MDedge Infectious Disease

A new survey from the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases shows that, despite the recommendation that patients who have chronic illnesses receive annual flu vaccines, only 45% of these patients do get them. People with chronic diseases are at increased risk for serious flu-related complications, including hospitalization and death.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

The survey looked at physicians’ practices toward flu vaccination and communication between health care providers (HCP) and their adult patients with chronic health conditions.

Overall, less than a third of HCPs (31%) said they recommend annual flu vaccination to all of their patients with chronic health conditions. There were some surprising differences between subspecialists. For example, 72% of patients with a heart problem who saw a cardiologist said that physician recommended the flu vaccine. The recommendation rate dropped to 32% of lung patients seeing a pulmonary physician and only 10% of people with diabetes who saw an endocrinologist.

There is quite a large gap between what physicians and patients say about their interactions. Fully 77% of HCPs who recommend annual flu vaccination say they tell patients when they are at higher risk of complications from influenza. Yet only 48% of patients say they have been given such information.

Although it is critically important information for patients to learn, their risk of influenza is often missing from the discussion. For example, patients with heart disease are six times more likely to have a heart attack within 7 days of flu infection. People with diabetes are six times more likely to be hospitalized from flu and three times more likely to die. Similarly, those with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder are at a much higher risk of complications.

One problem is that more than half of specialist physicians who do not offer flu vaccinations report that it is because they believe that immunizations are the responsibility of the primary care physician. Yet only 65% of patients with one of these chronic illnesses report seeing their primary care physician at least annually.

Much of the disparity between the patient’s perception of what they were told and the physician’s is “how the ‘recommendation’ is actually made,” William Schaffner, MD, NFID’s medical director and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Schaffner offered the following example: At the end of the visit, the doctor might say: “It’s that time of the year again – you want to think about getting your flu shot.”

“The doctor thinks they’ve recommended that, but the doctor really has opened the door for you to think about it and leave [yourself] unvaccinated.”

Dr. Schaffner’s alternative? Tell the patient: “‘You’ll get your flu vaccine on the way out. Tom or Sally will give it to you.’ That’s a very different kind of recommendation. And it’s a much greater assurance of providing the vaccine.”

Another major problem, Dr. Schaffner said, is that many specialists “don’t think of vaccination as something that’s included with their routine care” even though they do direct much of the patient’s care. He said that physicians should be more “directive” in their care and that immunizations should be better integrated into routine practice.

Jody Lanard, MD, a retired risk communication consultant who spent many years working with the World Health Organization on disease outbreak communications, said in an interview that this disconnect between physician and patient reports “was really jarring. And it’s actionable!”

She offered several practical suggestions. For one, she said, “the messaging to the specialists has to be very, very empathic. We know you’re already overburdened. And here we’re asking you to do something that you think of as somebody else’s job.” But if your patient gets flu, then your job as the cardiologist or endocrinologist will become more complicated and time-consuming. So getting the patients vaccinated will be a good investment and will make your job easier.

Because of the disparity in patient and physician reports, Dr. Lanard suggested implementing a “feedback mechanism where they [the health care providers] give out the prescription, and then the office calls [the patient] to see if they’ve gotten the shot or not. Because that way it will help correct the mismatch between them thinking that they told the patient and the patient not hearing it.”

Asked about why there might be a big gap between what physicians report they said and what patients heard, Dr. Lanard explained that “physicians often communicate in [a manner] sort of like a checklist. And the patients are focused on one or two things that are high in their minds. And the physician was mentioning some things that are on a separate topic that are not on a patient’s list and it goes right past them.”

Dr. Lanard recommended brief storytelling instead of checklists. For example: “I’ve been treating your diabetes for 10 years. During this last flu season, several of my diabetic patients had a really hard time when they caught the flu. So now I’m trying harder to remember to remind you to get your flu shots.”

She urged HCPs to “make it more personal ... but it can still be scripted in advance as part of something that [you’re] remembering to do during the check.” She added that their professional associations may be able to send them suggested language they can adapt.

Finally, Dr. Lanard cautioned about vaccine myths. “The word myth is so insulting. It’s basically a word that sends the signal that you’re an idiot.”

She advised specialists to avoid the word “myth,” which will make the person defensive. Instead, say something like, “A lot of people, even some of my own family members, think the flu vaccine gives you the flu. ... But it doesn’t. And then you go into the reality.”

Dr. Lanard suggested that specialists implement the follow-up calls and close the feedback loop, saying: “If they did the survey a few years later, I bet that gap would narrow.”

Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Lanard disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new survey from the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases shows that, despite the recommendation that patients who have chronic illnesses receive annual flu vaccines, only 45% of these patients do get them. People with chronic diseases are at increased risk for serious flu-related complications, including hospitalization and death.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

The survey looked at physicians’ practices toward flu vaccination and communication between health care providers (HCP) and their adult patients with chronic health conditions.

Overall, less than a third of HCPs (31%) said they recommend annual flu vaccination to all of their patients with chronic health conditions. There were some surprising differences between subspecialists. For example, 72% of patients with a heart problem who saw a cardiologist said that physician recommended the flu vaccine. The recommendation rate dropped to 32% of lung patients seeing a pulmonary physician and only 10% of people with diabetes who saw an endocrinologist.

There is quite a large gap between what physicians and patients say about their interactions. Fully 77% of HCPs who recommend annual flu vaccination say they tell patients when they are at higher risk of complications from influenza. Yet only 48% of patients say they have been given such information.

Although it is critically important information for patients to learn, their risk of influenza is often missing from the discussion. For example, patients with heart disease are six times more likely to have a heart attack within 7 days of flu infection. People with diabetes are six times more likely to be hospitalized from flu and three times more likely to die. Similarly, those with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder are at a much higher risk of complications.

One problem is that more than half of specialist physicians who do not offer flu vaccinations report that it is because they believe that immunizations are the responsibility of the primary care physician. Yet only 65% of patients with one of these chronic illnesses report seeing their primary care physician at least annually.

Much of the disparity between the patient’s perception of what they were told and the physician’s is “how the ‘recommendation’ is actually made,” William Schaffner, MD, NFID’s medical director and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Schaffner offered the following example: At the end of the visit, the doctor might say: “It’s that time of the year again – you want to think about getting your flu shot.”

“The doctor thinks they’ve recommended that, but the doctor really has opened the door for you to think about it and leave [yourself] unvaccinated.”

Dr. Schaffner’s alternative? Tell the patient: “‘You’ll get your flu vaccine on the way out. Tom or Sally will give it to you.’ That’s a very different kind of recommendation. And it’s a much greater assurance of providing the vaccine.”

Another major problem, Dr. Schaffner said, is that many specialists “don’t think of vaccination as something that’s included with their routine care” even though they do direct much of the patient’s care. He said that physicians should be more “directive” in their care and that immunizations should be better integrated into routine practice.

Jody Lanard, MD, a retired risk communication consultant who spent many years working with the World Health Organization on disease outbreak communications, said in an interview that this disconnect between physician and patient reports “was really jarring. And it’s actionable!”

She offered several practical suggestions. For one, she said, “the messaging to the specialists has to be very, very empathic. We know you’re already overburdened. And here we’re asking you to do something that you think of as somebody else’s job.” But if your patient gets flu, then your job as the cardiologist or endocrinologist will become more complicated and time-consuming. So getting the patients vaccinated will be a good investment and will make your job easier.

Because of the disparity in patient and physician reports, Dr. Lanard suggested implementing a “feedback mechanism where they [the health care providers] give out the prescription, and then the office calls [the patient] to see if they’ve gotten the shot or not. Because that way it will help correct the mismatch between them thinking that they told the patient and the patient not hearing it.”

Asked about why there might be a big gap between what physicians report they said and what patients heard, Dr. Lanard explained that “physicians often communicate in [a manner] sort of like a checklist. And the patients are focused on one or two things that are high in their minds. And the physician was mentioning some things that are on a separate topic that are not on a patient’s list and it goes right past them.”

Dr. Lanard recommended brief storytelling instead of checklists. For example: “I’ve been treating your diabetes for 10 years. During this last flu season, several of my diabetic patients had a really hard time when they caught the flu. So now I’m trying harder to remember to remind you to get your flu shots.”

She urged HCPs to “make it more personal ... but it can still be scripted in advance as part of something that [you’re] remembering to do during the check.” She added that their professional associations may be able to send them suggested language they can adapt.

Finally, Dr. Lanard cautioned about vaccine myths. “The word myth is so insulting. It’s basically a word that sends the signal that you’re an idiot.”

She advised specialists to avoid the word “myth,” which will make the person defensive. Instead, say something like, “A lot of people, even some of my own family members, think the flu vaccine gives you the flu. ... But it doesn’t. And then you go into the reality.”

Dr. Lanard suggested that specialists implement the follow-up calls and close the feedback loop, saying: “If they did the survey a few years later, I bet that gap would narrow.”

Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Lanard disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new survey from the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases shows that, despite the recommendation that patients who have chronic illnesses receive annual flu vaccines, only 45% of these patients do get them. People with chronic diseases are at increased risk for serious flu-related complications, including hospitalization and death.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

The survey looked at physicians’ practices toward flu vaccination and communication between health care providers (HCP) and their adult patients with chronic health conditions.

Overall, less than a third of HCPs (31%) said they recommend annual flu vaccination to all of their patients with chronic health conditions. There were some surprising differences between subspecialists. For example, 72% of patients with a heart problem who saw a cardiologist said that physician recommended the flu vaccine. The recommendation rate dropped to 32% of lung patients seeing a pulmonary physician and only 10% of people with diabetes who saw an endocrinologist.

There is quite a large gap between what physicians and patients say about their interactions. Fully 77% of HCPs who recommend annual flu vaccination say they tell patients when they are at higher risk of complications from influenza. Yet only 48% of patients say they have been given such information.

Although it is critically important information for patients to learn, their risk of influenza is often missing from the discussion. For example, patients with heart disease are six times more likely to have a heart attack within 7 days of flu infection. People with diabetes are six times more likely to be hospitalized from flu and three times more likely to die. Similarly, those with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder are at a much higher risk of complications.

One problem is that more than half of specialist physicians who do not offer flu vaccinations report that it is because they believe that immunizations are the responsibility of the primary care physician. Yet only 65% of patients with one of these chronic illnesses report seeing their primary care physician at least annually.

Much of the disparity between the patient’s perception of what they were told and the physician’s is “how the ‘recommendation’ is actually made,” William Schaffner, MD, NFID’s medical director and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Schaffner offered the following example: At the end of the visit, the doctor might say: “It’s that time of the year again – you want to think about getting your flu shot.”

“The doctor thinks they’ve recommended that, but the doctor really has opened the door for you to think about it and leave [yourself] unvaccinated.”

Dr. Schaffner’s alternative? Tell the patient: “‘You’ll get your flu vaccine on the way out. Tom or Sally will give it to you.’ That’s a very different kind of recommendation. And it’s a much greater assurance of providing the vaccine.”

Another major problem, Dr. Schaffner said, is that many specialists “don’t think of vaccination as something that’s included with their routine care” even though they do direct much of the patient’s care. He said that physicians should be more “directive” in their care and that immunizations should be better integrated into routine practice.

Jody Lanard, MD, a retired risk communication consultant who spent many years working with the World Health Organization on disease outbreak communications, said in an interview that this disconnect between physician and patient reports “was really jarring. And it’s actionable!”

She offered several practical suggestions. For one, she said, “the messaging to the specialists has to be very, very empathic. We know you’re already overburdened. And here we’re asking you to do something that you think of as somebody else’s job.” But if your patient gets flu, then your job as the cardiologist or endocrinologist will become more complicated and time-consuming. So getting the patients vaccinated will be a good investment and will make your job easier.

Because of the disparity in patient and physician reports, Dr. Lanard suggested implementing a “feedback mechanism where they [the health care providers] give out the prescription, and then the office calls [the patient] to see if they’ve gotten the shot or not. Because that way it will help correct the mismatch between them thinking that they told the patient and the patient not hearing it.”

Asked about why there might be a big gap between what physicians report they said and what patients heard, Dr. Lanard explained that “physicians often communicate in [a manner] sort of like a checklist. And the patients are focused on one or two things that are high in their minds. And the physician was mentioning some things that are on a separate topic that are not on a patient’s list and it goes right past them.”

Dr. Lanard recommended brief storytelling instead of checklists. For example: “I’ve been treating your diabetes for 10 years. During this last flu season, several of my diabetic patients had a really hard time when they caught the flu. So now I’m trying harder to remember to remind you to get your flu shots.”

She urged HCPs to “make it more personal ... but it can still be scripted in advance as part of something that [you’re] remembering to do during the check.” She added that their professional associations may be able to send them suggested language they can adapt.

Finally, Dr. Lanard cautioned about vaccine myths. “The word myth is so insulting. It’s basically a word that sends the signal that you’re an idiot.”

She advised specialists to avoid the word “myth,” which will make the person defensive. Instead, say something like, “A lot of people, even some of my own family members, think the flu vaccine gives you the flu. ... But it doesn’t. And then you go into the reality.”

Dr. Lanard suggested that specialists implement the follow-up calls and close the feedback loop, saying: “If they did the survey a few years later, I bet that gap would narrow.”

Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Lanard disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Online reviews and star ratings are the most important factor in choosing a new health care provider, according to a new survey from Press Ganey, a provider of patient satisfaction surveys. According to the data, this online information is more important to consumers in selecting a physician than another doctor’s referral and is more than twice as important when choosing a primary care physician.

m-imagephotography/Thinkstock.com

In fact, 83% of respondents said they went online to read reviews of a physician after receiving a referral from another provider.

The online research trend reflects not only the increased familiarity of all generations with the internet but also the growing consumerization of health care, Thomas Jeffrey, president of the Sullivan/Luallin Group, a patient experience consulting firm, told this news organization.

“According to patient satisfaction surveys, people are becoming health care consumers more than in the past,” he noted. “Historically, we didn’t look at health care as a consumer product. But, with high deductibles and copays, doctor visits can represent a pretty significant out-of-pocket expense. As it begins to hit folks’ pocketbooks, they become more savvy shoppers.”

Digital preferences for providers were gaining “positive momentum” even before the COVID-19 pandemic, but the crisis “drove upticks in some consumer digital behaviors,” the Press Ganey report pointed out.

Mr. Jeffrey agreed, noting that this finding matches what Sullivan/Luallin has discovered in its research. “I think the pandemic pushed people to engage more online,” he said. “The highest net promoter score [likelihood to recommend in market surveys] for a pharmacy is the Amazon pharmacy, which is an online-based delivery service. Then you have telehealth visits, which are more convenient in many ways.”
 

How patients search online

In choosing a new primary care doctor, 51.1% go on the web first, 23.8% seek a referral from another health care provider, and 4.4% get information from an insurer or a benefits manager, according to the survey.

The factors that matter most to consumers when they pick any provider, in order, are online ratings and reviews of the physician, referral from a current doctor, ratings and reviews of the facility, and the quality and completeness of a doctor’s profile on a website or online directory. The doctor’s online presence and the quality of their website are also important.

According to Press Ganey, search engines like Google are the most used digital resources, with 65.4% of consumers employing them to find a doctor. However, consumers now use an average of 2.7 sites in their search. The leading destinations are a hospital or a clinic site, WebMD, Healthgrades, and Facebook. (This news organization is owned by WebMD.)

Compared with 2019, the report said, there has been a 22.8% decline in the use of search engines for seeking a doctor and a 53.7% increase in the use of health care review sites such as Healthgrades and Vitals.

When reading provider reviews, consumers look for more recent reviews and want the reviews to be “authentic and informative.” They also value the star ratings. About 84%of respondents said they wouldn’t book an appointment with a referred provider that had a rating of less than four stars.

Overall, the top reasons why people are deterred from making an appointment are difficulty contacting the office, the poor quality of online reviews, and an average online rating of less than four stars.

The vast majority of respondents (77%) said they believe internet reviews reflect their own experience with a provider organization, and only 2.6% said the reviews were inaccurate. Another finding of the survey indicates that this attention of patients to reviews of their own provider doesn’t represent idle curiosity: About 57% of Baby Boomers and 45% of millennials/Gen Z’ers said they’d written online reviews of a doctor or a hospital.
 

Factors in patient loyalty

The Press Ganey survey asked which of several factors, besides excellent care, patients weighed when giving a five-star review to a health care provider.

Quality of customer service was rated first by 70.8% of respondents, followed by cleanliness of facilities (67.5%), communication (63.4%), the provider’s bedside manner (63%), ease of appointment booking (58.8%), ease of patient intake/registration (52.3%), quality and accuracy of information (40.1%), availability of telehealth services (21.7%), and waiting room amenities (21.8%).

The report explained that “quality of customer service” means “demeanor, attentiveness, and helpfulness of staff and practitioners.” “Communication” refers to things like follow-up appointment reminders and annual checkup reminders.

According to Mr. Jeffrey, these factors were considered more important than a doctor’s bedside manner because of the team care approach in most physician offices. “We see a lot more folks derive their notion of quality from continuity of care. And if they feel the physician they love is being supported by a less than competent team, that can impact significantly their sense of the quality of care,” he said.
 

Online appointment booking is a must

To win over the online consumer, Press Ganey emphasized, practices should ensure that provider listings are accurate and complete. In addition, offering online appointment booking can avoid the top challenge in making a new appointment, which is getting through to the office.

Mr. Jeffrey concurred, although he notes that practices have to be careful about how they enable patients to select appointment slots online. He suggests that an appointment request form on a patient portal first ask what the purpose of the visit is and that it offer five or so options. If the request fits into a routine visit category, the provider’s calendar pops up and the patient can select a convenient time slot. If it’s something else, an appointment scheduler calls the patient back.

“There needs to be greater access to standard appointments online,” he said. “While privacy is an issue, you can use the patient portal that most EHRs have to provide online booking. If you want to succeed going forward, that’s going to be a major plus.”

Of course, to do any of this, including reading provider reviews, a consumer needs a good internet connection and a mobile or desktop device. While broadband internet access is still not available in some communities, the breakdown of the survey respondents by demographics shows that low-income people were included.

Mr. Jeffrey doesn’t believe that a lack of internet access or digital devices prevents many Americans from going online today. “Even in poor communities, most people have internet access through their smartphones. Even baby boomers are familiar with smartphones. I haven’t seen internet access be a big barrier for low-income households, because they all have access to phones.”

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

Online reviews and star ratings are the most important factor in choosing a new health care provider, according to a new survey from Press Ganey, a provider of patient satisfaction surveys. According to the data, this online information is more important to consumers in selecting a physician than another doctor’s referral and is more than twice as important when choosing a primary care physician.

m-imagephotography/Thinkstock.com

In fact, 83% of respondents said they went online to read reviews of a physician after receiving a referral from another provider.

The online research trend reflects not only the increased familiarity of all generations with the internet but also the growing consumerization of health care, Thomas Jeffrey, president of the Sullivan/Luallin Group, a patient experience consulting firm, told this news organization.

“According to patient satisfaction surveys, people are becoming health care consumers more than in the past,” he noted. “Historically, we didn’t look at health care as a consumer product. But, with high deductibles and copays, doctor visits can represent a pretty significant out-of-pocket expense. As it begins to hit folks’ pocketbooks, they become more savvy shoppers.”

Digital preferences for providers were gaining “positive momentum” even before the COVID-19 pandemic, but the crisis “drove upticks in some consumer digital behaviors,” the Press Ganey report pointed out.

Mr. Jeffrey agreed, noting that this finding matches what Sullivan/Luallin has discovered in its research. “I think the pandemic pushed people to engage more online,” he said. “The highest net promoter score [likelihood to recommend in market surveys] for a pharmacy is the Amazon pharmacy, which is an online-based delivery service. Then you have telehealth visits, which are more convenient in many ways.”
 

How patients search online

In choosing a new primary care doctor, 51.1% go on the web first, 23.8% seek a referral from another health care provider, and 4.4% get information from an insurer or a benefits manager, according to the survey.

The factors that matter most to consumers when they pick any provider, in order, are online ratings and reviews of the physician, referral from a current doctor, ratings and reviews of the facility, and the quality and completeness of a doctor’s profile on a website or online directory. The doctor’s online presence and the quality of their website are also important.

According to Press Ganey, search engines like Google are the most used digital resources, with 65.4% of consumers employing them to find a doctor. However, consumers now use an average of 2.7 sites in their search. The leading destinations are a hospital or a clinic site, WebMD, Healthgrades, and Facebook. (This news organization is owned by WebMD.)

Compared with 2019, the report said, there has been a 22.8% decline in the use of search engines for seeking a doctor and a 53.7% increase in the use of health care review sites such as Healthgrades and Vitals.

When reading provider reviews, consumers look for more recent reviews and want the reviews to be “authentic and informative.” They also value the star ratings. About 84%of respondents said they wouldn’t book an appointment with a referred provider that had a rating of less than four stars.

Overall, the top reasons why people are deterred from making an appointment are difficulty contacting the office, the poor quality of online reviews, and an average online rating of less than four stars.

The vast majority of respondents (77%) said they believe internet reviews reflect their own experience with a provider organization, and only 2.6% said the reviews were inaccurate. Another finding of the survey indicates that this attention of patients to reviews of their own provider doesn’t represent idle curiosity: About 57% of Baby Boomers and 45% of millennials/Gen Z’ers said they’d written online reviews of a doctor or a hospital.
 

Factors in patient loyalty

The Press Ganey survey asked which of several factors, besides excellent care, patients weighed when giving a five-star review to a health care provider.

Quality of customer service was rated first by 70.8% of respondents, followed by cleanliness of facilities (67.5%), communication (63.4%), the provider’s bedside manner (63%), ease of appointment booking (58.8%), ease of patient intake/registration (52.3%), quality and accuracy of information (40.1%), availability of telehealth services (21.7%), and waiting room amenities (21.8%).

The report explained that “quality of customer service” means “demeanor, attentiveness, and helpfulness of staff and practitioners.” “Communication” refers to things like follow-up appointment reminders and annual checkup reminders.

According to Mr. Jeffrey, these factors were considered more important than a doctor’s bedside manner because of the team care approach in most physician offices. “We see a lot more folks derive their notion of quality from continuity of care. And if they feel the physician they love is being supported by a less than competent team, that can impact significantly their sense of the quality of care,” he said.
 

Online appointment booking is a must

To win over the online consumer, Press Ganey emphasized, practices should ensure that provider listings are accurate and complete. In addition, offering online appointment booking can avoid the top challenge in making a new appointment, which is getting through to the office.

Mr. Jeffrey concurred, although he notes that practices have to be careful about how they enable patients to select appointment slots online. He suggests that an appointment request form on a patient portal first ask what the purpose of the visit is and that it offer five or so options. If the request fits into a routine visit category, the provider’s calendar pops up and the patient can select a convenient time slot. If it’s something else, an appointment scheduler calls the patient back.

“There needs to be greater access to standard appointments online,” he said. “While privacy is an issue, you can use the patient portal that most EHRs have to provide online booking. If you want to succeed going forward, that’s going to be a major plus.”

Of course, to do any of this, including reading provider reviews, a consumer needs a good internet connection and a mobile or desktop device. While broadband internet access is still not available in some communities, the breakdown of the survey respondents by demographics shows that low-income people were included.

Mr. Jeffrey doesn’t believe that a lack of internet access or digital devices prevents many Americans from going online today. “Even in poor communities, most people have internet access through their smartphones. Even baby boomers are familiar with smartphones. I haven’t seen internet access be a big barrier for low-income households, because they all have access to phones.”

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

Online reviews and star ratings are the most important factor in choosing a new health care provider, according to a new survey from Press Ganey, a provider of patient satisfaction surveys. According to the data, this online information is more important to consumers in selecting a physician than another doctor’s referral and is more than twice as important when choosing a primary care physician.

m-imagephotography/Thinkstock.com

In fact, 83% of respondents said they went online to read reviews of a physician after receiving a referral from another provider.

The online research trend reflects not only the increased familiarity of all generations with the internet but also the growing consumerization of health care, Thomas Jeffrey, president of the Sullivan/Luallin Group, a patient experience consulting firm, told this news organization.

“According to patient satisfaction surveys, people are becoming health care consumers more than in the past,” he noted. “Historically, we didn’t look at health care as a consumer product. But, with high deductibles and copays, doctor visits can represent a pretty significant out-of-pocket expense. As it begins to hit folks’ pocketbooks, they become more savvy shoppers.”

Digital preferences for providers were gaining “positive momentum” even before the COVID-19 pandemic, but the crisis “drove upticks in some consumer digital behaviors,” the Press Ganey report pointed out.

Mr. Jeffrey agreed, noting that this finding matches what Sullivan/Luallin has discovered in its research. “I think the pandemic pushed people to engage more online,” he said. “The highest net promoter score [likelihood to recommend in market surveys] for a pharmacy is the Amazon pharmacy, which is an online-based delivery service. Then you have telehealth visits, which are more convenient in many ways.”
 

How patients search online

In choosing a new primary care doctor, 51.1% go on the web first, 23.8% seek a referral from another health care provider, and 4.4% get information from an insurer or a benefits manager, according to the survey.

The factors that matter most to consumers when they pick any provider, in order, are online ratings and reviews of the physician, referral from a current doctor, ratings and reviews of the facility, and the quality and completeness of a doctor’s profile on a website or online directory. The doctor’s online presence and the quality of their website are also important.

According to Press Ganey, search engines like Google are the most used digital resources, with 65.4% of consumers employing them to find a doctor. However, consumers now use an average of 2.7 sites in their search. The leading destinations are a hospital or a clinic site, WebMD, Healthgrades, and Facebook. (This news organization is owned by WebMD.)

Compared with 2019, the report said, there has been a 22.8% decline in the use of search engines for seeking a doctor and a 53.7% increase in the use of health care review sites such as Healthgrades and Vitals.

When reading provider reviews, consumers look for more recent reviews and want the reviews to be “authentic and informative.” They also value the star ratings. About 84%of respondents said they wouldn’t book an appointment with a referred provider that had a rating of less than four stars.

Overall, the top reasons why people are deterred from making an appointment are difficulty contacting the office, the poor quality of online reviews, and an average online rating of less than four stars.

The vast majority of respondents (77%) said they believe internet reviews reflect their own experience with a provider organization, and only 2.6% said the reviews were inaccurate. Another finding of the survey indicates that this attention of patients to reviews of their own provider doesn’t represent idle curiosity: About 57% of Baby Boomers and 45% of millennials/Gen Z’ers said they’d written online reviews of a doctor or a hospital.
 

Factors in patient loyalty

The Press Ganey survey asked which of several factors, besides excellent care, patients weighed when giving a five-star review to a health care provider.

Quality of customer service was rated first by 70.8% of respondents, followed by cleanliness of facilities (67.5%), communication (63.4%), the provider’s bedside manner (63%), ease of appointment booking (58.8%), ease of patient intake/registration (52.3%), quality and accuracy of information (40.1%), availability of telehealth services (21.7%), and waiting room amenities (21.8%).

The report explained that “quality of customer service” means “demeanor, attentiveness, and helpfulness of staff and practitioners.” “Communication” refers to things like follow-up appointment reminders and annual checkup reminders.

According to Mr. Jeffrey, these factors were considered more important than a doctor’s bedside manner because of the team care approach in most physician offices. “We see a lot more folks derive their notion of quality from continuity of care. And if they feel the physician they love is being supported by a less than competent team, that can impact significantly their sense of the quality of care,” he said.
 

Online appointment booking is a must

To win over the online consumer, Press Ganey emphasized, practices should ensure that provider listings are accurate and complete. In addition, offering online appointment booking can avoid the top challenge in making a new appointment, which is getting through to the office.

Mr. Jeffrey concurred, although he notes that practices have to be careful about how they enable patients to select appointment slots online. He suggests that an appointment request form on a patient portal first ask what the purpose of the visit is and that it offer five or so options. If the request fits into a routine visit category, the provider’s calendar pops up and the patient can select a convenient time slot. If it’s something else, an appointment scheduler calls the patient back.

“There needs to be greater access to standard appointments online,” he said. “While privacy is an issue, you can use the patient portal that most EHRs have to provide online booking. If you want to succeed going forward, that’s going to be a major plus.”

Of course, to do any of this, including reading provider reviews, a consumer needs a good internet connection and a mobile or desktop device. While broadband internet access is still not available in some communities, the breakdown of the survey respondents by demographics shows that low-income people were included.

Mr. Jeffrey doesn’t believe that a lack of internet access or digital devices prevents many Americans from going online today. “Even in poor communities, most people have internet access through their smartphones. Even baby boomers are familiar with smartphones. I haven’t seen internet access be a big barrier for low-income households, because they all have access to phones.”

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

Decades before becoming the go-to authority in the United States on the COVID-19 global pandemic, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, found himself witnessing the earliest perplexing cases of what would become another devastating global pandemic – HIV/AIDS. And while extraordinary advances have transformed treatment and prevention, glaring treatment gaps and challenges remain after 40 years.

“I certainly remember those initial MMWRs [the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports] in the summer of 1981 that introduced us to what would turn out to be the most extraordinary and devastating pandemic of an infectious disease up until that time in the modern era,” said Dr. Fauci when addressing the 2021 United States Conference on HIV/AIDS.

“Now, 40 years into it, we are still in the middle of a global pandemic despite the fact that there have been extraordinary advances,” said Dr. Fauci, who is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical advisor to the President of the United States.

Specifically, it was on June 5, 1981, that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued its fateful report on the first five cases of what would soon become known as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

By 2020, the 5 cases had grown to 79.3 million HIV infections since the start of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, claiming 36.3 million lives, according to the NAIDS Global AIDS update, Dr. Fauci reported.

At the end of 2020, there were 1.5 million new infections, as many as 37.7 million people living with HIV, and 680,000 deaths, according to the report.

The fact that so many people are living with HIV – and not dying from it – is largely attributable to “breathtaking” advances in treatment, Dr. Fauci said, underscoring the fact that there are now 13 single-tablet, once-daily, antiretroviral (ART) regimens approved in the United States to replace the multidrug cocktail that has long been necessary with HIV treatment.

“I can remember when the combination therapies were first made available, we were giving patients literally dozens of pills of different types each day, but that is no longer the case,” Dr. Fauci said.

“We can say, without hyperbole, that highly effective antiretroviral therapy for HIV is indeed one of the most important biomedical research advances of our era.”

Furthermore, HIV prevention using pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), when used optimally and consistently, has further transformed the HIV landscape with 99% efficacy in preventing sexual HIV acquisition.
 

Troubling treatment gaps

Despite the advances, disparities and challenges are abundant, Dr. Fauci said.

Notably, the majority of those infected globally – 65% – are concentrated among key populations, including gay men and other men who have sex with men (23%), clients of sex workers (20%), sex workers (11%), people who inject drugs (9%), and transgender people (2%), according to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS.

According to UNAIDS, among the 37.7 million people living with HIV at the end of 2020, 27.5 million were being treated with life-saving ART, leaving a gap of 10.2 million people with HIV who are not receiving the treatment, Dr. Fauci pointed out.

And of those who do receive treatment, retention is suboptimal, with only about 65% of patients in low- and middle-income countries being retained in care at 48 months following ART initiation.

Dr. Fauci underscored encouraging developments that could address some of those problems, notably long-acting ART therapies that, in requiring administration only every 6 months or so, could negate the need for adherence to daily ART therapy.

Likewise, long-acting PrEP provided intermittently over longer periods could prevent transmission.

“We’re looking at [long-acting PrEP] with a great deal of enthusiasm as providing protection with longer durations between doses to get people to essentially have close to 99% protection against HIV acquisition,” Dr. Fauci said.

While several efforts to develop vaccines for HIV in long-term clinical trials have had disappointing results, Dr. Fauci says he stops short of calling them failures.

“We don’t consider the trials to be failures because, in fact, they tell us the way we need to go – which direction,” he said.

“In fact, COVID-19 itself has given us new enthusiasm about the use of vaccine platforms such as mRNA that are now being applied in the vaccine quest for HIV,” Dr. Fauci noted.

Ultimately, “we must steadily and steadfastly move forward to address critical research gaps and unanswered questions [regarding HIV],” Dr. Fauci said. “The scientific advances have been breathtaking and it is up to us to [achieve] greater scientific advances, but also to translate them into something that can be implemented.”

USCHA Executive Director Paul Kawata, MD, commented that he shares Dr. Fauci’s optimism — and his concerns.

“NMAC [formerly the National Minority AIDS Council, which runs USCHA] is very excited about the science,” he said in an interview. “Our ability to make treatment easier should be a pathway to success.”

“Our concern is that we need more implementation science to know if long-acting ART will be used by the communities hardest hit by HIV,” he said.

Dr. Kawata noted that NMAC agrees that vaccine trial “failures” can offer important lessons, “but we are getting impatient,” he said. “Back in the 80s, Secretary Margret Heckler said we would have a vaccine in 5 years.”

Furthermore, ongoing racial disparities, left unaddressed, will hold back meaningful progress in the fight against HIV, he noted. “We are always hopeful, [but] the reality is that race and racism play an outsized role in health outcome in America. Unless we address these inequalities, we will never end HIV.”

NMAC receives funding from Gilead, Viiv, Merck, and Janssen.

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

Decades before becoming the go-to authority in the United States on the COVID-19 global pandemic, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, found himself witnessing the earliest perplexing cases of what would become another devastating global pandemic – HIV/AIDS. And while extraordinary advances have transformed treatment and prevention, glaring treatment gaps and challenges remain after 40 years.

“I certainly remember those initial MMWRs [the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports] in the summer of 1981 that introduced us to what would turn out to be the most extraordinary and devastating pandemic of an infectious disease up until that time in the modern era,” said Dr. Fauci when addressing the 2021 United States Conference on HIV/AIDS.

“Now, 40 years into it, we are still in the middle of a global pandemic despite the fact that there have been extraordinary advances,” said Dr. Fauci, who is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical advisor to the President of the United States.

Specifically, it was on June 5, 1981, that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued its fateful report on the first five cases of what would soon become known as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

By 2020, the 5 cases had grown to 79.3 million HIV infections since the start of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, claiming 36.3 million lives, according to the NAIDS Global AIDS update, Dr. Fauci reported.

At the end of 2020, there were 1.5 million new infections, as many as 37.7 million people living with HIV, and 680,000 deaths, according to the report.

The fact that so many people are living with HIV – and not dying from it – is largely attributable to “breathtaking” advances in treatment, Dr. Fauci said, underscoring the fact that there are now 13 single-tablet, once-daily, antiretroviral (ART) regimens approved in the United States to replace the multidrug cocktail that has long been necessary with HIV treatment.

“I can remember when the combination therapies were first made available, we were giving patients literally dozens of pills of different types each day, but that is no longer the case,” Dr. Fauci said.

“We can say, without hyperbole, that highly effective antiretroviral therapy for HIV is indeed one of the most important biomedical research advances of our era.”

Furthermore, HIV prevention using pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), when used optimally and consistently, has further transformed the HIV landscape with 99% efficacy in preventing sexual HIV acquisition.
 

Troubling treatment gaps

Despite the advances, disparities and challenges are abundant, Dr. Fauci said.

Notably, the majority of those infected globally – 65% – are concentrated among key populations, including gay men and other men who have sex with men (23%), clients of sex workers (20%), sex workers (11%), people who inject drugs (9%), and transgender people (2%), according to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS.

According to UNAIDS, among the 37.7 million people living with HIV at the end of 2020, 27.5 million were being treated with life-saving ART, leaving a gap of 10.2 million people with HIV who are not receiving the treatment, Dr. Fauci pointed out.

And of those who do receive treatment, retention is suboptimal, with only about 65% of patients in low- and middle-income countries being retained in care at 48 months following ART initiation.

Dr. Fauci underscored encouraging developments that could address some of those problems, notably long-acting ART therapies that, in requiring administration only every 6 months or so, could negate the need for adherence to daily ART therapy.

Likewise, long-acting PrEP provided intermittently over longer periods could prevent transmission.

“We’re looking at [long-acting PrEP] with a great deal of enthusiasm as providing protection with longer durations between doses to get people to essentially have close to 99% protection against HIV acquisition,” Dr. Fauci said.

While several efforts to develop vaccines for HIV in long-term clinical trials have had disappointing results, Dr. Fauci says he stops short of calling them failures.

“We don’t consider the trials to be failures because, in fact, they tell us the way we need to go – which direction,” he said.

“In fact, COVID-19 itself has given us new enthusiasm about the use of vaccine platforms such as mRNA that are now being applied in the vaccine quest for HIV,” Dr. Fauci noted.

Ultimately, “we must steadily and steadfastly move forward to address critical research gaps and unanswered questions [regarding HIV],” Dr. Fauci said. “The scientific advances have been breathtaking and it is up to us to [achieve] greater scientific advances, but also to translate them into something that can be implemented.”

USCHA Executive Director Paul Kawata, MD, commented that he shares Dr. Fauci’s optimism — and his concerns.

“NMAC [formerly the National Minority AIDS Council, which runs USCHA] is very excited about the science,” he said in an interview. “Our ability to make treatment easier should be a pathway to success.”

“Our concern is that we need more implementation science to know if long-acting ART will be used by the communities hardest hit by HIV,” he said.

Dr. Kawata noted that NMAC agrees that vaccine trial “failures” can offer important lessons, “but we are getting impatient,” he said. “Back in the 80s, Secretary Margret Heckler said we would have a vaccine in 5 years.”

Furthermore, ongoing racial disparities, left unaddressed, will hold back meaningful progress in the fight against HIV, he noted. “We are always hopeful, [but] the reality is that race and racism play an outsized role in health outcome in America. Unless we address these inequalities, we will never end HIV.”

NMAC receives funding from Gilead, Viiv, Merck, and Janssen.

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

Decades before becoming the go-to authority in the United States on the COVID-19 global pandemic, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, found himself witnessing the earliest perplexing cases of what would become another devastating global pandemic – HIV/AIDS. And while extraordinary advances have transformed treatment and prevention, glaring treatment gaps and challenges remain after 40 years.

“I certainly remember those initial MMWRs [the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports] in the summer of 1981 that introduced us to what would turn out to be the most extraordinary and devastating pandemic of an infectious disease up until that time in the modern era,” said Dr. Fauci when addressing the 2021 United States Conference on HIV/AIDS.

“Now, 40 years into it, we are still in the middle of a global pandemic despite the fact that there have been extraordinary advances,” said Dr. Fauci, who is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical advisor to the President of the United States.

Specifically, it was on June 5, 1981, that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued its fateful report on the first five cases of what would soon become known as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

By 2020, the 5 cases had grown to 79.3 million HIV infections since the start of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, claiming 36.3 million lives, according to the NAIDS Global AIDS update, Dr. Fauci reported.

At the end of 2020, there were 1.5 million new infections, as many as 37.7 million people living with HIV, and 680,000 deaths, according to the report.

The fact that so many people are living with HIV – and not dying from it – is largely attributable to “breathtaking” advances in treatment, Dr. Fauci said, underscoring the fact that there are now 13 single-tablet, once-daily, antiretroviral (ART) regimens approved in the United States to replace the multidrug cocktail that has long been necessary with HIV treatment.

“I can remember when the combination therapies were first made available, we were giving patients literally dozens of pills of different types each day, but that is no longer the case,” Dr. Fauci said.

“We can say, without hyperbole, that highly effective antiretroviral therapy for HIV is indeed one of the most important biomedical research advances of our era.”

Furthermore, HIV prevention using pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), when used optimally and consistently, has further transformed the HIV landscape with 99% efficacy in preventing sexual HIV acquisition.
 

Troubling treatment gaps

Despite the advances, disparities and challenges are abundant, Dr. Fauci said.

Notably, the majority of those infected globally – 65% – are concentrated among key populations, including gay men and other men who have sex with men (23%), clients of sex workers (20%), sex workers (11%), people who inject drugs (9%), and transgender people (2%), according to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS.

According to UNAIDS, among the 37.7 million people living with HIV at the end of 2020, 27.5 million were being treated with life-saving ART, leaving a gap of 10.2 million people with HIV who are not receiving the treatment, Dr. Fauci pointed out.

And of those who do receive treatment, retention is suboptimal, with only about 65% of patients in low- and middle-income countries being retained in care at 48 months following ART initiation.

Dr. Fauci underscored encouraging developments that could address some of those problems, notably long-acting ART therapies that, in requiring administration only every 6 months or so, could negate the need for adherence to daily ART therapy.

Likewise, long-acting PrEP provided intermittently over longer periods could prevent transmission.

“We’re looking at [long-acting PrEP] with a great deal of enthusiasm as providing protection with longer durations between doses to get people to essentially have close to 99% protection against HIV acquisition,” Dr. Fauci said.

While several efforts to develop vaccines for HIV in long-term clinical trials have had disappointing results, Dr. Fauci says he stops short of calling them failures.

“We don’t consider the trials to be failures because, in fact, they tell us the way we need to go – which direction,” he said.

“In fact, COVID-19 itself has given us new enthusiasm about the use of vaccine platforms such as mRNA that are now being applied in the vaccine quest for HIV,” Dr. Fauci noted.

Ultimately, “we must steadily and steadfastly move forward to address critical research gaps and unanswered questions [regarding HIV],” Dr. Fauci said. “The scientific advances have been breathtaking and it is up to us to [achieve] greater scientific advances, but also to translate them into something that can be implemented.”

USCHA Executive Director Paul Kawata, MD, commented that he shares Dr. Fauci’s optimism — and his concerns.

“NMAC [formerly the National Minority AIDS Council, which runs USCHA] is very excited about the science,” he said in an interview. “Our ability to make treatment easier should be a pathway to success.”

“Our concern is that we need more implementation science to know if long-acting ART will be used by the communities hardest hit by HIV,” he said.

Dr. Kawata noted that NMAC agrees that vaccine trial “failures” can offer important lessons, “but we are getting impatient,” he said. “Back in the 80s, Secretary Margret Heckler said we would have a vaccine in 5 years.”

Furthermore, ongoing racial disparities, left unaddressed, will hold back meaningful progress in the fight against HIV, he noted. “We are always hopeful, [but] the reality is that race and racism play an outsized role in health outcome in America. Unless we address these inequalities, we will never end HIV.”

NMAC receives funding from Gilead, Viiv, Merck, and Janssen.

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

As more indoor venues require proof of vaccination for entrance and with winter — as well as omicron, a new COVID variant — looming, scientists and public health officials are debating when it will be time to change the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include a booster shot.

It’s been more than six months since many Americans finished their vaccination course against COVID; statistically, their immunity is waning.

At the same time, cases of infections with the Omicron variant have been reported in at least 17 states, as of Dec. 6. Omicron is distinguished by at least 50 mutations, some of which appear to be associated with increased transmissibility. The World Health Organization dubbed it a variant of concern on Nov. 26.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone 18 and older get a COVID booster shot, revising its narrower guidance that only people 50 and up “should” get a shot while younger adults could choose whether or not to do so. Scientists assume the additional shots will offer significant protection from the new variant, though they do not know for certain how much.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, during a White House press briefing was unequivocal in advising the public. “Get boosted now,” Dr. Fauci said, adding urgency to the current federal guidance. About a quarter of U.S. adults have received additional vaccine doses.

“The definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ has not changed. That’s, you know, after your second dose of a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, after your single dose of a Johnson & Johnson vaccine,” said the CDC’s director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, during a Nov. 30 White House briefing on COVID. “We are absolutely encouraging those who are eligible for a boost six months after those mRNA doses to get your boost. But we are not changing the definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ right now.” A booster is recommended two months after receiving the J&J shot.

But that, she noted, could change: “As that science evolves, we will look at whether we need to update our definition of ‘fully vaccinated.’”

Still, the Democratic governors of Connecticut and New Mexico are sending a different signal in their states, as are some countries — such as Israel, which arguably has been the most aggressive nation in its approach. Some scientists point out that many vaccines involve three doses over six months for robust long-term protection, such as the shot against hepatitis. So “fully vaccinated” may need to include shot No. 3 to be considered a full course.

“In my view, if you were vaccinated more than six months ago, you’re not fully vaccinated,” Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont said Nov. 18 during a press briefing. He was encouraging everyone to get boosted at that time, even before the federal government authorized extra shots for everyone.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham had a similar response in mid-November, saying she defined “fully vaccinated” as receiving three shots of the mRNA type. She also opened up booster eligibility to all of her state residents before the CDC and Food and Drug Administration did.

What do the varying views on the evolving science mean for vaccine requirements imposed on travelers, or by schools or workplaces? And what about businesses that have required patrons to provide proof of vaccination?

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania, said the CDC’s stronger recommendation for everyone to get boosted signals to him that a booster is now part of the vaccine regimen. Yet Dr. Offit, who is also a member of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee, wrote a joint op-ed this week in which he and two other scientists argued that boosters were not yet needed for everyone and that healthy young people should wait to see whether an Omicron-specific booster might be needed.

“I think when the CDC said they are recommending a third dose, they just made the statement that this is a three-dose vaccine series,” Dr. Offit told KHN. “And, frankly, I think it’s going to throw a wrench into mandates.”

Yet to be determined is whether restaurants or other places of business will look more closely at vaccine cards for the booster.

Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said it’s too early to say. “For now, businesses should stay focused on current guidelines,” he said.

Dr. Marc Siegel, an associate professor of medicine at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, in Washington, said the question of whether you are fully vaccinated with just two doses or need a booster is a question of semantics. COVID immunity level is the more important issue.

Dr. Siegel said he thinks more suitable terminology would be to call someone “appropriately” or “adequately” vaccinated against COVID rather than “fully” vaccinated, since it’s possible that more boosters could be needed in the future — making “full vaccination” a moving target.

But, as with so many aspects of the pandemic, ambiguity prevails — both in federal guidance on the definition of “fully vaccinated” and in entrance policies, which vary by state, school and business.

Right now, businesses don’t appear to be checking for boosters, but that could change. So, it may be wise to first check the requirements — lest patrons present a two-shot vaccine passport, only to be turned away as inadequately protected.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

As more indoor venues require proof of vaccination for entrance and with winter — as well as omicron, a new COVID variant — looming, scientists and public health officials are debating when it will be time to change the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include a booster shot.

It’s been more than six months since many Americans finished their vaccination course against COVID; statistically, their immunity is waning.

At the same time, cases of infections with the Omicron variant have been reported in at least 17 states, as of Dec. 6. Omicron is distinguished by at least 50 mutations, some of which appear to be associated with increased transmissibility. The World Health Organization dubbed it a variant of concern on Nov. 26.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone 18 and older get a COVID booster shot, revising its narrower guidance that only people 50 and up “should” get a shot while younger adults could choose whether or not to do so. Scientists assume the additional shots will offer significant protection from the new variant, though they do not know for certain how much.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, during a White House press briefing was unequivocal in advising the public. “Get boosted now,” Dr. Fauci said, adding urgency to the current federal guidance. About a quarter of U.S. adults have received additional vaccine doses.

“The definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ has not changed. That’s, you know, after your second dose of a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, after your single dose of a Johnson & Johnson vaccine,” said the CDC’s director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, during a Nov. 30 White House briefing on COVID. “We are absolutely encouraging those who are eligible for a boost six months after those mRNA doses to get your boost. But we are not changing the definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ right now.” A booster is recommended two months after receiving the J&J shot.

But that, she noted, could change: “As that science evolves, we will look at whether we need to update our definition of ‘fully vaccinated.’”

Still, the Democratic governors of Connecticut and New Mexico are sending a different signal in their states, as are some countries — such as Israel, which arguably has been the most aggressive nation in its approach. Some scientists point out that many vaccines involve three doses over six months for robust long-term protection, such as the shot against hepatitis. So “fully vaccinated” may need to include shot No. 3 to be considered a full course.

“In my view, if you were vaccinated more than six months ago, you’re not fully vaccinated,” Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont said Nov. 18 during a press briefing. He was encouraging everyone to get boosted at that time, even before the federal government authorized extra shots for everyone.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham had a similar response in mid-November, saying she defined “fully vaccinated” as receiving three shots of the mRNA type. She also opened up booster eligibility to all of her state residents before the CDC and Food and Drug Administration did.

What do the varying views on the evolving science mean for vaccine requirements imposed on travelers, or by schools or workplaces? And what about businesses that have required patrons to provide proof of vaccination?

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania, said the CDC’s stronger recommendation for everyone to get boosted signals to him that a booster is now part of the vaccine regimen. Yet Dr. Offit, who is also a member of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee, wrote a joint op-ed this week in which he and two other scientists argued that boosters were not yet needed for everyone and that healthy young people should wait to see whether an Omicron-specific booster might be needed.

“I think when the CDC said they are recommending a third dose, they just made the statement that this is a three-dose vaccine series,” Dr. Offit told KHN. “And, frankly, I think it’s going to throw a wrench into mandates.”

Yet to be determined is whether restaurants or other places of business will look more closely at vaccine cards for the booster.

Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said it’s too early to say. “For now, businesses should stay focused on current guidelines,” he said.

Dr. Marc Siegel, an associate professor of medicine at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, in Washington, said the question of whether you are fully vaccinated with just two doses or need a booster is a question of semantics. COVID immunity level is the more important issue.

Dr. Siegel said he thinks more suitable terminology would be to call someone “appropriately” or “adequately” vaccinated against COVID rather than “fully” vaccinated, since it’s possible that more boosters could be needed in the future — making “full vaccination” a moving target.

But, as with so many aspects of the pandemic, ambiguity prevails — both in federal guidance on the definition of “fully vaccinated” and in entrance policies, which vary by state, school and business.

Right now, businesses don’t appear to be checking for boosters, but that could change. So, it may be wise to first check the requirements — lest patrons present a two-shot vaccine passport, only to be turned away as inadequately protected.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

As more indoor venues require proof of vaccination for entrance and with winter — as well as omicron, a new COVID variant — looming, scientists and public health officials are debating when it will be time to change the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include a booster shot.

It’s been more than six months since many Americans finished their vaccination course against COVID; statistically, their immunity is waning.

At the same time, cases of infections with the Omicron variant have been reported in at least 17 states, as of Dec. 6. Omicron is distinguished by at least 50 mutations, some of which appear to be associated with increased transmissibility. The World Health Organization dubbed it a variant of concern on Nov. 26.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone 18 and older get a COVID booster shot, revising its narrower guidance that only people 50 and up “should” get a shot while younger adults could choose whether or not to do so. Scientists assume the additional shots will offer significant protection from the new variant, though they do not know for certain how much.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, during a White House press briefing was unequivocal in advising the public. “Get boosted now,” Dr. Fauci said, adding urgency to the current federal guidance. About a quarter of U.S. adults have received additional vaccine doses.

“The definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ has not changed. That’s, you know, after your second dose of a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, after your single dose of a Johnson & Johnson vaccine,” said the CDC’s director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, during a Nov. 30 White House briefing on COVID. “We are absolutely encouraging those who are eligible for a boost six months after those mRNA doses to get your boost. But we are not changing the definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ right now.” A booster is recommended two months after receiving the J&J shot.

But that, she noted, could change: “As that science evolves, we will look at whether we need to update our definition of ‘fully vaccinated.’”

Still, the Democratic governors of Connecticut and New Mexico are sending a different signal in their states, as are some countries — such as Israel, which arguably has been the most aggressive nation in its approach. Some scientists point out that many vaccines involve three doses over six months for robust long-term protection, such as the shot against hepatitis. So “fully vaccinated” may need to include shot No. 3 to be considered a full course.

“In my view, if you were vaccinated more than six months ago, you’re not fully vaccinated,” Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont said Nov. 18 during a press briefing. He was encouraging everyone to get boosted at that time, even before the federal government authorized extra shots for everyone.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham had a similar response in mid-November, saying she defined “fully vaccinated” as receiving three shots of the mRNA type. She also opened up booster eligibility to all of her state residents before the CDC and Food and Drug Administration did.

What do the varying views on the evolving science mean for vaccine requirements imposed on travelers, or by schools or workplaces? And what about businesses that have required patrons to provide proof of vaccination?

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania, said the CDC’s stronger recommendation for everyone to get boosted signals to him that a booster is now part of the vaccine regimen. Yet Dr. Offit, who is also a member of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee, wrote a joint op-ed this week in which he and two other scientists argued that boosters were not yet needed for everyone and that healthy young people should wait to see whether an Omicron-specific booster might be needed.

“I think when the CDC said they are recommending a third dose, they just made the statement that this is a three-dose vaccine series,” Dr. Offit told KHN. “And, frankly, I think it’s going to throw a wrench into mandates.”

Yet to be determined is whether restaurants or other places of business will look more closely at vaccine cards for the booster.

Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said it’s too early to say. “For now, businesses should stay focused on current guidelines,” he said.

Dr. Marc Siegel, an associate professor of medicine at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, in Washington, said the question of whether you are fully vaccinated with just two doses or need a booster is a question of semantics. COVID immunity level is the more important issue.

Dr. Siegel said he thinks more suitable terminology would be to call someone “appropriately” or “adequately” vaccinated against COVID rather than “fully” vaccinated, since it’s possible that more boosters could be needed in the future — making “full vaccination” a moving target.

But, as with so many aspects of the pandemic, ambiguity prevails — both in federal guidance on the definition of “fully vaccinated” and in entrance policies, which vary by state, school and business.

Right now, businesses don’t appear to be checking for boosters, but that could change. So, it may be wise to first check the requirements — lest patrons present a two-shot vaccine passport, only to be turned away as inadequately protected.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The emergence of COVID-19 has given the medical world a bewildering array of prevention and treatment protocols. Some physicians are advocating treatments that have not been validated by sound scientific studies. This has already led to licensing issues and other disciplinary actions being taken against physicians, pharmacies, and other health care providers across the country.

Kuzma/istockphoto

Medical professionals try their very best to give sound advice to patients. A medical license does not, however, confer immunity from being misled.

The supporting “science” for alternative prevention and treatments may look legitimate, but these claims are often based on anecdotal evidence. Some studies involve small populations, some are meta-analyses of several small or single-case studies, and others are not properly designed, interpreted, or executed in line with U.S. research and requirements. Yet others have been conducted only in nonhuman analogues, such as frogs or mice.

Many people are refusing a vaccine that has been proven to be relatively safe and effective in numerous repeated and validated studies in the best medical centers across the globe – all in favor of less validated alternatives. Well-intentioned medical professionals may be tempted to promote the information and products featured on websites that advocate for unproven products and protocols. This can have serious legal consequences.
 

The crux of the issue

This is not a question of a physician’s first amendment rights. Nor is it a question of advocating for a scientifically valid minority medical opinion. The point of this article is that promoting unproven products, preventives, treatments, and cures can have dire consequences for licensed medical professionals.

On July 29, 2021, the Federation of State Medical Boards’ Board of Directors released a statement in response to a dramatic increase in the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians and other health care professionals on social media platforms, online, and in the media. The statement reads as follows:

“Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license. Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not. They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health. Spreading inaccurate COVID-19 vaccine information contradicts that responsibility, threatens to further erode public trust in the medical profession, and puts all patients at risk.”

 

What are the legal consequences?

Medical malpractice

The first consequence to consider is professional liability or medical malpractice. This applies if a patient claims harm as a result of the health care practitioner’s recommendation of an unproven treatment, product, or protocol. For example, strongly discouraging vaccination can result in a wrongful death claim if the patient follows the doctor’s advice, chooses not to vaccinate, contracts COVID-19, and does not recover. Recommending or providing unproven approaches and unapproved treatments is arguably a violation of the standard of care.

The standard of care is grounded in evidence-based medicine: It is commonly defined as the degree of care and skill that would be used by the average physician, who is practicing in his or her relevant specialty, under the same or similar circumstances, given the generally accepted medical knowledge at the time in question.

By way of example, one can see why inhaling peroxide, drinking bleach, or even taking Food and Drug Administration–approved medications that have little or no proven efficacy in treating or preventing COVID-19 is not what the average physician would advocate for under the same or similar circumstances, considering available and commonly accepted medical knowledge. Recommending or providing such treatments can be a breach of the standard of care and can form the basis of a medical malpractice action if, in fact, compensable harm has occurred.

In addition, recommending unproven and unapproved COVID-19 preventives and treatments without appropriate informed consent from patients is arguably also a breach of the standard of care. The claim would be that the patient has not been appropriately informed of the all the known benefits, risks, costs, and other legally required information such as proven efficacy and reasonably available alternatives.

In any event, physicians can rest assured that if a patient is harmed as a result of any of these situations, they’ll probably be answering to someone in the legal system.
 

Professional licensing action

Regardless of whether there is a medical malpractice action, there is still the potential for a patient complaint to be filed with the state licensing authority on the basis of the same facts and grounds. This can result in an investigation or an administrative complaint against the license of the health care provider.

This is not a mere potential risk. Licensing investigations are underway across the country. Disciplinary licensing actions have already taken place. For example, a Washington Medical Commission panel suspended the license of a physician assistant (PA) on Oct. 12, 2021, after an allegation that his treatment of COVID-19 patients fell below the standard of care. The PA allegedly began a public campaign promoting ivermectin as a curative agent for COVID-19 and prescribed it without adequate examination to at least one person, with no evidence from reliable clinical studies that establish its efficacy in preventing or treating COVID-19.

In licensing claims, alleged violations of failing to comply with the standard of care are usually asserted. These claims may also cite violations of other state statutes that encompass such concepts as negligence; breach of the duty of due care; incompetence; lack of good moral character; and lack of ability to serve the public in a fair, honest, and open manner. A licensing complaint may include alleged violations of statutes that address prescribing protocols, reckless endangerment, failure to supervise, and other issues.

The filing of an administrative complaint is a different animal from a medical malpractice action – they are not even in the same system or branch of government. The focus is not just about what happened to the one patient who complained; it is about protection of the public.

The states’ power to put a clinician on probation, condition, limit, suspend, or revoke the clinician’s license, as well as issue other sanctions such as physician monitoring and fines), is profound. The discipline imposed can upend a clinician’s career and potentially end it entirely.

Administrative discipline determinations are usually available to the public and are required to be reported to all employers (current and future). These discipline determinations are also sent to the National Practitioner Data Bank, other professional clearinghouse organizations (such as the Federation of State Medical Boards), state offices, professional liability insurers, payers with whom the clinician contracts, accreditation and certification organizations, and the clinician’s patients.

Discipline determinations must be promptly reported to licensing agencies in other states where the clinician holds a license, and often results in “sister state” actions because discipline was issued against the clinician in another state. It must be disclosed every time a clinician applies for hospital privileges or new employment. It can result in de-participation from health care insurance programs and can affect board certification, recertification, or accreditation for care programs in which the clinician participates.

In sum, licensing actions can be much worse than medical malpractice judgments and can have longer-term consequences.
 

Peer review and affected privileges

Recommending, promoting, and providing unapproved or unproven treatments, cures, or preventives to patients may violate hospital/health system, practice group, or surgical center bylaws. This can trigger the peer review process, which serves to improve patient safety and the quality of care.

The peer review process may be commenced because of a concern about the clinician’s compliance with the standard of care; potential patient safety issues; ethical issues; and the clinician’s stability, credibility, or professional competence. Any hospital disciplinary penalty is generally reported to state licensing authorities, which can trigger a licensing investigation. If clinical privileges are affected for a period of more than 30 days, the organization must report the situation to the National Practitioner Data Bank.
 

Criminal charges

Depending on the facts, a physician or other health care professional could be charged with reckless endangerment, criminal negligence, or manslaughter. If the clinician was assisting someone else who profited from that clinician’s actions, then we can look to a variety of potential federal and state fraud charges as well.

Conviction of a fraud-related felony may also lead to federal health care program and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) exclusion for several years, and then CMS preclusion that can be imposed for years beyond the conclusion of the statutorily required exclusion.
 

Breach of contract

Some practice groups or other organizational employers have provisions in employment contracts that treat discipline for this type of conduct as a breach of contract. Because of this, the clinician committing breach may be subject to liquidated damages clauses, forfeiture of monies (such as bonuses or other incentives or rewards), termination of employment, forced withdrawal from ownership status, and being sued for breach of contract to recover damages.

Reputation/credibility damage and the attendant consequences

In regard to hospitals and health care system practice groups, another risk is the loss of referrals and revenue. Local media may air or publish exposés. Such stories may widely publicize the media’s version of the facts – true or not. This can cause immediate reputation and credibility damage within the community and may adversely affect a clinician’s patient base. Any information that is publicly broadcast might attract the attention of licensing and law enforcement authorities and taint potential jurors.

Hospitals and health care systems may pull privileges; post on websites; make official statements about the termination of affiliation; or denounce the clinician’s behavior, conduct, and beliefs as being inconsistent with quality care and patient safety. This causes further damage to a physician’s reputation and credibility.

In a group practice, accusations of this sort, licensing discipline, medical malpractice liability, investigations, loss of privileges, and the other sequelae of this conduct can force the withdrawal of the clinician as a member or shareholder in multiprovider groups. Adverse effects on the financial bottom line, patient referrals, and patient volume and bad press are often the basis for voting a clinician out.
 

Violation of the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act of 2020

For the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency, the FTC COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act makes it unlawful for any person, partnership, or corporation (as those terms are defined broadly in the act) to engage in a deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of COVID-19 or a government benefit related to COVID-19.

The first enforcement action authorized by this act took place in April 2021 against a chiropractor who promised vitamin treatments and cures for COVID-19. The act provides that such a violation shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under the FTC Act.

Under the act, the FTC is authorized to prescribe “rules that define with specificity acts or practices which are unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” Deceptive practices are defined as involving a material representation, omission, or practice that is “likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances.” An act or practice is unfair if it “causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.”

After an investigation, the FTC may initiate an enforcement action using either an administrative or judicial process if it has “reason to believe” that the law has been violated. Violations of some laws may result in injunctive relief or civil monetary penalties, which are adjusted annually for inflation.

In addition, many states have deceptive and unfair trade laws that can be enforced in regard to the recommendation, sale, or provision of unproven or unapproved COVID-19 treatments, cures, and preventives as well.
 

Conclusion

It is difficult even for intelligent, well-intentioned physicians to know precisely what to believe and what to advocate for in the middle of a pandemic. It seems as though new reports and recommendations for preventing and treating COVID-19 are surfacing on a weekly basis. By far, the safest approach for any medical clinician to take is to advocate for positions that are generally accepted in the medical and scientific community at the time advice is given.

Mr. Whitelaw disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ms. Janeway disclosed various associations with the Michigan Association for Healthcare Quality and the Greater Houston Society for Healthcare Risk Management. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The emergence of COVID-19 has given the medical world a bewildering array of prevention and treatment protocols. Some physicians are advocating treatments that have not been validated by sound scientific studies. This has already led to licensing issues and other disciplinary actions being taken against physicians, pharmacies, and other health care providers across the country.

Kuzma/istockphoto

Medical professionals try their very best to give sound advice to patients. A medical license does not, however, confer immunity from being misled.

The supporting “science” for alternative prevention and treatments may look legitimate, but these claims are often based on anecdotal evidence. Some studies involve small populations, some are meta-analyses of several small or single-case studies, and others are not properly designed, interpreted, or executed in line with U.S. research and requirements. Yet others have been conducted only in nonhuman analogues, such as frogs or mice.

Many people are refusing a vaccine that has been proven to be relatively safe and effective in numerous repeated and validated studies in the best medical centers across the globe – all in favor of less validated alternatives. Well-intentioned medical professionals may be tempted to promote the information and products featured on websites that advocate for unproven products and protocols. This can have serious legal consequences.
 

The crux of the issue

This is not a question of a physician’s first amendment rights. Nor is it a question of advocating for a scientifically valid minority medical opinion. The point of this article is that promoting unproven products, preventives, treatments, and cures can have dire consequences for licensed medical professionals.

On July 29, 2021, the Federation of State Medical Boards’ Board of Directors released a statement in response to a dramatic increase in the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians and other health care professionals on social media platforms, online, and in the media. The statement reads as follows:

“Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license. Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not. They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health. Spreading inaccurate COVID-19 vaccine information contradicts that responsibility, threatens to further erode public trust in the medical profession, and puts all patients at risk.”

 

What are the legal consequences?

Medical malpractice

The first consequence to consider is professional liability or medical malpractice. This applies if a patient claims harm as a result of the health care practitioner’s recommendation of an unproven treatment, product, or protocol. For example, strongly discouraging vaccination can result in a wrongful death claim if the patient follows the doctor’s advice, chooses not to vaccinate, contracts COVID-19, and does not recover. Recommending or providing unproven approaches and unapproved treatments is arguably a violation of the standard of care.

The standard of care is grounded in evidence-based medicine: It is commonly defined as the degree of care and skill that would be used by the average physician, who is practicing in his or her relevant specialty, under the same or similar circumstances, given the generally accepted medical knowledge at the time in question.

By way of example, one can see why inhaling peroxide, drinking bleach, or even taking Food and Drug Administration–approved medications that have little or no proven efficacy in treating or preventing COVID-19 is not what the average physician would advocate for under the same or similar circumstances, considering available and commonly accepted medical knowledge. Recommending or providing such treatments can be a breach of the standard of care and can form the basis of a medical malpractice action if, in fact, compensable harm has occurred.

In addition, recommending unproven and unapproved COVID-19 preventives and treatments without appropriate informed consent from patients is arguably also a breach of the standard of care. The claim would be that the patient has not been appropriately informed of the all the known benefits, risks, costs, and other legally required information such as proven efficacy and reasonably available alternatives.

In any event, physicians can rest assured that if a patient is harmed as a result of any of these situations, they’ll probably be answering to someone in the legal system.
 

Professional licensing action

Regardless of whether there is a medical malpractice action, there is still the potential for a patient complaint to be filed with the state licensing authority on the basis of the same facts and grounds. This can result in an investigation or an administrative complaint against the license of the health care provider.

This is not a mere potential risk. Licensing investigations are underway across the country. Disciplinary licensing actions have already taken place. For example, a Washington Medical Commission panel suspended the license of a physician assistant (PA) on Oct. 12, 2021, after an allegation that his treatment of COVID-19 patients fell below the standard of care. The PA allegedly began a public campaign promoting ivermectin as a curative agent for COVID-19 and prescribed it without adequate examination to at least one person, with no evidence from reliable clinical studies that establish its efficacy in preventing or treating COVID-19.

In licensing claims, alleged violations of failing to comply with the standard of care are usually asserted. These claims may also cite violations of other state statutes that encompass such concepts as negligence; breach of the duty of due care; incompetence; lack of good moral character; and lack of ability to serve the public in a fair, honest, and open manner. A licensing complaint may include alleged violations of statutes that address prescribing protocols, reckless endangerment, failure to supervise, and other issues.

The filing of an administrative complaint is a different animal from a medical malpractice action – they are not even in the same system or branch of government. The focus is not just about what happened to the one patient who complained; it is about protection of the public.

The states’ power to put a clinician on probation, condition, limit, suspend, or revoke the clinician’s license, as well as issue other sanctions such as physician monitoring and fines), is profound. The discipline imposed can upend a clinician’s career and potentially end it entirely.

Administrative discipline determinations are usually available to the public and are required to be reported to all employers (current and future). These discipline determinations are also sent to the National Practitioner Data Bank, other professional clearinghouse organizations (such as the Federation of State Medical Boards), state offices, professional liability insurers, payers with whom the clinician contracts, accreditation and certification organizations, and the clinician’s patients.

Discipline determinations must be promptly reported to licensing agencies in other states where the clinician holds a license, and often results in “sister state” actions because discipline was issued against the clinician in another state. It must be disclosed every time a clinician applies for hospital privileges or new employment. It can result in de-participation from health care insurance programs and can affect board certification, recertification, or accreditation for care programs in which the clinician participates.

In sum, licensing actions can be much worse than medical malpractice judgments and can have longer-term consequences.
 

Peer review and affected privileges

Recommending, promoting, and providing unapproved or unproven treatments, cures, or preventives to patients may violate hospital/health system, practice group, or surgical center bylaws. This can trigger the peer review process, which serves to improve patient safety and the quality of care.

The peer review process may be commenced because of a concern about the clinician’s compliance with the standard of care; potential patient safety issues; ethical issues; and the clinician’s stability, credibility, or professional competence. Any hospital disciplinary penalty is generally reported to state licensing authorities, which can trigger a licensing investigation. If clinical privileges are affected for a period of more than 30 days, the organization must report the situation to the National Practitioner Data Bank.
 

Criminal charges

Depending on the facts, a physician or other health care professional could be charged with reckless endangerment, criminal negligence, or manslaughter. If the clinician was assisting someone else who profited from that clinician’s actions, then we can look to a variety of potential federal and state fraud charges as well.

Conviction of a fraud-related felony may also lead to federal health care program and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) exclusion for several years, and then CMS preclusion that can be imposed for years beyond the conclusion of the statutorily required exclusion.
 

Breach of contract

Some practice groups or other organizational employers have provisions in employment contracts that treat discipline for this type of conduct as a breach of contract. Because of this, the clinician committing breach may be subject to liquidated damages clauses, forfeiture of monies (such as bonuses or other incentives or rewards), termination of employment, forced withdrawal from ownership status, and being sued for breach of contract to recover damages.

Reputation/credibility damage and the attendant consequences

In regard to hospitals and health care system practice groups, another risk is the loss of referrals and revenue. Local media may air or publish exposés. Such stories may widely publicize the media’s version of the facts – true or not. This can cause immediate reputation and credibility damage within the community and may adversely affect a clinician’s patient base. Any information that is publicly broadcast might attract the attention of licensing and law enforcement authorities and taint potential jurors.

Hospitals and health care systems may pull privileges; post on websites; make official statements about the termination of affiliation; or denounce the clinician’s behavior, conduct, and beliefs as being inconsistent with quality care and patient safety. This causes further damage to a physician’s reputation and credibility.

In a group practice, accusations of this sort, licensing discipline, medical malpractice liability, investigations, loss of privileges, and the other sequelae of this conduct can force the withdrawal of the clinician as a member or shareholder in multiprovider groups. Adverse effects on the financial bottom line, patient referrals, and patient volume and bad press are often the basis for voting a clinician out.
 

Violation of the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act of 2020

For the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency, the FTC COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act makes it unlawful for any person, partnership, or corporation (as those terms are defined broadly in the act) to engage in a deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of COVID-19 or a government benefit related to COVID-19.

The first enforcement action authorized by this act took place in April 2021 against a chiropractor who promised vitamin treatments and cures for COVID-19. The act provides that such a violation shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under the FTC Act.

Under the act, the FTC is authorized to prescribe “rules that define with specificity acts or practices which are unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” Deceptive practices are defined as involving a material representation, omission, or practice that is “likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances.” An act or practice is unfair if it “causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.”

After an investigation, the FTC may initiate an enforcement action using either an administrative or judicial process if it has “reason to believe” that the law has been violated. Violations of some laws may result in injunctive relief or civil monetary penalties, which are adjusted annually for inflation.

In addition, many states have deceptive and unfair trade laws that can be enforced in regard to the recommendation, sale, or provision of unproven or unapproved COVID-19 treatments, cures, and preventives as well.
 

Conclusion

It is difficult even for intelligent, well-intentioned physicians to know precisely what to believe and what to advocate for in the middle of a pandemic. It seems as though new reports and recommendations for preventing and treating COVID-19 are surfacing on a weekly basis. By far, the safest approach for any medical clinician to take is to advocate for positions that are generally accepted in the medical and scientific community at the time advice is given.

Mr. Whitelaw disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ms. Janeway disclosed various associations with the Michigan Association for Healthcare Quality and the Greater Houston Society for Healthcare Risk Management. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The emergence of COVID-19 has given the medical world a bewildering array of prevention and treatment protocols. Some physicians are advocating treatments that have not been validated by sound scientific studies. This has already led to licensing issues and other disciplinary actions being taken against physicians, pharmacies, and other health care providers across the country.

Kuzma/istockphoto

Medical professionals try their very best to give sound advice to patients. A medical license does not, however, confer immunity from being misled.

The supporting “science” for alternative prevention and treatments may look legitimate, but these claims are often based on anecdotal evidence. Some studies involve small populations, some are meta-analyses of several small or single-case studies, and others are not properly designed, interpreted, or executed in line with U.S. research and requirements. Yet others have been conducted only in nonhuman analogues, such as frogs or mice.

Many people are refusing a vaccine that has been proven to be relatively safe and effective in numerous repeated and validated studies in the best medical centers across the globe – all in favor of less validated alternatives. Well-intentioned medical professionals may be tempted to promote the information and products featured on websites that advocate for unproven products and protocols. This can have serious legal consequences.
 

The crux of the issue

This is not a question of a physician’s first amendment rights. Nor is it a question of advocating for a scientifically valid minority medical opinion. The point of this article is that promoting unproven products, preventives, treatments, and cures can have dire consequences for licensed medical professionals.

On July 29, 2021, the Federation of State Medical Boards’ Board of Directors released a statement in response to a dramatic increase in the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians and other health care professionals on social media platforms, online, and in the media. The statement reads as follows:

“Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license. Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not. They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health. Spreading inaccurate COVID-19 vaccine information contradicts that responsibility, threatens to further erode public trust in the medical profession, and puts all patients at risk.”

 

What are the legal consequences?

Medical malpractice

The first consequence to consider is professional liability or medical malpractice. This applies if a patient claims harm as a result of the health care practitioner’s recommendation of an unproven treatment, product, or protocol. For example, strongly discouraging vaccination can result in a wrongful death claim if the patient follows the doctor’s advice, chooses not to vaccinate, contracts COVID-19, and does not recover. Recommending or providing unproven approaches and unapproved treatments is arguably a violation of the standard of care.

The standard of care is grounded in evidence-based medicine: It is commonly defined as the degree of care and skill that would be used by the average physician, who is practicing in his or her relevant specialty, under the same or similar circumstances, given the generally accepted medical knowledge at the time in question.

By way of example, one can see why inhaling peroxide, drinking bleach, or even taking Food and Drug Administration–approved medications that have little or no proven efficacy in treating or preventing COVID-19 is not what the average physician would advocate for under the same or similar circumstances, considering available and commonly accepted medical knowledge. Recommending or providing such treatments can be a breach of the standard of care and can form the basis of a medical malpractice action if, in fact, compensable harm has occurred.

In addition, recommending unproven and unapproved COVID-19 preventives and treatments without appropriate informed consent from patients is arguably also a breach of the standard of care. The claim would be that the patient has not been appropriately informed of the all the known benefits, risks, costs, and other legally required information such as proven efficacy and reasonably available alternatives.

In any event, physicians can rest assured that if a patient is harmed as a result of any of these situations, they’ll probably be answering to someone in the legal system.
 

Professional licensing action

Regardless of whether there is a medical malpractice action, there is still the potential for a patient complaint to be filed with the state licensing authority on the basis of the same facts and grounds. This can result in an investigation or an administrative complaint against the license of the health care provider.

This is not a mere potential risk. Licensing investigations are underway across the country. Disciplinary licensing actions have already taken place. For example, a Washington Medical Commission panel suspended the license of a physician assistant (PA) on Oct. 12, 2021, after an allegation that his treatment of COVID-19 patients fell below the standard of care. The PA allegedly began a public campaign promoting ivermectin as a curative agent for COVID-19 and prescribed it without adequate examination to at least one person, with no evidence from reliable clinical studies that establish its efficacy in preventing or treating COVID-19.

In licensing claims, alleged violations of failing to comply with the standard of care are usually asserted. These claims may also cite violations of other state statutes that encompass such concepts as negligence; breach of the duty of due care; incompetence; lack of good moral character; and lack of ability to serve the public in a fair, honest, and open manner. A licensing complaint may include alleged violations of statutes that address prescribing protocols, reckless endangerment, failure to supervise, and other issues.

The filing of an administrative complaint is a different animal from a medical malpractice action – they are not even in the same system or branch of government. The focus is not just about what happened to the one patient who complained; it is about protection of the public.

The states’ power to put a clinician on probation, condition, limit, suspend, or revoke the clinician’s license, as well as issue other sanctions such as physician monitoring and fines), is profound. The discipline imposed can upend a clinician’s career and potentially end it entirely.

Administrative discipline determinations are usually available to the public and are required to be reported to all employers (current and future). These discipline determinations are also sent to the National Practitioner Data Bank, other professional clearinghouse organizations (such as the Federation of State Medical Boards), state offices, professional liability insurers, payers with whom the clinician contracts, accreditation and certification organizations, and the clinician’s patients.

Discipline determinations must be promptly reported to licensing agencies in other states where the clinician holds a license, and often results in “sister state” actions because discipline was issued against the clinician in another state. It must be disclosed every time a clinician applies for hospital privileges or new employment. It can result in de-participation from health care insurance programs and can affect board certification, recertification, or accreditation for care programs in which the clinician participates.

In sum, licensing actions can be much worse than medical malpractice judgments and can have longer-term consequences.
 

Peer review and affected privileges

Recommending, promoting, and providing unapproved or unproven treatments, cures, or preventives to patients may violate hospital/health system, practice group, or surgical center bylaws. This can trigger the peer review process, which serves to improve patient safety and the quality of care.

The peer review process may be commenced because of a concern about the clinician’s compliance with the standard of care; potential patient safety issues; ethical issues; and the clinician’s stability, credibility, or professional competence. Any hospital disciplinary penalty is generally reported to state licensing authorities, which can trigger a licensing investigation. If clinical privileges are affected for a period of more than 30 days, the organization must report the situation to the National Practitioner Data Bank.
 

Criminal charges

Depending on the facts, a physician or other health care professional could be charged with reckless endangerment, criminal negligence, or manslaughter. If the clinician was assisting someone else who profited from that clinician’s actions, then we can look to a variety of potential federal and state fraud charges as well.

Conviction of a fraud-related felony may also lead to federal health care program and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) exclusion for several years, and then CMS preclusion that can be imposed for years beyond the conclusion of the statutorily required exclusion.
 

Breach of contract

Some practice groups or other organizational employers have provisions in employment contracts that treat discipline for this type of conduct as a breach of contract. Because of this, the clinician committing breach may be subject to liquidated damages clauses, forfeiture of monies (such as bonuses or other incentives or rewards), termination of employment, forced withdrawal from ownership status, and being sued for breach of contract to recover damages.

Reputation/credibility damage and the attendant consequences

In regard to hospitals and health care system practice groups, another risk is the loss of referrals and revenue. Local media may air or publish exposés. Such stories may widely publicize the media’s version of the facts – true or not. This can cause immediate reputation and credibility damage within the community and may adversely affect a clinician’s patient base. Any information that is publicly broadcast might attract the attention of licensing and law enforcement authorities and taint potential jurors.

Hospitals and health care systems may pull privileges; post on websites; make official statements about the termination of affiliation; or denounce the clinician’s behavior, conduct, and beliefs as being inconsistent with quality care and patient safety. This causes further damage to a physician’s reputation and credibility.

In a group practice, accusations of this sort, licensing discipline, medical malpractice liability, investigations, loss of privileges, and the other sequelae of this conduct can force the withdrawal of the clinician as a member or shareholder in multiprovider groups. Adverse effects on the financial bottom line, patient referrals, and patient volume and bad press are often the basis for voting a clinician out.
 

Violation of the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act of 2020

For the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency, the FTC COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act makes it unlawful for any person, partnership, or corporation (as those terms are defined broadly in the act) to engage in a deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of COVID-19 or a government benefit related to COVID-19.

The first enforcement action authorized by this act took place in April 2021 against a chiropractor who promised vitamin treatments and cures for COVID-19. The act provides that such a violation shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under the FTC Act.

Under the act, the FTC is authorized to prescribe “rules that define with specificity acts or practices which are unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” Deceptive practices are defined as involving a material representation, omission, or practice that is “likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances.” An act or practice is unfair if it “causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.”

After an investigation, the FTC may initiate an enforcement action using either an administrative or judicial process if it has “reason to believe” that the law has been violated. Violations of some laws may result in injunctive relief or civil monetary penalties, which are adjusted annually for inflation.

In addition, many states have deceptive and unfair trade laws that can be enforced in regard to the recommendation, sale, or provision of unproven or unapproved COVID-19 treatments, cures, and preventives as well.
 

Conclusion

It is difficult even for intelligent, well-intentioned physicians to know precisely what to believe and what to advocate for in the middle of a pandemic. It seems as though new reports and recommendations for preventing and treating COVID-19 are surfacing on a weekly basis. By far, the safest approach for any medical clinician to take is to advocate for positions that are generally accepted in the medical and scientific community at the time advice is given.

Mr. Whitelaw disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ms. Janeway disclosed various associations with the Michigan Association for Healthcare Quality and the Greater Houston Society for Healthcare Risk Management. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A cardiologist from Israel has tested positive for the Omicron variant of COVID-19 after attending a medical conference in London.

Elad Maor, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Sheba Medical Centre near Tel Aviv, posted on Twitter on Nov. 30: “What a mess! Came back from a conference in London. With a mask and 3 Pfizer vaccines I managed to get Omicron.”

Dr. Maor traveled to London on November 19 to attend the PCR London Valves 2021 conference held at the ExCeL Centre Nov. 21-23. He stayed four nights at a hotel in north London and took public transport to and from the ExCeL Centre in East London each day of the meeting. He returned to Israel on the evening of Nov. 23.

Dr. Maor, 45, who has received three doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, had two PCR tests in the United Kingdom – on November 20 and 21 in line with travel requirements – and another PCR test upon arriving back in Israel in the early hours of Nov. 24. All three tests were negative.

He began experiencing symptoms within days and tested positive on Nov. 27. His symptoms have been mild so far, and he said he was feeling “better” at the time of his tweet on Nov. 30.

Dr. Maor believes he was infected during his trip to London. “The only reasonable explanation is that I got infected on the last day of the meeting – maybe at the airport, maybe at the meeting,” he told The Guardian newspaper.

Although his wife accompanied him to London, neither she nor any of his 3 children have experienced symptoms or tested positive for COVID-19. But Dr. Maor believes he has passed the infection to a 69-year-old colleague in Israel who has since tested positive for the Omicron variant. The colleague, who has also received three vaccine doses, is understood to have mild symptoms at present.

The case suggests that the Omicron variant of COVID-19 may have been circulating in the United Kingdom earlier than previously thought.
 

Implications for in-person conferences

It will also inevitably lead to questions about the safety of face-to-face conferences, which are only just starting to get underway again.

The PCR Valves 2021 meeting had more than 1,250 on-site attendees as well as 2,400 or more joining online, according to figures on its website. Dr. Maor said he did not have any issues with the conference organizers, who required proof of vaccination before entry. But he posted a photograph on his Twitter account of a crowded auditorium with many delegates not wearing masks.

The conference subsequently posted an announcement on its website alerting delegates that one of the attendees had tested positive for COVID-19 after returning to their home country. It reads: “Since the reported case comes less than a week after the end of PCR London Valves, we want to inform you so that you may decide the best course of action, for yourself, if any.” It does not mention that the case was the Omicron variant. 

Patrick Jolly, strategic and market development director of the conference, commented: “As you may imagine, the health, safety and well-being of everyone who visited PCR London Valves was our number-one priority. All protocols mandated by the U.K. government were put in place. Anyone entering the congress center had to present a valid health pass and were requested to wear a mask. Hydro-alcoholic gel and masks were made readily available for all participants and disposal bins for used protective equipment were provided.”

Mr. Jolly also noted: “To date – more than 9 days after the end of PCR London Valves – we have had no report of any other case of participants testing positive who attended PCR London Valves.”

He said the EuroPCR organization believes that medical conferences are safe to be held in person.

“With the above sanitary requirements and protocols, and no complacency in their enforcement, we believe strongly that medical conferences can take place, as the benefits of in-person medical conferences are obvious for the concerned medical communities,” Mr. Jolly added.  

But what about other meetings happening imminently and planning in-person attendance?

Eileen Murray, executive director of the American Epilepsy Society (AES), whose annual 5-day meeting starts today at Chicago’s McCormick Place Convention Center, said in an interview that the health, safety, and well-being of everyone attending is a priority.

“Vaccinations are required, with no exceptions, to anyone attending the in-person event,” Ms. Murray said. “AES is using the CLEAR HealthPass to verify identity and vaccination status for our attendees. No one who cannot verify identity and vaccination requirement will be permitted to attend the in-person event.”

She noted that masks will also be required except in limited circumstances when actively eating or drinking, or for a faculty member when actively presenting at a lecture or panel. “Anyone not adhering to the mask policy will be asked to leave the meeting and will be denied readmission to the meeting with no refund,” she said.

“These guidelines were developed in accordance with the latest public health guidance and AES will continue to follow that guidance as any updates are made with the emergence of the Omicron variant,” Ms. Murray added.

Also commenting on this issue, a spokesperson for the American Heart Association, which has its large annual international stroke meeting planned for in-person attendance in New Orleans in February, said: “As we have throughout the pandemic, the American Heart Association is closely monitoring conditions and following the guidance of the CDC as well as state and local health departments related to all in-person meetings.”

“Our upcoming International Stroke Conference, February 9-11, is planned as an in-person and digital experience which allows us the ultimate flexibility to address changing pandemic conditions. The health, safety, and well-being of our volunteers, members, and attendees from around the world remains our number-one priority,” the AHA spokesperson added.

But some COVID-19 experts are taking a more cautious view.  

Rowland Kao, PhD, an expert in infectious disease dynamics at the University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, expressed concern about such large in-person conferences.  

“We know that the Omicron variant appears to be spreading rapidly, with a recent preprint also telling us that the reinfection rate appears to be higher in South Africa. Should this be borne out, then the evidence would support that our reliance on a combination of vaccine-induced and natural immunity may be compromised by the Omicron variant,” he commented.

“We already know that extended contact indoors provides an additional risk, and so large meetings of this type have the potential to create extended risks. Until we know the extent to which Omicron causes severe illness, we should be extra cautious about these high-risk settings,” Dr. Kao commented.

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

A cardiologist from Israel has tested positive for the Omicron variant of COVID-19 after attending a medical conference in London.

Elad Maor, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Sheba Medical Centre near Tel Aviv, posted on Twitter on Nov. 30: “What a mess! Came back from a conference in London. With a mask and 3 Pfizer vaccines I managed to get Omicron.”

Dr. Maor traveled to London on November 19 to attend the PCR London Valves 2021 conference held at the ExCeL Centre Nov. 21-23. He stayed four nights at a hotel in north London and took public transport to and from the ExCeL Centre in East London each day of the meeting. He returned to Israel on the evening of Nov. 23.

Dr. Maor, 45, who has received three doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, had two PCR tests in the United Kingdom – on November 20 and 21 in line with travel requirements – and another PCR test upon arriving back in Israel in the early hours of Nov. 24. All three tests were negative.

He began experiencing symptoms within days and tested positive on Nov. 27. His symptoms have been mild so far, and he said he was feeling “better” at the time of his tweet on Nov. 30.

Dr. Maor believes he was infected during his trip to London. “The only reasonable explanation is that I got infected on the last day of the meeting – maybe at the airport, maybe at the meeting,” he told The Guardian newspaper.

Although his wife accompanied him to London, neither she nor any of his 3 children have experienced symptoms or tested positive for COVID-19. But Dr. Maor believes he has passed the infection to a 69-year-old colleague in Israel who has since tested positive for the Omicron variant. The colleague, who has also received three vaccine doses, is understood to have mild symptoms at present.

The case suggests that the Omicron variant of COVID-19 may have been circulating in the United Kingdom earlier than previously thought.
 

Implications for in-person conferences

It will also inevitably lead to questions about the safety of face-to-face conferences, which are only just starting to get underway again.

The PCR Valves 2021 meeting had more than 1,250 on-site attendees as well as 2,400 or more joining online, according to figures on its website. Dr. Maor said he did not have any issues with the conference organizers, who required proof of vaccination before entry. But he posted a photograph on his Twitter account of a crowded auditorium with many delegates not wearing masks.

The conference subsequently posted an announcement on its website alerting delegates that one of the attendees had tested positive for COVID-19 after returning to their home country. It reads: “Since the reported case comes less than a week after the end of PCR London Valves, we want to inform you so that you may decide the best course of action, for yourself, if any.” It does not mention that the case was the Omicron variant. 

Patrick Jolly, strategic and market development director of the conference, commented: “As you may imagine, the health, safety and well-being of everyone who visited PCR London Valves was our number-one priority. All protocols mandated by the U.K. government were put in place. Anyone entering the congress center had to present a valid health pass and were requested to wear a mask. Hydro-alcoholic gel and masks were made readily available for all participants and disposal bins for used protective equipment were provided.”

Mr. Jolly also noted: “To date – more than 9 days after the end of PCR London Valves – we have had no report of any other case of participants testing positive who attended PCR London Valves.”

He said the EuroPCR organization believes that medical conferences are safe to be held in person.

“With the above sanitary requirements and protocols, and no complacency in their enforcement, we believe strongly that medical conferences can take place, as the benefits of in-person medical conferences are obvious for the concerned medical communities,” Mr. Jolly added.  

But what about other meetings happening imminently and planning in-person attendance?

Eileen Murray, executive director of the American Epilepsy Society (AES), whose annual 5-day meeting starts today at Chicago’s McCormick Place Convention Center, said in an interview that the health, safety, and well-being of everyone attending is a priority.

“Vaccinations are required, with no exceptions, to anyone attending the in-person event,” Ms. Murray said. “AES is using the CLEAR HealthPass to verify identity and vaccination status for our attendees. No one who cannot verify identity and vaccination requirement will be permitted to attend the in-person event.”

She noted that masks will also be required except in limited circumstances when actively eating or drinking, or for a faculty member when actively presenting at a lecture or panel. “Anyone not adhering to the mask policy will be asked to leave the meeting and will be denied readmission to the meeting with no refund,” she said.

“These guidelines were developed in accordance with the latest public health guidance and AES will continue to follow that guidance as any updates are made with the emergence of the Omicron variant,” Ms. Murray added.

Also commenting on this issue, a spokesperson for the American Heart Association, which has its large annual international stroke meeting planned for in-person attendance in New Orleans in February, said: “As we have throughout the pandemic, the American Heart Association is closely monitoring conditions and following the guidance of the CDC as well as state and local health departments related to all in-person meetings.”

“Our upcoming International Stroke Conference, February 9-11, is planned as an in-person and digital experience which allows us the ultimate flexibility to address changing pandemic conditions. The health, safety, and well-being of our volunteers, members, and attendees from around the world remains our number-one priority,” the AHA spokesperson added.

But some COVID-19 experts are taking a more cautious view.  

Rowland Kao, PhD, an expert in infectious disease dynamics at the University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, expressed concern about such large in-person conferences.  

“We know that the Omicron variant appears to be spreading rapidly, with a recent preprint also telling us that the reinfection rate appears to be higher in South Africa. Should this be borne out, then the evidence would support that our reliance on a combination of vaccine-induced and natural immunity may be compromised by the Omicron variant,” he commented.

“We already know that extended contact indoors provides an additional risk, and so large meetings of this type have the potential to create extended risks. Until we know the extent to which Omicron causes severe illness, we should be extra cautious about these high-risk settings,” Dr. Kao commented.

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

A cardiologist from Israel has tested positive for the Omicron variant of COVID-19 after attending a medical conference in London.

Elad Maor, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Sheba Medical Centre near Tel Aviv, posted on Twitter on Nov. 30: “What a mess! Came back from a conference in London. With a mask and 3 Pfizer vaccines I managed to get Omicron.”

Dr. Maor traveled to London on November 19 to attend the PCR London Valves 2021 conference held at the ExCeL Centre Nov. 21-23. He stayed four nights at a hotel in north London and took public transport to and from the ExCeL Centre in East London each day of the meeting. He returned to Israel on the evening of Nov. 23.

Dr. Maor, 45, who has received three doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, had two PCR tests in the United Kingdom – on November 20 and 21 in line with travel requirements – and another PCR test upon arriving back in Israel in the early hours of Nov. 24. All three tests were negative.

He began experiencing symptoms within days and tested positive on Nov. 27. His symptoms have been mild so far, and he said he was feeling “better” at the time of his tweet on Nov. 30.

Dr. Maor believes he was infected during his trip to London. “The only reasonable explanation is that I got infected on the last day of the meeting – maybe at the airport, maybe at the meeting,” he told The Guardian newspaper.

Although his wife accompanied him to London, neither she nor any of his 3 children have experienced symptoms or tested positive for COVID-19. But Dr. Maor believes he has passed the infection to a 69-year-old colleague in Israel who has since tested positive for the Omicron variant. The colleague, who has also received three vaccine doses, is understood to have mild symptoms at present.

The case suggests that the Omicron variant of COVID-19 may have been circulating in the United Kingdom earlier than previously thought.
 

Implications for in-person conferences

It will also inevitably lead to questions about the safety of face-to-face conferences, which are only just starting to get underway again.

The PCR Valves 2021 meeting had more than 1,250 on-site attendees as well as 2,400 or more joining online, according to figures on its website. Dr. Maor said he did not have any issues with the conference organizers, who required proof of vaccination before entry. But he posted a photograph on his Twitter account of a crowded auditorium with many delegates not wearing masks.

The conference subsequently posted an announcement on its website alerting delegates that one of the attendees had tested positive for COVID-19 after returning to their home country. It reads: “Since the reported case comes less than a week after the end of PCR London Valves, we want to inform you so that you may decide the best course of action, for yourself, if any.” It does not mention that the case was the Omicron variant. 

Patrick Jolly, strategic and market development director of the conference, commented: “As you may imagine, the health, safety and well-being of everyone who visited PCR London Valves was our number-one priority. All protocols mandated by the U.K. government were put in place. Anyone entering the congress center had to present a valid health pass and were requested to wear a mask. Hydro-alcoholic gel and masks were made readily available for all participants and disposal bins for used protective equipment were provided.”

Mr. Jolly also noted: “To date – more than 9 days after the end of PCR London Valves – we have had no report of any other case of participants testing positive who attended PCR London Valves.”

He said the EuroPCR organization believes that medical conferences are safe to be held in person.

“With the above sanitary requirements and protocols, and no complacency in their enforcement, we believe strongly that medical conferences can take place, as the benefits of in-person medical conferences are obvious for the concerned medical communities,” Mr. Jolly added.  

But what about other meetings happening imminently and planning in-person attendance?

Eileen Murray, executive director of the American Epilepsy Society (AES), whose annual 5-day meeting starts today at Chicago’s McCormick Place Convention Center, said in an interview that the health, safety, and well-being of everyone attending is a priority.

“Vaccinations are required, with no exceptions, to anyone attending the in-person event,” Ms. Murray said. “AES is using the CLEAR HealthPass to verify identity and vaccination status for our attendees. No one who cannot verify identity and vaccination requirement will be permitted to attend the in-person event.”

She noted that masks will also be required except in limited circumstances when actively eating or drinking, or for a faculty member when actively presenting at a lecture or panel. “Anyone not adhering to the mask policy will be asked to leave the meeting and will be denied readmission to the meeting with no refund,” she said.

“These guidelines were developed in accordance with the latest public health guidance and AES will continue to follow that guidance as any updates are made with the emergence of the Omicron variant,” Ms. Murray added.

Also commenting on this issue, a spokesperson for the American Heart Association, which has its large annual international stroke meeting planned for in-person attendance in New Orleans in February, said: “As we have throughout the pandemic, the American Heart Association is closely monitoring conditions and following the guidance of the CDC as well as state and local health departments related to all in-person meetings.”

“Our upcoming International Stroke Conference, February 9-11, is planned as an in-person and digital experience which allows us the ultimate flexibility to address changing pandemic conditions. The health, safety, and well-being of our volunteers, members, and attendees from around the world remains our number-one priority,” the AHA spokesperson added.

But some COVID-19 experts are taking a more cautious view.  

Rowland Kao, PhD, an expert in infectious disease dynamics at the University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, expressed concern about such large in-person conferences.  

“We know that the Omicron variant appears to be spreading rapidly, with a recent preprint also telling us that the reinfection rate appears to be higher in South Africa. Should this be borne out, then the evidence would support that our reliance on a combination of vaccine-induced and natural immunity may be compromised by the Omicron variant,” he commented.

“We already know that extended contact indoors provides an additional risk, and so large meetings of this type have the potential to create extended risks. Until we know the extent to which Omicron causes severe illness, we should be extra cautious about these high-risk settings,” Dr. Kao commented.

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

In March 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson proposed a 1% pay rise for National Health Service (NHS) workers in the United Kingdom — a move many deemed inadequate after a full year of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. The next day, James Cowe, a 23-year-old healthcare assistant who had been working in dementia care for 6 years, decided to create a profile on the content subscription site OnlyFans.

The London-based site allows subscribers, or “fans,” to request content, making its name distributing nude pictures, videos, and other sexually explicit content. It garnered mainstream attention in 2020 when housebound individuals and even celebrities began using it to generate income. Back in August, OnlyFans released a statement stating that it would ban “sexually explicit” content beginning in October. Days later, the company recanted the statement after uproar from creators.

“Because of the one-percent pay rise, I’ve started OnlyFans and I’m making more money in three days than I make in a month at work,” Mr. Cowe said in a now-deleted TikTok post. “Sorry Boris, but I’m done with healthcare and now I’m an online whore.”

Mr. Cowe earned the equivalent of a year’s salary from his healthcare assistant job in his first 22 days on OnlyFans.

Mr. Cowe is one of many healthcare workers in the United Kingdom who have supplemented or replaced their health work with sex work. Stories like his have multiplied during the pandemic, at a time when healthcare professionals have been particularly overworked and particularly essential. Meanwhile, the pandemic has exacerbated challenges for many sex workers across the globe.

“[There have been] many, many reports over history that transactional sex is used as a sort of emergency livelihood strategy in all kinds of emergencies,” says Joanne Csete, PhD, associate professor of population and family health at Columbia University, New York, “and I suppose this is an emergency in that sense, like any other.”
 

The relationship between sex work and healthcare

A 2015 study by Leeds University found that 70% of sex workers in the United Kingdom previously worked in healthcare, charities, or education and that more than a third held university degrees.

The relationship between sex workers and healthcare workers has historically been disconnected. Sex workers are at higher risk of experiencing violence, sexually transmitted infections, and substance abuse and mental health problems than the general population, as noted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. But according to the UN Population Fund, 63% of sex workers will not seek health services alone because they are distrustful and fearful of healthcare workers. A 2014 study by UNAIDS found that stigmatization also makes sex workers less likely to seek assistance from social services.

“I think it’s almost universally hard for sex workers to get respectful healthcare without judgment, and in some cases actual hostility, because of the stigma of their work,” Dr. Csete says. “Health workers are not always trained to see sex work as anything but either a criminal act or an immoral act.”

In August 2021, U.K. medical students called for the British Medical Association to protect students from being penalized by or expelled from their universities for engaging in sex work. BMA Medical Students Committee chair Becky Bates cited high medical school fees and a lack of financial support as motivations for student sex workers. She told this news organization that sex work often allows for flexible hours that might make it easier for students to balance the demands of medical school than other part-time jobs would.

At the annual BMA conference in September, two thirds of the association’s doctors voted in favor of the motion, while others criticized it as potential encouragement for students to get involved in sex work. “The motion isn’t about the morality of sex work,” Ms. Bates said. “[It’s] about the fact that it’s happening and what we can do to support students.”
 

Healthcare workers on OnlyFans

The rising pressures placed on individuals in the health field have coincided with the rise of online platforms that host pornographic content. During the pandemic, professionals worn down by their healthcare work have embraced sites like OnlyFans as lower-risk, lower-stress, and potentially higher-paying additions or alternatives.

“It’s quite exploitative to work for such low pay in harsh conditions,” Mr. Cowe told this news organizaation of his experience as a dementia care assistant. “It’s soul-destroying. You feel like, ‘It doesn’t matter how many hours I work, it doesn’t matter what I do, I’m still going to be in this same financial position.’ ”

Mr. Cowe earned the equivalent of a year’s salary from his healthcare assistant job in his first 22 days on OnlyFans. Within 8 months, he had earned £150,000, or approximately $205,000.

As an emergency medical services (EMS) worker in New York City, 23-year-old Lauren Kwei lifted obese bariatric patients, administered cardiopulmonary resuscitation to unresponsive recipients, and transported elderly patients and children with terminal illnesses to hospice. She earned $25 an hour, which she says was insufficient for life in one of the world’s most expensive cities. So, in addition to her paramedic work, Ms. Kwei posted photos and videos on OnlyFans to help pay for rent and groceries during the pandemic.

Ms. Kwei started her OnlyFans as a means of paying for necessities like rent and groceries, which her wage as an emergency medical services worker couldn’t cover entirely.

In December 2020, Ms. Kwei got a call from a New York Post reporter who informed her he was writing an article outing her OnlyFans side gig. Ms. Kwei immediately deleted her account on the site for fear of being penalized by her employer, SeniorCare.

“Leave her alone,” U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter in response to the New York Post article. “The actual scandalous headline here is ‘Medics in the United States need two jobs to survive.’ ”

The article quoted an anonymous male paramedic who said Ms. Kwei should have been “pulling extra shifts, instead of pulling off [her] clothes” to earn more money. Ms. Kwei says such advice fails to acknowledge the intensity of the job. “Why would I pick up overtime shifts doing manual labor,” she says, “when I could be doing [OnlyFans] from the comfort of my own home?”
 

The future of the healthcare/sex work relationship

Ms. Kwei is young enough to receive health insurance through her parents, and Mr. Cowe has access to free healthcare through the NHS. But many sex workers — particularly full-service sex workers, who carry out their work in person — have limited access to services such as healthcare and unemployment benefits. Pandemic restrictions have concurrently driven full-service sex work further underground and therefore deepened the health and safety risks associated with its criminalization.

As health workers become increasingly involved in sex work, advocates in both fields are pushing for healthcare systems to involve sex workers.

“Just as we would do with supporting any group, it’s about understanding any specific barriers or specific problems that they’re encountering, and understanding what they think would help, and working together on that solution,” Ms. Bates says of supporting medical students who engage in sex work.

Tlaleng Mofokeng, MD, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, says it is crucial for healthcare organizations to partner with sex worker organizations when it comes to planning the resourcing and budgeting of the public health system in order to meet sex workers’ needs. “While we wait for national policy to change and while we wait for decriminalization,” she says, “tangible things can be done to ensure the provision of equitable services that are aligned with the respect of [sex workers’] rights and the restoration of their dignity.”

Today, healthcare professionals can expect to work with classmates, colleagues, and patients who are involved in sex work and who do not fit the socioeconomic stereotypes associated with sex workers. The number of medical students and healthcare workers engaging in sex work is likely to continue to rise as these individuals struggle to find financial and emotional support within the health sector. Ultimately, many health workers and sex workers share a common goal: to be involved in healthcare systems that respect their work and meet their basic needs.

Mr. Cowe doubts he will ever return to the healthcare industry, owing in part to the stigma against sex workers. “I would feel quite unwelcome,” he says. “[The publicity I received] probably made it not possible for me to go back, but even so, I wouldn’t have a desire to because I was just so burnt out in the end.”

Ms. Kwei is taking a break from her EMS work because of the emotional and financial toll it took, but she plans to return in the future. In the meantime, she is back on OnlyFans and advocating for higher wages for EMS workers as a member of the Emergency Medical Services Public Advocacy Council (EMSPAC). “In order to be a good paramedic, my mental health needs to be on point,” she says. “Hopefully down the line, when I decide to pick up EMS [work] again, I can find a job that pays me enough.”

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

In March 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson proposed a 1% pay rise for National Health Service (NHS) workers in the United Kingdom — a move many deemed inadequate after a full year of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. The next day, James Cowe, a 23-year-old healthcare assistant who had been working in dementia care for 6 years, decided to create a profile on the content subscription site OnlyFans.

The London-based site allows subscribers, or “fans,” to request content, making its name distributing nude pictures, videos, and other sexually explicit content. It garnered mainstream attention in 2020 when housebound individuals and even celebrities began using it to generate income. Back in August, OnlyFans released a statement stating that it would ban “sexually explicit” content beginning in October. Days later, the company recanted the statement after uproar from creators.

“Because of the one-percent pay rise, I’ve started OnlyFans and I’m making more money in three days than I make in a month at work,” Mr. Cowe said in a now-deleted TikTok post. “Sorry Boris, but I’m done with healthcare and now I’m an online whore.”

Mr. Cowe earned the equivalent of a year’s salary from his healthcare assistant job in his first 22 days on OnlyFans.

Mr. Cowe is one of many healthcare workers in the United Kingdom who have supplemented or replaced their health work with sex work. Stories like his have multiplied during the pandemic, at a time when healthcare professionals have been particularly overworked and particularly essential. Meanwhile, the pandemic has exacerbated challenges for many sex workers across the globe.

“[There have been] many, many reports over history that transactional sex is used as a sort of emergency livelihood strategy in all kinds of emergencies,” says Joanne Csete, PhD, associate professor of population and family health at Columbia University, New York, “and I suppose this is an emergency in that sense, like any other.”
 

The relationship between sex work and healthcare

A 2015 study by Leeds University found that 70% of sex workers in the United Kingdom previously worked in healthcare, charities, or education and that more than a third held university degrees.

The relationship between sex workers and healthcare workers has historically been disconnected. Sex workers are at higher risk of experiencing violence, sexually transmitted infections, and substance abuse and mental health problems than the general population, as noted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. But according to the UN Population Fund, 63% of sex workers will not seek health services alone because they are distrustful and fearful of healthcare workers. A 2014 study by UNAIDS found that stigmatization also makes sex workers less likely to seek assistance from social services.

“I think it’s almost universally hard for sex workers to get respectful healthcare without judgment, and in some cases actual hostility, because of the stigma of their work,” Dr. Csete says. “Health workers are not always trained to see sex work as anything but either a criminal act or an immoral act.”

In August 2021, U.K. medical students called for the British Medical Association to protect students from being penalized by or expelled from their universities for engaging in sex work. BMA Medical Students Committee chair Becky Bates cited high medical school fees and a lack of financial support as motivations for student sex workers. She told this news organization that sex work often allows for flexible hours that might make it easier for students to balance the demands of medical school than other part-time jobs would.

At the annual BMA conference in September, two thirds of the association’s doctors voted in favor of the motion, while others criticized it as potential encouragement for students to get involved in sex work. “The motion isn’t about the morality of sex work,” Ms. Bates said. “[It’s] about the fact that it’s happening and what we can do to support students.”
 

Healthcare workers on OnlyFans

The rising pressures placed on individuals in the health field have coincided with the rise of online platforms that host pornographic content. During the pandemic, professionals worn down by their healthcare work have embraced sites like OnlyFans as lower-risk, lower-stress, and potentially higher-paying additions or alternatives.

“It’s quite exploitative to work for such low pay in harsh conditions,” Mr. Cowe told this news organizaation of his experience as a dementia care assistant. “It’s soul-destroying. You feel like, ‘It doesn’t matter how many hours I work, it doesn’t matter what I do, I’m still going to be in this same financial position.’ ”

Mr. Cowe earned the equivalent of a year’s salary from his healthcare assistant job in his first 22 days on OnlyFans. Within 8 months, he had earned £150,000, or approximately $205,000.

As an emergency medical services (EMS) worker in New York City, 23-year-old Lauren Kwei lifted obese bariatric patients, administered cardiopulmonary resuscitation to unresponsive recipients, and transported elderly patients and children with terminal illnesses to hospice. She earned $25 an hour, which she says was insufficient for life in one of the world’s most expensive cities. So, in addition to her paramedic work, Ms. Kwei posted photos and videos on OnlyFans to help pay for rent and groceries during the pandemic.

Ms. Kwei started her OnlyFans as a means of paying for necessities like rent and groceries, which her wage as an emergency medical services worker couldn’t cover entirely.

In December 2020, Ms. Kwei got a call from a New York Post reporter who informed her he was writing an article outing her OnlyFans side gig. Ms. Kwei immediately deleted her account on the site for fear of being penalized by her employer, SeniorCare.

“Leave her alone,” U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter in response to the New York Post article. “The actual scandalous headline here is ‘Medics in the United States need two jobs to survive.’ ”

The article quoted an anonymous male paramedic who said Ms. Kwei should have been “pulling extra shifts, instead of pulling off [her] clothes” to earn more money. Ms. Kwei says such advice fails to acknowledge the intensity of the job. “Why would I pick up overtime shifts doing manual labor,” she says, “when I could be doing [OnlyFans] from the comfort of my own home?”
 

The future of the healthcare/sex work relationship

Ms. Kwei is young enough to receive health insurance through her parents, and Mr. Cowe has access to free healthcare through the NHS. But many sex workers — particularly full-service sex workers, who carry out their work in person — have limited access to services such as healthcare and unemployment benefits. Pandemic restrictions have concurrently driven full-service sex work further underground and therefore deepened the health and safety risks associated with its criminalization.

As health workers become increasingly involved in sex work, advocates in both fields are pushing for healthcare systems to involve sex workers.

“Just as we would do with supporting any group, it’s about understanding any specific barriers or specific problems that they’re encountering, and understanding what they think would help, and working together on that solution,” Ms. Bates says of supporting medical students who engage in sex work.

Tlaleng Mofokeng, MD, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, says it is crucial for healthcare organizations to partner with sex worker organizations when it comes to planning the resourcing and budgeting of the public health system in order to meet sex workers’ needs. “While we wait for national policy to change and while we wait for decriminalization,” she says, “tangible things can be done to ensure the provision of equitable services that are aligned with the respect of [sex workers’] rights and the restoration of their dignity.”

Today, healthcare professionals can expect to work with classmates, colleagues, and patients who are involved in sex work and who do not fit the socioeconomic stereotypes associated with sex workers. The number of medical students and healthcare workers engaging in sex work is likely to continue to rise as these individuals struggle to find financial and emotional support within the health sector. Ultimately, many health workers and sex workers share a common goal: to be involved in healthcare systems that respect their work and meet their basic needs.

Mr. Cowe doubts he will ever return to the healthcare industry, owing in part to the stigma against sex workers. “I would feel quite unwelcome,” he says. “[The publicity I received] probably made it not possible for me to go back, but even so, I wouldn’t have a desire to because I was just so burnt out in the end.”

Ms. Kwei is taking a break from her EMS work because of the emotional and financial toll it took, but she plans to return in the future. In the meantime, she is back on OnlyFans and advocating for higher wages for EMS workers as a member of the Emergency Medical Services Public Advocacy Council (EMSPAC). “In order to be a good paramedic, my mental health needs to be on point,” she says. “Hopefully down the line, when I decide to pick up EMS [work] again, I can find a job that pays me enough.”

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

In March 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson proposed a 1% pay rise for National Health Service (NHS) workers in the United Kingdom — a move many deemed inadequate after a full year of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. The next day, James Cowe, a 23-year-old healthcare assistant who had been working in dementia care for 6 years, decided to create a profile on the content subscription site OnlyFans.

The London-based site allows subscribers, or “fans,” to request content, making its name distributing nude pictures, videos, and other sexually explicit content. It garnered mainstream attention in 2020 when housebound individuals and even celebrities began using it to generate income. Back in August, OnlyFans released a statement stating that it would ban “sexually explicit” content beginning in October. Days later, the company recanted the statement after uproar from creators.

“Because of the one-percent pay rise, I’ve started OnlyFans and I’m making more money in three days than I make in a month at work,” Mr. Cowe said in a now-deleted TikTok post. “Sorry Boris, but I’m done with healthcare and now I’m an online whore.”

Mr. Cowe earned the equivalent of a year’s salary from his healthcare assistant job in his first 22 days on OnlyFans.

Mr. Cowe is one of many healthcare workers in the United Kingdom who have supplemented or replaced their health work with sex work. Stories like his have multiplied during the pandemic, at a time when healthcare professionals have been particularly overworked and particularly essential. Meanwhile, the pandemic has exacerbated challenges for many sex workers across the globe.

“[There have been] many, many reports over history that transactional sex is used as a sort of emergency livelihood strategy in all kinds of emergencies,” says Joanne Csete, PhD, associate professor of population and family health at Columbia University, New York, “and I suppose this is an emergency in that sense, like any other.”
 

The relationship between sex work and healthcare

A 2015 study by Leeds University found that 70% of sex workers in the United Kingdom previously worked in healthcare, charities, or education and that more than a third held university degrees.

The relationship between sex workers and healthcare workers has historically been disconnected. Sex workers are at higher risk of experiencing violence, sexually transmitted infections, and substance abuse and mental health problems than the general population, as noted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. But according to the UN Population Fund, 63% of sex workers will not seek health services alone because they are distrustful and fearful of healthcare workers. A 2014 study by UNAIDS found that stigmatization also makes sex workers less likely to seek assistance from social services.

“I think it’s almost universally hard for sex workers to get respectful healthcare without judgment, and in some cases actual hostility, because of the stigma of their work,” Dr. Csete says. “Health workers are not always trained to see sex work as anything but either a criminal act or an immoral act.”

In August 2021, U.K. medical students called for the British Medical Association to protect students from being penalized by or expelled from their universities for engaging in sex work. BMA Medical Students Committee chair Becky Bates cited high medical school fees and a lack of financial support as motivations for student sex workers. She told this news organization that sex work often allows for flexible hours that might make it easier for students to balance the demands of medical school than other part-time jobs would.

At the annual BMA conference in September, two thirds of the association’s doctors voted in favor of the motion, while others criticized it as potential encouragement for students to get involved in sex work. “The motion isn’t about the morality of sex work,” Ms. Bates said. “[It’s] about the fact that it’s happening and what we can do to support students.”
 

Healthcare workers on OnlyFans

The rising pressures placed on individuals in the health field have coincided with the rise of online platforms that host pornographic content. During the pandemic, professionals worn down by their healthcare work have embraced sites like OnlyFans as lower-risk, lower-stress, and potentially higher-paying additions or alternatives.

“It’s quite exploitative to work for such low pay in harsh conditions,” Mr. Cowe told this news organizaation of his experience as a dementia care assistant. “It’s soul-destroying. You feel like, ‘It doesn’t matter how many hours I work, it doesn’t matter what I do, I’m still going to be in this same financial position.’ ”

Mr. Cowe earned the equivalent of a year’s salary from his healthcare assistant job in his first 22 days on OnlyFans. Within 8 months, he had earned £150,000, or approximately $205,000.

As an emergency medical services (EMS) worker in New York City, 23-year-old Lauren Kwei lifted obese bariatric patients, administered cardiopulmonary resuscitation to unresponsive recipients, and transported elderly patients and children with terminal illnesses to hospice. She earned $25 an hour, which she says was insufficient for life in one of the world’s most expensive cities. So, in addition to her paramedic work, Ms. Kwei posted photos and videos on OnlyFans to help pay for rent and groceries during the pandemic.

Ms. Kwei started her OnlyFans as a means of paying for necessities like rent and groceries, which her wage as an emergency medical services worker couldn’t cover entirely.

In December 2020, Ms. Kwei got a call from a New York Post reporter who informed her he was writing an article outing her OnlyFans side gig. Ms. Kwei immediately deleted her account on the site for fear of being penalized by her employer, SeniorCare.

“Leave her alone,” U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter in response to the New York Post article. “The actual scandalous headline here is ‘Medics in the United States need two jobs to survive.’ ”

The article quoted an anonymous male paramedic who said Ms. Kwei should have been “pulling extra shifts, instead of pulling off [her] clothes” to earn more money. Ms. Kwei says such advice fails to acknowledge the intensity of the job. “Why would I pick up overtime shifts doing manual labor,” she says, “when I could be doing [OnlyFans] from the comfort of my own home?”
 

The future of the healthcare/sex work relationship

Ms. Kwei is young enough to receive health insurance through her parents, and Mr. Cowe has access to free healthcare through the NHS. But many sex workers — particularly full-service sex workers, who carry out their work in person — have limited access to services such as healthcare and unemployment benefits. Pandemic restrictions have concurrently driven full-service sex work further underground and therefore deepened the health and safety risks associated with its criminalization.

As health workers become increasingly involved in sex work, advocates in both fields are pushing for healthcare systems to involve sex workers.

“Just as we would do with supporting any group, it’s about understanding any specific barriers or specific problems that they’re encountering, and understanding what they think would help, and working together on that solution,” Ms. Bates says of supporting medical students who engage in sex work.

Tlaleng Mofokeng, MD, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, says it is crucial for healthcare organizations to partner with sex worker organizations when it comes to planning the resourcing and budgeting of the public health system in order to meet sex workers’ needs. “While we wait for national policy to change and while we wait for decriminalization,” she says, “tangible things can be done to ensure the provision of equitable services that are aligned with the respect of [sex workers’] rights and the restoration of their dignity.”

Today, healthcare professionals can expect to work with classmates, colleagues, and patients who are involved in sex work and who do not fit the socioeconomic stereotypes associated with sex workers. The number of medical students and healthcare workers engaging in sex work is likely to continue to rise as these individuals struggle to find financial and emotional support within the health sector. Ultimately, many health workers and sex workers share a common goal: to be involved in healthcare systems that respect their work and meet their basic needs.

Mr. Cowe doubts he will ever return to the healthcare industry, owing in part to the stigma against sex workers. “I would feel quite unwelcome,” he says. “[The publicity I received] probably made it not possible for me to go back, but even so, I wouldn’t have a desire to because I was just so burnt out in the end.”

Ms. Kwei is taking a break from her EMS work because of the emotional and financial toll it took, but she plans to return in the future. In the meantime, she is back on OnlyFans and advocating for higher wages for EMS workers as a member of the Emergency Medical Services Public Advocacy Council (EMSPAC). “In order to be a good paramedic, my mental health needs to be on point,” she says. “Hopefully down the line, when I decide to pick up EMS [work] again, I can find a job that pays me enough.”

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

One Montana hospital went into lockdown and called police after a woman threatened violence because her relative was denied her request to be treated with ivermectin.

Officials of another Montana hospital accused public officials of threatening and harassing their health care workers for refusing to treat a politically connected COVID-19 patient with that antiparasitic drug or hydroxychloroquine, another drug unauthorized by the Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID.

And in neighboring Idaho, a medical resident said police had to be called to a hospital after a COVID patient’s relative verbally abused her and threatened physical violence because she would not prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, “drugs that are not beneficial in the treatment of COVID-19,” she wrote.

These three conflicts, which occurred from September to November, underline the pressure on health care workers to provide unauthorized COVID treatments, particularly in parts of the country where vaccination rates are low, government skepticism is high, and conservative leaders have championed the treatments.

“You’re going to have this from time to time, but it’s not the norm,” said Rich Rasmussen, president and CEO of the Montana Hospital Association. “The vast majority of patients are completely compliant and have good, robust conversations with their medical care team. But you’re going to have these outliers.”

Even before the pandemic, the health care and social assistance industry — which includes residential care facilities and child daycare, among other services — led all U.S. industries in nonfatal workplace violence, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. COVID has made the problem worse, leading to hospital security upgrades, staff training, and calls for increased federal regulation.

Ivermectin and other unauthorized covid treatments have become a major source of dispute in recent months. Lawsuits over hospitals’ refusals to provide ivermectin to patients have been filed in Texas, Florida, Illinois, and elsewhere. The ivermectin harassment extends beyond U.S. borders to providers and public health officials worldwide, in such countries as Australia, Brazil, and the United Kingdom. Even so, reports of threats of violence and harassment like those recently seen in the Northern Rocky Mountains region have been relatively rare.

Ivermectin is approved to treat parasites in animals, and low doses of the drug are approved to treat worms, head lice, and certain skin conditions in humans. But the FDA has not authorized the drug to treat COVID. The agency says that clinical trials are ongoing but that the current data does not show it is an effective COVID treatment and taking higher-than-approved levels can lead to overdose.

Likewise, hydroxychloroquine can cause serious health problems and the drug does not help speed recovery or decrease the chance of dying of COVID, according to the FDA.

In Missoula, Montana, the Community Medical Center was placed on lockdown, and police were called on Nov. 17 after a woman reportedly threatened violence over how her relative was being treated, according to a Police Department statement. Nobody was arrested.

“The family member was upset the patient was not treated with ivermectin,” Lt. Eddie McLean said Nov. 30.

Hospital spokesperson Megan Condra confirmed Dec. 1 that the patient’s relative demanded ivermectin, but she said the patient was not there for COVID, though she declined to disclose the patient’s medical issue. The main entrance of the hospital was locked to control who entered the building, Ms. Condra added, but the hospital’s formal lockdown procedures were not implemented.

The scare was reminiscent of one that happened in Idaho in September. Dr. Ashley Carvalho, who is completing her medical residency training in Boise, wrote in an op-ed in the Idaho Capital Sun that she was verbally abused and threatened with both physical violence and a lawsuit by a patient’s relative after she refused to prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.

“My patient was struggling to breathe, but the family refused to allow me to provide care,” Dr. Carvalho wrote. “A call to the police was the only solution.”

An 82-year-old woman who was active in Montana Republican politics was admitted to St. Peter’s Health, the hospital in Helena, with COVID in October. According to a November report by a special counsel appointed by state lawmakers, a family friend contacted Chief Deputy Attorney General Kris Hansen, a former Republican state senator, with multiple complaints: Hospital officials had not delivered a power-of-attorney document left by relatives for the patient to sign, she was denied her preferred medical treatment, she was cut off from her family, and the family worried hospital officials might prevent her from leaving. The patient later died.

That complaint led to the involvement of Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen, who texted a lobbyist for the Montana Hospital Association who is also on St. Peter’s board of directors. An image of the exchange was included in the report.

“I’m about to send law enforcement in and file unlawful restraint charges,” Mr. Knudsen wrote to Mark Taylor, who responded that he would make inquiries.

“This has been going on since yesterday and I was hoping the hospital would do the right thing. But my patience is wearing thin,” the attorney general added.

A Montana Highway Patrol trooper was sent to the hospital to take the statement of the patient’s family members. Ms. Hansen also participated in a conference call with multiple health care providers in which she talked about the “legal ramifications” of withholding documents and the patient’s preferred treatment, which included ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

Public Service Commissioner Jennifer Fielder, a former Republican state senator, left a three-minute voicemail on a hospital line saying the patient’s friends in the Senate would not be too happy to learn of the care St. Peter’s was providing, according to the special counsel’s report.

Ms. Fielder and the patient’s daughter also cited a “right to try” law that Montana legislators passed in 2015 that allows terminally ill patients to seek experimental treatments. But a legal analysis written for the Montana Medical Association says that while the law does not require a provider to prescribe a particular medication if a patient demands it, it could give a provider legal immunity if the provider decides to prescribe the treatment, according to the Montana State News Bureau.

The report did not offer any conclusions or allegations of wrongdoing.

Hospital officials said before and after the report’s release that their health care providers were threatened and harassed when they refused to administer certain treatments for COVID.

“We stand by our assertion that the involvement of public officials in clinical care is inappropriate; that individuals leveraged their official positions in an attempt to influence clinical care; and that some of the exchanges that took place were threatening or harassing,” spokesperson Katie Gallagher said in a statement.

“Further, we reviewed all medical and legal records related to this patient’s care and verified that our teams provided care in accordance with clinical best practice, hospital policy, and patient rights,” Ms. Gallagher added.

The attorney general’s office did not respond to a request for comment but told the Montana Free Press in a statement that nobody at the state agency threatened anyone.

Mr. Rasmussen, the head of the Montana Hospital Association, said St. Peter’s officials have not reached out to the group for assistance. He downplayed the attorney general’s intervention in Helena, saying it often happens that people who know medical leaders or trustees will advocate on behalf of a relative or friend.

“Is this situation different? Certainly, because it’s from the attorney general,” Mr. Rasmussen said. “But I think the AG was responding to a constituent. Others would reach out to whoever they know on the hospital board.”

He added that hospitals have procedures in place that allow family members of patients to take their complaints to a supervisor or other hospital leader without resorting to threats.

Hospitals in the region that have watched the allegations of threats and harassment unfold declined to comment on their procedures to handle such conflicts.

“We respect the independent medical judgment of our providers who practice medicine consistent with approved, authorized treatment and recognized clinical standards,” said Bozeman Health spokesperson Lauren Brendel.

Tanner Gooch, a spokesperson for SCL Health Montana, which operates hospitals in Billings, Butte, and Miles City, said SCL does not endorse ivermectin or other COVID treatments that haven’t been approved by the FDA but doesn’t ban them, either.

“Ultimately, the treatment decisions are at the discretion of the provider,” Mr. Gooch said. “To our knowledge, no COVID-19 patients have been treated with ivermectin at our hospitals.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

One Montana hospital went into lockdown and called police after a woman threatened violence because her relative was denied her request to be treated with ivermectin.

Officials of another Montana hospital accused public officials of threatening and harassing their health care workers for refusing to treat a politically connected COVID-19 patient with that antiparasitic drug or hydroxychloroquine, another drug unauthorized by the Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID.

And in neighboring Idaho, a medical resident said police had to be called to a hospital after a COVID patient’s relative verbally abused her and threatened physical violence because she would not prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, “drugs that are not beneficial in the treatment of COVID-19,” she wrote.

These three conflicts, which occurred from September to November, underline the pressure on health care workers to provide unauthorized COVID treatments, particularly in parts of the country where vaccination rates are low, government skepticism is high, and conservative leaders have championed the treatments.

“You’re going to have this from time to time, but it’s not the norm,” said Rich Rasmussen, president and CEO of the Montana Hospital Association. “The vast majority of patients are completely compliant and have good, robust conversations with their medical care team. But you’re going to have these outliers.”

Even before the pandemic, the health care and social assistance industry — which includes residential care facilities and child daycare, among other services — led all U.S. industries in nonfatal workplace violence, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. COVID has made the problem worse, leading to hospital security upgrades, staff training, and calls for increased federal regulation.

Ivermectin and other unauthorized covid treatments have become a major source of dispute in recent months. Lawsuits over hospitals’ refusals to provide ivermectin to patients have been filed in Texas, Florida, Illinois, and elsewhere. The ivermectin harassment extends beyond U.S. borders to providers and public health officials worldwide, in such countries as Australia, Brazil, and the United Kingdom. Even so, reports of threats of violence and harassment like those recently seen in the Northern Rocky Mountains region have been relatively rare.

Ivermectin is approved to treat parasites in animals, and low doses of the drug are approved to treat worms, head lice, and certain skin conditions in humans. But the FDA has not authorized the drug to treat COVID. The agency says that clinical trials are ongoing but that the current data does not show it is an effective COVID treatment and taking higher-than-approved levels can lead to overdose.

Likewise, hydroxychloroquine can cause serious health problems and the drug does not help speed recovery or decrease the chance of dying of COVID, according to the FDA.

In Missoula, Montana, the Community Medical Center was placed on lockdown, and police were called on Nov. 17 after a woman reportedly threatened violence over how her relative was being treated, according to a Police Department statement. Nobody was arrested.

“The family member was upset the patient was not treated with ivermectin,” Lt. Eddie McLean said Nov. 30.

Hospital spokesperson Megan Condra confirmed Dec. 1 that the patient’s relative demanded ivermectin, but she said the patient was not there for COVID, though she declined to disclose the patient’s medical issue. The main entrance of the hospital was locked to control who entered the building, Ms. Condra added, but the hospital’s formal lockdown procedures were not implemented.

The scare was reminiscent of one that happened in Idaho in September. Dr. Ashley Carvalho, who is completing her medical residency training in Boise, wrote in an op-ed in the Idaho Capital Sun that she was verbally abused and threatened with both physical violence and a lawsuit by a patient’s relative after she refused to prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.

“My patient was struggling to breathe, but the family refused to allow me to provide care,” Dr. Carvalho wrote. “A call to the police was the only solution.”

An 82-year-old woman who was active in Montana Republican politics was admitted to St. Peter’s Health, the hospital in Helena, with COVID in October. According to a November report by a special counsel appointed by state lawmakers, a family friend contacted Chief Deputy Attorney General Kris Hansen, a former Republican state senator, with multiple complaints: Hospital officials had not delivered a power-of-attorney document left by relatives for the patient to sign, she was denied her preferred medical treatment, she was cut off from her family, and the family worried hospital officials might prevent her from leaving. The patient later died.

That complaint led to the involvement of Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen, who texted a lobbyist for the Montana Hospital Association who is also on St. Peter’s board of directors. An image of the exchange was included in the report.

“I’m about to send law enforcement in and file unlawful restraint charges,” Mr. Knudsen wrote to Mark Taylor, who responded that he would make inquiries.

“This has been going on since yesterday and I was hoping the hospital would do the right thing. But my patience is wearing thin,” the attorney general added.

A Montana Highway Patrol trooper was sent to the hospital to take the statement of the patient’s family members. Ms. Hansen also participated in a conference call with multiple health care providers in which she talked about the “legal ramifications” of withholding documents and the patient’s preferred treatment, which included ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

Public Service Commissioner Jennifer Fielder, a former Republican state senator, left a three-minute voicemail on a hospital line saying the patient’s friends in the Senate would not be too happy to learn of the care St. Peter’s was providing, according to the special counsel’s report.

Ms. Fielder and the patient’s daughter also cited a “right to try” law that Montana legislators passed in 2015 that allows terminally ill patients to seek experimental treatments. But a legal analysis written for the Montana Medical Association says that while the law does not require a provider to prescribe a particular medication if a patient demands it, it could give a provider legal immunity if the provider decides to prescribe the treatment, according to the Montana State News Bureau.

The report did not offer any conclusions or allegations of wrongdoing.

Hospital officials said before and after the report’s release that their health care providers were threatened and harassed when they refused to administer certain treatments for COVID.

“We stand by our assertion that the involvement of public officials in clinical care is inappropriate; that individuals leveraged their official positions in an attempt to influence clinical care; and that some of the exchanges that took place were threatening or harassing,” spokesperson Katie Gallagher said in a statement.

“Further, we reviewed all medical and legal records related to this patient’s care and verified that our teams provided care in accordance with clinical best practice, hospital policy, and patient rights,” Ms. Gallagher added.

The attorney general’s office did not respond to a request for comment but told the Montana Free Press in a statement that nobody at the state agency threatened anyone.

Mr. Rasmussen, the head of the Montana Hospital Association, said St. Peter’s officials have not reached out to the group for assistance. He downplayed the attorney general’s intervention in Helena, saying it often happens that people who know medical leaders or trustees will advocate on behalf of a relative or friend.

“Is this situation different? Certainly, because it’s from the attorney general,” Mr. Rasmussen said. “But I think the AG was responding to a constituent. Others would reach out to whoever they know on the hospital board.”

He added that hospitals have procedures in place that allow family members of patients to take their complaints to a supervisor or other hospital leader without resorting to threats.

Hospitals in the region that have watched the allegations of threats and harassment unfold declined to comment on their procedures to handle such conflicts.

“We respect the independent medical judgment of our providers who practice medicine consistent with approved, authorized treatment and recognized clinical standards,” said Bozeman Health spokesperson Lauren Brendel.

Tanner Gooch, a spokesperson for SCL Health Montana, which operates hospitals in Billings, Butte, and Miles City, said SCL does not endorse ivermectin or other COVID treatments that haven’t been approved by the FDA but doesn’t ban them, either.

“Ultimately, the treatment decisions are at the discretion of the provider,” Mr. Gooch said. “To our knowledge, no COVID-19 patients have been treated with ivermectin at our hospitals.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

One Montana hospital went into lockdown and called police after a woman threatened violence because her relative was denied her request to be treated with ivermectin.

Officials of another Montana hospital accused public officials of threatening and harassing their health care workers for refusing to treat a politically connected COVID-19 patient with that antiparasitic drug or hydroxychloroquine, another drug unauthorized by the Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID.

And in neighboring Idaho, a medical resident said police had to be called to a hospital after a COVID patient’s relative verbally abused her and threatened physical violence because she would not prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, “drugs that are not beneficial in the treatment of COVID-19,” she wrote.

These three conflicts, which occurred from September to November, underline the pressure on health care workers to provide unauthorized COVID treatments, particularly in parts of the country where vaccination rates are low, government skepticism is high, and conservative leaders have championed the treatments.

“You’re going to have this from time to time, but it’s not the norm,” said Rich Rasmussen, president and CEO of the Montana Hospital Association. “The vast majority of patients are completely compliant and have good, robust conversations with their medical care team. But you’re going to have these outliers.”

Even before the pandemic, the health care and social assistance industry — which includes residential care facilities and child daycare, among other services — led all U.S. industries in nonfatal workplace violence, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. COVID has made the problem worse, leading to hospital security upgrades, staff training, and calls for increased federal regulation.

Ivermectin and other unauthorized covid treatments have become a major source of dispute in recent months. Lawsuits over hospitals’ refusals to provide ivermectin to patients have been filed in Texas, Florida, Illinois, and elsewhere. The ivermectin harassment extends beyond U.S. borders to providers and public health officials worldwide, in such countries as Australia, Brazil, and the United Kingdom. Even so, reports of threats of violence and harassment like those recently seen in the Northern Rocky Mountains region have been relatively rare.

Ivermectin is approved to treat parasites in animals, and low doses of the drug are approved to treat worms, head lice, and certain skin conditions in humans. But the FDA has not authorized the drug to treat COVID. The agency says that clinical trials are ongoing but that the current data does not show it is an effective COVID treatment and taking higher-than-approved levels can lead to overdose.

Likewise, hydroxychloroquine can cause serious health problems and the drug does not help speed recovery or decrease the chance of dying of COVID, according to the FDA.

In Missoula, Montana, the Community Medical Center was placed on lockdown, and police were called on Nov. 17 after a woman reportedly threatened violence over how her relative was being treated, according to a Police Department statement. Nobody was arrested.

“The family member was upset the patient was not treated with ivermectin,” Lt. Eddie McLean said Nov. 30.

Hospital spokesperson Megan Condra confirmed Dec. 1 that the patient’s relative demanded ivermectin, but she said the patient was not there for COVID, though she declined to disclose the patient’s medical issue. The main entrance of the hospital was locked to control who entered the building, Ms. Condra added, but the hospital’s formal lockdown procedures were not implemented.

The scare was reminiscent of one that happened in Idaho in September. Dr. Ashley Carvalho, who is completing her medical residency training in Boise, wrote in an op-ed in the Idaho Capital Sun that she was verbally abused and threatened with both physical violence and a lawsuit by a patient’s relative after she refused to prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.

“My patient was struggling to breathe, but the family refused to allow me to provide care,” Dr. Carvalho wrote. “A call to the police was the only solution.”

An 82-year-old woman who was active in Montana Republican politics was admitted to St. Peter’s Health, the hospital in Helena, with COVID in October. According to a November report by a special counsel appointed by state lawmakers, a family friend contacted Chief Deputy Attorney General Kris Hansen, a former Republican state senator, with multiple complaints: Hospital officials had not delivered a power-of-attorney document left by relatives for the patient to sign, she was denied her preferred medical treatment, she was cut off from her family, and the family worried hospital officials might prevent her from leaving. The patient later died.

That complaint led to the involvement of Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen, who texted a lobbyist for the Montana Hospital Association who is also on St. Peter’s board of directors. An image of the exchange was included in the report.

“I’m about to send law enforcement in and file unlawful restraint charges,” Mr. Knudsen wrote to Mark Taylor, who responded that he would make inquiries.

“This has been going on since yesterday and I was hoping the hospital would do the right thing. But my patience is wearing thin,” the attorney general added.

A Montana Highway Patrol trooper was sent to the hospital to take the statement of the patient’s family members. Ms. Hansen also participated in a conference call with multiple health care providers in which she talked about the “legal ramifications” of withholding documents and the patient’s preferred treatment, which included ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

Public Service Commissioner Jennifer Fielder, a former Republican state senator, left a three-minute voicemail on a hospital line saying the patient’s friends in the Senate would not be too happy to learn of the care St. Peter’s was providing, according to the special counsel’s report.

Ms. Fielder and the patient’s daughter also cited a “right to try” law that Montana legislators passed in 2015 that allows terminally ill patients to seek experimental treatments. But a legal analysis written for the Montana Medical Association says that while the law does not require a provider to prescribe a particular medication if a patient demands it, it could give a provider legal immunity if the provider decides to prescribe the treatment, according to the Montana State News Bureau.

The report did not offer any conclusions or allegations of wrongdoing.

Hospital officials said before and after the report’s release that their health care providers were threatened and harassed when they refused to administer certain treatments for COVID.

“We stand by our assertion that the involvement of public officials in clinical care is inappropriate; that individuals leveraged their official positions in an attempt to influence clinical care; and that some of the exchanges that took place were threatening or harassing,” spokesperson Katie Gallagher said in a statement.

“Further, we reviewed all medical and legal records related to this patient’s care and verified that our teams provided care in accordance with clinical best practice, hospital policy, and patient rights,” Ms. Gallagher added.

The attorney general’s office did not respond to a request for comment but told the Montana Free Press in a statement that nobody at the state agency threatened anyone.

Mr. Rasmussen, the head of the Montana Hospital Association, said St. Peter’s officials have not reached out to the group for assistance. He downplayed the attorney general’s intervention in Helena, saying it often happens that people who know medical leaders or trustees will advocate on behalf of a relative or friend.

“Is this situation different? Certainly, because it’s from the attorney general,” Mr. Rasmussen said. “But I think the AG was responding to a constituent. Others would reach out to whoever they know on the hospital board.”

He added that hospitals have procedures in place that allow family members of patients to take their complaints to a supervisor or other hospital leader without resorting to threats.

Hospitals in the region that have watched the allegations of threats and harassment unfold declined to comment on their procedures to handle such conflicts.

“We respect the independent medical judgment of our providers who practice medicine consistent with approved, authorized treatment and recognized clinical standards,” said Bozeman Health spokesperson Lauren Brendel.

Tanner Gooch, a spokesperson for SCL Health Montana, which operates hospitals in Billings, Butte, and Miles City, said SCL does not endorse ivermectin or other COVID treatments that haven’t been approved by the FDA but doesn’t ban them, either.

“Ultimately, the treatment decisions are at the discretion of the provider,” Mr. Gooch said. “To our knowledge, no COVID-19 patients have been treated with ivermectin at our hospitals.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Early lab studies show that a COVID-19 antibody treatment developed by GlaxoSmithKline and Vir Biotechnology could be effective against the Omicron variant.

The companies said Dec. 2 that they tested the drug, called sotrovimab, against individual mutations found in the Omicron variant, according to The Wall Street Journal. The preliminary findings haven’t yet been peer-reviewed, and the drug will need to be tested against the whole spike protein on the virus to confirm results.

GlaxoSmithKline and Vir have previously tested sotrovimab against mutations on other variants, the newspaper reported. When the Omicron variant was identified, the companies looked at earlier research to find the tests they had done against mutations that are also found in Omicron.

Sotrovimab targets a spot on the spike protein that is found in other coronaviruses and is thought to be less likely to mutate, according to the newspaper. Omicron has at least two mutations that overlap with the drug’s target site, but researchers at the companies don’t think the mutations will affect the treatment’s ability to bind to the spike protein.

GlaxoSmithKline expects to see results from testing the drug against the full mutated spike protein in the next 2 to 3 weeks, the Journal reported.

Sotrovimab has been authorized in about a dozen countries, including the United States, which paid about $1 billion for hundreds of thousands of doses.

Other companies have also been testing their antibody treatments against the Omicron variant.

Regeneron announced Nov. 30 that its drug could be less effective, and it said further analyses will determine how much less effective by using the actual Omicron genetic sequence, according to Reuters.

Outside scientists have also said the antibody drug from Eli Lilly & Co. isn’t as effective against Omicron. The company told Reuters that it is still testing the treatment against the variant.

Another experimental antibody therapy developed by Adagio Therapeutics appears to work well against the new variant, the Journal reported, but the treatment is in late-stage clinical trials and isn’t yet authorized.

Antiviral drugs could also help prevent hospitalization and may be less vulnerable to new variants because they target a different part of the virus, the newspaper reported. Merck and Pfizer have developed antiviral pills, which still require FDA approval.

In addition, Gilead believes its approved IV therapy, called remdesivir, will continue to be effective against the variant, Reuters reported.

The FDA said Nov. 30 that it is looking at the effect that authorized COVID-19 vaccines can have on Omicron and expects to have more information in coming weeks, Reuters reported.

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

Early lab studies show that a COVID-19 antibody treatment developed by GlaxoSmithKline and Vir Biotechnology could be effective against the Omicron variant.

The companies said Dec. 2 that they tested the drug, called sotrovimab, against individual mutations found in the Omicron variant, according to The Wall Street Journal. The preliminary findings haven’t yet been peer-reviewed, and the drug will need to be tested against the whole spike protein on the virus to confirm results.

GlaxoSmithKline and Vir have previously tested sotrovimab against mutations on other variants, the newspaper reported. When the Omicron variant was identified, the companies looked at earlier research to find the tests they had done against mutations that are also found in Omicron.

Sotrovimab targets a spot on the spike protein that is found in other coronaviruses and is thought to be less likely to mutate, according to the newspaper. Omicron has at least two mutations that overlap with the drug’s target site, but researchers at the companies don’t think the mutations will affect the treatment’s ability to bind to the spike protein.

GlaxoSmithKline expects to see results from testing the drug against the full mutated spike protein in the next 2 to 3 weeks, the Journal reported.

Sotrovimab has been authorized in about a dozen countries, including the United States, which paid about $1 billion for hundreds of thousands of doses.

Other companies have also been testing their antibody treatments against the Omicron variant.

Regeneron announced Nov. 30 that its drug could be less effective, and it said further analyses will determine how much less effective by using the actual Omicron genetic sequence, according to Reuters.

Outside scientists have also said the antibody drug from Eli Lilly & Co. isn’t as effective against Omicron. The company told Reuters that it is still testing the treatment against the variant.

Another experimental antibody therapy developed by Adagio Therapeutics appears to work well against the new variant, the Journal reported, but the treatment is in late-stage clinical trials and isn’t yet authorized.

Antiviral drugs could also help prevent hospitalization and may be less vulnerable to new variants because they target a different part of the virus, the newspaper reported. Merck and Pfizer have developed antiviral pills, which still require FDA approval.

In addition, Gilead believes its approved IV therapy, called remdesivir, will continue to be effective against the variant, Reuters reported.

The FDA said Nov. 30 that it is looking at the effect that authorized COVID-19 vaccines can have on Omicron and expects to have more information in coming weeks, Reuters reported.

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

Early lab studies show that a COVID-19 antibody treatment developed by GlaxoSmithKline and Vir Biotechnology could be effective against the Omicron variant.

The companies said Dec. 2 that they tested the drug, called sotrovimab, against individual mutations found in the Omicron variant, according to The Wall Street Journal. The preliminary findings haven’t yet been peer-reviewed, and the drug will need to be tested against the whole spike protein on the virus to confirm results.

GlaxoSmithKline and Vir have previously tested sotrovimab against mutations on other variants, the newspaper reported. When the Omicron variant was identified, the companies looked at earlier research to find the tests they had done against mutations that are also found in Omicron.

Sotrovimab targets a spot on the spike protein that is found in other coronaviruses and is thought to be less likely to mutate, according to the newspaper. Omicron has at least two mutations that overlap with the drug’s target site, but researchers at the companies don’t think the mutations will affect the treatment’s ability to bind to the spike protein.

GlaxoSmithKline expects to see results from testing the drug against the full mutated spike protein in the next 2 to 3 weeks, the Journal reported.

Sotrovimab has been authorized in about a dozen countries, including the United States, which paid about $1 billion for hundreds of thousands of doses.

Other companies have also been testing their antibody treatments against the Omicron variant.

Regeneron announced Nov. 30 that its drug could be less effective, and it said further analyses will determine how much less effective by using the actual Omicron genetic sequence, according to Reuters.

Outside scientists have also said the antibody drug from Eli Lilly & Co. isn’t as effective against Omicron. The company told Reuters that it is still testing the treatment against the variant.

Another experimental antibody therapy developed by Adagio Therapeutics appears to work well against the new variant, the Journal reported, but the treatment is in late-stage clinical trials and isn’t yet authorized.

Antiviral drugs could also help prevent hospitalization and may be less vulnerable to new variants because they target a different part of the virus, the newspaper reported. Merck and Pfizer have developed antiviral pills, which still require FDA approval.

In addition, Gilead believes its approved IV therapy, called remdesivir, will continue to be effective against the variant, Reuters reported.

The FDA said Nov. 30 that it is looking at the effect that authorized COVID-19 vaccines can have on Omicron and expects to have more information in coming weeks, Reuters reported.

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

Adults with celiac disease (CD) do not appear to be at increased risk of having a more severe disease course or worse outcomes from COVID-19, according to a new study.

Patients with CD are a “population of interest” in terms of the clinical outcomes of COVID-19, Emad Mansoor, MD, Digestive Health Institute, University Hospitals of Cleveland, and colleagues said.

There is emerging evidence that chronic disorders may have an impact on COVID-19 outcomes. But until now, the consequences of COVID-19 in patients with CD have been unclear.

The study was published online Nov. 11, 2021, in Gut.

To investigate, Dr. Mansoor and colleagues used the TriNetX EHR database to identify 599 patients with CD and confirmed COVID-19 and 810,972 patients without CD but with confirmed COVID-19 from 51 health care organizations in the United States.

After propensity-score matching, the CD and non-CD cohorts were “relatively balanced”; there were 598 patients in each group.

Before propensity-score matching, COVID-19 patients with CD were significantly more likely to be hospitalized than peers without CD (18.2% vs. 11.3%; odds ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-2.14; P < .0001).

After matching, however, this association became insignificant (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11; P = .0906).

Before matching, patients with CD were also more apt to develop blood clots (5.3% vs. 2.1%; OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.88-3.83; P < .0001) but not after matching (OR, 0.938; 95% CI, 0.57-1.54; P = .800).

The same pattern was observed for the two other outcomes of interest: mortality and need for care in the ICU.

Overall, there were no significant differences among any of the measured outcomes between CD and non-CD patients with COVID-19 after propensity-score matching, Dr. Mansoor and colleagues reported.

“This is the largest study characterizing CD patients with COVID-19 to date to systematically investigate outcomes of CD patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Mansoor and colleagues wrote.

They also say that their findings are in line with a recent population-based study from Sweden, which found no significant increase in risk for hospitalization, severe COVID-19, or increase in death between CD and non-CD patients with COVID-19.

“Although reassuring, this study is all about outcomes in individuals with diagnosed CD and the potential impact of COVID-19 in patients with undiagnosed CD remains unknown,” the researchers wrote.

The study had no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults with celiac disease (CD) do not appear to be at increased risk of having a more severe disease course or worse outcomes from COVID-19, according to a new study.

Patients with CD are a “population of interest” in terms of the clinical outcomes of COVID-19, Emad Mansoor, MD, Digestive Health Institute, University Hospitals of Cleveland, and colleagues said.

There is emerging evidence that chronic disorders may have an impact on COVID-19 outcomes. But until now, the consequences of COVID-19 in patients with CD have been unclear.

The study was published online Nov. 11, 2021, in Gut.

To investigate, Dr. Mansoor and colleagues used the TriNetX EHR database to identify 599 patients with CD and confirmed COVID-19 and 810,972 patients without CD but with confirmed COVID-19 from 51 health care organizations in the United States.

After propensity-score matching, the CD and non-CD cohorts were “relatively balanced”; there were 598 patients in each group.

Before propensity-score matching, COVID-19 patients with CD were significantly more likely to be hospitalized than peers without CD (18.2% vs. 11.3%; odds ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-2.14; P < .0001).

After matching, however, this association became insignificant (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11; P = .0906).

Before matching, patients with CD were also more apt to develop blood clots (5.3% vs. 2.1%; OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.88-3.83; P < .0001) but not after matching (OR, 0.938; 95% CI, 0.57-1.54; P = .800).

The same pattern was observed for the two other outcomes of interest: mortality and need for care in the ICU.

Overall, there were no significant differences among any of the measured outcomes between CD and non-CD patients with COVID-19 after propensity-score matching, Dr. Mansoor and colleagues reported.

“This is the largest study characterizing CD patients with COVID-19 to date to systematically investigate outcomes of CD patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Mansoor and colleagues wrote.

They also say that their findings are in line with a recent population-based study from Sweden, which found no significant increase in risk for hospitalization, severe COVID-19, or increase in death between CD and non-CD patients with COVID-19.

“Although reassuring, this study is all about outcomes in individuals with diagnosed CD and the potential impact of COVID-19 in patients with undiagnosed CD remains unknown,” the researchers wrote.

The study had no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults with celiac disease (CD) do not appear to be at increased risk of having a more severe disease course or worse outcomes from COVID-19, according to a new study.

Patients with CD are a “population of interest” in terms of the clinical outcomes of COVID-19, Emad Mansoor, MD, Digestive Health Institute, University Hospitals of Cleveland, and colleagues said.

There is emerging evidence that chronic disorders may have an impact on COVID-19 outcomes. But until now, the consequences of COVID-19 in patients with CD have been unclear.

The study was published online Nov. 11, 2021, in Gut.

To investigate, Dr. Mansoor and colleagues used the TriNetX EHR database to identify 599 patients with CD and confirmed COVID-19 and 810,972 patients without CD but with confirmed COVID-19 from 51 health care organizations in the United States.

After propensity-score matching, the CD and non-CD cohorts were “relatively balanced”; there were 598 patients in each group.

Before propensity-score matching, COVID-19 patients with CD were significantly more likely to be hospitalized than peers without CD (18.2% vs. 11.3%; odds ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-2.14; P < .0001).

After matching, however, this association became insignificant (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11; P = .0906).

Before matching, patients with CD were also more apt to develop blood clots (5.3% vs. 2.1%; OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.88-3.83; P < .0001) but not after matching (OR, 0.938; 95% CI, 0.57-1.54; P = .800).

The same pattern was observed for the two other outcomes of interest: mortality and need for care in the ICU.

Overall, there were no significant differences among any of the measured outcomes between CD and non-CD patients with COVID-19 after propensity-score matching, Dr. Mansoor and colleagues reported.

“This is the largest study characterizing CD patients with COVID-19 to date to systematically investigate outcomes of CD patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Mansoor and colleagues wrote.

They also say that their findings are in line with a recent population-based study from Sweden, which found no significant increase in risk for hospitalization, severe COVID-19, or increase in death between CD and non-CD patients with COVID-19.

“Although reassuring, this study is all about outcomes in individuals with diagnosed CD and the potential impact of COVID-19 in patients with undiagnosed CD remains unknown,” the researchers wrote.

The study had no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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