"The Pandemic is Over?" The Mind Boggles

This nonsense didn't come from the Trump campaign. It wasn't uttered by one of the president's surrogates out on the campaign trail. And it wasn't insinuated into one of the vice-president's answers during last week's debate.

This came from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy! Granted, they are part of the Executive Office of the White House, but their website offers this self-description: 

In 1976, Congress established the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to provide the President and others within the Executive Office of the President with advice on the scientific, engineering, and technological aspects of the economy, national security, homeland security, health, foreign relations, the environment, and the technological recovery and use of resources, among other topics. [emphasis added]

So imagine the surprise when, according to The Washington Post, "the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy wrote that it considered 'ending the covid-19 pandemic' to be one of the president's major first-term accomplishments." More:

Four officials told The Daily Beast they viewed the White House statement as a personal slight and a public rebuke of their efforts to try and get control of the virus.

“It’s mind-boggling,” one official said of the White House’s assertion it had ended the pandemic. “There’s no world in which anyone can think that [statement] is true. Maybe the president. But I don’t see how even he can believe that. We have more than 70,000 new cases each day.”

Today's paper identified one source of the actual, true facts: HHS's Under-Secretary of Health and the administrations "testing czar," Adm. Brett Giroir, M.D. :

Data show a resurgence of the pandemic across the country, despite President Trump’s repeated claims to the contrary, Adm. Brett Giroir, the White House’s coronavirus testing czar, said Wednesday.

In a tweet Monday, Trump blamed the rise in novel coronavirus infections on increased testing. But in an interview, Giroir broke with the president and emphasized that the surge is real, citing climbing case numbers, hospitalizations and deaths across the country.

“It’s not just a function of testing,” Giroir said on NBC’s “Today” show. “Yes, we’re getting more cases identified, but the cases are actually going up. And we know that, too, because hospitalizations are going up.”

Reality check: The country is setting daily records of new cases, most recently 78,000-80,000 per day. And the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health's Vice-Dean Joshua Sharfstein says projections of 2,000 deaths per day are "not unrealistic."

Public-health law requires three things to work: truth, transparency, and trust. Anthony Fauci and Brett Giroir understand this. They are men of science. They hold (for the time being, anyway) two of the most critical public-health positions in the federal government. They can be trusted to tell us the truth. The Office of Science and Technology Policy, alas, cannot.

Lessons for the Next Pandemic—Act Very, Very Quickly (WSJ Covid Storm series)

This article (10-11-20) by Betsy McKay is the latest in the Wall Street Journal's excellent series, "The Covid Storm." It is a terrific "lessons learned" piece. Our political and public-health leaders need to be ready for the next outbreak in some very specific ways, and that begins with taking stock of where the system failed us this time around.  But as the novel coronavirus has taught us, it's not a question of if there's another pandemic, but when. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives hang in the balance. It will take real political will-power to marshal the resources needed to make the investments in public-health infrastructure.

Practical Strategies for Healthcare Providers to Limit Claims Involving Alleged Contraction of COVID-19 on Premises (Haynes and Boone Newsletter)

Haynes and Boone's recent newsletter on limiting COVID-19-related liability is a gold mine of practical analysis and advice. It is also a virtual roadmap of issues that I've covered in my first-year Torts class: negligence (esp. duty and causation), negligence per se, premises liability, medical malpractice, immunity statutes, express waivers of liability, and best practices for avoiding a direct corporate negligence claim, not to mention topics I couldn't get to in a four-hour course (including fraud and public nuisance).

Care at the End of Life

The New England Journal of Medicine just published an incredibly insightful and moving Perspective piece, "Learning About End-of-Life Care from Grandpa," by Scott Halpern.  https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2026629?query=TOC (Oct. 21, 2020). It's about physician aid-in-dying and voluntarily stopping eating and drinking (VSED) and hospice and family and home. I can't recommend it strongly enough. Oh, and it's free.

As reported by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the Texas Supreme Court on Friday declined to review the order of the Second Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) in the Tinslee Lewis case. This keeps in place the court of appeals's order that requires Cook Children's Hospital to continue aggressive life support for the one-year-old pending a full trial on the merits of her mother's suit against the hospital. As Thad Pope points out, this case challenges the constitutionality of § 166.046 of the Texas Health & Safety Code, our so-called "futility provision" of the Texas Advance Directives Act. 

The briefs for and against the lower court's ruling, which -- though not disposing of the constitutionality question -- gave a very strong indication of its inclination to strike down the law, are here. It probably goes without saying, as someone who worked (with many others, including National Right Life and Texas Right to Life, before they changed their mind about the law) to draft this law more than 20 years ago, that I am persuaded by the briefs that argue to uphold the law, which passed both houses of the state legislature without a single nay vote.

Nicholas Kristof: On the Right Side of History

Kristof's column in today's N.Y. Times is well worth a read. He's probably right that the Court, with or without Amy Coney Barrett on it, is unlikely to snatch the ACA away from 20 million people who are insured because of the law. It's a life-line for millions:

Census data show that even before the Covid-19 pandemic the number of uninsured Americans had risen by 2.3 million under Trump — and another 2.9 million have lost insurance since the pandemic hit. Most troubling of all, about one million children have lost insurance under Trump over all, according to a new Georgetown study.

The argument against the ACA is so weak (despite persuading the trial judge and a majority of the 5th Circuit panel that have ruled against the ACA), "only a lawyer could make it with a straight face," wrote Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post earlier this week. (Been there, said that here, here, and here.)

Public-Health Experts Agree (More or Less): Covid Shutdowns Aren’t the Way to Go

Not, at least, for the looming “second wave.” Over the past week or two, articles have been popping up left and right with this message. Now the Wall Street Journal has published a good summary (10/13/2920) of the arguments pro and con. The emerging consensus is that many people are worn down by the earlier shutdowns and aren’t likely to comply with another round of broad closings. On that assumption, public-health experts claim it is preferable to push a less drastic (and more traditional) regime that takes less effort to follow and is less disruptive of daily living:

• mask
• wash hands and avoid touching your face
• observe social distancing (now thought to be 9', not 6')
• avoid large groups, particularly indoors.

Questions for Judge Amy Coney Barrett

Over at The Commonwealth Fund, health-law prof and ACA expert extraordinaire Tim Jost properly focuses not on whether CJ Roberts got it right when he upheld the individual mandate as a proper exercise of Congress's powers under the Taxing Clause of the Constitution (Judge Barrett has argued that he did not) or when he upheld access to ACA premium tax credits for individuals enrolled in insurance plans through the federal exchange (ditto). 

The issues presently before the Court in California v. Texas are (1) whether the individual mandate is unconstitutional now that Congress has zeroed out the tax penalty in the 2018 tax reform bill and, if so, (2) whether the individual mandate provision is severable from the rest of the ACA. The district court (N.D. Tx., Fort Worth Div.) and the Fifth Circuit both answered (1) yes and (2) no, meaning the whole ACA has to be thrown out. Texas v. California, which has been consolidated with California v. Texas, raises a third issue: Whether the individual and state plaintiffs in this case have established Article III standing to challenge the ACA's individual mandate. In the unlikely event that Judge Barrett isn't confirmed before the Court decides these cases, the standing issue could conceivably give a Court split 4-4 on the first two questions a way out. Lack of Article III standing requires dismissal of the case at the district court level, effectively nullifying the two lower-court decisions.

As Tim Jost writes, 

Though she could be asked about standing or the mandate’s constitutionality, questions for Judge Barrett should mainly focus on severability: How much, if any, of the ACA should be invalidated if the mandate is found unconstitutional? (It does not matter much if the unenforceable mandate is invalidated if the rest of the ACA remains in place.) Would she disturb the Court’s long-standing presumption of severability? Cases recently decided by the Court with majority opinions written by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh reinforce the presumption that if a provision of a statute is found unconstitutional, as much of the rest of the statute as possible should be found severable and preserved. She should be asked if she agrees with this doctrine.

Severability goes to the heart of these two cases. It is nearly inconceivable that she would tip her hand on this issue during the hearings. Democrats will fume and threaten not to vote to confirm, but most of them weren't going to vote for her confirmation anyway, and Mitch McC has enough Republican votes lined up to confirm the judge without the Dems.

78% of Americans Believe Abortion Should be Legal "To Some Extent": Gallup Poll

For decades it seemed the numbers followed the "rules of 3's": 1/3 believed abortion should be legal, period; 1/3 believed it should be illegal, period; and 1/3 believed it should be legal under some circumstances, so a 2:1 ratio favoring legalization of abortion.

A Gallup poll released September 29 has revised numbers:

According to Gallup's May 2020 update on Americans' abortion views, 29% believe abortion should be legal "under any circumstances," 14% say it should be legal "under most circumstances" and 35% say it should be legal "only in a few circumstances." Meanwhile, 20% say it should be illegal in all circumstances.

That is a nearly 20% increase in support, to some degree or another, for legalized access to abortion. Roe v. Wade continues to be a lightning rod unto itself, garnering only 64% support (May 2018).

Wall Street Journal: More Superb Reporting on The COVID Storm

Catching up with the most recent installments in the WSJ's excellent series, "The Covid Storm."

• "Why Did Covid Overwhelm Hospitals? A Yearslong Drive for Efficiency" (9/17/2020)
• "How South Korea Successfully Managed Coronavirus" (9/25/2020)
• "In a Year of Bad Days, This Was One of the Worst" (9/25/2020)
• "Why Hospitals Can’t Handle Covid Surges: They’re Flying Blind" (9/30/2020)
• "The U.S. Economy Was Laden With Debt Before Covid. That’s Bad News for a Recovery" (10/1/2020)
• "How New Jersey Nursing Home Suffered One of America's Deadliest Outbreaks" (10/6/2020)
• "Coronavirus Hit the U.S. Long Before We Knew" (10/8/2020)

For links to previous installments, search for "storm" in the right-hand nav bar.

Overturning the ACA Would Kick 12 Million Newly Enrolled Individuals Out of Medicaid: Kaiser Family Foundation Policy Paper

The ACA permitted states to expand eligibility for Medicaid enrollment to 128% of the federal poverty line. Twelve million people enrolled after their state took the federal government up on their offer to sweeten the deal by paying for 90% of the additional cost of covering these new enrollees (and even more that 90% in the early years). 

The ACA is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court, with oral arguments scheduled Nov. 10, one week after national election day. The Kaiser Family Foundation's policy paper explains that if the Supreme Court affirms the Fifth Circuit's decision and tosses out the entire ACA (on the basis of a specious severability argument), the result will be the rescission of federal permission to expand eligibility and the unavailability of federal funds to subsidize each state's expansion. (So far, 39 states have accepted the federal offer. Texas, with the most uninsured and highest uninsured rate in the country, has not.)

The result of overturning the ACA will be a Hobson's choice for expansion states: Either cut back the eligibility cutoff to the pre-ACA level: "income eligibility limits for parents were very low—typically just 64% of poverty, equating to less than $14,000 a year for a family of three in current dollars." Most states cannot self-fund the expansion, especially in light of the COVID-19-era hit to their budgets (on both the revenue and expenditure sides).

Add this effect to the loss of the ACA's broad range of insurance underwriting reforms --protection for patients with pre-existing conditions, the ability to keep a child on her parents' health insurance plan up to age 26, abolition of life-time and annual caps on coverage, elimination of the ability to rescind a policy simply because the insured has started submitting claims, etc. -- and the devastation will be all too real for tens of millions of Americans. 

Political Interference with FDA and COVID-19 Vaccine

The New York Times reports that the White House chief of staff and other "[t]op White House officials are blocking strict new federal guidelines for the emergency release of a coronavirus vaccine, objecting to a provision that would almost certainly guarantee that no vaccine could be authorized before the election on Nov. 3, according to people familiar with the approval process."

This is part and parcel of this administration's on-going politicization of public-health processes designed to promote the greatest good for the greatest number while minimizing harms to others. Put otherwise, the FDA's mandate is to regulate medical devices, drugs, and biologics (including vaccines) to promote their safety and efficacy. It's a balancing act, to be sure, but it's one that needs to be guided by evidence, not electoral politics. Shouldn't that be clear? Why isn't that clear to the White House's "top officials"? And where's the outrage? Are we (and by "we," I mean not only our political class but the rest of us as well) so inured to the utter predictability of this sort of dangerousness that we simply accept it as par for the course?

If they are successful, these "top officials" are going to expose the nation to the unnecessary risk of a vaccine that is not ready for prime time. And, sadly, it also negates the efforts of the tens of thousands of volunteers who have voluntarily taken on the risks of participation in clinical trials.

POSTSCRIPT: 6:00PM CDT

FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES:

BREAKING NEWS

The F.D.A. released stricter coronavirus vaccine guidelines that the White House had blocked. They make a vaccine by Election Day highly unlikely.

The new guidelines recommend gathering extra data about the safety of vaccines in the final stage of clinical trials, a step that would take time and make it highly unlikely that a vaccine could be authorized before Election Day, Nov. 3.

Common sense and decency prevail! 

Senate Report on Health Inequities and COVID-19

It's a report from the Democratic staff of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee: "COVID-19 & ACHIEVING HEAL TH EQUITY: Congressional Action Is Necessary To Address Racism And Inequality In The U.S. Health Care System" (Sept. 2020).

From the summary:

COVID-19 has had a disproportionate impact on Black people across urban, suburban, and rural communities. As of September 2020, Black people were nearly 3.5 times as likely to die from COVID-19 as white people when age is accounted for.

Latinx people have experienced some of the highest rates of infection from COVID-19 in the country. As of June 2020, counties where more than a quarter of the population is Latino saw infection rates increasing at higher rates than in counties with smaller Latino populations, and as of July 2020, the infection rate among Hispanic patients was more than three times the rate among white patients. Over the same time period, Hispanic patients were hospitalized at a rate that was more than four times higher than white patients, and COVID-19 accounted for approximately one in five deaths among Hispanic people.

Data are not consistently available from states for other minority groups, but what is known supports similar conclusions about the risk of serious COVID-related complications and death among Asians, Native Americans, and LGBTQIA+ individuals.

Contributing factors include underlying health conditions, a lack of adequate insurance, increased likelihood of exposure to COVID-19 at work, mistrust of the health care system based upon a history of racial bias and exploitation, present-day explicit and implicit bias in the health care system, underrepresentation of physicians of color, bias in medical research and pharmaceutical clinical trials, limited access of patients of color to high-quality medical care, and a long list of social determinants of health that have disproportionately disadvantaged persons of color.

This is an important report, and not only for the fifteen pages of endnotes. The report ends with thirty recommendations for congressional action. Ask your representative or senator if they've read the report. We all should. 

Leave it to Trump to Say the Exact Wrong Thing

  

President Trump announced his intention to leave Walter Reed at 6:30 this evening. Okay, it is not the standard of care, but it's common for VIPs to get inferior care because no one wants to tell them "no." But did he have to tweet this utterly inappropriate message?

"Don't be afraid of Covid"? Mr. President, 209,000 of your fellow citizens have died of this disease since January. And, according to an infectious-disease doctor at NYU who is quoted in the NY Times, there's a very real chance the president's medications have induced a false sense of euphoria and well-being:

“I think it would be disastrous to be in a situation where he gets really sick at the White House, and you’re having to emergency transfer him,” said Dr. Céline Gounder, a clinical assistant professor of medicine and infectious diseases at the N.Y.U. Grossman School of Medicine, who has been caring for Covid-19 patients. “To me, it’s not safe.”

Dr. Gounder also noted that dexamethasone can cause a sense of euphoria. Mr. Trump said in his tweet that he feels better than he has in 20 years.

“A lot of people will just feel really great. If you had any aches and pains, they will disappear. If you had a fever, that will disappear,” she said. “People can become somewhat manic, grandiose.” 

The Opposite of How Public Health is Supposed to Work

The staff of the Congressional Select Committee on the Coronavirus Crisis has issued a report on The Trump Administration's Pattern of Political Interference in the Nation's Coronavirus Response (10/2/2020). Coming from a committee with a majority of members of the Democratic caucus one month before the national election -- and with a title like that -- the political implications (and motivation) are hard to avoid. But . . . 

The public-health lesson should be clear to all. The administration -- at least within the White House -- has treated the pandemic like a political problem to be managed. And the political interference with public-health authorities has made COVID-19 far worse that it needed to be. 

Public health is a fragile enterprise. It always involves some interference in the lives and liberty of individuals, whether by encouragement or legal mandate. Widespread compliance requires understanding and trust. Mixed messages and blatant political manipulation of public-health authorities and the information they must convey undermine both public understanding and trust. It's as simple as that.