Categories

Tag: COVID-19

A Conversation with John Ioannidis

By SAURABH JHA, MD

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a testing time for the already testy academic discourse. Decisions have had to be made with partial information. Information has come in drizzles, showers and downpours. The velocity with which new information has arrived has outstripped our ability to make sense of it. On top of that, the science has been politicized in a polarized country with a polarizing president at its helm.

As the country awoke to an unprecedented economic lockdown in the middle of March, John Ioannidis, professor of epidemiology at Stanford University and one of the most cited physician scientists who practically invented “metaresearch”, questioned the lockdown and wondered if we might cause more harm than good in trying to control coronavirus. What would normally pass for skepticism in the midst of uncertainty of a novel virus became tinder in the social media outrage fire.

Ioannidis was likened to the discredited anti-vax doctor, Andrew Wakefield. His colleagues in epidemiology could barely contain their disgust, which ranged from visceral disappointment – the sort one feels when their gifted child has lost their way in college, to deep anger. He was accused of misunderstanding risk, misunderstanding statistics, and cherry picking data to prove his point.

The pushback was partly a testament to the stature of Ioannidis, whose skepticism could have weakened the resoluteness with which people complied with the lockdown. Some academics defended him, or rather defended the need for a contrarian voice like his. The conservative media lauded him.

In this pandemic, where we have learnt as much about ourselves as we have about the virus, understanding the pushback to Ioannidis is critical to understanding how academic discourse shapes public’s perception of public policy.

Continue reading…

Telehealth’s Missing Link: In the Rush to Implement Virtual Care, What Did CMS Leave Out?

By RAY COSTANTINI, MD

Imagine three months from now when the predicted ‘second wave’ of COVID-19 is expected to resurge and we’re still without a vaccine. Telehealth has become the entry-point to care, widely adopted by patients both young and old. Now, when an elderly diabetic patient wakes up in the middle of the night with a dull ache on her left side and back, she doesn’t ignore the symptom, like she may have during the first COVID outbreak. Instead, she logs online to her local hospital’s website from a cell phone and accesses a simple questionnaire to report her health history and presenting symptoms. The whole process takes just a couple of minutes and she immediately hears back from her health provider with the suggestion to schedule an in-person appointment for further testing to rule out any kidney issues. 

This patient doesn’t become one of the nearly 50% of Americans who delayed care during the initial COVID pandemic. She was able to access care without having to download an application or wait to schedule a virtual appointment during normal business hours. She receives virtual asynchronous care on-demand, coordinated to sync with her electronic health record. The next day, she receives a follow-up call from her primary care doctor to ensure her symptoms were alleviated with the over-the-counter pain medication she was prescribed. 

I applaud the article written by Paul Grundy, MD, and Ken Terry, “Primary Care Practices Need Help to Survive the COVID-19 Pandemic,” in which they called on Congress to make health policy decisions that will provide immediate financial relief for primary care practices. We must mitigate the real risk we face: the highly possible shutdown of our healthcare system. Amid the coronavirus pandemic, the U.S. healthcare system has taken an enormous financial hit and primary care practices have been especially affected and are struggling to survive. As the authors point out, telehealth has taken the spotlight to fill the acute need for an influx of patients needing to access care under social distancing practices. Telehealth can increase access to care, relieve provider burden, reduce costs to systems, and improve patient outcomes. However, this is only possible with on-demand telehealth, or asynchronous care. 

Continue reading…

COVID-19 & Fertility Care: Remote Monitoring Meets Fertility Benefits for Better At-Home Option

By JESSICA DaMASSA, WTF HEALTH

Trying to achieve pregnancy with fertility treatments can be challenging, stressful, and expensive in the best of times — let alone a global pandemic. Since the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S., fertility care has been basically “paused,” and women attempting to conceive have been left with a very different set of decisions and options for care than were available pre-pandemic. So, how does fertility care shift from the clinic to the home? Tammy Sun, co-founder & CEO of fertility benefits startup Carrot Fertility, and Lea Von Bidder, co-founder & CEO of Ava, a women’s health tech startup best-known for its ovulation tracking bracelet, stop by to talk about how they are redefining the how, when, and where of fertility care for greater success outside the doctor’s office.

What’s smart about this partnership? How the two companies are working together to build off the biometric data collected by Ava’s tracker, basically adopting a remote monitoring approach to collecting and analyzing data in the home in effort to either help optimize the chances of getting pregnant naturally, or better inform the IVF or other medically-assisted procedures that will return as options as the pandemic wanes. From the impact on would-be-parents and their employers to the sentiment of women’s health investors, we talk through the opportunities and challenges of expanding fertility care in the home.

Silence Can Be Deadly: Speak up for Safety in a Pandemic

By LISA SHIEH MD, PhD, and JINGYI LIU, MD

Jingyi Liu
Lisa Shieh

There have been disturbing reports of hospitals firing doctors and nurses for speaking up about inadequate PPE. The most famous case was at the PeaceHealth St. Joseph hospital in Washington, where Dr. Ming Lin was let go from his position as an ER physician after he used social media to publicize suggestions for protecting patients and staff.  At Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, a nurse, Lauri Mazurkiewicz warned colleagues that the hospital’s standard face masks were not safe and brought her own N95 mask. She was fired by the hospital. These examples violate a culture of safety and endanger the lives of both patients and staff. Measures that prevent healthcare workers from speaking out to protect themselves and their patients violate safety culture. Healthcare workers should be expected to voice their safety concerns, and hospital executives should be actively seeking feedback from frontline healthcare workers on how to improve their institution’s Covid-19 response.

Share power with frontline workers

According to the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, it is common for organizations facing a crisis to assume a power grab in order to maintain control. As such, it is not surprising that some hospitals are implementing draconian policies to prevent hospital staff from speaking out. While strong leadership is important in a crisis, it must be balanced by sharing and even ceding power to frontline workers. All hospitals want to provide a safe environment for their staff and high-quality care for their patients. However, in a public health emergency where resources are scarce and guidelines change daily, it’s important that hospitals have a systematic approach to keep up.

Continue reading…

Community Organizations Can Reduce the Privacy Impacts of Surveillance During COVID-19

By ADRIAN GROPPER, MD

Until scientists discover a vaccine or treatment for COVID-19, our economy and our privacy will be at the mercy of imperfect technology used to manage the pandemic response.

Contact tracing, symptom capture and immunity assessment are essential tools for pandemic response, which can benefit from appropriate technology. However, the effectiveness of these tools is constrained by the privacy concerns inherent in mass surveillance. Lack of trust diminishes voluntary participation. Coerced surveillance can lead to hiding and to the injection of false information.

But it’s not a zero-sum game. The introduction of local community organizations as trusted intermediaries can improve participation, promote trust, and reduce the privacy impact of health and social surveillance.

Balancing Surveillance with Privacy

Privacy technology can complement surveillance technology when it drives adoption through trust borne of transparency and meaningful choice.

Continue reading…

Three Things I Hope Health Care Won’t Recover From

By RANDY CARPENTER

The loss of lives and livelihoods from COVID-19 are almost too much to comprehend. And yet, slowly, conversations are emerging about the positives percolating from the pandemic.

It’s human nature to want to look for the positives in even the worst of situations, and I’ve noticed that in both my personal and my professional circles of late, people are talking about the things they hope we don’t lose when things go back to “normal.” 

Chief among them, especially in my healthcare technology circles, is a level of humanity that our previously faster-paced lives, ways and organizations had perhaps too often and too easily dismissed. The humans on the frontline of care delivery, for example. The effects of social isolation on healthy people, much less those who are sick. The struggle and juggle of modern work-life balance. Inequalities in healthcare access and delivery.

We’ve long talked about technology’s ability to make some of these things easier, to close some of these gaps, but now we know just how possible they are when people, politics and policy unite in the face of a pandemic. We now know just how quickly even the largest and slowest-moving of health systems can change course and even course correct.

Until now, it’s been far easier to talk about the promise of technology, telemedicine and remote workforce scenarios than it was to actually deploy them. Because before, to deploy such solutions also meant loss; loss of control, loss of normalcy, loss of humanity. Until now.

Continue reading…

Contact Tracing: 10 Unique Challenges of COVID-19

Deven McGraw
Eric Perakslis
Vince Kuraitis

By VINCE KURAITIS, ERIC PERAKSLIS, and DEVEN McGRAW

This piece is part of the series “The Health Data Goldilocks Dilemma: Sharing? Privacy? Both?” which explores whether it’s possible to advance interoperability while maintaining privacy. Check out other pieces in the series here.

A worldwide dialog about COVID-19 contact tracing is underway. Even under the best of circumstances, the contact tracing process can be difficult, time-consuming, labor-intensive, and invasive — requiring rigorous, methodical execution and follow-up.

COVID-19 throws curve balls at the already difficult process of contact tracing. In this post we will provide some basic background on contact tracing and will list and describe 10 challenges that make contact tracing of COVID-19 exceptionally difficult. The 10 unique challenges are:

1) COVID-19 is Highly Contagious and Deadly

2) Contact Tracing is Becoming Politicized

3) We Lack Scientific Understanding of COVID-19

4) Presymptomatic Patients Can Spread COVID-19

5) Asymptomatic Patients Can Spread COVID-19

6) Contact Tracing is Dependent on Availability of Testing

7) Contact Tracing is Dependent on New, Extensive Funding

8) Contact Tracing is Dependent on an “Army of Tracers” and Massive Support for Patients

9 ) The Role of Technology is Unclear — Is it Critical Support or a Distraction?

10) The U.S. Response Has Been Fragmented and Inconsistent

The thrust of this post is about traditional boots-on-the-ground contact tracing conducted by public health agencies. We will touch on a few aspects of digital contact tracing (e.g., smartphone apps), but we’ll go into much more depth on digital contact tracing in future posts.

How does contact tracing relate to the theme of this series — The Health Data Goldilocks Dilemma? It’s about obtaining the right amount and types of information — not too much, not too little. Not too much data so that privacy rights or civil liberties are infringed, or that contact tracers are overwhelmed with useless data; not too little data so that public health agencies aren’t handcuffed in protecting our safety in tracing COVID-19 cases.

Continue reading…

Defund Health Care!

By KIM BELLARD

In the wake of the protests related to George Floyd’s death, there have been many calls to “defund police.”  Those words come as a shock to many people, some of whom can’t imagine even reducing police budgets, much less abolishing entire police departments, as a few advocates do indeed call for.

If we’re talking about institutions that are supposed to protect us but too often cause us harm, maybe we should be talking about defunding health care as well.  

America loves the police.  They’re like mom and apple pie; not supporting them is essentially seen as being unpatriotic.  Until recent events, it’s been political suicide to try to attack police budgets.  It’s much easier for politicians to urge more police, with more hardware, even military grade, while searching for budget cuts that will attract less attention.  

It remains to be seen whether the current climate will actually lead to action, but there are faint signs of change.  The mayor of Los Angeles has promised to cut $150 million from its police budget, the New York City mayor vowed to cut some of its $6b police budget, and the Minneapolis City Council voted to “begin the process of ending the Minneapolis Police Department,” perhaps spurred by seeing the mayor do a “walk of shame” of jeers from protesters when he would not agree to even defunding it.  

Continue reading…

We Can’t Breathe

By KIM BELLARD

I was wondering what might crowd COVID-19 off the news.  The historic economic devastation caused by it has been subsumed into it, just another casualty of the pandemic.  In better times, perhaps SpaceX’s efforts would inspire us.  But, no, it took the police killing of yet another person of color to take our attention away.  

Now, let me say right off that I am not the best person to discuss George Floyd’s death and the woeful pattern it is part of.  I have certainly been the beneficiary of white male privilege.  I’ve never been unjustly pulled over or arrested.  I haven’t taken part in the protests.  But people like me need to speak out.  Writing about anything else right now seems almost irresponsible.  

OK: you’ve seen the video. You’ve heard Mr. Floyd protest that he can’t breathe, that the officer was killing him.  You’ve seen other officers stand by and not do anything — some even assisting — even as bystanders pleaded for them to let Mr. Floyd breathe.  It’s disturbing, it’s distressing, and it’s nothing new.  

I saw a video from one of the resulting protests where another officer restrained a protester — a black man, of course — in exactly the same way, although in this case another officer eventually moved the officer’s knee off the protester’s neck.  He’d learned what that video looked like.

There now have been protests in over 140 U.S. cities, with the National Guard mobilized in almost half the states.  Most protests have been peaceful, but there has been looting and there have been shootings. It’s a level of civil unrest not seen since the 1960’s.

And we thought it was bad when we just wanted the grocery stores to have toilet paper again, when wearing a mask was considered a hardship.

Continue reading…

The Lack of Persuasion as a Failure Against COVID-19

By RAFAEL FONSECA, MD

Reopening safely out of the current pandemic ought to be done via persuasion, not coercion.

It has been more than five months since the world first learned about COVID-19. Models predicted a sharp increase in the number of cases, and a seemingly high likelihood the pandemic would overwhelm our hospitals. These models were often inaccurate, and we have all come to learn about the imprecision of epidemiological prediction.  Nevertheless, the infection is far worse than anyone initially accepted – becoming a staple of our generation. Fearing uncountable deaths and the possible need to prioritize resources for those affected, initial government measures were put in place to curtail the spread of the virus. Images of the Lombardic tragedy compelled all to stay in place and wait for the storm to pass, and with few exceptions most complied. Realizing the gravity of the situation, governments gradually implemented measures to prevent infections.  With some vacillation, we evolved from travel restrictions, to social distancing, shelter in place and universal mask use.

As the pandemic ensued, we watched the horror stories taking place in New York City and Boston. Even while we are in the midst of the so-called first wave, with thousands of deaths per day, many have started to wonder how long society will remain isolated and locked. Politicians look to experts for recommendations regarding policies that might save lives, and for the most part they have complied. However, as the weeks ensue, we see growing jobless claims, lines for food banks, and impatience.

This brewing impatience is a response to an unknown future dictated by the vagaries of nature and the lack of a coherent strategy to resume a life with a resemblance to normal. The public searches for guidance from federal agencies, state governments, and health authorities. A lack of clear direction from these institutions has heightened this anxious impatience. Additionally, the conversation is now ideological, with an almost Manichaean division between those wanting to save lives more so than the economy, and vice versa, creating cartoons of opposing perspectives.  Even for those recognized as  accomplished, dissenting from orthodoxy is punished severely. In the background, the public’s patience is running thinner.

Continue reading…

Registration

Forgotten Password?