While Montana's public mask mandate has been in place since July, enforcement had been left to local governments that largely lack the resources or the political will to do so.
This article was published on Friday, November 6, 2020 in Kaiser Health News.
In Montana’s conservative Flathead County, prosecutors and local leaders were turning a blind eye to businesses that flouted state mask and social distancing mandates, even as the area’s COVID infections climbed to their highest levels.
When asked during an Oct. 7 press call from Montana’s capital city whether the state would step in, Gov. Steve Bullock said it was up to the locals to enforce the directives.
“I’ve never met anyone in Flathead County, especially Flathead government, that has asked me to take over their government,” Bullock said with a laugh. “It can’t all be solved from Helena.”
Just two weeks later, the Democratic governor, who was also running for the U.S. Senate, pivoted. He announced the state was taking five Flathead businesses to court for violating COVID-related mandates, asking a judge to order them to comply or close their doors.
While the state’s public mask mandate has been in place since July, enforcement had been left to local governments that largely lack the resources or the political will to do so. It’s an issue seen across the nation as public health decisions to curb the coronavirus are resisted by local leaders, business owners and individuals who are sick of pandemic rules — or too broke to continue them — or who question the state’s authority to issue them in the first place.
Yet rising caseloads have forced an evolution in the efforts to persuade people to mask up. When appealing to people’s better nature and sense of community didn’t work, Montana officials began a steady escalation: adding in guilt, then public shaming, and now attempts to punish. Still, there’s little evidence that minds are being changed, and a new Republican governor-elect, Greg Gianforte, will take over in January after campaigning more on “personal responsibility” than on state-issued mandates.
In June, Montana tried the soft approach with state public service announcements, including a video with a cowboy lassoing a calf, a hunter walking through a field and a child smiling in her mom’s arms.
“Montanans are independent. We’re also responsible, protective and committed to our families and communities,” the voiceover says before the scene cuts to a gray-haired couple wearing masks. “That’s why we’ve done so well against COVID-19.”
The ad aired June 11, a day that Montana reported 10 confirmed cases of COVID-19. As the state gradually reopened in the summer, cases began to climb, with the daily peak reaching 200 cases in July.
In the fall came the guilt trips: Hospital administrators joined the governor’s weekly press call on Sept. 30 through video conferencing and talked about overstretched resources and staffers who were exhausted by people choosing not to follow health guidelines. The new COVID case count the day of that September press conference was 423.
Meanwhile, Bullock rebuffed a White House Coronavirus Task Force recommendation to implement fines for mask noncompliance that month. Government regulation alone wouldn’t stop the virus, he said, adding, “We do things the Montana way here.”
Still, cases increased.
At the beginning of October, Bullock tried public shaming. He called out counties, including Flathead, for not enforcing mandates.
Then, after rising COVID cases put Montana among the states with the nation’s highest rates of new infections per capita, the state shifted from guiding voice to plaintiff on Oct. 22, a day after the state reported 924 new cases.
“We know how quickly this virus spreads and, as Montanans, we should always put the health of our own employees, friends and neighbors first,” Bullock said. “If businesses come into compliance, we’ll gladly drop the enforcements.”
So far, state officials have said those measures are reserved for the most egregious repeat offenders and are not a new standard.
Across the state, local officials and tribal nations are watching how far this new level of enforcement will stretch. Some have said they don’t have the means to drive enforcement alone.
Bullock has said financial aid is available for counties to educate businesses that don’t follow coronavirus health standards and, if needed, to file complaints about virus-related violations. As of Nov. 2, seven counties had followed up on that offer.
But some county health officials say more help is needed.
“We’ve done all the education we can,” said Clay Vincent of the Hill County Health Department. “We can collect all the complaints in the world, we can talk to people, we can yell at people in businesses. But then it has to go to the county attorney’s office for any type of enforcement after that, and that’s where it has stopped.”
In that county of roughly 16,000 on the Canadian border, some businesses have posted signs proclaiming the right not to wear a mask. Vincent said those stores are in the minority but noted they offer essential services like gas and food.
Health department investigations filed with the county attorney haven’t prompted enforcement of the mask mandate, Vincent said. So health officials are considering their own signs, announcing the establishment is refusing to comply with state rules to protect its employees and customers. Vincent hopes such public shaming leads to change. The county attorney’s office declined to comment and directed all questions back to the health department.
Across Montana, some businesses continue to skirt COVID rules. Last month, as Bullock announced the Flathead County court cases, he urged people to report other businesses that violate COVID restrictions via the state health department’s consumer complaint website. Within four days, more than 1,000 complaints poured in from 40 of Montana’s 56 counties.
Bullock has said the state will track the most egregious repeat offenders, though no thresholds are set for what would trigger state enforcement. Meanwhile, the site turns the complaints over to county health departments.
Tribal nations have the power to invoke emergency rules on reservations, but enforcement is another issue, even as Native Americans in Montana face disproportionately high rates of COVID hospitalizations and deaths. Some have taken steps to isolate their communities, such as Blackfeet Nation leaders’ decision to close their border with Glacier National Park. But that’s not so easy on some reservations. For instance, the Flathead Reservation overlaps four counties, and members of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes are in the minority.
“It’s unfortunate, because we as the Flathead Nation don’t have that ultimate authority in enforcement,” said Tribal Council Chair Shelly Fyant. “So we’re trying to appeal to people’s hearts from a cultural perspective.”
The tribal nation has focused its efforts on a campaign to use music, art and videos to sway people to wear a mask for the protection of those vulnerable to a risky COVID infection, especially elders.
Flathead County Attorney Travis Ahner said he hasn’t sought injunctions against businesses yet because he hasn’t seen proof that a store’s lack of mask use led to COVID cases. The mask mandate is intended to reduce spread, however, not penalize those who cause cases after the fact.
The Flathead County District Court denied the state’s request for temporary restraining orders ahead of court hearings for the businesses that allegedly overlooked mask mandates. Ahner said that shows state enforcement isn’t as simple as the governor saying he made a rule and everyone needs to follow it. Legal experts across the nation have said states have the authority to take public health emergency actions.
Some of the Flathead cases are scheduled for hearings this month. Whitefish, a destination ski town in Flathead County, didn’t want to wait and see whether the state or county would force businesses into line. The city council approved a temporary order tightening COVID restrictions over the Halloween weekend to prevent superspreader events. That created a way for the city to issue fines of up to $500 for businesses out of compliance.
“This has been pushed into our laps,” said city council member Steve Qunell. “It’s our turn to take leadership on this.”
But the city has yet to pass long-term rules to keep that power as it continues to weigh how to take on what much of the state hasn’t figured out.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett is considered likely to vote not only to uphold restrictions on abortion, but also, possibly, even to overturn the existing national right to abortion under the Supreme Court’s landmark rulings.
This article was published on Thursday, November 5, 2020 in Kaiser Health News.
Abortion opponents were among those most excited by the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. And they had good reason to be.
As a law professor and circuit court judge, Barrett made it clear she is no fan of abortion rights. She is considered likely to vote not only to uphold restrictions on the procedure, but also, possibly, even to overturn the existing national right to abortion under the Supreme Court’s landmark rulings in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.
Her first opportunity to weigh in could come soon. A Mississippi ban on abortions after 15 weeks — impermissible under existing court precedents — is awaiting review by the justices, who could decide as early as this week to take up the case.
That’s the headline. But many overlook other things that could flow from a new abortion jurisprudence — such as erasing the right to birth control that the court recognized in a 1965 case, Griswold v. Connecticut. During her confirmation hearings, Barrett specifically refused to say whether she felt Griswold was correctly decided.
That was a flashing red warning light for Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, a legal advocacy group that argues cases on abortion and contraception. Roe, said Northup, is part of a century of jurisprudence based on the idea that the Constitution protects the liberty of individuals. “It began with cases about how one educates one’s children, and includes same-sex marriage, contraception and abortion,” she said. “You can’t just take Roe out and not unravel the whole fabric.”
Yet from what Barrett has said and written about the Constitution, continued Northup, “it’s clear she doesn’t believe it protects the right to personal liberty.”
Abortion rights advocates worry that the court could go beyond overturning Roe and Casey. If those precedents are overturned, abortion decisions would return to the states. But the court could go a step further and recognize “fetal personhood,” the idea that a fetus is a person with full constitutional rights from the moment of fertilization. That would create a constitutional bar to abortion, among other things, meaning even the most liberal states could not allow the procedure.
Personhood amendments were on the ballot in several states about a decade ago. They were rejected by voters even in conservative states like Mississippi after opponents argued that recognizing life at fertilization would outlaw not just abortion, without exceptions, but also things like in vitro fertilization and many forms of contraception, including some birth control pills, “morning after” pills, and intrauterine devices (IUDs) that some think could cause very early abortions by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. (More recent scientific evidence suggests nearly all those methods actually prevent ovulation, not implantation.)
But an abortion law passed in Georgia in 2019 not only includes a ban on abortion at the point a heartbeat can be detected — often before a woman is aware she is pregnant — but also has a fetal personhood provision. Georgia is appealing a federal district court ruling that struck down the law as a violation of Roe.
Proponents of these personhood provisions are cautiously optimistic. “It looks like there will be a court more friendly to a challenge to Roe,” said Les Riley, interim president of the Personhood Alliance, the group pushing the concept. “But to some extent we’ve been down this road before.”
Previous courts since the early 1990s that were thought poised to overturn Roe did not.
And even if the court were to uphold a law like the Mississippi ban it is considering now, he said, “all that’s saying is they agree that states can regulate or ban abortion at 15 weeks. What we want to do is have the factual reality that life begins at conception recognized in law.”
Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University who has written two books on the abortion battle, said the court wouldn’t have to recognize fetal personhood to threaten many forms of contraception.
States could effectively ban contraception by arguing that some contraceptives act as abortifacients, she said. The court has already opened the door to this argument. In the 2014 Hobby Lobby case, it allowed some companies to decline to offer birth control coverage otherwise required by the Affordable Care Act to their employees. The owners of the companies that brought the suit said they believe some contraceptives are a form of abortion, and the court said the requirement violated their religious freedom. The court used a similar reasoning in a 2020 case exempting the Roman Catholic order Little Sisters of the Poor from even having to sign a paper that would officially exempt them from the ACA contraceptive mandate.
Medical groups and the federal government don’t consider any form of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration an abortion equivalent, because the standard medical definition of the start of pregnancy is when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus, not when sperm and egg first unite. Yet the court has not always followed science on the issue.
Still, Ziegler said, “personhood has always been the endgame” for abortion foes, not simply overturning Roe, which would let each state decide whether to outlaw abortion. “Allowing states to leave abortion legal has never been the endgame,” she said.
Interestingly, however, Riley of the Personhood Alliance said that while he hopes his side will win eventually, he is not necessarily hoping that win will come from the Supreme Court.
“We think the strategy has been misguided for years,” he said. “Right now, five justices can overturn anything. That’s not the system of government our founders had in mind.”
Rather, he said, his organization is working more at the state and local level “to lay the groundwork of people’s hearts being changed.”
California’s annual health insurance enrollment season for individuals and families kicks off this week against a dramatic backdrop: the hotly contested presidential election; a pandemic raging out of control in much of the U.S.; and, on Nov. 10, a Supreme Court hearing of a case that could end the Affordable Care Act and strand millions without coverage.
The massive unemployment caused by the pandemic has already stripped employer-based health insurance from millions nationwide and induced severe financial anxiety as families struggle to pay rent and buy food.
One question hovering over enrollment for 2021 health plans is whether the large-scale loss of medical coverage will generate a surge of sign-ups, or if more pressing financial worries for many people will push insurance lower down their priority list.
“People have so many things to deal with: They’ve lost jobs, they’ve lost a lot of income, and in California they’re also facing fires. I don’t think health insurance has been top of mind for people,” says Cheryl Fish-Parcham, director of access initiatives at Families USA, a consumer health care advocacy organization.
But Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California, the state’s ACA marketplace, is confident it will match the 40% increase in new sign-ups it had for 2020 coverage.
“It is clear that COVID is on Californians’ minds,” he says. “You cannot have COVID on your mind without also having coverage on your mind.”
A Supreme Court decision on the future of the ACA probably won’t come until well into next year, and it is unlikely to affect your 2021 coverage. “So people should feel confident in looking for a health plan,” says Sara Collins, vice president for health care coverage and access at the Commonwealth Fund.
If you are 65 or older, you probably qualify for Medicare, the federal program for seniors, which is entirely separate from the ACA exchanges and broader individual market. Open enrollment for the private Medicare Advantage plans and Part D drug plans is also underway and ends Dec. 7. Insurance agents can usually help you with Medicare, and you can get advice by calling 1-800-434-0222.
If you are under 65, live in the Golden State and want to buy insurance for you and your family, start with Covered California. It’s the only place you can get federal and state assistance to cover some or all of your premiums.
The enrollment period for Covered California, and for the individual market outside the exchange, started Nov. 1 and runs through Jan. 31. In states whose exchanges are operated by the federal government, the enrollment window shuts Dec. 15.
If you lost coverage and need it for the month of December this year, you can still get it through Covered California if you sign up by Nov. 30. For regular annual coverage that starts Jan. 1, you must sign up by Dec. 15. If you miss that deadline, you can still get coverage starting Feb. 1 if you enroll by the final Jan. 31 deadline.
Many people leave money on the table because they aren’t aware of the financial assistance or think they earn too much to qualify. But you don’t need to be poor to get aid.
The federal subsidies, which are tax credits typically provided in the form of reduced monthly premiums, are available to individuals with annual income up to about $51,000 and a family of four with income up to nearly $105,000.
California has supplemented the federal aid with state-funded assistance that extends further into the middle class: up to around $76,500 for an individual and $157,000 for a family of four.
If you log on to Covered California’s website, www.coveredca.com, you can check how much financial help you qualify for and compare health plans. Or, an insurance agent or certified enroller can do the legwork work for you — at no charge. You can find one on the website. You can also call Covered California directly at 800-300-1506.
If your income is below 138% of the federal poverty level, you will probably qualify for Medi-Cal, the government insurance program for people of limited means. The Covered California website — or an enroller — will let you know if you do and walk you through signing up. You can also contact your county’s Medi-Cal office. If you don’t qualify for Medi-Cal, your children might, because the income threshold is higher for them.
If you are looking for exchange-sponsored coverage, click the “shop and compare” tab on the Covered California website, which takes you to a screen that asks your age, income, ZIP code and family size and shows the health plans available, their premiums and your aid amount.
The website also provides quality ratings of the participating health plans. And you can check for plans that have your doctors in their networks — though, as the website warns, that information is not always up to date.
Comparison shopping on the website is straightforward, because at each of the four levels of coverage — bronze, silver, gold and platinum — benefits are uniform from insurer to insurer. So once you’ve decided which metal tier is best for you, you only need to think about the price and whether your providers are in the network.
If you have a Covered California health plan already, shop around rather than automatically renew the one you’re in. “The best deal last year is not necessarily the best deal this year,” says Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California.
Anthem Blue Cross, for example, will hike rates by a statewide average of 6%, and the Oscar Health Plan of California by 7.6%, while Blue Shield of California will cut rates by an average of 2.4% and the L.A. Care Health Plan by 4.6%.
If you switch to the lowest-cost plan in your current metal tier, you could reduce your premium by as much as 7.4%, according to Covered California.
Keep in mind that the lowest premium, a bronze plan, is not necessarily the wisest — or cheapest — choice.
Tom Freker, a Huntington Beach insurance agent, counsels people not to buy bronze, because its higher deductibles and coinsurance rates could cost more than a higher-premium plan if you fall ill or have a serious accident.
Freker recommends you enroll in Covered California rather than the off-exchange market, even if you don’t initially qualify for aid. That’s because if your income drops and you report it to the exchange, you might then qualify and get a break on premiums for the rest of the year or a tax credit the following April, he says.
If your income rises during the year you also should report it, so your monthly premium subsidy is reduced, helping you avoid a potentially hefty tax bill come April.
Your initial aid amount, if you qualify, will be based on your projected 2021 income. In this period of pandemic-driven furloughs, slashed hours and job loss, that might be difficult to predict.
Maria Weston, a massage therapist in Long Beach, said her income has fluctuated week to week since the pandemic started and is down about 50% overall.
Her priority for 2021 was to find a less expensive option, so she switched to a cheaper silver plan last month (current enrollees were allowed to make their health plan choices starting Oct. 1).
Weston’s new health plan will save her nearly $1,700 a year on premiums. “I could put that in my retirement account — or eat,” she says. “One of the two.”
Due to critical shortages, staff agencies have deployed tens of thousands of traveling health workers nationally since March outbreaks in the Northeast.
This article was published on Wednesday, November 4, 2020 in Kaiser Health News.
David Joel Perea called from Maine, Vermont, Minnesota and, ultimately, Nevada, always with the same request: “Mom, can you send tamales?” Dominga Perea would ship them overnight.
That’s how she knew where her 35-year-old son was.
The traveling nurse had “a tremendous work ethic,” routinely putting in 80 hours a week, said his brother, Daniel.
But when Perea took a job at Lakeside Health & Wellness Suites — a Reno nursing home that has received dozens of safety citations since 2017 from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services — Dominga was “scared silly.”
During Perea’s stint, nearly one-fifth of Lakeside’s residents were infected with COVID-19, according to state health records. Lakeside’s “top priority is the safety of those who live and work in our facility,” a spokesperson said.
When her son didn’t respond to her text on April 6, Dominga knew something was wrong. Perea had COVID-19. He died days later.
As COVID-19 surges across the country, health care systems continue to suffer critical shortages, especially among non-physician staff such as nurses, X-ray technicians and respiratory therapists.
To replenish their ranks, facilities have relied on “travelers” like Perea. Staff agencies have deployed tens of thousands nationally since March outbreaks in the Northeast.
Rural hospitals have relied largely on traveling nurses to fill staffing shortages that existed even before the pandemic, said Tim Blasl, president of the North Dakota Hospital Association. “They find staff for you, but it’s really expensive labor,” he said. “Our hospitals are willing to invest so the people of North Dakota get care.”
The arrangement presents risks for travelers and their patients. Personnel ping-ponging between overwhelmed cities and underserved towns could introduce infections. As contractors, travelers sometimes feel tensions their full-time colleagues do not. Frequently employed by staffing agencies based thousands of miles away, they can find themselves working in crisis without advocates or adequate safety equipment.
In 2020, the upsides of their jobs — freedom and flexibility — have been dwarfed by treacherous conditions. Now the ranks of travelers are thinning: The work is exhausting, bruising and dangerous. Thousands of front-line health workers have gotten the virus and hundreds have died, according to reporting by KHN and The Guardian.
On April 17, Lois Twum, a 23-year-old traveling nurse from New Orleans, was one of four passengers on a flight to New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport.
When the self-described “adventure-seeking adrenaline junkie” arrived for her first shift at Columbia University’s Irving Medical Center, she said, she was assigned four patients on a COVID-19 unit. (Intensive care nurses typically care for two or three patients.) As these “constantly crashing” patients required resuscitations and intubations, “there was practically no one to help,” Twum said, because “everyone’s patient was critical.” The hospital did not respond to requests for comment on the workplace conditions and treatment of travelers.
Meanwhile, as hospital employees got sick, quit or were furloughed amid budget cuts, travelers picked up the slack. They were redeployed, Twum said, assigned more patients as well as the sickest ones.
“It was like we were airdropped into Iraq,” Twum said. “Travelers, we got the worst of it.”
On social media and in email groups, recruiters for travelers circulate photos of sun-splashed skylines or coastlines emblazoned with dollar signs, boasting salaries two or three times those of staff nurses. They promise signing bonuses, relocation bonuses and referral bonuses. They make small talk, ask about travelers’ families and suggest restaurants in new cities.
But when it comes to navigating workplace issues, “these people can just disappear on you,” said Anna Skinner, a respiratory therapist who has traveled for over a decade. “They are not your friends.”
Caught between the hospitals where they report for duty and remote staffing agencies, their worker protections are blurred.
For instance, under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, providing protective equipment is the agency’s responsibility — but the travelers who spoke with KHN said agencies rarely distribute any.
Perea’s family said they believe David did not have adequate PPE. His employer said it was the nursing home’s responsibility to provide it. “It is up to each of our clients to provide PPE to our staff while they are working assignments through MAS,” said Sara Moore, a spokesperson for Perea’s agency, MAS Medical Staffing.
Sometimes travelers are assigned to emergency rooms or intensive care units with which they have little experience. Skinner, a pediatric specialist, said she landed in adult ICUs when deployed to the University of Miami Health System in April. She received an hour of orientation, she said, but “nothing could have prepared me for what I had to deal with.”
Over five weeks, she said, she intubated one patient after another; suctioned the blood pouring into patients’ lungs and out of their noses and mouths; and dealt with families who were aghast, angry and afraid. Under the stress, Skinner said, she couldn’t sleep and lost weight. The hospital did not respond to requests for comment on workplace conditions for travelers.
Travelers often face “incredibly onerous” hurdles to the overtime, sick leave or workers’ compensation they are entitled to under the Fair Labor Standards Act, said Nathan Piller, a lawyer at Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky, an employment and business litigation firm.
Even the number of hours they can count on working is out of their control, Skinner said. Contracts reviewed by KHN authorize travelers to work a set number of hours, but only a fraction of those hours are guaranteed, and must be approved by on-site managers. The guaranteed hours may be compensated at rates hovering around minimum wage, and may require working holidays, which are not uniformly recognized.
The terms can be “modified from time to time during employment,” according to the contracts.
In 2018, AMN Healthcare, one of the country’s largest travel nursing agencies, agreed to a $20 million settlement for wage violations involving nearly 9,000 travelers. Violations “appear fairly commonplace across the industry,” said Piller, who worked on the settlement.
Travelers, Skinner said, are left to advocate for themselves to managers they might have just met — and “complaining just isn’t an option.”
KHN reviewed travel nursing contracts issued by Aya Healthcare, a large staffing agency, and found that any disputes — wrongful termination claims; claims of discrimination, harassment or retaliation; wage claims; and claims for violation of federal, state or other laws or regulations — must be settled out of court, in arbitration.
Officials at the Service Employees International Union, the American Nurses Association and National Nurses United said their constituents have been suspended or fired from traveling worker agencies for speaking to the news media, posting on social media or otherwise voicing concerns about unfair practices.
Matthew Wall, a longtime traveling nurse, knows this all too well. In July, two days into his assignment at Piedmont Henry Hospital in Stockbridge, Georgia, Wall said, he reported to hospital administrators “undeniably unsafe” conditions for himself and patients, including inadequate PPE, long hours and high patient-to-staff ratios.
Instead of addressing his concerns, Wall said, the hospital — which is under investigation by the federal government for workplace safety issues after another traveling nurse died of COVID-19 in mid-March — canceled his contract. “Travelers are treated like dog chow,” Wall said. “The second you become a liability, they dispose of you.”
“We continue to closely follow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines paired with our best practices in patient care and safety for all,” said John Manasso, a hospital spokesperson, who declined to comment on Wall’s case.
Some see an impossible choice. “We all know, if not for us, these patients would have no one,” Twum said, “but watching each other get sick left and right, it makes you wonder, is this worth my life?”
Skinner, for her part, took a job as a staff nurse in Aspen, Colorado. After his current contract in New Orleans ends, Wall is planning a break from nursing.
Dominga Perea finally received a text back the night of April 6: “Don’t panic, Mama, I have the COVID.
“Pray for me.”
She saw David over FaceTime on Easter. “He struggled even eating mashed potatoes” she said, “because he couldn’t breathe.” The next morning he went on a ventilator and never woke up.
Months later, Lakeside hadn’t filled Perea’s position. “Ideal candidate must be a caring individual dedicated to providing high quality care,” the job listing read, and “able to react to emergency situations appropriately when required.”
KHN Mountain States editor Matt Volz contributed to this report.
As COVID-19 cases surge in the U.S., one Texas veterinarian has been quietly tracking the spread of the disease — not in people, but in their pets.
Since June, Dr. Sarah Hamer and her team at Texas A&M University have tested hundreds of animals from area households where humans contracted COVID-19. They’ve swabbed dogs and cats, sure, but also pet hamsters and guinea pigs, looking for signs of infection. “We’re open to all of it,” said Hamer, a professor of epidemiology, who has found at least 19 cases of infection.
One pet that tested positive was Phoenix, a 7-year-old part-Siamese cat owned by Kaitlyn Romoser, who works in a university lab. Romoser, 23, was confirmed to have COVID-19 twice, once in March and again in September. The second time she was much sicker, she said, and Phoenix was her constant companion.
“If I would have known animals were just getting it everywhere, I would have tried to distance myself, but he will not distance himself from me,” Romoser said. “He sleeps in my bed with me. There was absolutely no social distancing.”
Across the country, veterinarians and other researchers are scouring the animal kingdom for signs of the virus that causes COVID-19. At least 2,000 animals in the U.S. have been tested for the coronavirus since the pandemic began, according to federal records. Cats and dogs that were exposed to sick owners represent most of the animals tested and 80% of the positive cases found.
But scientists have cast a wide net investigating other animals that could be at risk. In states from California to Florida, researchers have tested species ranging from farmed minks and zoo cats to unexpected critters like dolphins, armadillos and anteaters.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture keeps an official tally of confirmed animal COVID cases that stands at several dozen. But that list is a vast undercount of actual infections. In Utah and Wisconsin, for instance, more than 14,000 minks died in recent weeks after contracting COVID infections initially spread by humans.
So far, there’s limited evidence that animals are transmitting the virus to people. Veterinarians emphasize that pet owners appear to be in no danger from their furry companions and should continue to love and care for them. But scientists say continued testing is one way to remain vigilant in the face of a previously unknown pathogen.
“We just know that coronaviruses, as a family, infect a lot of species, mostly mammals,” said Dr. Peter Rabinowitz, a professor of environmental and occupational health sciences and the director of the University of Washington Center for One Health Research in Seattle. “It makes sense to take a species-spanning approach and look at a wide spectrum.”
Much of the testing has been rooted in scientific curiosity. Since the pandemic began, a major puzzle has been how the virus, which likely originated in bats, spread to humans. A leading theory is that it jumped to an intermediate species, still unknown, and then to people.
In April, a 4-year-old Malayan tiger at the Bronx Zoo tested positive for COVID-19 in a first-of-its-kind case after seven big cats showed signs of respiratory illness. The tiger, Nadia, contracted the virus from a caretaker, federal health officials said. Four other tigers and three African lions were also confirmed to be infected.
In Washington state, the site of the first U.S. outbreak in humans, scientists rushed to design a COVID test for animals in March, said Charlie Powell, a spokesperson for the Washington State University College of Veterinary Medicine. “We knew with warm-blooded animals, housed together, there’s going to be some cross-infection,” he said. Tests for animals use different reagent compounds than those used for tests in people, so they don’t deplete the human supply, Powell added.
Since spring, the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory has tested nearly 80 animals, including 38 dogs, 29 cats, two ferrets, a camel and two tamanduas, a type of anteater. The lab also tested six minks from the outbreak in Utah, five of which accounted for the lab’s only positive tests.
All told, nearly 1,400 animals have been tested for COVID-19 through the National Animal Health Laboratory Network or private labs, said Lyndsay Cole, a spokesperson for the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. More than 400 animals have been tested through the National Veterinary Services Laboratories. At least 250 more have been tested through academic research projects.
The vast majority of the tests have been in household cats and dogs with suspicious respiratory symptoms. In June, the USDA reported that a dog in New York was the first pet dog to test positive for the coronavirus after falling ill and struggling to breathe. The dog, a 7-year-old German shepherd named Buddy, later died. Officials determined he’d contracted the virus from his owner.
Neither the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nor the USDA recommends routine testing for house pets or other animals — but that hasn’t stopped owners from asking, said Dr. Douglas Kratt, president of the American Veterinary Medical Association.
“The questions have become a little more consistent at my practice,” he said. “People do want to know about COVID-19 and their pets. Can their pet pick it up at a clinic or boarding or in doggie day care?”
The answer, so far, is that humans are the primary source of infection in pets. In September, a small, unpublished study from the University of Guelph in Canada found that companion cats and dogs appeared to be infected by their sick owners, judging by antibodies to the coronavirus detected in their blood.
In Texas, Hamer started testing animals from households where someone had contracted COVID-19 to learn more about transmission pathways. “Right now, we’re very much trying to describe what’s happening in nature,” she said.
So far, most of the animals — including Phoenix, Romoser’s cat — have shown no signs of illness or disease. That’s true so far for many species of animals tested for COVID-19, veterinarians said. Most nonhuman creatures appear to weather COVID infection with mild symptoms like sniffles and lethargy, if any.
Still, owners should apply best practices for avoiding COVID infection to pets, too, Kratt said. Don’t let pets come into contact with unfamiliar animals, he suggested. Owners should wash their hands frequently and avoid nuzzling and other very close contact, if possible.
Cats appear to be more susceptible to COVID-19 than dogs, researchers said. And minks, which are farmed in the U.S. and elsewhere for their fur, appear quite vulnerable.
In the meantime, the list of creatures tested for COVID-19 — whether for illness or science — is growing. In Florida, 22 animals had been tested as of early October, including three wild dolphins, two civets, two clouded leopards, a gorilla, an orangutan, an alpaca and a bush baby, state officials said.
In California, 29 animals had been tested by the end of September, including a meerkat, a monkey and a coatimundi, a member of the raccoon family.
In Seattle, a plan to test orcas, or killer whales, in Puget Sound was called off at the last minute after a member of the scientific team was exposed to COVID-19 and had to quarantine, said Dr. Joe Gaydos, a senior wildlife veterinarian and science director for the SeaDoc Society, a conservation program at the University of California-Davis. The group missed its September window to locate the animals and obtain breath and fecal samples for analysis.
No one thinks marine animals will play a big role in the pandemic decimating the human population, Gaydos said. But testing many creatures on both land and sea is vital.
“We don’t know what this virus is going to do or can do,” Gaydos said.
At stake is whether the federal government will play a stronger role in financing and setting the ground rules for health care coverage or cede more authority to states and the private sector.
This article was published on Wednesday, November 4, 2020 in Kaiser Health News.
Update: This story was updated Nov. 4 at 7:30 a.m. ET to add more details about vote tallies from states.
With the winner of the presidency and party control of the Senate still unclear the morning after Election Day, the future of the nation’s health system remains uncertain. At stake is whether the federal government will play a stronger role in financing and setting the ground rules for health care coverage or cede more authority to states and the private sector.
Should President Donald Trump win and Republicans retain control of the Senate, Trump still may not be able to make sweeping changes through legislation as long as the House is still controlled by Democrats. But — thanks to rules set up by the Senate GOP — the ability to continue to stack the federal courts with conservative jurists who are likely to uphold Trump’s expansive use of executive power could effectively remake the government’s relationship with the health care system even without signed legislation.
The president has also pledged to continue his efforts to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, and if the Supreme Court overturns the sweeping law as part of a challenge it will hear next week, the Republicans’ promise to protect people with preexisting medical conditions will be put to the test. In a second term, the administration would also likely push to continue to revamp Medicaid with its efforts to institute work requirements for adult enrollees and provide more flexibility for states to change the contours of the program.
If former Vice President Joe Biden wins and Democrats gain a Senate majority, it would represent the first time the party has controlled the White House and both houses of Congress since 2010 — the year the ACA was passed. A top priority will be dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic fallout. Biden made that a keystone of his campaign, promising to implement policies based on advice from medical and scientific advisers and provide more directives and aid to the states.
But also high on his agenda will be addressing parts of the ACA that haven’t worked as well as its authors hoped. He pledged to add a government-run “public option,” which would be an alternative to private insurance plans on the marketplaces, and to lower the eligibility age for Medicare to 60.
While Democrats will continue to control the House, the final makeup of the Senate is still to be determined. And even if the Democrats win the Senate, they are not expected to come away with a majority that would allow them to pass legislation without support from at least some GOP senators, unless they change the Senate’s rules. That could lower expectations of what the Democrats can accomplish — and may lead to some tensions among members.
But who controls Washington, D.C., is only part of the election’s impact on health policy. Several key health issues are on the ballot both directly and indirectly in many states. Here are a few:
Abortion
In Colorado, a measure that would have banned abortions after 22 weeks of pregnancy — except to save the life of the pregnant person — failed, according to The Associated Press. Colorado is one of seven states that don’t prohibit abortions at some point in pregnancy. It is also home to one of the few clinics in the nation that perform abortions in the third trimester, often for severe medical complications. The clinic draws patients from around the nation, so residents of other states would have been affected if the Colorado amendment passed.
In Louisiana, however, voters easily approved an amendment to the state constitution to say that nothing in the document protects the right to, or requires the funding of, abortion. That would make it easier for the state to outlaw abortion if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, which makes state abortion bans unconstitutional.
Medicaid
The fate of the Medicaid program for people with low incomes is not on the ballot directly anywhere this election. (Voters approved expansions of the program in Missouri and Oklahoma earlier this year.) But the program will be affected not only by who controls the presidency and Congress, but also by who controls the legislatures in states that have not expanded the program under the Affordable Care Act. North Carolina is a key swing state where a change in majority in the legislature could turn the expansion tide.
Drug Policy
In six states, voters are deciding the legality of marijuana in one form or another. Montana, Arizona and New Jersey were deciding whether to join the 11 states that allow recreational use of the drug. Mississippi and Nebraska voters were choosing whether to legalize medical marijuana, and South Dakota became the first state to vote on legalizing both recreational and medical pot in the same election.
Magic mushrooms are on two ballots. A measure in Oregon to allow the use of psilocybin-producing mushrooms for medicinal purposes passed, and a District of Columbia proposal to decriminalize the hallucinogenic fungi was leading.
Also approved was a separate ballot question in Oregon to decriminalize possession of small amounts of hard drugs, including heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, and mandate establishing addiction recovery centers, using some tax proceeds from marijuana sales to establish those centers.
California
As usual, voters in California faced a lengthy list of health-related ballot measures.
For the second time in two years, the state’s profitable kidney dialysis industry was challenged at the ballot box. A union-sponsored initiative would have required dialysis companies to employ a doctor at every clinic and submit infection reports to the state. But the industry spent $105 million against the measure. The measure failed, according to AP.
Voters were also asked to decide, again, whether to fund stem cell research through the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine via Proposition 14. Voters first approved funding for the agency in 2004, and since then, billions have been spent with few cures to show for it. The measure was winning in early returns.
California has been at the forefront of the fight over the so-called gig economy, and this year’s ballot included a proposal pushed by ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft that would let them continue to treat drivers as independent contractors instead of employees. Under Proposition 22, the companies would not have to provide direct health benefits to drivers but would have to give those who qualify a stipend they could use toward a premium for health insurance purchased through the state’s individual marketplace, Covered California. The measure was approved.
Finally, voters in the Golden State were asked whether to impose higher property taxes on commercial property owners with land and property holdings valued at $3 million or more, which could help provide new revenue earmarked for economically struggling cities and counties hit hard by COVID-19, as well as K-12 schools and community colleges. Community clinics, California nurses and Planned Parenthood jumped into the thorny political battle over Proposition 15 — taking on powerful business groups — eyeing revenue to help rebuild California’s underfunded public health system. The measure was too close to call in early returns.
Democrats in California, who control all statewide elected offices and hold a supermajority in the legislature, have been positioning for a Biden win, and some were already penning ambitious health care legislation for next year. Should Biden win, they said they plan to crack down on hospital consolidation and end surprise emergency room bills, and some were quietly discussing liberal initiatives such as pursuing a single-payer health care system and expanding Medicaid to cover more unauthorized immigrants.
JoNel Aleccia, Rachel Bluth, Angela Hart, Matt Volz and Samantha Young contributed to this story.
Older adults in all kinds of circumstances are similarly deliberating what to do as days and nights turn chilly and coronavirus cases rise across the country.
This article was published on Tuesday, November 3, 2020 in Kaiser Health News.
Over the past month, Dr. Richard Besdine and his wife have been discussing whether to see family and friends indoors this fall and winter.
He thinks they should, so long as people have been taking strict precautions during the coronavirus pandemic.
She’s not convinced it’s safe, given the heightened risk of viral transmission in indoor spaces.
Both are well positioned to weigh in on the question. Besdine, 80, was the longtime director of the division of geriatrics and palliative medicine at Brown University’s Alpert Medical School. His wife, Terrie Wetle, 73, also an aging specialist, was the founding dean of Brown’s School of Public Health.
“We differ, but I respect her hesitancy, so we don’t argue,” Besdine said.
Older adults in all kinds of circumstances — those living alone and those who are partnered, those in good health and those who are not — are similarly deliberating what to do as days and nights turn chilly and coronavirus cases rise across the country.
Some are forming “bubbles” or “pods”: small groups that agree on pandemic precautions and will see one another in person in the months ahead. Others are planning to go it alone.
Judith Rosenmeier, 84, of Boston, a widow who’s survived three bouts of breast cancer, doesn’t intend to invite friends to her apartment or visit them in theirs.
“My oncologist said when all this started, ‘You really have to stay home more than other people because the treatments you’ve had have destroyed a lot of your immune defenses,’” she said.
Since mid-March, Rosenmeier has been outside only three times: once, in September, to go to the eye doctor and twice since to walk with a few friends. After living in Denmark for most of her adult life, she doesn’t have a lot of close contacts. Her son lives in Edinburgh, Scotland.
“There’s a good chance I’ll be alone on Thanksgiving and on Christmas, but I’ll survive,” she said.
A friend who lives nearby, Joan Doucette, 82, is determined to maintain in-person social contacts. With her husband, Harry Fisher, 84, she’s formed a “pod” with two other couples in her nine-unit apartment building. All are members of Beacon Hill Village, an organization that provides various services to seniors aging in place. Doucette sees her pod almost every day.
“We’re always running up and down the stairs or elevator and bringing each other cookies or soup,” she said. “I don’t think I would have survived this pandemic without that companionship.”
About once a week, the couples have dinner together and “we don’t wear masks,” said Jerry Fielder, 74, who moved to Boston two years ago with his partner, Daniel, 73. But he said he feels safe because “we know where everyone goes and what they do: We’re all on the same page. We go out for walks every day, all of us. Otherwise, we’re very careful.”
Eleanor Weiss, 86, and her husband are also members of the group. “I wear a mask, I socially distance myself, but I don’t isolate myself,” Weiss said. This winter, she said, she’ll see “a few close friends” and three daughters who live in the Boston area.
One daughter is hosting Thanksgiving at her house, and everyone will get tested for the coronavirus beforehand. “We’re all careful. We don’t hug and kiss. We do the elbow thing,” Weiss said.
In Chicago, Arthur Koff, 85, and his wife, Norma, 69, don’t yet have plans for Thanksgiving or Christmas. “It’s up in the air depending on what’s happening with the virus,” he said. The couple has a wide circle of friends.
“I think it’s going to be a very hard winter,” said Koff, who has diabetes and blood cancer. He doesn’t plan to go to restaurants but hopes to meet some friends he trusts inside their homes or apartments when the weather turns bad.
Julie Freestone, 75, and her husband, Rudi Raab, 74, are “pretty fanatic” about staying safe during the pandemic. The couple invited six friends over for “Thanksgiving in October” earlier this month — outside, in their backyard in Richmond, California.
“Instead of a seating chart, this year I had a plating chart and I plated everything in advance,” Freestone said. “I asked everybody to tell me what they wanted — White or dark meat? Brussels sprouts or broccoli?”
This winter, Freestone isn’t planning to see people inside, but she’ll visit with people in groups, virtually. One is her monthly women’s group, which has been getting together over Zoom. “In some ways, I feel we’ve reached a new level of intimacy because people are struggling with so many issues — and we’re all talking about that,” she said.
“I think you need to redefine bubbles,” said Freestone, who’s on the board of Ashby Village, a Berkeley, California-based organization for seniors aging in place that’s hosting lots of virtual groups. “It should be something you feel a part of, but it doesn’t have to be people who come into your house.”
In the Minneapolis-St. Paul area in Minnesota, two psychologists — Leni de Mik, 79, and Brenda Hartman, 65 — are calling attention to what they call SILOS, an acronym for “single individuals left out of social circles,” and their need for dependable social contact this winter and fall.
They recommend that older adults in this situation reach out to others with similar interests — people they may have met at church or in book clubs or art classes, for instance — and try to form a group. Similarly, they recommend that families or friends invite a single older friend into their pods or bubbles.
“Look around at who’s in your community. Who used to come to your house that you haven’t seen? Reach out,” de Mik recommended.
Both psychologists are single and live alone. De Mik’s pod will include two friends who are “super careful outside,” as she is. Hartman’s will include her sister, 67, and her father, 89, who also live alone. Because her daughter works in an elementary school, she’ll see her only outside. Also, she’ll be walking regularly with two friends over the winter.
“COVID brings life and death right up in front of us,” Hartman said, “and when that happens, we have the opportunity to make crucial choices — the opportunity to take care of each other.”
Consumer Resources
Public health experts advise that thorough and frequent hand-washing, wearing masks in public meeting in small groups and maintaining at least 6 feet of social distancing can help prevent the transmission of the coronavirus. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more detailed advice on its website, including these pages:
Emerging research suggests infected people start shedding the coronavirus in their poop early in their infection, and possibly days before they begin shedding it from their mouths and noses.
This article was published on Tuesday, November 3, 2020 in Kaiser Health News.
Carol Wilusz’s mornings now often start at 4 a.m., scanning the contents of undergraduates’ feces. Specifically, scanning the data on how much coronavirus they flushed into the shadows, destined to be extracted from 17 manholes connected to dorm buildings on Colorado State University’s Fort Collins campus.
“There are quite extensive numbers of poop jokes,” said Wilusz, a CSU molecular biologist.
Emerging research suggests infected people start shedding the coronavirus in their poop early in their infection, and possibly days before they begin shedding it from their mouths and noses. “It means that we can catch them before they’re actually spreading the infection,” she said.
In normal times, Wilusz studies stem cells and muscular dystrophy. Now, her team is on the front lines of defense against the massive COVID-19 outbreaks that, for a campus with more than 23,000 undergraduates alone, always seem to be lurking around the corner. The sewage review is part of a multipronged attack that includes the usual weapon of contact tracing plus a specialized “paired pooling” form of testing saliva samples. So far, the school has had about 500 cases since the semester started, about half that of the only somewhat bigger University of Colorado-Boulder.
Amid fluctuating scientific recommendations and a virus that still holds uncertainties, colleges across the country are taking a choose-your-own-adventure approach to COVID-19. For those holding in-person classes, the adventure includes an extra puzzle: how to concentrate a lot of people into one place without an outbreak tearing through the student body and spilling into the community, all without safety precautions that would break the bank. Testing is at the core of those plans.
“A lot of these institutions started testing just symptomatic students. And that is really not good, to put it bluntly, because as we’ve seen over the past couple of months, students tend to be asymptomatic,” said Chris Marsicano, an assistant professor at Davidson College in North Carolina who is leading an initiative tracking how universities are responding to the pandemic. “The institutions that have been the most successful are ones that are testing every student at least once a week.”
According to data collected in mid-September, only about 6% of large universities with in-person classes are routinely testing all students, according to an NPR analysis of his group’s data. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has been leading the pack, testing about 10,000 students each day using a streamlined spit-testing method. But it’s pricey. Despite driving down the cost of an individual test to about $10, Paul Hergenrother, a chemist leading the effort, said the school is still spending about $1 million a week.
At Colorado State University, Lori Lynn, co-chair of the school’s pandemic response team, said initially the school was paying $93 a pop to test students using the usual nose swab method.
“We quickly spent several million dollars on testing,” said Lynn, who added that cost is just one limiting factor. “We can’t test everybody in the community, you know, weekly or twice a week.”
Instead, Mark Zabel, a CSU molecular biologist and immunologist who typically studies neurodegenerative diseases, said his group recently figured out how to screen saliva for less than $20 a person. It involves pooling drool samples in a strategic way reminiscent of the children’s game Battleship.
Traditionally, pooling involves mixing samples from multiple people and testing them all in one go, to save time and materials. If the pool comes back negative for the virus, everyone in the pool can be considered negative. If it’s positive, samples from each person in that pool must be retested. If there are high rates of infection, that means a lot of retesting.
Instead of pooling samples willy-nilly, Zabel and his colleagues are doing something he calls paired pooling: They start with an eight-by-eight grid of saliva from 64 people, arrayed almost like a Battleship board. Each person’s spit sample gets divided up and analyzed in two pools, one pool for the row it sits in and one for the column it sits in, for a grand total of 16 pools per grid.
If the test containing samples in Row A and the test containing samples from Column One appear positive, that would indicate that the person whose spit is in the A-1 slot is a positive case.
“So, it’s super easy if we’ve got one positive among 64,” said Zabel. In that case, they’ve screened 64 people with just 16 tests. No retesting necessary.
Limited retesting is needed only if at least four pools come back positive.
They’re also using a different kind of PCR test than usual, in an effort to avoid competing for limited reagents, whose shortages have hampered labs nationwide.
Zabel said it takes between eight and 24 hours for results. However, some drawbacks exist. If retesting is necessary, total turnaround time could extend to three days. And if the outbreak were to grow beyond a certain point, in which at least 5% of people tested are positive, the process would become more cumbersome because they’d have to add more layers of testing.
It’s a shifting target and the university is continually reevaluating its testing strategy, but Zabel expects his lab could test up to 3,000 people a day, which would enable testing the entire student body every other week.
According to other researchers, that might not be enough.
Daniel Larremore and others writing in the New England Journal of Medicine said it’s time to ditch any approach that relies on highly accurate tests, and instead embrace antigen tests, which are cheap and quick — albeit less accurate — and can be administered frequently.
“You have the science of testing, which says if you’re testing everybody twice a week, you should basically have zero cases,” said Larremore, a computational biologist at the University of Colorado-Boulder, referring to modeling studies from his lab and others.
But then, there’s reality. And no testing system alone will solve the problem, Larremore said, “because there are humans involved.”
Wilusz, the CSU professor, knows how difficult this is. Often people continue shedding virus in their poop long after they’ve recovered, so over the course of the semester more and more dorms have started to yield virus-positive sewage.
“And then there’s also, we can’t stop students pooping in the wrong dorm. So one could poop in this dorm one day and then next door on the other day,” she said, making it hard to know which dorm to screen with saliva tests.
Also, only about 5,000 of the school’s 28,000 enrolled students live in dorms, though Wilusz said those close quarters create a high risk for spreading the disease because “they’re essentially like nursing homes for young people.”
She wonders how long students will remain game to spit into tubes before they get bored. Michigan State University researchers experimenting with paired pooling and saliva have made a habit of double-checking that students have submitted spit instead of something else. (Chewing tobacco and something the color of blue Gatorade have sullied a few CSU samples so far.)
But the shifting, multifaceted approach does seem to be helping at Colorado State. Back in September, Wilusz noticed a concerning spike in the amount of virus in the sewage connected to two dorms that collectively housed about 900 students. The university put the dorms on lockdown and tested everyone inside, revealing nine positive cases that hadn’t been found using other methods.
Now, with pooled-spit screening, Zabel said the team has been able to identify positives without locking down entire dorms, and can then use subsiding levels in sewage to confirm no infections slipped through the cracks.
The goal is to make it to Thanksgiving, when students return home. But then comes 2021. “We’ll see if we can keep on top of it,” Zabel said, knocking on his desk for luck.
We asked experts to explain how death counts are done and to discuss whether the current figure — an estimated 231,000 deaths since the pandemic began — is in the ballpark.
This article was published on Monday, November 2, 2020 in Kaiser Health News.
In the waning days of the campaign, President Donald Trump complained repeatedly about how the United States tracks the number of people who have died from COVID-19, claiming, “This country and its reporting systems are just not doing it right.”
He went on to blame those reporting systems for inflating the number of deaths, pointing a finger at medical professionals, who he said benefit financially.
All that feeds into the swirling political doubts that surround the pandemic, and raises questions about how deaths are reported and tallied.
We asked experts to explain how it’s done and to discuss whether the current figure — an estimated 231,000 deaths since the pandemic began — is in the ballpark.
Dismissing Conspiracy Theories, Profit Motives
Trump’s recent assertions have fueled conspiracy theories on Facebook and elsewhere that doctors and hospitals are fudging numbers to get paid more. They’ve also triggered anger from the medical community.
“The suggestion that doctors — in the midst of a public health crisis — are overcounting COVID-19 patients or lying to line their pockets is a malicious, outrageous, and completely misguided charge,” Dr. Susan R. Bailey, American Medical Association president, said in a press release.
Hospitals are paid for COVID treatment the same as for any other care, though generally, the more serious the problem, the more hospitals are paid. So, treating a ventilator patient — with COVID-19 or any other illness — would mean higher payment to a hospital than treating one who didn’t require a ventilator, reflecting the extra cost.
There is one financial difference. Medicare, the government health program for the elderly and disabled, pays 20% on top of its ordinary reimbursement for COVID patients — a result of the CARES Act, the federal stimulus bill that passed in the spring.
That additional payment applies only to Medicare patients.
Experts say there is simply no evidence that physicians or hospitals are labeling patients as having COVID-19 simply to collect that additional payment. Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association, wrote an opinion piece in September addressing what he called the “myths” surrounding the add-on payments. While many hospitals are struggling financially, he wrote, they are not inflating the number of cases — and there are serious disincentives to do so.
“The COVID-19 code for Medicare claims is reserved for confirmed cases,” he wrote, and using it inappropriately can result in criminal penalties or a hospital being kicked out of the Medicare program.
Public health officials and others also pushed back.
Said Jeff Engel, senior adviser for COVID-19 at the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists: “Public health is charged with the duty to collect accurate, timely and complete data. We’re not incentivized to overcount or undercount for any political or funding reason.”
And what about medical examiners? Are they part of a concerted effort to overcount deaths to reap financial rewards?
“Medical examiners and coroners in the U.S. are not organized enough to have a conspiracy. There are 2,300 jurisdictions,” said Dr. Sally Aiken, president of the National Association of Medical Examiners. “That’s not happening.”
Still, there’s an ongoing debate about which mortalities should be considered COVID deaths.
States have leeway to decide how to gather and report data. Many rely on death certificates, which list the cause of death, along with contributing factors. They are considered very accurate but can take one to two weeks to be finalized because of the processes involved in filling them out, reviewing and filing them. These reports generally lag behind testing and hospitalization data.
The other way deaths get reported is through what’s known as the case classification method, which reports deaths of people with previously identified cases of COVID, whether listed as confirmed or probable. Confirmed COVID deaths are affirmed by a positive test result. Probable COVID deaths are classified by using medical record evidence, suspected exposure or serology tests for COVID antibodies. The case classification method is faster than using death certificates and makes the data available in a more real-time fashion. Epidemiologists say this information can be helpful in gaining an understanding in the midst of an outbreak of how many people are dying and where.
Some experts point out that, while both methods have their virtues, each shows a different mortality count at a different time, so the best practice is to gather both sets of information.
The federal government, though, has offered conflicting guidance. The National Center for Health Statistics, an arm of the CDC, recommends primarily using death certificate data to count COVID deaths. But in April, the CDC asked jurisdictions to start tracking mortality based on probable and confirmed case classifications. Most states now gather data only one of the two ways, though a couple use both.
This patchwork approach does lead to conflicting data on total deaths.
Why Is the Count So Hard?
For the most part, public health researchers and medical examiners agree that COVID deaths are likely being undercounted.
“It’s very hard in a situation moving as rapidly as this one, and at such a large scale, to be able to count accurately,” said Sabrina McCormick, an associate professor in environmental and occupational health at George Washington University.
For one thing, the processes for certifying deaths vary widely, as does who fills out the death certificates. While physicians certify most death certificates, coroners, medical examiners and other local law enforcement officials can also do so.
Aiken, the medical examiner of Spokane County, Washington, said any time someone in her area dies at home and may have had COVID symptoms, the deceased person will automatically be tested for the disease.
But that doesn’t happen everywhere, she added, which means some who die at home could be omitted from the count.
It’s also unknown how accurate post-mortem COVID testing is, because there haven’t yet been any research studies on the practice — which could lead to missed cases.
Another wrinkle: Doctors in hospitals might not always be trained in the best practices for filling out death certificates, Aiken said.
“These folks are dealing with ERs and ICUs that are crowded. Death certificates are not their priority,” she said.
Emergency room doctors acknowledged the challenges, noting they don’t always have the resources that coroners and medical examiners do to perform autopsies.
“Much of the time, we don’t have an answer as to the final reason that a person died, so we are often stuck with the old cardiopulmonary arrest, which coroners and certifiers hate,” said Dr. Ryan Stanton, a Lexington, Kentucky, ER doctor and board member of the American College of Emergency Physicians.
That gets to how complex it is to determine what, exactly, caused a death — and what some say is a confusion between who died “with” COVID-19 (but may have had other underlying conditions that caused their death) and who died directly “of” COVID-19.
John Fudenberg, the former coroner for Clark County, Nevada, which surrounds Las Vegas, said including some of those who died with COVID-19 could result in an overcount.
“As a general rule, if someone dies with COVID, it’s going to be on the death certificate, but it doesn’t mean they died from COVID,” said Fudenberg, now executive director of the International Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners. For example, “if somebody has end-stage pancreatic cancer and COVID, did they die with COVID or from COVID?”
That question has proven controversial, and Trump has claimed that counting those who died “with COVID” has led to an inflation of the numbers. But most public health experts agree that if COVID-19 caused someone to die earlier than they normally would have, then it certainly contributed to their death. Additionally, those who certify death certificates say they list only contributing factors that are certain.
“Doctors don’t put things on death certificates that have nothing to do with the death,” said Dr. Amesh Adalja, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
COVID-19 can directly lead to death in someone with cancer or heart problems, even if those conditions were also serious or even expected to be fatal, he said.
And the claim that some states are counting people who die in car accidents, but also test positive for COVID-19, as COVID deaths is just plain unfounded, experts said.
“I can’t imagine a scenario where a medical examiner would test someone for COVID who died in a motor vehicle accident or a homicide,” said Engel, at the epidemiologists council. “I think that’s been greatly exaggerated on the internet.”
Excess Deaths
An additional approach to determining the pandemic’s scope has emerged, and many experts increasingly point to this measure as a useful indicator.
It relies on a concept known as “excess deaths,” which involves comparing the total number of deaths from all causes in a given period with the same period in previous years.
A CDC study estimated that almost 300,000 more people died in the U.S. this year from late January through Oct. 3 than in previous years. Some of those excess deaths were no doubt COVID cases, while others may have been people who avoided medical care because of the pandemic and then died from another cause.
These excess deaths are “the best evidence” that undercounting is ongoing, said Dr. Jeremy Faust, an ER doctor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “The timing of the excess deaths exactly parallels the COVID deaths, so when COVID deaths spike, all causes of deaths spike. They are hugging each other like parallel train tracks on a graph.”
Faust believes the majority of the excess deaths should be attributed in some way to COVID-19.
Even so, it’s unclear if we’ll ever get an accurate count.
Aiken said it is possible but could take years. “I think eventually, when this is said and done, we’ll have a pretty good count,” she said.
McCormick, of George Washington University, isn’t as sure, mostly because the number has become a flashpoint.
“It will always be a controversy, especially because it’s going to be so politically charged,” she said. “I don’t think we’ll come to a final number.”
Dr. Chris Kapsner intubated his first COVID-19 patient — a 47-year-old man who arrived short of breath at an emergency room in Minnesota’s Twin Cities — back in April.
Now, seven months later, Kapsner, who lives across the border in Wisconsin, is weary and exhausted from the steady stream of patients arriving with a virus that is spreading across this part of the Midwest. Hospital beds and personal protective equipment are in short supply, and his colleagues are getting sick. “Even if we put up all the field tents in the world, we don’t have the staff for this,” he said.
Kapsner believes political disfunction at the state level and a “disastrous” federal response are responsible for Wisconsin’s spike in cases. It’s part of the reason he’s running for office.
Kapsner is one of at least four health care workers running for Democratic seats in the Wisconsin state assembly, and one of many in his field speaking out against President Donald Trump and the GOP’s response to COVID-19.
Wisconsin is in the throes of one of the country’s worst COVID outbreaks. On Oct. 27, the state reported more than 5,000 new cases and a test positivity rate of over 27%. Nearly 2,000 people have died, and only the Dakotas are currently reporting more cases per capita.
Despite this, Trump has been holding large rallies across the state where crowds gather by the thousands, often without masks. Another Trump rally was planned for Monday evening in Kenosha, the site of unrest last summer after Jacob Blake was shot in the back by police. Wisconsin is a crucial swing state in Tuesday’s election; Trump carried the state by just 27,000 votes in 2016 and is currently trailing Joe Biden in the polls.
Last month, a group of 20 doctors sent an open letter to Trump asking him to stop holding rallies in the state. Thursday, the night before Trump was scheduled to appear in Green Bay, hospitals released a joint statement urging locals to avoid large crowds. Earlier in October, the Trump campaign scuttled plans for a rally in La Crosse, in western Wisconsin, after the city’s mayor asked him not to come amid a spike in cases there.
Dr. Kristin Lyerly, an OB-GYN in Appleton, in eastern Wisconsin, said she struggles to find the right words to describe her anger over the rallies, which have been linked to subsequent coronavirus outbreaks. On Oct. 24, at a rally in Waukesha, about 100 miles south of Appleton, Trump falsely accused health care workers of inflating the number of COVID cases for financial gain.
“His lies are killing my neighbors,” she said.
Lyerly, who is also running for state assembly, said she spends her days trying to reassure terrified pregnant patients, while fearing she might contract the virus herself. She and her colleagues are overwhelmed. She keeps her PPE in her car to ensure she never goes without it. “We’ve completely forgotten about the human impact on our health care workers. Our health care workers are exhausted, they’re burned out and they feel entirely disrespected,” she said.
Lyerly said she decided to run for office in April, after the Republican-controlled assembly refused to postpone a statewide election, in which the Democratic presidential primary and a key state Supreme Court seat were on the ballot. The state GOP also stymied efforts to make it easier for Wisconsinites to vote by mail.
“As a physician, I think many of us were shocked that our legislature would put us in danger, and make us decide between our vote and our health,” she said. She’s running in a district that typically leans conservative but said her campaign’s latest polls put her within the margin of error of her opponent, an incumbent.
Dr. Robert Freedland, an ophthalmologist in southwestern Wisconsin and state lead for the Committee to Protect Medicare, signed the letter asking Trump to stop holding rallies in Wisconsin. He wanted to go on the record as having spoken out in the name of public health.
Freedland, who is 65 and has Type 2 diabetes, said he fears for his health when he goes to work.
Dr. Jeff Kushner, a cardiologist who also signed the letter, said he hasn’t been able to work since March because of the pandemic. Kushner, 65, has non-Hodgkins lymphoma and is on immunosuppressants. “If I got COVID, I wouldn’t survive,” he said.
Though he follows politics closely, Kushner said that he’s not “politically involved” and that he tends to keep his politics to himself and a close inner circle. But he said he doesn’t consider signing the letter to Trump a political act. “It’s a statement of what I believe about our society’s health and not a political statement,” he said. “It wasn’t an anti-Trump letter. We were just saying, ‘Please don’t have these superspreader events in our state.’”
Kapsner, the emergency room doctor, said he still speaks with patients and voters who doubt the severity of COVID-19. “My job isn’t to shame them,” he said. “There are many people out here who have had the good fortune of not being personally affected by COVID. Their friends or families haven’t had it yet. I fear their luck is going to run out.”