Search This Blog

Tuesday, March 23, 2021

Blue Shield spent years cultivating links with Newsom, then won state vaccine contract

 Gavin Newsom was just making a name for himself as mayor of San Francisco in 2005 when Blue Shield of California wrote him its first major check.

The young, business-friendly Democrat had exploded onto the national scene the year before by issuing same-sex marriage licenses in San Francisco, and he was pushing his next big idea, called Project Homeless Connect. The initiative would host bazaar-style events in neighborhoods across the city, linking homeless people to services like food assistance and healthcare.

Newsom needed financial support from businesses, and Blue Shield answered with a $25,000 contribution.

Over the next 16 years, as Newsom’s political career flourished, the health insurance behemoth became one of his most generous and trusted supporters. It contributed nearly $23 million to Newsom’s campaigns and special causes, according to a California Healthline analysis of political and charitable contributions. Of that, nearly 90% has funded the homelessness initiatives that critics and allies say are dearest to Newsom’s heart.

Newsom, elected governor in 2018, in turn has rewarded Blue Shield and its executives with positions of power during the coronavirus pandemic, which has claimed nearly 56,000 Californians’ lives.

Facing mounting criticism early this year over the chaotic COVID-19 vaccination rollout and a growing recall effort to remove him from office, Newsom gave the insurer a $15 million, no-bid contract to take over California’s life-or-death effort to quickly vaccinate its 40 million residents. Last spring, Newsom also enlisted Blue Shield’s CEO, Paul Markovich, to help steer the state’s COVID testing strategy, another component of the state’s pandemic response that had faltered.

“Blue Shield responded early and responded often,” and it was among the first to invest in Newsom’s controversial homelessness ideas, said Philip Mangano, who led homelessness policy under former President George W. Bush and now informally advises Newsom. “Gavin understood they could be depended on over the years.”


But Newsom’s decision to rely on Blue Shield is backfiring. A growing number of public health officials and lawmakers say Blue Shield isn’t the right choice to coordinate the state’s vaccine distribution. And California’s counties, which are implementing the state’s coronavirus response, simply refuse to sign on with the insurer.

Newsom’s political future now hinges, in part, on how quickly Blue Shield—which is still charged with leading how vaccines are allocated—can get shots into Californians’ arms. The Republican-driven recall campaign slams him for his response to the pandemic and for violating his own public health recommendations when he dined last fall at the exclusive French Laundry restaurant in Napa Valley with people from outside his household.

Recall organizers say they have submitted 2.1 million signatures, and county election officials have until April 29 (PDF) to certify that at least 1.5 million are valid in order for the state to set a recall election this fall.

Newsom did not respond to interview requests.

Blue Shield, which has already contributed $269,000 to a political account that Newsom could tap to fight a recall election, also declined multiple interview requests. But in an email, spokesperson Don Campbell said the Oakland-based company regularly supports candidates who share its mission of improving healthcare access and affordability.

“There is no financial or other benefit being bestowed upon, or accrued by, Blue Shield,” Campbell said. “Blue Shield was asked by the state to help with vaccines. Our reward is to help save lives.”

Blue Shield isn’t alone in donating to the governor and his projects. Other interest groups have given more, such as Silicon Valley’s Facebook and the healthcare giant Kaiser Permanente, which covers about one-quarter of the state’s population. (KHN is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.)

Kaiser Permanente is advising Blue Shield on vaccine distribution and has a special agreement with the state to vaccinate Californians—including patients outside its system. Kaiser Permanente also invested in homelessness projects in San Francisco after Newsom got them off the ground, and twice last year responded to Newsom’s pleas for corporate dollars to combat the state’s toughest crises: It gave $25 million to a state homelessness fund set up by Newsom and $9.75 million to an immigrant COVID relief fund.

But unlike Blue Shield, which gave $20 million to the homelessness fund, Kaiser Permanente has never donated to Newsom as a political candidate, according to local and state campaign records. Blue Shield has given to Newsom in every elected office he has held over the past 20 years.

“That’s how the game works. It’s just about standard influence peddling,” said David McCuan, a Sonoma State University political scientist. “What’s different here is the degree, or the depth of what [Blue Shield] has done under this governor.”

Over time, the company has funded Newsom and his policy initiatives in a way it hasn’t contributed to other politicians at the local or state level, records show, helping elevate him to higher office.


Blue Shield wrote its first check to Newsom for $500 in 2002, when the company was based in San Francisco and he was a city supervisor pushing an ambitious social welfare agenda to help both poor people and businesses that were growing impatient with the explosion of homeless people sleeping in front of their establishments and crowding hospital emergency rooms. It was Blue Shield’s only donation to a local political race in California that year, according to records with the secretary of state’s office.

After he had ascended to the mayor’s office, 14 of Blue Shield’s top executives, including Markovich, contributed a combined $5,150—on a single day, Aug. 22, 2007—according to campaign statements filed with the San Francisco Ethics Commission. The company’s contributions continued when he served as lieutenant governor from 2011 to 2019.

But the company’s investment in Newsom soared during the 2018 gubernatorial race. Blue Shield and its executives contributed $71,550 to Newsom’s campaign, and the company partnered with powerful labor unions to form a special committee that allowed them to spend unlimited amounts of money on Newsom’s behalf. Blue Shield chipped in nearly $1 million to that effort, and also gave $1 million to a committee formed by health industry groups to defeat one of Newsom’s primary opponents, then-state treasurer John Chiang.

After Newsom won the election, Blue Shield contributed $100,000 to his inauguration celebration and cut a $50,000 check in his name to a charity supporting firefighters.

With Newsom in office, Blue Shield focused on again giving to the governor’s deepest passion: homelessness. In January 2020, the same month Newsom promised to dedicate unprecedented resources to combating homelessness, Blue Shield announced its $20 million donation to his homelessness fund, which later transformed into “Project Homekey.” That initiative is intended to finance the conversion of more than 6,000 hotel rooms across the state into housing units.

“No one sector can solve the homelessness crisis alone,” Blue Shield quoted Newsom as saying in its Jan. 17, 2020, press release announcing its donation. “It’s our collective responsibility to meet this moment with bold action and intentional leadership — and that’s exactly what Blue Shield’s leadership is doing.”

The donation to Project Homekey came shortly before COVID derailed Newsom’s sweeping health and homelessness agenda. But Newsom’s confidants say the relationship he forged with Blue Shield assured him that the company could quickly turn around the state’s troubled vaccination program.

“Because of their early investment, there was a level of trust—I would even say camaraderie—established going forward,” Mangano said. “Blue Shield took a risk way back when Gavin was becoming mayor. There are other organizations like Kaiser Permanente who have since staked out positions in support, but they weren’t there early and they weren’t the ones taking the greatest risk.”


When Newsom announced that Blue Shield would take over California’s vaccine distribution, he emphasized the job would be in the hands of a nonprofit with an expansive provider network equipped to quickly get vaccines into arms. While it remains a nonprofit, the state stripped Blue Shield of its tax-exempt status in 2014, alleging it operated much like a for-profit insurance company.

The insurer, which covers about 4 million Californians, took in $21 billion in revenue in 2019, the most recent year for which data are available, with net income of slightly more than $573 million. The same year, it paid Markovich $7.5 million, plus benefits.

The National Committee for Quality Assurance has given Blue Shield a poor rating for efficient patient care. And on the chief job Newsom is asking it to do—getting vaccines to patients—Blue Shield is average, ranking 3 out of 5 in the national ranking on flu shots.

No other state appears to have delegated the vaccination job to an insurer, said Georges Benjamin, M.D., executive director of the American Public Health Association. And because counties refuse to contract with Blue Shield, the Newsom administration is scrambling to give counties the option to work with the state government instead.

A growing number of state and local lawmakers are calling the deal a waste of taxpayer money.

“I don’t think having Blue Shield step in is going to get teachers vaccinated any quicker. I don’t think it’s going to get the 70-year-old Black folks vaccinated any quicker,” said state Sen. Sydney Kamlager, D-Los Angeles, adding that she has “more faith” in her local public health experts than in Blue Shield. “And they’re not doing it for free.”

Newsom has insisted that the insurer won’t be allowed to profit.

But critics of the deal argue that even though Blue Shield isn’t technically allowed to make money off vaccinating Californians, the company stands to gain enormous prestige.

Since taking over the program on March 1, Markovich has appeared in press conferences and the company has produced slick advertising urging Californians to get vaccinated. In one ad, viewers are left with the image of the company’s blue logo on a black screen.

“This is not about making money. This is about the marketing opportunity it represents. It’s huge,” said Michael Johnson, a Blue Shield whistleblower who left his post as director of public policy in 2015. “The reason Blue Shield has been selected for this is not because of its capabilities, but because of its relationship with Newsom.”

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/blue-shield-spent-years-cultivating-a-relationship-newsom-it-got-state-vaccine-contract

CVS chief confident about strategy as Amazon aims to muscle in

 CVS Health CEO Karen Lynch said the company isn't intimidated by tech giants like Amazon trying to bite into its market share.

Lynch, speaking at the Wall Street Journal Health Forum on Tuesday, said CVS already has an established relationship with 100 million customers as a community pharmacy and insurer and has invested heavily in building capabilities like home pharmacy delivery and digital health.

CVS is embedded in many communities and is a healthcare brand patients are already comfortable with, she said.

"I firmly believe we have a strong and solid strategy," she said. "I’m very focused on our strategy and making sure that we have affordable access to care and that we’re improving overall medical costs."

Amazon launched its virtual health pilot, Amazon Care, about 18 months ago and announced this week that it's planning to expand the program to all of its employees by the summer and begin offering it to other employers as well.


The retailer has also launched Amazon Pharmacy, which allows patients to purchase medications and have them shipped to their homes. Analysts said the move positions Amazon as a major competitor to CVS, Walgreens and other established brands in the pharmacy space.

Lynch also touched on another market in which competition is heating up during the event: the Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) exchanges. 

She announced on the company's earnings call last month that Aetna is aiming to return to the exchanges after four years on Jan. 1, 2022. Stabilization in the markets has lured previously hesitant insurers back or enticed them to expand their offerings.

The Aetna team determined "it was important for us" to be in a market that reaches 11 million to 15 million people, Lynch said.

Lynch said Aetna expects to be competitive immediately as it can now harness the combined resources of the insurer and CVS Health, including a potential joint-branded product that takes advantage of CVS' HealthHub concept stores. Aetna unveiled a similar plan design in August last year for employers.

She said the insurer expects to file officially in the April-May window, which will further flesh out its ACA exchange plans.

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/lynch-cvs-confident-about-strategy-as-amazon-aims-to-muscle-its-turf

DaVita, Fresenius team up to bring dialysis care out of their clinics and into homes

 The two largest dialysis providers in the U.S. are teaming up to pursue a business proposition that might seem antithetical in nearly any other field or at any other time outside of a worldwide pandemic. They aim to help get patients out of their respective clinics and have them access treatment from inside their own homes.

DaVita Kidney Care will expand its use of home hemodialysis machines supplied by Fresenius Medical Care—including the smaller, portable and digitally connected devices Fresenius picked up in early 2019 through its long-awaited $1.9 billion acquisition deal for NxStage Medical.

The agreement will also grant DaVita patients access to Nx2me Connected Health, a platform that collects and shares individual treatment information with clinics and care teams—while the entire system will allow some to perform hemodialysis solo, or even while the patient and their care partner are asleep.

These remote capabilities can help clinicians identify treatment irregularities and prevent avoidable complications, according to Keith Hartman, group vice president for DaVita’s home modalities division. 

“For patients choosing home dialysis, it can mean more freedom and also active participation in their care, which is why we’re always looking for new solutions that ease the burden on our patients,” Hartman said.


DaVita maintains over 2,800 brick-and-mortar dialysis centers in the U.S., while Fresenius’ North America subsidiary owns more than 2,500 on the continent—together accounting for more than 80% of the entire U.S. market.

However, the spread of COVID-19 plus the advent of lockdowns and social-distancing measures have spurred high demand for home care. In 2020, Fresenius said it provided more than 14% of its dialysis treatments in the home setting, with home hemodialysis alone growing by 37%.

Meanwhile, recent changes to Medicare have also worked to accelerate the adoption of home-based therapies. The program expanded payments last November for new home dialysis equipment after finalizing a value-based payment model designed to incentivize at-home therapies over in-clinic treatments.

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/davita-fresenius-team-up-to-bring-dialysis-care-out-their-clinics-and-into-home

DoorDash to stock COVID-19 test kits for home delivery

 The people who bring you lunch can now also deliver a COVID-19 diagnostic test, as screening for the pandemic disease continues to become a more ubiquitous part of everyday life.

DoorDash has partnered up with the home-testing companies Everlywell and Vault Health to make sample collection kits available on-demand through its app, alongside sandwiches, pizza and takeout.

Both companies’ kits have been authorized by the FDA, and include the swabs and tubes necessary to gather nasal or saliva samples, and then ship them to a laboratory for results in one to two days. 

The delivery app will begin rolling out the kits to 12 DashMart locations in major U.S. metro areas—its line of 24/7 virtual convenience stores, backed by partnerships with 7-Eleven, Walgreens, CVS, Wawa and more. Additional cities are slated for the coming months.

"Amidst the pandemic, one of our priorities has been to make health and wellness essentials more accessible for customers, with the goal of helping businesses leverage our last-mile logistics infrastructure to provide more convenient and timely access to their health supplies," said Anna Katherine Barnett-Hart, director of new verticals at DoorDash, which aims to deliver the test kits in less than an hour.


Everlywell’s nasal swab test, for $109, is for adults 18 and older and includes a telehealth consult with a physician. Vault Health’s $119 test can be completed by people of all ages, including children under 18 with adult supervision—and both kits can be ordered regardless of whether a person is showing symptoms.

"As many as 30 percent of people skip doctor's appointments because they don't have a reliable way of getting there," said Everlywell’s head of clinical affairs, Marisa Cruz. "The fact that you can now get a kit delivered to your door in hours, quickly collect a sample and drop your kit in the mail, and then receive an accurate COVID-19 diagnosis and speak to a physician about next steps in as little as 24 hours later is a significant step forward for public health."

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/doordash-to-stock-covid-19-test-kits-for-home-delivery

Inovio Has 'Bigger Value Drivers' Outside Of COVID-19 Vaccine Program: BofA

 Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 

INO 7.85%, which has fallen behind in the COVID-19 vaccine race, has much to offer beyond a coronavirus vaccine, according to a BofA Securities analyst. 

The Inovio Analyst: Geoff Meacham initiated coverage of Inovio with a Neutral rating and $13 price target.

The Inovio Thesis: Although much of the debate on Inovio is centered around its COVID-19 DNA vaccine, dubbed INO-4800, it has other value drivers in the form of DNA-based medicines for indications such as infectious diseases, HPV-related precancers and oncology, Meacham said in a Wednesday initiation note.

Since INO-4800 contributes significantly to BofA's sum-of-the-parts net present value, volatility around the COVID-19 landscape has kept the firm on the sidelines, the analyst said.

The analyst now estimates global peak sales of $1.6 billion for NO-4800.

"We aren't negative on the clinical profile of INO-4800 vs. competition, but rather, we see the C-19 vaccine market as increasingly saturated, with little room for upside for a later market entrant," Meacham said. 


Additionally, there are still some de-risking events given that the Phase 2b/3 study remains on hold, the analyst said. The program will progress by midyear, he said. 

Upside is likely from key de-risking catalysts for the rest of the pipeline in the next 12-18 months, Meacham said. 

These catalysts include data from the second Phase 3 study of VGX-3100 in HPV-linked cervical dysplasia, due in 2022; additional Phase 1/2 data from INO-5401 in glioblastoma multiforme around midyear; and Phase 3 data from INO-4800 around the end of 2021, the analyst said.

The rest of the pipeline is upside to BofA's model, including INO-3107 in recurrent respiratory papillomatosis and partnered programs such as MEDI0457 in head and neck cancer, he said. 

https://www.benzinga.com/analyst-ratings/analyst-color/21/03/20298439/inovio-has-bigger-value-drivers-outside-of-covid-19-vaccine-program-bofa-analyst

Most cancer patients with COVID-19 have immune response like people without cancer

 Most people with cancer who are infected by the novel coronavirus produce antibodies at a rate comparable to the rest of the population—but their ability to do so depends on their type of cancer and the treatments they've received, according to a new study by researchers at Montefiore Health System and Albert Einstein College of Medicine. The findings, published online today in Nature Cancer, may lead to better care for cancer patients, who face a heightened risk of dying from COVID-19, and suggests that cancer patients should respond well to COVID-19 vaccines.

"We conducted the study out of our concern that  who develop COVID-19 may not benefit from the same degree of antibody protection as people without cancer, given that many are immuno-compromised," said Astha Thakkar, M.B.B.S., a Montefiore hematologic oncology fellow and first author of the paper. "Our findings provide assurance that most people with cancer are able to mount an antibody response to the coronavirus that is similar to the general population. People with a history of cancer are likely as protected from reinfection as those without a history of disease and are likely to respond well to vaccines, according to our study."

The  involved 261 cancer patients, 77% of whom were diagnosed with solid malignancies and 23% with hematologic (blood) malignancies. Their overall rate of seroconversion (production of  in response to infection) was 92%. However, when patients with solid and blood malignancies were compared, patients with blood cancers had a seroconversion rate of only 81.7%—significantly lower than the 94.5% seroconversion rate for patients with solid tumors.

"The treatments commonly given to patients with blood cancers—anti-CD20 antibody therapy, stem-cell transplants, and steroids—are known to suppress the immune system, which may explain the lower rate of antibodies developed in these patients and their increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease," said senior author Balazs Halmos, M.D., M.S., director of the Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program at Montefiore, professor of medicine at Einstein, and a member of the Albert Einstein Cancer Center (AECC).

"We need to pay special attention to patients with blood cancers and think through proactive strategies to ensure this patient population is appropriately cared for," said Sanjay Goel, M.B.B.S., a medical oncologist at Montefiore, professor of medicine at Einstein, a member of AECC, and a coauthor on the paper. "This study also raises the need for additional research on COVID-19 vaccines and current treatments for people with blood cancer."

In a paper published last year in Cancer Discovery, Dr. Halmos and colleagues found that COVID-19 patients with  cancers had significantly higher mortality rates compared with patients who had solid tumors. Mortality was more closely related to age and co-morbidities than active cancer therapy.

The study participants were cared for at Montefiore between March 1, 2020 and September 15, 2020 and tested positive for COVID-19 through PCR tests to detect coronavirus or prior COVID-19 exposure through antibody testing, or both. The patients had an average age of 64 and were almost evenly split between men and women. Fifty-six percent of patients (147/261) had symptomatic coronavirus infection, while 44% (114/261) had an asymptomatic infection.

More than 40% of patients were African American; 30% were Hispanic, nearly 15% were Caucasian, 3% were Asian, and 6% belong to other ethnic groups.

The paper is titled "Patterns of seroconversion for SARS-COV2-IgG in Patients with Malignant Disease and association with anti- therapy."


Explore further

Cancer patients face high mortality from COVID-19

More information: Astha Thakkar et al. Patterns of seroconversion for SARS-CoV-2 IgG in patients with malignant disease and association with anticancer therapy, Nature Cancer (2021). DOI: 10.1038/s43018-021-00191-y
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-03-majority-cancer-patients-covid-similar.html

LabCorp hires Goldman for business review

 Labcorp continues to make progress executing our strategy and capitalizing on the power of our diagnostic and drug development businesses. We are successfully accelerating growth across our platform, while playing a critical role in the fight against COVID-19 and helping our clients develop next-generation solutions for other key therapeutic areas such as oncology, liver and kidney disease, Alzheimer’s and autoimmune disorders.

While we continue to see strong momentum across our operations, the Labcorp Board of Directors and management team believe that our value is not being appropriately reflected in the Company’s current stock price. Therefore, the Board of Directors is undertaking a review of the Company’s structure and capital allocation strategy to ensure we are best positioned to unlock shareholder value while we continue to support patients and customers around the world.

The Board will take the appropriate time to complete the review, and has engaged Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC as its financial advisor to support the process. Labcorp does not intend to comment further about this review until the Board has reached a conclusion.

Customers should continue to count on Labcorp to remain relentlessly focused on improving the health and lives of patients, including with the Company’s vital role in the fight against COVID-19.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210323006055/en/Labcorp-Business-Update