As Sean Conley, DO, issued public updates on his treatment of Trump's COVID-19, the questions and the insults about his qualifications rolled in.

This article was published on Friday, October 9, 2020 in Kaiser Health News.

By Lauren Weber

Dr. Katherine Pannel was initially thrilled to see President Donald Trump's physician is a doctor of osteopathic medicine. A practicing D.O. herself, she loved seeing another glass ceiling broken for the type of doctor representing 11% of practicing physicians in the U.S. and now 1 in 4 medical students in the country.

But then, as Dr. Sean Conley issued public updates on his treatment of Trump's COVID-19, the questions and the insults about his qualifications rolled in.

"How many times will Trump's doctor, who is actually not an MD, have to change his statements?" MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell tweeted.

"It all came falling down when we had people questioning why the president was being seen by someone that wasn't even a doctor," Pannel said.

The osteopathic medical field has had high-profile doctors before, good and bad. Dr. Murray Goldstein was the first D.O. to serve as a director of an institute at the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Ronald R. Blanck was the surgeon general of the U.S. Army. Former Vice President Joe Biden, challenging Trump for the presidency, also sees a doctor who is a D.O. But another now former D.O., Larry Nassar, who was the doctor for USA Gymnastics, was convicted of serial sexual assault.

Still, with this latest example, Dr. Kevin Klauer, CEO of the American Osteopathic Association, said he's heard from many fellow osteopathic physicians outraged that Conley — and by extension, they, too — are not considered real doctors.

"You may or may not like that physician, but you don't have the right to completely disqualify an entire profession," Klauer said.

For years, doctors of osteopathic medicine have been growing in number alongside the better-known doctors of medicine, who are sometimes called allopathic doctors and use the M.D. after their names.

According to the American Osteopathic Association, the number of osteopathic doctors grew 63% in the past decade and nearly 300% over the past three decades. Still, many Americans don't know much about osteopathic doctors, if they know the term at all.

"There are probably a lot of people who have D.O.s as their primary [care doctor] and never realized it," said Brian Castrucci, president and CEO of the de Beaumont Foundation, a philanthropic group focused on community health.

So What Is the Difference?

Both types of physicians can prescribe medicine and treat patients in similar ways.

Although osteopathic doctors take a different licensing exam, the curriculum for their medical training — four years of osteopathic medical school — is converging with M.D. training as holistic and preventive medicine becomes more mainstream. And starting this year, both M.D.s and D.O.s were placed into one accreditation pool to compete for the same residency training slots.

But two major principles guiding osteopathic medical curriculum distinguish it from the more well-known medical school route: the 200-plus hours of training on the musculoskeletal system and the holistic look at medicine as a discipline that serves the mind, body and spirit.

The roots of the profession date to the 19th century and musculoskeletal manipulation. Pannel was quick to point out the common misconception that their manipulation of the musculoskeletal system makes them chiropractors. It's much more involved than that, she said. Dr. Ryan Seals, who has a D.O. degree and serves as a senior associate dean at the University of North Texas Health Science Center in Fort Worth, said that osteopathic physicians have a deeper understanding than allopathic doctors of the range of motion and what a muscle and bone feel like through touch.

That said, many osteopathic doctors don't use that part of their training at all: A 2003 Ohio study said approximately 75% of them did not or rarely practiced osteopathic manipulative treatments.

The osteopathic focus on preventive medicine also means such physicians were considering a patient's whole life and how social factors affect health outcomes long before the pandemic began, Klauer said. This may explain why 57% of osteopathic doctors pursue primary care fields, as opposed to nearly a third of those with doctorates of medicine, according to the American Medical Association.

Pannel pointed out that she's proud that 42% of actively practicing osteopathic doctors are women, as opposed to 36% of doctors overall. She chose the profession as she felt it better embraced the whole person, and emphasized the importance of care for the underserved, including rural areas. She and her husband, also a doctor of osteopathic medicine, treat rural Mississippi patients in general and child psychiatry.

Given osteopathic doctors' likelihood of practicing in rural communities and of pursuing careers in primary care, Health Affairs reported in 2017, they are on track to play an increasingly important role in ensuring access to care nationwide, including for the most vulnerable populations.

Stigma Remains

To be sure, even though the physicians end up with similar training and compete for the same residencies, some residency programs have often preferred M.D.s, Seals said.

Traditional medical schools have held more esteem than schools of osteopathic medicine because of their longevity and name recognition. Most D.O. schools have been around for only decades and often are in Midwestern and rural areas.

While admission to the nation's 37 osteopathic medical schools is competitive amid a surge of applicants, the grade-point average and Medical College Admission Test scores are slightly higher for the 155 U.S. allopathic medical schools: The average MCAT was 506.1 out of 528 for allopathic medical school applicants over a three-year period, compared with 503.8 for osteopathic applicants for 2018.

Seals said prospective medical students ask the most questions about which path is better, worrying they may be at a disadvantage if they choose the D.O. route.

"I've never felt that my career has been hindered in any way by the degree," Seals said, noting that he had the opportunity to attend either type of medical school, and osteopathic medicine aligned better with the philosophy, beliefs and type of doctor he wanted to be.

Many medical doctors came to the defense of Conley and their osteopathic colleagues, including Dr. John Morrison, an M.D. practicing primary care outside of Seattle. He was disturbed by the elitism on display on social media, citing the skills of the many doctors of osteopathic medicine he'd worked with over the years.

"There are plenty of things you can criticize him for, but being a D.O. isn't one of them," Morrison said.

Lauren Weber: LaurenW@kff.org, @LaurenWeberHP

Adeline Fagan, MD, tested positive for the coronavirus in early July and died Sept. 19, after spending over two months in hospital.

This story was published on Thursday, October 8, 2020 in Kaiser Health News, and also ran in The Guardian.   

By Alastair Gee, The Guardian

It took Carrie Wanamaker several days to connect the face she saw on GoFundMe with the young woman she had met a few years before.

According to the fundraising site, Adeline Fagan, a 28-year-old resident OB-GYN, had developed a debilitating case of COVID-19 and was on a ventilator in Houston.

Scrolling through her phone, Wanamaker found the picture she took of Fagan in 2018, showing the fourth-year medical student at her side in the delivery room, beaming at Wanamaker's pink, crying, minutes-old daughter. Fagan supported Wanamaker's leg through the birth because the epidural paralyzed her below the waist, and they joked and laughed since Wanamaker felt loopy from the anesthesia.

"I didn't expect my delivery to go that way," said Wanamaker, a pediatric dentist in upstate New York. "You always hear about it being the woman screaming and cursing at her husband, but it wasn't like that at all. We just had a really great time. She made it a really special experience for me."

Fagan's funeral took place Saturday.

The physician tested positive for the coronavirus in early July and died Sept. 19, after spending over two months in hospital. She had worked in a Houston emergency department, and a family member says she reused personal protective equipment day after day due to shortages.

Fagan is one of over 250 medical staff who died in Southern and Western hot spot states as the virus surged there over the summer, according to reporting by the Guardian and KHN as part of Lost on the Frontline, a project to track every U.S. healthcare worker death. In Texas, nine medical deaths in April soared to 33 in July, after Gov. Greg Abbott hastily pushed to reopen the state for business and then reversed course.

Among the deceased health workers who have so far been profiled by the Lost on the Frontline team, about a dozen nationwide, including Fagan, were under 30. The median age of death from COVID for medical staff is 57, compared with 78 in the general population. Around one-third of the deaths involved concerns over inadequate PPE. Protective equipment shortages are devastating for healthcare workers, who are at least three times more likely to become infected with the COVID virus than the general population.

"It kicked me in the gut," said Wanamaker. "This is not what was supposed to happen. She was supposed to go out there and live her dreams and finally be able to enjoy her life after all these years of studying."

Fagan worked at a hospital called HCA Houston Healthcare West, and had moved to Texas in 2019 after completing medical school in Buffalo, New York, a few hours from her hometown of LaFayette.

She was the second of four sisters, all pursuing or considering careers in the medical field. A younger sibling, Maureen, 23, said Fagan dealt with patients in uncomfortable or embarrassing situations with "grace," as she had observed when she accompanied her on two medical mission trips to Haiti. "Addie was very much, 'Do you understand? Do you have other questions? I will go over this with you a million times if need be.'"

Maureen also mentioned Fagan's comical side — she was voted by her colleagues as the 'most likely to be found skipping and singing down the hall to a delivery' and prone to rolling out hammy Scottish and English accents.

Fagan "loved delivering babies, loved being part of the happy moment when a baby comes into the world, loved working with mothers," said Dr. Dori Marshall, associate dean at the University at Buffalo medical school. But she found living by herself in Houston lonely, and in February Maureen moved down to keep her company; she could just as easily prepare for her own medical school entrance exam in Texas.

It is unclear how Fagan contracted the coronavirus, but to Maureen it seemed linked to her July rotation in the ER. HCA West is part of HCA Healthcare — the country's largest hospital chain — and in recent months a national nurses union has complained of its "willful violation" of workplace safety protocols, including pushing infected staff to continue clocking in.

Amid national shortages, Maureen said her sister faced a particular challenge with PPE. "Adeline had an N95 mask and had her name written on it," she said. "Adeline wore the same N95 for weeks and weeks, if not months and months."

The CDC recommends that an N95 mask should be reused at most five times, unless a manufacturer advises otherwise. HCA West said it would not comment specifically on Maureen's allegations, but the facility's chief medical officer, Dr. Emily Sedgwick, said the hospital's policies did not involve individuals constantly reusing the same mask.

"Our protocol, based on CDC guidance, includes colleagues turning in their N95 masks at the conclusion of each shift, and receiving another mask at the beginning of their next shift." A spokesperson for HCA West, Selena Mejia, also said that hospital staff were "heartbroken" by Fagan's death.

On July 8, Fagan arrived home with body aches, a headache and a fever, and a COVID test came back positive. For a week the sisters quarantined, and Fagan, who had asthma, used her nebulizer. But her breathing difficulties persisted, and one afternoon Maureen noticed that her sister's lips were blue, and insisted they go to the hospital.

For two weeks, the hospital attempted to supplement Fagan's failing lungs with oxygen. She grew so weak she wasn't able to hold her phone up or even keep her head upright. She was transferred to another hospital, where she agreed to be put on a ventilator.

Less than a day later, she was hooked up to an ECMO device for a highly invasive treatment of last resort, in which blood is removed from the body via surgically implanted intravenous tubes, artificially oxygenated and then returned.

She lingered in this state through August, an experience documented on a blog by her software engineer father, Brant, who arrived in Houston with her mother, Mary Jane, a retired special education teacher, even though they were not allowed to visit Fagan.

The medical team tried to wean her off the machines and the nine sedatives she was at one point receiving, but as she emerged from unconsciousness she became anxious and was put back under to stop her from pulling out the tubes snaking into her body. She was able to respond to instructions to wiggle her toes. A nurse told Brant she might be suffering from "ICU psychosis," a delirium caused by a prolonged stay in intensive care.

The family tried to speak with her daily. "The nurse told us that they have seen Adeline's eyes tear up after we have been talking to her on the phone," Brant wrote. "So it must be having some impact."

On Sept. 15, her parents were at last permitted to visit. "I do not think we were prepared for what we saw, in person, when we entered her room," he wrote. "Occasionally, Adeline would try to respond, shake her head or mouth a word or two. But her stare was glassy and you were not sure if she was in there."

It was too much for him. "Being the softy that cannot stand it when one of my girls is hurting, [I] commenced to get lightheaded and pass out."

Finally, on Sept. 17, it seemed Fagan was turning a corner. Still partly sedated, she was nevertheless able to sit up without support. She mouthed the words to a song, being unable to sing because a tracheostomy prevented air from passing over her vocal cords.

The next day, the ECMO tubes were removed. The day after that, Brant made his last post.

His daughter had suffered a massive brain hemorrhage, possibly because her vascular system had been weakened by the virus. Patients on ECMO also take high doses of blood thinners to prevent clots.

A neurosurgeon said that even on the remote chance Fagan survived surgery, she would be profoundly brain-damaged.

"We spent the remaining minutes hugging, comforting and talking to Adeline," Brant wrote.

"And then the world stopped."

As is often the case with healthcare policy, however, the truth is far from simple.

This article was published on Wednesday, October 7, 2020 in Kaiser Health News.

By Alex Sakariassen

Throughout the 2020 election cycle, candidates’ positions on health care have been particularly important for voters with underlying and often expensive medical needs — in short, those with preexisting conditions.

It’s no surprise, then, that protections for people who have chronic health problems like diabetes and cancer have become a focal point for candidates nationwide — among them, Matt Rosendale, the Republican contender for Montana’s only U.S. House seat.

On Sept. 22, Rosendale’s campaign hit airwaves and online streaming services with an ad featuring a Whitefish resident named Sandee, whose son was diagnosed with a life-threatening disease. Sandee told the story of how Rosendale came to her family’s aid, concluding that “Matt fights for everyone with a preexisting condition.”

As is often the case with health care policy, however, the truth is far from simple. Rosendale and many other Republican congressional candidates face the challenge of convincing voters they support these safeguards even as they oppose the Affordable Care Act, which codifies those safeguards.

Polls show broad public support for keeping the ACA’s preexisting condition protections.

We decided to investigate.

Rosendale is up against Democrat Kathleen Williams for the congressional seat now occupied by Republican Rep. Greg Gianforte, who has entered the state’s gubernatorial race. The open seat has been controlled by the GOP for the past 12 terms, but this year’s race is expected to be close. Williams, who also ran for the seat in 2018, has made health care her top campaign issue.

We contacted the Rosendale campaign to find out the basis for his ad’s claim. Campaign spokesperson Shelby DeMars listed a range of health policies backed by the candidate that would help people with preexisting conditions directly or indirectly by holding down health care costs. She specifically pointed to Rosendale’s work on the state’s reinsurance program as Montana’s state auditor and insurance commissioner, a post he was elected to in 2016.

“Matt Rosendale is a champion for those with pre-existing conditions and he has the record to prove it,” DeMars said via email. “It is because of the Reinsurance program he implemented that Montanans with pre-existing conditions can access the affordable healthcare coverage they need.”

Examining Reinsurance

In a nutshell, Montana’s reinsurance program is designed to help insurers cover costly medical claims with a mix of federal pass-through dollars and funding generated by a premium tax on all major medical policies in the state. Gov. Steve Bullock announced the formation of a bipartisan group tasked with developing reinsurance program legislation in fall 2018, and the state’s legislature approved the plan in 2019, allowing Rosendale to apply for and receive the necessary waiver under the Affordable Care Act.

Subsequent news accounts indicated the idea worked. In-state insurers credited the program with lowering premiums by 8% to 14% for 2020. As Montana Health Co-op CEO Richard Miltenberger told MTN News shortly after the 2019 legislative session, “It allows the insurance companies to have rate stabilization for those really big claims, the ones that are the earthquakes in health insurance.” He went on to say that this stability “brings the cost down for the consumer.” More to the point, the American Medical Association has also stated that reinsurance not only serves to subsidize high-cost patients but “protects patients with pre-existing conditions.”

But there’s a rub.

The reinsurance program that Rosendale touts wouldn’t exist without a state innovation waiver created by the ACA, which Rosendale says he’ll work to repeal. That effort will doubtless continue to fuel pitched battles in Congress, and how the U.S. Supreme Court may rule on a pending ACA challenge remains a point of speculation. One thing is clear, though: If the entire ACA is thrown out, the reinsurance program goes with it, along with Montana’s Medicaid expansion and the ban on insurers excluding people with health problems from affordable coverage.

When asked about the resulting elimination of the reinsurance program, DeMars emphasized that Rosendale’s work as auditor has created a system that will ensure protections for preexisting conditions “regardless of what happens to the ACA.” She did not elaborate or explain what protections would remain if the ACA were repealed.

The Short-Term Plan Component

In defending his stance on preexisting conditions, Rosendale continues to be haunted by another health care policy specter from his political past. During his unsuccessful challenge against Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester in 2018, Rosendale faced criticism for promoting short-term, limited-duration health insurance plans. Unlike plans offered on the individual marketplace, these short-term plans are exempt from the ACA’s ban on excluding people with preexisting conditions. And, under a 2018 regulatory change pushed by the Trump administration, the length of these short-term plans has been extended from three months to 12, with the potential to renew for up to three years.

As state auditor, Rosendale included those plans in his March 2020 roundup of year-round options for immediate coverage. They often exclude coverage for a variety of higher-cost benefits. In Montana, for example, a review by KFF found that of four short-term plans available in Billings in 2018, none offered coverage for maternity care, mental health, substance abuse or prescription drug services. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Historically, short-term plans were designed to help individuals fill gaps in health coverage. According to Dania Palanker, an assistant research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, the role short-term plans play on today’s health insurance landscape is to attract younger, healthier individuals seeking low-cost options to cover catastrophic events. That splits insurers into two pools — those who are less likely to incur medical expenses, and those who are more likely to incur them. Costs on the individual market go up as a result, leaving people with preexisting conditions no other option than to pay higher premiums. Short-term plans are, Palanker said, “actively hurting people with preexisting conditions.”

“Promoting short-term plans and stumping on supporting protections for preexisting conditions are mutually exclusive,” she continued.

Asked whether the cost-lowering effect of a reinsurance program would be enough to offset the effects of short-term plans, Palanker said the only way such an offset would be enough is if the program encompassed short-term plans. She hasn’t seen that happen anywhere.

Our Ruling

A campaign ad says Rosendale “fights for everyone with a preexisting condition.” While it is true that health insurance premiums have dropped during Rosendale’s tenure as state auditor, the choice to establish Montana’s reinsurance program ultimately fell to decision-makers in the state’s legislature and the governor’s office. Since his ad’s claim simply states that he “fights” for people with preexisting conditions, his testimony in support of that program and role in securing the state waiver do seem to fit the bill.

In the long-term, however, Rosendale’s positions begin to run counter to the claim. His support for short-term, limited-duration plans poses a considerable threat to keeping health insurance affordable for all, and absent a solid plan from Congress to ensure that state reinsurance programs survive, his stated goal of repealing the ACA would actually serve to unravel the very protection he’s built his case on.

We rate this statement as Mostly False.

Even with the expanded safety net created by the ACA, by the end of summer a record number of people were poised to become newly uninsured.

This article was published on Wednesday, October 7, 2020 in Kaiser Health News.

By Steven Findlay

The Affordable Care Act, facing its first test during a deep recession, is providing a refuge for some — but by no means all — people who have lost health coverage as the economy has been battered by the coronavirus pandemic.

New studies, from both federal and private research groups, generally indicate that when the country marked precipitous job losses from March to May — with more than 25 million people forced out of work — the loss of health insurance was less dramatic.

That's partly because large numbers of mostly low-income workers who lost employment during the crisis were in jobs that already did not provide health insurance. It helped that many employers chose to leave furloughed and temporarily laid-off workers on the company insurance plan.

And others who lost health benefits along with their job immediately sought alternatives, such as coverage through a spouse's or parent's job, Medicaid or plans offered on the state-based ACA marketplaces.

From June to September, however, things weren't as rosy. Even as the unemployment rate declined from 14.7% in April to 8.4% in August, many temporary job losses became permanent, some people who found a new job didn't get one that came with health insurance, and others just couldn't afford coverage.

The upshot, studies indicate, is that even with the new options and expanded safety net created by the ACA, by the end of summer a record number of people were poised to become newly uninsured.

What's more, those losses could deepen in the months ahead, and into 2021, if the economy doesn't improve and Congress offers no further assistance, health policy experts and insurers say.

"It's a very fluid situation," said Sara Collins, vice president for healthcare coverage and access at the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based health research group. "The ACA provides an important cushion, but we don't know how much of one yet, since this is first real test of the law as a safety net in a serious recession."

Collins also noted that accurately tracking health insurance coverage and shifts is difficult in the best of times; amid an economic meltdown, it becomes even more precarious.

Coverage Was Already on the Decline

Some 20 million people gained coverage between 2010 and 2016 under the ACA's expansion of Medicaid and its insurance marketplaces for people without employer-based coverage. A gradually booming economy after the 2008-2009 recession also helped. The percentage of the population without health insurance declined from about 15% in 2010 to 8.8% in 2016.

But then, even as the economy continued to grow after 2016, coverage began to decline when the Trump administration and some Republican-led states took steps that undermined the law's main aim: to expand coverage.

In 2018, 1.9 million people joined the ranks of the uninsured, and the Census Bureau reported earlier this month that an additional 1 million Americans lost coverage in 2019.

The accelerating decline is helping fuel anxiety over the fate of the ACA in the wake of the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The high court is scheduled to hear a case in November brought by Republican state officials, and supported by the Trump administration, that seeks to nullify the entire law.

In July, researchers at the Urban Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank, forecast that around 10 million workers and their dependents would lose employer coverage in 2020. But they estimated that two-thirds of them will have found new coverage by year's end — leaving about 3.3 million uninsured.

A more recent Urban Institute report, released Sept. 18, and using 2020 data from the Census Bureau, calculated that of the roughly 3 million people under age 65 who had lost job-based insurance between May and July, 1.4 million found coverage elsewhere — most through Medicaid — and 1.9 million became newly uninsured. Notably, 2.2 million of those who lost their coverage were between 18 and 39 years old; 1.6 million were Hispanic.

Another recent study, using different methods, reported higher numbers for the same period. The analysis released by the Economic Policy Institute last month determined that between April and July 6.2 million people lost employer coverage. The authors didn't calculate how many found alternative coverage via Medicaid or the ACA, however.

Other findings support the notion that the health insurance loss trend shifted by mid summer. KFF, for example, published an analysis Sept. 11 showing that most companies that offered coverage to begin with chose to continue insuring furloughed and temporarily laid-off workers between March and the end of June. But as the virus continued to batter the economy, employers moved to permanently shed those jobs. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

"The issue now is that the temporary layoffs have greatly decreased and permanent job losses, including jobs that came with health coverage, are increasing," said Cynthia Cox, a KFF vice president and director for the Program on the ACA.

Many low-income workers who lose their jobs and don't have coverage through a spouse or parent turn to Medicaid, the federal-state health program for low-income people. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reported last week that enrollment in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program grew by 4 million between February and June, a nearly 6% increase since the beginning of the coronavirus crisis.

The Impact of the Marketplaces

Gains and losses of coverage in the ACA marketplace are not yet clear, experts say. The Trump administration issued a report in June indicating that 487,000 people had, between January and June, enrolled in an ACA plan via the federal website, healthcare.gov. But that report failed to say how many people dropped an ACA plan in that period — for example, because they could no longer afford the premiums.

A study by Avalere, a health research and consulting firm in Washington, D.C., has estimated that enrollment in the ACA marketplaces since March could have swelled by around 1 million. That includes new enrollees in the 13 ACA marketplaces that states, plus the District of Columbia, operate. Many of those states held a "special enrollment period" when the pandemic hit. Healthcare.gov, run by the Trump administration, did not offer a special enrollment period.

About 11 million were enrolled in an ACA plan in February. Open enrollment for coverage that would start on Jan. 1, 2021, begins Nov. 1.

Jessica Banthin, a senior health policy researcher at the Urban Institute and until 2019 deputy director for health at the Congressional Budget Office, said it's anyone's guess how many people who lost their job-based coverage this year will choose this option. She said numerous factors will influence people's health insurance decisions this fall, and into 2021.

Chief among them is gauging whether they might soon get a new job, or get back an old job, that offers insurance. That may hold some people back from enrolling in an ACA plan this fall, Banthin said. Plus, buying insurance may be too expensive, especially for families more concerned with paying for housing, food and child care while going without a paycheck.

"Health insurance may not be their immediate concern," Banthin said. "Many people's lives have been disrupted as never before. There's a lot of trauma out there."

Collins of the Commonwealth Fund said that, even before the pandemic, a growing proportion of families were vulnerable to loss of coverage and care.

In a survey of more than 4,000 adults early this year, Collins and colleagues found a "persistent vulnerability among working-age adults in their ability to afford coverage and healthcare that could worsen if the economic downturn continues."

In large part, that's because 1 in 5 respondents who had coverage were "underinsured." Underinsurance reflects the extent to which coverage leaves people at risk of high out-of-pocket costs — a situation exacerbated by widespread job loss.

"Now is absolutely not be the time for the ACA to be further undermined, let alone killed outright," said Stan Dorn, director of the National Center for Coverage Innovation at Families USA.