Most Adults Wary of Taking Any Vaccine Approved Before the Election

(KFF)

[partner-box]The public is deeply skeptical about any coronavirus vaccine approved before the November election, and only 42% would be willing to get a vaccine in that scenario, according to a new poll.

The results of the poll by KFF reveal widespread concern that the Trump administration will bring pressure on drug regulators to approve a vaccine before the election without ensuring it is safe and effective. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Six of 10 adults said they were worried the Food and Drug Administration will rush to allow a vaccine because of political pressure. The concern is held by 85% of Democrats, 35% of Republicans and 61% of independent voters.

Resistance to taking the vaccine is strong among respondents of all stripes, with 60% of Republicans saying they would not want to be inoculated if a vaccine were available before the Nov. 3 election. Among Democrats, 46% would decline the vaccine.

[khn_slabs slabs=”241884″ view=”inline” /]

The wariness may reflect the ongoing political jockeying over a vaccine, and it may also be influenced by strains of general anti-vaccine sentiment in the populace. The Trump administration has suggested a vaccine could be ready by November, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has instructed states to be prepared to distribute a vaccine by Nov. 1.

Democrats have raised fears that President Donald Trump is trying to accelerate vaccine approval to boost his reelection chances. Forty-three percent of the public approves of Trump’s handling of the pandemic — an improvement since July, when just a third liked his response.

Partisans are largely united in doubting that a vaccine will be available before the presidential election, with 81% expecting it will take longer. The poll found the public divided on whether the worst of the pandemic is over or still to come, although optimism has increased since July. Nearly 1 in 5 Americans said the virus, which has stricken more than 6 million and killed more than 190,000 people in the U.S., is not a major problem and won’t become one.

(KFF)

Trust in the government’s health experts and institutions has become highly partisan, the poll found. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the CDC have the widest level of trust, with more than two-thirds of Americans believing they are providing reliable information. But the credibility of both has decreased since April.

Only 48% of Republicans trust Fauci, while 70% trust Dr. Deborah Birx, the response coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force, who has remained in Trump’s good graces more than has Fauci. Conversely, 86% of Democrats have confidence in Fauci while only 44% trust Birx.

Democrats still trust the CDC more than Republicans do, but more than half of Democrats say the CDC and the FDA pay too much attention to politics. Overall, only 43% of the public says the two agencies pay the appropriate amount of attention to science.

The poll also found that intense hostility to the Affordable Care Act among Republicans has decreased substantially since the 2018 midterm elections. Only 5% of Republicans in September identified repealing the ACA as the most important health issue influencing their vote, down from 18% in October 2018.

The survey found nearly half of the public holds at least one misconception about coronavirus treatment. Twenty percent said that a face mask is dangerous to wear, and 24% said hydroxychloroquine, a drug touted by Trump but not yet validated by rigorous studies, is an effective treatment for COVID-19. Just more than half of Republicans believe in hydroxychloroquine and a third say face masks are ineffective.

Fourteen percent of Americans believe there is already a cure for the coronavirus.

The telephone poll was conducted Aug. 28-Sept. 3 among a nationally representative random sample of 1,199 adults. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

¿Cuál es el riesgo de contagiarse el coronavirus en un avión?

El gobernador de Florida, Ron DeSantis, trató de aliviar el temor a volar durante la pandemia en un evento con ejecutivos de aerolíneas y compañías de alquiler de autos.

“Los aviones simplemente no han sido vectores cuando se observa la propagación del coronavirus”, dijo DeSantis en el encuentro en el Aeropuerto Internacional Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood el 28 de agosto.  “La evidencia es la evidencia. Y creo que es algo que la gente puede hacer con seguridad “, agregó.

¿La evidencia es realmente tan clara?

La afirmación de DeSantis de que los aviones no han sido “vectores” de la propagación del coronavirus es falsa, según expertos. Un “vector” disemina el virus de un lugar a otro, y los aviones han transportado a pasajeros infectados a través de distintas regiones, lo que hace que los brotes de COVID-19 sean más difíciles de contener.

Joseph Allen, profesor asociado en la Universidad de Harvard y experto en exposiciones a virus, calificó a los aviones como “excelentes vectores para la propagación viral” en una llamada de prensa.

En contexto, DeSantis parecía estar haciendo hincapié en la seguridad de volar en avión en lugar del papel que desempeñaron los aviones en la propagación del virus de un lugar a otro.

Cuando se le consultó a la oficina del gobernador sobre datos que respaldaran los comentarios de DeSantis, el secretario de prensa Cody McCloud no presentó ningún estudio ni estadística. En cambio, citó el programa de rastreo de contactos del Departamento de Salud de Florida y escribió que “no ha proporcionado ninguna información que sugiera que algún paciente se haya infectado mientras viajaba en un vuelo comercial”.

El programa de rastreo de contactos de Florida se ha visto envuelto en una controversia sobre informes que denuncian que no tiene suficiente personal y que es ineficaz. CNN llamó a 27 residentes del estado que dieron positivo para COVID-19 y descubrió que solo cinco habían sido contactados por las autoridades de salud. (El Departamento de Salud de Florida no respondió a las solicitudes de entrevista).

Expertos aseguran que, en general, los aviones brindan ambientes seguros en lo que respecta a la calidad del aire, pero agregaron que el riesgo de infección depende en gran medida de las políticas que las aerolíneas puedan tener sobre los asientos de los pasajeros, el uso de máscaras y el tiempo de embarque.

Según indicaron, el riesgo de contraer el coronavirus en un avión es relativamente bajo si la aerolínea sigue los procedimientos de salud pública: hacer cumplir la regla de usar máscara, espaciar los asientos disponibles y examinar a los pasajeros enfermos.

“Si observas otras enfermedades, ves pocos brotes en aviones”, dijo Allen. “No son los semilleros de infección que la gente cree que son”.

Las aerolíneas señalan con frecuencia que los aviones comerciales están equipados con filtros de aire HEPA, recomendados por los Centros para el Control y Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC), que se utilizan en las salas de aislamiento de los hospitales.

Los filtros HEPA capturan el 99,97% de las partículas en el aire y reducen sustancialmente el riesgo de propagación viral. Además, el aire en las cabinas se renueva por completo entre 10 y 12 veces por hora, elevando la calidad del aire por encima de la de un edificio normal.

Debido a la alta tasa de renovación del aire, es poco probable que se contraiga el coronavirus de alguien sentado a varias filas de distancia. Sin embargo, sí podría ocurrir el contagio de alguien cercano.

“El mayor riesgo durante el vuelo sería si el pasajero se sienta cerca de alguien que pueda infectar”, dijo Richard Corsi, quien estudia la contaminación del aire en interiores y es decano de Ingeniería en Universidad Estatal de Portland.

También es importante señalar que los sistemas de filtración de alta potencia de los aviones no son suficientes por sí solos para prevenir brotes. Si una aerolínea no mantiene libres los asientos del medio ni hace cumplir rigurosamente el uso de máscaras, volar puede ser bastante peligroso. Actualmente, las aerolíneas nacionales que mantienen abiertos los asientos intermedios incluyen Delta, Hawaiian, Southwest y JetBlue.

La razón de esto es que las personas infectadas envían partículas virales al aire a un ritmo más rápido que el que los aviones las expulsan fuera de la cabina. “Siempre que tose, habla o respira, está enviando gotitas”, dijo Qingyan Chen, profesor de ingeniería mecánica en la Universidad Purdue. “Estas gotas están en la cabina todo el tiempo”.

Esto hace que las medidas de protección adicionales, como el uso de máscaras, sean aún más necesarias.

Chen citó dos vuelos internacionales anteriores a la pandemia donde las tasas de infección variaron según el uso de mascarillas. En el primer vuelo, ningún pasajero llevaba máscaras y un solo pasajero infectó a 14 personas mientras el avión viajaba de Londres a Hanoi, Vietnam. En el segundo vuelo, de Singapur a Hangzhou, en China, todos los pasajeros llevaban máscaras faciales.

Aunque 15 pasajeros eran residentes de Wuhan con casos sospechosos o confirmados de COVID-19, el único hombre infectado en el recorrido se había aflojado la máscara en pleno vuelo y había estado sentado cerca de cuatro residentes de Wuhan que luego dieron positivo para el virus.

Pero, aunque volar es una actividad de riesgo relativamente bajo, se debe evitar viajar a menos que sea absolutamente necesario.

“Cualquier cosa que te ponga en contacto con más personas aumentará el riesgo”, dijo Cindy Prins, profesora clínica asociada de Epidemiología en la Escuela de Salud Pública y Profesiones de la Salud de la Universidad de Florida.

El verdadero peligro de viajar no es el vuelo en sí. Sin embargo, pasar por el control de seguridad y esperar en la puerta de embarque es probable que ponga a la persona en contacto cercano con otros y aumente sus posibilidades de contraer el virus.

Además, abordar, cuando el sistema de ventilación del avión no está funcionando y las personas no pueden mantenerse alejadas entre sí, es una de las partes más riesgosas. “Reducir este tiempo es importante para bajar la exposición”, escribió Corsi. “Hay que llegar al asiento con la máscara y sentarse lo más rápido posible”.

Con todo, es demasiado pronto para determinar cuánta transmisión de persona a persona ha ocurrido en vuelos.

Julian Tang, profesor asociado honorario en el Departamento de Ciencias Respiratorias de la Universidad de Leicester, en Inglaterra, dijo que está al tanto de varios grupos de infecciones relacionadas con los viajes aéreos. Sin embargo, es un desafío demostrar que las personas contrajeron el virus en un vuelo.

“Alguien que presenta síntomas de COVID-19 varios días después de llegar a su destino podría haberse infectado en casa antes de llegar al aeropuerto, mientras estaba en el aeropuerto o en el vuelo, o incluso al llegar al aeropuerto de destino, porque todo el mundo tiene un período de incubación variable”, dijo Tang.

Katherine Estep, vocera de Airlines for America, un grupo comercial de la industria centrado en Estados Unidos, dijo que los CDC no han confirmado ningún caso de transmisión a bordo de una aerolínea estadounidense.

La ausencia de transmisión confirmada no es necesariamente una prueba de que los viajeros estén seguros. En cambio, la falta de datos refleja el hecho de que Estados Unidos tiene una tasa de infección más alta en comparación con otros países, dijo Chen. Dado que tiene tantos casos confirmados, es más difícil determinar exactamente dónde alguien contrajo el virus.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

New maps show how warm water may reach Thwaites Glacier’s icy underbelly

New seafloor maps reveal the first clear view of a system of channels that may be helping to hasten the demise of West Antarctica’s vulnerable Thwaites Glacier. The channels are deeper and more complex than previously thought, and may be funneling warm ocean water all the way to the underside of the glacier, melting it from below, the researchers found.

Scientists estimate that meltwater from Florida-sized Thwaites Glacier is currently responsible for about 4 percent of global sea level rise (SN: 1/7/20). A complete collapse of the glacier, which some researchers estimate could happen within the next few decades, could increase sea levels by about 65 centimeters. How and when that collapse might occur is the subject of a five-year international collaborative research effort.

Glaciers like Thwaites are held back from sliding seaward both by buttressing ice shelves — tongues of floating ice that jut out into the sea — and by the shape of the seafloor itself, which can help pin the glacier’s ice in place (SN: 4/3/18). But in two new studies, published online September 9 in The Cryosphere, the researchers show how the relatively warm ocean waters may have a pathway straight to the glacier’s underbelly.

illustration of seafloor pathways for warm water near Thwaites Glacier
Channels carved into the seafloor, extending several kilometers wide and hundreds of meters deep, may act as pathways (red line with yellow arrows as seen in this 3-D illustration) to bring relatively warm ocean waters to the edges of vulnerable Thwaites Glacier, hastening its melting.International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration

From January to March 2019 researchers used a variety of airborne and ship-based methods — including radar, sonar and gravity measurements — to examine the seafloor around the glacier and two neighboring ice shelves. From those data, the team was able to estimate how the seafloor is shaped beneath the ice itself.

These efforts revealed a rugged series of high ridges and deep troughs on the seafloor, varying between about 250 meters and 1,000 meters deep. In particular, one major channel, more than 800 meters deep, could be funneling warm water all the way from Pine Island Bay to the submerged edge of the glacier, the team found.

The Big Book: An Updated Chapter 4

What if the fourth chapter of the Big Book ,”We Agnostics” had actually been written by atheists and agnostics?

By John S
Originally published in September, 2014 on Secular AA Kansas City

Introduction

I wrote what you are about to read about a month after starting a secular AA meeting in 2014 with my friend Jim C. That year was an exciting time of transformation. You see, for the previous 25 years, the Big Book was the center of my AA experience. However, after realizing I was an atheist, I looked at the Big Book and my entire time in AA with fresh eyes, and to make sense of this new perspective, I started a blog that later became the website for my new homegroup. This piece was part of a series I called “The Atheist Big Book Study.” In that series, I rewrote Chapter Four in a way that was more acceptable to my atheistic viewpoint while retaining the original vernacular from 1939.

Writing this was part of my healing from coming out as an atheist in AA, which was a painful and challenging time when I no longer felt welcome or accepted. The Big Book, which I thought so vital to my recovery, became Bill W.’s metaphoric boom-a-rang “that turned in its flight and all but cut me to ribbons.” People started to use the book to put me in my place, to show me how I was wrong. Now, sadly, I realize that it was always the case. The only difference is that I am now aware of that fact.

That awareness is evidence of how much I have changed. My new homegroup, We Agnostics Kansas City, is now six years old, and during the last six years, I’ve seen hundreds of people get sober without ever reading the Big Book. These people have confirmed my view that we should build on the work of our founders, not try to replicate it. Keep what works in AA, and discard the unnecessary baggage that only serves to confuse people or to divide them into opposing camps.

* * *

In the preceding chapters you have learned something of alcoholism. We hope we have made clear the distinction between the alcoholic and the non-alcoholic. If, when you honestly want to, you find you cannot quit entirely, or if when drinking, you have little control over the amount you take, you are probably alcoholic. If that is the case, you may be suffering from an illness which we believe only an entire psychic change will conquer.

Earlier in this book, this change was described primarily with spiritual terminology which may lead one to believe that recovery is out of reach for those of us with an atheist or agnostic worldview. Happily, we found this to be an erroneous conclusion. The principles outlined in this volume translate easily into secular language, and our psychic change is just as real to us as the spiritual experience is to those who believe in God.

As first described by Doctor Carl Jung, our experiences were in the nature of huge emotional rearrangements and displacements. The ideas, emotions and attitudes which were once the guiding force of our lives, were cast to one side and replaced with an entirely new set of conceptions and motives. Our experience shows that this is possible for all alcoholics regardless of their belief system.

We need help

If a mere code of morals or a better philosophy of life were sufficient to overcome alcoholism, many of us would have recovered long ago. But we found that such codes and philosophies did not save us, no matter how much we tried. We could wish to be moral, we could wish to be philosophically comforted, in fact, we could will these things with all our might, but the needed power wasn’t there. We needed help.

Our own individual resources were insufficient to free us from the trap we created for ourselves. We could not do it alone, that was obvious. But where and how were we to find help?

Though we respect and honor the experiences of our more religious members, we agnostics and atheists do not believe this help comes from God. However, we find no conflict with those who choose to define their experience in spiritual terms. We share the believer’s humbling admission of powerlessness over alcohol and we recognize that we must seek help from a power that is greater than ourselves. For many of us who are agnostic or atheist, this power comes from the combined experience of our fellow alcoholics who preceded us in recovery.

Removing obstacles to recovery

Some of us were bothered with the thought that asking for help was a weakness. We valued self-sufficiency and we held a deep distrust toward other people. We looked askance at those who claimed to have all the answers and who knew with certainty what was best for us.

Therefore, we often found ourselves handicapped by obstinacy, sensitiveness, and unreasoning prejudice. In fact, many of us have been so touchy that even the most casual reference that we may need help caused us to bristle with antagonism. This sort of thinking had to be abandoned.

Though some of us resisted, we found no great difficulty in casting aside such feelings. When faced with alcoholic destruction, we soon became open minded and willing to accept help. In this respect alcohol was a great persuader. It finally beat us into a state of reasonableness. Sometimes this was a tedious process; we hope no one else will remain prejudiced for as long as some of us were.

Many of us were also skeptical of the idea that people with our very illness could be of any help to us at all. Let us reassure you that as soon as we were able to let go of this prejudice and express even a willingness to believe that we could be helped, we commenced to get results. We became empowered, provided we took other simple steps which were not difficult as long as we adopted the right attitude.

Our program of recovery is broad, roomy, all inclusive; never exclusive or forbidding. It is open, we believe, to everyone. We need ask ourselves but one short question. “Do I now believe, or am I even willing to believe, that I can find help in AA? As soon as one says they believe, or is willing to believe, we emphatically assure them that they are on their way. It has been repeatedly proven among us that upon this simple cornerstone a wonderfully effective structure can be built.

Why seek help in AA?

Atheist and agnostic readers may still ask why they should seek help in Alcoholics Anonymous. We think there is good reason. As agnostics and atheists we hold the view that our ideas should be informed by logic and reason. We believe truth is best discerned through observation, experience and evidence. What possible logic would lead us to seek help from a group of drunks?

Most of us have tried a variety of methods over a long period of time in an attempt to gain some degree of control over our drinking, and each attempt was met with failure. Some of us tried to stop drinking alcohol completely only to find that in this too we failed. This sad state of affairs brought us to complete desperation and a realization that we needed help. It did not satisfy us when told that we required spiritual help or that we had to believe in an unseen God. It was important to us that our sobriety be grounded in reality.

Here before us in AA we can observe many thousands of men and women who were once just as hopeless as we were, but they are helping each other not only to stay sober, but also with other problems often made more acute by drinking. We can attend meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous and watch with our own eyes as others find recovery and recreate their lives. As we listen to other alcoholics, we realize that we share a common problem, but more importantly we have found a solution in AA.

Through direct experience we have learned that together with other alcoholics we can achieve what we could never have done on our own. We have tapped into a power outside of ourselves and greater than ourselves that many of us identify as the power of good that is generated from one alcoholic helping another. We may never know how this works or how effective it is at addressing the problem of alcoholism as a whole, but we do know that it works for us, and the support we provide one another in Alcoholics Anonymous is very real.


John S. has been sober since July 20, 1988, and spends much of his free time on the AA Beyond Belief podcast, which he has been doing now for five years. The podcast and helping start an AA group for atheists and agnostics in his hometown of Kansas City have been among his most rewarding experiences since he began his journey.


 

The post The Big Book: An Updated Chapter 4 first appeared on AA Agnostica.

Obamacare Co-Ops Down From 23 to Final ‘3 Little Miracles’

New Mexico Health Connections’ decision to close at year’s end will leave just three of the 23 nonprofit health insurance co-ops that sprang from the Affordable Care Act.

One co-op serves customers in Maine, another in Wisconsin, and the third operates in Idaho and Montana and will move into Wyoming next year. All made money in 2019 after having survived several rocky years, according to data filed with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

They are also all in line to receive tens of millions of dollars from the federal government under an April Supreme Court ruling that said the government inappropriately withheld billions from insurers meant to help cushion losses from 2014 through 2016, the first three years of the ACA marketplaces. While those payments were intended to help any insurers losing money, it was vitally important to the co-ops because they had the least financial backing.

Lauded as a way to boost competition among insurers and hold down prices on the Obamacare exchanges, the co-ops had more than 1 million people enrolled in 26 states at their peak in 2015. Today, they cover about 128,000 people, just 1% of the 11 million Obamacare enrollees who get coverage through the exchanges.

The nonprofit organizations were a last-minute addition to the 2010 health law to satisfy Democratic lawmakers who had failed to secure a public option health plan — one set up and run by the government — on the marketplaces. Congress provided $2 billion in startup loans. But nearly all the co-ops struggled to compete with established carriers, which already had more money and recognized brands.

State insurance officials and health experts are hopeful the last three co-ops will survive.

“These are the three little miracles,” said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor and co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University, in Washington, D.C.

Maine Aided in Supreme Court Victory

The Maine co-op, Community Health Options, helped bring competition to the state’s market, which has had trouble at times attracting insurance carriers, said Eric Cioppa, who heads the state’s bureau of insurance.

“The plan has added a level of stability and has been a positive for Maine,” he said.

The co-op has about 28,000 members — down from about 75,000 in 2015 — and is building up its financial reserves, Cioppa said. Community Health Options is one of three insurers in the Obamacare marketplace in Maine, the minimum number experts say is needed to ensure vibrant competition.

Kevin Lewis, CEO of the plan, attributed its survival to several factors, including an initial profit in 2014, the year the ACA marketplaces opened, that put the plan on a secure footing before several years of losses. He also credited bringing most functions of the health plan in-house rather than contracting out, diversifying to sell plans to small and large employers, and securing lower rates from two health systems during a couple of difficult years.

Jay Gould, 60, a member who offers the plan to workers at his small grocery in Clinton, has been happy with the plan. “They have great customer service, and it’s good to know when I am talking to someone that they are from Maine,” he said.

Central Aroostook Association, a Presque Isle nonprofit that helps children with intellectual disabilities, switched to the co-op last year to save 20% on its health premiums, said administrator Tammi Easler. Having a Maine insurer means any issues can be dealt with quickly, she said. “They are readily available, and I never have to wait on hold for an hour.”

The co-op, which made a $25 million profit each of the past two years, has proposed dropping its average premiums by about 14% in 2021, Lewis said.

Community Health was one of the lead plaintiffs in the case before the Supreme Court and expects to get $59 million in back payments from the settlement.

The federal decision to suspend those so-called risk corridor payments — designed to help health plans recover some of their losses — was one of the factors that caused many of the co-ops to fail, Corlette said. Republican critics of the ACA, however, blame poor management by the plans and lack of oversight by the Obama administration.

Insurers are in talks with the Trump administration about whether the $13 billion due the carriers must be added to their 2020 balance sheet or could be counted toward operations from prior years. This year, insurers are generally banking large profits since many people have delayed non-urgent care because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the ACA limits insurers’ profit margins, adding that federal windfall to this year’s ledger might mean many insurers would have to pay out most of the money to their consumers. If the money is applied to earlier years, the insurers could likely keep more of it to add to their reserves.

Too Much Competition in New Mexico

The Supreme Court ruling came too late for New Mexico Health Connections, which lost nearly $60 million from 2015 to 2017. The co-op would have received $43 million in overdue payments, but, in an effort to raise needed cash, it sold that debt to another insurer in 2017 for a much smaller amount.

Marlene Baca, CEO of the co-op, which made a $439,000 profit in 2019, said its goal of bringing competition into the market was achieved, since five other companies will be enrolling customers this fall for 2021. Yet, that competition eventually led to the plan’s decision to end operations, announced last month.

With only 14,000 members, it made no sense to continue operating due to high fixed administrative costs, she said. Her plan was also hurt by the slumping economy this year, which pushed many state residents out of work and made more than 3,000 members eligible for Medicaid, the state-federal health program for the poor.

“We did our very best,” Baca said, noting that her company is closing with enough money to pay its outstanding health claims. Many other co-ops that shuttered were closed out by their states and unable to meet all their debts to health providers, she said.

Montana’s Co-Op Is Expanding

The Mountain Health Co-Op, with about 32,000 members, has just two competitors in its home state of Montana and four in Idaho.

A big factor behind its survival was that the plan received a $15 million loan in 2016 from St. Luke’s Health System, Idaho’s largest hospital provider, said CEO Richard Miltenberger. Although he wasn’t working for the co-op at that time, Miltenberger said, it is his understanding that the hospital wanted to help maintain competition in that marketplace.

The co-op is expecting $57 million from the Supreme Court victory.

“We are in excellent shape,” Miltenberger said. The plan, which paid back the St. Luke’s loan and made a $15 million profit in 2019, added vision benefits this year and is offering a dental exam benefit for next year. It’s also providing most insulin and medications for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to members without any copayment to help ensure compliance.

The insurer is moving into Wyoming for 2021, which will end the Blue Cross plan monopoly in that state’s Obamacare marketplace, he said.

Wisconsin’s Mystery Donor

Wisconsin’s Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative was on the verge of ending operations in 2016 when it received a lifesaving $30 million loan, said CEO Cathy Mahaffey. The insurer has refused to identify the benefactor other than to say it was not a person or company doing business with the plan.

In 2018, Common Ground was the only health plan in seven northeastern Wisconsin counties, she said. Today, the co-op has about 54,000 members and faces competition from two to five carriers in the 20 counties where it operates.

Common Ground, which recorded a $73 million profit last year, expects to receive about $95 million from the Supreme Court case victory.

Wisconsin’s decision not to expand Medicaid under the health law has benefited the co-op because people with incomes from 100% to 138% of the federal poverty level ($12,760 to $17,609 for an individual) are ineligible for Medicaid and must stay with marketplace plans for coverage. In states that expanded Medicaid, everyone with incomes under 138% of the poverty level is eligible.

Another factor was its decision in 2016 to eliminate the broad provider network offering and sell a plan offering only a narrow network of doctors and hospitals, allowing it to benefit from lower rates from its providers, according to Mahaffey.

“We are very strong financially,” she said.


This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Sexual Minority Men Who Smoke Report Worse Mental Health and More Frequent Substance Use

Original post: Newswise - Substance Abuse Sexual Minority Men Who Smoke Report Worse Mental Health and More Frequent Substance Use

Cigarette smoking is associated with frequent substance use and poor behavioral and physical health in sexual and gender minority populations, according to Rutgers researchers.

A stray molar is the oldest known fossil from an ancient gibbon

While searching for primate fossils in northern India, paleontologist Christopher Gilbert noticed something small and shiny poking out of the dirt. It turned out to be a roughly 13-million-year-old molar from a small-bodied ape related to modern gibbons.

The tooth is the oldest known fossil from a gibbon ancestor, says Gilbert, of Hunter College at the City University of New York. He and colleagues assigned the fossil, which was eroding out of previously dated sediment at a site called Ramnagar, to a new genus and species, Kapi ramnagarensis.

photo of a browned, ancient tooth
This roughly 13-million-year-old molar tooth (shown from above) was found in India and is the oldest known fossil from a gibbon ancestor.C. Gilbert

Until now, the oldest remains of an ancient gibbon species consisted of a small number of teeth found in China, which date from around 7 million to 9 million years ago. Possibly older fossils of a gibbonlike creature are controversial (SN: 10/29/15). Genetic studies of living primates have suggested that gibbon ancestors emerged by at least 20 million years ago in Africa.

After finding the Ramnagar molar in 2015, Gilbert’s team compared it with corresponding teeth of living and extinct apes and monkeys. Features including low, rounded cusps on the edges of the chewing surface link the ancient tooth to modern gibbons and the gibbon predecessor in China, the scientists report September 9 in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

K. ramnagarensis comes from deposits that previously yielded fossils of an orangutan ancestor, suggesting to Gilbert that both apes reached South Asia from Africa around the same time. “We’re catching a window into that event” as small-bodied gibbons and large-bodied orangutans headed to their recent and current home ranges in East and Southeast Asia, he says.

Foundation works to put naloxone in recovery homes

Addiction Recovery Bulletin

Save-A-Life –  

Sept. 1, 2020 – The U.S. surgeon general and state governments have encouraged wide distribution of the drug in recent years, but recovery organizations in closest contact with people dependent on opioids often struggle to afford newer, more expensive versions of the drug.

Former President Bill Clinton and other backers of the initiative hope stocking naloxone in sober recovery homes will bring the lifesaving drug closer to those who need it: people in the early stages of recovery who are vulnerable to relapse as economic and social pressures mount during the pandemic.

“There are too many people whose lives are being lost and destroyed,” Clinton told USA TODAY. “And we have the capacity to make it a lot better. So I’m just hoping that what we’re doing here will make a big difference to the brave people running all these recovery homes.” Demand for naloxone is rising at recovery houses and harm-reduction groups that treat the nearly 2 million Americans with opioid-use disorder. In June, the charitable group Direct Relief International fielded requests for 90,000 doses of naloxone – three times more than a year ago.

More than 700,000 doses of naloxone were distributed last year to people at risk of overdose, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study. Nearly one in three of the sterile syringe programs that offered naloxone ran out of the drug or had to ration it over the past three months.

more@USAToday

The post Foundation works to put naloxone in recovery homes appeared first on Addiction/Recovery eBulletin.

Each Day Sober Slowly Helps Alcoholics’ Brains Recover

Addiction Recovery Bulletin

 

Neuroplasticity comes slowly –

Sept. 2, 2020 – The more recently they’d had their last drink, the greater the disruption in activity between the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and striatum, a brain network associated with decision-making.

The more severe the disruption to this network, the more likely it was that study participants would resume heavy drinking and put their treatment and recovery at risk, according to the study published online Aug. 28 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.

The good news is that the severity of disruption between these brain regions diminished the longer that study participants abstained from alcohol, the researchers found.

The study shows that imaging studies can help identify patients at greatest risk for relapse and highlights how crucial extensive treatment is for people in their early days of sobriety, Sinha noted.

“When people are struggling, it is not enough for them to say, ‘OK, I didn’t drink today, so I’m good now,’” Sinha said in a university news release. “It doesn’t work that way.”

The findings also suggest it may be possible to develop medications to help people with the most severe brain disruptions during their early days of alcohol treatment.

The researchers said they are investigating whether high blood pressure medications can help lower these brain disruptions and improve patients’ chances of long-term abstinence.

more@HealthDay

 

The post Each Day Sober Slowly Helps Alcoholics’ Brains Recover appeared first on Addiction/Recovery eBulletin.