August 24, 2020

HEALTH REFORM DEVELOPMENTS

August 24, 2020

Longstanding health policy concerns over the decades involve covering the uninsured, enhancing access to health care services, and improving the quality of those services. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also more commonly known as the Affordable Care Act, that became law in 2010 represented a major thrust in a comprehensive effort to address these important concerns. Although progress has been made during the past decade, the arrival of COVID-19 has presented several major challenges in the fulfillment of key policy aims.

Apart from health insurance provided by the public-sector Medicare and Medicaid programs, until recently approximately 180 millions workers relied on coverage obtained through employment in the private sector of the economy. The appearance of COVID-19 subsequently led to major job losses and unemployment that affected millions of workers, which in many cases was accompanied by a loss of coverage. As an important safety net program, the federal-state Medicaid program has made it possible for some unemployed workers to become eligible for participation in it.

The U.S. health domain consists of a complex web of interlocking components, both public and private. Important federal policymaking roles are played by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention and the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, while agencies at state and lower government levels enjoy much autonomy regarding resource allocation. While all these entities may unite in trying to reduce health disparities affecting certain population sub-groups, practices beyond the health realm can pose significant obstacles. For example, a higher chance of mortgage application denial for black applicants tends to reduce black home ownership and increase the likelihood of renting, which lowers the accumulation of home equity. Less availability of that resource adds to the difficulty of meeting out-of-pocket health expenses. A related impediment is described in the following section.

Associations Between Historical Redlining And Birth Outcomes

An article in the journal PLOS ONE on August 7, 2020 describes a study of the association between historical redlining and preterm birth, low birth weight, small-for-gestational age, and perinatal mortality over a 10-year period in California. Although since repealed, historical segregation policies may perpetuate current health disparities by outliving their implementation period and continuing to contribute to the existence of this problem. Residential segregation can affect access to education, income, healthcare, and clean environments. Researchers examined the role of historical redlining, the practice of categorizing perceived neighborhood mortgage investment risk, on present birth outcomes. Historical redlining maps, also called Security Maps, were created more than 80 years ago for over 200 cities across the U.S. by the federal Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC), a government body founded in 1934 with the goal of rescuing homeowners from default by issuing replacement mortgages. These maps shaded neighborhoods one of four colors, corresponding to perceive investment risk, with red indicating the highest risk. The investigators hypothesized that the odds of adverse birth outcomes would increase as historical HOLC grade worsened. They indicate that achieving health equity across racial/ethnic and class lines requires a better understanding of how historically discriminatory policies, such as redlining, continue to shape current U.S. patterns of health disparities.

Obtaining Coverage Through Short-Term Health Insurance Plans

The Trump Administration has pursued several objectives since 2017 aimed at dismantling key elements of the Affordable Care Act, including an effort to enable individuals to purchase short-term health insurance plans. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on July 17, 2020 upheld a decision allowing the sale of such plans that do not comply with the Affordable Care Act, making it possible to undermine the health law by expanding access to cheaper, less comprehensive insurance. The case stems from a rule the Administration released in August 2018 that expanded access to this form of coverage. Previously, the plans could be carried for only 90 days, but the rule allows for total coverage as long as 36 months. Generally lower priced, they can deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. The Association for Community Affiliated Health Plans, which in 2018 sued to prevent the allowance of short-term plans, is expected to appeal the recent court decision.

Return to July-August 2020 TRENDS

LEGISLATION VS. EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Kristen Truong

August 24, 2020

Given its size (535 members), complexity of a broad range of legislative issues, partisan differences, and conflicting views between the two chambers, Congress sometimes proves to be an unwieldy place to produce bills that can be forwarded to the President of the U.S. to be signed into law. Currently, the presence of the coronavirus that is ravaging portions of the population creates a sense of urgency in dealing with important problems involving both health care and the economy. Whenever nettlesome situations occur in governance and action must be taken, it is not unusual for Presidents to rely on producing executive orders instead of continuing to wait for legislative solutions to emerge.

During the month of August 2020, President Donald Trump exercised that option by releasing a series of orders after Congress was unable to reach agreement on a new coronavirus relief package. Democrats in the House previously had approved a $3 trillion bill and offered to lower the amount to $2 trillion. White House officials remained steadfast, however, in supporting the Senate’s $1 trillion proposal, while some Senate Republicans have been opposed to any additional funding. In response to an inability to reach agreement, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) then decided to recess the Senate after discussions collapsed on August 7. That legislative branch will not reconvene until September 8, but its members are prepared to return if the stalemate is overcome and a vote is scheduled.

The executive orders by President Trump include a payroll tax deferral for workers from September through December who make less than $100,000 a year, provision of weekly federal jobless benefits, expansion of a congressionally-approved eviction moratorium that expired in July 2020, relief for student borrowers, increased access to telehealth, support for rural hospitals, and the production of more drugs made in America while loosening federal drug-safety and environmental regulations that are perceived as placing domestic producers at a disadvantage. Perhaps the most controversial of these actions is the one involving the payroll tax deferral.

Democrats instantly expressed their disapproval by referring to where the “power of the purse” is vested. According to the U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.” The Constitution also contains the following provision in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.” Some Republicans were not surprised at objections raised by Democrats, recalling that they also were upset when as part of the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama issued an executive order creating subsidies for insurance companies, thereby spending money that had not been appropriated by Congress as the power of the purse demands.

The full impact of these actions by President Trump has yet to be determined. Given the litigious nature of much that characterizes the relationship between Congress and the White House, a likelihood remains that this new set of differences between them will be referred to the courts for a resolution.

Return to July-August 2020 TRENDS

ANHEDONIA AND MORE PLEASURABLE TIMES

Kristen Truong

August 24, 2020

The term anhedonia could serve as the name of a mythical kingdom in a 1930’s movie about a place ruled by a madcap assortment of ardent Marxists (Groucho, Harpo, Chico, Gummo, and Zeppo). Instead, it denotes a clinical term to classify a condition that involves a diminished capacity to experience pleasure in acts that normally produce it. In his novel A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens began the book with the following passage, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us (Dickens continued with additional contrasts, but the general thrust of his thinking seems evident).

The year 2020 began on a relatively positive note. The stock market was booming much to the benefit of retirement plans, unemployment was at all-time low levels, the upcoming college football series was on the near horizon, basketball’s March Madness was directly ahead, and students could look forward to colorful graduation ceremonies in late spring. Then, a malady known as COVID-19 entered the picture and hopes and dreams across the globe underwent a giant pause in fulfillment. Gloom and doom were accompanied by mass weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth as age-old darker thoughts regarding the loneliness of the soul and the human heart in conflict with itself began to resurface more forcefully.

The floodgates gradually opened and unparalleled amounts of information about this invisible intruder began to appear in mass media outlets, social media, and respected professional journals. Regarding the latter, an article published in the journal Science on May 29 of this year indicated that the COVID-19 literature had grown to more than 31,000 papers since January and by one estimate was on pace to reach more than 52,000 by mid-June. Reasonable queries seem justified, such as how is it humanly possible to stay abreast of the voluminous information being generated, and perhaps even more importantly, to what extent do all these articles meet acceptable standards associated with methodological rigor and the ability to draw accurate conclusions from the purported data?

Much research addresses broad categories involving vaccine development, treatment of patients, harmful impacts on health care personnel (e.g., PTSD and staff burnout), and incidence of community problems that pertain to domestic/child abuse, substance abuse disorders, and suicide. Widely heralded findings on remedial treatments, such as convalescent plasma and hydroxychloroquine, that are greeted with immediate approbation in some quarters soon are debunked by other investigators who insist that the results are uninterpretable due to non-randomized studies and lack of placebo controls. Meanwhile, excitement and enthusiasm precede the expected arrival of one or more vaccines to prevent the occurrence of infections. The following considerations remain pending: which population sub-groups should be vaccinated first, how long will protection be conferred, how safe is any new vaccine, and how effective will it be if the virus undergoes mutation?

Return to July-August 2020 TRENDS

EFFECTIVE CORONAVIRUS MESSAGES FROM ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS

Kristen Truong

June 26, 2020

Students and their families eagerly await messages from colleges and universities. The firm Eduventures conducts a Student Sentiment Survey annually to understand better how college-bound high school students research colleges and how they perceive institutional recruitment outreach. This year’s data include responses from 6,100 high school seniors, juniors, and sophomores across the nation. Respondents were asked whether they recalled a school that communicated particularly well during the crisis, and if so, what that communication entailed. Sixty-eight percent of seniors had positive experiences with institutional COVID-19 messaging . The top five communicators based on frequency and consistency of mention are listed in no particular order as follows:

Alvernia University
Prairie View A&M University
Southern Utah University
Oregon State University
University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

Return to June 2020 TRENDS

TRANSHUMANISM AND THE PROSPECT OF NEVER HAVING TO DIE

Kristen Truong

June 26, 2020

Each passing day furnishes new evidence that the coronavirus has not yet fully completed its grim work of increasing the human ranks of the dearly departed. How refreshing then to come upon an article in the June 20-21, 2020 weekend edition of The Wall Street Journal that discusses optimistic views on the topic of transhumanism, the idea of using technology to overcome sickness and aging. Financial support for life-extension research has been provided by well-heeled investors as optimism abounds in some quarters that not only is it possible to live to the ripe age of 500, a time may arrive when individuals in middle age may have a fair chance of never dying. Starting with the premise that transhumanism promises that death can be conquered physically, not just spiritually, it appeared worth an effort to go to the professional literature to assess what progress is being made in achieving such lofty outcomes.

If an article appearing in May 2020 in the journal Clinical and Translational Science can be viewed as a reliably authoritative source for current thinking on such matters, then despite regenerative medicine (RM) being one of the hottest topics in biotechnology for the past three decades, it generally is acknowledged that the field’s performance at the bedside has been somewhat disappointing. RM is seen as having had an undeniable positive influence on the process of bench to bedside research. Preclinically, it has helped identify limitations of evidence‐based medicine and contributed to the paradigm shift to the trial‐and‐error method. If the translation of RM therapies is to be improved, however, many challenges to be overcome lie in the early stages of therapy development, such as identifying mechanism(s) of action, validating preclinical experimental models, and incentivizing translational research for basic scientists. Regulatory changes have been made in later stages, but much still needs to be addressed, such as adoption of clinical trials that are more rigorous and include long‐term follow‐up studies; development of appropriate manufacturing technology; synchronization of regulatory agencies, and a clear plan for reimbursement strategies.

Return to June 2020 TRENDS

NIH FUNDING AND THE PURSUIT OF EDGE SCIENCE

Kristen Truong

June 26, 2020

With an annual budget of more than $37 billion, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) plays a critical role in funding scientific endeavors in biomedicine. Funding innovative science is an essential element of the NIH’s mission, but the ability to fulfill this aim has been questioned. Based on an analysis of a comprehensive corpus of published biomedical research articles (more than 24,000,000 of them in the MEDLINE database), a study was conducted to measure whether the NIH succeeds in funding work with novel ideas, referred to as “edge science.” The results are described in the June 2, 2020 issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. As background, it may be worth noting that both scientific and political considerations may lead the NIH to underfund trying out new ideas. First, because the NIH visibly spends public money, it needs to show discrete manifestations of improvements in health, as well as technological breakthroughs, arising from its supported research. This consideration can lead to a preference to support ideas that already have shown promise, rather than edge science. Second, NIH scientific review panels, for reasons related to their constitution, tend to reward projects that evidently are feasible over novel projects.

This investigation shows that edge science is more often NIH-funded than less novel science, but with a delay. Papers that build on more recent ideas are NIH-funded less often than are papers that build on ideas that have had a chance to mature for at least seven years. Three key findings are: First, the tendency to fund edge science is limited mostly to basic science. Papers that build on novel clinical ideas are not more often NIH-funded than are papers that build on well-established clinical knowledge. Second, novel papers tend to be NIH-funded more often because there are more NIH-funded papers in innovative areas of investigation, rather than because the NIH funds innovative papers within research areas. Third, the NIH’s tendency to have funded papers that build on the most recent advances has declined over time. In this regard, NIH funding has become more conservative despite initiatives to increase funding for innovative projects. Given the focus in this particular study on published papers, the findings reflect both the funding preferences of the NIH and the composition of the applications it receives.

Return to June 2020 TRENDS

AVAILABLE RESOURCES ACCESSIBLE ELECTRONICALLY

Kristen Truong

June 26, 2020

Advancing Adolescent Flourishing: Moving Policy Upstream

A new report, Advancing Adolescent Flourishing: Moving Policy Upstream, on teen well-being in the U.S. finds that 60% of those ages 13-18 are not thriving, which is defined as experiencing positive emotions as well as positive emotional and social functioning. Teens also are reporting higher stress levels than older adults, the majority of which is due to mass shootings, concern about peers with anxiety and depression, and rising suicide rates. Majorities of teens also have been discriminated against, and almost all report hearing the word "gay" used disparagingly at school. The report identifies 47 action items that policymakers at local, state, and national levels can take to improve the well-being of teens. These items range from engaging with social media platforms and influencers to promote more content that encourages teens to spend time helping others in their community to encouraging lawmakers to design budgets with teenage well-being in mind. Enhanced teen-focused health policies at local, state, and federal levels of government will contribute greatly to the larger enterprise of healing the nation for all. Yet, current national investment in adolescents is lacking. The analysis includes action items and recommendations that are promising for advancing teen psychological, social, and emotional well-being. The report can be obtained here.

Preparing For The Next Pandemic

U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) released a White Paper, Preparing For The Next Pandemic, on June 9, 2020 that calls for public comment on five recommended areas for near-term congressional action to learn from the COVID-19 response and better prepare for future pandemics. He noted in an executive summary that “In the midst of responding to COVID-19, the United States Congress should take stock now of what parts of the local, state, and federal response worked, what could work better and how, and be prepared to pass legislation this year to better prepare for the next pandemic, which will surely come.” He outlined five main recommendations to improve the country’s preparation for future pandemics:

Accelerating research and development of tests, treatments, and vaccines.
Enhancing disease surveillance.
Addressing federal and state stockpiles, distribution, and surge capacity.
Improving state and local public health capabilities.
Improving coordination of federal agencies.

The White Paper can be obtained here.

New Data On Community Resilience

Community resilience is the capacity of individuals and households within a community to absorb, endure, and recover from the impacts of a disaster. The U.S. Census Bureau on June 22, 2020 released the Community Resilience Estimates to measure the ability of a population to be successful in responding to situations that include weather-related and disease-related hazard events such as COVID-19. Estimates are based on information on individuals and households from the 2018 American Community Survey (ACS), the Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program, and National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data. A tool showing risk level by state, county, and tract can be obtained here.

Return to June 2020 TRENDS

QUICK STAT (SHORT, TIMELY, AND TOPICAL)

Kristen Truong

June 26, 2020

Prevalence Of Tooth Loss Among Older Adults, 2015-2018

A June 2020 Data Brief from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) indicates that the prevalence of complete tooth loss among adults aged 65 and over was 12.9% and increased with age: 8.9% (ages 65– 69), 10.6% (ages 70–74), and 17.8% (ages 75 and over). Non-Hispanic black older adults (25.4%) had a higher prevalence of complete tooth loss than Hispanic (15.3%) and non-Hispanic white (10.9%) older adults. Prevalence of complete tooth loss was higher for older adults with less than a high school education (31.9%) compared with those with a high school education or greater (9.5%). From 1999–2000 through 2017–2018, the age-adjusted prevalence of complete tooth loss among all older adults declined significantly. Nevertheless, complete tooth loss can diminish quality of life by limiting food choices and impeding social interaction. Reducing this problem is a national health goal monitored by Healthy People.

Opioid-Involved Emergency Department Visits, Hospitalizations, And Deaths

A National Health Statistics Report on June 16, 2020 reveals that in the 2014 National Hospital Care Survey (NHCS), there were 15,495 patients with an opioid-involved ED-only visit and 24,059 patients with an opioid-involved hospitalization. Of the patients with an opioid-involved hospitalization, 1,805 died (9%) within one year of discharge. Of these deaths, 341 (19%) resulted from a drug overdose. Opioids most frequently mentioned included heroin (46%), fentanyl (20%), oxycodone (13%), methadone (12%), and morphine (12%). These categories are not mutually exclusive because a death may involve more than one drug. For approximately 22% of patients who died of an opioid-involved drug overdose in 2014, their last ED-only visit or hospitalization was opioid-involved. While lockdowns stemming from COVID-19 are aimed at preventing fatal infections, a concern is that social isolation may lead to increases in drug overdoses, suicides, and other health problems. Future studies will uncover the extent of such occurrences.

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY CORNER

Personalized Mapping Of Drug Metabolism By The Human Gut Microbiome

Previous studies have examined how single species of gut bacteria can metabolize oral medications, but a new framework enables the evaluation of an individual's entire intestinal microbial community at once. A research team at Princeton University used an approach to evaluate the gut microbiome's effect on hundreds of common medications already on the market by indicating how the microbial community in the intestines can chemically transform, or metabolize, oral medications in ways that have an impact on safety and efficacy. According to a study published on June 10, 2020 in the journal Cell, researchers identified 57 cases in which gut bacteria can alter existing oral medications. Eighty percent of those had not been previously reported, emphasizing the potential of the method for revealing unknown drug-microbiome interactions. The new methodology could aid the development of medications that are more effective, have fewer side effects, and are personalized to an individual's microbiome.

Magnetoelectric Materials For Miniature, Wireless Neural Stimulation At Therapeutic Frequencies

A major challenge for miniature bioelectronics is wireless power delivery deep inside the body. Electromagnetic or ultrasound waves suffer from absorption and impedance mismatches at biological interfaces. Magnetic fields do not suffer these losses, which has led to magnetically powered bioelectronic implants based on induction or magnetothermal effects. These approaches have yet to produce, however, a miniature stimulator that operates at clinically relevant high frequencies. A manuscript published on June 8, 2020 in the journal Neuron describes study results suggesting that using magnetoelectric materials for wireless power delivery is more than a novel idea. These materials are viewed as being excellent candidates for clinical-grade, wireless bioelectronics. Tiny implants capable of modulating activity of the brain and nervous system could have wide-ranging implications and could be useful for treating depression, obsessive-compulsive disorders and more than a third of patients who suffer from chronic, intractable pain that often leads to anxiety, depression and opioid addiction.

Return to June 2020 TRENDS

DEVELOPMENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Kristen Truong

June 26, 2020

As summer moves forward, administrators of academic institutions at all levels continue to be plagued by doubts and uncertainties regarding whether schools should be reopened and students readmitted in coming months. When infections occur, youth cohorts have not been affected as drastically by COVID-19 in comparison to adult groups, especially patients 80 years of age and older. Nonetheless, once infected, even if asymptomatically, students have the potential to transmit this deadly disease to adults with whom they come in contact, such as teachers, and older relatives. A significant unknown is the extent to which parents are willing to have their offspring attend school as long as there is a perceived threat of infection.

What Will The College Football Season Look Like This Year?

Many colleges, and even high schools, depend on financial support derived from athletics. College football is a bountiful source of revenue as evidenced by stadiums that seat more than 100,000 fans who not only buy tickets, but even spend generously on concessions. Enlightened officials at some institutions have seen the value of adding alcoholic beverages to what is sold to patrons as a means of enhancing the amount of money flowing into school coffers. Players already are in training on some campuses and reports indicate that some of them are testing positive for the coronavirus. Although many are in superb physical condition, it is not uncommon for offensive and defensive linemen who weigh more than 300 pounds to be classified officially as being obese, a condition that has contributed to mortality outcomes among other segments of the population with this condition who became infected. Given the airborne capability of the coronavirus to be transmitted over a considerable distance by screaming fans at these events, a challenge is presented in figuring out how to adjust social distancing patterns safely in arenas. Fewer seats that are filled also can exert a negative impact on revenues.

Institutions Are Unequal In their Ability To Withstand Revenue Shortfalls

Apart from any health dangers posed by the presence of the appearance of a deadly infectious disease on school grounds, there can be severe financial consequences for failing to reopen some academic institutions. Publicly-funded schools are somewhat shielded from hazards associated with reductions in tuition income and student fee revenues, but the same cannot be said of their counterparts in the private realm. Prior to the appearance of the coronavirus, many states already were reeling financially because of increased pressures arising from growing expenditures in their Medicaid programs. As job losses began occurring on a massive scale in the U.S. beginning in March of this year, that economic contraction typically was accompanied by cancellations of health insurance coverage that is connected to employment status. Individuals so affected by losing their health insurance now have to rely on Medicaid coverage, which adds to the financial woes of many states that will find it increasingly difficult to devote resources to an ailing educational sector. Moreover, a related concern is that revenue obtained through fund raising and philanthropic contributions may not be as robust as it has been previously.

Rethinking Accreditation And Quality Assurance

The past several years have been characterized by a shared sense that current quality review needs to be reimagined to serve students and society more effectively. Judith Eaton, President of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), expressed her thoughts on this matter in June 2020 by identifying five specific steps that can lead to reinventing a review of quality in higher education, a post-Covid redesign of accreditation and quality assurance that, if effective, will establish a foundation for the next era of these important efforts. Accreditation and quality assurance are needed that capture quality, while embracing new providers and creatively using technology that brings students greater opportunity, access, and progress in furthering their education. The five steps are:

Sustain the fundamental value commitments of higher education
Expand the range of activity and scrutiny of quality review
Modify the primary purposes of accreditation and quality assurance
Enlarge the universe of accreditation/quality assurance providers themselves
Redesign the accreditation/quality assurance review process

Return to June 2020 TRENDS

HEALTH REFORM DEVELOPMENTS

Kristen Truong

June 26, 2020

The appearance of COVID-19 in the United States has had a major impact on the nation’s health care delivery system. Lockdowns in many states are viewed as being successful in slowing down the rate at which new cases of the disease occur. Now that such restrictions have been loosened, in many jurisdictions there is a resurgence in the number of new cases as businesses reopen and some individuals choose to refrain from wearing masks when in public settings. The number of hospital admissions continues to grow in certain states, heightening a concern that the ability to treat newly infected patients may be compromised if hospital facilities become sufficiently overwhelmed.

Older Americans are disproportionately affected by this disease. Data released by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on June 22, 2020 show that that more than 325,000 Medicare beneficiaries had a diagnosis of COVID-19 between January 1 and May 16 of this year, which translates to 518 COVID-19 cases per 100,000 beneficiaries. The data also indicate that nearly 110,000 beneficiaries were hospitalized for COVID-19-related treatment, which equals 175 COVID-19 hospitalizations per 100,000 beneficiaries. Blacks were hospitalized with COVID-19 at a rate nearly four times higher than whites. Disparities go beyond race/ethnicity and suggest the impact of social determinants of health, particularly socio-economic status. End-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients (individuals with chronic kidney disease undergoing dialysis) had the highest rate of hospitalization among all Medicare beneficiaries, with 1,341 hospitalizations per 100,000 beneficiaries. These patients also are more likely to have chronic comorbidities associated with increased COVID-19 complications and hospitalization, such as diabetes and heart failure.

Medicare And The Health Care Delivery System

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission’s June 2020 Report to the Congress: Medicare and the Health Care Delivery System was issued on June 15, 2020. The Commission believes that unless substantial changes are made to the way Medicare pays for services and to how beneficiary care is organized and delivered, the cost of the Medicare program will remain on an unsustainable trajectory. The Part A trust fund is projected to exhaust its reserves in 2026, which will force Medicare to reduce payment rates sharply for hospitals and other Part A providers unless policymakers take some other action. The Commission asserts that the use of fee-for-service payment for Medicare services should be replaced, over time and to the degree feasible, by payment to accountable systems of care that have incentives to: provide preventive services and early disease detection, improve the quality and beneficiary experience of care; avoid delivering unnecessary or inappropriate services; control the costs of providing necessary services in the most appropriate care setting; deliver chronic care services through care coordination among providers; coordinate both the medical and nonmedical needs of beneficiaries; and enhance the use of technologies that improve quality and reduce program costs. Moreover, serious attention must be given to new innovations, for example, changing how hospitals are paid and giving providers incentives to manage the cost of medications.

Report To Congress On Medicaid And CHIP

The Medicaid program was instrumental in providing coverage to the uninsured when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act became law in 2010. Medicaid is playing this same role during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unemployment that results in loss of health insurance coverage through one’s job has helped to fuel a surge in the rolls of Medicaid beneficiaries. The Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC) on June 15, 2020 submitted its June 2020 Report to Congress on Medicaid and CHIP. This document contains six chapters addressing three fundamental challenges facing Medicaid: (1) improving integration of care for low-income seniors and individuals with disabilities who are dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare; (2) ensuring that Medicaid is the payer of last resort when beneficiaries also have coverage from another insurance program; and (3) addressing concerns about high rates of maternal morbidity and mortality. A focus is on integrating Medicaid and Medicare, two separate programs that were not designed to work together, for beneficiaries who are eligible for both entities. Dually eligible beneficiaries account for a disproportionate share of Medicaid and Medicare service use and spending. Integrating the delivery and financing of their care is viewed as having a potential to address better the totality of their needs and reduce spending.

Return to June 2020 TRENDS

CONGRESS IN A TIME OF CORONAVIRUS

Kristen Truong

June 26, 2020

A presidential election year can produce distortions in how Congress normally functions. The party in control of the White House typically stands to benefit in an election year from the passage of legislation that is popular with the electorate. Developments of that nature furnish a rationale for proclaiming why it is imperative that the political party in power remain in that position to ensure that good times continue to roll forward. The opposition party views the situation quite differently, finding it more convenient to prevent the passage of progressive legislation. That stance enables them to point an accusative finger at incumbents as being ineffective in accomplishing what is necessary. Their rationale is that it is high time for positive changes to occur and they inform the electorate in loud and clear terms that they are the political party with the ability to achieve desirable outcomes.

The year 2020 is proving to be vastly different. A main reason is that COVID-19 persists in being a major concern as of the end of June. As lockdowns have been loosened around the U.S., new cases of this disease continue to appear and hospitalizations are on the rise. Additional remedies are sought and can be implemented, but it is patently clear that agreements of a bipartisan nature are required. A recent example of a willingness to work cooperatively is a letter by a bipartisan group of 30 U.S. senators that was sent on June 15 to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY), asking them to make permanent certain provisions from the bipartisan CONNECT for Health Act that were included in previous COVID-19 legislation. These provisions led to an important expansion of access to telehealth services for Medicare beneficiaries during the pandemic.

The reason for advocating increased access to telehealth stems from its potential to expand availability of health care, reduce costs, and improve health outcomes. Telehealth has proven to be pivotal for many patients during the current pandemic, ensuring that they receive the care they need while reducing the risk of infection and the further spread of COVID-19. Expanded Medicare coverage of telehealth services on a permanent basis, where clinically appropriate and with appropriate guardrails and beneficiary protections in place, would ensure that telehealth continues to be an option for all Medicare beneficiaries after the pandemic ends.

Supporters of this initiative believe that the population has benefited significantly from this expansion of telehealth and have come to rely on its availability. They stress that Congress should expand access to telehealth services on a permanent basis so that telehealth remains an option for all Medicare beneficiaries both now and after the pandemic. Doing so would assure patients that their care will not be interrupted when the pandemic ends. It also would provide certainty to health care providers that the costs to prepare for and use telehealth would be a sound long-term investment.

Apart from telehealth, other major decisions are pending on the near horizon. One of them has to do with deciding if a federal supplemental unemployment benefit of $600 per month should be extended beyond July 31 when it is scheduled to end. From a health professions workforce standpoint, S. 3993 is a bill introduced in the Senate on June 17 to permit a licensed health care provider to offer health care services to individuals in one or more States in which the provider is not licensed.

Return to June 2020 TRENDS

PRESIDENT’S CORNER

Kristen Truong

June 25, 2020

Leadership During Change

Higher education is in the midst of transformational change due to the pandemic. It has been experiencing pressures to change for some time now. The pandemic has just accelerated and significantly disrupted any sense of tradition activity. Leaders have had to react and recover, and now must reinvent their future as the political, economic, social and cultural ramifications of this disruption become known. Universities are forming partnerships, restructuring campus units, consolidating programs, and elevating the importance of their teaching and learning center and IT departments to adapt to new ways of learning.

Whether you are a program director, department chair, or dean, the recent confluence of events is testing your leadership like never before. Common advice for leaders during this time is to first and foremost make health and safety the top priority for everyone. Engaging parties from all units on campus in strategic planning should include staying true to your mission, protecting the health and safety of students and employees, and adopting flexibility, creativity and adaptability as means of preserving your future.

Leaders can help their teams with transition by working with campus administration to clarify the vision and establish structures that support change. It is important to keep the whole college and campus in mind when making changes as actions taken in one program or department can affect the entire college and campus. Feedback on proposed changes should come from both inside and outside of the university to reach various stakeholders and receive diverse perspectives from which to make better informed decisions.

In order to get the support of those affected by change, the rationale or purpose of the change must be clearly conveyed. Clear, open, authentic and consistent communication is key to earning support for change from others. This can be done through multiple channels including email, teleconferencing, newsletters, etc. Encouraging questions and feedback indicates a leader’s receptiveness to listening and understanding others’ viewpoints.

Modeling a positive response to organizational change and conveying trust in campus leadership can also provide additional assurance to your team that change is being handled with competence. For more insights on leadership during change, I encourage you to use your ASAHP membership network, attend ASAHP’s ongoing webinars, join ASAHP’s online communities, and watch for a series of upcoming virtual presentations on current topics.

“Be the Change You Want to See in the World” ...... Mahatma Gandhi

Return to june 2020 TRENDS

COVID-19 VACCINE CLINICAL TRIAL CONCERNS

Kristen Truong

June 25, 2020

Announcements have been made that Moderna, the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson independently of one another will begin testing proposed coronavirus vaccines in stage three trials beginning in July 2020. Related to the important matter of whether these attempts or any related investigations will yield products that protect against the onset of COVID-19 is the essential question of which kinds of individuals will benefit from this research. Key demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, and race/ethnicity help to distinguish one person from another. Unless the pool of participants in these clinical trials adequately reflects such differences, then the overall impact of any vaccine may be limited to representatives of groups taking part in such studies.

Major shortcomings presently exist in the composition of participants in clinical trials. As reported in the March 2020 issue of the journal Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, adult participation in U.S. cancer clinical trials is at less than 10% of cancer patients, with even lower rates for racial and ethnic minority groups. For example, African Americans comprise 5% of patients enrolled in trials that support FDA approval of new drugs, while representing 13.3% of the general U.S. population. Cancer is the leading cause of death for Asian Americans, yet they comprise just 3% of cancer participants in clinical trials. Also, Hispanics represent less than 3% of participants in similar investigations, despite accounting for an estimated 17.8% of the U.S. population.

An under-representation of older adults in cancer clinical trials remains an ongoing concern. Consequently, optimal treatment in this group remains undefined. The January 2020 issue of the Journal of Geriatric Oncology describes challenges involving efforts to increase their level of participation. Older adult cancer patients, differ from younger adults since they often possess more comorbidities, take more medications, and have diminishing organ function, which often excludes them from clinical investigations. Furthermore, older adults enrolled in studies tend to be fitter and healthier than the average older patient seen in clinics, which leads to uncertainty about the risks, benefits, and tolerability of systemic therapies in the older population.

Potential barriers to enrollment of older adults in trials have been identified. One reason for non-accrual of older adults is due to trial unavailability or patient ineligibility. Strict exclusion criteria, especially those related to functional status, organ function, and comorbidities, which are common in older patients, can serve as major enrollment barriers.

Mortality data for victims of the COVID-19 epidemic show that some portions of the U.S. population have been devastated more than other demographic segments. Patients 80 years of age and older residing in long-term care facilities have been particularly hard hit. African American males also have died at significantly higher rates than their proportion of the population would suggest. Thus, it would be most prudent to ensure that stage three vaccine trials represent these groups adequately.

Return to June 2020 TRENDS

RETHINKING THE “BENCH” AND “BEDSIDE” DICHOTOMY

Kristen Truong

May 26, 2020

Seventy-five years ago, Vannevar Bush, director of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development, submitted his landmark report “Science, the Endless Frontier” to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Along with sweeping structural and operational recommendations, the report elevated a key conceptual dichotomy that would have profound consequences for the future of American science: the distinction between ‘basic’ research and ‘applied’ research, thereby setting the tone for modern U.S. science policy. Concepts of ‘basic’ research and ‘applied’ research loosely can translate to the notions of ‘bench’ research and ‘bedside’ research. Yet, the road from fundamental biological insight to patient care (or vice versa) can be strewn with many obstacles that hamper the efforts of even the most qualified clinicians. Overcoming these roadblocks demands that the many aspects of the life sciences–medicine continuum be addressed.

According to a paper appearing in the April 2020 issue of the journal Nature Medicine, Congress subsequently approved funding for the Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) to bridge gaps between the domains of ‘basic’ research and ‘applied’ research in the biomedical context, effectively creating a new type of career: the dual-degree, MD/PhD physician-scientist. In the nearly 60 years since the creation of the MSTP, much has been learned about the complex terrain between bench and bedside and the institutional ingredients needed to realize this vision. By 2016, it was being argued that research activities might be understood better in the context of ‘discovery–invention cycles’ rather than a basic/ applied dichotomy. Building on a wealth of historical knowledge, this argument holds that research exists in virtuous cycles in which some periods are dominated by knowledge creation (discovery) and others are dominated by the creation of new tools or processes (invention). A suggestion is that a boundary be drawn, and even then, a fluid one between research and development, rather than between basic sciences and applied sciences. Instead, research should be thought of as an ‘unscheduled activity’ in the pursuit of new knowledge and inventions. Development is viewed as a ‘scheduled activity’ directed at converting the fruits of research into new products and services.

Return to may 2020 TRENDS

ADDRESSING THE 60-30-10 CHALLENGE

Kristen Truong

May 26, 2020

Modern healthcare systems may be characterized as possessing a numbers problem: specifically, 60, 30, and 10. Despite all the resourcefulness and efforts of the past 30 years, the healthcare delivery cart is viewed as remaining locked in a debilitating underperformance rut, according to a paper reported in the periodical BMC Medicine on May 4, 2020. Care that adheres to guidelines hovers at 60% as shown by large empirical studies of multiple conditions in adults and children in the USA, England, and Australia. Some 30% of care is waste, duplication, or of low value, according to several authoritative sources including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), for which considerable expenditure cannot be justified. Many studies also have documented how iatrogenic harm or adverse events befall at least 10% of patients globally.

Headline numbers in health care persist and may become worse when taking into consideration everything that is flowing through the health innovation pipeline. Advances in precision medicine, genomics, new generation drugs, artificial intelligence, and brain sciences all are in various stages of development or implementation in health care, with the potential to do both good and harm to the system. If the 60-30-10 challenge represents a strong signal that the system is not fit currently for purpose, how will it cope with an avalanche of these advanced technologies? New evidence as it materializes has the potential to deliver new cures and to save and extend lives, but if not adopted effectively, or across-the-board, then the proportion of evidence-based care could fall, not rise. New technologies also increase the complexity of care and add more risk. If they do not provide an adequate return on investment may add more waste. They also could introduce more potential for increased iatrogenic harm. The authors conclude that the 60-30-10 challenge is impeding progress.

Return to may 2020 TRENDS

AVAILABLE RESOURCES ACCESSIBLE ELECTRONICALLY

Kristen Truong

May 26, 2020

What COVID-19 Epidemiologic Models Can And Cannot Tell Us

Epidemiologic models are critical planning tools for policymakers, clinicians, and public health practitioners. Infectious disease modeling is an expansive field with a long history, encompassing a range of methods and assumptions that are not necessarily directly comparable, or even designed for the same purpose. An article published on May 15, 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine identifies the following questions to ask about model results: (1) What is the purpose and time frame of this model? For example, is it a purely statistical model intended to provide short-term forecasts or a mechanistic model investigating future scenarios? These two types of models have different limitations; (2) What are the basic model assumptions? What is being assumed about immunity and asymptomatic transmission, for example? How are contact parameters included? (3) How is uncertainty being displayed? For statistical models, how are confidence intervals calculated and displayed? Uncertainty should increase as we move into the future. For mechanistic models, what parameters are being varied? Reliable modeling descriptions usually will include a table of parameter ranges to check to see whether those ranges make sense; (4) If the model is fitted to data, which data are used? Models fitted to confirmed COVID-19 cases are unlikely to be reliable. Models fitted to hospitalization or death data may be more reliable, but their reliability will depend on the setting; and (5) Is the model general, or does it reflect a particular context? If the latter, is the spatial scale — national, regional, or local — appropriate for the modeling questions being asked and are the assumptions relevant for the setting? Population density will play an important role in determining model appropriateness, for example, and contact-rate parameters are likely to be context-specific. The article can be obtained here.

Supporting Student Health And Mental Well-Being

Recent surveys of college and university presidents show there is real concern about how the disruption of in-person classes will affect students' already-rising rates of anxiety and depression. The April 2020 Pulse Point Survey by the American Council on Education (ACE) of these administrators suggests that a little over a third of presidents surveyed plan on making more investments in student mental health due to COVID-19. The brief, “Mental Health, Higher Education, and COVID-19: Strategies for Leaders to Support Campus Well-Being” reflects on data and offers examples and resources to help guide decision-making, including ways that leadership can adopt an equity lens with each mental health strategy. It also identifies three major strategies for leaders to consider as they respond to support student mental health during COVID-19 and beyond: (1) Ensure that communication to students is consistent, caring, and clear; (2) Consider the mental health and well-being of all campus community members, including faculty and staff who are on the front lines of serving and supporting students; and (3) Inform decision-making through assessments. The brief can be obtained here.

Caregiving In The United States 2020

A report from AARP on the state of caregiving in the U.S. finds that nearly one in five adults is an unpaid caregiver for an adult with health or other functional problems, up from around one in six in 2015. Nearly a quarter of individuals caring for more than one person indicate they are having difficulty coordinating care; that they're caring for someone with Alzheimer's disease or dementia; or that their health has gotten worse as a result of their caregiving duties. The report can be obtained here.

Return to may 2020 TRENDS

QUICK STAT (SHORT, TIMELY, AND TOPICAL)

Kristen Truong

May 26, 2020

Births: Provisional Data For 2019

A report from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) in May 2020 reveals that the provisional number of births for the U.S. in 2019 was 3,745,540, down 1% from 2018. The general fertility rate was 58.2 births per 1,000 women aged 15–44, down 2% from 2018 to reach a record low for the U.S. The total fertility rate was 1,705.0 births per 1,000 women in 2019, down 1% from 2018 to reach another record low for the nation. Birth rates declined for nearly all age groups of women under 35, but rose for women in their early 40s. The rate for women aged 35–39 was essentially unchanged in 2019. The birth rate for teenagers aged 15–19 declined by 5% in 2019 to 16.6 births per 1,000 females; rates declined for both younger (aged 15–17) and older (aged 18–19) teenagers. The cesarean delivery rate decreased to 31.7% in 2019; the low risk cesarean delivery rate decreased to 25.6%. The pre-term birth rate rose for the fifth year in a row to 10.23% in 2019.

Effects Of The COVID-19 Pandemic On Routine Pediatric Vaccine Ordering And Administration

The Morbidity and Mortality Report from the CDC on May 15, 2020 shows that Vaccine Tracking System data indicate a notable decrease in orders for Vaccines for Children Program (VFC)-funded, ACIP- recommended non-influenza childhood vaccines and for measles-containing vaccines during period two (1/6/20-4/19/20) compared with period one (1/7/19 and 4/21/19). The decline began the week after the national emergency declaration by President Donald Trump on March 13, 2020. Similar declines in orders for other vaccines also were observed. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is a reminder of the importance of vaccination. The identified declines in routine pediatric vaccine ordering and doses administered might indicate that U.S. children and their communities face increased risks for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. Parental concerns about potentially exposing their children to COVID-19 during well-child visits might contribute to the declines observed.

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY CORNER

Non-Invasive And Reversible Modulation Of Neuronal Activity To Diagnose And Treat Brain Disorders

About one in eight individuals over the age of 12 take antidepressants for mental disorders, such as depression and anxiety. A quarter of those have done so for 10 years or more according to a 2017 study by the National Center for Health Statistics and the use of antidepressants increased 65% from 1999 to 2014. New research indicates that treatments of brain disorders possibly may not have to require drugs or invasive surgery at all, just sound waves. As reported in a paper that was published on May 20, 2020 in the journal Science Advances, low-intensity ultrasound can be applied to the brain non-invasively to modulate neural activity with spatial specificity superior to other non-invasive methods, such as transcranial electrical or magnetic stimulation. Sound waves of high frequencies (ultrasound) have shown promise in this respect, combining the ability to modulate neuronal activity with sharp spatial focus. No pain, discomfort, or surgical technique are involved.

Cracking Nature’s Most Common Chemical Bond To Improve Drug Effectiveness

As reported in the May 15, 2020 issue of the journal Science, the most common chemical bond in the living world -- that between carbon and hydrogen -- has long resisted attempts by chemists to crack it open, thwarting efforts to add new exciting features to old carbon-based molecules. Now, after nearly 25 years of work by chemists at the University of California, Berkeley, those hydrocarbon bonds, two-thirds of all the chemical bonds in petroleum and plastics, have yielded fully, creating a possibility of synthesizing a large range of novel organic molecules, including drugs based on natural compounds. A potential application is altering natural compounds to improve them. Biologics, i.e., organic molecules, such as proteins, used as drugs also could be altered with this reaction to improve their effectiveness.

Return to may 2020 TRENDS

DEVELOPMENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Kristen Truong

May 26, 2020

A source of entertainment for many readers over the decades is Mad magazine. With its covers graced by the image of Alfred E. Neuman, a gap-toothed lad with a moronic grin plastered on his face whose motto that signified an intellectual absence of any curiosity was “Quid Me Anxius Sum?” (What, me worry?), his visage calls to mind a fairly common reaction to a series of decisions this month by govern- ment jurisdictions around the U.S. that led to reducing lock-down restrictions sparked by the COVID-19 pandemic. May 16, 2020 marked the official opening of beaches on the Outer Banks, NC. A cursory inspection by your TRENDS newsletter’s occasionally intrepid editor of the passing pageant in the town of Kill Devil Hills failed to reveal a single individual wearing a mask or practicing social distancing. Instead, young (including toddlers) and old alike gleefully cavorted in sand and surf, apparently blissfully unaware of the purported dangers posed by the presence of the invisible coronavirus.

A photo taken on May 7, 2020 revealed a tightly packed group of students celebrating graduation outside a home in Boulder, CO sans masks and social distancing. It is likely that similar festivities have taken place around the nation. Refusal to abide by public health recommendations aimed at preventing the spread of infectious disease provides a hint of what might transpire on college and university campuses if a decision is made to reopen them for the fall semester. Refusing to allow students to return in the name of sound health policy implementation could have consequences that will be nothing short of catastrophic for some institutions that are teetering financially. Meanwhile, a paramount concern that cannot be defined with any exactitude is the probability that the coronavirus will return even more forcefully this autumn than what characterized its highly robust appearance earlier this year.

Distribution Of Coronavirus Stimulus Funding To Colleges And Universities

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act establishes and funds the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF). Institutions of higher education are directed to use no less than 50% of funds received under Sections 18004(a)(1) and 18004(c) of the law to provide emergency financial aid grants to students for expenses related to the disruption of campus operations due to coronavirus, such as food, housing, course materials, technology, health care, and childcare. This economic rescue package enables $6 billion to be provided to colleges and universities, but subsequent guidance from officials at the U.S. Department of Education indicates that money can go only to students who qualify for federal financial aid, i.e., U.S. citizens and some legal permanent residents. Although the law has no explicit restrictions on which students could receive the emergency grants, individuals who are protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program will be excluded.

The Department of Education on May 21, 2020 produced an updated statement on its guidance portal, indicating that “guidance documents lack the force and effect of law.”

Return to april 2020 TRENDS

HEALTH REFORM DEVELOPMENTS

Kristen Truong

May 26, 2020

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, also known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Obamacare, has remained intact for the most part since its inception. In the process of doing so, it has made it possible for millions of Americans to obtain health insurance coverage who previously lacked it. A significant feature of this legislation was a requirement that insurance companies had to allow coverage for all individuals regardless of any preexisting health conditions, which previously had led to their being denied such protection.

Along the way, there were setbacks for the law that have occurred over the decade. Seventeen months after the ACA’s enactment, the HHS Secretary announced that the Community Living Services and Supports (CLASS) Act, which was meant to address the costs of long-term care, was abandoned because it was considered unsound financially. In 2017 as part of a successful attempt to overhaul U.S. tax law aimed at energizing the economy, Congressional Republicans were able to zero out the individual mandate penalty. That occurrence led to a claim that once the mandate was stripped of its penalty for not purchasing health insurance, this provision no longer was enforceable and could not be considered as being constitutional.

An extension of that line of reasoning subsequently led to a conclusion that since this essential component of the Affordable Care Act was eliminated, then the entire law now should be struck down. Whether or not such an event will occur has yet to be resolved in the courts. ACA opponents in Congress also were successful in repealing the health insurance tax beginning in 2021, along with the so-called Cadillac tax on beneficiaries who have expensive insurance policies, and the medical device tax beginning in 2020. A problem is that revenue from these taxes was intended to cover the costs of expanding health insurance coverage under the law.

A centerpiece of the ACA was the formation of accountable care organizations (ACOs) in the Medicare program. As described in the April 2020 issue of this newsletter, results of a survey conducted that month by the National Association of ACOs (NAACOS) indicate that these entities are highly concerned about the effects of COVID-19 on their organizations. A possibility is that many respondents in risk-based models reported they are likely to quit the ACO program to avoid financial losses stemming from the pandemic. Apart from legislative and judicial battles, this example demonstrates how unfavorable economic conditions also can influence the outcome envisioned by Congress in 2010.

Medicaid Program In A Time Of COVID-19

Just as the recent pandemic has the potential to have a negative impact on the Affordable Care Act, it also can result in positive developments. An example involves the federal-state Medicaid program, which is considered to be countercyclical in nature. When the economy heads south, which it did quite dramatically causing millions of workers to become unemployed and advised to stay locked down in their homes. A great many of these individuals lost their health insurance coverage as a result. An option for them is to seek to enroll in Medicaid. Prior to the appearance of COVID-19, many states around the nation already were financially strapped because of an existing burden that compels them to meet rising program costs at the expense of being forced to reduce spending in other important categories, such as providing funds for higher education.

Just as health spending undergoes an increase, state income tax revenues derived from workers is decreased, along with taxes on restaurants and other venues where these employees worked and the general public patronized. Fortunately, the federal government has come to the rescue. A form of aid is represented by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (P.L. 116-127) that authorized a 6.2% increase in the federal match rate (retroactive to January 1, 2020) available if states meet certain “maintenance of eligibility” requirements. Provisions include two weeks (up to 80 hours) of paid sick leave at the employee’s regular rate of pay when quarantined and/or experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and seeking a medical diagnosis; or the same amount of paid sick leave because an employee is unable to work because of a bona fide need to care for an individual subject to quarantine or to care for a child under the age of 18.

Return to may 2020 TRENDS

PRESIDENT’S CORNER

Kristen Truong

May 26, 2020

BY ASAHP PRESIDENT PHYLLIS KING

While you work on plans to address the rapid changes occurring in education and health care, ASAHP is here to serve as a valuable resource to support and advance your efforts. A new strategic plan has been designed to navigate a more unpredictable future. Infused in this planning are core values of providing high quality education, interprofessional collaboration, connecting education and health, innovation, leadership, and diversity. ASAHP’s mission of advancing health through interprofessional collaboration is supported by five strategic objective areas and associated success measures.

Strategic Objectives and Success measures

Communication, PR, and Marketing
- Membership growth
- Social media/website upgrades
- Search engine optimization
- Communication and marketing plan implemented
Leadership Development
- Leadership Development Program expanded
- Peer mentoring implemented
- Faculty networking, alumni, graduate events created
- Speaker bureau plan created
- Program for awards/recognitions created
Education
- Regional summits implemented
- Mentoring process created
- New interprofessional collaborations formed
- Internal academic speakers bureau created
Partnerships, Alliances, and Advocacy
- Alliances with professional organizations developed
- Healthcare partnerships developed
- Advocacy engagements
Research, Discovery, and Innovation
- Annual conferences implemented
- Special summits implemented
- IPE research grant created
- Create a platform and process to enable research collaboration and sharing of best practices among members

The Association is demonstrating adaptability and responsiveness to the immediate needs of members to address current issues such as disruptions in clinical education, the rise of telehealth, and many more. Leadership mobilized to create quality webinars attracting hundreds of participants. More webinars are forthcoming. Check out the website for up-to-date information and use the online communities to share information, network and learn from one another how to face this unprecedented time together.

Please remember that the next ASAHP Webinar, Considerations in Reintegrating Students into Clinical Settings, will occur on May 29, 2020 at 2 PM—3 PM, EDT.

Return to april 2020 TRENDS

More July-August 2020 TRENDS Articles

ANHEDONIA AND MORE PLEASURABLE TIMES

PRESIDENT’S CORNER

LEGISLATION VS. EXECUTIVE ORDERS