Search This Blog

Friday, November 27, 2020

Why nursing home aides exposed to COVID-19 don't take sick leave

 The COVID-19 pandemic has devastated America's nursing homes, but the reasons aren't as simple as people might think.

To understand how nursing homes became the source of over one-third of U.S. COVID-19 deaths, you have to look beyond just the vulnerability of the residents and examine how nursing homes pay and manage their employees.

The average nursing aide earns just $14.25 an hour, less than $30,000 a year. Many are women who work at multiple nursing homes to make ends meet. Partly as a result of that, the typical nursing home has staff connections to 15 other facilities – each an opportunity for the  to spread. That risk is magnified by a reluctance among many nursing aides to take  when they are ill, even though  currently requires employers to provide paid  for coronavirus-related reasons.

An alarming number of infections in long-term care facilities – nearly half – have been traced to staff who work in multiple  and who engage in "presenteeism," meaning they continue to work even after being exposed to or falling ill from COVID-19.

As law professors who specialize in employment, immigration and health law, we have spoken with many nursing home aides to try to understand why this is happening and find ways to avoid it. The story of one of them represents what many others have experienced. We'll call her Salma rather than use her real name to protect her from retaliation.

Like about a third of nursing aides, Salma is an immigrant. She often spends 12 hours a day cooking, cleaning and caring for residents' most intimate needs, such as bathing, dressing, feeding and providing medication.

When Salma fell ill earlier this year, she requested paid sick leave, but her  refused to provide it. She tried to assert her rights under her state's paid sick time law, but she said her employer responded by threatening to report her to immigration authorities. When she explained that she had legal status, Salma said, her employer changed tactics and threatened to report her to the Internal Revenue Service because no payroll taxes had been deducted from her wages, as she was paid off the books. Salma was afraid she would lose her job, so she continued to go to work.

Our research, drawing on interviews with nursing aides like Salma and emerging studies of other essential workers during COVID-19, shows how employee policies, particularly for low-paid aides, have sharply raised the risks, and how access to paid sick leave could lower them.

A long-running problem

Historical records from previous outbreaks in the U.S., including the 1918 influenza pandemic and the 2009 H1N1 epidemic, show that immigrants and people of color are more likely to contract and die of infectious diseases. While preexisting conditions account for the severity of illness, they do not explain why these segments of the population are more likely to become sick in the first place.

Data show this is due to large percentages of immigrants and people of color performing essential labor, such as nursing aide roles, that requires close contact with many other people.

Our research asks why nursing aides are more likely to spread the virus. To answer this question, we examined laws and policies that affect them, including paid sick time.

San Francisco became the first U.S. jurisdiction to require paid sick leave in 2006. Other cities, counties and states followed, and now there are approximately 40 of these laws nationwide.

Paid sick leave laws require employers to pay workers who take time off when they or any family members are sick, injured or seeking medical treatment. Some laws explicitly allow for paid sick leave during a public health emergency, such as COVID-19. Most are based on an accrual model. This means employees must earn paid sick time hours; typically one hour of paid sick leave is earned for every 30 hours worked. Local paid sick time laws apply to private-sector employees and, in some cases, state and local government employees.

In March 2020, Congress passed the nation's first universal paid sick leave law. This emergency law, which expires at the end of the year, provides most employees in the country with up to 80 hours of paid leave if the worker has been exposed to, is ill from, or is caring for someone infected with COVID-19.

However, a large survey earlier this year showed that many essential, low-wage employees still could not access paid sick leave after the law went into effect. That survey and our research show that these employees tend to either believe they have no right to paid leave or that their employer will retaliate if they try to use it. Many fear they could lose their jobs.

Even a short period of lost income can be financially devastating for these individuals. Among Latina essential workers, 43% surveyed said that even while employed they didn't earn enough to adequately provide food for their families.

How to make sick leave work as intended

So, can paid sick leave laws be made more accessible for essential workers like Salma?

Our research highlights both the inadequacies of existing laws and policies and what might be done to strengthen them.

First, nearly all paid sick leave law violations require federal or state labor agency intervention or the  loses out. These agencies, however, often lack adequate resources to investigate potential employer violations and hold employers accountable if they retaliate against workers.

Second, most of these agencies are highly centralized and do not conduct effective outreach to immigrant communities, so both employers and employees are often unaware of paid sick leave laws. A handful of states and local governments offer pioneering examples. Massachusetts, for example, posted guidance online in multiple languages about sick leave and other workers' issues. Washington, D.C., conducted tele-town halls with strategies to help workers and employers understand their respective paid sick time rights and obligations during the pandemic.

An approach that both empowers employees while informing employers about the benefits of paying employees to stay at home when sick can help save lives.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-11-nursing-home-aides-exposed-covid-.html

Comcast to charge customers more for heavy internet usage starting next year

 Comcast Corp. will charge more for heavy users of home internet in Northeast states—including Pennsylvania and New Jersey—angering customers who work and study online due to the pandemic.

The vast majority of Comcast's Xfinity customers won't be affected by the "data threshold" next year, company officials said this week. But the extra charges come as internet usage soars across the country, with consumers increasingly making video calls and bingeing shows while stuck at home. Average monthly data usage in the United States jumped 40% during the third quarter this year compared with the same period in 2019, according to OpenVault, a Hoboken, N.J., broadband software firm.

Starting in April, Xfinity will let customers use up to 1.2 terabytes of data a month before billing them more—unless they buy an unlimited data plan. Customers without unlimited data will have to pay $10 for every extra 50 gigabytes used. Unlimited data plans cost an additional $25 to $30 a month, depending on whether you rent or own your own router, a Comcast spokesperson said.

The Philadelphia-based cable giant said just 5% of its nearly 28 million home internet customers exceed 1.2 terabytes of data a month. But the news sparked criticism from customers and industry observers, who noted that the pandemic has closed schools and offices and forced consumers to do more online. Some said they would flee to Verizon Fios, which doesn't have any data caps or thresholds, according to a company spokesperson.

"So far in November two of us working from home have used 2.1TB (terabytes) of data. People with kids in remote school use tons more," Nilay Patel, the editor-in-chief of tech news website the Verge, wrote on Twitter.

Comcast said 1.2 terabytes is a "massive" amount of data, enough to watch 500 hours of high-definition video, or video conference for nearly 3,500 hours a month. Even with more people working at home, average monthly data usage was 383.8 gigabytes from July through September, OpenVault reported.

"Our data plan is structured in a way that the very small percentage of our customers who use more than 1.2 terabytes of monthly data and generate the greatest demand for network development and capacity pay more for their increased usage," Comcast spokesperson Jennifer Bilotta said in a statement. "For those super-users, we have unlimited data options available."

Still, the number of "super-users" is on the rise. Nearly 9% of consumers used more than 1  of data during the third quarter, doubling from a year before, according to OpenVault.

Comcast already imposed the data limit in 25 states in western and central parts of the U.S. The company had lifted the data limit on those states from March to July due to COVID-19. Now it's rolling out the plan in the remaining 14 states across its footprint.

The company's broadband business has boomed during the pandemic, signing up a record number of internet customers last quarter. But the coronavirus has battered its other businesses, particularly theme parks and film studios. Comcast's net profit fell 37% during the third quarter, to $2 billion.


Explore further

Comcast adds Chicago customers to those under data caps
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-11-comcast-customers-heavy-internet-usage.html

Biogen bets on depression drug in $1.5 billion deal with Sage

 

Biogen Inc will take a $650 million stake in Sage Therapeutics and make an upfront payment of $875 million to jointly develop and sell treatments for depression and other neurological disorders, the two companies said on Friday.

The deal will give Biogen access to zuranolone, an oral therapy being developed for major depressive disorder (MDD) and postpartum depression as well as SAGE-324, which is being developed for essential tremor and other neurological disorders.

An estimated 16 million Americans experience symptoms of MDD each year, according to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Analysts said the agreement will help strengthen Biogen's pipeline with two treatments that have blockbuster potential at a time when it faces uncertainty over approval of its experimental Alzheimer's drug, aducanumab.

Under the terms of the agreement, Biogen will buy about 6.2 million newly issued shares of Sage for $104.14 apiece, a 26% premium to Sage's Wednesday closing price.

Apart from the $1.525 billion in cash, Sage will also be eligible to get up to $1.6 billion in potential milestone payments.

Biogen will jointly market the drugs in the United States and get the exclusive rights to sell the drugs outside of the country, excluding rights to zuranolone in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea.

Shares of Sage, which entered the depression drugs market in 2019 with its postpartum treatment, Zulresso, fell nearly 6% in afternoon trading.

Jefferies analyst Andrew Tsai said investors might be worried about the timing of deal as Sage is likely to report data from late-stage trial of zuranolone in first half of 2021 that are largely expected to be positive.

"Investors will ask, why do the deal for less now, as opposed to waiting for positive data in 2021, which is only three to six months away," Tsai said.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/BIOGEN-INC-4853/news/Biogen-bets-on-depression-drug-in-1-5-billion-deal-with-Sage-Therapeutics-31876578/

Swiss drugmaker Vifor had bid interest but talks halted - sources

 

Swiss drugmaker Vifor Pharma had a recent takeover approach from at least one private equity firm, but talks were halted due to differences over price, two sources familiar with the situation said.

The financial investors behind the initial approach suspended the discussions after failing to agree on a deal that would have seen Vifor delisted from Switzerland's SIX exchange, the sources told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Vifor declined to comment on Friday.

Shares in Vifor jumped 17% to 139.35 Swiss francs by 1303 GMT after Reuters was first to report the takeover talks.

Reuters was not immediately able to determine the names of the interested parties in Vifor, which at a price of 123 Swiss francs per share, is valued at around 8 billion Swiss francs ($8.82 billion).

The proposed takeover would have valued Vifor at about 10 billion Swiss francs, one of the sources said.

It was not immediately clear whether negotiations would be resumed or whether other bidders including healthcare companies might also consider making an approach for Vifor.

Investor Martin Ebner and his wife Rosmarie are Vifor's largest shareholders with a combined stake of around 20%, so any takeover is unlikely to succeed without their approval.

A spokesman for Ebner declined to comment.

Sources familiar with the situation said the Ebners could sell their stake under certain conditions.

Etienne Jornod, who led Vifor as chairman for more than two decades, resigned in May.

Vifor was listed in 2017 as part of the break up of Swiss drugmaker Galenica. Its main business is making active ingredients for iron deficiency such as Ferinject.

Vifor sold its immunotherapeutics subsidiary OM Pharma to Jornod's Optimus Holding for 435 million francs in September.

The deal, which helped streamline Vifor's portfolio, made the company a more attractive target, financial sources have said.

The company's revenues rose by 18.5% in 2019 to 1.88 billion Swiss francs and it reported a profit of 159 million francs. For the current year, it has forecast growth will slow to 5% in local currencies.

Vifor also operates a joint venture with Fresenius Medical Care, which develops and markets drugs for kidney disease. Its smallest business is a drug against elevated potassium levels.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/FRESENIUS-MEDICAL-CARE-AG-436087/news/Swiss-drugmaker-Vifor-had-bid-interest-but-talks-halted-sources-31876483/

10 COVID-19 vaccines seen by mid-year: head of global pharma group

 Ten COVID-19 vaccines could be available by the middle of next year if they win regulatory approval, but their inventors need patent protection, the head of the global pharmaceutical industry group said on Friday.

Vaccines by Pfizer and BioNtech, as well as Moderna and AstraZeneca have shown promising results in large clinical trials, but there is no question of “cutting corners”, said Thomas Cueni, director-general of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA).

“So far 3 we have 3 out of 3 were hits. I would expect that we will see something similar with Johnson & Johnson, I would expect that we would see similar positive results with Novavax, and many others, Sanofi Pasteur, GSK are in there, Merck,” he said.

‘Big Pharma’ and biotech firms have invested heavily in research and development and in boosting manufacturing during the pandemic to be able to roll out vaccine doses, Cueni told a Geneva news briefing.

It would be a mistake to lift patent protection to allow compulsory licensing and try to make vaccines requiring such complex quality assurance without expert staff and quality control procedures, he said.

“We will hopefully by the next summer have probably 10 vaccines which have proven their value. But all of them really need to be submitted by rigorous scientific scrutiny by the regulators.”

At the World Trade Organization (WTO), India and South Africa have proposed allowing a temporary waiver to allow compulsory licensing for patented products during the pandemic. The United States, European Union and Switzerland and others have rejected it, trade officials say.

Cueni, asked about the proposal, said: “For me this questioning of IP is really primarily politics, but it’s politics which is not helpful because it would send very negative signals in terms of disrespect to the system which allowed the world to react so fast and so responsibly.”

Vaccine manufacturing plants often need 50 quality assurance staff making hundreds of checks during production, he said, emphasising that the companies would not exploit the pandemic.

Cueni said that IFPMA archives showed there had never been a compulsory license granted for a vaccine and pointed to the difficult technology and know-how. Nearly every member company had committed to “not-for-profit” or socially responsible pricing during the pandemic, he added.

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-vaccines-ifpma/ten-covid-19-vaccines-seen-by-mid-year-head-of-global-pharma-group-says-idUSKBN2871UV

AstraZeneca’s messaging warrants a review, too

 AstraZeneca’s vaccine home run is in danger of turning into a curveball. The $134 billion drug giant is planning to review its Covid-19 vaccine candidate to clarify how effective it is. While it’s doing so, the UK group should probably do a separate review of how it communicates.

Chief Executive Pascal Soriot said on Monday that AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine could be 90% effective. That was the first data point in a statement released by the company, but referred to a result from a small part of the study accidentally obtained by using the wrong dosage. Meanwhile the University of Oxford, its vaccine partner, released a separate statement that highlighted the average effectiveness of the remedy as 70% from two different dosing regimens. In fact, the most conservative number to use was a figure that appeared further down in both messages: 62%. That was the result obtained from two-thirds of the participants that took part in the trial.

It’s understandable why Soriot favoured the best-case scenario. Vaccine trial results from U.S. peers Pfizer and Moderna showed stratospheric effectiveness of 95%. Yet AstraZeneca’s 62% equivalent remains impressive. It goes beyond the minimum 50% rate required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In the current environment, careful communication is critical. As many as 40% of Americans are unwilling to take a Covid-19 vaccine, according to an October Gallup poll. Although drug giants have vowed not to profit from coronavirus jabs during the pandemic, the speed of the vaccine rollouts itself breeds wariness. Things will get even more awkward if AstraZeneca’s new review finds its vaccine is less useful than assumed.

Investors will be watching, too. AstraZeneca’s shares have fallen nearly 5% since it revealed its results on Monday. Big Pharma valuations are based on the ability to deliver new blockbuster drugs and developing a track record for delivering on your pledges is an integral part of the mix. AstraZeneca should bear that in mind when it gets the results of its latest review back.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astrazeneca-breaki/breakingviews-astrazenecas-messaging-warrants-a-review-too-idUSKBN28714L

High cost of diabetes medications: how patients cope

 The soaring price of insulin and other diabetes-related medications has led many with the disease to adopt strategies for coping with the cost burden of controlling the disease.

The soaring price of insulin and other diabetes-related medications has led many with the disease to adopt strategies for coping with the cost burden of controlling the disease.A recent National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Data Brief finds that in 2018, 13% of adults with diabetes who’d been prescribed medications during the previous 12 months did not take them as prescribed, while 24% asked their doctor for less-costly medications. This is defined as skipping medication doses, taking less medicine than prescribed, or delaying refills.

Patients under 65 are more likely to adopt cost-related coping strategies
• Among patients under age 65, 18% did not take their medication as prescribed, compared with 7% of those 65 and older
• Similarly, 26% of those under 65 requested lower-cost medications, while 22% of those over 65 did

Women are more likely than men to use cost-related coping strategies
• 15% of women, versus 12% of men, didn’t take medication as prescribed in order to reduce their prescription drug costs
• 26% of women and 23% of men asked for their doctors for lower-cost diabetes medications

For patients under 65, lack of insurance coverage is a major factor in the need for strategies to deal with high medication costs
• 36% of patients in this age cohort who lacked insurance didn’t take their medication as prescribed compared with 18% of those with Medicaid coverage and 14% with commercial insurance
• 43% of uninsured patients requested a lower-cost medication, but only 26% of commercially-insured patients and 19% covered by Medicaid did so

The type of insurance coverage among patients 65 and older had little impact on rates of medication adherence, but did significantly affect requests for lower-cost medications
• Non-adherence rates were identical (6.2%) among those with commercial insurance or dual Medicare-Medicaid coverage and nearly identical for those enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan or regular Medicare (9.3% and 9.2%, respectively)
• In contrast, patients with commercial insurance were twice as likely as those with dual Medicare-Medicaid coverage (26% and 13%, respectively) to request lower-cost medications. For Medicare Advantage and regular Medicare enrollees, the rates were 26% and 23%, respectively

https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/high-cost-diabetes-medications-how-patients-cope