Join Forum TOMORROW Addressing the Impact of Political Polarization on Healthcare

Tomorrow, Feb. 19, 2022, the Tarrant County Academy of Medicine Ethics Consortium, in partnership with the Tarrant County Medical Society, will host their annual Healthcare in a Civil Society symposium.  This year’s program, “Polarization and the Erosion of Public Trust in Healthcare,” is an interactive event that takes an in-depth look at the impact of political polarization on healthcare.

“Our nation is beset by radical polarization,” says Stuart Pickell, MD, TCMS president-elect and chair of the consortium. “Historically, healthcare policy has been one topic on which we have been able to find common ground. What happened to transform it from something broadly bipartisan to incredibly divisive? This event will explore how we got to this point and begin to chart a path forward.”

The goal is to engage leaders of all perspectives in a civil conversation centered on the healthcare issues that are important to the Tarrant County community without the rhetoric that often undermines these conversations. This hybrid in-person/Zoom event will be held at the UNT Health Science Center from 8:30am to 1:00pm and provides continuing education credit for multiple healthcare disciplines.

While this symposium highlights discourse between community leaders, anyone who is interested in this critical topic is welcomed and encouraged to join the conversation. Those who are interested in participating can register here.

The event includes a breakout session allowing participants to explore the issues more deeply in small groups. A number of topics will be addressed, including:

  • How the media can influence public opinion and promote polarization
  • The impact of polarization on the public trust and public health
  • How polarization creates conflict (e.g., in how people refer to science as an absolute) and how to manage it
  • How people in health care professions can mitigate the effects of polarization within their spheres of influence when talking with patients

The event will be moderated by former congressman and current Sid Richardson Foundation President Pete Geren, who will be joined by panelists Bob Lanier, MD; Erin Carlson, DrPH, MPH; Tracey Rockett, PhD; and TCMS Secretary-Treasurer Triwanna Fisher-Wickoff, MD. The keynote speaker will be public affairs consultant and presidential historian Kasey S. Pipes, and the event will also feature Dr. Pickell and UNT System Chancellor Michael Williams, DO, MD, MBA.

The Tarrant County Medical Society is a professional organization that has been dedicated to the improvement of the art and science of medicine for the residents of Tarrant County since 1903. TCMS serves over 4,000 physicians, residents, medical students, and Alliance members, and is a component society of the Texas Medical Association.

Tarrant County Academy of Medicine was incorporated as a 501(c) (3) organization in 1953 to work in conjunction with the Tarrant County Medical Society. TCAM was created to enhance medical education, support community wellness, and preserve Tarrant County’s rich medical history.

POLARIZATION AND THE EROSION OF PUBLIC TRUST

by Stuart Pickell, MD, TCMS President-elect

This piece was originally published in the January/February 2022 issue of the Tarrant County Physician. You can read find the full magazine here.


Our nation is beset by radical polarization and erosion of trust.  On Saturday, February 19th from 8:30 to 1:00 p.m., Tarrant County Medical Society’s Ethics Consortium will present a CME symposium entitled “Healthcare in a Civil Society 2022” that will explore the factors that have contributed to our present state of bifurcation.

While political discourse has always been polarized, our ability to voice divergent points of view and find common ground has been a hallmark of American democracy, and an important reason why it has worked.  

Healthcare policy has been one topic on which we have been able to find common ground.  Starting in World War II, trade unions sought alternatives when Congress passed the Stabilization Act (1942), which prohibited employers from increasing wages to their employees. Successful lobbing led Congress to include a provision making health insurance tax deductible to employers, but not to individuals.1 In 1965, Congress established the Medicare and Medicaid programs, thereby creating basic health insurance for the elderly and poor. In both cases there was broad bipartisan support.  When Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, however, not a single Republican voted for it. What happened in those 45 years that transformed healthcare policy from something broadly bipartisan to incredibly divisive?

One reason Medicare and Medicaid achieved bipartisan support is that in 1965, Congress looked and behaved differently.  John Dingell, a 60-year congressman from Michigan, noted that when he began serving in the House in 1955, members saw themselves first as representatives of their state, second as representatives of an institution (the House or the Senate), and only third as members of either party.  By the time he left Congress in 2015, the order had reversed.2 Furthermore, in the 1960s, we still had left-leaning Republicans and right-leaning Democrats.  Crossing party lines was common.  People with opposing viewpoints knew each other because they met together, ate together, and socialized together.  The result was good legislation achieved by compromise and trust.  This is no longer true.  While some congressional leaders continue to work well with people “across the aisle,” this has become more the exception than the norm.

If the political process has created a breeding ground for polarization, the advent of “news on demand” has catalyzed it.  People can get the “news” they want when they want it from the sources that provide what they want to hear.  There is no incentive for these sources to present complex issues in a balanced or nuanced way.  Why should they?  

By 2014, Pew Research noted that 92 percent of Republicans were to the right of the median Democrat, and 94 percent of Democrats were to the left of the median Republican.3 It’s certainly worse now. While appealing to their bases, each side fails to take into consideration the fact that, in science, what we believe to be true today may be wrong tomorrow.  Political leaders have conveyed or distorted information and created policy based on an incomplete understanding of the facts to the detriment of public health.  And the medical community hasn’t always been helpful.  Our failure to distinguish accurately and consistently between what we know, what we think we know, and what remains a mystery about the current virus, has undermined our messaging to a politically charged and skeptical public.

The public’s reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine serves as a classic example.  Many people allowed their position regarding the vaccine to be informed by political narrative rather than by scientific evidence.  Lost in the rhetoric is the amazing story of Hungarian-born biochemist Katalin Karikó who, while working as a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania over 25 years ago, had a vision that mRNA could be leveraged for therapeutic effect.  Over the last 15 years she nurtured that vision and refined the technology until it became a cure in search of a disease.  With COVID-19 it had its disease.  How do you put that in a sound bite? And if you manage to, how does it make it past the political noise?

It would be disingenuous to blame this polarization on any single event like the Affordable Care Act or the COVID-19 pandemic.  They didn’t cause it.  Metaphorically speaking, they are the hurricane that washes ashore and, in its aftermath, reveals off the coast a long-lost pirate ship.  The pirate ship was always there, under the surface, but now everyone can see it.  

But there is hope.  Patients continue to trust us – the physicians they know – even if they are wary of our media representatives.  In fact, because physicians adhere to an ethical code dating back over two millennia, we continue to be among the most trusted professionals in modern society, often jockeying with nurses for the #1 position.4 We have a fiduciary responsibility to our patients, and they know it.  Our ethical obligation is to serve them – not an insurance company or a hospital, and certainly not a political party.  

I call attention to this issue because it will be the focus of Healthcare in a Civil Society 2022. This CME event will explore how we got to this point and begin to chart a path forward.  Kasey Pipes, a public affairs consultant, presidential historian, and former speechwriter for George W. Bush, will help us identify the factors that have contributed to polarization.  Pete Geren, former congressman and current president of the Sid Richardson Foundation, will again moderate the expert panel that will address:

  • How the media influences public opinion and promotes polarization and mistrust
  • The impact of polarization on the public trust and public health
  • How polarization creates conflict (e.g., in how people refer to science as an absolute) and how to manage it
  • How people in health care professions can mitigate the effects of polarization within their spheres of influence when talking with patients

The event includes a breakout session allowing participants to explore the topic more deeply in small groups.

One thing I enjoy about being a physician is interacting with a diverse group of people.  Part of the challenge for me is understanding where my patients are coming from and meeting them where they are to help them achieve their health goals.  I make a concerted effort not to see my patients as “cases” – as diseases to be treated – but as people to be valued and loved.  I think this ethos underlies our vocation, and it’s one of the reasons why medical professionals continue to enjoy the public’s trust.  And it’s this trust that will help us neutralize the polarizing influences our political rhetoric has on public health.  Join us in February and help us explore this important topic more completely.

About Healthcare in a Civil Society

Healthcare in a Civil Society is an annual forum sponsored by the Tarrant County Medical Society’s Ethics Consortium. It seeks to engage leaders of varying perspectives in a civil conversation focusing on the healthcare issues that are important to our community devoid of the rhetoric that often undermines these conversations.   

References

1. Feldstein, Martin and James Poterba, editors.  Empirical Foundations of Household Taxation.  National Bureau of Economic Research.  University of Chicago Press, 1996.  p. 137.  ISBN: 0-226-24097-5.  http://www.nber.org/books/feld96-1.  Conference Date: January 20-21, 1996.

2. Seib, Gerald.  “Gerrymandering Puts Partisanship in Overdrive; Can California Slow It?” Wall Street Journal.  November 29, 2021.  Seib paraphrased Dingell’s comments in the article.

3. Pew Research Center. “Political Polarization in the American Public: How Increasing Ideological Uniformity and Partisan Antipathy Affect Politics, Compromise and Everyday Life.” June 2014.

4. Saad, Lydia. “U.S. Ethics Ratings Rise for Medical Workers and Teachers.”  Gallup.  December 22, 2020.  https://news.gallup.com/poll/328136/ethics-ratings-rise-medical-workers-teachers.aspx.  For what it’s worth, members of congress are jockeying with car salespeople for last place.

Tarrant County COVID-19 Activity – 02/15/22

COVID-19 Positive cases: 551,557

COVID-19 related deaths: 5454

Recovered COVID-19 cases: 491,963

Data from Tarrant County Public Heath’s (TCPH) report of COVID-19 activity in Tarrant County updated Tuesday, February 15, 2o22. Find more COVID-19 information from TCPH here.

*These data are provisional and are subject to change at any time.

Deaths and recovered cases are included in total COVID-19 positive cases.

COVID-19 trends in Tarrant County and questions about the pandemic’s future

Tarrant County Public Health Director Vinny Taneja and Allergist/Immunologist Robert Rogers, MD, spoke with Lili Zheng of NBC5 on the state of COVID-19 in Tarrant County and the things that could impact the direction on the pandemic in the coming months:

“I think the real wildcard is, do enough people have immunity to prevent another surge? That’s one. Another would be, are we going to deal with another variant?”

Dr. Robert Rogers

You can watch the video below or read the full story here.

CDC Approves Moderna Adult COVID-19 Vaccine

Moderna’s adult COVID-19 vaccine has now earned full approval following recommendation’s from both the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) immunization panel.

On Feb. 4, after CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices unanimously voted to recommend Moderna’s two-shot series, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, quickly endorsed that recommendation.

“If you have been waiting for approval before getting vaccinated, now is the time to join the nearly 212 million Americans who have already completed their primary series,” Dr. Walensky said in an agency statement. “CDC continues to recommend that people remain up to date on their COVID-19 vaccines, including getting a booster shot when eligible.”

The adult version of the Moderna vaccine is for people aged 18 and older. Pfizer’s two-shot vaccine, which was granted full approval in August 2021, is for use in people 16 and older.

SELF-CARE FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS DURING A PANDEMIC

Public Health Notes

by Catherine Colquitt, MD – Tarrant County Public Health Medical Director

This piece was originally published in the January/February 2022 issue of the Tarrant County Physician. You can read find the full magazine here.


Almost two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers (HCWs) and those who study them are cataloging HCW burnout and compassion fatigue at epic levels. But experts who study HCWs have been describing and attempting to address these phenomena long before anyone could have imagined the impact of COVID-19 on our world and the healthcare systems we inhabit.

Very early in the course of the world’s experience with COVID-19, investigators began to sound alarms about the secondary trauma HCWs may sustain by caring for those infected with the virus. There was concern about HCWs being forced to make decisions about allocation of scarce resources, placing themselves and those they love at risk for infection through their work-related COVID-19 exposure, and having to deliver bad news to patients in person and to their families remotely.  There was also concern about the moral injury caused by the deaths of so many in their care from a disease for which treatments remain somewhat limited. 

Lai et al in JAMA Network was one of the first authors to publish on mental health outcomes of pandemic HCWs in China.1 The paper evaluated 1,257 HCWs in Chinese hospitals with Fever Clinics or COVID-19 wards and found that a large proportion of survey respondents expressed symptoms of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and emotional distress. Their findings supported the need for a range of responses including various psychological support services. 

Later in 2020, researchers in Italy examined “professional quality of life” in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and sorted 627 subjects into two groups: those caring for COVID-19 patients and those not working with COVID-19 infected patients.2 They found statistically significant differences between HCWs caring for those with COVID-19 and those who were not, and those differences centered around perception of stress, anxiety, and depression as assessed by various scales akin to the PHQ9, a questionnaire designed to identify subjects at high risk for depression. These investigators found higher levels of “stress, burnout, secondary trauma, anxiety, and depression” among HCWs caring for COVID-19 patients, but they found no difference in their survey aimed at assessing “compassion satisfaction” between the two groups.  Compassion satisfaction for these researchers “encompasses positive aspects of working in healthcare” and the embodiment of “empathy and a strong desire to care for those who are suffering.” 

Perhaps most encouraging in the Italian study was the finding that compassion satisfaction among HCWs treating COVID-19 patients allowed these HCWs to use their capacity for empathy and the emotional support they received from coworkers, family, and friends to function effectively during the pandemic without losing hope or a sense of purpose. The Italian study concluded that “the mental health of frontline workers demands more study” to devise preventive and intervention strategies. 

What can such prevention and intervention strategies look like? Mental Health America (MHA) surveyed HCWs with a web-based tool from June to September 2020, and the majority of respondents reported stress, anxiety, and feeling overwhelmed.  They also reported concern about exposing loved ones to COVID-19, as well as emotional and physical exhaustion, inadequate emotional support, and inadequate time and energy to parent effectively.3 The MHA survey respondents included 52 percent with potential COVID-19 exposure at work, 20 percent with no COVID-19 exposure at work, and 28 percent with definite COVID-19 exposure at work.  The majority of MHA survey respondents reported compassion fatigue and only 31 percent reported feelings of gratitude, 28 percent of hope, and 20 percent of pride. In addition, 38 percent of those surveyed reported increased tendencies to smoke, drink alcohol, and/or use drugs. 

MHA has a 24-hour Crisis Line for frontline COVID-19 workers, who can call 1-800-273-TALK (8255) or text “MHA” to 741741 to speak to a trained crisis counselor. 

Now psychologists and other researchers are analyzing the results of these studies and similar data to develop strategies for protecting the mental health and well-being of HCWs and other frontline workers during this pandemic and in future disaster scenarios.  Greenberg et al, writing for BMJ in March of 2020, suggested several strategies, such as adequate staffing and resources.4 This would include providing personal protective equipment and access to mental health services on demand, establishing forums in which staff members at all levels can discuss “the emotional and social challenges” of caring for COVID-19 patients, establishing other channels for peer support, and actively monitoring of the mental health and well-being of all staff.

We have all experienced COVID-19 through individual lenses as HCWs in different settings, but few of us have ever lived through a pandemic of this magnitude. We must work to remain resilient, hopeful, and grateful with help from our peers and friends. 

References

1. Lai, Jianbo et al. “Factors Associated with Mental Health Outcomes Among Health Care Workers Exposed to Coronavirus Disease 19.” JAMA Network. March 2020. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2763229

2. Trumello, Carmen et al. “Psychological Adjustment of Healthcare Workers in Italy during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Differences in Stress, Anxiety, Depression, Burnout, Secondary Trauma, and Compassion Satisfaction between Frontline and Non-Frontline Professionals.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. November 12, 2020. Doi: 10.3390/ijerph17228358

3. https://mhanational.org/mental-health-healthcare-workers-covid-19

4. Greenberg, Neil at el. “Managing Mental Health Challenges Faced by Healthcare Workers During COVID-10.” The BMJ. 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1211

Tarrant County COVID-19 Activity – 01/28/22


COVID-19 Positive cases: 517,202

COVID-19 related deaths: 5247

Recovered COVID-19 cases: 401,816

Data from Tarrant County Public Heath’s (TCPH) report of COVID-19 activity in Tarrant County updated Friday, January 28, 2o22. Find more COVID-19 information from TCPH here.

*These data are provisional and are subject to change at any time.

Deaths and recovered cases are included in total COVID-19 positive cases.

Help State Fight Antimicrobial Resistance: Apply to Regional Committees

multidrug_resistant_bacteria_2

Physicians all over Texas can apply for the chance to help stop the spread of multidrug-resistant organisms as part of an Antimicrobial Stewardship Regional Advisory Committee (ASRAC) for one of Texas’ public health regions.

The Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) is now accepting applications for new members of the regional advisory committees, established by the passage of a Texas Medical Association-supported law in 2019, House Bill 1848 by Rep. Stephanie Klick (R-Fort Worth). The committees will attempt “to address antimicrobial stewardship in long-term care facilities and to improve antimicrobial stewardship through collaborative action.”

TMA considers the establishment of the committees a valuable opportunity for members with relevant expertise to take a leadership role on the topic in their communities.

Each committee will consist of physicians, directors of nursing or an “equivalent consultant with long-term care facilities,” public health officials knowledgeable about antibiotic stewardship, and “other interested parties.” Members must attend regular committee meetings (virtual or in-person), which will be held at least once every 12 months, as well as subcommittee activities, if required. Members also may need to travel to designated locations within the public health region for those meetings and activities.

The deadline for applying is Feb. 15 at 5 pm CT. Applicants will need to list contact information of a reference who can speak to your interest in and/or involvement with collaborative action designed to improve antimicrobial stewardship. Submission of a letter of recommendation also is required.

For more information, visit the DSHS Antimicrobial Stewardship page or email the agency.

Travel expenses arising from attending ASRAC meetings or other activities will not be reimbursed.

How Not to Use Rapid COVID Tests

By Julie Appleby and Phil Galewitz

Published by KHN on January 13, 2022. Read the original version here.

Julie Ann Justo, an infectious disease clinical pharmacist for a South Carolina hospital system, hoped Christmas week would finally be the time her family could safely gather for a reunion.

Before the celebration, family members who were eligible were vaccinated and boosted. They quarantined and used masks in the days leading up to the event. And many took solace in negative results from rapid covid-19 tests taken a few days before the 35-person indoor gathering in South Florida to make sure no one was infectious.

But within a week, Justo and at least 13 members of her extended family tested positive for covid, with many feeling typical symptoms of an upper respiratory virus, such as a sore throat and a runny nose.

Like many other Americans, Justo’s family learned the hard way that a single negative result from an at-home rapid test, which takes about 15 minutes, is no guarantee that a person is not ill or carrying the virus.

There are just so many variables. Testing may come either too soon, before enough virus is present to detect, or too late, after a person has already spread the virus to others.

And most rapid tests, even according to their instructions, are meant to be used in pairs — generally a day or two apart — for increased accuracy. Despite that, a few brands are sold one to a box and, with the tests sometimes expensive and in short supply, families are often relying on a single screening.

While home antigen testing remains a useful — and underutilized — tool to curb the pandemic, experts say, it is often misused and may provide false confidence.

Some people mistakenly look at the home tests “like a get-out-of-jail-free card,” said Dr. William Schaffner, a specialist in infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee. “‘I’m negative, so I don’t have to worry anymore.’”

That is even more true now that the new more transmissible variant dominates the country.

“Omicron is so transmissible that it is challenging to use any kind of testing strategy in terms of get-togethers and be successful,” said Dr. Patrick Mathias, vice chair of clinical operations for the Department of Laboratory Medicine & Pathology at the University of Washington School of Medicine.

Rapid tests are pretty good at correctly detecting infection in people with symptoms, Mathias said, with a 70% to nearly 90% range of accuracy estimated in several studies. Other studies, some that predate current variants or were performed under more controlled settings, have shown higher rates, but, even then, the tests can still miss some infected people. That raises the risk of spread, with the chance rising dramatically as the number of people attending an event grows.

Results of antigen tests are less accurate for people without symptoms.

For the asymptomatic, the rapid tests, “on average, [correctly] detect infection roughly 50% of the time,” said Shama Cash-Goldwasser, an adviser for Prevent Epidemics at Resolve to Save Lives, a nonprofit group run by Dr. Tom Frieden, a former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Looking back, Justo said her family took precautions, but she acknowledges missteps that put them at increased risk: Not all family members were tested before getting together because of a shortage of test kits. Some members of her family who could find rapid tests tested just once because of the need to ration tests. And in attendance were several children under age 5 who are not yet eligible for a covid vaccine. They were later among the first to show symptoms.

“We probably were relying too heavily on negative rapid tests in order to gather indoors with others without other layers of protections,” she said.

Even if everyone tested properly before the party, health experts said, it wouldn’t mean all attendees are “safe” from getting covid. Testing merely reduces the risk of exposure; it doesn’t eliminate it.

Other factors in assessing risk at a gathering: Is everyone vaccinated and boosted, which can help reduce the likelihood of infection? Did attendees properly follow all the steps outlined in the test kits’ instructions, which can differ by brand? Did anyone test too early after exposure or, conversely, not close enough to the event?

One critical detail “is the timing of the test,” said Schaffner at Vanderbilt. Another, he said, is how well the tests can spot true positives and true negatives.

Test too early, such as within a day or two of exposure, and results won’t be accurate. Similarly, testing several days before an event won’t tell you much about who might be infectious on the day of the gathering.

Schaffner and others recommend that self-testing start three days after a known exposure or, if one feels ill, a few days after the onset of symptoms. Because the timeline for detecting an infection is uncertain, it’s always a good idea to use both tests in the kit, as instructed — the second one 24 to 36 hours after the first. For an event, make sure one of the tests is performed on the day of the gathering.

Antigen tests work by looking for proteins from the surface of the virus, which must be present in adequate amounts for a test to spot. (Lab-based PCR tests, or polymerase chain reaction tests, are more accurate because they can detect smaller amounts of the virus, but they take longer to get results, possibly even days, depending on the backlog at the labs.)

Covid markers may linger as remnants long after live virus is gone, so some scientists question the use of tests — whether antigen or PCR — as a metric for when patients can end their isolation, particularly if they are looking to shorten the recommended period. The CDC recommends five days of isolation, which can end if their symptoms are gone or resolving, with no fever.

Some patients will test positive 10 days or more after their first symptoms, although it is unlikely they remain infectious by then.

Still, that means many people are using the rapid tests inappropriately — not only over-relying on them as a safeguard against covid, but also as a gauge for when an infection is over.

Rapid home tests need to be used over multiple days to increase the chance of an accurate result.

“Each individual test does not have much value as serial testing,” said Dr. Zishan Siddiqui, chief medical officer at the Baltimore Convention Center Field Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University. And, because the tests are less reliable in those without symptoms, he said, asymptomatic people should not be relying on a single rapid test to gather with friends or family without taking other mitigation measures.

Worse still, a recent study looking at the omicron variant found that rapid tests could not detect the virus in the first two days of infection, even though lab-based PCR tests did find evidence of covid.

The study examined 30 vaccinated adults in December 2021. “Most omicron cases were infectious for several days before being detectable by rapid antigen tests,” according to the study, which has not been peer-reviewed.

False negatives are also more likely when the extent of the disease in a certain area, called community spread, is rampant, which is true for most of the United States today.

“If there’s a lot of community spread, that increases the likelihood that you have covid” at a gathering, explained Cash-Goldwasser, since one or more attendees who tested negative may have received a false result. Positivity rates are running over 25% now in some U.S. cities, indicating a lot of virus is circulating.

So, right now, “if you get a negative result, it’s important to be more suspicious,” she said.

Vaccinations, boosters, masking, physical distancing, ventilation and testing separately are all imperfect strategies to prevent infection. But layered together, they can serve as a more effective barrier, Schaffner said.

“The rapid test is useful” — his own family used them before gathering for Thanksgiving and Christmas — “but it’s a barrier with holes in it,” he added.

The virus moved through those gaps to crash the party and infect the Justo family. While most of the attendees largely had mild symptoms, Justo said she was short of breath, fatigued and experienced headaches, muscle pain and nausea. It took about 10 days before she felt better.

“I certainly spent a lot of time going back to what we could have done differently,” Justo said. “Thankfully no one needed to go to the hospital, and I attribute that to the vaccinations — and for that I am grateful.”

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started