Listen Up

Friday, March 29, 2024

Harvard Tramples the Truth | City Journal


Martin Kulldorff is a former professor of medicine at Harvard University and Mass General Brigham. He is a founding fellow of the Academy for Science and Freedom.

The Harvard motto is Veritas, Latin for truth. But, as I discovered, truth can get you fired. This is my story—a story of a Harvard biostatistician and infectious-disease epidemiologist, clinging to the truth as the world lost its way during the Covid pandemic.

The chutzpah of the elitists and the isolation of higher education is revealed by the following.

On March 10, 2020, before any government prompting, Harvard declared that it would “suspend in-person classes and shift to online learning.” Across the country, universities, schools, and state governments followed Harvard’s lead.

Many look to ivory tower expertise, and many times they come away disappointed, or misled.

Yet it was clear, from early 2020, that the virus would eventually spread across the globe, and that it would be futile to try to suppress it with lockdowns. It was also clear that lockdowns would inflict enormous collateral damage, not only on education but also on public health, including treatment for cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mental health. We will be dealing with the harm done for decades. Our children, the elderly, the middle class, the working class, and the poor around the world—all will suffer.

Schools closed in many other countries, too, but under heavy international criticism, Sweden kept its schools and daycares open for its 1.8 million children, ages one to 15. Why? While anyone can get infected, we have known since early 2020 that more than a thousandfold difference in Covid mortality risk holds between the young and the old. Children faced minuscule risk from Covid, and interrupting their education would disadvantage them for life, especially those whose families could not afford private schools, pod schools, or tutors, or to homeschool.

What were the results during the spring of 2020? With schools open, Sweden had zero Covid deaths in the one-to-15 age group, while teachers had the same mortality as the average of other professions. Based on those facts, summarized in a July 7, 2020, report by the Swedish Public Health Agency, all U.S. schools should have quickly reopened. Not doing so led to “startling evidence on learning loss” in the United States, especially among lower- and middle-class children, an effect not seen in Sweden.

Sweden was the only major Western country that rejected school closures and other lockdowns in favor of concentrating on the elderly, and the final verdict is now in. Led by an intelligent social democrat prime minister (a welder), Sweden had the lowest excess mortality among major European countries during the pandemic, and less than half that of the United States. Sweden’s Covid deaths were below average, and it avoided collateral mortality caused by lockdowns.

Yet on July 29, 2020, the Harvard-edited New England Journal of Medicine published an article by two Harvard professors on whether primary schools should reopen, without even mentioning Sweden. It was like ignoring the placebo control group when evaluating a new pharmaceutical drug. That’s not the path to truth.

That spring, I supported the Swedish approach in op-eds published in my native Sweden, but despite being a Harvard professor, I was unable to publish my thoughts in American media. My attempts to disseminate the Swedish school report on Twitter (now X) put me on the platform’s Trends Blacklist. In August 2020, my op-ed on school closures and Sweden was finally published by CNN—but not the one you’re thinking of. I wrote it in Spanish, and CNN–Español ran it. CNN–English was not interested.

I was not the only public health scientist speaking out against school closures and other unscientific countermeasures. Scott Atlas, an especially brave voice, used scientific articles and facts to challenge the public health advisors in the Trump White House, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci, National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins, and Covid coordinator Deborah Birx, but to little avail. When 98 of his Stanford faculty colleagues unjustly attacked Atlas in an open letter that did not provide a single example of where he was wrong, I wrote a response in the student-run Stanford Daily to defend him. I ended the letter by pointing out that:

Black listed by X, and peers at Harvard, supposedly a bastion of intellect and academic freedom. He faced more black listing;

 et on July 29, 2020, the Harvard-edited New England Journal of Medicine published an article by two Harvard professors on whether primary schools should reopen, without even mentioning Sweden. It was like ignoring the placebo control group when evaluating a new pharmaceutical drug. That’s not the path to truth.

That spring, I supported the Swedish approach in op-eds published in my native Sweden, but despite being a Harvard professor, I was unable to publish my thoughts in American media. My attempts to disseminate the Swedish school report on Twitter (now X) put me on the platform’s Trends Blacklist. In August 2020, my op-ed on school closures and Sweden was finally published by CNN—but not the one you’re thinking of. I wrote it in Spanish, and CNN–Español ran it. CNN–English was not interested.

I was not the only public health scientist speaking out against school closures and other unscientific countermeasures. Scott Atlas, an especially brave voice, used scientific articles and facts to challenge the public health advisors in the Trump White House, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci, National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins, and Covid coordinator Deborah Birx, but to little avail. When 98 of his Stanford faculty colleagues unjustly attacked Atlas in an open letter that did not provide a single example of where he was wrong, I wrote a response in the student-run Stanford Daily to defend him. I ended the letter by pointing out that:


Among experts on infectious disease outbreaks, many of us have long advocated for an age-targeted strategy, and I would be delighted to debate this with any of the 98 signatories. Supporters include Professor Sunetra Gupta at Oxford University, the world’s preeminent infectious disease epidemiologist. Assuming no bias against women scientists of color, I urge Stanford faculty and students to read her thoughts.


None of the 98 signatories accepted my offer to debate. Instead, someone at Stanford sent complaints to my superiors at Harvard, who were not thrilled with me.


I had no inclination to back down. Together with Gupta and Jay Bhattacharya at Stanford, I wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, arguing for age-based focused protection instead of universal lockdowns, with specific suggestions for how better to protect the elderly, while letting children and young adults live close to normal lives.


With the Great Barrington Declaration, the silencing was broken. While it is easy to dismiss individual scientists, it was impossible to ignore three senior infectious-disease epidemiologists from three leading universities. The declaration made clear that no scientific consensus existed for school closures and many other lockdown measures. In response, though, the attacks intensified—and even grew slanderous. Collins, a lab scientist with limited public-health experience who controls most of the nation’s medical research budget, called us “fringe epidemiologists” and asked his colleagues to orchestrate a “devastating published takedown.” Some at Harvard obliged.


A prominent Harvard epidemiologist publicly called the declaration “an extreme fringe view,” equating it with exorcism to expel demons. A member of Harvard’s Center for Health and Human Rights, who had argued for school closures, accused me of “trolling” and having “idiosyncratic politics,” falsely alleging that I was “enticed . . . with Koch money,” “cultivated by right-wing think tanks,” and “won’t debate anyone.” (A concern for those less privileged does not automatically make you right-wing!) Others at Harvard worried about my “scientifically inaccurate” and “potentially dangerous position,” while “grappling with the protections offered by academic freedom.”  

Though powerful scientists, politicians, and the media vigorously denounced it, the Great Barrington Declaration gathered almost a million signatures, including tens of thousands from scientists and health-care professionals. We were less alone than we had thought.

Even from Harvard, I received more positive than negative feedback. Among many others, support came from a former chair of the Department of Epidemiology

Great Barrington Declaration



Harvard Tramples the Truth | City Journal

Wednesday, March 27, 2024

Review of Topics in the Health Train Express

Certainly! The healthcare policy space encompasses a wide range of topics that are often discussed and debated. Some typical topics in the healthcare policy space include:


Healthcare Access and Coverage: Discussions revolve around policies aimed at expanding access to healthcare services, increasing insurance coverage, and reducing barriers to care for underserved populations. This includes topics such as Medicaid expansion, health insurance marketplaces, and initiatives to address the uninsured population.


Healthcare Reform and Legislation: This involves discussions on major healthcare reform efforts, such as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the United States or similar healthcare reform efforts in other countries. It includes debates on the structure of the healthcare system, insurance market reforms, and healthcare delivery models.


Healthcare Quality and Patient Safety: Topics under this category focus on policies and strategies aimed at improving the quality of healthcare services and ensuring patient safety. This includes initiatives to reduce medical errors, promote evidence-based practices, and enhance care coordination.


Healthcare Costs and Affordability: Discussions on healthcare costs often center around policies addressing the rising costs of healthcare services, prescription drugs, and health insurance premiums. Topics in this area may include cost containment measures, value-based care, drug pricing, and strategies to promote cost transparency.


Health Information Technology and Interoperability: This topic explores policies related to health information technology adoption, electronic health records (EHRs), interoperability standards, and data exchange. Discussions may focus on promoting interoperability, protecting patient privacy, and leveraging health IT for improved care coordination.


Payment and Reimbursement Models: Policy discussions in this area revolve around payment and reimbursement models for healthcare services, including fee-for-service, value-based care, bundled payments, and alternative payment models. The aim is to align financial incentives with improved patient outcomes and cost-effective care.


Public Health and Prevention: Topics related to public health policies include initiatives to prevent and control diseases, promote vaccinations, address population health disparities, and implement public health campaigns. It may also cover policies related to tobacco control, obesity prevention, and environmental health.


Health Equity and Social Determinants of Health: These discussions focus on policies aimed at reducing health disparities and addressing the social determinants of health, such as poverty, education, housing, and access to healthy food. It involves exploring strategies to promote health equity and ensure equitable access to healthcare services.


These topics are not exhaustive, and healthcare policy discussions are continuously evolving as new challenges and priorities emerge. It's important to note that healthcare policy varies across countries and regions, so the specific topics and policy issues may differ based on the context.


health train express



 

Tuesday, March 12, 2024

Harassment and Violence Against Health Professionals Who Provide Reproductive

ntroduction

The National Academies Standing Committee on Reproductive Health, Equity, and Society and the Committee on Human Rights co-hosted a webinar on December 11, 2023, during which expert panelists discussed long-standing concerns regarding harassment, threats, and physical attacks against health care professionals working to provide essential sexual and reproductive health care. This webinar, supported by the National Academy of Sciences W.K. Kellogg Foundation Fund, was part of a series on reproductive health topics.

Violence and Harassment Against Health Professionals Providing Reproductive Care

  • Clinicians around the world have been harassed, arrested, surveilled, demoted, and fired for providing abortion care and advocating for patients’ rights. (Shah)
  • Violence by anti-abortion extremists has often intersected with a legacy of racism, antisemitism, and white supremacy in the United States. (Davidson)
  • Since 1977 in the United States, there have been 11 murders, 42 bombings, 200 arsons, 531 assaults, 492 clinic invasions, 375 burglaries, and thousands of other incidents of criminal activities directed at patients, providers, and volunteers. (Davidson)
  • The Internet has become the newest battleground for anti-abortion violence, with online death threats, doxing, and other threats of harm having skyrocketed in the past decade. (Cohen)
  • Following the Dobbs decision and subsequent state-level abortion bans, many anti-abortion extremists have traveled to states where abortion remains legal to target clinics there. (Davidson)
  • In 2022, increases in major incidents like arsons, burglaries, death threats, and invasions were reported overall, with a sharp increase in states that are protective of abortion rights. (Davidson)
  • Insights on the Legal Framework

    • Laws restricting access to abortion and the harassment providers face can impact their ability to practice medicine and create long-term impacts on health care, exacerbating disparities in health care. (Shah)
    • While most countries are amending their laws, in recognition of the harm caused by the criminalization of abortion, the United States is one of only four countries that has recently moved to restrict abortion. (Shah)
    • Some states have steep criminal laws governing abortion, provisions that can include significant monetary penalties and lengthy prison sentences. (Beasley)
    • The FACE Act has successfully prevented most large clinic blockades but not other forms of harassment, largely due to enforcement issues and fear that the police will be taking sides in a political debate if they enforce this law. (Cohen)
    • California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Vermont have expanded Safe at Home laws to include abortion providers and seekers. (Cohen)
    • Effects of Violence on the Health and Well-Being of Providers

      • A key strategy against abortion access around the world is fear, including utilizing the law and harsh criminal penalties to implicitly impose bans on abortion, even where the law allows for life-saving care. (Shah)
      • Trauma and a climate of fear have led to system level burnout and health care deserts. (Harris)
      • The targeted harassment of health professionals providing reproductive care at home and at work sends a clear message that providers have to be constantly vigilant about their personal safety and privacy. (Cohen)
      • Relatives, neighbors, and colleagues can also become targets of this harassment in order to intimidate and indirectly harass the provider. (Cohen)
      • Clinicians are being put in an untenable situation of dual loyalty, in which they are unable to both avoid grave legal risk and adhere to medical standards of care and medical ethics. (Shah)
      • Mitigating and Preventing Violence and Harassment

        • The National Abortion Federation provides resources to abortion providers and facilities to help keep staff and their patients safe, including staff preparedness trainings, facility and residential security assessments, and law enforcement assistance. (Davidson)
        • Research highlights the importance of health professionals’ voices in breaking stigma- silence cycles and depolarizing abortion, which can lead to more support for abortion access. (Harris)
        • Institutions need to support and facilitate the voice of health professionals in their employment and not discourage them from speaking out on access to abortion. (Harris)
        • Careful audience research needs to be conducted to develop evidence-based communication recommendations, so providers understand the impact of their voice. (Harris)
        • Enhanced training for law enforcement would be beneficial; in many cases when an incident occurs, the burden is on providers to identify the ordinance that has been violated and push law enforcement to investigate. (Davidson)
        • There is a lot to learn from dialogue with other clinicians from around the world who have, for decades, faced violence and harassment for providing abortion care. (Shah)
        • By using a maternal mortality and health equity framework, along with an outcomes-based approach, the message can be amplified that abortion care is health care. (Lappen)
         
        Many of the panelists emphasized the importance of connecting the dots on why abortion care is health care and, by denying or limiting that care, what the long-term impact will be on health care and health disparities (Harris, Beasley, Cohen, Lappen, Shah). Furthermore, some panelists stressed the need to push back on the normalization of violence by telling providers’ stories (Harris, Shah) and highlighting the implications of being forced to deny an abortion from the perspective of professional ethics and the principle of do no harm (Beasley, Shah). Dr. Harris stressed the need for empathy for people who have internal conflict or ambivalence about abortion to help depolarize this issue and mitigate and prevent violence against health professionals providing reproductive care.  Harassment and Violence Against Health Professionals Who Provide Reproductive


The Future is Telehealth






Surgeon Sex and Health Care Costs for Patients Undergoing Common Surgical Procedures

Women surgeons have lower health care costs, Why?





 This analysis found lower 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year health care costs for patients treated by female surgeons compared with those treated by male surgeons. These data further underscore the importance of creating inclusive policies and environments supportive of women surgeons to improve recruitment and retention of a more diverse and representative workforce. 

Are women surgeons more cost conscious, or do male surgeons order more tests?

Surgeon Sex and Health Care Costs for Patients Undergoing Common Surgical Procedures | Surgery | JAMA Surgery | JAMA Network

Monday, March 11, 2024

Taking Z-drugs for Insomnia? Know the Risks | FDA

ZZZZZ. Remember sleeping through the night? Not lately?


If you’re lying awake night after night, unable to sleep, you may want to talk to your health care professional about it. They may prescribe insomnia medicines approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, such as eszopiclone (Lunesta), zaleplon (Sonata) and zolpidem (Ambien, Ambien CR, Edluar, and Zolpimist). Sometimes known as “Z-drugs,” they might help you get a good night’s sleep. But as with any medicine, there are risks.

Prescription Z-drugs work by slowing activity in the brain. Used properly, they can help you sleep. Quality sleep can have a positive impact on physical and mental health. But the treatments also carry the risk – though rare – of serious injuries, and even death. Be aware of these risks.

In 2019, the FDA required the addition of the risks for complex sleep behaviors resulting in serious injuries or death to the labeling and Patient Medication Guides for all prescription Z-drugs.

What Are Complex Sleep Behaviors?

Complex sleep behaviors occur while you are not fully awake. Examples include sleepwalking, sleep driving, sleep cooking, or taking other medicines.

The FDA has received reports of people taking these insomnia medicines and accidentally overdosing, falling, being burned, shooting themselves, and wandering outside in extremely cold weather, among other incidents.

People might not remember these behaviors when they wake up the next morning. Moreover, they may experience these types of behaviors after their first dose of one of these Z-drugs, or after continued use.

Tips for Taking Medicines for Insomnia

If your health care professional prescribes a Z-drug to help you sleep, discuss with them the benefits and risks.

Be sure to read the Patient Medication Guide as soon as you get the prescription filled and before you start taking the medicine. If you have any questions or don’t understand something, ask your health care professional.

After taking the medicine, if you experience a complex sleep behavior, stop taking the drug and contact your health care professional immediately.

Complex sleep behaviors can occur at lower dosages, not just high doses. It’s important to carefully follow the dosing instructions as directed by your health care professional.

Don’t take these medicines with any other sleep drugs, including those you can buy over-the-counter without a prescription.

Don’t drink alcohol before or while taking these medicines; together they may be more likely to cause side effects.

You may still feel drowsy the day after taking one of these drugs. Keep in mind that all insomnia medicines can impair your ability to drive and activities that require alertness the morning after use.

For information on healthy sleep habits, visit Tips for Better Sleep and Insomnia: Relaxation techniques and sleeping habits.

 









Taking Z-drugs for Insomnia? Know the Risks | FDA

Credible Sources of Information on Health and Wellness


When seeking credible sources for health and wellness information to include on a website, it's essential to rely on reputable organizations and experts. Here are some sources that you can consider:


1. **Government Health Agencies:**

   - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Provides comprehensive information on a wide range of health topics.

   - World Health Organization (WHO): Offers global health information and guidelines.


2. **Medical Associations:**

   - American Heart Association (AHA): Trusted source for cardiovascular health information.

   - American Cancer Society (ACS): Provides reliable information on cancer prevention and treatment.

   - National Institutes of Health (NIH): Comprises various institutes, each focusing on specific health aspects.


3. **Educational Institutions:**

   - Mayo Clinic: Known for its expertise in medical research and patient care.

   - Harvard Health Blog: Offers insights and advice from Harvard Medical School experts.


4. **Nonprofit Organizations:**

   - WebMD: Provides health information with input from medical experts.

   - Mayo Clinic: Offers reliable health information and tools for self-care.


5. **Professional Health Journals:**

   - The New England Journal of Medicine: Publishes peer-reviewed articles on a wide range of medical topics.

   - JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association): Covers various medical specialties.


6. **Nutrition and Diet:**

   - Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Offers evidence-based information on nutrition.

   - Nutrition.gov: A government resource providing information on healthy eating.


7. **Mental Health:**

   - National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH): Focuses on mental health research and education.

   - Mental Health America: Provides information and resources for mental health.


8. **Alternative Medicine:**

   - National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH): Focuses on complementary and alternative medicine.


9. **Fitness and Exercise:**

   - American Council on Exercise (ACE): Offers resources on fitness and exercise.

   - National Institute on Aging (Exercise and Physical Activity): Tailored for older adults, providing exercise guidelines.


When curating information, it's crucial to cross-reference from multiple sources to ensure accuracy. Additionally, be cautious of websites that lack clear authorship or those promoting unsubstantiated claims. Always prioritize peer-reviewed journals, established health organizations, and government agencies for the most reliable information.


Feel free to ask if you have specific health topics in mind, and I can provide more tailored recommendations.

Sunday, March 10, 2024

OpenEvidence - NY Times finally reports some Truth

The prevalence of Long COVID, defined as the persistence of symptoms beyond 4 weeks from the onset of acute COVID-19, varies across different age groups. In the general adult population, estimates suggest that around 7.3% of all respondents reported long COVID.[1] However, the prevalence of long COVID was found to be higher among respondents who were female, had comorbidities, or were not vaccinated.[1]
In a nationwide population cohort study of Scottish adults, the adjusted prevalence of symptoms attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection was 6.6%, 6.5%, and 10.4% at 6, 12, and 18 months respectively.[2]
In children and adolescents, the prevalence of long COVID is reported to be around 25.24%, with another study reporting a similar prevalence of 23.36%.[3-4] The most prevalent clinical manifestations in this age group were mood symptoms, fatigue, and sleep disorders.[3]
Risk factors for long COVID in children and adolescents include chronic conditions, obesity, and being in the adolescent age group.[5] In the general population, risk factors include increasing age, female sex, white ethnicity, poor pre-pandemic general and mental health, overweight/obesity, and asthma.[6]
It's important to note that these estimates may vary due to differences in study design, population characteristics, and definitions of long COVID. Further research is needed to better understand the prevalence and risk factors of long COVID across different age groups.


OpenEvidence - What's the prevalence of Long COVID in different age groups?

Friday, March 1, 2024

$15 billion win for physicians on prior authorization | American Medical Association

The time-consuming process for prior authorization to be incorporated into Electronic Health Record.

$15 billion win for physicians on prior authorization | American Medical Association

Prior authorization is a health plan cost-control process that AMA survey research shows leads to delayed and abandoned care, negatively affecting patient outcomes. The average physician practice completes 45 prior authorizations per physician, per week, and doctors and their staff spend nearly two business days a week completing such authorizations.

More than nine in 10 physicians (94%) report care delays while waiting for insurers to authorize necessary care, and 80% say prior authorization can lead to treatment abandonment. 


One-third (33%) of physicians report that prior authorization has led to a serious adverse event. This includes hospitalization (25%) or disability or even death (9%) for a patient in their care.  


Meanwhile, 31% of physicians report that prior authorization criteria are rarely or never evidence-based, with 89% saying prior authorization harms patients’ clinical outcomes.

Prior authorization is overused, costly, inefficient, opaque, and responsible for patient care delays. That’s why we’re standing up to insurance companies to eliminate care delays, patient harm and practice hassles, and why fixing prior authorization is a critical component of the AMA Recovery Plan for America’s Physicians. 

Prior authorization is overused, costly, inefficient, opaque, and responsible for patient care delays. That’s why we’re standing up to insurance companies to eliminate care delays, patient harm, and practice hassles, and why fixing prior authorization is a critical component of the AMA Recovery Plan for America’s Physicians

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has released a final rule making important reforms to prior authorization to cut patient care delays and electronically streamline the process for physicians. Together, the changes will save physician practices an estimated $15 billion over 10 years, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The rule addresses prior authorization for medical services in these government-regulated health plans:


Medicare Advantage.

State Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) fee-for-service programs.

Medicaid-managed care plans and CHIP-managed care entities.

Qualified health plan issuers on the federally facilitated exchanges.

In addition, CMS is mandating shortened processing time frames and also requiring that payers give physicians and patients more prior authorization-related information. Notably, the $15 billion savings estimate does not account for lower patient costs attributable to timelier delivery of physician-ordered care.


Enforcement of these policies, particularly around Medicare Advantage payers, can include CMS sanctions and civil monetary penalties. Starting in 2026, affected payers will have to send prior authorization decisions within 72 hours for urgent requests and within a week for nonurgent requests. For some payers, CMS noted, that would represent a 50% improvement. The AMA strongly advocated faster time frames (PDF) of 24 hours for urgent requests and 48 hours for standard requests. CMS said it will consider updating its policies in future rulemaking.


Why it’s important: While payers claim that prior authorization requirements are used for cost and quality control, a vast majority of physicians report that the protocols lead to unnecessary waste and avoidable patient harm. One-third of the 1,001 physicians surveyed (PDF) by the AMA reported that prior authorization has led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care.

More specifically, the AMA survey found that these shares of the physician respondents reported that prior authorization led to:


A patient’s hospitalization—25%.

A life-threatening event or one that required intervention to prevent permanent impairment or damage—19%.

A patient’s disability or permanent bodily damage, congenital anomaly or birth defect, or death—9%.

Change Healthcare cyberattack outage could last weeks

If your health payer is United Health Group your ddoctor may not be able to send a prescription with his electronic health recordl

He will need to fax the prescription or you may need to bering it in in person.

Change Healthcare cyberattack outage could last weeks