The new coronavirus is a killer with a crowbar, breaking and entering human cells with impunity. It hitchhikes across continents carried on coughs and careless hands, driven by its own urgent necessity to survive.
It has a gregarious side that makes it hard to resist. It loves a party. The persistent social climber claims its victims around the world by riding on moments of the most innocent of human interactions—a shared laugh, a conversation, an embrace. And it is a liar. SARS-CoV-2, which causes Covid-19, often misleads the body’s immune systems.
Taken on its own terms, SARS-CoV-2 is the infectious disease success of the past 100 years.
Health care law (including regulatory and compliance issues, public health law, medical ethics, and life sciences), with digressions into constitutional law, statutory interpretation, poetry, and other things that matter
Monday, September 07, 2020
"‘Really Diabolical’: Inside the Coronavirus That Outsmarted Science": Latest in WSJ Series
Saturday, September 05, 2020
Sen. Cruz (+ 20) Makes a Move on Women's Health
Kudos to The Dallas Morning News for this article on the senator's letter urging the head of the FDA to pull Mifeprex (a/k/a mifepristone, RU-486, or "the abortion pill") from the market. The DMN story quotes the senator as saying "Pregnancy is not a life-threatening illness, and the abortion pill does not cure or prevent any disease. Make no mistake, Mifeprex is a dangerous pill." The story explains the background:
As the COVID-19 pandemic limited access to in-person doctor appointments, abortion-rights advocates called for the FDA to alter its risk evaluation strategy for the pill, arguing that the policy, which required a woman be prescribed the pill in person, made it more difficult for a woman to acquire it. A federal judge suspended the rule in July.
The article offers this lesson in basic reproductive biology:
Pregnancy can be especially deadly to Black and American Indian women. From 2011 to 2016, there were 42.4 deaths per 100,000 live births for Black non-Hispanic women and 30.4 deaths per 100,000 live births for American Indian and Alaskan Native non-Hispanic women.
The CDC reported in [2019] that since Mifeprex’s approval in 2000, there were 24 recorded maternal deaths associated with the drug.
The article ends with this great Twitter quote from Democratic congressional candidate (TX-4) Russell Foster: "If you dont have a uterus, you shouldn't have a say in a womans healthcare. You lack basic knowledge. Viagra doesnt prevent any disease but I'm sure you have a full bottle at home. Please stay out of women's healthcare decisions unless you want them to start legislating mens."
Wall Street Journal's Latest in "The COVID Storm" Series
The Wall Street Journal continues its excellent series with two new installments:
- "How Trump Sowed Covid Supply Chaos. 'Try Getting It Yourselves.’" (8/31/20)
- "How Coronavirus Overpowered the World Health Organization" ((8/28/20)
Thursday, August 27, 2020
Testing for the coronavirus and the CDC
On August 24 the CDC announced new recommendations for testing for the coronavirus. They said that there is no need for testing if someone is asymptomatic, even if that person has come into contact with someone who has the infection.
Of course, this change serves the political goals of President Trump perfectly, since he has repeatedly asserted that with fewer tests the U.S. would have fewer cases. I have a granddaughter who loved playing a game where, if she closed her eyes, I would disappear. By the time she was four or five, though, she knew it was just a game and that I really didn't disappear. That lesson seems to have been lost on the president.
But back to the CDC. Adm. Brett Giroir (an old friend whose integrity I've never had reason to question) says there was no political pressure: "We all signed off on it, the docs, before it ever got to a place where the political leadership would have, you know, even seen it, and this document was approved by the task force by consensus." The medical community outside the CDC, however, has been pretty close to unanimous in rejecting this latest guidance. The former head of the CDC, Dr. Tom Frieden summed up the response from outside the Washington Beltway: the guidance change is "unexplained, inexplicable, probably indefensible.”
There are two competing narratives out there, and there is no reason both couldn't be be true.
- This is a politically driven change pushed by the White House, HHS, and political actors on the coronavirus task force to make the president look good. Brett Giroir denies this, though he has confirmed that once "the docs" signed off the change made its way into the political process. Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the NY Times reports that "[t]wo federal health officials said the shift came as a directive to the Atlanta-based C.D.C. from higher-ups in Washington at the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services." That still allow for the possibility that the politicos "directed" the CDC to make a change after it was presented to them by "the docs."
- This new guidance is an attempt to ration tests, which are still drastically and acutely in short supply, to those who are most likely to be contagious. As has been reported throughout the summer, it can take days to get tested and weeks to get test results back due to the backlog in properly equipped testing facilities.
Tuesday, August 25, 2020
The COVID Storm: three more Wall Street Journal articles
- What Derailed America’s Covid Testing: Three Lost Weeks (Aug. 18, 2020)
- Why Are There Still Not Enough Paper Towels? (Aug. 21, 2020)
- New Thinking on Covid Lockdowns: They’re Overly Blunt and Costly (Aug. 24, 2020) - by the inimitable Greg Ip
Previous articles in the series are here and here.
". . . it illustrates that we are all connected "
From the Boston Globe (possible paywall protection): When Biogen held its meeting of the firm's international leaders in a Boston hotel in February, they apparently had no idea it would be a super-spreader event. Attendees congregated in meeting rooms, on escalators and in elevators, at cocktail receptions and meals. Masks and social distancing weren't much of a thing back then. Current estimates of the number of coronavirus infections in four easter Massachusetts counties that are traceable to that two-day event: 20,000. And that number could be too conservative an estimate.
The "connected" quote is in reference to the spread from the tony Marriott Long Wharf hotel to at least "122 people living in Boston-area homeless shelters and employees who work there, the study says. It’s unclear what path the virus took to get there."
Lesson learned? Not necessarily, as illustrated by last week's decision by a number of universities to cancel the return to on-campus classes after clusters of infections broke out among undergraduates (Inside Higher Ed, 8/25/20).
Monday, August 24, 2020
Declining life expectancy in the U.S. and legal determinants of health
It is well known that average life expectancy in this country declined from 2014-2017, followed by a slight (~1 month) increase in 2018 (CDC, Jan 2020), leaving the average still below its high in 2014. An important new article in JAMA (on-line and free) by Larry Gostin and co-authors James Hodge and Donna Levin consider "Legal Interventions to Address US Reductions in Life Expectancy." Here, in brief, is their case:
Age-based, geographic, and socioeconomic status disparities collectively diminish average life expectancy. Midlife “diseases of despair” (eg, suicides, drug overdoses, and alcohol-related conditions), firearm violence, and obesity also are contributing factors for reduced life expectancy, especially in rural counties, the industrial Midwest, and Appalachia. Life expectancy gaps among the richest and poorest 1% of the population are estimated to exceed 10 years for women and 14 years for men. Stated simply, poorer, less-educated individuals in the US live considerably shorter lives. This pattern of inequality has been highlighted further during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Among multiple causes, weak laws at all levels (federal, state/tribal, local) contribute to regional differences in life expectancy, suggesting a need for responsive legal reforms. Universal health coverage is vital, but “upstream” prevention aimed at known risk factors undergirded by law also contribute to increased life expectancy. Post–COVID-19 public health laws can address specific social determinants beyond the health sector—such as by focusing on connectedness, education, environment, housing, food, income, and transportation—and potentially narrow vast health equity gaps among underserved at-risk populations.
Monday, August 17, 2020
The COVID Storm: Part 2 of The Wall Street Journal Series on What Went Wrong
The second installment in the WSJ's series -- "China’s CDC, Built to Stop Pandemics Like Covid, Stumbled When It Mattered Most" -- focuses on the breakdown, primarily in surveillance, which didn't discover the outbreak in Wuhan until it had already started to spread to the rest of the world. The story in China is distressingly similar to the story in the U.S.: Public-health infrastructure was underfunded, understaffed, and degraded to the point that it couldn't do the job it was designed to do.
As expected, the writing is superb. Also as expected, the series is still behind a paywall. It's too bad. A lot of other news outlets are putting their COVID-19 coverage on-line for free as a public service.
Thursday, August 13, 2020
New Wall Street Journal Series: The COVID Storm
The first installment was in today's paper: "A Deadly Coronavirus Was Inevitable. Why Was No One Ready?" The series is off to a pretty strong start, with some useful historical data and trends, good stuff on SARS, lessons learned from EBOLA (not caused by a coronavirus, but a highly infectious disease), and a straightforward narrative describing the international response.
Unfortunately, there are only a few paragraphs on the developments, historical and present-day, that produced a public-health disaster in the U.S. Maybe there will be more in subsequent articles.
And the articles are behind a paywall. (Really, WSJ? Many papers and journals are making their COVID-related articles available for free because, you know, they are in the public interest).
For now, I still highly recommend two articles by Ed Young in The Atlantic that I've mentioned previously (here and here). Yong is somewhat less diplomatic than the WSJ when it comes to describing the failures in policy and in practice during the first half of 2020, and I for one am grateful for his forthrightness.
Tuesday, August 11, 2020
Cruzan and the Right to Die -- SMU Law Review Symposium (Vol. 73, No. 1)
I'm happy to report the publication of the SMU Law Review's Symposium, "Cruzan and the 'Right to Die'" in Vol. 73, No, 1 (2020). The authors who wrote for the Symposium are the thought leaders around the country. I want to thank them for their wonderful scholarship and urge everyone reading this to check out their articles. (All are available in PDF from the link above.)
The motivating idea behind the Symposium was "where are we now, 30 years after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Cruzan? Here are our authors and their topics:
- Foreword: Cruzan and the “Right to Die”
Thomas Wm. Mayo - First Man and Second Woman: Reflections on the Anniversaries of Apollo 11 and Cruzan
George J. Annas - Cruzan’s Legacy in Autonomy
Kathy L. Cerminara - Remaking the “Right to Die”: Give Me Liberty but Do Not Give Me Death
Janet L. Dolgin - Beyond Cruzan: Dementia and the Best Interests Standard
Rebecca Susan Dresser - Cruzan and the Other Evidentiary Standard: A Reconsideration of a Landmark Case Given Advances in the Classification of Disorders of Consciousness and the Evolution of Disability Law
Joseph J. Fins - A History of the Law of Assisted Dying in the United States
Alan Meisel - Cruzan and Surrogate Decision-Making
David Orentlicher - Video Advance Directives: Growth and Benefits of Audiovisual Recording
Thaddeus Mason Pope - The Legacy of Cruzan: Balancing the Moral Agency of Surrogates and the State
Margie Hodges Shaw, Timothy E. Quill, and Bernard L. Sussman
Can we finally put to rest the certifiably false assertions by Trump and Cornyn that children are immune to or not affected by the coronavirus? Positive cases in children (under the age of 19) increased by 97,000 in the last two weeks of July alone (WaPo, 8/10/20). It really doesn't matter whether increased testing or increased numbers of infections (or, most likely, some combination of the two) are behind this number. (A) The number disproves claims that kids are, by virtue of being kids, safe from infection. (B) The true number of positive cases is probably quite a bit larger than the reported number (which is true of all reported numbers).
Ed Yong (Atlantic writer) on KERA-FM's "Think"
Yong's current piece focuses on the inadequacy of our response to the coronavirus. He and Krys mentioned his two-year-old article, also in The Atlantic, that predicted our inability to respond to a pandemic: "The Next Plague is Coming. Is America Ready?" (July/August 2018).The article pretty well nailed what came to pass, with the added factor -- now all too apparent -- of the total lack of coherent leadership from our president, which Yong details in the current article.
Both articles are indispensable reading (if you can get past the paywall). Also, Yong is a prolific writer and his Atlantic articles since January are worth checking out.
Monday, August 10, 2020
Long-term Health Care Costs for COVID-19
Even after the critical-care hurricane passes, we are looking at COVID-19-related thunderstorms for the years ahead.
We are used to thinking about the impact of COVID-19 in light of short-term effects: hospital beds, ventilators, staffing, schools and businesses, local and national economy, etc. It makes perfect sense. These are the places and concerns where the pandemic first hits us. But researchers are starting to look at the longer-term effects, beginning with the health care needs of individuals with long-term and even permanent health problems as a result of their exposure to the novel coronavirus.
Even after (that is, when and if) Reuters ran this story last week:
With mounting evidence that some COVID-19 survivors face months, or possibly years, of debilitating complications, healthcare experts are beginning to study possible long-term costs.
Bruce Lee of the City University of New York (CUNY) Public School of Health estimated that if 20% of the U.S. population contracts the virus, the one-year post-hospitalization costs would be at least $50 billion, before factoring in longer-term care for lingering health problems. Without a vaccine, if 80% of the population became infected, that cost would balloon to $204 billion.
This of course is on top of the year-in, year-out bill for health care B.C. (Before COVID-19). According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, "U.S. health care spending grew 4.6 percent in 2018, reaching $3.6 trillion or $11,172 per person. As a share of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, health spending accounted for 17.7 percent."
If we're aiming for herd immunity without a vaccine available, 80% is a good number, but in terms of the human misery, economic dislocation, and impact on health care providers (institutional and individual), getting to 80% is a disaster. And $204 billion represents a 5.67% bump on top of the underlying 4.6% growth rate that is pretty much baked into our national health care costs.
We may get a vaccine that will be at least partially effective, and we may get out the required hundreds of millions of doses (in this country along, let alone the billions needed worldwide). The infection rate, therefore, may be less than 80%. But a 20% infection rate still puts an enormous burden on the system, especially primary-care physicians and specialists including cardiologists, pulmonologists, endocrinologists, neurologists, and gastroenterologists.
And that burden will not be shared equally by states and regions. Massachusetts has more physicians per capita than any other state. There may be shortages in the years ahead, but they are unlikely to be as severe as in states that already have physician and other health-provider shortages. Many of those states are in the South (including the the Southeast and Southwest), where restrictions have been lifted too broadly and too soon and where COVID-19 spikes have been the most pronounced since July.
Friday, August 07, 2020
Determination of Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria: The World Brain Death Project
Brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC) is described in every jurisdiction in the U.S. as the irreversible cessation of all brain function, including that of the brain stem. The universal acceptance of this seemingly straightforward criterion masks an unsettling reality: "There are inconsistencies in concept, criteria, practice, and documentation of brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC) both internationally and within countries." That's the opening salvo by an international, multidisciplinary group that has published its findings and recommendations in an important new paper in JAMA.
As summarized by the panel: "This report provides recommendations for the minimum clinical standards for determination of brain death/death by neurologic criteria in adults and children with clear guidance for various clinical circumstances. The recommendations have widespread international society endorsement and can serve to guide professional societies and countries in the revision or development of protocols and procedures for determination of brain death/death by neurologic criteria, leading to greater consistency within and between countries."
In the same issue, Dr. Robert Truog at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children's provides a useful editorial on the report. His bottom line: loss of consciousness, loss of spontaneous respiratory drive, and the irreversibility of both conditions are the source of inconsistency and confusion. Research as to all three factors is desperately needed and devilishly difficulty to carry out. And even if that research is performed and is successful in establishing clinical criteria for their determination, much work will remain to be done, e.g.:
Bringing these recommendations to the entire international community will require a 2-pronged approach. First, evidence to support the existing tests needs to be bolstered, and this may require greater use of advanced neurodiagnostic techniques. A key question will be whether the whole-brain biological standard for defining BC/DNC will remain tenable, or whether this concept should be replaced by the values-based brainstem standard. Second, since much of the world does not have access to advanced technologies, the World Brain Death Project will need to focus on development and validation of tests that rely on the clinical examination and widely available diagnostic tools. This will be essential if the capacity for accurately diagnosing BD/DNC is to become accessible to all clinicians around the world.
Thursday, August 06, 2020
Trump and Cornyn Apparently Listen to the Same Morons
Wednesday, August 05, 2020
COVID-19 Evictions and Health
"Just as the economic fallout of COVID-19 has increased the likelihood of evictions, evictions might also increase the risk of COVID-19 transmission in the short term. Households may be rendered homeless by eviction or will need to double up in shared space, resulting in diminished ability to socially distance and increased risk of COVID-19 transmission."However, the immediate health effects of eviction extend far beyond COVID-19 risk. For individuals and families who become homeless, especially those who become chronically homeless, the health risks have long been recognized. Mounting evidence suggests that psychosocial stress and material scarcity following an eviction may carry profound and lasting health consequences. Among adults, evictions have been associated with several interrelated conditions, including all-cause mortality, emergency department utilization, sexually transmitted infections, HIV-related treatment outcomes, drug use, exposure to violence, mental health hospitalization, suicides, and depression. Health conditions and high levels of health care costs also increase vulnerability to evictions in a manner that can perpetuate a longstanding cyclical pattern of economic and housing instability and poor health."For children, experiencing evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic may cast a long shadow, impacting their health and well-being as adults. Children whose mothers experience evictions during pregnancy are more likely to be born with low birthweight or preterm than are children whose mothers are not evicted. In early childhood, evictions are associated with food insecurity and lead poisoning, which over time can compound and cause lasting deficiencies in children’s physical, mental, and emotional development."Evictions during COVID-19 are also likely to perpetuate and worsen racial health inequities at both individual and community levels. Structural racism drives inequities in labor and housing markets, resulting in increased risk of both COVID-19 and eviction for Black and Latinx individuals. Black and Latinx individuals are also more likely to live in communities characterized by high levels of eviction with important spillover effects on health."
Tuesday, August 04, 2020
Devastating Report on the U.S. Response to the Novel Coronavirus
No one should be shocked that a liar who has made almost 20,000 false or misleading claims during his presidency would lie about whether the U.S. had the pandemic under control; that a racist who gave birth to birtherism would do little to stop a virus that was disproportionately killing Black people; that a xenophobe who presided over the creation of new immigrant-detention centers would order meatpacking plants with a substantial immigrant workforce to remain open; that a cruel man devoid of empathy would fail to calm fearful citizens; that a narcissist who cannot stand to be upstaged would refuse to tap the deep well of experts at his disposal; that a scion of nepotism would hand control of a shadow coronavirus task force to his unqualified son-in-law; that an armchair polymath would claim to have a “natural ability” at medicine and display it by wondering out loud about the curative potential of injecting disinfectant; that an egotist incapable of admitting failure would try to distract from his greatest one by blaming China, defunding the WHO, and promoting miracle drugs; or that a president who has been shielded by his party from any shred of accountability would say, when asked about the lack of testing, “I don’t take any responsibility at all.”
Repeal and Replace (Redux and Redux and . . . )
Monday, August 03, 2020
Have IRBs Become Compliance Bureaucracies?
IRBs have transformed since the late 1990s from committees of peer reviewers – fellow academics making ethical judgements on the basis of scholarly expertise, but paying little attention to the letter of the regulations—to “compliance bureaucracies,” wherein full-time IRB administrators do much of the heavy lifting, often behind the scenes. Babb defines compliance bureaucracy as “a nongovernmental office that uses skilled staff—compliance professionals—to interpret, apply, and oversee adherence to government rules” (P. 5.) In this transformed governance environment, faculty board members still participate in terms of voting on whether to approve a project or expedited research protocols, but their work is simply not possible without IRB staff. This transformation, Babb argues, was due primarily to the growth in IRB scrutiny in the late 1990s by the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), which is situated in the federal Department of Health and Human Services. In turn, there was consequential growth in funding from research institutions to invest in IRB administration to better manage the risk associated with OHRP audits and enforcement actions. IRBs today are led not by peer reviewers, then, but rather a professionalized service of research administrators who know the nuances of IRB management.
- Does the research protocol focus on minors? Prisoners? Other "vulnerable" subjects?
- If so, what additional safeguards need to be built into the review process to help ensure the subjects are treated ethically?
- Is there some human research that just shouldn't be done?
- Are the fundamental human rights of research subjects sufficiently protected by the design of the research and the disclosure of risks?
Sunday, August 02, 2020
Dartmouth Atlas Project
- COVID-19 data -- maps! (some of them time-lapsed) -- up-to-date within a few days
- Data through 2018 (I guess 2019 is still being processed)
Friday, July 31, 2020
In Texas, More People Are Losing Their Health Insurance as COVID Cases Climb
Texas’ uninsured rate has been climbing along with its unemployment rate as COVID cases also surge in the state. Before the pandemic, Texas already had the highest rate and largest number of people without insurance among all states. And 20% of all uninsured children in the U.S. live in Texas.The uninsurance problem has only gotten worse in Texas in 2020. According to recent data from Families USA, a consumer health advocacy group that supported the Affordable Care Act, 29% of Texas adults under 65 don’t have health insurance so far this year.The group found that about 659,000 people in the state became uninsured between February and May as job losses soared. Texas is one of 13 states that has not expanded Medicaid under the ACA.
Thursday, July 30, 2020
Starr County, TX implements "crisis standard of care"
“It is important that we all know the situation that we’re facing in the county, not only the community but the hospital is overwhelmed right now,” Vera said. “Our backs are to the wall.”
“We are not gods or anybody to make a decision for who should live or who should die. However, when you have a mass-casualty situation there are guidelines that makes you work in a more efficient manner and to help save the maximum number of people,” said Vazquez, who added in his entire career as a physician he has never experienced such a desperate mass medical situation.
Starr County has an eight-bed COVID-19 unit at its hospital, but currently there are 28 patients with three on ventilators and life support, including one in the emergency room. Vazquez said physicians will be using a mass-casualty treatment plan devised by physicians in North Texas to determine who gets treatment and who does not.“The number of cases we see in the ER are growing every day; 50% of cases in the ER are COVID. The situation is desperate. We cannot continue functioning at Starr County Memorial Hospital the way things are going. The numbers are staggering,” Vazquez said.
Haynes and Boone "Health Law Vitals": Almost All COVID-19 Almost All the Time
- COVID-19-Related Healthcare Fraud and Anti-Kickback Enforcement Focuses on Laboratory Testing
- While the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has identified and pursued a variety of fraud schemes and activities related to COVID-19 (such as sales of fake testing kits and PPE, price gouging, and fraudulent offers for free COVID-19 testing in order to obtain Medicare beneficiary information that is used to submit false medical claims), several recent cases involving laboratory testing demonstrate that this is a key area of healthcare fraud and anti-kickback enforcement during the pandemic
- HIPAA Updates
- OCR's HIPAA guidance for healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic
- HHS's extension of its Public Health Emergency
- Detailed reporting instructions for recipients of Provider Relief Funds (PRF) will be released on August 17, 2020
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) announced the adoption of the revised Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder Patient Records regulation, 42 CFR Part 2
- Department of Justice updated its guidance regarding evaluation of corporate compliance programs
- OCR resolved two religious freedom complaints related to COVID-19
Tuesday, July 28, 2020
After taking a week off from misleading the public about the coronavirus, Pres. Trump is at it again.
That's right, President Trump, I am talking about you.
After a week of acting and speaking fairly sensibly about the coronavirus and COVID-19, he's back at it again, today retweeting that hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19. And, according to the Associated Press, "Trump also shared a post from the Twitter account for a podcast hosted by Steve Bannon, a former top White House adviser to Trump, accusing Fauci of misleading the public over hydroxychloroquine." This is the same nonsense that today got Twitter to limit Donald Trump Jr.'s Twitter access for 12 hours as a sanction for misleading the public about COVID-19.
One of my earlier posts analogized Trump to Nero, fiddling while Rome burned. A better analogy is poring gasoline on the fire to make it worse.
Monday, July 27, 2020
Somnolescent state medical boards bear large responsibility for epidemic of opioid death and destruction
Granted, not all medical boards are created equal. Some have been more active than others in disciplining physicians who overprescribe. But the opioid crisis could not have reached the level it has without many boards failing in their responsibility to protect the public from unscrupulous physicians. This is occurring against a background of overregulating physicians who practiced evidence-based medicine to treat patients with medical problems other than addiction to opioids. Many doctors began avoiding pain management altogether because the regulatory environment was too hostile and the legal risk too great. Over time, state legislatures began enacting "intractable pain" laws that were intended to protect legitimate pain-control practices. Somehow, over the past two decades, the regulatory pendulum seems to have swung very farin the opposite direction.
Sunday, July 26, 2020
Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Conversational Agents in Health Care
If you've called the DMV, your cellphone service or cable tv provider, the complaint line of an on-line vendor, or other automated, disembodied telephone "presence," you know the drill:
- You are asked a question.
- You respond.
- You hear funny "sorting" noises.
- You are asked another question.
- Rinse and repeat. And repeat. And repeat.
- Patient Safety
- Who monitors the interactions between patients and CAs? Does monitoring occur 24 hours/day and 7 days/week or on another schedule?
- Is there a rigorously tested escalation pathway to a human clinician? What scenarios have been configured to initiate the escalation pathway?
- How well do CAs detect subtleties of language, tone, and context that may signal a risk for patient harm?
- Scope
- What kinds of clinical tasks should be augmented or automated by CAs and which should not? How much guidance is appropriate for CAs to provide to patients?
- Trust and Transparency
- Do clinicians trust CAs? Do patients? Should they?
- To what degree do clinicians and patients need to understand the workings of CAs to use them effectively, intelligently, and ensure the appropriate amount of trust?
- Content Decisions
- What are the content sources for CAs that provide recommendations or guidance?
- Do the CArecommendations align with content sources and with supervising clinician recommendations?
- Data Use, Privacy, and Integration
- Who can access exchanges between patients and CAs?
- Who owns or controls the data?
- Will the data be stored or purged?
- If stored, for what purposes (eg, research, commercial use)?
- Are conversations integrated into patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) or do they remain in each device?
- Can EHR data be integrated into CAs to better contextualize interactions?
- Bias and Health Equity
- Which patient groups are used to train algorithms?
- How representative are they?
- How do CAs evolve over time to reflect new user populations?
- How do CAs handle accents and speakers of other languages?
- What about various health literacy levels and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act?
- Third-Party Involvement
- CAs should be protected against commercially motivated data sharing or marketing, while permitting referencing of evidence-based products and therapies.
- A balance is needed among commercial, technology leadership, and other incentives for CA developers and health care organizations
- Cybersecurity
- What if data, devices, or apps are hacked or monitored covertly and cause harm?
- Will CA conversation data be encrypted?
- Are there restrictions on CA access?
- Is 2-factor authentication required?
- What are the trade-offs between sufficient security and convenient access?
- Legal and Licensing
- Who is accountable if CAs fail? The sponsoring health care organizations or clinicians? The CA vendors? All of the above?
- What is the role of insurance in CA services?
- Will there be required licenses or credentials for CAs similar to those required for clinicians?
- Research and Development Questions
- What approach or tone works best for patients? Human vs robotic, empathetic vs stoic, terse vs engaging, female vs male vs gender-neutral?
- What are the most common questions or needs posed to CAs?
- What do patients find most and least useful? What motivates patients to use CAs? What are differential discontinuation rates? Why do some patients stop using CAs? What other functions are requested, are viable, and are needed most? What are patient outcomes with CAs?
- Governance, Testing, and Evaluation
- How will decisions about CA selection, deployment, and use be governed? How will performance be tested and evaluated with actual patients before deployment?
- What types of standard performance metrics and evaluations will be developed and implemented? How will desired outcomes and unanticipated or undesirable outcomes, including biases, be captured and assessed on an ongoing basis? How will these assessments be used to continue, suspend, or modify use of CAs?
- How will hazards or anomalies be detected and addressed?
- Supporting Innovation
- How can development, testing, and introduction of promising boundary-pushing technologies be balanced with the need to protect patients and address the other issues listed here?
Saturday, July 25, 2020
CDC Reverses Self on Guidelines for School Reopenings
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published the statement, along with new “resources and tools,” Thursday evening, two weeks after Mr. Trump criticized its earlier recommendations on school reopenings as “very tough and expensive.”
Primary Care on the Endangered Species List
“This is taking us down,” Jacqueline Fincher, an internist and the president of the American College of Physicians, told me. “We’re not going to have a vaccine and herd immunity for probably a year—so, is this sustainable for a year? The reality is, it’s probably not, certainly not for most small practices.” If many of them go out of business, the consequences for Americans’ health could be profound and enduring. What’s at stake is not just a pattern of health outcomes but the shape of the health-care system as a whole. The way that patients interact with their doctors and the path that American health care takes in the future may be about to shift.
2nd Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) Rules in Tinslee Lewis Case
Note: The links below aren't working for me. If they are changed, I will update. Meanwhile, Thad Pope has posted the PDFs on his blog.
The procedural posture of this case presents a very narrow question that is further limitedInstead, the majority pretty definitively (and inappropriately) purports to decide the constitutional merits of the case, coming close -- according to Justice Gabriel -- to rendering an advisory opinion.
by the applicable abuse-of-discretion standard: Did Mother raise a bona fide issue as to whether CCMC—a private hospital—is a state actor that violated Mother’s due process rights, thereby showing a probable right to relief on her § 1983 claim? This is the operative question this court has been asked to answer; thus, our answer should be so limited. [Dissenting opinion of Justice Gabriel at 2]
I may be biased. (Disclaimer: I helped to write the Texas Advance Directives Act in 1998-99, including the provision -- § 166.046 of the Tex. Health & Safety Code -- at issue in this case.) But I think Justice Gabriel nailed it. And "on the merits" of the due process argument, which the majority opinion all but decides for the benefit of the trial court on remand, I have three reactions. (1) The statute provides more due process than was ever available before TADA was enacted. (2) The claim that the statute does not provide for judicial review is correct as far as it goes, but this litigation is itself proof that judicial review is available under Texas law. (3) If more due process is required, the Legislature can fix the law with a few changes when it comes back into session in 2021.
Friday, July 24, 2020
Triage During a Pandemic and Exclusion Criteria for Drugs, Devices, or Services in Critically Short Supply
The message from OCR is that exclusion criteria have the potential to violate laws that OCR is tasked with enforcing federal civil rights laws, "including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, among others."
I have been in conversations with care providers who interpret the OCR decisions to require an abandonment of exclusion criteria. I think that misinterprets the OCR position. What OCR seems to be against is a set of "blanket" exclusion criteria that apply across the board to all patients. This simply moves the decision making from the regional or hospital triage guidelines to the bedside. Wise hospital counsel should be encouraging individual departments (starting with critical care) to develop a checklist of comorbidities that need to be considered in situ -- taking into account all of the facts and circumstances of an individual patient's situation -- in making a decision to offer a scarce resource or to deny it.
Four executive orders on drug pricing = 1 campaign bragging point + no actual relief on prices
- One of the executive orders aims to speed up the timeline for a proposal the administration introduced late last year to allow states, drug wholesalers and pharmacies to import certain drugs from Canada. Drug companies have pushed back fiercely on that proposal, arguing there is “no way to guarantee the safety of drugs that come into the country from outside the United States’ gold-standard supply chain.” The Canadian government also opposes the measure, warning that the drug supply for Canada’s 37 million residents cannot possibly fulfill the demands of the much larger U.S. market and that allowing importation would cause severe drug shortages for Canadians.
- Another aims to tie some Medicare drugs’ prices to those paid in other countries with significantly lower list prices — a so-called “international pricing index.” The idea, which Trump called the “granddaddy of them all,” is anathema to most congressional Republicans, who see it as price fixing, as well as to the pharmaceutical industry.
- The third proposal purports to end a widespread practice in which drugmakers give rebates to insurance middlemen in government programs such as Medicare. The administration’s goal is to channel that money to consumers instead. Trump killed the rule last year, which is favored by the drug industry, after initially embracing it when he saw projections showing it would raise Medicare premiums for many seniors.
- The fourth proposal requires the provision of insulin and/or an EpiPen free through an existing program mandating pharmaceutical companies to provide steep discounts to thousands of hospitals and community health centers that serve large numbers of low-income patients. Drugmakers have targeted the program, known as 340B, arguing some facilities getting the discounts should not be eligible.
Teenagers & Long-Acting Reversible Contraception
- The long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) are one progestin subdermal implant (Norplant, I presume) and five IUDs. The report states that they "are all appropriate for use in the adolescent population."
- "[R]ates of LARC use among sexually active adolescents remain low at 2% to 3%" (emphasis added).
- Safety concerns, noncontraceptive uses of LARC, side effects, timing issues, and adolescents with physical and/or cognitive disabilities are discussed in detail.
- Consent, confidentiality, and cost concerns -- which are complex and intertwined with one another -- are discussed but remain far from resolved. It's not hard to see why these issues are a major obstacle to the use of LARC by minors, especially for purposes of contraception. For this discussion alone, the report is well worth reading.
Thursday, July 23, 2020
HHS OCR Guidance on Discrimination during COVID-19 Pandemic
- "Assign staff, including physicians, nurses, and volunteer caregivers, without regard to race, color, or national origin. Recipients should not honor a patient’s request for a same‐race physician, nurse, or volunteer caregiver" (emphasis added).
Wednesday, July 22, 2020
Dan Farber on the constitutional scheme during a pandemic
The Long Shadow of Jacobson v. Massachusetts: Epidemics, Fundamental Rights, and the Courts
20 Pages Posted: 29 Jun 2020 Last revised: 7 Jul 2020
Daniel A. Farber
University of California, Berkeley - School of Law
Date Written: June 25, 2020
AbstractWhen emergency health measures have impinged on constitutional rights, judges have often turned to a 1905 Supreme Court case decision, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld a state law requiring smallpox vaccination.
Courts are all over the map on how to apply Jacobson.. Some have viewed Jacobson as providing a special constitutional standard during epidemics. As this paper shows, history doesn’t support that view. Other judges have used “business as usual” constitutional analysis that ignore the crisis conditions under which the government must contend with today.
During a pandemic, the government confronts a fast-changing situation presenting risks of catastrophic loss of life, under conditions of uncertainty. Similar conditions prevail in national security cases. There, courts apply the normal constitutional tests but give extra deference to the government. Many though not all of the reasons are similar to the coronavirus situation. The lesson would be to utilize the usual tests, but with allowances for the government’s need to take precautionary actions despite high uncertainty.