Ob.Gyn. News

A COVID-19 vaccine could be proven effective within the last months of 2020, with distribution of first doses possible before the end of the year, according to Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Md.

“Given the rate of infection that’s going on in this country, and the distribution of the clinical trial sites involving tens of thousands of volunteers, we project that we will have an answer as to whether or not we have a safe and effective vaccine by November or December,” Dr. Fauci said today in his virtual keynote address during the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

“It may come earlier -- this month, in October,” he added in his remarks. “That is unlikely – it is more likely that we’ll have an answer in November and December.”

If that timing does come to pass, Dr. Fauci said, it’s possible that distribution of doses could start at the end of the year, continuing throughout the beginning and middle of 2021.

Although there are no guarantees, Dr. Fauci said he is “cautiously optimistic” regarding the timeline.

He said that his optimism is based in part on animal studies and phase 1 data that demonstrate robust neutralizing antibody responses to a vaccine that are equivalent to, if not greater than, natural infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

Rapid development gives reason for hope

Ryan C. Maves, MD, FCCP, a critical care and infectious disease specialist at Naval Medical Center San Diego, said there is reason to be hopeful that a vaccine will be available by the end of the calendar year. He cautioned, however, that this timing is based on the assumption that one of the vaccines will be proven safe and effective very soon.

“We’re lucky to have multiple phase 3 trials using multiple vaccine technologies in different platforms,” Dr. Maves said in a panel discussion following Dr. Fauci’s remarks. “I think the odds are very high that one of them will be effective.”

“I’m hoping that multiple vaccines will be effective,” Dr. Maves added. “Then we’ll be in a good position of determining which is the best of several good options, as a society and as a world.”

COVID-19 vaccine development over the past year has been remarkably fast, especially given the previous record set by the mumps vaccine, which took about four years to go from initial steps to rollout, Dr. Maves noted.

Dr. Fauci said the federal government has taken a “strategic approach” to the COVID-19 vaccine that includes direct involvement in the research and development of six different vaccine candidates, five of which are now in phase 3 trials.

As part of that strategic approach, the study protocols are harmonized to have a common data and safety monitoring board, common primary and secondary endpoints, and an independent statistical group to determine correlates of protection, Dr. Fauci said.

Prioritizing COVID-19 vaccine distribution

Who gets COVID-19 vaccine first will be a challenge for governmental organizations as well as bioethicists, who have proposed different strategies for fairly prioritizing different groups for access.

Reaching communities of color will be an important consideration for prioritization, according to Dr. Maves, given the disproportionate burden of disease on Black and Hispanic individuals, among other such populations.

COVID-19–related hospitalization rates have been substantially higher in communities of color, Dr. Fauci said in his keynote address. Age-adjusted hospitalization rates for Hispanic/Latinx and Black populations are 375 to 368 per 100,000, respectively, compared with just 82 per 100,000 for White non-Hispanics, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Outreach to those communities should include building trust in those populations that they will benefit from a safe and effective vaccine, and making sure that the vaccine is available to those communities as quickly as possible, Dr. Maves said.

Dr. Fauci and Dr. Maves provided no disclosures related to their presentations.

[email protected]

A COVID-19 vaccine could be proven effective within the last months of 2020, with distribution of first doses possible before the end of the year, according to Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Md.

“Given the rate of infection that’s going on in this country, and the distribution of the clinical trial sites involving tens of thousands of volunteers, we project that we will have an answer as to whether or not we have a safe and effective vaccine by November or December,” Dr. Fauci said today in his virtual keynote address during the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

“It may come earlier -- this month, in October,” he added in his remarks. “That is unlikely – it is more likely that we’ll have an answer in November and December.”

If that timing does come to pass, Dr. Fauci said, it’s possible that distribution of doses could start at the end of the year, continuing throughout the beginning and middle of 2021.

Although there are no guarantees, Dr. Fauci said he is “cautiously optimistic” regarding the timeline.

He said that his optimism is based in part on animal studies and phase 1 data that demonstrate robust neutralizing antibody responses to a vaccine that are equivalent to, if not greater than, natural infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

Rapid development gives reason for hope

Ryan C. Maves, MD, FCCP, a critical care and infectious disease specialist at Naval Medical Center San Diego, said there is reason to be hopeful that a vaccine will be available by the end of the calendar year. He cautioned, however, that this timing is based on the assumption that one of the vaccines will be proven safe and effective very soon.

“We’re lucky to have multiple phase 3 trials using multiple vaccine technologies in different platforms,” Dr. Maves said in a panel discussion following Dr. Fauci’s remarks. “I think the odds are very high that one of them will be effective.”

“I’m hoping that multiple vaccines will be effective,” Dr. Maves added. “Then we’ll be in a good position of determining which is the best of several good options, as a society and as a world.”

COVID-19 vaccine development over the past year has been remarkably fast, especially given the previous record set by the mumps vaccine, which took about four years to go from initial steps to rollout, Dr. Maves noted.

Dr. Fauci said the federal government has taken a “strategic approach” to the COVID-19 vaccine that includes direct involvement in the research and development of six different vaccine candidates, five of which are now in phase 3 trials.

As part of that strategic approach, the study protocols are harmonized to have a common data and safety monitoring board, common primary and secondary endpoints, and an independent statistical group to determine correlates of protection, Dr. Fauci said.

Prioritizing COVID-19 vaccine distribution

Who gets COVID-19 vaccine first will be a challenge for governmental organizations as well as bioethicists, who have proposed different strategies for fairly prioritizing different groups for access.

Reaching communities of color will be an important consideration for prioritization, according to Dr. Maves, given the disproportionate burden of disease on Black and Hispanic individuals, among other such populations.

COVID-19–related hospitalization rates have been substantially higher in communities of color, Dr. Fauci said in his keynote address. Age-adjusted hospitalization rates for Hispanic/Latinx and Black populations are 375 to 368 per 100,000, respectively, compared with just 82 per 100,000 for White non-Hispanics, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Outreach to those communities should include building trust in those populations that they will benefit from a safe and effective vaccine, and making sure that the vaccine is available to those communities as quickly as possible, Dr. Maves said.

Dr. Fauci and Dr. Maves provided no disclosures related to their presentations.

[email protected]

A COVID-19 vaccine could be proven effective within the last months of 2020, with distribution of first doses possible before the end of the year, according to Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Md.

“Given the rate of infection that’s going on in this country, and the distribution of the clinical trial sites involving tens of thousands of volunteers, we project that we will have an answer as to whether or not we have a safe and effective vaccine by November or December,” Dr. Fauci said today in his virtual keynote address during the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

“It may come earlier -- this month, in October,” he added in his remarks. “That is unlikely – it is more likely that we’ll have an answer in November and December.”

If that timing does come to pass, Dr. Fauci said, it’s possible that distribution of doses could start at the end of the year, continuing throughout the beginning and middle of 2021.

Although there are no guarantees, Dr. Fauci said he is “cautiously optimistic” regarding the timeline.

He said that his optimism is based in part on animal studies and phase 1 data that demonstrate robust neutralizing antibody responses to a vaccine that are equivalent to, if not greater than, natural infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

Rapid development gives reason for hope

Ryan C. Maves, MD, FCCP, a critical care and infectious disease specialist at Naval Medical Center San Diego, said there is reason to be hopeful that a vaccine will be available by the end of the calendar year. He cautioned, however, that this timing is based on the assumption that one of the vaccines will be proven safe and effective very soon.

“We’re lucky to have multiple phase 3 trials using multiple vaccine technologies in different platforms,” Dr. Maves said in a panel discussion following Dr. Fauci’s remarks. “I think the odds are very high that one of them will be effective.”

“I’m hoping that multiple vaccines will be effective,” Dr. Maves added. “Then we’ll be in a good position of determining which is the best of several good options, as a society and as a world.”

COVID-19 vaccine development over the past year has been remarkably fast, especially given the previous record set by the mumps vaccine, which took about four years to go from initial steps to rollout, Dr. Maves noted.

Dr. Fauci said the federal government has taken a “strategic approach” to the COVID-19 vaccine that includes direct involvement in the research and development of six different vaccine candidates, five of which are now in phase 3 trials.

As part of that strategic approach, the study protocols are harmonized to have a common data and safety monitoring board, common primary and secondary endpoints, and an independent statistical group to determine correlates of protection, Dr. Fauci said.

Prioritizing COVID-19 vaccine distribution

Who gets COVID-19 vaccine first will be a challenge for governmental organizations as well as bioethicists, who have proposed different strategies for fairly prioritizing different groups for access.

Reaching communities of color will be an important consideration for prioritization, according to Dr. Maves, given the disproportionate burden of disease on Black and Hispanic individuals, among other such populations.

COVID-19–related hospitalization rates have been substantially higher in communities of color, Dr. Fauci said in his keynote address. Age-adjusted hospitalization rates for Hispanic/Latinx and Black populations are 375 to 368 per 100,000, respectively, compared with just 82 per 100,000 for White non-Hispanics, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Outreach to those communities should include building trust in those populations that they will benefit from a safe and effective vaccine, and making sure that the vaccine is available to those communities as quickly as possible, Dr. Maves said.

Dr. Fauci and Dr. Maves provided no disclosures related to their presentations.

[email protected]

As a provider whose passion is helping women after stillbirth or neonatal loss, I get many transfers of women from their previous practice after a loss. Sometimes they transfer because they need a “fresh start,” but often, it is because they were let down by the practice – not by the medical care they received but by the emotional care and support and what was said or not said after the loss of the baby. A 2014 meta-analysis in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology found that “Parents regarded contacts with health professionals as their central source of reassurance; but experiences often fell short of expectations.”¹ I decided to conduct a survey via local and national support groups about what “loss parents” felt helpful or not helpful after the loss of a child. I purposely made these quotes the dominant part of this article, as I believe our patients are often our best teachers.

Inappropriate comments providers make

A very common theme among loss parents was how providers had made comments about how rare stillbirth is after it had just happened to them. Parents expressed that they felt this statistic kept them from getting the care that they needed prior to their loss and then they were told to not worry. Some example quotes include:

“ ‘This only happens to 1% of babies. Very rare.’ (It happened to our baby, and we have to live with this grief our whole lives. She is more than a statistic. She was our hopes, dreams, and future.)”

“I wish doctors didn’t wait to act based on statistics. There’s a lot of us in the 1% of unlikely occurrences.”

“For me, when my practice brushed off my feelings, I knew in my gut something was wrong. They said, ‘We need to wean you from worrying.’”

Another very common theme from parents included examples of helpful and not helpful care they received in the hospital.
 

Help parents make good memories

Many parents mentioned the importance of providing resources for after they go home. Most labor and delivery units have pregnancy loss services and have improved on the care they provide for loss families. One very common positive comment responded to the memories that nurses and providers helped them make after delivery. One parent said the following:

“While with baby and after loss, I think it’s really important to give ideas of what to do/experiences because the moments are so fleeting, and I needed someone to say, ‘You can dress him.’ ‘Let’s take pictures of his toes.’ ‘Save breast milk, etc.’”

“I appreciated the doctors and nurses who acknowledged my child, who looked at him and humanized him. One nurse even held him, which I still love her to this day for.”

“Explain things over, over, and over again, like you are explaining it to a child. I didn’t know what a cuddle cot was, and I didn’t use it because I didn’t understand.”

“Give suggestions and stress the importance of making memories. There are things I wish I did and now regret not doing. Taking pictures, handprints, lock of hair, giving the baby a bath.”

“For unknown losses give a full explanation of the autopsy and what it entails. Parents are making SO many decisions, and they need guidance.”

“Don’t shy away from it. It happened, and it is important to be human and compassionate. If you cannot do it, find someone else who can.”

“Ask to hold the baby and comment how beautiful the baby is. Treat the baby as if it were living.”

Don’t use the ‘silver lining’ theme

A common “don’t” in the hospital and postpartum is the “at least” and “silver lining” theme that is commonly expressed by providers. When I do my teaching sessions with a bereaved parents panel, we always stress that comforting words never begin with “at least.” We say a lot that there is no “silver lining” to a stillbirth. Dr. Brene Brown, in her TED talk on empathy, discussed that an empathic statement never starts with “at least.” However, this response is an all too common experience for women after stillbirth. Here are some examples from the Internet responses:

“‘The silver lining is you and your daughter have taught us so much.’ There is no silver lining, and her life was not for anyone’s easy path to learning lessons. She was wanted and loved.”

“What not to say: From a doctor, ‘You’re going to have lots more children.’ Anything along the lines of ‘at least you can get pregnant/have children’ is not OK.”

“As a teacher, ‘At least you are already a mother to your students.’ (I cannot even tell you how many times I’ve been told this. They already have mothers, and teaching a child 40 minutes once a week is not even close to being a mother to your own child.)”

“I felt it unhelpful for people to tell me how I should feel. I felt comments like ‘oh, you are young you can have another baby’ unhelpful.”

“Do not say, ‘you can have another, it wasn’t God’s plan, God wanted another angel, there is a reason for everything,’ etc.”

“The doctor who told me my baby was dead referred to him as a fetus. I was 38 weeks pregnant and did not refer to my baby as a fetus.”
 

Handling patient care after the loss

A huge portion of the response I received was regarding care from the practice where they delivered after the loss. These parents provided very important advice for any practice after a patient experiences a loss. Emotional support is vital for these patients. They also made it clear that topics such a medications and counseling should be frequently revisited.

“The care a patient receives after can really change their life – not physical care but emotional care. I truly believe I recovered well, and I am the person I am today because of my provider’s phone calls, suggestions for medications, support groups, and counseling. Don’t underestimate what simple phone calls can do. You don’t have to provide a solution or give advice, just listen.”

“Revisit conversations about medications. I have never taken anything in my entire life. In fact, I was very against it. Don’t be afraid to suggest medications time and time again if you think that it is the right plan. After 6 months, I said ‘yes’ to the medication, and it helped immensely.”

“My OB checking in with me constantly. Doctors offering compassionate and informative advice and encouragement. SUPPORT GROUPS. Star Legacy Foundation mentor!!! Klonopin! Psychologist!!”

“Also, I think it’s important for providers to continue to follow-up with patients even if they don’t seem receptive. Keep checking in. After losing your child you are in a fog. You don’t know quite what you need. But those calls, I promise you they mean something.”
 

When the patient returns to the office

The care received by a loss parent after returning to the office is challenging but so important. Some very careful steps can and must be made to help avoid emotionally harmful situations for the staff and patients. Offices need to make special accommodations and mark what happened clearly in the chart regarding the loss. When I have a mother coming in for a postpartum visit after a loss, I make sure she is the last patient of the day and try to bring her to our satellite offices where she can be the only patient there. Many parents made comments about carefully labeling what happened to the baby in the chart.

“Make sure it’s noted in the chart, and don’t AVOID talking about it. We like to have our baby brought up. Make sure staff knows the situation before entering the office so they don’t say something stupid (for example, ‘How is breast feeding going?’)”

“#1 don’t in my book: Not reading the patient’s chart and labels on it before seeing them if you’re not familiar with the patient. ... Nurses, techs and providers alike have assumed or asked “this is your first,” when clearly my chart lists “fetal death in utero.’”

“Many others have stated this, but having a BIG HUGE MASSIVE flag on our accounts and making sure ALL parts of the office are trained on this would be so incredibly helpful.”

“The nurse at my doctor’s office yesterday said, ‘Well, you’ve lost some weight since you were here last, so that’s good!’ My response was, ‘Well, losing a baby will do that.’”

“The follow-up appointment is awful. I went in heartbroken and angry and anxious. A phone call the day before acknowledging those feelings and reassuring me it was okay would have been nice.”

“At my first follow-up after my son died, I walked in, the receptionist pulled up my chart, saw I was there for my post-delivery appointment, and in the loudest, most cheery voice said, ‘Oooooooooh how’s he doing, how’s the baby?!’ It was awful telling her that he died, and I also felt terrible for all the pregnant woman in the waiting room who may have heard it.”

“When I was in emergency for a complication after birth, the only condolence a doctor from our previous practice gave was, ‘Well, that sucks’ (in regard to our daughter).”
 

Continuing care in the office

The care of women in the office immediately after loss and in years to come is a very important piece of the care they receive. In the same BJOG meta-analysis they found, “Parents frequently encountered professionals who were unaware of their history, through lack of access to/or reading of notes before a consultation. Dismissive attitudes to fears and concerns and insensitive and inappropriate comments sometimes resulted. These often remained with parents long after the event. In contrast, emotional wellbeing was enhanced when care providers demonstrated empathy, listened to concerns and committed to a collaborative and supportive relationship. Parents valued direct acknowledgment of the baby who had died, including using his or her name. Flexible antenatal care including extra appointments, routinely or on request, was also welcomed.”1 These findings were very similar to those reflected in the comments that I received.

“To the mother, there is no difference between a living baby and a stillborn baby. This stillborn baby is JUST AS MUCH a life to us. I’ve had four kids, and I can’t differentiate between how I feel about them.”

“Also, if staying with the same provider, ‘do’ ask what accommodations can be made moving forward. (For me I needed a different ultrasound tech and a different office for my ultrasounds in my subsequent pregnancies as I couldn’t go back there but wanted to stay with my same OB).”

“Don’t be afraid to ask about the child. I want people to know I like talking about my son, that he existed and how much love there was in his short but meaningful life.”

“Saying nothing is worse than saying you don’t know what to say and you are sorry.”

“Some moms love the rainbow baby term, and if they use it first, it’s fine to use it and encourage it and promote it. However, some moms do not like it because 1) they don’t like referring to their loss baby as a ‘storm.’ My baby was a BABY, and he was perfect and loved and I don’t like people referring to him as a storm. A storm is derogatory, [and] 2) the notion the subsequent baby makes everything okay is ridiculous. 3) Not everyone has another baby after a loss, so the ‘after every storm comes a rainbow’ phrase is stupid. It makes it seem like you can never be happy again unless you get a rainbow, and that is not true. 4) It’s a signal to the outside world that ‘everything’ is great and ok when in reality you can have grief, joy, sadness, happiness, pain, and hope all at the [same] time forever.”

Patients and their families who have lost their babies deserve our very best. No one grieves the same, and the differences in how our patients grieve must be respected. However, members of the loss community do have some common themes on responses that they appreciated or did not appreciate regarding their care. Most patients who deliver a stillborn baby or experience a neonatal death or pre-viable baby have had no time to prepare, and they are looking for our guidance and support. The more time we spend with them after diagnosis, during delivery, and after will be so appreciated. I hope some of these quotes ring true to many providers and that they either lead to attempts to change care or reinforce the amazing care providers are already providing. Being at our best when our patients are experiencing potentially the worst moments of their lives is our job as obstetrical providers. Our patients deserve the best care we can possibly provide. Hopefully, these suggestions from patients will help the care of future loss families.
 

Dr. Florescue is an ob.gyn. in private practice at Women Gynecology and Childbirth Associates in Rochester, N.Y. She delivers babies at Highland Hospital in Rochester. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Reference

1. BJOG. 2014 Jul; 121(8):943-50. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12656.

As a provider whose passion is helping women after stillbirth or neonatal loss, I get many transfers of women from their previous practice after a loss. Sometimes they transfer because they need a “fresh start,” but often, it is because they were let down by the practice – not by the medical care they received but by the emotional care and support and what was said or not said after the loss of the baby. A 2014 meta-analysis in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology found that “Parents regarded contacts with health professionals as their central source of reassurance; but experiences often fell short of expectations.”¹ I decided to conduct a survey via local and national support groups about what “loss parents” felt helpful or not helpful after the loss of a child. I purposely made these quotes the dominant part of this article, as I believe our patients are often our best teachers.

Inappropriate comments providers make

A very common theme among loss parents was how providers had made comments about how rare stillbirth is after it had just happened to them. Parents expressed that they felt this statistic kept them from getting the care that they needed prior to their loss and then they were told to not worry. Some example quotes include:

“ ‘This only happens to 1% of babies. Very rare.’ (It happened to our baby, and we have to live with this grief our whole lives. She is more than a statistic. She was our hopes, dreams, and future.)”

“I wish doctors didn’t wait to act based on statistics. There’s a lot of us in the 1% of unlikely occurrences.”

“For me, when my practice brushed off my feelings, I knew in my gut something was wrong. They said, ‘We need to wean you from worrying.’”

Another very common theme from parents included examples of helpful and not helpful care they received in the hospital.
 

Help parents make good memories

Many parents mentioned the importance of providing resources for after they go home. Most labor and delivery units have pregnancy loss services and have improved on the care they provide for loss families. One very common positive comment responded to the memories that nurses and providers helped them make after delivery. One parent said the following:

“While with baby and after loss, I think it’s really important to give ideas of what to do/experiences because the moments are so fleeting, and I needed someone to say, ‘You can dress him.’ ‘Let’s take pictures of his toes.’ ‘Save breast milk, etc.’”

“I appreciated the doctors and nurses who acknowledged my child, who looked at him and humanized him. One nurse even held him, which I still love her to this day for.”

“Explain things over, over, and over again, like you are explaining it to a child. I didn’t know what a cuddle cot was, and I didn’t use it because I didn’t understand.”

“Give suggestions and stress the importance of making memories. There are things I wish I did and now regret not doing. Taking pictures, handprints, lock of hair, giving the baby a bath.”

“For unknown losses give a full explanation of the autopsy and what it entails. Parents are making SO many decisions, and they need guidance.”

“Don’t shy away from it. It happened, and it is important to be human and compassionate. If you cannot do it, find someone else who can.”

“Ask to hold the baby and comment how beautiful the baby is. Treat the baby as if it were living.”

Don’t use the ‘silver lining’ theme

A common “don’t” in the hospital and postpartum is the “at least” and “silver lining” theme that is commonly expressed by providers. When I do my teaching sessions with a bereaved parents panel, we always stress that comforting words never begin with “at least.” We say a lot that there is no “silver lining” to a stillbirth. Dr. Brene Brown, in her TED talk on empathy, discussed that an empathic statement never starts with “at least.” However, this response is an all too common experience for women after stillbirth. Here are some examples from the Internet responses:

“‘The silver lining is you and your daughter have taught us so much.’ There is no silver lining, and her life was not for anyone’s easy path to learning lessons. She was wanted and loved.”

“What not to say: From a doctor, ‘You’re going to have lots more children.’ Anything along the lines of ‘at least you can get pregnant/have children’ is not OK.”

“As a teacher, ‘At least you are already a mother to your students.’ (I cannot even tell you how many times I’ve been told this. They already have mothers, and teaching a child 40 minutes once a week is not even close to being a mother to your own child.)”

“I felt it unhelpful for people to tell me how I should feel. I felt comments like ‘oh, you are young you can have another baby’ unhelpful.”

“Do not say, ‘you can have another, it wasn’t God’s plan, God wanted another angel, there is a reason for everything,’ etc.”

“The doctor who told me my baby was dead referred to him as a fetus. I was 38 weeks pregnant and did not refer to my baby as a fetus.”
 

Handling patient care after the loss

A huge portion of the response I received was regarding care from the practice where they delivered after the loss. These parents provided very important advice for any practice after a patient experiences a loss. Emotional support is vital for these patients. They also made it clear that topics such a medications and counseling should be frequently revisited.

“The care a patient receives after can really change their life – not physical care but emotional care. I truly believe I recovered well, and I am the person I am today because of my provider’s phone calls, suggestions for medications, support groups, and counseling. Don’t underestimate what simple phone calls can do. You don’t have to provide a solution or give advice, just listen.”

“Revisit conversations about medications. I have never taken anything in my entire life. In fact, I was very against it. Don’t be afraid to suggest medications time and time again if you think that it is the right plan. After 6 months, I said ‘yes’ to the medication, and it helped immensely.”

“My OB checking in with me constantly. Doctors offering compassionate and informative advice and encouragement. SUPPORT GROUPS. Star Legacy Foundation mentor!!! Klonopin! Psychologist!!”

“Also, I think it’s important for providers to continue to follow-up with patients even if they don’t seem receptive. Keep checking in. After losing your child you are in a fog. You don’t know quite what you need. But those calls, I promise you they mean something.”
 

When the patient returns to the office

The care received by a loss parent after returning to the office is challenging but so important. Some very careful steps can and must be made to help avoid emotionally harmful situations for the staff and patients. Offices need to make special accommodations and mark what happened clearly in the chart regarding the loss. When I have a mother coming in for a postpartum visit after a loss, I make sure she is the last patient of the day and try to bring her to our satellite offices where she can be the only patient there. Many parents made comments about carefully labeling what happened to the baby in the chart.

“Make sure it’s noted in the chart, and don’t AVOID talking about it. We like to have our baby brought up. Make sure staff knows the situation before entering the office so they don’t say something stupid (for example, ‘How is breast feeding going?’)”

“#1 don’t in my book: Not reading the patient’s chart and labels on it before seeing them if you’re not familiar with the patient. ... Nurses, techs and providers alike have assumed or asked “this is your first,” when clearly my chart lists “fetal death in utero.’”

“Many others have stated this, but having a BIG HUGE MASSIVE flag on our accounts and making sure ALL parts of the office are trained on this would be so incredibly helpful.”

“The nurse at my doctor’s office yesterday said, ‘Well, you’ve lost some weight since you were here last, so that’s good!’ My response was, ‘Well, losing a baby will do that.’”

“The follow-up appointment is awful. I went in heartbroken and angry and anxious. A phone call the day before acknowledging those feelings and reassuring me it was okay would have been nice.”

“At my first follow-up after my son died, I walked in, the receptionist pulled up my chart, saw I was there for my post-delivery appointment, and in the loudest, most cheery voice said, ‘Oooooooooh how’s he doing, how’s the baby?!’ It was awful telling her that he died, and I also felt terrible for all the pregnant woman in the waiting room who may have heard it.”

“When I was in emergency for a complication after birth, the only condolence a doctor from our previous practice gave was, ‘Well, that sucks’ (in regard to our daughter).”
 

Continuing care in the office

The care of women in the office immediately after loss and in years to come is a very important piece of the care they receive. In the same BJOG meta-analysis they found, “Parents frequently encountered professionals who were unaware of their history, through lack of access to/or reading of notes before a consultation. Dismissive attitudes to fears and concerns and insensitive and inappropriate comments sometimes resulted. These often remained with parents long after the event. In contrast, emotional wellbeing was enhanced when care providers demonstrated empathy, listened to concerns and committed to a collaborative and supportive relationship. Parents valued direct acknowledgment of the baby who had died, including using his or her name. Flexible antenatal care including extra appointments, routinely or on request, was also welcomed.”1 These findings were very similar to those reflected in the comments that I received.

“To the mother, there is no difference between a living baby and a stillborn baby. This stillborn baby is JUST AS MUCH a life to us. I’ve had four kids, and I can’t differentiate between how I feel about them.”

“Also, if staying with the same provider, ‘do’ ask what accommodations can be made moving forward. (For me I needed a different ultrasound tech and a different office for my ultrasounds in my subsequent pregnancies as I couldn’t go back there but wanted to stay with my same OB).”

“Don’t be afraid to ask about the child. I want people to know I like talking about my son, that he existed and how much love there was in his short but meaningful life.”

“Saying nothing is worse than saying you don’t know what to say and you are sorry.”

“Some moms love the rainbow baby term, and if they use it first, it’s fine to use it and encourage it and promote it. However, some moms do not like it because 1) they don’t like referring to their loss baby as a ‘storm.’ My baby was a BABY, and he was perfect and loved and I don’t like people referring to him as a storm. A storm is derogatory, [and] 2) the notion the subsequent baby makes everything okay is ridiculous. 3) Not everyone has another baby after a loss, so the ‘after every storm comes a rainbow’ phrase is stupid. It makes it seem like you can never be happy again unless you get a rainbow, and that is not true. 4) It’s a signal to the outside world that ‘everything’ is great and ok when in reality you can have grief, joy, sadness, happiness, pain, and hope all at the [same] time forever.”

Patients and their families who have lost their babies deserve our very best. No one grieves the same, and the differences in how our patients grieve must be respected. However, members of the loss community do have some common themes on responses that they appreciated or did not appreciate regarding their care. Most patients who deliver a stillborn baby or experience a neonatal death or pre-viable baby have had no time to prepare, and they are looking for our guidance and support. The more time we spend with them after diagnosis, during delivery, and after will be so appreciated. I hope some of these quotes ring true to many providers and that they either lead to attempts to change care or reinforce the amazing care providers are already providing. Being at our best when our patients are experiencing potentially the worst moments of their lives is our job as obstetrical providers. Our patients deserve the best care we can possibly provide. Hopefully, these suggestions from patients will help the care of future loss families.
 

Dr. Florescue is an ob.gyn. in private practice at Women Gynecology and Childbirth Associates in Rochester, N.Y. She delivers babies at Highland Hospital in Rochester. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Reference

1. BJOG. 2014 Jul; 121(8):943-50. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12656.

As a provider whose passion is helping women after stillbirth or neonatal loss, I get many transfers of women from their previous practice after a loss. Sometimes they transfer because they need a “fresh start,” but often, it is because they were let down by the practice – not by the medical care they received but by the emotional care and support and what was said or not said after the loss of the baby. A 2014 meta-analysis in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology found that “Parents regarded contacts with health professionals as their central source of reassurance; but experiences often fell short of expectations.”¹ I decided to conduct a survey via local and national support groups about what “loss parents” felt helpful or not helpful after the loss of a child. I purposely made these quotes the dominant part of this article, as I believe our patients are often our best teachers.

Inappropriate comments providers make

A very common theme among loss parents was how providers had made comments about how rare stillbirth is after it had just happened to them. Parents expressed that they felt this statistic kept them from getting the care that they needed prior to their loss and then they were told to not worry. Some example quotes include:

“ ‘This only happens to 1% of babies. Very rare.’ (It happened to our baby, and we have to live with this grief our whole lives. She is more than a statistic. She was our hopes, dreams, and future.)”

“I wish doctors didn’t wait to act based on statistics. There’s a lot of us in the 1% of unlikely occurrences.”

“For me, when my practice brushed off my feelings, I knew in my gut something was wrong. They said, ‘We need to wean you from worrying.’”

Another very common theme from parents included examples of helpful and not helpful care they received in the hospital.
 

Help parents make good memories

Many parents mentioned the importance of providing resources for after they go home. Most labor and delivery units have pregnancy loss services and have improved on the care they provide for loss families. One very common positive comment responded to the memories that nurses and providers helped them make after delivery. One parent said the following:

“While with baby and after loss, I think it’s really important to give ideas of what to do/experiences because the moments are so fleeting, and I needed someone to say, ‘You can dress him.’ ‘Let’s take pictures of his toes.’ ‘Save breast milk, etc.’”

“I appreciated the doctors and nurses who acknowledged my child, who looked at him and humanized him. One nurse even held him, which I still love her to this day for.”

“Explain things over, over, and over again, like you are explaining it to a child. I didn’t know what a cuddle cot was, and I didn’t use it because I didn’t understand.”

“Give suggestions and stress the importance of making memories. There are things I wish I did and now regret not doing. Taking pictures, handprints, lock of hair, giving the baby a bath.”

“For unknown losses give a full explanation of the autopsy and what it entails. Parents are making SO many decisions, and they need guidance.”

“Don’t shy away from it. It happened, and it is important to be human and compassionate. If you cannot do it, find someone else who can.”

“Ask to hold the baby and comment how beautiful the baby is. Treat the baby as if it were living.”

Don’t use the ‘silver lining’ theme

A common “don’t” in the hospital and postpartum is the “at least” and “silver lining” theme that is commonly expressed by providers. When I do my teaching sessions with a bereaved parents panel, we always stress that comforting words never begin with “at least.” We say a lot that there is no “silver lining” to a stillbirth. Dr. Brene Brown, in her TED talk on empathy, discussed that an empathic statement never starts with “at least.” However, this response is an all too common experience for women after stillbirth. Here are some examples from the Internet responses:

“‘The silver lining is you and your daughter have taught us so much.’ There is no silver lining, and her life was not for anyone’s easy path to learning lessons. She was wanted and loved.”

“What not to say: From a doctor, ‘You’re going to have lots more children.’ Anything along the lines of ‘at least you can get pregnant/have children’ is not OK.”

“As a teacher, ‘At least you are already a mother to your students.’ (I cannot even tell you how many times I’ve been told this. They already have mothers, and teaching a child 40 minutes once a week is not even close to being a mother to your own child.)”

“I felt it unhelpful for people to tell me how I should feel. I felt comments like ‘oh, you are young you can have another baby’ unhelpful.”

“Do not say, ‘you can have another, it wasn’t God’s plan, God wanted another angel, there is a reason for everything,’ etc.”

“The doctor who told me my baby was dead referred to him as a fetus. I was 38 weeks pregnant and did not refer to my baby as a fetus.”
 

Handling patient care after the loss

A huge portion of the response I received was regarding care from the practice where they delivered after the loss. These parents provided very important advice for any practice after a patient experiences a loss. Emotional support is vital for these patients. They also made it clear that topics such a medications and counseling should be frequently revisited.

“The care a patient receives after can really change their life – not physical care but emotional care. I truly believe I recovered well, and I am the person I am today because of my provider’s phone calls, suggestions for medications, support groups, and counseling. Don’t underestimate what simple phone calls can do. You don’t have to provide a solution or give advice, just listen.”

“Revisit conversations about medications. I have never taken anything in my entire life. In fact, I was very against it. Don’t be afraid to suggest medications time and time again if you think that it is the right plan. After 6 months, I said ‘yes’ to the medication, and it helped immensely.”

“My OB checking in with me constantly. Doctors offering compassionate and informative advice and encouragement. SUPPORT GROUPS. Star Legacy Foundation mentor!!! Klonopin! Psychologist!!”

“Also, I think it’s important for providers to continue to follow-up with patients even if they don’t seem receptive. Keep checking in. After losing your child you are in a fog. You don’t know quite what you need. But those calls, I promise you they mean something.”
 

When the patient returns to the office

The care received by a loss parent after returning to the office is challenging but so important. Some very careful steps can and must be made to help avoid emotionally harmful situations for the staff and patients. Offices need to make special accommodations and mark what happened clearly in the chart regarding the loss. When I have a mother coming in for a postpartum visit after a loss, I make sure she is the last patient of the day and try to bring her to our satellite offices where she can be the only patient there. Many parents made comments about carefully labeling what happened to the baby in the chart.

“Make sure it’s noted in the chart, and don’t AVOID talking about it. We like to have our baby brought up. Make sure staff knows the situation before entering the office so they don’t say something stupid (for example, ‘How is breast feeding going?’)”

“#1 don’t in my book: Not reading the patient’s chart and labels on it before seeing them if you’re not familiar with the patient. ... Nurses, techs and providers alike have assumed or asked “this is your first,” when clearly my chart lists “fetal death in utero.’”

“Many others have stated this, but having a BIG HUGE MASSIVE flag on our accounts and making sure ALL parts of the office are trained on this would be so incredibly helpful.”

“The nurse at my doctor’s office yesterday said, ‘Well, you’ve lost some weight since you were here last, so that’s good!’ My response was, ‘Well, losing a baby will do that.’”

“The follow-up appointment is awful. I went in heartbroken and angry and anxious. A phone call the day before acknowledging those feelings and reassuring me it was okay would have been nice.”

“At my first follow-up after my son died, I walked in, the receptionist pulled up my chart, saw I was there for my post-delivery appointment, and in the loudest, most cheery voice said, ‘Oooooooooh how’s he doing, how’s the baby?!’ It was awful telling her that he died, and I also felt terrible for all the pregnant woman in the waiting room who may have heard it.”

“When I was in emergency for a complication after birth, the only condolence a doctor from our previous practice gave was, ‘Well, that sucks’ (in regard to our daughter).”
 

Continuing care in the office

The care of women in the office immediately after loss and in years to come is a very important piece of the care they receive. In the same BJOG meta-analysis they found, “Parents frequently encountered professionals who were unaware of their history, through lack of access to/or reading of notes before a consultation. Dismissive attitudes to fears and concerns and insensitive and inappropriate comments sometimes resulted. These often remained with parents long after the event. In contrast, emotional wellbeing was enhanced when care providers demonstrated empathy, listened to concerns and committed to a collaborative and supportive relationship. Parents valued direct acknowledgment of the baby who had died, including using his or her name. Flexible antenatal care including extra appointments, routinely or on request, was also welcomed.”1 These findings were very similar to those reflected in the comments that I received.

“To the mother, there is no difference between a living baby and a stillborn baby. This stillborn baby is JUST AS MUCH a life to us. I’ve had four kids, and I can’t differentiate between how I feel about them.”

“Also, if staying with the same provider, ‘do’ ask what accommodations can be made moving forward. (For me I needed a different ultrasound tech and a different office for my ultrasounds in my subsequent pregnancies as I couldn’t go back there but wanted to stay with my same OB).”

“Don’t be afraid to ask about the child. I want people to know I like talking about my son, that he existed and how much love there was in his short but meaningful life.”

“Saying nothing is worse than saying you don’t know what to say and you are sorry.”

“Some moms love the rainbow baby term, and if they use it first, it’s fine to use it and encourage it and promote it. However, some moms do not like it because 1) they don’t like referring to their loss baby as a ‘storm.’ My baby was a BABY, and he was perfect and loved and I don’t like people referring to him as a storm. A storm is derogatory, [and] 2) the notion the subsequent baby makes everything okay is ridiculous. 3) Not everyone has another baby after a loss, so the ‘after every storm comes a rainbow’ phrase is stupid. It makes it seem like you can never be happy again unless you get a rainbow, and that is not true. 4) It’s a signal to the outside world that ‘everything’ is great and ok when in reality you can have grief, joy, sadness, happiness, pain, and hope all at the [same] time forever.”

Patients and their families who have lost their babies deserve our very best. No one grieves the same, and the differences in how our patients grieve must be respected. However, members of the loss community do have some common themes on responses that they appreciated or did not appreciate regarding their care. Most patients who deliver a stillborn baby or experience a neonatal death or pre-viable baby have had no time to prepare, and they are looking for our guidance and support. The more time we spend with them after diagnosis, during delivery, and after will be so appreciated. I hope some of these quotes ring true to many providers and that they either lead to attempts to change care or reinforce the amazing care providers are already providing. Being at our best when our patients are experiencing potentially the worst moments of their lives is our job as obstetrical providers. Our patients deserve the best care we can possibly provide. Hopefully, these suggestions from patients will help the care of future loss families.
 

Dr. Florescue is an ob.gyn. in private practice at Women Gynecology and Childbirth Associates in Rochester, N.Y. She delivers babies at Highland Hospital in Rochester. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Reference

1. BJOG. 2014 Jul; 121(8):943-50. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12656.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration released new warnings Oct. 15 that most nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) carry an elevated risk for kidney complications in unborn children when taken around weeks 20 or later in pregnancy.

Citing newly available research, the agency states the risk of low amniotic fluid (known as oligohydramnios) can occur, which in turn can cause rare but serious kidney problems in the offspring. Pregnancy complications also can result.

The FDA action expands on earlier warnings about agents in this drug class, which the FDA previously cautioned about taking after week 30 of pregnancy because of heart-related risks.

Manufacturers of both over-the-counter and prescription NSAIDs – including ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, and celecoxib – will be required to update their labeling with the new warning.

Low-dose (81-mg) aspirin is excluded from this warning.

“Low-dose aspirin may be an important treatment for some women during pregnancy and should be taken under the direction of a healthcare professional,” the agency stated in a news release.

“It is important that women understand the benefits and risks of the medications they may take over the course of their pregnancy,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, states in the release. “To this end, the agency is using its regulatory authority to inform women and their healthcare providers about the risks if NSAIDs are used after around 20 weeks of pregnancy and beyond.”

Oligohydramnios can arise quickly – in as little as 2 days – or weeks after starting regular NSAID use in this patient population. The condition usually resolves if a pregnant woman stops taking the NSAID, the agency notes.

If a health care provider believes NSAIDs are necessary between about 20 and 30 weeks of pregnancy, use should be limited to the lowest effective dose and shortest duration possible, the Drug Safety Communication notes.

As a reminder, health care professionals and patients should report side effects from NSAIDs to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration released new warnings Oct. 15 that most nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) carry an elevated risk for kidney complications in unborn children when taken around weeks 20 or later in pregnancy.

Citing newly available research, the agency states the risk of low amniotic fluid (known as oligohydramnios) can occur, which in turn can cause rare but serious kidney problems in the offspring. Pregnancy complications also can result.

The FDA action expands on earlier warnings about agents in this drug class, which the FDA previously cautioned about taking after week 30 of pregnancy because of heart-related risks.

Manufacturers of both over-the-counter and prescription NSAIDs – including ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, and celecoxib – will be required to update their labeling with the new warning.

Low-dose (81-mg) aspirin is excluded from this warning.

“Low-dose aspirin may be an important treatment for some women during pregnancy and should be taken under the direction of a healthcare professional,” the agency stated in a news release.

“It is important that women understand the benefits and risks of the medications they may take over the course of their pregnancy,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, states in the release. “To this end, the agency is using its regulatory authority to inform women and their healthcare providers about the risks if NSAIDs are used after around 20 weeks of pregnancy and beyond.”

Oligohydramnios can arise quickly – in as little as 2 days – or weeks after starting regular NSAID use in this patient population. The condition usually resolves if a pregnant woman stops taking the NSAID, the agency notes.

If a health care provider believes NSAIDs are necessary between about 20 and 30 weeks of pregnancy, use should be limited to the lowest effective dose and shortest duration possible, the Drug Safety Communication notes.

As a reminder, health care professionals and patients should report side effects from NSAIDs to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration released new warnings Oct. 15 that most nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) carry an elevated risk for kidney complications in unborn children when taken around weeks 20 or later in pregnancy.

Citing newly available research, the agency states the risk of low amniotic fluid (known as oligohydramnios) can occur, which in turn can cause rare but serious kidney problems in the offspring. Pregnancy complications also can result.

The FDA action expands on earlier warnings about agents in this drug class, which the FDA previously cautioned about taking after week 30 of pregnancy because of heart-related risks.

Manufacturers of both over-the-counter and prescription NSAIDs – including ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, and celecoxib – will be required to update their labeling with the new warning.

Low-dose (81-mg) aspirin is excluded from this warning.

“Low-dose aspirin may be an important treatment for some women during pregnancy and should be taken under the direction of a healthcare professional,” the agency stated in a news release.

“It is important that women understand the benefits and risks of the medications they may take over the course of their pregnancy,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, states in the release. “To this end, the agency is using its regulatory authority to inform women and their healthcare providers about the risks if NSAIDs are used after around 20 weeks of pregnancy and beyond.”

Oligohydramnios can arise quickly – in as little as 2 days – or weeks after starting regular NSAID use in this patient population. The condition usually resolves if a pregnant woman stops taking the NSAID, the agency notes.

If a health care provider believes NSAIDs are necessary between about 20 and 30 weeks of pregnancy, use should be limited to the lowest effective dose and shortest duration possible, the Drug Safety Communication notes.

As a reminder, health care professionals and patients should report side effects from NSAIDs to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Black women living with HIV are a high-risk population for peripartum depressive symptoms, based on data from 143 women.

Women with high-risk pregnancies because of chronic conditions are at increased risk for developing postpartum depression, and HIV may be one such risk. However, risk factors for women living with HIV, particularly Black women, have not been well studied, wrote Emmanuela Nneamaka Ojukwu of the University of Miami School of Nursing, and colleagues.

Data suggest that as many as half of cases of postpartum depression (PPD) begin before delivery, the researchers noted. “Therefore, for this study, the symptoms of both PND (prenatal depression) and PPD have been classified in what we have termed peripartum depressive symptoms (PDS),” and defined as depressive symptoms during pregnancy and within 1 year postpartum, they said.

In a study published in the Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, the researchers conducted a secondary analysis of 143 Black women living with HIV seen at specialty prenatal and women’s health clinics in Miami.

Overall, 81 women (57%) reported either perinatal or postpartum depressive symptoms, or both. “Some of the symptoms prevalent among women in our study included restlessness, depressed mood, apathy, guilt, hopelessness, and social isolation,” the researchers said.
 

Social factors show significant impact

In a multivariate analysis, low income, intimate partner violence, and childcare burden were significant predictors of PDS (P less than .05). Women who reported intimate partner violence or abuse were 6.5 times more likely to experience PDS than were women who did not report abuse, and women with a childcare burden involving two children were 4.6 times more likely to experience PDS than were women with no childcare burden or only one child needing child care.

The average age of the women studied was 29 years, and 59% were above the federal poverty level. Nearly two-thirds (62%) were Black and 38% were Haitian; 63% were unemployed, 62% had a high school diploma or less, and 59% received care through Medicaid.

The researchers assessed four categories of health: HIV-related, gynecologic, obstetric, and psychosocial. The average viral load among the patients was 22,359 copies/mL at baseline, and they averaged 2.5 medical comorbidities. The most common comorbid conditions were other sexually transmitted infections and blood disorders, followed by cardiovascular and metabolic conditions.
 

Quantitative studies needed

Larger quantitative studies of Black pregnant women living with HIV are needed to analyze social factors at multiple levels, the researchers said. “To address depression among Black women living with HIV, local and federal governments should enact measures that increase the family income and diminish the prevalence of [intimate partner violence] among these women,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including retrospective design and use of self-reports, as well as the small sample size and lack of generalizability to women living with HIV of other races or from other regions, the researchers noted. However, the results reflect data from previous studies and support the value of early screening and referral to improve well being for Black women living with HIV, as well as the importance of comprehensive medical care, they said.

“Women should be counseled that postpartum physical and psychological changes (and the stresses and demands of caring for a new baby) may make [antiretroviral] adherence more difficult and that additional support may be needed during this period,” the researchers wrote.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Ojukwu EN et al. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2020.05.004.

Black women living with HIV are a high-risk population for peripartum depressive symptoms, based on data from 143 women.

Women with high-risk pregnancies because of chronic conditions are at increased risk for developing postpartum depression, and HIV may be one such risk. However, risk factors for women living with HIV, particularly Black women, have not been well studied, wrote Emmanuela Nneamaka Ojukwu of the University of Miami School of Nursing, and colleagues.

Data suggest that as many as half of cases of postpartum depression (PPD) begin before delivery, the researchers noted. “Therefore, for this study, the symptoms of both PND (prenatal depression) and PPD have been classified in what we have termed peripartum depressive symptoms (PDS),” and defined as depressive symptoms during pregnancy and within 1 year postpartum, they said.

In a study published in the Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, the researchers conducted a secondary analysis of 143 Black women living with HIV seen at specialty prenatal and women’s health clinics in Miami.

Overall, 81 women (57%) reported either perinatal or postpartum depressive symptoms, or both. “Some of the symptoms prevalent among women in our study included restlessness, depressed mood, apathy, guilt, hopelessness, and social isolation,” the researchers said.
 

Social factors show significant impact

In a multivariate analysis, low income, intimate partner violence, and childcare burden were significant predictors of PDS (P less than .05). Women who reported intimate partner violence or abuse were 6.5 times more likely to experience PDS than were women who did not report abuse, and women with a childcare burden involving two children were 4.6 times more likely to experience PDS than were women with no childcare burden or only one child needing child care.

The average age of the women studied was 29 years, and 59% were above the federal poverty level. Nearly two-thirds (62%) were Black and 38% were Haitian; 63% were unemployed, 62% had a high school diploma or less, and 59% received care through Medicaid.

The researchers assessed four categories of health: HIV-related, gynecologic, obstetric, and psychosocial. The average viral load among the patients was 22,359 copies/mL at baseline, and they averaged 2.5 medical comorbidities. The most common comorbid conditions were other sexually transmitted infections and blood disorders, followed by cardiovascular and metabolic conditions.
 

Quantitative studies needed

Larger quantitative studies of Black pregnant women living with HIV are needed to analyze social factors at multiple levels, the researchers said. “To address depression among Black women living with HIV, local and federal governments should enact measures that increase the family income and diminish the prevalence of [intimate partner violence] among these women,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including retrospective design and use of self-reports, as well as the small sample size and lack of generalizability to women living with HIV of other races or from other regions, the researchers noted. However, the results reflect data from previous studies and support the value of early screening and referral to improve well being for Black women living with HIV, as well as the importance of comprehensive medical care, they said.

“Women should be counseled that postpartum physical and psychological changes (and the stresses and demands of caring for a new baby) may make [antiretroviral] adherence more difficult and that additional support may be needed during this period,” the researchers wrote.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Ojukwu EN et al. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2020.05.004.

Black women living with HIV are a high-risk population for peripartum depressive symptoms, based on data from 143 women.

Women with high-risk pregnancies because of chronic conditions are at increased risk for developing postpartum depression, and HIV may be one such risk. However, risk factors for women living with HIV, particularly Black women, have not been well studied, wrote Emmanuela Nneamaka Ojukwu of the University of Miami School of Nursing, and colleagues.

Data suggest that as many as half of cases of postpartum depression (PPD) begin before delivery, the researchers noted. “Therefore, for this study, the symptoms of both PND (prenatal depression) and PPD have been classified in what we have termed peripartum depressive symptoms (PDS),” and defined as depressive symptoms during pregnancy and within 1 year postpartum, they said.

In a study published in the Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, the researchers conducted a secondary analysis of 143 Black women living with HIV seen at specialty prenatal and women’s health clinics in Miami.

Overall, 81 women (57%) reported either perinatal or postpartum depressive symptoms, or both. “Some of the symptoms prevalent among women in our study included restlessness, depressed mood, apathy, guilt, hopelessness, and social isolation,” the researchers said.
 

Social factors show significant impact

In a multivariate analysis, low income, intimate partner violence, and childcare burden were significant predictors of PDS (P less than .05). Women who reported intimate partner violence or abuse were 6.5 times more likely to experience PDS than were women who did not report abuse, and women with a childcare burden involving two children were 4.6 times more likely to experience PDS than were women with no childcare burden or only one child needing child care.

The average age of the women studied was 29 years, and 59% were above the federal poverty level. Nearly two-thirds (62%) were Black and 38% were Haitian; 63% were unemployed, 62% had a high school diploma or less, and 59% received care through Medicaid.

The researchers assessed four categories of health: HIV-related, gynecologic, obstetric, and psychosocial. The average viral load among the patients was 22,359 copies/mL at baseline, and they averaged 2.5 medical comorbidities. The most common comorbid conditions were other sexually transmitted infections and blood disorders, followed by cardiovascular and metabolic conditions.
 

Quantitative studies needed

Larger quantitative studies of Black pregnant women living with HIV are needed to analyze social factors at multiple levels, the researchers said. “To address depression among Black women living with HIV, local and federal governments should enact measures that increase the family income and diminish the prevalence of [intimate partner violence] among these women,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including retrospective design and use of self-reports, as well as the small sample size and lack of generalizability to women living with HIV of other races or from other regions, the researchers noted. However, the results reflect data from previous studies and support the value of early screening and referral to improve well being for Black women living with HIV, as well as the importance of comprehensive medical care, they said.

“Women should be counseled that postpartum physical and psychological changes (and the stresses and demands of caring for a new baby) may make [antiretroviral] adherence more difficult and that additional support may be needed during this period,” the researchers wrote.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Ojukwu EN et al. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2020.05.004.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to chug along, some communities feel it slowing to a pace at which they might feel comfortable about a return to, if not quite “business as usual,” at least “business as sort of normal-ish.” They are ready to accept a level of disease that signals they have reached a steady state. However, in other communities, the virus has picked up speed and is threatening to overwhelm the medical infrastructure. If you are in one of those fortunate and skillfully managed states in which folks are beginning to talk seriously, but with little evidence, that it is time to return to normal, it is probably far too early. Are there any metrics that could be applied to make the decision to ease restrictions more rational?

Courtesy Dr. William G. Wilkoff

Eons ago in pandemic terms, the World Health Organization in Thailand published a list of criteria to aid in determining when a community could consider lifting the limits that seemed to have been effective in halting transmission of the virus (“Transitioning to and maintaining a steady state of low-level or no transmission,” WHO, Thailand, 2020 Apr 18). While much more has been learned about the behavior of the virus since the spring of 2020, the criteria from the WHO in Thailand are worth considering.

Here is my summary of their criteria for returning to normalcy. First, virus transmission is controlled to the point that only sporadic cases and small clusters exist, and that all of these are traceable in origin. Second, health care and public health systems are in place with sufficient capacities to manage a shift from detection to treatment should the case load increase dramatically; this capacity should include detection, testing, isolation, and quarantine. Third, outbreaks in high-risk populations such as nursing homes have been minimized. Fourth, workplace prevention strategies are in place and have been demonstrated to be effective. Fifth, risk of imported cases is at manageable levels. Finally, communities are engaged.

It is hard to argue with the rationale behind each of these criteria. However, the United States is not Thailand, and just thinking about how this country would go about meeting those criteria provides a window into some of the reasons why we have done so poorly and will continue to be challenged in dealing with the pandemic.

First, notice that the criteria make no mention of a vaccine. One gets the sense that from the top down our country is banking too heavily on the effectiveness and widespread delivery of a vaccine. Even if and when a vaccine is developed and delivered, all of these criteria still must be met and kept in mind for a future pandemic.

Second, the criteria call for an effective health care system, but it is abundantly clear that the United States does not have a cohesive health care system and probably won’t for the foreseeable future. The best we can hope for is individual states cobbling together their own systems, which may in turn serve as examples for those states who haven’t had the foresight. We have had a public health system of sorts, but its credibility and effectiveness has been neutered to the point that again we must rely on each state’s ability to see through the haze and create it’s own systems for detection, testing, tracking, isolating, and quarantining – often with little help in materiel support from the federal government. The sliver of good news is that, after a bit of a stumbling start, detecting and limiting the importation of cases from abroad is being addressed.

We continue to hear and see evidence that there are segments of the population who are not engaged in the activities that we have learned are necessary to stabilize the pandemic. My sense is that those people represent a very small minority. But, it is probably large enough to make the route to a steady state on a national level long and painful. This unfortunately is to be expected in a country that was built on a framework of personal freedoms. The best you can hope for in achieving a steady state is to live in one of the states that seems to be achieving the fine balance between personal freedoms and the common good.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to chug along, some communities feel it slowing to a pace at which they might feel comfortable about a return to, if not quite “business as usual,” at least “business as sort of normal-ish.” They are ready to accept a level of disease that signals they have reached a steady state. However, in other communities, the virus has picked up speed and is threatening to overwhelm the medical infrastructure. If you are in one of those fortunate and skillfully managed states in which folks are beginning to talk seriously, but with little evidence, that it is time to return to normal, it is probably far too early. Are there any metrics that could be applied to make the decision to ease restrictions more rational?

Courtesy Dr. William G. Wilkoff

Eons ago in pandemic terms, the World Health Organization in Thailand published a list of criteria to aid in determining when a community could consider lifting the limits that seemed to have been effective in halting transmission of the virus (“Transitioning to and maintaining a steady state of low-level or no transmission,” WHO, Thailand, 2020 Apr 18). While much more has been learned about the behavior of the virus since the spring of 2020, the criteria from the WHO in Thailand are worth considering.

Here is my summary of their criteria for returning to normalcy. First, virus transmission is controlled to the point that only sporadic cases and small clusters exist, and that all of these are traceable in origin. Second, health care and public health systems are in place with sufficient capacities to manage a shift from detection to treatment should the case load increase dramatically; this capacity should include detection, testing, isolation, and quarantine. Third, outbreaks in high-risk populations such as nursing homes have been minimized. Fourth, workplace prevention strategies are in place and have been demonstrated to be effective. Fifth, risk of imported cases is at manageable levels. Finally, communities are engaged.

It is hard to argue with the rationale behind each of these criteria. However, the United States is not Thailand, and just thinking about how this country would go about meeting those criteria provides a window into some of the reasons why we have done so poorly and will continue to be challenged in dealing with the pandemic.

First, notice that the criteria make no mention of a vaccine. One gets the sense that from the top down our country is banking too heavily on the effectiveness and widespread delivery of a vaccine. Even if and when a vaccine is developed and delivered, all of these criteria still must be met and kept in mind for a future pandemic.

Second, the criteria call for an effective health care system, but it is abundantly clear that the United States does not have a cohesive health care system and probably won’t for the foreseeable future. The best we can hope for is individual states cobbling together their own systems, which may in turn serve as examples for those states who haven’t had the foresight. We have had a public health system of sorts, but its credibility and effectiveness has been neutered to the point that again we must rely on each state’s ability to see through the haze and create it’s own systems for detection, testing, tracking, isolating, and quarantining – often with little help in materiel support from the federal government. The sliver of good news is that, after a bit of a stumbling start, detecting and limiting the importation of cases from abroad is being addressed.

We continue to hear and see evidence that there are segments of the population who are not engaged in the activities that we have learned are necessary to stabilize the pandemic. My sense is that those people represent a very small minority. But, it is probably large enough to make the route to a steady state on a national level long and painful. This unfortunately is to be expected in a country that was built on a framework of personal freedoms. The best you can hope for in achieving a steady state is to live in one of the states that seems to be achieving the fine balance between personal freedoms and the common good.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to chug along, some communities feel it slowing to a pace at which they might feel comfortable about a return to, if not quite “business as usual,” at least “business as sort of normal-ish.” They are ready to accept a level of disease that signals they have reached a steady state. However, in other communities, the virus has picked up speed and is threatening to overwhelm the medical infrastructure. If you are in one of those fortunate and skillfully managed states in which folks are beginning to talk seriously, but with little evidence, that it is time to return to normal, it is probably far too early. Are there any metrics that could be applied to make the decision to ease restrictions more rational?

Courtesy Dr. William G. Wilkoff

Eons ago in pandemic terms, the World Health Organization in Thailand published a list of criteria to aid in determining when a community could consider lifting the limits that seemed to have been effective in halting transmission of the virus (“Transitioning to and maintaining a steady state of low-level or no transmission,” WHO, Thailand, 2020 Apr 18). While much more has been learned about the behavior of the virus since the spring of 2020, the criteria from the WHO in Thailand are worth considering.

Here is my summary of their criteria for returning to normalcy. First, virus transmission is controlled to the point that only sporadic cases and small clusters exist, and that all of these are traceable in origin. Second, health care and public health systems are in place with sufficient capacities to manage a shift from detection to treatment should the case load increase dramatically; this capacity should include detection, testing, isolation, and quarantine. Third, outbreaks in high-risk populations such as nursing homes have been minimized. Fourth, workplace prevention strategies are in place and have been demonstrated to be effective. Fifth, risk of imported cases is at manageable levels. Finally, communities are engaged.

It is hard to argue with the rationale behind each of these criteria. However, the United States is not Thailand, and just thinking about how this country would go about meeting those criteria provides a window into some of the reasons why we have done so poorly and will continue to be challenged in dealing with the pandemic.

First, notice that the criteria make no mention of a vaccine. One gets the sense that from the top down our country is banking too heavily on the effectiveness and widespread delivery of a vaccine. Even if and when a vaccine is developed and delivered, all of these criteria still must be met and kept in mind for a future pandemic.

Second, the criteria call for an effective health care system, but it is abundantly clear that the United States does not have a cohesive health care system and probably won’t for the foreseeable future. The best we can hope for is individual states cobbling together their own systems, which may in turn serve as examples for those states who haven’t had the foresight. We have had a public health system of sorts, but its credibility and effectiveness has been neutered to the point that again we must rely on each state’s ability to see through the haze and create it’s own systems for detection, testing, tracking, isolating, and quarantining – often with little help in materiel support from the federal government. The sliver of good news is that, after a bit of a stumbling start, detecting and limiting the importation of cases from abroad is being addressed.

We continue to hear and see evidence that there are segments of the population who are not engaged in the activities that we have learned are necessary to stabilize the pandemic. My sense is that those people represent a very small minority. But, it is probably large enough to make the route to a steady state on a national level long and painful. This unfortunately is to be expected in a country that was built on a framework of personal freedoms. The best you can hope for in achieving a steady state is to live in one of the states that seems to be achieving the fine balance between personal freedoms and the common good.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Blood group O was associated with a decreased risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to the results of large retrospective analysis of the Danish population.

Researchers Mike Bogetofte Barnkob, MD, of the Department of Clinical Immunology, Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all Danish individuals with a known ABO blood group who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 between Feb. 27, 2020, and July 30, 2020.

Of the 841,327 people tested, ABO and RhD blood groups could be identified for 473,654 individuals. ABO and RhD data from 2,204,742 (38% of the entire Danish population) were used as a reference, according to the online report in Blood Advances.

The primary outcome was status of ABO and RhD blood groups and test results for SARS-CoV-2. The secondary outcomes followed were hospitalization and death from COVID-19.
 

Reduced prevalence

The study found that ABO blood groups varied significantly between patients and the reference group, with only 38.41% (95% confidence interval, 37.30%-39.50%) of the patients belonging to blood group O, compared with 41.70% (95% CI, 41.60%-41.80%) in the controls, corresponding to a relative risk of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.91) for acquiring COVID-19.

There was a slight, but statistically significant, difference in blood group distribution between the SARS-CoV-22 individuals and the reference population (P < .001), according to the authors.

Among the SARS-CoV-2 individuals, fewer group O individuals were found (P < .001); while more A, B, and AB individuals were seen (P < .001, P = .011, and P = .091, respectively). There was no significant difference seen among A, B, and AB blood groups (P = .30). The RR for contracting SARS-CoV-2 were 1.09 (95% CI, 1.04-1.14) for A group individuals; 1.06 (95% CI, 0.99-1.14) for B group; and 1.15 (95% CI, 1.03-1.27) for AB group, respectively.

There was no difference found in the RhD group between positive test cases and the reference population (P = .15). In addition, there was no statistical difference (all P > .40) between ABO blood groups and clinical severity of COVID-19 for nonhospitalized patients versus hospitalized patients or for deceased patients versus living patients, the researchers added.
 

Possible causes

The authors speculated on two possible causes of the lower prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the blood group O population. The first is that anti-A and anti-B antibodies may have an effect on neutralizing SARS-CoV viruses and that anti-A and anti-B are present on mucosal surfaces in some individuals lacking the corresponding ABO blood group. The second is that the association between ABO blood groups and levels of von Willebrand factor, which is higher in non-O individuals and is tied to an increased likelihood of arterial and venous thrombosis, could have an indirect or unknown impact on susceptibility to infection, according to the authors.

“Given the known increased risk of thrombosis in non-O individuals and the evolving central role for thrombosis in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, it is important to explore this aspect more closely in larger patient cohorts (e.g., by examining ABO blood type and viral load, the severity of symptoms, and the long-term effects following COVID-19),” the researchers concluded.

One author reported receiving fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Roche. The remaining authors reported they had no competing financial interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Barnkob MB et al. Blood Adv. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002657.

Blood group O was associated with a decreased risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to the results of large retrospective analysis of the Danish population.

Researchers Mike Bogetofte Barnkob, MD, of the Department of Clinical Immunology, Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all Danish individuals with a known ABO blood group who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 between Feb. 27, 2020, and July 30, 2020.

Of the 841,327 people tested, ABO and RhD blood groups could be identified for 473,654 individuals. ABO and RhD data from 2,204,742 (38% of the entire Danish population) were used as a reference, according to the online report in Blood Advances.

The primary outcome was status of ABO and RhD blood groups and test results for SARS-CoV-2. The secondary outcomes followed were hospitalization and death from COVID-19.
 

Reduced prevalence

The study found that ABO blood groups varied significantly between patients and the reference group, with only 38.41% (95% confidence interval, 37.30%-39.50%) of the patients belonging to blood group O, compared with 41.70% (95% CI, 41.60%-41.80%) in the controls, corresponding to a relative risk of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.91) for acquiring COVID-19.

There was a slight, but statistically significant, difference in blood group distribution between the SARS-CoV-22 individuals and the reference population (P < .001), according to the authors.

Among the SARS-CoV-2 individuals, fewer group O individuals were found (P < .001); while more A, B, and AB individuals were seen (P < .001, P = .011, and P = .091, respectively). There was no significant difference seen among A, B, and AB blood groups (P = .30). The RR for contracting SARS-CoV-2 were 1.09 (95% CI, 1.04-1.14) for A group individuals; 1.06 (95% CI, 0.99-1.14) for B group; and 1.15 (95% CI, 1.03-1.27) for AB group, respectively.

There was no difference found in the RhD group between positive test cases and the reference population (P = .15). In addition, there was no statistical difference (all P > .40) between ABO blood groups and clinical severity of COVID-19 for nonhospitalized patients versus hospitalized patients or for deceased patients versus living patients, the researchers added.
 

Possible causes

The authors speculated on two possible causes of the lower prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the blood group O population. The first is that anti-A and anti-B antibodies may have an effect on neutralizing SARS-CoV viruses and that anti-A and anti-B are present on mucosal surfaces in some individuals lacking the corresponding ABO blood group. The second is that the association between ABO blood groups and levels of von Willebrand factor, which is higher in non-O individuals and is tied to an increased likelihood of arterial and venous thrombosis, could have an indirect or unknown impact on susceptibility to infection, according to the authors.

“Given the known increased risk of thrombosis in non-O individuals and the evolving central role for thrombosis in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, it is important to explore this aspect more closely in larger patient cohorts (e.g., by examining ABO blood type and viral load, the severity of symptoms, and the long-term effects following COVID-19),” the researchers concluded.

One author reported receiving fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Roche. The remaining authors reported they had no competing financial interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Barnkob MB et al. Blood Adv. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002657.

Blood group O was associated with a decreased risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to the results of large retrospective analysis of the Danish population.

Researchers Mike Bogetofte Barnkob, MD, of the Department of Clinical Immunology, Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all Danish individuals with a known ABO blood group who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 between Feb. 27, 2020, and July 30, 2020.

Of the 841,327 people tested, ABO and RhD blood groups could be identified for 473,654 individuals. ABO and RhD data from 2,204,742 (38% of the entire Danish population) were used as a reference, according to the online report in Blood Advances.

The primary outcome was status of ABO and RhD blood groups and test results for SARS-CoV-2. The secondary outcomes followed were hospitalization and death from COVID-19.
 

Reduced prevalence

The study found that ABO blood groups varied significantly between patients and the reference group, with only 38.41% (95% confidence interval, 37.30%-39.50%) of the patients belonging to blood group O, compared with 41.70% (95% CI, 41.60%-41.80%) in the controls, corresponding to a relative risk of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.91) for acquiring COVID-19.

There was a slight, but statistically significant, difference in blood group distribution between the SARS-CoV-22 individuals and the reference population (P < .001), according to the authors.

Among the SARS-CoV-2 individuals, fewer group O individuals were found (P < .001); while more A, B, and AB individuals were seen (P < .001, P = .011, and P = .091, respectively). There was no significant difference seen among A, B, and AB blood groups (P = .30). The RR for contracting SARS-CoV-2 were 1.09 (95% CI, 1.04-1.14) for A group individuals; 1.06 (95% CI, 0.99-1.14) for B group; and 1.15 (95% CI, 1.03-1.27) for AB group, respectively.

There was no difference found in the RhD group between positive test cases and the reference population (P = .15). In addition, there was no statistical difference (all P > .40) between ABO blood groups and clinical severity of COVID-19 for nonhospitalized patients versus hospitalized patients or for deceased patients versus living patients, the researchers added.
 

Possible causes

The authors speculated on two possible causes of the lower prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the blood group O population. The first is that anti-A and anti-B antibodies may have an effect on neutralizing SARS-CoV viruses and that anti-A and anti-B are present on mucosal surfaces in some individuals lacking the corresponding ABO blood group. The second is that the association between ABO blood groups and levels of von Willebrand factor, which is higher in non-O individuals and is tied to an increased likelihood of arterial and venous thrombosis, could have an indirect or unknown impact on susceptibility to infection, according to the authors.

“Given the known increased risk of thrombosis in non-O individuals and the evolving central role for thrombosis in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, it is important to explore this aspect more closely in larger patient cohorts (e.g., by examining ABO blood type and viral load, the severity of symptoms, and the long-term effects following COVID-19),” the researchers concluded.

One author reported receiving fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Roche. The remaining authors reported they had no competing financial interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Barnkob MB et al. Blood Adv. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002657.

Medicare officials must soon decide whether to kick off next year with a shift of money away from specialties centered around procedures and toward primary care and other fields more focused on office visits.

A planned overhaul of reimbursement for evaluation and management (E/M) services emerged as perhaps the most contentious issue connected to Medicare’s 2021 payment policies for clinicians.

roobcio/Thinkstock

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) included the planned E/M overhaul — and accompanying offsets — in the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, released in August. The draft fee schedule drew at least 45,675 responses by October 5, the deadline for offering comments, with many of the responses addressing the E/M overhaul.

The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) “strongly” endorsed the “budget-neutral” approach taken with the E/M overhaul. This planned reshuffling of payments is a step toward addressing a shortfall of primary care clinicians, inasmuch as it would help make this field more financially appealing, MedPAC said in an October 2 letter to CMS.

In contrast, physician organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA), asked CMS to waive or revise the budget-neutral aspect of the E/M overhaul. Among the specialties slated for reductions are those deeply involved with the response to the pandemic, wrote James L. Madara, AMA’s chief executive officer, in an October 5 comment to CMS. Emergency medicine as a field would see a 6% cut, and infectious disease specialists, a 4% reduction.

“Payment reductions of this magnitude would be a major problem at any time, but to impose cuts of this magnitude during or immediately after the COVID-19 pandemic, including steep cuts to many of the specialties that have been on the front lines in efforts to treat patients in places with widespread infection, is unconscionable,” Madara wrote.

Madara also said specialties scheduled for payment reductions include those least able to make up for the lack of in-person care as a result of the uptick in telehealth during the pandemic.

A chart in the draft physician fee schedule (Table 90) shows reductions for many specialties that do not routinely bill for office visits. The table shows an 8% cut for anesthesiologists, a 7% cut for general surgeons, and a 6% cut for ophthalmologists. Table 90 also shows an estimated 11% reduction for radiologists and a 9% drop for pathologists.

The draft rule notes that these figures are based upon estimates of aggregate allowed charges across all services, so they may not reflect what any particular clinician might receive.

In total, Table 90 shows how the E/M changes and connected offsets would affect more than 50 fields of medicine. The proposal includes a 17% expected increase for endocrinologists and a 14% bump for those in hematology/oncology. There are expected increases of 13% for family practice and 4% for internal medicine.

This reshuffling of payments among specialties is only part of the 2021 E/M overhaul. There’s strong support for other aspects, making it unlikely that CMS would consider dropping the plan entirely.

“CMS’ new office visit policy will lead to significant administrative burden reduction and will better describe and recognize the resources involved in clinical office visits as they are performed today,” AMA’s Madara wrote in his comment.

Changes for the billing framework for E/M slated to start in 2021 are the result of substantial collaboration by an AMA-convened work group, which brought together more than 170 state medical and specialty societies, Madara said in his comment.

CMS has been developing this plan for several years. It outlined this 2021 E/M overhaul in the 2020 Medicare physician fee schedule finalized last year.

Madara urged CMS to proceed with the E/M changes but also “exercise the full breadth and depth of its administrative authority” to avoid or minimize the planned cuts.

“To be clear, we are not asking CMS to phase in implementation of the E/M changes but rather to phase in the payment reductions for certain specialties and health professionals in 2021 due to budget neutrality,” he wrote.

Other groups asking CMS to waive the budget-neutrality requirement include the American College of Physicians, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the American Society of Neuroradiology.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) asked CMS to temporarily waive the budget-neutrality requirement and pressed the agency to maintain the underlying principle of the E/M overhaul.

“Should HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] use its authority to waive budget neutrality, we also recommend that CMS finalize a reinstatement plan for the conversion factor reductions that provides physician practices with ample time to prepare and does not result in a financial cliff,” wrote John S. Cullen, MD, board chair for AAFP, in a September 28 comment to CMS.

Owing to the declaration of a public health emergency, HHS could use a special provision known as 1135 waiver authority to waive budget-neutrality requirements, Cullen wrote.

“The AAFP understands that HHS’ authority is limited by the timing of the end of the public health emergency, but we believe that this approach will provide Congress with needed time to enact an accompanying legislative solution,” he wrote.
 

Lawmakers weigh in

Lawmakers in both political parties have asked CMS to reconsider the offsets in the E/M overhaul.

Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD (R-TX), who practiced as an obstetrician before joining Congress, in October introduced a bill with Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) that would provide for a 1-year waiver of budget-neutrality adjustments under the Medicare physician fee schedule.

Burgess and Rush were among the more than 160 members of Congress who signed a September letter to CMS asking the agency to act on its own to drop the budget-neutrality requirement. In the letter, led by Rep. Roger Marshall, MD (R-KS), the lawmakers acknowledge the usual legal requirements for CMS to offset payment increases in the physician fee schedule with cuts. But the lawmakers said the national public health emergency allows CMS to work around this.

“Given the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, we believe you have the regulatory authority to immediately address these inequities,” the lawmakers wrote. “There is also the need to consider how the outbreak will be in the fall/winter months and if postponing certain elective procedures will go back into effect, per CMS’ recommendations.

“While we understand that legislative action may also be required to address this issue, given the January 1, 2021 effective date, we would ask you to take immediate actions to delay or mitigate these cuts while allowing the scheduled increases to go into effect,” the lawmakers said in closing their letter. “This approach will give Congress sufficient time to develop a meaningful solution and to address these looming needs.”

Another option might be for CMS to preserve the budget-neutrality claim for the 2021 physician fee schedule but soften the blow on specialties, Brian Fortune, president of the consulting firm Farragut Square Group, told Medscape Medical News. A former staffer for Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, Fortune has for more than 20 years followed Medicare policy.

The agency could redo some of the assumptions used in estimating the offsets, he said, adding that in the draft rule, CMS appears to be seeking feedback that could help it with new calculations.

“CMS has been looking for a way out,” Fortune said. “CMS could remodel the assumptions, and the cuts could drop by half or more.

“The agency has several options to get creative as the need arises,” he said.

“Overvalued” vs “devalued”

In its comment to CMS, though, MedPAC argued strongly for maintaining the offsets. The commission has for several years been investigating ways to use Medicare’s payment policies as a tool to boost the ranks of clinicians who provide primary care.

A reshuffling of payments among specialties is needed to address a known imbalance in which Medicare for many years has “overvalued” procedures at the expense of other medical care, wrote Michael E. Chernew, PhD, the chairman of MedPAC, in an October 2 comment to CMS.

“Some types of services — such as procedures, imaging, and tests — experience efficiency gains over time, as advances in technology, technique, and clinical practice enable clinicians to deliver them faster,” he wrote. “However, E&M office/outpatient visits do not lend themselves to such efficiency gains because they consist largely of activities that require the clinician’s time.”

Medicare’s payment policies have thus “passively devalued” the time many clinicians spend on office visits, helping to skew the decisions of young physicians toward specialties, according to Chernew.

Reshuffling payment away from specialties that are now “overvalued” is needed to “remedy several years of passive devaluation,” he wrote.

The median income in 2018 for primary care physicians was $243,000 in 2018, whereas that of specialists such as surgeons was $426,000, Chernew said in the letter, citing MedPAC research.

These figures echo the findings of Medscape’s most recent annual physician compensation report.

As one of the largest buyers of medical services, Medicare has significant influence on the practice of medicine in the United States. In 2018 alone, Medicare directly paid $70.5 billion for clinician services. Its payment policies already may have shaped the pool of clinicians available to treat people enrolled in Medicare, which covers those aged 65 years and older, Chernew said.

“The US has over three times as many specialists as primary care physicians, which could explain why MedPAC’s annual survey of Medicare beneficiaries has repeatedly found that beneficiaries who are looking for a new physician report having an easier time finding a new specialist than a new primary care provider,” he wrote.

“Access to primary care physicians could worsen in the future as the number of primary care physicians in the US, after remaining flat for several years, has actually started to decline,” Chernew said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare officials must soon decide whether to kick off next year with a shift of money away from specialties centered around procedures and toward primary care and other fields more focused on office visits.

A planned overhaul of reimbursement for evaluation and management (E/M) services emerged as perhaps the most contentious issue connected to Medicare’s 2021 payment policies for clinicians.

roobcio/Thinkstock

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) included the planned E/M overhaul — and accompanying offsets — in the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, released in August. The draft fee schedule drew at least 45,675 responses by October 5, the deadline for offering comments, with many of the responses addressing the E/M overhaul.

The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) “strongly” endorsed the “budget-neutral” approach taken with the E/M overhaul. This planned reshuffling of payments is a step toward addressing a shortfall of primary care clinicians, inasmuch as it would help make this field more financially appealing, MedPAC said in an October 2 letter to CMS.

In contrast, physician organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA), asked CMS to waive or revise the budget-neutral aspect of the E/M overhaul. Among the specialties slated for reductions are those deeply involved with the response to the pandemic, wrote James L. Madara, AMA’s chief executive officer, in an October 5 comment to CMS. Emergency medicine as a field would see a 6% cut, and infectious disease specialists, a 4% reduction.

“Payment reductions of this magnitude would be a major problem at any time, but to impose cuts of this magnitude during or immediately after the COVID-19 pandemic, including steep cuts to many of the specialties that have been on the front lines in efforts to treat patients in places with widespread infection, is unconscionable,” Madara wrote.

Madara also said specialties scheduled for payment reductions include those least able to make up for the lack of in-person care as a result of the uptick in telehealth during the pandemic.

A chart in the draft physician fee schedule (Table 90) shows reductions for many specialties that do not routinely bill for office visits. The table shows an 8% cut for anesthesiologists, a 7% cut for general surgeons, and a 6% cut for ophthalmologists. Table 90 also shows an estimated 11% reduction for radiologists and a 9% drop for pathologists.

The draft rule notes that these figures are based upon estimates of aggregate allowed charges across all services, so they may not reflect what any particular clinician might receive.

In total, Table 90 shows how the E/M changes and connected offsets would affect more than 50 fields of medicine. The proposal includes a 17% expected increase for endocrinologists and a 14% bump for those in hematology/oncology. There are expected increases of 13% for family practice and 4% for internal medicine.

This reshuffling of payments among specialties is only part of the 2021 E/M overhaul. There’s strong support for other aspects, making it unlikely that CMS would consider dropping the plan entirely.

“CMS’ new office visit policy will lead to significant administrative burden reduction and will better describe and recognize the resources involved in clinical office visits as they are performed today,” AMA’s Madara wrote in his comment.

Changes for the billing framework for E/M slated to start in 2021 are the result of substantial collaboration by an AMA-convened work group, which brought together more than 170 state medical and specialty societies, Madara said in his comment.

CMS has been developing this plan for several years. It outlined this 2021 E/M overhaul in the 2020 Medicare physician fee schedule finalized last year.

Madara urged CMS to proceed with the E/M changes but also “exercise the full breadth and depth of its administrative authority” to avoid or minimize the planned cuts.

“To be clear, we are not asking CMS to phase in implementation of the E/M changes but rather to phase in the payment reductions for certain specialties and health professionals in 2021 due to budget neutrality,” he wrote.

Other groups asking CMS to waive the budget-neutrality requirement include the American College of Physicians, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the American Society of Neuroradiology.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) asked CMS to temporarily waive the budget-neutrality requirement and pressed the agency to maintain the underlying principle of the E/M overhaul.

“Should HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] use its authority to waive budget neutrality, we also recommend that CMS finalize a reinstatement plan for the conversion factor reductions that provides physician practices with ample time to prepare and does not result in a financial cliff,” wrote John S. Cullen, MD, board chair for AAFP, in a September 28 comment to CMS.

Owing to the declaration of a public health emergency, HHS could use a special provision known as 1135 waiver authority to waive budget-neutrality requirements, Cullen wrote.

“The AAFP understands that HHS’ authority is limited by the timing of the end of the public health emergency, but we believe that this approach will provide Congress with needed time to enact an accompanying legislative solution,” he wrote.
 

Lawmakers weigh in

Lawmakers in both political parties have asked CMS to reconsider the offsets in the E/M overhaul.

Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD (R-TX), who practiced as an obstetrician before joining Congress, in October introduced a bill with Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) that would provide for a 1-year waiver of budget-neutrality adjustments under the Medicare physician fee schedule.

Burgess and Rush were among the more than 160 members of Congress who signed a September letter to CMS asking the agency to act on its own to drop the budget-neutrality requirement. In the letter, led by Rep. Roger Marshall, MD (R-KS), the lawmakers acknowledge the usual legal requirements for CMS to offset payment increases in the physician fee schedule with cuts. But the lawmakers said the national public health emergency allows CMS to work around this.

“Given the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, we believe you have the regulatory authority to immediately address these inequities,” the lawmakers wrote. “There is also the need to consider how the outbreak will be in the fall/winter months and if postponing certain elective procedures will go back into effect, per CMS’ recommendations.

“While we understand that legislative action may also be required to address this issue, given the January 1, 2021 effective date, we would ask you to take immediate actions to delay or mitigate these cuts while allowing the scheduled increases to go into effect,” the lawmakers said in closing their letter. “This approach will give Congress sufficient time to develop a meaningful solution and to address these looming needs.”

Another option might be for CMS to preserve the budget-neutrality claim for the 2021 physician fee schedule but soften the blow on specialties, Brian Fortune, president of the consulting firm Farragut Square Group, told Medscape Medical News. A former staffer for Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, Fortune has for more than 20 years followed Medicare policy.

The agency could redo some of the assumptions used in estimating the offsets, he said, adding that in the draft rule, CMS appears to be seeking feedback that could help it with new calculations.

“CMS has been looking for a way out,” Fortune said. “CMS could remodel the assumptions, and the cuts could drop by half or more.

“The agency has several options to get creative as the need arises,” he said.

“Overvalued” vs “devalued”

In its comment to CMS, though, MedPAC argued strongly for maintaining the offsets. The commission has for several years been investigating ways to use Medicare’s payment policies as a tool to boost the ranks of clinicians who provide primary care.

A reshuffling of payments among specialties is needed to address a known imbalance in which Medicare for many years has “overvalued” procedures at the expense of other medical care, wrote Michael E. Chernew, PhD, the chairman of MedPAC, in an October 2 comment to CMS.

“Some types of services — such as procedures, imaging, and tests — experience efficiency gains over time, as advances in technology, technique, and clinical practice enable clinicians to deliver them faster,” he wrote. “However, E&M office/outpatient visits do not lend themselves to such efficiency gains because they consist largely of activities that require the clinician’s time.”

Medicare’s payment policies have thus “passively devalued” the time many clinicians spend on office visits, helping to skew the decisions of young physicians toward specialties, according to Chernew.

Reshuffling payment away from specialties that are now “overvalued” is needed to “remedy several years of passive devaluation,” he wrote.

The median income in 2018 for primary care physicians was $243,000 in 2018, whereas that of specialists such as surgeons was $426,000, Chernew said in the letter, citing MedPAC research.

These figures echo the findings of Medscape’s most recent annual physician compensation report.

As one of the largest buyers of medical services, Medicare has significant influence on the practice of medicine in the United States. In 2018 alone, Medicare directly paid $70.5 billion for clinician services. Its payment policies already may have shaped the pool of clinicians available to treat people enrolled in Medicare, which covers those aged 65 years and older, Chernew said.

“The US has over three times as many specialists as primary care physicians, which could explain why MedPAC’s annual survey of Medicare beneficiaries has repeatedly found that beneficiaries who are looking for a new physician report having an easier time finding a new specialist than a new primary care provider,” he wrote.

“Access to primary care physicians could worsen in the future as the number of primary care physicians in the US, after remaining flat for several years, has actually started to decline,” Chernew said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare officials must soon decide whether to kick off next year with a shift of money away from specialties centered around procedures and toward primary care and other fields more focused on office visits.

A planned overhaul of reimbursement for evaluation and management (E/M) services emerged as perhaps the most contentious issue connected to Medicare’s 2021 payment policies for clinicians.

roobcio/Thinkstock

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) included the planned E/M overhaul — and accompanying offsets — in the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, released in August. The draft fee schedule drew at least 45,675 responses by October 5, the deadline for offering comments, with many of the responses addressing the E/M overhaul.

The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) “strongly” endorsed the “budget-neutral” approach taken with the E/M overhaul. This planned reshuffling of payments is a step toward addressing a shortfall of primary care clinicians, inasmuch as it would help make this field more financially appealing, MedPAC said in an October 2 letter to CMS.

In contrast, physician organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA), asked CMS to waive or revise the budget-neutral aspect of the E/M overhaul. Among the specialties slated for reductions are those deeply involved with the response to the pandemic, wrote James L. Madara, AMA’s chief executive officer, in an October 5 comment to CMS. Emergency medicine as a field would see a 6% cut, and infectious disease specialists, a 4% reduction.

“Payment reductions of this magnitude would be a major problem at any time, but to impose cuts of this magnitude during or immediately after the COVID-19 pandemic, including steep cuts to many of the specialties that have been on the front lines in efforts to treat patients in places with widespread infection, is unconscionable,” Madara wrote.

Madara also said specialties scheduled for payment reductions include those least able to make up for the lack of in-person care as a result of the uptick in telehealth during the pandemic.

A chart in the draft physician fee schedule (Table 90) shows reductions for many specialties that do not routinely bill for office visits. The table shows an 8% cut for anesthesiologists, a 7% cut for general surgeons, and a 6% cut for ophthalmologists. Table 90 also shows an estimated 11% reduction for radiologists and a 9% drop for pathologists.

The draft rule notes that these figures are based upon estimates of aggregate allowed charges across all services, so they may not reflect what any particular clinician might receive.

In total, Table 90 shows how the E/M changes and connected offsets would affect more than 50 fields of medicine. The proposal includes a 17% expected increase for endocrinologists and a 14% bump for those in hematology/oncology. There are expected increases of 13% for family practice and 4% for internal medicine.

This reshuffling of payments among specialties is only part of the 2021 E/M overhaul. There’s strong support for other aspects, making it unlikely that CMS would consider dropping the plan entirely.

“CMS’ new office visit policy will lead to significant administrative burden reduction and will better describe and recognize the resources involved in clinical office visits as they are performed today,” AMA’s Madara wrote in his comment.

Changes for the billing framework for E/M slated to start in 2021 are the result of substantial collaboration by an AMA-convened work group, which brought together more than 170 state medical and specialty societies, Madara said in his comment.

CMS has been developing this plan for several years. It outlined this 2021 E/M overhaul in the 2020 Medicare physician fee schedule finalized last year.

Madara urged CMS to proceed with the E/M changes but also “exercise the full breadth and depth of its administrative authority” to avoid or minimize the planned cuts.

“To be clear, we are not asking CMS to phase in implementation of the E/M changes but rather to phase in the payment reductions for certain specialties and health professionals in 2021 due to budget neutrality,” he wrote.

Other groups asking CMS to waive the budget-neutrality requirement include the American College of Physicians, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the American Society of Neuroradiology.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) asked CMS to temporarily waive the budget-neutrality requirement and pressed the agency to maintain the underlying principle of the E/M overhaul.

“Should HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] use its authority to waive budget neutrality, we also recommend that CMS finalize a reinstatement plan for the conversion factor reductions that provides physician practices with ample time to prepare and does not result in a financial cliff,” wrote John S. Cullen, MD, board chair for AAFP, in a September 28 comment to CMS.

Owing to the declaration of a public health emergency, HHS could use a special provision known as 1135 waiver authority to waive budget-neutrality requirements, Cullen wrote.

“The AAFP understands that HHS’ authority is limited by the timing of the end of the public health emergency, but we believe that this approach will provide Congress with needed time to enact an accompanying legislative solution,” he wrote.
 

Lawmakers weigh in

Lawmakers in both political parties have asked CMS to reconsider the offsets in the E/M overhaul.

Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD (R-TX), who practiced as an obstetrician before joining Congress, in October introduced a bill with Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) that would provide for a 1-year waiver of budget-neutrality adjustments under the Medicare physician fee schedule.

Burgess and Rush were among the more than 160 members of Congress who signed a September letter to CMS asking the agency to act on its own to drop the budget-neutrality requirement. In the letter, led by Rep. Roger Marshall, MD (R-KS), the lawmakers acknowledge the usual legal requirements for CMS to offset payment increases in the physician fee schedule with cuts. But the lawmakers said the national public health emergency allows CMS to work around this.

“Given the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, we believe you have the regulatory authority to immediately address these inequities,” the lawmakers wrote. “There is also the need to consider how the outbreak will be in the fall/winter months and if postponing certain elective procedures will go back into effect, per CMS’ recommendations.

“While we understand that legislative action may also be required to address this issue, given the January 1, 2021 effective date, we would ask you to take immediate actions to delay or mitigate these cuts while allowing the scheduled increases to go into effect,” the lawmakers said in closing their letter. “This approach will give Congress sufficient time to develop a meaningful solution and to address these looming needs.”

Another option might be for CMS to preserve the budget-neutrality claim for the 2021 physician fee schedule but soften the blow on specialties, Brian Fortune, president of the consulting firm Farragut Square Group, told Medscape Medical News. A former staffer for Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, Fortune has for more than 20 years followed Medicare policy.

The agency could redo some of the assumptions used in estimating the offsets, he said, adding that in the draft rule, CMS appears to be seeking feedback that could help it with new calculations.

“CMS has been looking for a way out,” Fortune said. “CMS could remodel the assumptions, and the cuts could drop by half or more.

“The agency has several options to get creative as the need arises,” he said.

“Overvalued” vs “devalued”

In its comment to CMS, though, MedPAC argued strongly for maintaining the offsets. The commission has for several years been investigating ways to use Medicare’s payment policies as a tool to boost the ranks of clinicians who provide primary care.

A reshuffling of payments among specialties is needed to address a known imbalance in which Medicare for many years has “overvalued” procedures at the expense of other medical care, wrote Michael E. Chernew, PhD, the chairman of MedPAC, in an October 2 comment to CMS.

“Some types of services — such as procedures, imaging, and tests — experience efficiency gains over time, as advances in technology, technique, and clinical practice enable clinicians to deliver them faster,” he wrote. “However, E&M office/outpatient visits do not lend themselves to such efficiency gains because they consist largely of activities that require the clinician’s time.”

Medicare’s payment policies have thus “passively devalued” the time many clinicians spend on office visits, helping to skew the decisions of young physicians toward specialties, according to Chernew.

Reshuffling payment away from specialties that are now “overvalued” is needed to “remedy several years of passive devaluation,” he wrote.

The median income in 2018 for primary care physicians was $243,000 in 2018, whereas that of specialists such as surgeons was $426,000, Chernew said in the letter, citing MedPAC research.

These figures echo the findings of Medscape’s most recent annual physician compensation report.

As one of the largest buyers of medical services, Medicare has significant influence on the practice of medicine in the United States. In 2018 alone, Medicare directly paid $70.5 billion for clinician services. Its payment policies already may have shaped the pool of clinicians available to treat people enrolled in Medicare, which covers those aged 65 years and older, Chernew said.

“The US has over three times as many specialists as primary care physicians, which could explain why MedPAC’s annual survey of Medicare beneficiaries has repeatedly found that beneficiaries who are looking for a new physician report having an easier time finding a new specialist than a new primary care provider,” he wrote.

“Access to primary care physicians could worsen in the future as the number of primary care physicians in the US, after remaining flat for several years, has actually started to decline,” Chernew said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 225,000 excess deaths occurred in the United States from March to July 2020, compared with historic norms, with approximately two-thirds directly attributable to COVID-19. However, additional deaths could be indirectly related because people avoided emergency care during the pandemic, new research shows.

Deaths linked to COVID-19 varied by state and phase of the pandemic, as reported in a study from researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University and Yale University that was published online October 12 in JAMA.

Another study published online simultaneously in JAMA took more of an international perspective. Investigators from the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University found that in America there were more excess deaths and there was higher all-cause mortality during the pandemic than in 18 other countries.

Although the ongoing number of deaths attributable to COVID-19 continues to garner attention, there can be a lag of weeks or months in how long it takes some public health agencies to update their figures.

“For the public at large, the take-home message is twofold: that the number of deaths caused by the pandemic exceeds publicly reported COVID-19 death counts by 20% and that states that reopened or lifted restrictions early suffered a protracted surge in excess deaths that extended into the summer,” lead author of the US-focused study, Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The take-away for physicians is in the bigger picture – it is likely that the COVID-19 pandemic is responsible for deaths from other conditions as well. “Surges in COVID-19 were accompanied by an increase in deaths attributed to other causes, such as heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease and dementia,” said Woolf, director emeritus and senior adviser at the Center on Society and Health and professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Population Health at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine in Richmond, Virginia.

The investigators identified 225,530 excess US deaths in the 5 months from March to July. They report that 67% were directly attributable to COVID-19.

Deaths linked to COVID-19 included those in which the disease was listed as an underlying or contributing cause. US total death rates are “remarkably consistent” year after year, and the investigators calculated a 20% overall jump in mortality.

The study included data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the US Census Bureau for 48 states and the District of Columbia. Connecticut and North Carolina were excluded because of missing data.

Woolf and colleagues also found statistically higher rates of deaths from two other causes, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
 

Altered states

New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Arizona, Mississippi, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Michigan had the highest per capita excess death rates. Three states experienced the shortest epidemics during the study period: New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

Some lessons could be learned by looking at how individual states managed large numbers of people with COVID-19. “Although we suspected that states that reopened early might have put themselves at risk of a pandemic surge, the consistency with which that occurred and the devastating numbers of deaths they suffered was a surprise,” Woolf said.

“The goal of our study is not to look in the rearview mirror and lament what happened months ago but to learn the lesson going forward: Our country will be unable to take control of this pandemic without more robust efforts to control community spread,” Woolf said. “Our study found that states that did this well, such as New York and New Jersey, experienced large surges but bent the curve and were back to baseline in less than 10 weeks.

“If we could do this as a country, countless lives could be saved.”
 

A global perspective

The United States experienced high mortality linked to COVID-19, as well as high all-cause mortality, compared with 18 other countries, as reported in the study by University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University researchers.

The United States ranked third, with 72 deaths per 100,000 people, among countries with moderate or high mortality. Although perhaps not surprising given the state of SARS-CoV-2 infection across the United States, a question remains as to what extent the relatively high mortality rate is linked to early outbreaks vs “poor long-term response,” the researchers note.

Alyssa Bilinski, MSc, and lead author Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, calculated the difference in COVID-19 deaths among countries through Sept. 19, 2020. On this date, the United States reported a total 198,589 COVID-19 deaths.

They calculated that, if the US death rates were similar to those in Australia, the United States would have experienced 187,661 fewer COVID-19 deaths. If similar to those of Canada, there would have been 117,622 fewer deaths in the United States.

The US death rate was lower than six other countries with high COVID-19 mortality in the early spring, including Belgium, Spain, and the United Kingdom. However, after May 10, the per capita mortality rate in the United States exceeded the others.

Between May 10 and Sept. 19, the death rate in Italy was 9.1 per 100,000, vs 36.9 per 100,000.

“After the first peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than even countries with high COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers note. “This may have been a result of several factors, including weak public health infrastructure and a decentralized, inconsistent US response to the pandemic.”
 

“Mortifying and motivating”

Woolf and colleagues estimate that more than 225,000 excess deaths occurred in recent months; this represents a 20% increase over expected deaths, note Harvey V. Fineberg, MD, PhD, of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, in an accompanying editorial in JAMA.

“Importantly, a condition such as COVID-19 can contribute both directly and indirectly to excess mortality,” he writes.

Although the direct contribution to the mortality rates by those infected is straightforward, “the indirect contribution may relate to circumstances or choices due to the COVID-19 pandemic: for example, a patient who develops symptoms of a stroke is too concerned about COVID-19 to go to the emergency department, and a potentially reversible condition becomes fatal.”

Fineberg notes that “a general indication of the death toll from COVID-19 and the excess deaths related to the pandemic, as presented by Woolf et al, are sufficiently mortifying and motivating.”
 

“Profound human toll”

“The importance of the estimate by Woolf et al – which suggests that for the entirety of 2020, more than 400,000 excess deaths will occur – cannot be overstated, because it accounts for what could be declines in some causes of death, like motor vehicle crashes, but increases in others, like myocardial infarction,” write Howard Bauchner, MD, editor in chief of JAMA, and Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, MBA, executive editor of JAMA, in another accompanying editorial.

“These deaths reflect a true measure of the human cost of the Great Pandemic of 2020,” they add.

The study from Emanuel and Bilinski was notable for calculating the excess COVID-19 and all-cause mortality to Sept. 2020, they note. “After the initial peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than rates in countries with high COVID-19 mortality.”

“Few people will forget the Great Pandemic of 2020, where and how they lived, how it substantially changed their lives, and for many, the profound human toll it has taken,” Bauchner and Fontanarosa write.

The study by Woolf and colleagues was supported by National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The study by Bilinski and Emanuel was partially funded by the Colton Foundation. Woolf, Emanuel, Fineberg, Bauchner, and Fontanarosa have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.