Category: Covid-19

Page 580«..1020..579580581582..590600..»

They Returned To India To Be Near Their Fathers, But Lost Them Both To COVID-19 – NPR

May 20, 2021

Richa Srivastava (rear left) with her husband, Shalabh Pradhan (rear right), and their two fathers, Sudheer Kumar Pradhan (front left) and Sheo Prakash Srivastava (front right), in an undated family photo. The two family patriarchs died within three days of one another in April. Pradhan Family hide caption

Richa Srivastava (rear left) with her husband, Shalabh Pradhan (rear right), and their two fathers, Sudheer Kumar Pradhan (front left) and Sheo Prakash Srivastava (front right), in an undated family photo. The two family patriarchs died within three days of one another in April.

MUMBAI Watching his young children gleefully celebrate Holi, the Indian festival of colors, with his father in March, Shalabh Pradhan thought: "This is exactly why we moved back to India."

Pradhan, 42, is a human resources manager who has lived and worked all over the world Kansas, Minnesota, Kuwait. He lost his mother 12 years ago and wanted to spend more time with his father, a retired defense scientist. So in 2018, Pradhan and his wife, Richa Srivastava, 40, a fashion retail buyer, relocated from the U.S. back to their native India. They settled first in the southern tech hub of Bengaluru and then moved north to be closer to their parents after the pandemic began.

"We came back, me and my wife, because [of] my dad and her dad. We thought, 'We will go back to India, and we will take care of them in their elder years,' " Pradhan says.

But they all had less time together than they'd hoped. This was the last Holi that Pradhan and Srivastava would celebrate with their fathers.

As India battles the world's biggest COVID-19 wave, the country has confirmed about 25.5 million cases and about 283,000 deaths. Experts say those numbers are likely a vast undercount. With only about 3% of people in India fully vaccinated, the population of 1.4 billion is nowhere near immunity and India is likely to overtake the United States as the most-infected country in the world.

Sheo Prakash Srivastava and Sudheer Kumar Pradhan Pradhan Family hide caption

Sheo Prakash Srivastava and Sudheer Kumar Pradhan

Buried in those statistics is the pain of families such as the Pradhans and Srivastavas, who, in the course of three days in April, lost two beloved fathers.

"Just take him away!"

About two weeks after Holi, Pradhan's 78-year-old father, Sudheer Kumar Pradhan, developed a dry cough. At the time, people weren't very alarmed about COVID-19, and his son didn't think much of it.

"He was healthy. His willpower was very strong," Pradhan recalls.

Cases, though, were rising. On April 11, the day Pradhan's father began coughing, India's Health Ministry confirmed 152,879 new coronavirus cases up from record lows of around 10,000 a day in early February. Daily confirmed cases eventually would reach a peak of 414,188 on May 7.

In mid-April, India's news was dominated by state elections. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had been holding huge rallies in West Bengal, a state his Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP, was hoping to win again.

"They were not talking about this COVID second wave, that it's coming," Pradhan recalls. "They were not talking about precautions. They were not talking about symptoms. Nothing was there."

So Pradhan shrugged off his father's cough. But he did buy an oximeter to measure his father's blood oxygen levels just in case.

Sudheer Kumar Pradhan in an undated family photo. He developed a dry cough about two weeks after Holi, the Indian festival of colors. Pradhan Family hide caption

Sudheer Kumar Pradhan in an undated family photo. He developed a dry cough about two weeks after Holi, the Indian festival of colors.

Three days later, his dad developed a fever. And on the next day, April 15, he fell as he tried to walk to the bathroom in the middle of the night.

"I went and I picked him up, put him in the bed. It was alarming for me," Pradhan recalls. "So I checked his oxygen level. It was 87."

His dad was very sick. Pradhan rushed him to the hospital, but staff turned them away.

"The counter, where the reception is, he was not able to stand," he says. "The [hospital attendant] came and said, 'No, we cannot take him.' "

The hospital wouldn't admit Pradhan's father without proof of a positive coronavirus test. He'd had a test but the results were delayed.

A second hospital also refused to admit him. Officials said the hospital was completely full. His father was clearly having trouble breathing, but staff refused to give him oxygen.

"He could barely walk, barely stand. They put a stretcher out and said, 'No, take him out!' " Pradhan tells NPR, his voice breaking. "It's difficult for me to remember those moments. Nobody was willing to help."

Srivastava says she can't get it out of her mind.

"They were like, 'Just take him! Keep him in the house, keep him wherever you want. Just take him away!' " she says. "I was just praying that day should pass. It was one of the worst days of our lives."

Pradhan and his cousins worked the phones. His brother Saurabh did, too, all the way from Chicago. They eventually found their father a bed at a third hospital. He was put on a ventilator.

Sudheer Kumar Pradhan with his grandchildren in an undated family photo. He died of COVID-19 on April 21. Pradhan Family hide caption

Sudheer Kumar Pradhan with his grandchildren in an undated family photo. He died of COVID-19 on April 21.

But by then it was too late. On the evening of April 21, Pradhan's father died at age 78.

Another loss

The hospital demanded that Pradhan pick up his father's body immediately, in the middle of the night and pay the bill right away, too, including a separate charge for his bedsheets. The charges amounted to 250,000 rupees more than $3,400. The hospital wouldn't release the body without full payment. Pradhan had to find a 24-hour ATM.

He cremated his father the next day, alone. No one was able to accompany him, out of fear of infection.

Pradhan's children, 7 and 9 years old, were stunned. They had just celebrated Holi with their grandfather.

"They were crying a lot," Pradhan says. "They just kept a photograph in front of them and kept crying."

The family performed Hindu rituals in Kanpur in honor of Pradhan's father. On the third day after his death, they drove to the house of Srivastava's parents, about two hours away, in Lucknow, the state capital of Uttar Pradesh. They wanted to gather to grieve together.

But when they arrived, they found Srivastava's father, Sheo Prakash Srivastava, suffering from COVID-like symptoms: weakness, shortness of breath. His oxygen was low.

He died that night. There wasn't even time to hospitalize him.

"Everything happened so quick and so fast!" Srivastava recalls.

Doctors later told the family the cause of death was likely a blood clot. They tested him for the coronavirus. Two days after his death, the result came back positive.

Sudheer Kumar Pradhan wears an elephant mask while playing with his grandchildren in an undated family photo. He was 78 when he died of COVID-19. Pradhan Family hide caption

Sudheer Kumar Pradhan wears an elephant mask while playing with his grandchildren in an undated family photo. He was 78 when he died of COVID-19.

The retired insurance officer was 71 and is survived by his wife and two daughters and friends and neighbors who loved his company.

"He was very social. He used to sit downstairs with my neighbors. So people were flabbergasted. How come the person who was sitting there just four or five days before is now gone?" Srivastava says. "He just left all of us."

Remembering the patriarchs

In the weeks since the deaths of these two men, India has broken world records for confirmed daily coronavirus case numbers and deaths. Scientists suggest the wave may have peaked, though they're not sure because the virus is spreading in rural areas, where testing and medical care are inadequate. On Wednesday, India confirmed the highest single-day death toll (4,529) from COVID-19 anywhere in the world since the pandemic began.

Srivastava, her mother, Pradhan and their children have been isolating at home, grieving. Meanwhile, Pradhan tested positive for the coronavirus. He hadn't realized his own symptoms while so preoccupied with trying to save his father.

Richa Srivastava (from left); her mother; her father, Sheo Prakash Srivastava; her husband, Shalabh Pradhan; his father, Sudheer Kumar Pradhan; and their children in an undated family photo at the Statue of Liberty. Pradhan Family hide caption

Richa Srivastava (from left); her mother; her father, Sheo Prakash Srivastava; her husband, Shalabh Pradhan; his father, Sudheer Kumar Pradhan; and their children in an undated family photo at the Statue of Liberty.

The family relives the trauma with every TV report about COVID-19 and India's collapsing health system. Unlike in mid-April, the virus now dominates the Indian news.

Srivastava and Pradhan aren't sure what they will do next. Right now they're just sorting through old photos of their fathers at a family wedding, at the Statue of Liberty, playing with grandchildren.

"A lot of memories! That is why it hurts even more, because I keep on recalling those little things how [my father] used to cut fruit for me. No one will ever cut fruit for me like that again," Srivastava says. "All of these small gestures."

Pradhan recently wrote a poem to mourn both of his parents:

Who should I tell that I am in pain? Whose shoulder do I cry on? Everyone forgets, you just remain in our memories.

He's trying to concentrate on memories from the past few months their final Holi together when the pandemic gave his family a precious opportunity to come closer before taking two loved ones away.

NPR producer Sushmita Pathak contributed to this report from Hyderabad, India.

View original post here:

They Returned To India To Be Near Their Fathers, But Lost Them Both To COVID-19 - NPR

Statement of the COVID-19 subcommittee of the WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) on safety signals related to the Johnson &…

May 20, 2021

As of 18 May 2021, there were163,312,429confirmed casesof COVID-19, including3,386,825deaths, reported to WHO. Vaccination remains a critical tool to help prevent further illness and death and to control the pandemic.

The Johnson & Johnson (J&J)/Janssen vaccine was listed for emergency use by WHO on 12 March 2021. The vaccine has been authorized for use in Europe, the United States and other countries, with the widest experience to date in the United States, where more than 8 million doses of the J&J vaccine had been administered as of 7 May.

The GACVS COVID-19 subcommittee met virtually on 11 May 2021 to review available information and data on thromboembolic events (blood clots) and thrombocytopenia (low platelets) after vaccination with the adenoviral vectored J&J vaccine. This condition is referred to as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS). Current evidence suggests a plausible causal association between the J&J COVID-19 vaccine and TTS. Clinically, the features of TTS following vaccination with this vaccine appear similar to those observed following another adenoviral vectored vaccine, the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. TTS does not appear to be associated with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. The exact mechanism by which this rare condition occurs is not fully understood. (1) To date, the only possible risks factors identified are age and gender (with more cases reported in women).

The subcommittee reviewed detailed surveillance data from the United States, which included stimulated passive surveillance and a small active surveillance cohort.

Based on a careful scientific review of the available information, the subcommittee came to the following conclusions and recommendations:

- The benefits of the J&J COVID-19 vaccine continue to outweigh the risks of TTS. As the only single dose COVID-19 vaccine approved for use to date, the vaccine may be an important tool for accessing difficult-to-reach populations, thus playing a key role in preventing infections and reducing deaths across the world.

- Very rare thromboembolic events, in combination with thrombocytopenia, have been reported following vaccination with the J&J vaccine in the United States. As of 7 May 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had reviewed 28 reports of TTS out of a total of more than 8 million vaccinations; TTS was reported in persons between 18-59 years of age (median age of 40 years) and occurring after 3-15 days (a median of 9 days).(2) To date, the US FDA and CDC have not identified any cases of TTS after use of over 240 million doses of mRNA vaccines.

- Reports of TTS following vaccination with the J&J vaccine have a similar clinical picture to those reported following vaccination with the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. On 16 April 2021 the GACVS COVID-19 subcommittee issued an updated statement on blood coagulation events and the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. (3)

- Although most cases of TTS have typically involved thrombosis in unusual locations, including cerebral venous sinuses, portal vein, splenic vein and other rare venous and arterial thrombosis, cases including thrombosis in more common locations, such as deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, have been identified in the United States.

- When setting their immunization policies, the risk of TTS from use of the J&J vaccine should be assessed against the benefits. Countries should perform such a benefit-risk analysis taking into account local epidemiology (including incidence and mortality from COVID-19 disease), age groups targeted for vaccination, and the availability of alternative vaccines.

- Adequate education should be provided to health-care professionals and persons being vaccinated to recognize the signs and symptoms of all serious adverse events after vaccinations with all COVID-19 vaccines, so that people may seek and receive prompt and relevant medical care and treatment.Early identification of TTS is important in order to initiate appropriate treatment.

- Clinicians should be alert to any new, severe, persistent headaches or other significant symptoms, such as severe abdominal pain and shortness of breath, with an onset between 4 to 20 days after adenovirus vectored COVID-19 vaccination. At a minimum, countries should encourage clinicians to measure platelet levels and conduct appropriate investigation of thrombosis. Clinicians should also be aware that although heparin is generally used to treat blood clots, administration of heparin in TTS may be dangerous and alternative treatments such as immunoglobulins and non-heparin anticoagulants should be considered.

- The GACVS subcommittee recommends that countries continue to monitor the safety of all COVID-19 vaccines and promote reporting of suspected adverse events. In particular, any blood clots following receipt of any COVID-19 vaccine should be reported.

- The GACVS subcommittee acknowledges that TTS has occurred with two adenoviral-vectored vaccines. Ongoing assessment for and review of TTS cases, as well as related research, should include all vaccines using adenoviral vector platforms.

The GACVS COVID-19 subcommittee will continue to review the safety data from all COVID-19 vaccines and update any advice as necessary. Open, transparent, and evidence-based communication about the potential benefits and risks to recipients and the community is essential to maintain trust. WHO is carefully monitoring the rollout of all COVID-19 vaccines and will continue to work closely with countries to manage potential risks, and to use science and data to drive the response and update recommendations.

The WHO COVID-19 vaccine safety surveillance manual provides guidance to countries on the safety monitoring and adverse events data sharing for the new COVID-19 vaccines, and can be accessedhere.

(1) Updated recommendations from the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for use of the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine after reports of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome among vaccine recipients United States, April 2021: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7017e4.htm#contribAff

(2) Update: Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) following COVID-19 vaccination US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 12 May 2021: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-05-12/07-COVID-Shimabukuro-508.pdf.

(3) Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) review of latest evidence of rare adverse blood coagulation events with AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine (Vaxzevria and Covishield) 16 April 2021: (https://www.who.int/news/item/16-04-2021-global-advisory-committee-on-vaccine-safety-(gacvs)-review-of-latest-evidence-of-rare-adverse-blood-coagulation-events-with-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-(vaxzevria-and-covishield.

See the rest here:

Statement of the COVID-19 subcommittee of the WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) on safety signals related to the Johnson &...

UPDATED: Blues dealing with discrepancies in COVID-19 testing – St. Louis Game Time

May 20, 2021

UPDATE: Oh, thank God:

You may have seen the earlier reports that the NHL and other sports leagues were having issues with potential false positives on COVID-19 tests.

If you were wondering what teams it was impacting, well, its the Blues. Of course, its the Blues. This situation is happening after NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly said that the league was not considering any rescheduling of playoff games due to positive Covid tests.

This may or may not be related to David Perrons positive test that kept him out of Mondays 4-1 loss, but as of right now (1:15 pm), Schwartz, Tarasenko, and Binnington are not on the ice.

Blues GM Doug Armstrong has released a statement:

We have discovered discrepancies in Covid test results relating to multiple players. We have been in touch with and are working with the League to address these discrepancies with additional testing and expect to have further information later this afternoon.

The League will provide a further update when we have more information. Head Coach Craig Berube and our players will not be available to the media until after tonights game.

This post will be update with further info as it becomes available.

Here is the original post:

UPDATED: Blues dealing with discrepancies in COVID-19 testing - St. Louis Game Time

Tracking COVID-19 in Alaska: 97 cases and 1 death reported Wednesday – Anchorage Daily News

May 20, 2021

We're making this important information available without a subscription as a public service. But we depend on reader support to do this work. Please consider supporting independent journalism in Alaska, at just $3.69 a week for an online subscription.

Alaskas average daily case counts are now trending down significantly statewide, though a few regions in the state are still in the highest alert category based on their current per capita rate of infection.

Anyone 12 and older who lives or works in Alaska can now receive a COVID-19 vaccination. Alaskans can visit covidvax.alaska.gov or call 907-646-3322 to sign up for a vaccine appointment, and new appointments are added regularly. The phone line is staffed from 9 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on weekends.

Only Pfizers vaccine is approved for children as young as 12; the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are approved only for those 18 and older.

By Tuesday, 315,049 people about 53.1% of Alaskans age 16 and older had received at least their first dose of vaccine. At least 275,567 people 47.4% of Alaskans 16 and older were considered fully vaccinated, according to the states vaccine monitoring dashboard, which hadnt yet been updated as of early Wednesday afternoon.

By Wednesday, there were 27 people with confirmed or suspected cases of COVID-19 in hospitals throughout the state, far below a peak in late 2020.

Of the 95 cases reported Wednesday among Alaska residents, there were 22 in Anchorage, plus one in Chugiak and three in Eagle River; 12 in Ketchikan; nine in Fairbanks; nine in Wasilla; six in Palmer; four in Hooper Bay; two in North Pole; two in Ester; two in Craig; two in Metlakatla; one in Anchor Point; one in Homer; one in Sterling; one in Delta Junction; one in Tok; one in Juneau; and one in Petersburg.

In smaller communities that are not named to protect residents privacy, there were eight in the Chugach Census Area, two in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, two in the Aleutians East Borough and two in the Bethel Census Area.

Two new nonresident cases, one in Anchorage and one in Juneau, were also identified.

While people might get tested more than once, each case reported by the state health department represents only one person.

The states data doesnt specify whether people testing positive for COVID-19 have symptoms. More than half of the nations infections are transmitted from asymptomatic people, according to CDC estimates.

[Correction: This story has been updated to reflect that the new death reported Wednesday involved a Palmer man in his 60s, not a nonresident in Anchorage. The state health departments data showed an additional Anchorage nonresident death due to the reclassification of a death originally reported to involve an Anchorage resident.]

Read the original:

Tracking COVID-19 in Alaska: 97 cases and 1 death reported Wednesday - Anchorage Daily News

COVID-19 in Nursing Homes: Most Homes Had Multiple Outbreaks and Weeks of Sustained Transmission from May 2020 through January 2021 – Government…

May 20, 2021

What GAO Found

GAO analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that, from May 2020 through January 2021, nursing homes commonly experienced multiple COVID-19 outbreaks. According to CDC, an outbreak starts the week a nursing home reports a new resident or staff COVID-19 case and ends when there are 2 weeks with no new cases. GAO found that nursing homes had an average of about three outbreaks during the review period, with most of the nursing homes (94 percent, or 12,555 of the 13,380 nursing homes) experiencing more than one COVID-19 outbreak.

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. Data are from the weeks ending May 31, 2020, through January 31, 2021. An outbreak begins when a nursing home reports a new case of COVID-19 in residents or staff.

For each nursing home's longest-lasting COVID-19 outbreak, GAO found that about 85 percent (11,311 nursing homes) had outbreaks lasting 5 or more weeks. Conversely, for about 15 percent of nursing homes (2,005 homes), the longest outbreak was shorter in duration, lasting between 1 and 4 weeks, with 267 of those homes able to control their outbreaks after the initial week.

Note: Of 13,380 nursing homes reviewed, 13,316 nursing homes had COVID-19 outbreaks and 64 nursing homes did not. Data are from the weeks ending May 31, 2020, through January 31, 2021.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on the 1.4 million elderly or disabled residents in the nation's more than 15,000 Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing homes. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is responsible for ensuring that nursing homes nationwide meet federal quality standards.

The CARES Act includes a provision directing GAO to monitor the federal pandemic response. GAO was also asked to review CMS oversight of nursing homes in light of the pandemic. This report describes the frequency and duration of COVID-19 outbreaks in nursing homes. Future GAO reports will further examine nursing homes' experiences with COVID-19 outbreaks.

To conduct this work, GAO analyzed CDC data on COVID-19 reported by nursing homes each week of the review period from May 2020 through January 2021, the most recent data available at the time GAO conducted its review. Using CDC's definition of an outbreak, GAO determined the number and duration of outbreaks each nursing home experienced during the review period. GAO included data from the 13,380 Medicare- and Medicaid-certified homes (88 percent of Medicare- and Medicaid-certified homes) that passed CDC and CMS quality checks each week of the review periodthe most reliable data for calculating the number and duration of outbreaks. GAO also categorized the nursing homes into two groups based on the duration of their longest outbreak: 1) those nursing homes with outbreaks lasting less than 5 weeks and 2) those nursing homes with outbreaks lasting at least 5 weeks.

For more information, contact John E. Dicken at (202) 512-7114 or dickenj@gao.gov.

Read more from the original source:

COVID-19 in Nursing Homes: Most Homes Had Multiple Outbreaks and Weeks of Sustained Transmission from May 2020 through January 2021 - Government...

Medicare and Telehealth: Coverage and Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Options for the Future – Kaiser Family Foundation

May 20, 2021

Introduction

Telehealth, the provision of health care services to patients from providers who are not at the same location, has experienced a rapid escalation in use during the COVID-19 pandemic, among both privately-insured patients and Medicare beneficiaries. Before the pandemic, coverage of telehealth services under traditional Medicare was limited to beneficiaries living in rural areas only, with restrictions on where beneficiaries could receive these services and which providers could be paid to deliver them. Soon after the federal government declared a public health emergency due to COVID-19 in early 2020, Congress and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) expanded traditional Medicares coverage of telehealth services in order to make it easier for beneficiaries to get medical care and minimize their exposure to coronavirus in health care settings. When the public health emergency ends, however, Medicares coverage of telehealth services will revert back to the more limited availability that existed before the pandemic, unless policymakers take action to extend the expanded coverage.

In light of the rapid, but time-limited, expansion of telehealth coverage under traditional Medicare, this brief provides an overview of the changes made during the COVID-19 pandemic to Medicares coverage of telehealth. It also presents new analysis of Medicare beneficiaries utilization of telehealth between the summer and fall of 2020, and discusses issues and questions related to extending telehealth coverage under traditional Medicare beyond the public health emergency. Our analysis of beneficiaries use of telehealth services is based on survey data of Medicare beneficiaries living in the community from the CMS Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) Fall 2020 COVID-19 Supplement. All differences reported in the text are statistically significant, unless otherwise noted. (See Data and Methods for details.)

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, coverage of telehealth services under traditional Medicare was limited. Medicare paid for approximately 100 services provided by telehealth, and there were limitations on how these services could be delivered and which beneficiaries could access them. Such limitations do not apply in Medicare Advantage plans, which have flexibility to offer additional telehealth benefits not covered by traditional Medicare outside of the public health emergency (see below for more information). Prior to the pandemic, the utilization of telehealth among traditional Medicare beneficiaries was extremely low, with only 0.3% of traditional Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part B using telehealth services in 2016, accounting for only 0.4% of traditional Medicare Part B spending. Similarly, analysis of primary care visits in traditional Medicare found that only 0.1% of these visits were provided via telehealth before the pandemic in February 2020.

To make it easier and safer for beneficiaries to seek medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic, the HHS Secretary waived certain restrictions on Medicare coverage of telehealth servicesfor traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the COVID-19 public health emergency, based on waiver authority included in theCoronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act(and as amended by theCARES Act). The waiver, effective for services starting on March 6, 2020, significantly loosened coverage restrictions for telehealth under traditional Medicare during the public health emergency, as described below. The public health emergency was most recently renewed in April 2021, and, according to the Biden Administration, is expected to remain in place for the duration of 2021.

Before the public health emergency, telehealth services were generally available only to beneficiaries in rural areas originating from a health care setting, such as a clinic or doctors office. Beneficiaries in urban areas were ineligible for telehealth services, and beneficiaries could not receive telehealth services in their own homes. During the public health emergency, beneficiaries in any geographic area can receive telehealth services, and can receive these services in their own home, rather than needing to travel to a distant site (i.e., a health care setting).

Under Medicares existing telehealth benefit, a telehealth visit must be conducted with two-way audio/video communications and the use of smartphones or audio-only telephones in lieu of video is not permitted. For the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency, telehealth services can be conducted via an interactive audio-video system, as well as using smartphones with real-time audio/video interactive capabilities without other equipment. Additionally, a limited number of telehealth services can be provided to patients via audio-only telephone or a smartphone without video.

Before the public health emergency, only physicians and certain other practitioners (such as physician assistants, clinical social workers, and clinical psychologists) were eligible to receive Medicare payment for telehealth services provided to eligible beneficiaries in traditional Medicare, and they must have treated the beneficiary receiving the services in the last three years. During the public health emergency, any health care professional that is eligible to bill Medicare for professional services can provide and bill for telehealth services, and does not need to have previously treated the beneficiary. Also, federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics are allowed to provide telehealth services to Medicare beneficiaries during the COVID-19 public health emergency; these settings were not authorized as providers of telehealth services for Medicare beneficiaries prior to the pandemic.

Before the public health emergency, traditional Medicare covered about 100 services that could be administered through telehealth, including office visits, psychotherapy, and preventive health screenings, among other services. During the public health emergency, the list of allowable telehealth services covered under traditional Medicare expanded to include emergency department visits, physical and occupational therapy, and certain other services. Some evaluation and management, behavioral health, and patient education services can be provided to patients via audio-only telephone.

Separate from Medicares coverage of telehealth services, traditional Medicare covers brief, virtual check-ins (also called brief communication technology-based services) via telephone or captured video image, andE-visits for all beneficiaries, regardless of whether they live in a rural area. Both of these services, which were not amended during the public health emergency, are more limited in scope than a full telehealth visit. For example, virtual check-ins can only be reported by providers with an established relationship to the patient, cannot be related to a recent medical visit (within the past 7 days), and cannot lead to a medical visit in the next 24 hours (or the soonest available appointment, and payment is intended to cover only 5-10 minutes of medical discussion.

Before the public health emergency, Medicares payment for a telehealth service was the same regardless of whether it was provided in a non-facility setting, such as a clinicians office, or a facility setting, such as a hospital outpatient department, and the payment rate was based on the lower amount paid to facility-based providers for a service delivered in person. (Under Medicares physician fee schedule, the payment to facility-based-providers for in-person services is lower than the payment to non-facility providers because Medicare makes a separate payment to facilities to cover practice expenses, such as physical space, medical supplies, medical equipment, and clinical staff time.) The rationale for using the lower facility payment amount for telehealth services was that practice expenses for the delivery of telehealth services should be lower than those for an in-person visit.

During the public health emergency, Medicare pays for telehealth services, including those delivered via audio-only telephone, as if they were administered in person, with the payment rate varying based on the location of the provider, which means that Medicare pays more for a telehealth service provided by a doctor in a non-facility setting than by a doctor in a hospital outpatient department. This also means that during the public health emergency, doctors in non-facility settings are receiving a higher payment for services provided by telehealth than they did before the public health emergency.

Beneficiary cost sharing for telehealth services has not changed during the public health emergency. Medicare covers telehealth services under Part B, so beneficiaries in traditional Medicare who use these benefits are subject to the Part B deductible of $203 in 2021 and 20% coinsurance. However, the HHS Office of Inspector General hasprovided flexibilityfor providers to reduce or waive cost sharing for telehealth visits during the COVID-19 public health emergency, although there is no publicly-available data to indicate the extent to which providers may have done so. Most beneficiaries in traditional Medicare have supplemental insurance that may pay some or all of the cost sharing for covered telehealth services.

Separate from the time-limited expanded availability of telehealth services, CMS has granted providers participating in some alternative payments models, including Next Generation accountable care organizations (ACOs) and Medicare Shared Savings Program ACOs, greater flexibility to provide care through telehealth, including billing for telehealth services provided to both urban and rural beneficiaries and to beneficiaries when they are at home. Telehealth flexibilities in the Next Generation ACO demonstration are granted via benefit enhancement waivers administered by CMS. From 2016-2018, few Next Generation ACOs received and implemented telehealth waivers (4 ACOs; 8% of all ACOs in the model).

Medicare Advantage plans have been able to offer additional telehealth benefits not covered by traditional Medicare outside of the public health emergency, including telehealth visits provided to enrollees in their own homes and services provided outside of rural areas. In 2021, virtually all Medicare Advantage plans (98%) offer a telehealth benefit.

Medicare Advantage plans are paid a capitated amount by Medicare to provide basic Medicare benefits covered under Parts A and B; legislative changes implemented in 2020 allow plans to include additional telehealth benefits beyond what traditional Medicare covers in their bids for basic benefits. Therefore, the cost of additional telehealth services offered by Medicare Advantage plans are reflected in the capitated payment that plans receive.

Medicare Advantage plans have flexibility to waive certain requirements with regard to coverage and cost sharing in cases of disaster or emergency, such as the COVID-19 outbreak. In response to the coronavirus pandemic,CMS has advised plans thatthey may waive or reduce cost sharing for telehealth services, as long as plans do this uniformly for all similarly situated enrollees. Many Medicare Advantage plans have waived or reduced cost sharing for enrollees for some or all services administered via telehealth during the public health emergency.

As of Fall 2020, six months after the expansion of telehealth benefits in traditional Medicare for the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly two-thirds of community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries who say they have a usual source of care (64%, or 33.6 million beneficiaries), such as a doctor or health professional, or a clinic, reported that their usual provider offers telehealth appointments, up from roughly 1 in 5 (18%, or 6.1 million) beneficiaries who said their usual provider offered telehealth before the pandemic (Figure 2; Table 1). (The majority of community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries, 95% or 52.7 million, report having a usual source of care). Conversely, 13% of beneficiaries with a usual source of care said their provider does not currently offer telehealth, a substantial decrease compared to the 52% who said their provider did not offer telehealth before the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the reported availability of telehealth has increased during the pandemic, nearly a quarter of Medicare beneficiaries with a usual source of care (23% or 11.9 million beneficiaries) said they do not know if their usual provider currently offers telehealth appointments.

The reported rates of beneficiaries who say their provider currently offers telehealth was similar across most demographic groups (Figure 3). However, a smaller share of Medicare beneficiaries living in rural areas than those living in urban areas said their provider currently offers telehealth (52% vs. 67%, respectively), and a larger share of rural beneficiaries report not knowing if their usual provider offers telehealth appointments than beneficiaries living in urban areas (30% vs 21%, respectively).

A larger share of Black Medicare beneficiaries with a usual source of care (23%) say their usual provider does not currently offer telehealth appointments than White (12%) and Hispanic (15%) beneficiaries with a usual source of care. Additionally, a larger share of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid (19%) say their usual provider does not currently offer telehealth appointments than Medicare beneficiaries who are not enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid (12%).

Among the two-thirds of Medicare beneficiaries with a usual source of care who reported in the Fall of 2020 that their usual provider offers telehealth during the pandemic (33.6 million beneficiaries), nearly half (45%, or 14.9 million beneficiaries) reported having a telehealth visit since July 2020. Some groups of Medicare beneficiaries were more likely than others to report having a telehealth visit with a doctor or other health professional since July 2020, including Medicare beneficiaries under age 65 with long-term disabilities, Black and Hispanic beneficiaries, Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid, and beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions (Figure 4; Table 2).

Among Medicare beneficiaries who have a usual source of care and whose usual provider offers telehealth:

Notably, among Medicare beneficiaries with a usual source of care and whose usual provider offers telehealth, we found no significant difference between the share of rural and urban Medicare beneficiaries who had a telehealth visit (43% and 45%, respectively). However, based on the overall population in these groups, rural Medicare beneficiaries were less likely than urban beneficiaries to have a telehealth visit with a doctor or other health professional (21% vs. 28%, respectively). This difference is likely driven by the fact that rural Medicare beneficiaries were more likely than urban Medicare beneficiaries to say they do not know if their usual provider offers telehealth (30% vs. 21%, respectively).

Similarly, among Medicare beneficiaries with a usual source of care whose usual provider offers telehealth, we found that a larger share of Black and Hispanic beneficiaries had a telehealth visit compared to White beneficiaries (52%, 52%, and 43%). However, among the total Medicare population, the difference in the share of Black and White beneficiaries who reported having a telehealth visit was not statistically significant (30% vs. 26%), while a larger share of Hispanic beneficiaries than White beneficiaries had a telehealth visit (33% vs. 26%). For Black Medicare beneficiaries, this result is likely related to the fact that nearly a quarter of Black beneficiaries overall (23%) say their usual provider does not offer telehealth appointments, compared to 12% of White beneficiaries and 15% of Hispanic beneficiaries.

Among Medicare beneficiaries with a usual source of care whose provider offers telehealth appointments, the majority of those who had a telehealth visit since July 2020 accessed the service by telephone (56%), compared to 28% who reported having a telehealth visit by video and 16% who used both telephone and video (Figure 5; Table 3). This may be related to the fact that while more than 8 in 10 Medicare beneficiaries report having access to the internet (83%), smaller shares say they own a computer (64%) or a smartphone (70%) (Figure 6, Table 4).

There are notable differences by demographic characteristics in how beneficiaries have accessed telehealth services during the pandemic and the availability of technology that enables access to telehealth, for example:

Our analysis finds that 1 in 4 Medicare beneficiaries have had a telehealth visit during the COVID-19 public health emergency, representing a substantial increase in use since before the pandemic. Our finding that, among beneficiaries whose provider offers telehealth, a greater share of those with disabilities, with low incomes, and in communities of color have used telehealth suggests that the temporary expansion of telehealth coverage may be helping some of Medicares more disadvantaged populations continue to access needed care. At the same time, in light of our finding that a quarter of Medicare beneficiaries overall (and an even larger share of those in rural areas) do not know if their doctor currently offers telehealth, efforts to increase awareness of covered telehealth services under Medicare during the public health emergency could help to broaden its reach.

Currently, policymakers are considering a variety of proposals to expand some or all of the existing flexibilities surrounding telehealth services under Medicare beyond the public health emergency, and many have expressed support for doing so. Among the telehealth-related bills that have been introduced in the 117th Congress include proposals to permanently cover some of the telehealth expansions provided during the public health emergency, expand Medicare-covered mental health services and evaluation and management services administered via telehealth, and expand the scope of providers eligible for payment for telehealth services covered by Medicare. Other bills are aimed at assessing the impact of expanded telehealth services on the quality of patient care and program spending.

Under Medicares existing telehealth benefit, a telehealth visit must be conducted with two-way audio/video technology, while under the current public health emergency waiver, a limited number of telehealth services can be provided to patients via audio-only telephone. Given that the majority of Medicare beneficiaries in our analysis reported accessing telehealth services by telephone only, an expanded telehealth benefit that requires two-way video communication could be a barrier to care for subgroups of the Medicare population that relied more heavily on telephones than video-capable devices during the pandemic.

MedPAC has recommended that Medicare continue a modified version of expanded telehealth coverage for another year or two after the public health emergency ends, giving Medicare time to assess the effects of telehealth use on total costs, access, and quality of care. During this additional time, MedPAC recommends that Medicare pay for specified telehealth services regardless of where a beneficiary lives; cover some additional telehealth services beyond those covered prior to the public health emergency if there is potential for clinical benefit; and cover audio-only telehealth visits if there is potential for clinical benefit. MedPAC has also recommended that payment for telehealth services after the public health emergency revert to the lower facility-based payment rate in effect before the pandemic, and that providers should not be allowed to waive or reduce beneficiary cost sharing.

Expanded coverage of telehealth beyond the public health emergency could affect the quality of patient care as well as program and beneficiary spending. Broadening telehealth coverage has the potential to improve access to needed care, but there is uncertainty as to whether it would lead to an overall increase or decrease in program spending. Some telehealth services may be substitutes for in-person care, such as a behavioral health care visit, though easier access to telehealth could lead to an overall increase in visits and costs. Other telehealth services may not fully replace the need for (or occurrence of) an in-person visit, such as a visit to evaluate a skin rash or where lab work is determined to be needed. In building evidence on the cost and quality impacts of telehealth use in Medicare, the Administration could also potentially gain insights based on telehealth use by enrollees in Medicare Advantage plans, or by testing different approaches through Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation models.

The potential expansion of telehealth coverage brings with it concerns about the potential for fraudulent activity. There have been several large fraud cases involving telehealth companies in recent years, most of which involved the submission of fraudulent claims for items, services, and tests to Medicare and other insurers that were never given or administered to patients. HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is conducting several studies to assess the appropriateness of use of telehealth during the public health emergency, including an analysis of provider billing patterns in order to identify providers that could pose a risk for program integrity and an audit of telehealth services under Part B to assure that services are meeting Medicare requirements. MedPAC has recommended that Medicare apply additional scrutiny to outlier clinicians who deliver more telehealth services than others, as well as requiring in-person visits before clinicians can order high-cost equipment or services for beneficiaries.

The temporary expansion of coverage for telehealth services has allowed many people with Medicare to access medical care during the coronavirus pandemic. Given that the temporary waiver of restrictions on coverage of telehealth services under Medicare will come to an end with the expiration of the public health emergency, the question of whether and how to ensure continued access to these services, while balancing concerns about quality of care and spending, looms large.

In order to determine the share of Medicare beneficiaries whose provider offers telehealth, beneficiaries who answered affirmatively to the question Is there a particular doctor or other health professional, or a clinic you usually go to when you are sick or for advice about your health? (9,216 out of 9,686 respondents) were asked Does your usual provider offer telephone or video appointments, so that you dont need to physically visit their office or facility? (5,644 respondents answered affirmatively).

In order to determine the share of Medicare beneficiaries who had a telehealth visit, beneficiaries with a usual source of care whose usual provider offers telehealth appointments were asked Since July 1, 2020, have you had an appointment with a doctor or other health professional by telephone or video? (2,515 respondents answered affirmatively). Similarly, beneficiaries with a usual source of care whose provider offers telehealth were asked Did your usual provider offer telephone or video appointments before the coronavirus pandemic? (1,035 respondents answered affirmatively).

To determine how beneficiaries accessed telehealth appointments, beneficiaries who had a telehealth appointment since July 2020 were asked Was it a telephone appointment, video appointment, or both? The majority of Medicare beneficiaries who had a telehealth visit since July 2020 had a visit via telephone (n=1,460), while fewer had a telehealth visit via video (n=653) or via both telephone and video (n=393).

Based on the questionnaire skip patterns, beneficiaries were only asked about their use of telehealth if they answered affirmatively that they had a usual source of care and that their usual provider offers telehealth. In order to determine the share of Medicare beneficiaries who had a telehealth visit among Medicare beneficiaries overall, we created a categorical variable that included beneficiaries whose provider did not offer telehealth or it was unknown. The variable had three categories: 1) usual provider offers telehealth and beneficiary had a telehealth visit (n=2,515); 2) usual provider offers telehealth and beneficiary did not have a telehealth visit (n=3,074); 3) usual provider does not offer telehealth or it was unknown (n=4,097).

Results from all statistical tests were reported with p<0.05 considered statistically significant.

See the original post:

Medicare and Telehealth: Coverage and Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Options for the Future - Kaiser Family Foundation

Promotion of Covid-19 pseudoscience by Indian government criticised as pandemic rages – Chemistry World

May 20, 2021

A raging Covid-19 outbreak in India has not hampered the promotion of some questionable science by the government, drawing the ire of some of the countrys scientists.

One example is the Indian science ministrys funding of an Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) trial on whether reciting an ancient Hindu prayer, Gayatri Mantra, along with a set of deep breathing exercises in yoga could improve treatment of Covid-19 patients.

The chanting of the prayer is being evaluated along with pranayama breathing exercises from yoga as a pilot study to assess inflammatory markers in hospitalised Covid-19 patients at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rishikesh, under the ICMR.

Patients will be given instructions on chanting and breathing exercises through video-conferencing for an hour in the morning and evening in the hospital room or at home after discharge, for up to 14 days. The criticism is mostly aimed at the design of the trial, small sample size and pre-conceived bias.

Breathing exercises are expected to benefit Covid-19 patients, says Partha Majumdar, founding director of National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kolkata. But when they are mixed with chanting of the prayer, it will be impossible to separate the effects of the two on Covid-19 patients, he says. Even if the prayer has no effect, which is the most plausible expectation, the beneficial effect of pranayama will show up as the confounded effect of both, he says.

Scientists have also criticised the small sample size just 20 volunteers. It is too small a number for arriving at any inference, especially because we are still unclear about the rather large variability of Covid-19 symptoms during the disease and during recovery, says Subhash Lakhotia, a cytogeneticist at the Banaras Hindu University. The details available at the clinical trials registry also do not make it clear if the analysis would follow a blind protocol. I am surprised that such an irrationally planned research project, even if claiming to be a pilot study, is approved for funding.

A greater worry [with] such directed research is the pre-existing bias, says Lakhotia. Previous studies undertaken to validate the claimed benefits of chanting Gayatri Mantra too suffered from a similar absence of rational planning. Such improperly planned studies are indeed typical of pseudoscience, he says.

On 7 May, Indias Ayush ministry that deals with alternate systems of medicines, ayurveda, yoga, unani, siddha and homeopathy, announced a nationwide campaign to promote polyherbal drugs for Covid-19 patients undergoing treatment at home. It states that the efficacy of these drugs has been proved through robust multi-centre clinical trials, but does not link to any peer-reviewed evidence for this claim.

In February 2021, Indias science and health minister Harsh Vardhan, himself a doctor and surgeon, was present at the launch of a Coronil kit, containing three herbal medicines, which is claimed to boost immunity. It was formulated by self-styled godman Baba Ramdevs company Patanjali. Ramdev initially claimed Coronil was certified by Indias drug regulator and the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO quickly clarified on Twitter that it has not reviewed or certified any traditional medicine for the treatment [of] #Covid-19.

The Indian Medical Association described the claims that Coronil could be used in prevention, treatment and post-Covid care as a false and fabricated projection of an unscientific medicine.

In recent times we are witnessing a trend where governmental agencies offer funding to scientifically validate personal beliefs, says Soumitro Banerjee, a professor of physics at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Kolkata, and general secretary of Breakthrough Science Society (BSS) that promotes scientific rationalism. The BSS condemns financial support for ill-conceived research projects when mainstream science is suffering due to the lack of funding, he adds.

See the article here:

Promotion of Covid-19 pseudoscience by Indian government criticised as pandemic rages - Chemistry World

Lost your COVID-19 vaccination card? Wayne Co., others will provide you with another one – Detroit Free Press

May 20, 2021

After you get your COVID-19 vaccine, you can get freebies including free doughnuts, beer and more. USA TODAY

Did you lose your COVID-19 vaccination card already? Or has it been destroyed?

You are in luck if you need to get another one.

Michiganders can contact the site where they were vaccinated, such as the local health department or health care provider, and request a new vaccination card,said Lynn Sutfin, spokesperson for theMichigan Department of Health and Human Services.

She said residents also can fill out a form to get a copy of their immunization record from the Michigan Care Improvement Registry (MCIR), an immunization database that documents inoculations given to Michiganders,at https://www.mcir.org/public/.

The Wayne County Health Department announced Tuesday it can provide its residents with a replacement COVID-19 vaccination card if the original one was lostor destroyed.

A stack of vaccine cards wait to be handed out to registered residents after they receive their Moderna COVID-19 vaccines from the Oakland County Health Division at Suburban Showplace in Novi, Mich. on Jan. 23, 2021. Three thousand four hundred appointments were made for groups 1A and 1B based on the State of Michigan's COVID-19 Vaccination plan(Photo: Kimberly P. Mitchell, Detroit Free Press)

Residents can request a replacement card by calling the health department clinic at 734-727-7100. Staff will verify the person's vaccination record through the state database and issue a new card. The new card can be picked up at the county's public health clinic, 33030 Van Born Road, in Wayne.

Also, ifa resident hasn't received both doses of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, Wayne County said it can provide the person with a copy of his or her vaccination record that can be taken to thesecond-dose appointment. Residents will receive a new card at their second-dose appointment, the county said in a release.

Detroit officials had not responded to how or whethercity residents can get a replacement card locally at the time of publication. But they can use the MCIR, state officials said.

More: Face masks in Michigan: What you need to know about the new CDC guidelines

More: Gift cards for hospitality workers part of new statewide COVID-19 vaccine campaign

Thomas Miller, 53, of Detroit looks over his vaccination card after receiving a Moderna COVID-19 vaccine along 2nd Avenue and Pingree Street in Detroit on Wednesday, April 28, 2021 as he waits for fifteen minutes following the vaccination. Central City Integrated Health paired up with The Salvation Army during their Bed & Bread Club delivery route as they deliver meals to those in need to help supply access to the COVID vaccine to Detroit residents who might not have transportation.(Photo: Ryan Garza, Detroit Free Press)

Macomb County Deputy Executive Vicki Wolber said residents should first check with the provider that administered their last dose of vaccine for a new vaccination card. They also can use MCIR to request their record.

If that doesn't work, she said residentscan call the county health department's immunization division at 586-469-5372.

In Oakland County, if anyone loses their vaccination card, the health division is able to give them their MCIRrecord and another card, said Bill Mullan, spokesman for County Executive Dave Coulter.

Anyone with questions can call the Nurse on Call number at800-848-5533. They could also make the request in person with the health division during business hours, Mullan said.

More: Michigan courts keeping mask mandate, say too difficult to identify who is vaccinated

More: Michigan hits first COVID-19 vaccine goal, to roll back workplace restrictions May 24

Sutfin said public health officials suggestresidents take a photo of their vaccination card so that they have a copy of it on their phone.

She said there are no issues with laminating the cards. Some people have reported issues with the ink on their cards when they had them laminated or concerns about adding information to the card if a booster is needed in the future.

More: Where you can get your 12- to 15-year-old a COVID-19 vaccine in Michigan

Anyone age 12 and older is eligible for the two-shot Pfizer vaccine. Anyone age 18 and older also can receive the Moderna two-dose vaccine or the one-dose Johnson & Johnson shot.

More than 4.5 million Michiganders, or 56.5% of the population age 16 and older, have received at least one dose of vaccine, according to the state's dashboard.

Contact Christina Hall: chall@freepress.com. Follow her on Twitter: @challreporter.

Support local journalism. Subscribe to the Free Press.

Read or Share this story: https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2021/05/19/replacement-covid-19-vaccination-card-available/5148905001/

Read more here:

Lost your COVID-19 vaccination card? Wayne Co., others will provide you with another one - Detroit Free Press

Can I list Covid-19 as a qualified natural disast…

May 18, 2021

You do not need to list Covid-19 on your tax return. If you are referring to a retirement related distribution due to Covid, you would need to file a Form 8915-E to avoid the 10% penalty from your distribution. To answer Covid related questions under 1099-R, see steps below.If you are using TTO, there are no known issues. If you are using the desktop option, we are working to resolve this issue.Click here:Covid related questions

To enter your Form 1099-R in the program, follow here:

In TurboTax online,

If you are under age 59 1/2, the distribution from the retirement accounts is considered as an early withdrawal. Generally, you are subject to an additional 10% penalty of your entire distribution unless you met certain criteria. Due to the Section 2202 CARES Act, if your distribution is related the Covid-19, you will not be liable for this additional penalty. For more information from the IRS, click here:Covid Relief. If your distribution is not related to the Covid, you will need to pay the penalty.

**Say "Thanks" by clicking the thumb icon in a post**Mark the post that answers your question by clicking on "Mark as Best Answer"

See more here:

Can I list Covid-19 as a qualified natural disast...

Tennessee Department of Health Releases New COVID-19 PSA "Give It A Shot" – tn.gov

May 18, 2021

NASHVILLE, Tenn. The Tennessee Department of Health today announced a new adcampaign, Give It A Shot focused on addressing vaccine hesitancy among Tennesseans.The ads will air across the state on broadcast, cable, and digital media. Some digitalplacement for this campaign began on May 1 and this is the next phase in the campaignrollout.

The most effective tool we have for combatting the COVID-19 virus is a vaccine, saidTennessee Department of Health Commissioner Lisa Piercey, MD, MBA, FAAP. Werecognize many Tennesseans have questions or concerns about the COVID vaccines andour goal is that these messages help to address some of those hesitancies. At the end ofthe day my hope is we will continue to see a steady increase in vaccine uptake across ourstate as more and more individuals feel more comfortable and confident in receiving thevaccine.

This PSA will run from May through November. A toolkit is available to downloadcampaign assets at https://app.box.com/s/4tlccdbfitmion6mubovmvgq3kyt9fqh.

All local health departments are offering walk-in options. Individuals can also schedule aCOVID-19 vaccine appointment by visiting covid19.tn.gov or vaccinefinder.org.

The mission of the Tennessee Department of Health is to protect, promote and improvethe health and prosperity of people in Tennessee. Learn more about TDH services andprograms at http://www.tn.gov/health.

Connect with TDH on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn @TNDeptofHealth!

View post:

Tennessee Department of Health Releases New COVID-19 PSA "Give It A Shot" - tn.gov

Page 580«..1020..579580581582..590600..»