The First Presidential Debate: A Night of Rapid-Fire Interruptions and Inaccuracies

Tuesday night, President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden appeared for the first presidential debate, offering voters their first side-by-side comparison of the candidates.

Little was said about what either candidate would do if elected; at one point, Biden’s attempts to explain his health care plan were drowned out by Trump’s persistent interruptions about Biden’s Democratic primary opponents.

Instead, the presidential nominees traded a dizzying array of accusations and falsehoods. Our partners at PolitiFact unpacked a number of them for you in their wide-ranging debate night fact check.

Here are some health care highlights:

Trump: “I’m getting [insulin] so cheap it’s like water.”Rating: Mostly False

Trump signed an executive order on insulin at the end of July, but the scope was limited. It targeted a select group of health care providers that represent fewer than 2% of the relevant outlets for insulin. Between 2017 and 2018, insulin prices for seniors rose.

“The truth is that patients who need drugs like insulin are having a hard time affording them, particularly for the many who are now uninsured,” said Vanderbilt Medical Center’s Stacie Dusetzina.

Biden: “The president has no plan” for the coronavirus pandemic.Needs context

The Trump administration has announced a plan for distributing vaccines. The plan shows that the federal government aims to make the two-dose vaccine free of cost, for instance.

However, public health experts have said Trump and his administration did not have a plan to combat the pandemic or a national testing plan.

Biden: Trump suggested that “maybe you could inject some bleach in your arm and that would take care of [the coronavirus].”Needs context

Trump did not explicitly suggest that people inject bleach into their arms. He did express interest in exploring whether disinfectants could be applied to the site of a coronavirus infection. The comment came after an administration official presented a study that found sun exposure and cleaning agents like bleach could kill the virus when it lingers on surfaces.

Trump said at the time: “And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me.”

During the debate Tuesday, Trump discounted his previous remarks as “sarcastic.”

Trump: Biden “wants to shut down the country.”
Needs context

In an interview with CBS News, Biden was asked if he was prepared to shut down the country to deal with the coronavirus.

“I would be prepared to do whatever it takes to save lives, because we cannot get the country moving until we control the virus,” Biden said. “In order to keep the country running and moving and the economy growing, and people employed, you have to fix the virus, you have to deal with the virus.”

And then he said, “I would shut it down. I would listen to the scientists.”

Trump: “We guaranteed preexisting conditions.”Misleading

President Trump signed an executive order on Sept. 24 that says those with preexisting conditions will be able to get affordable health care coverage. The executive order language was a response to criticisms about Trump’s efforts against the Affordable Care Act. However, legal and health policy experts said the executive order guarantees nothing near the protections in the ACA. The experts said actual congressional legislation, not this type of order, is necessary to maintain these preexisting conditions protections if the ACA goes away.

Biden: “One in 1,000 African Americans has been killed because of the coronavirus.”
Needs context

It’s tough to say precisely how many African Americans have died of COVID-19 because the government does not have complete information about the race and ethnicity of those who have died. But based on the limited available data, Biden seems to be in the ballpark. Earlier this month, the research arm of American Public Media found that 1 in 1,020 Black Americans have died of the virus — the highest mortality rate of any racial group nationwide — based on death rate data collected from every state and the District of Columbia.

Trump: “Dr. Fauci said the opposite, he said very strongly,” challenging Biden’s statement that no “serious person” would say masks weren’t important in reducing the spread of COVID-19. 

Misleading 

In a March 7 CBS News interview, Dr. Anthony Fauci said, “Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.” At the time, still early in the COVID pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was not recommending that Americans wear masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Masks were instead being reserved for health care workers, because there were concerns about shortages of personal protective equipment.

As it became clear that many people were asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19, the CDC updated its guidelines April 3 to recommend wearing masks. Fauci later acknowledged the resulting confusion but said public health leaders were making decisions based on the information they had at the time. He has since maintained that masks are important in preventing the spread of COVID-19.

This report was written by PolitiFact staff writers Jon Greenberg, Louis Jacobson, Amy Sherman, Samantha Putterman, Miriam Valverde, Bill McCarthy, Noah Y. Kim and Daniel Funke and KHN reporters Victoria Knight and Emmarie Huetteman.


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).

What We Know About the Airborne Spread of the Coronavirus

The federal government did a quick pivot on the threat of the coronavirus spreading through the air, changing a key piece of guidance over the weekend.

On Sept. 18, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned that tiny airborne particles, not just the bigger water droplets from a sneeze or cough, could infect others. It cited growing “evidence.”

By Sept. 21, that warning was gone from its website, with a note saying it had been posted in error and the CDC was in the process of updating its recommendations.

The move put the CDC in the middle of a debate over how the coronavirus infects people. Its guidelines could make the difference between restaurants, bars and other places where people gather fully reopening sooner or much later.

And it raised more questions about politics at the public health agency and whether White House officials are dictating policy to health authorities.

So what does the science on airborne transmission actually say?

The emerging picture is a work-in-progress, but many of the pieces do point toward the potential for airborne transmission.

The Challenge of Proving Airborne Transmission

The CDC’s retracted language said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”

Why is this a big deal? It means the guidelines for proper physical distancing might need to be increased.

Six feet is the benchmark for safety that has helped shape the reopening of schools and businesses nationwide. The number is based on the long-held finding that larger water drops from a cough are so heavy that most of them fall to the ground before the 6-foot mark.

But much smaller droplets can hang in the air longer. The debate is whether they carry enough of the virus to infect another person. If the answer is yes, the implications for everyday life could be substantial.

University of Maryland Medical School professor Donald Milton sees plenty of evidence that airborne transmission is a major factor, but he emphasized that a definitive answer is hard to come by.

No one disagrees that being near someone with the disease is the main threat. But Milton said what happens during that time is tough to untangle.

“It could be they cough and you get infected by getting a direct hit on your eye or mouth,” Milton said. “Or could it be through an airborne particle that you inhale. Or you might have touched something and then touched your nose or your mouth. It’s fiendishly difficult to sort that out.”

That said, many incidents and studies point toward the idea that airborne particles play a bigger role than has been thought.

The Research

An international group of researchers from China, Australia and the United States recently reviewed the evidence for airborne transmission. They concluded it was highly plausible.

A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reported that one minute of loud talking could produce “1,000 virus-containing droplet nuclei that could remain airborne for more than eight minutes.”

The authors’ conclusion? “These are likely to be inhaled by others and hence trigger new infections.”

Public transit is a key testing ground.

In China, scientists looked at 126 passengers on two buses making a trip that lasted about an hour and a half. One bus was virus-free, the other had one infected rider. The people on the bus with the virus were 41.5 times more likely to be infected.

Many other researchers have noted the super-spreading event at the 2½-hour-long choir practice of the Skagit Valley Chorale in Mount Vernon, Washington. Of the 61 people who attended, there were 53 confirmed and potential cases and two deaths.

University of Florida study sampled the air in the hospital rooms of two COVID patients. They found aerosol particles carrying enough viral load to infect someone more than 15 feet away from the patients.

In July, 239 researchers co-signed an open letter that called on national and international health agencies to “recognize the potential for airborne spread” of COVID-19.

Credible studies, they wrote, “have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that viruses are released during exhalation, talking, and coughing in microdroplets small enough to remain aloft in air and pose a risk of exposure.”

Still, a July World Health Organization report found while airborne transmission was possible, more robust research was needed to confirm that it presents an appreciable risk.

If public health leaders take airborne transmission more seriously, Milton said, there are a few implications. Most business activity could continue, but restaurants and bars — because masks don’t fit with eating and drinking — would face a higher hurdle.

Beyond that, more attention to ventilation in more closed spaces becomes important, as does the supply of N95 masks. Those masks continue to be in short supply.

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).

To Free Doctors From Computers, Far-Flung Scribes Are Now Taking Notes For Them

Podiatrist Dr. Mark Lewis greets his first patient of the morning in his suburban Seattle exam room and points to a tiny video camera mounted on the right rim of his glasses. “This is my scribe, Jacqueline,” he says. “She can see us and hear us.”

Jacqueline is watching the appointment on her computer screen after the sun has set, 8,000 miles away in Mysore, a southern Indian city known for its palaces and jasmine flowers. She copiously documents the details of each visit and enters them into the patient’s electronic health record, or EHR.

Jacqueline (her real first name, according to her employer), works for San Francisco-based Augmedix, a startup with 1,000 medical scribes in South Asia and the U.S. The company is part of a growing industry that profits from a confluence of health care trends — including, now, the pandemic — that are dispersing patient care around the globe.

Medical scribes first appeared in the 1970s as note takers for emergency room physicians. But the practice took off after 2009, when the federal HITECH Act incentivized health care providers to adopt EHRs. These were supposed to simplify patient record-keeping, but instead they generated a need for scribes. Doctors find entering notes and data into poorly designed EHR software cumbersome and time-consuming. So scribing is a fast-growing field in the U.S., with the workforce expanding from 15,000 in 2015 to an estimated 100,000 this year.

A 2016 study found that doctors spent 37% of a patient visit on a computer and an average of two extra hours after work on EHR tasks. EHR use contributes to physician burnout, increasingly considered a public health crisis in itself.

Before COVID-19, most scribes — typically young, aspiring health professionals — worked in the exam room a few paces away from the doctor and patient. This year, as the pandemic led patients to shun clinics and hospitals, many scribes were laid off or furloughed. Many have returned, but scribes are increasingly working online — even from the other side of the world.

Remote scribes are patched into the exam room’s sound via a tablet or speaker, or through a video connection. Some create doctors’ notes in real time; others annotate after visits. And some have help from speech-recognition software programs that grow more accurate with use.

While many remote scribes are based in the United States, others are abroad, primarily in India. Chanchal Toor was a dental school graduate facing limited job opportunities in India when a subcontractor to Augmedix hired her in 2015. Some of her scribe colleagues also trained or aspired to become dentists or other health professionals, she said. Now a manager for Augmedix in San Francisco, Toor said scribing, even remotely, made her feel like part of a health care team.

Augmedix recruits people who have a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent, and screens for proficiency in English reading, listening comprehension and writing, the company said. Once on board, scribes undergo about three months of training. The curriculum includes medical terminology, anatomy, physiology and mock visits.

Revenue has grown this year, and his sales team has grown from four to 14 members, Augmedix CEO Manny Krakaris said. Sachin Gupta, CEO of IKS Health, which employs Indian doctors as remote scribes for their U.S. counterparts, projects 50% revenue growth this year for its scribing business. He said the company employs 4,000 people but declined to share how many are scribes.

Remote scribe “Edwin” gives internist Dr. Susan Fesmire more time, freeing her from having to finish 20 charts at the end of every day. “It was like constantly having homework that you don’t finish,” she said. With the help of “Edwin” — Fesmire said he declines to use his real name — she had the time and energy to become chief operating officer of her small Dallas practice. Edwin works for Physicians Angels, which employs 500 remote scribes in India. Fesmire pays $14 an hour for his services.

Doctors with foreign scribes say notes may need minor editing for dialectal differences and scribes may be unfamiliar with local vocabulary. “I had a patient from Louisiana,” said Fesmire, “and Edwin said afterward, ‘What is chicory, doctor?’” But she also praised his notes as more accurate and complete than her own.

Kevin Brady, president of Physicians Angels, said their scribes start at $500 to $600 per month, plus health care and retirement benefits, while senior scribes make $1,000 to $1,500 — middle-class family incomes in India. Employers are required to provide employees with health insurance, although many scribes are contractors, and the job site Indeed.com says the average salary for a scribe in India is $500 a month. Scribes in the U.S. get about $2,500.

Remote scribing is still a small part of the market. Craig Newman, chief strategy officer of HealthChannels, parent to ScribeAmerica, the largest scribing company in the U.S., said that the firm’s remote scribing business has increased threefold since the pandemic’s outset but that “a large majority” of the company’s 26,000 U.S. scribes still work in person.

It’s a highly unregulated industry for which training and certification aren’t required. The service typically costs physicians $12 to $25 an hour, and studies show scribe use is linked to less time on patient documentation, higher job satisfaction and seeing more patients — which can mean more revenue.

For patients, studies suggest scribes have a positive or neutral effect on satisfaction. Some have privacy concerns, though, and state laws vary on whether a patient must be notified that someone is watching and listening many miles away.

Only 1% of patients refuse a remote scribe when asked by physicians at Massachusetts General Physicians Organization, said Dr. David Ting, the practice’s chief medical information officer. His group, an IKS Health client, always seeks patient consent, Ting said.

Scribes aren’t for everyone, though. Janis Ulevich, a retiree in Palo Alto, California, declines her primary care doctor’s remote scribe. “Conversations with your doctor can be intimate,” said Ulevich. “I don’t like other people listening in.”

Some patients may not have the opportunity to decline. With limited exceptions, federal laws like HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, don’t require doctors to seek a patient’s consent before sharing their health information with a company that supports the practice’s work (like a scribe firm), as long as that company signed a contract agreeing to protect the patient’s data, said Chris Apgar, a former HIPAA compliance officer.

About one-quarter of U.S. states require all parties in a conversation to agree to be recorded, meaning they require a patient’s permission. Some states also have special privacy protections for certain groups, like people with HIV/AIDS, or very strict informed-consent or privacy laws, said Matt Fisher, a partner at Massachusetts law firm Mirick O’Connell.

Remote scribing also raises cybersecurity concerns. Reported data breaches are rare, but some scribe companies have lax security, said Cliff Baker, CEO of the health care cybersecurity firm Corl Technologies.

The next step in the trend could be no human scribes at all. Tech giants like Google, EHR companies and venture-backed startups are developing or already marketing artificial intelligence tools aimed at reducing or eliminating the need for humans to document visits.

AI and scribes won’t eliminate physician burnout that stems from the nature of the health care system, said Dr. Rebekah Gardner, an associate professor of medicine at Brown University who researches the issue. Neither can take on burnout-driving EHR tasks like submitting requests for insurance company approval of procedures, drugs and tests, she said.

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).

Lo que sabemos sobre la transmisión aérea del coronavirus

[khn_slabs slabs=”260982″ view=”pull-right” /]

El gobierno federal dio un giro rápido a la amenaza de que el coronavirus se propagara por el aire, cambiando una pieza clave en sus guías.

El 18 de septiembre, los Centros para el Control y Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC) advirtieron que las pequeñas partículas en el aire, no solo las gotas más grandes producto de un estornudo o la tos, podrían infectar a otros. Citó en ese momento una “evidencia” creciente.

[khn_slabs syndicated=”863440″ view=”pull-right” /]

Para el 21 de septiembre, esa advertencia desapareció de su sitio web, con una nota al pie que decía que se había publicado por error y que los CDC estaban en proceso de actualizar sus recomendaciones.

La medida puso a los CDC en medio de un debate sobre cómo el coronavirus infecta a las personas. Esas pautas podrían marcar la diferencia entre tener restaurantes, bares y otros lugares donde la gente se está reuniendo a la mitad de su capacidad, o reabrir por completo.

Y generó más preguntas sobre la intromisión de la política en la agencia de salud pública y sobre si los funcionarios de la Casa Blanca están dictando qué decir a las autoridades de salud.

Entonces, ¿qué dice realmente la ciencia sobre la transmisión aérea?

Aunque es una investigación en curso, muchas de las piezas apuntan hacia el potencial de transmisión aérea.

El desafío de probar la transmisión aérea

La narrativa eliminada del sitio web de los CDC decía: “Existe una creciente evidencia de que las gotas y las partículas pueden permanecer suspendidas en el aire y ser inhaladas por otros, y viajar distancias superiores a los 6 pies (por ejemplo, durante el ensayo de un coro, en restaurantes o en clases de gimnasia.”

¿Por qué es esto tan importante? Significa que es posible que sea necesario modificar las pautas para un distanciamiento físico adecuado.

Seis pies es el punto de referencia de seguridad que ha ayudado a dar forma a la reapertura de escuelas y negocios en todo el país. El número se basa en el hallazgo de larga data de que las gotas más grandes de la tos son tan pesadas que la mayoría de ellas caen al suelo antes de llegar a los 6 pies.

Pero las gotas mucho más pequeñas pueden permanecer en el aire por más tiempo. El debate es si portan suficiente virus para infectar a otra persona. Si la respuesta es sí, las implicaciones para la vida cotidiana podrían ser sustanciales.

Donald Milton, profesor de la Escuela de Medicina de la Universidad de Maryland, ha visto muchas pruebas de que la transmisión aérea es un factor importante, pero ha enfatizado que es difícil encontrar una respuesta definitiva.

Nadie está en desacuerdo con que estar cerca de alguien con la enfermedad sea la principal amenaza. Pero Milton dijo que lo que sucede durante ese tiempo es difícil de desentrañar.

“Podría ser que alguien tosa y te infectes al recibir un golpe directo de gotas en el ojo o la boca”, dijo Milton. “O podría ser a través de una partícula en el aire que inhalas. O podrías haber tocado algo y luego tocado tu nariz o tu boca. Es algo extremadamente difícil de dilucidar”.

Dicho esto, muchos incidentes y estudios apuntan hacia la idea de que las partículas en el aire juegan un papel más importante de lo que se pensaba.

La investigación

Un grupo internacional de investigadores de China, Australia y los Estados Unidos revisó recientemente la evidencia de la transmisión aérea. Concluyeron que era muy posible.

Un estudio publicado en Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences informó que un minuto de hablar en voz alta podría producir “1,000 núcleos de gotitas que contienen virus que podrían permanecer en el aire durante más de ocho minutos”.

¿La conclusión de los autores? “Es probable que otros los inhalen y, por lo tanto, causen nuevas infecciones”.

El transporte público es un campo de pruebas clave.

En China, los científicos observaron a 126 pasajeros en dos autobuses que realizaban un viaje que duró aproximadamente una hora y media. Un autobús estaba libre de virus, el otro tenía un pasajero infectado. Las personas que viajaban en el autobús con el virus tuvieron 41,5 veces más probabilidades de infectarse.

Otros investigadores han analizado un evento de super propagación: la práctica de dos horas y media de duración del coro del Skagit Valley Chorale en Mount Vernon, Washington. De las 61 personas que asistieron, hubo 53 casos confirmados y potenciales, y dos muertes.

Un estudio de la Universidad de Florida tomó muestras del aire en las habitaciones del hospital de dos pacientes con COVID. Encontraron partículas aéreas que tenían suficiente carga viral para infectar a alguien a más de 15 pies de distancia de los pacientes.

En julio, 239 investigadores firmaron conjuntamente una carta abierta que pedía a las agencias de salud nacionales e internacionales que “reconozcan el potencial de propagación a través del aire” de COVID-19.

Escribieron que estudios confiables “han demostrado más allá de cualquier duda razonable que los virus se liberan durante la exhalación, el habla y la tos en microgotas lo suficientemente pequeñas como para permanecer en el aire y representar un riesgo de exposición”.

Aún así, un informe de julio de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) descubrió que si bien la transmisión aérea era posible, se necesitaba una investigación más sólida para confirmar que presenta un riesgo notable.

Milton dijo que, si los líderes de salud pública se tomaran más en serio la transmisión aérea, esto tendría algunas consecuencias. La mayor parte de la actividad comercial podría continuar, pero los restaurantes y bares, debido a que las máscaras no sirven para comer y beber, enfrentarían un obstáculo mayor.

Más allá de eso, se vuelve crítica una mayor atención a la ventilación en espacios más cerrados, al igual que el suministro de máscaras N95. Esas máscaras siguen siendo escasas.

Clínicas post-Covid reciben a pacientes con síntomas persistentes después de recuperarse

[khn_slabs slabs=”260982″ view=”pull-right” /]

Clarence Troutman sobrevivió a una estadía de dos meses en el hospital con COVID-19, y volvió casa a principios de junio. Pero está lejos de superar la enfermedad: todavía tiene dificultad para respirar y sus manos se hinchan y ponen rígidas.

“Antes de Covid, era un hombre relativamente sano de 59 años”, dijo el técnico de internet y cable de Denver, Colorado. “Si tuviera que decir dónde estoy ahora, diría alrededor del 50% de mi potencial, pero cuando volví a casa estaba al 20%”.

[khn_slabs syndicated=”863440″ view=”pull-right” /]

Troutman atribuye su progreso en gran parte a la “motivación y educación” de un nuevo programa para pacientes post-Covid de la Universidad de Colorado, una de un número pequeño pero creciente de clínicas cuyo objetivo es tratar, y estudiar, a los que han tenido la impredecible enfermedad causada por el nuevo coronavirus.

Mientras se acerca la elección presidencial en los Estados Unidos, se pone mucha atención en las cifras diarias de infecciones o en el creciente número de muertes. Pero otra medida es importante: los pacientes que sobreviven pero continúan luchando con una variedad de efectos físicos o mentales, como daño pulmonar, problemas cardíacos o neurológicos , ansiedad y depresión.

“Necesitamos pensar en cómo vamos a brindar atención a los pacientes cuya recuperación del virus puede llevar años”, dijo la doctora Sarah Jolley, neumonóloga del Hospital de la Universidad de Colorado de UCHealth y directora de la clínica Post-Covid de la UCHealth, donde se atiende Troutman.

Esa necesidad ha impulsado las clínicas post-Covid, que reúnen a una variedad de especialistas en un solo lugar.

Una de las primeras y más grandes clínicas de este tipo está en Mount Sinai, en la ciudad de Nueva York, pero también se han lanzado programas en la Universidad de California-San Francisco, el Centro Médico de la Universidad de Stanford y la Universidad de Pensilvania. La Clínica Cleveland planea abrir una a principios del próximo año.

Y no se trata solo de centros médicos académicos: St. John’s Well Child and Family Center, parte de una red de clínicas comunitarias en el centro sur de Los Ángeles, dijo recientemente que tiene como meta seguir evaluando a miles de sus pacientes que fueron diagnosticados con Covid desde marzo para analizar los efectos a plazo.

La idea general es reunir a profesionales médicos de un amplio espectro: neumonólogos, cardiólogos, y especialistas en médula espinal. También a expertos en salud mental, trabajadores sociales y farmacéuticos.

Muchos de los centros también realizan investigaciones, con el objetivo de comprender mejor por qué el virus afecta con tanta fuerza a ciertos pacientes.

“Algunos de nuestros pacientes, incluso aquéllos con un ventilador al borde de la muerte, saldrán notablemente ilesos”, dijo el doctor Lekshmi Santhosh, profesor asistente de cuidados críticos pulmonares y líder de la clínica OPTIMAL, el programa post-Covid en UC San Francisco.

“Otros, incluso los que nunca fueron hospitalizados, tienen fatiga incapacitante, dolor de pecho continuo y dificultad para respirar, y hay un gran espectro en el medio”.

Es demasiado pronto para saber cuánto tiempo durarán los síntomas y efectos físicos persistentes, o para hacer estimaciones precisas sobre el porcentaje de pacientes afectados.

Algunos estudios iniciales dan pistas. Un informe austríaco publicado en septiembre encontró que 76 de los primeros 86 pacientes estudiados tenían evidencia de daño pulmonar seis semanas después de haber recibido el alta, número que se redujo a 48 pacientes a las 12 semanas.

Algunos investigadores y clínicas dicen que alrededor del 10% de los pacientes con Covid en los Estados Unidos pueden tener efectos a largo plazo, dijo el doctor Zijian Chen, director médico del Centro de Atención Post-Covid en Mount Sinai, que a la fecha ha inscrito a 400 pacientes.

Si esa estimación es correcta, y Chen enfatizó que se necesita más investigación para asegurarlo, se traducirá en pacientes que ingresan al sistema médico en masa, a menudo con múltiples problemas.

La forma en que respondan los sistemas de salud y las aseguradoras será clave, dijo. Más de 6.5 millones de estadounidenses han dado positivo para la enfermedad. Si menos del 10%, digamos 500,000, ya tienen síntomas persistentes, “esa cifra es asombrosa”, dijo Chen. “¿Cuánta atención médica se necesitará?”.

Aunque los costos iniciales podrían ser un obstáculo, las clínicas mismas pueden eventualmente generar ingresos, que los centros médicos necesitan, al atraer pacientes, muchos de los cuales tienen un seguro para cubrir parte o la totalidad del costo de estas visitas a largo plazo.

Chen, de Mount Sinai, dijo que los centros especializados pueden ayudar a reducir el gasto en salud al brindar una atención coordinada y más rentable que evite la duplicación de pruebas a las que un paciente podría someterse de otra manera.

“Hemos visto pacientes que cuando los internan, ya se han hecho cuatro resonancias magnéticas o tomografías computarizadas y una cantidad de análisis de sangre”, dijo.

El programa consolida esos resultados anteriores y determina si se necesitan pruebas adicionales. A veces, la respuesta a las causas de los síntomas duraderos de los pacientes sigue siendo difícil de obtener. Un problema para los pacientes que buscan ayuda fuera de las clínicas especializadas es que cuando no hay una causa clara para su condición, se les puede decir que los síntomas son imaginarios.

“Creo en los pacientes”, dijo Chen.

Aproximadamente la mitad de los pacientes de la clínica han recibido resultados de pruebas que muestran daños, explicó Chen, endocrinólogo y especialista en medicina interna. Para esos pacientes, la clínica puede desarrollar un plan de tratamiento. Pero, y es frustrante, la otra mitad tiene resultados no concluyentes aunque presenta una variedad de síntomas.

“Eso hace que sea más difícil de tratar”, dijo Chen.

Los expertos ven paralelismos con un impulso en la última década para establecer clínicas especiales para tratar a los pacientes dados de alta de terapias intensivas, que pueden tener problemas relacionados con el reposo en cama a largo plazo o el delirio que muchos experimentan mientras están hospitalizados. Algunas de las clínicas post-Covid siguen el modelo de las de post-terapia intensiva o son versiones ampliadas de este modelo.

Por ejemplo, el Centro de Recuperación de terapia intensiva del Centro Médico de la Universidad de Vanderbilt, que abrió en 2012, está aceptando pacientes post-Covid.

Hay alrededor de una docena de estas clínicas nivel nacional, algunas de las cuales también están trabajando ahora con pacientes de Covid, dijo James Jackson, director de resultados a largo plazo en el centro de Vanderbilt. Al menos otra docena de centros post-Covid están en desarrollo.

Los centros generalmente realizan una evaluación inicial unas semanas después que un paciente es diagnosticado o dado de alta del hospital, generalmente con una videollamada. Luego se programa una visita al mes.

“En un mundo ideal, con estas clínicas post-Covid, se puede identificar a los pacientes y llevarlos a rehabilitación”, dijo. “Incluso si lo principal que hicieron estas clínicas fue decirles a los pacientes: ‘Esto es real, no es un invento’, ese impacto sería importante”, agrego Jackson.

El financiamiento es el mayor obstáculo. Muchos hospitales perdieron ingresos sustanciales por la cancelación de procedimientos electivos durante las cuarentenas.

“Entonces, no es un buen momento para lanzar una nueva actividad que requiere un subsidio inicial”, dijo Glenn Melnick, profesor de Economía de la Salud en la Universidad del Sur de California.

En UCSF, un grupo selecto de miembros de la facultad forman parte del personal de las clínicas post-Covid y algunos profesionales de salud mental ofrecen su tiempo como voluntarios, dijo Santhosh. Chen, de Mount Sinai, dijo que pudo reclutar profesionales de salud entre los que tenían más tiempo libre a  falta de procedimientos electivos.

Jackson, en Vanderbilt, dijo que lamentablemente no ha habido suficiente investigación sobre el costo y la efectividad clínica de los centros post-terapia intensiva.

“En los primeros días, puede haber habido dudas sobre cuánto valor agrega esto”, apuntó. “Ahora, la pregunta no es tanto si es una buena idea, sino si es factible”.

En este momento, los centros post-Covid son ante todo un esfuerzo de investigación, dijo Len Nichols, economista y becario no residente del Urban Institute.

“Si estos pacientes mejoran con el tratamiento de los síntomas a largo plazo, eso es bueno para todos”, dijo Nichols. “Todavía no hay suficientes pacientes para convertirlo en un modelo de negocio, pero si se convierte en el lugar al que acudir luego del alta, podría resultar en un modelo de negocio para algunas de las instituciones de élite”.

Corralling the Facts on Herd Immunity

For a term that’s at least 100 years old, “herd immunity” has gained new life in 2020.

It starred in many headlines last month, when reports surfaced that a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force and adviser to the president, Dr. Scott Atlas, recommended it as a strategy to combat COVID-19. The Washington Post reported that Atlas, a health care policy expert from the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, suggested the virus should be allowed to spread through the population so people build up immunity, rather than trying to contain it through shutdown measures.

At a town hall event a few weeks later, President Donald Trump raised the idea himself, saying the coronavirus would simply “go away,” as people developed “herd mentality” — a slip-up that nonetheless was understood to reference the same concept.

And as recently as last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) sparked a heated debate at a committee hearing when he suggested that the decline in COVID cases in New York City was due to herd or community immunity in the population rather than public health measures, such as wearing masks and social distancing. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top U.S. infectious disease official, rebuked Paul, pointing out that only 22% of the city’s residents have COVID antibodies.

“If you believe 22% is herd immunity, I believe you’re alone in that,” Fauci told the senator.

All this talk got us thinking: People seem pretty confused about herd immunity. What exactly does it mean and can it be used to combat COVID-19?

An Uncertain Strategy With Great Cost

Herd immunity, also called community or population immunity, refers to the point at which enough people are sufficiently resistant to a disease that an infectious agent is unlikely to spread from person to person. As a result, the whole community — including those who don’t have immunity — becomes protected.

People generally gain immunity in one of two ways: vaccination or infection. For most diseases in recent history — from smallpox and polio to diphtheria and rubella —vaccines have been the route to herd immunity. For the most highly contagious diseases, like measles, about 94% of the population needs to be immunized to achieve that level of protection. For COVID-19, scientists estimate the percentage falls between 50% to 70%.

Before the COVID pandemic, experts can’t recall examples in which governments intentionally turned to natural infection to achieve herd immunity. Generally, such a strategy could lead to widespread illness and death, said Dr. Carlos del Rio, an expert in infectious disease and vaccines at the Emory University School of Medicine.

“It’s a terrible idea,” del Rio said. “It’s basically giving up on public health.”

A new, large study found fewer than 1 in 10 Americans have antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Even in the hardest-hit areas, like New York City, estimates of immunity among residents are about 25%.

To reach 50% to 70% immunity would mean about four times as many people getting infected and an “incredible number of deaths,” said Josh Michaud, associate director of global health policy at KFF. Even those who survive could suffer severe consequences to their heart, brain and other organs, potentially leaving them with lifelong disabilities. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

“It’s not a strategy to pursue unless your goal is to pursue suffering and death,” Michaud said.

What’s more, some scientists say natural immunity may not even be feasible for COVID-19. While most people presumably achieve some degree of protection after being infected once, cases of people who recovered from the disease and were reinfected have raised questions about how long natural immunity lasts and whether someone with immunity could still spread the virus.

Even the method scientists are using to measure immunity — blood tests that detect antibodies to the coronavirus — may not be an accurate indicator of who is protected against COVID-19, said Dr. Stuart Ray, an infectious disease expert at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

With so many unanswered questions, he concluded: “We can’t count on natural herd immunity as a way to control this epidemic.”

Vaccines, on the other hand, can be made to trigger stronger immunity than natural infection, Ray said. That’s why people who acquire a natural tetanus infection, for example, are still advised to get the tetanus vaccine. The hope is that vaccines being developed for COVID-19 will provide the same higher level of immunity.

But What About Sweden?

In the political debate around COVID-19, proponents of a natural herd immunity strategy often point to Sweden as a model. Although the Scandinavian country imposed fewer economic shutdown measures, its death toll is less than a fraction of that in the U.S., Paul said at Wednesday’s Senate hearing.

But health experts — including Fauci during the same hearing — argue that’s a flawed comparison. The U.S. has a much more diverse population, with vulnerable groups like Black and Hispanic Americans being disproportionately affected by the coronavirus, said Dr. Jon Andrus, an epidemiology expert at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health. The U.S. also has greater population density, especially on the coasts, he said.

When compared with other Scandinavian countries, Sweden’s death toll is much higher. It has had 5,880 deaths linked to COVID-19 so far, according to data from Johns Hopkins University. That’s nearly 58 deaths per 100,000 residents — several times higher than the death rates of 5 or 6 per 100,000 in Norway and Finland. In fact, as a result of COVID-19, Sweden has recorded its highest death toll since a famine swept the country 150 years ago. And cases are on the rise.

Despite that level of loss, it’s still unclear if Sweden has reached the threshold for herd immunity. A study by the country’s public health agency found that by late April only 7% of residents in Stockholm had antibodies for COVID-19. In other Swedish cities, the percentage was even lower.

Those findings mirror other studies around the globe. Researchers reported that in several cities across Spain, Switzerland and the U.S. — with the exception of New York City — less than 10% of the population had COVID-19 antibodies by June, despite months of exposure and high infection rates. The results led commentators in the medical research journal The Lancet to write, “In light of these findings, any proposed approach to achieve herd immunity through natural infection is not only highly unethical, but also unachievable.”

Herd Immunity Is Still Far Off

The bottom line, medical experts say, is that natural herd immunity is an uncertain strategy, and attempts to pursue it could result in a slew of unnecessary deaths. A vaccine, whenever one becomes available, would offer a safer route to community-wide protection.

Until then, they emphasize there is still plenty to do to counter the pandemic. Wearing masks, practicing social distancing, hand-washing and ramping up testing and contact tracing have all proven to help curb the virus’s spread.

“As we wait for new tools to be added to the toolbox,” Andrus said, “we have to keep reminding ourselves that there are measures in this very moment that we could be using to save lives.”

KHN reporter Victoria Knight contributed to this article.


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).

‘You’re Going to Release Him When He Was Hurting Himself?’

When Joe Prude called Rochester, New York, police to report his brother missing, he was struggling to understand why Daniel Prude had been released from the hospital hours earlier. Joe Prude described his brother’s suicidal behavior.

“He jumped 21 stairs down to my basement, headfirst,” Joe said in a video recorded by the responding officer’s body camera in the early hours of March 23. Joe’s wife, Valerie, described Daniel nearly jumping in front of a train on the tracks that run behind their house the previous day.

“The train missed him by this much,” Joe said, holding his thumb and pointer finger a few inches apart.

“When the doctor called me and told me that they released him, I’m saying, ‘How you going to sit here and tell me you’re going to release him when he was hurting himself? Come on. You weren’t sworn to do that,’” he said on the body camera footage.

At the point of this recorded conversation just after 3 a.m., Joe and Valerie Prude knew only that Daniel was missing, delusional and vulnerable. They didn’t know his next encounter with the police would be fatal.

Police would find Daniel minutes later ― naked, acting irrationally. Because he spat in the direction of officers and allegedly said he had the novel coronavirus, officers placed a white hood, called a “spit hood,” over his head. When he started trying to stand up, despite being restrained by handcuffs, an officer placed much of his body weight over Daniel’s head and pushed it into the pavement.

Daniel died a week later when his family took him off life support. The county medical examiner’s autopsy described his death as a homicide and listed the immediate cause of death as “complications of asphyxia in the setting of physical restraint.” The incident garnered widespread attention as another example of a Black man killed after an encounter with police.

Less attention has been paid to what happened to Daniel Prude in the preceding hours, when he was treated and released after a psychiatric assessment at Strong Memorial Hospital, run by the University of Rochester Medical Center.

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

Joe Prude called police at about 7 p.m. on March 22 because he needed help getting Daniel to the hospital. Daniel had been having problems with a PCP addiction, Joe told officers. Now he had begun telling Joe and Valerie that people were out to get him, and he wanted to die.

By about 11 p.m., Daniel was released from the hospital, according to Joe and police records. “He was calm as hell when he got back here,” Joe told police.

That didn’t last.

“He was fine for a little bit, then all of a sudden started acting crazy,” Joe said. He told police that Daniel asked him for a cigarette, and when he went to get one, Daniel took off running. He was barefoot, wearing only a tank top and long johns in 30-degree weather.

“He was gone. Track star status. Hauled ass like Carl Lewis,” Joe told

Around 3 a.m. the next day, four hours after his release from the hospital, emergency dispatchers started fielding calls about Daniel Prude. His brother reported him missing, and a tow truck driver spotted him, naked and bloodied, on West Main Street, police records show.

Police body camera footage shows that by 3:20 a.m., officer Mark Vaughn was pressing Daniel Prude’s head into the pavement.

While restrained, Prude stopped breathing. An ambulance crew resuscitated him, but he was in critical condition. His brain was damaged after being deprived of oxygen. He died a week later at Strong Memorial after being taken off life support.

The University of Rochester Medical Center said patient privacy laws bar it from discussing the specifics of Prude’s treatment and release, but, in general terms, spokesperson Chip Partner said, the hospital is bound by a New York state law that requires patients to be released within 24 hours unless they have a mental illness that is likely to result in serious harm to themselves or others and that requires immediate observation, care and hospital treatment.

The details of Prude’s encounters with law enforcement and the health care system offer a look into the practice of emergency psychiatry, and how, as in many branches of medicine in the U.S., mistakes in that field are disproportionately borne by Black people.

Medical decisions in a case like Daniel Prude’s are high-stakes, with little margin for error, said Dr. Ken Duckworth, chief medical officer of the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

“Emergency psychiatric assessment is very challenging, and the potential for catastrophic outcomes following your decision is very real,” he said.

The hospital where Prude died has faced scrutiny over its treatment of psychiatric patients and discharge procedures before.

In April 2018, federal inspectors found security officers at the hospital had used law enforcement restraint techniques against a pediatric psychiatry patient, breaking her arm and sending her to the emergency room.

Months later, inspectors found the hospital discharged a patient who was in the emergency room with a history of dementia and multiple medical problems despite a discrepancy in her address between her medical record and the information she gave hospital staff.

Two years earlier, inspectors found that hospital staff had placed patients in ankle and wrist restraints without an order to do so, and placed another patient in restraints without documenting when the restraints were released. Restraints are meant to be used only with a physician’s order, and federal rules require precise documentation of their use.

None of these incidents at Strong Memorial Hospital garnered media attention at the time they happened or at the time the reports were made public.

Strong spokesperson Partner said that immediately after the April 2018 inspection the hospital changed its public safety protocol to eliminate the use of law enforcement techniques to manage a violent patient unless that patient is being arrested.

He said updated staff training and discharge protocol after these incidents now mitigates the risk of discharging someone who was not ready to be released. “These protocols were well established in 2020 and had absolutely no bearing on the evaluation or treatment of Daniel Prude on March 22,” Partner said.

Prude’s case is unusual because the consequences of the decision by doctors to release him have played out so publicly, said Duckworth. Usually, emergency room psychiatrists never find out what happened to their patients.

“You make a very big decision, which usually has no known outcome. You put this person in the hospital, you go on to the next patient. You send this person home, you go on to the next patient,” he said.

Duckworth said he would not second-guess the actions of Prude’s hospital team in the moment, but with the benefit of hindsight, “there’s overwhelming evidence that he had a psychotic illness and was quite vulnerable,” he said. “He didn’t need to die.”

In a statement, URMC said its treatment of Prude was “medically appropriate and compassionate.”

Several oversight organizations are investigating.

The Joint Commission, which certifies hospitals to receive federal funding, said it’s reviewing Prude’s treatment at Strong. New York state’s Justice Center is investigating on behalf of the state Office of Mental Health.

The university medical center itself is still conducting an internal clinical review.

In response to questions from NPR and KHN about whether the hospital’s treatment of Prude could have been affected by his race, Partner said the medical center asked Dr. Altha Stewart, past president of the American Psychiatric Association, “to conduct a third-party independent review through her lens as a national expert on racism and bias in psychiatric care.”

In a separate interview before the request from URMC, she described how unconscious bias can cloud clinicians’ judgment and make it difficult for them to make the best possible decisions for their patients.

“It is very clear that in today’s health care system, bias is built in structurally,” Stewart said. “Seeing a tall, imposing Black man who is behaving aggressively puts in place a series of ideas and thoughts and assumptions that direct decision-making.”

Psychiatric disorders in Black patients are less likely to be taken seriously than in white patients, Stewart said. Unequal treatment starts early.

Black boys are viewed as adults more often than white boys of the same age, said Stewart, who is also the director of the Center for Health in Justice Involved Youth.

“So a Black child with a meltdown is described as aggressive, obstinate, oppositional,” she said, “as opposed to traumatized, depressed, anxious.”

Those expectations follow Black boys through adulthood and in the health care system, increasing the odds that doctors will view Black men as a lost cause and provide subpar care, Stewart said.

She stressed that she does not have any direct knowledge of deficiencies in the care of Daniel Prude, but she said that Black men, like Prude, are disproportionately likely to be misdiagnosed, mistreated and written off as a result of structural bias and unconscious racism.

A group of medical students at the University of Rochester wrote in an open letter that Daniel Prude was “sentenced to death by our failed healthcare system.”

“Not only do our current models of healthcare leave gaping holes for individuals such as Daniel to fall through, but they do so in manners which are fraught with racism,” the students wrote.

Partner, the medical center spokesperson, said the psychiatry department’s Office of Diversity, Inclusion, Culture and Equity will evaluate Daniel’s treatment for potential bias. He said the medical center “recognizes that we have a long way to go before we can confidently say that our policies and practices are universally culturally appropriate to the populations we serve.”

Both Stewart and Duckworth said reducing the role that police play in addressing mental health crises would increase the odds of survival for a person released too early from psychiatric care.

Federal inspection reports show that hospitals across the country have released patients who, like Prude, ended up in grave danger only shortly thereafter.

In March 2018, a patient with a history of schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide attempts arrived at Russell County Hospital in Kentucky complaining of alcohol withdrawal, depression, anxiety and pain. An hour and a half later, the patient was discharged with instructions to “follow up with his/her primary care provider and take medications as prescribed.” Two hours later, the patient was back in the same hospital. A physician’s notes said the patient had drunk a bottle of Benadryl “in effort to kill self.”

In August 2018, federal inspectors found that UT Health East Texas Pittsburg Hospital discharged a patient who had verbalized a plan for suicide. The patient got a ride to his truck from the county sheriff. Later that day, the patient was found dead in the truck from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Last summer at Stafford County Hospital in Kansas, a patient arrived in the emergency room saying she had drunk half a liter of vodka because she was upset and wanted to die. She told hospital staff that she started drinking that day after two years of sobriety and that she “did not feel safe to go home due to the presence of alcohol.” The hospital discharged her 11 minutes later.

Earlier this year, inspectors found that a patient with a history of psychosis went to the emergency room at Mercy Hospital in St. Louis and told staff she needed to get back on her medication. She was delusional, disoriented, homeless and unable to give her name. She was discharged with a voucher for cab fare but no follow-up appointments or services and no plan to ensure she got her medication.

A spokesperson for UT Health East Texas said the health system has since implemented a process for staff to more thoroughly document mental health concerns in patient records. Mercy Hospital in St. Louis said it takes the health and safety of each patient very seriously “regardless of race, ethnicity or ability to pay.”

Neither of the other hospitals responded to emails or calls seeking comment.

This story is part of a partnership that includes Side Effects Public MediaNPR and KHN, an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

‘No Mercy’ Explores the Fallout After a Small Town Loses Its Hospital

[protected-iframe id=”f0c1c01d24a197ec83919fb18b7db6e3″ height=”210″ width=”100%” /]

Can’t see the audio player? Click here to listen.

Each season, “Where It Hurts” takes you somewhere new  — to an overlooked part of the country to explore cracks in the American health system that leave people frustrated — and without the care they need. The story begins in Fort Scott, Kansas. Rural. Deeply Christian. And sicker than other parts of the state. When Mercy Hospital shut its doors, the town’s sense of identity wavered. Season One “No Mercy” is about the people who remain, surviving the best way they know how. Host and investigative journalist Sarah Jane Tribble spent more than a year revisiting southeastern Kansas, where she grew up, to document the sparking tensions, anger and fear many people felt as they struggled to come to terms with the hospital’s closure.

Chapter 1: ‘It Is What It Is’

Midwesterners aren’t known for complaining. But after Mercy Hospital Fort Scott closed, hardship trickled down to people whose lives were already hard. Pat Wheeler has emphysema. Her husband, Ralph, has end-stage kidney failure, and the couple are barely making ends meet as they raise their teenage grandson. Pat is angry with hospital executives who she said yanked a lifeline from residents. “They took more than a hospital from us,” she said.

Click here to read the episode transcript.

Pat Wheeler (Sarah Jane Tribble/KHN)

“Where It Hurts” is a podcast collaboration between KHN and St. Louis Public Radio. Season One extends the storytelling from Sarah Jane Tribble’s award-winning series, “No Mercy.”

Subscribe to Where It Hurts on iTunes, Stitcher, Google, Spotify or Pocket Casts.

And to hear all KHN podcasts, click here.

Post-COVID Clinics Get Jump-Start From Patients With Lingering Illness

Clarence Troutman survived a two-month hospital stay with COVID-19, then went home in early June. But he’s far from over the disease, still suffering from limited endurance, shortness of breath and hands that can be stiff and swollen.

“Before COVID, I was a 59-year-old, relatively healthy man,” said the broadband technician from Denver. “If I had to say where I’m at now, I’d say about 50% of where I was, but when I first went home, I was at 20%.”

He credits much of his progress to the “motivation and education” gleaned from a new program for post-COVID patients at the University of Colorado, one of a small but growing number of clinics aimed at treating and studying those who have had the unpredictable coronavirus.

[khn_slabs slabs=”241887″ view=”inline” /]

As the election nears, much attention is focused on daily infection numbers or the climbing death toll, but another measure matters: Patients who survive but continue to wrestle with a range of physical or mental effects, including lung damage, heart or neurological concerns, anxiety and depression.

“We need to think about how we’re going to provide care for patients who may be recovering for years after the virus,” said Dr. Sarah Jolley, a pulmonologist with UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital and director of UCHealth’s Post-Covid Clinic, where Troutman is seen.

That need has jump-started post-COVID clinics, which bring together a range of specialists into a one-stop shop.

One of the first and largest such clinics is at Mount Sinai in New York City, but programs have also launched at the University of California-San Francisco, Stanford University Medical Center and the University of Pennsylvania. The Cleveland Clinic plans to open one early next year. And it’s not just academic medical centers: St. John’s Well Child and Family Center, part of a network of community clinics in South Central Los Angeles, said this month it aims to test thousands of its patients who were diagnosed with COVID since March for long-term effects.

The general idea is to bring together medical professionals across a broad spectrum, including physicians who specialize in lung disorders, heart issues and brain and spinal cord problems. Mental health specialists are also involved, along with social workers and pharmacists. Many of the centers also do research studies, aiming to better understand why the virus hits certain patients so hard.

“Some of our patients, even those on a ventilator on death’s door, will come out remarkably unscathed,” said Dr. Lekshmi Santhosh, an assistant professor of pulmonary critical care and a leader of the post-COVID program at UC-San Francisco, called the OPTIMAL clinic. “Others, even those who were never hospitalized, have disabling fatigue, ongoing chest pain and shortness of breath, and there’s a whole spectrum in between.”

‘Staggering’ Medical Need

It’s too early to know how long the persistent medical effects and symptoms will linger, or to make accurate estimates on the percentage of patients affected.

Some early studies are sobering. An Austrian report released this month found that 76 of the first 86 patients studied had evidence of lung damage six weeks after hospital discharge, but that dropped to 48 patients at 12 weeks.

Some researchers and clinics say about 10% of U.S. COVID patients they see may have longer-running effects, said Dr. Zijian Chen, medical director of the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai, which has enrolled 400 patients so far.

If that estimate is correct — and Chen emphasized that more research is needed to make sure — it translates to patients entering the medical system in droves, often with multiple issues.

How health systems and insurers respond will be key, he said. More than 6.5 million U.S. residents have tested positive for the disease. If fewer than 10% — say 500,000 — already have long-lasting symptoms, “that number is staggering,” Chen said. “How much medical care will be needed for that?”

Though startup costs could be a hurdle, the clinics themselves may eventually draw much-needed revenue to medical centers by attracting patients, many of whom have insurance to cover some or all of the cost of repeated visits.

Chen at Mount Sinai said the specialized centers can help lower health spending by providing more cost-effective, coordinated care that avoids duplicative testing a patient might otherwise undergo.

“We’ve seen patients that when they come in, they’ve already had four MRI or CT scans and a stack of bloodwork,” he said.

The program consolidates those earlier results and determines if any additional testing is needed. Sometimes the answer to what’s causing patients’ long-lasting symptoms remains elusive. One problem for patients seeking help outside of dedicated clinics is that when there is no clear cause for their condition, they may be told the symptoms are imagined.

“I believe in the patients,” said Chen.

About half the clinic’s patients have received test results showing damage, said Chen, an endocrinologist and internal medicine physician. For those patients, the clinic can develop a treatment plan. But, frustratingly, the other half have inconclusive test results yet exhibit a range of symptoms.

“That makes it more difficult to treat,” said Chen.

Experts see parallels to a push in the past decade to establish special clinics to treat patients released from ICU wards, who may have problems related to long-term bed rest or the delirium many experience while hospitalized. Some of the current post-COVID clinics are modeled after the post-ICU clinics or are expanded versions of them.

The ICU Recovery Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, for instance, which opened in 2012, is accepting post-COVID patients.

There are about a dozen post-ICU clinics nationally, some of which are also now working with COVID patients, said James Jackson, director of long-term outcomes at the Vanderbilt center. In addition, he’s heard of at least another dozen post-COVID centers in development.

The centers generally do an initial assessment a few weeks after a patient is diagnosed or discharged from the hospital, often by video call. Check-in and repeat visits are scheduled every month or so after that.

“In an ideal world, with these post-COVID clinics, you can identify the patients and get them into rehab,” he said. “Even if the primary thing these clinics did was to say to patients, ‘This is real, it is not all in your head,’” he added, “that impact would be important.”

A Question of Feasibility

Financing is the largest obstacle, program proponents say. Many hospitals lost substantial revenue to canceled elective procedures during stay-at-home periods.

“So, it’s not a great time to be pitching a new activity that requires a startup subsidy,” said Glenn Melnick, a professor of health economics at the University of Southern California.

Stanford University launched its program with philanthropic funding, which allowed a special clinic to open in April. Initially, the clinic offered in-person and remote care to Stanford Health Care patients with active COVID-19 who were not hospitalized. With the addition of federal research funding, the center has begun a study that will follow patients after recovery — whether hospitalized previously or not — for up to five years to document any long-term effects.

At UCSF, a select group of faculty members staff the post-COVID clinics and some mental health professionals volunteer their time, said Santhosh. Mount Sinai’s Chen said he was able to recruit team members and support staff from the ranks of those whose elective patient caseload had dropped.

Jackson, at Vanderbilt, said unfortunately there’s not been enough research into the cost-and-clinical effectiveness of post-ICU centers.

“In the early days, there may have been questions about how much value does this add,” he noted. “Now, the question is not so much is it a good idea, but is it feasible?”

Right now, the post-COVID centers are foremost a research effort, said Len Nichols, an economist and nonresident fellow at the Urban Institute.

“If these guys get good at treating long-term symptoms, that’s good for all of us,” said Nichols. “There’s not enough patients to make it a business model yet, but if they become the place to go when you get it, it could become a business model for some of the elite institutions.”

Trump’s Executive Order on Preexisting Conditions Lacks Teeth, Experts Say

Protecting people with preexisting medical conditions is an issue that has followed President Donald Trump his entire first term. Now, Trump has signed an executive order that he says locks in coverage regardless of anyone’s health history. “Any health care reform legislation that comes to my desk from Congress must protect the preexisting conditions or I won’t sign it,” Trump said at a Sept. 24 signing event.

With the executive order, Trump said, “This is affirmed, signed and done, so we can put that to rest.”

Health law and health policy experts say Trump has put nothing to rest.

Here’s why.

The core text of the order is brief.

“It has been and will continue to be the policy of the United States to give Americans seeking healthcare more choice, lower costs, and better care and to ensure that Americans with pre-existing conditions can obtain the insurance of their choice at affordable rates.”

Joe Antos with the American Enterprise Institute, a market-oriented think tank, said the order “has no technical content.”

“All it really is, is a statement that he wants one or more of his departments to come up with a plan. And he doesn’t give any guidance or the vaguest outline of what that plan should be.”

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

It takes more than a bill title to actually deliver guaranteed coverage. A Republican measure in the Senate is a good example. It’s called the Protect Act, but it has loopholes that would allow insurance companies to drop coverage of certain expensive diseases from all their policies.

So far, Republican proposals have not matched what the Affordable Care Act already provides. And University of Pennsylvania law professor Allison Hoffman said Trump’s executive order doesn’t change that.

“The language itself guarantees nothing near the protections in the Affordable Care Act, and such sweeping protections are only possible by congressional action, not regulation,” Hoffman said.

Trump and other Republicans on the campaign trail have faced repeated questioning about what will happen if the U.S. Supreme Court invalidates the Affordable Care Act. The White House is strongly behind a legal case to declare it unconstitutional. Oral arguments before the court are scheduled for Nov. 10.

Indiana University health law professor David Gamage said the executive order is no stopgap should the White House win that argument.

“Were the court to hold the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, the executive order would still do nothing, because it has no enforcement power,” Gamage said.

Larry Levitt, head of health policy at KFF, a widely used source of neutral health care data, called Trump’s order “a pinky promise to protect people with preexisting conditions.”

Trump’s critics have said the order runs counter to the administration’s goal of undoing the Affordable Care Act. But as Levitt and others point out, there are other ways to guarantee coverage to everyone.

Lanhee Chen at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution said high-risk pools remain a popular idea in conservative circles.

“Most conservative analysts, for example, have supported a system of well-funded high-risk pools at the state level to provide protections for the impacted population,” Chen said.

High-risk pools have been around for decades. With them, the government, rather than a private insurance company, pays for a person’s care. But as with everything in health care, you don’t get something for nothing. State high-risk pools in the past lacked enough money to cover the large number of people with needs.

Hoffman said some high-risk pools charged very high premiums, making them unaffordable to many people.

Coverage for preexisting conditions is a persistent issue because so many Americans have them or fear having them in the future.

KFF estimates that 54 million Americans have a preexisting condition that would have led to a denial of coverage in the individual insurance market before the Affordable Care Act took effect.