Among detected cases of COVID-19 in the United States, 1.3% of
patients will die from the illness, according to a new calculation. But
that rate could increase if current precautions and health care
capacities change, the study’s author said.
The 1.3% rate calculation is based on cumulative deaths and detected
cases across the United States, but it does not account for undetected
cases, where a person is infected but shows few or no symptoms,
according to researcher Anirban Basu.
If those cases were added into the equation, the overall death rate might drop closer to 1%, Basu said.
He directs the department of pharmacy at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Basu stressed that the current estimates
apply “under the assumption that the current supply [as of April 20] of
health care services, including hospital beds, ventilators, and access
to health care providers, would continue in the future.” Declines in the
availability of health care services could increase COVID-19 death rates.
Most crucially, social distancing and other preventive measures will
help keep the U.S. COVID-19 death rate down, Basu said. Accordingly,
recent White House COVID-19 Taskforce projections of 100,000 to 200,000
deaths this year from COVID-19 are made with assumptions about the
effectiveness of measures that are currently in place, he said.
Many states are already moving to relax restrictions on “shelter in place” rules, with businesses, beaches and parks reopening.
The estimated COVID-19 death rate of 1.3% is still much higher than
the U.S. death rate for seasonal flu for 2018-2019, which was just 0.1%
of cases, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
On the other hand, the new estimate is much lower than prior death
rate calculations. For example, China’s COVID-19 death rate was
initially reported to be 5.6%, falling to 3.8% by Feb. 20. But that
could be due to timing: As in China, U.S. rates were much higher in the
early stages of the pandemic, Basu noted.
The new study’s findings are based on 40,835 confirmed COVID-19 cases
and 1,620 confirmed deaths in 116 counties across 33 states through
April 20. Death rates varied widely across locales, with some counties
recording a death rate of just 0.5% while others went as high as 3.6%.
According to Basu, determining the COVID-19 death rate is crucial in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic.
“When used with other estimating approaches, our model and our
estimates can help disease and policy modelers to obtain more accurate
predictions for the epidemiology of the disease and the impact of
alternative policy levers to contain this pandemic,” he wrote in the
report published online May 7 in Health Affairs.
“The CDC reports a significant variation in fatality rates by age
groups. Further work is required on this front,” Basu added in a journal
news release.
The estimate of the U.S. COVID-19 death rate is “not outside the ballpark” of estimated rates available from other countries, but lower, he concluded.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-05-covid-death.html
Friday, May 8, 2020
7 questions about Covid-19 testing and what it means for reopening the country
Pressure
to perform widespread Covid-19 testing is growing as public health
experts and ordinary citizens question the safety of reopening schools
and businesses across the U.S. without better information about who is
infected and at risk of spreading the virus. That is only adding to the
strain on the nation’s testing capacity, and raising questions about who
should get priority.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America, which represents the nation’s infectious disease experts, issued guidelines Wednesday about who should be tested, how they should be tested, when they should be tested, and then what to make of the results.
Some answers aren’t known with any certainty yet, leading to knowledge gaps future research might fill, but not before many states begin to relax social distancing, two co-authors of the guidelines said in a call with reporters Friday. Meanwhile, tests and chemicals needed by labs to interpret them are still in short supply.
“Something that we’re all concerned about right now is in some
locations in this country, they don’t have adequate [supplies] to test
symptomatic patients,” said Angela Caliendo, an infectious disease
specialist and professor of medicine at Brown University. “It remains a
substantial challenge for all of us to be able to get enough people
tested and having enough reagents to do that.”
Shortages go beyond tests and reagents when community surveillance is proposed as a way to judge how the coronavirus is spreading, said Kimberly Hanson, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine.
“It’s all sorts of resources around the testing,” she said. “We need
more support for public health in our area to really deploy testing and
contact tracing in the community. We need to train and get more
epidemiologists and contact tracers to do that.”
Here’s what else Caliendo and Hanson had to say about testing:
Another reason to test patients is to see if they would consider being enrolled in a clinical trial of a Covid-19 treatment, Hanson said.
The group did not find enough research to differentiate the effectiveness of rapid testing — results within an hour — from standard testing that takes up to five hours.
Most of the information about various tests is based on limited lab experiments comparing an individual test to what are called contrived samples, such as a nasal swab that doesn’t have any virus on it. The Food and Drug Administration approved tests using relaxed standards, so evaluations of tests as they’re used in the field, or comparisons among tests, have not been done.
“We don’t know yet what test is best or really how the emergency use authorization tests in the U.S. that are commercially available really compare to each other,” Caliendo said.
“We don’t have enough information about the performance of these tests to know ideally how to use them,” Caliendo said. “We need to understand, if the test is accurate and you have antibodies, what does that mean? Does it mean you’re protected from future infection? We don’t know that. We don’t know if it means you’re no longer infectious.”
Her advice to patients who get the antibody test anyway: “If you test positive, do not assume you’re immune from the attack, do not assume that you don’t have to abide by distancing, wearing masks, washing your hands, and doing all of that.”
People who have been able to manage their non-Covid-19 medical problems over the past few months will eventually come back to the hospital, Caliendo predicted, for the elective surgeries they may have postponed. When they do, that will strain hospital labs.
“The clinical labs are going to get really busy again,” she said. “And they won’t have as many resources to devote to Covid-19 when surgery opens up and we get back to what we would call our previous normal.”
The Infectious Diseases Society of America, which represents the nation’s infectious disease experts, issued guidelines Wednesday about who should be tested, how they should be tested, when they should be tested, and then what to make of the results.
Some answers aren’t known with any certainty yet, leading to knowledge gaps future research might fill, but not before many states begin to relax social distancing, two co-authors of the guidelines said in a call with reporters Friday. Meanwhile, tests and chemicals needed by labs to interpret them are still in short supply.
Shortages go beyond tests and reagents when community surveillance is proposed as a way to judge how the coronavirus is spreading, said Kimberly Hanson, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine.
Here’s what else Caliendo and Hanson had to say about testing:
Who should get tested?
Policies about testing all people with possible coronavirus infections have varied from state to state. But the IDSA guidelines state that all patients who have clinical signs or symptoms that could be consistent with Covid-19, as defined by the CDC, should be tested. Knowing if a patient is infected with the virus starts a cascade of decision-making for clinicians: Do they need to be hospitalized and separated from other patients? If they can go home, how should they isolate themselves?Another reason to test patients is to see if they would consider being enrolled in a clinical trial of a Covid-19 treatment, Hanson said.
What about people who don’t have symptoms?
If there aren’t enough tests, symptomatic patients should get them, but there are three situations that argue for a test in asymptomatic patients. If a patient is already in the hospital and Covid-19 is widespread in the area, do the test. If a patient has a compromised immune system owing to a disease or a transplant, that patient should be tested because Covid-19 leads to poor outcomes in these people. And if a patient is going to have surgery, do a test for the patient’s sake and for the protection of health care workers.What kind of test is best?
A nasal swab or a nasopharyngeal swab got the group’s recommendation, based on a review of the medical literature. Throat swabs and saliva specimens did not, but that could change as more studies are published, particularly about saliva.The group did not find enough research to differentiate the effectiveness of rapid testing — results within an hour — from standard testing that takes up to five hours.
Most of the information about various tests is based on limited lab experiments comparing an individual test to what are called contrived samples, such as a nasal swab that doesn’t have any virus on it. The Food and Drug Administration approved tests using relaxed standards, so evaluations of tests as they’re used in the field, or comparisons among tests, have not been done.
“We don’t know yet what test is best or really how the emergency use authorization tests in the U.S. that are commercially available really compare to each other,” Caliendo said.
Should people get repeat tests?
Tests can have up to a 30% false negative rate, meaning they miss that proportion of people with actual infections. The IDSA said the need for retesting people with negative results depends on how sick the person seems to be. “If you have a low clinical suspicion and the test is negative, our recommendation was to not retest. But if you have a high clinical suspicion, you should retest people who are ill, who are in the hospital, who are in the ICU,” Caliendo said.What about antibody testing?
Antibody tests don’t detect an active infection, but rather look for signs that a person was previously infected, as shown by antibodies their immune system produced to fight the coronavirus. With other diseases, the presence of antibodies often means you have acquired immunity against re-infection, for at least some period of time, but that is not known yet in the case of Covid-19.“We don’t have enough information about the performance of these tests to know ideally how to use them,” Caliendo said. “We need to understand, if the test is accurate and you have antibodies, what does that mean? Does it mean you’re protected from future infection? We don’t know that. We don’t know if it means you’re no longer infectious.”
Her advice to patients who get the antibody test anyway: “If you test positive, do not assume you’re immune from the attack, do not assume that you don’t have to abide by distancing, wearing masks, washing your hands, and doing all of that.”
How much testing is enough testing? Is there a percentage of the population we should shoot for?
“I think in general more is better. But I do think resources are not limitless and there still are places in the country that really don’t have sustained access to testing,” Hanson said. But “we need to really understand at a given location how much asymptomatic infection is present.”What’s next?
Crunch time for labs.People who have been able to manage their non-Covid-19 medical problems over the past few months will eventually come back to the hospital, Caliendo predicted, for the elective surgeries they may have postponed. When they do, that will strain hospital labs.
“The clinical labs are going to get really busy again,” she said. “And they won’t have as many resources to devote to Covid-19 when surgery opens up and we get back to what we would call our previous normal.”
7 questions about Covid-19 testing and what it means for reopening the country
Routine child vaccinations have plummeted during the Covid-19 pandemic
Routine vaccination of children in the United States appeared to have
declined dramatically in March and April, in the weeks after Covid-19
was declared a pandemic and the United States government declared a
national emergency, a new study published Friday shows.
The authors, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other institutions, used vaccine ordering data from pediatricians who administer vaccines through the Vaccines for Children Program, which provides government-purchased vaccines to about half of the children in the United States. The study, published by the CDC in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, compared orders for the period from Jan. 7 through April 21 this year to the same period last year.
The findings suggest childhood vaccination efforts nearly ground to a halt between March 13 — when the national emergency was declared — and April 19.
There was a 2.5 million-dose decline in orders of regular childhood
vaccines — not counting influenza vaccines — and a 250,000-dose decline
in vaccines containing measles protection in that period, the authors
reported.
Doctors and public health experts have worried that a vast number of regular health care needs — including preventive care interventions like vaccinations — have gone unmet in the past few months as people shy away from interacting with a health system that has, at least in some places, been overwhelmed by caring for Covid-19 patients.
Pediatricians in particular have been concerned that children may be
missing critical vaccinations, which the new data confirm has happened.
“Routine immunizations in young children are critical to maintain during the pandemic,” said Kathryn Edwards, a pediatrician and scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program in Nashville, Tenn. “The usual childhood diseases are still around and we need to protect our children from them.”
Paul Offit, a pediatrician and vaccines expert at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said his institution had urged all pediatricians to continue to hold well-child appointments for children under the age of 2 to ensure they got their vaccinations on schedule.
“I think that didn’t happen,” Offit said. “I think there were a number of practices that didn’t do that because they were too scared. And so this is the result. You have this dramatic decline.”
Neither Edwards nor Offit was involved in this study.
The research suggests that the drop-off in vaccinations was less acute — though still sharp — in children under the age of 2 than in those aged 2 to 18 years old. It also points to a gradual uptick in administration of measles-containing vaccines in children under the age of 2 from about the end of March. But weekly numbers administered to children aged 2 to 18 remained a fraction of the previous weekly total through the end of the study period.
“The identified declines in routine pediatric vaccine ordering and doses administered might indicate that U.S. children and their communities face increased risks for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases,” the authors warned.
The authors, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other institutions, used vaccine ordering data from pediatricians who administer vaccines through the Vaccines for Children Program, which provides government-purchased vaccines to about half of the children in the United States. The study, published by the CDC in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, compared orders for the period from Jan. 7 through April 21 this year to the same period last year.
The findings suggest childhood vaccination efforts nearly ground to a halt between March 13 — when the national emergency was declared — and April 19.
Doctors and public health experts have worried that a vast number of regular health care needs — including preventive care interventions like vaccinations — have gone unmet in the past few months as people shy away from interacting with a health system that has, at least in some places, been overwhelmed by caring for Covid-19 patients.
“Routine immunizations in young children are critical to maintain during the pandemic,” said Kathryn Edwards, a pediatrician and scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program in Nashville, Tenn. “The usual childhood diseases are still around and we need to protect our children from them.”
Paul Offit, a pediatrician and vaccines expert at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said his institution had urged all pediatricians to continue to hold well-child appointments for children under the age of 2 to ensure they got their vaccinations on schedule.
“I think that didn’t happen,” Offit said. “I think there were a number of practices that didn’t do that because they were too scared. And so this is the result. You have this dramatic decline.”
Neither Edwards nor Offit was involved in this study.
The research suggests that the drop-off in vaccinations was less acute — though still sharp — in children under the age of 2 than in those aged 2 to 18 years old. It also points to a gradual uptick in administration of measles-containing vaccines in children under the age of 2 from about the end of March. But weekly numbers administered to children aged 2 to 18 remained a fraction of the previous weekly total through the end of the study period.
“The identified declines in routine pediatric vaccine ordering and doses administered might indicate that U.S. children and their communities face increased risks for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases,” the authors warned.
Routine vaccinations for U.S. children have plummeted during the Covid-19 pandemic
FDA Clears Pluristem’s IND Application for Phase II COVID-19 Study
- 140 patients with severe COVID-19 and ARDS to be treated
- Primary endpoint: ventilator free days during the main 28-day study period, secondary endpoint includes survival rate and ICU free days
Pluristem Therapeutics Inc. (Nasdaq:PSTI) (TASE:PSTI),
a leading regenerative medicine company developing a platform of novel
biological therapeutic products, announced today that the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared the Company’s Investigational New
Drug (IND) application for a Phase II study of its PLX cells in the
treatment of severe COVID-19 cases complicated by Acute Respiratory
Distress Syndrome (ARDS). The study, titled “A Randomized, Double-Blind,
Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter, Parallel-Group Phase II Study to
Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Intramuscular Injections of PLX-PAD
for the Treatment of severe COVID-19” will treat 140 adult patients that
are intubated and mechanically ventilated and are suffering from
respiratory failure and ARDS due to COVID-19. The primary efficacy
endpoint of the study is the number of ventilator free days during the
28 days from day 1 through day 28 of the study.
The objective of the study is to evaluate the
efficacy and safety of one or two intramuscular (IM) injections, in
three different dosages, of PLX-PAD for the treatment of ARDS resulting
from COVID-19. The primary endpoint determination will be performed at
the end of the 28 day main study period. Safety and survival follow-up
will be conducted at week 8, 26 and 52. Pluristem has been treating
patients suffering from severe complications caused by COVID-19, such as
ARDS and inflammatory complications, in the U.S. and Israel through
compassionate use programs. Preliminary data from these compassionate
use programs in Israel was reported on April 7, 2020.
A Clinical Trial Authorization (CTA) has also been filed in Europe for a
Phase II COVID-19 trial, with the first European clinical sites planned
in Germany and Italy.
“We are very pleased to gain clearance to commence
our Phase II COVID-19 study in the U.S. We are shifting gears now with a
main focus on a rapid initiation of the clinical trial, leveraging our
technological and logistical competitive advantages developed through
our clinical trial experience in the U.S. and Europe. We believe we can
complete enrollment quickly and we expect to provide guidelines on the
expected study duration a few weeks following the commencement of the
study,” stated Pluristem CEO and President, Yaky Yanay. “In the last few
weeks, we have received dozens of applications from physicians and
families seeking to participate in the Expanded Access per patient
program. We look forward to working with hospitals and physicians on a
larger scale to deliver our PLX cells, through an off-the-shelf, easy to
use PLX cell product candidate, which may potentially accelerate
recovery time from life threatening conditions, and to improve survival,
in the most severe COVID-19 cases.”
Macrogenics scoops its Asco bounce
A
tiny glimpse at very early data has more than tripled Macrogenics’
market cap. The pressure is now on to confirm these signals.
Macrogenics yesterday managed to achieve an early Asco bounce,
providing a sneak peek at some data that will be presented at the annual
cancer conference – a week before abstracts are due to be released.
Very early data in three pipeline projects piqued interest, sending the stock soaring by a huge a 231% to a two-year high and adding around $750m to the company’s market cap. This is quite a rise for updates described as “directionally encouraging” by the typically bullish sellside, and investors who piled in will have to hope that further details support this reaction.
Some extra information should emerge in the Asco abstracts, due to be released on May 13, before full details at the conference that starts at the end of month. But it should be remembered that these impending updates will be very early takes on the efficacy of these projects.
One of the main Asco presentations concerns the B7-H3 antibody-drug
conjugate MGC018, which is apparently showing promise in prostate
cancer. Reductions in PSA of 50% or more were seen in five of seven
patients with metastatic castration-resistant disease, Macrogenics disclosed yesterday, and the company plans a dose-expansion cohort in this tumour.
This equates to a 71% response rate on this measure, nearly as good as the impressive results generated by Xtandi in mCRPC: one cut of the Prevail trial found that 80% of patients achieved PSA declines of ≥50%, although of course the subject numbers differ enormously.
B7-H3 is highly expressed on most solid tumours and in particular prostate cancer; the ongoing phase I trial is being conducted in various tumours, and activity has been seen elsewhere, Macrogenics said.
The second Asco presentation of note will involve the Lag3/PD-1 bispecific MGD013. Yesterday, the company teased a 40% ORR seen in “over a dozen” patients with Her2-positive tumours, who were treated with ’013 and margetuximab, Macrogenics’ Her2-targeting antibody. Targeting PD-1 and Her2 has previously only managed to achieve response rates of 0-15%, the company claimed, adding that development of ’013 plus margetuximab would now be prioritised.
MDG013 is in a large phase I solid tumour study, and activity is being seen across several tumour types, including after anti-PD-1 therapy, the company said. Data on this should also be at Asco.
Other shots
Not slated for Asco but also discussed yesterday was MGD019, a bispecific that hits PD-1 and CTLA4 in a large phase I basket study in various advanced solid tumours, where dose escalation has been completed. The company disclosed that of 13 evaluable patients treated at ≥3mg/kg, four responses have been seen, albeit one unconfirmed, in four tumour types.
Macrogenics expect to take forward a much higher dose, which is important because, as Stifel analysts point out, this far exceeds the equivalent doses at which Opdivo and Yervoy are used. According to Macrogenics, dose limiting toxicities were not seen with ‘019, with the project’s safety profile described as “quite favourable”.
Notably, Astrazeneca has put its weight behind a bispecific approach to get the most out of this combination, and further data on ’019, due to emerge later this year, becomes an important event (Astra turns to bispecifics to solve the treme problem, February 14, 2020).
Dwindling hopes for the potential of margetuximab, Macrogenics’ most advanced project, have beaten down the company’s stock since over the past 12 months. A final look at overall survival towards the end of the year will determine the project’s future, as will the approaching regulatory review of the data.
Data in gastric cancer might salvage the project; objective responses were observed in three of four evaluable patients recruited into the first-line Mahogany trial, the company said yesterday. The plan is to seek accelerated approval on this initial single-arm data, though again these early hints could yet prove misleading.
If yesterday’s presentation was designed to prove that Macrogenics is about more than margetuximab it certainly worked. However, for share price gains to prove durable these hints of clinical activity must also prove robust.
https://www.evaluate.com/vantage/articles/news/trial-results/macrogenics-scoops-its-asco-bounce
Very early data in three pipeline projects piqued interest, sending the stock soaring by a huge a 231% to a two-year high and adding around $750m to the company’s market cap. This is quite a rise for updates described as “directionally encouraging” by the typically bullish sellside, and investors who piled in will have to hope that further details support this reaction.
Some extra information should emerge in the Asco abstracts, due to be released on May 13, before full details at the conference that starts at the end of month. But it should be remembered that these impending updates will be very early takes on the efficacy of these projects.
| More than margetuximab? The Macrogenics pipeline | ||
|---|---|---|
| Project | Mechanism | Detail |
| Filed | ||
| Margetuximab | Anti-Her2 MAb | H2 2020: final OS from Sophia breast cancer trial and first data from 1L gastric trial, Mahogany |
| Phase III | ||
| Retifanlimab (MGA012) | Anti-PD-1 MAb | Licensed to Incyte; first data from potentially registrational anal cancer study due H2 2020 |
| Phase I/II | ||
| Flotetuzumab | Anti-CD123 T-cell engaging bispecifc MAb | Some trials halted owing to Covid-19; update on filing plans in AML due Q2 2020; further data at ASH 2020 |
| MGD013 | Anti-Lag3 & PD-1 bispecific MAb | Ph1 solid tumour data at Asco; 40% ORR seen in Her2+ tumours |
| Enoblituzumab | Anti-B7-H3 MAb | Start of H&N phase 2 delayed by Covid-19 |
| MGD019 | CTLA 4 & anti-PD-1 bispecific MAb | 4 responses in 13 evaluable patients, various tumours, at ≥3mg/kg |
| MGC018 | Anti-B7-H3 ADC | PSA reduction of ≥50% in 5 of 7 mCRPC patients; phase I data at Asco |
| No update yesterday, and no longer listed in pipeline on website | ||
| MGD007 | Anti-gpA33 T-cell engaging bispecific MAb | |
| MGD009 (orlotamab) | Anti-B7-H3 T-cell engaging bispecific MAb | Was on clinical hold owing to liver tox |
| MGD014 | Anti-HIV bispecific MAb | |
| Source: EvaluatePharma, company statements. | ||
This equates to a 71% response rate on this measure, nearly as good as the impressive results generated by Xtandi in mCRPC: one cut of the Prevail trial found that 80% of patients achieved PSA declines of ≥50%, although of course the subject numbers differ enormously.
B7-H3 is highly expressed on most solid tumours and in particular prostate cancer; the ongoing phase I trial is being conducted in various tumours, and activity has been seen elsewhere, Macrogenics said.
The second Asco presentation of note will involve the Lag3/PD-1 bispecific MGD013. Yesterday, the company teased a 40% ORR seen in “over a dozen” patients with Her2-positive tumours, who were treated with ’013 and margetuximab, Macrogenics’ Her2-targeting antibody. Targeting PD-1 and Her2 has previously only managed to achieve response rates of 0-15%, the company claimed, adding that development of ’013 plus margetuximab would now be prioritised.
MDG013 is in a large phase I solid tumour study, and activity is being seen across several tumour types, including after anti-PD-1 therapy, the company said. Data on this should also be at Asco.
Other shots
Not slated for Asco but also discussed yesterday was MGD019, a bispecific that hits PD-1 and CTLA4 in a large phase I basket study in various advanced solid tumours, where dose escalation has been completed. The company disclosed that of 13 evaluable patients treated at ≥3mg/kg, four responses have been seen, albeit one unconfirmed, in four tumour types.
Macrogenics expect to take forward a much higher dose, which is important because, as Stifel analysts point out, this far exceeds the equivalent doses at which Opdivo and Yervoy are used. According to Macrogenics, dose limiting toxicities were not seen with ‘019, with the project’s safety profile described as “quite favourable”.
Notably, Astrazeneca has put its weight behind a bispecific approach to get the most out of this combination, and further data on ’019, due to emerge later this year, becomes an important event (Astra turns to bispecifics to solve the treme problem, February 14, 2020).
Dwindling hopes for the potential of margetuximab, Macrogenics’ most advanced project, have beaten down the company’s stock since over the past 12 months. A final look at overall survival towards the end of the year will determine the project’s future, as will the approaching regulatory review of the data.
Data in gastric cancer might salvage the project; objective responses were observed in three of four evaluable patients recruited into the first-line Mahogany trial, the company said yesterday. The plan is to seek accelerated approval on this initial single-arm data, though again these early hints could yet prove misleading.
If yesterday’s presentation was designed to prove that Macrogenics is about more than margetuximab it certainly worked. However, for share price gains to prove durable these hints of clinical activity must also prove robust.
https://www.evaluate.com/vantage/articles/news/trial-results/macrogenics-scoops-its-asco-bounce
Healthcare jobs declined by 1.4M in April as physician practices shed 243,000 jobs
The number of healthcare jobs declined by 1.4 million in April, led
by a major decline in jobs in physicians’ and dentists’ offices,
according to government figures.
The healthcare sector has been slammed by the COVID-19 pandemic due to a steep drop in patient volume. Hospitals have also been hit hard financially by the cancellation of elective procedures, which may resume.
The data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics released Friday found dentists’ offices had the most losses with 503,000. Physicians’ offices lost 243,000, and other healthcare practices had 205,000 losses.
Overall, the unemployment rate for the U.S. rose from 10.3% to 14.7%,
the highest monthly increase in the history of the federal government’s
monthly jobs reports.
The employment data are the latest piece of evidence to underscore the massive financial crisis facing primary care physicians and hospitals.
A recent survey found 89% of clinicians reported large decreases in patient volume, and another 57% say less than half of their visits in the last week could be reimbursed.
The Trump administration has given physicians and healthcare workers more flexibility to adopt telehealth, and use of the practice has exploded.
But key questions remain about reimbursement, especially from commercial payers.
President Donald Trump has signed into law $175 billion in funding to help providers, but some groups say much more is needed to plug the massive hole created by COVID-19.
https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/practices/healthcare-jobs-declined-by-1-4-million-april-as-physician-practices-shed-243-000-jobs
The healthcare sector has been slammed by the COVID-19 pandemic due to a steep drop in patient volume. Hospitals have also been hit hard financially by the cancellation of elective procedures, which may resume.
The data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics released Friday found dentists’ offices had the most losses with 503,000. Physicians’ offices lost 243,000, and other healthcare practices had 205,000 losses.
The employment data are the latest piece of evidence to underscore the massive financial crisis facing primary care physicians and hospitals.
A recent survey found 89% of clinicians reported large decreases in patient volume, and another 57% say less than half of their visits in the last week could be reimbursed.
The Trump administration has given physicians and healthcare workers more flexibility to adopt telehealth, and use of the practice has exploded.
But key questions remain about reimbursement, especially from commercial payers.
President Donald Trump has signed into law $175 billion in funding to help providers, but some groups say much more is needed to plug the massive hole created by COVID-19.
https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/practices/healthcare-jobs-declined-by-1-4-million-april-as-physician-practices-shed-243-000-jobs
9 states performing enough COVID-19 tests to reopen safely – Harvard institute
The U.S. needs to perform 900,000 COVID-19 tests per day to safely
phase out social distancing measures, according to projections released
May 7 by Harvard’s Global Health Institute.
The newest projection of testing need is a big jump from its earlier projection, which indicated the U.S. needed to process 500,000 to 600,000 tests per day to lift restrictions by June. The testing estimates increased because the latest modeling shows more people getting infected and dying of COVID-19 than previously projected, Ashish Jha, MD, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute told NPR.
On May 7, Harvard’s Global Health Institute published a simulation that estimates the testing needed by May 15 in each state. The amount of testing needed depends on several factors, including the size of the outbreak in each state, Dr. Jha told NPR. The following nine states are near or have exceeded the estimates of minimum testing needed: Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Many of the states hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, including New York, are far from the testing minimums estimated by Harvard.
Dr. Jha told NPR there are several caveats about the estimates, and the numbers should be used as a guide and not taken literally. Researchers also said testing alone is not enough. The model is built on the assumption that states are doing contact tracing and isolating infected or exposed people.
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/9-states-performing-enough-covid-19-tests-to-reopen-safely-harvard-researchers-say.html
The newest projection of testing need is a big jump from its earlier projection, which indicated the U.S. needed to process 500,000 to 600,000 tests per day to lift restrictions by June. The testing estimates increased because the latest modeling shows more people getting infected and dying of COVID-19 than previously projected, Ashish Jha, MD, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute told NPR.
On May 7, Harvard’s Global Health Institute published a simulation that estimates the testing needed by May 15 in each state. The amount of testing needed depends on several factors, including the size of the outbreak in each state, Dr. Jha told NPR. The following nine states are near or have exceeded the estimates of minimum testing needed: Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Many of the states hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, including New York, are far from the testing minimums estimated by Harvard.
Dr. Jha told NPR there are several caveats about the estimates, and the numbers should be used as a guide and not taken literally. Researchers also said testing alone is not enough. The model is built on the assumption that states are doing contact tracing and isolating infected or exposed people.
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/9-states-performing-enough-covid-19-tests-to-reopen-safely-harvard-researchers-say.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)