CDC Could Be ‘Dismantled’ in Second Trump Term

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is “the most incompetent and arrogant agency in the federal government,” not qualified to offer medical advice to patients, and its ability to set public health policy should be “severely confined.”  

Those are some of recommendations being made by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that seeks a major overhaul of the federal government if a Republican president – presumably Donald Trump – is sworn into office next year.

The agenda for Project 2025 is outlined in “Mandate for Leadership” – an 887-page book that advocates for many traditional conservative goals: smaller government, lower taxes, restrictive abortion laws, and an end to federal policies that promote equality and diversity.

We’re not going to get into those hot button issues, but will focus on how Mandate for Leadership would “dismantle the administration state” that governs healthcare in America.

That section of the book is written by Roger Severino, the former director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) during the first Trump administration.   

To begin, it’s pretty clear that the CDC has a target on its back, largely due to how the agency responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by shutting down much of the country in a bid to control the virus.    

“COVID-19 exposed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as perhaps the most incompetent and arrogant agency in the federal government. CDC continually misjudged COVID-19, from its lethality, transmissibility, and origins to treatments,” wrote Severino.

“Unaccountable bureaucrats like Anthony Fauci should never again have such broad, unchecked power to issue health ‘guidelines’ that will certainly be the basis for federal and state mandates. Never again should public health bureaucrats be allowed to hide information, ignore information, or mislead the public concerning the efficacy or dangers associated with any recommended health interventions.”

Substitute “Tom Frieden” for “Anthony Fauci” and that paragraph would nicely sum up how many pain patients and doctors feel about the former CDC director and the 2016 CDC opioid guideline. Drafted in secret under Frieden’s leadership, the agency’s guideline development process likely violated federal open meeting and conflict-of-interest laws, while hiding behind an almost comical “Cone of Silence.”

Although its recommendations are voluntary, the opioid guideline was quickly adopted as a mandatory policy by many states, regulators and law enforcement – resulting in hundreds of doctors losing their medical licenses or going to prison for “overprescribing” opioids.

Severino, an attorney who seems well-positioned for another key healthcare job if Trump is elected to a second term, says the CDC went far beyond its authority when it created medical guidelines.  

“Most problematically, the CDC presented itself as a kind of ‘super-doctor’ for the entire nation. The CDC is a public health institution, not a medical institution,” he wrote. “It is not qualified to offer professional medical opinions applicable to specific patients. We have learned that when CDC says what people ‘should’ do, it readily becomes a ‘must’ backed by severe punishments, including criminal penalties.

“CDC guidelines are analogous to guidelines from other public health associations or medical societies: They are informative, not prescriptive. By statute or regulation, CDC guidance must be prohibited from taking on a prescriptive character.”

Split in Two

How can the CDC be reined in? The answer, according to Severino, is to cut the CDC in half and slash much of its funding.

“The CDC should be split into two separate entities housing its two distinct functions,” he wrote. “These distinct functions should be separated into two entirely separate agencies with a firewall between them. We need a national epidemiological agency responsible only for publishing data and required by law to publish all of the data gathered from states and other sources. A separate agency should be responsible for public health with a severely confined ability to make policy recommendations.”

Frieden calls that proposal “very dangerous and very wrong.”

“We don’t split up the military because it’s too big. We don’t split up corporations because they’re too big,” Frieden told Politico. “Big organization needs a big management structure and also flexibility.”

Severino says the CDC Foundation, a not-for-profit organization that works closely with the agency in promoting health policy, should be prohibited from accepting contributions from the pharmaceutical industry. The foundation received nearly $275 million in donations last year, much of it coming from Pfizer, Biogen, Merck and other healthcare companies.  

“This practice presents a stark conflict of interest that should be banned,” wrote Severino. “The CDC and NIH Foundations, whose boards are populated with pharmaceutical company executives, need to be decommissioned. Private donations to these foundations — a majority of them from pharmaceutical companies— should not be permitted to influence government decisions about research funding or public health policy.”

Severino also wants stronger transparency and conflict of interest policies, not just at the CDC, but at HHS and all federal agencies involved in healthcare. He thinks a lengthy “cooling off period” should be adopted to prevent federal regulators from going into industries they helped regulate once their government jobs end. A 15-year cooling off period “would not be too long,” according to Severino.

To be clear, Mandate for Leadership is more of a wish list than anything else. It all hinges on the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. If it does become a playbook for a second Trump administration, some of its recommendations could be imposed by executive order, but many will require congressional approval. CDC directors, once directly appointed by the president, will need Senate confirmation next year under a new law, just as other cabinet members do.      

Whatever happens, it’s clear that conservative advocates are gunning for the CDC.

“The federal government’s public health apparatus has lost the public’s trust. Before the next national public health emergency, this apparatus must be fundamentally restructured,” Severino wrote.

Long-Haul Covid Shedding New Light on Chronic Fatigue Illness

By Kevin Cool, Kaiser Health News

Four weeks after San Diego pediatric nurse Jennifer Minhas fell ill with covid-19 last March, her cough and fever had resolved, but new symptoms had emerged: chest pain, an elevated heart rate and crushing fatigue.

Her primary care physician told her she was just anxious, and that none of her other covid patients had those issues. “That wasn’t what I needed to hear,” Minhas said.

At times, she’s been too exhausted to hold up her head. “I was kind of a zombie for months, shuffling around unable to do much of anything.”

The clinical term for the flattening fatigue Minhas describes is “post-exertional malaise.” It is a common symptom among patients who have not recovered from covid. It is also consistent with a standard feature of another chronic illness: myalgic encephalomyelitis, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome, or ME/CFS.

ME/CFS patients also report cognitive impairment — “brain fog” — and orthostatic intolerance, in which standing upright produces a racing heart rate and lightheadedness. Minhas has experienced these symptoms, as have many other “long-haulers,” the tens of thousands of post-covid patients who haven’t recovered.

The percentage of covid patients who become long haulers is hard to pin down — in part because many early covid patients were not tested in time to detect the virus. But “long covid” is potentially an enormous problem. A recent study of 1,733 covid patients in Wuhan, China, found three-quarters of them still had symptoms six months after being released from the hospital.

As of January, doctors had documented more than 21 million cases of covid in the United States. “If just 5 percent develop lingering symptoms,’’ — about 1 million cases — “and if most of those with symptoms have ME/CFS, we would double the number of Americans suffering from ME/CFS in the next two years,” Harvard Medical School professor Dr. Anthony Komaroff wrote recently in the Harvard Health Letter.

ME/CFS Linked to Viral Infections

The cause of ME/CFS is unknown, but multiple studies have found it follows acute infections with viruses — everything from the 1918 Spanish flu to Ebola. “A certain percentage of people don’t recover,” said Leonard Jason, a researcher at DePaul University.

Scientists are trying to figure out the mechanisms of the disease and why it develops in certain people and not others. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ME/CFS shares certain characteristics with autoimmune diseases, in which the immune system attacks healthy tissue in the body. Multiple studies are underway to explore this and other potential causes.

Doctors who specialize in treating ME/CFS are beginning to pivot to long-covid patients. Dr. Peter Rowe, whose clinic at Johns Hopkins is one of the country’s leading centers for ME, has so far seen four long haulers at his practice. “All of them meet the criteria for ME/CFS,” he said.

Despite years of research, there is no biomarker for ME/CFS, so blood tests are ineffective as a diagnostic tool. Rowe’s approach is to tease apart which symptoms may have identifiable causes and treatments, and address those.

One example: A 15-year-old boy Rowe was treating for ME/CFS was so sick that even sitting upright a few hours a day exhausted him and made schoolwork virtually impossible. The boy’s heart rate while lying down was 63; when he stood up it skyrocketed to 113. This effect is known as postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, or POTS.

Rowe knew from interviews with the boy’s mother that he had an extraordinary appetite for salt. So much so that he kept a shaker at his bedside and would regularly sprinkle salt on his hand and lick it off.

Rowe hypothesized that he was dealing with a sodium retention problem. To counter it, he prescribed the steroid fludrocortisone, which promotes sodium resorption in the kidneys. Three weeks later, the boy had recovered so dramatically he was helping a neighbor with a landscaping project, pushing rocks around in a wheelbarrow. “He was a different kid,” Rowe said.

Such a course of treatment would not be applicable in a typical case, Rowe said, “but it does emphasize the potential for patients to get a substantial improvement in their CFS symptoms if we address the orthostatic intolerance.”

ME/CFS Usually Misdiagnosed

Beginning in the 1980s, many doctors treating ME/CFS prescribed a combination of cognitive behavioral therapy and an exercise regimen based on a now discredited assertion that the illness had no biomedical origin. That approach proved ineffective — patients often got demonstrably worse after pushing beyond their physical limits. It also contributed to a belief within the medical establishment that ME/CFS was all in your head, a narrative that has largely been refuted.

“ME/CFS was never a mostly behavioral problem, although it has been cast as that,” Rowe said.

Answers have been slow to arrive, but attitudes about the illness are beginning to change. Advocates of patients point to a 2015 report by the Institute of Medicine that called ME/CFS “a serious, chronic, complex, systemic disease” and acknowledged that many doctors are poorly trained to identify and treat it. The CDC says as many as 90% of the estimated 1 million U.S. patients with ME/CFS may be undiagnosed or misdiagnosed.

The problem is exacerbated by a reluctance to provide health care coverage to patients whose illnesses aren’t easily diagnosed, said Joe Dumit, a medical anthropologist at the University of California-Davis.

“Making patients prove they are not just suffering, but suffering from a documented illness, saves money. So, I worry about the way in which covid long haulers will be treated as the numbers rise.” The best treatment in many cases may be rest or reduced workload, “which translates into some form of disability coverage,” he said.

But since long haulers typically sicken immediately after having had a testable viral infection, perhaps they won’t be disbelieved, Rowe said — after all, their illness “starts as a ‘real’ illness.’’

Long haulers may also help researchers better understand the onset of the illness because they are being studied as their symptoms emerge, while ME/CFS patients often aren’t seen until they’ve been ill for two or more years, he said.

“There’s no question that this legitimizes in many ways the experience of people with ME/CFS who have felt they weren’t believed,” DePaul’s Jason said.

In July, the nonprofit Solve ME/CFS launched an initiative aimed at understanding similarities between long haulers and patients with ME/CFS. Dubbed You+ME and underwritten by the National Institutes of Health, it includes an app that enables registrants to record their symptoms and their effects over time.

Such efforts may further diminish the tendency of doctors to ignore patients’ complaints of symptoms that seem to have no evident cause, said Lauren Nichols, 32, a long hauler with a long list of miseries — everything from severe gastrointestinal problems to shingles in her left eye.

“I was one of those people who falsely believed that if you can’t see the illness it’s psychosomatic,” said Nichols, who helps administer Body Politic, a support group for long-covid patients that has found common cause with the ME/CFS community.

“Now I’m living it,” she said. “If I have one message for doctors, it’s ‘Believe your patients.’”

Kaiser Health News is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

What to Expect When COVID Vaccines Roll Out

By Judith Graham, Kaiser Health News

Vaccines that protect against COVID-19 are on the way. What should older adults and people with chronic illness expect? Will there be enough doses for everyone who wants to be vaccinated?

The first vaccine candidates, from Pfizer and Moderna, could arrive before Christmas, according to Alex Azar, who heads the Department of Health and Human Services.

Both vaccines are notably effective in preventing illness due to the coronavirus, according to information released by the companies, although much of the data from clinical trials is still to come. Both have been tested in adults age 65 and older, who mounted a strong immune response.

Seniors in nursing homes and assisted living centers will be among the first Americans vaccinated, following recommendations last week by a federal advisory panel. Older adults living at home will need to wait a while longer.

Many uncertainties remain. Among them: What side effects can older adults anticipate and how often will these occur? Will the vaccines offer meaningful protection to seniors who are frail or have multiple chronic illnesses?

Here’s a look at what’s known, what’s not and what lies ahead.

Timetable for Vaccines

Pfizer’s vaccine will be evaluated by a 15-member Food and Drug Administration advisory panel on Thursday. Moderna’s vaccine is expected to go before the panel Dec. 17.

At least two days before each meeting, an analysis by FDA staff will be made public. This will be the first opportunity to see extensive data about the vaccines’ performance in large phase 3 clinical trials, including more details about their impact on older adults.

So far, summary results disclosed in news releases indicate that Pfizer’s vaccine, produced in partnership with BioNTech, has an overall efficacy rate of 95% and efficacy of 94% in people 65 and older. Moderna’s overall efficacy is 94%, with 87% efficacy in preventing moderate disease in older adults, according to Moncef Slaoui, chief science adviser to Operation Warp Speed, the government’s COVID-19 vaccine development program.

If the advisory panel gives a green light, the FDA will decide within days or weeks whether to authorize the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for emergency use. Distribution of the vaccine has already begun, and health care providers are expected to begin administering it immediately after the FDA acts.

Who Gets Vaccinated First?

At a Dec. 1 meeting of the Advisory Commission on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which guides the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccines, experts recommended that people living in long-term care (primarily nursing homes and assisted living facilities) and health care workers be the first groups to get COVID-19 vaccines.

This recognizes the extraordinary burden of COVID-19 in long-term care facilities. Although their residents represent fewer than 1% of the U.S. population, they account for 40% of COVID deaths — more than 100,000 deaths to date.

The commission’s decision comes despite a lack of evidence that Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines are effective and safe for frail, vulnerable seniors in long-term care. Vaccines were not tested in this population. Federal officials insist side effects will be carefully monitored.

Next in line likely would be essential workers who cannot work from home, such as police, firefighters, teachers and people employed in food processing and transportation, according to commission deliberations Nov. 23 that have not come to a formal vote.

Then would be adults with high-risk medical conditions such as diabetes, cancer, kidney disease, obesity, heart disease and autoimmune diseases and all adults age 65 and older.

Although states typically follow ACIP guidelines, some states may choose, for instance, to vaccinate high-risk older adults before some categories of essential workers.

Left off the list are family caregivers, who provide essential support to vulnerable older adults living in the community — an unpaid workforce of tens of millions of people. “If someone is providing day-to-day care, it makes sense they should have access to the vaccine, too, to keep everyone safe,” said Beth Kallmyer, vice president of care and support for the Alzheimer’s Association.

Priority Groups

The priority groups constitute nearly half of the U.S. population — 21 million health care workers, 3 million long-term care residents, 66 million essential workers, more than 100 million adults with high-risk conditions and 53 million adults age 65 and older.

With initial supplies of vaccines limited, setting priorities will be inevitable. Practically, this means that hospitals and physicians may try to identify older adults who are at the highest risk of becoming seriously ill from COVID-19 and offer them vaccines before other seniors.

A study of more than 500,000 Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older provides new evidence that could influence these assessments. It found the conditions that most increase older adults’ chances of dying from COVID-19 are sickle cell disease, chronic kidney disease, leukemias and lymphomas, heart failure, diabetes, cerebral palsy, obesity, lung cancer and heart attacks, in that order.

“Out of all Medicare beneficiaries, we identified just under 2,500 who had no medical problems and died of COVID-19,” said Dr. Martin Makary, co-author of the study and a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. “We knew risk was skewed toward comorbidity [multiple underlying medical conditions], but we didn’t realize it skewed this much.”

Supplies Available

Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines require two doses, administered three to four weeks apart. The companies have said about 40 million doses of their vaccines should be available this year, enough to fully vaccinate about 20 million people.

After that, 50 million doses might become available in January, followed by 60 million doses in both February and March, according to Dr. Larry Corey, a virologist who heads the COVID-19 Prevention Trials Network.

That translates into enough vaccine for another 85 million people and should be sufficient to vaccinate older adults in addition to medical personnel on the front lines and many other at-risk individuals, Corey suggested at a recent panel on COVID-19 sponsored by the National Academy of Medicine and American Public Health Association.

He acknowledged these were estimates, based on information he has been given. Pfizer and Moderna have not yet specified how much vaccine will be delivered and when. Nor is it clear when other vaccines under investigation will become available — 13 are in phase 3 clinical trials — or what their monthly production capacity might be.

Distribution Issues

As Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines are rolled out, a very vulnerable group may have difficulty getting them: 2 million seniors who are homebound and another 5.3 million with physical impairments who have problems getting around.

The reason: handling and cold storage requirements.

Pfizer’s vaccine needs to be stored at minus 70 degrees Celsius, calling for special equipment not available in small hospitals, clinics or doctors’ offices. Moderna’s vaccine needs long-term storage at minus 20 degrees Celsius.

Landmark Health provides in-home medical care to more than 120,000 frail, chronically ill homebound seniors in 15 states. “We don’t have the capabilities to store and distribute these vaccines to our population,” said Dr. Michael Le, the company’s co-founder and chief medical officer.

Instead, he said, Landmark is working to arrange transportation for its patients to centers where COVID-19 vaccines will be administered and educating them about the benefits of the vaccines. “Given the trust, the bond we have with our patients, we can play a big role as advocates,” Le said.

Addressing Mistrust

Advocates have a big job ahead of them. According to a recent poll from the University of Michigan, only 58% of older adults (ages 50 to 80) said they were very or somewhat likely to get a COVID-19 vaccine. A significant number of older adults, 46%, thought they’d get the vaccine eventually but wanted others to go first. Only 20% wanted to get it as soon as possible.

Most important in making decisions is knowing how well the vaccine works, according to 80% of the 1,556 older adults surveyed. Just over half (52%) said a recommendation from their doctor would be influential.

Dr. Sharon Inouye, a geriatrician at Hebrew Senior Life in Boston and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, is among the physicians impatiently awaiting the publication of data from Pfizer’s and Moderna’s phase 3 clinical trials.

Among the things she wants to know: How many older adults with chronic health conditions participated? How many participants were 75 and older? Did side effects differ for older adults?

“What I worry about most is the side effects,” she said. “We may not be able to know about serious but rare side effects until millions of people take them.”

But that’s a gamble she’s willing to take. Not only will Inouye get a vaccine, she just told her 91-year-old mother, who lives in assisted living, to say “yes” when one is offered.

“My whole family lives in fear that something will happen to her every day,” Inouye said. “Even though there’s a lot we still don’t know about these vaccines, it’s compelling that we protect people from this overwhelming illness.”

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Lupus and Arthritis Patients at No Greater Risk from COVID-19

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Patients with lupus and other forms of arthritis are not at increased risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19 due to medications that weaken their immune systems, according to researchers at NYU’s Grossman School of Medicine.

Lupus, spondyloarthritis, psoriatic and rheumatoid arthritis are autoimmune conditions in which the body’s immune system attacks joints, skin, kidneys and other tissues, causing pain and inflammation. The arthritic conditions are often treated with steroids, biologics and other immune suppressing medications, which has raised concern that the drugs could also make patients more susceptible to risks from coronavirus infection.

But in two studies recently published in the journal Arthritis and Rheumatology, researchers found that most patients with arthritis had the same risk of hospitalization as the general population.

“People with lupus or inflammatory arthritis have the same risk factors for getting seriously ill from COVID-19 as people without these disorders,” said co-author Ruth Fernandez-Ruiz, MD, a postdoctoral fellow in rheumatology in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone.

The first study involved 226 adult patients in New York City who were being treated for mild to severe forms of lupus between April 13 and June 1, when the coronavirus pandemic peaked in the New York City region. Forty-one of the lupus patients were also diagnosed with COVID-19. Of those, 24 were hospitalized and four died. Another 42 patients had COVID-19-like symptoms but were not formally tested.

The second study involved 103 women being treated for inflammatory arthritis between March 3 and May 4 in New York City. All tested positive for COVID-19 or had symptoms highly suggesting they were infected. Twenty-seven of them were hospitalized and four died.

Researchers say the lupus patients taking immune-suppressing medications such as mycophenolate mofetil (Cellcept) and azathioprine (Imuran), had no greater risk of hospitalization than patients not using the drugs. Similarly, hospitalization rates for people with inflammatory arthritis and COVID-19 were no greater than for all New Yorkers.

“Patients receiving therapy for lupus and inflammatory arthritis should not automatically stop taking their medications for fear that they would be worse off if they also caught the coronavirus,” said co-author Rebecca Haberman, MD, a clinical instructor in rheumatology in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone.

Haberman and her colleagues say arthritis patients taking biologic drugs such as adalimumab (Humira) and etanercept (Enbrel), or the antiviral drug hydroxychloroquine, were also at no greater or lesser risk of hospitalization than those not taking the drugs.

However, arthritis patients taking glucocorticoids, a type of steroid, even in mild doses, were up to 10 times more likely to be hospitalized than patients not using steroids. The researchers caution that although statistically significant, the study’s small size may overestimate the actual risk from steroids.

“Our findings represent the largest of its kind for American patients with lupus or arthritis and COVID-19, and should reassure most patients, especially those on immunosuppressant therapy, that they are at no greater risk of having to be admitted to hospital from COVID-19 than other lupus or arthritis patients,” said Fernandez-Ruiz.

Risk factors that can double the risk of hospitalization from COVID-19 are having multiple health conditions, such as obesity, hypertension and diabetes.