Tag: Public Health

Sen. Sanders Shows Fire, but Seeks Modest Goals, in His Debut Drug Hearing as Health Chair

Sen. Bernie Sanders, who rose to national prominence criticizing big business in general and the pharmaceutical industry in particular, claimed the spotlight Wednesday on what might at first seem a powerful new stage from which to advance his agenda: chairmanship of the Senate health committee.

But the hearing Sanders used to excoriate a billionaire pharmaceutical executive for raising the price of a covid-19 vaccine showed the challenges the Vermont independent faces.

Though its formal name is the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), the panel Sanders chairs has little if any authority over drug prices. In the Senate, most of that leverage lies with the Finance Committee, which oversees Medicaid, Medicare, and Obamacare.

As far as drug prices go, the platform Sanders commands is essentially a bully pulpit. So Sanders was left to bully his way toward results. And while some committee Republicans sympathized with his complaints, others bristled at his approach.

By the end of the hearing, seeming to acknowledge the limits of his power, the former presidential candidate was pleading with Moderna chief executive Stéphane Bancel for a relatively modest concession on vaccine pricing.

The CEO made no promises. Then again, pulpit proclamations can lead to corporate action, even if delayed and informal; in the weeks following President Joe Biden’s State of the Union call for cheaper insulin, the companies that make it drastically cut their prices.

Sanders began Wednesday’s hearing with his usual fire and brimstone.

“All over this country people are getting sicker, and in some cases dying, because they can’t afford the outrageous cost of prescription drugs, while companies make huge profits and executives become billionaires,” Sanders thundered.

Bancel had won his place in the witness chair with federal assistance. Moderna, which was founded in 2010 and had not brought a drug to market before the pandemic, received billions in government funds for research, guaranteed purchases, and expert advice to help develop and produce its successful covid vaccine. The payoff has been handsome. As of March 8, Bancel held $3 billion in Moderna stock. He also held options to buy millions of additional shares.

Government research and support are foundational to many of the expensive drugs and vaccines in use today. But Bancel made himself the perfect foil for Sanders when he announced in January that Moderna planned to increase the price of its latest covid shot from about $26 to $110 — or as much as $130.

Denouncing greed, Sanders expounded on his dream of a system in which the government fully funds drug development — and in exchange controls drug prices. “Is there another model out there where, when a lifesaving drug is made, it becomes accessible to all those who need it?” he asked. “What am I missing in thinking that it’s cruel to make a medicine that people can’t afford?’”

Sanders’ overt moralizing and harsh attacks on big business make him an outlier in the Senate, even in his own party. Yet distaste for soaring drug prices extends across the aisle. On the HELP Committee, at least, Republican politicians seem about evenly split between populist and pro-business takes on the problem, showing both the possibilities and the pitfalls that Sanders faces.

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) expressed disgust with the lack of transparency in the health care system and called Moderna’s planned price hike “preposterous.” Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) called it “outrageous.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who often bucks mainstream GOP views and has expressed rancor for the biomedical establishment, claimed Bancel was downplaying vaccine injuries to make money. (Paul vastly exaggerated those risks.)

Ranking member Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who has pledged to work with Sanders, responded to the chairman’s opening remarks with both a hedge and a warning. “I’m not defending salaries or profits,” Cassidy said, but he added that he hoped the hearing’s goal wasn’t to “demonize capitalism.”

Only Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), a former private equity executive, came heartily to Bancel’s defense. “If I’m an investor, I have to expect that if a product I’m backing works, I get to make an awful lot of money,” he said. “I’ve heard people say, ‘That’s corporate greed.’ Yeah, that’s how it works.”

Sanders’ idealized vision of the pharmaceutical industry is, in any case, moot. Even the Biden administration, which successfully browbeat insulin makers into drastically lowering prices in March, revealed this week it would not use “march-in” rights to lower the price of a cancer drug, Xtandi, developed with government-licensed patents.

March-in rights were established in the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, which enabled companies to license federally funded research and use it to develop drugs. But federal courts and administrations have consistently said the government can seize a product only if the license holder has failed to make it available — not because the price is too high. The administration did, however, announce a review of whether price might be considered in future march-in decisions.

Sanders said before the hearing that he was “extremely disappointed” with the Xtandi decision. But he was ultimately realist enough to aim his bully pulpit at a lower target. Late in Wednesday’s hearing, Sanders pushed for a minimal gimme from Moderna. “Will you reconsider your decision to quadruple the price of your vaccine to the U.S. government and its agents?” he asked politely.

Bancel dodged, saying pricing was more complex now that Moderna faced an uncertain market, had to fill separate syringes with its vaccine, and needed to sell and distribute the vaccine to thousands of pharmacies, where previously the government did all that work. Later, he left open the possibility that negotiations could drive down the price paid by some government agencies or private insurers.

For all the theatrics of such hearings and the mix of opinions among the senators, interrogations of figures like Bancel may help inspire a shift in how the National Institutes of Health “does business in giving away its science to the private sector,” said Tahir Amin, co-executive director of I-MAK, a nonprofit that advocates for equitable access to medicines.

“You have to prosecute it so you at least get these public comments on record,” Amin said. Eventually, he said, this type of hearing could lead to a recognition that, ‘Hey, we need to do this.’”

Despite the HELP Committee’s lack of direct jurisdiction over drug prices, said John McDonough, a Harvard professor who was senior adviser for health reform on the HELP Committee from 2008 to 2010, Sanders “uses his position of authority and influence to draw attention to this in a way that has been helpful.”

KHN correspondent Rachana Pradhan contributed to this report.

Fresh Produce Is an Increasingly Popular Prescription for Chronically Ill Patients

When Mackenzie Sachs, a registered dietitian on the Blackfeet Reservation, in northwestern Montana, sees a patient experiencing high blood pressure, diabetes, or another chronic illness, her first thought isn’t necessarily to recommend medication.

Rather, if the patient doesn’t have easy access to fruit and vegetables, she’ll enroll the person in the FAST Blackfeet produce prescription program. FAST, which stands for Food Access and Sustainability Team, provides vouchers to people who are ill or have insecure food access to reduce their cost for healthy foods. Since 2021, Sachs has recommended a fruit-and-vegetable treatment plan to 84 patients. Increased consumption of vitamins, fiber, and minerals has improved those patients’ health, she said.

“The vouchers help me feel confident that the patients will be able to buy the foods I’m recommending they eat,” she said. “I know other dietitians don’t have that assurance.”

Sachs is one of a growing number of health providers across Montana who now have the option to write a different kind of prescription — not for pills, but for produce.

The Montana Produce Prescription Collaborative, or MTPRx, brings together several nonprofits and health care providers across Montana. Led by the Community Food & Agriculture Coalition, the initiative was recently awarded a federal grant of $500,000 to support Montana produce prescription programs throughout the state over the next three years, with the goal of reaching more than 200 people across 14 counties in the first year.

Participating partners screen patients for chronic health conditions and food access. Eligible patients receive prescriptions in the form of vouchers or coupons for fresh fruits and vegetables that can be redeemed at farmers markets, food banks, and stores. During the winter months, when many farmers markets close, MTPRx partners rely more heavily on stores, food banks, and nonprofit food organizations to get fruits and vegetables to patients.

The irony is that rural areas, where food is often grown, can also be food deserts for their residents. Katie Garfield, a researcher and clinical instructor with Harvard’s Food is Medicine project, said produce prescription programs in rural areas are less likely than others to have reliable access to produce through grocers or other retailers. A report from No Kid Hungry concluded 91% of the counties nationwide whose residents have the most difficulty accessing adequate and nutritious food are rural.

“Diet-related chronic illness is really an epidemic in the United States,” Garfield said. “Those high rates of chronic conditions are associated with huge human and economic costs. The idea of being able to bend the curve of diet-related chronic disease needs to be at the forefront of health care policy right now.”

An example of a voucher for fresh produce distributed by the FAST Blackfeet produce prescription program. FAST, which stands for Food Access and Sustainability Team, provides vouchers to people who are ill or have insecure food access on the Blackfeet reservation. (FAST Blackfeet)

Produce prescription programs have been around since the 1960s, when Dr. Jack Geiger opened a clinic in Mound Bayou, a small city in the Mississippi Delta. There, Dr. Geiger saw the need for “social medicine” to treat the chronic health conditions he saw, many the result of poverty. He prescribed food to families with malnourished children and paid for it out of the clinic’s pharmacy budget.

A study by the consulting firm DAISA Enterprises identified 108 produce prescription programs in the U.S., all partnered with health care facilities, that launched between 2010 and 2020, with 30% in the Northeast and 28% in the Midwest. Early results show the promise of integrating produce into a clinician-guided treatment plan, but the viability of the approach is less proven in rural communities such as many of those in Montana.

In Montana, 31,000 children do not have consistent access to food, according to the Montana Food Bank Network. Half of the state’s 56 counties are considered food deserts, where low-income residents must travel more than 10 miles to the nearest supermarket — which is one definition the U.S Department of Agriculture uses for low food access in a rural area.

Research shows long travel distances and lack of transportation are significant barriers to accessing healthy food.

“Living in an agriculturally rich community, it’s easy to assume everyone has access,” said Gretchen Boyer, executive director of Land to Hand Montana. The organization works with nearby health care system Logan Health to provide more than 100 people with regular produce allotments.

“Food and nutritional insecurity are rampant everywhere, and if you grow up in generational poverty you probably haven’t had access to fruits and vegetables at a regular rate your whole life,” Boyer said.

More than 9% of Montana adults have Type 2 diabetes and nearly 35% are pre-diabetic, according to Merry Hutton, regional director of community health investment for Providence, a health care provider that operates clinics throughout western Montana and is one of the MTPRx clinical partners.

Brittany Coburn, a family nurse practitioner at Logan Health, sees these conditions often in the population she serves, but she believes produce prescriptions have tremendous capacity to improve patients’ health.

“Real food matters and increasing fruits and veggies can reverse some forms of diabetes, eliminate elevated cholesterol, and impact blood pressure in a positive way,” she said.

Mackenzie Sachs, a registered dietitian, and Thedra Bird Rattler, a nutrition education specialist, work for FAST Blackfeet. (FAST Blackfeet)

Produce prescription programs have the potential to reduce the costs of treating chronic health conditions that overburden the broader health care system.

“If we treat food as part of health care treatment and prevention plans, we are going to get improved outcomes and reduced health care costs,” Garfield said. “If diet is driving health outcomes in the United States, then diet needs to be a centerpiece of health policy moving forward. Otherwise, it’s a missed opportunity.”

The question is, Do food prescription initiatives work? They typically lack the funding needed to foster long-term, sustainable change, and they often fail to track data that shows the relationship between increased produce consumption and improved health, according to a comprehensive survey of over 6,000 studies on such programs.

Data collection is key for MTPRx, and partners and health care providers track how participation in the program influences participants’ essential health indicators such as blood sugar, lipids, and cholesterol, organizers said.

“We really want to see these results and use them to make this more of a norm,” said Bridget McDonald, the MTPRx program director at CFAC. “We want to make the ‘food is medicine’ movement mainstream.”

Sachs acknowledged that “some conditions can’t usually be reversed,” which means some patients may need medication too.

However, MTPRx partners hope to make the case that produce prescriptions should be considered a viable clinical intervention on a larger scale.

“Together, we may be able to advocate for funding and policy change,” Sachs said.

End of Covid Emergency Will Usher in Changes Across the US Health System

The Biden administration’s decision to end the covid-19 public health emergency in May will institute sweeping changes across the health care system that go far beyond many people having to pay more for covid tests.

In response to the pandemic, the federal government in 2020 suspended many of its rules on how care is delivered. That transformed essentially every corner of American health care — from hospitals and nursing homes to public health and treatment for people recovering from addiction.

Now, as the government prepares to reverse some of those steps, here’s a glimpse at ways patients will be affected:

Training Rules for Nursing Home Staff Get Stricter

The end of the emergency means nursing homes will have to meet higher standards for training workers.

Advocates for nursing home residents are eager to see the old, tougher training requirements reinstated, but the industry says that move could worsen staffing shortages plaguing facilities nationwide.

In the early days of the pandemic, to help nursing homes function under the virus’s onslaught, the federal government relaxed training requirements. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services instituted a national policy saying nursing homes needn’t follow regulations requiring nurse aides to undergo at least 75 hours of state-approved training. Normally, a nursing home couldn’t employ aides for more than four months unless they met those requirements.

Last year, CMS decided the relaxed training rules would no longer apply nationwide, but states and facilities could ask for permission to be held to the lower standards. As of March, 17 states had such exemptions, according to CMS — Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Washington — as did 356 individual nursing homes in Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Washington, D.C.

Nurse aides often provide the most direct and labor-intensive care for residents, including bathing and other hygiene-related tasks, feeding, monitoring vital signs, and keeping rooms clean. Research has shown that nursing homes with staffing instability maintain a lower quality of care.

Advocates for nursing home residents are pleased the training exceptions will end but fear that the quality of care could nevertheless deteriorate. That’s because CMS has signaled that, after the looser standards expire, some of the hours that nurse aides logged during the pandemic could count toward their 75 hours of required training. On-the-job experience, however, is not necessarily a sound substitute for the training workers missed, advocates argue.

Adequate training of aides is crucial so “they know what they’re doing before they provide care, for their own good as well as for the residents,” said Toby Edelman, a senior policy attorney for the Center for Medicare Advocacy.

The American Health Care Association, the largest nursing home lobbying group, released a December survey finding that roughly 4 in 5 facilities were dealing with moderate to high levels of staff shortages.

Treatment Threatened for People Recovering From Addiction

A looming rollback of broader access to buprenorphine, an important medication for people in recovery from opioid addiction, is alarming patients and doctors.

During the public health emergency, the Drug Enforcement Administration said providers could prescribe certain controlled substances virtually or over the phone without first conducting an in-person medical evaluation. One of those drugs, buprenorphine, is an opioid that can prevent debilitating withdrawal symptoms for people trying to recover from addiction to other opioids. Research has shown using it more than halves the risk of overdose.

Amid a national epidemic of opioid addiction, if the expanded policy for buprenorphine ends, “thousands of people are going to die,” said Ryan Hampton, an activist who is in recovery.

The DEA in late February proposed regulations that would partly roll back the prescribing of controlled substances through telemedicine. A clinician could use telemedicine to order an initial 30-day supply of medications such as buprenorphine, Ambien, Valium, and Xanax, but patients would need an in-person evaluation to get a refill.

For another group of drugs, including Adderall, Ritalin, and oxycodone, the DEA proposal would institute tighter controls. Patients seeking those medications would need to see a doctor in person for an initial prescription.

David Herzberg, a historian of drugs at the University at Buffalo, said the DEA’s approach reflects a fundamental challenge in developing drug policy: meeting the needs of people who rely on a drug that can be abused without making that drug too readily available to others.

The DEA, he added, is “clearly seriously wrestling with this problem.”

Hospitals Return to Normal, Somewhat

During the pandemic, CMS has tried to limit problems that could arise if there weren’t enough health care workers to treat patients — especially before there were covid vaccines when workers were at greater risk of getting sick.

For example, CMS allowed hospitals to make broader use of nurse practitioners and physician assistants when caring for Medicare patients. And new physicians not yet credentialed to work at a particular hospital — for example, because governing bodies lacked time to conduct their reviews — could nonetheless practice there.

Other changes during the public health emergency were meant to shore up hospital capacity. Critical access hospitals, small hospitals located in rural areas, didn’t have to comply with federal rules for Medicare stating they were limited to 25 inpatient beds and patients’ stays could not exceed 96 hours, on average.

Once the emergency ends, those exceptions will disappear.

Hospitals are trying to persuade federal officials to maintain multiple covid-era policies beyond the emergency or work with Congress to change the law.

Surveillance of Infectious Diseases Splinters

The way state and local public health departments monitor the spread of disease will change after the emergency ends, because the Department of Health and Human Services won’t be able to require labs to report covid testing data.

Without a uniform, federal requirement, how states and counties track the spread of the coronavirus will vary. In addition, though hospitals will still provide covid data to the federal government, they may do so less frequently.

Public health departments are still getting their arms around the scope of the changes, said Janet Hamilton, executive director of the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists.

In some ways, the end of the emergency provides public health officials an opportunity to rethink covid surveillance. Compared with the pandemic’s early days, when at-home tests were unavailable and people relied heavily on labs to determine whether they were infected, testing data from labs now reveals less about how the virus is spreading.

Public health officials don’t think “getting all test results from all lab tests is potentially the right strategy anymore,” Hamilton said. Flu surveillance provides a potential alternative model: For influenza, public health departments seek test results from a sampling of labs.

“We’re still trying to work out what’s the best, consistent strategy. And I don’t think we have that yet,” Hamilton said.

Some Roadblocks to Lifesaving Addiction Treatment Are Gone. Now What?

For two decades — as opioid overdose deaths rose steadily — the federal government limited access to buprenorphine, a medication that addiction experts consider the gold standard for treating patients with opioid use disorder. Study after study shows it helps people continue addiction treatment while reducing the risk of overdose and death.

Clinicians who wanted to prescribe the medicine had to complete an eight-hour training. They could treat only a limited number of patients and had to keep special records. They were given a Drug Enforcement Administration registration number starting with X, a designation many doctors say made them a target for drug-enforcement audits.

“Just the process associated with taking care of our patients with a substance use disorder made us feel like, ‘Boy, this is dangerous stuff,’” said Dr. Bobby Mukkamala, who chairs an American Medical Association task force addressing substance use disorder.

“The science doesn’t support that but the rigamarole suggested that.”

That rigamarole is mostly gone. Congress eliminated what became known as the “X-waiver” in legislation President Joe Biden signed late last year. Now begins what some addiction experts are calling a “truth serum moment.”

Were the X-waiver and the burdens that came with it the real reason only about 7% of clinicians in the U.S. were cleared to prescribe buprenorphine? Or were they an excuse that masked hesitation about treating addiction, if not outright disdain for these patients?

There’s great optimism among some leaders in the field that getting rid of the X-waiver will expand access to buprenorphine and reduce overdoses. One study from 2021 shows taking buprenorphine or methadone, another opioid agonist treatment, reduces the mortality risk for people with opioid dependence by 50%. The medication is an opioid that produces much weaker effects than heroin or fentanyl and reduces cravings for those deadlier drugs.

The nation’s drug czar, Dr. Rahul Gupta, said getting rid of the X-waiver would ultimately prevent millions of deaths.

“The impact of this will be felt for years to come,” Gupta said. “It is a true historic change that, frankly, I could only dream of being possible.”

Gupta and others envision obstetricians prescribing buprenorphine to their pregnant patients, infectious disease doctors adding it to their medical toolbox, and lots more patients starting buprenorphine when they come to emergency rooms, primary care clinics, and rehabilitation facilities.

We are “transforming the way we think to make every moment an opportunity to start this treatment and save someone’s life,” said Dr. Sarah Wakeman, the medical director for substance use disorder at Mass General Brigham in Boston.

Wakeman said clinicians she has been contacting for the past decade are finally willing to consider treating patients with buprenorphine. Still, she knows stigma and discrimination could undermine efforts to help those who aren’t being served. In 2021, a national survey showed just 22% of people with opioid use disorder received medications such as buprenorphine and methadone.

The test of whether clinicians will step up and if prescribing will become more widespread is underway in hospitals and clinics across the country as patients struggling with addiction queue up for treatment. A woman named Kim, 65, is among them.

Kim’s recent visit to the Greater New Bedford Community Health Center in southern Massachusetts began in an exam room with Jamie Simmons, a registered nurse who runs the center’s addiction treatment program but doesn’t have prescribing powers. KHN agreed to use only Kim’s first name to limit potential discrimination linked to her drug use.

Kim told Simmons that buprenorphine had helped her stay off heroin and avoid an overdose for nearly 20 years. Kim takes a medication called Suboxone, a combination of buprenorphine and naloxone, which comes in the form of thin, filmlike strips she dissolves under her tongue.

“It’s the best thing they could have ever come out with,” Kim said. “I don’t think I ever even had a desire to use heroin since I’ve been taking them.”

Buprenorphine can produce mild euphoria and slow breathing but there’s a ceiling on the effects. Patients like Kim may develop a tolerance and not experience any effects.

“I don’t get high on Suboxones,” Kim said. “They just keep me normal.”

Still, many clinicians have been hesitant to use buprenorphine — known as a partial opioid agonist — to treat an addiction to more deadly forms of the drug.

Kim’s primary care doctor at the health center never applied for an X-waiver. So for years Kim bounced from one treatment program to another, seeking a prescription. During lapses in her access to buprenorphine, the cravings returned — an especially scary prospect after the powerful opioid fentanyl largely replaced heroin on the streets of Massachusetts, where Kim lives.

“I’ve seen so many people fall out in the last month,” Kim said, using a slang term for overdosing. “That stuff is so strong that within a couple minutes, boom.”

Because fentanyl can kill so quickly, the benefits of taking buprenorphine and other medications to treat opioid use disorder have increased as deaths linked to even stronger types of fentanyl rise.

Buprenorphine is present in a small percentage of overdose deaths nationwide, 2.6%. Of those, 93% involved a mix of one or more other drugs, often benzodiazepines. Fentanyl is in 94% of overdose deaths in Massachusetts.

“Bottom line is, fentanyl kills people, buprenorphine doesn’t,” Simmons said.

That reality added urgency to Kim’s health center visit because Kim took her last Suboxone before arriving; her latest prescription had run out.

Cravings for heroin could have returned in about a day if she didn’t get more Suboxone. Simmons confirmed the dose and told Kim that her primary care doctor might be willing to renew the prescription now that the X-waiver is not required. But Dr. Than Win had some concerns after reviewing Kim’s most recent urine test. It showed traces of cocaine, fentanyl, marijuana, and Xanax, and Win said she was worried about how the street drugs might interact with buprenorphine.

“I don’t want my patients to die from an overdose,” Win said. “But I’m not comfortable with the fentanyl and a lot of narcotics in the system.”

Kim was adamant that she did not intentionally ingest fentanyl, saying it might have been in the cocaine she said her roommate shares occasionally. Kim said she takes the Xanax to sleep. Her drug use presents complications that many primary care doctors don’t have experience managing. Some clinicians are apprehensive about using an opioid to treat an addiction to opioids, despite compelling evidence that doing so can save patients’ lives.

Win was worried about writing her first prescription for Suboxone. But she agreed to help Kim stay on the medication.

“I wanted to start with someone a little bit easier,” Win said. “It’s hard for me; that’s the reality and truth.”

About half of the providers at the Greater New Bedford health center had an X-waiver when it was still required. Attributing some of the resistance to having the waiver to stigma or misunderstanding about addiction, Simmons urged doctors to treat addiction as they would any other disease.

“You wouldn’t not treat a diabetic; you wouldn’t not treat a patient who is hypertensive,” Simmons said. “People can’t control that they formed an addiction to an opiate, alcohol, or a benzo.”

Searching for Solutions to Soften Stigma

Although the restrictions on buprenorphine prescribing are no longer in place, Mukkamala said the perception created by the X-waiver lingers.

“That legacy of elevating this to a level of scrutiny and caution —that needs to be sort of walked back,” Mukkamala said. “That’s going to come from education.”

Mukkamala sees promise in the next generation of doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants coming out of schools that have added addiction training. The AMA and the American Society of Addiction Medicine have online resources for clinicians who want to learn on their own.

Some of these resources may help fulfill a new training requirement for clinicians who prescribe buprenorphine and other controlled narcotics. It will take effect in June. The DEA has not issued details about the training.

But training alone may not shift behavior, as Rhode Island’s experience shows.

The number of Rhode Island practitioners approved to prescribe buprenorphine increased roughly threefold from 2016 to 2022 after the state said physicians in training should obtain an X-waiver. Still, having the option to prescribe buprenorphine “didn’t open the floodgates” for patients in need of treatment, said Dr. Jody Rich, an addiction specialist who teaches at Brown University. From 2016 to 2022, when the number of qualified prescribers increased, the number of patients taking buprenorphine also increased, but by a much smaller percentage.

“It all comes back to stigma,” Rich said.

He said long-standing resistance among some providers to treating addiction is shifting as younger people enter medicine. But tackling the opioid crisis can’t wait for a generational change, he said. To expand buprenorphine access now, states could use pharmacists, partnered with doctors, to help manage the care of more patients with opioid use disorder, Rich’s research shows.

Wakeman, at Mass General Brigham, said it might be time to hold clinicians who don’t provide addiction care accountable through quality measures tied to payments.

“We’re expected to care for patients with diabetes or to care for patients with heart attack in a certain way and the same should be true for patients with an opioid use disorder,” Wakeman said.

One quality measure to track could be how often prescribers start and continue buprenorphine treatment. Wakeman said it would help also if insurers reimbursed clinics for the cost of staff who aren’t traditional clinicians but are critical in addiction care, like recovery coaches and case managers.

Will Ending the X-Waiver Close Racial Gaps?

Wakeman and others are paying especially close attention to whether eliminating the X-waiver helps narrow racial gaps in buprenorphine treatment. The medication is much more commonly prescribed to white patients with private insurance or who can pay cash. But there are also stark differences by race at some health centers where most patients are on Medicaid and would seem to have equal access to the addiction treatment.

At the New Bedford health center, Black patients represent 15% of all patients but only 6% of those taking buprenorphine. For Hispanics, it is 30% to 23%. Most of the health center patients prescribed buprenorphine, 61%, are white, though white patients make up just 36% of patients overall.

Dr. Helena Hansen, who co-authored a book on race in the opioid epidemic, said access to buprenorphine doesn’t guarantee that patients will benefit from it.

“People are not able to stay on a lifesaving medication unless the immense instability in housing, employment, social supports — the very fabric of their communities — is addressed,” Hansen said. “That’s where we fall incredibly short in the United States.”

Hansen said expanding access to buprenorphine has helped reduce overdose deaths dramatically among all drug users in France, including those with low incomes and immigrants. There, patients with opioid use disorder are seen in their communities and offered a wide range of social services.

“Removing the X-waiver,” Hansen said, “is not in itself going to revolutionize the opioid overdose crisis in our country. We would need to do much more.”

This article is part of a partnership that includes WBURNPR, and KHN.

Estados Unidos sigue siendo uno de los países con más partos prematuros. ¿Se puede solucionar?

El segundo embarazo de Tamara Etienne estuvo lleno de riesgos y preocupaciones desde el principio, exacerbado porque ya había sufrido un aborto espontáneo.

Como maestra de tercer grado en una escuela pública del condado de Miami-Dade, pasaba todo el día parada. Le pesaban las preocupaciones financieras, incluso teniendo seguro de salud y algo de licencia paga.

Y, como mujer negra, toda una vida de racismo la volvió desconfiada de las reacciones impredecibles en la vida diaria. Estaba agotada por el trato despectivo y desigual en el trabajo. Justamente el tipo de estrés que puede liberar cortisol, que, según estudios, aumenta el riesgo de parto prematuro.

“Lo experimento todo el tiempo, no camino sola, o lo hago con alguien a quien debo proteger. Sí, el nivel de cortisol en mi cuerpo es incontable”, expresó.

A los dos meses de embarazo, las náuseas implacables cesaron de repente. “Empecé a sentir que mis síntomas de embarazo estaban desapareciendo”, dijo. Entonces comenzó un extraño dolor de espalda.

Etienne y su esposo corrieron a la sala de emergencias, donde confirmaron que corría un grave riesgo de aborto espontáneo. Una cascada de intervenciones médicas —inyecciones de progesterona, monitoreo fetal en el hogar y reposo en cama— salvó a la niña, que nació a las 37 semanas.

Las mujeres en Estados Unidos tienen más probabilidades de dar a luz prematuramente que las de la mayoría de los países desarrollados. Esto coincide con tasas más altas de mortalidad materno infantil, miles de millones de gastos en cuidado intensivo y a menudo una vida de discapacidad para los prematuros que sobreviven.

Aproximadamente uno de cada 10 nacimientos vivos en 2021 ocurrió antes de las 37 semanas de gestación, según un informe de March of Dimes publicado en 2022. En comparación, investigaciones recientes citan tasas de nacimientos prematuros del 7,4% en Inglaterra y Gales, del 6% en Francia y del 5,8% en Suecia.

En su informe, March of Dimes encontró que las tasas de nacimientos prematuros aumentaron en casi todos los estados de 2020 a 2021. Vermont, con una tasa del 8%, tuvo la calificación más alta del país: una “A-”. Los resultados más sombríos se concentraron en los estados del sur, que obtuvieron calificaciones equivalentes a una “F”, con tasas de nacimientos prematuros del 11,5% o más.

Mississippi (15 %), Louisiana (13,5 %) y Alabama (13,1 %) fueron los estados con peor desempeño. El informe encontró que, en 2021, el 10,9% de los nacidos vivos en Florida fueron partos prematuros, por lo que obtuvo una “D”.

Desde que la Corte Suprema anulara Roe vs. Wade, muchos especialistas temen que la incidencia de nacimientos prematuros se dispare. El aborto ahora está prohibido en al menos 13 estados y estrictamente restringido en otros 12: los estados que restringen el aborto tienen menos proveedores de atención materna, según un reciente análisis de Commonwealth Fund.

Eso incluye Florida, donde los legisladores republicanos han promulgado leyes contra el aborto, incluida la prohibición de realizarlo después de las 15 semanas de gestación.

Florida es uno de los estados menos generosos cuando se trata de seguro médico público. Aproximadamente una de cada 6 mujeres en edad fértil no tiene seguro, lo que dificulta mantener un embarazo saludable. Las mujeres de Florida tienen el doble de probabilidades de morir por causas relacionadas con el embarazo y el parto que las de California.

“Me quita el sueño”, dijo la doctora Elvire Jacques, especialista en medicina materno-fetal del Memorial Hospital en Miramar, Florida.

Jacques explicó que las causas de los partos prematuros son variadas. Alrededor del 25% se inducen médicamente, por condiciones como la preeclampsia. Pero la investigación sugiere que muchos más tendrían sus raíces en una misteriosa constelación de condiciones fisiológicas.

“Es muy difícil identificar que una paciente tendrá un parto prematuro”, dijo Jacques. “Pero sí puedes identificar los factores estresantes en sus embarazos”.

Los médicos dicen que aproximadamente la mitad de todos los nacimientos prematuros debido a factores sociales, económicos y ambientales, y al acceso inadecuado a la atención médica prenatal, se pueden prevenir.

En el Memorial Hospital en Miramar, parte de un gran sistema de atención médica pública, Jacques recibe embarazos de alto riesgo referidos por otros obstetras del sur de Florida.

En la primera cita les pregunta: ¿Con quién vives? ¿Donde duermes? ¿Tienes adicciones? ¿Dónde trabajas? “Si no supiera que trabajan en una fábrica paradas cómo les podría recomendar que usaran medias de compresión para prevenir coágulos de sangre?”.

Jacques instó al gerente de una tienda a que permitiera a su empleada embarazada trabajar sentada. Persuadió a un imán para que le concediera a una futura mamá con diabetes un aplazamiento del ayuno religioso.

Debido a que la diabetes es un factor de riesgo importante, a menudo habla con los pacientes sobre cómo comer de manera saludable. Les pregunta: “De los alimentos que estamos discutiendo, ¿cuál crees que puedes pagar?”.

El acceso a una atención asequible separa a Florida de estados como California y Massachusetts, que tienen licencia familiar paga y bajas tasas de residentes sin seguro; y a Estados Unidos de otros países, dicen expertos en políticas de salud.

En países con atención médica socializada, “las mujeres no tienen que preocuparse por el costo financiero de la atención”, apuntó la doctora Delisa Skeete-Henry, jefa del departamento de obstetricia y ginecología de Broward Health en Fort Lauderdale. Y tienen licencias por maternidad pagas.

Sin embargo, a medida que aumentan los nacimientos prematuros en Estados Unidos, la riqueza no garantiza mejores resultados.

Nuevas investigaciones revelan que, sorprendentemente, en todos los niveles de ingresos, las mujeres negras y sus bebés experimentan resultados de parto mucho peores que sus contrapartes blancas. En otras palabras, todos los recursos que ofrece la riqueza no protegen a las mujeres negras ni a sus bebés de complicaciones prematuras, según el estudio, publicado por la Oficina Nacional de Investigación Económica.

Jamarah Amani es testigo de esto como directora ejecutiva de Southern Birth Justice Network y defensora de la atención de parteras y doulas en el sur de Florida. A medida que evalúa nuevos pacientes, busca pistas sobre los riesgos de nacimiento en los antecedentes familiares, análisis de laboratorio y ecografías. Y se centra en el estrés relacionado con el trabajo, las relaciones, la comida, la familia y el racismo.

“Las mujeres negras que trabajan en ambientes de alto estrés, incluso si no tienen problemas económicos, pueden enfrentar un parto prematuro”, dijo.

Recientemente, cuando una paciente mostró signos de trabajo de parto prematuro, Amani descubrió que su factura de electricidad estaba vencida, y que la empresa amenazaba con cortar el servicio. Amani encontró una organización que pagó la deuda.

De los seis embarazos de Tamara Etienne, dos terminaron en aborto espontáneo y cuatro fueron de riesgo de parto prematuro. Harta de la avalancha de intervenciones médicas, encontró una doula y una partera locales que la ayudaron en el nacimiento de sus dos hijos más pequeños.

“Pudieron guiarme a través de formas saludables y naturales para mitigar todas esas complicaciones”, dijo.

Sus propias experiencias con el embarazo dejaron un profundo impacto en Etienne. Desde entonces, ella misma se ha convertido en una doula.

The US Remains a Grim Leader in Preterm Births. Why? And Can We Fix It?

Tamara Etienne’s second pregnancy was freighted with risk and worry from its earliest days — exacerbated by a first pregnancy that had ended in miscarriage.

A third-grade teacher at an overcrowded Miami-Dade County public school, she spent harried days on her feet. Financial worries weighed heavy, even with health insurance and some paid time off through her job.

And as a Black woman, a lifetime of racism had left her wary of unpredictable reactions in daily life and drained by derogatory and unequal treatment at work. It’s the sort of stress that can release cortisol, which studies have shown heighten the risk for premature labor.

“I’m experiencing it every day, not walking alone, walking with someone I have to protect,” she said. “So the level of cortisol in my body when I’m pregnant? Immeasurable.”

Two months into the pregnancy, the unrelenting nausea suddenly stopped. “I started to feel like my pregnancy symptoms were going away,” she said. Then strange back pain started.

Etienne and her husband rushed to an emergency room, where a doctor confirmed she was at grave risk for a miscarriage. A cascade of medical interventions — progesterone injections, fetal monitoring at home, and bed rest while she took months off work — saved the child, who was born at 37 weeks.

Women in the U.S. are more likely to deliver their babies prematurely than those in most developed countries. It’s a distinction that coincides with high rates of maternal and infant death, billions of dollars in intensive care costs, and often lifelong disabilities for the children who survive.

About 1 in 10 live births in 2021 occurred before 37 weeks of gestation, according to a March of Dimes report released last year. By comparison, research in recent years has cited preterm birth rates of 7.4% in England and Wales, 6% in France, and 5.8% in Sweden.

In its 2022 report card, the March of Dimes found the preterm birth rates increased in nearly every U.S. state from 2020 to 2021. Vermont, with a rate of 8%, merited the nation’s highest grade: an “A-.” The grimmest outcomes were concentrated in the Southern states, which largely earned “F” ratings, with preterm birth rates of 11.5% or higher. Mississippi (15%), Louisiana (13.5%), and Alabama (13.1%) were the worst performers. The March of Dimes report found 10.9% of live births in Florida were delivered preterm in 2021, earning the state a “D” rating.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, many maternal-fetal specialists worry that the incidence of premature birth will soar. Abortion is now banned in at least 13 states and sharply restricted in 12 others — states that restrict abortion have fewer maternal care providers than states with abortion access, according to a recent analysis by the Commonwealth Fund.

That includes Florida, where Etienne lives, and where Republican lawmakers have enacted a series of anti-abortion laws, including a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of gestation. Florida is one of the least generous states when it comes to public health insurance. About 1 in 6 women of childbearing age in Florida are uninsured, making it more difficult to begin a healthy pregnancy. Women are twice as likely to die from pregnancy and childbirth-related causes in Florida than in California.

“I lose sleep over this,” said Dr. Elvire Jacques, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Memorial Hospital in Miramar, Florida. “It’s hard to say, I expect [better birth outcomes] when I’m not investing anything from the beginning.”

***

The causes of preterm births are varied. About 25% are medically induced, Jacques said, when the woman or fetus is in distress because of conditions like preeclampsia, a pregnancy-related hypertensive disorder. But research suggests that far more early births are thought to be rooted in a mysterious constellation of physiological conditions.

“It’s very hard to identify that a patient will automatically have a preterm birth,” Jacques said. “But you can definitely identify stressors for their pregnancies.”

Physicians say that roughly half of all preterm births are preventable, caused by social, economic, and environmental factors, as well as inadequate access to prenatal health care. Risk factors include conditions such as diabetes and obesity, as well as more-hidden issues like stress or even dehydration.

At Memorial Hospital in Miramar, part of a large public health care system, Jacques takes on high-risk pregnancies referred from other OB-GYNs in South Florida.

When meeting a patient for the first time she asks: Who else is in your household? Where do you sleep? Do you have substance abuse issues? Where do you work? “If you don’t know that your patient works in a factory [standing] on an assembly line,” she said, “then how are you going to tell her to wear compression socks because that may help her prevent blood clots?”

Jacques has urged a store manager to let her pregnant patient sit while working. She persuaded an imam to grant a mom-to-be with diabetes a reprieve from religious fasting.

Because diabetes is a major risk factor, she often talks with patients about eating healthfully. For those who eat fast food, she asks them to try cooking at home. Instead of, “Can you pay for food?” she asks, “Of the foods we’re discussing, which one do you think you can afford?”

Access to affordable care separates Florida from states like California and Massachusetts — which have paid family leave and low rates of uninsured residents — and separates the U.S. from other countries, health policy experts say.

In countries with socialized health care, “women don’t have to worry about the financial cost of care,” said Dr. Delisa Skeete-Henry, chair of the obstetrics and gynecology department at Broward Health in Fort Lauderdale. “A lot of places have paid leave, [and pregnant patients] don’t have to worry about not being at work.”

Yet, as preterm births rise in the U.S., wealth does not ensure better pregnancy outcomes.

Startling new research shows that at every U.S. income level, Black women and their infants experience far worse birth outcomes than their white counterparts. In other words, all the resources that come with wealth do not protect Black women or their babies from preterm complications, according to the study, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Jamarah Amani has seen this firsthand as executive director of the Southern Birth Justice Network and an advocate for midwifery and doula care in South Florida. As she evaluates new clients, she looks for clues about birth risks in a patient’s family history, lab work, and ultrasounds. She homes in quickly on stress related to work, relationships, food, family, and racism.

“I find Black women working in high-stress environments, even if they are not financially struggling, can face preterm birth,” she said. She develops “wellness plans” that include breathing, meditation, stretching, and walking.

Recently, when a patient showed signs of preterm labor, Amani discovered that her electricity bill was overdue and the utility was threatening to cut service. Amani found an organization to pay off the debt.

Of Tamara Etienne’s six pregnancies, two ended in miscarriage and four were threatened by preterm labor. Fed up with the onslaught of medical interventions, she found a local doula and midwife who helped guide her through the birth of her two youngest children.

“They were able to walk me through healthy, natural ways to mitigate all of those complications,” she said.

Her own pregnancy experiences left a profound impact on Etienne. She has since become a fertility doula herself.

Journalists Discuss Insulin Prices, Gun Violence, Distracted Driving, and More

Midwest KHN correspondent Bram Sable-Smith discussed the Eli Lilly news on insulin prices on “PBS NewsHour” and insulin prices on Slate’s “What Next” on March 1.


KHN contributor Andy Miller discussed Georgia’s legislative wrap-up including Medicaid work requirements on Georgia Public Broadcasting’s “Lawmakers” on Feb. 28. He also discussed health care for foster children on WUGA’s “The Georgia Health Report” on Feb. 3.


Senior KHN correspondent Julie Appleby discussed how the end of the public health emergency will affect costs for covid-19 vaccines, treatments, and masks on KMOX’s “Health Matters” on Feb. 25.


KHN correspondent Cara Anthony discussed the youngest victims of gun violence and those who dig their graves on America’s Heroes Group on Feb. 25.


KHN contributor Eric Berger discussed distracted driving laws and why Missouri still doesn’t have one on St. Louis Public Radio’s “St. Louis on the Air” on Feb 24.


Senators Have Mental Health Crises, Too

The Host

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

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

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

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:


To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KHN’s What the Health? on SpotifyApple PodcastsStitcherPocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Au Revoir, Public Health Emergency

The Host

The public health emergency in effect since the start of the covid-19 pandemic will end on May 11, the Biden administration announced this week. The end of the so-called PHE will bring about a raft of policy changes affecting patients, health care providers, and states. But Republicans in Congress, along with some Democrats, have been agitating for an end to the “emergency” designation for months.

Meanwhile, despite Republicans’ less-than-stellar showing in the 2022 midterm elections and broad public support for preserving abortion access, anti-abortion groups are pushing for even stronger restrictions on the procedure, arguing that Republicans did poorly because they were not strident enough on abortion issues.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Victoria Knight of Axios, Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post, and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • This week the Biden administration announced the covid public health emergency will end in May, terminating many flexibilities the government afforded health care providers during the pandemic to ease the challenges of caring for patients.
  • Some of the biggest covid-era changes, like the expansion of telehealth and Medicare coverage for the antiviral medication Paxlovid, have already been extended by Congress. Lawmakers have also set a separate timetable for the end of the Medicaid coverage requirement. Meanwhile, the White House is pushing back on reports that the end of the public health emergency will also mean the end of free vaccines, testing, and treatments.
  • A new KFF poll shows widespread public confusion over medication abortion, with many respondents saying they are unsure whether the abortion pill is legal in their state and how to access it. Advocates say medication abortion, which accounts for about half of abortions nationwide, is the procedure’s future, and state laws regarding its use are changing often.
  • On abortion politics, the Republican National Committee passed a resolution urging candidates to “go on the offense” in 2024 and push stricter abortion laws. Abortion opponents were unhappy that Republican congressional leaders did not push through a federal gestational limit on abortion last year, and the party is signaling a desire to appeal to its conservative base in the presidential election year.
  • This week, the federal government announced it will audit Medicare Advantage plans for overbilling. But according to a KHN scoop, the government will limit its clawbacks to recent years, allowing many plans to keep the money it overpaid them. Medicare Advantage is poised to enroll the majority of seniors this year.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Hannah Wesolowski of the National Alliance on Mental Illness about how the rollout of the new 988 suicide prevention hotline is going.

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

Julie Rovner: Axios’ “Republicans Break With Another Historical Ally: Doctors,” by Caitlin Owens and Victoria Knight

Margot Sanger-Katz: The New York Times’ “Most Abortion Bans Include Exceptions. In Practice, Few Are Granted,” by Amy Schoenfeld Walker

Rachel Roubein: The Washington Post’s “I Wrote About High-Priced Drugs for Years. Then My Toddler Needed One,” by Carolyn Y. Johnson

Victoria Knight: The New York Times’ “Emailing Your Doctor May Carry a Fee,” by Benjamin Ryan

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:


To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KHN’s What the Health? on SpotifyApple PodcastsStitcherPocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Telehealth Brings Expert Sexual Assault Exams to Rural Patients

Amanda Shelley was sitting in her dentist’s waiting room when she received a call from the police. A local teenage girl had been sexually assaulted and needed an exam.

Shelley, a nurse in rural Eagle County, Colorado, went to her car and called a telehealth company to arrange an appointment with a sexual assault nurse examiner, or SANE. The nurse examiners have extensive training in how to care for assault survivors and collect evidence for possible criminal prosecution.

About an hour later, Shelley met the patient at the Colorado Mountain Medical urgent care clinic in the small town of Avon. She used a tablet to connect by video with a SANE about 2,000 miles away, in New Hampshire.

The remote nurse used the video technology to speak with the patient and guide Shelley through each step of a two-hour exam. One of those steps was a colposcopy, in which Shelley used a magnifying device to closely examine the vagina and cervix. The remote nurse saw, in real time, what Shelley could see, with the help of a video camera attached to the machine.

The service, known as “teleSANE,” is new at Shelley’s hospital. Before, sexual assault patients faced mountains of obstacles — literally — when they had to travel to a hospital in another county for care.

“We’re asking them to drive maybe over snowy passes and then [be there] three to four hours for this exam and then drive back home — it’s disheartening for them,” Shelley said. “They want to start the healing process and go home and shower.”

To avoid this scenario, teleSANE services are expanding across the country in rural, sparsely populated areas. Research shows SANE programs encourage psychological healing, provide comprehensive health care, allow for professional evidence collection, and improve the chance of a successful prosecution.

Jennifer Pierce-Weeks is CEO of the International Association of Forensic Nurses, which created the national standards and certification programs for sexual assault nurse examiners. She said every sexual assault survivor faces health consequences. Assaults can cause physical injuries, sexually transmitted infections, unwanted pregnancies, and mental health conditions that can lead to suicide attempts and drug and alcohol misuse.

“If they are cared for on the front end, all of the risks of those things can be reduced dramatically with the right intervention,” Pierce-Weeks said.

Pierce-Weeks said there’s no comprehensive national data on the number and location of health care professionals with SANE training. But she said studies show there’s a nationwide shortage, especially in rural areas.

Some rural hospitals struggle to create or maintain in-person SANE programs because of staffing and funding shortfalls, Pierce-Weeks said.

Nurse Lindee Miller holds a standard sexual assault evidence collection kit distributed by the South Dakota Department of Health. (Arielle Zionts/KHN)
Using magnification and a bright light, this colposcope device allows a health care provider to closely examine the vagina and cervix. The camera transmits a live view to a remote sexual assault nurse examiner. (Arielle Zionts/KHN)

Training costs money and takes time. If rural hospitals train nurses, they still might not have enough to provide round-the-clock coverage. And nurses in rural areas can’t practice their skills as often as those who work in busy urban hospitals.

Some hospitals without SANE programs refer sexual assault survivors elsewhere because they don’t feel qualified to help and aren’t always legally required to provide comprehensive treatment and evidence collection.

Avel eCare, based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, has been providing telehealth services since 1993. It recently added teleSANE to its offerings.

Avel provides this service to 43 mostly rural and small-town hospitals across five states and is expanding to Indian Health Service hospitals in the Great Plains. Native Americans face high rates of sexual assault and might have to travel hours for care if they live in one of the region’s large, rural reservations.

Jen Canton, who oversees Avel’s teleSANE program, said arriving at a local hospital and being referred elsewhere can be devastating for sexual assault survivors. “You just went through what is potentially the worst moment of your life, and then you have to travel two, three hours away to another facility,” Canton said. “It takes a lot of courage to even come into the first hospital and say what happened to you and ask for help.”

Patients who receive care at hospitals without SANE programs might not receive trauma-informed care, which focuses on identifying sources of trauma, determining how those experiences may affect people’s health, and preventing the retraumatizing of patients. Emergency department staffers may not have experience with internal exams or evidence collection. They also might not know about patients’ options for involving police.

Patients who travel to a second hospital might struggle to arrange for and afford transportation or child care. Other patients don’t have the emotional bandwidth to make the trip and retell their stories.

That’s why some survivors, like Ada Sapp, don’t have an exam.

Sapp, a health care executive at Colorado Mountain Medical, was assaulted before the hospital system began its SANE program. She was shocked to learn she would need to drive 45 minutes to another county for an exam. “I didn’t feel comfortable doing that by myself,” Sapp said. “So, my husband would have had to come with me, or a friend. The logistics made it feel insurmountable.”

Sapp’s experience inspired her to help bring SANE services to Colorado Mountain Medical.

Shelley and several other of the hospital system’s nurses have SANE training but appreciate having telehealth support from the remote nurses with more experience. “We are a rural community and we’re not doing these every single day,” Shelley said. “A lot of my nurses would get really anxious before an exam because maybe they haven’t done one in a couple months.”

A remote “second set of eyes” increases the confidence of the in-person nurse and is reassuring to patients, she said.

Lindee Miller, a nurse at Avera St. Mary’s Hospital in Pierre, South Dakota, turns on the camera attached to a colposcope, a magnifying device used to closely examine the vagina and cervix. The camera transmits a live view of the exam to the remote sexual assault nurse examiner.( Arielle Zionts/KHN)

Avera St. Mary’s Hospital in Pierre, South Dakota, recently began using teleSANE. Rural towns, farms, and ranches surround this capital city, home to about 14,000 people. The nearest metropolitan area is about a three-hour drive.

Taking a break from a recent busy morning in the emergency department, nurse Lindee Miller rolled out the mobile teleSANE cart and colposcope device from Avel eCare. She pulled out a thick binder of instructions and forms and opened drawers filled with swabs, evidence tags, measuring devices, and other forensic materials.

“You’re never doing the same exam twice,” Miller said. “It’s all driven by what the patient wants to do.”

She said some patients might want only medicine to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Other patients opt for a head-to-toe physical exam. And some might want her to collect forensic evidence.

Federal and state laws provide funding to pay for these sexual assault exams, but some survivors are billed because of legal gaps and a lack of awareness of the rules. A proposed federal law, the No Surprises for Survivors Act, would close some of those gaps.

SANE programs, including telehealth versions aimed at rural communities, are expected to continue expanding across the country.

President Joe Biden signed a bill last year that provides $30 million to expand SANE services, especially those that use telehealth and serve rural, tribal, and other underserved communities. The law also requires the Justice Department to create a website listing the locations of the programs and grant opportunities for starting them.