The Ebola outbreak is spreading—Here’s how it could affect U.S. travel nurses
UPDATE, 1:51 P.M., MAY 22, 2018: Health officials began a vaccination campaign today to combat the growing Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, according to a World Health Organization report. With more than 7,500 doses of the vaccine at their disposal, the campaign will first target health workers operating in Ebola virus disease-affected areas, followed by a “ring vaccination” pattern which will focus those who’ve had immediate contact with confirmed Ebola cases. Those who’ve had contact with those contacts will be treated as well, forming a defensive “ring” of vaccinations around each case. More than 600 points of contact have been identified to date, according to the report. The death toll rose to 26 since last week and there are 46 probable, suspected or confirmed cases in the region. Most have been confirmed in Bikoro, but four cases have been confirmed in Mbandaka so far, which prompted a quicker response from health officials because of the city’s size and location. “We need to act fast to stop the spread of Ebola by protecting people at risk of being infected with the Ebola virus, identifying and ending all transmission chains and ensuring that all patients have rapid access to safe, high-quality care,” said Dr Peter Salama, WHO Deputy Director-General for Emergency Preparedness and Response. Original Story DR Congo Health Minister Oly Ilunga Kalenga confirmed a case of Ebola virus disease today in Mbandaka, according to a BBC report. The disease spread to the metropolitan city of about 1 million residents from the rural town of Bikoro about 80 miles away, where the outbreak was officially declared last Wednesday. Since Mbandaka is major transportation hub because of its ease of access to the Congo river and the capital city of Kinshasa, World Health Organization officials say there’s a potential for a rapid increase in new cases. So far, there have been 44 total potential infections in the region, with three confirmed cases of EVD and 41 probable or suspected cases, according to WHO reports. “This is a major development in the outbreak,” senior WHO official Peter Salama told the BBC. “We have urban Ebola, which is a very different animal from rural Ebola. The potential for an explosive increase in cases is now there.” The WHO will discuss the potential of the disease spreading beyond the Congo in an emergency meeting Friday. They will decide whether to declare an international public health emergency, similar to the Western African Ebola outbreak in 2014-16. You can read the full BBC report by clicking here for more details. How it could affect travel nursing jobs in the U.S. If the WHO declares an international health emergency, it could affect policies and procedures at hospitals similar to the recording-breaking 2014-16 outbreak, which saw more than 28,000 confirmed cases of EVD and 11,310 deaths, including two deaths in the U.S. The disease first entered the states on Sept. 30, 2014, after a man who traveled from West Africa to Dallas was confirmed for EVD, according to a CDC report. The man later died from the disease, and two healthcare workers who cared for him later tested positive for the disease, which they recovered from later. During this period, U.S. hospitals adopted new Ebola safety policies at large–especially for Dallas-area facilities–including required Ebola training modules for travel nurses, Travel nursing staff was also required to complete questionnaires about their recent travel history and review forms related to wearing protective equipment. Some hospitals still require prospective travel nurse staff to submit Ebola compliance documents, but it has largely fallen out of practice in the past two years. That could change if hospitals decide to take a more proactive approach in the wake of this outbreak. Staying on top of compliance is already a major hurdle for travel nurses, so adding Ebola compliance requirements will throw another wrench in the works. There’s also the issue of the disease itself, which is highly dangerous because of its ability to spread rapidly through short contact with bodily fluids and its hard-to-detect early stages. You can learn more about EVD diagnoses, preparedness and prevention information on the CDC website.
Trump Proposes Cutting Planned Parenthood Funds. What Does That Mean?
By Julie Rovner, Kaiser Health News The planned revival of a policy dating to Ronald Reagan’s presidency may finally present a way for President Donald Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to “defund” Planned Parenthood. Or at least to evict it from the federal family planning program, where it provides care to more than 40 percent of that program’s 4 million patients. Congress last year failed to wipe out funding for Planned Parenthood, because the bill faced overwhelming Democratic objections and would not have received the 60 votes needed to pass in the Senate. But the imposition of a slightly retooled version of a regulation, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1991 after a five-year fight, could potentially accomplish what Congress could not. The rules now under review, according to Trump administration officials, would require facilities receiving federal family planning funds to be physically separate from those that perform abortion; would eliminate the requirement that women with unintended pregnancies be counseled on their full range of reproductive options; and would ban abortion referrals. All those changes would particularly affect Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood, which provides a broad array of reproductive health services to women and men, also provides abortion services using non-federal funds. Cutting off funding has been the top priority for anti-abortion groups, which supported candidate Trump. “A win like this would immediately disentangle taxpayers from the abortion business and energize the grassroots as we head into the critical midterm elections,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List, said in a statement. In a conference call with reporters, Planned Parenthood officials said they would fight the new rules. “We’ve been very clear, Planned Parenthood has an unwavering commitment to ensuring everyone has access to the full range of reproductive health care, and that includes abortion,” said Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Here is a guide to what the proposal could do and what it could mean for Planned Parenthood and the family planning program: What Is Title X? The federal family planning program, known as “Title Ten,” is named for its section in the federal Public Health Service Act. It became law in 1970, three years before the Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v Wade. The original bill was sponsored by then Rep. George H.W. Bush (R-Texas) and signed into law by President Richard Nixon. The program provides wellness exams and comprehensive contraceptive services, as well as screenings for cancer and sexually transmitted diseases for both women and men. In 2016, the most recent year for which statistics have been published, Title X served 4 million patients at just under 4,000 sites. Title X patients are overwhelmingly young, female and low-income. An estimated 11 percent of Title X patients in 2016 were male; two-thirds of patients were under age 30; and nearly two-thirds had income below the federal poverty line. What Is Planned Parenthood’s Relationship To Title X And Medicaid? Planned Parenthood affiliates account for about 13 percent of total Title X sites but serve an estimated 40 percent of its patients. Only about half of Planned Parenthood affiliates perform abortions, although the organization in its entirety is the nation’s leading abortion provider. Planned Parenthood also gets much more federal funding for services provided to patients on the Medicaid program (although not for abortion) than it does through Title X. Eliminating Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood has proven more difficult for lawmakers opposed to the organization because the federal Medicaid law includes the right for patients to select their providers. Changing that also would require a 60-vote majority in the Senate. So that particular line of funding is likely not at risk. While opponents of federal funding for Planned Parenthood have said that other safety-net clinics could make up the difference if Planned Parenthood no longer participates in Title X, several studies have suggested that in many remote areas Planned Parenthood is the only provider of family planning services and the only provider that regularly stocks all methods of birth control. Texas, Iowa and Missouri in recent years have stopped offering family planning services through a special Medicaid program to keep from funding Planned Parenthood. Texas is seeking a waiver from the Trump administration so that its program banning abortion providers could still receive federal funding. No decision has been made yet, federal officials said. Why Is Planned Parenthood’s Involvement With Title X Controversial? Even though Planned Parenthood cannot use federal funding for abortions, anti-abortion groups claim that federal funding is “fungible” and there is no way to ensure that some of the funding provided for other services does not cross-subsidize abortion services. Planned Parenthood has also been a longtime public target for anti-abortion forces because it is such a visible provider and vocal proponent of legal abortion services. In the early 1980s, the Reagan administration tried to separate the program from its federal funding by requiring parental permission for teens to obtain birth control. That was followed by efforts to eliminate abortion counseling. Starting in 2011, undercover groups accused the organization of ignoring sex traffickers and selling fetal body parts. Planned Parenthood denies the allegations. What Happened The Last Time An Administration Tried To Move Planned Parenthood Out Of Title X? In 1987, the Reagan administration proposed what came to be known as the “gag rule.” Though the administration’s new proposal is not yet public, because the details are still under review by the Office of Management and Budget, the White House released a summary, saying the new rule will be similar although not identical to the Reagan-era proposal. The original gag rule would have forbidden Title X providers from abortion counseling or referring patients for abortions, required physical separation of Title X and abortion-providing facilities and forbidden recipients from using nonfederal funds for lobbying, distributing information or in any way advocating or encouraging abortion. (The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the umbrella group for local affiliates, has a separate political and advocacy arm,
Nurses at San Francisco hospital protest Zuckerberg name after Facebook scandal
Nurses at one of San Francisco’s largest hospitals took the ‘Zuckerberg’ out of Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center on the heels of Facebook’s privacy scandal. Protesting nurses taped over the sign last Saturday, saying the name makes patients uncomfortable, according to a New York Times report. “We are in charge of keeping our most vulnerable people private and protected,” nursing administration employee Heather Ali told the Times. “Now people wonder, ‘How much is my privacy protected at a hospital with that name on it?’” The hospital added Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan to the hospital’s full name as a result of a $75 million donation to the facility in 2015. You can read the full New York Times report here.
Trump Vows (Again) To Lower Drug Prices But Skeptics Doubt Much Will Change
Sarah Jane Tribble, Kaiser Health News and Liz Szabo, Kaiser Health News President Donald Trump, armed with the expertise of staff seasoned in the ways of the drug industry, unveiled his blueprint to address sky-high drug prices Friday afternoon, promising that increasing industry competition will help Americans save at the pharmacy counter. “Under this administration, we are putting American patients first,” Trump said with Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar by his side. Azar, he said, had a mission to “to bring soaring drug prices down to Earth.” Many of the proposals Trump’s team can accomplish administratively — and some are already in motion — but for others, Trump said, he plans to work with Congress. The administration’s blueprint proposes 50 actions to reduce what Americans pay for drugs, including giving Medicare more power to negotiate drug prices, Azar said. Azar said he wants to make drug prices more transparent, as well. For example, he said the Food and Drug Administration should require pharmaceutical companies to disclose drugs’ list prices in their direct-to-consumer television ads. “It’s material and relevant to know if it’s a $50,000 drug or a $100 drug,” Azar said. Dr. Jeremy Greene, a professor and health policy expert at Johns Hopkins Medicine, said he was puzzled by how much control the agency would have over requiring drug prices as part of advertising. “The FDA has had nothing to do with price, especially in advertising,” Greene said. “There have been prominent court cases over whether pharmacies can or cannot advertise based on drug prices.” Regardless, Trump called the plan “the most sweeping action in history to lower the price of prescription drugs to the American people.” “We will have tougher negotiations, more competition and much lower prices at the pharmacy counters,” Trump said. “And it will start to take effect very soon.” On a separate note, Trump told the audience that “right-to-try is happening,” a nod to congressional efforts to expand access to experimental medications for people with life-threatening conditions. Trump’s proposals target reducing the out-of-pocket costs for older Americans enrolled in Medicare — but experts say that amounts to more show than substance. “There’s a difference between reducing the pain people feel associated with out-of-pocket costs at the pharmacy counter and reducing the actual national spend on prescription drugs,” said Allan Coukell, senior director for health programs at the nonpartisan Pew Charitable Trusts. While 80 percent of Americans say the cost of drugs is unreasonable, 1 in 4 people report having difficulty paying for drugs, according to Kaiser Family Foundation polling. And the government is paying more, too. Medicare’s drug spending grew nearly 90 percent from 2006 to 2015, with an annual average growth rate of 7.6 percent, according to Pew. During the campaign and his presidency, Trump has used strong language against the pharmaceutical industry, famously saying the manufacturers are “getting away with murder.” Late Thursday, senior administration officials told reporters on a call that the plan will reduce the price pharmaceutical companies set for drugs. But when asked about whether Medicare will negotiate drugs — as Democrats have called for and the president has talked about — administration officials said that lever would not be pulled. Instead, Trump’s blueprint calls for measures such as offering free generics to low-income seniors, passing on to consumers more of the negotiated savings that insurers win, and making sure Medicare enrollees don’t spiral into the so-called catastrophic phase of coverage they hit when they pay thousands of dollars a year for drugs. Leigh Purvis, director of health services research at AARP Public Policy Institute, said the president’s proposals fail to ultimately address that spending. AARP has long called for Medicare to have the ability to negotiate prices. “Anything that doesn’t address the list price really is just kind of squeezing the balloon in this world,” Purvis said. For Medicare patients, though, limiting what they pay out-of-pocket could be especially helpful to those taking cancer drugs or other expensive therapies, said Stacie Dusetzina, an associate professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. Today, patients who pay $5,000 out-of-pocket for prescriptions enter the “catastrophic” category of Medicare coverage and are charged just 5 percent of their drug costs. But given the astronomical cost of cancer drugs, that can leave patients paying $1,000 a month or more, Dusetzina said. Medicare patients with the deadly cancer multiple myeloma can spend $14,000 a year out-of-pocket for the drug Revlimid, which costs about $20,000 a month, Dusetzina said. Trump also accused other developed countries of “freeloading” by enjoying the fruits of American innovation — including drugs developed with taxpayer money or by U.S. companies — without paying a fair price. Because national health systems in other countries have authority to negotiate drug costs — and refuse to cover some drugs entirely — their citizens often pay a fraction of the prices charged in the United States. “In some cases, medicines that cost a few dollars in foreign countries cost hundreds of dollars for the same pill” in the United States, Trump said. “It’s unfair, it’s ridiculous and it’s not going to happen any longer. It’s time to end the global freeloading once and for all.” A spokesman for Doctors Without Borders said Trump has it backward. Instead of raising drug prices abroad, costs need to come down everywhere, said Leonardo Palumbo, U.S. advocacy adviser for the group’s access campaign. “Other countries aren’t ‘free-riding,’ and lifesaving medicines aren’t more expensive here because they cost less elsewhere,” Palumbo said. Today, Medicare has limited power to negotiate drug prices, partly because many of the most expensive treatments — such as those for cancer patients — are in a protected class that must be covered, Dusetzina said. To really negotiate better prices, Medicare would need the freedom to reject some drugs completely, Dusetzina added. But excluding certain expensive drugs from the Medicare program could leave patients in a difficult position, said Chris Hansen, president of the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network. Patients
For The Babies Of The Opioid Crisis, The Best Care May Be Mom’s Recovery
Sarah Jane Tribble, Kaiser Health News CARRBORO, N.C. — The halls at UNC Horizons daycare are quiet at 5 p.m. Amanda Williammee pauses at the toddler classroom window to watch 2-year-old daughter Taycee. “I like to peek in on her and see what she’s doing before she sees me,” Williammee nearly whispers. “I love watching her, it’s too funny.” There’s a dance party in progress and then Taycee spots her mom, screams and comes running to the door. “Did you dance?” Williammee says, leaning down to her daughter. It seems a typical preschool pickup, but it’s not. The University of North Carolina Horizons Program is a residential substance use disorder treatment center where mothers can bring their children. The kids attend school or daycare while mothers take classes and go to therapy sessions. Williammee, 25, has struggled with addiction since she was a 19-year-old college student. She injected opioids during both of her pregnancies, and her babies were born with neonatal abstinence syndrome, which includes withdrawal symptoms like tremors, irritability, sleep problems and high-pitched crying. She remembers that withdrawals were harder for toddler Taycee than they’ve been for 6-month-old Jayde. “It wasn’t just like we had this two-week period at the hospital of her being sick. Like, it went on for months because she did not sleep,” Williammee said, recalling that Taycee would sleep only for 20-minute stretches and needed constant swaddling. Sometimes, Williammee ran a warm bath for the baby to calm her. “She’d wake up and just be miserable,” Williammee said. On average, a baby is born every 15 minutes in the U.S. withdrawing from opioids, according to recent research. That staggering statistic raises concerns among doctors, social workers and mothers like Williammee who worry about how drug abuse while pregnant affects a baby’s health. Today, both Taycee and Jayde are developing normally. Still, Williammee wonders, how did the drugs affect their tiny bodies and brains? Research is just beginning to point toward the answers. A recent international multisite study tracked nearly 100 children and their mothers, who were in medically assisted treatment during their pregnancy, for 36 months. Hendrée Jones is executive director at UNC Horizons and co-authored the study. She offered reasons to be optimistic. “The children through time tended to score within the normal range of the tests that we had,” Jones said. Dr. Stephanie Merhar, a neonatologist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, released a separate study after growing increasingly worried the past few years as she treated children coming in for checkups. Her team reviewed the two-year charts of 87 infants who had been diagnosed with neonatal abstinence syndrome at birth. Each child had been given a standard test for 2-year-olds that evaluated cognitive, language and motor skills — the same assessment used in Jones’ study. What Merhar found was a call to action, she said. “Most of these children do well and they do within the normal range,” Merhar said. “But it’s important to know that there is a risk for some delays and that these children are monitored closely.” Still, exposure to opioids in utero does not appear to be as damaging as some other addictive substances. “It’s not like the fetal alcohol syndrome problem, where it really affects the brain,” Merhar said. “[Children with fetal alcohol syndrome] are at high risk of mental retardation and there’s significant developmental delays.” Merhar’s analysis found that about 8 percent of the children had been treated for strabismus, or lazy eye, by age 3. A number of the children that Merhar studied also scored at least one standard deviation below the mean in cognitive, language and motor abilities. The reason for those delays is unclear, though. Even more, the long-term outlook for the children is unknown, Merhar said. National experts like Dr. Jonathan Davis, who chaired a Neonatal Advisory Committee for the Food and Drug Administration, said the current research is reassuring but the essential long-term research isn’t being done yet. Davis, who is also chief of newborn medicine at Floating Hospital for Children at Tufts Medical Center, has passionately advocated for a national registry for babies exposed to drugs while in the womb. While current research doesn’t reveal any major motor, language, or cognitive delays, he said, it cannot answer questions like “How are these children going to function when they get to school? How are these children going to speak, socialize and interact?” Researchers are quick to point out that fear spread nationwide about the children of the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980s and early ’90s. Dire predictions of developmental delays turned out to be grossly exaggerated, according to the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Lauren Jansson, director of pediatrics at the Center for Addiction and Pregnancy at Johns Hopkins Medicine, has treated mothers and babies since the early 1990s. When asked about how the babies will develop, she said, “The one solid thing we can say about children who are exposed to substances prenatally is that their mothers need treatment.” The children, she said, are more likely to have optimal development if the mothers receive treatment. UNC Horizons opened its program in 1993 because of the cocaine epidemic. Since then, Jones said, it has become clear that the lives of people with substance use disorders — whether involving cocaine or opioids — can be very chaotic, and that can affect children, too. “It’s incredibly difficult to make a simple linear cause and effect between there was a prenatal exposure to opiates and therefore, because of that exposure to opiates … we see this particular poor birth outcome,” Jones said. Most of the mothers at UNC Horizons took multiple substances when pregnant and also experienced trauma, abuse or neglect in their own childhoods. And, Jones said, that can be hard to overcome. “There’s oftentimes an unrealistic expectation by society. They’re supposed to automatically know how to quote, unquote … be good mothers, how to be nurturing mothers,” Jones said. “That’s like trying to teach somebody algebra when they’ve never even had
Healthcare Roundup: Top Headlines April 30-May 4
Doctors remove 132-pound tumor from woman’s ovary The headline really says it all, but what you may not know is this is operation took five hours and 25 hospital staff members to finally remove. Wow. Read the full details here. If your life is in danger, that expensive Apple Watch might be a good investment after all The smartwatch took the credit for saving lives last month after sending alerts to users to immediately seek medical attention after detecting signs of a kidney failure and an erupted ulcer. Read the full U.S. News report here. Mental health treatment is one of the biggest issues facing U.S. healthcare, but in these states it might be a bit easier to address U.S News released their list of the top 10 states with the best mental health, based on CDC data collected in 2016. See the rankings here. Planned Parenthood is fighting back against Trump administration changes to Title X The organization is suing against these changes, arguing that they will put the health of millions of low-income patients at risk. Read the full NPR report here.
Healthcare Roundup: Top Headlines April 23-27
As always, new technologies are introduced in the healthcare industry at what seems like a lightspeed pace, so experts and industry leaders are constantly evaluating and re-evaluating how it’s shaping the future of healthcare. This week’s top headlines reflect that trend and also point to some changes in healthcare practices among oncology patients and expectant mothers. Let’s take a look. Leaving a bad Yelp review doesn’t just affect restaurants–it impacts hospitals as well. Patients are using Yelp to gauge where they choose to receive care, and in some cases high scores match up with quality care, but some experts argue the review platform is doing more harm than good. Read the full story here. Children can run you ragged, but it’s not their fault. They have as much energy as adult high-endurance athletes. A recent study found that pre-pubescent children not only recover faster from high intensity exercise better than well-trained adults, but their muscles are actually more resistant to fatigue. Check out the full results of the study here. The FDA is going all in on pushing AI tech in medicine and drug development “AI holds enormous promise for the future of medicine,” FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said in prepared remarks for the Health Datapalooza conference Thursday in Washington. “We’re actively developing a new regulatory framework to promote innovation in this space, and support the use of AI-based technologies.” Read the full report on CNBC here. Doctors should be seeing new mothers more frequently, and mothers should get better coverage, according to industry expert recommendations These recommendations come on the heels of growing concerns about the rising rate of pregnancy-related deaths and near-deaths in the U.S. in recent years. You can read the full NPR report here. When cancer puts a patient’s back against a wall, immunotherapy seems to be the Hail Mary–but is it effective? Desperation oncology. It sounds like a last-ditch effort to save a dying patient, and in many cases it is, but some doctors argue rolling the dice on untested immunotherapy is better than nothing. Read the full story here.
#NursesTakeDC movement closes on third year, continues push for safe nurse-patient ratios
For the third consecutive year, hundreds of nurses took to the lawn of the U.S. Capitol building this week as part of the #NursesTakeDC movement, whose goal is to raise public awareness of unsafe nurse-patient ratios and push legislation to regulate the issue. I’m rallying with #nursestakedc today in front of the Capitol to demand safe staffing ratios. Safe staffing saves lives. pic.twitter.com/yNvDjDZuJG — Jan Schakowsky (@janschakowsky) April 26, 2018 The grassroots movement has grown each year in both the number of speakers in the industry and number of attendees who support it. The movement’s goal is to combat unsafe staffing practices at hospitals, which contributes to nursing burnout, lower quality patient care and a higher risk of patient death, according to the Nurses Take DC website. Several studies have gone into the impact of high nursing-patient ratios over the years. One of the most recently published on the National Center for Biotechnology Information looking at ICU patient ratios found that “exposing critically ill patients to high workload/staffing ratios is associated with a substantial reduction in the odds of survival.” A major goal of the campaign is to lean on federal legislators to move forward with the Nurse Staffing Standards and Quality Care Act of 2017 (S. 1063 and H.R. 2392), which would amend the Public Health Service Act to establish safe nurse-patient staffing ratios across all hospitals, according to their website. Did you know @SenSanders @BernieSanders is a sponsor of safe staffing levels!? We need more sponsors…how about @SenBooker & @SenatorMenendez ?? #S1063 #safestaffing @nursestakedc https://t.co/d9G9tmjGZZ — HPAE (@hpaeaft) April 26, 2018 The bill is modeled after similar legislation for ICU nurses in California and Massachusetts, which are currently the only states with established laws limiting nurse-patient ratios. Along with establishing minimum ratios, the bill would protect “whistleblowers” who speak out against unsafe staffing conditions from being terminated, according to a press release. @SenSherrodBrown @SenWarren @SenSanders @janschakowsky @RepGutierrez @RepBobbyRush @RepMikeQuigley @keithellison @RepYvetteClarke Come out Thursday 4/26 Permit Area 1, west side of Capitol, to meet thousands of nurses. pic.twitter.com/bLaosNTf1u — Doris BSN RN-BC CCRC (@DorisCarrollRN) April 21, 2018 The bill was introduced in 2017 during the last #NursesTakeDC rally on May 5 but stalled quickly after being introduced in the House and Senate. Part of the movement’s strategies this year was to educate nurses on how to effectively lobby legislators about the issue. If you would like to learn more about the Nurses Take DC movement, visit NursesTakeDC.com #NursesTakeDC Tweets
Healthcare Roundup: Top Headlines April 16-20
Drug, drugs and more drugs. Access to pharmaceuticals is always a hot-button topic for healthcare providers and businesses, especially because it is often greatly influenced by the decisions and policies put in place by state and federal legislators. This week’s top headlines focused on this issue. Let’s take a look. The Drug Enforcement Agency proposed new restrictions this week to help curb the opioid crisis These manufacturing restrictions could mean significantly fewer prescription painkillers every year. This is part of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ opioid task force plan to target not just drug traffickers, but the companies that make the drugs as well. Read the full story on Reuters here. Getting into the pharmaceutical business isn’t easy–even for Amazon Amazon Business had plans to sell and distribute pharmaceuticals to hospitals and clinics but is now shifting to plans for selling less sensitive medical supplies. As it turns out, it’s hard to get big hospitals to change their ways sometimes. Read the full story here. States lost a potent weapon in the war on grossly inflated drug prices The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a Maryland law meant to limit “price-gouging” by generic drug manufacturers, striking down the law on constitutional grounds. Read the full report on NPR here. Healthcare for retired couples is pretty expensive, to the tune of $280,000 according to Fidelity Investments “Covering health care costs remains one of the most significant, yet unpredictable, aspects of retirement planning,” said Shams Talib, executive vice president and head of Fidelity Benefits Consulting. Read the full story on USA Today.
Healthcare Roundup: Top Headlines April 9-12
Medical studies with new or exciting information always make the top headlines, and this week was no exception. The decline in soda sales after the Philadelphia soda tax, the link to traumatic brain injuries and dementia and an unauthorized herpes vaccine investigation were at the top of reader’s minds this week. Let’s take a look. FDA launches an investigation into a professor who gave an unauthorized herpes vaccine. The FDA is investigating William Halford, a Southern Illinois University for administering his experimental vaccine to patients without safety oversight from the organization or an institutional review board. Read the full story on U.S. News here. A new Senate bill is trying to make it easier for hearing aid patients to get the assistance they need. Many patients who can afford hearing aids still have trouble affording assistance to learn, adjust and use their new hearing aids properly. This new bill would allow payment for audiologists to teach beneficiaries how to use their new tech. Read the full report on NPR. A study of 2.8 million patient records found a link between traumatic brain injury and a significantly higher risk of dementia “What surprised us was that even a single mild TBI was associated with a significantly higher risk of dementia,” lead author Jesse Fann said in the press release. Read the story here. As it turns out, taxing soda will cause more people to not buy soda, which could lead to potential health benefits Drexel University found that Philadelphia’s new soda tax caused a 40 percent drop in daily soda consumption among residents in the two months after it took effect. Read the full report here. On this week’s episode of “U.S. Healthcare Is Expensive”, a significant portion of Americans use their tax refunds to pay for healthcare expenses The JPMorgan Chase Institute found a “dramatic link between health care spending and tax refunds.” Women, young people and those without savings are “more likely to defer care” until receiving a refund, according to the report. Read the full story on CNBC here.