The state is seeking to account for as many as 98 residents of the
Isabella Geriatric Center in Washington Heights who have reportedly died
of COVID-19, officials said Saturday.
The state lists only 13 deaths at the facility.
“We are working to verify all the information reported to us” at
Isabella and all 613 nursing homes and 544 adult-care facilities, said
Gary Holmes, a state Health Department spokesman.
Officials could not say whether Isabella deliberately misled the state. The facility insists it reported all deaths.
Gov. Cuomo Friday had harsh words for nursing homes, saying they submit numbers “under penalty of perjury.”
“You violate, you commit fraud, that is a criminal offense, period.
So they can be prosecuted criminally for fraud on any of these reporting
numbers,” he said.
On Saturday, a state Department of Heath website listed 13 deaths of
Isabella residents as of May 1 despite news reports that nearly 100
facility residents had died.
The nursing home has acknowledged 60 confirmed and suspected COVID-19
deaths at the massive, 705-bed facility, plus 38 others who died of
confirmed or suspected cases in the hospital.
Snafus in the state monitoring system are widespread, The Post found.
At the sprawling Hebrew Home in Riverdale, 25 residents have died of
suspected or confirmed cases of the coronavirus since March 1, a
spokeswoman said, but the state still lists the number at zero.
The largest private nursing home in the state with 751 beds, Hebrew
Home says half of the 14 patients who died in its beds were confirmed
COVID-19 cases and half were presumed to have it. And another 11 of its
residents died of the bug after being transported to hospitals.
“The Hebrew Home has been and continues to be fully transparent in
its reporting of deaths due to covid,” spokeswoman Wendy Steinberg said.
The state website also lists the wrong name of a nursing home run by city Health + Hospitals.
An Isabella spokesperson declined to comment Saturday, but said last
week, “From the beginning of this pandemic, Isabella has reported
truthful and accurate data requested by the Department of Health. We
have shared daily the number of confirmed and presumed positive cases at
both the residence and hospital, including deaths.”
The state in the past had cited Isabella, and other nursing homes, for letting oxygen tubes connected to patients sit on the floor.
State health official Holmes said the agency is trying to “determine
whether [the] facility is under reporting. We have not found that yet.
“We went back and asked every nursing home to provide all COVID-19 deaths, both confirmed and unconfirmed,” he said.
https://nypost.com/2020/05/02/nyc-nursing-homes-staggering-coronavirus-deaths-dont-match-state-reports/
Search This Blog
Saturday, May 2, 2020
Berkshire’s cash pile isn’t huge in worst-case scenario, Buffett says
Berkshire Hathaway’s (NYSE:BRK.B) (NYSE:BRK.A)
cash position “isn’t all that huge when you think about worst-case
possibilities,” Warren Buffett said during the annual meeting’s question
and answer section.
“We don’t prepare ourselves for a single problem, we prepare ourselves for problems that sometimes create their own momentum.”
The conglomerate had $137B of cash and Treasury bills on its balance sheet as of March 31, 2020.
Asked why he hasn’t invested in any companies
during the pandemic crisis like the company did during the financial
crisis, Buffett said “we haven’t seen anything attractive.”
Furthermore, funding was a lot easier to get this time around.
“The Federal Reserve did the right thing and very
promptly,” Buffett said. “Companies got the chance to finance in huge
ways in the last five weeks.”
“Berkshire actually raised more money” recently, although it didn’t need it, he added.
Update at 7:12 PM: Regarding how
Berkshire’s operating companies are handling the pandemic environment,
“Very few of our businesses have required funds,” said Vice Chairman
Greg Abel, who heads all operating businesses except for insurance.
Berkshire has advanced funds to the few of its businesses that did need them, he said.
This is a developing story; check back for updates.
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3567988-berkshires-cash-pile-isnt-huge-in-worst-case-scenario-buffett-saysWe Can’t Ignore the Harms of Social Distancing
While uncertainty prevails, I worry that hard questions are being
avoided. I will strive not to be tone-deaf, but in the same way we
discuss prognosis with patients with cancer or heart failure, we must also address difficult questions concerning the COVID-19 crisis.
The social distancing policies are harming people—not potential harms, but real harms. Economic harm is a euphemism because the economy is people.
I have had patients stop their medications because of job loss. When I state this publicly, some rebut it with the fact that US healthcare is unjust, which is true but also a non sequitur. We do not live in the healthcare system we want but the one we have.
A recent paper, in preprint form, suggests a substantial proportion of excess deaths observed in Scotland, the Netherlands, and New York during the current pandemic are not attributed to COVID-19 and may represent an excess of deaths due to other causes.
While the virus has been shown to harm minorities and the disadvantaged, it is also true that these same groups could be disproportionately harmed by our interventions. Shutting our clinics and reducing non-COVID care in hospitals threaten the poor more than the wealthy. Basic warfarin management in disadvantaged patients has been a huge challenge.
I don’t have an easy answer for societal inequities, but it does public intellectuals no favors to ignore the fact that decision-makers have the luxury of a job and the ability to work from home. Our public interventions have made the poor even poorer. Raj Chetty and coworkers have shown that lower wealth strongly associates with a shorter lifespan.
Then there are the elderly. One of my colleagues suggested targeted strategies to protect older people. That sounds excellent. Put guards in nursing homes; allow older people no visitors.
Again, the reality is that you can isolate older people for a month or two, but are children and grandchildren going to avoid grandparents indefinitely? Is loneliness nothing?
What about the sole caregiver of a person with dementia? Before social distancing, they could get help from family or neighbors. Now the burden falls to one person. Unseen harm is still harm. A younger family member could infect an older person, but their absence could also be harmful.
My final but most important point is the timeline and endpoints for dealing with this virus. Take Sweden. Much has been said about their more moderate social distancing policies. Those who favor strong interventions point to the increasing COVID-19 death curve of Sweden relative to its Nordic neighbors.
The problem with such thinking is it belies both the timeline and endpoint of the COVID-19 intervention. The virus will not be eradicated (unless New Zealand wants to close its borders to all tourism for years). SARS-CoV2 will spread, and it will kill people. But so will our interventions.
Less restrictive policies combined with attentive public health
surveillance do not equate to the idea of sacrificing the vulnerable.
Rather, they attempt to balance the nondichotomous continuous nature of
both COVID and non-COVID mortality.
COVID-19 is only one cause of death; there will be many more non-COVID deaths over the next 2 years. That is why the endpoint of this experiment is not this summer or next summer, but possibly the summer after that. And at that endpoint, we mustn’t count only COVID-19 deaths but all deaths.
Sometimes the best answer is no intervention, sometimes a moderate intervention, and occasionally, aggressive action is best. But whatever the choice, we cannot ignore the realities of the situation, however stark they may be.
Coronavirus is bad, but we can make it worse by avoiding candid discussion of the important questions.
John Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence.
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/929765
The social distancing policies are harming people—not potential harms, but real harms. Economic harm is a euphemism because the economy is people.
I have had patients stop their medications because of job loss. When I state this publicly, some rebut it with the fact that US healthcare is unjust, which is true but also a non sequitur. We do not live in the healthcare system we want but the one we have.
A recent paper, in preprint form, suggests a substantial proportion of excess deaths observed in Scotland, the Netherlands, and New York during the current pandemic are not attributed to COVID-19 and may represent an excess of deaths due to other causes.
While the virus has been shown to harm minorities and the disadvantaged, it is also true that these same groups could be disproportionately harmed by our interventions. Shutting our clinics and reducing non-COVID care in hospitals threaten the poor more than the wealthy. Basic warfarin management in disadvantaged patients has been a huge challenge.
I don’t have an easy answer for societal inequities, but it does public intellectuals no favors to ignore the fact that decision-makers have the luxury of a job and the ability to work from home. Our public interventions have made the poor even poorer. Raj Chetty and coworkers have shown that lower wealth strongly associates with a shorter lifespan.
Then there are the elderly. One of my colleagues suggested targeted strategies to protect older people. That sounds excellent. Put guards in nursing homes; allow older people no visitors.
Again, the reality is that you can isolate older people for a month or two, but are children and grandchildren going to avoid grandparents indefinitely? Is loneliness nothing?
What about the sole caregiver of a person with dementia? Before social distancing, they could get help from family or neighbors. Now the burden falls to one person. Unseen harm is still harm. A younger family member could infect an older person, but their absence could also be harmful.
My final but most important point is the timeline and endpoints for dealing with this virus. Take Sweden. Much has been said about their more moderate social distancing policies. Those who favor strong interventions point to the increasing COVID-19 death curve of Sweden relative to its Nordic neighbors.
The problem with such thinking is it belies both the timeline and endpoint of the COVID-19 intervention. The virus will not be eradicated (unless New Zealand wants to close its borders to all tourism for years). SARS-CoV2 will spread, and it will kill people. But so will our interventions.
COVID-19 is only one cause of death; there will be many more non-COVID deaths over the next 2 years. That is why the endpoint of this experiment is not this summer or next summer, but possibly the summer after that. And at that endpoint, we mustn’t count only COVID-19 deaths but all deaths.
Conclusion
A decision to treat a medical illness comes with benefits and harms. When there is not a cure, and there rarely is, we consider outcomes of both the disease and the intervention.Sometimes the best answer is no intervention, sometimes a moderate intervention, and occasionally, aggressive action is best. But whatever the choice, we cannot ignore the realities of the situation, however stark they may be.
Coronavirus is bad, but we can make it worse by avoiding candid discussion of the important questions.
John Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence.
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/929765
NYU Leadership Gaslights Residents Over Hazard Pay
New York University residents are seeking compensation for the
increased risk they face as they are called to the front lines of the
COVID-19 pandemic, but leadership has declined their request for hazard
pay and now stands accused on social media of gaslighting residents.
Residents created a petition, addressed to NYU Langone Medical Center leadership, outlining the increased risk they face as the demand placed on the hospital system “skyrockets.” They ask for life and disability insurance, as well as hazard pay.
“We are honored and willing to take on these greater clinical
responsibilities … but along with this comes an increased risk for
disability and death,” they wrote. “In light of the changing times, we
believe there should be a change in our benefits to accurately reflect
this new high-risk environment.”
In an email sent to urology residents, department chair Herbert Lepor, MD, acknowledged that some of his residents had been assigned to COVID-19 wards, but said demanding hazard pay now was “not becoming of a compassionate and caring physician.”
“Now is the time to accept the hazards of caring for the sick and do what we are trained to do and fulfill our commitment to the healthcare needs of our community rather than focusing on making a few extra dollars,” he wrote.
Internal emails sent between Lepor and other superiors — which were circulated on social media — revealed leadership’s attempt to deflect residents’ compensation requests.
In one message, internal medicine residency director Patrick Cocks,
MD, acknowledged that residents were hearing “we have $” and that if
they explained the larger financial impact across institutions, “the
more mature residents may understand.”
NYU gastroenterology director Mark Pochapin, MD, asked to see the names of residents who signed the petition to see if any of his fellows’ names were on it.
When asked to comment on the emails circulating on social media, Lisa Greiner, a hospital spokesperson, said Pochapin and others were misrepresented and their statements were taken out of context.
For example, Pochapin asked if his residents had signed the petition so he could meet with them to address the issue, and did not intend for it to be threatening, Greiner said.
One surgical trainee in New York City who spoke to MedPage Today on the condition of anonymity said the language in the leaked emails is representative of a residency culture in which trainees are taught suffering makes a good doctor.
Elements of that may be true, but when residents are asked to serve
on the front lines of this unprecedented pandemic, institutions training
them should provide them with the physical, psychological, and
financial resources they need, the resident said.
“We are not soldiers,” the trainee said. “No one is trained to confront this amount of death in such a short period of time.”
Before COVID-19, residents across the country were pushing for higher wages, with one survey showing an average $61,200 salary in 2019. NYU internal medicine residents made as little as $67,432 in the 2017-2018 year, which increased with each training level.
When asked how NYU Langone has changed its policies to reflect the increasing demand placed on residents, Greiner told MedPage Today, “residents and fellows who have provided direct clinical care to COVID patients at a higher level of responsibility than usual will have their compensation advanced to the next PGY level retroactively to April 1, 2020, rather than July 1, 2020.”
Calls for healthcare workers to start receiving hazard pay began as early as mid-March and a petition demanding the federal government provide hazard pay to front-line workers has racked up half a million signatures. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has also advocated for hazard pay for healthcare workers on the front lines.
Other local hospital systems have responded to the call. Northwell Health is slated to deposit $2,500 bonuses to front-line workers and New York-Presbyterian granted eligible staff a $1,250 bonus. At Mount Sinai Health System, top executives announced they would take a 50% pay cut to offset COVID-19 costs.
Nate Wood, MD, an internal medicine resident at Yale New Haven Hospital in Connecticut, said residents pushing for hazard pay are not only motivated by financial incentives, but are also seeking a gesture from leadership that demonstrates institutional support. His program has granted residents $1,800 bonuses, he said.
“I think what’s going on is people on the front lines want their administrators to show them appreciation,” Wood told MedPage Today. “The most tangible way to do that is for administration to put their money where their mouth is.”
NYU Langone is projecting losses of $450 million a month and an
operating deficit of $1.2 billion from increased expenses and lost
revenues related to COVID-19, Greiner said.
The hospital system reported $2.1 billion in revenue in 2017 and made tuition free for medical students the following year. Lepor, who co-founded MedReview, was accused in 2017 of spending $2 million in profits on personal expenses such as ski vacations and his daughter’s bat mitzvah.
On March 27, NYU Langone sent an email warning staff that speaking to media without approval would be “subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”
When asked to comment on this email, Greiner said this policy was in place before COVID-19 and that its purpose was to protect the confidentiality of patients and staff.
“Because information related to coronavirus is constantly evolving, it is in the best interest of our staff and the institution that only those with the most updated information are permitted to address these issues with the media,” Greiner said.
Daniel E. Choi, MD, a spinal surgeon in New York, said most
physicians are willing to be deployed to the front lines but many may
not have the financial protections in place to protect themselves and
their families if they contract COVID-19.
“You’re being asked to face death, and you’re thinking, ‘am I going to saddle my family with medical school debt?'” Choi told MedPage Today. “We’re being asked to go to the front lines and put ourselves in harm’s way, yet there are minimal conversations happening about how to protect us physically and economically.”
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86126
Residents created a petition, addressed to NYU Langone Medical Center leadership, outlining the increased risk they face as the demand placed on the hospital system “skyrockets.” They ask for life and disability insurance, as well as hazard pay.
In an email sent to urology residents, department chair Herbert Lepor, MD, acknowledged that some of his residents had been assigned to COVID-19 wards, but said demanding hazard pay now was “not becoming of a compassionate and caring physician.”
“Now is the time to accept the hazards of caring for the sick and do what we are trained to do and fulfill our commitment to the healthcare needs of our community rather than focusing on making a few extra dollars,” he wrote.
Internal emails sent between Lepor and other superiors — which were circulated on social media — revealed leadership’s attempt to deflect residents’ compensation requests.
NYU gastroenterology director Mark Pochapin, MD, asked to see the names of residents who signed the petition to see if any of his fellows’ names were on it.
When asked to comment on the emails circulating on social media, Lisa Greiner, a hospital spokesperson, said Pochapin and others were misrepresented and their statements were taken out of context.
For example, Pochapin asked if his residents had signed the petition so he could meet with them to address the issue, and did not intend for it to be threatening, Greiner said.
One surgical trainee in New York City who spoke to MedPage Today on the condition of anonymity said the language in the leaked emails is representative of a residency culture in which trainees are taught suffering makes a good doctor.
“We are not soldiers,” the trainee said. “No one is trained to confront this amount of death in such a short period of time.”
Before COVID-19, residents across the country were pushing for higher wages, with one survey showing an average $61,200 salary in 2019. NYU internal medicine residents made as little as $67,432 in the 2017-2018 year, which increased with each training level.
When asked how NYU Langone has changed its policies to reflect the increasing demand placed on residents, Greiner told MedPage Today, “residents and fellows who have provided direct clinical care to COVID patients at a higher level of responsibility than usual will have their compensation advanced to the next PGY level retroactively to April 1, 2020, rather than July 1, 2020.”
Other local hospital systems have responded to the call. Northwell Health is slated to deposit $2,500 bonuses to front-line workers and New York-Presbyterian granted eligible staff a $1,250 bonus. At Mount Sinai Health System, top executives announced they would take a 50% pay cut to offset COVID-19 costs.
Nate Wood, MD, an internal medicine resident at Yale New Haven Hospital in Connecticut, said residents pushing for hazard pay are not only motivated by financial incentives, but are also seeking a gesture from leadership that demonstrates institutional support. His program has granted residents $1,800 bonuses, he said.
“I think what’s going on is people on the front lines want their administrators to show them appreciation,” Wood told MedPage Today. “The most tangible way to do that is for administration to put their money where their mouth is.”
The hospital system reported $2.1 billion in revenue in 2017 and made tuition free for medical students the following year. Lepor, who co-founded MedReview, was accused in 2017 of spending $2 million in profits on personal expenses such as ski vacations and his daughter’s bat mitzvah.
On March 27, NYU Langone sent an email warning staff that speaking to media without approval would be “subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”
When asked to comment on this email, Greiner said this policy was in place before COVID-19 and that its purpose was to protect the confidentiality of patients and staff.
“Because information related to coronavirus is constantly evolving, it is in the best interest of our staff and the institution that only those with the most updated information are permitted to address these issues with the media,” Greiner said.
“You’re being asked to face death, and you’re thinking, ‘am I going to saddle my family with medical school debt?'” Choi told MedPage Today. “We’re being asked to go to the front lines and put ourselves in harm’s way, yet there are minimal conversations happening about how to protect us physically and economically.”
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86126
Nursing Homes Struggling to Get a Handle on COVID-19
Staff members at the Canterbury Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center
in Richmond, Virginia, did everything they could to prevent the spread
of COVID-19. Even before the first case arrived at Canterbury — a
190-bed facility that includes units for long-term care, memory care,
and rehabilitation — visitors were banned and group dining was shut
down.
After the first case of COVID-19 was identified on March 13, Canterbury’s owner, Marquis Health Services, “brought in a lot of resources and spent a lot of money,” said Jim Wright, MD, the facility’s medical director, in a phone interview. Because the company owned several long-term care facilities, Marquis “also had the advantage of having PPE [personal protective equipment] at multiple facilities, and they were able to divert PPE to us.” Marquis also paid staff members at double the usual rate to boost retention.
As more COVID-19 cases appeared, “we immediately set up part of our nursing home just for people with COVID-19,” he continued. “We moved them into isolation rooms and followed CDC guidelines; we closed the door and had an isolation cart outside that everyone used to change into gowns and gloves” when they went into a COVID patient’s room. Moving patients to the ward was difficult because “we had to take residents and their belongings out of rooms they had lived in for years and move them down the hallway to a different unit, which was most strenuous in people power and time.”
In addition, Canterbury assigned specific nurses to work only on the COVID ward “so they wouldn’t be going from a COVID ward to a COVID-free ward,” Wright said. “We developed ingress and egress from those wards so they wouldn’t be in another part of the facility any time during the day.” The nurses even parked in a separate parking lot, and had separate showers they could use before they went home. The facility also tried to test patients and workers, but it had limited access to testing, and the tests that were available took 11 days to be returned, he said.
Cases, Deaths Still Rampant
Even with all of that, with a census of 165 residents, Canterbury had 130 infections and 49 deaths, said Wright. “When we were finally able to test our entire population, we found that almost half of those tested were asymptomatic carriers. So we had residents with no symptoms still shedding the virus, transmitting it, and infecting others.”
COVID-19 has been especially devastating for the dementia patients,
he added, “especially if they’re isolated in their room and they used to
have a common area to visit and see family members. When they can do
that, they’re reminded what time of day it is, and if they see someone
next to them eating, they’re going to eat, so we’ve had quite a bit of
trouble in those people living with dementia” and the facility is
working hard to reestablish eating and hydration patterns. As a result,
reintroducing group dining to dementia patients “is a number one
priority right now,” he said.
Unfortunately, Canterbury’s story has become all too common, said David Grabowski, PhD, professor of healthcare policy at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “It’s a similar story in Massachusetts,” he said in a phone interview, noting that at one nursing home there, “they closed the facility to visitors, they had no communal dining, they were taking the temperature of the staff as they came into the building, and yet it still spread.”
These facilities account for a disproportionate number of COVID-19 deaths, Grabowski noted. “Nursing homes account for about 0.5% of individuals nationwide … and yet the flawed data we have is that 25% of the deaths are in nursing homes,” he said. Data from The New York Times support that conclusion, with the paper reporting that “more than 63,000 residents and staff members at those facilities have contracted the virus, and more than 10,500 have died. That means that nearly a quarter of the deaths in the pandemic have been linked to long-term care facilities.”
Grabowski said that percentage is probably an undercount: “I think the true number is closer to 50%,” he noted.
Ready-Made Vectors
Nursing homes are ready-made vectors for coronavirus, Wright explained. “Nursing homes, especially state-supported nursing homes, are the home for people who generally have had little access to healthcare because of poverty through their entire lives, and they have reached the point where they can no longer live in the community because of illness and disability,” he said.
“So it’s the home for the most frail, the most ill, the most
impoverished members of the community. Add to that the shared quarters
that most publicly funded nursing homes have, and you have the perfect
storm for infectious disease to spread from one person to the next.”
Nursing homes’ high COVID-19 prevalence and mortality rates have gained the attention of the Trump administration. On March 23, following a COVID-19 outbreak at a nursing home in Seattle, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced it would be having more targeted infection-control inspections of nursing homes.
CMS also took other steps related to nursing homes, including announcing forthcoming transparency rules requiring homes to report COVID-19 cases to patients, families, and the CDC, and doubling Medicare payments for certain COVID-19 tests run on high-throughput equipment.
But CMS’s efforts can only go so far, said Christopher Laxton, executive director of AMDA, the trade group for nursing home medical directors. “CMS, I think, has really tried to be helpful by waiving certain restrictions and allowing telemedicine to come in with greater frequency and intensity,” Laxton said in a phone interview. However, “CMS is a regulator and what regulators do is punish entities when conditions aren’t met.”
Tricia Neuman, executive director of the Program on Medicare Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), noted that she spoke with one nursing home medical director “who had been in touch with other nursing homes who were concerned about coming forward with the problems they’re facing because they’re worried about being slapped with fines. In the midst of this crisis, when they’re needing urgent help, they’re reluctant to put their cards on the table,” she said.
Keeping adequate staffing is a particularly difficult problem for nursing homes, experts said. According to KFF, 38% of workers in long-term care facilities are age 50 or older, and 58% make $30,000 or less annually. “We’re talking about a workforce that is 80% female, low-income, and disproportionately African American — people who are working in long-term care facilities under an enormous amount of stress,” said Neuman. “It’s not easy work, yet we as a nation rely on these workers to care for our parents and grandparents, and now in the COVID crisis, under the most strenuous circumstances.”
Treating these workers poorly seems to be part of the culture, said
Canterbury’s Wright. “If you had a living wage paid to staff so that
staffing levels would always be where we want them to be, then it would
have made a difference, but we would have had to have nursing homes in a
country that values elders more and contributes more resources to elder
care,” he said. “We are not in that country; we’re in a country that
devotes about a third of the average resources to its elders compared to
what other developed countries devote.”
Reimbursement Issues
The reimbursement system for nursing homes also is a big issue. “The larger picture is that we’ve always had under-investment in nursing homes,” said Grabowski, who is a member of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, but who emphasized he was speaking only for himself. “We have a strange system where we overpay on the Medicare side of nursing homes — for short-stay, post-hospital patients.”
“On the other side are long-stay residents who are going to be there for the remainder of their life; their care is paid for by Medicaid, which typically pays below cost,” he continued. Therefore, the whole structure is built on “bringing in enough short-stay Medicare patients to subsidize long-stay Medicaid residents.”
The COVID crisis “shows that that model is broken,” he said. “Right now, elective surgeries have stopped, and the COVID patients — many nursing homes are not able to admit them, or they shouldn’t. Put that together with the idea that the cost structure has gone way up with infection control and staffing issues, and it’s a really challenging time. It has shown how fractured this financing model is … It begs rethinking of how we pay for nursing homes in the U.S. We are so reliant on Medicaid, and we’re going to need to rethink that going forward.”
In the meantime, what can nursing homes do to stop the spread of
COVID-19? “In the end, it’s shoe-leather epidemiology, with contact
tracing, isolation, and quarantine,” along with more testing, said
Laxton.
He also urged more cooperation between hospitals, nursing homes, and state and local health officials. “We have seen orders coming from state governments that say nursing homes have to take hospital discharges, whether we’re able to care for them or not,” including in some cases fines for nursing homes that refuse to do so, he said. “That demonstrates the degree to which people don’t understand nursing homes … We have to fight these battles on a daily basis.”
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86157
After the first case of COVID-19 was identified on March 13, Canterbury’s owner, Marquis Health Services, “brought in a lot of resources and spent a lot of money,” said Jim Wright, MD, the facility’s medical director, in a phone interview. Because the company owned several long-term care facilities, Marquis “also had the advantage of having PPE [personal protective equipment] at multiple facilities, and they were able to divert PPE to us.” Marquis also paid staff members at double the usual rate to boost retention.
As more COVID-19 cases appeared, “we immediately set up part of our nursing home just for people with COVID-19,” he continued. “We moved them into isolation rooms and followed CDC guidelines; we closed the door and had an isolation cart outside that everyone used to change into gowns and gloves” when they went into a COVID patient’s room. Moving patients to the ward was difficult because “we had to take residents and their belongings out of rooms they had lived in for years and move them down the hallway to a different unit, which was most strenuous in people power and time.”
In addition, Canterbury assigned specific nurses to work only on the COVID ward “so they wouldn’t be going from a COVID ward to a COVID-free ward,” Wright said. “We developed ingress and egress from those wards so they wouldn’t be in another part of the facility any time during the day.” The nurses even parked in a separate parking lot, and had separate showers they could use before they went home. The facility also tried to test patients and workers, but it had limited access to testing, and the tests that were available took 11 days to be returned, he said.
Cases, Deaths Still Rampant
Even with all of that, with a census of 165 residents, Canterbury had 130 infections and 49 deaths, said Wright. “When we were finally able to test our entire population, we found that almost half of those tested were asymptomatic carriers. So we had residents with no symptoms still shedding the virus, transmitting it, and infecting others.”
Unfortunately, Canterbury’s story has become all too common, said David Grabowski, PhD, professor of healthcare policy at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “It’s a similar story in Massachusetts,” he said in a phone interview, noting that at one nursing home there, “they closed the facility to visitors, they had no communal dining, they were taking the temperature of the staff as they came into the building, and yet it still spread.”
These facilities account for a disproportionate number of COVID-19 deaths, Grabowski noted. “Nursing homes account for about 0.5% of individuals nationwide … and yet the flawed data we have is that 25% of the deaths are in nursing homes,” he said. Data from The New York Times support that conclusion, with the paper reporting that “more than 63,000 residents and staff members at those facilities have contracted the virus, and more than 10,500 have died. That means that nearly a quarter of the deaths in the pandemic have been linked to long-term care facilities.”
Grabowski said that percentage is probably an undercount: “I think the true number is closer to 50%,” he noted.
Ready-Made Vectors
Nursing homes are ready-made vectors for coronavirus, Wright explained. “Nursing homes, especially state-supported nursing homes, are the home for people who generally have had little access to healthcare because of poverty through their entire lives, and they have reached the point where they can no longer live in the community because of illness and disability,” he said.
Nursing homes’ high COVID-19 prevalence and mortality rates have gained the attention of the Trump administration. On March 23, following a COVID-19 outbreak at a nursing home in Seattle, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced it would be having more targeted infection-control inspections of nursing homes.
CMS also took other steps related to nursing homes, including announcing forthcoming transparency rules requiring homes to report COVID-19 cases to patients, families, and the CDC, and doubling Medicare payments for certain COVID-19 tests run on high-throughput equipment.
But CMS’s efforts can only go so far, said Christopher Laxton, executive director of AMDA, the trade group for nursing home medical directors. “CMS, I think, has really tried to be helpful by waiving certain restrictions and allowing telemedicine to come in with greater frequency and intensity,” Laxton said in a phone interview. However, “CMS is a regulator and what regulators do is punish entities when conditions aren’t met.”
Tricia Neuman, executive director of the Program on Medicare Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), noted that she spoke with one nursing home medical director “who had been in touch with other nursing homes who were concerned about coming forward with the problems they’re facing because they’re worried about being slapped with fines. In the midst of this crisis, when they’re needing urgent help, they’re reluctant to put their cards on the table,” she said.
Keeping adequate staffing is a particularly difficult problem for nursing homes, experts said. According to KFF, 38% of workers in long-term care facilities are age 50 or older, and 58% make $30,000 or less annually. “We’re talking about a workforce that is 80% female, low-income, and disproportionately African American — people who are working in long-term care facilities under an enormous amount of stress,” said Neuman. “It’s not easy work, yet we as a nation rely on these workers to care for our parents and grandparents, and now in the COVID crisis, under the most strenuous circumstances.”
Reimbursement Issues
The reimbursement system for nursing homes also is a big issue. “The larger picture is that we’ve always had under-investment in nursing homes,” said Grabowski, who is a member of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, but who emphasized he was speaking only for himself. “We have a strange system where we overpay on the Medicare side of nursing homes — for short-stay, post-hospital patients.”
“On the other side are long-stay residents who are going to be there for the remainder of their life; their care is paid for by Medicaid, which typically pays below cost,” he continued. Therefore, the whole structure is built on “bringing in enough short-stay Medicare patients to subsidize long-stay Medicaid residents.”
The COVID crisis “shows that that model is broken,” he said. “Right now, elective surgeries have stopped, and the COVID patients — many nursing homes are not able to admit them, or they shouldn’t. Put that together with the idea that the cost structure has gone way up with infection control and staffing issues, and it’s a really challenging time. It has shown how fractured this financing model is … It begs rethinking of how we pay for nursing homes in the U.S. We are so reliant on Medicaid, and we’re going to need to rethink that going forward.”
He also urged more cooperation between hospitals, nursing homes, and state and local health officials. “We have seen orders coming from state governments that say nursing homes have to take hospital discharges, whether we’re able to care for them or not,” including in some cases fines for nursing homes that refuse to do so, he said. “That demonstrates the degree to which people don’t understand nursing homes … We have to fight these battles on a daily basis.”
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86157
Face Shields for COVID-19: The New and Improved Mask?
The CDC currently recommends all Americans wear cloth masks in public
to curtail transmission of COVID-19 coronavirus, but another form of
personal protective equipment might be a better idea: plastic face
shields.
A JAMA Viewpoint recently published by Eli Perencevich, MD, of the University of Iowa, and colleagues discussed how limitations to the supply chain have made obtaining medical masks for the community difficult, and face shields for the community may be a viable alternative.
“While medical masks have limited durability and little potential for
reprocessing, face shields can be reused indefinitely and are easily
cleaned with soap and water, or common household disinfectants,” they
wrote. “They are comfortable to wear, protect the portals of viral
entry, and reduce the potential for autoinoculation by preventing the
wearer from touching their face.”
And unlike medical masks, face shields do not have to be removed to communicate with others, they said.
Moreover, they noted a simulation study of influenza virus found face shields reduced viral exposure by 96% when worn within 18 inches of a cough, and when this study was repeated using the recommended distancing protocol of 6 feet, inhaled virus was reduced by 92%.
No studies have examined the benefits of face shields on source control, or their ability to contain a sneeze or cough, when worn by those who are asymptomatic or symptomatic. But studies on this should be completed quickly, Perencevich and colleagues suggested.
They added that guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of
America, along with the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America
(SHEA) and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society “included societal use” of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as face shields and masks when discussing how the U.S. can safely ease COVID-19 distancing restrictions.
Judy Guzman-Cottrill, DO, pediatric and infectious diseases liaison to the SHEA Board of Trustees, who was not involved with the research, told MedPage Today face shields are “definitely a potential alternative to ‘universal masking’ in the community.”
Face shields are also an important PPE component for healthcare workers, as “manufacturing of face shields in the U.S. has ramped up very quickly,” she noted.
“What we still need to clarify is if a face shield alone is adequate protection for healthcare workers from respiratory viruses while caring for symptomatic patients, or do healthcare workers need a face shield plus surgical mask?” said Guzman-Cottrill, of Oregon Health & Science University. “I don’t think we have enough evidence yet to answer this question.”
Perencevich and colleagues said randomized trials would likely not be completed in time to verify the efficacy of face shields, and advised, “taken as a bundle, the effectiveness of adding face shields as a community intervention to the currently proposed containment strategies should be evaluated using existing mathematical models.”
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86273
A JAMA Viewpoint recently published by Eli Perencevich, MD, of the University of Iowa, and colleagues discussed how limitations to the supply chain have made obtaining medical masks for the community difficult, and face shields for the community may be a viable alternative.
And unlike medical masks, face shields do not have to be removed to communicate with others, they said.
Moreover, they noted a simulation study of influenza virus found face shields reduced viral exposure by 96% when worn within 18 inches of a cough, and when this study was repeated using the recommended distancing protocol of 6 feet, inhaled virus was reduced by 92%.
No studies have examined the benefits of face shields on source control, or their ability to contain a sneeze or cough, when worn by those who are asymptomatic or symptomatic. But studies on this should be completed quickly, Perencevich and colleagues suggested.
Judy Guzman-Cottrill, DO, pediatric and infectious diseases liaison to the SHEA Board of Trustees, who was not involved with the research, told MedPage Today face shields are “definitely a potential alternative to ‘universal masking’ in the community.”
Face shields are also an important PPE component for healthcare workers, as “manufacturing of face shields in the U.S. has ramped up very quickly,” she noted.
“What we still need to clarify is if a face shield alone is adequate protection for healthcare workers from respiratory viruses while caring for symptomatic patients, or do healthcare workers need a face shield plus surgical mask?” said Guzman-Cottrill, of Oregon Health & Science University. “I don’t think we have enough evidence yet to answer this question.”
Perencevich and colleagues said randomized trials would likely not be completed in time to verify the efficacy of face shields, and advised, “taken as a bundle, the effectiveness of adding face shields as a community intervention to the currently proposed containment strategies should be evaluated using existing mathematical models.”
Primary Source
JAMA
Capitol physician urges masks, temp checks for when Senate returns
The Capitol’s attending physician sent coronavirus recommendations to
senators and staffers on Friday outlining best practices as the Senate
prepares to return on Monday amid the pandemic.
The six-page list of guidelines from Brian Monahan, the attending Capitol physician, recommends but does not require the use of face masks within the Capitol complex. The Architect of the Capitol previously announced that it was requiring its employees to wear face coverings, but that did not apply to senators, their staff, Capitol police or reporters.
“Use of a face covering is voluntary unless required by specific Agency policy, and should be promoted at all times. Use of a face covering while in the office has the additional advantage of serving as a source control to minimize virus in the workplace environment and contributes to the cleaning process efficiency,” Monahan wrote in the guidance, a copy of which was obtained by The Hill.
He added that “individuals retain the option of not using a face
cover if they can maintain the 6-foot separation guidelines.” But he
noted that the Capitol Police “will not take enforcement actions
regarding face coverings.”
Monahan is requiring all employees to check their temperatures at home and complete an 11 question self-assessment each day before coming to the Capitol complex. They will have to report their results to a designated individual in the office.
“Participation in a health monitoring program is required for all Congressional employees unless impacted by a collective bargaining agreement or in those instances where employment is exclusively by telework or at an isolated/solitary occupancy duty station,” he wrote.
Once in the Capitol complex, Monahan is recommending senators and their staff minimize the number of individuals in their offices, avoiding gatherings and modifying office layouts when possible to try to allow for at least six feet of distance.
That includes allowing staff to telework, which many offices have been doing since late March.
“These guidelines are based on current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention best practices to minimize risk of coronavirus transmission in the workplace through use of social distancing measures and daily screening of employee health prior to reporting for duty,” Monahan wrote.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/495738-capitol-physician-recommends-masks-temperature-checks-for-when-senate-returns
The six-page list of guidelines from Brian Monahan, the attending Capitol physician, recommends but does not require the use of face masks within the Capitol complex. The Architect of the Capitol previously announced that it was requiring its employees to wear face coverings, but that did not apply to senators, their staff, Capitol police or reporters.
“Use of a face covering is voluntary unless required by specific Agency policy, and should be promoted at all times. Use of a face covering while in the office has the additional advantage of serving as a source control to minimize virus in the workplace environment and contributes to the cleaning process efficiency,” Monahan wrote in the guidance, a copy of which was obtained by The Hill.
Monahan is requiring all employees to check their temperatures at home and complete an 11 question self-assessment each day before coming to the Capitol complex. They will have to report their results to a designated individual in the office.
“Participation in a health monitoring program is required for all Congressional employees unless impacted by a collective bargaining agreement or in those instances where employment is exclusively by telework or at an isolated/solitary occupancy duty station,” he wrote.
Once in the Capitol complex, Monahan is recommending senators and their staff minimize the number of individuals in their offices, avoiding gatherings and modifying office layouts when possible to try to allow for at least six feet of distance.
That includes allowing staff to telework, which many offices have been doing since late March.
“These guidelines are based on current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention best practices to minimize risk of coronavirus transmission in the workplace through use of social distancing measures and daily screening of employee health prior to reporting for duty,” Monahan wrote.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/495738-capitol-physician-recommends-masks-temperature-checks-for-when-senate-returns
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)