Government and Regulations

Knowing it may be met with some skepticism, the Trump administration Thursday announced a sweeping plan that officials say will transform health care in rural America.

Even before the coronavirus pandemic reached into the nation’s less-populated regions, rural Americans were sicker, poorer, and older than the rest of the country. Hospitals are shuttering at record rates, and health care experts have long called for changes.

The new plan, released by the Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar, II, acknowledges the gaps in health care and other problems facing rural America. It lists a litany of projects and directives, with many already underway or announced within federal agencies.

“We cannot just tinker around the edges of a rural healthcare system that has struggled for too long,” Azar said in a prepared statement.

Yet, that is exactly what experts say the administration continues to do.

“They tinker around the edges,” said Tommy Barnhart, former president of the National Rural Health Association. And he added, “there’s a lot of political hype” that has happened under President Trump, as well as previous presidents.

In the past few months, rural health care has increasingly become a focus for Mr. Trump, whose polling numbers are souring as COVID-19 kills hundreds of Americans every day, drives down restaurant demand for some farm products, and spreads through meatpacking plants. Rural states including Iowa and the Dakotas are reporting the latest surges in cases.

This announcement comes in response to Mr. Trump’s executive order last month calling for improved rural health and telehealth access. Earlier this week, three federal agencies also announced they would team up to address gaps in rural broadband service – a key need because large portions of the plan seek to expand telehealth.

The plan is more than 70 pages long and the word “telehealth” appears more than 90 times, with a focus on projects across HHS, including the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Mr. Barnhart said CMS has passed some public health emergency waivers since the beginning of the pandemic that helped rural facilities get more funding, including one that specifically was designed to provide additional money for telehealth services. However, those waivers are set to expire when the coronavirus emergency ends. Officials have not yet set a date for when the federal emergency will end.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor to the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, a private foundation that works to ensure greater Internet access, said there are multiple challenges with implementing telehealth across the nation. Many initiatives for robust telehealth programs need fast bandwidth, yet getting the money and setting up the necessary infrastructure is very difficult, he said.

“It will be a long time before this kind of technology will be readily available to much of the country,” he said.

Ge Bai, associate professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, noted that telehealth was short on funding in the HHS initiative. However, she said, the focus on telehealth, as well as a proposed shift in payment for small rural hospitals and changing workforce licensing requirements, had good potential.

“We are so close to the election that this is probably more of a messaging issue to cater to rural residents,” Ms. Bai said. “But it doesn’t matter who will be president. This report will give the next administration useful guidance.”

The American Hospital Association, representing 5,000 hospitals nationwide, sent a letter to Mr. Trump last week recommending a host of steps the administration could take. As of late Thursday, AHA was still reviewing the HHS plan but said it was “encouraged by the increased attention on rural health care.”

Buried within the HHS announcement are technical initiatives, such as a contract to help clinics and hospitals integrate care, and detailed efforts to address gaps in care, including a proposal to increase funding for school-based mental health programs in the president’s 2021 budget.

A senior HHS official said that, while some actions have been taken in recent months to improve rural health — such as the $11 billion provided to rural hospitals through coronavirus relief funding — more is needed.

“We’re putting our stake in the ground that the time for talk is over,” he said. “We’re going to move forward.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Knowing it may be met with some skepticism, the Trump administration Thursday announced a sweeping plan that officials say will transform health care in rural America.

Even before the coronavirus pandemic reached into the nation’s less-populated regions, rural Americans were sicker, poorer, and older than the rest of the country. Hospitals are shuttering at record rates, and health care experts have long called for changes.

The new plan, released by the Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar, II, acknowledges the gaps in health care and other problems facing rural America. It lists a litany of projects and directives, with many already underway or announced within federal agencies.

“We cannot just tinker around the edges of a rural healthcare system that has struggled for too long,” Azar said in a prepared statement.

Yet, that is exactly what experts say the administration continues to do.

“They tinker around the edges,” said Tommy Barnhart, former president of the National Rural Health Association. And he added, “there’s a lot of political hype” that has happened under President Trump, as well as previous presidents.

In the past few months, rural health care has increasingly become a focus for Mr. Trump, whose polling numbers are souring as COVID-19 kills hundreds of Americans every day, drives down restaurant demand for some farm products, and spreads through meatpacking plants. Rural states including Iowa and the Dakotas are reporting the latest surges in cases.

This announcement comes in response to Mr. Trump’s executive order last month calling for improved rural health and telehealth access. Earlier this week, three federal agencies also announced they would team up to address gaps in rural broadband service – a key need because large portions of the plan seek to expand telehealth.

The plan is more than 70 pages long and the word “telehealth” appears more than 90 times, with a focus on projects across HHS, including the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Mr. Barnhart said CMS has passed some public health emergency waivers since the beginning of the pandemic that helped rural facilities get more funding, including one that specifically was designed to provide additional money for telehealth services. However, those waivers are set to expire when the coronavirus emergency ends. Officials have not yet set a date for when the federal emergency will end.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor to the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, a private foundation that works to ensure greater Internet access, said there are multiple challenges with implementing telehealth across the nation. Many initiatives for robust telehealth programs need fast bandwidth, yet getting the money and setting up the necessary infrastructure is very difficult, he said.

“It will be a long time before this kind of technology will be readily available to much of the country,” he said.

Ge Bai, associate professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, noted that telehealth was short on funding in the HHS initiative. However, she said, the focus on telehealth, as well as a proposed shift in payment for small rural hospitals and changing workforce licensing requirements, had good potential.

“We are so close to the election that this is probably more of a messaging issue to cater to rural residents,” Ms. Bai said. “But it doesn’t matter who will be president. This report will give the next administration useful guidance.”

The American Hospital Association, representing 5,000 hospitals nationwide, sent a letter to Mr. Trump last week recommending a host of steps the administration could take. As of late Thursday, AHA was still reviewing the HHS plan but said it was “encouraged by the increased attention on rural health care.”

Buried within the HHS announcement are technical initiatives, such as a contract to help clinics and hospitals integrate care, and detailed efforts to address gaps in care, including a proposal to increase funding for school-based mental health programs in the president’s 2021 budget.

A senior HHS official said that, while some actions have been taken in recent months to improve rural health — such as the $11 billion provided to rural hospitals through coronavirus relief funding — more is needed.

“We’re putting our stake in the ground that the time for talk is over,” he said. “We’re going to move forward.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Knowing it may be met with some skepticism, the Trump administration Thursday announced a sweeping plan that officials say will transform health care in rural America.

Even before the coronavirus pandemic reached into the nation’s less-populated regions, rural Americans were sicker, poorer, and older than the rest of the country. Hospitals are shuttering at record rates, and health care experts have long called for changes.

The new plan, released by the Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar, II, acknowledges the gaps in health care and other problems facing rural America. It lists a litany of projects and directives, with many already underway or announced within federal agencies.

“We cannot just tinker around the edges of a rural healthcare system that has struggled for too long,” Azar said in a prepared statement.

Yet, that is exactly what experts say the administration continues to do.

“They tinker around the edges,” said Tommy Barnhart, former president of the National Rural Health Association. And he added, “there’s a lot of political hype” that has happened under President Trump, as well as previous presidents.

In the past few months, rural health care has increasingly become a focus for Mr. Trump, whose polling numbers are souring as COVID-19 kills hundreds of Americans every day, drives down restaurant demand for some farm products, and spreads through meatpacking plants. Rural states including Iowa and the Dakotas are reporting the latest surges in cases.

This announcement comes in response to Mr. Trump’s executive order last month calling for improved rural health and telehealth access. Earlier this week, three federal agencies also announced they would team up to address gaps in rural broadband service – a key need because large portions of the plan seek to expand telehealth.

The plan is more than 70 pages long and the word “telehealth” appears more than 90 times, with a focus on projects across HHS, including the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Mr. Barnhart said CMS has passed some public health emergency waivers since the beginning of the pandemic that helped rural facilities get more funding, including one that specifically was designed to provide additional money for telehealth services. However, those waivers are set to expire when the coronavirus emergency ends. Officials have not yet set a date for when the federal emergency will end.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor to the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, a private foundation that works to ensure greater Internet access, said there are multiple challenges with implementing telehealth across the nation. Many initiatives for robust telehealth programs need fast bandwidth, yet getting the money and setting up the necessary infrastructure is very difficult, he said.

“It will be a long time before this kind of technology will be readily available to much of the country,” he said.

Ge Bai, associate professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, noted that telehealth was short on funding in the HHS initiative. However, she said, the focus on telehealth, as well as a proposed shift in payment for small rural hospitals and changing workforce licensing requirements, had good potential.

“We are so close to the election that this is probably more of a messaging issue to cater to rural residents,” Ms. Bai said. “But it doesn’t matter who will be president. This report will give the next administration useful guidance.”

The American Hospital Association, representing 5,000 hospitals nationwide, sent a letter to Mr. Trump last week recommending a host of steps the administration could take. As of late Thursday, AHA was still reviewing the HHS plan but said it was “encouraged by the increased attention on rural health care.”

Buried within the HHS announcement are technical initiatives, such as a contract to help clinics and hospitals integrate care, and detailed efforts to address gaps in care, including a proposal to increase funding for school-based mental health programs in the president’s 2021 budget.

A senior HHS official said that, while some actions have been taken in recent months to improve rural health — such as the $11 billion provided to rural hospitals through coronavirus relief funding — more is needed.

“We’re putting our stake in the ground that the time for talk is over,” he said. “We’re going to move forward.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

A torrent of blame has deluged the administration’s management of the pandemic. There is though one part of the government that deserves the praise of the nation for its response to this public health crisis—the federal health care system. In this column, we discuss the ways in which the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the US Public Health Service (PHS) Commissioned Corps especially have bravely and generously responded to the medical emergency of COVID-19 in the US.

Four missions drive the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Though the fourth of these missions usually is in the background, it has risen to the forefront during the pandemic. To put the fourth mission in its proper perspective, we first should review the other 3 charges given to the largest integrated health care system in the country.

The first mission is to provide the highest quality care possible for the more than 9 million veterans enrolled in that system at each of the 1,255 VHA locations. The second mission is to ensure that the Veterans Benefits Administration delivers the full range of benefits that veterans earned through their service. These including funding for education, loans for homes, and many other types of support that assist service men and women to be successful in their transition from military to civilian life. The third mission is to honor the commitment of those who fought for their country unto death. The National Cemeteries Administration oversees 142 national cemeteries where veterans are buried with dignity and remembered with gratitude for their uniformed service. The purpose of these 3 internally focused missions is to provide a safety net for eligible veterans from the day they separate from the military until the hour they pass from this earth.

The fourth mission is different. This mission looks outside the military family to the civilian world. Its goal is to bolster the ability of the nation as a whole to handle wars, terrorism, national emergencies, and natural disasters. It does this through emergency response plans that preserve the integrity of the 3 other missions to veterans while enhancing the capacity of local and state governments to manage the threat of these public health, safety, or security crises.¹

At the same time the VA was aggressively mounting a defense against the threat COVID-19 posed to the other missions, it also launched the fourth mission. In announcing these actions in April 2020, VA Secretary Robert Wilke succinctly summarized the need to balance the fourth mission with the other 3. “VA is committed to helping the nation in this effort to combat COVID-19. Helping veterans is our first mission, but in many locations across the country we’re helping states and local communities. VA is in this fight not only for the millions of veterans we serve each day; we’re in the fight for the people of the United States.”²

During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic I saw firsthand how VA disaster preparedness and emergency training were far superior to many academic and community health care systems. Given VA’s detailed and drilled crisis response plans, its specialized expertise in public health disasters, and its immense resources, it is no wonder that as the virus stretched civilian health care systems, some states turned to the VA for help. At my Albuquerque, New Mexico, VA medical center, 5 medical surgical beds and 3 intensive care beds were opened to the Indian Health Service overwhelmed with cases of COVID-19 in the hard-hit Navajo Nation. In New Jersey where Federal Practitioner is published, the fourth mission reached out to the state-run veterans homes as 90 VA nurses and gerontologists were deployed to 2 of its veterans facilities where close to 150 veterans have died.³ State veterans homes in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Alabama, and many other states have received supplies, including direly needed testing and personal protective equipment, staff, technology, and training.⁴

In July, VA published an impressive summary of fourth mission activities, which I encourage you to read. When you are look at this site, remember with a moment of silent appreciation all the altruistic and courageous VA clinical and administrative staff who volunteered for these assignments many of which put them directly in harm’s way.⁵

The VA is not alone in answering the call of COVID-19. In March, despite the grave risk to their health, their life, and their families, the USNS Comfort was deployed to New York City to help with its COVID-19 response while the USNS Mercy assisted in the efforts in Los Angeles. More recently, the military deployed > 700 Military Health System medical and support professionals to support COVID-19 operations in both Texas and California. Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio has taken on a handful of civilian patients with COVID-19 and increase its level I trauma cases as local hospitals have strained under the caseload.⁶

For the PHS Commissioned Corps its first mission is to serve as “America’s health responders.”⁷ This pandemic has intensified the extant health inequities in our country and compounded them with racial injustice and economic disparity. Thus, it is important to recognize that the very purpose of the PHS is to “fight disease, conduct research, and care for patients in underserved communities across the nation.”⁸ More than 3,900 PHS officers have been deployed nationally and internationally in COVID-19 clinical strike teams. Early in the pandemic the clinical response teams were deployed to a long-term care facility in Kirkland, Washington; convention center-based hospitals in New York City, Detroit, Michigan, and Washington DC, and Navajo Nation facilities. PHS officers also are providing clinical guidance at Bureau of Prison facilities for infection control and personal protective equipment training.

We know that there are many more examples of heroic service by federal health care professionals and staff than we could locate or celebrate in this brief column. Readers of this journal are well aware of the near constant criticism of the VA and calls for privatization,⁹ the inadequate funding of the PHS,¹⁰ and the recent downsizing of DoD health care¹¹ that threatens to undermine its core functions. The pandemic has powerfully demonstrated that degrading the ability of federal health care to agilely and masterfully mobilize in the event of a public health disaster endangers not just veterans and the military but the health and well-being of a nation, particularly its most vulnerable citizens.

A torrent of blame has deluged the administration’s management of the pandemic. There is though one part of the government that deserves the praise of the nation for its response to this public health crisis—the federal health care system. In this column, we discuss the ways in which the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the US Public Health Service (PHS) Commissioned Corps especially have bravely and generously responded to the medical emergency of COVID-19 in the US.

Four missions drive the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Though the fourth of these missions usually is in the background, it has risen to the forefront during the pandemic. To put the fourth mission in its proper perspective, we first should review the other 3 charges given to the largest integrated health care system in the country.

The first mission is to provide the highest quality care possible for the more than 9 million veterans enrolled in that system at each of the 1,255 VHA locations. The second mission is to ensure that the Veterans Benefits Administration delivers the full range of benefits that veterans earned through their service. These including funding for education, loans for homes, and many other types of support that assist service men and women to be successful in their transition from military to civilian life. The third mission is to honor the commitment of those who fought for their country unto death. The National Cemeteries Administration oversees 142 national cemeteries where veterans are buried with dignity and remembered with gratitude for their uniformed service. The purpose of these 3 internally focused missions is to provide a safety net for eligible veterans from the day they separate from the military until the hour they pass from this earth.

The fourth mission is different. This mission looks outside the military family to the civilian world. Its goal is to bolster the ability of the nation as a whole to handle wars, terrorism, national emergencies, and natural disasters. It does this through emergency response plans that preserve the integrity of the 3 other missions to veterans while enhancing the capacity of local and state governments to manage the threat of these public health, safety, or security crises.¹

At the same time the VA was aggressively mounting a defense against the threat COVID-19 posed to the other missions, it also launched the fourth mission. In announcing these actions in April 2020, VA Secretary Robert Wilke succinctly summarized the need to balance the fourth mission with the other 3. “VA is committed to helping the nation in this effort to combat COVID-19. Helping veterans is our first mission, but in many locations across the country we’re helping states and local communities. VA is in this fight not only for the millions of veterans we serve each day; we’re in the fight for the people of the United States.”²

During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic I saw firsthand how VA disaster preparedness and emergency training were far superior to many academic and community health care systems. Given VA’s detailed and drilled crisis response plans, its specialized expertise in public health disasters, and its immense resources, it is no wonder that as the virus stretched civilian health care systems, some states turned to the VA for help. At my Albuquerque, New Mexico, VA medical center, 5 medical surgical beds and 3 intensive care beds were opened to the Indian Health Service overwhelmed with cases of COVID-19 in the hard-hit Navajo Nation. In New Jersey where Federal Practitioner is published, the fourth mission reached out to the state-run veterans homes as 90 VA nurses and gerontologists were deployed to 2 of its veterans facilities where close to 150 veterans have died.³ State veterans homes in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Alabama, and many other states have received supplies, including direly needed testing and personal protective equipment, staff, technology, and training.⁴

In July, VA published an impressive summary of fourth mission activities, which I encourage you to read. When you are look at this site, remember with a moment of silent appreciation all the altruistic and courageous VA clinical and administrative staff who volunteered for these assignments many of which put them directly in harm’s way.⁵

The VA is not alone in answering the call of COVID-19. In March, despite the grave risk to their health, their life, and their families, the USNS Comfort was deployed to New York City to help with its COVID-19 response while the USNS Mercy assisted in the efforts in Los Angeles. More recently, the military deployed > 700 Military Health System medical and support professionals to support COVID-19 operations in both Texas and California. Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio has taken on a handful of civilian patients with COVID-19 and increase its level I trauma cases as local hospitals have strained under the caseload.⁶

For the PHS Commissioned Corps its first mission is to serve as “America’s health responders.”⁷ This pandemic has intensified the extant health inequities in our country and compounded them with racial injustice and economic disparity. Thus, it is important to recognize that the very purpose of the PHS is to “fight disease, conduct research, and care for patients in underserved communities across the nation.”⁸ More than 3,900 PHS officers have been deployed nationally and internationally in COVID-19 clinical strike teams. Early in the pandemic the clinical response teams were deployed to a long-term care facility in Kirkland, Washington; convention center-based hospitals in New York City, Detroit, Michigan, and Washington DC, and Navajo Nation facilities. PHS officers also are providing clinical guidance at Bureau of Prison facilities for infection control and personal protective equipment training.

We know that there are many more examples of heroic service by federal health care professionals and staff than we could locate or celebrate in this brief column. Readers of this journal are well aware of the near constant criticism of the VA and calls for privatization,⁹ the inadequate funding of the PHS,¹⁰ and the recent downsizing of DoD health care¹¹ that threatens to undermine its core functions. The pandemic has powerfully demonstrated that degrading the ability of federal health care to agilely and masterfully mobilize in the event of a public health disaster endangers not just veterans and the military but the health and well-being of a nation, particularly its most vulnerable citizens.

A torrent of blame has deluged the administration’s management of the pandemic. There is though one part of the government that deserves the praise of the nation for its response to this public health crisis—the federal health care system. In this column, we discuss the ways in which the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the US Public Health Service (PHS) Commissioned Corps especially have bravely and generously responded to the medical emergency of COVID-19 in the US.

Four missions drive the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Though the fourth of these missions usually is in the background, it has risen to the forefront during the pandemic. To put the fourth mission in its proper perspective, we first should review the other 3 charges given to the largest integrated health care system in the country.

The first mission is to provide the highest quality care possible for the more than 9 million veterans enrolled in that system at each of the 1,255 VHA locations. The second mission is to ensure that the Veterans Benefits Administration delivers the full range of benefits that veterans earned through their service. These including funding for education, loans for homes, and many other types of support that assist service men and women to be successful in their transition from military to civilian life. The third mission is to honor the commitment of those who fought for their country unto death. The National Cemeteries Administration oversees 142 national cemeteries where veterans are buried with dignity and remembered with gratitude for their uniformed service. The purpose of these 3 internally focused missions is to provide a safety net for eligible veterans from the day they separate from the military until the hour they pass from this earth.

The fourth mission is different. This mission looks outside the military family to the civilian world. Its goal is to bolster the ability of the nation as a whole to handle wars, terrorism, national emergencies, and natural disasters. It does this through emergency response plans that preserve the integrity of the 3 other missions to veterans while enhancing the capacity of local and state governments to manage the threat of these public health, safety, or security crises.¹

At the same time the VA was aggressively mounting a defense against the threat COVID-19 posed to the other missions, it also launched the fourth mission. In announcing these actions in April 2020, VA Secretary Robert Wilke succinctly summarized the need to balance the fourth mission with the other 3. “VA is committed to helping the nation in this effort to combat COVID-19. Helping veterans is our first mission, but in many locations across the country we’re helping states and local communities. VA is in this fight not only for the millions of veterans we serve each day; we’re in the fight for the people of the United States.”²

During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic I saw firsthand how VA disaster preparedness and emergency training were far superior to many academic and community health care systems. Given VA’s detailed and drilled crisis response plans, its specialized expertise in public health disasters, and its immense resources, it is no wonder that as the virus stretched civilian health care systems, some states turned to the VA for help. At my Albuquerque, New Mexico, VA medical center, 5 medical surgical beds and 3 intensive care beds were opened to the Indian Health Service overwhelmed with cases of COVID-19 in the hard-hit Navajo Nation. In New Jersey where Federal Practitioner is published, the fourth mission reached out to the state-run veterans homes as 90 VA nurses and gerontologists were deployed to 2 of its veterans facilities where close to 150 veterans have died.³ State veterans homes in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Alabama, and many other states have received supplies, including direly needed testing and personal protective equipment, staff, technology, and training.⁴

In July, VA published an impressive summary of fourth mission activities, which I encourage you to read. When you are look at this site, remember with a moment of silent appreciation all the altruistic and courageous VA clinical and administrative staff who volunteered for these assignments many of which put them directly in harm’s way.⁵

The VA is not alone in answering the call of COVID-19. In March, despite the grave risk to their health, their life, and their families, the USNS Comfort was deployed to New York City to help with its COVID-19 response while the USNS Mercy assisted in the efforts in Los Angeles. More recently, the military deployed > 700 Military Health System medical and support professionals to support COVID-19 operations in both Texas and California. Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio has taken on a handful of civilian patients with COVID-19 and increase its level I trauma cases as local hospitals have strained under the caseload.⁶

For the PHS Commissioned Corps its first mission is to serve as “America’s health responders.”⁷ This pandemic has intensified the extant health inequities in our country and compounded them with racial injustice and economic disparity. Thus, it is important to recognize that the very purpose of the PHS is to “fight disease, conduct research, and care for patients in underserved communities across the nation.”⁸ More than 3,900 PHS officers have been deployed nationally and internationally in COVID-19 clinical strike teams. Early in the pandemic the clinical response teams were deployed to a long-term care facility in Kirkland, Washington; convention center-based hospitals in New York City, Detroit, Michigan, and Washington DC, and Navajo Nation facilities. PHS officers also are providing clinical guidance at Bureau of Prison facilities for infection control and personal protective equipment training.

We know that there are many more examples of heroic service by federal health care professionals and staff than we could locate or celebrate in this brief column. Readers of this journal are well aware of the near constant criticism of the VA and calls for privatization,⁹ the inadequate funding of the PHS,¹⁰ and the recent downsizing of DoD health care¹¹ that threatens to undermine its core functions. The pandemic has powerfully demonstrated that degrading the ability of federal health care to agilely and masterfully mobilize in the event of a public health disaster endangers not just veterans and the military but the health and well-being of a nation, particularly its most vulnerable citizens.

To retain the label of “gluten free,” manufacturers of foods that are fermented and hydrolyzed, or that contain fermented or hydrolyzed ingredients, must make and keep detailed records of the manufacturing and production process, according to a final rule issued by the Food and Drug Administration.

In an announcement released on Aug. 12, the FDA stated that manufacturers must confirm that food products such as soy sauce, yogurt, sauerkraut, pickles, cheese, and green olives, as well as distilled foods such as vinegar, meet the definition of gluten free before the fermentation or hydrolysis process. In addition, the rule states that “the manufacturer has adequately evaluated the potential for cross-contact with gluten during the manufacturing process; and if necessary, measures are in place to prevent the introduction of gluten into the food during the manufacturing process,” according to the FDA.

Gluten breaks down during fermentation and hydrolysis, and the gluten-free status of products manufactured in this way can’t be confirmed after the process using currently available methods, according to the FDA.

The new rule is designed to ensure that products labeled as gluten-free meet the definition of gluten free, which remains unchanged from the FDA guidance in 2013.

“The FDA continues to work to protect people with celiac disease, which impacts at least 3 million Americans,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a statement.

“The agency has taken a number of steps on this front by first establishing a standardized definition of gluten free, and now by continuing to work to ensure manufacturers are keeping the products that are labeled with this claim gluten free,” he emphasized.

The final rule states that manufacturers will not need to keep such records if and when other analytical methods are developed, but in the meantime products that do not meet the definition will be deemed misbranded, according to the FDA.

To retain the label of “gluten free,” manufacturers of foods that are fermented and hydrolyzed, or that contain fermented or hydrolyzed ingredients, must make and keep detailed records of the manufacturing and production process, according to a final rule issued by the Food and Drug Administration.

In an announcement released on Aug. 12, the FDA stated that manufacturers must confirm that food products such as soy sauce, yogurt, sauerkraut, pickles, cheese, and green olives, as well as distilled foods such as vinegar, meet the definition of gluten free before the fermentation or hydrolysis process. In addition, the rule states that “the manufacturer has adequately evaluated the potential for cross-contact with gluten during the manufacturing process; and if necessary, measures are in place to prevent the introduction of gluten into the food during the manufacturing process,” according to the FDA.

Gluten breaks down during fermentation and hydrolysis, and the gluten-free status of products manufactured in this way can’t be confirmed after the process using currently available methods, according to the FDA.

The new rule is designed to ensure that products labeled as gluten-free meet the definition of gluten free, which remains unchanged from the FDA guidance in 2013.

“The FDA continues to work to protect people with celiac disease, which impacts at least 3 million Americans,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a statement.

“The agency has taken a number of steps on this front by first establishing a standardized definition of gluten free, and now by continuing to work to ensure manufacturers are keeping the products that are labeled with this claim gluten free,” he emphasized.

The final rule states that manufacturers will not need to keep such records if and when other analytical methods are developed, but in the meantime products that do not meet the definition will be deemed misbranded, according to the FDA.

To retain the label of “gluten free,” manufacturers of foods that are fermented and hydrolyzed, or that contain fermented or hydrolyzed ingredients, must make and keep detailed records of the manufacturing and production process, according to a final rule issued by the Food and Drug Administration.

In an announcement released on Aug. 12, the FDA stated that manufacturers must confirm that food products such as soy sauce, yogurt, sauerkraut, pickles, cheese, and green olives, as well as distilled foods such as vinegar, meet the definition of gluten free before the fermentation or hydrolysis process. In addition, the rule states that “the manufacturer has adequately evaluated the potential for cross-contact with gluten during the manufacturing process; and if necessary, measures are in place to prevent the introduction of gluten into the food during the manufacturing process,” according to the FDA.

Gluten breaks down during fermentation and hydrolysis, and the gluten-free status of products manufactured in this way can’t be confirmed after the process using currently available methods, according to the FDA.

The new rule is designed to ensure that products labeled as gluten-free meet the definition of gluten free, which remains unchanged from the FDA guidance in 2013.

“The FDA continues to work to protect people with celiac disease, which impacts at least 3 million Americans,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a statement.

“The agency has taken a number of steps on this front by first establishing a standardized definition of gluten free, and now by continuing to work to ensure manufacturers are keeping the products that are labeled with this claim gluten free,” he emphasized.

The final rule states that manufacturers will not need to keep such records if and when other analytical methods are developed, but in the meantime products that do not meet the definition will be deemed misbranded, according to the FDA.

Several federal lawmakers on June 30 questioned state policies that require disclosure of mental health treatment as part of medical licensing applications and renewals, citing concerns about creating barriers to psychiatric care for clinicians.

Mental health–related questions on state medical boards’ licensing applications are especially worrisome with many clinicians, including ED staff, immersed in the physical and emotional challenges involved in treating waves of people with COVID-19, lawmakers said during a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s health panel.

“We must consider the mental health of the providers on the front lines of the pandemic,” said Rep. Morgan Griffith, a Virginia Republican.

The issue of state medical boards’ disclosure rules was not on the official agenda for the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee’s hearing. And there was no discussion of any specific state medical board’s regulations. The Energy and Commerce health subcommittee is working on more than 20 bills related to mental health, including measures intended to aid first responders, such as firemen and emergency medical personnel, and students.

This hearing marked an early stage in the process for a planned package of mental health legislation, said Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD, of Texas, who is the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce health subcommittee. There may be opportunities as this legislation advances to add provisions intended to aid physicians, said Dr. Burgess, who practiced for many years as an ob.gyn. before being elected to Congress.

“We knew that suicide was a problem among our colleagues prior to the onset of this coronavirus epidemic and I know it is more pronounced now,” he said.

Dr. Burgess then solicited specific recommendations from the hearing’s witnesses on steps needed to help clinicians’ mental health.

The first suggestion offered in reply by Jeffrey L. Geller, MD, MPH, appearing in his role as president of the American Psychiatric Association, was that Congress should look for ways to encourage states to alter their licensing procedures.

The hearing comes on the heels of the APA, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and more than 40 other groups having jointly signed a statement calling for changes to disclosure rules about mental health.

“Licensing and credentialing applications by covered entities should only employ narrowly focused questions that address current functional impairment,” the statement said. “Additionally, we strongly support The Joint Commission (TJC) statement on Removing Barriers to Mental Health Care for Clinicians and Health Care Staff. TJC ‘supports the removal of any barriers that inhibit clinicians and health care staff from accessing mental health care services.’ ”

Physicians and other clinicians must be able to safely secure treatment for mental or other health issues, just as any other individual,” the groups wrote. “A provider’s history of mental illness or substance use disorder should not be used as any indication of their current or future ability to practice competently and without impairment.”

Also among the signers to this statement was the Federation of State Medical Boards, which has been leading an effort for years to change licensing.

In 2018, the FSMB recommended state medical boards reconsider whether it is necessary to include probing questions about a physician applicant’s mental health, addiction, or substance use on applications for medical licensure or their renewal. While the intent of these questions may be to protect patients, these queries can discourage physicians from getting needed help, the FSMB said.

Several states have since revised or considered revising their license applications and renewals. In May 2020, The Joint Commission urged broader adoption of recommendations from the FSMB and the American Medical Association to limit queries about clinicians’ mental health to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” said The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

Rep. Susan Brooks, an Indiana Republican who is an attorney, suggested there may need to be a broader look at how state officials pose questions about past mental health treatment to people in many professions, including her own.

“It does build on the stigma on accessing services” to know a state or licensing authority may question a professional about receiving treatment for mental health, she said.

Also at the hearing, Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán, a California Democrat, spoke of her own reaction to seeing a question about mental health treatment while applying for a White House internship. During her college years, Rep. Barragán had to cope with her father’s terminal illness.

“I remember thinking to myself: ‘Jeez, if I end up seeing a mental health expert maybe one day I couldn’t work in government,’ ” she said.

Several federal lawmakers on June 30 questioned state policies that require disclosure of mental health treatment as part of medical licensing applications and renewals, citing concerns about creating barriers to psychiatric care for clinicians.

Mental health–related questions on state medical boards’ licensing applications are especially worrisome with many clinicians, including ED staff, immersed in the physical and emotional challenges involved in treating waves of people with COVID-19, lawmakers said during a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s health panel.

“We must consider the mental health of the providers on the front lines of the pandemic,” said Rep. Morgan Griffith, a Virginia Republican.

The issue of state medical boards’ disclosure rules was not on the official agenda for the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee’s hearing. And there was no discussion of any specific state medical board’s regulations. The Energy and Commerce health subcommittee is working on more than 20 bills related to mental health, including measures intended to aid first responders, such as firemen and emergency medical personnel, and students.

This hearing marked an early stage in the process for a planned package of mental health legislation, said Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD, of Texas, who is the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce health subcommittee. There may be opportunities as this legislation advances to add provisions intended to aid physicians, said Dr. Burgess, who practiced for many years as an ob.gyn. before being elected to Congress.

“We knew that suicide was a problem among our colleagues prior to the onset of this coronavirus epidemic and I know it is more pronounced now,” he said.

Dr. Burgess then solicited specific recommendations from the hearing’s witnesses on steps needed to help clinicians’ mental health.

The first suggestion offered in reply by Jeffrey L. Geller, MD, MPH, appearing in his role as president of the American Psychiatric Association, was that Congress should look for ways to encourage states to alter their licensing procedures.

The hearing comes on the heels of the APA, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and more than 40 other groups having jointly signed a statement calling for changes to disclosure rules about mental health.

“Licensing and credentialing applications by covered entities should only employ narrowly focused questions that address current functional impairment,” the statement said. “Additionally, we strongly support The Joint Commission (TJC) statement on Removing Barriers to Mental Health Care for Clinicians and Health Care Staff. TJC ‘supports the removal of any barriers that inhibit clinicians and health care staff from accessing mental health care services.’ ”

Physicians and other clinicians must be able to safely secure treatment for mental or other health issues, just as any other individual,” the groups wrote. “A provider’s history of mental illness or substance use disorder should not be used as any indication of their current or future ability to practice competently and without impairment.”

Also among the signers to this statement was the Federation of State Medical Boards, which has been leading an effort for years to change licensing.

In 2018, the FSMB recommended state medical boards reconsider whether it is necessary to include probing questions about a physician applicant’s mental health, addiction, or substance use on applications for medical licensure or their renewal. While the intent of these questions may be to protect patients, these queries can discourage physicians from getting needed help, the FSMB said.

Several states have since revised or considered revising their license applications and renewals. In May 2020, The Joint Commission urged broader adoption of recommendations from the FSMB and the American Medical Association to limit queries about clinicians’ mental health to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” said The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

Rep. Susan Brooks, an Indiana Republican who is an attorney, suggested there may need to be a broader look at how state officials pose questions about past mental health treatment to people in many professions, including her own.

“It does build on the stigma on accessing services” to know a state or licensing authority may question a professional about receiving treatment for mental health, she said.

Also at the hearing, Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán, a California Democrat, spoke of her own reaction to seeing a question about mental health treatment while applying for a White House internship. During her college years, Rep. Barragán had to cope with her father’s terminal illness.

“I remember thinking to myself: ‘Jeez, if I end up seeing a mental health expert maybe one day I couldn’t work in government,’ ” she said.

Several federal lawmakers on June 30 questioned state policies that require disclosure of mental health treatment as part of medical licensing applications and renewals, citing concerns about creating barriers to psychiatric care for clinicians.

Mental health–related questions on state medical boards’ licensing applications are especially worrisome with many clinicians, including ED staff, immersed in the physical and emotional challenges involved in treating waves of people with COVID-19, lawmakers said during a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s health panel.

“We must consider the mental health of the providers on the front lines of the pandemic,” said Rep. Morgan Griffith, a Virginia Republican.

The issue of state medical boards’ disclosure rules was not on the official agenda for the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee’s hearing. And there was no discussion of any specific state medical board’s regulations. The Energy and Commerce health subcommittee is working on more than 20 bills related to mental health, including measures intended to aid first responders, such as firemen and emergency medical personnel, and students.

This hearing marked an early stage in the process for a planned package of mental health legislation, said Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD, of Texas, who is the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce health subcommittee. There may be opportunities as this legislation advances to add provisions intended to aid physicians, said Dr. Burgess, who practiced for many years as an ob.gyn. before being elected to Congress.

“We knew that suicide was a problem among our colleagues prior to the onset of this coronavirus epidemic and I know it is more pronounced now,” he said.

Dr. Burgess then solicited specific recommendations from the hearing’s witnesses on steps needed to help clinicians’ mental health.

The first suggestion offered in reply by Jeffrey L. Geller, MD, MPH, appearing in his role as president of the American Psychiatric Association, was that Congress should look for ways to encourage states to alter their licensing procedures.

The hearing comes on the heels of the APA, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and more than 40 other groups having jointly signed a statement calling for changes to disclosure rules about mental health.

“Licensing and credentialing applications by covered entities should only employ narrowly focused questions that address current functional impairment,” the statement said. “Additionally, we strongly support The Joint Commission (TJC) statement on Removing Barriers to Mental Health Care for Clinicians and Health Care Staff. TJC ‘supports the removal of any barriers that inhibit clinicians and health care staff from accessing mental health care services.’ ”

Physicians and other clinicians must be able to safely secure treatment for mental or other health issues, just as any other individual,” the groups wrote. “A provider’s history of mental illness or substance use disorder should not be used as any indication of their current or future ability to practice competently and without impairment.”

Also among the signers to this statement was the Federation of State Medical Boards, which has been leading an effort for years to change licensing.

In 2018, the FSMB recommended state medical boards reconsider whether it is necessary to include probing questions about a physician applicant’s mental health, addiction, or substance use on applications for medical licensure or their renewal. While the intent of these questions may be to protect patients, these queries can discourage physicians from getting needed help, the FSMB said.

Several states have since revised or considered revising their license applications and renewals. In May 2020, The Joint Commission urged broader adoption of recommendations from the FSMB and the American Medical Association to limit queries about clinicians’ mental health to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” said The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

Rep. Susan Brooks, an Indiana Republican who is an attorney, suggested there may need to be a broader look at how state officials pose questions about past mental health treatment to people in many professions, including her own.

“It does build on the stigma on accessing services” to know a state or licensing authority may question a professional about receiving treatment for mental health, she said.

Also at the hearing, Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán, a California Democrat, spoke of her own reaction to seeing a question about mental health treatment while applying for a White House internship. During her college years, Rep. Barragán had to cope with her father’s terminal illness.

“I remember thinking to myself: ‘Jeez, if I end up seeing a mental health expert maybe one day I couldn’t work in government,’ ” she said.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) has unveiled a plan for returning to normal operations. The plan is tied to “local conditions” and does not have specific dates for opening. Instead, the plan provides phase-by-phase guidance to commanders, supervisors, and employees to safely and effectively return to Pentagon Reservation offices. Along with guidelines for in-office and telework targets; vulnerable populations; entrance screening; and the status and cleaning of common areas, food courts, gyms and other facilities, the plan includes mandatory requirements regarding face coverings, social distancing, and symptomatic personnel throughout each phase.

Building on the 3-phase White House “Opening Up America Again” plan, the Joint Staff, military services, and the DoD COVID Task Force have developed a 5-phase plan. Currently, the department is at Phase Zero. The Pentagon Reservation Plan for Resilience and ‘Aligning with National Guidelines for Opening Up America Again’ “places the health and safety of our workforce first,” is “nested” within the White House, Office of Management and Budget, and Office of Personnel Management guidelines and plans. The goal is to allow the workforce to return to the Pentagon Reservation “in a controlled and steady manner.”

The DoD reported nearly 10,000 COVID-19 cases as of June 1, 2020, including 6,596 active-duty service members, 1,124 dependents, 1,516 civilians, and 649 DoD contractors. To date, 3 service members and 5 dependents have died of COVID-19, including Capt. Douglas Linn Hickok, a physician assistant and member of the New Jersey National Guard, who died March 28, 2020.

Since mid-March the DoD says it has taken “aggressive steps” to stop the spread of COVID-19, implementing health protection measures that resulted in a sustained transmission rate below that of the region at large. Teams have deep cleaned and sanitized more than 1 million square feet of office space on the Pentagon Reservation to US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention standards. And for the first time ever, according to the DoD, maximized telework options have enabled more than two-thirds of the Pentagon Reservation workforce to continue to work at alternate locations.

The criteria to enter Phase 1 require a downward trajectory of influenza-like illnesses reported with a 14-day period and a downward trajectory of COVID-like symptoms reported within a 14-day period. There must also be a downward trajectory of documented COVID-19 cases within a 14-day period or a downward trajectory of positive COVID-19 tests as a percentage of total tests within a 14-day period (flat or increasing volume of tests).

Finally, hospitals must treat all patients without crisis care and have a “robust” testing program in place for at-risk health care workers, including emerging antibody testing.

Those same criteria must be met between each phase of the plan. The “gates” for controlling moves from phase to phase are not tied to dates but are based on state, regional, and local public health conditions, availability of hospitals and testing capacity, and monitoring through the DoD’s Electronic Surveillance System for Early Notification of Community-based Epidemics (ESSENCE).

If the monitors detect a resurgence in the spread of COVID-19, the department will reassess its protection measures and workforce phase and respond appropriately. DoD service members and civilian employees are advised to talk with their commanders or supervisors to determine when it’s all right to return.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) has unveiled a plan for returning to normal operations. The plan is tied to “local conditions” and does not have specific dates for opening. Instead, the plan provides phase-by-phase guidance to commanders, supervisors, and employees to safely and effectively return to Pentagon Reservation offices. Along with guidelines for in-office and telework targets; vulnerable populations; entrance screening; and the status and cleaning of common areas, food courts, gyms and other facilities, the plan includes mandatory requirements regarding face coverings, social distancing, and symptomatic personnel throughout each phase.

Building on the 3-phase White House “Opening Up America Again” plan, the Joint Staff, military services, and the DoD COVID Task Force have developed a 5-phase plan. Currently, the department is at Phase Zero. The Pentagon Reservation Plan for Resilience and ‘Aligning with National Guidelines for Opening Up America Again’ “places the health and safety of our workforce first,” is “nested” within the White House, Office of Management and Budget, and Office of Personnel Management guidelines and plans. The goal is to allow the workforce to return to the Pentagon Reservation “in a controlled and steady manner.”

The DoD reported nearly 10,000 COVID-19 cases as of June 1, 2020, including 6,596 active-duty service members, 1,124 dependents, 1,516 civilians, and 649 DoD contractors. To date, 3 service members and 5 dependents have died of COVID-19, including Capt. Douglas Linn Hickok, a physician assistant and member of the New Jersey National Guard, who died March 28, 2020.

Since mid-March the DoD says it has taken “aggressive steps” to stop the spread of COVID-19, implementing health protection measures that resulted in a sustained transmission rate below that of the region at large. Teams have deep cleaned and sanitized more than 1 million square feet of office space on the Pentagon Reservation to US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention standards. And for the first time ever, according to the DoD, maximized telework options have enabled more than two-thirds of the Pentagon Reservation workforce to continue to work at alternate locations.

The criteria to enter Phase 1 require a downward trajectory of influenza-like illnesses reported with a 14-day period and a downward trajectory of COVID-like symptoms reported within a 14-day period. There must also be a downward trajectory of documented COVID-19 cases within a 14-day period or a downward trajectory of positive COVID-19 tests as a percentage of total tests within a 14-day period (flat or increasing volume of tests).

Finally, hospitals must treat all patients without crisis care and have a “robust” testing program in place for at-risk health care workers, including emerging antibody testing.

Those same criteria must be met between each phase of the plan. The “gates” for controlling moves from phase to phase are not tied to dates but are based on state, regional, and local public health conditions, availability of hospitals and testing capacity, and monitoring through the DoD’s Electronic Surveillance System for Early Notification of Community-based Epidemics (ESSENCE).

If the monitors detect a resurgence in the spread of COVID-19, the department will reassess its protection measures and workforce phase and respond appropriately. DoD service members and civilian employees are advised to talk with their commanders or supervisors to determine when it’s all right to return.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) has unveiled a plan for returning to normal operations. The plan is tied to “local conditions” and does not have specific dates for opening. Instead, the plan provides phase-by-phase guidance to commanders, supervisors, and employees to safely and effectively return to Pentagon Reservation offices. Along with guidelines for in-office and telework targets; vulnerable populations; entrance screening; and the status and cleaning of common areas, food courts, gyms and other facilities, the plan includes mandatory requirements regarding face coverings, social distancing, and symptomatic personnel throughout each phase.

Building on the 3-phase White House “Opening Up America Again” plan, the Joint Staff, military services, and the DoD COVID Task Force have developed a 5-phase plan. Currently, the department is at Phase Zero. The Pentagon Reservation Plan for Resilience and ‘Aligning with National Guidelines for Opening Up America Again’ “places the health and safety of our workforce first,” is “nested” within the White House, Office of Management and Budget, and Office of Personnel Management guidelines and plans. The goal is to allow the workforce to return to the Pentagon Reservation “in a controlled and steady manner.”

The DoD reported nearly 10,000 COVID-19 cases as of June 1, 2020, including 6,596 active-duty service members, 1,124 dependents, 1,516 civilians, and 649 DoD contractors. To date, 3 service members and 5 dependents have died of COVID-19, including Capt. Douglas Linn Hickok, a physician assistant and member of the New Jersey National Guard, who died March 28, 2020.

Since mid-March the DoD says it has taken “aggressive steps” to stop the spread of COVID-19, implementing health protection measures that resulted in a sustained transmission rate below that of the region at large. Teams have deep cleaned and sanitized more than 1 million square feet of office space on the Pentagon Reservation to US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention standards. And for the first time ever, according to the DoD, maximized telework options have enabled more than two-thirds of the Pentagon Reservation workforce to continue to work at alternate locations.

The criteria to enter Phase 1 require a downward trajectory of influenza-like illnesses reported with a 14-day period and a downward trajectory of COVID-like symptoms reported within a 14-day period. There must also be a downward trajectory of documented COVID-19 cases within a 14-day period or a downward trajectory of positive COVID-19 tests as a percentage of total tests within a 14-day period (flat or increasing volume of tests).

Finally, hospitals must treat all patients without crisis care and have a “robust” testing program in place for at-risk health care workers, including emerging antibody testing.

Those same criteria must be met between each phase of the plan. The “gates” for controlling moves from phase to phase are not tied to dates but are based on state, regional, and local public health conditions, availability of hospitals and testing capacity, and monitoring through the DoD’s Electronic Surveillance System for Early Notification of Community-based Epidemics (ESSENCE).

If the monitors detect a resurgence in the spread of COVID-19, the department will reassess its protection measures and workforce phase and respond appropriately. DoD service members and civilian employees are advised to talk with their commanders or supervisors to determine when it’s all right to return.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is tightening requirements for companies that develop COVID-19 antibody tests in an effort to combat fraud and better regulate the frenzy of tests coming to market.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The updated policy, announced May 4, requires commercial antibody test developers to apply for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA under a tight time frame and also provides specific performance threshold recommendations for test specificity and sensitivity. The revised requirements follow a March 16 policy that allowed developers to validate their own tests and bring them to market without an agency review. More than 100 coronavirus antibody tests have since entered the market, fueling a congressional investigation into the accuracy of tests.

When the March policy was issued, FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said it was critical for the FDA to provide regulatory flexibility for serology test developers, given the nature of the COVID-19 public health emergency and an understanding that the tests were not meant to be used as the sole basis for COVID-19 diagnosis.

“As FDA has authorized more antibody tests and validation data has become available, including through the capability at [the National Cancer Institute] the careful balancing of risks and benefits has shifted to the approach we have outlined today and our policy update,” Dr. Hahn said during a May 4 press conference.

The new approach requires all commercial manufacturers to submit EUA requests with their validation data within 10 business days from the date they notified the FDA of their validation testing or from the date of the May 4 policy, whichever is later. Additionally, the FDA has provided specific performance threshold recommendations for specificity and sensitivity for all serology test developers.

In a statement released May 4, FDA leaders acknowledged the widespread fraud that is occurring in connection to antibody tests entering the market.

“We unfortunately see unscrupulous actors marketing fraudulent test kits and using the pandemic as an opportunity to take advantage of Americans’ anxiety,” wrote Anand Shah, MD, FDA deputy commissioner for medical and scientific affairs in a joint statement with Jeff E. Shuren, MD, director for the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “Some test developers have falsely claimed their serological tests are FDA approved or authorized. Others have falsely claimed that their tests can diagnose COVID-19 or that they are for at-home testing, which would fall outside of the policies outlined in our March 16 guidance, as well as the updated guidance.”

At the same time, FDA officials said they are aware of a “concerning number” of commercial serology tests that are being inappropriately marketed, including for diagnostic use, or that are performing poorly based on an independent evaluation by the National Institutes of Health, according to the May 4 statement.

In addition to tightening its requirements for test developers, the FDA also is introducing a more streamlined process to support EUA submissions and review. Two voluntary EUA templates for antibody tests are now available – one for commercial manufacturers and one for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified high-complexity labs seeking FDA authorization. The templates will facilitate the preparation and submission of EUA requests and can be used by any interested developer, according to the FDA.

To date, 12 antibody tests have been authorized under an individual EUA, and more than 200 antibody tests are currently the subject of a pre-EUA or EUA review, according to the FDA.

Many unknowns remain about antibody tests and how they might help researchers and clinicians understand and/or potentially treat COVID-19. Antibody tests may be able to provide information on disease prevalence and frequency of asymptomatic infection, as well as identify potential donors of “convalescent plasma,” an approach in which blood plasma containing antibodies from a recovered individual serves as a therapy for an infected patient with severe disease, Dr. Shah wrote in the May 4 statement.

“There are a lot of unanswered questions about this particular issue,” Dr. Hahn said during the press conference. “We need the data because we need to understand this particular aspect of the disease and put it as part of the puzzle around COVID-19.”

[email protected]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is tightening requirements for companies that develop COVID-19 antibody tests in an effort to combat fraud and better regulate the frenzy of tests coming to market.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The updated policy, announced May 4, requires commercial antibody test developers to apply for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA under a tight time frame and also provides specific performance threshold recommendations for test specificity and sensitivity. The revised requirements follow a March 16 policy that allowed developers to validate their own tests and bring them to market without an agency review. More than 100 coronavirus antibody tests have since entered the market, fueling a congressional investigation into the accuracy of tests.

When the March policy was issued, FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said it was critical for the FDA to provide regulatory flexibility for serology test developers, given the nature of the COVID-19 public health emergency and an understanding that the tests were not meant to be used as the sole basis for COVID-19 diagnosis.

“As FDA has authorized more antibody tests and validation data has become available, including through the capability at [the National Cancer Institute] the careful balancing of risks and benefits has shifted to the approach we have outlined today and our policy update,” Dr. Hahn said during a May 4 press conference.

The new approach requires all commercial manufacturers to submit EUA requests with their validation data within 10 business days from the date they notified the FDA of their validation testing or from the date of the May 4 policy, whichever is later. Additionally, the FDA has provided specific performance threshold recommendations for specificity and sensitivity for all serology test developers.

In a statement released May 4, FDA leaders acknowledged the widespread fraud that is occurring in connection to antibody tests entering the market.

“We unfortunately see unscrupulous actors marketing fraudulent test kits and using the pandemic as an opportunity to take advantage of Americans’ anxiety,” wrote Anand Shah, MD, FDA deputy commissioner for medical and scientific affairs in a joint statement with Jeff E. Shuren, MD, director for the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “Some test developers have falsely claimed their serological tests are FDA approved or authorized. Others have falsely claimed that their tests can diagnose COVID-19 or that they are for at-home testing, which would fall outside of the policies outlined in our March 16 guidance, as well as the updated guidance.”

At the same time, FDA officials said they are aware of a “concerning number” of commercial serology tests that are being inappropriately marketed, including for diagnostic use, or that are performing poorly based on an independent evaluation by the National Institutes of Health, according to the May 4 statement.

In addition to tightening its requirements for test developers, the FDA also is introducing a more streamlined process to support EUA submissions and review. Two voluntary EUA templates for antibody tests are now available – one for commercial manufacturers and one for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified high-complexity labs seeking FDA authorization. The templates will facilitate the preparation and submission of EUA requests and can be used by any interested developer, according to the FDA.

To date, 12 antibody tests have been authorized under an individual EUA, and more than 200 antibody tests are currently the subject of a pre-EUA or EUA review, according to the FDA.

Many unknowns remain about antibody tests and how they might help researchers and clinicians understand and/or potentially treat COVID-19. Antibody tests may be able to provide information on disease prevalence and frequency of asymptomatic infection, as well as identify potential donors of “convalescent plasma,” an approach in which blood plasma containing antibodies from a recovered individual serves as a therapy for an infected patient with severe disease, Dr. Shah wrote in the May 4 statement.

“There are a lot of unanswered questions about this particular issue,” Dr. Hahn said during the press conference. “We need the data because we need to understand this particular aspect of the disease and put it as part of the puzzle around COVID-19.”

[email protected]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is tightening requirements for companies that develop COVID-19 antibody tests in an effort to combat fraud and better regulate the frenzy of tests coming to market.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The updated policy, announced May 4, requires commercial antibody test developers to apply for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA under a tight time frame and also provides specific performance threshold recommendations for test specificity and sensitivity. The revised requirements follow a March 16 policy that allowed developers to validate their own tests and bring them to market without an agency review. More than 100 coronavirus antibody tests have since entered the market, fueling a congressional investigation into the accuracy of tests.

When the March policy was issued, FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said it was critical for the FDA to provide regulatory flexibility for serology test developers, given the nature of the COVID-19 public health emergency and an understanding that the tests were not meant to be used as the sole basis for COVID-19 diagnosis.

“As FDA has authorized more antibody tests and validation data has become available, including through the capability at [the National Cancer Institute] the careful balancing of risks and benefits has shifted to the approach we have outlined today and our policy update,” Dr. Hahn said during a May 4 press conference.

The new approach requires all commercial manufacturers to submit EUA requests with their validation data within 10 business days from the date they notified the FDA of their validation testing or from the date of the May 4 policy, whichever is later. Additionally, the FDA has provided specific performance threshold recommendations for specificity and sensitivity for all serology test developers.

In a statement released May 4, FDA leaders acknowledged the widespread fraud that is occurring in connection to antibody tests entering the market.

“We unfortunately see unscrupulous actors marketing fraudulent test kits and using the pandemic as an opportunity to take advantage of Americans’ anxiety,” wrote Anand Shah, MD, FDA deputy commissioner for medical and scientific affairs in a joint statement with Jeff E. Shuren, MD, director for the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “Some test developers have falsely claimed their serological tests are FDA approved or authorized. Others have falsely claimed that their tests can diagnose COVID-19 or that they are for at-home testing, which would fall outside of the policies outlined in our March 16 guidance, as well as the updated guidance.”

At the same time, FDA officials said they are aware of a “concerning number” of commercial serology tests that are being inappropriately marketed, including for diagnostic use, or that are performing poorly based on an independent evaluation by the National Institutes of Health, according to the May 4 statement.

In addition to tightening its requirements for test developers, the FDA also is introducing a more streamlined process to support EUA submissions and review. Two voluntary EUA templates for antibody tests are now available – one for commercial manufacturers and one for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified high-complexity labs seeking FDA authorization. The templates will facilitate the preparation and submission of EUA requests and can be used by any interested developer, according to the FDA.

To date, 12 antibody tests have been authorized under an individual EUA, and more than 200 antibody tests are currently the subject of a pre-EUA or EUA review, according to the FDA.

Many unknowns remain about antibody tests and how they might help researchers and clinicians understand and/or potentially treat COVID-19. Antibody tests may be able to provide information on disease prevalence and frequency of asymptomatic infection, as well as identify potential donors of “convalescent plasma,” an approach in which blood plasma containing antibodies from a recovered individual serves as a therapy for an infected patient with severe disease, Dr. Shah wrote in the May 4 statement.

“There are a lot of unanswered questions about this particular issue,” Dr. Hahn said during the press conference. “We need the data because we need to understand this particular aspect of the disease and put it as part of the puzzle around COVID-19.”

[email protected]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration reinforced its March guidance on when it’s permissible to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients and on the multiple risks these drugs pose in a Safety Communication on April 24.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The new communication reiterated the agency’s position from the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) it granted on March 28 to allow hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine treatment of COVID-19 patients only when they are hospitalized and participation in a clinical trial is “not available,” or “not feasible.” The April 24 update to the EUA noted that “the FDA is aware of reports of serious heart rhythm problems in patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with azithromycin and other QT-prolonging medicines. We are also aware of increased use of these medicines through outpatient prescriptions.”

In addition to reiterating the prior limitations on permissible patients for these treatment the agency also said in the new communication that “close supervision is strongly recommended, “ specifying that “we recommend initial evaluation and monitoring when using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine under the EUA or in clinical trials that investigate these medicines for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Monitoring may include baseline ECG, electrolytes, renal function, and hepatic tests.” The communication also highlighted several potential serious adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine that include QT prolongation with increased risk in patients with renal insufficiency or failure, increased insulin levels and insulin action causing increased risk of severe hypoglycemia, hemolysis in selected patients, and interaction with other medicines that cause QT prolongation.

“If a healthcare professional is considering use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat or prevent COVID-19, FDA recommends checking www.clinicaltrials.gov for a suitable clinical trial and consider enrolling the patient,” the statement added.

The FDA’s Safety Communication came a day after the European Medicines Agency issued a similar reminder about the risk for serious adverse effects from treatment with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, the need for adverse effect monitoring, and the unproven status of purported benefits from these agents.

The statement came after ongoing promotion by the Trump administration of hydroxychloroquine, in particular, for COVID-19 despite a lack of evidence.

The FDA’s communication cited recent case reports sent to the FDA, as well as published findings, and reports to the National Poison Data System that have described serious, heart-related adverse events and death in COVID-19 patients who received hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, alone or in combination with azithromycin or another QT-prolonging drug. One recent, notable but not peer-reviewed report on 368 patients treated at any of several U.S. VA medical centers showed no apparent benefit to hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and a signal for increased mortality among certain patients on this drug (medRxiv. 2020 Apr 23; doi: 10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920). Several cardiology societies have also highlighted the cardiac considerations for using these drugs in patients with COVID-19, including a summary coauthored by the presidents of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society (Circulation. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521), and in guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.

[email protected]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration reinforced its March guidance on when it’s permissible to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients and on the multiple risks these drugs pose in a Safety Communication on April 24.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The new communication reiterated the agency’s position from the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) it granted on March 28 to allow hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine treatment of COVID-19 patients only when they are hospitalized and participation in a clinical trial is “not available,” or “not feasible.” The April 24 update to the EUA noted that “the FDA is aware of reports of serious heart rhythm problems in patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with azithromycin and other QT-prolonging medicines. We are also aware of increased use of these medicines through outpatient prescriptions.”

In addition to reiterating the prior limitations on permissible patients for these treatment the agency also said in the new communication that “close supervision is strongly recommended, “ specifying that “we recommend initial evaluation and monitoring when using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine under the EUA or in clinical trials that investigate these medicines for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Monitoring may include baseline ECG, electrolytes, renal function, and hepatic tests.” The communication also highlighted several potential serious adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine that include QT prolongation with increased risk in patients with renal insufficiency or failure, increased insulin levels and insulin action causing increased risk of severe hypoglycemia, hemolysis in selected patients, and interaction with other medicines that cause QT prolongation.

“If a healthcare professional is considering use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat or prevent COVID-19, FDA recommends checking www.clinicaltrials.gov for a suitable clinical trial and consider enrolling the patient,” the statement added.

The FDA’s Safety Communication came a day after the European Medicines Agency issued a similar reminder about the risk for serious adverse effects from treatment with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, the need for adverse effect monitoring, and the unproven status of purported benefits from these agents.

The statement came after ongoing promotion by the Trump administration of hydroxychloroquine, in particular, for COVID-19 despite a lack of evidence.

The FDA’s communication cited recent case reports sent to the FDA, as well as published findings, and reports to the National Poison Data System that have described serious, heart-related adverse events and death in COVID-19 patients who received hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, alone or in combination with azithromycin or another QT-prolonging drug. One recent, notable but not peer-reviewed report on 368 patients treated at any of several U.S. VA medical centers showed no apparent benefit to hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and a signal for increased mortality among certain patients on this drug (medRxiv. 2020 Apr 23; doi: 10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920). Several cardiology societies have also highlighted the cardiac considerations for using these drugs in patients with COVID-19, including a summary coauthored by the presidents of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society (Circulation. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521), and in guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.

[email protected]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration reinforced its March guidance on when it’s permissible to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients and on the multiple risks these drugs pose in a Safety Communication on April 24.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The new communication reiterated the agency’s position from the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) it granted on March 28 to allow hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine treatment of COVID-19 patients only when they are hospitalized and participation in a clinical trial is “not available,” or “not feasible.” The April 24 update to the EUA noted that “the FDA is aware of reports of serious heart rhythm problems in patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with azithromycin and other QT-prolonging medicines. We are also aware of increased use of these medicines through outpatient prescriptions.”

In addition to reiterating the prior limitations on permissible patients for these treatment the agency also said in the new communication that “close supervision is strongly recommended, “ specifying that “we recommend initial evaluation and monitoring when using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine under the EUA or in clinical trials that investigate these medicines for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Monitoring may include baseline ECG, electrolytes, renal function, and hepatic tests.” The communication also highlighted several potential serious adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine that include QT prolongation with increased risk in patients with renal insufficiency or failure, increased insulin levels and insulin action causing increased risk of severe hypoglycemia, hemolysis in selected patients, and interaction with other medicines that cause QT prolongation.

“If a healthcare professional is considering use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat or prevent COVID-19, FDA recommends checking www.clinicaltrials.gov for a suitable clinical trial and consider enrolling the patient,” the statement added.

The FDA’s Safety Communication came a day after the European Medicines Agency issued a similar reminder about the risk for serious adverse effects from treatment with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, the need for adverse effect monitoring, and the unproven status of purported benefits from these agents.

The statement came after ongoing promotion by the Trump administration of hydroxychloroquine, in particular, for COVID-19 despite a lack of evidence.

The FDA’s communication cited recent case reports sent to the FDA, as well as published findings, and reports to the National Poison Data System that have described serious, heart-related adverse events and death in COVID-19 patients who received hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, alone or in combination with azithromycin or another QT-prolonging drug. One recent, notable but not peer-reviewed report on 368 patients treated at any of several U.S. VA medical centers showed no apparent benefit to hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and a signal for increased mortality among certain patients on this drug (medRxiv. 2020 Apr 23; doi: 10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920). Several cardiology societies have also highlighted the cardiac considerations for using these drugs in patients with COVID-19, including a summary coauthored by the presidents of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society (Circulation. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047521), and in guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.

[email protected]

Hydroxychloroquine, which has been touted without definitive scientific support as a treatment for COVID-19 infection, has special significance for the millions of US military service members and veterans who served in Southwest Asia and other countries with endemic malaria: It’s a critical antimalarial drugs. It’s also needed for US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

On March 24, the VA Inspector General (IG) surveyed VA medical facilities to determine shortages in equipment as well as “antibiotics, sedatives, pain, and antiviral medications,” although there no known effective treatments for COVID-19. The OIG reported that 12 facilities indicated that they anticipated a shortage of medications, including hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, IV immunoglobulin, and nebulizer products in the next 14 to 28 days. Facilities in West Haven, CT; Martinsburg, WV; Baltimore, MD; Washington, DC; Durham, NC; Columbia, SC; Tampa, FL; Detroit, MI; Temple, TX; Oklahoma City, OK; Aurora, CO; Seattle, WA; and Phoenix, AZ, all indicated anticipated shortages. At least one facility explicitly worried about access to medications and supplies produced in China and concern about disrupted supply chains may have concerned other facilities as well.

Nevertheless, hydroxychloroquine was at the top of mind both OIG inspectors as well as Veterans Health Administration (VHA) officials. In a formal response to the OIG survey, the VHA asserted: “We object to OIG’s assertions that a 14-day supply of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine would have any merit. This is both inaccurate and irresponsible. There are active investigations into these drugs and many others, as discussed by Dr. Anthony Fauci. Yet no conclusions have been made on their effectiveness. To insist that a 14 days’ supply of these drugs is appropriate or not appropriate displays this dangerous lack of expertise on COVID-19 and Pandemic response.”

Hydroxychloroquine has been associated with serious adverse effects, such as cardiac arrhythmias and hypoglycemia, and its use against COVID-19 is based, so far, on thin evidence. It has shown promise in a laboratory setting against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and in small studies with patients. Nonetheless, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted limited emergency authorization for certain uses of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19. The rapid approval came apparently at the behest of the White House.

Former FDA leaders say the authorization has jeopardized research to learn the drugs’ real value in pandemic patients. They also charge that the decision undermines FDA’s scientific authority because it appears to be reacting to political advocacy. 

Despite the concerns, a run on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine has been underway. According to a March 20 blog post by Premier, a hospital purchasing organization, orders for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine jumped “dramatically” between March 1 and March 17, by 3,000% and 260%, respectively. Fortunately, these are older, relatively inexpensive oral drugs, Premier says, which means their manufacturing is “far less complicated” than for other drugs. To offer immediate help, Premier notes, drug makers such as Teva and Bayer have announced they will donate millions of tablets of the drugs to hospitals or the federal government for further testing.

Owing to “extraordinary public interest” in the off-label use of these drugs, numerous state boards of pharmacy have enacted emergency restrictions on the inappropriate dispensing of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, says the Quinism Foundation, a nonprofit organization that supports education and research on medical conditions caused by chloroquine and related drugs. And because of the very real potential for substitution of more dangerous quinolines (such as mefloquine) in place of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, the foundation recently called on state boards of pharmacy to enact uniform restrictions on the dispensing of all quinoline antimalarial drugs, with the understanding that any emergency use of any of these medications for public health purposes as attempted pandemic countermeasures would be best coordinated nationally through distribution from the Strategic National Stockpile.

In the meantime, research into hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness is ongoing. “Coming at it from every angle”—that’s how Terry Welch, spokesman for the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research told Task & Purpose the Army is “leveraging specific competencies” to attack the COVID-19 problem. Among other things, WRAIR’s Emerging Infectious Diseases Branch (EIDB) is working to develop a vaccine against COVID-19 infection, including several versions of a novel vaccine candidate that has been tested in humans. WRAIR has also been conducting research into novel treatments, such as drug candidates similar to those successfully developed to treat malaria, and monoclonal antibodies.

WRAI was able to start its anti-COVID-19 research in early January—directly on the heels of the first reported cases of infection—because of the Institute’s history of researching related viruses. “If we hadn’t done that, we’d be weeks behind,” said Dr. Kayvon Modjarrad, director of EIDB.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has also begun a clinical trial, the Outcomes Related to COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine among in-patients with symptomatic Diseases (ORCHID) study. The study will enroll more than 500 adults who are hospitalized with COVID-19 or in an emergency department awaiting hospitalization. All patients will continue to receive clinical care; some will be randomly assigned to also receive hydroxychloroquine. The first participants have been enrolled at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, one of the centers in the Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Network.

In the “urgent race to find effective therapies,” NIH also launched the first clinical trial in the US to evaluate remdesivir, a broad-spectrum antiviral, as a potential treatment for COVID-19.  The trial, which started March 6 at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, is expected to conclude in May. Clinical trials of remdesivir have been ongoing in China, where the virus originated. The NIH study “takes into account” those trial designs. 

Many US hospitals are already using hydroxychloroquine as first-line therapy for COVID-19 patients, despite the lack of supportive clinical evidence. Wesley Self, MD, MPH, lead investigator in the ORCHID trial, says “[D]ata on hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 are urgently needed to inform clinical practice.”

Not only research is needed, but clear expression of the facts about the drugs. In March, shortly after the president began lauding hydroxychloroquine, a Phoenix man died of cardiac arrest and his wife ended up in critical care after they misguidedly ingested chloroquine phosphate, a chemical used to clean fish tanks.  “[W]e understand that people are trying to find new ways to prevent or treat this virus,” said Dr. Daniel Brooks, medical director of the Banner Poison and Drug Information Center in Phoenix, “but self-medicating is not the way to do so.”

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and one of the main spokespersons for science in the hydroxychloroquine debate, has continued to try to make his concerns clear: “I think we’ve got to be careful that we don’t make that majestic leap to assume this is a knockout drug,” he said in late March. “We still need to do the kinds of studies that definitively prove whether any intervention—not just this one, any intervention—is truly safe and effective.”

Hydroxychloroquine, which has been touted without definitive scientific support as a treatment for COVID-19 infection, has special significance for the millions of US military service members and veterans who served in Southwest Asia and other countries with endemic malaria: It’s a critical antimalarial drugs. It’s also needed for US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

On March 24, the VA Inspector General (IG) surveyed VA medical facilities to determine shortages in equipment as well as “antibiotics, sedatives, pain, and antiviral medications,” although there no known effective treatments for COVID-19. The OIG reported that 12 facilities indicated that they anticipated a shortage of medications, including hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, IV immunoglobulin, and nebulizer products in the next 14 to 28 days. Facilities in West Haven, CT; Martinsburg, WV; Baltimore, MD; Washington, DC; Durham, NC; Columbia, SC; Tampa, FL; Detroit, MI; Temple, TX; Oklahoma City, OK; Aurora, CO; Seattle, WA; and Phoenix, AZ, all indicated anticipated shortages. At least one facility explicitly worried about access to medications and supplies produced in China and concern about disrupted supply chains may have concerned other facilities as well.

Nevertheless, hydroxychloroquine was at the top of mind both OIG inspectors as well as Veterans Health Administration (VHA) officials. In a formal response to the OIG survey, the VHA asserted: “We object to OIG’s assertions that a 14-day supply of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine would have any merit. This is both inaccurate and irresponsible. There are active investigations into these drugs and many others, as discussed by Dr. Anthony Fauci. Yet no conclusions have been made on their effectiveness. To insist that a 14 days’ supply of these drugs is appropriate or not appropriate displays this dangerous lack of expertise on COVID-19 and Pandemic response.”

Hydroxychloroquine has been associated with serious adverse effects, such as cardiac arrhythmias and hypoglycemia, and its use against COVID-19 is based, so far, on thin evidence. It has shown promise in a laboratory setting against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and in small studies with patients. Nonetheless, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted limited emergency authorization for certain uses of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19. The rapid approval came apparently at the behest of the White House.

Former FDA leaders say the authorization has jeopardized research to learn the drugs’ real value in pandemic patients. They also charge that the decision undermines FDA’s scientific authority because it appears to be reacting to political advocacy. 

Despite the concerns, a run on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine has been underway. According to a March 20 blog post by Premier, a hospital purchasing organization, orders for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine jumped “dramatically” between March 1 and March 17, by 3,000% and 260%, respectively. Fortunately, these are older, relatively inexpensive oral drugs, Premier says, which means their manufacturing is “far less complicated” than for other drugs. To offer immediate help, Premier notes, drug makers such as Teva and Bayer have announced they will donate millions of tablets of the drugs to hospitals or the federal government for further testing.

Owing to “extraordinary public interest” in the off-label use of these drugs, numerous state boards of pharmacy have enacted emergency restrictions on the inappropriate dispensing of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, says the Quinism Foundation, a nonprofit organization that supports education and research on medical conditions caused by chloroquine and related drugs. And because of the very real potential for substitution of more dangerous quinolines (such as mefloquine) in place of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, the foundation recently called on state boards of pharmacy to enact uniform restrictions on the dispensing of all quinoline antimalarial drugs, with the understanding that any emergency use of any of these medications for public health purposes as attempted pandemic countermeasures would be best coordinated nationally through distribution from the Strategic National Stockpile.

In the meantime, research into hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness is ongoing. “Coming at it from every angle”—that’s how Terry Welch, spokesman for the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research told Task & Purpose the Army is “leveraging specific competencies” to attack the COVID-19 problem. Among other things, WRAIR’s Emerging Infectious Diseases Branch (EIDB) is working to develop a vaccine against COVID-19 infection, including several versions of a novel vaccine candidate that has been tested in humans. WRAIR has also been conducting research into novel treatments, such as drug candidates similar to those successfully developed to treat malaria, and monoclonal antibodies.

WRAI was able to start its anti-COVID-19 research in early January—directly on the heels of the first reported cases of infection—because of the Institute’s history of researching related viruses. “If we hadn’t done that, we’d be weeks behind,” said Dr. Kayvon Modjarrad, director of EIDB.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has also begun a clinical trial, the Outcomes Related to COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine among in-patients with symptomatic Diseases (ORCHID) study. The study will enroll more than 500 adults who are hospitalized with COVID-19 or in an emergency department awaiting hospitalization. All patients will continue to receive clinical care; some will be randomly assigned to also receive hydroxychloroquine. The first participants have been enrolled at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, one of the centers in the Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Network.

In the “urgent race to find effective therapies,” NIH also launched the first clinical trial in the US to evaluate remdesivir, a broad-spectrum antiviral, as a potential treatment for COVID-19.  The trial, which started March 6 at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, is expected to conclude in May. Clinical trials of remdesivir have been ongoing in China, where the virus originated. The NIH study “takes into account” those trial designs. 

Many US hospitals are already using hydroxychloroquine as first-line therapy for COVID-19 patients, despite the lack of supportive clinical evidence. Wesley Self, MD, MPH, lead investigator in the ORCHID trial, says “[D]ata on hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 are urgently needed to inform clinical practice.”

Not only research is needed, but clear expression of the facts about the drugs. In March, shortly after the president began lauding hydroxychloroquine, a Phoenix man died of cardiac arrest and his wife ended up in critical care after they misguidedly ingested chloroquine phosphate, a chemical used to clean fish tanks.  “[W]e understand that people are trying to find new ways to prevent or treat this virus,” said Dr. Daniel Brooks, medical director of the Banner Poison and Drug Information Center in Phoenix, “but self-medicating is not the way to do so.”

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and one of the main spokespersons for science in the hydroxychloroquine debate, has continued to try to make his concerns clear: “I think we’ve got to be careful that we don’t make that majestic leap to assume this is a knockout drug,” he said in late March. “We still need to do the kinds of studies that definitively prove whether any intervention—not just this one, any intervention—is truly safe and effective.”

Hydroxychloroquine, which has been touted without definitive scientific support as a treatment for COVID-19 infection, has special significance for the millions of US military service members and veterans who served in Southwest Asia and other countries with endemic malaria: It’s a critical antimalarial drugs. It’s also needed for US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

On March 24, the VA Inspector General (IG) surveyed VA medical facilities to determine shortages in equipment as well as “antibiotics, sedatives, pain, and antiviral medications,” although there no known effective treatments for COVID-19. The OIG reported that 12 facilities indicated that they anticipated a shortage of medications, including hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, IV immunoglobulin, and nebulizer products in the next 14 to 28 days. Facilities in West Haven, CT; Martinsburg, WV; Baltimore, MD; Washington, DC; Durham, NC; Columbia, SC; Tampa, FL; Detroit, MI; Temple, TX; Oklahoma City, OK; Aurora, CO; Seattle, WA; and Phoenix, AZ, all indicated anticipated shortages. At least one facility explicitly worried about access to medications and supplies produced in China and concern about disrupted supply chains may have concerned other facilities as well.

Nevertheless, hydroxychloroquine was at the top of mind both OIG inspectors as well as Veterans Health Administration (VHA) officials. In a formal response to the OIG survey, the VHA asserted: “We object to OIG’s assertions that a 14-day supply of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine would have any merit. This is both inaccurate and irresponsible. There are active investigations into these drugs and many others, as discussed by Dr. Anthony Fauci. Yet no conclusions have been made on their effectiveness. To insist that a 14 days’ supply of these drugs is appropriate or not appropriate displays this dangerous lack of expertise on COVID-19 and Pandemic response.”

Hydroxychloroquine has been associated with serious adverse effects, such as cardiac arrhythmias and hypoglycemia, and its use against COVID-19 is based, so far, on thin evidence. It has shown promise in a laboratory setting against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and in small studies with patients. Nonetheless, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted limited emergency authorization for certain uses of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19. The rapid approval came apparently at the behest of the White House.

Former FDA leaders say the authorization has jeopardized research to learn the drugs’ real value in pandemic patients. They also charge that the decision undermines FDA’s scientific authority because it appears to be reacting to political advocacy. 

Despite the concerns, a run on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine has been underway. According to a March 20 blog post by Premier, a hospital purchasing organization, orders for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine jumped “dramatically” between March 1 and March 17, by 3,000% and 260%, respectively. Fortunately, these are older, relatively inexpensive oral drugs, Premier says, which means their manufacturing is “far less complicated” than for other drugs. To offer immediate help, Premier notes, drug makers such as Teva and Bayer have announced they will donate millions of tablets of the drugs to hospitals or the federal government for further testing.

Owing to “extraordinary public interest” in the off-label use of these drugs, numerous state boards of pharmacy have enacted emergency restrictions on the inappropriate dispensing of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, says the Quinism Foundation, a nonprofit organization that supports education and research on medical conditions caused by chloroquine and related drugs. And because of the very real potential for substitution of more dangerous quinolines (such as mefloquine) in place of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, the foundation recently called on state boards of pharmacy to enact uniform restrictions on the dispensing of all quinoline antimalarial drugs, with the understanding that any emergency use of any of these medications for public health purposes as attempted pandemic countermeasures would be best coordinated nationally through distribution from the Strategic National Stockpile.

In the meantime, research into hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness is ongoing. “Coming at it from every angle”—that’s how Terry Welch, spokesman for the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research told Task & Purpose the Army is “leveraging specific competencies” to attack the COVID-19 problem. Among other things, WRAIR’s Emerging Infectious Diseases Branch (EIDB) is working to develop a vaccine against COVID-19 infection, including several versions of a novel vaccine candidate that has been tested in humans. WRAIR has also been conducting research into novel treatments, such as drug candidates similar to those successfully developed to treat malaria, and monoclonal antibodies.

WRAI was able to start its anti-COVID-19 research in early January—directly on the heels of the first reported cases of infection—because of the Institute’s history of researching related viruses. “If we hadn’t done that, we’d be weeks behind,” said Dr. Kayvon Modjarrad, director of EIDB.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has also begun a clinical trial, the Outcomes Related to COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine among in-patients with symptomatic Diseases (ORCHID) study. The study will enroll more than 500 adults who are hospitalized with COVID-19 or in an emergency department awaiting hospitalization. All patients will continue to receive clinical care; some will be randomly assigned to also receive hydroxychloroquine. The first participants have been enrolled at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, one of the centers in the Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Network.

In the “urgent race to find effective therapies,” NIH also launched the first clinical trial in the US to evaluate remdesivir, a broad-spectrum antiviral, as a potential treatment for COVID-19.  The trial, which started March 6 at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, is expected to conclude in May. Clinical trials of remdesivir have been ongoing in China, where the virus originated. The NIH study “takes into account” those trial designs. 

Many US hospitals are already using hydroxychloroquine as first-line therapy for COVID-19 patients, despite the lack of supportive clinical evidence. Wesley Self, MD, MPH, lead investigator in the ORCHID trial, says “[D]ata on hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 are urgently needed to inform clinical practice.”

Not only research is needed, but clear expression of the facts about the drugs. In March, shortly after the president began lauding hydroxychloroquine, a Phoenix man died of cardiac arrest and his wife ended up in critical care after they misguidedly ingested chloroquine phosphate, a chemical used to clean fish tanks.  “[W]e understand that people are trying to find new ways to prevent or treat this virus,” said Dr. Daniel Brooks, medical director of the Banner Poison and Drug Information Center in Phoenix, “but self-medicating is not the way to do so.”

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and one of the main spokespersons for science in the hydroxychloroquine debate, has continued to try to make his concerns clear: “I think we’ve got to be careful that we don’t make that majestic leap to assume this is a knockout drug,” he said in late March. “We still need to do the kinds of studies that definitively prove whether any intervention—not just this one, any intervention—is truly safe and effective.”

“Whenever possible, we will develop innovative, low-cost, and small-footprint approaches to achieve our security objectives.” ¹

Team member and participant observations can deliver valuable insight into the effectiveness of an activity or project. Certainly, documentation of such qualitative assessment through survey questions or narratives can reveal important information for future action. This qualitative aspect was a significant consideration in the formation of an embedded health engagement team (EHET) intended to improve foreign assistance and health outcomes for global humanitarian and security cooperation activities.

Since health activities are centered on human interaction and relationships, some observation or qualitative assessment must be included to truly determine short-term local buy-in and long-term outcomes. The following observations include the direct narrative perspectives of team members from a multidisciplinary primary care EHET that add experiential depth to prior assessment of the pilot test of such teams during Continuing Promise 2011, a 9-country series of health engagement activities employed from the USNS Comfort.² The embedded team consisted of US Air Force (USAF), US Navy (USN), and nongovernmental organization (NGO) personnel working directly in a primary care clinic of the Costa Rican public health system.

This is small sample of a few team members who responded to a simple, open-ended prompt to record their impression of the EHET concept and experiences. Documenting this information should highlight the importance of seeking similar qualitative mission data for future health engagements. Standardized questionnaires have been used to evaluate health activities and have provided valuable analysis and recommendations that have advanced US Department of Defense (DoD) global health engagement.³ Captured narrative observation from the EHET pilot study is a complementary qualitative method that supports the concept of small, well prepared, culturally competent, EHETs tailored to work within a partner system rather than outside of it will achieve greater mutual benefit, including the application of better, more equitable health and health system principles.⁴ In this embedded manner, health care professionals may readily contribute to host nation health sector plans and goals while achieving military objectives, political goals, and mutual strategic interests through both military-military and military-civilian applications.

Observations and Reflections

Family Physician (Maj, Second Physician, USAF)

“Overall, the experience I had with the embedded team was truly rewarding. I hope this becomes a tool used to augment humanitarian missions. There is no way to truly understand a systems strengths and weakness except by being embedded in the clinic or hospital. For 3 days I worked alongside a bilingual physician at a local family practice clinic. The clinic did full spectrum family practice, including prenatal care. The doctor saw between 25 and 35 patients each day plus covered urgent care during lunch. Paper charting was used although the clinic is looking into electronic records. The clinic was very efficient. All team members were very aware of their roles and did their jobs with a smile and worked well together.

“Most patient encounters took between 10 and 15 minutes although the patient might stay around for IV therapy, intramuscular pain medications, or other treatments that were carried out by the nursing staff. There was a small procedure room and procedures would be performed on the same day they were identified. The nursing staff would set up everything, and in between patients the provider would complete the procedure. On the first day I mostly shadowed, but in the afternoon, I was asked to consult on some of the more complicated patients with diabetes mellitus or hypertension. On the second day I shadowed a health care provider who did not speak English and through an interpreter he asked for my input. In the afternoon the nursing staff asked me to discuss the treatment of abscesses. I discussed techniques of incision and drainage and importance of packing and proper wound care, worked with one of their wound care nurses on packing of several wounds, and consulted on a patient with a venous stasis ulcer.

“We identified an educational opportunity for the nursing staff. On the third day I brought a US certified wound care specialist and I gave a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation on venous stasis ulcers and proper wound care. The nursing staff and clinic were very receptive and asked if we would develop a patient-based educational presentation. The wound care specialist spent the afternoon giving hands-on demonstrations in the wound care clinic, and I taught technique for excisional biopsy of skin tags and moles to physicians. One of the host physicians arranged for more consultations on more of the clinic’s complicated patients, which included a staff member and a relative.”

Medical Technician (MSgt, E-7, Independent Duty Medical Technician, USAF)

“The first day I was assigned to work with the ‘auxiliaries,’ nurses working in the urgent care area at the clinic. Their urgent care area had limited equipment and supplies and included equipment such as mercury thermometers, a few stethoscopes and 1 blood pressure cuff. Their duties consisted of screening patients, starting IVs, giving injections and breathing treatments. They also had a minor surgery room where the nurses helped.

“During the observation of the placement of an IV catheter, I noticed that they were using a port and attaching a needle to the IV tubing and leaving the needle attached to the patient. I asked them about their procedure and incidents with needlesticks since they had to be pretty accurate in getting the needle through the port. The nurse stated there were a significant number of cases of needlesticks. The following day, we brought 18-g, 20-g, and 23-g IV catheters, saline locks, syringes, and our team’s junior physician and I instructed the nurses how to set up an IV without using the needle port.

“The third day at the clinic, I assisted in checking in patients (blood pressure, weight, interviews). I also helped run the immunizations clinic, assisting in giving both pediatric and adult immunizations. Since there was only 1 nurse on shift that day, we multitasked and also gave injections prescribed by the providers, such as medroxyprogesterone and dexamethasone. By far, this was the most rewarding part of the mission. I really felt as though we were part of the team and believe we truly made a difference.”

Administrator (LTC, Medical Service Corps, USN)

“I learned many items from our visit to Clinica Dr. Francisco Quintanas Area de Salud 4 Chacarita. I reviewed the business plan contained in two 1.5-inch hardbound books. Their business plan outlined the population served, projections for upcoming year, and contracts. Area 4 served 21,344 people (11,197 men and 10,147 women). The business plan reviewed historical encounter information (ie, average patient is seen 2.6 times annually, 203,285 laboratory tests were performed in 2010, no radiology capabilities) and contained metrics for key programs for upcoming year (eg, vaccinations, women wellness) that seemed similar to US Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures.

“Our partners discussed financing of the health care they provide, including money flows to and from the government, the work center, and the employees. The business plan contains contract information and costs for maintenance, utilities, personnel, and other issues that would be typical for US-based operations as well. Housekeeping, some of the secretaries, and security staff are not employees—they are contracted personnel. Money is shifted to meet unexpected needs (ie, in 2009/2010–H1N1 influenza was unanticipated). Money was taken from other programs to meet the need.

“Within the Area 4 clinics there are 94 personnel, including 15 physicians. They have a document that is similar to our Activity Manning Document, which outlines personnel billet code, name, and specialty. The Asistentes Técnicos de Atención Primaria are the personnel who conduct home visits and are a unique capability—we do not have an exact equivalent in most US health care systems. Pregnant workers are released from work 1 month prior to the due date and are expected to return to work 3 months postdelivery.”

Medical Logistics (Capt, Medical Service Corps, USAF)

“Costa Rica is still growing in aspects of national health care but has a reliable system in place it seems. Similar to many of the countries visited, it has great capacity for building, but is challenged to increase its infrastructure. In 2011, part of this was due to a recent economic decline in the nation and its health care sector. They have interaction both with other regional clinics managed under the same national health system construct (Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social) as well as with private practices and specialty services. The clinics are open only daytime business hours. Only the regional hospital is open 24/7 for emergent care.

“Supplies are distributed to the regional clinics primarily from San José (the capital and largest city), but also there are some smaller warehousing of clinical materials located around the region. One of these warehouses was in Puntarenas where our clinic was located. To get better information for future supply chain management support we would need to speak with the central distribution/suppliers of all nationalized clinic-run entities. What our partners did teach is that at a higher, national level the clinics are standardized with what they will carry and need to keep on-hand depending upon the clinic classification (ie, level 1, 2, or 3).

“Equipment is purchased similar to the DoD method: Requests are submitted toward the end of the year, the administration prioritizes the lists, and then buys what they feel is most beneficial to the clinic with the resources available. Our hosts stated that before the end of the year, it is very difficult to prioritize needs other than some of the items that they ‘always need’ because they are unlikely to receive items very low on their list. The hosts stated that they would be very interested in having a chance to receive any excess US military equipment from their priority lists if there was a mechanism to do so. In future EHET missions, advance coordination would need to occur to see if (locally compatible) equipment needs could be met through the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO). Alternatively, an embedded team focused on Biomedical Equipment repair could work alongside partners such as at this clinic to develop a sustainable preventive maintenance and equipment testing program. Advance coordination on equipment status would foster improvement for resourceful partner clinics such as Chacarita, with targeted involvement from US military biomedical equipment technicians.”

Discussion

These 4 firsthand accounts from a multidisciplinary, primary-care focused, EHET offers multiple preliminary evidence of the value of this small-scale embedded approach. The accounts are responses to an open-ended prompt for personal impressions and key thoughts as part of an EHET. Three of the advantages gleaned from these accounts are greater personal satisfaction, detailed insight into local operations and health systems, and deeper empathy and respect for common challenges despite health system differences compared with the US military health system.

These advantages are critical to afford the US military personnel the ability to more effectively execute engagement goals, such as meeting health needs in humanitarian assistance, advancing interoperable capacity for security cooperation, or achieving targeted training to enhance US medical operational skills. The greater personal satisfaction was evident in the team member responses that, despite mission stops in 7 prior countries, “This by far was the most rewarding part of the Continuing Promise 2011 mission” and “I hope this becomes a tool used to augment humanitarian missions.”

The descriptions by both the administrator and the logistician on the intimate details that the hosts shared with them is a testament to the rapid trust engendered by the embedded approach. There was a trust to share information as a result of acknowledged local strengths and legitimate interest in local challenges. Peer appreciation was evident; although they did not speak the same literal language, they spoke the same professional language, which was apparent even through the use of an interpreter.

A third advantage, evident from these written exchanges is a regular acknowledgement that health system issues, pursued processes, and desired outcomes are similar between different systems. There may be significant differences in actual resources and infrastructure, but some of the bureaucracy is similar. This last insight is essential to grasp in order to seek capacity building and interoperable solutions toward common goals; empathy is needed to encourage local ownership and sustainability while respecting local challenges and different problem-solving approaches and processes.

Conclusions 

The EHET concept afforded deep insight by team members into ways to partner with their hosts to target better health outcomes and meaningful partnership for potential long-term geopolitical impact. Long duration embedded teams, or recurrent insertion, in a single location will achieve greater long-term benefits because of greater health system and cultural understanding. EHETs, once accepted and refined from prototype to standard employment tool, should prove to be a more effective tool in building partnerships, building capacity, and increased security cooperation by using US military resources to support legitimate health needs either in a military-military or military-civilian setting.⁵ These firsthand accounts provide preliminary evidence that embedded teams may be a critical and needed tool to “ensure that military health engagement is appropriate, constructive, effective, and coordinated with other actors.”⁶

Acknowledgments

Additional original EHET team members included LCDR Jeanne Jimenez, RN; CDR Francine Worthington, Health Administrator; Maj Tony McClung, RN; Mrs. Romero, RN of LDS Charities, and the staff of the Chacarita clinics in Costa Rica.

“Whenever possible, we will develop innovative, low-cost, and small-footprint approaches to achieve our security objectives.” ¹

Team member and participant observations can deliver valuable insight into the effectiveness of an activity or project. Certainly, documentation of such qualitative assessment through survey questions or narratives can reveal important information for future action. This qualitative aspect was a significant consideration in the formation of an embedded health engagement team (EHET) intended to improve foreign assistance and health outcomes for global humanitarian and security cooperation activities.

Since health activities are centered on human interaction and relationships, some observation or qualitative assessment must be included to truly determine short-term local buy-in and long-term outcomes. The following observations include the direct narrative perspectives of team members from a multidisciplinary primary care EHET that add experiential depth to prior assessment of the pilot test of such teams during Continuing Promise 2011, a 9-country series of health engagement activities employed from the USNS Comfort.² The embedded team consisted of US Air Force (USAF), US Navy (USN), and nongovernmental organization (NGO) personnel working directly in a primary care clinic of the Costa Rican public health system.

This is small sample of a few team members who responded to a simple, open-ended prompt to record their impression of the EHET concept and experiences. Documenting this information should highlight the importance of seeking similar qualitative mission data for future health engagements. Standardized questionnaires have been used to evaluate health activities and have provided valuable analysis and recommendations that have advanced US Department of Defense (DoD) global health engagement.³ Captured narrative observation from the EHET pilot study is a complementary qualitative method that supports the concept of small, well prepared, culturally competent, EHETs tailored to work within a partner system rather than outside of it will achieve greater mutual benefit, including the application of better, more equitable health and health system principles.⁴ In this embedded manner, health care professionals may readily contribute to host nation health sector plans and goals while achieving military objectives, political goals, and mutual strategic interests through both military-military and military-civilian applications.

Observations and Reflections

Family Physician (Maj, Second Physician, USAF)

“Overall, the experience I had with the embedded team was truly rewarding. I hope this becomes a tool used to augment humanitarian missions. There is no way to truly understand a systems strengths and weakness except by being embedded in the clinic or hospital. For 3 days I worked alongside a bilingual physician at a local family practice clinic. The clinic did full spectrum family practice, including prenatal care. The doctor saw between 25 and 35 patients each day plus covered urgent care during lunch. Paper charting was used although the clinic is looking into electronic records. The clinic was very efficient. All team members were very aware of their roles and did their jobs with a smile and worked well together.

“Most patient encounters took between 10 and 15 minutes although the patient might stay around for IV therapy, intramuscular pain medications, or other treatments that were carried out by the nursing staff. There was a small procedure room and procedures would be performed on the same day they were identified. The nursing staff would set up everything, and in between patients the provider would complete the procedure. On the first day I mostly shadowed, but in the afternoon, I was asked to consult on some of the more complicated patients with diabetes mellitus or hypertension. On the second day I shadowed a health care provider who did not speak English and through an interpreter he asked for my input. In the afternoon the nursing staff asked me to discuss the treatment of abscesses. I discussed techniques of incision and drainage and importance of packing and proper wound care, worked with one of their wound care nurses on packing of several wounds, and consulted on a patient with a venous stasis ulcer.

“We identified an educational opportunity for the nursing staff. On the third day I brought a US certified wound care specialist and I gave a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation on venous stasis ulcers and proper wound care. The nursing staff and clinic were very receptive and asked if we would develop a patient-based educational presentation. The wound care specialist spent the afternoon giving hands-on demonstrations in the wound care clinic, and I taught technique for excisional biopsy of skin tags and moles to physicians. One of the host physicians arranged for more consultations on more of the clinic’s complicated patients, which included a staff member and a relative.”

Medical Technician (MSgt, E-7, Independent Duty Medical Technician, USAF)

“The first day I was assigned to work with the ‘auxiliaries,’ nurses working in the urgent care area at the clinic. Their urgent care area had limited equipment and supplies and included equipment such as mercury thermometers, a few stethoscopes and 1 blood pressure cuff. Their duties consisted of screening patients, starting IVs, giving injections and breathing treatments. They also had a minor surgery room where the nurses helped.

“During the observation of the placement of an IV catheter, I noticed that they were using a port and attaching a needle to the IV tubing and leaving the needle attached to the patient. I asked them about their procedure and incidents with needlesticks since they had to be pretty accurate in getting the needle through the port. The nurse stated there were a significant number of cases of needlesticks. The following day, we brought 18-g, 20-g, and 23-g IV catheters, saline locks, syringes, and our team’s junior physician and I instructed the nurses how to set up an IV without using the needle port.

“The third day at the clinic, I assisted in checking in patients (blood pressure, weight, interviews). I also helped run the immunizations clinic, assisting in giving both pediatric and adult immunizations. Since there was only 1 nurse on shift that day, we multitasked and also gave injections prescribed by the providers, such as medroxyprogesterone and dexamethasone. By far, this was the most rewarding part of the mission. I really felt as though we were part of the team and believe we truly made a difference.”

Administrator (LTC, Medical Service Corps, USN)

“I learned many items from our visit to Clinica Dr. Francisco Quintanas Area de Salud 4 Chacarita. I reviewed the business plan contained in two 1.5-inch hardbound books. Their business plan outlined the population served, projections for upcoming year, and contracts. Area 4 served 21,344 people (11,197 men and 10,147 women). The business plan reviewed historical encounter information (ie, average patient is seen 2.6 times annually, 203,285 laboratory tests were performed in 2010, no radiology capabilities) and contained metrics for key programs for upcoming year (eg, vaccinations, women wellness) that seemed similar to US Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures.

“Our partners discussed financing of the health care they provide, including money flows to and from the government, the work center, and the employees. The business plan contains contract information and costs for maintenance, utilities, personnel, and other issues that would be typical for US-based operations as well. Housekeeping, some of the secretaries, and security staff are not employees—they are contracted personnel. Money is shifted to meet unexpected needs (ie, in 2009/2010–H1N1 influenza was unanticipated). Money was taken from other programs to meet the need.

“Within the Area 4 clinics there are 94 personnel, including 15 physicians. They have a document that is similar to our Activity Manning Document, which outlines personnel billet code, name, and specialty. The Asistentes Técnicos de Atención Primaria are the personnel who conduct home visits and are a unique capability—we do not have an exact equivalent in most US health care systems. Pregnant workers are released from work 1 month prior to the due date and are expected to return to work 3 months postdelivery.”

Medical Logistics (Capt, Medical Service Corps, USAF)

“Costa Rica is still growing in aspects of national health care but has a reliable system in place it seems. Similar to many of the countries visited, it has great capacity for building, but is challenged to increase its infrastructure. In 2011, part of this was due to a recent economic decline in the nation and its health care sector. They have interaction both with other regional clinics managed under the same national health system construct (Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social) as well as with private practices and specialty services. The clinics are open only daytime business hours. Only the regional hospital is open 24/7 for emergent care.

“Supplies are distributed to the regional clinics primarily from San José (the capital and largest city), but also there are some smaller warehousing of clinical materials located around the region. One of these warehouses was in Puntarenas where our clinic was located. To get better information for future supply chain management support we would need to speak with the central distribution/suppliers of all nationalized clinic-run entities. What our partners did teach is that at a higher, national level the clinics are standardized with what they will carry and need to keep on-hand depending upon the clinic classification (ie, level 1, 2, or 3).

“Equipment is purchased similar to the DoD method: Requests are submitted toward the end of the year, the administration prioritizes the lists, and then buys what they feel is most beneficial to the clinic with the resources available. Our hosts stated that before the end of the year, it is very difficult to prioritize needs other than some of the items that they ‘always need’ because they are unlikely to receive items very low on their list. The hosts stated that they would be very interested in having a chance to receive any excess US military equipment from their priority lists if there was a mechanism to do so. In future EHET missions, advance coordination would need to occur to see if (locally compatible) equipment needs could be met through the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO). Alternatively, an embedded team focused on Biomedical Equipment repair could work alongside partners such as at this clinic to develop a sustainable preventive maintenance and equipment testing program. Advance coordination on equipment status would foster improvement for resourceful partner clinics such as Chacarita, with targeted involvement from US military biomedical equipment technicians.”

Discussion

These 4 firsthand accounts from a multidisciplinary, primary-care focused, EHET offers multiple preliminary evidence of the value of this small-scale embedded approach. The accounts are responses to an open-ended prompt for personal impressions and key thoughts as part of an EHET. Three of the advantages gleaned from these accounts are greater personal satisfaction, detailed insight into local operations and health systems, and deeper empathy and respect for common challenges despite health system differences compared with the US military health system.

These advantages are critical to afford the US military personnel the ability to more effectively execute engagement goals, such as meeting health needs in humanitarian assistance, advancing interoperable capacity for security cooperation, or achieving targeted training to enhance US medical operational skills. The greater personal satisfaction was evident in the team member responses that, despite mission stops in 7 prior countries, “This by far was the most rewarding part of the Continuing Promise 2011 mission” and “I hope this becomes a tool used to augment humanitarian missions.”

The descriptions by both the administrator and the logistician on the intimate details that the hosts shared with them is a testament to the rapid trust engendered by the embedded approach. There was a trust to share information as a result of acknowledged local strengths and legitimate interest in local challenges. Peer appreciation was evident; although they did not speak the same literal language, they spoke the same professional language, which was apparent even through the use of an interpreter.

A third advantage, evident from these written exchanges is a regular acknowledgement that health system issues, pursued processes, and desired outcomes are similar between different systems. There may be significant differences in actual resources and infrastructure, but some of the bureaucracy is similar. This last insight is essential to grasp in order to seek capacity building and interoperable solutions toward common goals; empathy is needed to encourage local ownership and sustainability while respecting local challenges and different problem-solving approaches and processes.

Conclusions 

The EHET concept afforded deep insight by team members into ways to partner with their hosts to target better health outcomes and meaningful partnership for potential long-term geopolitical impact. Long duration embedded teams, or recurrent insertion, in a single location will achieve greater long-term benefits because of greater health system and cultural understanding. EHETs, once accepted and refined from prototype to standard employment tool, should prove to be a more effective tool in building partnerships, building capacity, and increased security cooperation by using US military resources to support legitimate health needs either in a military-military or military-civilian setting.⁵ These firsthand accounts provide preliminary evidence that embedded teams may be a critical and needed tool to “ensure that military health engagement is appropriate, constructive, effective, and coordinated with other actors.”⁶

Acknowledgments

Additional original EHET team members included LCDR Jeanne Jimenez, RN; CDR Francine Worthington, Health Administrator; Maj Tony McClung, RN; Mrs. Romero, RN of LDS Charities, and the staff of the Chacarita clinics in Costa Rica.

“Whenever possible, we will develop innovative, low-cost, and small-footprint approaches to achieve our security objectives.” ¹

Team member and participant observations can deliver valuable insight into the effectiveness of an activity or project. Certainly, documentation of such qualitative assessment through survey questions or narratives can reveal important information for future action. This qualitative aspect was a significant consideration in the formation of an embedded health engagement team (EHET) intended to improve foreign assistance and health outcomes for global humanitarian and security cooperation activities.

Since health activities are centered on human interaction and relationships, some observation or qualitative assessment must be included to truly determine short-term local buy-in and long-term outcomes. The following observations include the direct narrative perspectives of team members from a multidisciplinary primary care EHET that add experiential depth to prior assessment of the pilot test of such teams during Continuing Promise 2011, a 9-country series of health engagement activities employed from the USNS Comfort.² The embedded team consisted of US Air Force (USAF), US Navy (USN), and nongovernmental organization (NGO) personnel working directly in a primary care clinic of the Costa Rican public health system.

This is small sample of a few team members who responded to a simple, open-ended prompt to record their impression of the EHET concept and experiences. Documenting this information should highlight the importance of seeking similar qualitative mission data for future health engagements. Standardized questionnaires have been used to evaluate health activities and have provided valuable analysis and recommendations that have advanced US Department of Defense (DoD) global health engagement.³ Captured narrative observation from the EHET pilot study is a complementary qualitative method that supports the concept of small, well prepared, culturally competent, EHETs tailored to work within a partner system rather than outside of it will achieve greater mutual benefit, including the application of better, more equitable health and health system principles.⁴ In this embedded manner, health care professionals may readily contribute to host nation health sector plans and goals while achieving military objectives, political goals, and mutual strategic interests through both military-military and military-civilian applications.

Observations and Reflections

Family Physician (Maj, Second Physician, USAF)

“Overall, the experience I had with the embedded team was truly rewarding. I hope this becomes a tool used to augment humanitarian missions. There is no way to truly understand a systems strengths and weakness except by being embedded in the clinic or hospital. For 3 days I worked alongside a bilingual physician at a local family practice clinic. The clinic did full spectrum family practice, including prenatal care. The doctor saw between 25 and 35 patients each day plus covered urgent care during lunch. Paper charting was used although the clinic is looking into electronic records. The clinic was very efficient. All team members were very aware of their roles and did their jobs with a smile and worked well together.

“Most patient encounters took between 10 and 15 minutes although the patient might stay around for IV therapy, intramuscular pain medications, or other treatments that were carried out by the nursing staff. There was a small procedure room and procedures would be performed on the same day they were identified. The nursing staff would set up everything, and in between patients the provider would complete the procedure. On the first day I mostly shadowed, but in the afternoon, I was asked to consult on some of the more complicated patients with diabetes mellitus or hypertension. On the second day I shadowed a health care provider who did not speak English and through an interpreter he asked for my input. In the afternoon the nursing staff asked me to discuss the treatment of abscesses. I discussed techniques of incision and drainage and importance of packing and proper wound care, worked with one of their wound care nurses on packing of several wounds, and consulted on a patient with a venous stasis ulcer.

“We identified an educational opportunity for the nursing staff. On the third day I brought a US certified wound care specialist and I gave a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation on venous stasis ulcers and proper wound care. The nursing staff and clinic were very receptive and asked if we would develop a patient-based educational presentation. The wound care specialist spent the afternoon giving hands-on demonstrations in the wound care clinic, and I taught technique for excisional biopsy of skin tags and moles to physicians. One of the host physicians arranged for more consultations on more of the clinic’s complicated patients, which included a staff member and a relative.”

Medical Technician (MSgt, E-7, Independent Duty Medical Technician, USAF)

“The first day I was assigned to work with the ‘auxiliaries,’ nurses working in the urgent care area at the clinic. Their urgent care area had limited equipment and supplies and included equipment such as mercury thermometers, a few stethoscopes and 1 blood pressure cuff. Their duties consisted of screening patients, starting IVs, giving injections and breathing treatments. They also had a minor surgery room where the nurses helped.

“During the observation of the placement of an IV catheter, I noticed that they were using a port and attaching a needle to the IV tubing and leaving the needle attached to the patient. I asked them about their procedure and incidents with needlesticks since they had to be pretty accurate in getting the needle through the port. The nurse stated there were a significant number of cases of needlesticks. The following day, we brought 18-g, 20-g, and 23-g IV catheters, saline locks, syringes, and our team’s junior physician and I instructed the nurses how to set up an IV without using the needle port.

“The third day at the clinic, I assisted in checking in patients (blood pressure, weight, interviews). I also helped run the immunizations clinic, assisting in giving both pediatric and adult immunizations. Since there was only 1 nurse on shift that day, we multitasked and also gave injections prescribed by the providers, such as medroxyprogesterone and dexamethasone. By far, this was the most rewarding part of the mission. I really felt as though we were part of the team and believe we truly made a difference.”

Administrator (LTC, Medical Service Corps, USN)

“I learned many items from our visit to Clinica Dr. Francisco Quintanas Area de Salud 4 Chacarita. I reviewed the business plan contained in two 1.5-inch hardbound books. Their business plan outlined the population served, projections for upcoming year, and contracts. Area 4 served 21,344 people (11,197 men and 10,147 women). The business plan reviewed historical encounter information (ie, average patient is seen 2.6 times annually, 203,285 laboratory tests were performed in 2010, no radiology capabilities) and contained metrics for key programs for upcoming year (eg, vaccinations, women wellness) that seemed similar to US Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures.

“Our partners discussed financing of the health care they provide, including money flows to and from the government, the work center, and the employees. The business plan contains contract information and costs for maintenance, utilities, personnel, and other issues that would be typical for US-based operations as well. Housekeeping, some of the secretaries, and security staff are not employees—they are contracted personnel. Money is shifted to meet unexpected needs (ie, in 2009/2010–H1N1 influenza was unanticipated). Money was taken from other programs to meet the need.

“Within the Area 4 clinics there are 94 personnel, including 15 physicians. They have a document that is similar to our Activity Manning Document, which outlines personnel billet code, name, and specialty. The Asistentes Técnicos de Atención Primaria are the personnel who conduct home visits and are a unique capability—we do not have an exact equivalent in most US health care systems. Pregnant workers are released from work 1 month prior to the due date and are expected to return to work 3 months postdelivery.”

Medical Logistics (Capt, Medical Service Corps, USAF)

“Costa Rica is still growing in aspects of national health care but has a reliable system in place it seems. Similar to many of the countries visited, it has great capacity for building, but is challenged to increase its infrastructure. In 2011, part of this was due to a recent economic decline in the nation and its health care sector. They have interaction both with other regional clinics managed under the same national health system construct (Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social) as well as with private practices and specialty services. The clinics are open only daytime business hours. Only the regional hospital is open 24/7 for emergent care.

“Supplies are distributed to the regional clinics primarily from San José (the capital and largest city), but also there are some smaller warehousing of clinical materials located around the region. One of these warehouses was in Puntarenas where our clinic was located. To get better information for future supply chain management support we would need to speak with the central distribution/suppliers of all nationalized clinic-run entities. What our partners did teach is that at a higher, national level the clinics are standardized with what they will carry and need to keep on-hand depending upon the clinic classification (ie, level 1, 2, or 3).

“Equipment is purchased similar to the DoD method: Requests are submitted toward the end of the year, the administration prioritizes the lists, and then buys what they feel is most beneficial to the clinic with the resources available. Our hosts stated that before the end of the year, it is very difficult to prioritize needs other than some of the items that they ‘always need’ because they are unlikely to receive items very low on their list. The hosts stated that they would be very interested in having a chance to receive any excess US military equipment from their priority lists if there was a mechanism to do so. In future EHET missions, advance coordination would need to occur to see if (locally compatible) equipment needs could be met through the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO). Alternatively, an embedded team focused on Biomedical Equipment repair could work alongside partners such as at this clinic to develop a sustainable preventive maintenance and equipment testing program. Advance coordination on equipment status would foster improvement for resourceful partner clinics such as Chacarita, with targeted involvement from US military biomedical equipment technicians.”

Discussion

These 4 firsthand accounts from a multidisciplinary, primary-care focused, EHET offers multiple preliminary evidence of the value of this small-scale embedded approach. The accounts are responses to an open-ended prompt for personal impressions and key thoughts as part of an EHET. Three of the advantages gleaned from these accounts are greater personal satisfaction, detailed insight into local operations and health systems, and deeper empathy and respect for common challenges despite health system differences compared with the US military health system.

These advantages are critical to afford the US military personnel the ability to more effectively execute engagement goals, such as meeting health needs in humanitarian assistance, advancing interoperable capacity for security cooperation, or achieving targeted training to enhance US medical operational skills. The greater personal satisfaction was evident in the team member responses that, despite mission stops in 7 prior countries, “This by far was the most rewarding part of the Continuing Promise 2011 mission” and “I hope this becomes a tool used to augment humanitarian missions.”

The descriptions by both the administrator and the logistician on the intimate details that the hosts shared with them is a testament to the rapid trust engendered by the embedded approach. There was a trust to share information as a result of acknowledged local strengths and legitimate interest in local challenges. Peer appreciation was evident; although they did not speak the same literal language, they spoke the same professional language, which was apparent even through the use of an interpreter.

A third advantage, evident from these written exchanges is a regular acknowledgement that health system issues, pursued processes, and desired outcomes are similar between different systems. There may be significant differences in actual resources and infrastructure, but some of the bureaucracy is similar. This last insight is essential to grasp in order to seek capacity building and interoperable solutions toward common goals; empathy is needed to encourage local ownership and sustainability while respecting local challenges and different problem-solving approaches and processes.

Conclusions 

The EHET concept afforded deep insight by team members into ways to partner with their hosts to target better health outcomes and meaningful partnership for potential long-term geopolitical impact. Long duration embedded teams, or recurrent insertion, in a single location will achieve greater long-term benefits because of greater health system and cultural understanding. EHETs, once accepted and refined from prototype to standard employment tool, should prove to be a more effective tool in building partnerships, building capacity, and increased security cooperation by using US military resources to support legitimate health needs either in a military-military or military-civilian setting.⁵ These firsthand accounts provide preliminary evidence that embedded teams may be a critical and needed tool to “ensure that military health engagement is appropriate, constructive, effective, and coordinated with other actors.”⁶

Acknowledgments

Additional original EHET team members included LCDR Jeanne Jimenez, RN; CDR Francine Worthington, Health Administrator; Maj Tony McClung, RN; Mrs. Romero, RN of LDS Charities, and the staff of the Chacarita clinics in Costa Rica.

Hospitals across the country encountered severe challenges as the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic swept over them, and they anticipated much worse to come, according to a new report from the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

From March 23 to 27, the OIG interviewed 323 hospitals of several types in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The report it pulled together from these interviews is intended to help HHS manage the crisis, rather than to review its response to the pandemic, the OIG said.

The most significant hospital challenges, the report states, were testing and caring for patients with known or suspected COVID-19 and protecting staff members. In addition, the hospitals faced challenges in maintaining or expanding their capacities to treat COVID-19 patients and ensuring the adequacy of basic supplies.

The critical shortages of ventilators, personal protective equipment (PPE), and test kits in hospitals have been widely reported by the media. But the OIG report also focused on some areas that have received less press attention.

To begin with, the shortage of tests has not only slowed the national response to the pandemic, but has had a major impact on inpatient care, according to the report’s authors. The limited number of test kits means that only symptomatic staff members and patients can be tested; in some hospitals, there aren’t even enough tests for that, and some facilities subdivided the test kits they had, the report states.

Moreover, the test results often took 7 days or more to come back from commercial or government labs, the report states. In the meantime, symptomatic patients were presumed to have the coronavirus. While awaiting the results, they had to stay in the hospital, using beds and requiring staff who could otherwise have been assigned to other patients.

The doctors and nurse who cared for these presumptive COVID-19 patients also had to take time suiting up in PPE before seeing them; much of that scarce PPE was wasted on those who were later found not to have the illness.

As one administrator explained to OIG, “Sitting with 60 patients with presumed positives in our hospital isn’t healthy for anybody.”

Delayed test results also reduced hospitals’ ability to provide care by sidelining clinicians who reported COVID-19 symptoms. In one hospital, 20% to 25% of staff were determined to be presumptively positive for COVID-19. As a result of their tests not being analyzed promptly, these doctors and nurses were prevented from providing clinical services for longer than necessary.
 

Supply Shortages

The report also described some factors contributing to mask shortages. Because of the fear factor, for example, all staff members in one hospital were wearing masks, instead of just those in designated areas. An administrator said the hospital was using 2,000 masks a day, 10 times the number before the COVID-19 crisis.

Another hospital received 2,300 N95 masks from a state reserve, but they were unusable because the elastic bands had dry-rotted.

Meanwhile, some vendors were profiteering. Masks that used to cost 50 cents now sold for $6 each, one administrator said.

To combat the supply chain disruptions, some facilities were buying PPE from nontraditional sources such as online retailers, home supply stores, paint stores, autobody supply shops, and beauty salons. Other hospitals were using non–medical-grade PPE such as construction masks and handmade masks and gowns.

Other hospitals reported they were conserving and reusing PPE to stretch their supplies. In some cases, they had even changed policies to reduce the extent and frequency of patient interactions with clinicians so the latter would have to change their gear less often.

Shortages of other critical supplies and materials were also reported. Hospitals were running out of supplies that supported patient rooms, such as IV poles, medical gas, linens, toilet paper, and food.

Hospitals across the country were also expecting or experiencing a shortage of ventilators, although none said any patients had been denied access to them. Some institutions were adapting anesthesia machines and single-use emergency transport ventilators.

Also concerning to hospitals was the shortage of intensive-care specialists and nurses to operate the ventilators and care for critically ill patients. Some facilities were training anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and other nonintensivists on how to use the lifesaving equipment.

Meanwhile, patients with COVID-19 symptoms were continuing to show up in droves at emergency departments. Hospitals were concerned about potential shortages of ICU beds, negative-pressure rooms, and isolation units. Given limited bed availability, some administrators said, it was getting hard to separate COVID-19 from non–COVID-19 patients.
 

What Hospitals Want

As the COVID-19 crisis continues to mount, many hospitals are facing financial emergencies as well, the report noted.

“Hospitals described increasing costs and decreasing revenues as a threat to their financial viability. Hospitals reported that ceasing elective procedures and other services decreased revenues at the same time that their costs have increased as they prepare for a potential surge of patients. Many hospitals reported that their cash reserves were quickly depleting, which could disrupt ongoing hospital operations,” the authors write.

This report was conducted a few days before the passage of the CURES Act, which earmarked $100 billion for hospitals on the frontline of the crisis. As a recent analysis of financial hospital data revealed, however, even with the 20% bump in Medicare payments for COVID-19 care that this cash infusion represents, many hospitals will face a cash-flow crunch within 60 to 90 days, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Besides higher Medicare payments, the OIG report said, hospitals wanted the government to drop the 14-day waiting period for reimbursement and to offer them loans and grants.

Hospitals also want federal and state governments to relax regulations on professional licensing of, and business relationships with, doctors and other clinicians. They’d like the government to:

• Let them reassign licensed professionals within their hospitals and across healthcare networks
• Provide flexibility with respect to licensed professionals practicing across state lines
• Provide relief from regulations that may restrict using contracted staff or physicians based on business relationships

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospitals across the country encountered severe challenges as the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic swept over them, and they anticipated much worse to come, according to a new report from the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

From March 23 to 27, the OIG interviewed 323 hospitals of several types in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The report it pulled together from these interviews is intended to help HHS manage the crisis, rather than to review its response to the pandemic, the OIG said.

The most significant hospital challenges, the report states, were testing and caring for patients with known or suspected COVID-19 and protecting staff members. In addition, the hospitals faced challenges in maintaining or expanding their capacities to treat COVID-19 patients and ensuring the adequacy of basic supplies.

The critical shortages of ventilators, personal protective equipment (PPE), and test kits in hospitals have been widely reported by the media. But the OIG report also focused on some areas that have received less press attention.

To begin with, the shortage of tests has not only slowed the national response to the pandemic, but has had a major impact on inpatient care, according to the report’s authors. The limited number of test kits means that only symptomatic staff members and patients can be tested; in some hospitals, there aren’t even enough tests for that, and some facilities subdivided the test kits they had, the report states.

Moreover, the test results often took 7 days or more to come back from commercial or government labs, the report states. In the meantime, symptomatic patients were presumed to have the coronavirus. While awaiting the results, they had to stay in the hospital, using beds and requiring staff who could otherwise have been assigned to other patients.

The doctors and nurse who cared for these presumptive COVID-19 patients also had to take time suiting up in PPE before seeing them; much of that scarce PPE was wasted on those who were later found not to have the illness.

As one administrator explained to OIG, “Sitting with 60 patients with presumed positives in our hospital isn’t healthy for anybody.”

Delayed test results also reduced hospitals’ ability to provide care by sidelining clinicians who reported COVID-19 symptoms. In one hospital, 20% to 25% of staff were determined to be presumptively positive for COVID-19. As a result of their tests not being analyzed promptly, these doctors and nurses were prevented from providing clinical services for longer than necessary.
 

Supply Shortages

The report also described some factors contributing to mask shortages. Because of the fear factor, for example, all staff members in one hospital were wearing masks, instead of just those in designated areas. An administrator said the hospital was using 2,000 masks a day, 10 times the number before the COVID-19 crisis.

Another hospital received 2,300 N95 masks from a state reserve, but they were unusable because the elastic bands had dry-rotted.

Meanwhile, some vendors were profiteering. Masks that used to cost 50 cents now sold for $6 each, one administrator said.

To combat the supply chain disruptions, some facilities were buying PPE from nontraditional sources such as online retailers, home supply stores, paint stores, autobody supply shops, and beauty salons. Other hospitals were using non–medical-grade PPE such as construction masks and handmade masks and gowns.

Other hospitals reported they were conserving and reusing PPE to stretch their supplies. In some cases, they had even changed policies to reduce the extent and frequency of patient interactions with clinicians so the latter would have to change their gear less often.

Shortages of other critical supplies and materials were also reported. Hospitals were running out of supplies that supported patient rooms, such as IV poles, medical gas, linens, toilet paper, and food.

Hospitals across the country were also expecting or experiencing a shortage of ventilators, although none said any patients had been denied access to them. Some institutions were adapting anesthesia machines and single-use emergency transport ventilators.

Also concerning to hospitals was the shortage of intensive-care specialists and nurses to operate the ventilators and care for critically ill patients. Some facilities were training anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and other nonintensivists on how to use the lifesaving equipment.

Meanwhile, patients with COVID-19 symptoms were continuing to show up in droves at emergency departments. Hospitals were concerned about potential shortages of ICU beds, negative-pressure rooms, and isolation units. Given limited bed availability, some administrators said, it was getting hard to separate COVID-19 from non–COVID-19 patients.
 

What Hospitals Want

As the COVID-19 crisis continues to mount, many hospitals are facing financial emergencies as well, the report noted.

“Hospitals described increasing costs and decreasing revenues as a threat to their financial viability. Hospitals reported that ceasing elective procedures and other services decreased revenues at the same time that their costs have increased as they prepare for a potential surge of patients. Many hospitals reported that their cash reserves were quickly depleting, which could disrupt ongoing hospital operations,” the authors write.

This report was conducted a few days before the passage of the CURES Act, which earmarked $100 billion for hospitals on the frontline of the crisis. As a recent analysis of financial hospital data revealed, however, even with the 20% bump in Medicare payments for COVID-19 care that this cash infusion represents, many hospitals will face a cash-flow crunch within 60 to 90 days, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Besides higher Medicare payments, the OIG report said, hospitals wanted the government to drop the 14-day waiting period for reimbursement and to offer them loans and grants.

Hospitals also want federal and state governments to relax regulations on professional licensing of, and business relationships with, doctors and other clinicians. They’d like the government to:

• Let them reassign licensed professionals within their hospitals and across healthcare networks
• Provide flexibility with respect to licensed professionals practicing across state lines
• Provide relief from regulations that may restrict using contracted staff or physicians based on business relationships

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospitals across the country encountered severe challenges as the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic swept over them, and they anticipated much worse to come, according to a new report from the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

From March 23 to 27, the OIG interviewed 323 hospitals of several types in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The report it pulled together from these interviews is intended to help HHS manage the crisis, rather than to review its response to the pandemic, the OIG said.

The most significant hospital challenges, the report states, were testing and caring for patients with known or suspected COVID-19 and protecting staff members. In addition, the hospitals faced challenges in maintaining or expanding their capacities to treat COVID-19 patients and ensuring the adequacy of basic supplies.

The critical shortages of ventilators, personal protective equipment (PPE), and test kits in hospitals have been widely reported by the media. But the OIG report also focused on some areas that have received less press attention.

To begin with, the shortage of tests has not only slowed the national response to the pandemic, but has had a major impact on inpatient care, according to the report’s authors. The limited number of test kits means that only symptomatic staff members and patients can be tested; in some hospitals, there aren’t even enough tests for that, and some facilities subdivided the test kits they had, the report states.

Moreover, the test results often took 7 days or more to come back from commercial or government labs, the report states. In the meantime, symptomatic patients were presumed to have the coronavirus. While awaiting the results, they had to stay in the hospital, using beds and requiring staff who could otherwise have been assigned to other patients.

The doctors and nurse who cared for these presumptive COVID-19 patients also had to take time suiting up in PPE before seeing them; much of that scarce PPE was wasted on those who were later found not to have the illness.

As one administrator explained to OIG, “Sitting with 60 patients with presumed positives in our hospital isn’t healthy for anybody.”

Delayed test results also reduced hospitals’ ability to provide care by sidelining clinicians who reported COVID-19 symptoms. In one hospital, 20% to 25% of staff were determined to be presumptively positive for COVID-19. As a result of their tests not being analyzed promptly, these doctors and nurses were prevented from providing clinical services for longer than necessary.
 

Supply Shortages

The report also described some factors contributing to mask shortages. Because of the fear factor, for example, all staff members in one hospital were wearing masks, instead of just those in designated areas. An administrator said the hospital was using 2,000 masks a day, 10 times the number before the COVID-19 crisis.

Another hospital received 2,300 N95 masks from a state reserve, but they were unusable because the elastic bands had dry-rotted.

Meanwhile, some vendors were profiteering. Masks that used to cost 50 cents now sold for $6 each, one administrator said.

To combat the supply chain disruptions, some facilities were buying PPE from nontraditional sources such as online retailers, home supply stores, paint stores, autobody supply shops, and beauty salons. Other hospitals were using non–medical-grade PPE such as construction masks and handmade masks and gowns.

Other hospitals reported they were conserving and reusing PPE to stretch their supplies. In some cases, they had even changed policies to reduce the extent and frequency of patient interactions with clinicians so the latter would have to change their gear less often.

Shortages of other critical supplies and materials were also reported. Hospitals were running out of supplies that supported patient rooms, such as IV poles, medical gas, linens, toilet paper, and food.

Hospitals across the country were also expecting or experiencing a shortage of ventilators, although none said any patients had been denied access to them. Some institutions were adapting anesthesia machines and single-use emergency transport ventilators.

Also concerning to hospitals was the shortage of intensive-care specialists and nurses to operate the ventilators and care for critically ill patients. Some facilities were training anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and other nonintensivists on how to use the lifesaving equipment.

Meanwhile, patients with COVID-19 symptoms were continuing to show up in droves at emergency departments. Hospitals were concerned about potential shortages of ICU beds, negative-pressure rooms, and isolation units. Given limited bed availability, some administrators said, it was getting hard to separate COVID-19 from non–COVID-19 patients.
 

What Hospitals Want

As the COVID-19 crisis continues to mount, many hospitals are facing financial emergencies as well, the report noted.

“Hospitals described increasing costs and decreasing revenues as a threat to their financial viability. Hospitals reported that ceasing elective procedures and other services decreased revenues at the same time that their costs have increased as they prepare for a potential surge of patients. Many hospitals reported that their cash reserves were quickly depleting, which could disrupt ongoing hospital operations,” the authors write.

This report was conducted a few days before the passage of the CURES Act, which earmarked $100 billion for hospitals on the frontline of the crisis. As a recent analysis of financial hospital data revealed, however, even with the 20% bump in Medicare payments for COVID-19 care that this cash infusion represents, many hospitals will face a cash-flow crunch within 60 to 90 days, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Besides higher Medicare payments, the OIG report said, hospitals wanted the government to drop the 14-day waiting period for reimbursement and to offer them loans and grants.

Hospitals also want federal and state governments to relax regulations on professional licensing of, and business relationships with, doctors and other clinicians. They’d like the government to:

• Let them reassign licensed professionals within their hospitals and across healthcare networks
• Provide flexibility with respect to licensed professionals practicing across state lines
• Provide relief from regulations that may restrict using contracted staff or physicians based on business relationships

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.