclude,” she wrote in her email to the publishing company. “We are requesting that Springer take prompt remedial action in accordance with prevailing industry standards and your policy on publishing integrity.”
Dr. Barnhorst also told the company she and Ms. Pallin could not submit their original paper for publication elsewhere until Springer made a determination on the plagiarism allegation.
A Springer spokesperson told this news organization that the company is “extremely concerned” and “committed to fully investigating the concerns raised in line with COPE [Committee on Publication Ethics] guidelines, as a matter of urgency.”
On Feb. 1, Springer added an editor’s note to the paper, which has not been taken down or officially retracted. The note said: “Concerns have been raised with this article and are being investigated. Further editorial action will be taken as appropriate once the investigation into the concerns is complete and all parties have been given an opportunity to respond in full.”
The Springer spokesperson said the company was investigating and would “take further action as appropriate once our investigation is complete.”
Neither Dr. Sammons nor Dr. VandenBos responded to requests for comment.
Dr. Barnhorst has consulted her university’s general counsel but has not taken any legal action and is not currently exploring any, she said in an interview. “It’s not a tough question whether or not this was plagiarism. We just want this article pulled down and retracted.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Views on ethical issues shifting in family, internal medicine
according to the Medscape Internal Medicine Ethics Report 2020 and the corresponding report for Family Medicine.
An example comes in an apparent loosening of attitudes about romantic/sexual relationships with former patients. Now, 31% of internists believe such a relationship is acceptable at least 6 months after the medical relationship has ended. That’s up from 22% in 2018. The number of family physicians this year who said 6 months later was acceptable also increased, but by a smaller margin – from 28% in 2018 to 33% in 2020.
“It’s acceptable as long as there is no undue influence,” David Fleming, MD, a member of the American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, said in an interview. “The important thing is that you don’t mix the two.”
Thoughts on upcoding
Views on billing are also shifting. Ten years ago, 17% of physicians overall thought upcoding was acceptable when submitting claims or getting prior authorization. Today just 8% of physicians overall said it was, as did 8% of family medicine (FM) physicians, according to responses.
The number of internal medicine (IM) physicians clearly opposed to upcoding declined a bit from 79% in 2018 to 75% this year, while the number saying “it depends” increased from 11% to 15%.
Many responders in both specialties said they would upgrade a code in the interest of patient advocacy.
An internist put it this way: “If the system is set up so that the only thing that would work for the patient’s condition can be obtained by an upcode, then I would consider this.”
More than a third say random drug checks needed
More than one-third of physicians in both specialties (34% in IM and 38% in FM) said physicians should be subjected to random alcohol and drug testing.
However, many say testing should only happen if abuse is suspected.
Some said specialty matters when it comes to random checks. An internist responded: “I think this is more important for procedure-based physicians.”
Some family physicians said that, if other health care workers were subjected to the same checks in the same circumstances, they would not object, but said doctors shouldn’t be singled out.
Vast majority would report an impaired peer
Nine out of 10 internists and family physicians say they would report a physician who occasionally seemed impaired but most (60% of IM respondents and 62% of FM respondents) said they would do so only after talking with the physician first.
Some noted their decision would depend on the setting.
“Big difference if they are on vacation and drink too much so they need a ride home versus being impaired at work or when on call,” one FM physician said.
About one-third of family physicians (34%) and internists (33%) now favor physician-assisted dying/suicide for incurable suffering. A substantial number (26%-28%) hesitated to make a clear decision in both specialties, responding “it depends.”
“Patient control over quality of life can be even more important than control over its quantity/duration,” one internist wrote.
The proportion of physicians who agreed physician-assisted dying/suicide should be legalized for the terminally ill was much larger, with 49% of family physicians and 52% of IM physicians saying it should.
Talking politics
Data in this survey were collected in summer months of 2020, before the U.S. presidential election, in a highly polarized climate. Some numbers reflect increasing distaste for such conversations with patients.
For example, the number of family physicians who said talking about politics with patients was ethical dropped from 31% in 2018 to 23% in the latest survey. The numbers remained nearly flat among IM physicians in the past 2 years – at 21% in 2018 and 23% this year.
Should a flu shot be mandatory?
Almost three-fourths of physicians overall – and 76% of IM physicians – say annual flu shots should be required for physicians who have patient contact. Agreement was somewhat lower among family physicians at 68%.
Some family physicians cited “freedom of choice” and that they would want to see a higher effectiveness rate before they were mandatory.
Data for this survey, with 5,130 respondents, were collected before COVID-19 vaccines became available.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to the Medscape Internal Medicine Ethics Report 2020 and the corresponding report for Family Medicine.
An example comes in an apparent loosening of attitudes about romantic/sexual relationships with former patients. Now, 31% of internists believe such a relationship is acceptable at least 6 months after the medical relationship has ended. That’s up from 22% in 2018. The number of family physicians this year who said 6 months later was acceptable also increased, but by a smaller margin – from 28% in 2018 to 33% in 2020.
“It’s acceptable as long as there is no undue influence,” David Fleming, MD, a member of the American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, said in an interview. “The important thing is that you don’t mix the two.”
Thoughts on upcoding
Views on billing are also shifting. Ten years ago, 17% of physicians overall thought upcoding was acceptable when submitting claims or getting prior authorization. Today just 8% of physicians overall said it was, as did 8% of family medicine (FM) physicians, according to responses.
The number of internal medicine (IM) physicians clearly opposed to upcoding declined a bit from 79% in 2018 to 75% this year, while the number saying “it depends” increased from 11% to 15%.
Many responders in both specialties said they would upgrade a code in the interest of patient advocacy.
An internist put it this way: “If the system is set up so that the only thing that would work for the patient’s condition can be obtained by an upcode, then I would consider this.”
More than a third say random drug checks needed
More than one-third of physicians in both specialties (34% in IM and 38% in FM) said physicians should be subjected to random alcohol and drug testing.
However, many say testing should only happen if abuse is suspected.
Some said specialty matters when it comes to random checks. An internist responded: “I think this is more important for procedure-based physicians.”
Some family physicians said that, if other health care workers were subjected to the same checks in the same circumstances, they would not object, but said doctors shouldn’t be singled out.
Vast majority would report an impaired peer
Nine out of 10 internists and family physicians say they would report a physician who occasionally seemed impaired but most (60% of IM respondents and 62% of FM respondents) said they would do so only after talking with the physician first.
Some noted their decision would depend on the setting.
“Big difference if they are on vacation and drink too much so they need a ride home versus being impaired at work or when on call,” one FM physician said.
About one-third of family physicians (34%) and internists (33%) now favor physician-assisted dying/suicide for incurable suffering. A substantial number (26%-28%) hesitated to make a clear decision in both specialties, responding “it depends.”
“Patient control over quality of life can be even more important than control over its quantity/duration,” one internist wrote.
The proportion of physicians who agreed physician-assisted dying/suicide should be legalized for the terminally ill was much larger, with 49% of family physicians and 52% of IM physicians saying it should.
Talking politics
Data in this survey were collected in summer months of 2020, before the U.S. presidential election, in a highly polarized climate. Some numbers reflect increasing distaste for such conversations with patients.
For example, the number of family physicians who said talking about politics with patients was ethical dropped from 31% in 2018 to 23% in the latest survey. The numbers remained nearly flat among IM physicians in the past 2 years – at 21% in 2018 and 23% this year.
Should a flu shot be mandatory?
Almost three-fourths of physicians overall – and 76% of IM physicians – say annual flu shots should be required for physicians who have patient contact. Agreement was somewhat lower among family physicians at 68%.
Some family physicians cited “freedom of choice” and that they would want to see a higher effectiveness rate before they were mandatory.
Data for this survey, with 5,130 respondents, were collected before COVID-19 vaccines became available.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to the Medscape Internal Medicine Ethics Report 2020 and the corresponding report for Family Medicine.
An example comes in an apparent loosening of attitudes about romantic/sexual relationships with former patients. Now, 31% of internists believe such a relationship is acceptable at least 6 months after the medical relationship has ended. That’s up from 22% in 2018. The number of family physicians this year who said 6 months later was acceptable also increased, but by a smaller margin – from 28% in 2018 to 33% in 2020.
“It’s acceptable as long as there is no undue influence,” David Fleming, MD, a member of the American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, said in an interview. “The important thing is that you don’t mix the two.”
Thoughts on upcoding
Views on billing are also shifting. Ten years ago, 17% of physicians overall thought upcoding was acceptable when submitting claims or getting prior authorization. Today just 8% of physicians overall said it was, as did 8% of family medicine (FM) physicians, according to responses.
The number of internal medicine (IM) physicians clearly opposed to upcoding declined a bit from 79% in 2018 to 75% this year, while the number saying “it depends” increased from 11% to 15%.
Many responders in both specialties said they would upgrade a code in the interest of patient advocacy.
An internist put it this way: “If the system is set up so that the only thing that would work for the patient’s condition can be obtained by an upcode, then I would consider this.”
More than a third say random drug checks needed
More than one-third of physicians in both specialties (34% in IM and 38% in FM) said physicians should be subjected to random alcohol and drug testing.
However, many say testing should only happen if abuse is suspected.
Some said specialty matters when it comes to random checks. An internist responded: “I think this is more important for procedure-based physicians.”
Some family physicians said that, if other health care workers were subjected to the same checks in the same circumstances, they would not object, but said doctors shouldn’t be singled out.
Vast majority would report an impaired peer
Nine out of 10 internists and family physicians say they would report a physician who occasionally seemed impaired but most (60% of IM respondents and 62% of FM respondents) said they would do so only after talking with the physician first.
Some noted their decision would depend on the setting.
“Big difference if they are on vacation and drink too much so they need a ride home versus being impaired at work or when on call,” one FM physician said.
About one-third of family physicians (34%) and internists (33%) now favor physician-assisted dying/suicide for incurable suffering. A substantial number (26%-28%) hesitated to make a clear decision in both specialties, responding “it depends.”
“Patient control over quality of life can be even more important than control over its quantity/duration,” one internist wrote.
The proportion of physicians who agreed physician-assisted dying/suicide should be legalized for the terminally ill was much larger, with 49% of family physicians and 52% of IM physicians saying it should.
Talking politics
Data in this survey were collected in summer months of 2020, before the U.S. presidential election, in a highly polarized climate. Some numbers reflect increasing distaste for such conversations with patients.
For example, the number of family physicians who said talking about politics with patients was ethical dropped from 31% in 2018 to 23% in the latest survey. The numbers remained nearly flat among IM physicians in the past 2 years – at 21% in 2018 and 23% this year.
Should a flu shot be mandatory?
Almost three-fourths of physicians overall – and 76% of IM physicians – say annual flu shots should be required for physicians who have patient contact. Agreement was somewhat lower among family physicians at 68%.
Some family physicians cited “freedom of choice” and that they would want to see a higher effectiveness rate before they were mandatory.
Data for this survey, with 5,130 respondents, were collected before COVID-19 vaccines became available.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
U.S. COVID-19 death toll passes 450,000
The United States has now reported more than 450,000 COVID-19 deaths during the pandemic, adding 3,912 more on Wednesday, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.
Daily COVID-19 deaths still remain high in the United States, though they’ve decreased slightly from the peak of 4,466 deaths on Jan. 12.
The United States also reported more than 121,000 new COVID-19 cases on Wednesday, which is down from a peak of more than 300,000 new cases on Tuesday. In total, more than 26.5 million people in the United States have been diagnosed with COVID-19, making up a quarter of the 104.5 million cases reported worldwide.
The 7-day average for COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths continues to decline, according to the COVID Tracking Project. The 7-day average for hospitalizations is around 96,500, and the 7-day average for deaths is about 3,000. With the exception of Vermont, all states and territories have reported declines or no changes in their hospitalizations and deaths.
“We have seen the 7-day average for new deaths decrease for over a week. At the same time, states are reporting an average of 3,000 people dying per day,” the COVID Tracking Project wrote in a post on Twitter. “The data is hopeful and devastating.”
More than 2.2 million COVID-19 deaths have been reported worldwide. The United States continues to report the most deaths, followed by Brazil with 227,500, Mexico with 161,200, and India with 154,700 deaths.
The U.S. COVID-19 death toll could reach 496,000-534,000 by the end of February, according to a new forecast by the CDC, which includes models from 36 national groups. Deaths will likely decrease during the next 4 weeks, with about 11,300-22,600 deaths possibly reported during the last week of February.
The 534,000 total would equal about 1 death for every minute of the pandemic, according to CNN, given that the first U.S. death was reported on Feb. 29 last year.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The United States has now reported more than 450,000 COVID-19 deaths during the pandemic, adding 3,912 more on Wednesday, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.
Daily COVID-19 deaths still remain high in the United States, though they’ve decreased slightly from the peak of 4,466 deaths on Jan. 12.
The United States also reported more than 121,000 new COVID-19 cases on Wednesday, which is down from a peak of more than 300,000 new cases on Tuesday. In total, more than 26.5 million people in the United States have been diagnosed with COVID-19, making up a quarter of the 104.5 million cases reported worldwide.
The 7-day average for COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths continues to decline, according to the COVID Tracking Project. The 7-day average for hospitalizations is around 96,500, and the 7-day average for deaths is about 3,000. With the exception of Vermont, all states and territories have reported declines or no changes in their hospitalizations and deaths.
“We have seen the 7-day average for new deaths decrease for over a week. At the same time, states are reporting an average of 3,000 people dying per day,” the COVID Tracking Project wrote in a post on Twitter. “The data is hopeful and devastating.”
More than 2.2 million COVID-19 deaths have been reported worldwide. The United States continues to report the most deaths, followed by Brazil with 227,500, Mexico with 161,200, and India with 154,700 deaths.
The U.S. COVID-19 death toll could reach 496,000-534,000 by the end of February, according to a new forecast by the CDC, which includes models from 36 national groups. Deaths will likely decrease during the next 4 weeks, with about 11,300-22,600 deaths possibly reported during the last week of February.
The 534,000 total would equal about 1 death for every minute of the pandemic, according to CNN, given that the first U.S. death was reported on Feb. 29 last year.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The United States has now reported more than 450,000 COVID-19 deaths during the pandemic, adding 3,912 more on Wednesday, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.
Daily COVID-19 deaths still remain high in the United States, though they’ve decreased slightly from the peak of 4,466 deaths on Jan. 12.
The United States also reported more than 121,000 new COVID-19 cases on Wednesday, which is down from a peak of more than 300,000 new cases on Tuesday. In total, more than 26.5 million people in the United States have been diagnosed with COVID-19, making up a quarter of the 104.5 million cases reported worldwide.
The 7-day average for COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths continues to decline, according to the COVID Tracking Project. The 7-day average for hospitalizations is around 96,500, and the 7-day average for deaths is about 3,000. With the exception of Vermont, all states and territories have reported declines or no changes in their hospitalizations and deaths.
“We have seen the 7-day average for new deaths decrease for over a week. At the same time, states are reporting an average of 3,000 people dying per day,” the COVID Tracking Project wrote in a post on Twitter. “The data is hopeful and devastating.”
More than 2.2 million COVID-19 deaths have been reported worldwide. The United States continues to report the most deaths, followed by Brazil with 227,500, Mexico with 161,200, and India with 154,700 deaths.
The U.S. COVID-19 death toll could reach 496,000-534,000 by the end of February, according to a new forecast by the CDC, which includes models from 36 national groups. Deaths will likely decrease during the next 4 weeks, with about 11,300-22,600 deaths possibly reported during the last week of February.
The 534,000 total would equal about 1 death for every minute of the pandemic, according to CNN, given that the first U.S. death was reported on Feb. 29 last year.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The Match and COVID-19: Stolen interviews, swag bags, and stress
The final numbers won’t look much different, but the 2021 Match results will be unlike any before. As of mid-January, only 16 more institutions were confirmed to be participating in Match Day this year, resulting in about 800 more positions, said Donna Lamb, president and CEO of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). The Electronic Residency Application Service reported about 50,000 individual applicant submissions, a slight increase from prior years.
The stats may be similar, but the current residency application cycle may lead to wildly different results after the pandemic forced interviews to be conducted virtually and caused the cancellation of most away clinical rotations. Troy Amen, a fifth-year MD-MBA student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and copresident of his student class, says the lack of on-campus, in-person experiences means students feel more in the dark than ever. The same is true for institutions. “The programs are also suffering because now they don’t know which students are a good ‘cultural fit’ for them,” he said.
Standing out has always been a concern for prospective residents, but Mr. Amen says fears are even higher this year. “[Institutions are] struggling to vet out 850 applicants, and they have no connection to us.”
Organizations have scrambled to keep the process as fair and informative as possible. “Everyone is trying to do the right thing here,” said Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). She says that although the process has significantly changed, the heart of it remains the same. “The bottom line is directors really want to fill their intern class, and schools and students really want to match.”
Since the NRMP was established in 1952, it has never had to contend with a pandemic of this scale. The unprecedented circumstances have led to some much-feared and some unexpected changes, like top candidates “stealing” interview slots, “swag bags” sent to entice residents, beefed-up online profiles, as well as “Zoom fatigue,” a spike in home-field advantage for institutions, and massive anxiety for those students staking their future to a city they may have never seen in person.
What was lost and what was gained
“It’s really hard to get a real feel for the program when you’ve not been there in person,” said Christopher Smith, MD, director of the internal medicine residency program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Smith recalled interviewing for residencies 25 years ago. His wife, a teacher, took time off to travel with him.
“She would ‘interview the town’ while I interviewed the program, and we compared notes at night,” he said. Because of COVID-19-related travel restrictions, just physically seeing the city in which they may live for years wasn’t an option for many. “I have a lot of sympathy for students applying right now,” Dr. Smith said.
For the residency class of 2021, the first shoe really dropped last March, when the AAMC issued guidance strongly recommending that programs pause clinical rotations away from their home schools. As established doctors know well, and as graduating medical students confirmed, these rotations are crucial to understanding a program’s culture and gaining experience that can boost candidacy. “I’m applying to orthopedic surgery, where away rotations are the gold standard for impressing attendees and residents at institutions away from home,” said Mr. Amen.
The pandemic completely cut off that key source of information to determine the right fit. It also meant applicants couldn’t have as diverse a portfolio of recommendation letters, something many worry may be detrimental to their soon-to-be-released Match rankings.
Unlike the loss of away rotations, the forced shift from in-person to virtual interviews had some meaningful benefits. Students no longer incurred expenses for airline flights, hotel rooms, and rental cars. Many organizations and programs have been trying for years to figure out how to lower the financial burden of interviews to make the process more equitable for those at economic or other disadvantage.
“The equity piece of this is huge – decreasing barriers and leveling the field a little bit is a really huge advantage,” said Kate Shaw, MD, residency program director and associate chair of education for the obstetrics and gynecology program at Stanford (Calif.) University. In some ways, this latest change is an extension of a strategy Dr. Shaw and others had already begun implementing.
“Over the last 5 to 10 years, we’ve been working to address the implicit bias in the application process, so we’ve gone to a holistic review of applicants, where we don’t have score cutoffs. We look at the whole person,” she said. “And we did that in an effort to increase diversity and equity.” Dr. Shaw and others hope that the accidental positive changes from COVID restrictions may be intentionally preserved long after the pandemic ends.
Home-field advantage vs. swag bags
Many medical students applying to residencies this year say they have given greater weight to their home programs than they might have without the pandemic. “I didn’t get a sense of anyone’s culture other than my home institution,” said Alex Skidmore, a fourth-year medical student at Washington University in St. Louis. “I definitely am ranking Wash-U higher.”
The desire to emphasize the known quality of a student’s home institution isn’t surprising to program directors. Dr. Shaw said she thinks this year’s Match could well end with a higher percentage of students matching either in their home programs or in programs close to loved ones. “The value of being close to family has come up in our conversations, where students are considering the right program for them but also the other life factors,” she said.
To overcome this home-field advantage, many programs have beefed up their websites, including providing video tours of their facilities. They also “upped their social media game” and encouraged residents to create online groups for prospective residents to share information about programs and life outside of work. Some residents even offered video tours of their personal apartments to applicants.
Without in-person access to facilities and staff, a program’s online presence became a deciding factor, applicants said. “If you have a bad website, it’s like having a dirty building to interview applicants in,” Mr. Skidmore said. For many prospective residents, an institution’s Internet presence was a “make or break” factor. “It’s the only thing I saw for many programs, and when we are doing the amount of research we are doing remotely, when I saw a program with a bad website, it made me not like the program as much,” he said.
Some programs, hoping to woo candidates as well as to provide them with more insight into what they and their cities have to offer, sent “swag bags” to candidates. These included things like gift cards for food delivery and offerings from local businesses. Washington University’s pediatrics residency program sent gooey butter cakes – a St. Louis staple – along with other treats from small businesses and copies of magazines that showcased the city’s dining and entertainment scene.
Other programs, even those at the same medical institution, felt quite strongly that those types of packages shouldn’t be sent. “We interviewed almost 500 applicants, so there was no way we could have afforded that,” said Dominique Cosco, MD, director of Washington University’s internal medicine residency program. “Our normal recruitment budget is almost $100,000 in a normal year, and that got cut because of COVID. For us, it was thinking about allocations of resources.”
Interview slot theft and zoom fatigue
Remote interviewing also meant that applicants could accept more interviews, something that raised a big concern. Without expenses or travel time, would top-tier candidates take more interviews than normal and thus take limited interview spots from other qualified candidates? Maybe so, says the AAMC’s Dr. Whelan.
“We didn’t have systematic data, but we heard from enough schools and programs ... that students who were maybe not the top-top ranked students in the class but in every way solid were receiving fewer interviews than previous years,” Dr. Whelan said. This is despite guidance that recommended programs add interview slots to serve as a counterbalance.
Some students say they accepted more interview slots in the beginning of the interview season, partly because they could, and partly because some thought of early interviews as “practice” for later interviews. However, as video interviews piled up, some of them described feeling “Zoom fatigue” and said they later canceled interviews with programs they didn’t anticipate joining.
More SOAP, less clarity
As for what comes next, the NRMP is preparing for a longer-than-normal Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) than in years past. SOAP usually offers three rounds of matches after the initial Match Day; Ms. Lamb said things are different this year.
“SOAP will be the same number of days, but we’ve added an additional round on Thursday afternoon,” she said. Will it be unnecessary or not enough? Nobody knows. “How big SOAP actually is going to be is one of the things that we really don’t have a sense of right now and probably aren’t going to have a sense of until the Match.”
Uncertainty is the name of the game. More than any other Match before, programs and applicants won’t know how results from this pandemic year stack up for a few months at the very least. “I really want to see what this looks like on the other side,” Dr. Smith said. “Are applicants happy with the way it looks when they come here? Do they feel like they matched with the right place?”
Whether this unprecedented year will be remembered more for positive changes moving forward, including more flexibility on remote interviews, or for less-informed decisions that result in dissatisfied participants is also unclear.
“I think after the Match is over, we’ll be talking to everyone to get more perspective on what people who are applying now would tell the next class, and how programs can adjust,” said Kathy Diemer, MD, assistant dean for career counseling at Washington University. At the very least, those who are involved in this year after year can start thinking about what the future should look like.
“We’re going to need to do some kind of debriefing after this is over, both program directors and our students as well, so we can determine how to move forward next year and beyond.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The final numbers won’t look much different, but the 2021 Match results will be unlike any before. As of mid-January, only 16 more institutions were confirmed to be participating in Match Day this year, resulting in about 800 more positions, said Donna Lamb, president and CEO of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). The Electronic Residency Application Service reported about 50,000 individual applicant submissions, a slight increase from prior years.
The stats may be similar, but the current residency application cycle may lead to wildly different results after the pandemic forced interviews to be conducted virtually and caused the cancellation of most away clinical rotations. Troy Amen, a fifth-year MD-MBA student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and copresident of his student class, says the lack of on-campus, in-person experiences means students feel more in the dark than ever. The same is true for institutions. “The programs are also suffering because now they don’t know which students are a good ‘cultural fit’ for them,” he said.
Standing out has always been a concern for prospective residents, but Mr. Amen says fears are even higher this year. “[Institutions are] struggling to vet out 850 applicants, and they have no connection to us.”
Organizations have scrambled to keep the process as fair and informative as possible. “Everyone is trying to do the right thing here,” said Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). She says that although the process has significantly changed, the heart of it remains the same. “The bottom line is directors really want to fill their intern class, and schools and students really want to match.”
Since the NRMP was established in 1952, it has never had to contend with a pandemic of this scale. The unprecedented circumstances have led to some much-feared and some unexpected changes, like top candidates “stealing” interview slots, “swag bags” sent to entice residents, beefed-up online profiles, as well as “Zoom fatigue,” a spike in home-field advantage for institutions, and massive anxiety for those students staking their future to a city they may have never seen in person.
What was lost and what was gained
“It’s really hard to get a real feel for the program when you’ve not been there in person,” said Christopher Smith, MD, director of the internal medicine residency program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Smith recalled interviewing for residencies 25 years ago. His wife, a teacher, took time off to travel with him.
“She would ‘interview the town’ while I interviewed the program, and we compared notes at night,” he said. Because of COVID-19-related travel restrictions, just physically seeing the city in which they may live for years wasn’t an option for many. “I have a lot of sympathy for students applying right now,” Dr. Smith said.
For the residency class of 2021, the first shoe really dropped last March, when the AAMC issued guidance strongly recommending that programs pause clinical rotations away from their home schools. As established doctors know well, and as graduating medical students confirmed, these rotations are crucial to understanding a program’s culture and gaining experience that can boost candidacy. “I’m applying to orthopedic surgery, where away rotations are the gold standard for impressing attendees and residents at institutions away from home,” said Mr. Amen.
The pandemic completely cut off that key source of information to determine the right fit. It also meant applicants couldn’t have as diverse a portfolio of recommendation letters, something many worry may be detrimental to their soon-to-be-released Match rankings.
Unlike the loss of away rotations, the forced shift from in-person to virtual interviews had some meaningful benefits. Students no longer incurred expenses for airline flights, hotel rooms, and rental cars. Many organizations and programs have been trying for years to figure out how to lower the financial burden of interviews to make the process more equitable for those at economic or other disadvantage.
“The equity piece of this is huge – decreasing barriers and leveling the field a little bit is a really huge advantage,” said Kate Shaw, MD, residency program director and associate chair of education for the obstetrics and gynecology program at Stanford (Calif.) University. In some ways, this latest change is an extension of a strategy Dr. Shaw and others had already begun implementing.
“Over the last 5 to 10 years, we’ve been working to address the implicit bias in the application process, so we’ve gone to a holistic review of applicants, where we don’t have score cutoffs. We look at the whole person,” she said. “And we did that in an effort to increase diversity and equity.” Dr. Shaw and others hope that the accidental positive changes from COVID restrictions may be intentionally preserved long after the pandemic ends.
Home-field advantage vs. swag bags
Many medical students applying to residencies this year say they have given greater weight to their home programs than they might have without the pandemic. “I didn’t get a sense of anyone’s culture other than my home institution,” said Alex Skidmore, a fourth-year medical student at Washington University in St. Louis. “I definitely am ranking Wash-U higher.”
The desire to emphasize the known quality of a student’s home institution isn’t surprising to program directors. Dr. Shaw said she thinks this year’s Match could well end with a higher percentage of students matching either in their home programs or in programs close to loved ones. “The value of being close to family has come up in our conversations, where students are considering the right program for them but also the other life factors,” she said.
To overcome this home-field advantage, many programs have beefed up their websites, including providing video tours of their facilities. They also “upped their social media game” and encouraged residents to create online groups for prospective residents to share information about programs and life outside of work. Some residents even offered video tours of their personal apartments to applicants.
Without in-person access to facilities and staff, a program’s online presence became a deciding factor, applicants said. “If you have a bad website, it’s like having a dirty building to interview applicants in,” Mr. Skidmore said. For many prospective residents, an institution’s Internet presence was a “make or break” factor. “It’s the only thing I saw for many programs, and when we are doing the amount of research we are doing remotely, when I saw a program with a bad website, it made me not like the program as much,” he said.
Some programs, hoping to woo candidates as well as to provide them with more insight into what they and their cities have to offer, sent “swag bags” to candidates. These included things like gift cards for food delivery and offerings from local businesses. Washington University’s pediatrics residency program sent gooey butter cakes – a St. Louis staple – along with other treats from small businesses and copies of magazines that showcased the city’s dining and entertainment scene.
Other programs, even those at the same medical institution, felt quite strongly that those types of packages shouldn’t be sent. “We interviewed almost 500 applicants, so there was no way we could have afforded that,” said Dominique Cosco, MD, director of Washington University’s internal medicine residency program. “Our normal recruitment budget is almost $100,000 in a normal year, and that got cut because of COVID. For us, it was thinking about allocations of resources.”
Interview slot theft and zoom fatigue
Remote interviewing also meant that applicants could accept more interviews, something that raised a big concern. Without expenses or travel time, would top-tier candidates take more interviews than normal and thus take limited interview spots from other qualified candidates? Maybe so, says the AAMC’s Dr. Whelan.
“We didn’t have systematic data, but we heard from enough schools and programs ... that students who were maybe not the top-top ranked students in the class but in every way solid were receiving fewer interviews than previous years,” Dr. Whelan said. This is despite guidance that recommended programs add interview slots to serve as a counterbalance.
Some students say they accepted more interview slots in the beginning of the interview season, partly because they could, and partly because some thought of early interviews as “practice” for later interviews. However, as video interviews piled up, some of them described feeling “Zoom fatigue” and said they later canceled interviews with programs they didn’t anticipate joining.
More SOAP, less clarity
As for what comes next, the NRMP is preparing for a longer-than-normal Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) than in years past. SOAP usually offers three rounds of matches after the initial Match Day; Ms. Lamb said things are different this year.
“SOAP will be the same number of days, but we’ve added an additional round on Thursday afternoon,” she said. Will it be unnecessary or not enough? Nobody knows. “How big SOAP actually is going to be is one of the things that we really don’t have a sense of right now and probably aren’t going to have a sense of until the Match.”
Uncertainty is the name of the game. More than any other Match before, programs and applicants won’t know how results from this pandemic year stack up for a few months at the very least. “I really want to see what this looks like on the other side,” Dr. Smith said. “Are applicants happy with the way it looks when they come here? Do they feel like they matched with the right place?”
Whether this unprecedented year will be remembered more for positive changes moving forward, including more flexibility on remote interviews, or for less-informed decisions that result in dissatisfied participants is also unclear.
“I think after the Match is over, we’ll be talking to everyone to get more perspective on what people who are applying now would tell the next class, and how programs can adjust,” said Kathy Diemer, MD, assistant dean for career counseling at Washington University. At the very least, those who are involved in this year after year can start thinking about what the future should look like.
“We’re going to need to do some kind of debriefing after this is over, both program directors and our students as well, so we can determine how to move forward next year and beyond.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The final numbers won’t look much different, but the 2021 Match results will be unlike any before. As of mid-January, only 16 more institutions were confirmed to be participating in Match Day this year, resulting in about 800 more positions, said Donna Lamb, president and CEO of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). The Electronic Residency Application Service reported about 50,000 individual applicant submissions, a slight increase from prior years.
The stats may be similar, but the current residency application cycle may lead to wildly different results after the pandemic forced interviews to be conducted virtually and caused the cancellation of most away clinical rotations. Troy Amen, a fifth-year MD-MBA student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and copresident of his student class, says the lack of on-campus, in-person experiences means students feel more in the dark than ever. The same is true for institutions. “The programs are also suffering because now they don’t know which students are a good ‘cultural fit’ for them,” he said.
Standing out has always been a concern for prospective residents, but Mr. Amen says fears are even higher this year. “[Institutions are] struggling to vet out 850 applicants, and they have no connection to us.”
Organizations have scrambled to keep the process as fair and informative as possible. “Everyone is trying to do the right thing here,” said Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). She says that although the process has significantly changed, the heart of it remains the same. “The bottom line is directors really want to fill their intern class, and schools and students really want to match.”
Since the NRMP was established in 1952, it has never had to contend with a pandemic of this scale. The unprecedented circumstances have led to some much-feared and some unexpected changes, like top candidates “stealing” interview slots, “swag bags” sent to entice residents, beefed-up online profiles, as well as “Zoom fatigue,” a spike in home-field advantage for institutions, and massive anxiety for those students staking their future to a city they may have never seen in person.
What was lost and what was gained
“It’s really hard to get a real feel for the program when you’ve not been there in person,” said Christopher Smith, MD, director of the internal medicine residency program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Smith recalled interviewing for residencies 25 years ago. His wife, a teacher, took time off to travel with him.
“She would ‘interview the town’ while I interviewed the program, and we compared notes at night,” he said. Because of COVID-19-related travel restrictions, just physically seeing the city in which they may live for years wasn’t an option for many. “I have a lot of sympathy for students applying right now,” Dr. Smith said.
For the residency class of 2021, the first shoe really dropped last March, when the AAMC issued guidance strongly recommending that programs pause clinical rotations away from their home schools. As established doctors know well, and as graduating medical students confirmed, these rotations are crucial to understanding a program’s culture and gaining experience that can boost candidacy. “I’m applying to orthopedic surgery, where away rotations are the gold standard for impressing attendees and residents at institutions away from home,” said Mr. Amen.
The pandemic completely cut off that key source of information to determine the right fit. It also meant applicants couldn’t have as diverse a portfolio of recommendation letters, something many worry may be detrimental to their soon-to-be-released Match rankings.
Unlike the loss of away rotations, the forced shift from in-person to virtual interviews had some meaningful benefits. Students no longer incurred expenses for airline flights, hotel rooms, and rental cars. Many organizations and programs have been trying for years to figure out how to lower the financial burden of interviews to make the process more equitable for those at economic or other disadvantage.
“The equity piece of this is huge – decreasing barriers and leveling the field a little bit is a really huge advantage,” said Kate Shaw, MD, residency program director and associate chair of education for the obstetrics and gynecology program at Stanford (Calif.) University. In some ways, this latest change is an extension of a strategy Dr. Shaw and others had already begun implementing.
“Over the last 5 to 10 years, we’ve been working to address the implicit bias in the application process, so we’ve gone to a holistic review of applicants, where we don’t have score cutoffs. We look at the whole person,” she said. “And we did that in an effort to increase diversity and equity.” Dr. Shaw and others hope that the accidental positive changes from COVID restrictions may be intentionally preserved long after the pandemic ends.
Home-field advantage vs. swag bags
Many medical students applying to residencies this year say they have given greater weight to their home programs than they might have without the pandemic. “I didn’t get a sense of anyone’s culture other than my home institution,” said Alex Skidmore, a fourth-year medical student at Washington University in St. Louis. “I definitely am ranking Wash-U higher.”
The desire to emphasize the known quality of a student’s home institution isn’t surprising to program directors. Dr. Shaw said she thinks this year’s Match could well end with a higher percentage of students matching either in their home programs or in programs close to loved ones. “The value of being close to family has come up in our conversations, where students are considering the right program for them but also the other life factors,” she said.
To overcome this home-field advantage, many programs have beefed up their websites, including providing video tours of their facilities. They also “upped their social media game” and encouraged residents to create online groups for prospective residents to share information about programs and life outside of work. Some residents even offered video tours of their personal apartments to applicants.
Without in-person access to facilities and staff, a program’s online presence became a deciding factor, applicants said. “If you have a bad website, it’s like having a dirty building to interview applicants in,” Mr. Skidmore said. For many prospective residents, an institution’s Internet presence was a “make or break” factor. “It’s the only thing I saw for many programs, and when we are doing the amount of research we are doing remotely, when I saw a program with a bad website, it made me not like the program as much,” he said.
Some programs, hoping to woo candidates as well as to provide them with more insight into what they and their cities have to offer, sent “swag bags” to candidates. These included things like gift cards for food delivery and offerings from local businesses. Washington University’s pediatrics residency program sent gooey butter cakes – a St. Louis staple – along with other treats from small businesses and copies of magazines that showcased the city’s dining and entertainment scene.
Other programs, even those at the same medical institution, felt quite strongly that those types of packages shouldn’t be sent. “We interviewed almost 500 applicants, so there was no way we could have afforded that,” said Dominique Cosco, MD, director of Washington University’s internal medicine residency program. “Our normal recruitment budget is almost $100,000 in a normal year, and that got cut because of COVID. For us, it was thinking about allocations of resources.”
Interview slot theft and zoom fatigue
Remote interviewing also meant that applicants could accept more interviews, something that raised a big concern. Without expenses or travel time, would top-tier candidates take more interviews than normal and thus take limited interview spots from other qualified candidates? Maybe so, says the AAMC’s Dr. Whelan.
“We didn’t have systematic data, but we heard from enough schools and programs ... that students who were maybe not the top-top ranked students in the class but in every way solid were receiving fewer interviews than previous years,” Dr. Whelan said. This is despite guidance that recommended programs add interview slots to serve as a counterbalance.
Some students say they accepted more interview slots in the beginning of the interview season, partly because they could, and partly because some thought of early interviews as “practice” for later interviews. However, as video interviews piled up, some of them described feeling “Zoom fatigue” and said they later canceled interviews with programs they didn’t anticipate joining.
More SOAP, less clarity
As for what comes next, the NRMP is preparing for a longer-than-normal Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) than in years past. SOAP usually offers three rounds of matches after the initial Match Day; Ms. Lamb said things are different this year.
“SOAP will be the same number of days, but we’ve added an additional round on Thursday afternoon,” she said. Will it be unnecessary or not enough? Nobody knows. “How big SOAP actually is going to be is one of the things that we really don’t have a sense of right now and probably aren’t going to have a sense of until the Match.”
Uncertainty is the name of the game. More than any other Match before, programs and applicants won’t know how results from this pandemic year stack up for a few months at the very least. “I really want to see what this looks like on the other side,” Dr. Smith said. “Are applicants happy with the way it looks when they come here? Do they feel like they matched with the right place?”
Whether this unprecedented year will be remembered more for positive changes moving forward, including more flexibility on remote interviews, or for less-informed decisions that result in dissatisfied participants is also unclear.
“I think after the Match is over, we’ll be talking to everyone to get more perspective on what people who are applying now would tell the next class, and how programs can adjust,” said Kathy Diemer, MD, assistant dean for career counseling at Washington University. At the very least, those who are involved in this year after year can start thinking about what the future should look like.
“We’re going to need to do some kind of debriefing after this is over, both program directors and our students as well, so we can determine how to move forward next year and beyond.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Weekly COVID-19 cases in children continue to drop
Despite a drop in the number of weekly COVID-19 cases, children made up a larger share of cases for the fourth consecutive week, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
Just over 140,000 new cases of COVID-19 in children were reported for the week of Jan. 22-28, down from 165,000 the week before and down from the record high of 211,000 2 weeks earlier, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
Since the beginning of January, however, the proportion of weekly cases occurring in children has risen from 12.9% to 15.1%, based on data collected by the AAP/CHA from the health department websites of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, 2.81 million children have been infected by the coronavirus, representing 12.8% of the total for all ages, which is almost 22 million. The cumulative rate since the start of the pandemic passed 3,700 cases per 100,000 children after increasing by 5.2% over the previous week, the AAP and CHA said in their report.
Cumulative hospitalizations in children just passed 11,000 in the 24 states (and New York City) that are reporting data for children, which represents 1.8% of COVID-19–related admissions for all ages, a proportion that has not changed since mid-November. Ten more deaths in children were reported during Jan. 22-28, bringing the total to 215 in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are tracking mortality.
In the 10 states that are reporting data on testing, rates of positive results in children range from 7.1% in Indiana, in which children make up the largest proportion of total tests performed (18.1%) to 28.4% in Iowa, where children make up the smallest proportion of tests (6.0%), the AAP and CHA said.
Despite a drop in the number of weekly COVID-19 cases, children made up a larger share of cases for the fourth consecutive week, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
Just over 140,000 new cases of COVID-19 in children were reported for the week of Jan. 22-28, down from 165,000 the week before and down from the record high of 211,000 2 weeks earlier, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
Since the beginning of January, however, the proportion of weekly cases occurring in children has risen from 12.9% to 15.1%, based on data collected by the AAP/CHA from the health department websites of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, 2.81 million children have been infected by the coronavirus, representing 12.8% of the total for all ages, which is almost 22 million. The cumulative rate since the start of the pandemic passed 3,700 cases per 100,000 children after increasing by 5.2% over the previous week, the AAP and CHA said in their report.
Cumulative hospitalizations in children just passed 11,000 in the 24 states (and New York City) that are reporting data for children, which represents 1.8% of COVID-19–related admissions for all ages, a proportion that has not changed since mid-November. Ten more deaths in children were reported during Jan. 22-28, bringing the total to 215 in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are tracking mortality.
In the 10 states that are reporting data on testing, rates of positive results in children range from 7.1% in Indiana, in which children make up the largest proportion of total tests performed (18.1%) to 28.4% in Iowa, where children make up the smallest proportion of tests (6.0%), the AAP and CHA said.
Despite a drop in the number of weekly COVID-19 cases, children made up a larger share of cases for the fourth consecutive week, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
Just over 140,000 new cases of COVID-19 in children were reported for the week of Jan. 22-28, down from 165,000 the week before and down from the record high of 211,000 2 weeks earlier, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
Since the beginning of January, however, the proportion of weekly cases occurring in children has risen from 12.9% to 15.1%, based on data collected by the AAP/CHA from the health department websites of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, 2.81 million children have been infected by the coronavirus, representing 12.8% of the total for all ages, which is almost 22 million. The cumulative rate since the start of the pandemic passed 3,700 cases per 100,000 children after increasing by 5.2% over the previous week, the AAP and CHA said in their report.
Cumulative hospitalizations in children just passed 11,000 in the 24 states (and New York City) that are reporting data for children, which represents 1.8% of COVID-19–related admissions for all ages, a proportion that has not changed since mid-November. Ten more deaths in children were reported during Jan. 22-28, bringing the total to 215 in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are tracking mortality.
In the 10 states that are reporting data on testing, rates of positive results in children range from 7.1% in Indiana, in which children make up the largest proportion of total tests performed (18.1%) to 28.4% in Iowa, where children make up the smallest proportion of tests (6.0%), the AAP and CHA said.
Afternoon napping associated with better cognition in elderly, study shows
according to a new study in General Psychiatry.
The findings add to those seen in other observational studies showing afternoon napping promotes cognitive function, said the authors of the paper, published in General Psychiatry.
“The prevalence of afternoon napping has been increasing in older adults much more than in younger individuals,” wrote Han Cai, MS, of the department of geriatrics at The Fourth People’s Hospital of Wuhu, Anhui, China, and coauthors. “The elderly individuals who took afternoon naps showed significantly higher cognitive performance compared with those who did not nap.”
The researchers enrolled 2,214 people in the study – all Han Chinese and aged 60 or older. Afternoon napping was considered any period of inactivity of at least 5 minutes but less than 2 hours after lunch and outside of the person’s main sleep schedule. Those who reported ever napping – 1,534 subjects – were included in the napping group, and the others – 680 – in the nonnapping group. Patients with major physical conditions were excluded.
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Neuropsychological Test Battery (NTB) were used to measure cognitive function, and 739 patients agreed to blood tests for lipid values.
The average total MMSE score was higher for the napping group at 25.3 points out of 30, than for the nonnapping group, at 24.56 (P = .003). Those in the napping group also had significantly higher scores in the orientation portion of the MoCA test, at 5.55 out of 6 points, compared with 5.41 for the nonnapping group (P = .006).
Those in the napping group scored significantly higher on the digit span and language fluency parts of the Neuropsychological Test Battery (P = .009 and .020, respectively).
Dementia was assessed with face-to-face visits with clinicians, but diagnoses of dementia were not different between the groups.
Triglycerides were found to be higher – though still in the normal range – in the napping group compared with the nonnapping group, 1.80 mmol/L to 1.75 mmol/L, the researchers found (P = .001). No differences were seen for HDL or LDL cholesterol levels, or in hypertension or diabetes, the researchers reported.
The authors noted that inflammation is likely an important feature in the relationship between napping and cognitive function. Inflammatory cytokines have been found to play a role in sleep disorders, and strong inflammatory responses can lead to adverse events, including cognitive impairment.
“Sleep is known to be a regulator of the immune response that counters these inflammatory mediators, whereas napping, in particular, is thought to be an evolved response to inflammation,” they said.
The average age of patients in the napping group was 72.8 years, slightly older than those in the nonnapping group at 71.3 years, and this was a significant difference (P = .016).
The researchers acknowledged that the study “could not show direct causality of napping, whether beneficial or harmful,” and that “a lack of detailed information regarding napping duration ... also limited the description of napping status.”
Junxin Li, PhD, RN, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, who has studied napping and cognition, said that previous research generally supports a U-shaped relationship between napping and mental acuity, with shorter or medium-length naps benefiting cognition and no naps or naps that are too long being detrimental.
“This study looked at no nap versus naps of less than 2 hours and may not be able to capture this potential U-shaped association,” she said.
For clinicians, the duration, timing, frequency, and purpose of naps are important factors in making recommendations to patients, she said.
“For example, timing – napping in the early evening close to older adult’s bedtime may delay their bedtime and interfere with their nighttime sleep quality. Taking naps after lunchtime is hypothesized to provide the most therapeutic values to the health and usually recommended,” she said. Regular napping is better than “randomly dozing off,” Dr. Li added.
There are also cultural considerations – in east Asia, napping tends to be considered part of a healthy lifestyle, while in western countries it is not – and this could impact napping behaviors and how these behaviors affect cognition, she said.
Phyllis C. Zee, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Circadian and Sleep Medicine at the Northwestern University, Chicago, said the results are consistent with early cross-sectional studies that showed that regular, scheduled naps in the afternoon were associated with positive cognitive performance and lower cardiometabolic disease risk.
Dr. Zee noted that it’s important to recognize that the positive data are associated with naps that are planned, while older adults napping because of excess sleepiness are at a higher risk for cognitive impairment and other health issues.
The study authors, Dr. Li, and Dr. Zee reported no relevant financial disclosures.
according to a new study in General Psychiatry.
The findings add to those seen in other observational studies showing afternoon napping promotes cognitive function, said the authors of the paper, published in General Psychiatry.
“The prevalence of afternoon napping has been increasing in older adults much more than in younger individuals,” wrote Han Cai, MS, of the department of geriatrics at The Fourth People’s Hospital of Wuhu, Anhui, China, and coauthors. “The elderly individuals who took afternoon naps showed significantly higher cognitive performance compared with those who did not nap.”
The researchers enrolled 2,214 people in the study – all Han Chinese and aged 60 or older. Afternoon napping was considered any period of inactivity of at least 5 minutes but less than 2 hours after lunch and outside of the person’s main sleep schedule. Those who reported ever napping – 1,534 subjects – were included in the napping group, and the others – 680 – in the nonnapping group. Patients with major physical conditions were excluded.
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Neuropsychological Test Battery (NTB) were used to measure cognitive function, and 739 patients agreed to blood tests for lipid values.
The average total MMSE score was higher for the napping group at 25.3 points out of 30, than for the nonnapping group, at 24.56 (P = .003). Those in the napping group also had significantly higher scores in the orientation portion of the MoCA test, at 5.55 out of 6 points, compared with 5.41 for the nonnapping group (P = .006).
Those in the napping group scored significantly higher on the digit span and language fluency parts of the Neuropsychological Test Battery (P = .009 and .020, respectively).
Dementia was assessed with face-to-face visits with clinicians, but diagnoses of dementia were not different between the groups.
Triglycerides were found to be higher – though still in the normal range – in the napping group compared with the nonnapping group, 1.80 mmol/L to 1.75 mmol/L, the researchers found (P = .001). No differences were seen for HDL or LDL cholesterol levels, or in hypertension or diabetes, the researchers reported.
The authors noted that inflammation is likely an important feature in the relationship between napping and cognitive function. Inflammatory cytokines have been found to play a role in sleep disorders, and strong inflammatory responses can lead to adverse events, including cognitive impairment.
“Sleep is known to be a regulator of the immune response that counters these inflammatory mediators, whereas napping, in particular, is thought to be an evolved response to inflammation,” they said.
The average age of patients in the napping group was 72.8 years, slightly older than those in the nonnapping group at 71.3 years, and this was a significant difference (P = .016).
The researchers acknowledged that the study “could not show direct causality of napping, whether beneficial or harmful,” and that “a lack of detailed information regarding napping duration ... also limited the description of napping status.”
Junxin Li, PhD, RN, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, who has studied napping and cognition, said that previous research generally supports a U-shaped relationship between napping and mental acuity, with shorter or medium-length naps benefiting cognition and no naps or naps that are too long being detrimental.
“This study looked at no nap versus naps of less than 2 hours and may not be able to capture this potential U-shaped association,” she said.
For clinicians, the duration, timing, frequency, and purpose of naps are important factors in making recommendations to patients, she said.
“For example, timing – napping in the early evening close to older adult’s bedtime may delay their bedtime and interfere with their nighttime sleep quality. Taking naps after lunchtime is hypothesized to provide the most therapeutic values to the health and usually recommended,” she said. Regular napping is better than “randomly dozing off,” Dr. Li added.
There are also cultural considerations – in east Asia, napping tends to be considered part of a healthy lifestyle, while in western countries it is not – and this could impact napping behaviors and how these behaviors affect cognition, she said.
Phyllis C. Zee, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Circadian and Sleep Medicine at the Northwestern University, Chicago, said the results are consistent with early cross-sectional studies that showed that regular, scheduled naps in the afternoon were associated with positive cognitive performance and lower cardiometabolic disease risk.
Dr. Zee noted that it’s important to recognize that the positive data are associated with naps that are planned, while older adults napping because of excess sleepiness are at a higher risk for cognitive impairment and other health issues.
The study authors, Dr. Li, and Dr. Zee reported no relevant financial disclosures.
according to a new study in General Psychiatry.
The findings add to those seen in other observational studies showing afternoon napping promotes cognitive function, said the authors of the paper, published in General Psychiatry.
“The prevalence of afternoon napping has been increasing in older adults much more than in younger individuals,” wrote Han Cai, MS, of the department of geriatrics at The Fourth People’s Hospital of Wuhu, Anhui, China, and coauthors. “The elderly individuals who took afternoon naps showed significantly higher cognitive performance compared with those who did not nap.”
The researchers enrolled 2,214 people in the study – all Han Chinese and aged 60 or older. Afternoon napping was considered any period of inactivity of at least 5 minutes but less than 2 hours after lunch and outside of the person’s main sleep schedule. Those who reported ever napping – 1,534 subjects – were included in the napping group, and the others – 680 – in the nonnapping group. Patients with major physical conditions were excluded.
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Neuropsychological Test Battery (NTB) were used to measure cognitive function, and 739 patients agreed to blood tests for lipid values.
The average total MMSE score was higher for the napping group at 25.3 points out of 30, than for the nonnapping group, at 24.56 (P = .003). Those in the napping group also had significantly higher scores in the orientation portion of the MoCA test, at 5.55 out of 6 points, compared with 5.41 for the nonnapping group (P = .006).
Those in the napping group scored significantly higher on the digit span and language fluency parts of the Neuropsychological Test Battery (P = .009 and .020, respectively).
Dementia was assessed with face-to-face visits with clinicians, but diagnoses of dementia were not different between the groups.
Triglycerides were found to be higher – though still in the normal range – in the napping group compared with the nonnapping group, 1.80 mmol/L to 1.75 mmol/L, the researchers found (P = .001). No differences were seen for HDL or LDL cholesterol levels, or in hypertension or diabetes, the researchers reported.
The authors noted that inflammation is likely an important feature in the relationship between napping and cognitive function. Inflammatory cytokines have been found to play a role in sleep disorders, and strong inflammatory responses can lead to adverse events, including cognitive impairment.
“Sleep is known to be a regulator of the immune response that counters these inflammatory mediators, whereas napping, in particular, is thought to be an evolved response to inflammation,” they said.
The average age of patients in the napping group was 72.8 years, slightly older than those in the nonnapping group at 71.3 years, and this was a significant difference (P = .016).
The researchers acknowledged that the study “could not show direct causality of napping, whether beneficial or harmful,” and that “a lack of detailed information regarding napping duration ... also limited the description of napping status.”
Junxin Li, PhD, RN, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, who has studied napping and cognition, said that previous research generally supports a U-shaped relationship between napping and mental acuity, with shorter or medium-length naps benefiting cognition and no naps or naps that are too long being detrimental.
“This study looked at no nap versus naps of less than 2 hours and may not be able to capture this potential U-shaped association,” she said.
For clinicians, the duration, timing, frequency, and purpose of naps are important factors in making recommendations to patients, she said.
“For example, timing – napping in the early evening close to older adult’s bedtime may delay their bedtime and interfere with their nighttime sleep quality. Taking naps after lunchtime is hypothesized to provide the most therapeutic values to the health and usually recommended,” she said. Regular napping is better than “randomly dozing off,” Dr. Li added.
There are also cultural considerations – in east Asia, napping tends to be considered part of a healthy lifestyle, while in western countries it is not – and this could impact napping behaviors and how these behaviors affect cognition, she said.
Phyllis C. Zee, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Circadian and Sleep Medicine at the Northwestern University, Chicago, said the results are consistent with early cross-sectional studies that showed that regular, scheduled naps in the afternoon were associated with positive cognitive performance and lower cardiometabolic disease risk.
Dr. Zee noted that it’s important to recognize that the positive data are associated with naps that are planned, while older adults napping because of excess sleepiness are at a higher risk for cognitive impairment and other health issues.
The study authors, Dr. Li, and Dr. Zee reported no relevant financial disclosures.
Dan Kastner wins Crafoord Prize in Polyarthritis
“for establishing the concept of autoinflammatory diseases.” The prize, named after the donor Holger Crafoord because of his bout with severe rheumatoid arthritis toward the end of his life, is for 6 million Swedish kronor (approximately USD $700,000).
Dr. Kastner, scientific director at the U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute’s division of intramural research, received the award for identifying the mechanisms responsible for familial Mediterranean fever, tumor necrosis factor receptor–associated periodic syndrome, and other diagnoses within the group of autoinflammatory diseases.
“Dan Kastner is often called the father of autoinflammatory diseases, a title that he thoroughly deserves. His discoveries have taught us a great deal about the immune system and its functions, contributing to effective treatments that reduce the symptoms of diseases from which patients previously suffered enormously, sometimes leading to premature death,” Olle Kämpe, chair of the prize committee, said in a press announcement.
While the Crafoord Prize normally is awarded on a 3-year rotating basis for achievements in mathematics and astronomy, geosciences, and biosciences, the prize in polyarthritis is “only awarded when there has been scientific progress that motivates a prize,” according to the press release.
“for establishing the concept of autoinflammatory diseases.” The prize, named after the donor Holger Crafoord because of his bout with severe rheumatoid arthritis toward the end of his life, is for 6 million Swedish kronor (approximately USD $700,000).
Dr. Kastner, scientific director at the U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute’s division of intramural research, received the award for identifying the mechanisms responsible for familial Mediterranean fever, tumor necrosis factor receptor–associated periodic syndrome, and other diagnoses within the group of autoinflammatory diseases.
“Dan Kastner is often called the father of autoinflammatory diseases, a title that he thoroughly deserves. His discoveries have taught us a great deal about the immune system and its functions, contributing to effective treatments that reduce the symptoms of diseases from which patients previously suffered enormously, sometimes leading to premature death,” Olle Kämpe, chair of the prize committee, said in a press announcement.
While the Crafoord Prize normally is awarded on a 3-year rotating basis for achievements in mathematics and astronomy, geosciences, and biosciences, the prize in polyarthritis is “only awarded when there has been scientific progress that motivates a prize,” according to the press release.
“for establishing the concept of autoinflammatory diseases.” The prize, named after the donor Holger Crafoord because of his bout with severe rheumatoid arthritis toward the end of his life, is for 6 million Swedish kronor (approximately USD $700,000).
Dr. Kastner, scientific director at the U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute’s division of intramural research, received the award for identifying the mechanisms responsible for familial Mediterranean fever, tumor necrosis factor receptor–associated periodic syndrome, and other diagnoses within the group of autoinflammatory diseases.
“Dan Kastner is often called the father of autoinflammatory diseases, a title that he thoroughly deserves. His discoveries have taught us a great deal about the immune system and its functions, contributing to effective treatments that reduce the symptoms of diseases from which patients previously suffered enormously, sometimes leading to premature death,” Olle Kämpe, chair of the prize committee, said in a press announcement.
While the Crafoord Prize normally is awarded on a 3-year rotating basis for achievements in mathematics and astronomy, geosciences, and biosciences, the prize in polyarthritis is “only awarded when there has been scientific progress that motivates a prize,” according to the press release.
Biden administration nixes buprenorphine waiver, docs disappointed
The Biden administration has halted a Trump administration initiative that would have allowed more physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD).
Under the Trump administration’s plan, many doctors would be exempt from taking a day’s training before they could prescribe buprenorphine for OUD.
On Jan. 25, 2021, citing anonymous sources, the Washington Post reported that this action by the Biden administration was likely. At the time, there were concerns about whether the Department of Health & Human Services had the legal authority to make this policy change, the Post reported. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration subsequently announced the derailment of the buprenorphine proposal on its website.
In SAMHSA’s view, the proposal was made “prematurely.” The SAMHSA statement did not detail the reasons for abandoning the Jan. 14 proposal. It had been scheduled to take effect upon publication in the Federal Register.
Instead of finalizing it in this way, the HHS said it would work with other federal agencies to “increase access to buprenorphine, reduce overdose rates and save lives.”
The HHS decision to scupper the proposal disappointed many physician groups. In a letter dated Jan. 27, several physician groups called on the Biden administration to proceed with the Trump proposal.
Under current federal law, physicians who wish to prescribe buprenorphine outside of opioid treatment programs must take an 8-hour course and receive a waiver from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the letter noted. It was signed by the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Medical Association, and other organizations.
Treatment barrier
After taking the training course, it can take 60-90 days for physicians to receive the waiver. The license application can then be submitted. Physician groups argue that this so-called X-waiver requirement creates a barrier to providing medication-assisted treatment.
“Due to the stigma, some clinicians are not willing to pursue this DEA license or even engage in treatment of patients with [OUD],” the letter said.
The Trump administration’s proposal would have limited most physicians to treating no more than 30 patients with buprenorphine for OUD at any one time. This cap would not have applied to hospital-based physicians, such as those practicing emergency medicine, the HHS noted in a statement. The policy would have applied to only physicians who already have registered with the DEA.
Patrice A. Harris, MD, the immediate past president of the AMA and chair of the organization’s Opioid Task Force, was among the many physicians who supported the Trump administration proposal.
“It is estimated that more than 2 million Americans need treatment for opioid use disorder, but only a small percentage actually receive treatment,” Dr. Harris said in statement. Dr. Harris also noted that overdose deaths have reportedly accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show there were more than 83,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in June 2020. That is the highest number of overdose deaths ever recorded in a 12-month period and is an increase of more than 21%, compared with the previous year.
A ‘disappointment’
On Jan. 28, Dr. Harris said the decision to drop the plan was a disappointment.
“We encourage the current administration to quickly develop a path forward that removes the burdensome waiver requirement, thus allowing more physicians to prescribe this lifesaving medication,” she said in a statement sent to this news organization.
In a Jan. 26 statement, the American Society of Addiction Medicine urged Congress to eliminate the X-waiver and called for more education and training in the treatment of patients who struggle with opioids.
In the 116th session of Congress, which ended on Jan. 3, there was bipartisan support for proposed legislation to ease requirements for buprenorphine prescribing. A House bill had more than 90 Democratic and 21 Republican sponsors. A companion Senate bill had three Democratic and three Republican Sponsors, including Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.). On Jan. 25, Dr. Hassan tweeted that she would be seeking an explanation from the Biden administration if it halted the plan to ease the waiver restriction.
“Medication-assisted treatment can save lives, and the buprenorphine waiver requirement should be eliminated so that physicians can more easily prescribe it to those who need it,” she said.
Many clinicians and policy experts turned to Twitter to urge an easing of buprenorphine prescribing, using the hashtag “Xthexwaiver.”
Among them was the official who put forward the Jan. 14 proposal, Brett Giroir, MD. He served as assistant secretary for health during the Trump administration.
Objections
In its Jan. 25 article, the Washington Post referred to an article in Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly in which a top federal official in the Trump administration objected to Dr. Giroir’s plan.
Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, who served as the assistant secretary of HHS for SAMHSA, had earlier proposed raising the cap for addiction experts. Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly quotes Dr. McCance-Katz as saying the Trump buprenorphine proposal was “unfair to the incoming administration.”
“The Biden administration has so much work to do to get their programs and policies into place, and to do something like this at the 11th hour that could get doctors into trouble – it’s heinous,” she said in the article.
Dr. McCance-Katz had resigned before the Trump administration proposal was unveiled. On Jan. 7, she issued a public notice announcing she would resign, citing concerns about the previous day’s attack on the U.S. Capitol.
“It had been my plan to stay until the change in administration occurred, but my plans abruptly changed last evening when, on my way back from visiting an excellent residential treatment program in New York, I saw the violent takeover of the Capitol building,” she said.
On Twitter, Roland Flores, MD, an anesthesiologist and pain specialist, urged his colleagues to consider the need for more education among clinicians who treat OUD. He jousted a bit with those favoring a swift drive to “XtheXwaiver” and questioned their arguments about the burden of the current rules.
“I think ‘all this red tape’ is a little bit of an exaggeration – it’s an 8-hour online course, and an application,” Dr. Flores tweeted in one exchange. “But #XtheXwaiver is fine – it’s probably rooted in stigma. It’s unlikely to make much difference tho. The waiver wasn’t the thing keeping docs from prescribing.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Biden administration has halted a Trump administration initiative that would have allowed more physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD).
Under the Trump administration’s plan, many doctors would be exempt from taking a day’s training before they could prescribe buprenorphine for OUD.
On Jan. 25, 2021, citing anonymous sources, the Washington Post reported that this action by the Biden administration was likely. At the time, there were concerns about whether the Department of Health & Human Services had the legal authority to make this policy change, the Post reported. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration subsequently announced the derailment of the buprenorphine proposal on its website.
In SAMHSA’s view, the proposal was made “prematurely.” The SAMHSA statement did not detail the reasons for abandoning the Jan. 14 proposal. It had been scheduled to take effect upon publication in the Federal Register.
Instead of finalizing it in this way, the HHS said it would work with other federal agencies to “increase access to buprenorphine, reduce overdose rates and save lives.”
The HHS decision to scupper the proposal disappointed many physician groups. In a letter dated Jan. 27, several physician groups called on the Biden administration to proceed with the Trump proposal.
Under current federal law, physicians who wish to prescribe buprenorphine outside of opioid treatment programs must take an 8-hour course and receive a waiver from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the letter noted. It was signed by the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Medical Association, and other organizations.
Treatment barrier
After taking the training course, it can take 60-90 days for physicians to receive the waiver. The license application can then be submitted. Physician groups argue that this so-called X-waiver requirement creates a barrier to providing medication-assisted treatment.
“Due to the stigma, some clinicians are not willing to pursue this DEA license or even engage in treatment of patients with [OUD],” the letter said.
The Trump administration’s proposal would have limited most physicians to treating no more than 30 patients with buprenorphine for OUD at any one time. This cap would not have applied to hospital-based physicians, such as those practicing emergency medicine, the HHS noted in a statement. The policy would have applied to only physicians who already have registered with the DEA.
Patrice A. Harris, MD, the immediate past president of the AMA and chair of the organization’s Opioid Task Force, was among the many physicians who supported the Trump administration proposal.
“It is estimated that more than 2 million Americans need treatment for opioid use disorder, but only a small percentage actually receive treatment,” Dr. Harris said in statement. Dr. Harris also noted that overdose deaths have reportedly accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show there were more than 83,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in June 2020. That is the highest number of overdose deaths ever recorded in a 12-month period and is an increase of more than 21%, compared with the previous year.
A ‘disappointment’
On Jan. 28, Dr. Harris said the decision to drop the plan was a disappointment.
“We encourage the current administration to quickly develop a path forward that removes the burdensome waiver requirement, thus allowing more physicians to prescribe this lifesaving medication,” she said in a statement sent to this news organization.
In a Jan. 26 statement, the American Society of Addiction Medicine urged Congress to eliminate the X-waiver and called for more education and training in the treatment of patients who struggle with opioids.
In the 116th session of Congress, which ended on Jan. 3, there was bipartisan support for proposed legislation to ease requirements for buprenorphine prescribing. A House bill had more than 90 Democratic and 21 Republican sponsors. A companion Senate bill had three Democratic and three Republican Sponsors, including Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.). On Jan. 25, Dr. Hassan tweeted that she would be seeking an explanation from the Biden administration if it halted the plan to ease the waiver restriction.
“Medication-assisted treatment can save lives, and the buprenorphine waiver requirement should be eliminated so that physicians can more easily prescribe it to those who need it,” she said.
Many clinicians and policy experts turned to Twitter to urge an easing of buprenorphine prescribing, using the hashtag “Xthexwaiver.”
Among them was the official who put forward the Jan. 14 proposal, Brett Giroir, MD. He served as assistant secretary for health during the Trump administration.
Objections
In its Jan. 25 article, the Washington Post referred to an article in Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly in which a top federal official in the Trump administration objected to Dr. Giroir’s plan.
Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, who served as the assistant secretary of HHS for SAMHSA, had earlier proposed raising the cap for addiction experts. Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly quotes Dr. McCance-Katz as saying the Trump buprenorphine proposal was “unfair to the incoming administration.”
“The Biden administration has so much work to do to get their programs and policies into place, and to do something like this at the 11th hour that could get doctors into trouble – it’s heinous,” she said in the article.
Dr. McCance-Katz had resigned before the Trump administration proposal was unveiled. On Jan. 7, she issued a public notice announcing she would resign, citing concerns about the previous day’s attack on the U.S. Capitol.
“It had been my plan to stay until the change in administration occurred, but my plans abruptly changed last evening when, on my way back from visiting an excellent residential treatment program in New York, I saw the violent takeover of the Capitol building,” she said.
On Twitter, Roland Flores, MD, an anesthesiologist and pain specialist, urged his colleagues to consider the need for more education among clinicians who treat OUD. He jousted a bit with those favoring a swift drive to “XtheXwaiver” and questioned their arguments about the burden of the current rules.
“I think ‘all this red tape’ is a little bit of an exaggeration – it’s an 8-hour online course, and an application,” Dr. Flores tweeted in one exchange. “But #XtheXwaiver is fine – it’s probably rooted in stigma. It’s unlikely to make much difference tho. The waiver wasn’t the thing keeping docs from prescribing.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Biden administration has halted a Trump administration initiative that would have allowed more physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD).
Under the Trump administration’s plan, many doctors would be exempt from taking a day’s training before they could prescribe buprenorphine for OUD.
On Jan. 25, 2021, citing anonymous sources, the Washington Post reported that this action by the Biden administration was likely. At the time, there were concerns about whether the Department of Health & Human Services had the legal authority to make this policy change, the Post reported. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration subsequently announced the derailment of the buprenorphine proposal on its website.
In SAMHSA’s view, the proposal was made “prematurely.” The SAMHSA statement did not detail the reasons for abandoning the Jan. 14 proposal. It had been scheduled to take effect upon publication in the Federal Register.
Instead of finalizing it in this way, the HHS said it would work with other federal agencies to “increase access to buprenorphine, reduce overdose rates and save lives.”
The HHS decision to scupper the proposal disappointed many physician groups. In a letter dated Jan. 27, several physician groups called on the Biden administration to proceed with the Trump proposal.
Under current federal law, physicians who wish to prescribe buprenorphine outside of opioid treatment programs must take an 8-hour course and receive a waiver from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the letter noted. It was signed by the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Medical Association, and other organizations.
Treatment barrier
After taking the training course, it can take 60-90 days for physicians to receive the waiver. The license application can then be submitted. Physician groups argue that this so-called X-waiver requirement creates a barrier to providing medication-assisted treatment.
“Due to the stigma, some clinicians are not willing to pursue this DEA license or even engage in treatment of patients with [OUD],” the letter said.
The Trump administration’s proposal would have limited most physicians to treating no more than 30 patients with buprenorphine for OUD at any one time. This cap would not have applied to hospital-based physicians, such as those practicing emergency medicine, the HHS noted in a statement. The policy would have applied to only physicians who already have registered with the DEA.
Patrice A. Harris, MD, the immediate past president of the AMA and chair of the organization’s Opioid Task Force, was among the many physicians who supported the Trump administration proposal.
“It is estimated that more than 2 million Americans need treatment for opioid use disorder, but only a small percentage actually receive treatment,” Dr. Harris said in statement. Dr. Harris also noted that overdose deaths have reportedly accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show there were more than 83,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in June 2020. That is the highest number of overdose deaths ever recorded in a 12-month period and is an increase of more than 21%, compared with the previous year.
A ‘disappointment’
On Jan. 28, Dr. Harris said the decision to drop the plan was a disappointment.
“We encourage the current administration to quickly develop a path forward that removes the burdensome waiver requirement, thus allowing more physicians to prescribe this lifesaving medication,” she said in a statement sent to this news organization.
In a Jan. 26 statement, the American Society of Addiction Medicine urged Congress to eliminate the X-waiver and called for more education and training in the treatment of patients who struggle with opioids.
In the 116th session of Congress, which ended on Jan. 3, there was bipartisan support for proposed legislation to ease requirements for buprenorphine prescribing. A House bill had more than 90 Democratic and 21 Republican sponsors. A companion Senate bill had three Democratic and three Republican Sponsors, including Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.). On Jan. 25, Dr. Hassan tweeted that she would be seeking an explanation from the Biden administration if it halted the plan to ease the waiver restriction.
“Medication-assisted treatment can save lives, and the buprenorphine waiver requirement should be eliminated so that physicians can more easily prescribe it to those who need it,” she said.
Many clinicians and policy experts turned to Twitter to urge an easing of buprenorphine prescribing, using the hashtag “Xthexwaiver.”
Among them was the official who put forward the Jan. 14 proposal, Brett Giroir, MD. He served as assistant secretary for health during the Trump administration.
Objections
In its Jan. 25 article, the Washington Post referred to an article in Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly in which a top federal official in the Trump administration objected to Dr. Giroir’s plan.
Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, who served as the assistant secretary of HHS for SAMHSA, had earlier proposed raising the cap for addiction experts. Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly quotes Dr. McCance-Katz as saying the Trump buprenorphine proposal was “unfair to the incoming administration.”
“The Biden administration has so much work to do to get their programs and policies into place, and to do something like this at the 11th hour that could get doctors into trouble – it’s heinous,” she said in the article.
Dr. McCance-Katz had resigned before the Trump administration proposal was unveiled. On Jan. 7, she issued a public notice announcing she would resign, citing concerns about the previous day’s attack on the U.S. Capitol.
“It had been my plan to stay until the change in administration occurred, but my plans abruptly changed last evening when, on my way back from visiting an excellent residential treatment program in New York, I saw the violent takeover of the Capitol building,” she said.
On Twitter, Roland Flores, MD, an anesthesiologist and pain specialist, urged his colleagues to consider the need for more education among clinicians who treat OUD. He jousted a bit with those favoring a swift drive to “XtheXwaiver” and questioned their arguments about the burden of the current rules.
“I think ‘all this red tape’ is a little bit of an exaggeration – it’s an 8-hour online course, and an application,” Dr. Flores tweeted in one exchange. “But #XtheXwaiver is fine – it’s probably rooted in stigma. It’s unlikely to make much difference tho. The waiver wasn’t the thing keeping docs from prescribing.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Kids already coping with mental disorders spiral as pandemic topples vital support systems
A bag of Doritos, that’s all Princess wanted.
Her mom calls her Princess, but her real name is Lindsey. She’s 17 and lives with her mom, Sandra, a nurse, outside Atlanta. On May 17, 2020, a Sunday, Lindsey decided she didn’t want breakfast; she wanted Doritos. So she left home and walked to Family Dollar, taking her pants off on the way, while her mom followed on foot, talking to the police on her phone as they went.
Lindsey has autism. It can be hard for her to communicate and navigate social situations. She thrives on routine and gets special help at school. Or got help, before the coronavirus pandemic closed schools and forced tens of millions of children to stay home. Sandra said that’s when their living hell started.
“It’s like her brain was wired,” she said. “She’d just put on her jacket, and she’s out the door. And I’m chasing her.”
On May 17, Sandra chased her all the way to Family Dollar. Hours later, Lindsey was in jail, charged with assaulting her mom. (KHN and NPR are not using the family’s last name.)
Lindsey is 1 of almost 3 million children in the United States who have a serious emotional or behavioral health condition. When the pandemic forced schools and doctors’ offices to close last spring, it also cut children off from the trained teachers and therapists who understand their needs.
As a result, many, like Lindsey, spiraled into EDs and even police custody. Federal data shows a nationwide surge of children in mental health crisis during the pandemic – a surge that’s further taxing an already overstretched safety net.
‘Take her’
Even after schools closed, Lindsey continued to wake up early, get dressed and wait for the bus. When she realized it had stopped coming, Sandra said, her daughter just started walking out of the house, wandering, a few times a week.
In those situations, Sandra did what many families in crisis report they’ve had to do since the pandemic began: Race through the short list of places she could call for help.
First, her state’s mental health crisis hotline. But they often put Sandra on hold.
“This is ridiculous,” she said of the wait. “It’s supposed to be a crisis team. But I’m on hold for 40, 50 minutes. And by the time you get on the phone, [the crisis] is done!”
Then there’s the local hospital’s ED, but Sandra said she had taken Lindsey there for previous crises and been told there isn’t much they can do.
That’s why, on May 17, when Lindsey walked to Family Dollar in just a red T-shirt and underwear to get that bag of Doritos, Sandra called the last option on her list: the police.
Sandra arrived at the store before the police and paid for the chips. According to Sandra and police records, when an officer approached, Lindsey grew agitated and hit her mom on the back, hard.
Sandra said she explained to the officer: “‘She’s autistic. You know, I’m okay. I’m a nurse. I just need to take her home and give her her medication.’ ”
Lindsey takes a mood stabilizer, but because she left home before breakfast, she hadn’t taken it that morning. The officer asked if Sandra wanted to take her to the nearest hospital.
The hospital wouldn’t be able to help Lindsey, Sandra said. It hadn’t before. “They already told me: ‘Ma’am, there’s nothing we can do.’ They just check her labs, it’s fine, and they ship her back home. There’s nothing [the hospital] can do,” she recalled telling the officer.
Sandra asked if the police could drive her daughter home so the teen could take her medication, but the officer said no, they couldn’t. The only other thing they could do, the officer said, was take Lindsey to jail for hitting her mom.
“I’ve tried everything,” Sandra said, exasperated. She paced the parking lot, feeling hopeless, sad and out of options. Finally, in tears, she told the officers: “Take her.”
Lindsey does not like to be touched and fought back when authorities tried to handcuff her. Several officers wrestled her to the ground. At that point, Sandra protested and said an officer threatened to arrest her, too, if she didn’t back away. Lindsey was taken to jail, where she spent much of the night until Sandra was able to post bail.
Clayton County Solicitor-General Charles Brooks denied that Sandra was threatened with arrest and said that, while Lindsey’s case is still pending, his office “is working to ensure that the resolution in this matter involves a plan for medication compliance and not punitive action.”
Sandra isn’t alone in her experience. Multiple families interviewed for this story reported similar experiences of calling in the police when a child was in crisis because caretakers didn’t feel they had any other option.
‘The whole system is really grinding to a halt’
Roughly 6% of U.S. children ages 6-17 years are living with serious emotional or behavioral difficulties, including children with autism, severe anxiety, depression and trauma-related mental health conditions.
Many of these children depend on schools for access to vital therapies. When schools and doctors’ offices stopped providing in-person services last spring, kids were untethered from the people and supports they rely on.
“The lack of in-person services is really detrimental,” said Susan Duffy, MD,a pediatrician and professor of emergency medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I.
Marjorie, a mother in Florida, said her 15-year-old son has suffered during these disruptions. He has ADHD and oppositional defiant disorder, a condition marked by frequent and persistent hostility. Little things – like being asked to do schoolwork – can send him into a rage, leading to holes punched in walls, broken doors and violent threats. (The family’s last name or her son’s first name are not used to protect her son’s privacy and future prospects.)
The pandemic has shifted both school and her son’s therapy sessions online. But Marjorie said virtual therapy isn’t working because her son doesn’t focus well during sessions and tries to watch television instead. Lately, she has simply been canceling them.
“I was paying for appointments and there was no therapeutic value,” Marjorie said.
The issues cut across socioeconomic lines – affecting families with private insurance, like Marjorie, as well as those who receive coverage through Medicaid, a federal-state program that provides health insurance to low-income people and those with disabilities.
In the first few months of the pandemic, between March and May, children on Medicaid received 44% fewer outpatient mental health services – including therapy and in-home support – compared with the same time period in 2019, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. That’s even after accounting for increased telehealth appointments.
And while the nation’s EDs have seen a decline in overall visits, there was a relative increase in mental health visits for kids in 2020, compared with 2019.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that, from April to October 2020, hospitals across the United States saw a 24% increase in the proportion of mental health emergency visits for children aged 5-11 years, and a 31% increase for children aged 12-17.
“Not only are we seeing more children, more children are being admitted” to inpatient care.
That’s because there are fewer outpatient services now available to children, she said, and because the conditions of the children showing up at EDs “are more serious.”
This crisis is not only making life harder for these kids and their families, but it’s also stressing the entire health care system.
Child and adolescent psychiatrists working in hospitals around the country said children are increasingly “boarding” in EDs for days, waiting for inpatient admission to a regular hospital or psychiatric hospital.
Before the pandemic, there was already a shortage of inpatient psychiatric beds for children, said Christopher Bellonci, MD, a child psychiatrist at Judge Baker Children’s Center in Boston. That shortage has only gotten worse as hospitals cut capacity to allow for more physical distancing within psychiatric units.
“The whole system is really grinding to a halt at a time when we have unprecedented need,” Dr. Bellonci said.
‘A signal that the rest of your system doesn’t work’
Psychiatrists on the front lines share the frustrations of parents struggling to find help for their children.
Part of the problem is there have never been enough psychiatrists and therapists trained to work with children, intervening in the early stages of their illness, said Jennifer Havens, MD, a child psychiatrist at New York University.
“Tons of people showing up in emergency rooms in bad shape is a signal that the rest of your system doesn’t work,” she said.
Too often, Dr. Havens said, services aren’t available until children are older – and in crisis. “Often for people who don’t have access to services, we wait until they’re too big to be managed.”
While the pandemic has made life harder for Marjorie and her son in Florida, she said it has always been difficult to find the support and care he needs. Last fall, he needed a psychiatric evaluation, but the nearest specialist who would accept her commercial insurance was 100 miles away, in Alabama.
“Even when you have the money or you have the insurance, it is still a travesty,” Marjorie said. “You cannot get help for these kids.”
Parents are frustrated, and so are psychiatrists on the front lines. C.J. Glawe, MD, who leads the psychiatric crisis department at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, said that once a child is stabilized after a crisis it can be hard to explain to parents that they may not be able to find follow-up care anywhere near their home.
“Especially when I can clearly tell you I know exactly what you need, I just can’t give it to you,” Dr. Glawe said. “It’s demoralizing.”
When states and communities fail to provide children the services they need to live at home, kids can deteriorate and even wind up in jail, like Lindsey. At that point, Dr. Glawe said, the cost and level of care required will be even higher, whether that’s hospitalization or long stays in residential treatment facilities.
That’s exactly the scenario Sandra, Lindsey’s mom, is hoping to avoid for her Princess.
“For me, as a nurse and as a provider, that will be the last thing for my daughter,” she said. “It’s like [state and local leaders] leave it to the school and the parent to deal with, and they don’t care. And that’s the problem. It’s sad because, if I’m not here...”
Her voice trailed off as tears welled.
“She didn’t ask to have autism.”
To help families like Sandra’s and Marjorie’s, advocates said, all levels of government need to invest in creating a mental health system that’s accessible to anyone who needs it.
But given that many states have seen their revenues drop because of the pandemic, there’s a concern services will instead be cut – at a time when the need has never been greater.
This story is part of a reporting partnership that includes NPR, Illinois Public Media and Kaiser Health News. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
A bag of Doritos, that’s all Princess wanted.
Her mom calls her Princess, but her real name is Lindsey. She’s 17 and lives with her mom, Sandra, a nurse, outside Atlanta. On May 17, 2020, a Sunday, Lindsey decided she didn’t want breakfast; she wanted Doritos. So she left home and walked to Family Dollar, taking her pants off on the way, while her mom followed on foot, talking to the police on her phone as they went.
Lindsey has autism. It can be hard for her to communicate and navigate social situations. She thrives on routine and gets special help at school. Or got help, before the coronavirus pandemic closed schools and forced tens of millions of children to stay home. Sandra said that’s when their living hell started.
“It’s like her brain was wired,” she said. “She’d just put on her jacket, and she’s out the door. And I’m chasing her.”
On May 17, Sandra chased her all the way to Family Dollar. Hours later, Lindsey was in jail, charged with assaulting her mom. (KHN and NPR are not using the family’s last name.)
Lindsey is 1 of almost 3 million children in the United States who have a serious emotional or behavioral health condition. When the pandemic forced schools and doctors’ offices to close last spring, it also cut children off from the trained teachers and therapists who understand their needs.
As a result, many, like Lindsey, spiraled into EDs and even police custody. Federal data shows a nationwide surge of children in mental health crisis during the pandemic – a surge that’s further taxing an already overstretched safety net.
‘Take her’
Even after schools closed, Lindsey continued to wake up early, get dressed and wait for the bus. When she realized it had stopped coming, Sandra said, her daughter just started walking out of the house, wandering, a few times a week.
In those situations, Sandra did what many families in crisis report they’ve had to do since the pandemic began: Race through the short list of places she could call for help.
First, her state’s mental health crisis hotline. But they often put Sandra on hold.
“This is ridiculous,” she said of the wait. “It’s supposed to be a crisis team. But I’m on hold for 40, 50 minutes. And by the time you get on the phone, [the crisis] is done!”
Then there’s the local hospital’s ED, but Sandra said she had taken Lindsey there for previous crises and been told there isn’t much they can do.
That’s why, on May 17, when Lindsey walked to Family Dollar in just a red T-shirt and underwear to get that bag of Doritos, Sandra called the last option on her list: the police.
Sandra arrived at the store before the police and paid for the chips. According to Sandra and police records, when an officer approached, Lindsey grew agitated and hit her mom on the back, hard.
Sandra said she explained to the officer: “‘She’s autistic. You know, I’m okay. I’m a nurse. I just need to take her home and give her her medication.’ ”
Lindsey takes a mood stabilizer, but because she left home before breakfast, she hadn’t taken it that morning. The officer asked if Sandra wanted to take her to the nearest hospital.
The hospital wouldn’t be able to help Lindsey, Sandra said. It hadn’t before. “They already told me: ‘Ma’am, there’s nothing we can do.’ They just check her labs, it’s fine, and they ship her back home. There’s nothing [the hospital] can do,” she recalled telling the officer.
Sandra asked if the police could drive her daughter home so the teen could take her medication, but the officer said no, they couldn’t. The only other thing they could do, the officer said, was take Lindsey to jail for hitting her mom.
“I’ve tried everything,” Sandra said, exasperated. She paced the parking lot, feeling hopeless, sad and out of options. Finally, in tears, she told the officers: “Take her.”
Lindsey does not like to be touched and fought back when authorities tried to handcuff her. Several officers wrestled her to the ground. At that point, Sandra protested and said an officer threatened to arrest her, too, if she didn’t back away. Lindsey was taken to jail, where she spent much of the night until Sandra was able to post bail.
Clayton County Solicitor-General Charles Brooks denied that Sandra was threatened with arrest and said that, while Lindsey’s case is still pending, his office “is working to ensure that the resolution in this matter involves a plan for medication compliance and not punitive action.”
Sandra isn’t alone in her experience. Multiple families interviewed for this story reported similar experiences of calling in the police when a child was in crisis because caretakers didn’t feel they had any other option.
‘The whole system is really grinding to a halt’
Roughly 6% of U.S. children ages 6-17 years are living with serious emotional or behavioral difficulties, including children with autism, severe anxiety, depression and trauma-related mental health conditions.
Many of these children depend on schools for access to vital therapies. When schools and doctors’ offices stopped providing in-person services last spring, kids were untethered from the people and supports they rely on.
“The lack of in-person services is really detrimental,” said Susan Duffy, MD,a pediatrician and professor of emergency medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I.
Marjorie, a mother in Florida, said her 15-year-old son has suffered during these disruptions. He has ADHD and oppositional defiant disorder, a condition marked by frequent and persistent hostility. Little things – like being asked to do schoolwork – can send him into a rage, leading to holes punched in walls, broken doors and violent threats. (The family’s last name or her son’s first name are not used to protect her son’s privacy and future prospects.)
The pandemic has shifted both school and her son’s therapy sessions online. But Marjorie said virtual therapy isn’t working because her son doesn’t focus well during sessions and tries to watch television instead. Lately, she has simply been canceling them.
“I was paying for appointments and there was no therapeutic value,” Marjorie said.
The issues cut across socioeconomic lines – affecting families with private insurance, like Marjorie, as well as those who receive coverage through Medicaid, a federal-state program that provides health insurance to low-income people and those with disabilities.
In the first few months of the pandemic, between March and May, children on Medicaid received 44% fewer outpatient mental health services – including therapy and in-home support – compared with the same time period in 2019, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. That’s even after accounting for increased telehealth appointments.
And while the nation’s EDs have seen a decline in overall visits, there was a relative increase in mental health visits for kids in 2020, compared with 2019.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that, from April to October 2020, hospitals across the United States saw a 24% increase in the proportion of mental health emergency visits for children aged 5-11 years, and a 31% increase for children aged 12-17.
“Not only are we seeing more children, more children are being admitted” to inpatient care.
That’s because there are fewer outpatient services now available to children, she said, and because the conditions of the children showing up at EDs “are more serious.”
This crisis is not only making life harder for these kids and their families, but it’s also stressing the entire health care system.
Child and adolescent psychiatrists working in hospitals around the country said children are increasingly “boarding” in EDs for days, waiting for inpatient admission to a regular hospital or psychiatric hospital.
Before the pandemic, there was already a shortage of inpatient psychiatric beds for children, said Christopher Bellonci, MD, a child psychiatrist at Judge Baker Children’s Center in Boston. That shortage has only gotten worse as hospitals cut capacity to allow for more physical distancing within psychiatric units.
“The whole system is really grinding to a halt at a time when we have unprecedented need,” Dr. Bellonci said.
‘A signal that the rest of your system doesn’t work’
Psychiatrists on the front lines share the frustrations of parents struggling to find help for their children.
Part of the problem is there have never been enough psychiatrists and therapists trained to work with children, intervening in the early stages of their illness, said Jennifer Havens, MD, a child psychiatrist at New York University.
“Tons of people showing up in emergency rooms in bad shape is a signal that the rest of your system doesn’t work,” she said.
Too often, Dr. Havens said, services aren’t available until children are older – and in crisis. “Often for people who don’t have access to services, we wait until they’re too big to be managed.”
While the pandemic has made life harder for Marjorie and her son in Florida, she said it has always been difficult to find the support and care he needs. Last fall, he needed a psychiatric evaluation, but the nearest specialist who would accept her commercial insurance was 100 miles away, in Alabama.
“Even when you have the money or you have the insurance, it is still a travesty,” Marjorie said. “You cannot get help for these kids.”
Parents are frustrated, and so are psychiatrists on the front lines. C.J. Glawe, MD, who leads the psychiatric crisis department at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, said that once a child is stabilized after a crisis it can be hard to explain to parents that they may not be able to find follow-up care anywhere near their home.
“Especially when I can clearly tell you I know exactly what you need, I just can’t give it to you,” Dr. Glawe said. “It’s demoralizing.”
When states and communities fail to provide children the services they need to live at home, kids can deteriorate and even wind up in jail, like Lindsey. At that point, Dr. Glawe said, the cost and level of care required will be even higher, whether that’s hospitalization or long stays in residential treatment facilities.
That’s exactly the scenario Sandra, Lindsey’s mom, is hoping to avoid for her Princess.
“For me, as a nurse and as a provider, that will be the last thing for my daughter,” she said. “It’s like [state and local leaders] leave it to the school and the parent to deal with, and they don’t care. And that’s the problem. It’s sad because, if I’m not here...”
Her voice trailed off as tears welled.
“She didn’t ask to have autism.”
To help families like Sandra’s and Marjorie’s, advocates said, all levels of government need to invest in creating a mental health system that’s accessible to anyone who needs it.
But given that many states have seen their revenues drop because of the pandemic, there’s a concern services will instead be cut – at a time when the need has never been greater.
This story is part of a reporting partnership that includes NPR, Illinois Public Media and Kaiser Health News. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
A bag of Doritos, that’s all Princess wanted.
Her mom calls her Princess, but her real name is Lindsey. She’s 17 and lives with her mom, Sandra, a nurse, outside Atlanta. On May 17, 2020, a Sunday, Lindsey decided she didn’t want breakfast; she wanted Doritos. So she left home and walked to Family Dollar, taking her pants off on the way, while her mom followed on foot, talking to the police on her phone as they went.
Lindsey has autism. It can be hard for her to communicate and navigate social situations. She thrives on routine and gets special help at school. Or got help, before the coronavirus pandemic closed schools and forced tens of millions of children to stay home. Sandra said that’s when their living hell started.
“It’s like her brain was wired,” she said. “She’d just put on her jacket, and she’s out the door. And I’m chasing her.”
On May 17, Sandra chased her all the way to Family Dollar. Hours later, Lindsey was in jail, charged with assaulting her mom. (KHN and NPR are not using the family’s last name.)
Lindsey is 1 of almost 3 million children in the United States who have a serious emotional or behavioral health condition. When the pandemic forced schools and doctors’ offices to close last spring, it also cut children off from the trained teachers and therapists who understand their needs.
As a result, many, like Lindsey, spiraled into EDs and even police custody. Federal data shows a nationwide surge of children in mental health crisis during the pandemic – a surge that’s further taxing an already overstretched safety net.
‘Take her’
Even after schools closed, Lindsey continued to wake up early, get dressed and wait for the bus. When she realized it had stopped coming, Sandra said, her daughter just started walking out of the house, wandering, a few times a week.
In those situations, Sandra did what many families in crisis report they’ve had to do since the pandemic began: Race through the short list of places she could call for help.
First, her state’s mental health crisis hotline. But they often put Sandra on hold.
“This is ridiculous,” she said of the wait. “It’s supposed to be a crisis team. But I’m on hold for 40, 50 minutes. And by the time you get on the phone, [the crisis] is done!”
Then there’s the local hospital’s ED, but Sandra said she had taken Lindsey there for previous crises and been told there isn’t much they can do.
That’s why, on May 17, when Lindsey walked to Family Dollar in just a red T-shirt and underwear to get that bag of Doritos, Sandra called the last option on her list: the police.
Sandra arrived at the store before the police and paid for the chips. According to Sandra and police records, when an officer approached, Lindsey grew agitated and hit her mom on the back, hard.
Sandra said she explained to the officer: “‘She’s autistic. You know, I’m okay. I’m a nurse. I just need to take her home and give her her medication.’ ”
Lindsey takes a mood stabilizer, but because she left home before breakfast, she hadn’t taken it that morning. The officer asked if Sandra wanted to take her to the nearest hospital.
The hospital wouldn’t be able to help Lindsey, Sandra said. It hadn’t before. “They already told me: ‘Ma’am, there’s nothing we can do.’ They just check her labs, it’s fine, and they ship her back home. There’s nothing [the hospital] can do,” she recalled telling the officer.
Sandra asked if the police could drive her daughter home so the teen could take her medication, but the officer said no, they couldn’t. The only other thing they could do, the officer said, was take Lindsey to jail for hitting her mom.
“I’ve tried everything,” Sandra said, exasperated. She paced the parking lot, feeling hopeless, sad and out of options. Finally, in tears, she told the officers: “Take her.”
Lindsey does not like to be touched and fought back when authorities tried to handcuff her. Several officers wrestled her to the ground. At that point, Sandra protested and said an officer threatened to arrest her, too, if she didn’t back away. Lindsey was taken to jail, where she spent much of the night until Sandra was able to post bail.
Clayton County Solicitor-General Charles Brooks denied that Sandra was threatened with arrest and said that, while Lindsey’s case is still pending, his office “is working to ensure that the resolution in this matter involves a plan for medication compliance and not punitive action.”
Sandra isn’t alone in her experience. Multiple families interviewed for this story reported similar experiences of calling in the police when a child was in crisis because caretakers didn’t feel they had any other option.
‘The whole system is really grinding to a halt’
Roughly 6% of U.S. children ages 6-17 years are living with serious emotional or behavioral difficulties, including children with autism, severe anxiety, depression and trauma-related mental health conditions.
Many of these children depend on schools for access to vital therapies. When schools and doctors’ offices stopped providing in-person services last spring, kids were untethered from the people and supports they rely on.
“The lack of in-person services is really detrimental,” said Susan Duffy, MD,a pediatrician and professor of emergency medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I.
Marjorie, a mother in Florida, said her 15-year-old son has suffered during these disruptions. He has ADHD and oppositional defiant disorder, a condition marked by frequent and persistent hostility. Little things – like being asked to do schoolwork – can send him into a rage, leading to holes punched in walls, broken doors and violent threats. (The family’s last name or her son’s first name are not used to protect her son’s privacy and future prospects.)
The pandemic has shifted both school and her son’s therapy sessions online. But Marjorie said virtual therapy isn’t working because her son doesn’t focus well during sessions and tries to watch television instead. Lately, she has simply been canceling them.
“I was paying for appointments and there was no therapeutic value,” Marjorie said.
The issues cut across socioeconomic lines – affecting families with private insurance, like Marjorie, as well as those who receive coverage through Medicaid, a federal-state program that provides health insurance to low-income people and those with disabilities.
In the first few months of the pandemic, between March and May, children on Medicaid received 44% fewer outpatient mental health services – including therapy and in-home support – compared with the same time period in 2019, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. That’s even after accounting for increased telehealth appointments.
And while the nation’s EDs have seen a decline in overall visits, there was a relative increase in mental health visits for kids in 2020, compared with 2019.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that, from April to October 2020, hospitals across the United States saw a 24% increase in the proportion of mental health emergency visits for children aged 5-11 years, and a 31% increase for children aged 12-17.
“Not only are we seeing more children, more children are being admitted” to inpatient care.
That’s because there are fewer outpatient services now available to children, she said, and because the conditions of the children showing up at EDs “are more serious.”
This crisis is not only making life harder for these kids and their families, but it’s also stressing the entire health care system.
Child and adolescent psychiatrists working in hospitals around the country said children are increasingly “boarding” in EDs for days, waiting for inpatient admission to a regular hospital or psychiatric hospital.
Before the pandemic, there was already a shortage of inpatient psychiatric beds for children, said Christopher Bellonci, MD, a child psychiatrist at Judge Baker Children’s Center in Boston. That shortage has only gotten worse as hospitals cut capacity to allow for more physical distancing within psychiatric units.
“The whole system is really grinding to a halt at a time when we have unprecedented need,” Dr. Bellonci said.
‘A signal that the rest of your system doesn’t work’
Psychiatrists on the front lines share the frustrations of parents struggling to find help for their children.
Part of the problem is there have never been enough psychiatrists and therapists trained to work with children, intervening in the early stages of their illness, said Jennifer Havens, MD, a child psychiatrist at New York University.
“Tons of people showing up in emergency rooms in bad shape is a signal that the rest of your system doesn’t work,” she said.
Too often, Dr. Havens said, services aren’t available until children are older – and in crisis. “Often for people who don’t have access to services, we wait until they’re too big to be managed.”
While the pandemic has made life harder for Marjorie and her son in Florida, she said it has always been difficult to find the support and care he needs. Last fall, he needed a psychiatric evaluation, but the nearest specialist who would accept her commercial insurance was 100 miles away, in Alabama.
“Even when you have the money or you have the insurance, it is still a travesty,” Marjorie said. “You cannot get help for these kids.”
Parents are frustrated, and so are psychiatrists on the front lines. C.J. Glawe, MD, who leads the psychiatric crisis department at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, said that once a child is stabilized after a crisis it can be hard to explain to parents that they may not be able to find follow-up care anywhere near their home.
“Especially when I can clearly tell you I know exactly what you need, I just can’t give it to you,” Dr. Glawe said. “It’s demoralizing.”
When states and communities fail to provide children the services they need to live at home, kids can deteriorate and even wind up in jail, like Lindsey. At that point, Dr. Glawe said, the cost and level of care required will be even higher, whether that’s hospitalization or long stays in residential treatment facilities.
That’s exactly the scenario Sandra, Lindsey’s mom, is hoping to avoid for her Princess.
“For me, as a nurse and as a provider, that will be the last thing for my daughter,” she said. “It’s like [state and local leaders] leave it to the school and the parent to deal with, and they don’t care. And that’s the problem. It’s sad because, if I’m not here...”
Her voice trailed off as tears welled.
“She didn’t ask to have autism.”
To help families like Sandra’s and Marjorie’s, advocates said, all levels of government need to invest in creating a mental health system that’s accessible to anyone who needs it.
But given that many states have seen their revenues drop because of the pandemic, there’s a concern services will instead be cut – at a time when the need has never been greater.
This story is part of a reporting partnership that includes NPR, Illinois Public Media and Kaiser Health News. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
J&J vaccine 85% efficacious against severe COVID globally
The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.
The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.
“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.
“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.
“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.
The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.
But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).
But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.
Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”
“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”
Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”
It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”
Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
Company defends numbers
Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.
“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.
“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”
Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”
Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.
Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.
The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.
“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.
“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.
“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.
The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.
But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).
But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.
Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”
“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”
Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”
It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”
Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
Company defends numbers
Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.
“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.
“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”
Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”
Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.
Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.
The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.
“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.
“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.
“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.
The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.
But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).
But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.
Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”
“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”
Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”
It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”
Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
Company defends numbers
Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.
“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.
“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”
Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”
Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.
Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.