Rheumatology News

Pigs have been long used in medical schools to teach surgical techniques and, more recently, in research trials and experimental xenotransplantation procedures. But given the rise of alternative simulation technology and mounting pressure from animal rights groups and lawmakers, animal labs for medical training have become less common.

Just last month, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit group with a decades-long stance against the use of animals in medical education and research, placed billboards around the Portland, Ore., area demanding that Oregon Health and Science University stop using pigs to teach surgical residents.

Undergraduate medical programs no longer use live animals. But a small number of graduate medical education programs still use animals, predominantly pigs, to train physicians in subspecialties like internal medicine, emergency medicine, surgery, and anesthesiology, John Pippin, MD, FACC, director of academic affairs at PCRM, told this news organization.

Dr. Pippin says residents practice establishing emergency airways, inserting chest tubes, and accessing blood vessels on anesthetized pigs before euthanizing them.

Swine lab advocates say pigs make ideal training subjects because of their similarities to humans, including comparably sized organs like the heart, lungs, and kidneys. Pigs share about 85% of their DNA with people. Where pig skin alternatives may suffice for less invasive procedures, supporters say residents’ experiences with live tissue are irreplaceable.

In a statement, Sara Hottman, associate director of media relations at Oregon Health and Science University, told this news organization the school “only uses animal models in its surgical training program when nonanimal methods are inadequate or too dangerous for human participants.”

“We believe that the education and experience surgical trainees gain through the use of relevant animal models are essential to ensuring future surgeons have the knowledge and skills necessary to provide safe, high-quality care.”

Ms. Hottman also noted that the university continues to evaluate alternatives and looks forward to when nonanimal “surgical training methods are capable of faithfully modeling the complexity of a living system,” such as in the management of critical internal complications.

But Dr. Pippin argues that residents can gain sufficient expertise through simulators and hands-on training in the operating room, and that the differences between humans and pigs are too vast to provide meaningful clinical data or skills.

“Pigs have different genetic influences and very thick, tough skin,” he said. If you use the same pressure on a human that you learned on a pig, he added, “you’d slice right through the trachea. Whatever you think you find out in animals, you have to learn all over again with humans.”

Undergraduate medical education programs in the United States and Canada abandoned the practice of using live animals, including pigs, by 2016, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, last to announce their shift away from the controversial teaching model following campaigns by PCRM.

Today, most residency training programs have followed suit. Pippin said that pediatric residencies no longer use animals, and all trauma and anesthesiology programs have ceased such practices except two. Just 3% of emergency medicine programs continue to use animals, as do about 21% of surgical residencies, he said, based on PCRM’s latest surveys.
 

A public debate

Occasionally, PCRM goes public with a campaign against a residency program “if that’s the only way to win,” Dr. Pippin said.

In addition to billboards, the group has held protests, circulated petitions, and filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the entity responsible for overseeing the health and welfare of animals used in medical training and research.

In 2021, spurred by a complaint from PCRM, APHIS launched an investigation into the University of Cincinnati’s surgical residency program. At the time, a university spokesperson acknowledged the school’s limited use of pigs to train “highly-skilled, well-prepared surgeons in the most advanced, complex, real-world needs, procedures, and techniques,” adding that the training methods were endorsed by the American College of Surgeons and in compliance with federal guidelines.

Residency programs have caught the attention of state lawmakers, too. In 2020, bills introduced in both the Rhode Island House and Senate sought to ban the use of live animals in medical training when “there is an alternate teaching method that teaches the medical procedure or lesson without the use of an animal.” Violators would incur misdemeanor charges and monetary fines of up to $1,000 per animal.

The bills – backed by PCRM – targeted Brown University’s emergency medicine residency program, Providence, R.I., which sponsoring legislators said was the last program in New England still using the “outdated” and “unnecessary” method.

In testimony before lawmakers, the school said fewer than 15 pigs participate in the annual training, and faculty spoke about the benefits of the experience.

“If it was your brother or sister, or your mother or father who had to come in and get this procedure done, would you want the physician who’s doing it to be the one who does it for the very first time on a human being, on live tissue? Or do you want that provider to have only practiced on plastic and rubber?” said Nicholas Musisca, MD, an assistant program director with Brown University’s emergency medicine residency, NBC affiliate WJAR reported.

The bills have since stalled, and PCRM held a protest at Brown University in October 2022. In response, a university spokesperson told the Brown Daily Herald, “effective synthetic model alternatives simply do not exist for every complex medical procedure that an emergency physician must be prepared to perform,” including establishing an airway in adults and pediatric patients with severe facial trauma.
 

By the numbers

Annual reports from APHIS do not show the number of pigs dedicated solely to residency training. Instead, reporting indicates the number of animals “upon which experiments, teaching, research, surgery, or tests were conducted involving accompanying pain or distress to the animals and for which appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs were used.”

For fiscal year 2021 – the most recent data available – Oregon Health and Science University had 154 pigs under its control, while the University of Cincinnati and Brown University had 118 and 71 pigs, respectively, according to APHIS. Primates were more commonly used at Oregon Health and Science University and guinea pigs at the University of Cincinnati.

Similarly, the Association of American Medical Colleges supports the “use of animals to meet essential educational objectives [across] the medical education continuum. ... Further restrictions on the use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research and education threatens progress in health care and disease prevention.”

The debate will likely rage on. “The one thing we don’t do is give up,” Dr. Pippin said.

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

Pigs have been long used in medical schools to teach surgical techniques and, more recently, in research trials and experimental xenotransplantation procedures. But given the rise of alternative simulation technology and mounting pressure from animal rights groups and lawmakers, animal labs for medical training have become less common.

Just last month, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit group with a decades-long stance against the use of animals in medical education and research, placed billboards around the Portland, Ore., area demanding that Oregon Health and Science University stop using pigs to teach surgical residents.

Undergraduate medical programs no longer use live animals. But a small number of graduate medical education programs still use animals, predominantly pigs, to train physicians in subspecialties like internal medicine, emergency medicine, surgery, and anesthesiology, John Pippin, MD, FACC, director of academic affairs at PCRM, told this news organization.

Dr. Pippin says residents practice establishing emergency airways, inserting chest tubes, and accessing blood vessels on anesthetized pigs before euthanizing them.

Swine lab advocates say pigs make ideal training subjects because of their similarities to humans, including comparably sized organs like the heart, lungs, and kidneys. Pigs share about 85% of their DNA with people. Where pig skin alternatives may suffice for less invasive procedures, supporters say residents’ experiences with live tissue are irreplaceable.

In a statement, Sara Hottman, associate director of media relations at Oregon Health and Science University, told this news organization the school “only uses animal models in its surgical training program when nonanimal methods are inadequate or too dangerous for human participants.”

“We believe that the education and experience surgical trainees gain through the use of relevant animal models are essential to ensuring future surgeons have the knowledge and skills necessary to provide safe, high-quality care.”

Ms. Hottman also noted that the university continues to evaluate alternatives and looks forward to when nonanimal “surgical training methods are capable of faithfully modeling the complexity of a living system,” such as in the management of critical internal complications.

But Dr. Pippin argues that residents can gain sufficient expertise through simulators and hands-on training in the operating room, and that the differences between humans and pigs are too vast to provide meaningful clinical data or skills.

“Pigs have different genetic influences and very thick, tough skin,” he said. If you use the same pressure on a human that you learned on a pig, he added, “you’d slice right through the trachea. Whatever you think you find out in animals, you have to learn all over again with humans.”

Undergraduate medical education programs in the United States and Canada abandoned the practice of using live animals, including pigs, by 2016, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, last to announce their shift away from the controversial teaching model following campaigns by PCRM.

Today, most residency training programs have followed suit. Pippin said that pediatric residencies no longer use animals, and all trauma and anesthesiology programs have ceased such practices except two. Just 3% of emergency medicine programs continue to use animals, as do about 21% of surgical residencies, he said, based on PCRM’s latest surveys.
 

A public debate

Occasionally, PCRM goes public with a campaign against a residency program “if that’s the only way to win,” Dr. Pippin said.

In addition to billboards, the group has held protests, circulated petitions, and filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the entity responsible for overseeing the health and welfare of animals used in medical training and research.

In 2021, spurred by a complaint from PCRM, APHIS launched an investigation into the University of Cincinnati’s surgical residency program. At the time, a university spokesperson acknowledged the school’s limited use of pigs to train “highly-skilled, well-prepared surgeons in the most advanced, complex, real-world needs, procedures, and techniques,” adding that the training methods were endorsed by the American College of Surgeons and in compliance with federal guidelines.

Residency programs have caught the attention of state lawmakers, too. In 2020, bills introduced in both the Rhode Island House and Senate sought to ban the use of live animals in medical training when “there is an alternate teaching method that teaches the medical procedure or lesson without the use of an animal.” Violators would incur misdemeanor charges and monetary fines of up to $1,000 per animal.

The bills – backed by PCRM – targeted Brown University’s emergency medicine residency program, Providence, R.I., which sponsoring legislators said was the last program in New England still using the “outdated” and “unnecessary” method.

In testimony before lawmakers, the school said fewer than 15 pigs participate in the annual training, and faculty spoke about the benefits of the experience.

“If it was your brother or sister, or your mother or father who had to come in and get this procedure done, would you want the physician who’s doing it to be the one who does it for the very first time on a human being, on live tissue? Or do you want that provider to have only practiced on plastic and rubber?” said Nicholas Musisca, MD, an assistant program director with Brown University’s emergency medicine residency, NBC affiliate WJAR reported.

The bills have since stalled, and PCRM held a protest at Brown University in October 2022. In response, a university spokesperson told the Brown Daily Herald, “effective synthetic model alternatives simply do not exist for every complex medical procedure that an emergency physician must be prepared to perform,” including establishing an airway in adults and pediatric patients with severe facial trauma.
 

By the numbers

Annual reports from APHIS do not show the number of pigs dedicated solely to residency training. Instead, reporting indicates the number of animals “upon which experiments, teaching, research, surgery, or tests were conducted involving accompanying pain or distress to the animals and for which appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs were used.”

For fiscal year 2021 – the most recent data available – Oregon Health and Science University had 154 pigs under its control, while the University of Cincinnati and Brown University had 118 and 71 pigs, respectively, according to APHIS. Primates were more commonly used at Oregon Health and Science University and guinea pigs at the University of Cincinnati.

Similarly, the Association of American Medical Colleges supports the “use of animals to meet essential educational objectives [across] the medical education continuum. ... Further restrictions on the use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research and education threatens progress in health care and disease prevention.”

The debate will likely rage on. “The one thing we don’t do is give up,” Dr. Pippin said.

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

Pigs have been long used in medical schools to teach surgical techniques and, more recently, in research trials and experimental xenotransplantation procedures. But given the rise of alternative simulation technology and mounting pressure from animal rights groups and lawmakers, animal labs for medical training have become less common.

Just last month, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit group with a decades-long stance against the use of animals in medical education and research, placed billboards around the Portland, Ore., area demanding that Oregon Health and Science University stop using pigs to teach surgical residents.

Undergraduate medical programs no longer use live animals. But a small number of graduate medical education programs still use animals, predominantly pigs, to train physicians in subspecialties like internal medicine, emergency medicine, surgery, and anesthesiology, John Pippin, MD, FACC, director of academic affairs at PCRM, told this news organization.

Dr. Pippin says residents practice establishing emergency airways, inserting chest tubes, and accessing blood vessels on anesthetized pigs before euthanizing them.

Swine lab advocates say pigs make ideal training subjects because of their similarities to humans, including comparably sized organs like the heart, lungs, and kidneys. Pigs share about 85% of their DNA with people. Where pig skin alternatives may suffice for less invasive procedures, supporters say residents’ experiences with live tissue are irreplaceable.

In a statement, Sara Hottman, associate director of media relations at Oregon Health and Science University, told this news organization the school “only uses animal models in its surgical training program when nonanimal methods are inadequate or too dangerous for human participants.”

“We believe that the education and experience surgical trainees gain through the use of relevant animal models are essential to ensuring future surgeons have the knowledge and skills necessary to provide safe, high-quality care.”

Ms. Hottman also noted that the university continues to evaluate alternatives and looks forward to when nonanimal “surgical training methods are capable of faithfully modeling the complexity of a living system,” such as in the management of critical internal complications.

But Dr. Pippin argues that residents can gain sufficient expertise through simulators and hands-on training in the operating room, and that the differences between humans and pigs are too vast to provide meaningful clinical data or skills.

“Pigs have different genetic influences and very thick, tough skin,” he said. If you use the same pressure on a human that you learned on a pig, he added, “you’d slice right through the trachea. Whatever you think you find out in animals, you have to learn all over again with humans.”

Undergraduate medical education programs in the United States and Canada abandoned the practice of using live animals, including pigs, by 2016, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, last to announce their shift away from the controversial teaching model following campaigns by PCRM.

Today, most residency training programs have followed suit. Pippin said that pediatric residencies no longer use animals, and all trauma and anesthesiology programs have ceased such practices except two. Just 3% of emergency medicine programs continue to use animals, as do about 21% of surgical residencies, he said, based on PCRM’s latest surveys.
 

A public debate

Occasionally, PCRM goes public with a campaign against a residency program “if that’s the only way to win,” Dr. Pippin said.

In addition to billboards, the group has held protests, circulated petitions, and filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the entity responsible for overseeing the health and welfare of animals used in medical training and research.

In 2021, spurred by a complaint from PCRM, APHIS launched an investigation into the University of Cincinnati’s surgical residency program. At the time, a university spokesperson acknowledged the school’s limited use of pigs to train “highly-skilled, well-prepared surgeons in the most advanced, complex, real-world needs, procedures, and techniques,” adding that the training methods were endorsed by the American College of Surgeons and in compliance with federal guidelines.

Residency programs have caught the attention of state lawmakers, too. In 2020, bills introduced in both the Rhode Island House and Senate sought to ban the use of live animals in medical training when “there is an alternate teaching method that teaches the medical procedure or lesson without the use of an animal.” Violators would incur misdemeanor charges and monetary fines of up to $1,000 per animal.

The bills – backed by PCRM – targeted Brown University’s emergency medicine residency program, Providence, R.I., which sponsoring legislators said was the last program in New England still using the “outdated” and “unnecessary” method.

In testimony before lawmakers, the school said fewer than 15 pigs participate in the annual training, and faculty spoke about the benefits of the experience.

“If it was your brother or sister, or your mother or father who had to come in and get this procedure done, would you want the physician who’s doing it to be the one who does it for the very first time on a human being, on live tissue? Or do you want that provider to have only practiced on plastic and rubber?” said Nicholas Musisca, MD, an assistant program director with Brown University’s emergency medicine residency, NBC affiliate WJAR reported.

The bills have since stalled, and PCRM held a protest at Brown University in October 2022. In response, a university spokesperson told the Brown Daily Herald, “effective synthetic model alternatives simply do not exist for every complex medical procedure that an emergency physician must be prepared to perform,” including establishing an airway in adults and pediatric patients with severe facial trauma.
 

By the numbers

Annual reports from APHIS do not show the number of pigs dedicated solely to residency training. Instead, reporting indicates the number of animals “upon which experiments, teaching, research, surgery, or tests were conducted involving accompanying pain or distress to the animals and for which appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs were used.”

For fiscal year 2021 – the most recent data available – Oregon Health and Science University had 154 pigs under its control, while the University of Cincinnati and Brown University had 118 and 71 pigs, respectively, according to APHIS. Primates were more commonly used at Oregon Health and Science University and guinea pigs at the University of Cincinnati.

Similarly, the Association of American Medical Colleges supports the “use of animals to meet essential educational objectives [across] the medical education continuum. ... Further restrictions on the use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research and education threatens progress in health care and disease prevention.”

The debate will likely rage on. “The one thing we don’t do is give up,” Dr. Pippin said.

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

It’s the end of an era. The Biden administration announced Jan. 30 that it will be ending the twin COVID-19 emergency declarations, marking a major change in the 3-year-old pandemic.

The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11. 

Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes. 
 

Changes that affect everyone

• There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11. 
• Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
• Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
• Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

• Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
• COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
• You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

• Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes. 
• Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals. 

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

• Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
• The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.

Changes that affect uninsured people

• The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing). 

Changes that affect health care providers

• There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.

What the experts are saying 

This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision. 

Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?

Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.” 

Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”

Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”

Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”

Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean? 

A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.” 

A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”

Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems? 

A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”

A: Dr. Benjamin:  “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected. 

“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”

A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.

Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic? 

A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”

A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”

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

It’s the end of an era. The Biden administration announced Jan. 30 that it will be ending the twin COVID-19 emergency declarations, marking a major change in the 3-year-old pandemic.

The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11. 

Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes. 
 

Changes that affect everyone

• There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11. 
• Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
• Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
• Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

• Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
• COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
• You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

• Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes. 
• Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals. 

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

• Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
• The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.

Changes that affect uninsured people

• The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing). 

Changes that affect health care providers

• There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.

What the experts are saying 

This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision. 

Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?

Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.” 

Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”

Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”

Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”

Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean? 

A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.” 

A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”

Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems? 

A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”

A: Dr. Benjamin:  “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected. 

“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”

A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.

Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic? 

A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”

A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”

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

It’s the end of an era. The Biden administration announced Jan. 30 that it will be ending the twin COVID-19 emergency declarations, marking a major change in the 3-year-old pandemic.

The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11. 

Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes. 
 

Changes that affect everyone

• There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11. 
• Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
• Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
• Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

• Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
• COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
• You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

• Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes. 
• Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals. 

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

• Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
• The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.

Changes that affect uninsured people

• The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing). 

Changes that affect health care providers

• There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.

What the experts are saying 

This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision. 

Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?

Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.” 

Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”

Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”

Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”

Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean? 

A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.” 

A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”

Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems? 

A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”

A: Dr. Benjamin:  “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected. 

“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”

A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.

Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic? 

A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”

A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”

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

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but clots will never hurt me

You’ve probably seen “Ghostbusters” or at least heard the theme song. Maybe you even know about the Discovery Channel’s “Mythbusters.” But now there’s a new buster in town, and it eats platitudes for breakfast: Meet Cliche-busters, LOTME’s new recurring feature.

This week, Cliche-busters takes on “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Yum.

We start with blood clots, which are bad. Doctors go to a lot of trouble to get rid of the things because they are dangerous. A blood clot, then, is a bodily function gone wrong.

Tornadoes are also bad. Out there in the world, these violently rotating columns of air can destroy buildings, toss large objects long distances, and inspire mediocre action movies. They are examples of nature gone wrong.

Seemingly, these two wrongs – blood clots and tornadoes – are not about to make a right. Has Cliche-busters bitten off more than it can chew?

Not according to Xiaoning Jiang of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and his team of researchers. They’ve figured out a way to use a tiny ultrasonic tornado to break down clots in the brain. “Our new work uses vortex ultrasound, where the ultrasound waves have a helical wavefront. In other words, the ultrasound is swirling as it moves forward,” he said in a statement from the university.

Xiaoning Jiang and Chengzhi Shi

Their new tool’s single transducer is small enough to fit in a catheter, and its “vortex ultrasound-induced shear force has the potential to break down clots safely and improve the efficacy of thrombolysis,” they explained in the open-access journal Research.

The investigators used cow blood in a 3D-printed model of the cerebral venous sinus for the proof-of-concept study and were able to dissolve an acute blood clot in less than 30 minutes, compared with the 15-30 hours needed with a pharmaceutical intervention, according to the written statement.

Can you hear the sound of two wrongs making a right? We can, and that closes the curtain on this cliche.
 

With age does not come wisdom

We’ve all met this person before. The sort of person who takes a 10-minute IQ test on a shifty-looking website and then proceeds to brag about a 180 IQ until the heat death of the universe. The one who worships at the altar of Mensa. Yeah, that guy. They’re never as smart as they think they are, but they’ll never, ever admit it.

It’s not exactly a secret that IQ as a measurement of intelligence is highly overrated. A lot of scientists doubt we should bother measuring it at all. That said, a higher IQ is associated with greater success in academic and financial endeavors, so it’s not absolutely worthless. And if we’re stuck with it, we may as well study it.

That brings us neatly to new research published in Brain and Behavior. Most studies into IQ and self-estimated intelligence have focused on younger adults, and the author of this study was curious if the stereotype of young men inflating their IQ, a stereotype backed up by research, persisted into older adulthood. So she conducted a survey of 159 younger adults and 152 older adults to find out.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

The results in younger adults were not surprising: Younger men overestimated their actual IQ by 5-15 points, which tracks with previous research. We’re in for a bit of a surprise with the older adults, though, because the older men were more humble about their intelligence, with their estimation falling in line with their actual IQ. Older women, however, not so much. In fact, they overestimated their intelligence just as much as the younger men.

In addition, older women who perceived themselves as more attractive reported the highest self-estimated intelligence of all. That isn’t how intelligence works, but honestly, if Grandma’s out and about thinking she looks good and has the brains to go and win “Jeopardy!” do you really have the heart to tell her otherwise?
 

Fight temptation with empathy … and shoes

Relationships are tough. They all go through their respective ups and downs, but what happens when one person is feeling so down in the partnership that cheating comes to mind? Is there any way to stop it from happening?

Rawpixel

Well, a recent study suggests that there is, and it’s as simple as putting yourself in the other person’s shoes. By observing 408 heterosexual, monogamous participants in a series of experiments, psychologists in Israel and New York found that practicing empathy and “perspective taking” doesn’t necessarily stop people from cheating but it does reduces the desire.

People cheat on their significant others for many different reasons – men for a lack of sexual needs being met and women for shortfalls regarding emotional needs – but prioritizing the other person’s perspective gives the idea of being unfaithful a different view and could make one act differently, the investigators said.

Perspective taking also promotes other positive attributes to the relationship, such as the promotion of compassion and the feeling of being understood, lead author Gurit Birnbaum of Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel, said in a written statement. These things ultimately help couples navigate the rough patches and strengthen bonds, making them even less likely to cheat.

The researchers noted that even people in satisfying relationships do cheat, but this approach does encourage people to stop and think before they act. It could ultimately prevent what might be a huge mistake.

Think before they act. Hmm, that’s kind of like look before they leap, right? Sounds like a job for the Cliche-busters.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but clots will never hurt me

You’ve probably seen “Ghostbusters” or at least heard the theme song. Maybe you even know about the Discovery Channel’s “Mythbusters.” But now there’s a new buster in town, and it eats platitudes for breakfast: Meet Cliche-busters, LOTME’s new recurring feature.

This week, Cliche-busters takes on “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Yum.

We start with blood clots, which are bad. Doctors go to a lot of trouble to get rid of the things because they are dangerous. A blood clot, then, is a bodily function gone wrong.

Tornadoes are also bad. Out there in the world, these violently rotating columns of air can destroy buildings, toss large objects long distances, and inspire mediocre action movies. They are examples of nature gone wrong.

Seemingly, these two wrongs – blood clots and tornadoes – are not about to make a right. Has Cliche-busters bitten off more than it can chew?

Not according to Xiaoning Jiang of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and his team of researchers. They’ve figured out a way to use a tiny ultrasonic tornado to break down clots in the brain. “Our new work uses vortex ultrasound, where the ultrasound waves have a helical wavefront. In other words, the ultrasound is swirling as it moves forward,” he said in a statement from the university.

Xiaoning Jiang and Chengzhi Shi

Their new tool’s single transducer is small enough to fit in a catheter, and its “vortex ultrasound-induced shear force has the potential to break down clots safely and improve the efficacy of thrombolysis,” they explained in the open-access journal Research.

The investigators used cow blood in a 3D-printed model of the cerebral venous sinus for the proof-of-concept study and were able to dissolve an acute blood clot in less than 30 minutes, compared with the 15-30 hours needed with a pharmaceutical intervention, according to the written statement.

Can you hear the sound of two wrongs making a right? We can, and that closes the curtain on this cliche.
 

With age does not come wisdom

We’ve all met this person before. The sort of person who takes a 10-minute IQ test on a shifty-looking website and then proceeds to brag about a 180 IQ until the heat death of the universe. The one who worships at the altar of Mensa. Yeah, that guy. They’re never as smart as they think they are, but they’ll never, ever admit it.

It’s not exactly a secret that IQ as a measurement of intelligence is highly overrated. A lot of scientists doubt we should bother measuring it at all. That said, a higher IQ is associated with greater success in academic and financial endeavors, so it’s not absolutely worthless. And if we’re stuck with it, we may as well study it.

That brings us neatly to new research published in Brain and Behavior. Most studies into IQ and self-estimated intelligence have focused on younger adults, and the author of this study was curious if the stereotype of young men inflating their IQ, a stereotype backed up by research, persisted into older adulthood. So she conducted a survey of 159 younger adults and 152 older adults to find out.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

The results in younger adults were not surprising: Younger men overestimated their actual IQ by 5-15 points, which tracks with previous research. We’re in for a bit of a surprise with the older adults, though, because the older men were more humble about their intelligence, with their estimation falling in line with their actual IQ. Older women, however, not so much. In fact, they overestimated their intelligence just as much as the younger men.

In addition, older women who perceived themselves as more attractive reported the highest self-estimated intelligence of all. That isn’t how intelligence works, but honestly, if Grandma’s out and about thinking she looks good and has the brains to go and win “Jeopardy!” do you really have the heart to tell her otherwise?
 

Fight temptation with empathy … and shoes

Relationships are tough. They all go through their respective ups and downs, but what happens when one person is feeling so down in the partnership that cheating comes to mind? Is there any way to stop it from happening?

Rawpixel

Well, a recent study suggests that there is, and it’s as simple as putting yourself in the other person’s shoes. By observing 408 heterosexual, monogamous participants in a series of experiments, psychologists in Israel and New York found that practicing empathy and “perspective taking” doesn’t necessarily stop people from cheating but it does reduces the desire.

People cheat on their significant others for many different reasons – men for a lack of sexual needs being met and women for shortfalls regarding emotional needs – but prioritizing the other person’s perspective gives the idea of being unfaithful a different view and could make one act differently, the investigators said.

Perspective taking also promotes other positive attributes to the relationship, such as the promotion of compassion and the feeling of being understood, lead author Gurit Birnbaum of Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel, said in a written statement. These things ultimately help couples navigate the rough patches and strengthen bonds, making them even less likely to cheat.

The researchers noted that even people in satisfying relationships do cheat, but this approach does encourage people to stop and think before they act. It could ultimately prevent what might be a huge mistake.

Think before they act. Hmm, that’s kind of like look before they leap, right? Sounds like a job for the Cliche-busters.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but clots will never hurt me

You’ve probably seen “Ghostbusters” or at least heard the theme song. Maybe you even know about the Discovery Channel’s “Mythbusters.” But now there’s a new buster in town, and it eats platitudes for breakfast: Meet Cliche-busters, LOTME’s new recurring feature.

This week, Cliche-busters takes on “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Yum.

We start with blood clots, which are bad. Doctors go to a lot of trouble to get rid of the things because they are dangerous. A blood clot, then, is a bodily function gone wrong.

Tornadoes are also bad. Out there in the world, these violently rotating columns of air can destroy buildings, toss large objects long distances, and inspire mediocre action movies. They are examples of nature gone wrong.

Seemingly, these two wrongs – blood clots and tornadoes – are not about to make a right. Has Cliche-busters bitten off more than it can chew?

Not according to Xiaoning Jiang of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and his team of researchers. They’ve figured out a way to use a tiny ultrasonic tornado to break down clots in the brain. “Our new work uses vortex ultrasound, where the ultrasound waves have a helical wavefront. In other words, the ultrasound is swirling as it moves forward,” he said in a statement from the university.

Xiaoning Jiang and Chengzhi Shi

Their new tool’s single transducer is small enough to fit in a catheter, and its “vortex ultrasound-induced shear force has the potential to break down clots safely and improve the efficacy of thrombolysis,” they explained in the open-access journal Research.

The investigators used cow blood in a 3D-printed model of the cerebral venous sinus for the proof-of-concept study and were able to dissolve an acute blood clot in less than 30 minutes, compared with the 15-30 hours needed with a pharmaceutical intervention, according to the written statement.

Can you hear the sound of two wrongs making a right? We can, and that closes the curtain on this cliche.
 

With age does not come wisdom

We’ve all met this person before. The sort of person who takes a 10-minute IQ test on a shifty-looking website and then proceeds to brag about a 180 IQ until the heat death of the universe. The one who worships at the altar of Mensa. Yeah, that guy. They’re never as smart as they think they are, but they’ll never, ever admit it.

It’s not exactly a secret that IQ as a measurement of intelligence is highly overrated. A lot of scientists doubt we should bother measuring it at all. That said, a higher IQ is associated with greater success in academic and financial endeavors, so it’s not absolutely worthless. And if we’re stuck with it, we may as well study it.

That brings us neatly to new research published in Brain and Behavior. Most studies into IQ and self-estimated intelligence have focused on younger adults, and the author of this study was curious if the stereotype of young men inflating their IQ, a stereotype backed up by research, persisted into older adulthood. So she conducted a survey of 159 younger adults and 152 older adults to find out.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

The results in younger adults were not surprising: Younger men overestimated their actual IQ by 5-15 points, which tracks with previous research. We’re in for a bit of a surprise with the older adults, though, because the older men were more humble about their intelligence, with their estimation falling in line with their actual IQ. Older women, however, not so much. In fact, they overestimated their intelligence just as much as the younger men.

In addition, older women who perceived themselves as more attractive reported the highest self-estimated intelligence of all. That isn’t how intelligence works, but honestly, if Grandma’s out and about thinking she looks good and has the brains to go and win “Jeopardy!” do you really have the heart to tell her otherwise?
 

Fight temptation with empathy … and shoes

Relationships are tough. They all go through their respective ups and downs, but what happens when one person is feeling so down in the partnership that cheating comes to mind? Is there any way to stop it from happening?

Rawpixel

Well, a recent study suggests that there is, and it’s as simple as putting yourself in the other person’s shoes. By observing 408 heterosexual, monogamous participants in a series of experiments, psychologists in Israel and New York found that practicing empathy and “perspective taking” doesn’t necessarily stop people from cheating but it does reduces the desire.

People cheat on their significant others for many different reasons – men for a lack of sexual needs being met and women for shortfalls regarding emotional needs – but prioritizing the other person’s perspective gives the idea of being unfaithful a different view and could make one act differently, the investigators said.

Perspective taking also promotes other positive attributes to the relationship, such as the promotion of compassion and the feeling of being understood, lead author Gurit Birnbaum of Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel, said in a written statement. These things ultimately help couples navigate the rough patches and strengthen bonds, making them even less likely to cheat.

The researchers noted that even people in satisfying relationships do cheat, but this approach does encourage people to stop and think before they act. It could ultimately prevent what might be a huge mistake.

Think before they act. Hmm, that’s kind of like look before they leap, right? Sounds like a job for the Cliche-busters.

Running does not appear to cause sustained wear and tear of healthy knee cartilage, with research suggesting that the small, short-term changes to cartilage after a run reverse within hours.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the most recent issue of Osteoarthritis and Cartilage presents the findings involving 396 adults, which compared the “before” and “after” state of healthy knee cartilage in runners.

pojoslaw/Thinkstock

Running is often thought to be detrimental to joint health, wrote Sally Coburn, PhD candidate at the La Trobe Sport & Exercise Medicine Research Centre at La Trobe University in Melbourne and coauthors, but this perception is not supported by evidence.

For the analysis, the researchers included studies that looked at either knee or hip cartilage using MRI to assess its size, shape, structure, and/or composition both in the 48 hours before a single bout of running and in the 48 hours after. The analysis aimed to include adults with or at risk of osteoarthritis, but only 57 of the 446 knees in the analysis fit these criteria.

In studies where participants underwent MRI within 20 minutes of running, there was an immediate postrun decrease in the volume of cartilage, ranging from –3.3% for weight-bearing femoral cartilage to –4.1% for tibial cartilage volume. This also revealed a decrease in T1 and T2 relaxation times, which are specialized MRI measures that reflect the composition of cartilage and which can indicate a breakdown of cartilage structure in the case of diseases such as arthritis.

Reversal of short-term cartilage changes

However, within 48 hours of the run, data from studies that repeated the MRIs more than once after the initial prerun scan suggested these changes reversed back to prerun levels.

“We were able to pool delayed T2 relaxation time measures from studies that repeated scans of the same participants 60 minutes and 91 minutes post-run and found no effect of running on tibiofemoral joint cartilage composition,” the authors write.

For example, one study in marathon runners found no difference in cartilage thickness in the tibiofemoral joint between baseline and at 2-10 hours and 12 hours after the marathon. Another showed the immediate post-run decrease in patellofemoral joint cartilage thickness had reverted back to prerun levels when the scan was repeated 24 hours after the run.

“The changes are very minimal and not inconsistent with what’s expected for your cartilage which is functioning normally,” Ms. Coburn told this news organization.

Sparse data in people with osteoarthritis

The authors said there were not enough data from individuals with osteoarthritis to be able to pool and quantify their cartilage changes. However, one study in the analysis found that cartilage lesions in people considered at risk of osteoarthritis because of prior anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were unchanged after running.

Another suggested that the decrease in femoral cartilage volume recorded at 15 minutes persisted at 45 minutes, while a separate study found significantly increased T2 relaxation times at 45 minutes after a run in those with knee osteoarthritis but not in those without osteoarthritis.

Senior author Adam Culvenor, PhD, senior research fellow at the La Trobe Centre, said their analysis suggested running was healthy, with small changes in cartilage that resolve quickly, but “we really don’t know yet if running is safe for people with osteoarthritis,” he said. “We need much more work in that space.”

Overall, the study evidence was rated as being of low certainty, which Dr. Coburn said was related to the small numbers in each study, which in turn relates to the cost and logistical challenges of the specialized MRI scan used.

“Study of a repeated exposure over a long duration of time on a disease that has a long natural history, like osteoarthritis, is challenging in that most funding agencies will not fund studies longer than 5 years,” Grace Hsiao-Wei Lo, MD, of the department of immunology, allergy, and rheumatology at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an email.

Dr. Lo, who was not involved with this review and meta-analysis, said there are still concerns about the effect of running on knee osteoarthritis among those with the disease, although there are some data to suggest that among those who self-select to run, there are no negative outcomes for the knee.

An accompanying editorial noted that research into the effect of running on those with osteoarthritis was still in its infancy. “This would help to guide clinical practice on how to support people with osteoarthritis, with regard to accessing the health benefits of running participation,” write Jean-Francois Esculier, PT, PhD, from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and Christian Barton, PhD, with the La Trobe Centre, pointing out there were a lack of evidence-based clinical recommendations for people with osteoarthritis who want to start or continue running.

It’s a question that PhD candidate Michaela Khan, MSc, is trying to answer at the University of British Columbia. “Our lab did a pilot study for my current study now, and they found that osteoarthritic cartilage took a little bit longer to recover than their healthy counterparts,” Ms. Khan said. Her research is suggesting that people with osteoarthritis not only can run, but even those with severe disease, who might be candidates for knee replacement, can run long distances.

Commenting on the analysis, Ms. Khan said the main take-home message was that healthy cartilage seems to recover after running, and that there is not an ongoing effect of ‘wear and tear.’

“That’s changing the narrative that if you keep running, it will wear away your cartilage, it’ll hurt your knees,” she said. “Now, we have a good synthesis of scientific evidence to prove maybe otherwise.”

Ms. Coburn and Dr. Culvenor report grant support from the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, and another author reports grant support from the U.S. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The authors, as well as Dr. Lo and Ms. Khan, report relevant financial relationships.
 

Running does not appear to cause sustained wear and tear of healthy knee cartilage, with research suggesting that the small, short-term changes to cartilage after a run reverse within hours.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the most recent issue of Osteoarthritis and Cartilage presents the findings involving 396 adults, which compared the “before” and “after” state of healthy knee cartilage in runners.

pojoslaw/Thinkstock

Running is often thought to be detrimental to joint health, wrote Sally Coburn, PhD candidate at the La Trobe Sport & Exercise Medicine Research Centre at La Trobe University in Melbourne and coauthors, but this perception is not supported by evidence.

For the analysis, the researchers included studies that looked at either knee or hip cartilage using MRI to assess its size, shape, structure, and/or composition both in the 48 hours before a single bout of running and in the 48 hours after. The analysis aimed to include adults with or at risk of osteoarthritis, but only 57 of the 446 knees in the analysis fit these criteria.

In studies where participants underwent MRI within 20 minutes of running, there was an immediate postrun decrease in the volume of cartilage, ranging from –3.3% for weight-bearing femoral cartilage to –4.1% for tibial cartilage volume. This also revealed a decrease in T1 and T2 relaxation times, which are specialized MRI measures that reflect the composition of cartilage and which can indicate a breakdown of cartilage structure in the case of diseases such as arthritis.

Reversal of short-term cartilage changes

However, within 48 hours of the run, data from studies that repeated the MRIs more than once after the initial prerun scan suggested these changes reversed back to prerun levels.

“We were able to pool delayed T2 relaxation time measures from studies that repeated scans of the same participants 60 minutes and 91 minutes post-run and found no effect of running on tibiofemoral joint cartilage composition,” the authors write.

For example, one study in marathon runners found no difference in cartilage thickness in the tibiofemoral joint between baseline and at 2-10 hours and 12 hours after the marathon. Another showed the immediate post-run decrease in patellofemoral joint cartilage thickness had reverted back to prerun levels when the scan was repeated 24 hours after the run.

“The changes are very minimal and not inconsistent with what’s expected for your cartilage which is functioning normally,” Ms. Coburn told this news organization.

Sparse data in people with osteoarthritis

The authors said there were not enough data from individuals with osteoarthritis to be able to pool and quantify their cartilage changes. However, one study in the analysis found that cartilage lesions in people considered at risk of osteoarthritis because of prior anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were unchanged after running.

Another suggested that the decrease in femoral cartilage volume recorded at 15 minutes persisted at 45 minutes, while a separate study found significantly increased T2 relaxation times at 45 minutes after a run in those with knee osteoarthritis but not in those without osteoarthritis.

Senior author Adam Culvenor, PhD, senior research fellow at the La Trobe Centre, said their analysis suggested running was healthy, with small changes in cartilage that resolve quickly, but “we really don’t know yet if running is safe for people with osteoarthritis,” he said. “We need much more work in that space.”

Overall, the study evidence was rated as being of low certainty, which Dr. Coburn said was related to the small numbers in each study, which in turn relates to the cost and logistical challenges of the specialized MRI scan used.

“Study of a repeated exposure over a long duration of time on a disease that has a long natural history, like osteoarthritis, is challenging in that most funding agencies will not fund studies longer than 5 years,” Grace Hsiao-Wei Lo, MD, of the department of immunology, allergy, and rheumatology at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an email.

Dr. Lo, who was not involved with this review and meta-analysis, said there are still concerns about the effect of running on knee osteoarthritis among those with the disease, although there are some data to suggest that among those who self-select to run, there are no negative outcomes for the knee.

An accompanying editorial noted that research into the effect of running on those with osteoarthritis was still in its infancy. “This would help to guide clinical practice on how to support people with osteoarthritis, with regard to accessing the health benefits of running participation,” write Jean-Francois Esculier, PT, PhD, from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and Christian Barton, PhD, with the La Trobe Centre, pointing out there were a lack of evidence-based clinical recommendations for people with osteoarthritis who want to start or continue running.

It’s a question that PhD candidate Michaela Khan, MSc, is trying to answer at the University of British Columbia. “Our lab did a pilot study for my current study now, and they found that osteoarthritic cartilage took a little bit longer to recover than their healthy counterparts,” Ms. Khan said. Her research is suggesting that people with osteoarthritis not only can run, but even those with severe disease, who might be candidates for knee replacement, can run long distances.

Commenting on the analysis, Ms. Khan said the main take-home message was that healthy cartilage seems to recover after running, and that there is not an ongoing effect of ‘wear and tear.’

“That’s changing the narrative that if you keep running, it will wear away your cartilage, it’ll hurt your knees,” she said. “Now, we have a good synthesis of scientific evidence to prove maybe otherwise.”

Ms. Coburn and Dr. Culvenor report grant support from the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, and another author reports grant support from the U.S. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The authors, as well as Dr. Lo and Ms. Khan, report relevant financial relationships.
 

Running does not appear to cause sustained wear and tear of healthy knee cartilage, with research suggesting that the small, short-term changes to cartilage after a run reverse within hours.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the most recent issue of Osteoarthritis and Cartilage presents the findings involving 396 adults, which compared the “before” and “after” state of healthy knee cartilage in runners.

pojoslaw/Thinkstock

Running is often thought to be detrimental to joint health, wrote Sally Coburn, PhD candidate at the La Trobe Sport & Exercise Medicine Research Centre at La Trobe University in Melbourne and coauthors, but this perception is not supported by evidence.

For the analysis, the researchers included studies that looked at either knee or hip cartilage using MRI to assess its size, shape, structure, and/or composition both in the 48 hours before a single bout of running and in the 48 hours after. The analysis aimed to include adults with or at risk of osteoarthritis, but only 57 of the 446 knees in the analysis fit these criteria.

In studies where participants underwent MRI within 20 minutes of running, there was an immediate postrun decrease in the volume of cartilage, ranging from –3.3% for weight-bearing femoral cartilage to –4.1% for tibial cartilage volume. This also revealed a decrease in T1 and T2 relaxation times, which are specialized MRI measures that reflect the composition of cartilage and which can indicate a breakdown of cartilage structure in the case of diseases such as arthritis.

Reversal of short-term cartilage changes

However, within 48 hours of the run, data from studies that repeated the MRIs more than once after the initial prerun scan suggested these changes reversed back to prerun levels.

“We were able to pool delayed T2 relaxation time measures from studies that repeated scans of the same participants 60 minutes and 91 minutes post-run and found no effect of running on tibiofemoral joint cartilage composition,” the authors write.

For example, one study in marathon runners found no difference in cartilage thickness in the tibiofemoral joint between baseline and at 2-10 hours and 12 hours after the marathon. Another showed the immediate post-run decrease in patellofemoral joint cartilage thickness had reverted back to prerun levels when the scan was repeated 24 hours after the run.

“The changes are very minimal and not inconsistent with what’s expected for your cartilage which is functioning normally,” Ms. Coburn told this news organization.

Sparse data in people with osteoarthritis

The authors said there were not enough data from individuals with osteoarthritis to be able to pool and quantify their cartilage changes. However, one study in the analysis found that cartilage lesions in people considered at risk of osteoarthritis because of prior anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were unchanged after running.

Another suggested that the decrease in femoral cartilage volume recorded at 15 minutes persisted at 45 minutes, while a separate study found significantly increased T2 relaxation times at 45 minutes after a run in those with knee osteoarthritis but not in those without osteoarthritis.

Senior author Adam Culvenor, PhD, senior research fellow at the La Trobe Centre, said their analysis suggested running was healthy, with small changes in cartilage that resolve quickly, but “we really don’t know yet if running is safe for people with osteoarthritis,” he said. “We need much more work in that space.”

Overall, the study evidence was rated as being of low certainty, which Dr. Coburn said was related to the small numbers in each study, which in turn relates to the cost and logistical challenges of the specialized MRI scan used.

“Study of a repeated exposure over a long duration of time on a disease that has a long natural history, like osteoarthritis, is challenging in that most funding agencies will not fund studies longer than 5 years,” Grace Hsiao-Wei Lo, MD, of the department of immunology, allergy, and rheumatology at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an email.

Dr. Lo, who was not involved with this review and meta-analysis, said there are still concerns about the effect of running on knee osteoarthritis among those with the disease, although there are some data to suggest that among those who self-select to run, there are no negative outcomes for the knee.

An accompanying editorial noted that research into the effect of running on those with osteoarthritis was still in its infancy. “This would help to guide clinical practice on how to support people with osteoarthritis, with regard to accessing the health benefits of running participation,” write Jean-Francois Esculier, PT, PhD, from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and Christian Barton, PhD, with the La Trobe Centre, pointing out there were a lack of evidence-based clinical recommendations for people with osteoarthritis who want to start or continue running.

It’s a question that PhD candidate Michaela Khan, MSc, is trying to answer at the University of British Columbia. “Our lab did a pilot study for my current study now, and they found that osteoarthritic cartilage took a little bit longer to recover than their healthy counterparts,” Ms. Khan said. Her research is suggesting that people with osteoarthritis not only can run, but even those with severe disease, who might be candidates for knee replacement, can run long distances.

Commenting on the analysis, Ms. Khan said the main take-home message was that healthy cartilage seems to recover after running, and that there is not an ongoing effect of ‘wear and tear.’

“That’s changing the narrative that if you keep running, it will wear away your cartilage, it’ll hurt your knees,” she said. “Now, we have a good synthesis of scientific evidence to prove maybe otherwise.”

Ms. Coburn and Dr. Culvenor report grant support from the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, and another author reports grant support from the U.S. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The authors, as well as Dr. Lo and Ms. Khan, report relevant financial relationships.
 

Misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been cited as a public health threat since the beginning of the worldwide pandemic. Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.

Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.

Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
 

Cavalcade of complaints

Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”

As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.

The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.

In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.

Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.

“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”

If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.

“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
 

Law in limbo

While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”

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

Misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been cited as a public health threat since the beginning of the worldwide pandemic. Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.

Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.

Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
 

Cavalcade of complaints

Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”

As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.

The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.

In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.

Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.

“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”

If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.

“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
 

Law in limbo

While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”

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

Misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been cited as a public health threat since the beginning of the worldwide pandemic. Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.

Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.

Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
 

Cavalcade of complaints

Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”

As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.

The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.

In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.

Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.

“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”

If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.

“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
 

Law in limbo

While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”

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

The first biosimilar for Humira, adalimumab-atto (Amjevita), is now available in the United States, according to an announcement on Jan. 31 by the manufacturer, Amgen. At least seven other U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved Humira biosimilars are expected to become available later in 2023.

Amjevita was approved by the FDA in September 2016 for multiple inflammatory diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis. The delayed launch was part of a global settlement with Humira’s manufacturer, AbbVie.

Humira (adalimumab) has been available since 2002 and is consistently one of the top-selling drugs in the United States. A single 40-mg Amjevita pen device will be available at two prices: a list price (wholesale acquisition cost) of $1,557.59, 55% below the current Humira list price, and a list price of $3,288.24, 5% below the current Humira list price, according to Amgen.

“Amgen’s goal is to provide broad access for patients by offering two options to health plans and pharmacy benefit managers,” the company said in the press release.

Patients are less likely to benefit from the more significant discount, said Marta Wosinska, PhD, a health care economist at the Brookings Institute in Washington, DC. It's expected that insurance companies will use the higher list price for Amjevita, she said, as this higher price will also likely have higher rebates. Rebates are payments to health insurance payers provided by drug manufacturers to promote use of an expensive drug. Some pharmacy benefit managers have already said that they plan to charge patients the same amount for Humira as its biosimilars, Dr. Wosinska said.

"For an existing patient, there's really no incentive for them to switch," she said in an interview.

So far only one insurance company, Kaiser Permanente, has plans to switch patients over to biosimilars, according to the health policy podcast Tradeoffs, and the insurer will stop covering Humira by the end of this year.

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

*This story was updated 2/1/2023.

The first biosimilar for Humira, adalimumab-atto (Amjevita), is now available in the United States, according to an announcement on Jan. 31 by the manufacturer, Amgen. At least seven other U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved Humira biosimilars are expected to become available later in 2023.

Amjevita was approved by the FDA in September 2016 for multiple inflammatory diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis. The delayed launch was part of a global settlement with Humira’s manufacturer, AbbVie.

Humira (adalimumab) has been available since 2002 and is consistently one of the top-selling drugs in the United States. A single 40-mg Amjevita pen device will be available at two prices: a list price (wholesale acquisition cost) of $1,557.59, 55% below the current Humira list price, and a list price of $3,288.24, 5% below the current Humira list price, according to Amgen.

“Amgen’s goal is to provide broad access for patients by offering two options to health plans and pharmacy benefit managers,” the company said in the press release.

Patients are less likely to benefit from the more significant discount, said Marta Wosinska, PhD, a health care economist at the Brookings Institute in Washington, DC. It's expected that insurance companies will use the higher list price for Amjevita, she said, as this higher price will also likely have higher rebates. Rebates are payments to health insurance payers provided by drug manufacturers to promote use of an expensive drug. Some pharmacy benefit managers have already said that they plan to charge patients the same amount for Humira as its biosimilars, Dr. Wosinska said.

"For an existing patient, there's really no incentive for them to switch," she said in an interview.

So far only one insurance company, Kaiser Permanente, has plans to switch patients over to biosimilars, according to the health policy podcast Tradeoffs, and the insurer will stop covering Humira by the end of this year.

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

*This story was updated 2/1/2023.

The first biosimilar for Humira, adalimumab-atto (Amjevita), is now available in the United States, according to an announcement on Jan. 31 by the manufacturer, Amgen. At least seven other U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved Humira biosimilars are expected to become available later in 2023.

Amjevita was approved by the FDA in September 2016 for multiple inflammatory diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis. The delayed launch was part of a global settlement with Humira’s manufacturer, AbbVie.

Humira (adalimumab) has been available since 2002 and is consistently one of the top-selling drugs in the United States. A single 40-mg Amjevita pen device will be available at two prices: a list price (wholesale acquisition cost) of $1,557.59, 55% below the current Humira list price, and a list price of $3,288.24, 5% below the current Humira list price, according to Amgen.

“Amgen’s goal is to provide broad access for patients by offering two options to health plans and pharmacy benefit managers,” the company said in the press release.

Patients are less likely to benefit from the more significant discount, said Marta Wosinska, PhD, a health care economist at the Brookings Institute in Washington, DC. It's expected that insurance companies will use the higher list price for Amjevita, she said, as this higher price will also likely have higher rebates. Rebates are payments to health insurance payers provided by drug manufacturers to promote use of an expensive drug. Some pharmacy benefit managers have already said that they plan to charge patients the same amount for Humira as its biosimilars, Dr. Wosinska said.

"For an existing patient, there's really no incentive for them to switch," she said in an interview.

So far only one insurance company, Kaiser Permanente, has plans to switch patients over to biosimilars, according to the health policy podcast Tradeoffs, and the insurer will stop covering Humira by the end of this year.

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

*This story was updated 2/1/2023.

A surgeon in Tulsa shot by a disgruntled patient. A doctor in India beaten by a group of bereaved family members. A general practitioner in the United Kingdom threatened with stabbing. The reality is grim: Health care workers across the globe experience violence while at work. A new study identifies this trend and finds that 25% of health care workers polled were willing to quit because of such violence.

“That was pretty appalling,” Rahul Kashyap, MD, MBA, MBBS, recalls. Dr. Kashyap is one of the leaders of the Violence Study of Healthcare Workers and Systems (ViSHWaS), which polled an international sample of physicians, nurses, and hospital staff. This study has worrying implications, Dr. Kashyap says. In a time when hospital staff are reporting burnout in record numbers, further deterrents may be the last thing our health care system needs. But Dr. Kashyap hopes that bringing awareness to these trends may allow physicians, policymakers, and the public to mobilize and intervene before it’s too late.

Previous studies have revealed similar trends. The rate of workplace violence directed at U.S. health care workers is five times that of workers in any other industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The same study found that attacks had increased 63% from 2011 to 2018. Other polls that focus on the pandemic show that nearly half of U.S. nurses believe that violence increased since the world shut down. Well before the pandemic, however, a study from the Indian Medical Association found that 75% of doctors experienced workplace violence.

With this history in mind, perhaps it’s not surprising that the idea for the study came from the authors’ personal experiences. They had seen coworkers go through attacks, or they had endured attacks themselves, Dr. Kashyap says. But they couldn’t find any global data to back up these experiences. So Dr. Kashyap and his colleagues formed a web of volunteers dedicated to creating a cross-sectional study.

They got in touch with researchers from countries across Asia, the Middle East, South America, North America, and Africa. The initial group agreed to reach out to their contacts, casting a wide net. Researchers used WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and text messages to distribute the survey. Health care workers in each country completed the brief questionnaire, recalling their prepandemic world and evaluating their current one.

Within 2 months, they had reached health care workers in more than 100 countries. They concluded the study when they received about 5,000 results, according to Dr. Kashyap, and then began the process of stratifying the data. For this report, they focused on critical care, emergency medicine, and anesthesiology, which resulted in 598 responses from 69 countries. Of these, India and the United States had the highest number of participants.

In all, 73% of participants reported facing physical or verbal violence while in the hospital; 48% said they felt less motivated to work because of that violence; 39% of respondents believed that the amount of violence they experienced was the same as before the COVID-19 pandemic; and 36% of respondents believed that violence had increased. Even though they were trained on guidelines from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 20% of participants felt unprepared to face violence.

Although the study didn’t analyze the reasons workers felt this way, Dr. Kashyap speculates that it could be related to the medical distrust that grew during the pandemic or the stress patients and health care professionals experienced during its peak.

Regardless, the researchers say their study is a starting point. Now that the trend has been highlighted, it may be acted on.

Moving forward, Dr. Kashyap believes that controlling for different variables could determine whether factors like gender or shift time put a worker at higher risk for violence. He hopes it’s possible to interrupt these patterns and reestablish trust in the hospital environment. “It’s aspirational, but you’re hoping that through studies like ViSHWaS, which means trust in Hindi ... [we could restore] the trust and confidence among health care providers for the patients and family members.”

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

A surgeon in Tulsa shot by a disgruntled patient. A doctor in India beaten by a group of bereaved family members. A general practitioner in the United Kingdom threatened with stabbing. The reality is grim: Health care workers across the globe experience violence while at work. A new study identifies this trend and finds that 25% of health care workers polled were willing to quit because of such violence.

“That was pretty appalling,” Rahul Kashyap, MD, MBA, MBBS, recalls. Dr. Kashyap is one of the leaders of the Violence Study of Healthcare Workers and Systems (ViSHWaS), which polled an international sample of physicians, nurses, and hospital staff. This study has worrying implications, Dr. Kashyap says. In a time when hospital staff are reporting burnout in record numbers, further deterrents may be the last thing our health care system needs. But Dr. Kashyap hopes that bringing awareness to these trends may allow physicians, policymakers, and the public to mobilize and intervene before it’s too late.

Previous studies have revealed similar trends. The rate of workplace violence directed at U.S. health care workers is five times that of workers in any other industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The same study found that attacks had increased 63% from 2011 to 2018. Other polls that focus on the pandemic show that nearly half of U.S. nurses believe that violence increased since the world shut down. Well before the pandemic, however, a study from the Indian Medical Association found that 75% of doctors experienced workplace violence.

With this history in mind, perhaps it’s not surprising that the idea for the study came from the authors’ personal experiences. They had seen coworkers go through attacks, or they had endured attacks themselves, Dr. Kashyap says. But they couldn’t find any global data to back up these experiences. So Dr. Kashyap and his colleagues formed a web of volunteers dedicated to creating a cross-sectional study.

They got in touch with researchers from countries across Asia, the Middle East, South America, North America, and Africa. The initial group agreed to reach out to their contacts, casting a wide net. Researchers used WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and text messages to distribute the survey. Health care workers in each country completed the brief questionnaire, recalling their prepandemic world and evaluating their current one.

Within 2 months, they had reached health care workers in more than 100 countries. They concluded the study when they received about 5,000 results, according to Dr. Kashyap, and then began the process of stratifying the data. For this report, they focused on critical care, emergency medicine, and anesthesiology, which resulted in 598 responses from 69 countries. Of these, India and the United States had the highest number of participants.

In all, 73% of participants reported facing physical or verbal violence while in the hospital; 48% said they felt less motivated to work because of that violence; 39% of respondents believed that the amount of violence they experienced was the same as before the COVID-19 pandemic; and 36% of respondents believed that violence had increased. Even though they were trained on guidelines from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 20% of participants felt unprepared to face violence.

Although the study didn’t analyze the reasons workers felt this way, Dr. Kashyap speculates that it could be related to the medical distrust that grew during the pandemic or the stress patients and health care professionals experienced during its peak.

Regardless, the researchers say their study is a starting point. Now that the trend has been highlighted, it may be acted on.

Moving forward, Dr. Kashyap believes that controlling for different variables could determine whether factors like gender or shift time put a worker at higher risk for violence. He hopes it’s possible to interrupt these patterns and reestablish trust in the hospital environment. “It’s aspirational, but you’re hoping that through studies like ViSHWaS, which means trust in Hindi ... [we could restore] the trust and confidence among health care providers for the patients and family members.”

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

A surgeon in Tulsa shot by a disgruntled patient. A doctor in India beaten by a group of bereaved family members. A general practitioner in the United Kingdom threatened with stabbing. The reality is grim: Health care workers across the globe experience violence while at work. A new study identifies this trend and finds that 25% of health care workers polled were willing to quit because of such violence.

“That was pretty appalling,” Rahul Kashyap, MD, MBA, MBBS, recalls. Dr. Kashyap is one of the leaders of the Violence Study of Healthcare Workers and Systems (ViSHWaS), which polled an international sample of physicians, nurses, and hospital staff. This study has worrying implications, Dr. Kashyap says. In a time when hospital staff are reporting burnout in record numbers, further deterrents may be the last thing our health care system needs. But Dr. Kashyap hopes that bringing awareness to these trends may allow physicians, policymakers, and the public to mobilize and intervene before it’s too late.

Previous studies have revealed similar trends. The rate of workplace violence directed at U.S. health care workers is five times that of workers in any other industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The same study found that attacks had increased 63% from 2011 to 2018. Other polls that focus on the pandemic show that nearly half of U.S. nurses believe that violence increased since the world shut down. Well before the pandemic, however, a study from the Indian Medical Association found that 75% of doctors experienced workplace violence.

With this history in mind, perhaps it’s not surprising that the idea for the study came from the authors’ personal experiences. They had seen coworkers go through attacks, or they had endured attacks themselves, Dr. Kashyap says. But they couldn’t find any global data to back up these experiences. So Dr. Kashyap and his colleagues formed a web of volunteers dedicated to creating a cross-sectional study.

They got in touch with researchers from countries across Asia, the Middle East, South America, North America, and Africa. The initial group agreed to reach out to their contacts, casting a wide net. Researchers used WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and text messages to distribute the survey. Health care workers in each country completed the brief questionnaire, recalling their prepandemic world and evaluating their current one.

Within 2 months, they had reached health care workers in more than 100 countries. They concluded the study when they received about 5,000 results, according to Dr. Kashyap, and then began the process of stratifying the data. For this report, they focused on critical care, emergency medicine, and anesthesiology, which resulted in 598 responses from 69 countries. Of these, India and the United States had the highest number of participants.

In all, 73% of participants reported facing physical or verbal violence while in the hospital; 48% said they felt less motivated to work because of that violence; 39% of respondents believed that the amount of violence they experienced was the same as before the COVID-19 pandemic; and 36% of respondents believed that violence had increased. Even though they were trained on guidelines from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 20% of participants felt unprepared to face violence.

Although the study didn’t analyze the reasons workers felt this way, Dr. Kashyap speculates that it could be related to the medical distrust that grew during the pandemic or the stress patients and health care professionals experienced during its peak.

Regardless, the researchers say their study is a starting point. Now that the trend has been highlighted, it may be acted on.

Moving forward, Dr. Kashyap believes that controlling for different variables could determine whether factors like gender or shift time put a worker at higher risk for violence. He hopes it’s possible to interrupt these patterns and reestablish trust in the hospital environment. “It’s aspirational, but you’re hoping that through studies like ViSHWaS, which means trust in Hindi ... [we could restore] the trust and confidence among health care providers for the patients and family members.”

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