In recent years there has been an improvement in the application of diagnostic techniques and the use of precision medicine to enhace the efficiency of treatments and patient care and the best strategy in the fight against cancer is multi-disciplinary management: prevention controls, early detection, and equal access.

The topic was exposed by patients and oncology specialists during the discussion “Comprehensive Vision and Cancer Challenges in the Dominican Republic”, held at the Santo Domingo Technological Institute (INTEC). The president of Fundación Un Amigo Como Tú, Juan Manuel Pérez, shared his experience as a survivor of non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. He said that these limitations are compounded by the emotional impact of receiving the diagnosis and the lack of information about the causes of the disease.

He added that cancer patients face late diagnoses and insufficient coverage for drugs and services. In turn, Dr. Mariel Pacheco del Castillo, pathologist and master’s degree in Molecular Oncology, said that today the objective of cancer treatment must be to restore a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being in patients and not only eradicate the tumor burden.

 

Researchers at the Garvan Institute of Medical Research in Australia have developed a new generation of antibodies to treat COVID-19. So far, the antibodies have been shown to neutralize several of the viral variants behind COVID-19, and the researchers hope that they will form an effective treatment for at-risk patients. Previously developed antibody treatments for COVID-19 have been rendered largely useless as the virus has mutated. Such antibodies have focused on binding to the most obvious site on the viral spike protein, the ACE2 receptor binding site, but their efficacy in destroying the virus has waned with new viral variants. However, these new antibodies bind to a different site on the spike protein that is partially hidden, and appear to essentially rip the spike protein apart, prompting the researchers to surmise that the virus will find it hard to develop resistance.

SARS-CoV-2 continues to proliferate around the world. While vaccines have provided many of us with protection against severe disease, they do not offer the same level of protection for everyone. For instance, severely immunocompromised patients may not receive much benefit from current COVID-19 vaccines, and will likely require additional treatment if they contract the disease.    

Developing new treatments for COVID-19 will greatly benefit such patients, but SARS-CoV-2 is a formidable adversary, with new variants popping up around the world. Unfortunately, previous iterations of antibody treatments for COVID-19 have been rendered largely ineffective by these mutations.   

“Almost all commercially available antibodies for COVID-19 don’t work well anymore,” said Jake Henry, a researcher involved in the study. “Most are class 1 or 2, which refers to the fact that they bind to the most obvious spot on the spike protein – the ACE2 receptor binding site. They have downsides, including failure against new variants as they evolve. We’re delighted our research could lead to new antiviral therapy providing reliable ‘passive immunity’ to at-risk individuals.”

The new ‘class 6’ antibodies bind to a different part of the spike protein and can lead to its destruction. “This is a new mechanism of action we’re seeing with these class 6 antibodies,” said Daniel Christ, another researcher involved in the study. “Our hypothesis is that they’re so effective because the area we’re targeting is close to the center of the spike’s structure. When the antibody attaches there, it distorts the spike and rips it apart. It would be very difficult for the virus to adapt to that.”

Study in journal Nature Communications: Broadly neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies through epitope-based selection from convalescent patients

Via: Garvan Institute of Medical Research

The Host

Julie Rovner
KHN

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KHN’s weekly health policy news podcast, “What the Health?” A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book “Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z,” now in its third edition.

Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress reacted with compassion to the news that Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) has checked himself into Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for treatment of clinical depression. The reaction is a far cry from what it would have been 20 or even 10 years ago, as more politicians from both parties are willing to admit they are humans with human frailties.

Meanwhile, former South Carolina governor and GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley is pushing “competency” tests for politicians over age 75. She has not specified, however, who would determine what the test should include and who would decide if politicians pass or fail.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico, and Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Acknowledging a mental health disorder could spell doom for a politician’s career in the past, but rather than raising questions about his fitness to serve, Sen. John Fetterman’s decision to make his depression diagnosis and treatment public raises the possibility that personal experiences with the health system could make lawmakers better representatives.
• In Medicare news, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) dropped Medicare and Social Security from his proposal to require that every federal program be specifically renewed every five years. Scott’s plan has been hammered by Democrats after President Joe Biden criticized it this month in his State of the Union address.
• Medicare is not politically “untouchable,” though. Two Biden administration proposals seek to rein in the high cost of the popular Medicare Advantage program. Those are already proving controversial as well, particularly among Medicare beneficiaries who like the additional benefits that often come with the private-sector plans.
• New studies on the effectiveness of ivermectin and mask use are drawing attention to pandemic preparedness. The study of ivermectin revealed that the drug is not effective against the covid-19 virus even in higher doses, raising the question about how far researchers must go to convince skeptics fed misinformation about using the drug to treat covid. Also, a new analysis of studies on mask use leaned on pre-pandemic studies, potentially undermining mask recommendations for future health crises.
• On the abortion front, abortion rights supporters in Ohio are pushing for a ballot measure enshrining access to the procedure in its state constitution, while a lawyer in Florida is making an unusual “personhood” argument to advocate for a pregnant woman to be released from jail.

Plus for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: Stat’s “Current Treatments for Cramps Aren’t Cutting It. Why Aren’t There Better Options?” by Calli McMurray

Joanne Kenen: The Atlantic’s “Eagles Are Falling, Bears Are Going Blind,” by Katherine J. Wu

Rachel Roubein: The Washington Post’s “Her Baby Has a Deadly Diagnosis. Her Florida Doctors Refused an Abortion,” by Frances Stead Sellers

Sarah Karlin-Smith: DCist’s “Locals Who Don’t Speak English Need Medical Translators, but Some Say They Don’t Always Get the Service,” by Amanda Michelle Gomez and Hector Alejandro Arzate

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Hill’s “Nikki Haley: Bernie Sanders Is ‘Exactly the Reason’ Mental Competency Tests Are Needed,” by Niall Stanage
• USA Today’s “Idaho Bill Would Criminalize Giving mRNA Vaccines — The Tech Used in Popular COVID Vaccines,” by Thao Nguyen
• The Washington Post’s “Twenty Governors Are Forming a New Coalition to Support Abortion Rights,” by Rachel Roubein with McKenzie Beard
• The Washington Post’s “Fla. Lawyer Argues Pregnant Inmate’s Fetus Is Being Illegally Detained,” by Kyle Melnick

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Senators Have Mental Health Crises, Too

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Senators Have Mental Crises, TooEpisode Number: 286Published: Feb. 23, 2023

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to KHN’s “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at Kaiser Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Feb. 23, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Rachel Roubein: Hi. Thanks for having me.

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, Julie.

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: So, no interview this week, but lots of interesting news, even with Congress in recess and the president out of the country. So we will get right to it. We’re going to start this week with mental health. No, not the mental health of the population, although that remains a very large problem, but specifically the mental health of politicians. I am old enough to remember when a politician admitting to having been treated for any mental health problem basically disqualified them from holding higher office. You young people go Google Tom Eagleton. Now we have Sen. John Fetterman [D-Pa.], who made headlines while campaigning during his stroke recovery, checking himself into Walter Reed for major depression treatment. And the reaction from his colleagues on both sides of the aisle has been unusually compassionate for political Washington. Have we turned a corner here on admitting to having problems not meaning incapable of serving or working?

Karlin-Smith: It’s obviously getting better, but I think as we saw with Fetterman’s coverage during the campaign, it was far from perfect. And I think there was some dissatisfaction that his coverage was in many … sometimes unfair in how his stroke and his stroke recovery and his needs for accommodations were presented in the media. But I do think we are shifting at least somewhat from thinking about, Does this situation make a person fit to serve? to thinking about, OK, what does this person’s experience navigating the health care system perhaps provide that might actually make them a better representative, or understand their constituents’ needs in navigating the health care system, which is a big part of our political agenda?

Kenen: There are very few times when Congress makes nice. I think on rare occasions mental health has done it. I can think of the fight for mental parity. It was a bipartisan pair: Sen. Pete Domenici [R-N.M.] had a daughter with schizophrenia, and Sen. Paul Wellstone [D-Minn.] had … what, was it … a brother?

Rovner: I think it was a sibling, yeah.

Kenen: … with a severe mental illness. I no longer remember whether it was schizophrenia or another severe mental illness. And they teamed up to get mental health parity, which they didn’t get all the way. And there are still gaps, but they got the first, and it took years.

Rovner: And they were a very unlike pair, Domenici was …

Kenen: They were a very unlikely couple.

Rovner: a very conservative Republican. Wellstone was a very liberal Democrat.

Kenen: And their personalities were completely like, you know, one was a kind but grumpy person and one was the teddy bear. And they were a very odd couple in every possible way. And it didn’t make lawmakers talk about themselves at that point, but they did get more open about their family. About 10 or 15 years later, there was a senator’s son died by suicide and he was very open about it. It was really one of the most remarkable moments I’ve ever seen on the Hill, because other people started getting up and talking about loved ones who had died by suicide, including [Sen.] Don Nickles [R-Okla.], who was very conservative, who had never spoken about it before. And it was Sen. Gordon Smith [R-Ore.] whose son had died at the time. And he tried to put it to use and got mental health legislation for college. So these were like, you know, 10 or 15 years apart. But Congress, they don’t treat each other very well. It’s not just politics. They’re often quite nasty across party lines. So this was sort of like the third moment I’ve seen where a little bit of compassion and identification came out. Is it a kumbaya turnaround? No, but it’s good to see kindness, not “he should resign this moment.” I mean, the response was pretty human and humane.

Rovner: And we also had the unique moment with Patrick Kennedy, who was then in the House, son of Sen. Ted Kennedy, who was still in the Senate. And Patrick Kennedy, of course, had had substance abuse issues in addition to his mental health issues. And he actually championed through what turned into the final realization of the mental health parity that Domenici and Wellstone had started. So, I mean, to Sarah’s point, I think, sometimes if the person experiences it themselves, they may be even more able to navigate through to help other people, so …

Kenen: You’re not immune from mental illness if you’re a lawmaker and neither is your family. And there are a number of very sad stories and there are other lawmakers who have lost relatives to suicide. So there’s this additional connection between stroke and depression that I think got a little bit of attention here, because that’s also a thing.

Rovner: Well, all right, then again, it is not all sunshine and roses on the political mental health front. Former South Carolina Republican Gov. Nikki Haley, who’s now running for president, is proposing a mental competency test for politicians over the age of 75. That would, of course, include both Donald Trump and Joe Biden. But this week, Haley extended her proposed mental competency test to the Senate, where there are dozens of members over the age of 75. She specifically called out 81-year-old Bernie Sanders after he called her proposal ageism. Now, it’s pretty clear that Haley is using this to keep herself in the news, and it’s working. But could we actually see mental competency tests rolled out at some point? And who would decide what constitutes competency in someone who’s getting older?

Kenen: Or younger.

Rovner: Or younger, yeah.

Karlin-Smith: Wait, has Joanne solved the aging [mystery]? I think … what Julie said, in terms of who would decide, I think that’s where it gets really dicey. I think, first of all, if you’re going to deal with this, there seems no way you can make it based on age, right? Because competency is not necessarily tied with age. But I think, ethically, I’m not sure our society has any fair way to really determine … and it would just become such a political football that I don’t think anybody wants to deal with figuring out how to do that. Obviously, you don’t want somebody, probably, in office who is not capable of doing the job to a point where they really can’t be productive. But again, as we’ve seen with these other health issues, you also don’t want to exclude people because they are not perfectly in some sort of heightened state of being that, you know, all people are not perfect in capacity at every single moment and deal with struggles. So there’s this fine line, I think, that would be too difficult to sort of figure out how to do that.

Kenen: And you could be fine one day and not fine the next. If you have a disease [of] cognitive decline that’s gradual, you know, when do you pick it up? When do you define it? And then you can have something very sudden like a car crash, a stroke and any number of things that can cause cognitive damage immediately.

Rovner: Now, we didn’t know then, but we know now that Ronald Reagan had the first stages of dementia towards the end of his second term. Sorry, Rachel, you wanted to say something?

Roubein: We’ve seen careful reporting around — I think, about like the San Francisco Chronicle story last year — about [Sen.] Dianne Feinstein [D-Calif.], which essentially looked at this. There were some questions around [Sen.] Thad Cochran [R-Miss.], as well. And it’s something journalists have looked at pretty carefully by talking to other senators and those who know the lawmakers well to see how they are essentially.

Kenen: And Strom Thurmond, who was, to a layperson, like all the reporters covering the Hill, it was clear that … he served until he was, what, 98 or something? You know, it was very clear that half the time he was having struggles.

Rovner: And I remember so many times that there would be the very old senators on the floor who would basically be napping on the floor of the Senate.

Kenen: That might be a sign of mental health.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s true. But napping because they couldn’t stay awake, not just curling up for a nap. But, I mean, it’s an interesting discussion. You know, as I say, I’m pretty sure that Nikki Haley is doing it to try and poke at both Biden and Trump and keep herself in the news. And, as I say, it’s working.

Kenen: But I think there’s a question of fitness that I think has come up over and over again. I mean, Paul Tsongas was running for president, what, the Nineties and said he was over his lymphoma or luekemia.

Rovner: I think he had lymphoma. Yeah.

Kenen: He said he was fine, and it turns out he wasn’t. And he actually died quite young, quite soon after not getting the nomination. So there are legitimate issues of fitness, mental and physical, for the presidency. I would think that there’s a different standard for senators just because you’re one out of 100 instead of one out of one. I think there is a tradition, which Trump didn’t really follow. There is a tradition of disclosure, but it’s not foolproof. And Trump certainly just had — remember, he had that letter from his doctor who also didn’t live much longer after that, saying he was the most fit president in history, Like, just don’t get me started, but basically said he was a greek god. So there are legitimate concerns about fitness, but it’s hard to figure out. I mean, it was really hard to figure out in Congress how to do that.

Rovner: Yeah, I think the “who decides” what will be the most difficult part of that, which is probably why they haven’t done it yet. All right. Well, turning to policy, two weeks ago, we talked about the coming Medicare wars with President Biden taking aim at Republicans in his State of the Union speech, and particularly, although he didn’t name him, with Florida Sen. Rick Scott, who last year as head of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee, released a plan that would have sunset every federal program, including Medicare and Social Security, every five years. And they would cease to be unless Congress re-approved them. We know how much trouble Congress has doing anything. This horrified a whole lot of Republicans, who not only have been on the wrong end politically of threatening Medicare — and paid a price for it at the ballot box — but who themselves have used it as a weapon on Democrats. See my column from last week, which I will put in the show notes. So now, kind of predictably, Sen. Scott has succumbed and proposed a new plan that would sunset every federal program except Medicare and Social Security. But I imagine that’s not going to end this particular political fight, right? The Democrats seem to have become a dog with a bone on this.

Roubein: Yeah. And it’s known as “Mediscare” for a reason, right? It’s something both political parties use and try and weaponize. I mean, I think one of the really big questions for me when I kept on hearing this, like what? Cuts to Medicare, what does that actually mean in practice? Some experts said that it might simply mean slowing the rate of growth in the program compared to what it would have been, which doesn’t necessarily impact people’s benefits. It can; it depends how it’s done. But I mean, we’ve seen this political fight before. It happened during the Affordable Care Act and afterwards, the effect of cutting Medicare Advantage plan payments, etc., didn’t really make plans less generous. They continued to be more generous. So it’s something that we’ll continue to see Biden talk about because the administration thinks that it plays well among seniors.

Rovner: But even as Bernie Sanders pointed out this week, we’re going to have to deal with Medicare and Social Security eventually. They can’t continue on their current path because they will both run out of money at some point unless something gets changed. But right now, it seems that both sides are much happier to use it as a cudgel than to actually sit down and figure out how to fix it.

Kenen: But one thing that’s interesting is that it wasn’t a big issue in the November elections. The Democrats late in the game tried to draw attention to the Rick Scott proposal. I almost wrote a piece how there was no discussion of Medicare for the first time in years. And just as I was starting to write it, they began talking about it a little bit. So I didn’t write it. But it never stuck. It wasn’t a major issue. And the one race where it really could have been would have been Wisconsin, because that was a tight Senate race — the Democrats really wanted to defeat Ron Johnson, who is to the right of Rick Scott on phasing out Medicare. He’s the only one who endorsed Scott and actually wanted to go further, and it didn’t even really stick there. So it’s sort of interesting that it’s now bubbling up. I mean, yes, we’re into 2024, but we’re not into 2024 the way we’re going to be into 2024. It’s sort of interesting to see that the Democrats are hitting this so far.

Rovner: No, I think that’s because of the debt ceiling.

Kenen: Right. But it’s supposedly off the table for the debt ceiling, which doesn’t mean, as Rachel just said, there are legitimate fiscal issues that Democrats and Republicans both acknowledge. They’re, crudely speaking, Democrats want to raise more money for them, and Republicans want to slow spending. That’s a that’s an oversimplification. But the rhetoric is always throwing Grandma off the cliff. Never Grandpa, always Grandma.

Rovner: Always Grandma.

Kenen: You know, actually, you can do things over a 20-year period. That’s what we did with Social Security. We did raise the age in a bipartisan fashion on Social Security 20 years … took like 20 years to phase it.

Rovner: And I would point out that the only person who really reacted to Rick Scott’s plan when it came out last February was, I think, a year ago this week, was Mitch McConnell.

Kenen: Yeah, he blew a gasket.

Rovner: But he immediately disavowed it. So Mitch McConnell knew what a problem it could turn into and kind of has now. So we have kind of the reverse sides in Medicare Advantage of the fight. That’s the private alternative to traditional Medicare. It’s the darling of Republicans, who touched off the current popularity of the program when they dramatically increased payments for it in 2003, which led to increased benefits and increased profits for insurance companies. They split those — that extra money between themselves and the beneficiaries. And, not surprisingly, increased popularity to the point where a majority of beneficiaries right now are in Medicare Advantage plans rather than traditional Medicare. On the other hand, these plans, which were originally supposed to cut overall Medicare costs, are instead proving more expensive than traditional Medicare. And Democrats would like to claw some of those profits back. But that looks about as likely as Republicans sunsetting Medicare, right? There’s just too many people who are too happy with their extra benefits.

Roubein: I guess we’ve seen two proposals from the administration this year which would change Medicare benefits. Then Republicans are trying to paint this as a cut but are saying it wouldn’t change benefits. But to change Medicare Advantage, one way …

Rovner: To change payments for Medicare Advantage.

Roubein: Yes, exactly. One which essentially would increase the government’s ability to audit plans and recover past overpayments and one which is the annual rate proposal. And there’s some aspects in there that Medicare Advantage plans are on a full-court lobbying press to say these are cuts which the administration is pushing back on really, really hard. So this is another microcosm of this Medicare scare tactics.

Rovner: And they’re all over TV already, commercials that probably don’t mean much to anybody if you’re not completely up on this fight of, like, “Congress is thinking about cutting Medicare Advantage.” No, really? I do laugh every time I see that ad.

Kenen: But, you know, Julie, you’re right that this began as a Republican cause, I mean, they had a similar program in the late ’90s that flopped and they revived it as Medicare Advantage. But it didn’t stay a Republican pet project for long. I mean, Democrats, starting with those in states with a lot of retirees — I’m thinking in Florida, who had Democratic senators at the time. I mean, they jumped on board, too, because people like … there are people who want to stay in traditional Medicare and there are people who jumped on to Medicare Advantage, which has certain advantages. It is less partisan than it began. It has always been more expensive than it was touted to be. And it’s now, we’re heading into 20 years since the legislation was passed, and nothing has really been done to change that trajectory, nothing significant. And I don’t think you’re going to see a major overhaul of it. There may be things that you can do [on] a bipartisan basis that nip. But if you’re nipping at that many billions of dollars, a nip as can be a lot of money.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s the thing about Medicare. Although I would point out also that the reason it flopped in the late 1990s is because Congress whacked the payments for it as part of the Balanced Budget Act. And as they gave the money back, it got more popular again because, lo and behold, extra money means extra benefits and people liked it. So its popularity has been definitely tied to how much the payments are that Congress has been willing to provide for it.

Kenen: And how they market and who they market to.

Rovner: Absolutely, which is a whole ’nother issue. But I want to do a covid check-in this week because it’s been a while. First, we have a study from Duke University published in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association showing that using the deworming drug ivermectin, even at a higher dose and for a longer time, still doesn’t work against covid. This was a decent-sized, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial over nine months. Why is this such a persistent desire of so many people and even doctors to use this drug that clearly doesn’t work?

Karlin-Smith: You know, there’s been a lot of misinformation out there, particularly spread by the right and people that have not just, in general, trusted the government during covid and felt like this drug worked. And for whatever reason, they were being convinced that there was a government effort to kind of repress that. What’s interesting to point out, you know, you mentioned the trial being run at Duke. This was actually a part of a big NIH [National Institutes of Health] study to study various drugs for covid. So even NIH has been willing to actually do the research and to prove whether the drug does or doesn’t work. One of the issues this raises is this was one of many studies at this point that has shown the drug doesn’t work. In this one they even were willing to test, OK, a lower dose didn’t work. Let’s test a higher dose. Again, it fails. And the question becomes is, is there any amount of data or trials that can convince people who have, again, gone through this process where they’ve been convinced by this misinformation to believe it works and that the government is lying to them? Is there any way to convince them, with this type of evidence, it doesn’t work? And then what are the ethics of doing this research on people? Because you’re wasting government resources. You’re wasting resources in general. You’re wasting time, money. You’re giving people a drug in the trial when they could be getting another drug and that might actually work. So it’s really complicated because, again, I’m not sure you can convince the true ivermectin fans. I’m not sure there’s any amount of this type of scientific evidence that’s going to convince them that it doesn’t work for covid.

Rovner: But while we are talking about scientific studies about covid, a controversial meta-analysis from the esteemed Cochrane Review found basically no evidence that masks have done anything to prevent the spread of covid. But this is another study that seems to have been wildly misinterpreted. It didn’t find … what it looked like was not necessarily what we think. A lot of it turned out to be studies that were seeing whether flu, whether masks prevented against flu, rather than against covid. I mean, have we ended the whole idea of mask wearing and maybe not correctly?

Kenen: This was a meta-analysis for Cochrane, which is really basically … I mean, I think Sarah probably knows more about Cochrane than the rest of us, but their reviews are meaningful and taken seriously and they’re usually well done. The studies that they use in this meta-analysis didn’t ask the question that the headlines said it asked. And also, I mean, I don’t totally understand why they did it, because a) as Julie just pointed out, there was something like 78 studies, 76 of which were done before covid. So, you know, a) that’s a problem. And b), it didn’t actually measure who was wearing a mask. It was like, OK, you’re told to wear a mask or maybe you’re required to wear a mask if you’re working in a hospital while you’re in the hospital. But then you go out to a bar that night and you’re not wearing … I mean, it didn’t really look at the totality of whether people were actually wearing masks properly, consistently. And therefore, why use this flu data to answer questions about masking? And secondly, I also think it always is worth reminding people that, you know, no one ever said masks were the be-all and end-all. It was a component — you know, masking, handwashing, vaccination, distancing, testing, all the things that we didn’t do right. Ventilation … I mean, all that. There’s a long list of things we didn’t do right; masking was one of many. This is not going to help if we ever need masks for any disease again in the future. It did not advance this public health strategy — they call it, like, they like to talk about Swiss cheese, that any one step has holes in it. So you use a whole lot of steps and you don’t have any more holes in your Swiss cheese. It’s going to make it harder if we ever need them.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, notwithstanding scientific evidence now, we have two Republican state lawmakers in Idaho who have introduced a bill that would make any mRNA vaccines illegal to administer in the state, not just to people, but to, quote, “any mammal” with violators subject to jail time. And if I may read the subhead of the story about this … at the science website Ars Technica, quote, “It’s not clear if the two lawmakers know what messenger RNA is exactly.” In a normal world, I would say this is just silly and it couldn’t pass. But we’re not in a normal world anymore, right? I mean, we could actually see Idaho ban mRNA technology, which is used, going to be used for a lot more than covid.

Karlin-Smith: So I think the thing that really interests me about reading about this, and I’d be interested to hear what legal scholars think about this, but I was wondering if there’s a parallel here between this and what’s going on with the abortion pill in Republican states and what the courts may do with that, because it seems to me like there’s probably should be some kind of federal preemption that would kick in here, which is that vaccines are regulated, approved by this technology, by the federal government. Yes, there’s some practice of medicine where states have control from the federal government. But this seems like a case where, and in the past, when states have tried to get into banning FDA-approved products in this way, courts … have pushed back and said, you can’t do this. And I would say, I don’t think this Idaho law would hold up if it gets passed. But now we have this issue going on with the abortion pill, and it seems like there could be this major challenge by the courts to FDA’s authority. So you do sort of wonder, is this another example of what could happen if this authority gets challenged by the states? And, like you said, we are in this different world where maybe three years ago I would say, well, you know, even if Idaho can pass this, of course, this isn’t going to come to practice. But I do wonder, as we’re watching some of these other legal challenges to FDA-approved technologies, what it could mean down the line.

Kenen: I mean, remember, it also … with ivermectin, there are state legislatures that have actually protected patients’ rights to get ivermectin.

Rovner: And doctors’ rights to provide it.

Kenen: Right. And I know more than half the states had legislation. I don’t know how many actually passed it. I don’t remember. But I mean, it was a significant number of states. So these are … all these things that we’re talking about are related — you know, who gets to decide based on what evidence or lack thereof.

Rovner: So if there’s a reason that I brought these three things up, because after all this, a federal judge in California has temporarily blocked enforcement of a new state law that would allow the state medical board to sanction doctors who spread false or misleading information about covid vaccines and treatments. One of the plaintiffs told The New York Times that the law is too vague, quote “Today’s quote-unquote, ‘misinformation’ is tomorrow’s standard of care, he said.” Which is absolutely true. So how should we go about combating medical misinformation? I mean, you know, sometimes people who sound wacky end up having the answer. You know, you don’t want to stop them, but you also don’t want people peddling stuff that clearly doesn’t work.

Kenen: In addition to state boards, there are large medical societies that are — I don’t know how far they’ve gone, but they have said that they will take action. I’m sure that any action they take either will or has already ended up in court. So there are multiple ways of getting at misinformation. But, you know, like Sarah said it really well, there are people who’ve made up their mind and nothing you do is going to stop them from believing that. And some of them have died because they believe the wrong people. So I don’t think we’re going to solve the misinformation problem on this podcast. Or even off — I don’t think the four of us …

Rovner: If only we could.

Kenen: Even if we were off the podcast! But it’s very complicated. I — a lot of my work right now is centered on that. The idea that courts and states are coming down on the wrong side, in terms of where the science stands right now, understanding that science can change and does change. I mean, whether another version of that law could get through the California courts, I mean, there are apparently some broad drafting problems with that law.

Rovner: It hasn’t been struck down yet. It’s just been temporarily blocked while the court process continues. We’ll see. All right. Well, let’s move on to abortion since we’ve been kind of nibbling around the edges. Rachel, you wrote about a group of abortion rights-supporting Democratic governors organizing to coordinate state responses to anti-abortion efforts. What could that do?

Roubein: Yeah, so it’s news this week. It’s called the Reproductive Freedom Alliance. And essentially the idea is so governors can have a forum to more rapidly collaborate, compare notes on things like executive orders that are aimed at expanding and protecting abortion bills, moving through the legislature, budgetary techniques. And as we’re talking about lawsuits, I mean, talk to some governors and you know that the Texas lawsuit from conservative groups seeking to revoke the FDA’s approval of a key abortion pill is top of mind in this new alliance. Kind of the idea is to be able to rapidly come together and have some sort of response if the outcome of that case doesn’t go their way or other major looming decisions. I think it’s interesting. They are billing themselves as nonpartisan. But, you know, only Democratic governors have signed up here.

Rovner: Well, we could have had Larry Hogan and the few moderate Republicans that are left.

Roubein: Yes, Charlie Baker.

Rovner: If they were still … Charlie Baker.

Roubein: Sununu.

Rovner: If they were still there, which they’re not.

Roubein: I mean, I think the other interesting thing about this is if … you looked at 2024, and if a Republican’s in the White House in 2025, they might try and roll back actions Biden has done. So I could foresee a Democratic governors alliance trying to attempt to counteract that in a way that states can.

Rovner: Well, also, on the abortion rights front, supporters in Ohio are trying to get a measure on the ballot that would write abortion rights into the state constitution. This has worked in other red and purple states like Kansas and Michigan. But Ohio? A state that’s been trending redder and redder. It was the home of the first introduced six-week abortion ban five or six years ago. How big a message would that send if Ohio actually voted to protect abortion rights in its constitution? And does anybody think there’s any chance that they would?

Roubein: I think it’s interesting when you look at Kentucky and Kansas, which their ballot measures were different. It was for the state constitution to say that there was no right to an abortion, but abortion rights …

Rovner: There was a negative they defeated saying there was no right.

Roubein: Yeah. I mean, abortion groups really think the public is on their side here. And anti-abortion leaders do think that ballot measures aren’t … like, fighting ballot measures isn’t their best position either. So I think it’ll be interesting to see. Something that caught my eye with this is that the groups are trying to get it on the 2023 general election ballot. And right now what some Republican lawmakers are trying to do to counteract not just abortion ballot measures, but more progressive ballot measures, which is to try and increase the threshold of passage for a ballot measure. And there’s a bill in the Ohio legislature that would increase passage for enshrining anything into the state constitution to 60% support. But that would have to go to the people, too. So essentially, the timing here could counteract to that. So.

Rovner: Yeah, and as we saw in Kansas, if you have this question at a normally … off time for a big turnout, you can turn out your own people. So I assume they’re doing that very much on purpose. They don’t want it to be on the 2024 ballot with the president and Senate race in Ohio and everything else. All right. Well, one more on the abortion issue. Moving to the other side. A Florida lawyer is petitioning to have a pregnant woman who’s been accused, although not convicted, of second-degree murder released from jail because her fetus is being held illegally. Now, it’s not entirely clear if the lawyer is actually in favor of so-called personhood or it’s just trying to get his client, the pregnant woman, out of jail. But these kinds of cases can eventually have pretty significant ramifications, right? If a judge were to say, I’m going to release this woman because the fetus hasn’t done anything wrong.

Kenen: Well, there’s going to be an amendment to the personhood amendment saying, except when we don’t like the mother, right? I mean, she’s already almost at her due date. So it probably is going to be moot. There’s an underlying question in this case about whether she’s been getting good prenatal care, and that’s a separate issue than personhood. I mean, if the allegations are correct and she has not gotten the necessary prenatal care, then she certainly should be getting the necessary prenatal care. I don’t think this is going to be ruled on in time — I think she’s already in her final month of pregnancy. So I don’t think we’re going to see a ruling that’s going to create personhood for fetal inmates.

Rovner: She’ll have the baby before she gets let out of jail.

Kenen: I think other lawyers might try this. I mean, I think it’s legal chutzpah, I guess. If one lawyer came up with it, I don’t see why other lawyers won’t try it for other incarcerated pregnant women.

Rovner: Yeah. And you could see it feeding into the whole personhood issue of, you know, [does] the fetus have its own set of individual rights, you know, apart from the pregnant woman who’s carrying it? And it’s obviously something that’s that we’re going to continue to grapple with, I think, as this debate continues. All right. That is the news for this week. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it; we will post the links on the podcast page at khn.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sarah, why don’t you go first this week?

Karlin-Smith: I took a look at a story in the DCist. It’s called “Locals Who Don’t Speak English Need Medical Translators, but Some Say They Don’t Always Get the Service.” It was by Amanda Michelle Gomez and Hector Alejandro Arzate, and it basically takes a look at a lack of medical translators who can help patients who don’t speak English in the D.C. area and the harm that can be caused when patients don’t have that support, whether they’re in the hospital or at medical appointment, focusing on a woman who basically said she wasn’t getting food for three days and actually left the hospital to provide her food and she was undergoing … cancer treatment and in there for an emergency situation. It also highlights a federally funded facility in D.C. that is trying to support patients in the area with translators, but some of the health policy challenges they face, such as, you know, there’s reimbursement for basically accompanying a patient to an appointment, but there’s out-of-appointment care that patients need. Like if you’re sent home with instructions in English and there’s difficulty funding that care. And I mean, I just think the issue is important and fascinating because people who cover health policy, I think, tend to realize sometimes, even if you have an M.D. and a Ph.D. in various aspects of this system, it can be very hard to navigate your care in the U.S., even if you are best positioned. So to add in not speaking a language and, in this case, having had experience trying to help somebody who spoke a language much less more commonly spoken in the U.S. You know, I was thinking, well, she spoke Spanish, you know, how bad could it be? A lot of people in the U.S. often are bilingual and Spanish is a common language that you might expect lots of people in a medical facility to know. So I think, you know, again, it just shows the complexities here of even when you’re best positioned to succeed, you often have trouble succeeding as a patient. And when you add in other factors, we really set people up for pretty difficult situations.

Rovner: Yeah, it was kind of eye-opening. Rachel.

Roubein: My extra credit is titled “Her Baby Has a Deadly Diagnosis. Her Florida Doctors Refused an Abortion,” and it’s by Frances Stead Sellers from The Washington Post. I chose the story because it gives this rare window into how an abortion ban can play on the ground when a fetus is diagnosed with a fatal abnormality. So Frances basically chronicles how one woman in Florida, Deborah Dorbert, and her husband, Lee, were told by a specialist when she was roughly 24 weeks pregnant that the fetus had a condition incompatible with life, and the couple decided to terminate the pregnancy. But they say they were ultimately told by doctors that they couldn’t due to a law passed last year in Florida that banned most abortions after 15 weeks. And so that new law does have exceptions, including allowing later termination if two physicians certify in writing that the fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality. So it’s not clear exactly how or why the Dorberts’ doctors said that they couldn’t or how they applied the law in this situation.

Rovner: Yeah, I feel like this is maybe the 10th one of these that I’ve read of women who have wanted pregnancies and wanted babies and something goes wrong with the pregnancy, and an abortion ban has prevented them from actually getting the care that they need. And I just wonder if the anti-abortion forces have really thought this through, because if they want to encourage women to get pregnant, I know a lot of women who want babies, who want to get pregnant, want to have a baby, but they’re worried that if something goes wrong, that they won’t be able to get care. You know, this question of how close to death does the pregnant woman have to be for the abortion to, quote-unquote, “save her life”? We keep seeing it now in different states and in different iterations. Sorry, it’s my little two cents. Joanne.

Kenen: My extra credit is from The Atlantic’s Katherine J. Wu. And the headline is “Eagles Are Falling, Bears Are Going Blind.” It’s about bird flu or avian flu. It does not say it couldn’t jump to humans. It does say it’s not likely to jump to humans, but that we have to be better prepared, and we have to watch it. But it really made the interesting point that it is much more pervasive among not just birds, but other animals than prior, what we and laypeople call “bird flu.” And it’s going to have — 60, something like 60 million U.S. birds have died. It is affecting Peruvian sea lions, grizzly bears, bald eagles, all sorts of other species, mostly birds, but some mammals. And it’s going to have a huge impact on wildlife for many years to come. And, you know, the ecological environment, our wildlife enviornments. And it’s a really interesting piece. I hadn’t seen that aspect of it described. And if you think — and eggs are going to stay expensive.

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say this morning, I actually saw that in Cambodia reported one of the first deaths in this recent wave, of a person with this bird flu. So the question, I guess, is in the past, it hasn’t easily spread from person to person. And so that would be like the big concern where you’d worry about really large outbreaks.

Rovner: Yeah, because we don’t have enough to worry about right now.

Kenen: We should be watching this one. I mean, this is a different manifestation of it. But we do know there have been isolated cases like the one Sarah just described where, you know, people have gotten it and a few people have died, but it has not easily adapted. And of course, if it does adapt, that’s a different story. And then … in what form does it adapt? Is it more like the flu we know, or, I mean, there are all sorts of unanswered questions. Yes, we need to watch it. But this story was actually just so interesting because it was about what it’s doing to animals.

Rovner: Yeah, it is. The ecosystem is more than just us. Well, my story is from Stat News by Calli McMurray, and it’s highly relevant for our podcast. It’s called “Current Treatments for Cramps Aren’t Cutting It. Why Aren’t There Better Options?” And yes, it’s about menstrual cramps, which affect as many as 91% of all women of reproductive age. Nearly a third of them severely. Yet there’s very little research on the actual cause of cramps and current treatments, mostly nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or birth control pills, don’t work for a lot of people. As someone who spent at least a day a month of her 20s and 30s in bed with a heating pad, I can’t tell you how angry it makes me that this is still a thing with all the other things that we have managed to cure in medicine.

OK. That is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth — all one word — @kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m @jrovner. Joanne?

Kenen: @JoanneKenen

Rovner: Rachel.

Roubein: @rachel_roubein

Rovner: Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: @SarahKarlin

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KHN’s What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

In recent years, wearable devices such as smartwatches, rings, and smart scales have become ubiquitous-“must-haves” for the health conscious to self-monitor heart rate, blood pressure, and other vital signs. Despite the obvious benefits, certain fitness and wellness trackers could pose serious risks in this population due to potential interference. 

Investigators evaluated the functioning of CRT devices from three leading manufacturers while applying electrical current used during bioimpedance sensing. Bioimpedance sensing is a technology that emits a very small, imperceptible current of electricity (measured in microamps) into the body. The electrical current flows through the body, and the sensor measures the response to determine the person’s body composition (i.e., skeletal muscle mass or fat mass), level of stress, or vital signs, such as breathing rate.

“Bioimpedance sensing generated an electrical interference that exceeded Food and Drug Administration-accepted guidelines and interfered with proper CIED functioning,” explained lead investigator Benjamin Sanchez Terrones, PhD, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. He emphasized that the results, determined through careful simulations and benchtop testing, do not convey an immediate or clear risk to patients who wear the trackers. However, the different levels emitted could result in pacing interruptions or unnecessary shocks to the heart. Dr. Sanchez added, “our findings call for future clinical studies examining patients with CIEDs and wearables.”

The interaction between general electrical appliances, and more recently smartphones, with CIEDs, has been subject to study within the scientific community over the past few years. Nearly all, if not all, implantable cardiac devices already warn patients about the potential for interference with a variety of electronics due to magnetic fields – for example, carrying a mobile phone in your breast pocket near a pacemaker. The rise of wearable health tech has grown rapidly in recent years, blurring the line between medical and consumer devices. Until this study, objective evaluation for ensuring safety has not kept pace with the exciting new gadgets.

“Our research is the first to study devices that employ bioimpedance-sensing technology and discover potential interference problems with CIEDs such as CRT devices. We need to test across a broader cohort of devices and in patients with these devices. Collaborative investigation between researchers and industry would help keep patients safe,” noted Dr. Sanchez Terrones.

Reference:

Gia-Bao Ha, Benjamin A. Steinberg, Roger Freedman, Antoni Bayés-Genís, Benjamin Sanchez, Published:February 21, 2023 DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2022.11.026

King contó que el banco de alimentos está muy ocupado a principios de mes porque las personas que reciben beneficios del Programa de Asistencia Nutricional Suplementaria (SNAP) federal,  vienen a abastecerse de alimentos gratis que los ayudan a estirar su presupuesto mensual.

Ha trabajado en este banco por más de 20 años, y dijo que nunca había recibido a tantas familias. En enero, FISH entregó cajas de comida a cerca de 790 personas.

Pero King y otros gerentes de bancos de alimentos temen que la demanda aumente aún más en marzo, cuando el gobierno retire los beneficios extra que SNAP ofreció durante la pandemia. El programa, administrado por el Departamento de Agricultura, proporciona dinero mensual a personas de bajos ingresos para gastos de alimentos. Antes de 2020, esos pagos promediaban poco más de $200 y aumentaron un mínimo de $95 durante la pandemia.

Funcionarios estiman que las familias con las que King trabaja verán una disminución del 30% al 40% en los pagos de SNAP a medida que se interrumpen las asignaciones de emergencia vinculadas a la emergencia de salud pública en 32 estados, incluido Nevada.

Otros estados, como Georgia, Indiana, Montana y Dakota del Sur, ya finalizaron estas asignaciones.

Los recortes a los beneficios de SNAP perjudicarán especialmente a las personas que viven en las zonas rurales del país, dijo Andrew Cheyne, director gerente de políticas públicas de GRACE, una organización sin fines de lucro dirigida por Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, enfocada en reducir el hambre infantil.

Un mayor porcentaje de personas depende de SNAP en áreas rurales en comparación con las áreas metropolitanas. Y esas zonas ya tienen tasas más altas de inseguridad alimentaria y de pobreza.

“Tenemos tantos hogares que simplemente no van a saber que esto está sucediendo”, dijo Cheyne. “Irán al mercado y esperarán tener dinero en su cuenta, y no podrán comprar los alimentos que necesitan para alimentar a sus familias”.

Mientras golpean las consecuencias de estos recortes, administradores de bancos de alimentos en áreas rurales se encuentran en el frente de batalla, tratando de llenar estos vacíos en sus comunidades. Ellos, y expertos en políticas alimentarias, temen que no sea suficiente. Por cada dólar en productos que un banco de alimentos distribuye a una comunidad, SNAP entrega $9.

“Simplemente no se puede comparar la escala de SNAP con el sector de alimentos caritativos”, dijo Cheyne. “Simplemente no es posible compensar esa diferencia”.

Los beneficios de cada hogar se reducirán en al menos $95 por mes, y algunos hogares absorberán una reducción de hasta $250, según el Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

“Por lo que veo, no hay forma de que alguna vez compensemos por completo lo que se está perdiendo”, dijo Ellen Vollinger, directora de SNAP para el Food Research & Action Center, una organización sin fines de lucro contra el hambre, con sede en Washington, D.C.

Los recortes reducirán los pagos a los hogares que reciben asistencia a un promedio de alrededor de $6 por persona, por día, dijo Vollinger. Y agregó que $2 por comida no es suficiente para alimentar a una persona, especialmente sumando otros factores, como el aumento de la gasolina, el alquiler, y los precios de los alimentos. Añadió que algunos adultos mayores verán la caída más abrupta en los beneficios, pasando de $280 al mes a $23.

Chasity Harris, de 42 años, dijo que los $519 en beneficios que ha recibido mensualmente desde octubre marcan una gran diferencia para ella y su nieta. Cuando termine la asignación de emergencia, dijo que sabe que hará lo necesario para asegurarse de que haya comida en la mesa, pero eso no significa que será fácil.

“No se puede comer sano sin tener un presupuesto amable”, dijo Harris. “La mala comida es barata. El hecho de que pueda arreglármelas no significa que esté obteniendo todo lo que necesitamos. Estoy comprando las cosas más baratas”.

Un estudio publicado por el Urban Institute estimó que las asignaciones de emergencia de SNAP ayudaron a más de 4 millones de personas a mantenerse por encima del umbral de pobreza a fines de 2021. Las personas negras no hispanas e hispanas vieron la mayor reducción en los niveles de pobreza, según el análisis.

En Montana, los beneficios ampliados de SNAP se redujeron en el verano de 2021. Brent Weisgram, vicepresidente y director de operaciones de Montana Food Bank Network, dijo que los informes de los socios de la red mostraron un aumento del 2% en la cantidad de hogares que buscaron asistencia de bancos de alimentos de emergencia entre julio de 2021 y julio de 2022.

Weisgram dijo que las despensas de alimentos no están preparadas para absorber el impacto del recorte al programa federal de asistencia nutricional más grande, y que son estrictamente un recurso complementario.

Los bancos de alimentos de todo el país todavía están haciendo frente a la mayor demanda que comenzó en 2020, dijo Cheyne. Esa necesidad persistente de la pandemia, junto con la inflación que ha disparado los precios de los alimentos, deja a los bancos menos preparados para la demanda que resultará de los recortes a las asignaciones de emergencia de SNAP.

Si bien ahora el banco de alimentos FISH tiene suficiente carne para las familias, King dijo que le preocupa si será suficiente dentro de seis meses. En una escala del 1 al 10, su nivel de preocupación con respecto a las consecuencias de los inminentes recortes de SNAP es 9, remarcó.

Mirando el pasado reciente, sus preocupaciones son válidas.

En 2009, los beneficiarios de SNAP recibieron, en promedio, entre un 15% y un 20% más en beneficios cuando el gobierno federal estaba respondiendo a los desafíos de la Gran Recesión. Una familia de cuatro recibía $80 más al mes en beneficios. En 2013, el gobierno revirtió esto, promediando un recorte del 7% por hogar. Los efectos fueron inmediatos y a largo plazo, dijo Cheyne, incluidos picos significativos en la inseguridad alimentaria y el hambre relacionados con la pobreza que se prolongaron durante casi una década.

Esta vez, los recortes son mucho mayores que en 2013 y hay mucho menos tiempo para que los estados se preparen, lo que hace más difícil garantizar que los que reciben SNAP estén al tanto de los beneficios que están a punto de perder.

Si bien se espera que las familias e individuos recurran a otros lugares, como los bancos de alimentos, otras organizaciones de ayuda enfrentan desafíos producto de la inflación y el aumento del costo de vida.

El Banco de Alimentos del Norte de Nevada, que ayuda a suministrar bancos de alimentos, incluido FISH, en comunidades más pequeñas, ha visto una caída en las donaciones durante los últimos seis meses, dijo Jocelyn Lantrip, directora de marketing y comunicaciones del banco. El personal está “luchando” para obtener y comprar suficientes alimentos para satisfacer el aumento que se espera de la demanda, contó.

King dijo que la despensa de alimentos FISH dependerá de las donaciones porque los dólares de las subvenciones no se están estirando tanto como antes debido a la inflación. Pero harán todo lo posible para satisfacer las necesidades de su comunidad, que van mucho más allá de la asistencia alimentaria.

Las cajas de alimentos son solo una parte de los servicios que brinda FISH y otras despensas de alimentos, entre ellos: ayuda para inscribirse en SNAP y otros programas de beneficios, como vivienda y referencias a proveedores de salud mental.

A pesar del desafío por delante que enfrenta la pequeña despensa, King tiene esperanzas.

“Siento que todos los que tienen el poder de ayudar están haciendo todo lo posible para ayudarnos”, dijo. “Solo tienes que mirar tu comida y decir: ‘Está bien, ¿cuánto tiempo puedo hacer que esto dure y marcar la diferencia en la vida de alguien?'”.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

A woman dies every two minutes due to pregnancy or childbirth: UN agencies

Cristina Mitchell

23 Feb 2023

The beginning of the month is busy for the food pantry, King said, because people who receive benefits from the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, come to stock up on free food that helps them stretch their monthly allotments. The food pantry, one of a few in this city of about 20,000 people, serves more families now than at any point in King’s 20 years of working there, she said. In January, FISH provided food boxes to nearly 790 people.

But King and other food bank managers fear that demand will spike further in March, when officials roll back pandemic-era increases to SNAP benefits. The program, administered by the Department of Agriculture, provides monthly stipends to people with low incomes to spend on food. Before 2020, those payments averaged a little more than $200 and were hiked by a minimum of $95 during the pandemic.

Officials estimate families King works with will see a 30% to 40% decrease in SNAP payments as emergency allotments tied to the public health emergency halt in 32 states, including Nevada. Other states, such as Georgia, Indiana, Montana, and South Dakota, have already ended the emergency allotments.

The cuts to SNAP benefits will uniquely hurt people living in rural America, said Andrew Cheyne, managing director of public policy for GRACE, a nonprofit run by the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul focused on reducing childhood hunger. A higher percentage of people depend on SNAP in rural areas compared with metro areas. And those areas already have higher rates of food insecurity and poverty.

“We have so many households who simply aren’t going to know that this is happening,” Cheyne said. “They’re going to go to the grocery store and expect to have money in their account and not be able to buy the food they need to feed their families.”

And as the fallout from those cuts hits, food pantry managers in rural areas find themselves on the front lines trying to fill gaps in their communities. They and food policy experts fear it won’t be enough. For every dollar worth of groceries a food bank distributes to a community, SNAP delivers $9.

“There’s just no comparing the scale of SNAP to the charitable food sector,” Cheyne said. “It’s simply not possible to make up that difference.”

Each household’s benefits will drop by at least $95 per month, with some households absorbing as much as a $250 reduction, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

“There’s no way, that I see, that we’re ever going to make up fully for what’s being lost,” said Ellen Vollinger, SNAP director for the Food Research & Action Center, an anti-hunger nonprofit in Washington, D.C.

The cuts will reduce payments to households that receive assistance to an average of about $6 per person, per day, Vollinger said, adding that $2 per meal isn’t enough to feed a person, especially given other factors, like rising fuel, rent, and grocery prices. Some older adults, she said, will see the most precipitous drop in benefits, going from $280 a month to $23.

Chasity Harris, 42, said the $519 in benefits she has received monthly since October makes a big difference for her and her granddaughter. Once the emergency allotment is cut, she said, she knows she can do what it takes to make sure there’s food on the table in her home but that doesn’t mean it’ll be easy.

“You can’t eat healthy without having a nice little budget,” Harris said. “Bad food is cheap. Just because I can manage doesn’t mean I’m getting everything that we need. I’m buying the cheapest stuff.”

A study published by the Urban Institute estimated that the SNAP emergency allotments helped more than 4 million people stay above the poverty line in late 2021. Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic people saw the biggest reduction in poverty levels, according to the study.

In Montana, the expanded SNAP benefits were cut in summer 2021. Brent Weisgram, vice president and chief operating officer of the Montana Food Bank Network, said that reporting from the network’s partners shows a 24% increase in the number of households seeking assistance from emergency food pantries from July 2021 to July 2022.

Weisgram said food pantries are not prepared to absorb the impact of the cut to the largest federal nutrition assistance program and are strictly a supplemental resource.

Food banks nationwide are still coping with increased demand that began in 2020, Cheyne said. That lingering need from the pandemic, coupled with food price inflation, leaves food pantries less prepared for demand resulting from cuts to the SNAP emergency allotments.

While the FISH food pantry has enough meat for families now, King said, she worries about whether it’ll be enough six months from now. On a scale of 1 to 10, King said, her level of concern regarding the consequences of the looming SNAP cuts is a 9.

If history is any indication, her concerns are valid.

In 2009, SNAP recipients received, on average, about 15% to 20% more in benefits as the federal government responded to the challenges of the Great Recession. A family of four received $80 more a month in benefits. In 2013, the government rolled the boosted benefits back, averaging a 7% cut for households. The effects were immediate and long-term, Cheyne said, including significant spikes in food insecurity and poverty-related hunger that lasted for nearly a decade.

The cuts this time around are much greater than in 2013 and there’s much less time for states to prepare, making it more difficult to ensure SNAP recipients are aware of the benefits they’re about to lose.

While families and individuals are expected to turn elsewhere, like food banks, other aid organizations face challenges brought on by inflation and rising food costs.

The Food Bank of Northern Nevada, which helps supply food pantries in smaller communities, including FISH, has seen a drop in food donations during the past six months, said Jocelyn Lantrip, director of marketing and communications for the food bank. Staffers are “scrambling” to source and buy enough food to meet the expected increase in demand, she said.

King said the FISH food pantry will depend on donations because its grant dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to because of inflation. But they’ll do everything they can to meet the needs of their community, which go far beyond food assistance. The food boxes are just a spoke on the wheel of services FISH and other food pantries provide, such as assistance with signing up for SNAP and other benefit programs, housing, and referrals to mental health providers.

Despite the challenging road ahead for the small food pantry, King is hopeful.

“I feel that everybody who has the power to help is doing everything they can to help us,” she said. “You just gotta look at your food and say, ‘OK, how long can I make this last and make a difference in someone’s life?’”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, talks about PrEP adherence and efficacy in cisgender women.An analysis of data from more than 6,000 women collected over nearly a decade in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia found that for most, adherence declined over time.“We obviously need other options for women who want to initiate PrEP — they’re really urgently needed,” said Marrazzo, an Infectious Disease News Editorial Board Member.

Los funcionarios federales de inmigración reciben a migrantes procedentes principalmente de Brasil, Cuba, Colombia y Perú, la mayoría de los cuales esperan audiencias de asilo en Estados Unidos.

En los centros médicos, según explican los coordinadores, los migrantes reciben máscaras para protegerse de la propagación de enfermedades infecciosas, además de agua y comida. Los médicos les hacen pruebas para detectar el coronavirus, les ofrecen vacunas y aislan a los que dan positivo. Los solicitantes de asilo reciben tratamiento para las lesiones que puedan haber sufrido durante el viaje y se les realizan pruebas para detectar problemas de salud crónicos, como diabetes o hipertensión.

Pero ahora que el estado, de tendencia liberal, se enfrenta a un déficit proyectado de $22,500 millones, el gobernador Gavin Newsom ha declarado que California ya no puede permitirse mantener los centros. En enero, el gobernador demócrata propuso eliminar gradualmente algunos servicios médicos en los próximos meses y, finalmente, reducir el programa de asistencia a los migrantes, a menos que el presidente Joe Biden y el Congreso intervengan con ayuda.

California amplió los servicios de salud de su programa de asistencia a migrantes durante la fase más mortífera de la pandemia de coronavirus, hace dos años.

El estado mantiene tres centros de recursos sanitarios —dos en el condado de San Diego y uno en el condado de Imperial— que realizan pruebas y vacunaciones contra covid y otros exámenes de salud, y han atendido a más de 300,000 migrantes desde abril de 2021.

El programa de asistencia a migrantes también proporciona alimentos, alojamiento y viajes para contactarlos con patrocinadores, familiares o amigos en Estados Unidos mientras esperan sus audiencias de inmigración; y el estado ha financiado el esfuerzo humanitario con una asignación de más de mil millones de dólares desde 2019.

Aunque la Casa Blanca declinó hacer comentarios y no ha promulgado ninguna legislación federal, Newsom dijo que era optimista de que la financiación federal llegará, citando “algunas conversaciones muy positivas” con la administración Biden.

El presidente anunció recientemente que Estados Unidos devolverá a los cubanos, haitianos y nicaragüenses que crucen ilegalmente la frontera desde México, una medida destinada a frenar la inmigración. La Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos también considera poner fin a una política de la era Trump conocida como Título 42, que Estados Unidos ha utilizado para expulsar a los solicitantes de asilo y supuestamente prevenir la propagación del coronavirus.

Ya se ha identificado una posible fuente de dinero federal. La Agencia Federal para el Manejo de Emergencias y el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional de los Estados Unidos comunicaron a KHN que los gobiernos locales, y los proveedores no gubernamentales, pronto podrán aprovechar $800 millones adicionales en fondos federales, a través de un programa de subvenciones para refugios y servicios.

Algunos trabajadores de salud y activistas pro inmigrantes quieren que el estado continúe su labor, pero Newsom parece contar con apoyo bipartidista estatal para reducirla. El gobernador prometió más detalles durante la revisión del presupuesto en mayo, antes de que comiencen las negociaciones legislativas sobre el presupuesto. Además, señaló que las condiciones han cambiado de tal manera que los servicios de pruebas y vacunación son menos urgentes.

El supervisor del condado de San Diego, el demócrata Nathan Fletcher, coincidió en que la carga debe recaer en el gobierno federal. Y el líder republicano del Senado estatal, Brian Jones, de San Diego, que representa a parte de la región afectada, afirmó que California tiene previsto poner fin a su estado de emergencia por la pandemia el 28 de febrero, meses antes de que el presupuesto entre en vigor en julio.

“Las condiciones de la pandemia ya no justifican esta gran inversión por parte del estado, especialmente porque se supone que la inmigración es un asunto federal”, declaró Jones en un comunicado.

California comenzó su programa de asistencia a migrantes poco después de que Newsom asumiera el cargo en 2019, después de que la administración Trump pusiera fin al programa “liberación segura” que ayudaba a transportar a inmigrantes que buscaban asilo para estar con sus familiares en Estados Unidos. Fue parte de la respuesta de California contra las políticas migratorias de Trump. Además, los legisladores estatales lo convirtieron en un llamado estado santuario, un intento de proteger a California de las medidas migratorias más duras.

California, junto con gobiernos locales y organizaciones sin fines de lucro, intervino para llenar el vacío y aliviar la presión de las zonas fronterizas trasladando rápidamente a los migrantes a otros lugares del país.

El involucramiento del estado se intensificó en 2021 a medida que la pandemia aumentaba y la administración Biden intentaba revertir la política de la administración Trump de “permanecer en México”. Algunas ciudades en otras partes del país también proporcionaron ayuda, pero los funcionarios estatales dijeron que ningún otro estado estaba proporcionando el nivel de apoyo de California.

En un esfuerzo coordinado, funcionarios federales de inmigración dejan a los migrantes en los centros. Luego, los examinan y atienden organizaciones contratadas por el estado que brindan ayuda médica, asistencia de viaje, alimentos y alojamiento temporal mientras esperan sus audiencias de inmigración. Caridades Católicas de la Diócesis de San Diego y el Servicio Familiar Judío de San Diego son los dos principales operadores de albergues para inmigrantes del estado.

Los funcionarios de inmigración no respondieron a las preguntas de KHN sobre qué exámenes médicos, y otros cuidados, reciben los migrantes antes de ser entregados al estado. A menudo pasan de uno a tres días antes de que los migrantes puedan tomar autobuses o vuelos comerciales. Mientras tanto, son alojados en hoteles y se les proporciona alimentos, ropa y otras necesidades como parte del programa estatal.

“Muchos de ellos llegan hambrientos”, señaló Vino Pajanor, director ejecutivo de Caridades Católicas de la Diócesis de San Diego, al describir el proceso de selección y pruebas en los centros. “La mayoría no tiene zapatos. Les damos zapatos”.

Las autoridades dijeron que unas 46,000 personas han sido vacunadas contra el coronavirus a través del programa. La cifra, según las mismas fuentes, es significativamente inferior al número de migrantes que han pasado por los centros porque algunos se vacunaron antes de llegar a Estados Unidos, y los migrantes más jóvenes no cumplían inicialmente los requisitos, mientras que otros rechazaron las vacunas.

Según la Agencia de Salud y Servicios Humanos de California, el estado tiene previsto retirar gradualmente parte del apoyo médico, pero se espera que las operaciones de acogida continúen “a corto plazo” y que su futuro dependa de la disponibilidad de financiación federal.

La agencia señaló que, si bien el estado no ha adoptado planes específicos para reducir la capacidad de los centros, dará prioridad a la ayuda a familias con niños pequeños y a “personas médicamente frágiles” en caso de que los refugios se vean desbordados por las llegadas. El gobernador dijo que el estado pretende “centrarse en los más vulnerables”.

Algunos activistas declararon que el estado estaba tomando la decisión equivocada.

“Ahora es el momento para que el estado de California redoble su apoyo a las personas que buscan alivio de su estado de arresto migratorio”, afirmó Pedro Ríos, quien dirige el programa de la frontera entre Estados Unidos y México en el American Friends Service Committee, que aboga en nombre de los inmigrantes. “Creo que envía un mensaje erróneo de que los problemas ya no preocupan y que los inmigrantes que potencialmente podrían beneficiarse de estos fondos ya no los necesitan”.

Esta historia fue producida por KHN, que publica California Healthline, un servicio editorialmente independiente de la California Health Care Foundation.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).