Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Population Health Management’ Category

NCCN Shares Latest Expert Recommendations for Prostate Cancer in Spanish and Portuguese

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

Currently many biomedical texts and US government agency guidelines are only offered in English or only offered in different languages upon request. However Spanish is spoken in a majority of countries worldwide and medical text in that language would serve as an under-served need. In addition, Portuguese is the main language in the largest country in South America, Brazil.

The LPBI Group and others have noticed this need for medical translation to other languages. Currently LPBI Group is translating their medical e-book offerings into Spanish (for more details see https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/vision/)

Below is an article on The National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s decision to offer their cancer treatment guidelines in Spanish and Portuguese.

Source: https://www.nccn.org/home/news/newsdetails?NewsId=2871

PLYMOUTH MEETING, PA [8 September, 2021] — The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®)—a nonprofit alliance of leading cancer centers in the United States—announces recently-updated versions of evidence- and expert consensus-based guidelines for treating prostate cancer, translated into Spanish and Portuguese. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) feature frequently updated cancer treatment recommendations from multidisciplinary panels of experts across NCCN Member Institutions. Independent studies have repeatedly found that following these recommendations correlates with better outcomes and longer survival.

“Everyone with prostate cancer should have access to care that is based on current and reliable evidence,” said Robert W. Carlson, MD, Chief Executive Officer, NCCN. “These updated translations—along with all of our other translated and adapted resources—help us to define and advance high-quality, high-value, patient-centered cancer care globally, so patients everywhere can live better lives.”

Prostate cancer is the second most commonly occurring cancer in men, impacting more than a million people worldwide every year.[1] In 2020, the NCCN Guidelines® for Prostate Cancer were downloaded more than 200,000 times by people outside of the United States. Approximately 47 percent of registered users for NCCN.org are located outside the U.S., with Brazil, Spain, and Mexico among the top ten countries represented.

“NCCN Guidelines are incredibly helpful resources in the work we do to ensure cancer care across Latin America meets the highest standards,” said Diogo Bastos, MD, and Andrey Soares, MD, Chair and Scientific Director of the Genitourinary Group of The Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG). The organization has worked with NCCN in the past to develop Latin American editions of the NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer, Colon Cancer, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Prostate Cancer, Multiple Myeloma, and Rectal Cancer, and co-hosted a webinar on “Management of Prostate Cancer for Latin America” earlier this year. “We appreciate all of NCCN’s efforts to make sure these gold-standard recommendations are accessible to non-English speakers and applicable for varying circumstances.”

NCCN also publishes NCCN Guidelines for Patients®, containing the same treatment information in non-medical terms, intended for patients and caregivers. The NCCN Guidelines for Patients: Prostate Cancer were found to be among the most trustworthy sources of information online according to a recent international study. These patient guidelines have been divided into two books, covering early and advanced prostate cancer; both have been translated into Spanish and Portuguese as well.

NCCN collaborates with organizations across the globe on resources based on the NCCN Guidelines that account for local accessibility, consideration of metabolic differences in populations, and regional regulatory variation. They can be downloaded free-of-charge for non-commercial use at NCCN.org/global or via the Virtual Library of NCCN Guidelines App. Learn more and join the conversation with the hashtag #NCCNGlobal.


[1] Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin, in press. The online GLOBOCAN 2018 database is accessible at http://gco.iarc.fr/, as part of IARC’s Global Cancer Observatory.

About the National Comprehensive Cancer Network

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) is a not-for-profit alliance of leading cancer centers devoted to patient care, research, and education. NCCN is dedicated to improving and facilitating quality, effective, efficient, and accessible cancer care so patients can live better lives. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) provide transparent, evidence-based, expert consensus recommendations for cancer treatment, prevention, and supportive services; they are the recognized standard for clinical direction and policy in cancer management and the most thorough and frequently-updated clinical practice guidelines available in any area of medicine. The NCCN Guidelines for Patients® provide expert cancer treatment information to inform and empower patients and caregivers, through support from the NCCN Foundation®. NCCN also advances continuing educationglobal initiativespolicy, and research collaboration and publication in oncology. Visit NCCN.org for more information and follow NCCN on Facebook @NCCNorg, Instagram @NCCNorg, and Twitter @NCCN.

Please see LPBI Group’s efforts in medical text translation and Natural Language Processing of Medical Text at

Read Full Post »

Can the Public Benefit Company Structure Save US Healthcare?

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

According to Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services (CMS.gov) healthcare spending per capita has reached 17.7 percent of GDP with, according to CMS data:

From 1960 through 2013, health spending rose from $147 per person to $9,255 per person, an average annual increase of 8.1 percent.

the National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA) are the official estimates of total health care spending in the United States. Dating back to 1960, the NHEA measures annual U.S. expenditures for health care goods and services, public health activities, government administration, the net cost of health insurance, and investment related to health care. The data are presented by type of service, sources of funding, and type of sponsor.

Graph: US National Healthcare Expenditures as a percent of Gross Domestic Product from 1960 to current. Recession periods are shown in bars. Note that the general trend has been increasing healthcare expenditures with only small times of decrease for example 2020 in year of COVID19 pandemic. In addition most of the years have been inflationary with almost no deflationary periods, either according to CPI or healthcare costs, specifically.

U.S. health care spending grew 4.6 percent in 2019, reaching $3.8 trillion or $11,582 per person.  As a share of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, health spending accounted for 17.7 percent.

And as this spending grew (demand for health care services) associated costs also rose but as the statistical analyses shows there was little improvement in many health outcome metrics during the same time. 

Graph of the Growth of National Health Expenditures (NHE) versus the growth of GDP. Note most years from 1960 growth rate of NHE has always been higher than GDP, resulting in a seemingly hyperinflationary effect of healthcare. Also note how there are years when this disconnect is even greater, as there were years when NHE grew while there were recessionary periods in the general economy.

It appears that US healthcare may be on the precipice of a transformational shift, but what will this shift look like? The following post examines if the corporate structure of US healthcare needs to be changed and what role does a Public Benefit Company have in this much needed transformation.

Hippocratic Oath

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this contract:

To hold him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to be a partner in life with him, and to fulfill his needs when required; to look upon his offspring as equals to my own siblings, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or contract; and that by the set rules, lectures, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to students bound by this contract and having sworn this Oath to the law of medicine, but to no others.

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

In purity and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft.

Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves.

Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.

So long as I maintain this Oath faithfully and without corruption, may it be granted to me to partake of life fully and the practice of my art, gaining the respect of all men for all time. However, should I transgress this Oath and violate it, may the opposite be my fate.

Translated by Michael North, National Library of Medicine, 2002.

Much of the following information can be found on the Health Affairs Blog in a post entitled

Public Benefit Corporations: A Third Option For Health Care Delivery?

By Soleil Shah, Jimmy J. Qian, Amol S. Navathe, Nirav R. Shah

Limitations of For Profit and Non-Profit Hospitals

For profit represent ~ 25% of US hospitals and are owned and governed by shareholders, and can raise equity through stock and bond markets.

According to most annual reports, the CEOs incorrectly assume they are legally bound as fiduciaries to maximize shareholder value.  This was a paradigm shift in priorities of companies which started around the mid 1980s, a phenomenon discussed below.  

A by-product of this business goal, to maximize shareholder value, is that CEO pay and compensation is naturally tied to equity markets.  A means for this is promoting cost efficiencies, even in the midst of financial hardships.

A clear example of the failure of this system can be seen during the 2020- current COVID19 pandemic in the US. According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, four large US hospitals were able to decrease their operating expenses by $2.3 billion just in Q2 2020.  This amounted to 65% of their revenue; in comparison three large NONPROFIT hospitals reduced their operating expense by an aggregate $13 million (only 1% of their revenue), evident that in lean times for-profit will resort to drastic cost cutting at expense of service, even in times of critical demands for healthcare.

Because of their tax structure and perceived fiduciary responsibilities, for-profit organizations (unlike non-profit and public benefit corporations) are not legally required to conduct community health need assessments, establish financial assistance policies, nor limit hospital charges for those eligible for financial assistance.  In addition to the difference in tax liability, for-profit, unlike their non-profit counterparts, at least with hospitals, are not funded in part by state or local government.  As we will see, a large part of operating revenue for non-profit university based hospitals is state and city funding.

Therefore risk for financial responsibility is usually assumed by the patient, and in worst case, by the marginalized patient populations on to the public sector.

Tax Structure Considerations of for-profit healthcare

Financials of major for-profit healthcare entities (2020 annual)

Non-profit Healthcare systems

Nonprofits represent about half of all hospitals in the US.  Most of these exist as a university structure, so retain the benefits of being private health systems and retaining the funding and tax benefits attributed to most systems of higher education. And these nonprofits can be very profitable.  After taking in consideration the state, local, and federal tax exemptions these nonprofits enjoy, as well as tax-free donations from contributors (including large personal trust funds), a nonprofit can accumulate a large amount of revenue after expenses.  In fact 82 nonprofit hospitals had $33 billion of net asset increase year-over-year (20% increase) from 2016 to 2017.  The caveat is that this revenue over expenses is usually spent on research or increased patient services (this may mean expanding the physical infrastructure of the hospital or disseminating internal grant money to clinical investigators, expanding the hospital/university research assets which could result in securing even larger amount of external funding from government sources.

And although this model may work well for intercity university/healthcare systems, it is usually a struggle for the rural nonprofit hospitals.  In 2020, ten out of 17 rural hospitals that went under were nonprofits.  And this is not just true in the tough pandemic year.  Over the past two decades multitude of nonprofit rural hospitals had to sell and be taken over by larger for-profit entities. 

Hospital consolidation has led to a worse patient experience and no real significant changes in readmission or mortality data.  (The article below is how over 130 rural hospitals have closed since 2010, creating a medical emergency in rural US healthcare)

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/appalachian-hospitals-are-disappearing

And according to the article below it is only to get worse

The authors of the Health Affairs blog feel a major disadvantage of both the for-profit and non-profit healthcare systems is “that both face limited accountability with respect to anticompettive mergers and acquisitions.”

More hospital consolidation is expected post-pandemic

Aug 10, 2020

By Rich Daly, HFMA Senior Writer and Editor

News | Coronavirus

More hospital consolidation is expected post-pandemic

  • Hospital deal volume is likely to accelerate due to the financial damage inflicted by the coronavirus pandemic.
  • The anticipated increase in volume did not show up in the latest quarter, when deals were sharply down.
  • The pandemic may have given hospitals leverage in coming policy fights over billing and the creation of “public option” health plans.

Hospital consolidation is likely to increase after the COVID-19 pandemic, say both critics and supporters of the merger-and-acquisition (M&A) trend.

The financial effects of the coronavirus pandemic are expected to drive more consolidation between and among hospitals and physician practices, a group of policy professionals told a recent Washington, D.C.-based web briefing sponsored by the Alliance for Health Policy.

“There is a real danger that this could lead to more consolidation, which if we’re not careful could lead to higher prices,” said Karyn Schwartz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF).

Schwartz cited a recent KFF analysis of available research that concluded “provider consolidation leads to higher health care prices for private insurance; this is true for both horizontal and vertical consolidation.”

Kenneth Kaufman, managing director and chair of Kaufman Hall, noted that crises tend to push financially struggling organizations “further behind.”

“I wouldn’t be surprised at all if that happens,” Kaufman said. “That will lead to further consolidation in the provider market.”

The initial rounds of federal assistance from the CARES Act, which were based first on Medicare revenue and then on net patient revenue, may fuel consolidation, said Mark Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare for Arnold Ventures. That’s because the funding formulas favored organizations that already had higher revenues, he said, and provided less assistance to low-revenue organizations.

HHS has distributed $116.2 billion from the $175 billion in provider funding available through the CARES Act and the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act. The largest distributions used the two revenue formulas cited by Miller.

No surge in M&A yet

The expected burst in hospital M&A activity has yet to occur. Kaufman Hall identified 14 transactions in the second quarter of 2020, far fewer than in the same quarter in any of the four preceding years, when second-quarter transactions totaled between 19 and 31. The latest deals were not focused on small hospitals, with average seller revenue of more than $800 million — far larger than the previous second-quarter high of $409 million in 2018.

Six of the 14 announced transactions were divestitures by major for-profit health systems, including Community Health Systems, Quorum and HCA.

Kaufman Hall’s analysis of the recent deals identified another pandemic-related factor that may fuel hospital M&A: closer ties between hospitals. The analysis cited the example of  Lifespan and Care New England, which had suspended merger talks in 2019. More recently, in a joint announcement, the CEOs of the two systems noted that because of the COVID-19 crisis, the two systems “have been working together in unprecedented ways” and “have agreed to enter into an exploration process to understand the pros and cons of what a formal continuation of this collaboration could look like in the future.”

The M&A outlook for rural hospitals

The pandemic has had less of a negative effect on the finances of rural hospitals that previously joined larger health systems, said Suzie Desai, senior director of not-for-profit healthcare for S&P Global.

A CEO of a health system with a large rural network told Kaufman the federal grants that the system received for its rural hospitals were much larger than the grants paid through the general provider fund.

“If that was true across the board, then the federal government recognized that many rural hospitals could be at risk of not being able to make payroll; actually running out of money,” Kaufman said. “And they seem to have bent over backwards to make sure that didn’t happen.”  

Other CARES Act funding distributed to providers included:

  • $12.8 billion for 959 safety net hospitals
  • $11 billion to almost 4,000 rural healthcare providers and hospitals in urban areas that have certain special rural designations in Medicare

Telehealth has helped rural hospitals but has not been sufficient to address the financial losses inflicted by the pandemic, Desai said.

Other coming trends include a sharper cost focus

Desai expects an increasing focus “over the next couple years” on hospital costs because of the rising share of revenue received from Medicare and Medicaid. She expects increased efforts to use technology and data to lower costs.

Billy Wynne, JD, chairman of Wynne Health Group, expects telehealth restrictions to remain relaxed after the pandemic.

Also, the perceptions of the public and politicians about the financial health of hospitals are likely to give those organizations leverage in coming policy fights over changes such as banning surprise billing and creating so-called public-option health plans, Wynne said. As an example, he cited the Colorado legislature’s suspension of the launch of a public option “in part because of sensitivities around hospital finances in the COVID pandemic.”

“Once the dust settles, it’ll be interesting to see if their leverage has increased or decreased due to what we’ve been through,” Wynne said.

About the Author

Rich Daly, HFMA Senior Writer and Editor,

is based in the Washington, D.C., office. Follow Rich on Twitter: @rdalyhealthcare

Source: https://www.hfma.org/topics/news/2020/08/more-hospital-consolidation-is-expected-post-pandemic.html

From Harvard Medical School

Hospital Mergers and Quality of Care

A new study looks at the quality of care at hospitals acquired in a recent wave of consolidations

By JAKE MILLER January 16, 2020 Research

Two train tracks merge in a blurry sunset.

Image: NirutiStock / iStock / Getty Images Plus       

The quality of care at hospitals acquired during a recent wave of consolidations has gotten worse or stayed the same, according to a study led by Harvard Medical School scientists published Jan. 2 in NEJM.

The findings deal a blow to the often-cited arguments that hospital consolidation would improve care. A flurry of earlier studies showed that mergers increase prices. Now after analyzing patient outcomes after hundreds of hospital mergers, the new research also dashes the hopes that this more expensive care might be of higher quality.

Get more HMS news here

“Our findings call into question claims that hospital mergers are good for patients—and beg the question of what we are getting from higher hospital prices,” said study senior author J. Michael McWilliams, the Warren Alpert Foundation Professor of Health Care Policy in the Blavatnik Institute at HMS and an HMS professor of medicine and a practicing general internist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

McWilliams noted that rising hospital prices have been one of the leading drivers of unsustainable growth in U.S. health spending.   

To examine the impact of hospital mergers on quality of care, researchers from HMS and Harvard Business School examined patient outcomes from nearly 250 hospital mergers that took place between 2009 and 2013. Using data collected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, they analyzed variables such as 30-day readmission and mortality rates among patients discharged from a hospital, as well as clinical measures such as timely antibiotic treatment of patients with bacterial pneumonia. The researchers also factored in patient experiences, such as whether those who received care at a given hospital would recommend it to others. For their analysis, the team compared trends in these indicators between 246 hospitals acquired in merger transactions and unaffected hospitals.

The verdict? Consolidation did not improve hospital performance, and patient-experience scores deteriorated somewhat after the mergers.

The study was not designed to examine the reasons behind the worsening in patient experience. Weakening of competition due to hospital mergers could have contributed, the researchers said, but deeper exploration suggested other potential mechanisms. Notably, the analysis found the decline in patient-experience scores occurred mainly in hospitals acquired by hospitals that already had a poor patient-experience score—a finding that suggests acquisitions facilitate the spread of low quality care but not of high quality care.

The researchers caution that isolated, individual mergers may have still yielded positive results—something that an aggregate analysis is not powered to capture. And the researchers could only examine measurable aspects of quality. The trend in hospital performance on these standard measures, however, appears to point to a net effect of overall decline, the team said.

“Since our study estimated the average effects of mergers, we can’t rule out the possibility that some mergers are good for patient care,” said first author Nancy Beaulieu, research associate in health care policy at HMS. “But this evidence should give us pause when considering arguments for hospitals mergers.”

The work was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (grant no. U19HS024072).

Co-investigators included Bruce Landon and Jesse Dalton from HMS, Ifedayo Kuye, from the University of California, San Francisco, and Leemore Dafny from Harvard Business School and the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Source: https://hms.harvard.edu/news/hospital-mergers-quality-care

Public Benefit Corporations (PBC)

     Public benefit corporations (versus Benefit Corporate status, which is more of a pledge) are separate legal entities which exist as a hybrid, for-profit/nonprofit company but is mandated to 

  1. Pursue a general or specific public benefit
  2. Consider the non-financial interests of its shareholders and other STAKEHOLDERS when making decision
  3. report how well it is achieving its overall public benefit objectives
  4. Have limited fiduciary responsibility to investors that remains IN SCOPE of public benefit goal

In essence, the public benefit corporations executives are mandated to run the company for the benefit of STAKEHOLDERS first, if those STAKEHOLDERS are the public beneficiary of the company’s goals.  This in essence moves the needle away from the traditional C-Corp overvaluing the needs of shareholders and brings back the mission of the company and in the case of healthcare, the needs of its stakeholders, the consumers of healthcare.

     PBCs are legal entities recognized by states rather than by the federal government.  So far, in 2020 about 37 states allow companies to incorporate as a PBC.  Stipulations of the charter include semiannual reporting of the public benefits bestowed by the company and how well it is achieving its public benefit mandate.  There are about 3,000 US PBCs. Some companies have felt it was in their company mission and financial interest to change incorporation as a PBC.

Some well known PBCs include

  1. Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream
  2. American Red Cross
  3. Susan B. Komen Foundation
  4. Allbirds (a shoe startup valued at $1.7 billion when made switch)
  5. Bombas (the sock company that donates extra socks when you buy a pair)
  6. Lemonade (a publicly traded insurance PBC that has beneficiaries select a nonprofit that the company will donate to)

Although the number of PBCs in the healthcare arena is increasing

  1. Not many PBCs are in the area of healthcare delivery 
  2. Noone is quite sure what the economic model would look like for a healthcare delivery PBC

Some example of hospital PBC include NYC Health + Hospitals and Community First Medical Center in Chicago.

Benefits of moving a hospital to PBC Status

  1. PBCs are held legally accountable to a predefined public benefit.  For hospitals this could be delivering cost-effective quality of care and affordable to a local citizenry or an economically disadvantaged population.  PBCs must produce at least an annual report on the public benefits it has achieved contrasted against a third party standard.  For example a hospital could include data of Medicaid related mortality risks, data neither the C-corp nor the nonprofit 501c would have to report on.  Most nonprofits and charities report their taxes on a schedule H or Form 990, which only has to report the officer’s compensation as well as monies given to charitable organizations, or other 501 organizations.  The nonprofit would show a balance of zero as the donated money for that year would be allocated out for various purposes. Hospitals, even as nonprofits, are not required to submit all this data.  Right now in US the ACA just requires any hospital that receives government or ACA insurance payments to report certain outcome statistics.  Although varying state by state, a PBC should have a “benefit officer” to make sure the mandate is being met.  In some cases a PBC benefit officer could sue the board for putting shareholder interest over the public benefit mandate.
  2. A PBC can include community stakeholders in the articles of incorporation thus giving a voice to local community members.  This would be especially beneficial for a hospital serving, say, a rural community.
  3. PBCs do have advantages of the for-profit companies as they are not limited to non-equity forms of investment.  A PBC can raise money in the equity markets or take on debt and finance it.  These financial instruments are unavailable to the non-profit.  Yet one interesting aspect is that PBCs require a HIGHER voting threshold by shareholders than a traditional for profit company in the ability to change their public benefit or convert their PBC back to a for-profit.

Limitations of the PBC

  1. Little incentive financially for current and future hospitals to incorporate as a PBC.  Herein lies a huge roadblock given the state of our reimbursement structure in this country.  Although there may be an incentive with regard to hiring and retention of staff drawn to the organization’s social purpose.  There have been, in the past, suggestions to allow hospitals that incorporate at PBC to receive some tax benefit, but this legislation has not gone through either at state or federal level. (put link to tax article).  
  2. In order for there to be value to constituents (patients) there must be strong accountability measures.  This will require the utmost in ethical behavior by a board and executives.  We have witnessed, through M&A by large health groups, anticompetitive and near monopoly behavior.
  3. There are no federal guidelines but varying guidelines from state to state.  There must be some federal recognition of the PBC status when it comes to healthcare, such as that the government is one of the biggest payers of US healthcare.

This is a great interview with ArcHealth, a PBC healthcare system.

Source: https://www.archealthjustice.com/arc-health-as-public-benefit-company-and-social-enterprise-what-is-the-difference/

Arc Health as a Public Benefit Company and Social Enterprise – What is the difference?

Mar 3, 2021 | Healthcare

Arc Health PBC is a public benefit corporation, a mission-driven for-profit company that utilizes a market-driven approach to achieving our short and long-term social goals. As a public benefit corporation, Arc Health is also a social enterprise working to further our mission of providing healthcare to rural, underserved, and indigenous communities through business practices that improve the recruitment and retention of quality healthcare providers.

What is a Social Enterprise?

While there is no one exact definition, according to the Social Enterprise Alliance, a social enterprise is an “organization that addresses a basic unmet need or solves a social or environmental problem through a market-driven approach.” A social enterprise is not a distinct legal entity, but instead, an “ideological spectrum marrying commercial approaches with social good.” Social enterprises foster a dual-bottom-line – simultaneously seeking profits and social impact. Arc Health, like many social enterprises, seeks to be self–sustainable. 

Two primary structures fall under the social enterprise umbrella: nonprofits and for-profit organizations. There are also related entities within both structures that could be considered social enterprises. Any of these listed structures can be regarded as a social enterprise depending on if and how involved they are with socially beneficial programs.

What is a Public Benefit Corporation?

Public Benefit Corporations (PBCs), also known as benefit corporations, are “for-profit companies that balance maximizing value to stakeholders with a legally binding commitment to a social or environmental mission.” PBCs operate as for-profit entities with no tax advantages or exemptions. Still, they must have a “purpose of creating general public benefit,” such as promoting the arts or science, preserving the environment, or providing benefits to underserved communities. PBCs must attain a higher degree of corporate purpose, expanded accountability, and expected transparency. 

There are now  over 3,000 registered PBCs, comprising approximately 0.1% of American businesses.

 As a PBC, Arc Health expects to access capital through individual investors who seek financial returns, rather than through donations. Arc Health’s investors make investments with a clear understanding of the balance the company must strike between financial returns (I.e., profitability) and social purpose. Therefore, investors expect the company to be operationally profitable to ensure a financial return on their investments, while also making clear to all stakeholders and the public that generating social impact is the priority. 

What is the difference between a Social Enterprise and PBC?

Social enterprises and PBCs emulate similar ideals that value the importance and need to invoke social change vis-a-vis working in a market-driven industry. Public benefit corporations fall under the social enterprise umbrella. An organization may choose to use a social enterprise model and incorporate itself as either a not-for-profit, C-Corp, PBC, or other corporate structure.  

How did Arc Health Become a Public Benefit Corporation?

Arc Health was initially formed as a C-Corp. In 2019, Arc Health’s CEO and Co-Founder, Dave Shaffer, guided the conversion from a C-Corp to a PBC, incorporated in Delaware. Today, Arc Health follows guidelines and expectations for PBCs, including adhering to the State of Delaware’s requirements for PBCs. 

Why is Arc Health a Social Enterprise and Public Benefit Corporation?

Arc Health believes it is essential to commit ourselves to our mission and demonstrate our dedication through our actions. We work to adhere to the core values of accountability, transparency, and purpose. As a registered public benefit company and a social enterprise, we execute our drive to achieve health equity in tangible and effective ways that the communities we work with, our stakeholders, and our providers expect of us.  

90% of Americans say that companies must not only say a product or service is beneficial, but they also need to prove its benefit.

When we partner with health clinics and hospitals, we aim to provide services that enact lasting change. For example, we work with healthcare providers who desire to contribute both clinical and non-clinical skills. In 2020, Arc Health clinicians developed COVID-19 response protocols and educational materials about the vaccines. They participated in pain management working groups. They identified and followed up with kids in the community who were overdue for a well-child check. Arc Health providers should be driven by a desire to develop a long-term relationship with a healthcare service provider and participate in its successes and challenges.   

Paradigm Shift in the 1980’s: Companies Start to Emphasize Shareholders Over Stakeholders

So earlier in this post we had mentioned about a shift in philosophy at the corporate boardroom that affected how comparate thought, value, and responsibility: Companies in the 1980s started to shift their focus and value only the needs of corporate ShAREHOLDERS at the expense of their  traditional STAKEHOLDERS (customers, clients).  Many movies and books have been written on this and debatable if deliberate or a by-product of M&A, hostile takeovers, and the stock market in general but the effect was that the consumer was relegated as having less value, even though marketing budgets are very high.  The fiduciary responsibility of the executive was now defined in terms of satisfying shareholders, who were now  big huge and powerful brokerage houses, private equity, and hedge funds.  A good explanation by Medium.com Tyler Lasicki is given below.

From the Medium.com

Source: https://medium.com/swlh/the-shareholder-v-stakeholder-contrast-a-brief-history-c5a6cfcaa111

The Shareholder V. Stakeholder Contrast, a Brief History

Tyler Lasicki

Follow

May 26, 2020 · 14 min read

Introduction

In a famous 1970 New York Times Article, Milton Friedman postulated that the CEO, as an employee of the shareholder, must strive to provide the highest possible return for all shareholders. Since that article, the United States has embraced this idea as the fundamental philosophy supporting the ultimate purpose of businesses — The Shareholders Come First.

In August of 2019, the Business Roundtable, a group made up of the most influential U.S CEOs, published a letter shifting their stance on the purpose of a corporation. Regardless of whether this piece of paper will actually result in any systematic changes has yet to be seen, however this newly stated purpose of business is a dramatic shift from the position Milton Friedman took in 1970. According to the statement, these corporations will no longer prioritize maximizing profits for shareholders, but instead turn their focus to benefiting all stakeholders — including citizens, customers, suppliers, employees, on par with shareholders. 

Now the social responsibility of a company and the CEO was to maxiimize the profits even at the expense of any previous social responsibility they once had.

Small sample of the 181 Signatures attached to the Business Roundtable’s letter

What has happened over the past 50 years that has led to such a fundamental change in ideology? What has happened to make the CEO’s of America’s largest corporations suddenly change their stance on such a foundational principle of what it means to be an American business?

Since diving into this subject, I have come to find that the “American fundamental principle” of putting shareholders first is one that is actually not all that fundamental. In fact, for a large portion of our nation’s history this ideology was actually seen as the unpopular position.

Key ideological shifts in U.S. history

This post dives into a brief history of these two contrasting ideological viewpoints in an attempt to contextualize the forces behind both sides — specifically, the most recent shift (1970–2019). This basic idea of what is most important; the stakeholder or the shareholder, is the underlying reason as to why many things are the way they are today. A corporation’s priority of shareholder or stakeholder ultimately impacts employee salaries, benefits, quality of life within communities, environmental conditions, even the access to education children can receive. It affects our lives in a breadth and depth of ways and now that corporations may be changing positions (yet again) to focus on a model that prioritizes the stakeholder, it is important to understand why.

Looking forward, if stakeholder priority ends up being the popular position among American businesses, how long will it last for? What could lead to its downfall? And what will managers do to ensure a long term stakeholder-friendly business model?

It is clear to me the reasons that have led to these shifts in ideology are rather nuanced, however I want to highlight a few trends that have had a major impact on businesses changing their priorities while also providing context as to why things have shifted.

The Ascendancy of Shareholder Value

Following the 1929 stock market crash and the Great Depression, stakeholder primacy became the popular perspective within corporate America. Stakeholder primacy is the idea that corporations are to consider a wider group of interested parties (not just shareholders) whose positions need to be taken into consideration by corporate governance. According to this point of view, rather than solely being an agent for shareholders, management’s responsibilities were to be dispersed among all of its constituencies, even if it meant a reduction in shareholder value. This ideology lasted as the dominant position for roughly 40 years, in part due to public opinion and strong views on corporate responsibility, but also through state adoption of stakeholder laws.

By the mid-1970s, falling corporate profitability and stagnant share prices had been the norm for a decade. This poor economic performance influenced a growing concern in the U.S. regarding the perceived divergence between manager and shareholder interest. Many held the position that profits and share prices were suffering as a result of corporation’s increased attention on stakeholder groups.

This noticeable divergence in interests sparked many academics to focus their research on corporate management’s motivations in decision making regarding their allocation of resources. This branch of research would later be known as agency theory, which focused on the relationship between principals (shareholders) and their agents (management). Research at the time outlined how over the previous decades corporate management had pursued strategies that were not likely to optimize resources from a shareholder’s perspective. These findings were part of a seismic shift of corporate philosophy, changing priority from the stakeholders of a business to the shareholders.

By 1982, the U.S. economy started to recover from a prolonged period of high inflation and low economic growth. This recovery acted as a catalyst for change in many industries, leaving many corporate management teams to struggle in response to these changes. Their business performance suffered as a result. These distressed businesses became targets for a group of new investors…private equity firms.

Now the paradigm shift had its biggest backer…. private equity!  And private equity care about ONE thing….. THEIR OWN SHARE VALUE and subsequently meaning corporate profit, which became the most important directive for the CEO.

So it is all hopeless now? Can there be a shift back to the good ‘ol days?  

Well some changes are taking place at top corporate levels which may help the stakeholders to have a voice at the table, as the following IRMagazine article states.

And once again this is being led by the Business Roundtable, the same Business Roundtable that proposed the shift back in the 1970s.

Andrew Holt

Andrew Holt

REPORTER

  •  
  •  

SHAREHOLDER VALUE

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Shift from shareholder value to stakeholder-focused model for top US firms

AUG 23, 2019

Business Roundtable reveals corporations to drop idea they function to serve shareholders only

Source: https://www.irmagazine.com/esg/shift-shareholder-value-stakeholder-focused-model-top-us-firms

Andrew Holt

Andrew Holt

REPORTER

n a major corporate shift, shareholder value is no longer the main objective of the US’ top company CEOs, according to the Business Roundtable, which instead emphasizes the ‘purpose of a corporation’ and a stakeholder-focused model.

The influential body – a group of chief executive officers from major US corporations – has stressed the idea of a corporation dropping the age-old notion that corporations function first and foremost to serve their shareholders and maximize profits.

Rather, the focus should be on investing in employees, delivering value to customers, dealing ethically with suppliers and supporting outside communities as the vanguard of American business, according to a Business Roundtable statement.

‘While each of our individual companies serves its own corporate purpose, we share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders,’ reads the statement, signed by 181 CEOs. ‘We commit to deliver value to all of them, for the future success of our companies, our communities and our country.’

Gary LaBranche, president and CEO of NIRI, tells IR Magazine that this is part of a wider trend: ‘The redefinition of purpose from shareholder-focused to stakeholder-focused is not new to NIRI members. For example, a 2014 IR Update article by the late Professor Lynn Stout urges a more inclusive way of thinking about corporate purpose.’ 

NIRI has also addressed this concept at many venues, including the senior roundtable annual meeting and the NIRI Annual Conference, adds LaBranche. This trend was further seen in the NIRI policy statement on ESG disclosure, released in January this year. 

Analyzing the meaning of this change in more detail, LaBranche adds: ‘The statement is a revolutionary break with the Business Roundtable’s previous position that the purpose of the corporation is to create value for shareholders, which was a long-held position championed by Milton Friedman.

‘The challenge is that Friedman’s thought leadership helped to inspire the legal and regulatory regime that places wealth creation for shareholders as the ‘prime directive’ for corporate executives.

‘Thus, commentators like Mike Allen of Axios are quick to point out that some shareholders may actually use the new statement to accuse CEOs of worrying about things beyond increasing the value of their shares, which, Allen reminds us, is the CEOs’ fiduciary responsibility.

‘So while the new Business Roundtable statement reflects a much-needed rebalancing and modernization that speaks to the comprehensive responsibilities of corporate citizens, we can expect that some shareholders will push back on this more inclusive view of who should benefit from corporate efforts and the capital that makes it happen. The new statement may not mark the dawn of a new day, but it perhaps signals the twilight of the Friedman era.’

In a similarly reflective way, Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co and chairman of the Business Roundtable, says: ‘The American dream is alive, but fraying. Major employers are investing in their workers and communities because they know it is the only way to be successful over the long term. These modernized principles reflect the business community’s unwavering commitment to continue to push for an economy that serves all Americans.’

Note:  Mr Dimon has been very vocal for many years on corporate social responsibility, especially since the financial troubles of 2009.

Other related articles published on this Open Access Online Scientific Journal on Healthcare Issues include the following:

Opportunity Mapping of the E-Health Sector prior to COVID19 Outbreak
mHealth market growth in America, Europe, & APAC
Ethics Behind Genetic Testing in Breast Cancer: A Webinar by Laura Carfang of survivingbreastcancer.org
The Inequality and Health Disparity seen with the COVID-19 Pandemic Is Similar to Past Pandemics
Live Notes from @HarvardMed Bioethics: Authors Jerome Groopman, MD & Pamela Hartzband, MD, discuss Your Medical Mind
COVID-related financial losses at Mass General Brigham
Personalized Medicine, Omics, and Health Disparities in Cancer:  Can Personalized Medicine Help Reduce the Disparity Problem?

Read Full Post »

Covid-19 and its implications on pregnancy

Reporter and Curator: Mr. Srinjoy Chakraborty (Junior Research Felllow) and Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has emerged as a serious global health issue with high transmission rates affecting millions of people worldwide. The SARS-CoV-2 is known to damage cells in the respiratory system, thus causing viral pneumonia. The novel SARS-CoV-2 is a close relative to the previously identified severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome-coronavirus (MERS-CoV) which affected several people in 2002 and 2012, respectively. Ever since the outbreak of covid-19, several reports have poured in about the impact of Covid-19 on pregnancy. A few studies have highlighted the impact of the viral infection in pregnant women and how they are more susceptible to the infection because of the various physiological changes of the cardiopulmonary and immune systems during pregnancy. It is known that SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV diseases have influenced the fatality rate among pregnant women. However, there are limited studies on the impact of the novel corona virus on the course and outcome of pregnancy.

Figure: commonly observed clinical symptoms of COVID-19 in the general population: Fever and cough, along with dyspnoea, diarrhoea, and malaise are the most commonly observed symptoms in pregnant women, which is similar to that observed in the normal population.

The WHO and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) have proposed detailed guidelines for treating pregnant women; these guidelines must be strictly followed by the pregnant individual and their families. According to the guidelines issued by the ICMR, the risk of pregnant women contracting the virus to that of the general population. However, the immune system and the body’s response to a viral infection is altered during pregnancy. This may result in the manifestation of more severe symptoms. The ICMR guidelines also state that the reported cases of COVID-19 pneumonia in pregnancy are milder and with good recovery. However, by observing the trends of the other coronavirus infection (SARS, MERS), the risks to the mother appear to increase in particular during the last trimester of pregnancy. Cases of preterm birth in women with COVID-19 have been mentioned in a few case report, but it is unclear whether the preterm birth was always iatrogenic, or whether some were spontaneous. Pregnant women with heart disease are at highest risk of acquiring the infection, which is similar to that observed in the normal population. Most importantly, the ICMR guidelines highlights the impact of the coronavirus epidemic on the mental health of pregnant women. It mentions that the since the pandemic has begun, there has been an increase in the risk of perinatal anxiety and depression, as well as domestic violence. It is critically important that support for women and families is strengthened as far as possible; that women are asked about mental health at every contact.

With the available literature available on the impact of SARS and MERS on reproductive outcome, it has been mentioned that SARS infection did increase the risk of miscarriage, preterm birth and, intrauterine foetal growth restriction. However, the same has not been demonstrated in early reports from COVID-19 infection in pregnancy. According to a study that included 8200 participants conducted by the centre for disease control and prevention, pregnant women may be at a higher risk of acquiring severe infection and need for ICU admissions as compared to their non-pregnant counterparts. However, a detailed and thorough study involving a larger proportion of the population is needed today.

References:

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210614/COVID-19-in-pregnancy-could-be-less-severe-than-previously-thought-A-Danish-case-study.aspx

https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jog.14696

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00525-y

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14767058.2020.1759541

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/special-populations/pregnancy-data-on-covid-19/what-cdc-is-doing.html

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/why-is-covid-19-killing-so-many-pregnant-women-in-india/articleshow/82902194.cms?from=mdr

https://content.iospress.com/download/international-journal-of-risk-and-safety-in-medicine/jrs200060?id=international-journal-of-risk-and-safety-in-medicine%2Fjrs200060

Read Full Post »

Nir Hacohen and Marcia Goldberg, Researchers at MGH and the Broad Institute identify protein “signature” of severe COVID-19

Curator and Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Longitudinal proteomic analysis of plasma from patients with severe COVID-19 reveal patient survival-associated signatures, tissue-specific cell death, and cell-cell interactions

Open AccessPublished:April 30, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100287

Highlights

  • 16% of COVID-19 patients display an atypical low-inflammatory plasma proteome
  • Severe COVID-19 is associated with heterogeneous plasma proteomic responses
  • Death of virus-infected lung epithelial cells is a key feature of severe disease
  • Lung monocyte/macrophages drive T cell activation, together promoting epithelial damage

Summary

Mechanisms underlying severe COVID-19 disease remain poorly understood. We analyze several thousand plasma proteins longitudinally in 306 COVID-19 patients and 78 symptomatic controls, uncovering immune and non-immune proteins linked to COVID-19. Deconvolution of our plasma proteome data using published scRNAseq datasets reveals contributions from circulating immune and tissue cells. Sixteen percent of patients display reduced inflammation yet comparably poor outcomes. Comparison of patients who died to severely ill survivors identifies dynamic immune cell-derived and tissue-associated proteins associated with survival, including exocrine pancreatic proteases. Using derived tissue-specific and cell type-specific intracellular death signatures, cellular ACE2 expression, and our data, we infer whether organ damage resulted from direct or indirect effects of infection. We propose a model in which interactions among myeloid, epithelial, and T cells drive tissue damage. These datasets provide important insights and a rich resource for analysis of mechanisms of severe COVID-19 disease.

Graphical Abstract

Figure thumbnail fx1

Image Source: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100287

https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(21)00115-4

The quest to identify mechanisms that might be contributing to death in COVID-19: Why do some patients die from this disease, while others — who appear to be just as ill do not?

Researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard have identified the protein “signature” of severe COVID-19

Interest was to develop methods for studying human immune responses to infections, which they had applied to the condition known as bacterial sepsis. The three agreed to tackle this new problem with the goal of understanding how the human immune system responds to SARS-CoV-2, the novel pathogen that causes COVID-19.

How scientists launched a study in days to probe COVID-19’s unpredictability

Collecting these specimens required a large team of collaborators from many departments, which worked overtime for five weeks to amass blood samples from 306 patients who tested positive for COVID-19, as well as from 78 patients with similar symptoms who tested negative for the coronavirus.

Alexandra-Chloé Villani

Credit : Alexandra-Chloé VillaniResearch associates at Mass General who worked countless hours to process blood samples for the COVID Acute Cohort Study (from left to right: Anna Gonye, Irena Gushterova, and Tom Lasalle)By Leah Eisenstadt

https://www.broadinstitute.org/news/how-scientists-launched-study-days-probe-covid-19%E2%80%99s-unpredictability

As the COVID-19 surge began in March, Mass General and Broad researchers worked around the clock to begin learning why some patients fare worse with the disease than others

Protein signatures in the blood

https://www.broadinstitute.org/news/researchers-identify-protein-%E2%80%9Csignature%E2%80%9D-severe-covid-19

The study found that most patients with COVID-19 have a consistent protein signature, regardless of disease severity; as would be expected, their bodies mount an immune response by producing proteins that attack the virus. “But we also found a small subset of patients with the disease who did not demonstrate the pro-inflammatory response that is typical of other COVID-19 patients,” Filbin said, yet these patients were just as likely as others to have severe disease. Filbin, who is also an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Harvard Medical School (HMS), noted that patients in this subset tended to be older people with chronic diseases, who likely had weakened immune systems.

Among other revelations, this showed that the most prevalent severity-associated protein, a pro-inflammatory protein called interleukin-6 (IL-6) rose steadily in patients who died, while it rose and then dropped in those with severe disease who survived. Early attempts by other groups to treat COVID-19 patients experiencing acute respiratory distress with drugs that block IL-6 were disappointing, though more recent studies show promise in combining these medications with the steroid dexamethasone.

Hacohen, who is a professor of medicine at HMS and director of the Broad’s Cell Circuits Program:

“You can ask which of the many thousands of proteins that are circulating in your blood are associated with the actual outcome,” he said, “and whether there is a set of proteins that tell us something.”

Goldberg, who is a professor of emergency medicine at HMS:

They are highly likely to be useful in figuring out some of the underlying mechanisms that lead to severe disease and death in COVID-19,” she said, noting her gratitude to the patients involved in the study. Their samples are already being used to study other aspects of COVID-19, such as identifying the qualities of antibodies that patients form against the virus.

SOURCES

Original Research

Filbin MR, Mehta A, et al. Longitudinal proteomic analysis of plasma from patients with severe COVID-19 reveal patient survival-associated signatures, tissue-specific cell death, and cell-cell interactionsCell Reports Medicine. Online April 30, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100287.

Adapted from a press release originally issued by Massachusetts General Hospital.

https://www.broadinstitute.org/news/researchers-identify-protein-%E2%80%9Csignature%E2%80%9D-severe-covid-19

https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(21)00115-4

Read Full Post »

Cryo-EM disclosed how the D614G mutation changes SARS-CoV-2 spike protein structure.

Reporter: Dr. Premalata Pati, Ph.D., Postdoc

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has had a major impact on human health globally; infecting a massive quantity of people around 136,046,262 (John Hopkins University); causing severe disease and associated long-term health sequelae; resulting in death and excess mortality, especially among older and prone populations; altering routine healthcare services; disruptions to travel, trade, education, and many other societal functions; and more broadly having a negative impact on peoples physical and mental health.

It’s need of the hour to answer the questions like what allows the variants of SARS-CoV-2 first detected in the UK, South Africa, and Brazil to spread so quickly? How can current COVID-19 vaccines better protect against them?

Scientists from the Harvard Medical School and the Boston Children’s Hospital help answer these urgent questions. The team reports its findings in the journal “Science a paper entitled Structural impact on SARS-CoV-2 spike protein by D614G substitution. The mutation rate of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has rapidly evolved over the past few months, especially at the Spike (S) protein region of the virus, where the maximum number of mutations have been observed by the virologists.

Bing Chen, HMS professor of pediatrics at Boston Children’s, and colleagues analyzed the changes in the structure of the spike proteins with the genetic change by D614G mutation by all three variants. Hence they assessed the structure of the coronavirus spike protein down to the atomic level and revealed the reason for the quick spreading of these variants.


This model shows the structure of the spike protein in its closed configuration, in its original D614 form (left) and its mutant form (G614). In the mutant spike protein, the 630 loop (in red) stabilizes the spike, preventing it from flipping open prematurely and rendering SARS-CoV-2 more infectious.

Fig. 1. Cryo-EM structures of the full-length SARS-CoV-2 S protein carrying G614.

(A) Three structures of the G614 S trimer, representing a closed, three RBD-down conformation, an RBD-intermediate conformation and a one RBD-up conformation, were modeled based on corresponding cryo-EM density maps at 3.1-3.5Å resolution. Three protomers (a, b, c) are colored in red, blue and green, respectively. RBD locations are indicated. (B) Top views of superposition of three structures of the G614 S in (A) in ribbon representation with the structure of the prefusion trimer of the D614 S (PDB ID: 6XR8), shown in yellow. NTD and RBD of each protomer are indicated. Side views of the superposition are shown in fig. S8.

IMAGE SOURCE: Bing Chen, Ph.D., Boston Children’s Hospital, https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/03/16/science.abf2303

The work

The mutant spikes were imaged by Cryo-Electron microscopy (cryo-EM), which has resolution down to the atomic level. They found that the D614G mutation (substitution of in a single amino acid “letter” in the genetic code for the spike protein) makes the spike more stable as compared with the original SARS-CoV-2 virus. As a result, more functional spikes are available to bind to our cells’ ACE2 receptors, making the virus more contagious.


Fig. 2. Cryo-EM revealed how the D614G mutation changes SARS-CoV-2 spike protein structure.

IMAGE SOURCE:  Zhang J, et al., Science

Say the original virus has 100 spikes,” Chen explained. “Because of the shape instability, you may have just 50 percent of them functional. In the G614 variants, you may have 90 percent that is functional. So even though they don’t bind as well, the chances are greater and you will have an infection

Forthcoming directions by Bing Chen and Team

The findings suggest the current approved COVID-19 vaccines and any vaccines in the works should include the genetic code for this mutation. Chen has quoted:

Since most of the vaccines so far—including the Moderna, Pfizer–BioNTech, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca vaccines are based on the original spike protein, adding the D614G mutation could make the vaccines better able to elicit protective neutralizing antibodies against the viral variants

Chen proposes that redesigned vaccines incorporate the code for this mutant spike protein. He believes the more stable spike shape should make any vaccine based on the spike more likely to elicit protective antibodies. Chen also has his sights set on therapeutics. He and his colleagues are further applying structural biology to better understand how SARS-CoV-2 binds to the ACE2 receptor. That could point the way to drugs that would block the virus from gaining entry to our cells.

In January, the team showed that a structurally engineered “decoy” ACE2 protein binds to SARS-CoV-2 200 times more strongly than the body’s own ACE2. The decoy potently inhibited the virus in cell culture, suggesting it could be an anti-COVID-19 treatment. Chen is now working to advance this research into animal models.

Main Source:

Abstract

Substitution for aspartic acid by glycine at position 614 in the spike (S) protein of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 appears to facilitate rapid viral spread. The G614 strain and its recent variants are now the dominant circulating forms. We report here cryo-EM structures of a full-length G614 S trimer, which adopts three distinct prefusion conformations differing primarily by the position of one receptor-binding domain. A loop disordered in the D614 S trimer wedges between domains within a protomer in the G614 spike. This added interaction appears to prevent premature dissociation of the G614 trimer, effectively increasing the number of functional spikes and enhancing infectivity, and to modulate structural rearrangements for membrane fusion. These findings extend our understanding of viral entry and suggest an improved immunogen for vaccine development.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/03/16/science.abf2303?rss=1

Other Related Articles published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:

COVID-19-vaccine rollout risks and challenges

Reporter : Irina Robu, PhD

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2021/02/17/covid-19-vaccine-rollout-risks-and-challenges/

COVID-19 Sequel: Neurological Impact of Social isolation been linked to poorer physical and mental health

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2021/03/30/covid-19-sequel-neurological-impact-of-social-isolation-been-linked-to-poorer-physical-and-mental-health/

Comparing COVID-19 Vaccine Schedule Combinations, or “Com-COV” – First-of-its-Kind Study will explore the Impact of using eight different Combinations of Doses and Dosing Intervals for Different COVID-19 Vaccines

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2021/02/08/comparing-covid-19-vaccine-schedule-combinations-or-com-cov-first-of-its-kind-study-will-explore-the-impact-of-using-eight-different-combinations-of-doses-and-dosing-intervals-for-diffe/

COVID-19 T-cell immune response map, immunoSEQ T-MAP COVID for research of T-cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2020/11/20/covid-19-t-cell-immune-response-map-immunoseq-t-map-covid-for-research-of-t-cell-response-to-sars-cov-2-infection/

Tiny biologic drug to fight COVID-19 show promise in animal models

Reporter : Irina Robu, PhD

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2020/10/11/tiny-biologic-drug-to-fight-covid-19-show-promise-in-animal-models/

Miniproteins against the COVID-19 Spike protein may be therapeutic

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2020/09/30/miniproteins-against-the-covid-19-spike-protein-may-be-therapeutic/

Read Full Post »

COVID-19 Sequel: Neurological Impact of Social isolation been linked to poorer physical and mental health

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

UPDATED on 4/13/2021

Toward Understanding COVID-19 Recovery: National Institutes of Health Workshop on Postacute COVID-19

 

Abstract

Over the past year, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has swept the globe, resulting in an enormous worldwide burden of infection and mortality. However, the additional toll resulting from long-term consequences of the pandemic has yet to be tallied. Heterogeneous disease manifestations and syndromes are now recognized among some persons after their initial recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection, representing in the broadest sense a failure to return to a baseline state of health after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. On 3 to 4 December 2020, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in collaboration with other Institutes and Centers of the National Institutes of Health, convened a virtual workshop to summarize existing knowledge on postacute COVID-19 and to identify key knowledge gaps regarding this condition.

Over the past year, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has swept the globe, resulting in more than 113 million persons infected and 2.5 million deaths (1). However, the additional toll resulting from long-term consequences of the pandemic has yet to be tallied. Heterogeneous disease manifestations and syndromes are now recognized among some persons after their initial recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although a standardized case definition does not yet exist for these manifestations, in the broadest sense they represent a failure to return to a baseline state of health after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. The various terms used to describe this condition have included postacute (or late) sequelae of COVID-19, post-COVID condition or syndrome, long COVID, and long-haul COVID. In this article, we use the general umbrella term of “postacute COVID-19” to refer to multiple disease processes that may have varying degrees of overlap (including but not limited to sequelae of critical illness and hospitalization in persons with COVID-19) and the entity of long COVID, which refers to prolonged health abnormalities in persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 who may or may not have required hospitalization. Of note, there is not yet a consensus on terminology, which will likely evolve with a better understanding of this condition.

Reported symptoms are wide-ranging and may involve nearly all organ systems, with fatigue, dyspnea, cognitive dysfunction, anxiety, and depression often described (2–5). Although abnormalities in imaging studies and functional testing have been reported, the long-term clinical significance of some of these findings is not yet clear (367). Postacute manifestations of COVID-19 have been seen in persons of all demographic groups and include reports of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (89). Although the epidemiology of the diverse manifestations of postacute COVID-19 is not yet known, the expansive global burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection suggests that the potential public health effects of postacute COVID-19 are significant if even a small proportion of persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection have prolonged recovery or do not return to their baseline health.

On 3 to 4 December 2020, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in collaboration with other Institutes and Centers of the National Institutes of Health, convened a virtual workshop (available via videocast at https://videocast.nih.gov/watch=38878 and https://videocast.nih.gov/watch=38879) to summarize existing knowledge on postacute COVID-19 and to identify key knowledge gaps. The speakers and participants included epidemiologists, clinicians, clinical and basic scientists, and members of the affected community. The videocast was open to the general public and had more than 1200 registered participants.

SOURCE

UPDATED on 4/7/2021

‘Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’: COVID-19 Brain Health Fallout Is Real, Severe

Sarah Edmonds

April 07, 2021

Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.

START QUOTE

COVID-19 survivors face a sharply elevated risk of developing psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the six months after they contract the virus — a danger that mounts with symptom severity, new research shows.

In what is purported to be the largest study of its kind to-date, results showed that among 236,379 COVID-19 patients, one third were diagnosed with at least one of 14 psychiatric or neurologic disorders within a 6-month span.

The rate of illnesses, which ranged from depression to stroke, rose sharply among those with COVID-19 symptoms acute enough to require hospitalization.  

“If we look at patients who were hospitalized, that rate increased to 39%, and then increased to about just under 1 in 2 patients who needed ICU admission at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis,” Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford Department of Psychiatry, Oxford, United Kingdom, told a media briefing.

Incidence jumps to almost two thirds in patients with encephalopathy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, he added.

The study, which examined the brain health of 236,379 survivors of COVID-19 via a US database of 81 million electronic health records, was published online April 6 in The Lancet Psychiatry.

High Rate of Neurologic, Psychiatric Disorders

The research team looked at the first-time diagnosis or recurrence of 14 neurologic and psychiatric outcomes in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections. They also compared the brain health of this cohort with a control group of those with influenza or with non-COVID respiratory infections over the same period. 

SOURCE

The Effects of Loneliness and Our Brain function: poorer physical and mental health

One review of the science of loneliness found that people with stronger social relationships have a 50 per cent increased likelihood of survival over a set period of time compared with those with weaker social connections. Other studies have linked loneliness to cardiovascular disease, inflammation, and depression.

For loneliness researchers the pandemic has provided an unprecedented natural experiment in the impact that social isolation might have on our brains. As millions of people across the world emerge from months of reduced social contact, a new neuroscience of loneliness is starting to figure out why social relationships are so crucial to our health.

Neural basis of Emotion

Desire for Social Interaction

Are there neurological differences between people who experience short-term isolation and those who have been isolated for long stretches of time? What kinds of social interactions satisfy our social cravings? Is a video call enough to quell our need for social contact, or do some people require an in-person connection to really feel satiated?

START QUOTE

Julianne Holt-Lunstad, a psychology professor at Brigham Young University in the US and the author of two major studies on social isolation and health. “We have a lot of data that very robustly shows that both isolation and loneliness put us at increased risk for premature mortality—and conversely, that being socially connected is protective and reduces our risk,” she says.

START QUOTE

“Trying to investigate isolation or loneliness is not as straightforward in humans. In humans, being lonely is not necessarily correlated with how many people are around you,” says Tomova. She is particularly interested in the impact that the pandemic might have had on young people whose cognitive and social skills are still developing. “I think we will see potentially some differences in how their social behavior developed or things like that,” she says. But as is always the case in the uncertain world of loneliness research, the opposite could be true. “It could also be that most people are fine, because maybe social media does fulfill our social needs really well.”

SOURCE

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lockdown-loneliness-neuroscience

The Weird Science of Loneliness and Our Brains – Social isolation as been linked to poorer physical and mental health, but scientists are finally starting to understand its neurological impact

Read Full Post »

COVID-related financial losses at Mass General Brigham

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Based on

Mass General Brigham reports COVID-related financial losses not as bad as expected

By Priyanka Dayal McCluskey Globe Staff,Updated December 11, 2020, 3:02 p.m.

START QUOTE

The state’s largest hospital system on Friday reported the worst financial loss in its history while fighting the COVID-19 pandemic — but still ended the fiscal year in better shape than expected.

Mass General Brigham, formerly known as Partners HealthCare, lost $351 million on operations in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. In 2019, the system recorded a gain of $382 million.

The loss, however, is not as great as projected, thanks in part to an infusion of federal aid and patients returning to hospitals in large numbers after the first COVID surge receded.

“2020 is like no other year,” said Peter Markell, chief financial officer at Mass General Brigham, which includes Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and several community hospitals. “At the end of the day, we came out of this better than we thought we might.”

Total revenue for the year remained relatively stable at about $14 billion.

When the pandemic first hit Massachusetts in March, hospitals across the state suddenly experienced sharp drops in revenue because they canceled so much non-COVID care to respond to the crisis at hand. They also faced new costs related to COVID, including the personal protective equipment needed to keep health care workers safe from infection.

Federal aid helped to make up much of the losses, including $546 million in grant money that went to Mass General Brigham. The nonprofit health system also slashed capital expenses in half, by about $550 million, and temporarily froze employee wages and cut their retirement benefits.

Among the unusual new costs for Mass General Brigham this year was the expense of building a field hospital, Boston Hope, at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center. The project cost $15 million to $20 million, Markell said, and Mass General Brigham is working to recoup those costs from government agencies.

The second surge of COVID, now underway, could hit hospitals’ bottom lines again, though Markell expects a smaller impact this time. One reason is because hospitals are trying to treat most of the patients who need care for conditions other than COVID even while treating growing numbers of COVID patients. In the spring, hospitals canceled vastly more appointments and procedures in anticipation of the first wave of COVID.

Mass General Brigham hospitals were treating more than 300 COVID patients on Friday, among the more than 1,600 hospitalized across the state.

Steve Walsh, president of the Massachusetts Health & Hospital Association, said hospitals across the state will need more federal aid as they continue battling COVID into the new year.

“The financial toll of COVID-19 has been felt by every hospital and health care organization in the Commonwealth,” he said. “Those challenges will continue during 2021.”


Priyanka Dayal McCluskey can be reached at priyanka.mccluskey@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @priyanka_dayal.

END QUOTE

SOURCE

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/12/11/business/mass-general-brigham-reports-covid-related-financial-losses-better-than-expected/?p1=Article_Inline_Related_Box

Integration of Mass General Hospital and Brigham Women’s Hospital was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

BASED on

At Mass General Brigham, a sweeping effort to unify hospitals and shed old rivalries

Executives say greater cooperation is necessary to stay relevant in a dynamic and competitive health care industry. But the aggressive push to integrate is stirring tensions and sowing discontent among doctors and hospital leaders.

By Priyanka Dayal McCluskey and Larry Edelman Globe Staff and Globe Columnist,Updated March 27, 2021, 6:15 p.m.125

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/03/27/business/mass-general-brigham-sweeping-effort-unify-hospitals-shed-old-rivalries/?s_campaign=breakingnews:newsletter

START QUOTE

The work of integration was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. As patients flooded hospitals last spring, Mass General Brigham — not each of its individual hospitals — set pandemic policies, from what kind of personal protective equipment health care providers should wear, to which visitors were allowed inside hospitals, to how employees would be paid if they were out sick with the virus.

During the winter surge of COVID, Mass General Brigham officials closely tracked beds across their system and transferred patients daily from one hospital to another to ensure that no one facility became overwhelmed.

And, in the early months of the pandemic, the company dropped the name Partners, which meant little to patients, and unveiled a new brand to reflect the strength of its greatest assets, MGH and the Brigham.

Officials at the nonprofit health system have instructeddepartment heads across their hospitals to coordinate better, so, for example, if a patient needs surgery at the Brigham but is facing a long wait, they can refer that patient to another site within Mass General Brigham.

Some executives want patients, eventually, to be able to go online and book appointments at any Mass General Brigham facility, as easily as they make reservations for dinner or a hotel.

Walls described it like this: “How do we put things together that make things better and easier for patients, and leave alone things that are better where they are?

“We’re not going to push things together that don’t fit together,” he said.

And yet the aggressive pursuit of “systemness,” as executives call it, is taking a toll. Physicians and hospital leaders are struggling with the loss of control over their institutions and worried that the new era of top-down management threatens to homogenize a group of hospitals with different cultures and identities.

Veteran physicians and leaders have been surprised and upset by the power shift that is stripping them of the ability to make key decisions and unhappy with abrupt changes they feel are occurring with little discussion. Most are uncomfortable sharing their concerns publicly.

“If you’re not on the train, you’re getting run over by the train,” said one former Mass General Brigham executive who requested anonymity in orderto speak openly. “It’s not an environment to invite debate.”

Amid the restructuring, senior executives are departing in droves. They include the CEO of the MGH physicians group, Dr. Timothy Ferris; Brigham and Women’s president Dr. Elizabeth Nabel; chief financial officer of the system, Peter Markell; Cooley Dickinson Hospital president Joanne Marqusee; and president of Spaulding Rehabilitation Network, David Storto.

Some also fear the internal discord could hinder Mass General Brigham’s ability to attract talented leaders.

Top executives acknowledge there is angst — “Change is hard,” Klibanski said — but are pushing ahead.

MORE

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/03/27/business/mass-general-brigham-sweeping-effort-unify-hospitals-shed-old-rivalries/?s_campaign=breakingnews:newsletter

Read Full Post »

The WHO team is expected to soon publish a 300-page final report on its investigation, after scrapping plans for an interim report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 — the new coronavirus responsible for killing 2.7 million people globally

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

UPDATED on 4/1/2021

Coronavirus: More work needed to rule out China lab leak theory says WHO

START QUOTE

The head of the World Health Organization (WHO) has said further investigation is needed to conclusively rule out that Covid-19 emerged from a laboratory in China.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that although a lab leak was the least likely cause, more research was needed.

The US and other countries have criticised China for failing to provide the WHO with sufficient data.

Beijing has always dismissed the allegations of a virus leak.

A report by WHO and Chinese experts released on Tuesday, said the lab leak explanation was highly unlikely and the virus had probably jumped from bats to humans via another intermediary animal.

China has yet to respond to the WHO’s latest statement.

‘All hypothesis on the table’

However the theory that the virus might have come from a leak in a laboratory “requires further investigation, potential with additional missions involving specialist experts,” Dr Tedros said on Tuesday.

“Let me say clearly that as far as WHO is concerned, all hypothesis remain on the table,” he added.

The virus was first detected in Wuhan, in China’s Hubei province in late 2019. An international team of experts travelled to to the city in January to probe the origins of the virus.

The team investigated all possibilities, including one theory that the virus had originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The institute is the world’s leading authority on the collection, storage and study of bat coronaviruses.

International criticism

In response to the WHO report, the US and 13 allies including South Korea, Australia and the UK voiced concern over the findings and urged China to provide “full access” to experts.

The statement said the mission to Wuhan was “significantly delayed and lacked access to complete, original data and samples”.

“Scientific missions like these should be able to do their work under conditions that produce independent and objective recommendations and findings.”

The group pledged to work together with the WHO.

Former US President Donald Trump was among those who supported the theory that the virus might have escaped from a lab.

WHO investigation team leader, Peter Ben Embarek said on Tuesday his team had felt under political pressure, including from outside China but said he was never pressed to remove anything from the team’s final report.

He also confirmed his team had found no evidence that any laboratories in Wuhan were involved in the outbreak.

MORE …

SOURCE

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56581246

@@@@

Ex-CDC Director Robert Redfield believes COVID-19 came from Wuhan lab

By Lia Eustachewich

March 26, 2021 | 10:03am | Updated

START QUOTE

The former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention believes the virus that causes COVID-19 escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China, according to a new interview.

Robert Redfield told CNN on Friday that it was his “opinion” that SARS-CoV-2 — the new coronavirus responsible for killing 2.7 million people globally — did not evolve naturally.

“I’m of the point of view that I still think the most likely etiology of this pathology in Wuhan was from a laboratory — escaped,” said Redfield, who led the CDC during the height of the pandemic. “Other people don’t believe that. That’s fine. Science will eventually figure it out.”

Researchers believe the deadly and highly transmissible strain of coronavirus behind the global pandemic mutated from a virus that infects animals — namely, bats — to one that sickens humans.

But some believe the virus was somehow released from the Wuhan Institute of Virology — which is the only lab in China authorized to study the most dangerous known pathogens, according to Axios.

“It’s not unusual for respiratory pathogens that are being worked on in a laboratory to infect the laboratory worker. … That’s not implying any intentionality,” Redfield said. “It’s my opinion, right? But I am a virologist. I have spent my life in virology.

“I do not believe this somehow came from a bat to a human and at that moment in time, that the virus came to the human, became one of the most infectious viruses that we know in humanity for human-to-human transmission.”

Redfield said usually when a virus jumps from animals to humans, “it takes a while for it to figure out how to become more and more efficient in human-to-human transmission.”

SOURCE

START QUOTE

What they’re saying: “I’m of the point of view that I still think the most likely etiology of this pathology in Wuhan was from a laboratory. Escaped. Other people don’t believe that. That’s fine. Science will eventually figure it out,” Redfield told CNN’s Sanjay Gupta.

  • “It’s not unusual for respiratory pathogens that are being worked on in a laboratory to infect the laboratory worker. … That’s not implying any intentionality. It’s my opinion, right? But I am a virologist. I have spent my life in virology,” he continued.
  • “I do not believe this somehow came from a bat to a human and at that moment in time that the virus came to the human, became one of the most infectious viruses that we know in humanity for human-to-human transmission.”

Between the lines: Lab accidents in the U.S. are not especially rare, as USA Today’s Alison Young noted in a recent opinion piece arguing why the Wuhan lab theory cannot be ruled out. The CDC itself experienced a possible contamination in a lab where it was making COVID-19 test kits early in the pandemic.

What to watch: The WHO team is expected to soon publish a 300-page final report on its investigation, after scrapping plans for an interim report amid mounting tensions between the U.S. and China.

SOURCE

Read Full Post »

McKinsey experts on COVID-19: Implications for business

 

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/risk/our-insights/covid-19-implications-for-business?cid=other-eml-alt-mip-mck

Reporter on Highlights: Joel T. Shertok, PhD

JTS – 11/17/20

 

  • COVID-19-vaccine trial: a leading candidate has an efficacy rate of about 90 percent.
  • The gap between incoming and outgoing Treasury funds may reach $30 trillion soon.
  • Our latest research shows a particularly effective bridge for governments to consider: real estate.
  • Many businesses will embrace sustainability; voluntary carbon markets can help them reach their goals.
  • China, the world’s growth engine for the past 25 years, has come back
  • Consumer behavior has changed, pockets of growth are shifting, and leadership and management practices are in flux
  • Likely Pandemic scenarios:
  • A muted recovery
  • A prolonged and insufficient recovery
  • As the unrelenting COVID-19 pandemic rolls on, the future isn’t what it used to be: what used to be a simple idea now comes freighted with caveats, assumptions, and speculations.
  • The auto industry is one of the world’s largest and has been devastated by the pandemic: sales may drop by 20 to 30 percent in 2020, and we estimate that profits will fall by $100 billion.
  • The US restaurant industry has given many iconic brands to the rest of the world. But today, the sector is in trouble.
  • People don’t order sides, appetizers, and desserts as frequently when they’re ordering for delivery—but as leaders know, those items are often the difference between profit and loss.
  • For banks, the pandemic has changed everything. Risk-management teams are running hard to catch up with cascades of credit risk, among other challenges.
  • Ethnic minority groups have made progress. But the COVID-19 crisis threatens that progress;
  • All ethnic-minority groups have higher age-adjusted COVID-19-related death rates than white people do.
  • In the middle of the deepest recession in memory, stock markets are reaching new highs. Why the disconnect?
  • Many investors still take a long-term perspective; they are looking ahead to the end of the pandemic.
  • Another factor: five big-tech companies now make up 21 percent of the S&P 500,
  • The overall stock market can do relatively well even when employment and GDP are severely depressed.
  • Companies can expect a disruption to their production lines of one to two months—a very long time.
  • The effects of the COVID-19 crisis have exacerbated gender disparities and their implications for women at work, especially for mothers, female senior leaders, and Black women across America.
  • The exodus might include as many as two million women. That would raise a significant barrier to achieving gender parity in leadership roles in years to come.
  • The global economic contractions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have far exceeded those of the Great Recession that ended in 2009 and have occurred at a much faster rate, hitting all sectors and many of the world’s largest employers.
  • Two important issues facing healthcare providers. First, similarities in flu and COVID-19 symptoms could lead to a threefold spike in demand for COVID-19 testing as flu season in the Northern Hemisphere approaches.
  • Second, the crisis has also led to a surgical backlog for elective procedures because of lack of hospital capacity, workforce shortages, and new safety protocols.

SOURCE

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/risk/our-insights/covid-19-implications-for-business?cid=other-eml-alt-mip-mck

 

Read Full Post »

Approaches and Solutions for Management of the COVID Pandemic

Reporter: Aviva Lev- Ari, PhD, RN and Stephen J. Williams, PhD  
 
 
 
 
 
October 8, 2020 N Engl J Med 2020; 383:1479-1480 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe2029812

 

Dying in a Leadership Vacuum

CONTINUE TO READ AT THE SOURCE N Engl J Med 2020; 383:1479-1480 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe2029812   Janice Hopkins Tanne. (2020) Covid 19: NEJM and former CDC director launch stinging attacks on US response. BMJ, m3925. BMJ 2020;371:m3925

Covid 19: NEJM and former CDC director launch stinging attacks on US response

Janice Hopkins Tanne Author affiliations

The US is “dying in a leadership vacuum,” in responding to the covid-19 pandemic, the New England Journal of Medicine has said in an editorial.

“Our leaders have failed. They have taken a crisis and turned it into a tragedy,” the NEJM editors said. US leaders are “dangerously incompetent,” have undercut trust in science and in government,” and should be voted out,1 the journal said.

The intervention came as a former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggested the current CDC director should update staff in writing about the agency’s failings, apologise, and resign.23

The US leads the world in the death rate from covid-19, which is far higher than larger countries and those with less sophisticated technology and health services, the editors said.

“We have failed at almost every step,” they wrote, describing problems with supplies of personal protective equipment, delays in testing, and failure to employ quarantine, isolation, and social distancing appropriately and quickly. Government inaction has led to business losses and unemployment.

Earlier, William Foege, former director of the CDC and a leader in smallpox eradication, criticised the US response and the failure of the CDC. He sent a letter to Robert Redfield, the current CDC director, asking him to write to CDC employees describing the White House’s failure to put the CDC in charge of the covid-19 pandemic and then resign. A letter, he wrote, would be on the record.

Foege called the US response to the pandemic “a slaughter and not just a political dispute” that had turned the CDC’s reputation from “gold to tarnished brass.”

Foege is emeritus presidential distinguished professor of international health at Emory University. He was director of the Carter Center’s Task Force for Child Survival and senior medical advisor to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. President Barack Obama awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honour, in 2012. His private letter, written on 23 September, was published by USA Today on 7 October.

Redfield, a virologist with expertise in HIV/AIDS and a clinician, served in the US Army’s medical corps. He co-founded the University of Maryland’s Institute of Human Virology and was chief of infectious diseases at the university’s medical school.

Foege wrote, “You don’t want to be seen, in the future, as forsaking your role as servant to the public in order to become a servant to a corrupt president. You could send a letter to all CDC employees (a letter leaves a record and avoids the chance of making a mistake with a speech) laying out the facts. The White House will, of course, respond with fury. But you will have right on your side. Like Martin Luther, you can say, ‘Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.’”

Among the truths that need to be faced, Foege said, are that, despite White House spin attempts, the failure of the US public health system is because of “the incompetence and illogic of the White House programme.”

The White House failed to put the CDC in charge of the pandemic, violating rules of public health so that “people and the media go to the academic community for truth, rather than to CDC,” Foege’s letter says. Unlike former responses to health crises, there has been no federal plan, “resulting in 50 states developing their own plans, often in competition.”

The need to form coalitions to fight the pandemic “has been ignored as the president thrives instead on creating divisions, and the need for global cooperation has been squandered by an ‘America first’ policy. The best decisions are based on the best science while the best results are based on the best management. The White House has rejected both science and good management,” Foege wrote.

Foege, the CDC, Redfield, and the White House have not publicly commented on the letter.

References
  SOURCES for the NEJM https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2029812?query=recirc_mostViewed_railB_article https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2029812#.X39d2y9tN84.twitter Janice Hopkins Tanne. (2020) Covid 19: NEJM and former CDC director launch stinging attacks on US response. BMJ, m3925. BMJ 2020;371:m3925

Covid 19: NEJM and former CDC director launch stinging attacks on US response

BMJ 2020371 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3925 (Published 08 October 2020) Cite this as: BMJ 2020;371:m3925   References
  1. Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center. COVID-19 dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html. opens in new tab).

    Google Scholar. opens in new tab
  2. Total number of COVID-19 tests per confirmed case, September 14, 2020. Our World in Data (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-covid-19-tests-per-confirmed-case. opens in new tab).

    Google Scholar. opens in new tab
  3. McGinley L, Abutaleb L, Johnson CY. Inside Trump’s pressure campaign on federal scientists over a Covid-19 treatment. Washington Post. August 302020 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/convalescent-plasma-treatment-covid19-fda/2020/08/29/e39a75ec-e935-11ea-bc79-834454439a44_story.html. opens in new tab).

    Google Scholar. opens in new tab
  4. Haberman M. Trump admits downplaying the virus knowing it was ‘deadly stuff.’ New York Times. September 92020 (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/us/politics/woodward-trump-book-virus.html. opens in new tab).

    Google Scholar
Related Articles

 

Other related articles published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following EIGHT topics we cover since March 14, 2020 on LPBI Group’s Coronavirus PORTAL

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/coronavirus-portal/

Eight COVID-19 Topics Covered and Lead Curators are:

  1. Breakthrough News Corner
  2. Development of Medical Counter-measures for 2019-nCoV, CoVid19, Coronavirus
  3. An Epidemiological Approach Stephen J. Williams, PhD and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN Lead Curators – e–mail Contacts: sjwilliamspa@comcast.net and avivalev-ari@alum.berkeley.edu
  4. Community Impact Stephen J. Williams, PhD and Irina Robu, PhD Lead Curators – e–mail Contacts: irina.stefania@gmail.com and sjwilliamspa@comcast.net
  5. Economic Impact of The Coronavirus Pandemic Dr. Joel Shertok, PhD Lead Curator – e–mail Contact: jshertok@processindconsultants.com
  6. Voices of Global Citizens: Impact of The Coronavirus Pandemic, Gail S. Thornton, M.A. Lead Curator – e–mail Contact: gailsthornton@yahoo.com
  7. Diagnosis of Coronavirus Infection by Medical Imaging and Cardiovascular Impacts of Viral Infection, Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN Lead Curator e-mail contact: avivalev-ari@alum.berkeley.edu
  8. Key Opinion Leaders Followed by LPBI Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN and Dr. Ofer Markman, PhD Lead Curators e-mail contacts: oferm2015@gmail.com and avivalev-ari@alum.berkeley.edu

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »