Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 7, 2020

Rising trend of viruses jumping from animal hosts to humans

The world is seeing a rise in diseases caused by viruses that have jumped from animal hosts to the human population, with COVID-19 just one example, a group of experts said in a report released on Monday.
Ebola, MERS as well as West Nile and Rift Valley fevers were other examples of , which are driven by the degradation of our natural environment, the United Nations Environment Department (UNEP) and International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) said.
“While many in the world were surprised by COVID-19, those of us who work on animal disease were not. This was a highly predictable pandemic,” said Delia Randolph, ILRI veterinary epidemiologist and lead author of the report.
Randolph described a “very clear trend” since the 1930s that showed that 75% of emerging human diseases stemmed from wildlife.
COVID-19, for example, most likely originated in bats, according to UNEP and ILRI.
Further outbreaks will emerge unless governments take active measures to prevent other zoonotic diseases from crossing into the , UNEP warned.
The report identifies seven trends driving the prevalence of zoonotic diseases.
They include increased demand for animal protein, a rise in intense and unsustainable farming, increased use and exploitation of wildlife, and climate change.
“The science is clear that if we keep exploiting wildlife and destroying our ecosystems, then we can expect to see a steady stream of these diseases jumping from animals to humans in the years ahead,” said UNEP executive director Inger Andersen.
Protecting the environment can help to protect people from enduring another , such as the COVID-19 pandemic, as it was often human activity that was breaking down that used to protect humans from disease pathogens, according to UNEP.
Every year, some 2 million people, mostly in low- and , die from neglected zoonotic diseases, according to the report.
In the last two decades alone, zoonotic diseases have caused of more than $100 billion, not including the cost of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is expected to cost $9 trillion over the next few years, the U.N. said.
African countries—a number of which have successfully managed zoonotic outbreaks—have the potential to leverage this experience to tackle future outbreaks through approaches that incorporate human, animal and environmental health.
“With their experiences with Ebola and other emerging diseases, African countries are demonstrating proactive ways to manage disease outbreaks,” said ILRI director General Jimmy Smith.
African nations were, for example, combining public health, veterinary and environmental expertise and thus achieve faster responses to zoonotic outbreaks, Smith said.
Other key aspects included surveillance as well as early detection and response.
“If pandemics can be caught right at the start, (studies have shown that) the costs can be reduced by 90%,” said Randolph.

Explore further

Testing at-home screening for HPV and cervical cancer

With a tiny brush, briefly swab the vagina to collect cells. Then slide the swab into a screening kit and drop it into the mail.
Proponents believe a like this, which can be done at home, may help the U.S. move closer to eradicating cervical cancer. The National Cancer Institute plans to launch a multisite study next year involving roughly 5,000 to assess whether self-sampling at home is comparable to screening in the office by a clinician.
Nearly 14,000 Americans this year will be diagnosed with the highly preventable cancer, and more than 4,000 will die. Women who are uninsured or can’t get regular medical care are more likely to miss out on lifesaving screening, said Vikrant Sahasrabuddhe, a program director in the NCI’s Division of Cancer Prevention. If women could collect the vaginal and cervical cells to be tested for human papillomavirus (HPV)—the virus that causes virtually all cervical cancers—they could get screened from home, just as home-based stool samples can be used to detect colon cancer, he said.
“What we have seen is this persistent group of women who continue to get cervical cancer every year,” said Sahasrabuddhe, who oversees studies involving HPV-related cancers. “And that number is really not going down.”
Federal officials hope the research will fast-track a test approved by the Food and Drug Administration that could be part of screening guidelines if self-sampling is proved effective, Sahasrabuddhe said. Rather than wait for self-sampling studies to be done by the individual companies that make the HPV tests for clinicians, will team up with the companies, academic institutions and others in a public-private partnership, he explained. NCI officials, who expect to spend about $6 million in federal funds, will oversee the study’s data and analysis.
“If every company goes and does their own trial, they may take years to achieve it,” Sahasrabuddhe said. “We want to accelerate that process.”
HPV self-sampling, already promoted in countries such as Australia and the Netherlands, is one of several approaches that U.S. cervical cancer researchers are pursuing. Another key strategy involves vaccinating adolescents against HPV, which is transmitted through sexual activity. As of 2018, nearly 54% of girls had been fully vaccinated by age 17, as had almost 49% of boys, according to the most recent federal data. The countries that have had better success in reducing cervical cancer—one analysis predicts that Australia is on track to eliminate the disease—have emphasized HPV vaccination for adolescents.
Federal officials still advise vaccinated women to get regularly screened, as the vaccine doesn’t guard against all the strains that cause cervical cancer. But persuading some women to come into the office for the physical exam is sometimes a tough sell.
For some, access or cost may be an issue. Most insurance plans cover screening and there are also some public programs, but uninsured women who are unaware of them may have to pay for an office visit and test. Besides, women can’t always break away from work or find child care, or they may have had “negative emotions or experiences in the past with pelvic exams,” said Rachel Winer, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington School of Public Health who studies HPV self-sampling.
Roughly 4 out of 5 women get regularly screened for cervical , but the rates peaked around 2000 and have been on a slight decline since, according to federal data. That figure, which is based on patient self-reporting, may be optimistic. Another analysis, which looked at the medical records of 27,418 Minnesota women ages 30 to 65, found that nearly 65% were up to date as of 2016, according to the findings, published last year in the Journal of Women’s Health.
“Sadly, I think our data is probably more reflective of what’s happening with screening rates in our country,” said Dr. Kathy MacLaughlin, a study author and researcher at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.
One hurdle to getting screened may be the complexity of the guidelines, MacLaughlin said. Rather than an easy-to-remember annual exam, screenings occur at intervals of longer than a year. A woman’s age helps determine when the HPV test or a Pap smear, which collects cells from the cervix to look for precancerous changes, is recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
“It’s just that challenge of, how do any of us remember to do something every three years or every five years?” MacLaughlin said. “That’s hard.”
While the NCI hasn’t yet settled on the precise self-sampling approach it will use, the technique generally requires the woman to insert a tiny brush into her vagina and rotate it several times to collect the cells. Then she slides the brush into a specimen container that has a preservative solution and returns the kit for HPV analysis.
According to a review of studies published in 2018 in the medical journal BMJ, the accuracy of identifying HPV was similar when the samples were collected by women at home as when collected by clinicians. A urine-based HPV test, which may prove easier for women to perform, also is being studied, said Jennifer Smith, a professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina’s Gillings School of Global Public Health.
Before companies can pursue applications for an FDA-approved home test, self-sampling by women has to be shown comparable to detect HPV, though perhaps it may not be quite as accurate as when a clinician is involved, Sahasrabuddhe said. NCI officials are still finalizing study details. But the plan is to invite four companies that already manufacture HPV tests for clinicians to participate, Sahasrabuddhe said. The companies will pick up the tab for the cost of the tests as well as future fees related to pursuing license applications through the FDA, he said. Sahasrabuddhe expects the study results to be available by 2024, if not sooner.
Any woman who tests positive for HPV will be referred for procedures, including possibly a biopsy, to look for abnormal cells or , Sahasrabuddhe said.
If an FDA-approved home is developed, it’s crucial that uninsured women and others who don’t have easy access to medical care be able to get those procedures, Smith said.
“You just don’t send random kits out to people’s homes,” Smith said, “and not ensure that they have someone to talk to about the results and are going to be able to be integrated into a follow-up system.”

Explore further

COVID Catch-22: No Tests Available Results in a Big ER Bill

Fresh off a Caribbean cruise in early March, John Campbell developed a cough and fever of 104 degrees. He went to his primary care physician and got a flu test, which came up negative.
Then things got strange. Campbell said the doctor then turned to him and said, “I’ve called the ER next door, and you need to go there. This is a matter of public health. They’re expecting you.”
It was March 3, and no one had an inkling yet of just how bad the COVID-19 pandemic would become in the U.S.
At the JFK Medical Center near his home in Boynton Beach, Florida, staffers met him in protective gear, then ran a battery of tests — including bloodwork, a chest X-ray and an electrocardiogram — before sending him home. But because he had not traveled to China — a leading criterion at the time for coronavirus testing — Campbell was not swabbed for the virus.
A $2,777 bill for the emergency room visit came the next month.
Now Campbell, 52, is among those who say they were wrongly billed for the costs associated with seeking a COVID-19 diagnosis.
While most insurers have promised to cover the costs of testing and related services — and Congress passed legislation in mid-March enshrining that requirement — there’s a catch: The law requires the waiver of patient cost sharing only when a test is ordered or administered.
And therein lies the problem. In the early weeks of the pandemic and through mid-April in many places, testing was often limited to those with specific symptoms or situations, likely excluding thousands of people who had milder cases of the virus or had not traveled overseas.
“They do pay for the test, but I didn’t have the test,” said Campbell, who appealed the bill to his insurer, Florida Blue. More on how that turned out later.
“These loopholes exist,” said Wendell Potter, a former insurance industry executive who is now an industry critic. “We’re just relying on these companies to act in good faith.”
Exacerbating the problem: Many of these patients were directed to go to hospital emergency departments — the most expensive place to get care — which can result in huge bills for patients-deductible insurance.
Insurers say they fully cover costs when patients are tested for the coronavirus, but what happens with enrollees who sought a test — but were not given one — is less clear.
KHN asked nine national and regional insurers for specifics about how they are handling these situations.
Results were mixed. Three — UnitedHealthcare, Kaiser Permanente and Anthem — said they do some level of automatic review of potential COVID-related claims from earlier in the pandemic, while a fourth, Quartz, said it would investigate and waive cost sharing for suspected COVID patients if the member asks for a review. Humana said it is reviewing claims made in early March, but only those showing confirmed or suspected COVID. Florida Blue, similarly, said it is manually reviewing claims, but only those involving COVID tests or diagnoses.
The remaining insurers pointed to other efforts, such as routine audits that look for all sorts of errors, along with efforts to train hospitals and doctors in the proper COVID billing codes to use to ensure patients aren’t incorrectly hit with cost sharing. Those were Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, CIGNA and the Health Care Services Corp., which operates Blues plans in Illinois, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.
All nine said patients should reach out to them or appeal a claim if they suspect an error.
To be sure, it would be a complex effort for insurers to go back over claims from March and April, looking for patients that might qualify for a more generous interpretation of the cost waiver because they were unable to get a coronavirus test. And there’s nothing in the CARES Act passed by Congress — or subsequent guidance from regulatory agencies — about what to do in such situations.
Still, insurers could review claims, for example, by looking for patients who received chest X-rays, and diagnoses of pneumonia or high fever and cough, checking to see if any might qualify as suspected COVID cases, even if they were not given a diagnostic test, said Potter.
One thing was clear from the responses: Much of the burden falls on patients who think they’ve been wrongly billed to call that to the attention of the insurer and the hospital, urgent care center or doctor’s office where they were treated.
Some states have broader mandates that could be read to require the waiver of cost sharing even if a COVID test was not ordered or administered, said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor and co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.
But no matter where you live, she said, patients who get bills they think are incorrect should contest them. “I’ve heard a lot of comments that claims are not coded properly,” said Corlette. “Insurers and providers are on a learning curve. If you get a bill, ask for a review.”

Scarce Tests, Rampant Virus

In some places, including the state of Indiana, the city of Los Angeles and St. Louis County, Missouri, a test is now offered to anyone who seeks one. Until recently, tests were scarce and essentially rationed, even though more comprehensive testing could have helped health officials battle the epidemic.
But even in the early weeks, when Campbell and many others sought a diagnosis, insurers nationwide were promising to cover the cost of testing and related services. That was good PR and good public health: Removing cost barriers to testing means more people will seek care and thus could prevent others from being infected.
Currently, the majority of insurers offering job-based or Affordable Care Act insurance say they are fully waiving copays, deductibles and other fees for testing, as long as the claims are coded correctly. (The law does not require short-term plans to waive cost sharing.) Some insurers have even promised to fully cover the cost of treatment for COVID, including hospital care.
But getting stuck with a sizable bill has become commonplace. “I only went in because I was really sick and I thought I had it,” said Rayone Moyer, 63, of La Crosse, Wisconsin, who was extra concerned because she has diabetes. “I had a hard time breathing when I was doing stuff.”
On March 27, she went to Gundersen Lutheran Medical Center, which is in her Quartz insurance network, complaining of body aches and shortness of breath. Those symptoms could be COVID-related, but could also signal other conditions. While there, she was given an array of tests, including bloodwork, a chest X-ray and a CT scan.
She was billed in May: $2,421 by the hospital and more than $350 in doctor bills.
“My insurance applied the whole thing to my deductible,” she said. “Because they refused to test me, I’ve got to pay the bill. No one said, ‘Hey, we’ll give you $3,000 worth of tests instead of the $100 COVID test,’ ” she said.
Quartz spokesperson Christina Ott said patients with concerns like Moyer’s should call the insurance company’s customer service number and ask for an appeals specialist. The insurer, she wrote in response to KHN’s survey of insurers, will waive cost sharing for some members who sought a diagnosis.
“During the public health emergency, if the member presented with similar symptoms as COVID, but didn’t receive a COVID-19 test and received testing for other illnesses on an outpatient basis, then cost sharing would be waived,” she wrote.
Moyer said she has filed an appeal and was notified by the insurer of a review expected in mid-July. Back in Florida, Campbell filed an appeal of his bill with Florida Blue on April 22, but didn’t hear anything until the day after a KHN reporter called the insurer about his case in June.
Then, Campbell received phone calls from Florida Blue representatives. A supervisor apologized, saying the insurer should not have billed him and that 100% of his costs would be covered.
“Basically they said, ‘We’ve changed our minds,’ ” said Campbell. “Because I was there so early on, and the bill was coded incorrectly.”

WHO experts to travel to China at weekend to study COVID-19 origins

The World Health Organization said on Tuesday that experts from the global body would travel to China at the weekend to prepare a study of the origins of the novel coronavirus and how it jumped from animals to humans.
“The best place to start is clearly where the disease emerged in humans first, and where the disease emerged in humans first, where the first clusters of atypical pneumonia occurred, was in Wuhan,” Dr Mike Ryan head of the WHO’s emergencies programme, told a news briefing in Geneva.
Heavily criticised by the United States and others who have accused it of secrecy and a late response to the outbreak, which emerged in the central city of Wuhan late last year, China has said it was transparent throughout the early stages of the pandemic.