MDedge Infectious Disease

A Florida doctor told his patient her test result would be available in 3-4 days. When the patient didn’t hear back, she called the practice several times, but she didn’t receive a return call. So she filed a complaint against the doctor with the medical board.

When the board investigator interviewed the doctor, the physician said he wasn’t aware the patient had called. But his staff said otherwise. Because the doctor had not been truthful, the board sent him a letter of guidance and required him to attend a training program in ethics.

Miami attorney William J. Spratt Jr., who supplied this anecdote about a former client, said that most complaints are dismissed with no action taken, but some complaints don’t go away because doctors mishandle them.

The following are some common mistakes that physicians make when dealing with a board complaint.
 

1. Not responding to the complaint

The complaint you get from the board – which often comes with a subpoena and a response deadline – usually asks for medical records pertinent to the case.

You can’t disregard the board’s letter, said Doug Brocker, an attorney handling board actions in Raleigh, N.C. “It’s amazing to me that some people just ignore a board complaint. Sometimes it’s because the doctor is just burnt out, which may have gotten the doctor into trouble in the first place.”

If you do not respond to a subpoena, “the board can file a court order holding you in contempt and start taking action on your license,” said Jeff Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney in Greensboro, N.C. Dr. Segal is CEO of Medical Justice Services, which protects physicians’ reputations associated with malpractice suits and board actions. “Not responding is not much different from agreeing to all of the charges.”
 

2. Not recognizing the seriousness of the complaint

“The biggest mistake is not taking a complaint seriously,” said Linda Stimmel, an attorney at Wilson Elser in Dallas. “Physicians who get a complaint often fire off a brief response stating that the complaint has no merit, without offering any evidence.”

According to Ms. Stimmel, “it’s really important to back up your assertions, such as using excerpts from the medical record, citations of peer-reviewed articles, or a letter of support from a colleague.”

“Weigh your answers carefully, because lack of accuracy will complicate your case,” Mr. Brocker said. “Consult the medical record rather than rely on your memory.”

“Present your version of events, in your own words, because that’s almost always better than the board’s version,” said Dr. Segal.

Even if there was a bad clinical outcome, Dr. Segal said you might point out that the patient was at high risk, or you could show that your clinical outcomes are better than the national average.
 

3. Thinking the board is on your side

You may be lulled into a false sense of security because the physicians on the medical board are your peers, but they can be as tough as any medical malpractice judge, said William P. Sullivan, DO, an emergency physician and attorney in Frankfort, Ill.

As per the National Practitioner Data Bank, physicians are three to four times more likely to incur an adverse board action than make a malpractice payout, Dr. Sullivan said.

Also, although a malpractice lawsuit rarely involves more than a monetary payment, a board action, like a monitoring plan, can restrict your ability to practice medicine. In fact, any kind of board action against you can make it harder to find employment.
 

4. Not being honest or forthcoming

“Lying to the board is the fastest way to turn what would have been a minor infraction into putting your license at risk,” Mr. Brocker said. This can happen when doctors update a medical record to support their version of events.

As per Dr. Sullivan, another way to put your license at risk is to withhold adverse information, which the board can detect by obtaining your application for hospital privileges or for licensure to another state, in which you revealed the adverse information.

Dr. Sullivan also advised against claiming you “always” take a certain precautionary measure. “In reality, we doctors don’t always do what we would like to have done. By saying you always do it when you didn’t, you appear less than truthful to the board, and boards have a hard time with that.”

Similarly, “when doctors don’t want to recognize that they could have handled things better, they tend to dance around the issue,” Mr. Brocker said. “This does not sit well with the board.” Insisting that you did everything right when it’s obvious that you didn’t can lead to harsher sanctions. “The board wants to make sure doctors recognize their mistakes and are willing to learn from them.”
 

5. Providing too much information

You may think that providing a great deal of information strengthens your case, but it can actually weaken it, Mr. Brocker said. Irrelevant information makes your response hard to follow, and it may contain evidence that could prompt another line of inquiry.

“Less is more,” Dr. Segal advised. “Present a coherent argument and keep to the most salient points.” Being concise is also good advice if your complaint proceeds to the board and you have to present your case.

Dr. Segal said the board will stop paying attention to long-winded presentations. He tells his clients to imagine the board is watching a movie. “If your presentation is tedious or hard to follow, you will lose them.”
 

6. Trying to contact the complainant

Complaints are kept anonymous, but in many cases, the doctor has an idea who the complainant was and may try to contact that person. “It’s natural to wonder why a patient would file a complaint against you,” Mr. Brocker said, but if you reach out to the patient to ask why, “it could look like you’re trying to persuade the patient to drop the complaint.”

Doctors who are involved in a practice breakup or a divorce can be victims of false and malicious complaints, but Beth Y. Collis, a partner at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl in Columbus, said boards are onto this tactic and usually reject these complaints.

The doctor may be tempted to sue the complainant, but Mr. Brocker said this won’t stop the complaint and could strengthen it. “Most statements to the medical board are protected from defamation lawsuits, and any lawsuit could appear to be intimidation.”
 

7. Simply signing a consent agreement

A small minority of complaints may result in the board taking action against the doctor. Typically, this involves getting the doctor to sign a consent agreement stating that he or she agrees with the board’s decision and its remedy, such as continuing education, a fine, or being placed under another doctor’s supervision.

“When the board sends you a consent agreement, it’s usually about something fairly minor,” Ms. Collis said. “You can make a counteroffer and see if they accept that. But once you enter into the agreement, you waive any right to appeal the board’s decision.”
 

8. Not hiring an attorney

Although some doctors manage to deal with a board complaint on their own, many will need to get an attorney, Mr. Brocker said. “An experienced attorney can help you navigate the board’s process.”

Clients often look for attorneys at the end of the process, when formal charges have already been filed, Mr. Brocker said. At that point, “it’s harder to get things moving in the right direction. You can’t unring the bell.”

Even if you don’t think you need an attorney throughout the case, “it helps to get advice from an attorney at the beginning,” Dr. Segal said. Doctors may think they can’t afford an attorney, but many malpractice carriers pay attorneys’ fees in medical board investigations.

Mr. Brocker advised finding an attorney who is familiar with licensing boards. “Malpractice attorneys may think they can deal with medical boards, but boards are quite different.” For example, “malpractice cases involve an adversarial approach, but licensing boards normally require working collaboratively.”
 

9. Not requesting a hearing

When the board takes action against you, it can be tempting to just accept the allegations and move on with your life, but it may be possible to undo the action, Dr. Sullivan said. “The board still has to prove its allegations, and it may not have a strong case against you.”

In some states, the medical board has to meet a very high standard of proof, Dr. Sullivan said. In Illinois, for example, the board must show “clear and convincing evidence,” while a malpractice plaintiff must only prove that it’s “more likely than not” that a physician violated the standard of care.

A hearing can especially help doctors facing harsh sanctions for minor offenses. For example, in a case handled by the law firm of Ray & Bishop in Newport Beach, Calif., a doctor who was stopped by police while driving home after having wine at a family gathering was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.11%. Noting that the physician was on call at the time, the Medical Board of California decided to give him 5 years of probation.

Ray & Bishop asked for a judicial hearing to contest the decision. At the hearing, the physician noted that other physicians were also available to take call that night, and an expert stated that the doctor was not an alcohol abuser. The judge ruled that the board’s action was unduly harsh, and the physician received a public reprimand with no further penalties.
 

10. Getting upset with board officials

A board investigator may show up at your office uninvited and ask you to answer some questions, but you aren’t required to answer then and there, said Ms. Collis.

In fact, she noted, it’s never a good idea to let investigators into your office. “They can walk around, look through your records, and find more things to investigate.” For this reason, Ms. Collis makes it a point to schedule meetings with investigators at her office.

When you have to interact with board officials, such as during hearings, expressing anger is a mistake. “Some board members may raise their voices and make untrue assertions about your medical care,” Dr. Sullivan said. “You may wish you could respond in kind, but that will not help you.” Instead, calmly provide studies or guidelines supporting the care you provided.

Taking board investigators to task is also a mistake, Mr. Brocker pointed out. In his words, “investigators have to follow the rules. Getting mad at them will only make your case more difficult. Even if you believe the complaint against you is totally without merit, the process needs to run its course.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Florida doctor told his patient her test result would be available in 3-4 days. When the patient didn’t hear back, she called the practice several times, but she didn’t receive a return call. So she filed a complaint against the doctor with the medical board.

When the board investigator interviewed the doctor, the physician said he wasn’t aware the patient had called. But his staff said otherwise. Because the doctor had not been truthful, the board sent him a letter of guidance and required him to attend a training program in ethics.

Miami attorney William J. Spratt Jr., who supplied this anecdote about a former client, said that most complaints are dismissed with no action taken, but some complaints don’t go away because doctors mishandle them.

The following are some common mistakes that physicians make when dealing with a board complaint.
 

1. Not responding to the complaint

The complaint you get from the board – which often comes with a subpoena and a response deadline – usually asks for medical records pertinent to the case.

You can’t disregard the board’s letter, said Doug Brocker, an attorney handling board actions in Raleigh, N.C. “It’s amazing to me that some people just ignore a board complaint. Sometimes it’s because the doctor is just burnt out, which may have gotten the doctor into trouble in the first place.”

If you do not respond to a subpoena, “the board can file a court order holding you in contempt and start taking action on your license,” said Jeff Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney in Greensboro, N.C. Dr. Segal is CEO of Medical Justice Services, which protects physicians’ reputations associated with malpractice suits and board actions. “Not responding is not much different from agreeing to all of the charges.”
 

2. Not recognizing the seriousness of the complaint

“The biggest mistake is not taking a complaint seriously,” said Linda Stimmel, an attorney at Wilson Elser in Dallas. “Physicians who get a complaint often fire off a brief response stating that the complaint has no merit, without offering any evidence.”

According to Ms. Stimmel, “it’s really important to back up your assertions, such as using excerpts from the medical record, citations of peer-reviewed articles, or a letter of support from a colleague.”

“Weigh your answers carefully, because lack of accuracy will complicate your case,” Mr. Brocker said. “Consult the medical record rather than rely on your memory.”

“Present your version of events, in your own words, because that’s almost always better than the board’s version,” said Dr. Segal.

Even if there was a bad clinical outcome, Dr. Segal said you might point out that the patient was at high risk, or you could show that your clinical outcomes are better than the national average.
 

3. Thinking the board is on your side

You may be lulled into a false sense of security because the physicians on the medical board are your peers, but they can be as tough as any medical malpractice judge, said William P. Sullivan, DO, an emergency physician and attorney in Frankfort, Ill.

As per the National Practitioner Data Bank, physicians are three to four times more likely to incur an adverse board action than make a malpractice payout, Dr. Sullivan said.

Also, although a malpractice lawsuit rarely involves more than a monetary payment, a board action, like a monitoring plan, can restrict your ability to practice medicine. In fact, any kind of board action against you can make it harder to find employment.
 

4. Not being honest or forthcoming

“Lying to the board is the fastest way to turn what would have been a minor infraction into putting your license at risk,” Mr. Brocker said. This can happen when doctors update a medical record to support their version of events.

As per Dr. Sullivan, another way to put your license at risk is to withhold adverse information, which the board can detect by obtaining your application for hospital privileges or for licensure to another state, in which you revealed the adverse information.

Dr. Sullivan also advised against claiming you “always” take a certain precautionary measure. “In reality, we doctors don’t always do what we would like to have done. By saying you always do it when you didn’t, you appear less than truthful to the board, and boards have a hard time with that.”

Similarly, “when doctors don’t want to recognize that they could have handled things better, they tend to dance around the issue,” Mr. Brocker said. “This does not sit well with the board.” Insisting that you did everything right when it’s obvious that you didn’t can lead to harsher sanctions. “The board wants to make sure doctors recognize their mistakes and are willing to learn from them.”
 

5. Providing too much information

You may think that providing a great deal of information strengthens your case, but it can actually weaken it, Mr. Brocker said. Irrelevant information makes your response hard to follow, and it may contain evidence that could prompt another line of inquiry.

“Less is more,” Dr. Segal advised. “Present a coherent argument and keep to the most salient points.” Being concise is also good advice if your complaint proceeds to the board and you have to present your case.

Dr. Segal said the board will stop paying attention to long-winded presentations. He tells his clients to imagine the board is watching a movie. “If your presentation is tedious or hard to follow, you will lose them.”
 

6. Trying to contact the complainant

Complaints are kept anonymous, but in many cases, the doctor has an idea who the complainant was and may try to contact that person. “It’s natural to wonder why a patient would file a complaint against you,” Mr. Brocker said, but if you reach out to the patient to ask why, “it could look like you’re trying to persuade the patient to drop the complaint.”

Doctors who are involved in a practice breakup or a divorce can be victims of false and malicious complaints, but Beth Y. Collis, a partner at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl in Columbus, said boards are onto this tactic and usually reject these complaints.

The doctor may be tempted to sue the complainant, but Mr. Brocker said this won’t stop the complaint and could strengthen it. “Most statements to the medical board are protected from defamation lawsuits, and any lawsuit could appear to be intimidation.”
 

7. Simply signing a consent agreement

A small minority of complaints may result in the board taking action against the doctor. Typically, this involves getting the doctor to sign a consent agreement stating that he or she agrees with the board’s decision and its remedy, such as continuing education, a fine, or being placed under another doctor’s supervision.

“When the board sends you a consent agreement, it’s usually about something fairly minor,” Ms. Collis said. “You can make a counteroffer and see if they accept that. But once you enter into the agreement, you waive any right to appeal the board’s decision.”
 

8. Not hiring an attorney

Although some doctors manage to deal with a board complaint on their own, many will need to get an attorney, Mr. Brocker said. “An experienced attorney can help you navigate the board’s process.”

Clients often look for attorneys at the end of the process, when formal charges have already been filed, Mr. Brocker said. At that point, “it’s harder to get things moving in the right direction. You can’t unring the bell.”

Even if you don’t think you need an attorney throughout the case, “it helps to get advice from an attorney at the beginning,” Dr. Segal said. Doctors may think they can’t afford an attorney, but many malpractice carriers pay attorneys’ fees in medical board investigations.

Mr. Brocker advised finding an attorney who is familiar with licensing boards. “Malpractice attorneys may think they can deal with medical boards, but boards are quite different.” For example, “malpractice cases involve an adversarial approach, but licensing boards normally require working collaboratively.”
 

9. Not requesting a hearing

When the board takes action against you, it can be tempting to just accept the allegations and move on with your life, but it may be possible to undo the action, Dr. Sullivan said. “The board still has to prove its allegations, and it may not have a strong case against you.”

In some states, the medical board has to meet a very high standard of proof, Dr. Sullivan said. In Illinois, for example, the board must show “clear and convincing evidence,” while a malpractice plaintiff must only prove that it’s “more likely than not” that a physician violated the standard of care.

A hearing can especially help doctors facing harsh sanctions for minor offenses. For example, in a case handled by the law firm of Ray & Bishop in Newport Beach, Calif., a doctor who was stopped by police while driving home after having wine at a family gathering was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.11%. Noting that the physician was on call at the time, the Medical Board of California decided to give him 5 years of probation.

Ray & Bishop asked for a judicial hearing to contest the decision. At the hearing, the physician noted that other physicians were also available to take call that night, and an expert stated that the doctor was not an alcohol abuser. The judge ruled that the board’s action was unduly harsh, and the physician received a public reprimand with no further penalties.
 

10. Getting upset with board officials

A board investigator may show up at your office uninvited and ask you to answer some questions, but you aren’t required to answer then and there, said Ms. Collis.

In fact, she noted, it’s never a good idea to let investigators into your office. “They can walk around, look through your records, and find more things to investigate.” For this reason, Ms. Collis makes it a point to schedule meetings with investigators at her office.

When you have to interact with board officials, such as during hearings, expressing anger is a mistake. “Some board members may raise their voices and make untrue assertions about your medical care,” Dr. Sullivan said. “You may wish you could respond in kind, but that will not help you.” Instead, calmly provide studies or guidelines supporting the care you provided.

Taking board investigators to task is also a mistake, Mr. Brocker pointed out. In his words, “investigators have to follow the rules. Getting mad at them will only make your case more difficult. Even if you believe the complaint against you is totally without merit, the process needs to run its course.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Florida doctor told his patient her test result would be available in 3-4 days. When the patient didn’t hear back, she called the practice several times, but she didn’t receive a return call. So she filed a complaint against the doctor with the medical board.

When the board investigator interviewed the doctor, the physician said he wasn’t aware the patient had called. But his staff said otherwise. Because the doctor had not been truthful, the board sent him a letter of guidance and required him to attend a training program in ethics.

Miami attorney William J. Spratt Jr., who supplied this anecdote about a former client, said that most complaints are dismissed with no action taken, but some complaints don’t go away because doctors mishandle them.

The following are some common mistakes that physicians make when dealing with a board complaint.
 

1. Not responding to the complaint

The complaint you get from the board – which often comes with a subpoena and a response deadline – usually asks for medical records pertinent to the case.

You can’t disregard the board’s letter, said Doug Brocker, an attorney handling board actions in Raleigh, N.C. “It’s amazing to me that some people just ignore a board complaint. Sometimes it’s because the doctor is just burnt out, which may have gotten the doctor into trouble in the first place.”

If you do not respond to a subpoena, “the board can file a court order holding you in contempt and start taking action on your license,” said Jeff Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney in Greensboro, N.C. Dr. Segal is CEO of Medical Justice Services, which protects physicians’ reputations associated with malpractice suits and board actions. “Not responding is not much different from agreeing to all of the charges.”
 

2. Not recognizing the seriousness of the complaint

“The biggest mistake is not taking a complaint seriously,” said Linda Stimmel, an attorney at Wilson Elser in Dallas. “Physicians who get a complaint often fire off a brief response stating that the complaint has no merit, without offering any evidence.”

According to Ms. Stimmel, “it’s really important to back up your assertions, such as using excerpts from the medical record, citations of peer-reviewed articles, or a letter of support from a colleague.”

“Weigh your answers carefully, because lack of accuracy will complicate your case,” Mr. Brocker said. “Consult the medical record rather than rely on your memory.”

“Present your version of events, in your own words, because that’s almost always better than the board’s version,” said Dr. Segal.

Even if there was a bad clinical outcome, Dr. Segal said you might point out that the patient was at high risk, or you could show that your clinical outcomes are better than the national average.
 

3. Thinking the board is on your side

You may be lulled into a false sense of security because the physicians on the medical board are your peers, but they can be as tough as any medical malpractice judge, said William P. Sullivan, DO, an emergency physician and attorney in Frankfort, Ill.

As per the National Practitioner Data Bank, physicians are three to four times more likely to incur an adverse board action than make a malpractice payout, Dr. Sullivan said.

Also, although a malpractice lawsuit rarely involves more than a monetary payment, a board action, like a monitoring plan, can restrict your ability to practice medicine. In fact, any kind of board action against you can make it harder to find employment.
 

4. Not being honest or forthcoming

“Lying to the board is the fastest way to turn what would have been a minor infraction into putting your license at risk,” Mr. Brocker said. This can happen when doctors update a medical record to support their version of events.

As per Dr. Sullivan, another way to put your license at risk is to withhold adverse information, which the board can detect by obtaining your application for hospital privileges or for licensure to another state, in which you revealed the adverse information.

Dr. Sullivan also advised against claiming you “always” take a certain precautionary measure. “In reality, we doctors don’t always do what we would like to have done. By saying you always do it when you didn’t, you appear less than truthful to the board, and boards have a hard time with that.”

Similarly, “when doctors don’t want to recognize that they could have handled things better, they tend to dance around the issue,” Mr. Brocker said. “This does not sit well with the board.” Insisting that you did everything right when it’s obvious that you didn’t can lead to harsher sanctions. “The board wants to make sure doctors recognize their mistakes and are willing to learn from them.”
 

5. Providing too much information

You may think that providing a great deal of information strengthens your case, but it can actually weaken it, Mr. Brocker said. Irrelevant information makes your response hard to follow, and it may contain evidence that could prompt another line of inquiry.

“Less is more,” Dr. Segal advised. “Present a coherent argument and keep to the most salient points.” Being concise is also good advice if your complaint proceeds to the board and you have to present your case.

Dr. Segal said the board will stop paying attention to long-winded presentations. He tells his clients to imagine the board is watching a movie. “If your presentation is tedious or hard to follow, you will lose them.”
 

6. Trying to contact the complainant

Complaints are kept anonymous, but in many cases, the doctor has an idea who the complainant was and may try to contact that person. “It’s natural to wonder why a patient would file a complaint against you,” Mr. Brocker said, but if you reach out to the patient to ask why, “it could look like you’re trying to persuade the patient to drop the complaint.”

Doctors who are involved in a practice breakup or a divorce can be victims of false and malicious complaints, but Beth Y. Collis, a partner at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl in Columbus, said boards are onto this tactic and usually reject these complaints.

The doctor may be tempted to sue the complainant, but Mr. Brocker said this won’t stop the complaint and could strengthen it. “Most statements to the medical board are protected from defamation lawsuits, and any lawsuit could appear to be intimidation.”
 

7. Simply signing a consent agreement

A small minority of complaints may result in the board taking action against the doctor. Typically, this involves getting the doctor to sign a consent agreement stating that he or she agrees with the board’s decision and its remedy, such as continuing education, a fine, or being placed under another doctor’s supervision.

“When the board sends you a consent agreement, it’s usually about something fairly minor,” Ms. Collis said. “You can make a counteroffer and see if they accept that. But once you enter into the agreement, you waive any right to appeal the board’s decision.”
 

8. Not hiring an attorney

Although some doctors manage to deal with a board complaint on their own, many will need to get an attorney, Mr. Brocker said. “An experienced attorney can help you navigate the board’s process.”

Clients often look for attorneys at the end of the process, when formal charges have already been filed, Mr. Brocker said. At that point, “it’s harder to get things moving in the right direction. You can’t unring the bell.”

Even if you don’t think you need an attorney throughout the case, “it helps to get advice from an attorney at the beginning,” Dr. Segal said. Doctors may think they can’t afford an attorney, but many malpractice carriers pay attorneys’ fees in medical board investigations.

Mr. Brocker advised finding an attorney who is familiar with licensing boards. “Malpractice attorneys may think they can deal with medical boards, but boards are quite different.” For example, “malpractice cases involve an adversarial approach, but licensing boards normally require working collaboratively.”
 

9. Not requesting a hearing

When the board takes action against you, it can be tempting to just accept the allegations and move on with your life, but it may be possible to undo the action, Dr. Sullivan said. “The board still has to prove its allegations, and it may not have a strong case against you.”

In some states, the medical board has to meet a very high standard of proof, Dr. Sullivan said. In Illinois, for example, the board must show “clear and convincing evidence,” while a malpractice plaintiff must only prove that it’s “more likely than not” that a physician violated the standard of care.

A hearing can especially help doctors facing harsh sanctions for minor offenses. For example, in a case handled by the law firm of Ray & Bishop in Newport Beach, Calif., a doctor who was stopped by police while driving home after having wine at a family gathering was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.11%. Noting that the physician was on call at the time, the Medical Board of California decided to give him 5 years of probation.

Ray & Bishop asked for a judicial hearing to contest the decision. At the hearing, the physician noted that other physicians were also available to take call that night, and an expert stated that the doctor was not an alcohol abuser. The judge ruled that the board’s action was unduly harsh, and the physician received a public reprimand with no further penalties.
 

10. Getting upset with board officials

A board investigator may show up at your office uninvited and ask you to answer some questions, but you aren’t required to answer then and there, said Ms. Collis.

In fact, she noted, it’s never a good idea to let investigators into your office. “They can walk around, look through your records, and find more things to investigate.” For this reason, Ms. Collis makes it a point to schedule meetings with investigators at her office.

When you have to interact with board officials, such as during hearings, expressing anger is a mistake. “Some board members may raise their voices and make untrue assertions about your medical care,” Dr. Sullivan said. “You may wish you could respond in kind, but that will not help you.” Instead, calmly provide studies or guidelines supporting the care you provided.

Taking board investigators to task is also a mistake, Mr. Brocker pointed out. In his words, “investigators have to follow the rules. Getting mad at them will only make your case more difficult. Even if you believe the complaint against you is totally without merit, the process needs to run its course.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Four decades into the AIDS epidemic and for some, it’s as if gains in awareness, advances in prevention and treatment, and the concept of undetected equals untransmissable (U=U) never happened. In its place, people living with HIV continue to face discrimination and stigma that affect nearly every aspect of the care continuum, from testing, prevention, and treatment to linkage to sexual, health, and reproductive services.

Accordingly, findings from a Harris poll conducted Oct. 13-18, 2021, among 5,047 adults (18 and older) residing in Australia, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States, reveal that 88% of those surveyed believe that negative perceptions toward people living with HIV persist even though HIV infection can be effectively managed with antiretroviral therapy (ART). Conversely, three-quarters (76%) are unaware of U=U, and the fact that someone with HIV who is taking effective treatment cannot pass it on to their partner. Two-thirds incorrectly believe that a person living with HIV can pass it onto their baby, even when they are ART adherent.

“The survey made me think of people who work in HIV clinics, and how much of a bubble I think that we in the HIV field live in,” Nneka Nwokolo, MBBS, senior global medical director at ViiV Healthcare, London, and practicing consultant in sexual health and HIV medicine, told this news organization. “I think that we generally feel that everyone knows as much as we do or feels the way that we do.”
 

Misconceptions abound across the globe

The online survey, which was commissioned by ViiV Healthcare, also highlights that one in five adults do not know that anyone can acquire HIV regardless of lifestyle, thereby perpetuating the stereotype that HIV is a disease that only affects certain populations, such as men who have sex with men (MSM) or transgender women (TGW). 

Pervasive stereotypes and stigmatization only serve to magnify preexisting social inequities that affect access to appropriate care. A recent editorial published in the journal AIDS and Behavior underscores that stigma experienced by marginalized populations in particular (for example, Black MSM, TGW) is directly linked to decreased access to and use of effective HIV prevention and treatment services. Additionally, once stigma becomes internalized, it might further affect overall well-being, mental health, and social support.

“One of the most significant consequences of the ongoing stigma is that people are scared to test and then they end up coming to services late [when] they’re really ill,” explained Dr. Nwokolo. “It goes back to the early days when HIV was a death sentence ... it’s still there. I have one patient who to this day hates the fact that he has HIV, that he has to come to the clinic – it’s a reminder of why he hates himself.”

Great strides in testing and advances in treatment might be helping to reframe HIV as a chronic but treatable and preventable disease. Nevertheless, survey findings also revealed that nearly three out of five adults incorrectly believe that a person living with HIV will have a shorter lifespan than someone who is HIV negative, even if they are on effective treatment. 

These beliefs are especially true among Dr. Nwokolo’s patient base, most of whom are Africans who’ve immigrated to the United Kingdom from countries that have been devastated by the HIV epidemic. “Those who’ve never tested are reluctant to do so because they are afraid that they will have the same outcome as the people that they know that they’ve left behind,” she said.
 

HIV stigma in the era of 90-90-90

While there has been progress toward achieving UN AID’s 90-90-90 targets (that is, 90% living with HIV know their status, 90% who know their status are on ART, and 90% of people on ART are virally suppressed), exclusion and isolation – the key hallmarks of stigma – may ultimately be the most important barriers preventing a lofty goal to end the AIDS epidemic by the year 2030.

“Here we are, 40 years in and we are still facing such ignorance, some stigma,” Carl Schmid, MBA, former cochair of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, and executive director of HIV+Policy Institute, told this news organization. “It’s gotten better, but it is really putting a damper on people being tested, getting treated, getting access to PrEP.” Mr. Schmid was not involved in the Harris Poll.

Mr. Schmid also said that, in addition to broader outreach and education as well as dissemination of information about HIV and AIDS from the White House and other government leaders, physician involvement is essential. 

“They’re the ones that need to step up. They have to talk about sex with their patients, [but] they don’t do that, especially in the South among certain populations,” he noted.

Data support the unique challenges faced by at-risk individuals living in the southern United States. Not only do Southern states account for roughly half of all new HIV cases annually, but Black MSM and Black women account for the majority of new diagnoses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data have also demonstrated discrimination and prejudice toward people with HIV persist among many medical professionals in the South (especially those working in rural areas).

But this is not only a Southern problem; a 2018 review of studies in clinicians across the United States published in AIDS Patient Care and STDs linked provider fear of acquiring HIV through occupational exposure to reduced quality of care, refusal of care, and anxiety, especially among providers with limited awareness of PrEP. Discordant attitudes around making a priority to address HIV-related stigma versus other health care needs also reduced overall care delivery and patient experience.

“I think that the first thing that we as HIV clinicians can and should do – and is definitely within our power to do – is to educate our peers about HIV,” Dr. Nwokolo said, “HIV has gone off the radar, but it’s still out there.”

The study was commissioned by Viiv Healthcare. Dr. Nwokolo is an employee of ViiV Healthcare. Mr. Schmid disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Four decades into the AIDS epidemic and for some, it’s as if gains in awareness, advances in prevention and treatment, and the concept of undetected equals untransmissable (U=U) never happened. In its place, people living with HIV continue to face discrimination and stigma that affect nearly every aspect of the care continuum, from testing, prevention, and treatment to linkage to sexual, health, and reproductive services.

Accordingly, findings from a Harris poll conducted Oct. 13-18, 2021, among 5,047 adults (18 and older) residing in Australia, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States, reveal that 88% of those surveyed believe that negative perceptions toward people living with HIV persist even though HIV infection can be effectively managed with antiretroviral therapy (ART). Conversely, three-quarters (76%) are unaware of U=U, and the fact that someone with HIV who is taking effective treatment cannot pass it on to their partner. Two-thirds incorrectly believe that a person living with HIV can pass it onto their baby, even when they are ART adherent.

“The survey made me think of people who work in HIV clinics, and how much of a bubble I think that we in the HIV field live in,” Nneka Nwokolo, MBBS, senior global medical director at ViiV Healthcare, London, and practicing consultant in sexual health and HIV medicine, told this news organization. “I think that we generally feel that everyone knows as much as we do or feels the way that we do.”
 

Misconceptions abound across the globe

The online survey, which was commissioned by ViiV Healthcare, also highlights that one in five adults do not know that anyone can acquire HIV regardless of lifestyle, thereby perpetuating the stereotype that HIV is a disease that only affects certain populations, such as men who have sex with men (MSM) or transgender women (TGW). 

Pervasive stereotypes and stigmatization only serve to magnify preexisting social inequities that affect access to appropriate care. A recent editorial published in the journal AIDS and Behavior underscores that stigma experienced by marginalized populations in particular (for example, Black MSM, TGW) is directly linked to decreased access to and use of effective HIV prevention and treatment services. Additionally, once stigma becomes internalized, it might further affect overall well-being, mental health, and social support.

“One of the most significant consequences of the ongoing stigma is that people are scared to test and then they end up coming to services late [when] they’re really ill,” explained Dr. Nwokolo. “It goes back to the early days when HIV was a death sentence ... it’s still there. I have one patient who to this day hates the fact that he has HIV, that he has to come to the clinic – it’s a reminder of why he hates himself.”

Great strides in testing and advances in treatment might be helping to reframe HIV as a chronic but treatable and preventable disease. Nevertheless, survey findings also revealed that nearly three out of five adults incorrectly believe that a person living with HIV will have a shorter lifespan than someone who is HIV negative, even if they are on effective treatment. 

These beliefs are especially true among Dr. Nwokolo’s patient base, most of whom are Africans who’ve immigrated to the United Kingdom from countries that have been devastated by the HIV epidemic. “Those who’ve never tested are reluctant to do so because they are afraid that they will have the same outcome as the people that they know that they’ve left behind,” she said.
 

HIV stigma in the era of 90-90-90

While there has been progress toward achieving UN AID’s 90-90-90 targets (that is, 90% living with HIV know their status, 90% who know their status are on ART, and 90% of people on ART are virally suppressed), exclusion and isolation – the key hallmarks of stigma – may ultimately be the most important barriers preventing a lofty goal to end the AIDS epidemic by the year 2030.

“Here we are, 40 years in and we are still facing such ignorance, some stigma,” Carl Schmid, MBA, former cochair of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, and executive director of HIV+Policy Institute, told this news organization. “It’s gotten better, but it is really putting a damper on people being tested, getting treated, getting access to PrEP.” Mr. Schmid was not involved in the Harris Poll.

Mr. Schmid also said that, in addition to broader outreach and education as well as dissemination of information about HIV and AIDS from the White House and other government leaders, physician involvement is essential. 

“They’re the ones that need to step up. They have to talk about sex with their patients, [but] they don’t do that, especially in the South among certain populations,” he noted.

Data support the unique challenges faced by at-risk individuals living in the southern United States. Not only do Southern states account for roughly half of all new HIV cases annually, but Black MSM and Black women account for the majority of new diagnoses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data have also demonstrated discrimination and prejudice toward people with HIV persist among many medical professionals in the South (especially those working in rural areas).

But this is not only a Southern problem; a 2018 review of studies in clinicians across the United States published in AIDS Patient Care and STDs linked provider fear of acquiring HIV through occupational exposure to reduced quality of care, refusal of care, and anxiety, especially among providers with limited awareness of PrEP. Discordant attitudes around making a priority to address HIV-related stigma versus other health care needs also reduced overall care delivery and patient experience.

“I think that the first thing that we as HIV clinicians can and should do – and is definitely within our power to do – is to educate our peers about HIV,” Dr. Nwokolo said, “HIV has gone off the radar, but it’s still out there.”

The study was commissioned by Viiv Healthcare. Dr. Nwokolo is an employee of ViiV Healthcare. Mr. Schmid disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Four decades into the AIDS epidemic and for some, it’s as if gains in awareness, advances in prevention and treatment, and the concept of undetected equals untransmissable (U=U) never happened. In its place, people living with HIV continue to face discrimination and stigma that affect nearly every aspect of the care continuum, from testing, prevention, and treatment to linkage to sexual, health, and reproductive services.

Accordingly, findings from a Harris poll conducted Oct. 13-18, 2021, among 5,047 adults (18 and older) residing in Australia, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States, reveal that 88% of those surveyed believe that negative perceptions toward people living with HIV persist even though HIV infection can be effectively managed with antiretroviral therapy (ART). Conversely, three-quarters (76%) are unaware of U=U, and the fact that someone with HIV who is taking effective treatment cannot pass it on to their partner. Two-thirds incorrectly believe that a person living with HIV can pass it onto their baby, even when they are ART adherent.

“The survey made me think of people who work in HIV clinics, and how much of a bubble I think that we in the HIV field live in,” Nneka Nwokolo, MBBS, senior global medical director at ViiV Healthcare, London, and practicing consultant in sexual health and HIV medicine, told this news organization. “I think that we generally feel that everyone knows as much as we do or feels the way that we do.”
 

Misconceptions abound across the globe

The online survey, which was commissioned by ViiV Healthcare, also highlights that one in five adults do not know that anyone can acquire HIV regardless of lifestyle, thereby perpetuating the stereotype that HIV is a disease that only affects certain populations, such as men who have sex with men (MSM) or transgender women (TGW). 

Pervasive stereotypes and stigmatization only serve to magnify preexisting social inequities that affect access to appropriate care. A recent editorial published in the journal AIDS and Behavior underscores that stigma experienced by marginalized populations in particular (for example, Black MSM, TGW) is directly linked to decreased access to and use of effective HIV prevention and treatment services. Additionally, once stigma becomes internalized, it might further affect overall well-being, mental health, and social support.

“One of the most significant consequences of the ongoing stigma is that people are scared to test and then they end up coming to services late [when] they’re really ill,” explained Dr. Nwokolo. “It goes back to the early days when HIV was a death sentence ... it’s still there. I have one patient who to this day hates the fact that he has HIV, that he has to come to the clinic – it’s a reminder of why he hates himself.”

Great strides in testing and advances in treatment might be helping to reframe HIV as a chronic but treatable and preventable disease. Nevertheless, survey findings also revealed that nearly three out of five adults incorrectly believe that a person living with HIV will have a shorter lifespan than someone who is HIV negative, even if they are on effective treatment. 

These beliefs are especially true among Dr. Nwokolo’s patient base, most of whom are Africans who’ve immigrated to the United Kingdom from countries that have been devastated by the HIV epidemic. “Those who’ve never tested are reluctant to do so because they are afraid that they will have the same outcome as the people that they know that they’ve left behind,” she said.
 

HIV stigma in the era of 90-90-90

While there has been progress toward achieving UN AID’s 90-90-90 targets (that is, 90% living with HIV know their status, 90% who know their status are on ART, and 90% of people on ART are virally suppressed), exclusion and isolation – the key hallmarks of stigma – may ultimately be the most important barriers preventing a lofty goal to end the AIDS epidemic by the year 2030.

“Here we are, 40 years in and we are still facing such ignorance, some stigma,” Carl Schmid, MBA, former cochair of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, and executive director of HIV+Policy Institute, told this news organization. “It’s gotten better, but it is really putting a damper on people being tested, getting treated, getting access to PrEP.” Mr. Schmid was not involved in the Harris Poll.

Mr. Schmid also said that, in addition to broader outreach and education as well as dissemination of information about HIV and AIDS from the White House and other government leaders, physician involvement is essential. 

“They’re the ones that need to step up. They have to talk about sex with their patients, [but] they don’t do that, especially in the South among certain populations,” he noted.

Data support the unique challenges faced by at-risk individuals living in the southern United States. Not only do Southern states account for roughly half of all new HIV cases annually, but Black MSM and Black women account for the majority of new diagnoses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data have also demonstrated discrimination and prejudice toward people with HIV persist among many medical professionals in the South (especially those working in rural areas).

But this is not only a Southern problem; a 2018 review of studies in clinicians across the United States published in AIDS Patient Care and STDs linked provider fear of acquiring HIV through occupational exposure to reduced quality of care, refusal of care, and anxiety, especially among providers with limited awareness of PrEP. Discordant attitudes around making a priority to address HIV-related stigma versus other health care needs also reduced overall care delivery and patient experience.

“I think that the first thing that we as HIV clinicians can and should do – and is definitely within our power to do – is to educate our peers about HIV,” Dr. Nwokolo said, “HIV has gone off the radar, but it’s still out there.”

The study was commissioned by Viiv Healthcare. Dr. Nwokolo is an employee of ViiV Healthcare. Mr. Schmid disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lisa Iezzoni, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a disability researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, has used a wheelchair for more than 30 years because of multiple sclerosis. When she visits her primary care doctor, she doesn’t get weighed because the scales are not wheelchair accessible.

This failure to weigh her and other patients in wheelchairs could lead to serious medical problems. Weight is used to monitor a person’s overall health and prenatal health and to determine accurate doses for medications such as some chemotherapies, said Dr. Iezzoni.

In another situation, a man who used a wheelchair said that his primary care doctor never got him out of it for a complete physical exam. The patient later developed lymphoma, which first appeared in his groin. The doctor should have accommodated his disability and used a height-adjustable exam table or a portable lift to transfer him onto the table.

When physicians don’t provide access to medical care that patients with disabilities need, they put themselves at greater risk of lawsuits, fines, and settlements.

Yet, a new study in Health Affairs suggests that a large percentage of doctors are not fully aware of what they are legally required to do.

Under federal nondiscrimination laws (Americans With Disabilities Act, American Rehabilitation Act, and ADA Amendments Act), medical practices must provide equal access to people with disabilities, accommodate their disability-related needs, and not refuse them medical services because of their disabilities, say disability experts.
 

Where doctors go wrong with disability laws

What doctors don’t know about providing reasonable accommodations makes them vulnerable to lawsuits, which worries more than two-thirds of the 714 outpatient doctors surveyed.

Not only are they required to provide reasonable accommodations, but they also have to pay for them, the researchers said. One-fifth of the surveyed doctors said they didn’t know that practice owners have to pay.

More than one practice has made patients pay for services needed for their disability, such as sign language interpreters – the patients later complained this violated the ADA to enforcement agencies.

Doctors also don’t know that they have to collaborate with patients to determine what reasonable accommodations they need – over two-thirds of those surveyed said they didn’t know it was a joint responsibility, the study found.

When doctors fail to accommodate patients’ disability needs, they engage in discrimination and violate the ADA, says Elizabeth Pendo, JD, a coauthor of the study and the Joseph J. Simeone Professor of Law at Saint Louis University.

The Department of Justice has investigated several patient complaints of alleged disability discrimination recently and resolved the disputes with agreements and small fines in some cases. “The goal is not to get large financial settlements but to work with practices to get the correct procedures in place to be compliant,” said Ms. Pendo.

Physicians would be wise to check out whether their practices are as accessible as they think. Even if there’s a ramp to the office building, the parking lot may not have a van-accessible space or enough handicapped parking signs, or the exam room may be too narrow for a wheelchair to navigate.

These practices violated the ADA and agreed to make changes:

• Hamden, Conn., has two buildings that patients with physical disabilities couldn’t easily enter. The physician owners agreed to change the buildings’ entrances and access routes and add features to make it easier to use examination rooms and restrooms and the check-in and check-out areas.
• Seven medical offices in Riverside, Calif., failed to communicate effectively with deaf and hard-of-hearing patients. They should have had a qualified sign language interpreter, an assistive listening device, or another appropriate aid or service available to a deaf patient and her family. Instead, the office relied on a video remote interpretation system that often failed to work. The agreement requires the clinic to provide those aids and services to patients and their companions who are deaf or hard of hearing, advertise their availability, assess each patient who is deaf or hard of hearing to determine the best aids and services for their needs, and pay $5,000 in compensation to the complainant and a $1,000 civil penalty to the United States.
• Springfield, Mass., refused to provide full joint replacements to two patients being treated with buprenorphine, a medication used to treat opioid use disorder. Rather than accommodate the patients, the surgeons referred them elsewhere because they were uncomfortable with the postoperative pain management protocol for patients prescribed buprenorphine. “The Americans With Disabilities Act protects health care access for people under medical treatment for opioid use disorder,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Nathaniel R. Mendell. “Health care providers must comply with the ADA, even when doing so is inconvenient or makes them uncomfortable.” The agreement requires the practice to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, provide training on the ADA and opioid use disorder, and pay two complainants $15,000 each for pain and suffering.

The DOJ has filed civil lawsuits against medical practices when they failed to resolve the allegations. Recent cases include an ophthalmology practice with 24 facilities in Arizona that refused to help transfer patients in wheelchairs to surgery tables for eye surgery and required them to pay for transfer support services and two obstetricians-gynecologists in Bakersfield, Calif., who refused to provide routine medical care to a patient because of her HIV status.
 

What doctors should know

Many people tend to think of a person with a disability as being in a wheelchair. But the ADA has a very broad definition of disability, which includes any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits any major life activity, said Ms. Pendo.

“It was amended in 2008 to clarify that the definition includes people with chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer, cognitive and neurological disorders, substance abuse disorders, vision and hearing loss, and learning and other disabilities,” she said.

That means that doctors have to accommodate many types of disabilities, which can be challenging. The ADA only specifies that fixed structures need to be accessible, such as parking lots, driveways, and buildings, said Dr. Iezzoni.

When it comes to “reasonable accommodations,” doctors should decide that on a case-by-case basis, she said.

“We can say based on our study that 71% of doctors don’t know the right way to think about the accommodations – they don’t know they need to talk to patients so they can explain to them exactly what they need to accommodate their disability,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Doctors are also required to provide effective communication for patients with sensory or cognitive disabilities, which can depend on the severity, said Ms. Pendo. Is the person deaf or hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted – is the dementia mild or severe?

“The requirement is there, but what that looks like will vary by patient. That’s what’s challenging,” said Ms. Pendo.

Dr. Iezzoni recommends that doctor’s offices ask patients whether they need special help or individual assistance when they make appointments and enter their responses in their records. She also suggests that patients be asked at follow-up appointments whether they still need the same help or not.

“Disabilities can change over time – a person with bad arthritis may need help getting onto an exam table, but later get a knee or hip replacement that is effective and no longer need that help,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Benefits outweigh costs

Physicians have made progress in meeting the ADA’s physical accessibility requirements, said Dr. Iezzoni. “The literature suggests that doctors have done a good job at fixing the structural barriers people with mobility issues face, such as ramps and bathrooms.”

However, there are exceptions in rural older buildings which can be harder to retrofit for wheelchair accessibility, she said. “I recall interviewing a rural doctor several years ago who said that he knew his patients well and when a patient visits with mobility problems, he goes down and carries the patient up the steps to his office. My response was that is not respectful of the patient or safe for the patient or you. That doctor has since changed the location of his practice,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Some doctors may resist paying for accessible medical equipment because of cost, but she said the benefits are worth it. These include preventing staff injuries when they transfer patients and being used by patients with temporary disabilities and aging people with bad knees, backs, hearing and sight. In addition, businesses may be eligible for federal and state tax credits.

Dr. Iezzoni recently visited her doctor where they finally got height-adjustable exam tables. “I asked the assistant, who really likes these tables? She said it’s the elderly ladies of short stature – the table is lowered and they sit down and get on it.”

But, Dr. Iezonni’s main message to doctors is that patients with disabilities deserve equal quality of care. “Just because we have a disability doesn’t mean we should get worse care than other people. It’s a matter of professionalism that doctors should want to give the same quality care to all their patients.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lisa Iezzoni, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a disability researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, has used a wheelchair for more than 30 years because of multiple sclerosis. When she visits her primary care doctor, she doesn’t get weighed because the scales are not wheelchair accessible.

This failure to weigh her and other patients in wheelchairs could lead to serious medical problems. Weight is used to monitor a person’s overall health and prenatal health and to determine accurate doses for medications such as some chemotherapies, said Dr. Iezzoni.

In another situation, a man who used a wheelchair said that his primary care doctor never got him out of it for a complete physical exam. The patient later developed lymphoma, which first appeared in his groin. The doctor should have accommodated his disability and used a height-adjustable exam table or a portable lift to transfer him onto the table.

When physicians don’t provide access to medical care that patients with disabilities need, they put themselves at greater risk of lawsuits, fines, and settlements.

Yet, a new study in Health Affairs suggests that a large percentage of doctors are not fully aware of what they are legally required to do.

Under federal nondiscrimination laws (Americans With Disabilities Act, American Rehabilitation Act, and ADA Amendments Act), medical practices must provide equal access to people with disabilities, accommodate their disability-related needs, and not refuse them medical services because of their disabilities, say disability experts.
 

Where doctors go wrong with disability laws

What doctors don’t know about providing reasonable accommodations makes them vulnerable to lawsuits, which worries more than two-thirds of the 714 outpatient doctors surveyed.

Not only are they required to provide reasonable accommodations, but they also have to pay for them, the researchers said. One-fifth of the surveyed doctors said they didn’t know that practice owners have to pay.

More than one practice has made patients pay for services needed for their disability, such as sign language interpreters – the patients later complained this violated the ADA to enforcement agencies.

Doctors also don’t know that they have to collaborate with patients to determine what reasonable accommodations they need – over two-thirds of those surveyed said they didn’t know it was a joint responsibility, the study found.

When doctors fail to accommodate patients’ disability needs, they engage in discrimination and violate the ADA, says Elizabeth Pendo, JD, a coauthor of the study and the Joseph J. Simeone Professor of Law at Saint Louis University.

The Department of Justice has investigated several patient complaints of alleged disability discrimination recently and resolved the disputes with agreements and small fines in some cases. “The goal is not to get large financial settlements but to work with practices to get the correct procedures in place to be compliant,” said Ms. Pendo.

Physicians would be wise to check out whether their practices are as accessible as they think. Even if there’s a ramp to the office building, the parking lot may not have a van-accessible space or enough handicapped parking signs, or the exam room may be too narrow for a wheelchair to navigate.

These practices violated the ADA and agreed to make changes:

• Hamden, Conn., has two buildings that patients with physical disabilities couldn’t easily enter. The physician owners agreed to change the buildings’ entrances and access routes and add features to make it easier to use examination rooms and restrooms and the check-in and check-out areas.
• Seven medical offices in Riverside, Calif., failed to communicate effectively with deaf and hard-of-hearing patients. They should have had a qualified sign language interpreter, an assistive listening device, or another appropriate aid or service available to a deaf patient and her family. Instead, the office relied on a video remote interpretation system that often failed to work. The agreement requires the clinic to provide those aids and services to patients and their companions who are deaf or hard of hearing, advertise their availability, assess each patient who is deaf or hard of hearing to determine the best aids and services for their needs, and pay $5,000 in compensation to the complainant and a $1,000 civil penalty to the United States.
• Springfield, Mass., refused to provide full joint replacements to two patients being treated with buprenorphine, a medication used to treat opioid use disorder. Rather than accommodate the patients, the surgeons referred them elsewhere because they were uncomfortable with the postoperative pain management protocol for patients prescribed buprenorphine. “The Americans With Disabilities Act protects health care access for people under medical treatment for opioid use disorder,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Nathaniel R. Mendell. “Health care providers must comply with the ADA, even when doing so is inconvenient or makes them uncomfortable.” The agreement requires the practice to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, provide training on the ADA and opioid use disorder, and pay two complainants $15,000 each for pain and suffering.

The DOJ has filed civil lawsuits against medical practices when they failed to resolve the allegations. Recent cases include an ophthalmology practice with 24 facilities in Arizona that refused to help transfer patients in wheelchairs to surgery tables for eye surgery and required them to pay for transfer support services and two obstetricians-gynecologists in Bakersfield, Calif., who refused to provide routine medical care to a patient because of her HIV status.
 

What doctors should know

Many people tend to think of a person with a disability as being in a wheelchair. But the ADA has a very broad definition of disability, which includes any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits any major life activity, said Ms. Pendo.

“It was amended in 2008 to clarify that the definition includes people with chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer, cognitive and neurological disorders, substance abuse disorders, vision and hearing loss, and learning and other disabilities,” she said.

That means that doctors have to accommodate many types of disabilities, which can be challenging. The ADA only specifies that fixed structures need to be accessible, such as parking lots, driveways, and buildings, said Dr. Iezzoni.

When it comes to “reasonable accommodations,” doctors should decide that on a case-by-case basis, she said.

“We can say based on our study that 71% of doctors don’t know the right way to think about the accommodations – they don’t know they need to talk to patients so they can explain to them exactly what they need to accommodate their disability,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Doctors are also required to provide effective communication for patients with sensory or cognitive disabilities, which can depend on the severity, said Ms. Pendo. Is the person deaf or hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted – is the dementia mild or severe?

“The requirement is there, but what that looks like will vary by patient. That’s what’s challenging,” said Ms. Pendo.

Dr. Iezzoni recommends that doctor’s offices ask patients whether they need special help or individual assistance when they make appointments and enter their responses in their records. She also suggests that patients be asked at follow-up appointments whether they still need the same help or not.

“Disabilities can change over time – a person with bad arthritis may need help getting onto an exam table, but later get a knee or hip replacement that is effective and no longer need that help,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Benefits outweigh costs

Physicians have made progress in meeting the ADA’s physical accessibility requirements, said Dr. Iezzoni. “The literature suggests that doctors have done a good job at fixing the structural barriers people with mobility issues face, such as ramps and bathrooms.”

However, there are exceptions in rural older buildings which can be harder to retrofit for wheelchair accessibility, she said. “I recall interviewing a rural doctor several years ago who said that he knew his patients well and when a patient visits with mobility problems, he goes down and carries the patient up the steps to his office. My response was that is not respectful of the patient or safe for the patient or you. That doctor has since changed the location of his practice,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Some doctors may resist paying for accessible medical equipment because of cost, but she said the benefits are worth it. These include preventing staff injuries when they transfer patients and being used by patients with temporary disabilities and aging people with bad knees, backs, hearing and sight. In addition, businesses may be eligible for federal and state tax credits.

Dr. Iezzoni recently visited her doctor where they finally got height-adjustable exam tables. “I asked the assistant, who really likes these tables? She said it’s the elderly ladies of short stature – the table is lowered and they sit down and get on it.”

But, Dr. Iezonni’s main message to doctors is that patients with disabilities deserve equal quality of care. “Just because we have a disability doesn’t mean we should get worse care than other people. It’s a matter of professionalism that doctors should want to give the same quality care to all their patients.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lisa Iezzoni, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a disability researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, has used a wheelchair for more than 30 years because of multiple sclerosis. When she visits her primary care doctor, she doesn’t get weighed because the scales are not wheelchair accessible.

This failure to weigh her and other patients in wheelchairs could lead to serious medical problems. Weight is used to monitor a person’s overall health and prenatal health and to determine accurate doses for medications such as some chemotherapies, said Dr. Iezzoni.

In another situation, a man who used a wheelchair said that his primary care doctor never got him out of it for a complete physical exam. The patient later developed lymphoma, which first appeared in his groin. The doctor should have accommodated his disability and used a height-adjustable exam table or a portable lift to transfer him onto the table.

When physicians don’t provide access to medical care that patients with disabilities need, they put themselves at greater risk of lawsuits, fines, and settlements.

Yet, a new study in Health Affairs suggests that a large percentage of doctors are not fully aware of what they are legally required to do.

Under federal nondiscrimination laws (Americans With Disabilities Act, American Rehabilitation Act, and ADA Amendments Act), medical practices must provide equal access to people with disabilities, accommodate their disability-related needs, and not refuse them medical services because of their disabilities, say disability experts.
 

Where doctors go wrong with disability laws

What doctors don’t know about providing reasonable accommodations makes them vulnerable to lawsuits, which worries more than two-thirds of the 714 outpatient doctors surveyed.

Not only are they required to provide reasonable accommodations, but they also have to pay for them, the researchers said. One-fifth of the surveyed doctors said they didn’t know that practice owners have to pay.

More than one practice has made patients pay for services needed for their disability, such as sign language interpreters – the patients later complained this violated the ADA to enforcement agencies.

Doctors also don’t know that they have to collaborate with patients to determine what reasonable accommodations they need – over two-thirds of those surveyed said they didn’t know it was a joint responsibility, the study found.

When doctors fail to accommodate patients’ disability needs, they engage in discrimination and violate the ADA, says Elizabeth Pendo, JD, a coauthor of the study and the Joseph J. Simeone Professor of Law at Saint Louis University.

The Department of Justice has investigated several patient complaints of alleged disability discrimination recently and resolved the disputes with agreements and small fines in some cases. “The goal is not to get large financial settlements but to work with practices to get the correct procedures in place to be compliant,” said Ms. Pendo.

Physicians would be wise to check out whether their practices are as accessible as they think. Even if there’s a ramp to the office building, the parking lot may not have a van-accessible space or enough handicapped parking signs, or the exam room may be too narrow for a wheelchair to navigate.

These practices violated the ADA and agreed to make changes:

• Hamden, Conn., has two buildings that patients with physical disabilities couldn’t easily enter. The physician owners agreed to change the buildings’ entrances and access routes and add features to make it easier to use examination rooms and restrooms and the check-in and check-out areas.
• Seven medical offices in Riverside, Calif., failed to communicate effectively with deaf and hard-of-hearing patients. They should have had a qualified sign language interpreter, an assistive listening device, or another appropriate aid or service available to a deaf patient and her family. Instead, the office relied on a video remote interpretation system that often failed to work. The agreement requires the clinic to provide those aids and services to patients and their companions who are deaf or hard of hearing, advertise their availability, assess each patient who is deaf or hard of hearing to determine the best aids and services for their needs, and pay $5,000 in compensation to the complainant and a $1,000 civil penalty to the United States.
• Springfield, Mass., refused to provide full joint replacements to two patients being treated with buprenorphine, a medication used to treat opioid use disorder. Rather than accommodate the patients, the surgeons referred them elsewhere because they were uncomfortable with the postoperative pain management protocol for patients prescribed buprenorphine. “The Americans With Disabilities Act protects health care access for people under medical treatment for opioid use disorder,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Nathaniel R. Mendell. “Health care providers must comply with the ADA, even when doing so is inconvenient or makes them uncomfortable.” The agreement requires the practice to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, provide training on the ADA and opioid use disorder, and pay two complainants $15,000 each for pain and suffering.

The DOJ has filed civil lawsuits against medical practices when they failed to resolve the allegations. Recent cases include an ophthalmology practice with 24 facilities in Arizona that refused to help transfer patients in wheelchairs to surgery tables for eye surgery and required them to pay for transfer support services and two obstetricians-gynecologists in Bakersfield, Calif., who refused to provide routine medical care to a patient because of her HIV status.
 

What doctors should know

Many people tend to think of a person with a disability as being in a wheelchair. But the ADA has a very broad definition of disability, which includes any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits any major life activity, said Ms. Pendo.

“It was amended in 2008 to clarify that the definition includes people with chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer, cognitive and neurological disorders, substance abuse disorders, vision and hearing loss, and learning and other disabilities,” she said.

That means that doctors have to accommodate many types of disabilities, which can be challenging. The ADA only specifies that fixed structures need to be accessible, such as parking lots, driveways, and buildings, said Dr. Iezzoni.

When it comes to “reasonable accommodations,” doctors should decide that on a case-by-case basis, she said.

“We can say based on our study that 71% of doctors don’t know the right way to think about the accommodations – they don’t know they need to talk to patients so they can explain to them exactly what they need to accommodate their disability,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Doctors are also required to provide effective communication for patients with sensory or cognitive disabilities, which can depend on the severity, said Ms. Pendo. Is the person deaf or hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted – is the dementia mild or severe?

“The requirement is there, but what that looks like will vary by patient. That’s what’s challenging,” said Ms. Pendo.

Dr. Iezzoni recommends that doctor’s offices ask patients whether they need special help or individual assistance when they make appointments and enter their responses in their records. She also suggests that patients be asked at follow-up appointments whether they still need the same help or not.

“Disabilities can change over time – a person with bad arthritis may need help getting onto an exam table, but later get a knee or hip replacement that is effective and no longer need that help,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Benefits outweigh costs

Physicians have made progress in meeting the ADA’s physical accessibility requirements, said Dr. Iezzoni. “The literature suggests that doctors have done a good job at fixing the structural barriers people with mobility issues face, such as ramps and bathrooms.”

However, there are exceptions in rural older buildings which can be harder to retrofit for wheelchair accessibility, she said. “I recall interviewing a rural doctor several years ago who said that he knew his patients well and when a patient visits with mobility problems, he goes down and carries the patient up the steps to his office. My response was that is not respectful of the patient or safe for the patient or you. That doctor has since changed the location of his practice,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Some doctors may resist paying for accessible medical equipment because of cost, but she said the benefits are worth it. These include preventing staff injuries when they transfer patients and being used by patients with temporary disabilities and aging people with bad knees, backs, hearing and sight. In addition, businesses may be eligible for federal and state tax credits.

Dr. Iezzoni recently visited her doctor where they finally got height-adjustable exam tables. “I asked the assistant, who really likes these tables? She said it’s the elderly ladies of short stature – the table is lowered and they sit down and get on it.”

But, Dr. Iezonni’s main message to doctors is that patients with disabilities deserve equal quality of care. “Just because we have a disability doesn’t mean we should get worse care than other people. It’s a matter of professionalism that doctors should want to give the same quality care to all their patients.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Omicron-fueled surge appears to have peaked as new cases of COVID-19 in U.S. children dropped for the first time since late November 2021, dipping back below the 1 million mark for the week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The case count for Jan. 21-27 was just over 808,000, down by almost 30% from the previous week’s 1.15 million. The total number of cases in children was up to 11.4 million as of Jan. 27, with children representing 18.6% of all cases reported since the pandemic started, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

As children remain the largest reservoir of unvaccinated Americans, their share of the COVID case load continues to rise quickly. Just 2 weeks ago, children made up 17.8% of the cumulative number of cases, and at the end of December it was 17.4%, the AAP/CHA data show.

The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that trends for admissions and emergency department visits reflect the decline in new cases. New admissions of children aged 0-17 years with diagnosed COVID-19 peaked at 1.25 per 100,000 population on Jan. 15 and were down to 0.95 per 100,000 on Jan. 29.

Daily ED visits for COVID-19, measured as a percentage of all ED visits, peaked at 13.9% on Jan. 14 for children aged 0-11 years and on Jan. 9 for both 12- to 15-year-olds (14.1%) and 16- to 17-year-olds (13.8%). By Jan. 28, the rates were down to 5.6% (0-11), 3.1% (12-15), and 3.3% (16-17), the CDC reported based on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program.

Trends involving more severe illness support observations that Omicron is milder than earlier variants. Children hospitalized with COVID-19 were less likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit over the last 2 months than during the Delta surge in the late summer and early fall or during the winter of 2020-2021, the CDC said based on data from the BD Insights Research Database, which includes 229,000 patients and 267 hospitals.

Those data show that the highest monthly rate occurred early on, in May of 2020, when 27.8% of children with COVID-19 ended up in the ICU. The rates for December 2021 and January 2022, by comparison, were 11.0% and 11.3%, respectively, the CDC said.

Vaccination lags in younger children

As reports surface about Pfizer-BioNTech filing an emergency use request to extend vaccine coverage to children aged 6 months to 5 years, it does appear that prevention efforts could use the proverbial shot in the arm.

As of Jan. 30, just 30.4% of children aged 5-11 have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and only 21.6% are fully vaccinated. At a comparable point in their timeline – just short of 3 months after approval – the respective numbers for children aged 12-15 were about 42% and 31%, CDC data show.

In the younger group, both initial doses and completions rose slightly in the first 2 weeks of January but then dropped in each of the last 2 weeks. There was a more significant surge in interest among the 12- to 17-year-olds in mid-January, but the last full week of the month brought declines of more than 50% in both measures, according to a separate AAP analysis.

The Omicron-fueled surge appears to have peaked as new cases of COVID-19 in U.S. children dropped for the first time since late November 2021, dipping back below the 1 million mark for the week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The case count for Jan. 21-27 was just over 808,000, down by almost 30% from the previous week’s 1.15 million. The total number of cases in children was up to 11.4 million as of Jan. 27, with children representing 18.6% of all cases reported since the pandemic started, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

As children remain the largest reservoir of unvaccinated Americans, their share of the COVID case load continues to rise quickly. Just 2 weeks ago, children made up 17.8% of the cumulative number of cases, and at the end of December it was 17.4%, the AAP/CHA data show.

The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that trends for admissions and emergency department visits reflect the decline in new cases. New admissions of children aged 0-17 years with diagnosed COVID-19 peaked at 1.25 per 100,000 population on Jan. 15 and were down to 0.95 per 100,000 on Jan. 29.

Daily ED visits for COVID-19, measured as a percentage of all ED visits, peaked at 13.9% on Jan. 14 for children aged 0-11 years and on Jan. 9 for both 12- to 15-year-olds (14.1%) and 16- to 17-year-olds (13.8%). By Jan. 28, the rates were down to 5.6% (0-11), 3.1% (12-15), and 3.3% (16-17), the CDC reported based on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program.

Trends involving more severe illness support observations that Omicron is milder than earlier variants. Children hospitalized with COVID-19 were less likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit over the last 2 months than during the Delta surge in the late summer and early fall or during the winter of 2020-2021, the CDC said based on data from the BD Insights Research Database, which includes 229,000 patients and 267 hospitals.

Those data show that the highest monthly rate occurred early on, in May of 2020, when 27.8% of children with COVID-19 ended up in the ICU. The rates for December 2021 and January 2022, by comparison, were 11.0% and 11.3%, respectively, the CDC said.

Vaccination lags in younger children

As reports surface about Pfizer-BioNTech filing an emergency use request to extend vaccine coverage to children aged 6 months to 5 years, it does appear that prevention efforts could use the proverbial shot in the arm.

As of Jan. 30, just 30.4% of children aged 5-11 have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and only 21.6% are fully vaccinated. At a comparable point in their timeline – just short of 3 months after approval – the respective numbers for children aged 12-15 were about 42% and 31%, CDC data show.

In the younger group, both initial doses and completions rose slightly in the first 2 weeks of January but then dropped in each of the last 2 weeks. There was a more significant surge in interest among the 12- to 17-year-olds in mid-January, but the last full week of the month brought declines of more than 50% in both measures, according to a separate AAP analysis.

The Omicron-fueled surge appears to have peaked as new cases of COVID-19 in U.S. children dropped for the first time since late November 2021, dipping back below the 1 million mark for the week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The case count for Jan. 21-27 was just over 808,000, down by almost 30% from the previous week’s 1.15 million. The total number of cases in children was up to 11.4 million as of Jan. 27, with children representing 18.6% of all cases reported since the pandemic started, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

As children remain the largest reservoir of unvaccinated Americans, their share of the COVID case load continues to rise quickly. Just 2 weeks ago, children made up 17.8% of the cumulative number of cases, and at the end of December it was 17.4%, the AAP/CHA data show.

The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that trends for admissions and emergency department visits reflect the decline in new cases. New admissions of children aged 0-17 years with diagnosed COVID-19 peaked at 1.25 per 100,000 population on Jan. 15 and were down to 0.95 per 100,000 on Jan. 29.

Daily ED visits for COVID-19, measured as a percentage of all ED visits, peaked at 13.9% on Jan. 14 for children aged 0-11 years and on Jan. 9 for both 12- to 15-year-olds (14.1%) and 16- to 17-year-olds (13.8%). By Jan. 28, the rates were down to 5.6% (0-11), 3.1% (12-15), and 3.3% (16-17), the CDC reported based on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program.

Trends involving more severe illness support observations that Omicron is milder than earlier variants. Children hospitalized with COVID-19 were less likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit over the last 2 months than during the Delta surge in the late summer and early fall or during the winter of 2020-2021, the CDC said based on data from the BD Insights Research Database, which includes 229,000 patients and 267 hospitals.

Those data show that the highest monthly rate occurred early on, in May of 2020, when 27.8% of children with COVID-19 ended up in the ICU. The rates for December 2021 and January 2022, by comparison, were 11.0% and 11.3%, respectively, the CDC said.

Vaccination lags in younger children

As reports surface about Pfizer-BioNTech filing an emergency use request to extend vaccine coverage to children aged 6 months to 5 years, it does appear that prevention efforts could use the proverbial shot in the arm.

As of Jan. 30, just 30.4% of children aged 5-11 have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and only 21.6% are fully vaccinated. At a comparable point in their timeline – just short of 3 months after approval – the respective numbers for children aged 12-15 were about 42% and 31%, CDC data show.

In the younger group, both initial doses and completions rose slightly in the first 2 weeks of January but then dropped in each of the last 2 weeks. There was a more significant surge in interest among the 12- to 17-year-olds in mid-January, but the last full week of the month brought declines of more than 50% in both measures, according to a separate AAP analysis.

Updated pneumococcal vaccine recommendations for adults from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call for the use of the two recently approved vaccines in a more streamlined approach to avoid the complexities of age and patient conditions that hindered previous recommendations.

The recommendations, voted on by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in October and made final in January with publication in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), call for use of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15; Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme) or 20-valent PCV (PREVNAR20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals).

The recommendations apply to PCV-naive adults in the United States who are either aged 65 years or older, or who are aged 19-64 years and have underlying conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart or liver disease, or HIV, and have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown.

If the PCV15 vaccine is used, a subsequent dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23, Merck Sharp & Dohme) should be provided, typically at least 1 year later, under the recommendations.

As reported by this news organization, PCV15 and PREVNAR20 received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last July.

Those approvals provided an impetus for the revised recommendations, “offer[ing] an opportunity to review the existing recommendations and available data,” Miwako Kobayashi, MD, first author of the MMWR report and a medical epidemiologist with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in Atlanta, said in an interview.

“As part of that process, ACIP strived to simplify the recommendations,” she said.

The previous recommendations called for the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 and had varying conditions (depending on certain age and risk groups) that added complexity to the process. Under the new approach, the same recommendation applies regardless of specific medical conditions or other risk factors.

“With the simplified recommendation for adults 19 through 64, we expect coverage may increase among this population,” Dr. Kobayashi said.

Compared with the PCV13 vaccine, PREVNAR20 protects against seven additional serotypes involved in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, which are responsible for up to 40% of all cases of pneumococcal disease and related deaths in the United States.

While the PREVNAR20 includes five more pneumococcal serotypes than PCV15, the

CDC does not recommend one over the other, Dr. Kobayashi noted.

More than 90% of cases of adult IPD involve older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions or immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants, the MMWR report notes.

Commenting on the recommendations, Amit A. Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., underscored the need for clinicians to be proactive in recommending the vaccines to those patients.

“Despite only needing one vaccine dose after turning 65 to be considered vaccinated, only about 70% of people in this group have received any pneumococcal vaccination,” he said in an interview. “This percentage has not increased much over the past several years.”

The new approach should help change that, he said.

“These new recommendations are a significant simplification from the prior confusing and challenging-to-implement recommendations from 2019,” Dr. Shah explained.

Among the 2019 recommendations was a stipulation for “shared decision-making” with PCV13, and a conversation that often only complicated matters, he noted.

“Patients and providers alike had confusion about this since it was not a clear-cut ‘yes, give it’ or ‘no, do not give it any longer’ recommendation.”

“Now that this new recommendation will require no extra time for a discussion in the clinic, and just a simple ‘it’s time for your pneumonia shot’ offer, this may become more feasible,” Dr. Shah added. “In addition, removal of the shared decision-making stipulation allows for this immunization to be easily protocolized in the clinic, similar to automatic offers to the flu vaccine for patients each year.”

According to the CDC, pneumococcal pneumonia causes an estimated 150,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States, while pneumococcal meningitis and bacteremia killed approximately 3,250 people in the United States in 2019.

“Clinicians are patients’ most trusted resource when it comes to vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “We encourage all clinicians to recommend pneumococcal vaccines when indicated.”

Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Updated pneumococcal vaccine recommendations for adults from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call for the use of the two recently approved vaccines in a more streamlined approach to avoid the complexities of age and patient conditions that hindered previous recommendations.

The recommendations, voted on by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in October and made final in January with publication in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), call for use of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15; Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme) or 20-valent PCV (PREVNAR20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals).

The recommendations apply to PCV-naive adults in the United States who are either aged 65 years or older, or who are aged 19-64 years and have underlying conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart or liver disease, or HIV, and have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown.

If the PCV15 vaccine is used, a subsequent dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23, Merck Sharp & Dohme) should be provided, typically at least 1 year later, under the recommendations.

As reported by this news organization, PCV15 and PREVNAR20 received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last July.

Those approvals provided an impetus for the revised recommendations, “offer[ing] an opportunity to review the existing recommendations and available data,” Miwako Kobayashi, MD, first author of the MMWR report and a medical epidemiologist with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in Atlanta, said in an interview.

“As part of that process, ACIP strived to simplify the recommendations,” she said.

The previous recommendations called for the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 and had varying conditions (depending on certain age and risk groups) that added complexity to the process. Under the new approach, the same recommendation applies regardless of specific medical conditions or other risk factors.

“With the simplified recommendation for adults 19 through 64, we expect coverage may increase among this population,” Dr. Kobayashi said.

Compared with the PCV13 vaccine, PREVNAR20 protects against seven additional serotypes involved in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, which are responsible for up to 40% of all cases of pneumococcal disease and related deaths in the United States.

While the PREVNAR20 includes five more pneumococcal serotypes than PCV15, the

CDC does not recommend one over the other, Dr. Kobayashi noted.

More than 90% of cases of adult IPD involve older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions or immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants, the MMWR report notes.

Commenting on the recommendations, Amit A. Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., underscored the need for clinicians to be proactive in recommending the vaccines to those patients.

“Despite only needing one vaccine dose after turning 65 to be considered vaccinated, only about 70% of people in this group have received any pneumococcal vaccination,” he said in an interview. “This percentage has not increased much over the past several years.”

The new approach should help change that, he said.

“These new recommendations are a significant simplification from the prior confusing and challenging-to-implement recommendations from 2019,” Dr. Shah explained.

Among the 2019 recommendations was a stipulation for “shared decision-making” with PCV13, and a conversation that often only complicated matters, he noted.

“Patients and providers alike had confusion about this since it was not a clear-cut ‘yes, give it’ or ‘no, do not give it any longer’ recommendation.”

“Now that this new recommendation will require no extra time for a discussion in the clinic, and just a simple ‘it’s time for your pneumonia shot’ offer, this may become more feasible,” Dr. Shah added. “In addition, removal of the shared decision-making stipulation allows for this immunization to be easily protocolized in the clinic, similar to automatic offers to the flu vaccine for patients each year.”

According to the CDC, pneumococcal pneumonia causes an estimated 150,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States, while pneumococcal meningitis and bacteremia killed approximately 3,250 people in the United States in 2019.

“Clinicians are patients’ most trusted resource when it comes to vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “We encourage all clinicians to recommend pneumococcal vaccines when indicated.”

Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Updated pneumococcal vaccine recommendations for adults from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call for the use of the two recently approved vaccines in a more streamlined approach to avoid the complexities of age and patient conditions that hindered previous recommendations.

The recommendations, voted on by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in October and made final in January with publication in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), call for use of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15; Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme) or 20-valent PCV (PREVNAR20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals).

The recommendations apply to PCV-naive adults in the United States who are either aged 65 years or older, or who are aged 19-64 years and have underlying conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart or liver disease, or HIV, and have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown.

If the PCV15 vaccine is used, a subsequent dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23, Merck Sharp & Dohme) should be provided, typically at least 1 year later, under the recommendations.

As reported by this news organization, PCV15 and PREVNAR20 received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last July.

Those approvals provided an impetus for the revised recommendations, “offer[ing] an opportunity to review the existing recommendations and available data,” Miwako Kobayashi, MD, first author of the MMWR report and a medical epidemiologist with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in Atlanta, said in an interview.

“As part of that process, ACIP strived to simplify the recommendations,” she said.

The previous recommendations called for the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 and had varying conditions (depending on certain age and risk groups) that added complexity to the process. Under the new approach, the same recommendation applies regardless of specific medical conditions or other risk factors.

“With the simplified recommendation for adults 19 through 64, we expect coverage may increase among this population,” Dr. Kobayashi said.

Compared with the PCV13 vaccine, PREVNAR20 protects against seven additional serotypes involved in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, which are responsible for up to 40% of all cases of pneumococcal disease and related deaths in the United States.

While the PREVNAR20 includes five more pneumococcal serotypes than PCV15, the

CDC does not recommend one over the other, Dr. Kobayashi noted.

More than 90% of cases of adult IPD involve older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions or immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants, the MMWR report notes.

Commenting on the recommendations, Amit A. Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., underscored the need for clinicians to be proactive in recommending the vaccines to those patients.

“Despite only needing one vaccine dose after turning 65 to be considered vaccinated, only about 70% of people in this group have received any pneumococcal vaccination,” he said in an interview. “This percentage has not increased much over the past several years.”

The new approach should help change that, he said.

“These new recommendations are a significant simplification from the prior confusing and challenging-to-implement recommendations from 2019,” Dr. Shah explained.

Among the 2019 recommendations was a stipulation for “shared decision-making” with PCV13, and a conversation that often only complicated matters, he noted.

“Patients and providers alike had confusion about this since it was not a clear-cut ‘yes, give it’ or ‘no, do not give it any longer’ recommendation.”

“Now that this new recommendation will require no extra time for a discussion in the clinic, and just a simple ‘it’s time for your pneumonia shot’ offer, this may become more feasible,” Dr. Shah added. “In addition, removal of the shared decision-making stipulation allows for this immunization to be easily protocolized in the clinic, similar to automatic offers to the flu vaccine for patients each year.”

According to the CDC, pneumococcal pneumonia causes an estimated 150,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States, while pneumococcal meningitis and bacteremia killed approximately 3,250 people in the United States in 2019.

“Clinicians are patients’ most trusted resource when it comes to vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “We encourage all clinicians to recommend pneumococcal vaccines when indicated.”

Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Omicron subvariant, known as BA.2, spreads about 1.5 times faster than the original Omicron strain, known as BA.1, according to CNBC.

The Statens Serum Institut, which monitors infectious diseases in Denmark, said that BA.2 is more contagious, but it doesn’t appear to increase hospitalizations or reduce how well the vaccine works.

BA.2 overtook BA.1 as the primary variant in Denmark within a few weeks, Troels Lillebaek, director of the institute, told CNBC. The subvariant has five unique mutations on a key part of the spike protein, which is what the coronavirus uses to invade human cells. This often means a higher rate of spreading.

The Omicron subvariant has been detected in at least 29 states in the United States and 56 countries, according to the latest update from Outbreak.info. The United States has detected 188 infections, with the worldwide total nearing 25,000.

Denmark has reported the highest number of cases, followed by the United Kingdom and India. Both Denmark and India have reported that BA.2 now accounts for about half of new COVID-19 cases in those countries.

On Jan. 28, the U.K. Health Security Agency said BA.2 has a “substantial” growth advantage over the original Omicron strain. The subvariant has spread faster in all regions of England where there were enough cases to conduct an analysis, the agency said in a report.

A preliminary evaluation found that BA.2 doesn’t appear to change how well the vaccine works compared to the original Omicron strain, the agency said. A booster dose was 70% effective at preventing symptomatic illness for BA.2, compared with 63% for the original Omicron strain.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also said on Jan. 28 that, although the subvariant has become more common in some countries, it is currently at a low level in the United States and doesn’t appear to be more serious.

“Currently there is no evidence that the BA.2 lineage is more severe than the BA.1 lineage,” Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson, told CNBC.

The World Health Organization hasn’t labeled BA.2 a “variant of concern” so far but will continue to monitor it. WHO officials have said that new variants will arise as Omicron spreads across the world.

“The next variant of concern will be more fit, and what we mean by that is it will be more transmissible because it will have to overtake what is currently circulating,” Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead, said during a livestream on Jan. 25.

“The big question is whether or not future variants will be more or less severe,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The Omicron subvariant, known as BA.2, spreads about 1.5 times faster than the original Omicron strain, known as BA.1, according to CNBC.

The Statens Serum Institut, which monitors infectious diseases in Denmark, said that BA.2 is more contagious, but it doesn’t appear to increase hospitalizations or reduce how well the vaccine works.

BA.2 overtook BA.1 as the primary variant in Denmark within a few weeks, Troels Lillebaek, director of the institute, told CNBC. The subvariant has five unique mutations on a key part of the spike protein, which is what the coronavirus uses to invade human cells. This often means a higher rate of spreading.

The Omicron subvariant has been detected in at least 29 states in the United States and 56 countries, according to the latest update from Outbreak.info. The United States has detected 188 infections, with the worldwide total nearing 25,000.

Denmark has reported the highest number of cases, followed by the United Kingdom and India. Both Denmark and India have reported that BA.2 now accounts for about half of new COVID-19 cases in those countries.

On Jan. 28, the U.K. Health Security Agency said BA.2 has a “substantial” growth advantage over the original Omicron strain. The subvariant has spread faster in all regions of England where there were enough cases to conduct an analysis, the agency said in a report.

A preliminary evaluation found that BA.2 doesn’t appear to change how well the vaccine works compared to the original Omicron strain, the agency said. A booster dose was 70% effective at preventing symptomatic illness for BA.2, compared with 63% for the original Omicron strain.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also said on Jan. 28 that, although the subvariant has become more common in some countries, it is currently at a low level in the United States and doesn’t appear to be more serious.

“Currently there is no evidence that the BA.2 lineage is more severe than the BA.1 lineage,” Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson, told CNBC.

The World Health Organization hasn’t labeled BA.2 a “variant of concern” so far but will continue to monitor it. WHO officials have said that new variants will arise as Omicron spreads across the world.

“The next variant of concern will be more fit, and what we mean by that is it will be more transmissible because it will have to overtake what is currently circulating,” Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead, said during a livestream on Jan. 25.

“The big question is whether or not future variants will be more or less severe,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The Omicron subvariant, known as BA.2, spreads about 1.5 times faster than the original Omicron strain, known as BA.1, according to CNBC.

The Statens Serum Institut, which monitors infectious diseases in Denmark, said that BA.2 is more contagious, but it doesn’t appear to increase hospitalizations or reduce how well the vaccine works.

BA.2 overtook BA.1 as the primary variant in Denmark within a few weeks, Troels Lillebaek, director of the institute, told CNBC. The subvariant has five unique mutations on a key part of the spike protein, which is what the coronavirus uses to invade human cells. This often means a higher rate of spreading.

The Omicron subvariant has been detected in at least 29 states in the United States and 56 countries, according to the latest update from Outbreak.info. The United States has detected 188 infections, with the worldwide total nearing 25,000.

Denmark has reported the highest number of cases, followed by the United Kingdom and India. Both Denmark and India have reported that BA.2 now accounts for about half of new COVID-19 cases in those countries.

On Jan. 28, the U.K. Health Security Agency said BA.2 has a “substantial” growth advantage over the original Omicron strain. The subvariant has spread faster in all regions of England where there were enough cases to conduct an analysis, the agency said in a report.

A preliminary evaluation found that BA.2 doesn’t appear to change how well the vaccine works compared to the original Omicron strain, the agency said. A booster dose was 70% effective at preventing symptomatic illness for BA.2, compared with 63% for the original Omicron strain.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also said on Jan. 28 that, although the subvariant has become more common in some countries, it is currently at a low level in the United States and doesn’t appear to be more serious.

“Currently there is no evidence that the BA.2 lineage is more severe than the BA.1 lineage,” Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson, told CNBC.

The World Health Organization hasn’t labeled BA.2 a “variant of concern” so far but will continue to monitor it. WHO officials have said that new variants will arise as Omicron spreads across the world.

“The next variant of concern will be more fit, and what we mean by that is it will be more transmissible because it will have to overtake what is currently circulating,” Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead, said during a livestream on Jan. 25.

“The big question is whether or not future variants will be more or less severe,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic is now associated with the highest number of excess deaths worldwide since the 1918 flu pandemic, sometimes known as the “Spanish flu.”

Excess mortality is a way of quantifying the impact of a pandemic, based on overall mortality from nonpandemic periods. Mortality data over long periods of time are not available for many countries, but Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain have accumulated death count data for an uninterrupted period of more than 100 years.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Kaspar Staub, PhD, of the University of Zurich led a team of researchers in reviewing data on monthly excess deaths from all causes for Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain for 2020 to 2021. Dr. Staub and colleagues also compared these numbers to other pandemic and nonpandemic periods since the end of the 19th century. The starting years were 1877 for Switzerland, 1851 for Sweden, and 1908 for Spain.

The researchers collected data for monthly all-cause deaths from the statistical offices of each country and determined excess mortality by comparing these numbers to population size and age structure.

They found that 2020 showed the highest number of excess deaths since 1918, with relative excess of deaths of 12.5% in Switzerland, 8.5% in Sweden, and 17.3 % in Spain.

To put it another way, the number of excess deaths per 100,000 people was 100 for Switzerland, 75 for Sweden, and 155 for Spain.

“Our findings suggest that the pandemic led to the second-largest mortality disaster driven by a viral infection in more than 100 years in the three countries we studied, second only to the 1918 influenza pandemic,” the researchers wrote.

They explained that the excess mortality for the year 1918 was six to seven times higher than the 2020 numbers, but that the 2020 numbers might have been higher without the strong public health interventions taken worldwide to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Early estimates suggest that vaccination prevented approximately 470,000 deaths in persons aged 60 years or older across 33 European countries between December 2019 and November 2021,” they wrote. However, because the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, “a more conclusive assessment will have to wait,” they added.

The 2020 numbers also were higher than most mortality rates since 1918, including peak years of previous influenza pandemics that occurred in 1957, 1968, 1977, and, most recently, the swine flu pandemic of 2009 which was caused by a novel strain of the H1N1 influenza virus.

The study findings had some limitations. For example, only three countries were included. Also, monthly death numbers according to sex, age, and cause of death were available only for the past 60 years, and data from years before the 20th century may not be reliable, the researchers said.

The new study does not account for the long-term effects of patients suffering from long COVID, they noted.

Study findings support strong public health response

“With the COVID-19 pandemic ongoing, this study reinforces the historic magnitude of the problem in terms of mortality and could add to the justification for ongoing public health measures such as vaccination drives and vaccine mandates to curb deaths,” said Suman Pal, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.

“The results are surprising because when we view the rapid advancement in medical science over the last few decades, which have led to a decline in mortality from many previously fatal diseases, the scale of excess mortality from COVID-19 seems to have offset many such gains in the past 2 years.”

Prior studies of United States mortality data have estimated that excess deaths in the United States in 2020 exceeded the deaths attributed to COVID-19, said Dr. Pal. “The findings of this study could help clinicians in their discussion of the need for COVID-19 prevention measures with their patients” and inform discussions between doctors and patients about prevention strategies, he explained.

“Emphasizing that this pandemic is the second-largest cause of death due to a viral infection in a century could help patients understand the need for public health measures that may be viewed as unprecedented, such as government-imposed lockdowns, contact tracing, mask requirements, restrictions on travel, and vaccine mandates,” Dr. Pal noted. Better understanding of the evidence behind such measures may decrease the public’s resistance to following them, he added.As for additional research, “region-specific analysis of excess deaths may help estimate the impact of COVID-19 better, especially in regions where data reporting may be unreliable.”

Dr. F. Perry Wilson's take on study

“All-cause mortality is a key metric to assess the impact of the pandemic, because each death is treated equally,” said F. Perry Wilson, MD, of Yale University, in an interview. “With this type of analysis, there is no vague definition of a death from COVID or with COVID,” he explained. “A death is a death, and more deaths than expected is, of course, a bad thing. These analyses give a high-level view of the true human cost of the pandemic,” he said.

Yale School of Medicine

Dr. Wilson said he was not surprised by the findings. “There have been multiple studies, across multiple countries including the United States, which show similar findings—that observed deaths during this pandemic are substantially higher than expected,” he said. The current study findings are unique in that they compare the current pandemic to death rates in a nearly unbroken chain into the last century using data that only a few countries can provide, he noted. 

The mortality data are “quite similar to what we see in the United States, with the exception that Spain was particularly hard-hit in the first COVID-19 wave in April 2020, said Dr. Wilson. By contrast, “the U.S. had substantially more excess deaths in the recent Delta wave, presumably due to lower vaccination uptake,” he added.

The current study is important for clinicians and their patients, said Dr. Wilson. “Data like these can help cut through some of the misinformation, such as the idea that only people who would have died anyway die of COVID, or that COVID is not severe,” he emphasized. “Overall death data are quite clear that far more people, millions more people, died over the last 22 months than could possibly be explained except by a global-level mortality event,” he said. 

“One thing this study reminds us of is the value of high-quality data,” said Dr. Wilson. “Few countries have near complete vital statistics records on their entire populations and these can be so crucial to understand the true impact of pandemics and other disasters,” he explained. Of course, mortality data also serve as a reminder “that COVID is a serious disease: a once-in-a-century (we hope) pandemic,” he added.

The current study showed that excess death rates were similar, but not the same, from country to country, Dr. Wilson noted. “Moving forward, we need to learn what factors, from vaccination to social distancing strategies,” saved lives around the world,” he said. 

The study was supported by the Foundation for Research in Science and the Humanities at the University of Zurich, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The researchers, Dr. Pal, and Dr. Wilson had no financial conflicts.

*This article was updated on 2/1/2022.

The COVID-19 pandemic is now associated with the highest number of excess deaths worldwide since the 1918 flu pandemic, sometimes known as the “Spanish flu.”

Excess mortality is a way of quantifying the impact of a pandemic, based on overall mortality from nonpandemic periods. Mortality data over long periods of time are not available for many countries, but Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain have accumulated death count data for an uninterrupted period of more than 100 years.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Kaspar Staub, PhD, of the University of Zurich led a team of researchers in reviewing data on monthly excess deaths from all causes for Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain for 2020 to 2021. Dr. Staub and colleagues also compared these numbers to other pandemic and nonpandemic periods since the end of the 19th century. The starting years were 1877 for Switzerland, 1851 for Sweden, and 1908 for Spain.

The researchers collected data for monthly all-cause deaths from the statistical offices of each country and determined excess mortality by comparing these numbers to population size and age structure.

They found that 2020 showed the highest number of excess deaths since 1918, with relative excess of deaths of 12.5% in Switzerland, 8.5% in Sweden, and 17.3 % in Spain.

To put it another way, the number of excess deaths per 100,000 people was 100 for Switzerland, 75 for Sweden, and 155 for Spain.

“Our findings suggest that the pandemic led to the second-largest mortality disaster driven by a viral infection in more than 100 years in the three countries we studied, second only to the 1918 influenza pandemic,” the researchers wrote.

They explained that the excess mortality for the year 1918 was six to seven times higher than the 2020 numbers, but that the 2020 numbers might have been higher without the strong public health interventions taken worldwide to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Early estimates suggest that vaccination prevented approximately 470,000 deaths in persons aged 60 years or older across 33 European countries between December 2019 and November 2021,” they wrote. However, because the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, “a more conclusive assessment will have to wait,” they added.

The 2020 numbers also were higher than most mortality rates since 1918, including peak years of previous influenza pandemics that occurred in 1957, 1968, 1977, and, most recently, the swine flu pandemic of 2009 which was caused by a novel strain of the H1N1 influenza virus.

The study findings had some limitations. For example, only three countries were included. Also, monthly death numbers according to sex, age, and cause of death were available only for the past 60 years, and data from years before the 20th century may not be reliable, the researchers said.

The new study does not account for the long-term effects of patients suffering from long COVID, they noted.

Study findings support strong public health response

“With the COVID-19 pandemic ongoing, this study reinforces the historic magnitude of the problem in terms of mortality and could add to the justification for ongoing public health measures such as vaccination drives and vaccine mandates to curb deaths,” said Suman Pal, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.

“The results are surprising because when we view the rapid advancement in medical science over the last few decades, which have led to a decline in mortality from many previously fatal diseases, the scale of excess mortality from COVID-19 seems to have offset many such gains in the past 2 years.”

Prior studies of United States mortality data have estimated that excess deaths in the United States in 2020 exceeded the deaths attributed to COVID-19, said Dr. Pal. “The findings of this study could help clinicians in their discussion of the need for COVID-19 prevention measures with their patients” and inform discussions between doctors and patients about prevention strategies, he explained.

“Emphasizing that this pandemic is the second-largest cause of death due to a viral infection in a century could help patients understand the need for public health measures that may be viewed as unprecedented, such as government-imposed lockdowns, contact tracing, mask requirements, restrictions on travel, and vaccine mandates,” Dr. Pal noted. Better understanding of the evidence behind such measures may decrease the public’s resistance to following them, he added.As for additional research, “region-specific analysis of excess deaths may help estimate the impact of COVID-19 better, especially in regions where data reporting may be unreliable.”

Dr. F. Perry Wilson's take on study

“All-cause mortality is a key metric to assess the impact of the pandemic, because each death is treated equally,” said F. Perry Wilson, MD, of Yale University, in an interview. “With this type of analysis, there is no vague definition of a death from COVID or with COVID,” he explained. “A death is a death, and more deaths than expected is, of course, a bad thing. These analyses give a high-level view of the true human cost of the pandemic,” he said.

Yale School of Medicine

Dr. Wilson said he was not surprised by the findings. “There have been multiple studies, across multiple countries including the United States, which show similar findings—that observed deaths during this pandemic are substantially higher than expected,” he said. The current study findings are unique in that they compare the current pandemic to death rates in a nearly unbroken chain into the last century using data that only a few countries can provide, he noted. 

The mortality data are “quite similar to what we see in the United States, with the exception that Spain was particularly hard-hit in the first COVID-19 wave in April 2020, said Dr. Wilson. By contrast, “the U.S. had substantially more excess deaths in the recent Delta wave, presumably due to lower vaccination uptake,” he added.

The current study is important for clinicians and their patients, said Dr. Wilson. “Data like these can help cut through some of the misinformation, such as the idea that only people who would have died anyway die of COVID, or that COVID is not severe,” he emphasized. “Overall death data are quite clear that far more people, millions more people, died over the last 22 months than could possibly be explained except by a global-level mortality event,” he said. 

“One thing this study reminds us of is the value of high-quality data,” said Dr. Wilson. “Few countries have near complete vital statistics records on their entire populations and these can be so crucial to understand the true impact of pandemics and other disasters,” he explained. Of course, mortality data also serve as a reminder “that COVID is a serious disease: a once-in-a-century (we hope) pandemic,” he added.

The current study showed that excess death rates were similar, but not the same, from country to country, Dr. Wilson noted. “Moving forward, we need to learn what factors, from vaccination to social distancing strategies,” saved lives around the world,” he said. 

The study was supported by the Foundation for Research in Science and the Humanities at the University of Zurich, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The researchers, Dr. Pal, and Dr. Wilson had no financial conflicts.

*This article was updated on 2/1/2022.

The COVID-19 pandemic is now associated with the highest number of excess deaths worldwide since the 1918 flu pandemic, sometimes known as the “Spanish flu.”

Excess mortality is a way of quantifying the impact of a pandemic, based on overall mortality from nonpandemic periods. Mortality data over long periods of time are not available for many countries, but Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain have accumulated death count data for an uninterrupted period of more than 100 years.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Kaspar Staub, PhD, of the University of Zurich led a team of researchers in reviewing data on monthly excess deaths from all causes for Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain for 2020 to 2021. Dr. Staub and colleagues also compared these numbers to other pandemic and nonpandemic periods since the end of the 19th century. The starting years were 1877 for Switzerland, 1851 for Sweden, and 1908 for Spain.

The researchers collected data for monthly all-cause deaths from the statistical offices of each country and determined excess mortality by comparing these numbers to population size and age structure.

They found that 2020 showed the highest number of excess deaths since 1918, with relative excess of deaths of 12.5% in Switzerland, 8.5% in Sweden, and 17.3 % in Spain.

To put it another way, the number of excess deaths per 100,000 people was 100 for Switzerland, 75 for Sweden, and 155 for Spain.

“Our findings suggest that the pandemic led to the second-largest mortality disaster driven by a viral infection in more than 100 years in the three countries we studied, second only to the 1918 influenza pandemic,” the researchers wrote.

They explained that the excess mortality for the year 1918 was six to seven times higher than the 2020 numbers, but that the 2020 numbers might have been higher without the strong public health interventions taken worldwide to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Early estimates suggest that vaccination prevented approximately 470,000 deaths in persons aged 60 years or older across 33 European countries between December 2019 and November 2021,” they wrote. However, because the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, “a more conclusive assessment will have to wait,” they added.

The 2020 numbers also were higher than most mortality rates since 1918, including peak years of previous influenza pandemics that occurred in 1957, 1968, 1977, and, most recently, the swine flu pandemic of 2009 which was caused by a novel strain of the H1N1 influenza virus.

The study findings had some limitations. For example, only three countries were included. Also, monthly death numbers according to sex, age, and cause of death were available only for the past 60 years, and data from years before the 20th century may not be reliable, the researchers said.

The new study does not account for the long-term effects of patients suffering from long COVID, they noted.

Study findings support strong public health response

“With the COVID-19 pandemic ongoing, this study reinforces the historic magnitude of the problem in terms of mortality and could add to the justification for ongoing public health measures such as vaccination drives and vaccine mandates to curb deaths,” said Suman Pal, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.

“The results are surprising because when we view the rapid advancement in medical science over the last few decades, which have led to a decline in mortality from many previously fatal diseases, the scale of excess mortality from COVID-19 seems to have offset many such gains in the past 2 years.”

Prior studies of United States mortality data have estimated that excess deaths in the United States in 2020 exceeded the deaths attributed to COVID-19, said Dr. Pal. “The findings of this study could help clinicians in their discussion of the need for COVID-19 prevention measures with their patients” and inform discussions between doctors and patients about prevention strategies, he explained.

“Emphasizing that this pandemic is the second-largest cause of death due to a viral infection in a century could help patients understand the need for public health measures that may be viewed as unprecedented, such as government-imposed lockdowns, contact tracing, mask requirements, restrictions on travel, and vaccine mandates,” Dr. Pal noted. Better understanding of the evidence behind such measures may decrease the public’s resistance to following them, he added.As for additional research, “region-specific analysis of excess deaths may help estimate the impact of COVID-19 better, especially in regions where data reporting may be unreliable.”

Dr. F. Perry Wilson's take on study

“All-cause mortality is a key metric to assess the impact of the pandemic, because each death is treated equally,” said F. Perry Wilson, MD, of Yale University, in an interview. “With this type of analysis, there is no vague definition of a death from COVID or with COVID,” he explained. “A death is a death, and more deaths than expected is, of course, a bad thing. These analyses give a high-level view of the true human cost of the pandemic,” he said.

Yale School of Medicine

Dr. Wilson said he was not surprised by the findings. “There have been multiple studies, across multiple countries including the United States, which show similar findings—that observed deaths during this pandemic are substantially higher than expected,” he said. The current study findings are unique in that they compare the current pandemic to death rates in a nearly unbroken chain into the last century using data that only a few countries can provide, he noted. 

The mortality data are “quite similar to what we see in the United States, with the exception that Spain was particularly hard-hit in the first COVID-19 wave in April 2020, said Dr. Wilson. By contrast, “the U.S. had substantially more excess deaths in the recent Delta wave, presumably due to lower vaccination uptake,” he added.

The current study is important for clinicians and their patients, said Dr. Wilson. “Data like these can help cut through some of the misinformation, such as the idea that only people who would have died anyway die of COVID, or that COVID is not severe,” he emphasized. “Overall death data are quite clear that far more people, millions more people, died over the last 22 months than could possibly be explained except by a global-level mortality event,” he said. 

“One thing this study reminds us of is the value of high-quality data,” said Dr. Wilson. “Few countries have near complete vital statistics records on their entire populations and these can be so crucial to understand the true impact of pandemics and other disasters,” he explained. Of course, mortality data also serve as a reminder “that COVID is a serious disease: a once-in-a-century (we hope) pandemic,” he added.

The current study showed that excess death rates were similar, but not the same, from country to country, Dr. Wilson noted. “Moving forward, we need to learn what factors, from vaccination to social distancing strategies,” saved lives around the world,” he said. 

The study was supported by the Foundation for Research in Science and the Humanities at the University of Zurich, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The researchers, Dr. Pal, and Dr. Wilson had no financial conflicts.

*This article was updated on 2/1/2022.

In June 2017, Betty Balikagala, MD, PhD, traveled to a hospital in Gulu District, in northern Uganda. It was the rainy season: a peak time for malaria transmission. Dr. Balikagala, a researcher at Juntendo University in Japan, was back in her home country to hunt for mutations in the parasite that causes the disease.

For about 4 weeks, Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues collected blood from infected patients as they were treated with a powerful cocktail of antimalarial drugs. After initial analysis, the team then shipped their samples – glass slides smeared with blood, and filter papers with blood spots – back to Japan.

In their lab at Juntendo University, they looked for traces of malaria in the blood slides, which they had prepared by drawing blood from patients every few hours. In previous years, Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues had observed the drugs efficiently clearing the infection. This time, though, the parasite lingered in some patients. “We were very surprised when we first did the parasite reading for 2017, and we noticed that there were some patients who had delayed clearance,” recalled Dr. Balikagala. “For me, it was a shock.”

Malaria kills more than half a million people per year, most of them small children. Still, between 2000 and 2020, according to the World Health Organization, interventions prevented around 10.6 million malaria deaths, mostly in Africa. Bed nets and insecticides were responsible for most of the progress. But a fairly large number of lives were also saved by a new kind of antimalarial treatment: artemisinin-based combination therapies, or ACTs, that replaced older drugs such as chloroquine.

Used as a first-line treatment, ACTs have averted a significant number of malaria deaths since their introduction in the early 2000s. ACTs pair a derivative of the drug artemisinin with one of five partner drugs or drug combinations. Delivered together, the fast-acting artemisinin component wipes out most of the parasites within a few days, and the longer-acting partner drug clears out the stragglers.

ACTs quickly became a mainstay in malaria treatment. But in 2009, researchers observed signs of resistance to artemisinin along the Thailand-Cambodia border. The artemisinin component failed to clear the parasite quickly, which meant that the partner drug had to pick up that load, creating favorable conditions for partner drug resistance, too. The Greater Mekong Subregion now experiences high rates of multidrug resistance. Scientists have feared that the spread of such resistance to Africa, which accounts for more than 90% of global malaria cases, would be disastrous.

Now, in a pair of reports published last year, scientists have confirmed the emergence of artemisinin resistance in Africa. One study, published in April, reported that ACTs had failed to work quickly for more than 10% of participants at two sites in Rwanda. The prevalence of artemisinin resistance mutations was also higher than detected in previous reports.

In September, Dr. Balikagala’s team published the report from Uganda, which also identified mutations associated with artemisinin resistance. Alarmingly, the resistant malaria parasites had risen from 3.9% of cases in 2015 to nearly 20% in 2019. Genetic analysis shows that the resistance mutations in Rwanda and Uganda have emerged independently.

The latest malaria report from the WHO, published in December, also noted worrying signs of artemisinin resistance in the Horn of Africa, on the eastern side of the continent. No peer-reviewed studies confirming such resistance have been published.

So far, the ACTs still work. But in an experimental setting, as drug resistance sets in, it can lengthen treatment by 3 or 4 days. That may not sound like much, said Timothy Wells, PhD, chief scientific officer of the nonprofit Medicines for Malaria Venture. But “the more days of therapy you need,” he said, “then the more there is the risk that people don’t finish their course of therapy.” Dropping a treatment course midway exposes the parasites to the drug, but doesn’t clear all of them, potentially leaving behind survivors with a higher chance of being drug resistant. “That’s really bad news, because then that sets up a perfect storm for creating more resistance,” said Dr. Wells.

The reports from Uganda and Rwanda have yielded a grim consensus: “We are going to see more and more of such independent emergence,” said Pascal Ringwald, MD, PhD, coordinator at the director’s office for the WHO Global Malaria Program. “This is exactly what we saw in the Greater Mekong.” Luckily, Dr. Wells said, switching to other ACTs helped to combat resistance when it was detected there, avoiding the need for prolonged treatment.

A new malaria vaccine, which recently received the go-ahead from the WHO, may eventually help reduce the number of infections, but its rollout won’t have any significant impact on drug resistance. As for new drugs, even the most promising candidate in the pipeline would take at least 4 years to become widely available.

That leaves public health workers in Africa with only one solid option: Track and surveil resistance to artemisinin and its partner drugs. Effective surveillance systems, experts say, need to ramp up quickly and widely across the continent.

But most experts say that surveillance on the continent is patchy. Indeed, there is considerable uncertainty about how widespread antimalarial resistance already is in sub-Saharan Africa – and disagreement over how to interpret initial reports of emerging partner drug resistance in some countries.

“Our current systems are not as good as they should be,” said Philip Rosenthal, MD, a malaria researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. The new reports of artemisinin resistance, he added, “can be seen as a wake-up call to improve surveillance.”

Malaria drugs have failed before. In the early 20th century, chloroquine helped beat back the pathogen worldwide. Then, about a decade after World War II, resistance to chloroquine surfaced along the Thailand-Cambodia border.

By the 1970s, chloroquine-resistant malaria had spread across India and into Africa, where it killed millions, many of them children. “In retrospect, we know that chloroquine was used for many years after there was a huge resistance problem,” said Dr. Rosenthal. “This probably led to millions of excess deaths that could have been avoided if we were using other drugs.”

The scurry to find new drugs yielded artemisinin. Used by Chinese herbalists some 2,000 years ago to treat malaria-like symptoms, artemisinin was rediscovered in the 1970s by biomedical researchers in China, and its use became widespread in the 2000s.

Haunted by the failure of chloroquine, though, researchers have remained on the lookout for signs that the malaria parasite is evolving to resist artemisinin or its partner drugs. The gold-standard method is a therapeutic efficacy study, which involves closely monitoring infected patients as they are treated with antimalarial drugs, to see how well the drugs perform and if there are any signs of resistance.

The WHO recommends conducting these studies at several sites in a country every 2 years. But “each country interprets that with their capability,” said Philippe Guérin, MD, PhD, director of the WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network at the University of Oxford, England. Efficacy studies are slow, costly, and labor intensive. Also, “you don’t get a very good geographical representation,” said Dr. Guérin, because you can do a new clinical trial in only so many places at a time.

To get around the problems associated with efficacy studies, researchers also turn to molecular surveillance. Researchers draw a few drops of blood from an infected individual onto a filter paper, then scan it in the laboratory for certain genetic mutations associated with resistance. The technique is relatively easy and cheap.

With these kinds of surveillance data, policymakers can choose which drugs to use in a particular region. Moreover, early detection of resistance can prompt health authorities to take actions to limit the spread of resistance, including more aggressive screening and treatment campaigns, and expanded efforts to control the mosquitoes that spread malaria.

In practice, though, this warning system is frayed. “There is really no organized surveillance system for the continent,” said Dr. Rosenthal. “Surveillance is haphazard.”

In countries lacking a robust health care system or mired in political instability, experts say, resistance could be spreading undetected. For example, the border of South Sudan is just 60 miles from the site in northern Uganda where Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues confirmed resistance to artemisinin. “Because of the security issues and the refugee-weakened system, there is no surveillance that tells us what is happening in South Sudan,” said Dr. Guérin. The same applies in some parts of the nearby Democratic Republic of the Congo, he added.

In the past, regional antimalarial networks, such as the now defunct East African Network for Monitoring of Antimalarial Treatment, have addressed some surveillance gaps. These networks can help standardize protocols and coordinate surveillance efforts. But such networks have suffered from recent lapses in donor funding. The East African network “will be awakened,” Dr. Balikagala predicted, as concerns about artemisinin-resistant malaria grow.

In southern Africa, eight countries have come together to form the Elimination Eight Initiative, a coalition to facilitate malaria elimination efforts across national borders, which may help jump-start surveillance efforts there.

Dr. Ringwald said drug resistance is a priority for him and his WHO colleagues. At a malaria policy advisory committee meeting last fall, he said, the issue was “high on the agenda.” However, when pressed for answers on how the WHO plans to combat drug resistance in Africa, Dr. Ringwald emailed Undark an excerpt from the organization’s 2021 World Malaria Report. The report states that the WHO will “work with countries to develop a regional plan for a coordinated response,” but does not lay out any specifics on that response plan. The Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, part of the African Union, did not respond to requests for comment on its plans to bolster surveillance.

“There is an ethical obligation to researchers, and to people responsible for surveillance, that if you pick up these problems, share them as quickly as possible, react to them as strongly as possible,” said Karen Barnes, a clinical pharmacologist at the University of Cape Town who cochairs the South African Malaria Elimination Committee. “And try very, very hard” to make sure “that it’s not going to be the same as when we had chloroquine resistance in Africa.”

In absence of more robust surveillance, reports have also identified worrying – but, some scientists say, inconclusive – signs of partner drug resistance.

A series of four studies conducted between 2013 and 2019 at several sites in Angola found the efficacy of artemether-lumefantrine – the most widely used ACT in Africa – had dropped below 90%, the WHO threshold for acceptable malaria treatment. Peer-reviewed studies from Burkina Faso and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have reported similar results.

The studies have not found genes associated with artemisinin resistance, suggesting that the partner drug, lumefantrine, might be faltering. But several malaria researchers told Undark they were skeptical of the studies’ methods and viewed the results as preliminary. “I would have preferred that we look at data with a standardized protocol and exclude any confounding factors like poor microscopy or analytical method,” said Dr. Ringwald.

Mateusz Plucinski, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Malaria Branch who participated in the Angola research, defended the findings. “The persistence of artemether-lumefantrine efficacy near or under 90% in Angola likely suggests that there is likely a true signal of decreased susceptibility of parasites to this drug,” he wrote in an email to this news organization. In response to the data, Angolan health officials have begun using a different ACT.

For now, it’s unclear how bad the situation is in Africa – or what the years ahead could bring. The research community and the authorities are “at the level of just watching and seeing what happens at this stage,” said Leann Tilley, PhD, a biochemist at the University of Melbourne who researches antimalarial resistance. But experts say that if artemisinin resistance does flare up and starts impinging on the partner drug, policymakers might need to consider changing to a different ACT, or even deploy triple ACTs, with two partner drugs.

Some experts are hopeful that artemisinin resistance will spread more slowly in Africa than it has in southeast Asia. But if high-grade resistance to artemisinin and partner drugs were to arise, it would put Africa in a bind. There are no immediate replacements for ACTs at the moment. The Medicines for Malaria Venture drug pipeline has about 30 molecules that show promise in preliminary testing, and about 15 molecules that are undergoing clinical trials for efficacy and safety, said Dr. Wells. But even the drugs that are at the end of the pipeline will take about 5-6 years from approval by regulatory authorities to be incorporated into WHO guidelines, he noted – if they make it through trials at all.

Dr. Wells cited one promising compound, from the drug maker Novartis, that recently performed well in early clinical trials. Still, Dr. Wells said, the drug won’t be ready to be deployed in Africa until around 2026.

Funds for malaria control and elimination programs remain limited, and scientists worry that, between COVID-19 and the malaria vaccine rollout, attention and resources for conducting surveillance and drug resistance work might dry up. “I really hope that those that do have resources available will understand that investing in Africa’s response to artemisinin resistance today, preferably yesterday, is probably one of the best places that they can put their money,” said Barnes.

The annals of malaria have shown time and again that once resistance emerges, it spreads widely and imperils progress against the deadly disease. For Africa, the writing is on the wall, she said. The bigger question, she asked, is this: “Are we capable of learning from history?”

A version of this article first appeared on Undark.com.

In June 2017, Betty Balikagala, MD, PhD, traveled to a hospital in Gulu District, in northern Uganda. It was the rainy season: a peak time for malaria transmission. Dr. Balikagala, a researcher at Juntendo University in Japan, was back in her home country to hunt for mutations in the parasite that causes the disease.

For about 4 weeks, Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues collected blood from infected patients as they were treated with a powerful cocktail of antimalarial drugs. After initial analysis, the team then shipped their samples – glass slides smeared with blood, and filter papers with blood spots – back to Japan.

In their lab at Juntendo University, they looked for traces of malaria in the blood slides, which they had prepared by drawing blood from patients every few hours. In previous years, Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues had observed the drugs efficiently clearing the infection. This time, though, the parasite lingered in some patients. “We were very surprised when we first did the parasite reading for 2017, and we noticed that there were some patients who had delayed clearance,” recalled Dr. Balikagala. “For me, it was a shock.”

Malaria kills more than half a million people per year, most of them small children. Still, between 2000 and 2020, according to the World Health Organization, interventions prevented around 10.6 million malaria deaths, mostly in Africa. Bed nets and insecticides were responsible for most of the progress. But a fairly large number of lives were also saved by a new kind of antimalarial treatment: artemisinin-based combination therapies, or ACTs, that replaced older drugs such as chloroquine.

Used as a first-line treatment, ACTs have averted a significant number of malaria deaths since their introduction in the early 2000s. ACTs pair a derivative of the drug artemisinin with one of five partner drugs or drug combinations. Delivered together, the fast-acting artemisinin component wipes out most of the parasites within a few days, and the longer-acting partner drug clears out the stragglers.

ACTs quickly became a mainstay in malaria treatment. But in 2009, researchers observed signs of resistance to artemisinin along the Thailand-Cambodia border. The artemisinin component failed to clear the parasite quickly, which meant that the partner drug had to pick up that load, creating favorable conditions for partner drug resistance, too. The Greater Mekong Subregion now experiences high rates of multidrug resistance. Scientists have feared that the spread of such resistance to Africa, which accounts for more than 90% of global malaria cases, would be disastrous.

Now, in a pair of reports published last year, scientists have confirmed the emergence of artemisinin resistance in Africa. One study, published in April, reported that ACTs had failed to work quickly for more than 10% of participants at two sites in Rwanda. The prevalence of artemisinin resistance mutations was also higher than detected in previous reports.

In September, Dr. Balikagala’s team published the report from Uganda, which also identified mutations associated with artemisinin resistance. Alarmingly, the resistant malaria parasites had risen from 3.9% of cases in 2015 to nearly 20% in 2019. Genetic analysis shows that the resistance mutations in Rwanda and Uganda have emerged independently.

The latest malaria report from the WHO, published in December, also noted worrying signs of artemisinin resistance in the Horn of Africa, on the eastern side of the continent. No peer-reviewed studies confirming such resistance have been published.

So far, the ACTs still work. But in an experimental setting, as drug resistance sets in, it can lengthen treatment by 3 or 4 days. That may not sound like much, said Timothy Wells, PhD, chief scientific officer of the nonprofit Medicines for Malaria Venture. But “the more days of therapy you need,” he said, “then the more there is the risk that people don’t finish their course of therapy.” Dropping a treatment course midway exposes the parasites to the drug, but doesn’t clear all of them, potentially leaving behind survivors with a higher chance of being drug resistant. “That’s really bad news, because then that sets up a perfect storm for creating more resistance,” said Dr. Wells.

The reports from Uganda and Rwanda have yielded a grim consensus: “We are going to see more and more of such independent emergence,” said Pascal Ringwald, MD, PhD, coordinator at the director’s office for the WHO Global Malaria Program. “This is exactly what we saw in the Greater Mekong.” Luckily, Dr. Wells said, switching to other ACTs helped to combat resistance when it was detected there, avoiding the need for prolonged treatment.

A new malaria vaccine, which recently received the go-ahead from the WHO, may eventually help reduce the number of infections, but its rollout won’t have any significant impact on drug resistance. As for new drugs, even the most promising candidate in the pipeline would take at least 4 years to become widely available.

That leaves public health workers in Africa with only one solid option: Track and surveil resistance to artemisinin and its partner drugs. Effective surveillance systems, experts say, need to ramp up quickly and widely across the continent.

But most experts say that surveillance on the continent is patchy. Indeed, there is considerable uncertainty about how widespread antimalarial resistance already is in sub-Saharan Africa – and disagreement over how to interpret initial reports of emerging partner drug resistance in some countries.

“Our current systems are not as good as they should be,” said Philip Rosenthal, MD, a malaria researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. The new reports of artemisinin resistance, he added, “can be seen as a wake-up call to improve surveillance.”

Malaria drugs have failed before. In the early 20th century, chloroquine helped beat back the pathogen worldwide. Then, about a decade after World War II, resistance to chloroquine surfaced along the Thailand-Cambodia border.

By the 1970s, chloroquine-resistant malaria had spread across India and into Africa, where it killed millions, many of them children. “In retrospect, we know that chloroquine was used for many years after there was a huge resistance problem,” said Dr. Rosenthal. “This probably led to millions of excess deaths that could have been avoided if we were using other drugs.”

The scurry to find new drugs yielded artemisinin. Used by Chinese herbalists some 2,000 years ago to treat malaria-like symptoms, artemisinin was rediscovered in the 1970s by biomedical researchers in China, and its use became widespread in the 2000s.

Haunted by the failure of chloroquine, though, researchers have remained on the lookout for signs that the malaria parasite is evolving to resist artemisinin or its partner drugs. The gold-standard method is a therapeutic efficacy study, which involves closely monitoring infected patients as they are treated with antimalarial drugs, to see how well the drugs perform and if there are any signs of resistance.

The WHO recommends conducting these studies at several sites in a country every 2 years. But “each country interprets that with their capability,” said Philippe Guérin, MD, PhD, director of the WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network at the University of Oxford, England. Efficacy studies are slow, costly, and labor intensive. Also, “you don’t get a very good geographical representation,” said Dr. Guérin, because you can do a new clinical trial in only so many places at a time.

To get around the problems associated with efficacy studies, researchers also turn to molecular surveillance. Researchers draw a few drops of blood from an infected individual onto a filter paper, then scan it in the laboratory for certain genetic mutations associated with resistance. The technique is relatively easy and cheap.

With these kinds of surveillance data, policymakers can choose which drugs to use in a particular region. Moreover, early detection of resistance can prompt health authorities to take actions to limit the spread of resistance, including more aggressive screening and treatment campaigns, and expanded efforts to control the mosquitoes that spread malaria.

In practice, though, this warning system is frayed. “There is really no organized surveillance system for the continent,” said Dr. Rosenthal. “Surveillance is haphazard.”

In countries lacking a robust health care system or mired in political instability, experts say, resistance could be spreading undetected. For example, the border of South Sudan is just 60 miles from the site in northern Uganda where Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues confirmed resistance to artemisinin. “Because of the security issues and the refugee-weakened system, there is no surveillance that tells us what is happening in South Sudan,” said Dr. Guérin. The same applies in some parts of the nearby Democratic Republic of the Congo, he added.

In the past, regional antimalarial networks, such as the now defunct East African Network for Monitoring of Antimalarial Treatment, have addressed some surveillance gaps. These networks can help standardize protocols and coordinate surveillance efforts. But such networks have suffered from recent lapses in donor funding. The East African network “will be awakened,” Dr. Balikagala predicted, as concerns about artemisinin-resistant malaria grow.

In southern Africa, eight countries have come together to form the Elimination Eight Initiative, a coalition to facilitate malaria elimination efforts across national borders, which may help jump-start surveillance efforts there.

Dr. Ringwald said drug resistance is a priority for him and his WHO colleagues. At a malaria policy advisory committee meeting last fall, he said, the issue was “high on the agenda.” However, when pressed for answers on how the WHO plans to combat drug resistance in Africa, Dr. Ringwald emailed Undark an excerpt from the organization’s 2021 World Malaria Report. The report states that the WHO will “work with countries to develop a regional plan for a coordinated response,” but does not lay out any specifics on that response plan. The Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, part of the African Union, did not respond to requests for comment on its plans to bolster surveillance.

“There is an ethical obligation to researchers, and to people responsible for surveillance, that if you pick up these problems, share them as quickly as possible, react to them as strongly as possible,” said Karen Barnes, a clinical pharmacologist at the University of Cape Town who cochairs the South African Malaria Elimination Committee. “And try very, very hard” to make sure “that it’s not going to be the same as when we had chloroquine resistance in Africa.”

In absence of more robust surveillance, reports have also identified worrying – but, some scientists say, inconclusive – signs of partner drug resistance.

A series of four studies conducted between 2013 and 2019 at several sites in Angola found the efficacy of artemether-lumefantrine – the most widely used ACT in Africa – had dropped below 90%, the WHO threshold for acceptable malaria treatment. Peer-reviewed studies from Burkina Faso and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have reported similar results.

The studies have not found genes associated with artemisinin resistance, suggesting that the partner drug, lumefantrine, might be faltering. But several malaria researchers told Undark they were skeptical of the studies’ methods and viewed the results as preliminary. “I would have preferred that we look at data with a standardized protocol and exclude any confounding factors like poor microscopy or analytical method,” said Dr. Ringwald.

Mateusz Plucinski, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Malaria Branch who participated in the Angola research, defended the findings. “The persistence of artemether-lumefantrine efficacy near or under 90% in Angola likely suggests that there is likely a true signal of decreased susceptibility of parasites to this drug,” he wrote in an email to this news organization. In response to the data, Angolan health officials have begun using a different ACT.

For now, it’s unclear how bad the situation is in Africa – or what the years ahead could bring. The research community and the authorities are “at the level of just watching and seeing what happens at this stage,” said Leann Tilley, PhD, a biochemist at the University of Melbourne who researches antimalarial resistance. But experts say that if artemisinin resistance does flare up and starts impinging on the partner drug, policymakers might need to consider changing to a different ACT, or even deploy triple ACTs, with two partner drugs.

Some experts are hopeful that artemisinin resistance will spread more slowly in Africa than it has in southeast Asia. But if high-grade resistance to artemisinin and partner drugs were to arise, it would put Africa in a bind. There are no immediate replacements for ACTs at the moment. The Medicines for Malaria Venture drug pipeline has about 30 molecules that show promise in preliminary testing, and about 15 molecules that are undergoing clinical trials for efficacy and safety, said Dr. Wells. But even the drugs that are at the end of the pipeline will take about 5-6 years from approval by regulatory authorities to be incorporated into WHO guidelines, he noted – if they make it through trials at all.

Dr. Wells cited one promising compound, from the drug maker Novartis, that recently performed well in early clinical trials. Still, Dr. Wells said, the drug won’t be ready to be deployed in Africa until around 2026.

Funds for malaria control and elimination programs remain limited, and scientists worry that, between COVID-19 and the malaria vaccine rollout, attention and resources for conducting surveillance and drug resistance work might dry up. “I really hope that those that do have resources available will understand that investing in Africa’s response to artemisinin resistance today, preferably yesterday, is probably one of the best places that they can put their money,” said Barnes.

The annals of malaria have shown time and again that once resistance emerges, it spreads widely and imperils progress against the deadly disease. For Africa, the writing is on the wall, she said. The bigger question, she asked, is this: “Are we capable of learning from history?”

A version of this article first appeared on Undark.com.

In June 2017, Betty Balikagala, MD, PhD, traveled to a hospital in Gulu District, in northern Uganda. It was the rainy season: a peak time for malaria transmission. Dr. Balikagala, a researcher at Juntendo University in Japan, was back in her home country to hunt for mutations in the parasite that causes the disease.

For about 4 weeks, Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues collected blood from infected patients as they were treated with a powerful cocktail of antimalarial drugs. After initial analysis, the team then shipped their samples – glass slides smeared with blood, and filter papers with blood spots – back to Japan.

In their lab at Juntendo University, they looked for traces of malaria in the blood slides, which they had prepared by drawing blood from patients every few hours. In previous years, Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues had observed the drugs efficiently clearing the infection. This time, though, the parasite lingered in some patients. “We were very surprised when we first did the parasite reading for 2017, and we noticed that there were some patients who had delayed clearance,” recalled Dr. Balikagala. “For me, it was a shock.”

Malaria kills more than half a million people per year, most of them small children. Still, between 2000 and 2020, according to the World Health Organization, interventions prevented around 10.6 million malaria deaths, mostly in Africa. Bed nets and insecticides were responsible for most of the progress. But a fairly large number of lives were also saved by a new kind of antimalarial treatment: artemisinin-based combination therapies, or ACTs, that replaced older drugs such as chloroquine.

Used as a first-line treatment, ACTs have averted a significant number of malaria deaths since their introduction in the early 2000s. ACTs pair a derivative of the drug artemisinin with one of five partner drugs or drug combinations. Delivered together, the fast-acting artemisinin component wipes out most of the parasites within a few days, and the longer-acting partner drug clears out the stragglers.

ACTs quickly became a mainstay in malaria treatment. But in 2009, researchers observed signs of resistance to artemisinin along the Thailand-Cambodia border. The artemisinin component failed to clear the parasite quickly, which meant that the partner drug had to pick up that load, creating favorable conditions for partner drug resistance, too. The Greater Mekong Subregion now experiences high rates of multidrug resistance. Scientists have feared that the spread of such resistance to Africa, which accounts for more than 90% of global malaria cases, would be disastrous.

Now, in a pair of reports published last year, scientists have confirmed the emergence of artemisinin resistance in Africa. One study, published in April, reported that ACTs had failed to work quickly for more than 10% of participants at two sites in Rwanda. The prevalence of artemisinin resistance mutations was also higher than detected in previous reports.

In September, Dr. Balikagala’s team published the report from Uganda, which also identified mutations associated with artemisinin resistance. Alarmingly, the resistant malaria parasites had risen from 3.9% of cases in 2015 to nearly 20% in 2019. Genetic analysis shows that the resistance mutations in Rwanda and Uganda have emerged independently.

The latest malaria report from the WHO, published in December, also noted worrying signs of artemisinin resistance in the Horn of Africa, on the eastern side of the continent. No peer-reviewed studies confirming such resistance have been published.

So far, the ACTs still work. But in an experimental setting, as drug resistance sets in, it can lengthen treatment by 3 or 4 days. That may not sound like much, said Timothy Wells, PhD, chief scientific officer of the nonprofit Medicines for Malaria Venture. But “the more days of therapy you need,” he said, “then the more there is the risk that people don’t finish their course of therapy.” Dropping a treatment course midway exposes the parasites to the drug, but doesn’t clear all of them, potentially leaving behind survivors with a higher chance of being drug resistant. “That’s really bad news, because then that sets up a perfect storm for creating more resistance,” said Dr. Wells.

The reports from Uganda and Rwanda have yielded a grim consensus: “We are going to see more and more of such independent emergence,” said Pascal Ringwald, MD, PhD, coordinator at the director’s office for the WHO Global Malaria Program. “This is exactly what we saw in the Greater Mekong.” Luckily, Dr. Wells said, switching to other ACTs helped to combat resistance when it was detected there, avoiding the need for prolonged treatment.

A new malaria vaccine, which recently received the go-ahead from the WHO, may eventually help reduce the number of infections, but its rollout won’t have any significant impact on drug resistance. As for new drugs, even the most promising candidate in the pipeline would take at least 4 years to become widely available.

That leaves public health workers in Africa with only one solid option: Track and surveil resistance to artemisinin and its partner drugs. Effective surveillance systems, experts say, need to ramp up quickly and widely across the continent.

But most experts say that surveillance on the continent is patchy. Indeed, there is considerable uncertainty about how widespread antimalarial resistance already is in sub-Saharan Africa – and disagreement over how to interpret initial reports of emerging partner drug resistance in some countries.

“Our current systems are not as good as they should be,” said Philip Rosenthal, MD, a malaria researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. The new reports of artemisinin resistance, he added, “can be seen as a wake-up call to improve surveillance.”

Malaria drugs have failed before. In the early 20th century, chloroquine helped beat back the pathogen worldwide. Then, about a decade after World War II, resistance to chloroquine surfaced along the Thailand-Cambodia border.

By the 1970s, chloroquine-resistant malaria had spread across India and into Africa, where it killed millions, many of them children. “In retrospect, we know that chloroquine was used for many years after there was a huge resistance problem,” said Dr. Rosenthal. “This probably led to millions of excess deaths that could have been avoided if we were using other drugs.”

The scurry to find new drugs yielded artemisinin. Used by Chinese herbalists some 2,000 years ago to treat malaria-like symptoms, artemisinin was rediscovered in the 1970s by biomedical researchers in China, and its use became widespread in the 2000s.

Haunted by the failure of chloroquine, though, researchers have remained on the lookout for signs that the malaria parasite is evolving to resist artemisinin or its partner drugs. The gold-standard method is a therapeutic efficacy study, which involves closely monitoring infected patients as they are treated with antimalarial drugs, to see how well the drugs perform and if there are any signs of resistance.

The WHO recommends conducting these studies at several sites in a country every 2 years. But “each country interprets that with their capability,” said Philippe Guérin, MD, PhD, director of the WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network at the University of Oxford, England. Efficacy studies are slow, costly, and labor intensive. Also, “you don’t get a very good geographical representation,” said Dr. Guérin, because you can do a new clinical trial in only so many places at a time.

To get around the problems associated with efficacy studies, researchers also turn to molecular surveillance. Researchers draw a few drops of blood from an infected individual onto a filter paper, then scan it in the laboratory for certain genetic mutations associated with resistance. The technique is relatively easy and cheap.

With these kinds of surveillance data, policymakers can choose which drugs to use in a particular region. Moreover, early detection of resistance can prompt health authorities to take actions to limit the spread of resistance, including more aggressive screening and treatment campaigns, and expanded efforts to control the mosquitoes that spread malaria.

In practice, though, this warning system is frayed. “There is really no organized surveillance system for the continent,” said Dr. Rosenthal. “Surveillance is haphazard.”

In countries lacking a robust health care system or mired in political instability, experts say, resistance could be spreading undetected. For example, the border of South Sudan is just 60 miles from the site in northern Uganda where Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues confirmed resistance to artemisinin. “Because of the security issues and the refugee-weakened system, there is no surveillance that tells us what is happening in South Sudan,” said Dr. Guérin. The same applies in some parts of the nearby Democratic Republic of the Congo, he added.

In the past, regional antimalarial networks, such as the now defunct East African Network for Monitoring of Antimalarial Treatment, have addressed some surveillance gaps. These networks can help standardize protocols and coordinate surveillance efforts. But such networks have suffered from recent lapses in donor funding. The East African network “will be awakened,” Dr. Balikagala predicted, as concerns about artemisinin-resistant malaria grow.

In southern Africa, eight countries have come together to form the Elimination Eight Initiative, a coalition to facilitate malaria elimination efforts across national borders, which may help jump-start surveillance efforts there.

Dr. Ringwald said drug resistance is a priority for him and his WHO colleagues. At a malaria policy advisory committee meeting last fall, he said, the issue was “high on the agenda.” However, when pressed for answers on how the WHO plans to combat drug resistance in Africa, Dr. Ringwald emailed Undark an excerpt from the organization’s 2021 World Malaria Report. The report states that the WHO will “work with countries to develop a regional plan for a coordinated response,” but does not lay out any specifics on that response plan. The Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, part of the African Union, did not respond to requests for comment on its plans to bolster surveillance.

“There is an ethical obligation to researchers, and to people responsible for surveillance, that if you pick up these problems, share them as quickly as possible, react to them as strongly as possible,” said Karen Barnes, a clinical pharmacologist at the University of Cape Town who cochairs the South African Malaria Elimination Committee. “And try very, very hard” to make sure “that it’s not going to be the same as when we had chloroquine resistance in Africa.”

In absence of more robust surveillance, reports have also identified worrying – but, some scientists say, inconclusive – signs of partner drug resistance.

A series of four studies conducted between 2013 and 2019 at several sites in Angola found the efficacy of artemether-lumefantrine – the most widely used ACT in Africa – had dropped below 90%, the WHO threshold for acceptable malaria treatment. Peer-reviewed studies from Burkina Faso and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have reported similar results.

The studies have not found genes associated with artemisinin resistance, suggesting that the partner drug, lumefantrine, might be faltering. But several malaria researchers told Undark they were skeptical of the studies’ methods and viewed the results as preliminary. “I would have preferred that we look at data with a standardized protocol and exclude any confounding factors like poor microscopy or analytical method,” said Dr. Ringwald.

Mateusz Plucinski, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Malaria Branch who participated in the Angola research, defended the findings. “The persistence of artemether-lumefantrine efficacy near or under 90% in Angola likely suggests that there is likely a true signal of decreased susceptibility of parasites to this drug,” he wrote in an email to this news organization. In response to the data, Angolan health officials have begun using a different ACT.

For now, it’s unclear how bad the situation is in Africa – or what the years ahead could bring. The research community and the authorities are “at the level of just watching and seeing what happens at this stage,” said Leann Tilley, PhD, a biochemist at the University of Melbourne who researches antimalarial resistance. But experts say that if artemisinin resistance does flare up and starts impinging on the partner drug, policymakers might need to consider changing to a different ACT, or even deploy triple ACTs, with two partner drugs.

Some experts are hopeful that artemisinin resistance will spread more slowly in Africa than it has in southeast Asia. But if high-grade resistance to artemisinin and partner drugs were to arise, it would put Africa in a bind. There are no immediate replacements for ACTs at the moment. The Medicines for Malaria Venture drug pipeline has about 30 molecules that show promise in preliminary testing, and about 15 molecules that are undergoing clinical trials for efficacy and safety, said Dr. Wells. But even the drugs that are at the end of the pipeline will take about 5-6 years from approval by regulatory authorities to be incorporated into WHO guidelines, he noted – if they make it through trials at all.

Dr. Wells cited one promising compound, from the drug maker Novartis, that recently performed well in early clinical trials. Still, Dr. Wells said, the drug won’t be ready to be deployed in Africa until around 2026.

Funds for malaria control and elimination programs remain limited, and scientists worry that, between COVID-19 and the malaria vaccine rollout, attention and resources for conducting surveillance and drug resistance work might dry up. “I really hope that those that do have resources available will understand that investing in Africa’s response to artemisinin resistance today, preferably yesterday, is probably one of the best places that they can put their money,” said Barnes.

The annals of malaria have shown time and again that once resistance emerges, it spreads widely and imperils progress against the deadly disease. For Africa, the writing is on the wall, she said. The bigger question, she asked, is this: “Are we capable of learning from history?”

A version of this article first appeared on Undark.com.

Moderna announced today that its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine has received full Food and Drug Administration approval for adults 18 years and older.

The move lifts an FDA emergency use authorization for the vaccine, which started Dec. 18, 2020.

The Moderna vaccine also now has a new trade name: Spikevax.

The FDA approval comes a little more than 5 months after the agency granted full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on Aug. 23. At the time, the Pfizer vaccine received the trade name Comirnaty.

The FDA approved the Moderna vaccine based on how well it works and its safety for 6 months after a second dose, including follow-up data from a phase 3 study, Moderna announced this morning through a news release. The FDA also announced the news.

Spikevax is the first Moderna product to be fully licensed in the United States.

The United States joins more than 70 other countries where regulators have approved the vaccine. A total of 807 million doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine were shipped worldwide in 2021, the company reported.

“The full licensure of Spikevax in the U.S. now joins that in Canada, Japan, the European Union, the U.K., Israel, and other countries, where the adolescent indication is also approved,” Stéphane Bancel, Moderna chief executive officer, said in the release.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Moderna announced today that its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine has received full Food and Drug Administration approval for adults 18 years and older.

The move lifts an FDA emergency use authorization for the vaccine, which started Dec. 18, 2020.

The Moderna vaccine also now has a new trade name: Spikevax.

The FDA approval comes a little more than 5 months after the agency granted full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on Aug. 23. At the time, the Pfizer vaccine received the trade name Comirnaty.

The FDA approved the Moderna vaccine based on how well it works and its safety for 6 months after a second dose, including follow-up data from a phase 3 study, Moderna announced this morning through a news release. The FDA also announced the news.

Spikevax is the first Moderna product to be fully licensed in the United States.

The United States joins more than 70 other countries where regulators have approved the vaccine. A total of 807 million doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine were shipped worldwide in 2021, the company reported.

“The full licensure of Spikevax in the U.S. now joins that in Canada, Japan, the European Union, the U.K., Israel, and other countries, where the adolescent indication is also approved,” Stéphane Bancel, Moderna chief executive officer, said in the release.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Moderna announced today that its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine has received full Food and Drug Administration approval for adults 18 years and older.

The move lifts an FDA emergency use authorization for the vaccine, which started Dec. 18, 2020.

The Moderna vaccine also now has a new trade name: Spikevax.

The FDA approval comes a little more than 5 months after the agency granted full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on Aug. 23. At the time, the Pfizer vaccine received the trade name Comirnaty.

The FDA approved the Moderna vaccine based on how well it works and its safety for 6 months after a second dose, including follow-up data from a phase 3 study, Moderna announced this morning through a news release. The FDA also announced the news.

Spikevax is the first Moderna product to be fully licensed in the United States.

The United States joins more than 70 other countries where regulators have approved the vaccine. A total of 807 million doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine were shipped worldwide in 2021, the company reported.

“The full licensure of Spikevax in the U.S. now joins that in Canada, Japan, the European Union, the U.K., Israel, and other countries, where the adolescent indication is also approved,” Stéphane Bancel, Moderna chief executive officer, said in the release.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team and star of TV’s Shark Tank, is backing a new online pharmacy that aims to reduce the prices people pay for 100 generic medications.

The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs Company (MCCPDC) plans to offer the leukemia therapy imatinib for $47 per month, for example, compared with $120 or more with a common voucher and a retail price of $9,657 per month.

Other examples of lower-priced generics include the ulcerative colitis treatment mesalamine, which goes for $32.40 per month on the new online pharmacy versus $940 per month retail. In addition, the MCCPDC will offer the gout treatment colchicine at a lower price, charging $8.70, compared with $182 per month retail.

Likely in part because of claims of significant cost savings and in part because of Mr. Cuban’s celebrity status, the new venture is getting widespread media attention. Forbes, NPR, and TMZ have shared the news since the new digital pharmacy was announced earlier this month.

The new venture plans to charge consumers 15% above the manufacturing cost for the generic medications, plus a $3 fee for pharmacists and $5 for shipping. People will still require a prescription from their doctor to get the medications.
 

Generic pricing and social benefit

The top 100 generic products account for about half of generic sales, and there is enough competition for these high-demand medications that “the prices have come down close to zero,” said William Comanor, PhD, a health economist and professor of health policy and management at the University of California, Los Angeles. The remaining generic agents have lower-volume demand.

One prominent example is Daraprim, a decades-old treatment for the life-threatening parasitic infection toxoplasmosis. The drug jumped into the spotlight in 2015 when Martin Shkreli and his company Vyera Pharmaceuticals bought the rights to make the generic drug and raised the price overnight from $13.50 to $750. In January 2022, a U.S. judge banned Mr. Shkreli from the pharmaceutical industry and ordered him to pay an almost $65 million fine.

Dr. Comanor agreed the price should have been raised – $13.50 “was not economically viable” – but not as steep as $750.

“Say Mark Cuban says he will cut the price from $750 to $300. He will still make money. There is a market for these low-volume products,” he said. “There would also be a social benefit.”
 

A direct-to-consumer digital pharmacy

MCCPDC is “cutting out the middleman” in two ways. The business model calls for charging consumers out of pocket, so insurance companies are not involved. Also, the company created its own pharmacy business manager firm in October 2021, allowing it to negotiate prices with drugmakers in house.

The company also announced plans to complete construction of a 22,000-square-foot pharmaceutical factory in Dallas by the end of 2022.

Reactions on social media ranged from celebratory to people disappointed their generic medication would not cost significantly less or is not provided by the digital pharmacy.

When weighted by the number of prescriptions, prices for generics have declined in the United States.

“Overall, U.S. generic prices are the lowest in the world,” Dr. Comanor said. “People say U.S. drug prices are the highest in the world. That’s true for branded, but it’s not true for generics.

“So if someone asks if U.S. drug prices are the highest or lowest in the world, the answer is both,” he said.

“Maybe there is a role to play for this new pharmacy,” Dr. Comanor said when asked if the initiative seems like a positive development.

The state of California also announced plans to provide its own generic drugs, he said.

“But you won’t see a lot of entrepreneurs getting into this because the volumes are so low. If Cuban called me, I would tell him to provide Daraprim and similar, low-volume products,” Dr. Comanor said of the billionaire. “He’s a rich guy; maybe he can do it.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team and star of TV’s Shark Tank, is backing a new online pharmacy that aims to reduce the prices people pay for 100 generic medications.

The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs Company (MCCPDC) plans to offer the leukemia therapy imatinib for $47 per month, for example, compared with $120 or more with a common voucher and a retail price of $9,657 per month.

Other examples of lower-priced generics include the ulcerative colitis treatment mesalamine, which goes for $32.40 per month on the new online pharmacy versus $940 per month retail. In addition, the MCCPDC will offer the gout treatment colchicine at a lower price, charging $8.70, compared with $182 per month retail.

Likely in part because of claims of significant cost savings and in part because of Mr. Cuban’s celebrity status, the new venture is getting widespread media attention. Forbes, NPR, and TMZ have shared the news since the new digital pharmacy was announced earlier this month.

The new venture plans to charge consumers 15% above the manufacturing cost for the generic medications, plus a $3 fee for pharmacists and $5 for shipping. People will still require a prescription from their doctor to get the medications.
 

Generic pricing and social benefit

The top 100 generic products account for about half of generic sales, and there is enough competition for these high-demand medications that “the prices have come down close to zero,” said William Comanor, PhD, a health economist and professor of health policy and management at the University of California, Los Angeles. The remaining generic agents have lower-volume demand.

One prominent example is Daraprim, a decades-old treatment for the life-threatening parasitic infection toxoplasmosis. The drug jumped into the spotlight in 2015 when Martin Shkreli and his company Vyera Pharmaceuticals bought the rights to make the generic drug and raised the price overnight from $13.50 to $750. In January 2022, a U.S. judge banned Mr. Shkreli from the pharmaceutical industry and ordered him to pay an almost $65 million fine.

Dr. Comanor agreed the price should have been raised – $13.50 “was not economically viable” – but not as steep as $750.

“Say Mark Cuban says he will cut the price from $750 to $300. He will still make money. There is a market for these low-volume products,” he said. “There would also be a social benefit.”
 

A direct-to-consumer digital pharmacy

MCCPDC is “cutting out the middleman” in two ways. The business model calls for charging consumers out of pocket, so insurance companies are not involved. Also, the company created its own pharmacy business manager firm in October 2021, allowing it to negotiate prices with drugmakers in house.

The company also announced plans to complete construction of a 22,000-square-foot pharmaceutical factory in Dallas by the end of 2022.

Reactions on social media ranged from celebratory to people disappointed their generic medication would not cost significantly less or is not provided by the digital pharmacy.

When weighted by the number of prescriptions, prices for generics have declined in the United States.

“Overall, U.S. generic prices are the lowest in the world,” Dr. Comanor said. “People say U.S. drug prices are the highest in the world. That’s true for branded, but it’s not true for generics.

“So if someone asks if U.S. drug prices are the highest or lowest in the world, the answer is both,” he said.

“Maybe there is a role to play for this new pharmacy,” Dr. Comanor said when asked if the initiative seems like a positive development.

The state of California also announced plans to provide its own generic drugs, he said.

“But you won’t see a lot of entrepreneurs getting into this because the volumes are so low. If Cuban called me, I would tell him to provide Daraprim and similar, low-volume products,” Dr. Comanor said of the billionaire. “He’s a rich guy; maybe he can do it.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team and star of TV’s Shark Tank, is backing a new online pharmacy that aims to reduce the prices people pay for 100 generic medications.

The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs Company (MCCPDC) plans to offer the leukemia therapy imatinib for $47 per month, for example, compared with $120 or more with a common voucher and a retail price of $9,657 per month.

Other examples of lower-priced generics include the ulcerative colitis treatment mesalamine, which goes for $32.40 per month on the new online pharmacy versus $940 per month retail. In addition, the MCCPDC will offer the gout treatment colchicine at a lower price, charging $8.70, compared with $182 per month retail.

Likely in part because of claims of significant cost savings and in part because of Mr. Cuban’s celebrity status, the new venture is getting widespread media attention. Forbes, NPR, and TMZ have shared the news since the new digital pharmacy was announced earlier this month.

The new venture plans to charge consumers 15% above the manufacturing cost for the generic medications, plus a $3 fee for pharmacists and $5 for shipping. People will still require a prescription from their doctor to get the medications.
 

Generic pricing and social benefit

The top 100 generic products account for about half of generic sales, and there is enough competition for these high-demand medications that “the prices have come down close to zero,” said William Comanor, PhD, a health economist and professor of health policy and management at the University of California, Los Angeles. The remaining generic agents have lower-volume demand.

One prominent example is Daraprim, a decades-old treatment for the life-threatening parasitic infection toxoplasmosis. The drug jumped into the spotlight in 2015 when Martin Shkreli and his company Vyera Pharmaceuticals bought the rights to make the generic drug and raised the price overnight from $13.50 to $750. In January 2022, a U.S. judge banned Mr. Shkreli from the pharmaceutical industry and ordered him to pay an almost $65 million fine.

Dr. Comanor agreed the price should have been raised – $13.50 “was not economically viable” – but not as steep as $750.

“Say Mark Cuban says he will cut the price from $750 to $300. He will still make money. There is a market for these low-volume products,” he said. “There would also be a social benefit.”
 

A direct-to-consumer digital pharmacy

MCCPDC is “cutting out the middleman” in two ways. The business model calls for charging consumers out of pocket, so insurance companies are not involved. Also, the company created its own pharmacy business manager firm in October 2021, allowing it to negotiate prices with drugmakers in house.

The company also announced plans to complete construction of a 22,000-square-foot pharmaceutical factory in Dallas by the end of 2022.

Reactions on social media ranged from celebratory to people disappointed their generic medication would not cost significantly less or is not provided by the digital pharmacy.

When weighted by the number of prescriptions, prices for generics have declined in the United States.

“Overall, U.S. generic prices are the lowest in the world,” Dr. Comanor said. “People say U.S. drug prices are the highest in the world. That’s true for branded, but it’s not true for generics.

“So if someone asks if U.S. drug prices are the highest or lowest in the world, the answer is both,” he said.

“Maybe there is a role to play for this new pharmacy,” Dr. Comanor said when asked if the initiative seems like a positive development.

The state of California also announced plans to provide its own generic drugs, he said.

“But you won’t see a lot of entrepreneurs getting into this because the volumes are so low. If Cuban called me, I would tell him to provide Daraprim and similar, low-volume products,” Dr. Comanor said of the billionaire. “He’s a rich guy; maybe he can do it.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.