Category: From California Healthline.org

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

KHN senior correspondent Markian Hawryluk joined KUNC’s Erin O’Toole on “Colorado Edition” to discuss his recent story about how the Affordable Care Act is affecting the close Colorado Senate race between incumbent Republican Sen. Cory Gardner and Democratic former Gov. John Hickenlooper. That race and five others involving vulnerable Republican incumbents who sought to repeal the health care law could determine which party controls the U.S. Senate in 2021.

Public sentiment about the health care law, also known as Obamacare, has shifted. What was a political liability in 2014 for candidates has become a selling point amid the loss of jobs and health insurance for millions of people during the coronavirus pandemic.

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).

SACRAMENTO — After years of failed attempts and vociferous opposition, California lawmakers on Monday adopted a measure to grant nurse practitioners the ability to practice without doctor supervision — but only after making big concessions to the powerful doctors’ lobby, which nonetheless remains opposed.

The bill now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for consideration, fenced in by amendments that would stringently limit how much independence nurse practitioners — nurses with advanced training and degrees — can have to practice medicine.

Lawmakers credit these compromises, like them or not, for finally allowing them to push the issue over the finish line, capping years of political scrapping and perhaps one day altering the delivery of health care in California.

“This is not an intrusion on a hallowed profession, it’s a relief,” said state Sen. John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa), one of four Republican senators who voted for the bill. Moorlach said the measure would get more practitioners into underserved areas that don’t have enough doctors.

“It’s like the cavalry coming up over the hill to provide reinforcements to a tired army of wonderful and overworked doctors,” he said.

California is behind most other states in empowering nurse practitioners. If the bill becomes law, the state would join nearly 40 others to grant some level of independence to nurse practitioners; 22 grant full independence, according to the American Association of Nurse Practitioners. California would have among the most restrictive policies on nurse practitioner independence in the country.

“I’m not going to say I regret any of these changes,” said Assembly member Jim Wood (D-Santa Rosa), who chairs the Assembly Health Committee and authored the bill, AB-890.

Wood opposed previous attempts to remove supervision requirements.

“I wish it could be a little less strict, quite frankly,” he said, adding that this was a reasonable compromise informed by his experiences as a dentist and what he learned from other providers.

Today, nurse practitioners must enter into a written agreement with a physician to oversee their work with patients. In exchange, physicians bill them between $5,000 and $15,000 per year, according to a report by the California Health Care Foundation and the University of California-San Francisco. (California Healthline is an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.)

“Where we are with the pandemic and the craziness of the world today, it highlights why there’s a need for this,” said Andrew Acosta, a spokesperson for the California Association for Nurse Practitioners. “The doctor shortage isn’t going away anytime soon.”

Under Wood’s measure, nurse practitioners would be able to see patients in their own practice, but only after working under physician supervision for at least three years. The bill also contains many other restrictions.

Nurse practitioners argue that the measure, even with its limitations, would ease primary care shortages, especially in rural areas — a problem the pandemic has made more stark.

Opponents, primarily the powerful California Medical Association, which is the doctors’ lobbying group, counter that stripping nurse practitioners of physician oversight would lead to a lower standard of care, and that nurse practitioners wouldn’t necessarily flock to rural areas once they’re free of physician supervision.

These arguments aren’t new in Sacramento, but lawmakers and lobbyists say this version of the bill succeeded because there are new leaders at the helm of influential legislative committees who were willing to make changes, and because the pandemic has changed health care.

“I think the legislature is starting to realize decades of evidence that nurse practitioners are safe, productive providers,” said Ed Hernandez, a former legislator who was termed out in 2018 and authored the last two failed bills. “I think the policy is finally overshadowing the politics” of the California Medical Association.

Still, the biggest difference this year is the bill itself. Hernandez’s bills, introduced in 2013 and 2015, were “clean” bills that granted independence to nurse practitioners without many requirements.

There’s nothing clean about Wood’s bill, which was heavily amended in the state Senate. Instead of simply lifting the supervision requirements on nurse practitioners, the measure imposes several hoops for nurse practitioners to jump through. Before they could practice independently, nurse practitioners would have to be certified by preapproved national nursing boards, and possibly complete additional California-specific testing if accredited out of state.

Once certified, they would have to practice under physician supervision for at least three years — up to six in some cases — before they could strike out on their own. And they would have to disclose to patients that they aren’t doctors.

The bill even prescribes a Spanish phrase for “nurse practitioner”: enfermera especializada. (Technically, this refers to a female nurse. The bill doesn’t provide the equivalent phrase for a male nurse.)

That’s not even all the amendments — and the measure wouldn’t take effect until 2023.

The requirements were inserted in response to criticism from the California Medical Association that nurse practitioners are not qualified to provide patient care without physician oversight, and that patients wouldn’t understand that they’re seeing someone with less training than a doctor, lawmakers said.

Despite the numerous amendments, the association remains opposed, saying the changes don’t address their fundamental concerns.

“We’ve increased the training required for physicians over the last couple years and now all of a sudden we’re allowing unsupervised providers to treat patients who have even less training,” said association spokesperson Anthony York.

Rounds of negotiations, major concessions and hourslong Zoom calls still could not get the doctors’ group on board, Wood said.

He said it was like chasing “goalposts that continue to move.”

“It’s very disappointing when you work with opposition and nothing is ever good enough,” Wood said. “CMA will never support this bill. They’ll never go neutral on it.”

York said that characterization is not accurate. He pointed to a different bill — SB-1237 — that would allow certified nurse midwives to attend to low-risk pregnancies without physician supervision. The association was initially opposed, but after negotiations and amendments to the bill, it changed its position to neutral. That bill is also headed to Newsom.

“You don’t have to look too far to find a case where we were willing to engage on a scope-of-practice issue,” York said.

David McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State University, called the association’s inability to kill Wood’s bill a political “watershed moment” for the group.

“Their M.O. for 70 years has been about blocking, stunting and preventing change,” McCuan said. “The deference toward the medical profession has changed. In that sense, it would be a momentous event if this is signed.”

Though the California Association for Nurse Practitioners is celebrating legislative passage of the measure, even in its amended form, it’s a different story at the national level. Sophia Thomas, president of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, said in a statement that the bill is choked by too much red tape to provide any meaningful change.

“California’s so-called ‘solution,’ the flawed AB-890, would establish a cascading set of new restrictions on NP practice that would maintain California’s position among the most heavily regulated and restrictive in the nation,” Thomas said.

State Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), a pediatrician who chairs the Senate Health Committee, said he also opposed the bill, but not simply because he is a doctor or a member of the California Medical Association.

Yet many of his objections reflect those of the association, such as concerns about training and access to care in rural areas.

He also believes independence for nurse practitioners could exacerbate inequalities in the health care system, as people with less means see providers with less training.

“People with more resources are going to go with the person they think is more qualified. That’s just the way it tends to happen,” Pan said.

California Healthline’s Angela Hart contributed to this report.

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).

SACRAMENTO — California is poised to become the first state to develop its own line of generic drugs, targeting soaring drug prices and stepping into a fiercely competitive drug market dominated by deep-pocketed pharmaceutical companies.

The Democratic-controlled legislature overwhelmingly approved a measure Monday that would direct the state’s top health agency to partner with one or more drug companies by January to make or distribute a broad range of generic or biosimilar drugs — including the diabetes medicine insulin — that are cheaper than brand-name products.

The bill, SB-852, also opens the door for California to make its own generic drugs in the future.

Gov. Gavin Newsom will have until Sept. 30 to sign or veto the measure.

“People need these drugs, but prices are through the roof, so we’re saying there’s a role for the state to bring prices down,” said the bill’s author, state Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento).

He argued the measure is more important than ever because COVID-19 has exposed “glaring gaps” in the ability of public and private entities — from major hospitals to government drug purchasers — to maintain adequate supplies of drugs, medical equipment and devices.

“This also creates a model to address drug shortages and other supply chain issues during COVID and future pandemics,” he said.

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

Newsom, a Democrat, floated his own generic drug proposal in January as part of his broader drug agenda to reduce pharmaceutical costs, but was forced to abandon his plan in May as he and lawmakers sought to address a pandemic-induced $54 billion budget deficit.

Though it could take years to successfully bring a new California generic product to the market, the move would put the nation’s most populous state in direct competition with major generic and brand-name drug manufacturers that dominate the market, and potentially allow California to use its massive purchasing power to drive down drug prices.

“Other legislative efforts in Congress and in other states have focused on government negotiating with pharmaceutical companies to lower prices on generic drugs,” said Edwin Park, research professor at the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents brand-name drugmakers, has taken a neutral position on the bill and declined to comment.

But Brett Michelin, lead lobbyist for the Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents generic drugmakers, the Association for Accessible Medicines, said generic companies aren’t threatened by the possibility of California entering the market — and even welcome it.

“Generic manufacturers are more than open to doing this kind of partnership,” Michelin said. “I think having a fair and open process to sell drugs and compete for customers is what the generic industry is very used to and comfortable with.”

Under the measure, state-developed generics would be “widely” available to public and private purchasers within California. Taxpayers would pick up the costs, roughly $1 million to $2 million in startup funding, plus ongoing staff costs estimated in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, according to a state fiscal analysis.

It’s unclear which drugs the state would make or procure, though it would target drugs that could produce the biggest cost savings for the state and consumers.

But the bill specifically calls for the production of “at least one form of insulin, provided that a viable pathway for manufacturing a more affordable form of insulin exists at a price that results in savings.”

Insulin is a biologic drug, made with living cells. Once a biologic hits the market, rival copycat products that follow are called biosimilars.

Three major drug companies — Eli Lilly and Co., Sanofi and Novo Nordisk — have long controlled the lucrative insulin market in the U.S. The state of California would be the first entity to produce a biosimilar version of one of the newer, fast- and long-acting insulins on a not-for-profit basis, said Jane Horvath, a health policy consultant in Washington, D.C.

Although it would be costly and could take years, the Utah-based nonprofit drug company Civica Rx, which has consulted with Pan on his bill, is discussing partnering with California to produce generic or biosimilar drugs. It has already hammered out deals with major health systems running short on critical drugs, including the Department of Veterans Affairs, and is producing lower-cost generics for insurers, including Blue Shield of California.

“There’s no doubt insulin would be a more complex and expensive drug to develop, but it’s certainly possible,” said Allan Coukell, the company’s senior vice president of public policy. “We are watching how the biosimilar market develops.”

Patients who need insulin have faced huge cost spikes. A 2019 report by the Health Care Cost Institute concluded that average prices for insulin doubled from 2012 to 2016. And California health insurance regulators found last year that diabetes medications accounted for nine of the 25 costliest brand-name drugs sold in the state.

“It’s a big deal — diabetes affects a lot of people who rely on insulin for their very lives,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “And insulin has probably been the poster child for unreasonable drug pricing.” (Kaiser Health News, which produces California Healthline, is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

Laura Marston, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer and diabetic who advocates for lower insulin prices, said she’s excited about California’s idea.

Marston has been on the same insulin, Humalog, since 1996. At that time, the price was $21 a vial, but has since ballooned to more than $275 a vial, she said.

“If there was a lower-cost option and the price wasn’t going to be raised, I would absolutely switch from Humalog,” she said. “I feel held totally hostage to these pharmaceutical companies.”

Marston said she’d like the federal government to do the same thing, “so it could apply to all patients.”

Congressional efforts to tackle rising prices for insulin and other drugs fizzled last year in the face of opposition from the influential pharmaceutical lobby. So states have increasingly sought ways to regulate a for-profit industry in which brand-name manufacturers hold near-monopoly power.

Colorado last year became the first state to cap out-of-pocket insulin costs at $100 for a 30-day supply. It was followed by at least nine other states, from New Mexico to New York, whose cost-sharing caps vary.

California had already capped out-of-pocket drug costs at $250 to $500 for a 30-day supply, but a measure that would have lowered the cap for insulin to $100 a month stalled this year — a casualty of a pandemic-shortened legislative calendar.

Newsom’s office declined to comment on the generic drug legislation. But recent changes to the proposal reflect direct negotiations with the administration, Pan’s office said.

Newsom spokesperson Jesse Melgar said in a statement that “the governor’s goal of a sustainable system of universal coverage has not changed and making prescription drugs affordable is one more step toward that goal.”

Should Newsom sign the bill into law, the state Health and Human Services Agency would have 18 months to identify a list of drugs the state could manufacture, with a report due to the legislature by July 2022. By July the following year, the state would be required to assess whether it can manufacture its own generics and biosimilars.

The bill calls for state health officials to prioritize development of generics for chronic and high-cost health conditions, and urges production of those that can be delivered through mail order.

California could emerge as a leader in the national drug debate, Levitt said.

“If California can pull it off, it would be a model for other states and federally,” he said. “For it to pull this off means it can be done at scale.”

“What activities are open to do next week? Zip-lining? Jet ski? Anyone have recommendations on things still open?” a Facebook user asks.

“Stay home!” another user replies.

The Facebook group called “What’s Going on St. Thomas?” has been flooded with pointed, exasperated comments urging travelers to stay away. This is a marked change. Before the pandemic, the exchanges between vacationers and island residents resonated with promises of excitement and fun. Now, tour operators from the mainland who administer the Facebook page quickly try to delete any expressions of anger.

In nearby Puerto Rico, the friction has spilled into real life. Media reports have detailed multiple episodes in which tourists, having escaped pandemic restrictions back home, became violent and destroyed store merchandise after being asked to wear a mask.

The COVID-19 pandemic has pitted economic interests against public health guidance all across the United States. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands feel this tension acutely, as both U.S. territories rely on tourism to generate revenue and provide jobs. Increasingly, locals have begun to wonder now if welcoming visitors to these islands is worth the risk.

Tourism represents more than half of the Virgin Islands’ gross domestic product. In Puerto Rico, the industry accounts for 80,000 jobs and about 6.5% of the island’s total economy.

But islanders are not only vulnerable to COVID-19’s economic disruptions. Residents of both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are diagnosed with chronic health conditions like diabetes and cardiovascular illness at higher rates than in most U.S. states, which puts them at higher risk for the virus’s complications.

In short, the very industry that represents an economic lifeline for islanders threatens their ability to protect their health.

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

One Step Forward

When COVID-19 triggered alarms in late winter, Puerto Rico and the USVI adopted strong COVID prevention strategies before most U.S. states did.

In Puerto Rico, Gov. Wanda Vázquez issued an executive order March 15, effectively locking down the island by imposing a curfew, a stay-at-home order and business closures. The first coronavirus cases on the island were reported March 13.

Similarly, Virgin Islands Gov. Albert Bryan Jr. issued executive orders prohibiting hotels, villas and other accommodations from accepting leisure guests between March 25 and June 1. The area remained open to business travelers, flight crews, health officials, emergency personnel, government guests and residents. According to a March 20 Department of Health update, the territory had — at that time — six confirmed COVID cases and 43 pending test results.

Neither territory, however, was able to close its airports. Local officials do not have the authority to do so because the federal government regulates aviation.

“Part of the challenge of being a U.S. colony, in particular, is that, you know, we don’t have control over our borders,” said Hadiya Sewer, president and co-founder of St. JanCo: the St John Heritage Collective, a cultural heritage preservation and land rights organization on the small island of St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands.

Still, the aggressive measures — while effective — came at a price for residents like Melina Aguilar.

Before the lockdown, the 31-year-old entrepreneur worked as a tour guide for Isla Caribe, a company she founded that offers historical walking tours of Ponce, Puerto Rico. The stay-at-home order in March shut down Aguilar’s business for three months and sequestered her in her house.

Aguilar said the sacrifice would have been worth it if the island could have maintained control of the spread by closing the border and enforcing the 14-day quarantine for travelers. It didn’t work out that way. According to data from The New York Times, the seven-day average for cases on May 1 — while Puerto Rico was still in lockdown — was 42 cases per day. On July 1, the seven-day average was 102 cases. By July 15, the average was 233.

“We could’ve basically had the fruits of being locked up for three months,” Aguilar said. “But now we’re stuck.”

Reopening the Gateway

By summer, both territories were itching to get back to business. With many overseas vacation destinations banning U.S. travelers, it seemed like the nearby mainland would be full of beachgoers, who, after living under stay-at-home orders for months, would be ready to travel — no passport required — to the sun and sand.

The U.S. Virgin Islands formally welcomed tourists back to its shores on June 1 — with caveats. Travelers from coronavirus hot spots needed to submit COVID-19 test information through an online portal to receive a negative result “certification code.” Those who didn’t were required to quarantine for 14 days or until they had documentation of a negative test result.

But locals and tourists alike said COVID enforcement measures haven’t been consistent. Capt. Matthias Bitterwolf, owner of Antillean Yacht Charters on St. Thomas, said he delivered a boat to Puerto Rico and was not allowed off the vessel until local police could verify his COVID paperwork. His COVID status was not checked upon returning to St. Thomas.

The Virgin Islands’ case counts soon began ticking up. Between June and mid-July, the case count increased by more than 3,500%, according to one NBC news report.

Gov. Bryan responded by issuing other executive orders to regain control of the outbreak, including prohibiting beach visits after 4 p.m. and not allowing patrons to stand or eat at bars located in restaurants. As of Aug. 24, the USVI had a total of 984 positive COVID-19 cases and 11 deaths.

Puerto Rico formally welcomed tourists on July 15 while still imposing some COVID-related restrictions. As in the Virgin Islands, officials required travelers to present documentation of a negative COVID test result upon arrival.

Dr. Victor Ramos, president of the island’s medical association who is involved with the island’s medical task force, said these decisions tended to expose the rift “between the medical task force that favors closing things and the economic task force that wants to leave everything open.”

By July, the local economy was in shambles. The Department of Labor reported over 21% of the island’s workforce was receiving unemployment assistance related to the pandemic in the week ending Aug. 1.

But rising case counts attributed to travel prompted local officials to encourage that only essential travel be allowed. As of Aug. 24, the island had recorded over 30,700 COVID cases and at least 395 deaths, according to the New York Times database.

Government data, though, indicated Puerto Rico’s climbing case numbers were not being triggered by tourists. They are not the culprits, insisted Leah Chandler, chief marketing officer of Discover Puerto Rico, the island’s official tourism website. Rather, the spread was linked to island residents coming home after visiting COVID hot spots like Texas and Florida.

Life on the Ground

Despite the global pandemic and the restrictions, both territories have experienced no shortage of vacationers. “We would have expected this to be a slow moment for us in terms of tourism,” said Sewer. “It’s very busy.”

Still, the trend lines for COVID case counts weren’t moving in the right direction for either territory, so it was no surprise when Puerto Rico closed days after reopening and the USVI followed suit on Aug. 19.

The underlying socioeconomic and health issues put residents in both places at high risk. It’s not just the prevalence of chronic health conditions like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The high number of multigenerational households in both areas complicates a family’s ability to socially distance from its most vulnerable members. Roughly a quarter of the population in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands is age 65 or older, and poverty is widespread.

At the same time, both territories have limited health care infrastructure — making it difficult to envision that they can care for their own populations in an emergency let alone visitors who could become ill and island-bound if the virus were to surge.

Currently, the USVI has two main hospitals — one in St. Thomas and one in St. Croix — and a health clinic in St. John. The territory has 20 intensive care unit beds and about 100 one-time-use ventilators for its 106,235 residents, said Justa Encarnacion, the USVI’s health commissioner. Each island has about 30 full-capacity ventilators.

In Puerto Rico, about 60% of the island’s ventilators for adults were available as of Aug. 24. However, ICU beds are harder to come by, said Ramos. They are filled with COVID patients and those whose conditions worsened after avoiding care out of fear of catching the virus, he said.

The string of problems that have besieged these islands magnifies the effects of the pandemic. That includes debt crises and infrastructure damage from hurricanes and earthquakes. Island residents also fear the possibility of battling a hurricane and a coronavirus outbreak at the same time — a reality that they’ve already confronted when COVID hampered the USVI’s emergency management agency’s ability to distribute sandbags ahead of a storm in late July.

Colorado State University hurricane researchers predict an “extremely active” 2020 Atlantic hurricane season.

“At this point, we literally have disasters layered on top of disasters,” said Sewer, of the St. John’s Collective.

Still, Joseph Boschulte, tourism commissioner for the Virgin Islands, is cautiously optimistic about finding a balance between health and economic interests.

“We appreciate the concerns of our tourism partners and stakeholders,” he said. But with the spike in cases, he said, “we must reset, take stock, safeguard human life and prepare for restarting our tourism economy at a later date.”

As a veteran who served back-to-back tours in Iraq, I initially cringed when commentators compared the COVID-19 crisis to wartime — no bullets, no blood and no one volunteered for this.

But after my months of reporting on the pandemic, it has become painfully clear this is like war. People are dying every day as a result of government decisions — and indecision — and the death toll is climbing with no end in sight.

Less than six months into the pandemic, COVID-19 has already killed at least 183,000 Americans, more than triple the number who died in the Vietnam War, and far more than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

We are all being asked to make sacrifices for the good of our country. And we’re experiencing, as a nation, a deeply traumatic event. Like war, the toll will be felt for a long time.

In California, local public health officials are leading the front lines in this battle against COVID-19, dictating strategy, issuing orders and developing tactics to carry out that strategy. Every day, they make gut-wrenching calls to protect our health and livelihoods, even if those decisions may inflict initial harm on the economy or contradict politicians and popular opinion.

But instead of being celebrated for their difficult and dangerous work, as I was, they are now facing violent threats and political attacks from those who disagree with their tactics — such as requiring masks in public and ordering businesses and parks closed to prevent the spread of infection.

When I interview them, often late at night, I hear in their voices that familiar mix of emotions that often come with war: exhaustion, anxiety and devotion to duty.

“We’ve become easy scapegoats for people’s fear and anxiety during COVID-19,” said Dr. Gail Newel, the health officer for Santa Cruz County, who continues to face threats for issuing public health orders.

The latest — a menacing email sent to her in late July calling her a “communist bitch” — prompted local law enforcement to recommend she get a guard dog and firearm to protect herself. “That weighs very heavily,” she said.

I can’t imagine the burden. Although many of us serving in Iraq disagreed with the war, we remained dedicated to our mission and enjoyed broad support at home.

I joined the military as a U.S. Army reservist in 1999 and was deployed on active duty to Iraq in early 2003, when it truly was like the Wild West.

Serving first as logistics clerk and then the acting supply sergeant for a military police company out of San Jose, California, I helped ensure my military brothers and sisters had proper equipment. When the George W. Bush administration sent us to Iraq, for example, it did so without armoring our Humvees — a major failure that elevated our risk of being blown up by roadside explosives.

I returned home in July 2004 and spent years putting the battlefield behind me as I transitioned to a career in journalism. But living through COVID-19 has resurrected those feelings of being at war.

Now, just like then, there is an overall sense of fear and uncertainty because we don’t know when the crisis will end. We aren’t free to go about our lives as we once did and we yearn for the comforts we took for granted. We miss our loved ones we can’t see.

We must remain hyper-vigilant to potential threats, and even make sure to don our “armor” when we leave our homes, except now it’s masks and gloves instead of helmets and flak jackets.

There’s something that happens when you’re in a conflict zone — the air feels heavier. You can feel threats all around you, just waiting to strike. There’s deep anxiety for what the future holds, and you wonder whether you’ll be alive next week or next month.

Public health officers are shouldering the added anxiety that duty brings. For much of the pandemic, Gov. Gavin Newsom has pushed the responsibility — and blame — of reopening largely onto counties and the state’s 61 local health officers, who have worked for months without days off, giving up time with their families to attack this crisis head-on.

I have interviewed dozens of them. Some have broken into tears while talking with me, and worry chokes their voices as they lament problems with testing or explain how they don’t have enough supplies or contact tracers to safely reopen. They felt rushed into lifting stay-at-home restrictions in May and June, yet they had no choice in the face of pressure from politicians and suffering residents and businesses. After years of severe underfunding, public health agencies don’t have the money or resources to deploy an adequate response.

They’re also wrestling with the guilt and trauma that come with making decisions that affect people’s lives and livelihoods.

“It has been hard on all of us,” acknowledged Sacramento County’s health officer, Dr. Olivia Kasirye. “We’re getting phone calls daily from people saying they’re going bankrupt and they can’t pay their rent and they have loved ones who are dying that they can’t see.”

I know how that feels, having been conflicted about our long-term strategy in the Middle East and the harm we inadvertently inflicted on innocent civilians. But I can’t imagine being afraid of the people I signed up to protect.

Public health officials have become targets of aggressive and personal attacks. Some have seen their photos smeared with Hitler mustaches, while others have had their personal phone numbers and home addresses circulated publicly, prompting the need for round-the-clock security.

“Imagine treating American soldiers and military families with the kind of hatred and disrespect that local health officers are facing,” said Dr. Charity Dean, unprompted, a day after she left her job as one of the top public health officials in the Newsom administration. “They’re the ones taking all the risk, and it makes me angry to see how they’ve been treated.”

Since the start of the pandemic, at least eight career public health officials in California have resigned, and more are considering it. But most are soldiering on.

Mimi Hall, Newel’s boss and Santa Cruz County’s top public health official, told me law enforcement is investigating a threatening letter addressed to her that was allegedly signed by a far-right anti-government extremist group.

In response, Hall considered retiring early. But she didn’t want to abandon her troops and wasn’t going to let fear stop her from doing her job. So she had a perimeter fence and home security system installed over the weekend — and reported for work promptly Monday morning.

Yes, we are waging a life-or-death battle in which innocent people are hurt, but it’s these battle-scarred public health officers who are making deeply personal sacrifices to steer us to safety.

We commemorate military leaders with medals and parades. Why not treat our public health officials with the same level of appreciation?

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).

President Donald Trump accepted the Republican Party’s nomination for president in a 70-minute speech from the South Lawn of the White House on Thursday night.

Speaking to a friendly crowd that didn’t appear to be observing social distancing conventions, and with few participants wearing masks, he touched on a range of topics, including many related to the COVID pandemic and health care in general.

Throughout, the partisan crowd applauded and chanted “Four more years!” And, even as the nation’s COVID-19 death toll exceeded 180,000, Trump was upbeat. “In recent months, our nation and the entire planet has been struck by a new and powerful invisible enemy,” he said. “Like those brave Americans before us, we are meeting this challenge.”

At the end of the event, there were fireworks.

Our partners at PolitiFact did an in-depth fact check on Trump’s entire acceptance speech. Here are the highlights related to the administration’s COVID-19 response and other health policy issues:

“We developed, from scratch, the largest and most advanced testing system in the world.” 

This is partially right, but it needs context.

It’s accurate that the U.S. developed its COVID-19 testing system from scratch, because the government didn’t accept the World Health Organization’s testing recipe. But whether the system is the “largest” or “most advanced” is subject to debate.

The U.S. has tested more individuals than any other country. But experts told us a more meaningful metric would be the percentage of positive tests out of all tests, indicating that not only sick people were getting tested. Another useful metric would be the percentage of the population that has been tested. The U.S. is one of the most populous countries but has tested a lower percentage of its population than other countries.

The U.S. was also slower than other countries in rolling out tests and amping up testing capacity. Even now, many states are experiencing delays in reporting test results to positive individuals.

As for “the most advanced,” Trump may be referring to new testing investments and systems, like Abbott’s recently announced $5, 15-minute rapid antigen test, which the company says will be about the size of a credit card, needs no instrumentation and comes with a phone app through which people can view their results. But Trump’s comment makes it sound as if these testing systems are already in place when they haven’t been distributed to the public.

“The United States has among the lowest [COVID-19] case fatality rates of any major country in the world. The European Union’s case fatality rate is nearly three times higher than ours.”

The case fatality rate measures the known number of cases against the known number of deaths. The European Union has a rate that’s about 2½ times greater than the United States.

But the source of that data, Oxford University’s Our World in Data project, reports that “during an outbreak of a pandemic, the case fatality rate is a poor measure of the mortality risk of the disease.”

A better way to measure the threat of the virus, experts say, is to look at the number of deaths per 100,000 residents. Viewed that way, the U.S. has the 10th-highest death rate in the world.

“We will produce a vaccine before the end of the year, or maybe even sooner.”

It’s far from guaranteed that a coronavirus vaccine will be ready before the end of the year.

While researchers are making rapid strides, it’s not yet known precisely when the vaccine will be available to the public, which is what’s most important. Six vaccines are in the third phase of testing, which involves thousands of patients. Like earlier phases, this one looks at the safety of a vaccine but also examines its effectiveness and collects more data on side effects. Results of the third phase will be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for approval.

The government website Operation Warp Speed seems less optimistic than Trump, announcing it “aims to deliver 300 million doses of a safe, effective vaccine for COVID-19 by January 2021.”

And federal health officials and other experts have generally predicted a vaccine will be available in early 2021. Federal committees are working on recommendations for vaccine distribution, including which groups should get it first. “From everything we’ve seen now — in the animal data, as well as the human data — we feel cautiously optimistic that we will have a vaccine by the end of this year and as we go into 2021,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious diseases expert. “I don’t think it’s dreaming.”

“Last month, I took on Big Pharma. You think that is easy? I signed orders that would massively lower the cost of your prescription drugs.”

Quite misleading. Trump signed four executive orders on July 24 aimed at lowering prescription drug prices. But those orders haven’t taken effect yet — the text of one hasn’t even been made publicly available — and experts told us that, if implemented, the measures would be unlikely to result in significant drug price reductions for the majority of Americans.

“We will always and very strongly protect patients with preexisting conditions, and that is a pledge from the entire Republican Party.”

Trump’s pledge is undermined by his efforts to overturn the Affordable Care Act, the only law that guarantees people with preexisting conditions both receive health coverage and do not have to pay more for it than others do. In 2017, Trump supported congressional efforts to repeal the ACA. The Trump administration is now backing GOP-led efforts to overturn the ACA through a court case. And Trump has also expanded short-term health plans that don’t have to comply with the ACA.

“Joe Biden recently raised his hand on the debate stage and promised he was going to give it away, your health care dollars to illegal immigrants, which is going to bring a massive number of immigrants into our country.”

This is misleading. During a June 2019 Democratic primary debate, candidates were asked: “Raise your hand if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.” All candidates on stage, including Biden, raised their hands. They were not asked if that coverage would be free or subsidized.

Biden supports extending health care access to all immigrants, regardless of immigration status. A task force recommended that he allow immigrants who are in the country illegally to buy health insurance, without federal subsidies.

“Joe Biden claims he has empathy for the vulnerable, yet the party he leads supports the extreme late-term abortion of defenseless babies right up to the moment of birth.”

This mischaracterizes the Democratic Party’s stance on abortion and Biden’s position.

Biden has said he would codify the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade and related precedents. This would generally limit abortions to the first 20 to 24 weeks of gestation. States are allowed under court rulings to ban abortion after the point at which a fetus can sustain life, usually considered to be between 24 and 28 weeks from the mother’s last menstrual period — and 43 states do. But the rulings require states to make exceptions “to preserve the life or health of the mother.” Late-term abortions are very rare, about 1%.

The Democratic Party platform holds that “every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion — regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured.” It does not address late-term abortion.

PolitiFact’s Daniel Funke, Jon Greenberg, Louis Jacobson, Noah Y. Kim, Bill McCarthy, Samantha Putterman, Amy Sherman, Miriam Valverde and KHN reporter Victoria Knight contributed to this report.

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).

Flu season will look different this year, as the country grapples with a coronavirus pandemic that has killed more than 172,000 people. Many Americans are reluctant to visit a doctor’s office and public health officials worry people will shy away from being immunized.

Although sometimes incorrectly regarded as just another bad cold, flu also kills tens of thousands of people in the U.S. each year, with the very young, the elderly and those with underlying conditions the most vulnerable. When coupled with the effects of COVID-19, public health experts say it’s more important than ever to get a flu shot.

If enough of the U.S. population gets vaccinated — more than the 45% who did last flu season — it could help head off a nightmare scenario in the coming winter of hospitals stuffed with both COVID-19 patients and those suffering from severe effects of influenza.

Aside from the potential burden on hospitals, there’s the possibility people could get both viruses — and “no one knows what happens if you get influenza and COVID [simultaneously] because it’s never happened before,” Dr. Rachel Levine, Pennsylvania’s secretary of health, told reporters this month.

In response, manufacturers are producing more vaccine supply this year, between 194 million and 198 million doses, or about 20 million more than they distributed last season, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As flu season approaches, here are some answers to a few common questions:

Q: When should I get my flu shot?

Advertising has already begun, and some pharmacies and clinics have their supplies now. But, because the effectiveness of the vaccine can wane over time, the CDC recommends against a shot in August.

Many pharmacies and clinics will start immunizations in early September. Generally, influenza viruses start circulating in mid- to late October but become more widespread later, in the winter. It takes about two weeks after getting a shot for antibodies — which circulate in the blood and thwart infections — to build up. “Young, healthy people can begin getting their flu shots in September, and elderly people and other vulnerable populations can begin in October,” said Dr. Steve Miller, chief clinical officer for insurer Cigna.

The CDC has recommended that people “get a flu vaccine by the end of October,” but noted it’s not too late to get one after that because shots “can still be beneficial and vaccination should be offered throughout the flu season.”

Even so, some experts say not to wait too long this year — not only because of COVID-19, but also in case a shortage develops because of overwhelming demand.

Q: What are the reasons I should roll up my sleeve for this?

Get a shot because it protects you from catching the flu and spreading it to others, which may help lessen the burden on hospitals and medical staffs.

And there’s another message that may resonate in this strange time.

“It gives people a sense that there are some things you can control,” said Eduardo Sanchez, chief medical officer for prevention at the American Heart Association.

While a flu shot won’t prevent COVID-19, he said, getting one could help your doctors differentiate between the diseases if you develop any symptoms — fever, cough, sore throat — they share.

And even though flu shots won’t prevent all cases of the flu, getting vaccinated can lessen the severity if you do fall ill, he said.

You cannot get influenza from having a flu vaccine.

All eligible people, especially essential workers, those with underlying conditions and those at higher risk — including very young children and pregnant women — should seek protection, the CDC said. It recommends that children over 6 months old get vaccinated.

Q: What do we know about the effectiveness of this year’s vaccine?

Flu vaccines — which must be developed anew each year because influenza viruses mutate — range in effectiveness annually, depending on how well they match the circulating virus. Last year’s formulation was estimated to be about 45% effective in preventing the flu overall, with about a 55% effectiveness in children. The vaccines available in the U.S. this year are aimed at preventing at least three strains of the virus, and most cover four.

It isn’t yet known how well this year’s supply will match the strains that will circulate in the U.S. Early indications from the Southern Hemisphere, which goes through its flu season during our summer, are encouraging. There, people practiced social distancing, wore masks and got vaccinated in greater numbers this year — and global flu levels are lower than expected. Experts caution, however, not to count on a similarly mild season in the U.S., in part because masking and social distancing efforts vary widely.

Q: What are insurance plans and health systems doing differently this year?

Insurers and health systems contacted by KHN say they will follow CDC guidelines, which call for limiting and spacing out the number of people waiting in lines and vaccination areas. Some are setting appointments for flu shots to help manage the flow.

Health Fitness Concepts, a company that works with UnitedHealth Group and other businesses to set up flu shot clinics in the Northeast, said it is “encouraging smaller, more frequent events to support social distancing” and “requiring all forms to be completed and shirtsleeves rolled up before entering the flu shot area.” Everyone will be required to wear masks.

Also, nationally, some physician groups contracted with UnitedHealth will set up tent areas so shots can be given outdoors, a spokesperson said.

Kaiser Permanente plans drive-thru vaccinations at some of its medical facilities and is testing touch-free screening and check-in procedures at some locations. (KHN is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.)

Geisinger Health, a regional health provider in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, said it, too, would have outdoor flu vaccination programs at its facilities.

Additionally, “Geisinger is making it mandatory for all employees to receive the flu vaccine this year,” said Mark Shelly, the system’s director of infection prevention and control. “By taking this step, we hope to convey to our neighbors the importance of the flu vaccine for everyone.”

Q: Usually I get a flu shot at work. Will that be an option this year?

Aiming to avoid risky indoor gatherings, many employers are reluctant to sponsor the on-site flu clinics they’ve offered in years past. And with so many people continuing to work from home, there’s less need to bring flu shots to employees on the job. Instead, many employers are encouraging workers to get shots from their primary care doctors, at pharmacies or in other community settings. Insurance will generally cover the cost of the vaccine.

Some employers are considering offering vouchers for flu shots to their uninsured workers or those who don’t participate in the company plan, said Julie Stone, managing director for health and benefits at Willis Towers Watson, a consulting firm. The vouchers could allow workers to get the shot at a particular lab at no cost, for example.

Some employers are starting to think about how they might use their parking lots for administering drive-thru flu shots, said Dr. David Zieg, clinical services leader for benefits consultant Mercer.

Although federal law allows employers to require employees to get flu shots, that step is typically taken only by health care facilities and some universities where people live and work closely together, Zieg said.

Q: What are pharmacies doing to encourage people to get flu shots?

Some pharmacies are making an extra push to get out into the community to offer flu shots.

Walgreens, which has nearly 9,100 pharmacies nationwide, is continuing a partnership begun in 2015 with community organizations, churches and employers that has offered about 150,000 off-site and mobile flu clinics to date.

The program places a special emphasis on working with vulnerable populations and in underserved areas, said Dr. Kevin Ban, chief medical officer for the drugstore chain.

Walgreens began offering flu shots in mid-August and is encouraging people not to delay getting vaccinated.

Both Walgreens and CVS are encouraging people to schedule appointments and do paperwork online this year to minimize time spent in the stores.

At CVS MinuteClinic locations, once patients have checked in for their flu shot, they must wait outside or in their car, since the indoor waiting areas are now closed.

“We don’t have tons of arrows in our quiver against COVID,” Walgreens’ Ban said. “Taking pressure off the health care system by providing vaccines in advance is one thing we can do.”

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).

ALHAMBRA, Calif. — It’s Tuesday morning, and teacher Tamya Daly has her online class playing an alphabet game. The students are writing quickly and intently, with occasional whoops of excitement, on the little whiteboards she dropped off at their homes the day before along with coloring books, markers, Silly Putty and other learning props — all of which she created or paid for with her own money.

Two of the seven children in her combined third and fifth grade class weren’t home when Daly came by with the gift bags. One of the two managed to find her own writing tablet, thanks to an older brother, but the other can’t find a piece of paper in her dad’s house. She sits quietly watching her classmates on Zoom for half an hour while Daly tries futilely to get the father’s attention. Maybe the student is wearing earphones; maybe the father is out of the room.

As children head back to school online across California and much of the nation, some of the disparities that plague education are growing wider. Instead of attending the same school with similar access to supplies and teacher time, children are directly dependent on their home resources, from Wi-Fi and computers to study space and parental guidance. Parents who work, are poor or have less education are at a disadvantage, as are their kids.

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

Daly teaches elementary students with special needs. The children in her class, who have a variety of diagnoses and intellectual disabilities, are at even higher risk — they can’t work independently and need more hands-on instruction. “The more they’re not getting those kinds of accommodations, the further they’re going to fall behind,” said Allison Gandhi, a managing director in special education at the nonprofit American Institutes for Research.

Educators and families fear devastating long-term consequences from COVID-19 for the nearly 800,000 California children who received special education services. So, in early August, the state announced it was developing a waiver application process for schools, even in COVID-plagued counties, that want to bring small groups of these students back for in-person education.

“There are simply kids that will never, ever have that quality learning that we all desire to advance online, no matter what kind of support we provide, even if we individualize it,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said at an Aug. 14 news conference.

Online learning is interfering with the students’ individualized education programs, or IEPs — legal agreements among families, school districts and specialists that set academic and behavioral goals for students and the services they’re entitled to.

The gap in online learning experience is sharply visible in Daly’s class, and the parents’ role is crucial. For parents who don’t have to work, distance learning may be tense and time-consuming, but it becomes part of a daily routine to be endured until the pandemic ebbs. For others, schooling is an unworkable nightmare burdening parents already stretched to their limits.

School started Aug. 12. By day five, Daly knew which children had the luxury of a stay-at-home parent and which were being supervised by older siblings. She knew which students struggled to get online on time every day — a new state requirement for all virtual learners — and which ones needed reminding to eat breakfast before class started.

She also knew, from last spring, that most of the parents couldn’t print the worksheets she had uploaded to Google Classroom. Their printers were broken, or printer ink cost too much, or they didn’t have printers. For this semester, she set up a time every Thursday for parents to drive by the school and pick up packets for the following week.

Daly works at Emery Park Elementary School in Alhambra, east of downtown Los Angeles, where two-thirds of the students qualified last year for free or reduced-price school meals. The school has loaned about 80% of the 434 students Chromebooks because they didn’t have computers at home, said principal Jeremy Infranca.

Like most schools in California, Emery Park started the school year in virtual classrooms — the safest option for a state with a stubbornly persistent infection rate. The Alhambra school district has yet to decide whether to apply for a waiver to bring students with special needs back on campus. Infranca and Daly would like to — if they can secure COVID-19 protective gear for themselves and their students, and if families feel comfortable with it.

In the meantime, Daly is doing her best to accommodate her families, which isn’t easy. Parents have told her to limit live group instruction to an hour a day, so as not to interfere with child care schedules or the laptop needs of other children in the household. To make up for the reduced time, Daly records several 15- to 30-minute videos explaining the work to be done and plans to schedule an individual session with each child once a week.

“I choose to be positive about this experience, and I choose to communicate and do my best to reach out to the students and connect with parents and family members,” said Daly. “We just need to be proactive, and also a little patient.”

[khn_two_photos photo-first=”353918″ photo-second=”353916″ /]

Families have different opinions about whether to return their kids to the schoolhouse. It often depends more on a family’s desperation over child care than consideration of COVID-19 risks.

Cat Lee, 44, was nervous at first when she realized she had to take on the bulk of hands-on teaching for her son, Jacob, a fifth grader in Daly’s class.

“I wondered, would I be able to teach him as well, and would he be able to learn it?” she said.

Lee is a stay-at-home mom, and so far she has been able to stick to the schedule Daly lays out. She’s there with Jacob at every Zoom session and logs onto the Seesaw app to go through all the assignments. She praised Daly for her curriculum, which she felt was better and easier to teach than what the family received back in March. But she had reservations about her son’s new normal.

“It’s really slowing down his learning; plus, he doesn’t interact with kids anymore,” said Lee.

Still, if she had the chance to send Jacob for in-person learning now, Lee wouldn’t take it. She has concerns about their immune systems — Lee had a kidney transplant five years ago, and Jacob was born at just 27 weeks’ gestation — and is holding out for a COVID vaccine before allowing Jacob to resume his normal activities.

Not that she doesn’t have doubts.

“My fear is that he’s going to be home for so long, he’ll be so used to it and he won’t want to go back to school,” she said.

Danielle Musquiz, a 32-year-old mother with five elementary school-aged boys — four adopted from a relative — would favor a return to school. She gets three or four hours of sleep each night because of her 90-hour workweek with two jobs, as a home aide and a cashier at a regional park.

Four of her sons receive special education services, including an adopted middle child who is in Daly’s class and has cognitive delays linked to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The children, crowded together at the dining room table or in the living room, listen to their classes with earphones to keep from disturbing one another, which means she can’t hear a teacher calling out to her from the screen.

The four kids have individual education programs, but it’s hard for Musquiz to oversee them “with the minimal amount of time I have at home,” she said. She’s feeling overwhelmed by having to coordinate, supervise and respond to teachers, counselors and therapists for each child.

Musquiz is working longer hours than before the pandemic, and she picks up shifts at the park when the boys’ former stepfather takes them for the weekend.

“I’m slowly starting to say — and I know that this sounds bad — I don’t care anymore about the kids’ schooling,” Musquiz laughed nervously. “I feel like it’s chaos, and I’m drowning.”

To help with child care, her mother lives with the family Monday through Thursday, and her sons spend Thursday nights at her sister’s house. On Fridays, nine kids are all streaming their classes online from that house. On a recent Friday, the Wi-Fi broke, prompting a call from the school of one of her sons asking why he had left class early.

If she had the opportunity, Musquiz would send her children back to in-person learning in a heartbeat.

“None of my kids are really going to learn what they need to,” said Musquiz. “They need hands-on, they need interaction, they need motivation, and these classes are not doing that for them.”

COVID-19 is disrupting just about every student’s 2020 education, but medical students have it particularly hard right now.

“It’s a nightmare scenario for the class of 2021,” said Jake Berg, a fourth-year student at the Kentucky College of Osteopathic Medicine in Pikeville. In March, students were abruptly pulled out of hospitals and medical offices, where they normally work with professionals to learn about treating patients. Over the space of less than two weeks, he said, medical students in “pretty much the entire country” transitioned from seeing patients in person to learning online.

“Everyone goes along with the idea that we’re all in the same boat together,” he said. “But, really, it’s like we’re all on the Titanic and it’s sinking.”

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

Megan Messenger, in her fourth year at the Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona, California, calculates she has lost about 400 hours of patient time. She worries “the class of 2021 is going to be the dumb class of interns,” said Messenger, who hopes to do a combined residency in pediatrics and psychiatry. “I feel very behind.”

The problem is most acute for medical students in their third and fourth years of study. Year three is when most medical students do their “core clinical clerkships.” These are one- or two-month stints in hospitals and clinics, through which they get the flavor of specialties such as internal medicine, pediatrics, surgery and obstetrics/gynecology.

Fourth-year students tend to spend time in more specialized options, often traveling to get experience in specialties in short supply at their own medical school’s affiliated hospitals, and also to informally “audition” at places they might like to apply to for residency. Because of the coronavirus pandemic, however, “away rotations” have been suspended, and residency interviews for next year’s graduating class will be done virtually.

Schools and hospitals are trying to restore the core clerkships but, in many areas, this is a work in progress. The uncertainty adds considerably to students’ stress levels.

“I have no idea how I will learn about the culture of the hospitals I’m applying to,” said Garrett Johnson, a fourth-year student at Harvard Medical School. On one hand, this year’s class of doctors-to-be will save a lot of money — typically, travel and housing costs for away rotations and in-person residency interviews are paid by the students. On the other hand, he said, “you don’t get to meet any of the people or get a feel for the place.”

Karissa LeClair, a fourth-year student at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, agreed. “I was looking forward to getting to know places I had not been to previously,” she said.

Left: Karissa LeClair, a fourth-year student at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, applied to core clinical clerkships in New York City, Boston and Ann Arbor, Michigan ― but all were canceled. (Karissa LeClair) Right: Because of the pandemic, “away rotations” have been suspended for med students at the Kentucky College of Osteopathic Medicine. “It’s a nightmare scenario for the class of 2021,” says Jake Berg, a fourth-year student. (Raymunda Garza)

LeClair, who wants to become an ear, nose and throat specialist, said clerkships she applied to in New York City, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Boston were all canceled.

Since she was not planning to be in New Hampshire for most of this year, LeClair now has no place to live near Dartmouth. “I’m piecing together sublets and staying with friends,” she said. Unless something changes, she will spend her final year of medical school only in facilities formally affiliated with Dartmouth.

Messenger is facing similar problems in Southern California. “I’m at Cedars right now, and loving it,” she said, referring to Los Angeles’s Cedars Sinai medical center. “But you can only do one rotation there. I don’t have anything scheduled after this. My only audition rotation, at Tulane, was canceled.”

Administrators are sympathetic. “They have had major disruption,” said Dr. Alison Whelan, chief medical education officer for the Association of American Medical Colleges, which oversees M.D.-degree programs. “Medical school is stressful, and with COVID it’s even more stressful.”

“I feel for the students, they’re really in a tough position,” said Dr. Robert Cain, president and CEO of the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, which oversees osteopathy programs. About 1 in 4 U.S. medical students pursue a doctorate in osteopathy, which is similar to an M.D. degree but includes training in hands-on manipulative techniques and more emphasis on whole-body health.

Starting this year, M.D. and D.O. students are competing for the same residency training programs and work side by side, a change planned before the pandemic.

One hurdle is that all these students, in order to become well-rounded doctors, need to see a broad mix of patients with a diverse group of medical issues. But even at hospitals and clinics that have resumed general care, patients with ailments other than those associated with COVID-19 are not showing up, because they are afraid of catching the coronavirus. Elsewhere elective procedures have been canceled or postponed.

“That has become a challenge,” Whelan said. In areas with high COVID-19 rates, hospitals and other facilities often do not have enough personal protective equipment for even essential health personnel, so students are kept out.

Fourth-year medical students like Megan Messenger tend to spend time in more specialized options, but COVID-19 is disrupting their education. “The class of 2021 is going to be the dumb class of interns,” Messenger says. (Heidi de Marco/California Healthline)

The AAMC in August updated its guidance on student participation in clinical rotations. It continued to leave decisions about allowing students into patient care areas up to individual teaching hospitals and medical schools. But it also noted that while students are not technically essential in day-to-day care activities, “medical students are the essential, emerging physician workforce” whose learning is necessary to prevent future medical shortages.

“The progression of students over time for relatively on-time graduation is essential to the physician workforce,” Whelan said. Enabling students to finish their education in the COVID-19 era “is an ongoing, complex, jigsaw puzzle.”

Both the M.D. and D.O. organizations said third-year students can still complete most of their required rotations, although perhaps not in the usual order, and schools have dramatically increased their use of online teaching of diagnostics and care.

“A fair amount of what students do is observation,” she said. “So schools have created step-by-step videos.”

And some educators are confident these students will catch up — eventually. “Most learning goes on during your residency,” said Dr. Art Papier, who teaches dermatology at the University of Rochester medical school. “I think it can all be made up.”

In addition to losing in-person patient contact, medical students face obstacles in taking required national board examinations — there are several types and are not always conveniently offered near their training sites.

After having one required test canceled on short notice, student Jake Berg had to reschedule. The first open seat was three hours away and a couple of weeks later; then his canceled test was reinstated.

The exam that tests clinical skills has been postponed for all M.D. students but is expected to be rescheduled.

The comparable exam for osteopathic students, however, has been made optional. That’s partly because D.O. students must demonstrate not only clinical skills, but also proficiency in physical manipulation techniques, which means they need to work with patients under the supervision of doctors as part of their test. But the D.O. clinical skills exam is offered only in two places: Chicago and outside Philadelphia.

“If there’s a self-isolation period, who can afford to spend two weeks in a hotel in Chicago or Philadelphia?” asked Messenger, of Western University.

While the travel may be a burden, the exams are needed “to protect the public” from doctors who have not demonstrated competence, said Cain, of the osteopathic colleges’ association.

Whelan and Cain said details are being worked out and changes are possible as the COVID situation evolves.

In the end, Cain said, this crop of students may emerge from COVID as better doctors than those who didn’t face such challenges.

“Hopefully, we’ll look back and see them as the class of resilience,” he said. “That they were able to work through some very hard times.”

In the 2014 elections, Republicans rode a wave of anti-Affordable Care Act sentiment to pick up nine Senate seats, the largest gain for either party since 1980. Newly elected Republicans such as Cory Gardner in Colorado and Steve Daines in Montana had hammered their Democratic opponents over the health care law during the campaign and promised to repeal it.

Six years later, those senators are up for reelection. Not only is the law still around, but it’s gaining in popularity. What was once a winning strategy has become a political liability.

Public sentiment about the ACA, also known as Obamacare, has shifted considerably during the Trump administration after Republicans tried but failed to repeal it. Now, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis, which has led to the loss of jobs and health insurance for millions of people, health care again looks poised to be a key issue for voters this election.

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

With competitive races in Colorado, Montana, Arizona, North Carolina and Iowa pitting Republican incumbents who voted to repeal the ACA against Democratic challengers promising to protect it, attitudes surrounding the health law could help determine control of the Senate. Republicans hold a slim three-vote majority in the Senate but are defending 23 seats in the Nov. 3 election. Only one Democratic Senate seat — in Alabama, where incumbent Doug Jones is up against former Auburn University football coach Tommy Tuberville — is considered in play for Republicans.

“The fall election will significantly revolve around people’s belief about what [candidates] will do for their health coverage,” said Dr. Daniel Derksen, a professor of public health at the University of Arizona.

The Affordable Care Act has been a wedge issue since it was signed into law in 2010. Because it then took four years to enact, its opponents talked for years about how bad the not-yet-created marketplace for insurance would be, said Joe Hanel, spokesperson for the Colorado Health Institute, a nonpartisan nonprofit focused on health policy analysis. And they continued to attack the law as it took full effect in 2014.

Gardner, for example, ran numerous campaign ads that year criticizing the ACA and, in particular, President Barack Obama’s assertion that “if you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan.”

But now, Hanel said, the ACA’s policies have become much more popular in Colorado as the costs of health exchange plans have dropped. Thus, political messaging has changed, too.

“This time it’s the opposite,” Hanel said. “The people bringing up the Affordable Care Act are the Democrats.”

Despite Gardner’s multiple votes to repeal the ACA, he has largely avoided talking about the measure during the 2020 campaign. He even removed his pro-repeal position from his campaign website.

Democratic attack ads in July blasted Gardner for repeatedly dodging questions in an interview with Colorado Public Radio about his stance on a lawsuit challenging the ACA.

His opponent, Democrat John Hickenlooper, fully embraced the law when he was Colorado governor, using the measure to expand Medicaid eligibility to more low-income people and to create a state health insurance exchange. Now, he’s campaigning on that record, with promises to expand health care access even further.

Polling Data

Polling conducted by KFF for the past 10 years shows a shift in public opinion has occurred nationwide. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF, the Kaiser Family Foundation.)

“Since Trump won the election in 2016, we now have consistently found that a larger share of the public holds favorable views” of the health law, said Ashley Kirzinger, associate director of public opinion and survey research for the foundation. “This really solidified in 2017 after the failed repeal in the Senate.”

The foundation’s polling found that, in July 2014, 55% of voters opposed the law, while 36% favored it. By July 2020, that had flipped, with 51% favoring the law and 38% opposing it. A shift was seen across all political groups, though 74% of Republicans still viewed it unfavorably in the latest poll.

Public support for individual provisions of the ACA — such as protections for people with preexisting conditions or allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ health plans until age 26 — have proved even more popular than the law as a whole. And the provision that consistently polled unfavorably — the mandate that those without insurance must pay a fine — was eliminated in 2017.

“We’re 10 years along and the sky hasn’t caved in,” said Sabrina Corlette, a health policy professor at Georgetown University.

Political Messaging

Following the passage of the ACA, Democrats didn’t reference the law in their campaigns, said Erika Franklin Fowler, a government professor at Wesleyan University and the director of the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks political advertising.

“They ran on any other issue they could find,” Fowler said.

Republicans, she said, kept promising to “repeal and replace” but weren’t able to do so.

Then, in the 2018 election, Democrats seized on the shift in public opinion, touting the effects of the law and criticizing Republicans for their attempts to overturn it.

“In the decade I have been tracking political advertising, there wasn’t a single-issue topic that was as prominent as health care was in 2018,” she said.

As the global health crisis rages, health care concerns again dominate political ads in the 2020 races, Fowler said, although most ads haven’t explicitly focused on the ACA. Many highlight Republicans’ support for the lawsuit challenging preexisting condition protections or specific provisions of the ACA that their votes would have overturned. Republicans say they, too, will protect people with preexisting conditions but otherwise have largely avoided talking about the ACA.

“Cory Gardner has been running a lot on his environmental bills and conservation funding,” Fowler said. “It’s not difficult to figure out why he’s doing that. It’s easier for him to tout that in a state like Colorado than it is to talk about health care.”

Similar dynamics are playing out in other key Senate races. In Arizona, Republican Sen. Martha McSally was one of the more vocal advocates of repealing the ACA while she served in the House of Representatives. She publicly acknowledged those votes may have hurt her 2018 Senate bid.

“I did vote to repeal and replace Obamacare,” McSally said on conservative pundit Sean Hannity’s radio show during the 2018 campaign. “I’m getting my ass kicked for it right now.”

She indeed lost but was appointed to fill the seat of Sen. Jon Kyl after he resigned at the end of 2018. Now McSally is in a tight race with Democratic challenger Mark Kelly, an astronaut and the husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords.

“Kelly doesn’t have a track record of voting one way or another, but certainly in his campaign this is one of his top speaking points: what he would do to expand coverage and reassure people that coverage won’t be taken away,” said Derksen, the University of Arizona professor.

The ACA has proved a stumbling block for Republican Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Joni Ernst of Iowa. In Maine, GOP Sen. Susan Collins cast a key vote that prevented the repeal of the law but cast other votes that weakened it. She now also appears vulnerable — but more for her vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court and for not doing more to oppose President Donald Trump.

In Montana, Daines, who voted to repeal the ACA, is trying to hold on to his seat against Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock, who used the law to expand the state’s Medicaid enrollment in 2015. At its peak, nearly 1 in 10 Montanans were covered through the expansion.

As more Montanans now face the high cost of paying for health care on their own amid pandemic-related job losses, Montana State University political science professor David Parker said he expects Democrats to talk about Daines’ votes to repeal cost-saving provisions of the ACA.

“People are losing jobs, and their jobs bring health care with them,” Parker said. “I don’t think it’s a good space for Daines to be right now.”