ReportWire

Tag: medical care

  • KneeMo Wants to Help Knee Pain Sufferers Get Moving | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Dr. Tom Andriacchi, PhD, is Professor Emeritus at Stanford University, President of SomaTX Design, and co-inventor of KneeMo, “the first smart wearable designed specifically to reduce knee pain during movement,” he told Entrepreneur. We asked Andriacchi how his company developed the product, the business moves he’s made to get it out into the world, and his best advice for entrepreneurs in the health tech space.

    Can you explain how KneeMo is different from other knee pain products?
    Unlike standard braces that simply support or compress the joint, KneeMo actively uses motion-sensing technology and vibration therapy to reduce pain in real time. The result is that people can stay active, preserve their independence, and avoid the physical and mental consequences of a sedentary lifestyle. What makes KneeMo unique is that it isn’t just an idea—it’s been rigorously developed and clinically tested at Stanford University in a peer-reviewed trial. We began with a soft launch in 2024, but KneeMo officially launched earlier this year. My role is to guide the company’s direction while making sure the science we developed translates into something useful, accessible, and impactful for people living with knee pain.

    Related: ‘What If It All Works?’: The Mindset Shift That Helped This Entrepreneur Build a $20 Million Fashion Brand In 4 Months

    What inspired you to create it?
    The inspiration came from a fundamental question: could we move beyond passive support and actually change how people experience knee pain while in motion? Given KneeMo’s distinctive design, we knew we needed to test whether it could make a measurable difference. We ran a rigorous placebo-controlled trial with patients experiencing documented knee pain. The “aha moment” came when we saw the results—patients were walking more easily and climbing stairs with less pain, sometimes after just a few steps. The improvements in function were immediate, visible, and far exceeded our expectations. That pivotal moment convinced me to devote the next decade to building a company that could take KneeMo out of the lab and into people’s lives.

    Any lessons about effective marketing you can share?
    Absolutely. First, don’t underestimate the cost and complexity of going head-to-head with established brands in direct-to-consumer marketing—you need to be strategic, not just loud. Second, with a novel medical product, education is everything. People need to understand not just what it is, but why it works. That means explaining the science clearly, sharing real patient outcomes, and pointing to clinical data. Finally, you have to justify your product’s cost compared to competitors. If you’re asking people to invest in something new, you owe them transparency about the value and impact.

    How has the feedback been from users?
    In our initial clinical study at Stanford, 95 percent of participants showed prompt improvement in quadriceps function, sometimes within just a few steps of using KneeMo. That number is powerful not just scientifically, but personally—it represents people regaining mobility, independence, and hope.

    Related: He Hated Furniture Shopping. So He Built a Business to Do It for Him.

    What does the word “entrepreneur” mean to you?
    For me, entrepreneurship is defined by innovation, motivation, commitment, and perseverance. It’s about seeing potential where others see limits, and having the grit to push through setbacks to bring that potential to life. It’s not just about creating a product—it’s about creating an opportunity for real change.

    What is something many aspiring business owners think they need that they really don’t?
    There’s a common misconception that having the absolute “best” product guarantees success. But history proves otherwise—think of VHS overtaking Betamax. In reality, qualified and experienced leadership is the most critical asset. The right team and execution can make a good product successful, while the “best” product without strong leadership often fails.

    Dr. Tom Andriacchi, PhD, is Professor Emeritus at Stanford University, President of SomaTX Design, and co-inventor of KneeMo, “the first smart wearable designed specifically to reduce knee pain during movement,” he told Entrepreneur. We asked Andriacchi how his company developed the product, the business moves he’s made to get it out into the world, and his best advice for entrepreneurs in the health tech space.

    Can you explain how KneeMo is different from other knee pain products?
    Unlike standard braces that simply support or compress the joint, KneeMo actively uses motion-sensing technology and vibration therapy to reduce pain in real time. The result is that people can stay active, preserve their independence, and avoid the physical and mental consequences of a sedentary lifestyle. What makes KneeMo unique is that it isn’t just an idea—it’s been rigorously developed and clinically tested at Stanford University in a peer-reviewed trial. We began with a soft launch in 2024, but KneeMo officially launched earlier this year. My role is to guide the company’s direction while making sure the science we developed translates into something useful, accessible, and impactful for people living with knee pain.

    Related: ‘What If It All Works?’: The Mindset Shift That Helped This Entrepreneur Build a $20 Million Fashion Brand In 4 Months

    The rest of this article is locked.

    Join Entrepreneur+ today for access.

    [ad_2]

    Dan Bova

    Source link

  • Military families sue Trump administration over gender-affirming care ban

    [ad_1]

    Three military families are suing the Department of Defense over a policy that prevents military clinics or insurance from covering gender-affirming care.

    The case, Doe v. Department of Defense, was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law) and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR) on behalf of three servicemembers and their families. The plaintiffs, who are using pseudonyms, had obtained the care for their transgender children through the military health system for over a decade before the Trump administration prohibited it.

    “President Trump has illegally overstepped his authority by abruptly cutting off necessary medical care for military families,” Shannon Minter, Legal Director at NCLR, said in a statement. “This lawless directive is part of a dangerous pattern of this administration ignoring legal requirements and abandoning our servicemembers.”

    Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued a rule in February banning gender-affirming medical care for trans service members as well as preventing new enlistments of individuals with a history of gender dysphoria, which stated, “Effective immediately, all new accessions for individuals with a history of gender dysphoria are paused, and all unscheduled, scheduled, or planned medical procedures associated with affirming or facilitating a gender transition for service members are paused.”

    Hegseth’s orders were temporarily blocked by a federal court in April, with the judges finding the restrictions to be unconstitutional. Despite this, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs Dr. Stephen Ferrara issued a decision in May to move forward with the restrictions.

    The Pentagon policies came alongside Donald Trump’s executive order banning trans troops from serving in the military altogether. The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the administration to enforce the ban while lawsuits against it are heard.

    “This is a sweeping reversal of military health policy and a betrayal of military families who have sacrificed for our country,” said Sarah Austin, Staff Attorney at GLAD Law. “When a servicemember is deployed and focused on the mission they deserve to know their family is taken care of. This Administration has backtracked on that core promise and put servicemembers at risk of losing access to health care their children desperately need.”

    This article originally appeared on Advocate: Military families sue Trump administration over gender-affirming care ban

    RELATED

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ZetrOZ Systems Announces $20,000 STEM Scholarship for Healthcare Students and Professionals

    ZetrOZ Systems Announces $20,000 STEM Scholarship for Healthcare Students and Professionals

    [ad_1]

    Developer of the sam wearable ultrasound technology launches a unique opportunity for students and healthcare professionals to support costs of education or research.

    ZetrOZ Systems, inventor of sustained acoustic medicine and the sam® wearable ultrasound technologies, announces a $20,000 STEM scholarship opportunity for healthcare professionals and students in training. The initiative demonstrates ZetrOZ’s commitment to advancing global healthcare and innovation in medical care.

    The program will provide four $5,000 scholarships to students or healthcare professionals in support of their educational or research expenses. Applications are due July 31, and ZetrOZ Systems will announce winners in August and September, showcasing the recipients’ potential to drive change in healthcare.

    “We are proud to sponsor an opportunity for students and healthcare professionals to advance their education or research,” said George K. Lewis, biomedical engineer and founder and CEO of ZetrOZ Systems. “We were fortunate to receive funding that supported our development of sustained acoustic medicine, which has transformed soft tissue healing for hundreds of thousands of people to date. With this program, we hope to help the next generation of healthcare innovators to further advance the healing of soft tissue injuries.”

    ZetrOZ Systems’ sam® X1 and sam® 2.0 wearable ultrasound devices accelerate injury healing and reduce the need for invasive surgical procedures and potentially addictive pain medication. The mechanobiological technology works by increasing blood vessel diameters to improve blood flow, increase oxygenated hemoglobin and remove cytokine enzymes and cellular waste. The devices have been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for soft tissue injuries, knee osteoarthritis and other indications, and their effectiveness is confirmed in more than 40 clinical studies and in the delivery of more than 3.7 million treatments. 

    To apply for the sam® STEM Scholarship Program, candidates must submit a 1,200-word essay on global healthcare advancements in soft tissue healing, including a review of emerging medical technologies, mechanobiology applications, and clinical/research trends worldwide. Candidates will need to provide a current transcript for their undergraduate or graduate studies, two professional references, and a 250-word cover letter outlining how they plan to use the scholarship funds. Applicants should send submissions to info@samrecover.com by July 31. 

    ZetrOZ’s mission includes supporting the next generation of healthcare professionals to produce brilliant ideas and explore new advancements to benefit people of all ages. For more information on ZetrOZ Systems, please visit www.samrecover.com

    About ZetrOZ Systems 

    ZetrOZ Systems is leading healing innovations in sports medicine, developing wearable bioelectronic devices to deliver sustained acoustic medicine (sam®). Researched and funded by the federal government, ZetrOZ is built on the proprietary medical technology of 46 patents and is the exclusive manufacturer and developer of the sam® product line, designed to treat acute and chronic musculoskeletal conditions. 

    Source: ZetrOZ Systems

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Some cancer patients can find it hard to tell family and friends about their diagnosis: ‘You’re dealing with this all alone’

    Some cancer patients can find it hard to tell family and friends about their diagnosis: ‘You’re dealing with this all alone’

    [ad_1]

    Ever since Anthony Bridges found out he had prostate cancer six years ago, he hasn’t stopped talking about it. He told his Facebook friends immediately.

    Now, the 68-year-old man from Georgia spends time working with others to encourage other men to talk to their doctor about getting screened.

    Not everyone is as eager to share, for cultural or privacy reasons — or because they just don’t want to talk about it. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin kept his prostate cancer quiet, including from President Joe Biden. And more recently, Kate, Princess of Wales, waited weeks before publicly disclosing her cancer.

    Austin described his diagnosis as a “gut punch” and his instinct was to keep it private. In a video statement, Kate said it was a “huge shock” and that she and her husband, Prince William, had been trying to “manage this privately for the sake of our young family.”

    Their reactions hardly surprised experts. Dr. Otis Brawley says he’s encountered men who don’t even want to talk about their prostate cancer with their own doctors.

    Brawley, a professor of oncology and epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, recalled a time decades ago when cancer simply wasn’t spoken of, called the ”Big C” instead.

    Public conversations around prostate cancer changed, he said, when former Sen. Bob Dole announced his diagnosis and publicly spoke of erectile dysfunction, a side effect of treatment.

    For breast cancer, it was first lady Betty Ford, who spoke openly about her surgery and treatment.

    “That opened the floodgates. It was then OK to talk about cancer,” Brawley said.

    In the U.S., death rates from cancer have been declining for decades, which is attributed to progress against lung cancer, screening and better treatments. Still, it remains the nation’s No. 2 killer, behind heart disease, and cases are increasing as the population ages and grows.

    Elaine Smith, who counsels patients at City of Hope Cancer Center Atlanta, said a patient’s openness often depends on personality. Some don’t want to be identified solely as a cancer patient.

    “So many of my patients say people talk to them with a different tone of voice,” Smith said. “‘They lean into me differently, they look at me with their eyes differently.’”

    Sometimes people worry about how their coworkers will react when they have to miss work for appointments and treatments.

    “In many cases, we may not acknowledge it, but …. that can sometimes have a role in how they are judged in their work performance,” said Dr. Bradley Carthon, of Emory University’s Winship Cancer Institute.

    Patients usually share with their family, experts said, but even that can be difficult.

    Kate noted it had taken time to explain “everything to George, Charlotte and Louis in a way that is appropriate for them and to reassure them that I’m going to be OK.”

    “She has the added challenges of having young children,” said Dr. Christina Annunziata, a cancer doctor at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute in Fairfax, Virginia. “As hard as it is to explain to friends and family, or even coworkers. It’s even harder to explain to young children.”

    The downside of keeping it private is that ”you’re dealing with this all alone,” Carthon said.

    Dr. Paul Monk, who treats cancer patients at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, said it’s important for patients to bring along a family member or other support to appointments.

    “I don’t think they hear everything I say,” he said. “And so when you bring someone else to your doctor’s visit, that’s another set of ears and I think that’s critically important.”

    Bridges’ wife, Phyllis, served in that role for him when he started treatment for advanced prostate cancer in 2018. He said he had no symptoms and had only gone for a checkup at her insistence.

    Bridges felt called to share his story with others, especially with Black men, and is now part of a program called Project Elevation. Working through local churches, the program’s goal is to remove some of the stigma surrounding prostate cancer and provide information about screening.

    “We have to change the mindset,” said the Albany, Georgia, resident. “We have to dispel the fear.”

    Subscribe to Well Adjusted, our newsletter full of simple strategies to work smarter and live better, from the Fortune Well team. Sign up for free today.

    [ad_2]

    Kenya Hunter, The Associated Press

    Source link

  • Dobbs’s Confounding Effect on Abortion Rates

    Dobbs’s Confounding Effect on Abortion Rates

    [ad_1]

    When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Diana Greene Foster made a painful prediction: She estimated that one in four women who wanted an abortion wouldn’t be able to get one. Foster, a demographer at UC San Francisco, told me that she’d based her expectation on her knowledge of how abortion rates decline when women lose insurance coverage or have to travel long distances after clinics close.

    And she was well aware of what this statistic meant. She’d spent 10 years following 1,000 women recruited from clinic waiting rooms. Some got an abortion, but others were turned away. The “turnaways” were more likely to suffer serious health consequences, live in poverty, and stay in contact with violent partners. With nearly 1 million abortions performed in America each year, Foster worried that hundreds of thousands of women would be forced to continue unwanted pregnancies. “Having a baby before they’re ready kind of knocks people off their life course,” she told me.

    But now, more than a year removed from the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, Foster has revised her estimate. After seeing early reports of women traveling across state lines and ordering pills online, she now estimates that about 5 percent of women who want an abortion cannot get one. Indeed, two recent reports show that although Dobbs upended abortion access in America, many women have nevertheless found ways to end their pregnancy. A study by the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights, signals that national abortion rates have not meaningfully fallen since 2020. Instead, they seem to have gone up a bit. A report released this week by the Society of Family Planning, another pro-abortion-rights group, shows that an increase in abortions in states that allow the procedure more than offset the post-Dobbs drop-off in states that closed down clinics.

    Some of this increase may be a result of trends that predate Dobbs: Abortion rates in the U.S. have been going up since 2017. But the reports suggest that the increase may also be due to travel by women who live in red states and the expanded access to abortion that many blue states enacted after the ruling. Still, it is not yet clear exactly how much each of these factors is contributing to the observed increase—and how many women who want an abortion are still unable to get one.

    Alison Norris, a co-chair of the Society of Family Planning study, told me that she fears that the public will “become complacent” if they see the likely increase in abortion rates and believe that everyone has access. “Feeling like the problem isn’t really that big of a deal because the numbers seem to have returned to what they were pre-Dobbs is a misunderstanding of the data,” she said.


    It seems illogical that more than a dozen states would ban abortion and national rates would hardly change. But even as red states have choked off access, blue states have widened it. And the data show that women have flooded the remaining clinics and ordered abortion pills from pharmacies that ship across the country. More than half of all abortions are done using medication, a pattern that began even before the Dobbs decision.

    “It just doesn’t work to make abortion illegal,” Linda Prine, a doctor at Mount Sinai Hospital, told me. “There may be some people who are having babies that they didn’t want to have, but when you shift resources all over the place, and all kinds of other avenues open up, there’s also people who are getting abortions that might not have gotten them otherwise.”

    With mail-order abortion pills, “it’s this weird moment where abortion might, ironically, be more available than it’s ever been,” Rachel Rebouché, an expert in abortion law and the dean of the Temple University Beasley School of Law, told me.

    The Guttmacher Institute sampled abortion clinics to estimate the change in abortion counts between the first halves of 2020 and 2023. Areas surrounding states with post-Roe bans saw their abortion numbers surge over that period of time. In Colorado, which is near South Dakota, a state with a ban, abortions increased by about 89 percent, compared with an 8 percent rise in the prior three-year period. New Mexico saw abortions climb by 220 percent. (For comparison, before Dobbs, the state recorded a 27 percent hike from 2017 to 2020.) Even states in solidly blue regions saw their abortion rates grow over the three-year interval from 2020 to 2023: Guttmacher estimates that California’s abortion clinics provided 16 percent more abortions, and New York’s about 18 percent more.

    Some shifts predated the court’s intervention. After a decades-long decline, abortions began ticking upward around 2017. In 2020, they increased by 8 percent compared with 2017. The researchers I spoke with for this story told me that they couldn’t point to a decisive cause for the shift that started six years ago; they suggested rising child-care costs and Trump-era cuts to Medicaid coverage as possible factors. But the rise in abortion rates reflects a broader change: Women seem to want fewer children than they used to. Caitlin Myers, a professor at Middlebury College, told me that abortion rates might have increased even more if the Court hadn’t reversed Roe. “It looks like more people just want abortions than did a few years ago,” she said. “What we don’t know is, would they have gone up even more if there weren’t people trapped in Texas or Louisiana?”

    One of the most significant factors in maintaining post-Roe abortion access dates from the latter half of 2021. As the coronavirus pandemic clobbered the health-care system, the FDA suspended its requirement that women pick up abortion medications in person. A few months later, it made the switch permanent. The timing was opportune: People became accustomed to receiving all of their medical care through virtual appointments at the same time that they could get abortion pills delivered to their doorstep, Rebouché told me. People no longer have to travel to a clinic and cross anti-abortion picket lines. But access to mifepristone, one of the most commonly used drugs for medication abortions, is under threat. After an anti-abortion group challenged the FDA’s approval of the drug, a federal court instated regulations that would require women to visit a doctor three times to get the pills, making access much more difficult. The Supreme Court is weighing whether to hear an appeal, and has frozen the 2021 rules in place while it decides.

    But paradoxically, several of the factors that may have contributed to the rise in abortion rates seem to have sprung directly from the Dobbs decision. In the year since the ruling, six blue states have enacted laws that allow practitioners to ship abortion pills anywhere, even to deep-red Texas. Although these laws haven’t yet been litigated to test whether they’re truly impenetrable, doctors have relied on them to mail medication across the country. Aid Access, an online service that operates outside the formal health-care system, receives requests for about 6,500 abortion pills a month. (The pills cost $150, but Aid Access sends them for free to people who can’t pay.) Demand for Aid Access pills in states that ban or restrict medication abortion has mushroomed since the Dobbs decision, rising from an average of about 82 requests per day before Dobbs to 214 after. The Guttmacher report doesn’t count abortions that take place in this legally fuzzy space, suggesting that actual abortion figures could be higher.

    As the Supreme Court revoked the constitutional right to an abortion and turned the issue back to the states, it also hardened the resolve of abortion-rights supporters. In the five months after Roe fell, the National Network of Abortion Funds received four times the money from donations than it got in all of 2020. People often donate as states encroach on abortion rights. In many cases, they bankrolled people’s travel out of ban states. Community networks also gained experience in shuttling people out of state to get abortions. “There’s definitely been innovation in the face of abortion bans,” Abigail Aiken, who documents abortions that occur outside of the formal health-care system, told me.

    Some researchers believe that the Dobbs decision has actually convinced more women to get abortions. Abortion-rights advocacy groups have erected highway billboards that promise Abortion is ok. Public opinion has tilted in favor of abortion rights. Ushma Upadhyay, a professor at UC San Francisco, told me that California’s rising abortion rates cannot all be due to people traveling from states that ban abortion. “It’s also got to be an increase among Californians,” she said. “It’s just a lot of attention, destigmatization, and funding that has been made available. Even before Dobbs, there was a lot of unmet need for abortion in this country.”

    Abortion used to be a topic that was “talked about in the shadows,” Greer Donley, an expert in abortion law and a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, told me. “Dobbs kind of blew that up.” Still, she believes that it’s unlikely that people are getting significantly more abortions simply because of changes within blue states. Just as obstacles don’t seem to have stopped people from seeking abortions, efforts that moderately expand access are unlikely to lead people to get an abortion, she said.

    The people I spoke with emphasized that even though overall abortion rates might be going up, not everyone who wants the procedure can get it. People who don’t speak English or Spanish, who don’t have internet access, or who are in jail still have trouble getting abortions. “What I foresee is a bunch of Black women being stuck pregnant who didn’t want to be pregnant, in a state where it’s incredibly dangerous to be Black and pregnant,” Laurie Bertram Roberts, a founder of the Mississippi Reproductive Freedom Fund, told me.

    Bertram Roberts’s fund used to provide travel stipends of up to $250. Now women need three times that. Most people travel from Mississippi to a clinic in Carbondale, Illinois. The trip takes two days—48 hours that women must take off work and find child care for. “If you are in the middle of Texas, and you have to travel to Illinois, even if funds covered all the costs, to say that abortion is more accessible for that person seems callous and wrong,” Donley told me.

    Many women spend weeks waiting for an abortion. “It is excruciating to be carrying a pregnancy that one knows they’re planning to end,” Upadhyay said. And although studies show that abortion pills are safe, women who take them can bleed for up to three weeks, and they may worry that they’ll be prosecuted if they seek help at a hospital. Only two states—Nevada and South Carolina—explicitly criminalize women who give themselves an abortion (and few women have been charged under the laws), but the legislation contributes to a climate of fear.

    More than a year out from the Dobbs decision, the grainy picture of abortion access is coming into focus. With the benefit of distance, the story seems not to be solely one of diminished access, widespread surveillance, and forced births, as the ruling’s opponents had warned. For most Americans, abortion might be more accessible than it’s ever been. But for another, more vulnerable group, abortion is a far-off privilege. “If I lived in my birth state—I was born in Minnesota—my work would be one hundred times easier,” Bertram Roberts told me, later adding, “I think about that a lot, about how the two states that bookend my life are so different.”

    [ad_2]

    Rose Horowitch

    Source link

  • Why Healthcare Professionals Need These 9 Business Skills | Entrepreneur

    Why Healthcare Professionals Need These 9 Business Skills | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    Combining an entrepreneurial background with a medical career can unlock a world of innovative opportunities to improve patient care, transform healthcare systems and drive positive change. By leveraging your entrepreneurial skills, creativity and business acumen, you can bring a unique perspective to the medical field.

    In this article, we will explore practical ways to integrate your entrepreneurial background into medicine, with specific examples showcasing how these skills can be applied in various aspects of healthcare.

    1. Identify unmet needs and innovate

    Entrepreneurs excel at identifying gaps in the market and developing solutions. In medicine, apply this skill by observing the healthcare system and identifying areas for improvement.

    For example, you may notice a lack of accessible healthcare services in underserved communities. Using your entrepreneurial mindset, consider innovative solutions such as telemedicine platforms or mobile clinics to provide care to those in need. Collaborate with healthcare professionals and community organizations to bring these ideas to life.

    Related: Making the Move from Medicine to Entrepreneurship

    2. Embrace technology and digital health

    Entrepreneurs understand the transformative power of technology. In medicine, leverage your technological know-how to improve patient outcomes and streamline healthcare processes. For instance, you could develop a mobile app that allows patients to easily access their medical records, schedule appointments and receive reminders.

    Alternatively, you could explore the application of artificial intelligence in medical diagnostics to enhance accuracy and efficiency. By embracing technology, you can revolutionize how healthcare is delivered and make a tangible impact on patient care.

    3. Pursue healthcare startups and innovation

    Entrepreneurs thrive in startup environments, and the healthcare industry offers numerous opportunities for entrepreneurial ventures. Consider joining or creating a healthcare startup that addresses a specific need or problem. You could launch a digital health platform that connects patients with specialized doctors for remote consultations.

    By leveraging your entrepreneurial background, you can navigate the challenges of building a startup, securing funding and scaling the business while improving healthcare access and quality.

    Related: Why Medical Schools are Pumping out Entrepreneurs

    4. Enhance operational efficiency

    Entrepreneurs are skilled at optimizing processes and maximizing efficiency. Apply this expertise in healthcare by identifying inefficiencies in healthcare systems and streamlining operations.

    For instance, you could develop a software solution that automates administrative tasks, reducing paperwork and freeing up time for healthcare providers to focus on patient care. By improving operational efficiency, you can enhance the healthcare experience for both patients and providers while optimizing resource utilization.

    5. Promote patient engagement and education

    Entrepreneurs prioritize customer engagement and satisfaction. In medicine, focus on empowering patients through education and engagement. You could create an online platform that provides patients with reliable medical information, personalized health recommendations and tools to track their progress. Promoting patient engagement enables individuals to take an active role in their healthcare, leading to better health outcomes and increased patient satisfaction.

    6. Advocate for policy changes

    Entrepreneurs are catalysts for change, which can influence healthcare policy. Utilize your entrepreneurial skills to advocate for policy changes that improve the healthcare landscape. For instance, you could join forces with other healthcare entrepreneurs to lobby for increased funding for medical research or implement regulations that promote healthcare innovation. You can contribute to an environment that fosters entrepreneurship and advances patient-centered care.

    7. Collaborate with healthcare institutions and professionals

    Entrepreneurs understand the power of collaboration and partnerships. In medicine, forge alliances with healthcare institutions, professionals and organizations. For example, you could partner with a hospital or clinic to pilot-test a new healthcare solution or collaborate with researchers on cutting-edge medical technologies. By building strong networks, you gain access to the expertise, resources and support necessary to bring your entrepreneurial ideas to fruition.

    Related: How Entrepreneurs Can Capitalize on the Digital Healthcare Revolution

    8. Seek mentorship and continued learning

    Successful entrepreneurs often have mentors who guide and inspire them. In medicine, seek mentorship from experienced physicians or healthcare entrepreneurs who can provide valuable insights and advice. Continue your education by enrolling in courses or programs focusing on healthcare innovation and entrepreneurship. This ongoing learning will deepen your understanding of the industry, keep you updated on emerging trends and equip you with the necessary skills to drive entrepreneurial endeavors in medicine.

    9. Embrace failure and adaptability

    Entrepreneurship is accompanied by the possibility of failure. Embrace failures as learning opportunities and adapt your strategies accordingly. Medicine is no different, and setbacks may occur. Learn from these experiences, iterate on your ideas and persist in the face of challenges. Embrace a growth mindset, continuously improve your skills and remain adaptable in the ever-evolving healthcare landscape.

    Related: Why Success Makes No Sense Until You Embrace Your Failures

    Integrating your entrepreneurial background into medicine opens up possibilities to revolutionize patient care, improve healthcare systems and drive innovation. You can make a tangible impact in the field by identifying unmet needs, embracing technology, pursuing entrepreneurial ventures, enhancing operational efficiency, promoting patient engagement, advocating for policy changes and collaborating with healthcare professionals. With determination and creativity, you can leverage your entrepreneurial skills to shape the future of medicine and positively impact patients’ lives.

    [ad_2]

    Adam Ramsey, MD

    Source link

  • Medium COVID Could Be the Most Dangerous COVID

    Medium COVID Could Be the Most Dangerous COVID

    [ad_1]

    I am still afraid of catching COVID. As a young, healthy, bivalently boosted physician, I no longer worry that I’ll end up strapped to a ventilator, but it does seem plausible that even a mild case of the disease could shorten my life, or leave me with chronic fatigue, breathing trouble, and brain fog. Roughly one in 10 Americans appears to share my concern, including plenty of doctors. “We know many devastating symptoms can persist for months,” the physician Ezekiel Emanuel wrote this past May in The Washington Post. “Like everyone, I want this pandemic nightmare to be over. But I also desperately fear living a debilitated life of mental muddle or torpor.”

    Recently, I’ve begun to think that our worries might be better placed. As the pandemic drags on, data have emerged to clarify the dangers posed by COVID across the weeks, months, and years that follow an infection. Taken together, their implications are surprising. Some people’s lives are devastated by long COVID; they’re trapped with perplexing symptoms that seem to persist indefinitely. For the majority of vaccinated people, however, the worst complications will not surface in the early phase of disease, when you’re first feeling feverish and stuffy, nor can the gravest risks be said to be “long term.” Rather, they emerge during the middle phase of post-infection, a stretch that lasts for about 12 weeks after you get sick. This period of time is so menacing, in fact, that it really ought to have its own, familiar name: medium COVID.

    Just how much of a threat is medium COVID? The answer has been obscured, to some extent, by sloppy definitions. A lot of studies blend different, dire outcomes into a single giant bucket called “long COVID.” Illnesses arising in as few as four weeks, along with those that show up many months later, have been considered one and the same. The CDC, for instance, suggested in a study out last spring that one in five adults who get the virus will go on to suffer any of 26 medical complications, starting at least one month after infection, and extending up to one year. All of these are called “post-COVID conditions, or long COVID.” A series of influential analyses looking at U.S. veterans described an onslaught of new heart, kidney, and brain diseases (even among the vaccinated) across a similarly broad time span. The studies’ authors refer to these, grouped together, as “long COVID and its myriad complications.”

    But the risks described above might well be most significant in just the first few weeks post-infection, and fade away as time goes on. When scientists analyzed Sweden’s national health registry, for example, they found that the chance of developing pulmonary embolism—an often deadly clot in the lungs—was a startling 32 times higher in the first month after testing positive for the virus; after that, it quickly diminished. The clots were only two times more common at 60 days after infection, and the effect was indistinguishable from baseline after three to four months. A post-infection risk of heart attack and stroke was also evident, and declined just as expeditiously. In July, U.K. epidemiologists corroborated the Swedish findings, showing that a heightened rate of cardiovascular disease among COVID patients could be detected up to 12 weeks after they got sick. Then the hazard went away.

    This is all to be expected, given that other respiratory infections are known to cause a temporary spike in patients’ risk of cardiovascular events. Post-viral blood clots, heart attacks, and strokes tend to blow through like a summer storm. A very recent paper in the journal Circulation, also based on U.K. data, did find that COVID’s effects are longer-lasting, with a heightened chance of such events that lasts for almost one full year. But even in that study, the authors see the risk fall off most dramatically across the first two weeks. I’ve now read dozens of similar analyses, using data from many countries, that agree on this basic point: The greatest dangers lie in the weeks, not months, after a COVID infection.

    Yet many have inferred that COVID’s dangers have no end. “What’s particularly alarming is that these are really life-long conditions,” Ziyad Al-Aly, the lead researcher on the veterans studies, told the Financial Times in August. A Cleveland Clinic cardiologist has suggested that catching SARS-CoV-2 might even become a greater contributor to cardiovascular disease than being a chronic smoker or having obesity. But if experts who hold this assumption are correct—and the mortal hazards of COVID really do persist for a lifetime (or even many months)—then it’s not yet visible at the health-system level. By the end of the Omicron surge last winter, one in four Americans—about 84 million people—had been newly infected with the coronavirus. This was on top of 103 million pre-Omicron infections. Yet six months after the surge ended, the number of adult emergency-room visits, outpatient appointments, and hospital admissions across the country were all slightly lower than they were at the same time in 2021, according to an industry report released last month. In fact, emergency-room visits and hospital admissions in 2021 and 2022 were lower than they’d been before the pandemic. In other words, a rising tide of long-COVID-related medical conditions, affecting nearly every organ system, is nowhere to be found.

    If mild infections did routinely lead to fatal consequences at a delay of months or years, then we should see it in our death rates, too. The number of excess deaths in the U.S.—meaning those that have occured beyond historic norms—should still be going up, long after case rates fall. Yet excess deaths in the U.S. dropped to zero this past April, about two months after the end of the winter surge, and they have stayed relatively low ever since. Here, as around the world, overall mortality rates follow acute-infection rates, but only for a little while. A second wave of deaths—a long-COVID wave—never seems to break.

    Even the most familiar maladies of “long COVID”—severe fatigue, cognitive difficulties, and breathing trouble—tend to be at their worst during the medium post-infection phase. An early analysis of symptom-tracking data from the U.K., the U.S., and Sweden found that the proportion of those experiencing COVID’s aftereffects decreased by 83 percent four to 12 weeks after illness started. The U.K. government also reported much higher rates of medium COVID, relative to long COVID: In its survey, 11 percent of people who caught the virus experienced lingering issues such as weakness, muscle aches, and loss of smell, but that rate had dropped to 3 percent by 12 weeks post-infection. The U.K. saw a slight decline in the number of people reporting such issues throughout the spring and summer; and a recent U.S. government survey found that about half of Americans who had experienced any COVID symptoms for three months or longer had already recovered.

    This slow, steady resolution of symptoms fits with what we know about other post-infection syndromes. A survey of adolescents recovering from mononucleosis, which is caused by Epstein-Barr virus, found that 13 percent of subjects met criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome at six months, but that rate was nearly halved at one year, and nearly halved again at two. An examination of chronic fatigue after three different infections—EBV, Q fever, and Ross River virus—identified a similar pattern: frequent post-infection symptoms, which gradually decreased over months.

    The pervasiveness of medium COVID does nothing to negate the reality of long COVID—a calamitous condition that can shatter people’s lives. Many long-haulers experience unremitting symptoms, and their cases can evolve into complex chronic syndromes like ME/CFS or dysautonomia. As a result, they may require specialized medical care, permanent work accommodations, and ongoing financial support. Recognizing the small chance of such tragic outcomes could well be enough to make some people try to avoid infection or reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 at all costs.

    But if you’re like me, and trying to calibrate your behaviors to meet some personally acceptable level of COVID risk, then it helps to keep in mind the difference between the virus’s medium- and long-term complications. Medium COVID may be time-limited, but it is far from rare—and not always mild. It can mean a month or two of profound fatigue, crushing headaches, and vexing chest pain. It can lead to life-threatening medical complications. It needs recognition, research, and new treatments. For millions of people, medium COVID is as bad as it gets.

    [ad_2]

    Benjamin Mazer

    Source link

  • The Pandemic’s Legacy Is Already Clear

    The Pandemic’s Legacy Is Already Clear

    [ad_1]

    Recently, after a week in which 2,789 Americans died of COVID-19, President Joe Biden proclaimed that “the pandemic is over.” Anthony Fauci described the controversy around the proclamation as a matter of “semantics,” but the facts we are living with can speak for themselves. COVID still kills roughly as many Americans every week as died on 9/11. It is on track to kill at least 100,000 a year—triple the typical toll of the flu. Despite gross undercounting, more than 50,000 infections are being recorded every day. The CDC estimates that 19 million adults have long COVID. Things have undoubtedly improved since the peak of the crisis, but calling the pandemic “over” is like calling a fight “finished” because your opponent is punching you in the ribs instead of the face.

    American leaders and pundits have been trying to call an end to the pandemic since its beginning, only to be faced with new surges or variants. This mindset not only compromises the nation’s ability to manage COVID, but also leaves it vulnerable to other outbreaks. Future pandemics aren’t hypothetical; they’re inevitable and imminent. New infectious diseases have regularly emerged throughout recent decades, and climate change is quickening the pace of such events. As rising temperatures force animals to relocate, species that have never coexisted will meet, allowing the viruses within them to find new hosts—humans included. Dealing with all of this again is a matter of when, not if.

    In 2018, I wrote an article in The Atlantic warning that the U.S. was not prepared for a pandemic. That diagnosis remains unchanged; if anything, I was too optimistic. America was ranked as the world’s most prepared country in 2019—and, bafflingly, again in 2021—but accounts for 16 percent of global COVID deaths despite having just 4 percent of the global population. It spends more on medical care than any other wealthy country, but its hospitals were nonetheless overwhelmed. It helped create vaccines in record time, but is 67th in the world in full vaccinations. (This trend cannot solely be attributed to political division; even the most heavily vaccinated blue state—Rhode Island—still lags behind 21 nations.) America experienced the largest life-expectancy decline of any wealthy country in 2020 and, unlike its peers, continued declining in 2021. If it had fared as well as just the average peer nation, 1.1 million people who died last year—a third of all American deaths—would still be alive.

    America’s superlatively poor performance cannot solely be blamed on either the Trump or Biden administrations, although both have made egregious errors. Rather, the new coronavirus exploited the country’s many failing systems: its overstuffed prisons and understaffed nursing homes; its chronically underfunded public-health system; its reliance on convoluted supply chains and a just-in-time economy; its for-profit health-care system, whose workers were already burned out; its decades-long project of unweaving social safety nets; and its legacy of racism and segregation that had already left Black and Indigenous communities and other communities of color disproportionately burdened with health problems. Even in the pre-COVID years, the U.S. was still losing about 626,000 people more than expected for a nation of its size and resources. COVID simply toppled an edifice whose foundations were already rotten.

    In furiously racing to rebuild on this same foundation, America sets itself up to collapse once more. Experience is reputedly the best teacher, and yet the U.S. repeated mistakes from the early pandemic when faced with the Delta and Omicron variants. It got early global access to vaccines, and nonetheless lost almost half a million people after all adults became eligible for the shots. It has struggled to control monkeypox—a slower-spreading virus for which there is already a vaccine. Its right-wing legislators have passed laws and rulings that curtail the possibility of important public-health measures like quarantines and vaccine mandates. It has made none of the broad changes that would protect its population against future pathogens, such as better ventilation or universal paid sick leave. Its choices virtually guarantee that everything that’s happened in the past three years will happen again.


    The U.S. will continue to struggle against infectious diseases in part because some of its most deeply held values are antithetical to the task of besting a virus. Since its founding, the country has prized a strain of rugged individualism that prioritizes individual freedom and valorizes self-reliance. According to this ethos, people are responsible for their own well-being, physical and moral strength are equated, social vulnerability results from personal weakness rather than policy failure, and handouts or advice from the government are unwelcome. Such ideals are disastrous when handling a pandemic, for two major reasons.

    First, diseases spread. Each person’s choices inextricably affect their community, and the threat to the collective always exceeds that to the individual. The original Omicron variant, for example, posed slightly less risk to each infected person than the variants that preceded it, but spread so quickly that it inundated hospitals, greatly magnifying COVID’s societal costs. To handle such threats, collective action is necessary. Governments need policies, such as vaccine requirements or, yes, mask mandates, that protect the health of entire populations, while individuals have to consider their contribution to everyone else’s risk alongside their own personal stakes. And yet, since the spring of 2021, pundits have mocked people who continue to think this way for being irrational and overcautious, and government officials have consistently framed COVID as a matter of personal responsibility.

    Second, a person’s circumstances always constrain their choices. Low-income and minority groups find it harder to avoid infections or isolate when sick because they’re more likely to live in crowded homes and hold hourly-wage jobs without paid leave or the option to work remotely. Places such as prisons and nursing homes, whose residents have little autonomy, became hot spots for the worst outbreaks. Treating a pandemic as an individualist free-for-all ignores how difficult it is for many Americans to protect themselves. It also leaves people with vulnerabilities that last across successive pathogens: The groups that suffered most during the H1N1 influenza pandemic of 2009 were the same ones that took the brunt of COVID, a decade later.

    America’s individualist bent has also shaped its entire health-care system, which ties health to wealth and employment. That system is organized around treating sick people at great and wasteful expense, instead of preventing communities from falling sick in the first place. The latter is the remit of public health rather than medicine, and has long been underfunded and undervalued. Even the CDC—the nation’s top public-health agency—changed its guidelines in February to prioritize hospitalizations over cases, implicitly tolerating infections as long as hospitals are stable. But such a strategy practically ensures that emergency rooms will be overwhelmed by a fast-spreading virus; that, consequently, health-care workers will quit; and that waves of chronically ill long-haulers who are disabled by their infections will seek care and receive nothing. All of that has happened and will happen again. America’s pandemic individualism means that it’s your job to protect yourself from infection; if you get sick, your treatment may be unaffordable, and if you don’t get better, you will struggle to find help, or even anyone who believes you.


    In the late 19th century, many scholars realized that epidemics were social problems, whose spread and toll are influenced by poverty, inequality, overcrowding, hazardous working conditions, poor sanitation, and political negligence. But after the advent of germ theory, this social model was displaced by a biomedical and militaristic one, in which diseases were simple battles between hosts and pathogens, playing out within individual bodies. This paradigm conveniently allowed people to ignore the social context of disease. Instead of tackling intractable social problems, scientists focused on fighting microscopic enemies with drugs, vaccines, and other products of scientific research—an approach that sat easily with America’s abiding fixation on technology as a panacea.

    The allure of biomedical panaceas is still strong. For more than a year, the Biden administration and its advisers have reassured Americans that, with vaccines and antivirals, “we have the tools” to control the pandemic. These tools are indeed effective, but their efficacy is limited if people can’t access them or don’t want to, and if the government doesn’t create policies that shift that dynamic. A profoundly unequal society was always going to struggle with access: People with low incomes, food insecurity, eviction risk, and no health insurance struggled to make or attend vaccine appointments, even after shots were widely available. A profoundly mistrustful society was always going to struggle with hesitancy, made worse by political polarization and rampantly spreading misinformation. The result is that just 72 percent of Americans have completed their initial course of shots and just half have gotten the first of the boosters necessary to protect against current variants. At the same time, almost all other protections have been stripped away, and COVID funding is evaporating. And yet the White House’s recent pandemic-preparedness strategy still focuses heavily on biomedical magic bullets, paying scant attention to the social conditions that could turn those bullets into duds.

    Technological solutions also tend to rise into society’s penthouses, while epidemics seep into its cracks. Cures, vaccines, and diagnostics first go to people with power, wealth, and education, who then move on, leaving the communities most affected by diseases to continue shouldering their burden. This dynamic explains why the same health inequities linger across the decades even as pathogens come and go, and why the U.S. has now normalized an appalling level of COVID death and disability. Such suffering is concentrated among elderly, immunocompromised, working-class, and minority communities—groups that are underrepresented among political decision makers and the media, who get to declare the pandemic over. Even when inequities are highlighted, knowledge seems to suppress action: In one study, white Americans felt less empathy for vulnerable communities and were less supportive of safety precautions after learning about COVID’s racial disparities. This attitude is self-destructive and limits the advantage that even the most privileged Americans enjoy. Measures that would flatten social inequities, such as universal health care and better ventilation, would benefit everyone—and their absence harms everyone, too. In 2021, young white Americans died at lower rates than Black and Indigenous Americans, but still at three times the rate of their counterparts in other wealthy countries.

    By failing to address its social weaknesses, the U.S. accumulates more of them. An estimated 9 million Americans have lost close loved ones to COVID; about 10 percent will likely experience prolonged grief, which the country’s meager mental-health services will struggle to address. Because of brain fog, fatigue, and other debilitating symptoms, long COVID is keeping the equivalent of 2 million to 4 million Americans out of work; between lost earnings and increased medical costs, it could cost the economy $2.6 trillion a year. The exodus of health-care workers, especially experienced veterans, has left hospitals with a shortfall of staff and know-how. Levels of trust—one of the most important predictors of a country’s success at controlling COVID—have fallen, making pandemic interventions harder to deploy, while creating fertile ground in which misinformation can germinate. This is the cost of accepting the unacceptable: an even weaker foundation that the next disease will assail.


    In the spring of 2020, I wrote that the pandemic would last for years, and that the U.S. would need long-term strategies to control it. But America’s leaders consistently acted as if they were fighting a skirmish rather than a siege, lifting protective measures too early, and then reenacting them too slowly. They have skirted the responsibility of articulating what it would actually look like for the pandemic to be over, which has meant that whenever citizens managed to flatten the curve, the time they bought was wasted. Endemicity was equated with inaction rather than active management. This attitude removed any incentive or will to make the sort of long-term changes that would curtail the current disaster and prevent future ones. And so America has little chance of effectively countering the inevitable pandemics of the future; it cannot even focus on the one that’s ongoing.

    If change happens, it will likely occur slowly and from the ground up. In the vein of ACT UP—the extraordinarily successful activist group that changed the world’s approach to AIDS—grassroots organizations of longhaulers, grievers, immunocompromised people, and others disproportionately harmed by the pandemic have formed, creating the kind of vocal constituency that public health has long lacked.

    More pandemics will happen, and the U.S. has spectacularly failed to contain the current one. But it cannot afford the luxury of nihilism. It still has time to address its bedrocks of individualism and inequality, to create a health system that effectively prevents sickness instead of merely struggling to treat it, and to enact policies that rightfully prioritize the needs of disabled and vulnerable communities. Such changes seem unrealistic given the relentless disappointments of the past three years, but substantial social progress always seems unfeasible until it is actually achieved. Normal led to this. It is not too late to fashion a better normal.

    [ad_2]

    Ed Yong

    Source link

  • ‘It Just Seems Like My Patients Are Sicker’

    ‘It Just Seems Like My Patients Are Sicker’

    [ad_1]

    The most haunting memory of the pandemic for Laura, a doctor who practices internal medicine in New York, is a patient who never got COVID at all. A middle-aged man diagnosed with Stage 3 colon cancer in 2019, he underwent surgery and a round of successful chemotherapy and was due for regular checkups to make sure the tumor wasn’t growing. Then the pandemic hit, and he decided that going to the hospital wasn’t worth the risk of getting COVID. So he put it off … and put it off. “The next time I saw him, in early 2022, he required hospice care,” Laura told me. He died shortly after. With proper care, Laura said, “he could have stayed alive indefinitely.” (The Atlantic agreed to withhold Laura’s last name, because she isn’t authorized to speak publicly about her patients.)

    Early in the pandemic, when much of the country was in lockdown, forgoing nonemergency health care as Laura’s patient did seemed like the right thing to do. But the health-care delays didn’t just end when America began to reopen in the summer of 2020. Patients were putting off health care through the end of the first pandemic year, when vaccines weren’t yet widely available. And they were still doing so well into 2021, at which point much of the country seemed to be moving on from COVID.

    By this point, the coronavirus has killed more than 1 million Americans and debilitated many more. One estimate shows that life expectancy in the U.S. fell 2.41 years from 2019 to 2021. But the delays in health care over the past two and a half years have allowed ailments to unduly worsen, wearing down people with non-COVID medical problems too. “It just seems like my patients are sicker,” Laura said. Compared with before the pandemic, she is seeing more people further along with AIDS, more people with irreversible heart failure, and more people with end-stage kidney failure. Mental-health issues are more severe, and her patients struggling with addiction have been more likely to relapse.

    Even as Americans are treating the pandemic like an afterthought, a disturbing possibility remains: COVID aside, is the country simply going to be in worse health than before the pandemic? According to health-care workers, administrations, and researchers I talked with from across the country, patients are still dealing with a suite of problems from delaying care during the pandemic, problems that in some cases they will be facing for the rest of their lives. The scope of this damage isn’t yet clear—and likely won’t come into focus for several years—but there are troubling signs of a looming chronic health crisis the country has yet to reckon with. At some point, the emergency phase of COVID will end, but the physical toll of the pandemic may linger in the bodies of Americans for decades to come.


    During those bleak pre-vaccine dark ages, going to the doctor could feel like a disaster in waiting. Many of the country’s hospitals were overwhelmed with COVID patients, and outpatient clinics had closed. As a result, in every week through July 2020, roughly 45 percent of American adults said that over the preceding month, they either put off medical care or didn’t get it at all because of the pandemic. Once they did come in, they were sicker—a trend observed for all sorts of ailments, including childhood diabetes, appendicitis, and cancer. A recent study analyzed the 8.4 million non-COVID Medicare hospitalizations from April 2020 to September 2021 and found not only that hospital admissions plummeted, but also that those admitted to hospitals were up to 20 percent more likely to die—an astonishing effect that lasted through the length of the study.

    Partly, that result came about because only those who were sicker made it to the hospital, James Goodwin, one of the study’s authors and a professor at the University of Texas Medical Branch, in Galveston, told me. It was also partly because overwhelmed hospitals were giving worse care. But Goodwin estimates that “more than half the cause was people delaying medical care early in their illness and therefore being more likely to die. Instead of coming in with a urinary tract infection, they’re already getting septic. I mean, people were having heart attacks and not showing up at the hospital.”

    For some conditions, skipping a checkup or two may not matter all that much in the long run. But for other conditions, every doctor’s visit can count. Take the tens of millions of Americans with vascular issues in their feet and legs due to diabetes or peripheral artery disease. Their problems might lead to, say, ulcers on the foot that can be treated with regular medical care, but delays of even a few months can increase the risk of amputation. When patients came in later in 2020, it was sometimes too late to save the limb. An Ohio trauma center found that the odds of undergoing a diabetes-related amputation in 2020 were almost 11 times higher once the pandemic hit versus earlier in the year.

    Although only a small percentage of Americans lost a limb, the lack of care early in the pandemic helped fuel a dangerous spike in substance-abuse disorders. In a matter of weeks or months, people’s support systems collapsed, and for some, years of work overcoming an addiction unraveled. “My patients took a huge step back, probably more than many of us realize,” Aarti Patel, a physician assistant at a Lower Manhattan community hospital, told me. One of her patients, a man in his late 50s who was five years sober, started drinking again during the pandemic and eventually landed in the hospital for withdrawal. Patients like this man, she said, “would have really difficult, long hospital stays, because they were at really high risk of DTs, alcohol seizures. Some of them even had to go to the ICU because [the withdrawal] was so severe.”

    Later in the year, when doctors’ offices were up and running, “a lot of patients expressed that they didn’t want to go back for care right away,” says Kim Muellers, a graduate student at Pace University who is studying the effects of COVID on medical care in New York City, North Carolina, and Florida. Indeed, through the spring of 2021, the top reason Medicare recipients failed to seek care was they didn’t want to be at a medical facility. Other people were avoiding the doctor because they’d lost their job and health insurance and couldn’t afford the bills.

    The problem, doctors told me, is that all of those missed appointments start to add up. Patients with high blood pressure or blood sugar, for example, may now be less likely to have their conditions under control—which after enough time can lead to all sorts of other ailments. Losing a limb can pose challenges for patients that will last for the rest of their lives. Relapses can put people at a higher risk for lifelong medical complications. Cancer screenings plummeted, and even a few weeks without treatment can increase the chance of dying from the disease. In other words, even short-term delays can cause long-term havoc.

    To make matters worse, the health-care delays fueling a sicker America may not be totally over yet, either. After so many backups, some health-care systems, hobbled by workforce shortages, are scrambling to address the pent-up demand for care that patients can simply no longer put off, according to administrators and doctors from several major health systems, including Cleveland Clinic, the Veterans Health Administration, and Mayo Clinic. Disruptions in the global supply chain are forcing doctors to ration basic supplies, adding to backlogs. Amy Oxentenko, a gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic in Arizona who helps oversee clinical practice across the entire Mayo system, says that “all of these things are just adding up to a continued delay, and I think we’ll see impacts for years to come.”


    It’s still early, and not everything that providers told me is necessarily showing up in the data. Oddly enough, the CDC’s National Health Interview Survey found that most Americans were able to see a doctor at least once during the first year of the pandemic. And the same survey has not revealed any uptick in most health conditions, including asthma episodes, high blood pressure, and chronic pain—which might be expected if America were getting sicker.

    It’s even conceivable that the disturbing observations of clinicians are a statistical illusion. If for whatever reason only sicker people are now being seen by—or able to access—a doctor, then it can be true both that providers are seeing more seriously ill patients in medical facilities and that the total number of seriously ill people in the community is staying the same. The scope of the damage just isn’t yet clear: Maybe a smaller number of people will be worse off because of delayed cancer care or substance-abuse relapses, or maybe far more people—more than tens of million of Americans—will be dealing with exacerbated issues for the rest of their lives.

    None of this accounts for what COVID itself is doing to Americans, of course. The health-care system is only beginning to grapple with the ways in which a past bout with COVID is a long-term risk for overall health, or the extent to which long COVID can complicate other conditions. The pandemic may feel “over” for lots of Americans, but many who made it through the gantlet of the past two-plus years may end up living sicker, and dying sooner.

    This disturbing prospect is not only poised to further devastate communities; it’s also bad news for health-care workers already exhausted by COVID. Laura, the Manhattan internist who treated the colon-cancer patient, told me it’s disheartening to see so many people showing up at irreversible points in their disease. “As doctors,” she said, “our overall batting average is going down.” Aarti Patel, the physician assistant, put it in blunter terms: “Burnout is probably too simple a term. We’re in severe moral distress.”

    Nothing about this grim fate was inevitable. Laura told me that “going to the doctor mid-pandemic may have posed a small risk in terms of COVID, but not going was risky in terms of letting disease go unchecked. And in retrospect it seems that many people didn’t quite get that.” But there didn’t have to be such a stark trade-off between fighting a pandemic and maintaining health care for other medical conditions.

    Some hospitals—at least the better-resourced ones—figured out how to avoid the worst kind of delays. Mayo Clinic, for example, is one of a number of systems with a sophisticated triage algorithm that prioritizes patients needing acute care. In the spring of 2021, Cleveland Clinic launched a massive outreach blitz to schedule some 86,000 appointments, according to Lisa Yerian, the chief improvement officer. And the Veterans Health Administration provided iPads to thousands of veterans who lacked other means of accessing the internet in the spring of 2020, ensuring a more seamless transition to virtual care, Joe Francis, who directs health-care analytics, told me. Thanks in part to these efforts, Francis said, high-risk patients at the VHA were being seen at pre-pandemic levels a mere six months into the pandemic.

    These health-care systems also suggest a path forward. America may still be able to stave off the worst of the collateral damage by reaching the patients who have fallen through the cracks—and already the data suggest that these patients tend to be disproportionately Black, Hispanic, and low-income. Tragically, it’s too late for some Americans: People who died of cancer can’t come back to life; amputated limbs can’t regrow. Others still have plenty of time. Hypertension that’s currently uncontrolled can be tamped down before causing an early heart attack; drinking that’s gotten out of hand can be corralled before it leads to liver failure in a decade; undetected tumors can be spotted in time for treatment. An uptick in premature death and disability, summed over millions of Americans, could strain the health-care system for years. But it’s still possible to prevent an acute public-health crisis from seeding an even bigger chronic one.

    [ad_2]

    Tim Requarth

    Source link