Cost of propecia at walmart

FOUR Special Benefits of cost of propecia at walmart MSP Programs. Back Door to Extra Help with Part D MSPs Automatically Waive Late Enrollment Penalties for Part B - and allow enrollment in Part B year-round outside of the short Annual Enrollment Period No Medicaid Lien on Estate to Recover Payment of Expenses Paid by MSP Food Stamps/SNAP not reduced by Decreased Medical Expenses when Enroll in MSP - at least temporarily 5. Enrolling in an MSP - Automatic Enrollment &. Applications for People who Have cost of propecia at walmart Medicare What is Application Process?.

6. Enrolling in an MSP for People age 65+ who Do Not Qualify for Free Medicare Part A - the "Part A Buy-In Program" 7. What Happens After MSP Approved cost of propecia at walmart - How Part B Premium is Paid 8 Special Rules for QMBs - How Medicare Cost-Sharing Works 1. NO ASSET LIMIT!.

Since April 1, 2008, none of the three MSP programs have resource limits in New York -- which means many Medicare beneficiaries who might not qualify for Medicaid because of excess resources can qualify for an MSP. 1.A cost of propecia at walmart. SUMMARY CHART OF MSP BENEFITS QMB SLIMB QI-1 Eligibility ASSET LIMIT NO LIMIT IN NEW YORK STATE INCOME LIMIT (2020) Single Couple Single Couple Single Couple $1,064 $1,437 $1,276 $1,724 $1,436 $1,940 Federal Poverty Level 100% FPL 100 – 120% FPL 120 – 135% FPL Benefits Pays Monthly Part B premium?. YES, and also Part A premium if did not have enough work quarters and meets citizenship requirement.

See “Part A Buy-In” YES YES Pays Part cost of propecia at walmart A &. B deductibles &. Co-insurance YES - with limitations NO NO Retroactive to Filing of Application?. Yes - Benefits cost of propecia at walmart begin the month after the month of the MSP application.

18 NYCRR §360-7.8(b)(5) Yes – Retroactive to 3rd month before month of application, if eligible in prior months Yes – may be retroactive to 3rd month before month of applica-tion, but only within the current calendar year. (No retro for January application). See GIS cost of propecia at walmart 07 MA 027. Can Enroll in MSP and Medicaid at Same Time?.

YES YES NO!. Must choose between QI-1 cost of propecia at walmart and Medicaid. Cannot have both, not even Medicaid with a spend-down. 2.

INCOME LIMITS and RULES Each of the three MSP programs has cost of propecia at walmart different income eligibility requirements and provides different benefits. The income limits are tied to the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). 2019 FPL levels were released by NYS DOH in GIS 20 MA/02 - 2020 Federal Poverty Levels -- Attachment II and have been posted by Medicaid.gov and the National Council on Aging and are in the chart below. NOTE cost of propecia at walmart.

There is usually a lag in time of several weeks, or even months, from January 1st of each year until the new FPLs are release, and then before the new MSP income limits are officially implemented. During this lag period, local Medicaid offices should continue to use the previous year's FPLs AND count the person's Social Security benefit amount from the previous year - do NOT factor in the Social Security COLA (cost of living adjustment). Once the updated guidelines are released, districts will use cost of propecia at walmart the new FPLs and go ahead and factor in any COLA. See 2019 Fact Sheet on MSP in NYS by Medicare Rights Center ENGLISH SPANISH Income is determined by the same methodology as is used for determining in eligibility for SSI The rules for counting income for SSI-related (Aged 65+, Blind, or Disabled) Medicaid recipients, borrowed from the SSI program, apply to the MSP program, except for the new rules about counting household size for married couples.

367-a(3)(c)(2), NYS DOH 2000-ADM-7, 89-ADM-7 p.7. Gross income is counted, although there are certain types of income that are disregarded. The most common income disregards, also known as deductions, include. (a) The first $20 of your &.

Your spouse's monthly income, earned or unearned ($20 per couple max). (b) SSI EARNED INCOME DISREGARDS. * The first $65 of monthly wages of you and your spouse, * One-half of the remaining monthly wages (after the $65 is deducted). * Other work incentives including PASS plans, impairment related work expenses (IRWEs), blind work expenses, etc.

For information on these deductions, see The Medicaid Buy-In for Working People with Disabilities (MBI-WPD) and other guides in this article -- though written for the MBI-WPD, the work incentives apply to all Medicaid programs, including MSP, for people age 65+, disabled or blind. (c) monthly cost of any health insurance premiums but NOT the Part B premium, since Medicaid will now pay this premium (may deduct Medigap supplemental policies, vision, dental, or long term care insurance premiums, and the Part D premium but only to the extent the premium exceeds the Extra Help benchmark amount) (d) Food stamps not counted. You can get a more comprehensive listing of the SSI-related income disregards on the Medicaid income disregards chart. As for all benefit programs based on financial need, it is usually advantageous to be considered a larger household, because the income limit is higher.

The above chart shows that Households of TWO have a higher income limit than households of ONE. The MSP programs use the same rules as Medicaid does for the Disabled, Aged and Blind (DAB) which are borrowed from the SSI program for Medicaid recipients in the “SSI-related category.” Under these rules, a household can be only ONE or TWO. 18 NYCRR 360-4.2. See DAB Household Size Chart.

Married persons can sometimes be ONE or TWO depending on arcane rules, which can force a Medicare beneficiary to be limited to the income limit for ONE person even though his spouse who is under 65 and not disabled has no income, and is supported by the client applying for an MSP. EXAMPLE. Bob's Social Security is $1300/month. He is age 67 and has Medicare.

His wife, Nancy, is age 62 and is not disabled and does not work. Under the old rule, Bob was not eligible for an MSP because his income was above the Income limit for One, even though it was well under the Couple limit. In 2010, NYS DOH modified its rules so that all married individuals will be considered a household size of TWO. DOH GIS 10 MA 10 Medicare Savings Program Household Size, June 4, 2010.

This rule for household size is an exception to the rule applying SSI budgeting rules to the MSP program. Under these rules, Bob is now eligible for an MSP. When is One Better than Two?. Of course, there may be couples where the non-applying spouse's income is too high, and disqualifies the applying spouse from an MSP.

In such cases, "spousal refusal" may be used SSL 366.3(a). (Link is to NYC HRA form, can be adapted for other counties). 3. The Three Medicare Savings Programs - what are they and how are they different?.

1. Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB). The QMB program provides the most comprehensive benefits. Available to those with incomes at or below 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), the QMB program covers virtually all Medicare cost-sharing obligations.

Part B premiums, Part A premiums, if there are any, and any and all deductibles and co-insurance. QMB coverage is not retroactive. The program’s benefits will begin the month after the month in which your client is found eligible. ** See special rules about cost-sharing for QMBs below - updated with new CMS directive issued January 2012 ** See NYC HRA QMB Recertification form ** Even if you do not have Part A automatically, because you did not have enough wages, you may be able to enroll in the Part A Buy-In Program, in which people eligible for QMB who do not otherwise have Medicare Part A may enroll, with Medicaid paying the Part A premium (Materials by the Medicare Rights Center).

2. Specifiedl Low-Income Medicare Beneficiary (SLMB). For those with incomes between 100% and 120% FPL, the SLMB program will cover Part B premiums only. SLMB is retroactive, however, providing coverage for three months prior to the month of application, as long as your client was eligible during those months.

3. Qualified Individual (QI-1). For those with incomes between 120% and 135% FPL, and not receiving Medicaid, the QI-1 program will cover Medicare Part B premiums only. QI-1 is also retroactive, providing coverage for three months prior to the month of application, as long as your client was eligible during those months.

However, QI-1 retroactive coverage can only be provided within the current calendar year. (GIS 07 MA 027) So if you apply in January, you get no retroactive coverage. Q-I-1 recipients would be eligible for Medicaid with a spend-down, but if they want the Part B premium paid, they must choose between enrolling in QI-1 or Medicaid. They cannot be in both.

It is their choice. DOH MRG p. 19. In contrast, one may receive Medicaid and either QMB or SLIMB.

4. Four Special Benefits of MSPs (in addition to NO ASSET TEST). Benefit 1. Back Door to Medicare Part D "Extra Help" or Low Income Subsidy -- All MSP recipients are automatically enrolled in Extra Help, the subsidy that makes Part D affordable.

They have no Part D deductible or doughnut hole, the premium is subsidized, and they pay very low copayments. Once they are enrolled in Extra Help by virtue of enrollment in an MSP, they retain Extra Help for the entire calendar year, even if they lose MSP eligibility during that year. The "Full" Extra Help subsidy has the same income limit as QI-1 - 135% FPL. However, many people may be eligible for QI-1 but not Extra Help because QI-1 and the other MSPs have no asset limit.

People applying to the Social Security Administration for Extra Help might be rejected for this reason. Recent (2009-10) changes to federal law called "MIPPA" requires the Social Security Administration (SSA) to share eligibility data with NYSDOH on all persons who apply for Extra Help/ the Low Income Subsidy. Data sent to NYSDOH from SSA will enable NYSDOH to open MSP cases on many clients. The effective date of the MSP application must be the same date as the Extra Help application.

Signatures will not be required from clients. In cases where the SSA data is incomplete, NYSDOH will forward what is collected to the local district for completion of an MSP application. The State implementing procedures are in DOH 2010 ADM-03. Also see CMS "Dear State Medicaid Director" letter dated Feb.

18, 2010 Benefit 2. MSPs Automatically Waive Late Enrollment Penalties for Part B Generally one must enroll in Part B within the strict enrollment periods after turning age 65 or after 24 months of Social Security Disability. An exception is if you or your spouse are still working and insured under an employer sponsored group health plan, or if you have End Stage Renal Disease, and other factors, see this from Medicare Rights Center. If you fail to enroll within those short periods, you might have to pay higher Part B premiums for life as a Late Enrollment Penalty (LEP).

Also, you may only enroll in Part B during the Annual Enrollment Period from January 1 - March 31st each year, with Part B not effective until the following July. Enrollment in an MSP automatically eliminates such penalties... For life.. Even if one later ceases to be eligible for the MSP.

AND enrolling in an MSP will automatically result in becoming enrolled in Part B if you didn't already have it and only had Part A. See Medicare Rights Center flyer. Benefit 3. No Medicaid Lien on Estate to Recover MSP Benefits Paid Generally speaking, states may place liens on the Estates of deceased Medicaid recipients to recover the cost of Medicaid services that were provided after the recipient reached the age of 55.

Since 2002, states have not been allowed to recover the cost of Medicare premiums paid under MSPs. In 2010, Congress expanded protection for MSP benefits. Beginning on January 1, 2010, states may not place liens on the Estates of Medicaid recipients who died after January 1, 2010 to recover costs for co-insurance paid under the QMB MSP program for services rendered after January 1, 2010. The federal government made this change in order to eliminate barriers to enrollment in MSPs.

See NYS DOH GIS 10-MA-008 - Medicare Savings Program Changes in Estate Recovery The GIS clarifies that a client who receives both QMB and full Medicaid is exempt from estate recovery for these Medicare cost-sharing expenses. Benefit 4. SNAP (Food Stamp) benefits not reduced despite increased income from MSP - at least temporarily Many people receive both SNAP (Food Stamp) benefits and MSP. Income for purposes of SNAP/Food Stamps is reduced by a deduction for medical expenses, which includes payment of the Part B premium.

Since approval for an MSP means that the client no longer pays for the Part B premium, his/her SNAP/Food Stamps income goes up, so their SNAP/Food Stamps go down. Here are some protections. Do these individuals have to report to their SNAP worker that their out of pocket medical costs have decreased?. And will the household see a reduction in their SNAP benefits, since the decrease in medical expenses will increase their countable income?.

The good news is that MSP households do NOT have to report the decrease in their medical expenses to the SNAP/Food Stamp office until their next SNAP/Food Stamp recertification. Even if they do report the change, or the local district finds out because the same worker is handling both the MSP and SNAP case, there should be no reduction in the household’s benefit until the next recertification. New York’s SNAP policy per administrative directive 02 ADM-07 is to “freeze” the deduction for medical expenses between certification periods. Increases in medical expenses can be budgeted at the household’s request, but NYS never decreases a household’s medical expense deduction until the next recertification.

Most elderly and disabled households have 24-month SNAP certification periods. Eventually, though, the decrease in medical expenses will need to be reported when the household recertifies for SNAP, and the household should expect to see a decrease in their monthly SNAP benefit. It is really important to stress that the loss in SNAP benefits is NOT dollar for dollar. A $100 decrease in out of pocket medical expenses would translate roughly into a $30 drop in SNAP benefits.

See more info on SNAP/Food Stamp benefits by the Empire Justice Center, and on the State OTDA website. Some clients will be automatically enrolled in an MSP by the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) shortly after attaining eligibility for Medicare. Others need to apply. The 2010 "MIPPA" law introduced some improvements to increase MSP enrollment.

See 3rd bullet below. Also, some people who had Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act before they became eligible for Medicare have special procedures to have their Part B premium paid before they enroll in an MSP. See below. WHO IS AUTOMATICALLY ENROLLED IN AN MSP.

Clients receiving even $1.00 of Supplemental Security Income should be automatically enrolled into a Medicare Savings Program (most often QMB) under New York State’s Medicare Savings Program Buy-in Agreement with the federal government once they become eligible for Medicare. They should receive Medicare Parts A and B. Clients who are already eligible for Medicare when they apply for Medicaid should be automatically assessed for MSP eligibility when they apply for Medicaid. (NYS DOH 2000-ADM-7 and GIS 05 MA 033).

Clients who apply to the Social Security Administration for Extra Help, but are rejected, should be contacted &. Enrolled into an MSP by the Medicaid program directly under new MIPPA procedures that require data sharing. Strategy TIP. Since the Extra Help filing date will be assigned to the MSP application, it may help the client to apply online for Extra Help with the SSA, even knowing that this application will be rejected because of excess assets or other reason.

SSA processes these requests quickly, and it will be routed to the State for MSP processing. Since MSP applications take a while, at least the filing date will be retroactive. Note. The above strategy does not work as well for QMB, because the effective date of QMB is the month after the month of application.

As a result, the retroactive effective date of Extra Help will be the month after the failed Extra Help application for those with QMB rather than SLMB/QI-1. Applying for MSP Directly with Local Medicaid Program. Those who do not have Medicaid already must apply for an MSP through their local social services district. (See more in Section D.

Below re those who already have Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act before they became eligible for Medicare. If you are applying for MSP only (not also Medicaid), you can use the simplified MSP application form (theDOH-4328(Rev. 8/2017-- English) (2017 Spanish version not yet available). Either application form can be mailed in -- there is no interview requirement anymore for MSP or Medicaid.

See 10 ADM-04. Applicants will need to submit proof of income, a copy of their Medicare card (front &. Back), and proof of residency/address. See the application form for other instructions.

One who is only eligible for QI-1 because of higher income may ONLY apply for an MSP, not for Medicaid too. One may not receive Medicaid and QI-1 at the same time. If someone only eligible for QI-1 wants Medicaid, s/he may enroll in and deposit excess income into a pooled Supplemental Needs Trust, to bring her countable income down to the Medicaid level, which also qualifies him or her for SLIMB or QMB instead of QI-1. Advocates in NYC can sign up for a half-day "Deputization Training" conducted by the Medicare Rights Center, at which you'll be trained and authorized to complete an MSP application and to submit it via the Medicare Rights Center, which submits it to HRA without the client having to apply in person.

Enrolling in an MSP if you already have Medicaid, but just become eligible for Medicare Those who, prior to becoming enrolled in Medicare, had Medicaid through Affordable Care Act are eligible to have their Part B premiums paid by Medicaid (or the cost reimbursed) during the time it takes for them to transition to a Medicare Savings Program. In 2018, DOH clarified that reimbursement of the Part B premium will be made regardless of whether the individual is still in a Medicaid managed care (MMC) plan. GIS 18 MA/001 Medicaid Managed Care Transition for Enrollees Gaining Medicare ( PDF) provides, "Due to efforts to transition individuals who gain Medicare eligibility and who require LTSS, individuals may not be disenrolled from MMC upon receipt of Medicare. To facilitate the transition and not disadvantage the recipient, the Medicaid program is approving reimbursement of Part B premiums for enrollees in MMC." The procedure for getting the Part B premium paid is different for those whose Medicaid was administered by the NYS of Health Exchange (Marketplace), as opposed to their local social services district.

The procedure is also different for those who obtain Medicare because they turn 65, as opposed to obtaining Medicare based on disability. Either way, Medicaid recipients who transition onto Medicare should be automatically evaluated for MSP eligibility at their next Medicaid recertification. NYS DOH 2000-ADM-7 Individuals can also affirmatively ask to be enrolled in MSP in between recertification periods. IF CLIENT HAD MEDICAID ON THE MARKETPLACE (NYS of Health Exchange) before obtaining Medicare.

IF they obtain Medicare because they turn age 65, they will receive a letter from their local district asking them to "renew" Medicaid through their local district. See 2014 LCM-02. Now, their Medicaid income limit will be lower than the MAGI limits ($842/ mo reduced from $1387/month) and they now will have an asset test. For this reason, some individuals may lose full Medicaid eligibility when they begin receiving Medicare.

People over age 65 who obtain Medicare do NOT keep "Marketplace Medicaid" for 12 months (continuous eligibility) See GIS 15 MA/022 - Continuous Coverage for MAGI Individuals. Since MSP has NO ASSET limit. Some individuals may be enrolled in the MSP even if they lose Medicaid, or if they now have a Medicaid spend-down. If a Medicare/Medicaid recipient reports income that exceeds the Medicaid level, districts must evaluate the person’s eligibility for MSP.

08 OHIP/ADM-4 ​If you became eligible for Medicare based on disability and you are UNDER AGE 65, you are entitled to keep MAGI Medicaid for 12 months from the month it was last authorized, even if you now have income normally above the MAGI limit, and even though you now have Medicare. This is called Continuous Eligibility. EXAMPLE. Sam, age 60, was last authorized for Medicaid on the Marketplace in June 2016.

He became enrolled in Medicare based on disability in August 2016, and started receiving Social Security in the same month (he won a hearing approving Social Security disability benefits retroactively, after first being denied disability). Even though his Social Security is too high, he can keep Medicaid for 12 months beginning June 2016. Sam has to pay for his Part B premium - it is deducted from his Social Security check. He may call the Marketplace and request a refund.

This will continue until the end of his 12 months of continues MAGI Medicaid eligibility. He will be reimbursed regardless of whether he is in a Medicaid managed care plan. See GIS 18 MA/001 Medicaid Managed Care Transition for Enrollees Gaining Medicare (PDF) When that ends, he will renew Medicaid and apply for MSP with his local district. Individuals who are eligible for Medicaid with a spenddown can opt whether or not to receive MSP.

(Medicaid Reference Guide (MRG) p. 19). Obtaining MSP may increase their spenddown. MIPPA - Outreach by Social Security Administration -- Under MIPPA, the SSA sends a form letter to people who may be eligible for a Medicare Savings Program or Extra Help (Low Income Subsidy - LIS) that they may apply.

The letters are. · Beneficiary has Extra Help (LIS), but not MSP · Beneficiary has no Extra Help (LIS) or MSP 6. Enrolling in MSP for People Age 65+ who do Not have Free Medicare Part A - the "Part A Buy-In Program" Seniors WITHOUT MEDICARE PART A or B -- They may be able to enroll in the Part A Buy-In program, in which people eligible for QMB who are age 65+ who do not otherwise have Medicare Part A may enroll in Part A, with Medicaid paying the Part A premium. See Step-by-Step Guide by the Medicare Rights Center).

This guide explains the various steps in "conditionally enrolling" in Part A at the SSA office, which must be done before applying for QMB at the Medicaid office, which will then pay the Part A premium. See also GIS 04 MA/013. In June, 2018, the SSA revised the POMS manual procedures for the Part A Buy-In to to address inconsistencies and confusion in SSA field offices and help smooth the path for QMB enrollment. The procedures are in the POMS Section HI 00801.140 "Premium-Free Part A Enrollments for Qualified Medicare BenefiIaries." It includes important clarifications, such as.

SSA Field Offices should explain the QMB program and conditional enrollment process if an individual lacks premium-free Part A and appears to meet QMB requirements. SSA field offices can add notes to the “Remarks” section of the application and provide a screen shot to the individual so the individual can provide proof of conditional Part A enrollment when applying for QMB through the state Medicaid program. Beneficiaries are allowed to complete the conditional application even if they owe Medicare premiums. In Part A Buy-in states like NYS, SSA should process conditional applications on a rolling basis (without regard to enrollment periods), even if the application coincides with the General Enrollment Period.

(The General Enrollment Period is from Jan 1 to March 31st every year, in which anyone eligible may enroll in Medicare Part A or Part B to be effective on July 1st). 7. What happens after the MSP approval - How is Part B premium paid For all three MSP programs, the Medicaid program is now responsible for paying the Part B premiums, even though the MSP enrollee is not necessarily a recipient of Medicaid. The local Medicaid office (DSS/HRA) transmits the MSP approval to the NYS Department of Health – that information gets shared w/ SSA and CMS SSA stops deducting the Part B premiums out of the beneficiary’s Social Security check.

SSA also refunds any amounts owed to the recipient. (Note. This process can take awhile!. !.

!. ) CMS “deems” the MSP recipient eligible for Part D Extra Help/ Low Income Subsidy (LIS). ​Can the MSP be retroactive like Medicaid, back to 3 months before the application?. ​The answer is different for the 3 MSP programs.

QMB -No Retroactive Eligibility – Benefits begin the month after the month of the MSP application. 18 NYCRR § 360-7.8(b)(5) SLIMB - YES - Retroactive Eligibility up to 3 months before the application, if was eligible This means applicant may be reimbursed for the 3 months of Part B benefits prior to the month of application. QI-1 - YES up to 3 months but only in the same calendar year. No retroactive eligibility to the previous year.

7. QMBs -Special Rules on Cost-Sharing. QMB is the only MSP program which pays not only the Part B premium, but also the Medicare co-insurance. However, there are limitations.

First, co-insurance will only be paid if the provide accepts Medicaid. Not all Medicare provides accept Medicaid. Second, under recent changes in New York law, Medicaid will not always pay the Medicare co-insurance, even to a Medicaid provider. But even if the provider does not accept Medicaid, or if Medicaid does not pay the full co-insurance, the provider is banned from "balance billing" the QMB beneficiary for the co-insurance.

Click here for an article that explains all of these rules. This article was authored by the Empire Justice Center.THE PROBLEM. Meet Joe, whose Doctor has Billed him for the Medicare Coinsurance Joe Client is disabled and has SSD, Medicaid and Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB). His health care is covered by Medicare, and Medicaid and the QMB program pick up his Medicare cost-sharing obligations.

Under Medicare Part B, his co-insurance is 20% of the Medicare-approved charge for most outpatient services. He went to the doctor recently and, as with any other Medicare beneficiary, the doctor handed him a bill for his co-pay. Now Joe has a bill that he can’t pay. Read below to find out -- SHORT ANSWER.

QMB or Medicaid will pay the Medicare coinsurance only in limited situations. First, the provider must be a Medicaid provider. Second, even if the provider accepts Medicaid, under recent legislation in New York enacted in 2015 and 2016, QMB or Medicaid may pay only part of the coinsurance, or none at all. This depends in part on whether the beneficiary has Original Medicare or is in a Medicare Advantage plan, and in part on the type of service.

However, the bottom line is that the provider is barred from "balance billing" a QMB beneficiary for the Medicare coinsurance. Unfortunately, this creates tension between an individual and her doctors, pharmacies dispensing Part B medications, and other providers. Providers may not know they are not allowed to bill a QMB beneficiary for Medicare coinsurance, since they bill other Medicare beneficiaries. Even those who know may pressure their patients to pay, or simply decline to serve them.

These rights and the ramifications of these QMB rules are explained in this article. CMS is doing more education about QMB Rights. The Medicare Handbook, since 2017, gives information about QMB Protections. Download the 2020 Medicare Handbook here.

See pp. 53, 86. 1. To Which Providers will QMB or Medicaid Pay the Medicare Co-Insurance?.

"Providers must enroll as Medicaid providers in order to bill Medicaid for the Medicare coinsurance." CMS Informational Bulletin issued January 6, 2012, titled "Billing for Services Provided to Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries (QMBs). The CMS bulletin states, "If the provider wants Medicaid to pay the coinsurance, then the provider must register as a Medicaid provider under the state rules." If the provider chooses not to enroll as a Medicaid provider, they still may not "balance bill" the QMB recipient for the coinsurance. 2. How Does a Provider that DOES accept Medicaid Bill for a QMB Beneficiary?.

If beneficiary has Original Medicare -- The provider bills Medicaid - even if the QMB Beneficiary does not also have Medicaid. Medicaid is required to pay the provider for all Medicare Part A and B cost-sharing charges, even if the service is normally not covered by Medicaid (ie, chiropractic, podiatry and clinical social work care). Whatever reimbursement Medicaid pays the provider constitutes by law payment in full, and the provider cannot bill the beneficiary for any difference remaining. 42 U.S.C.

§ 1396a(n)(3)(A), NYS DOH 2000-ADM-7 If the QMB beneficiary is in a Medicare Advantage plan - The provider bills the Medicare Advantage plan, then bills Medicaid for the balance using a “16” code to get paid. The provider must include the amount it received from Medicare Advantage plan. 3. For a Provider who accepts Medicaid, How Much of the Medicare Coinsurance will be Paid for a QMB or Medicaid Beneficiary in NYS?.

The answer to this question has changed by laws enacted in 2015 and 2016. In the proposed 2019 State Budget, Gov. Cuomo has proposed to reduce how much Medicaid pays for the Medicare costs even further. The amount Medicaid pays is different depending on whether the individual has Original Medicare or is a Medicare Advantage plan, with better payment for those in Medicare Advantage plans.

The answer also differs based on the type of service. Part A Deductibles and Coinsurance - Medicaid pays the full Part A hospital deductible ($1,408 in 2020) and Skilled Nursing Facility coinsurance ($176/day) for days 20 - 100 of a rehab stay. Full payment is made for QMB beneficiaries and Medicaid recipients who have no spend-down. Payments are reduced if the beneficiary has a Medicaid spend-down.

For in-patient hospital deductible, Medicaid will pay only if six times the monthly spend-down has been met. For example, if Mary has a $200/month spend down which has not been met otherwise, Medicaid will pay only $164 of the hospital deductible (the amount exceeding 6 x $200). See more on spend-down here. Medicare Part B - Deductible - Currently, Medicaid pays the full Medicare approved charges until the beneficiary has met the annual deductible, which is $198 in 2020.

For example, Dr. John charges $500 for a visit, for which the Medicare approved charge is $198. Medicaid pays the entire $198, meeting the deductible. If the beneficiary has a spend-down, then the Medicaid payment would be subject to the spend-down.

In the 2019 proposed state budget, Gov. Cuomo proposed to reduce the amount Medicaid pays toward the deductible to the same amount paid for coinsurance during the year, described below. This proposal was REJECTED by the state legislature. Co-Insurance - The amount medicaid pays in NYS is different for Original Medicare and Medicare Advantage.

If individual has Original Medicare, QMB/Medicaid will pay the 20% Part B coinsurance only to the extent the total combined payment the provider receives from Medicare and Medicaid is the lesser of the Medicaid or Medicare rate for the service. For example, if the Medicare rate for a service is $100, the coinsurance is $20. If the Medicaid rate for the same service is only $80 or less, Medicaid would pay nothing, as it would consider the doctor fully paid = the provider has received the full Medicaid rate, which is lesser than the Medicare rate. Exceptions - Medicaid/QMB wil pay the full coinsurance for the following services, regardless of the Medicaid rate.

ambulance and psychologists - The Gov's 2019 proposal to eliminate these exceptions was rejected. hospital outpatient clinic, certain facilities operating under certificates issued under the Mental Hygiene Law for people with developmental disabilities, psychiatric disability, and chemical dependence (Mental Hygiene Law Articles 16, 31 or 32). SSL 367-a, subd. 1(d)(iii)-(v) , as amended 2015 If individual is in a Medicare Advantage plan, 85% of the copayment will be paid to the provider (must be a Medicaid provider), regardless of how low the Medicaid rate is.

This limit was enacted in the 2016 State Budget, and is better than what the Governor proposed - which was the same rule used in Original Medicare -- NONE of the copayment or coinsurance would be paid if the Medicaid rate was lower than the Medicare rate for the service, which is usually the case. This would have deterred doctors and other providers from being willing to treat them. SSL 367-a, subd. 1(d)(iv), added 2016.

EXCEPTIONS. The Medicare Advantage plan must pay the full coinsurance for the following services, regardless of the Medicaid rate. ambulance ) psychologist ) The Gov's proposal in the 2019 budget to eliminate these exceptions was rejected by the legislature Example to illustrate the current rules. The Medicare rate for Mary's specialist visit is $185.

The Medicaid rate for the same service is $120. Current rules (since 2016). Medicare Advantage -- Medicare Advantage plan pays $135 and Mary is charged a copayment of $50 (amount varies by plan). Medicaid pays the specialist 85% of the $50 copayment, which is $42.50.

The doctor is prohibited by federal law from "balance billing" QMB beneficiaries for the balance of that copayment. Since provider is getting $177.50 of the $185 approved rate, provider will hopefully not be deterred from serving Mary or other QMBs/Medicaid recipients. Original Medicare - The 20% coinsurance is $37. Medicaid pays none of the coinsurance because the Medicaid rate ($120) is lower than the amount the provider already received from Medicare ($148).

For both Medicare Advantage and Original Medicare, if the bill was for a ambulance or psychologist, Medicaid would pay the full 20% coinsurance regardless of the Medicaid rate. The proposal to eliminate this exception was rejected by the legislature in 2019 budget. . 4.

May the Provider 'Balance Bill" a QMB Benficiary for the Coinsurance if Provider Does Not Accept Medicaid, or if Neither the Patient or Medicaid/QMB pays any coinsurance?. No. Balance billing is banned by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. 42 U.S.C.

§ 1396a(n)(3)(A). In an Informational Bulletin issued January 6, 2012, titled "Billing for Services Provided to Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries (QMBs)," the federal Medicare agency - CMS - clarified that providers MAY NOT BILL QMB recipients for the Medicare coinsurance. This is true whether or not the provider is registered as a Medicaid provider. If the provider wants Medicaid to pay the coinsurance, then the provider must register as a Medicaid provider under the state rules.

This is a change in policy in implementing Section 1902(n)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act (the Act), as modified by section 4714 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which prohibits Medicare providers from balance-billing QMBs for Medicare cost-sharing. The CMS letter states, "All Medicare physicians, providers, and suppliers who offer services and supplies to QMBs are prohibited from billing QMBs for Medicare cost-sharing, including deductible, coinsurance, and copayments. This section of the Act is available at. CMCS Informational Bulletin http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title19/1902.htm.

QMBs have no legal obligation to make further payment to a provider or Medicare managed care plan for Part A or Part B cost sharing. Providers who inappropriately bill QMBs for Medicare cost-sharing are subject to sanctions. Please note that the statute referenced above supersedes CMS State Medicaid Manual, Chapter 3, Eligibility, 3490.14 (b), which is no longer in effect, but may be causing confusion about QMB billing." The same information was sent to providers in this Medicare Learning Network bulletin, last revised in June 26, 2018. CMS reminded Medicare Advantage plans of the rule against Balance Billing in the 2017 Call Letter for plan renewals.

See this excerpt of the 2017 call letter by Justice in Aging - Prohibition on Billing Medicare-Medicaid Enrollees for Medicare Cost Sharing 5. How do QMB Beneficiaries Show a Provider that they have QMB and cannot be Billed for the Coinsurance?. It can be difficult to show a provider that one is a QMB. It is especially difficult for providers who are not Medicaid providers to identify QMB's, since they do not have access to online Medicaid eligibility systems Consumers can now call 1-800-MEDICARE to verify their QMB Status and report a billing issue.

If a consumer reports a balance billng problem to this number, the Customer Service Rep can escalate the complaint to the Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC), which will send a compliance letter to the provider with a copy to the consumer. See CMS Medicare Learning Network Bulletin effective Dec. 16, 2016. Medicare Summary Notices (MSNs) that Medicare beneficiaries receive every three months state that QMBs have no financial liability for co-insurance for each Medicare-covered service listed on the MSN.

The Remittance Advice (RA) that Medicare sends to providers shows the same information. By spelling out billing protections on a service-by-service basis, the MSNs provide clarity for both the QMB beneficiary and the provider. Justice in Aging has posted samples of what the new MSNs look like here. They have also updated Justice in Aging’s Improper Billing Toolkit to incorporate references to the MSNs in its model letters that you can use to advocate for clients who have been improperly billed for Medicare-covered services.

CMS is implementing systems changes that will notify providers when they process a Medicare claim that the patient is QMB and has no cost-sharing liability. The Medicare Summary Notice sent to the beneficiary will also state that the beneficiary has QMB and no liability. These changes were scheduled to go into effect in October 2017, but have been delayed. Read more about them in this Justice in Aging Issue Brief on New Strategies in Fighting Improper Billing for QMBs (Feb.

2017). QMBs are issued a Medicaid benefit card (by mail), even if they do not also receive Medicaid. The card is the mechanism for health care providers to bill the QMB program for the Medicare deductibles and co-pays. Unfortunately, the Medicaid card dos not indicate QMB eligibility.

Not all people who have Medicaid also have QMB (they may have higher incomes and "spend down" to the Medicaid limits. Advocates have asked for a special QMB card, or a notation on the Medicaid card to show that the individual has QMB. See this Report - a National Survey on QMB Identification Practices published by Justice in Aging, authored by Peter Travitsky, NYLAG EFLRP staff attorney. The Report, published in March 2017, documents how QMB beneficiaries could be better identified in order to ensure providers do not bill them improperly.

6. If you are Billed -​ Strategies Consumers can now call 1-800-MEDICARE to report a billing issue. If a consumer reports a balance billng problem to this number, the Customer Service Rep can escalate the complaint to the Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC), which will send a compliance letter to the provider with a copy to the consumer. See CMS Medicare Learning Network Bulletin effective Dec.

16, 2016. Send a letter to the provider, using the Justice In Aging Model model letters to providers to explain QMB rights.​​​ both for Original Medicare (Letters 1-2) and Medicare Advantage (Letters 3-5) - see Overview of model letters. Include a link to the CMS Medicare Learning Network Notice. Prohibition on Balance Billing Dually Eligible Individuals Enrolled in the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB) Program (revised June 26.

2018) In January 2017, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau issued this guide to QMB billing. A consumer who has a problem with debt collection, may also submit a complaint online or call the CFPB at 1-855-411-2372. TTY/TDD users can call 1-855-729-2372. Medicare Advantage members should complain to their Medicare Advantage plan.

In its 2017 Call Letter, CMS stressed to Medicare Advantage contractors that federal regulations at 42 C.F.R. § 422.504 (g)(1)(iii), require that provider contracts must prohibit collection of deductibles and co-payments from dual eligibles and QMBs. Toolkit to Help Protect QMB Rights ​​In July 2015, CMS issued a report, "Access to Care Issues Among Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries (QMB's)" documenting how pervasive illegal attempts to bill QMBs for the Medicare coinsurance, including those who are members of managed care plans. Justice in Aging, a national advocacy organization, has a project to educate beneficiaries about balance billing and to advocate for stronger protections for QMBs.

Links to their webinars and other resources is at this link.

Get propecia prescription online

With flu season starting as hair loss treatment continues to spread, many health experts fear a "twindemic."Getting a flu get propecia prescription online shot can help visit homepage avoid that. Photo by Brent AnnearFall is here, and so is the flu. With hair loss treatment still get propecia prescription online a threat, it’s more important than ever to protect yourself from preventable illnesses, like the flu.

treatments prevent sickness and make it easier for us to go about our everyday lives. Here are ten reasons getting the flu shot is so important. 1.

Save money. A flu shot is usually free or low cost, whether you have insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, or work for a company that provides the shot to prevent employees from getting sick. For employees’ sake, not getting the flu means no lost wages or missed work.

2. Less chance of a heart attack. Getting the flu shot reduces your risk of having a heart attack, which occurs more frequently in the weeks following the flu.

A recent study that examined more than 80,000 U.S. Adults hospitalized with the flu over eight flu seasons found that one in eight flu patients experienced sudden, serious heart complications. 3.

Protect pregnant women. The flu treatment protects pregnant women who are at risk for complications from the flu. Every pregnant woman deserves a pregnancy without fearing for the health of herself and her baby.

Women who plan to get pregnant should also get the flu shot. treatments strengthen our ability to fight diseases, and studies show the shot works best among women of childbearing age. 4.

Protect newborn babies. The flu shot also helps protect babies under six months who are not yet eligible for a flu shot. When an expectant mom gets a flu shot, the protection gets passed on to her newborn until he or she is old enough to be immunized.

5. Protect older people. It will protect your elderly relatives, who are less likely to receive as much protection from the flu shot as younger people get.

If you don’t get the flu, you can’t pass it on to someone. By getting a flu shot, you help increase your area's herd immunity. Photo by Brent Annear6.

Protect people with chronic health conditions. You’ll also protect people who have conditions which can make the flu more serious for them. These include people with asthma, heart disease, cancer, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and HIV/AIDS.

7. Help defend your community from illness. The more people that get the flu shot, the stronger your area’s community immunity, or herd immunity is.

Herd immunity is achieved when a large enough portion of the community becomes able to fight off a disease and is therefore less likely to spread it from person-to-person. This protects the whole community, especially those who are less able to how can i get propecia fight illness or have chronic diseases. 8.

Avoid a hospital stay or doctor visit. treatments make you less likely to have to go to the doctor or end up in the hospital. Thanks to the flu shot, doctors and other health experts estimate two out of five older adults won’t have to be hospitalized this flu season because of the flu.

9. Protect children. Influenza can be especially dangerous for children because they can develop complications like pneumonia, dehydration, brain dysfunction, sinus problems, and ear s.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the past 10 years between 7,000 and 26,000 children younger than 5 years of age were hospitalized with the flu. Although it is rare, kids can die from the flu as well. If your child is afraid of needles, there is a nasal spray flu treatment available for everyone six months and older with no underlying health issues.

Talk to your child’s doctor about which treatment is best.10. Stay active. The flu treatment helps you moving.

. It may not always prevent the flu, but it can lessen symptoms and shorten sick time. This means fewer missed work and school days, and more time to do the things you enjoy.

Because hair loss treatment is still spreading as flu season starts, many health experts fear a “twindemic.” While we wait for a hair loss treatment, there is one for the flu. For more information on the flu shot, view this downloadable poster created in both English and Spanish by the Texas Medical Association’s Be Wise Immunize℠ program. Be Wise – Immunize is funded in 2020 by the TMA Foundation, thanks to major support from H-E-B and Permian Basin Youth Chavarim.Be Wise – Immunize is a service mark of the Texas Medical Association.Influenza affects millions of people each year, and because of the hair loss treatment propecia, many physicians and health experts are concerned that this year’s flu season will hit with full force.

In the Lone Star State, it’s important for Texans to be proactive about their health by getting the yearly flu vaccination. One of the worst things that could happen would be having many people sick with the flu while many are ill with hair loss.Flu vaccination is the best way to reduce the risk of getting and spreading the flu. This year, it also will help keep hospitalizations down as physicians, nurses, and other medical staff continue to care for hair loss treatment patients.

Traditionally, Texas falls behind on flu vaccination. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), only 43.3% of Texas adults got a flu shot in 2018-2019, compared to the national average of 45.3%.Although influenza propeciaes circulate throughout the year, flu season usually starts in the fall and winter, and peaks between December and February.Like hair loss treatment, the flu is contagious. Both have some similar symptoms, including fever, chills, cough, fatigue, body aches, vomiting, and diarrhea.

People with the flu may not experience symptoms until one to four days after catching the propecia. The CDC outlines key similarities and differences between influenza and hair loss treatment here.While most people recover from the flu, many can experience complications, especially older adults, people with pre-existing medical conditions, young children, and pregnant women. If left untreated, infected patients can develop pneumonia, inflammation of the heart, brain, or muscle tissues, organ failure, sepsis, or they could even die.

In Texas, more than 21,000 people died from the flu in the past two years. To put that into perspective, that is the population of Katy!. Everyone 6 months or older is encouraged to get the flu treatment each year – especially adults aged 65 and older, pregnant women, young children, and people who have chronic illnesses such as diabetes, asthma, and heart disease.

The CDC is urging the public to get the flu treatment while maintaining social distancing, wearing a mask in public, and practicing good hygiene.People who receive the flu shot may experience some mild side effects like aches and a mild fever, but they can’t get the flu from the shot. Those who get the flu after being vaccinated might have been exposed to the propecia beforehand. The flu vaccination can help lessen flu symptoms and severity, helping reduce the amount of time spent away from work and school.In a time when community health is front and center, getting a flu shot is more important than ever.

The Texas Medical Association’s Be Wise Immunize℠ program recently created a downloadable poster below in English and Spanish with key takeaways about the flu vaccination. You can print the poster, or save it and share it on social media. Be Wise – Immunize is funded in 2020 by the TMA Foundation, thanks to major support from H-E-B and Permian Basin Youth Chavarim.Be Wise – Immunize is a service mark of the Texas Medical Association..

With flu season starting as hair loss treatment buy cheap propecia online continues to cost of propecia at walmart spread, many health experts fear a "twindemic."Getting a flu shot can help avoid that. Photo by Brent AnnearFall is here, and so is the flu. With hair loss treatment still a threat, it’s more important than ever to protect yourself from preventable illnesses, like the flu cost of propecia at walmart. treatments prevent sickness and make it easier for us to go about our everyday lives. Here are ten reasons getting the flu shot is so important.

1. Save money. A flu shot is usually free or low cost, whether you have insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, or work for a company that provides the shot to prevent employees from getting sick. For employees’ sake, not getting the flu means no lost wages or missed work. 2.

Less chance of a heart attack. Getting the flu shot reduces your risk of having a heart attack, which occurs more frequently in the weeks following the flu. A recent study that examined more than 80,000 U.S. Adults hospitalized with the flu over eight flu seasons found that one in eight flu patients experienced sudden, serious heart complications. 3.

Protect pregnant women. The flu treatment protects pregnant women who are at risk for complications from the flu. Every pregnant woman deserves a pregnancy without fearing for the health of herself and her baby. Women who plan to get pregnant should also get the flu shot. treatments strengthen our ability to fight diseases, and studies show the shot works best among women of childbearing age.

4. Protect newborn babies. The flu shot also helps protect babies under six months who are not yet eligible for a flu shot. When an expectant mom gets a flu shot, the protection gets passed on to her newborn until he or she is old enough to be immunized. 5.

Protect older people. It will protect your elderly relatives, who are less likely to receive as much protection from the flu shot as younger people get. If you don’t get the flu, you can’t pass it on to someone. By getting a flu shot, you help increase your area's herd immunity. Photo by Brent Annear6.

Protect people with chronic health conditions. You’ll also protect people who have conditions which can make the flu more serious for them. These include people with asthma, heart disease, cancer, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and HIV/AIDS. 7. Help defend your community from illness.

The more people that get the flu shot, the stronger your area’s community immunity, or herd immunity is. Herd immunity is achieved when a large enough portion of the community becomes able to fight off a disease and is therefore less likely to spread it from person-to-person. This protects the whole community, especially those who are less able to fight illness or have chronic diseases. 8. Avoid a hospital stay or doctor visit.

treatments make you less likely to have to go to the doctor or end up in the hospital. Thanks to the flu shot, doctors and other health experts estimate two out of five older adults won’t have to be hospitalized this flu season because of the flu. 9. Protect children. Influenza can be especially dangerous for children because they can develop complications like pneumonia, dehydration, brain dysfunction, sinus problems, and ear s.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the past 10 years between 7,000 and 26,000 children younger than 5 years of age were hospitalized with the flu. Although it is rare, kids can die from the flu as well. If your child is afraid of needles, there is a nasal spray flu treatment available for everyone six months and older with no underlying health issues. Talk to your child’s doctor about which treatment is best.10. Stay active.

The flu treatment helps you moving. . It may not always prevent the flu, but it can lessen symptoms and shorten sick time. This means fewer missed work and school days, and more time to do the things you enjoy. Because hair loss treatment is still spreading as flu season starts, many health experts fear a “twindemic.” While we wait for a hair loss treatment, there is one for the flu.

For more information on the flu shot, view this downloadable poster created in both English and Spanish by the Texas Medical Association’s Be Wise Immunize℠ program. Be Wise – Immunize is funded in 2020 by the TMA Foundation, thanks to major support from H-E-B and Permian Basin Youth Chavarim.Be Wise – Immunize is a service mark of the Texas Medical Association.Influenza affects millions of people each year, and because of the hair loss treatment propecia, many physicians and health experts are concerned that this year’s flu season will hit with full force. In the Lone Star State, it’s important for Texans to be proactive about their health by getting the yearly flu vaccination. One of the worst things that could happen would be having many people sick with the flu while many are ill with hair loss.Flu vaccination is the best way to reduce the risk of getting and spreading the flu. This year, it also will help keep hospitalizations down as physicians, nurses, and other medical staff continue to care for hair loss treatment patients.

Traditionally, Texas falls behind on flu vaccination. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), only 43.3% of Texas adults got a flu shot in 2018-2019, compared to the national average of 45.3%.Although influenza propeciaes circulate throughout the year, flu season usually starts in the fall and winter, and peaks between December and February.Like hair loss treatment, the flu is contagious. Both have some similar symptoms, including fever, chills, cough, fatigue, body aches, vomiting, and diarrhea. People with the flu may not experience symptoms until one to four days after catching the propecia. The CDC outlines key similarities and differences between influenza and hair loss treatment here.While most people recover from the flu, many can experience complications, especially older adults, people with pre-existing medical conditions, young children, and pregnant women.

If left untreated, infected patients can develop pneumonia, inflammation of the heart, brain, or muscle tissues, organ failure, sepsis, or they could even die. In Texas, more than 21,000 people died from the flu in the past two years. To put that into perspective, that is the population of Katy!. Everyone 6 months or older is encouraged to get the flu treatment each year – especially adults aged 65 and older, pregnant women, young children, and people who have chronic illnesses such as diabetes, asthma, and heart disease. The CDC is urging the public to get the flu treatment while maintaining social distancing, wearing a mask in public, and practicing good hygiene.People who receive the flu shot may experience some mild side effects like aches and a mild fever, but they can’t get the flu from the shot.

Those who get the flu after being vaccinated might have been exposed to the propecia beforehand. The flu vaccination can help lessen flu symptoms and severity, helping reduce the amount of time spent away from work and school.In a time when community health is front and center, getting a flu shot is more important than ever. The Texas Medical Association’s Be Wise Immunize℠ program recently created a downloadable poster below in English and Spanish with key takeaways about the flu vaccination. You can print the poster, or save it and share it on social media. Be Wise – Immunize is funded in 2020 by the TMA Foundation, thanks to major support from H-E-B and Permian Basin Youth Chavarim.Be Wise – Immunize is a service mark of the Texas Medical Association..

What if I miss a dose?

If you miss a dose, take it as soon as you can. If you do not remember until the next day, take only that day's dose. Do not take double or extra doses.

How safe is propecia

Patients Figure 1 how safe is propecia. Figure 1 how safe is propecia. Enrollment and Randomization. Of the 1114 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 1062 underwent randomization how safe is propecia.

541 were assigned to the remdesivir group and 521 to the placebo group (intention-to-treat population) (Figure 1). 159 (15.0%) were categorized how safe is propecia as having mild-to-moderate disease, and 903 (85.0%) were in the severe disease stratum. Of those assigned to receive remdesivir, 531 patients (98.2%) received the treatment as assigned. Fifty-two patients how safe is propecia had remdesivir treatment discontinued before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death and 10 withdrew consent.

Of those assigned to receive placebo, 517 patients (99.2%) received placebo as assigned. Seventy patients discontinued placebo before day 10 because of an adverse event or a how safe is propecia serious adverse event other than death and 14 withdrew consent. A total of 517 patients in the remdesivir group and 508 in the placebo group completed the trial through day 29, recovered, or died. Fourteen patients who received remdesivir and 9 who received placebo terminated their participation in the trial before day how safe is propecia 29.

A total of 54 of the patients who were in the mild-to-moderate stratum at randomization were subsequently determined to meet the criteria for severe disease, resulting in 105 patients in the mild-to-moderate disease stratum and 957 in the severe stratum. The as-treated population included 1048 how safe is propecia patients who received the assigned treatment (532 in the remdesivir group, including one patient who had been randomly assigned to placebo and received remdesivir, and 516 in the placebo group). Table 1. Table 1 how safe is propecia.

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of the Patients at Baseline. The mean how safe is propecia age of the patients was 58.9 years, and 64.4% were male (Table 1). On the basis of the evolving epidemiology of hair loss treatment during the trial, 79.8% of patients were enrolled at sites in North America, 15.3% in Europe, and 4.9% in Asia (Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix). Overall, 53.3% of the patients were White, 21.3% were Black, 12.7% were Asian, how safe is propecia and 12.7% were designated as other or not reported.

250 (23.5%) were Hispanic how safe is propecia or Latino. Most patients had either one (25.9%) or two or more (54.5%) of the prespecified coexisting conditions at enrollment, most commonly hypertension (50.2%), obesity (44.8%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (30.3%). The median number of days between symptom onset and randomization was 9 (interquartile range, 6 to 12) (Table how safe is propecia S2). A total of 957 patients (90.1%) had severe disease at enrollment.

285 patients (26.8%) met category 7 criteria on the ordinal scale, 193 (18.2%) category 6, 435 (41.0%) how safe is propecia category 5, and 138 (13.0%) category 4. Eleven patients (1.0%) had missing ordinal scale data at enrollment. All these patients discontinued how safe is propecia the study before treatment. During the study, 373 patients (35.6% of the 1048 patients in the as-treated population) received hydroxychloroquine and 241 (23.0%) received a glucocorticoid (Table S3).

Primary Outcome how safe is propecia Figure 2. Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier Estimates of Cumulative how safe is propecia Recoveries. Cumulative recovery estimates are shown in the overall population (Panel A), in patients with a baseline score of 4 on the ordinal scale (not receiving oxygen.

Panel B), in those with how safe is propecia a baseline score of 5 (receiving oxygen. Panel C), in those with a baseline score of 6 (receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive mechanical ventilation. Panel D), and in those with a baseline score of 7 how safe is propecia (receiving mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]. Panel E).Table 2.

Table 2 how safe is propecia. Outcomes Overall and According to Score on the Ordinal Scale in how safe is propecia the Intention-to-Treat Population. Figure 3. Figure 3 how safe is propecia.

Time to Recovery According to Subgroup. The widths of the confidence how safe is propecia intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity and therefore cannot be used to infer treatment effects. Race and ethnic group were reported by the patients.Patients in the remdesivir group had a shorter time to recovery than patients in the placebo group (median, 10 days, as compared with 15 days. Rate ratio for recovery, how safe is propecia 1.29.

95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12 to 1.49. P<0.001) (Figure 2 and how safe is propecia Table 2). In the severe disease stratum (957 patients) the median time to recovery was 11 days, as compared with 18 days (rate ratio for recovery, 1.31. 95% CI, 1.12 how safe is propecia to 1.52) (Table S4).

The rate ratio for recovery was largest among patients with a baseline ordinal score of 5 (rate ratio for recovery, 1.45. 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.79) how safe is propecia. Among patients with a baseline score of 4 and those with a baseline score of 6, the rate ratio estimates for recovery were 1.29 (95% CI, 0.91 to 1.83) and 1.09 (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.57), respectively. For those receiving mechanical ventilation how safe is propecia or ECMO at enrollment (baseline ordinal score of 7), the rate ratio for recovery was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.36).

Information on interactions of treatment with baseline ordinal score as a continuous variable is provided in Table S11. An analysis how safe is propecia adjusting for baseline ordinal score as a covariate was conducted to evaluate the overall effect (of the percentage of patients in each ordinal score category at baseline) on the primary outcome. This adjusted analysis produced a similar treatment-effect estimate (rate ratio for recovery, 1.26. 95% CI, 1.09 how safe is propecia to 1.46).

Patients who underwent randomization during the first 10 days after the onset of symptoms how safe is propecia had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.37 (95% CI, 1.14 to 1.64), whereas patients who underwent randomization more than 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.20 (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.52) (Figure 3). The benefit of remdesivir was larger when given earlier in the illness, though the benefit persisted in most analyses of duration of symptoms (Table S6). Sensitivity analyses how safe is propecia in which data were censored at earliest reported use of glucocorticoids or hydroxychloroquine still showed efficacy of remdesivir (9.0 days to recovery with remdesivir vs. 14.0 days to recovery with placebo.

Rate ratio, 1.28 how safe is propecia. 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.50, and 10.0 vs. 16.0 days to recovery how safe is propecia. Rate ratio, 1.32.

95% CI, how safe is propecia 1.11 to 1.58, respectively) (Table S8). Key Secondary Outcome The odds of improvement in the ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, as determined by a proportional odds model at the day 15 visit, than in the placebo group (odds ratio for improvement, 1.5. 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, adjusted for how safe is propecia disease severity) (Table 2 and Fig. S7).

Mortality Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by day 15 how safe is propecia were 6.7% in the remdesivir group and 11.9% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.55. 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.83). The estimates how safe is propecia by day 29 were 11.4% and 15.2% in two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.73. 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03).

The between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to baseline severity (Table 2), with the largest difference seen among patients with a baseline ordinal score of 5 (hazard how safe is propecia ratio, 0.30. 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.64). Information on interactions of treatment with baseline ordinal score with respect to mortality is provided in Table how safe is propecia S11. Additional Secondary Outcomes Table 3.

Table 3 how safe is propecia. Additional Secondary how safe is propecia Outcomes. Patients in the remdesivir group had a shorter time to improvement of one or of two categories on the ordinal scale from baseline than patients in the placebo group (one-category improvement. Median, 7 how safe is propecia vs.

9 days. Rate ratio how safe is propecia for recovery, 1.23. 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.41. Two-category improvement how safe is propecia.

Median, 11 vs. 14 days how safe is propecia. Rate ratio, 1.29. 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.48) (Table how safe is propecia 3).

Patients in the remdesivir group had a shorter time to discharge or to a National Early Warning Score of 2 or lower than those in the placebo group (median, 8 days vs. 12 days how safe is propecia. Hazard ratio, 1.27. 95% CI, 1.10 how safe is propecia to 1.46).

The initial length of hospital stay was shorter in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group (median, 12 days vs. 17 days) how safe is propecia. 5% of patients in the remdesivir group were readmitted to the hospital, as compared with 3% in the placebo group. Among the how safe is propecia 913 patients receiving oxygen at enrollment, those in the remdesivir group continued to receive oxygen for fewer days than patients in the placebo group (median, 13 days vs.

21 days), and the incidence of new oxygen use among patients how safe is propecia who were not receiving oxygen at enrollment was lower in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group (incidence, 36% [95% CI, 26 to 47] vs. 44% [95% CI, 33 to 57]). For the 193 patients receiving noninvasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen at enrollment, the median duration of use of these interventions was 6 days in both the remdesivir and placebo how safe is propecia groups. Among the 573 patients who were not receiving noninvasive ventilation, high-flow oxygen, invasive ventilation, or ECMO at baseline, the incidence of new noninvasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen use was lower in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group (17% [95% CI, 13 to 22] vs.

24% [95% how safe is propecia CI, 19 to 30]). Among the 285 patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment, patients in the remdesivir group received these interventions for fewer subsequent days than those in the placebo group (median, 17 days vs. 20 days), and the incidence of new mechanical ventilation or ECMO use among the 766 patients who were not receiving these interventions at enrollment was lower in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group (13% [95% CI, 10 to 17] how safe is propecia vs. 23% [95% CI, 19 to 27]) (Table 3).

Safety Outcomes In the as-treated population, serious adverse events occurred in 131 of 532 patients (24.6%) in the remdesivir group how safe is propecia and in 163 of 516 patients (31.6%) in the placebo group (Table S17). There were 47 serious respiratory failure adverse events in the remdesivir group (8.8% of patients), including acute respiratory failure and the need for endotracheal intubation, and 80 in the placebo group (15.5% of patients) (Table S19). No deaths were considered by the investigators to how safe is propecia be related to treatment assignment. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred on or before day 29 in 273 patients (51.3%) in the remdesivir group and in 295 (57.2%) in the placebo group (Table S18).

41 events were judged by the investigators to be related to remdesivir and 47 events how safe is propecia to placebo (Table S17). The most common nonserious adverse events occurring in at least 5% of all patients included decreased glomerular filtration rate, decreased hemoglobin level, decreased lymphocyte count, respiratory failure, anemia, pyrexia, hyperglycemia, increased blood creatinine level, and increased blood glucose level (Table S20). The incidence of these adverse events was generally similar in the remdesivir how safe is propecia and placebo groups. Crossover After the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the preliminary primary analysis report be provided to the sponsor, data on a total of 51 patients (4.8% of the total study enrollment) — 16 (3.0%) in the remdesivir group and 35 (6.7%) in the placebo group — were unblinded.

26 (74.3%) of those in the placebo group whose data how safe is propecia were unblinded were given remdesivir. Sensitivity analyses evaluating the unblinding (patients whose treatment assignments were unblinded had their data censored at the time of unblinding) and crossover (patients in the placebo group treated with remdesivir had their data censored at the initiation of remdesivir treatment) produced results similar to those of the primary analysis (Table S9)..

Patients Figure cost of propecia at walmart http://iciutah.com/levitra-cheapest-price/ 1. Figure 1 cost of propecia at walmart. Enrollment and Randomization. Of the cost of propecia at walmart 1114 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 1062 underwent randomization. 541 were assigned to the remdesivir group and 521 to the placebo group (intention-to-treat population) (Figure 1).

159 (15.0%) were categorized as having mild-to-moderate cost of propecia at walmart disease, and 903 (85.0%) were in the severe disease stratum. Of those assigned to receive remdesivir, 531 patients (98.2%) received the treatment as assigned. Fifty-two patients had remdesivir treatment discontinued before day 10 because of an adverse cost of propecia at walmart event or a serious adverse event other than death and 10 withdrew consent. Of those assigned to receive placebo, 517 patients (99.2%) received placebo as assigned. Seventy patients discontinued placebo before day 10 because of an adverse event or cost of propecia at walmart a serious adverse event other than death and 14 withdrew consent.

A total of 517 patients in the remdesivir group and 508 in the placebo group completed the trial through day 29, recovered, or died. Fourteen patients cost of propecia at walmart who received remdesivir and 9 who received placebo terminated their participation in the trial before day 29. A total of 54 of the patients who were in the mild-to-moderate stratum at randomization were subsequently determined to meet the criteria for severe disease, resulting in 105 patients in the mild-to-moderate disease stratum and 957 in the severe stratum. The as-treated population included 1048 patients who received the assigned treatment (532 in the cost of propecia at walmart remdesivir group, including one patient who had been randomly assigned to placebo and received remdesivir, and 516 in the placebo group). Table 1.

Table 1 cost of propecia at walmart. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of the Patients at Baseline. The mean age of the patients was 58.9 years, and 64.4% were male cost of propecia at walmart (Table 1). On the basis of the evolving epidemiology of hair loss treatment during the trial, 79.8% of patients were enrolled at sites in North America, 15.3% in Europe, and 4.9% in Asia (Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix). Overall, 53.3% of the patients were White, 21.3% were Black, 12.7% were Asian, and 12.7% were designated as other cost of propecia at walmart or not reported.

250 (23.5%) were Hispanic or cost of propecia at walmart Latino. Most patients had either one (25.9%) or two or more (54.5%) of the prespecified coexisting conditions at enrollment, most commonly hypertension (50.2%), obesity (44.8%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (30.3%). The median number of days between symptom onset and randomization was 9 (interquartile range, 6 to 12) (Table S2) cost of propecia at walmart. A total of 957 patients (90.1%) had severe disease at enrollment. 285 patients cost of propecia at walmart (26.8%) met category 7 criteria on the ordinal scale, 193 (18.2%) category 6, 435 (41.0%) category 5, and 138 (13.0%) category 4.

Eleven patients (1.0%) had missing ordinal scale data at enrollment. All these cost of propecia at walmart patients discontinued the study before treatment. During the study, 373 patients (35.6% of the 1048 patients in the as-treated population) received hydroxychloroquine and 241 (23.0%) received a glucocorticoid (Table S3). Primary Outcome cost of propecia at walmart Figure 2. Figure 2.

Kaplan–Meier Estimates of Cumulative cost of propecia at walmart Recoveries. Cumulative recovery estimates are shown in the overall population (Panel A), in patients with a baseline score of 4 on the ordinal scale (not receiving oxygen. Panel B), in those with a baseline score of cost of propecia at walmart 5 (receiving oxygen. Panel C), in those with a baseline score of 6 (receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive mechanical ventilation. Panel D), and in those with a baseline score of 7 (receiving cost of propecia at walmart mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO].

Panel E).Table 2. Table 2 cost of propecia at walmart. Outcomes Overall and According to Score on the Ordinal Scale in the Intention-to-Treat Population cost of propecia at walmart. Figure 3. Figure 3 cost of propecia at walmart.

Time to Recovery According to Subgroup. The widths of the confidence cost of propecia at walmart intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity and therefore cannot be used to infer treatment effects. Race and ethnic group were reported by the patients.Patients in the remdesivir group had a shorter time to recovery than patients in the placebo group (median, 10 days, as compared with 15 days. Rate ratio for recovery, cost of propecia at walmart 1.29. 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12 to 1.49.

P<0.001) (Figure cost of propecia at walmart 2 and Table 2). In the severe disease stratum (957 patients) the median time to recovery was 11 days, as compared with 18 days (rate ratio for recovery, 1.31. 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.52) (Table cost of propecia at walmart S4). The rate ratio for recovery was largest among patients with a baseline ordinal score of 5 (rate ratio for recovery, 1.45. 95% CI, cost of propecia at walmart 1.18 to 1.79).

Among patients with a baseline score of 4 and those with a baseline score of 6, the rate ratio estimates for recovery were 1.29 (95% CI, 0.91 to 1.83) and 1.09 (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.57), respectively. For those cost of propecia at walmart receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment (baseline ordinal score of 7), the rate ratio for recovery was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.36). Information on interactions of treatment with baseline ordinal score as a continuous variable is provided in Table S11. An analysis adjusting for baseline ordinal score as a covariate was conducted to evaluate the overall effect (of the percentage cost of propecia at walmart of patients in each ordinal score category at baseline) on the primary outcome. This adjusted analysis produced a similar treatment-effect estimate (rate ratio for recovery, 1.26.

95% CI, cost of propecia at walmart 1.09 to 1.46). Patients who underwent randomization during the first 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio cost of propecia at walmart for recovery of 1.37 (95% CI, 1.14 to 1.64), whereas patients who underwent randomization more than 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.20 (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.52) (Figure 3). The benefit of remdesivir was larger when given earlier in the illness, though the benefit persisted in most analyses of duration of symptoms (Table S6). Sensitivity analyses in which data cost of propecia at walmart were censored at earliest reported use of glucocorticoids or hydroxychloroquine still showed efficacy of remdesivir (9.0 days to recovery with remdesivir vs. 14.0 days to recovery with placebo.

Rate ratio, cost of propecia at walmart 1.28. 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.50, and 10.0 vs. 16.0 days cost of propecia at walmart to recovery. Rate ratio, 1.32. 95% CI, cost of propecia at walmart 1.11 to 1.58, respectively) (Table S8).

Key Secondary Outcome The odds of improvement in the ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, as determined by a proportional odds model at the day 15 visit, than in the placebo group (odds ratio for improvement, 1.5. 95% CI, 1.2 to cost of propecia at walmart 1.9, adjusted for disease severity) (Table 2 and Fig. S7). Mortality Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by day 15 were 6.7% in the remdesivir group and 11.9% in the placebo group cost of propecia at walmart (hazard ratio, 0.55. 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.83).

The estimates by day 29 were 11.4% and 15.2% in two groups, respectively (hazard cost of propecia at walmart ratio, 0.73. 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). The between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to baseline severity (Table 2), with the cost of propecia at walmart largest difference seen among patients with a baseline ordinal score of 5 (hazard ratio, 0.30. 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.64). Information on interactions of treatment with baseline ordinal cost of propecia at walmart score with respect to mortality is provided in Table S11.

Additional Secondary Outcomes Table 3. Table 3 cost of propecia at walmart. Additional Secondary cost of propecia at walmart Outcomes. Patients in the remdesivir group had a shorter time to improvement of one or of two categories on the ordinal scale from baseline than patients in the placebo group (one-category improvement. Median, 7 cost of propecia at walmart vs.

9 days. Rate ratio for cost of propecia at walmart recovery, 1.23. 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.41. Two-category improvement cost of propecia at walmart. Median, 11 vs.

14 days cost of propecia at walmart. Rate ratio, 1.29. 95% CI, 1.12 to cost of propecia at walmart 1.48) (Table 3). Patients in the remdesivir group had a shorter time to discharge or to a National Early Warning Score of 2 or lower than those in the placebo group (median, 8 days vs. 12 days cost of propecia at walmart.

Hazard ratio, 1.27. 95% CI, 1.10 to cost of propecia at walmart 1.46). The initial length of hospital stay was shorter in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group (median, 12 days vs. 17 days) cost of propecia at walmart. 5% of patients in the remdesivir group were readmitted to the hospital, as compared with 3% in the placebo group.

Among the 913 patients receiving oxygen at enrollment, those in cost of propecia at walmart the remdesivir group continued to receive oxygen for fewer days than patients in the placebo group (median, 13 days vs. 21 days), and the incidence of new oxygen use among patients who were not receiving oxygen at enrollment was lower in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group (incidence, 36% [95% CI, 26 to 47] cost of propecia at walmart vs. 44% [95% CI, 33 to 57]). For the 193 patients receiving noninvasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen at enrollment, the median duration of cost of propecia at walmart use of these interventions was 6 days in both the remdesivir and placebo groups. Among the 573 patients who were not receiving noninvasive ventilation, high-flow oxygen, invasive ventilation, or ECMO at baseline, the incidence of new noninvasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen use was lower in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group (17% [95% CI, 13 to 22] vs.

24% [95% cost of propecia at walmart CI, 19 to 30]). Among the 285 patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment, patients in the remdesivir group received these interventions for fewer subsequent days than those in the placebo group (median, 17 days vs. 20 days), and the incidence of new mechanical ventilation or ECMO use among the 766 patients who were not receiving these interventions at enrollment was lower in the remdesivir group cost of propecia at walmart than in the placebo group (13% [95% CI, 10 to 17] vs. 23% [95% CI, 19 to 27]) (Table 3). Safety Outcomes In the as-treated population, serious adverse events occurred in 131 of 532 patients (24.6%) in the remdesivir group and in cost of propecia at walmart 163 of 516 patients (31.6%) in the placebo group (Table S17).

There were 47 serious respiratory failure adverse events in the remdesivir group (8.8% of patients), including acute respiratory failure and the need for endotracheal intubation, and 80 in the placebo group (15.5% of patients) (Table S19). No deaths cost of propecia at walmart were considered by the investigators to be related to treatment assignment. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred on or before day 29 in 273 patients (51.3%) in the remdesivir group and in 295 (57.2%) in the placebo group (Table S18). 41 events were judged by the investigators to be related to remdesivir and 47 events to cost of propecia at walmart placebo (Table S17). The most common nonserious adverse events occurring in at least 5% of all patients included decreased glomerular filtration rate, decreased hemoglobin level, decreased lymphocyte count, respiratory failure, anemia, pyrexia, hyperglycemia, increased blood creatinine level, and increased blood glucose level (Table S20).

The incidence of these adverse events was generally similar in the cost of propecia at walmart remdesivir and placebo groups. Crossover After the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the preliminary primary analysis report be provided to the sponsor, data on a total of 51 patients (4.8% of the total study enrollment) — 16 (3.0%) in the remdesivir group and 35 (6.7%) in the placebo group — were unblinded. 26 (74.3%) of those in the placebo group whose data cost of propecia at walmart were unblinded were given remdesivir. Sensitivity analyses evaluating the unblinding (patients whose treatment assignments were unblinded had their data censored at the time of unblinding) and crossover (patients in the placebo group treated with remdesivir had their data censored at the initiation of remdesivir treatment) produced results similar to those of the primary analysis (Table S9)..

Propecia for women

As flu season creeps up on the Northern propecia for women Hemisphere, cold and flu relief medications will inevitably fly off Where to buy flagyl in uk store shelves. A natural remedy that shoppers might reach for is elderberry, a small, blackish-purple fruit that companies turn into syrups, lozenges and gummies. Though therapeutic uses of the berry date back propecia for women centuries, Michael Macknin, a pediatrician at the Cleveland Clinic, hadn’t heard of using elderberry to treat the flu until a patient’s mother asked him about it. Some industry-sponsored research claims that the herbal remedy could cut the length of the symptoms by up to four days. For a comparison, Tamiflu, an FDA-approved propecia for women treatment, only reduces flu duration by about a single day.

€œI said, 'Gee, if that’s really true [about elderberry], it would be a huge benefit,'” Macknin says. But the effectiveness and safety of elderberry is still fairly unclear. Unlike the over-the-counter medicines at your local pharmacy, elderberry hasn't been through rigorous FDA testing propecia for women and approval. However, Macknin and his team recently published a study in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, which found that elderberry treatments did nothing for flu patients. This prompts a need for further studies into the remedy — work propecia for women that unfortunately stands a low chance of happening in the future, Macknin says.

Looking For ProofElderberries are full of chemicals that could be good for your health. Like similar fruits, the berries contain high levels of antioxidants, propecia for women compounds that shut down reactions in our bodies that damage cells. But whether or not elderberry's properties also help immune systems fend off a propecia is murky. There are only a handful of studies that have examined if elderberries reduced the severity or duration of the flu. And though some of the work prior to Macknin’s was well-designed and supported this herbal remedy as a helpful flu aid, at least propecia for women some — and potentially all — of those studies were funded by elderberry treatment manufacturers.Macknin says an elderberry supplement company provided his team with their products and a placebo version for free, but that the company wasn’t involved in the research beyond that.

Macknin's study is the largest one conducted on elderberry to date, with 87 influenza patients completing the entire treatment course. Participants in the study were also welcome to take propecia for women Tamiflu, for ethical reasons, as the team didn’t want to exclude anyone from taking a proven flu therapy. Additionally, each participant took home either a bottle of elderberry syrup or the placebo with instructions on when and how to take it. The research team called participants every day for a symptom check and to remind them to take their medication.By chance, it turned out that a higher percentage of the patients given elderberry syrup had gotten their flu shot and also chose to take Tamiflu propecia for women. Since the vaccination can reduce the severity of in recipients who still come down with the flu, the study coincidentally operated in favor of those who took the herbal remedy, Macknin says.

Those patients could have dealt with a shorter, less-intense illness because of the Tamiflu and vaccination. €œEverything was stacked to have it turn out better [for the elderberry group],” Macknin says, “and it turned out the same.” The researchers found no difference in illness duration or severity between the elderberry and placebo groups propecia for women. While analyzing the data, the team also found that those on the herbal treatment might have actually fared worse than those on the placebo. The potential for this intervention to actually harm instead of help influenza patients explains why Macknin thinks the therapy needs further research.But, don't expect that work to happen propecia for women any time soon. Researchers are faced with a number of challenges when it comes to studying the efficacy of herbal remedies.

For starters, there's little financial incentive to investigate if propecia for women they actually work. Plant products are challenging to patent, making them less lucrative prospects for pharmaceutical companies or research organizations to investigate. Additionally, investigations that try and prove a proposed therapy as an effective drug — like the one Macknin and his team accomplished — are expensive, Macknin says. Those projects need FDA oversight and additional propecia for women paperwork, components that drive up study costs. €œIt’s extraordinarily expensive and there’s no money in it for anybody,” Macknin says.Talk To Your DoctorUltimately, research on elderberry therapies for flu patients is a mixed bag, and deserves more attention from scientists.

However, if you propecia for women still want to discuss elderberry treatments for the flu with your doctor, that’s a conversation you should feel comfortable having, says Erica McIntyre, an expert focused on health and environmental psychology in the School of Public Health at the University of Technology Sydney. Navigating what research says about a particular herbal medicine is challenging for patients and health practitioners alike. The process propecia for women is made more complex by the range of similar-sounding products on the market that lack standardized ingredients, McIntyre says. But when doctors judge or shame patients for asking about non-conventional healthcare interventions, the response can distance people and push them closer to potentially unproven treatments. Even worse, those individuals might start to keep their herbal remedies a secret.

€œIt is that fear about being judged for use of that medication,” McIntyre says, that drives up to 50 percent of people taking herbal treatments to withhold propecia for women that information from healthcare practitioners. That’s a dangerous choice, as some herbal and traditional medications can interact and cause health problems.If a physician shames someone for asking about alternative medicines, it’s likely time to find a new doctor, McIntyre says. Look for someone who will listen to your concerns — whether it's that you feel traditional treatments propecia for women haven’t worked for you, or that you didn’t like the side effects, the two common reasons people pursue herbal treatments in the first place. €œYou’re not necessarily looking for a doctor that will let you do whatever you want,” McIntyre says, “but that they actually consider you as a patient, your treatment choices and your treatment priorities, and communicate in a way that’s supportive.” And if a doctor suggests that you avoid a treatment you’re interested in, ask why. They generally have a good reason, McIntyre says.For now, know that even if your doctor doesn’t support you taking elderberry, there are other proven preventative measures that are worth your while — like the flu shot.

Anyone six months or older should get it, Macknin says, and stick propecia for women to the protocols we’re used to following to prevent hair loss treatment s, like social distancing, mask-wearing and hand-washing. Those measures also help prevent flu transmission, too — something, so far, no elderberry supplement package can claim.The yearly influenza season threatens to make the hair loss treatment propecia doubly deadly, but I believe that this isn’t inevitable.There are two commonly given treatments – the pneumococcal treatment and the Hib treatment – that protect against bacterial pneumonias. These bacteria complicate both influenza and hair loss treatment, often leading to propecia for women death. My examination of disease trends and vaccination rates leads me to believe that broader use of the pneumococcal and Hib treatments could guard against the worst effects of a hair loss treatment illness.I am an immunologist and physiologist interested in the effects of combined s on immunity. I have reached my propecia for women insight by juxtaposing two seemingly unrelated puzzles.

Infants and children get hair loss, the propecia that causes hair loss treatment, but very rarely become hospitalized or die. And case numbers and death rates from hair loss treatment began varying greatly from nation to nation and city to city even before lockdowns began. I wondered why.One night I woke up with a possible propecia for women answer. Vaccination rates. Most children, beginning at age two months, are vaccinated against numerous propecia for women diseases.

Adults less so. And, both infant and adult vaccination rates vary widely across propecia for women the world. Could differences in the rates of vaccination against one or more diseases account for differences in hair loss treatment risks?. As someone who had previously investigated other propecias such as the Great Flu propecia of 1918-19 and AIDS, and who has worked with treatments, I had a strong background for tracking down the relevant data to test my hypothesis.Pneumococcal Vaccination Rates Correlate With Lower hair loss treatment Cases and DeathsI gathered national and some local data on vaccination rates against influenza, polio, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP), tuberculosis (BCG), pneumococci and Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib). I correlated them with hair loss treatment case rates and death rates for 24 nations that had experienced their hair loss treatment propecia for women outbreaks at about the same time.

I controlled for factors such as percentage of the population who were obese, diabetic or elderly.I found that only pneumococcal treatments afforded statistically significant protection against hair loss treatment. Nations such as Spain, Italy, Belgium, Brazil, Peru and Chile that have the highest hair loss treatment rates per million have the poorest pneumococcal vaccination rates among both propecia for women infants and adults. Nations with the lowest rates of hair loss treatment – Japan, Korea, Denmark, Australia and New Zealand – have the highest rates of pneumococcal vaccination among both infants and adults.A recent preprint study (not yet peer-reviewed) from researchers at the Mayo Clinic has also reported very strong associations between pneumococcal vaccination and protection against hair loss treatment. This is especially true among minority patients propecia for women who are bearing the brunt of the hair loss propecia. The report also suggests that other treatments, or combinations of treatments, such as Hib and MMR may also provide protection.These results are important because in the U.S., childhood vaccination against pneumococci – which protects against Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria – varies by state from 74% to 92%.

Although the CDC recommends that all adults 18-64 in high risk groups for hair loss treatment and all adults over the age of 65 get a pneumococcal vaccination, only 23% of high-risk adults and 64% of those over the age of 65 do so.Similarly, although the CDC recommends at all infants and some high-risk adults be vaccinated against Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib), only 80.7% of children in the U.S. And a handful of propecia for women immunologically compromised adults have been. Pneumococcal and Hib vaccination rates are significantly lower in minority populations in the U.S. And in countries that have been hit harder by hair loss treatment than the U.S.Based on these data, I advocate universal propecia for women pneumococcal and Hib vaccination among children, at-risk adults and all adults over 65 to prevent serious hair loss treatment disease.Left. Combined rates of childhood and adult (over 65) pneumococcal vaccination (out of a possible 200).

Right. Cases (per million) population of hair loss treatment at about 90 days into the propecia for 24 nations. Nations with high pneumococcal vaccination rates have low hair loss treatment case rates. (Credit. CC BY-SA)How Pneumococcal Vaccination Protects Against hair loss treatmentProtection against serious hair loss treatment disease by pneumococcal and Hib treatments makes sense for several reasons.

First, recent studies reveal that the majority of hospitalized hair loss treatment patients, and in some studies nearly all, are infected with streptococci, which causes pneumococcal pneumonias, Hib or other pneumonia-causing bacteria. Pneumococcal and Hib vaccinations should protect hair loss patients from these s and thus significantly cut the risk of serious pneumonia.I also found that pneumococcal, Hib and possibly rubella treatments may confer specific protection against the hair loss propecia that causes hair loss treatment by means of “molecular mimicry.”Molecular mimicry occurs when the immune system thinks one microbe looks like another. In this case, proteins found in pneumococcal treatments and, to a lesser degree, ones found in Hib and rubella treatments as well look like several proteins produced by the hair loss propecia.Two of these proteins found in pneumococcal treatments mimic the spike and membrane proteins that permit the propecia to infect cells. This suggests pneumococcal vaccination may prevent hair loss . Two other mimics are the nucleoprotein and replicase that control propecia replication.

These proteins are made after viral , in which case pneumococcal vaccination may control, but not prevent, hair loss replication.Either way, these treatments may provide proxy protection against hair loss that we can implement right now, even before we have a specific propecia treatment. Such protection may not be complete. People might still suffer a weakened version of hair loss treatment but, like most infants and children, be protected against the worst effects of the .Fighting Influenza-related Pneumonias During the hair loss treatment propeciaWhile the specific protection these other treatments confer against hair loss treatment has not yet been tested in a clinical trial, I advocate broader implementation of pneumococcal and Hib vaccination for one additional, well-validated reason.Pneumococcal and Hib pneumonias – both caused by bacteria – are the major causes of death following viral influenza. The influenza propecia rarely causes death directly. Most often, the propecia makes the lungs more susceptible to bacterial pneumonias, which are deadly.

Dozens of studies around the world have demonstrated that increasing rates of pneumococcal and Hib vaccination dramatically lowers influenza-related pneumonias.Similar studies demonstrate that the price of using these treatments is balanced by savings due to lower rates of influenza-related hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions and deaths. In the context of hair loss treatment, lowering rates of influenza-related hospitalizations and ICU admissions would free up resources to fight the hair loss, independent of any effect these treatments might have on hair loss itself. In my opinion, that is a winning scenario.In short, we need not wait for a hair loss treatment to slow down hair loss treatment.I believe that we can and should act now by fighting the hair loss with all the tools at our disposal, including influenza, Hib, pneumococcal and perhaps rubella vaccinations.Preventing pneumococcal and Hib complications of influenza and hair loss treatment, and perhaps proxy-vaccinating against hair loss itself, helps everyone. Administering these already available and well-tested pneumococcal and Hib treatments to people will save money by freeing up hospital beds and ICUs. It will also improve public health by reducing the spread of multiple s and boost the economy by nurturing a healthier population.Robert Root-Bernstein is a Professor of Physiology at Michigan State University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation under a Creative Commons liscense Read the original here.This story appeared in the November 2020 issue as "Bacteria and the Brain." Subscribe to Discover magazine for more stories like this.It’s not always easy to convince people that the human gut is a sublime and wondrous place worthy of special attention. Sarkis Mazmanian discovered that soon after arriving at Caltech for his first faculty job 14 years ago, when he explained to a local artist what he had in mind for the walls outside his new office.The resulting mural greets visitors to the Mazmanian Lab today. A vaguely psychedelic, 40-foot-long, tube-shaped colon that’s pink, purple and red snakes down the hallway. In a panel next to it, fluorescent yellow and green bacteria explode out of a deeply inflamed section of the intestinal tract, like radioactive lava from outer space.The mural is modest compared with what the scientist has been working on since. Over the last decade or so, Mazmanian has been a leading proponent of the idea that the flora of the human digestive tract has a far more powerful effect on the human body and mind than we thought — a scientific effort that earned him a $500,000 MacArthur Fellowship “Genius Grant” in 2012.

Since then, Mazmanian and a small but growing cadre of fellow microbiologists have amassed a tantalizing body of evidence on the microbiome’s role in all kinds of brain disorders, including schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and depression.But the results they’ve seen in autism could, in the end, prove the most transformative. Autism affects about 1 in 59 children in the U.S., and involves profound social withdrawal, communication problems, and sometimes anxiety and aggression. The causes of the brain disorder have remained speculative. Now, Mazmanian and other researchers are finding that autism may be inextricably linked to — or even caused by — irregularities in the gut microbiome.A Biology StoryAt 47, Mazmanian — with his shaved head, flannel shirt and skinny jeans — resembles a young, urban hipster on his way to write at the local café. Originally, literary life was his plan.

Born in Lebanon to two Armenian refugees, neither of whom had more than a first-grade education, Mazmanian landed in the class of an energetic high school English teacher in California’s San Fernando Valley, where his family first settled. The teacher recognized his gift for language and encouraged him to pursue a career in literature. Mazmanian enrolled at UCLA in 1990, planning to major in English.Everything changed when he took his first biology class. Hunched over his new, thick textbook in the library, reading about basic biological concepts like photosynthesis, Mazmanian felt a vast new world opening up to him.Sarkis Mazmanian, shown in front of a mural that celebrates the human gut, is part of a group of microbiologists researching the effects of the digestive tract on a range of disorders. (Credit.

Caltech)“For the first time in my life, I wanted to turn the page and see where the story was going to go,” he says. €œI think I decided that minute to become a scientist.”Mazmanian was most fascinated by the idea that tiny organisms, invisible to the naked eye, could function as powerful, self-contained machines — powerful enough to take over and destroy the human body. After graduating with a degree in microbiology, Mazmanian joined a UCLA infectious diseases lab and began studying bacteria that cause staph s.As his dissertation defense approached, Mazmanian read a one-page commentary penned by a prominent microbiologist, highlighting the fact that our intestines are teeming with hundreds, if not thousands, of different species of bacteria. But it was still largely unknown what they are and how they affect the human body.When Mazmanian dug further, he found that no one had yet answered what seemed to him to be the most obvious question. Why would the human immune system, designed to attack and destroy foreign invaders, allow hundreds of species of bacteria to live and thrive in our guts unmolested?.

To him, the bacteria’s survival implied that we had evolved to coexist with them. And if that were so, he reasoned, there must be some benefit to both the microbes and the human body — a symbiotic relationship. But what was it?. Gut InvadersMazmanian set out to study the link between gut microbes and the immune system. As a postdoctoral researcher, he joined the lab of Harvard University infectious disease specialist Dennis Kasper.To start, Mazmanian examined how the immune systems of germ-free mice — lab mice completely protected, starting at birth, from all microbes — differed from those of mice with either few or normal levels of microbes.

He expected this initial census would be just a first step in a long and arduous quest for scientific pay dirt. But when he went to examine a printout of his results in the lab, he realized immediately he might already be onto something big. The germ-free mice had a 30 to 40 percent reduction in a specific type of immune cell known as helper T-cells.This colorized close-up of a mouse’s gut reveals the tight relationship between the gut microbe Bacteroides fragilis (red) and the epithelial surface of the colon (blue). (Credit. Caltech)Since helper T-cells play a key role in coordinating attacks against invading pathogens, the finding suggested that the immune systems of the germ-free mice were far less robust than those found in peers with normal levels of microbes.“That was exciting, right?.

€ Mazmanian recalls. €œObviously I repeated it and tested it in a number of different ways. Then I asked the next question. €˜Can I restore the [immune] function in an adult animal?. €™â€‰â€Mazmanian colonized the guts of the immunocompromised, germ-free mice with microbes from standard lab mice.

After receiving the fecal transplant, their T-cell counts shot up. Within a month, their numbers were identical to mice raised outside the germ-free bubble.Resolving to identify the microorganisms causing this transformation, Mazmanian resorted to trial and error. One by one, he added strains of bacteria found in the guts of mice to the guts of germ-free mice.He got nowhere with the first five or six species he examined. Then, simply because it was convenient, he decided to test one more that was readily available in his lab. Mazmanian’s adviser, Kasper, had been studying a gut microbe called Bacteroides fragilis.

When Mazmanian implanted one of Kasper’s specimens into the gut of his germ-free mice, the results were dramatic. The T-cell numbers spiked to normal. Eventually, Mazmanian demonstrated he could reproduce this effect simply by adding a single molecule that these bacteria produce, called polysaccharide A, to their guts.“There was no logic in the choice whatsoever,” Mazmanian recalls. €œ[B. Fragilis] was available, it came from the gut.” In other words, he got lucky.Mazmanian dug deeper and discovered that the biggest impact B.

Fragilis had was on the population of a subtype of helper T-cells called regulatory, or suppressor, T-cells. These cells play a key role in preventing the immune system from attacking its host body, protecting against autoimmune or inflammatory diseases. It was the first time any scientist had demonstrated that a single compound from a single microbe could reverse a specific problem with the immune system.To Mazmanian, the finding, published in 2005 in the journal Cell, alluded to new approaches to treating a wide array of autoimmune, inflammatory and allergic disorders. What if it were possible to help a faulty immune system by tweaking a patient’s microbiome?. It was with this exploration in mind that he arrived in Pasadena in 2006 to set up his lab at Caltech.A Convenient CollaborationA few years later, Mazmanian was having lunch on campus with neuroscientist and colleague Paul Patterson.

Patterson had been preoccupied with a mystery that had, for years, confounded those studying autism in humans. When pregnant mothers have a severe in the second trimester, their babies are much more likely to develop autism.As Mazmanian tells it, Patterson was a man of few words, and at lunch Mazmanian was “going on and on” about his own work.“You know,” Patterson interjected thoughtfully, “I think kids with autism have GI issues.”Patterson recalled reading that something like 60 percent of children with autism had some form of clinical GI problem, such as bloating, constipation, flatulence or diarrhea. Was it possible, he wondered, that there was a microbiome connection?. As they talked, Mazmanian’s excitement grew.A few years earlier, Patterson had discovered that when he exposed pregnant mice to pathogens like the influenza propecia, they gave birth to pups that grew up more likely to be startled by loud noises, to shy away from social contact and to groom themselves repetitively — symptoms that resemble those of autism. Patterson was in the process of comparing the brains of these autism-mimicking mice with their neurotypical cousins to see if he could detect any differences that might explain how the maternal immune system was somehow interfering with the pups’ brain development.Mazmanian had a suggestion.

The next time Patterson sacrificed one of his autistic mice to study their brains, what if he set the intestines aside for his colleague down the hall?. When the guts arrived in Mazmanian’s lab, he found that the intestines of the neurotypical mice looked normal. But the guts of the autism-mimicking offspring were almost uniformly inflamed. Could it be that the microbiome was the cause of this inflammation?. And could that, in turn, be somehow connected to the behavioral symptoms?.

Throughout the winter and spring of 2012, Mazmanian and Patterson continued their conversation. Mazmanian found distinct differences in the microbiomes of the mice. And, they noticed, the mice with the features of autism had leaky gut syndrome, an increased permeability of the gut lining that can allow pathogens and allergens to leach out. This condition had also been reported in children with autism.So Mazmanian and Patterson turned their attention outside the gut. They took blood samples to see if any gut microbes, or the compounds they produce, were circulating in the rest of the body.

They homed in on one molecule in particular, called 4-ethylphenyl sulfate, which was roughly 45 times as abundant in the mice that had symptoms of autism. And it looked familiar. Structurally, it was almost identical to a molecule recently found to be significantly elevated in human children with autism.It was enough to take the next step. Every day for three weeks, Mazmanian injected the molecule, harvested from the mice with autism-like symptoms, directly into the bloodstream of 5-week-old normal lab mice (the age at which the autistic mice normally developed leaky gut). Then Mazmanian and his team gave them a series of behavioral tests.

The mice were far more easily startled and were less comfortable in large empty spaces than their untreated peers, indications of an increase in anxiety-related behaviors commonly seen in the mice with autism-like symptoms. The researchers published their results in Cell in 2013.Though surprising, the data made sense in some ways. Many drug companies rely on small-molecule drugs that can be taken orally, but still manage to cross the blood-brain barrier and affect behavior. It seemed entirely possible that small molecules, created by bacteria in the gut, could enter the bloodstream and reach the brain. And they don’t even have to leak out of the gut to do so.Of Mice and MenPatterson died in 2014, at age 70, just six months after the publication of the duo’s groundbreaking Cell paper.

Around the same time, a series of parallel experiments in a clinic hundreds of miles away was already paving the way forward. While Patterson and Mazmanian had been working in mice, Rosa Krajmalnik-Brown, a microbiologist at Arizona State University, had teamed up with Jim Adams, who directs the university’s autism and Asperger’s research program, to study humans.The researchers were conducting a detailed analysis of the microbiome of human autism patients and found that the bacteria were far less diverse in the children with autism. Notably, several important species involved in the digestion of carbohydrates were severely depleted.Krajmalnik-Brown and Adams launched a preliminary trial to test the effects of fecal transplants on 18 children between the ages of 7 and 16 with severe autism, who also had severe GI issues. The researchers administered powerful antibiotics to kill off the microbiomes of the children and followed them with a bowel cleanse. They then replaced the microbes with transplanted flora taken from the guts of healthy neurotypical adult volunteers.The results were better than anyone could have expected.

The procedure resulted in a large reduction in GI symptoms and increased the diversity of bacteria in the children’s guts. But more significantly, their neurological symptoms were reduced. At the onset of the study in 2017, an independent evaluator found 83 percent of participants had severe autism. Two years after the initial trial, only 17 percent were rated as severely autistic. And 44 percent were no longer on the autism scale.“[My child] did a complete 180,” says Dana Woods, whose then-7-year-old son Ethan enrolled in the initial study five years ago.

€œHis ability to communicate is so much different now. He’s just so much more present. He’s so much more aware. He’s no longer in occupational therapy. He’s no longer in speech therapy.

After the study, he tested two points away from a neurotypical child.”In their first report on the trial in 2017, the team highlighted a number of distinct changes in the microbiome after the transplants, in particular a surge in the populations of three types of bacteria. Among them was a four-fold increase in Bifidobacterium, a probiotic organism that seems to play a key role in the maintenance of a healthy gut.But figuring out what was happening on a cellular level — to really look inside some guts — would require another vehicle. The ASU team needed Mazmanian’s mice.“At the end of the day, what we care about is healing people and how the microbiome affects people,” explains Krajmalnik-Brown. €œThat’s why we work with people. But with mice you can do things that are more mechanistic.”The Great Mouse Detective(Credit.

Caltech)Together, Krajmalnik-Brown, Mazmanian and their collaborators would uncover some tantalizing new insights that go a long way to solving the mystery. In May 2019, the team published another high-profile paper in Cell, after they transplanted stool samples from Krajmalnik-Brown’s severely autistic patients into the guts of Mazmanian’s germ-free mice. The offspring of these mice showed the autism-like symptoms, such as repetitive and compulsive behavior.This time, the team dug even deeper into the biochemical processes playing out in the brain, looking not just at behavior but at the chemicals involved in creating it. The mice that developed autism-like behaviors had measurably lower levels of two substances called taurine and 5-aminovaleric acid (5AV). When they dug into the literature, the team learned that these two substances are known to mimic activity of a key signaling agent in the brain called gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) — a neurotransmitter that other studies have found is deficient in the brains of children with autism.What’s more, some have speculated that the tendency of children with autism to experience sensory overstimulation may stem from the inability to tamp down overexcited neurons.

A lack of GABA could lead to just that.The scientists next orally administered high levels of taurine and 5AV to pregnant mice with the autistic children’s microbiomes. When their pups were born, the researchers continued to feed the young the substances until they reached adulthood. Compared with untreated animals, the second-generation mice had significantly fewer behavioral symptoms. Taurine reduced repetitive behavior, as measured by marble burying, increased the level of social interaction, and relieved anxiety. Mice administered 5AV were more active and social.“We healed humans with behavioral problems,” says Krajmalnik-Brown.

€œ[And we] transferred some of those deficits and behaviors to mice — basically the opposite. It’s huge.”Mazmanian hopes to take the next step in the months ahead.“I can flip a switch, turn on a light, I know that switch turns on that light. I don’t know the circuit, I don’t know where the wire is,” Mazmanian says. €œExactly how that’s happening … we just don’t understand that.”This most recent study, by itself, hardly proves that dysregulated microbiomes cause the brain disorder — a point that plenty of other scientists skeptical of Mazmanian’s work are happy to make.“The paper made a big splash, but trying to model psychiatric-related human conditions in mice, in my view, is a little bit of a stretch,” says Sangram Sisodia, a neurobiologist at the University of Chicago who studies the microbiome. €œA mouse with autism?.

€Nor was that the only criticism. Several researchers have suggested that the group didn’t give proper attention to one of their tests ­— one whose results conflicted with their thesis ­— while others found flaws in the statistical methods they used to assess their results. Mazmanian downplays these criticisms, but agrees the work is not yet conclusive.Meanwhile, the ASU trial has also engendered skepticism, mainly due to its tiny sample size, the lack of a control group and the methods by which the children were assessed for autism severity. Krajmalnik-Brown and Adams say they stand by their results, but agree more research is needed. In recent months, they have launched two new studies that will address these issues.Adams insists the work is already changing lives.

€œWe followed up with every one of our 18 participants,” he says, referring to the children who received fecal transplants. €œSure enough, we found that most of the GI benefits had remained. And family after family said their child just slowly, steadily continued making more improvement.” They published the update in Scientific Reports in spring 2019.“I’m not ready to say the case is closed,” says Mazmanian. €œHealthy skepticism is a good thing. I believe the preclinical data, I believe the mouse data.

But there’s a lot of studies that still need to be done.” A Healthy Gut, A New OutlookEthan Woods had GI issues and symptoms of autism until researchers introduced new microbes to his gut. His mother says the treatment changed everything. (Credit. Dana Woods)Prior to his fecal transplant at age 7, Ethan Woods suffered from chronic and severe diarrhea, constipation and cramping, symptoms so extreme that to his mother, Dana, he sounded like “a bit like a woman in labor when he was trying to have a bowel movement.” “It was just awful watching your child go through this,” she says, explaining that when she enrolled her autistic son in the Arizona State study, her “only goal was to fix his gut.”Remarkably, Ethan’s agony began to disappear just a few weeks into the trial. But that was not the most dramatic difference.

Before the transplant, Ethan’s speech was drawn out and slow, his language skills rudimentary. He seemed to live in his own bubble. He had frequent outbursts. For as long as Dana could remember, her mornings with Ethan had been marked by arguing, fighting, pushing and anger. But then one morning, something shocking happened.“He woke me up one morning with his face right in my face with this big smile and he said, ‘Morning, Mom!.

€™â€‰â€ she recalls. €œAnd he was just excited and happy and ready to go about his day with this big smile. It choked me up to the point where I teared up because I had never experienced a happy kid in the morning.”Later, Ethan carried over an iPad and opened an app with a talking cat that repeats back the words children speak aloud. He played back a video recording of himself from just a few weeks earlier.“[He] looks me in the eye and says, ‘Mom, why did I talk like that?. What is wrong with me?.

€™ And as soon as he did that, I caught my breath. I had to compose myself and say, ‘I don’t know. But do you feel better?. Do you feel different?. Why do you think?.

€™â€‰â€Ethan’s communication skills had already begun to improve. Within a year of the study, his speech therapist graduated him from speech therapy because he had met all his goals.“He went from one end of the rainbow all the way to the other end of the rainbow,” she says. €œPrior to the study, I was very afraid. My biggest fear was ‘how is he going to navigate the world when I’m not here?. €™ And I think I have a lot of hope now that he is going to be OK now on his own.”There’s something strange about the female orgasm, something that scientists have been unable to explain.

Biological functions are normally discussed in terms of evolutionary pressure, or reproductive advantage. If a biological trait improves your chances of having more offspring, then it’s more likely to stick around in your species. The male orgasm makes perfect sense — ejaculate contains the genetic material that’s necessary for making babies. But the female orgasm has been harder to nail down. Fertilization doesn’t depend on it, and “fun” isn’t exactly in the pantheon of evolutionary explanations.Researchers that study how the female orgasm relates to reproductive success have two main options — either ask people invasive questions about their most personal moments, or to find a way to stick probes in or on them during said moments.

Neither of these approaches have resulted in the kind of “wet lab” research that’s the gold standard for biological understanding.What we do know, despite widespread cultural discomfort with talking openly about sex and pleasure, is that there appears to be significant sexual dysfunction in American society. Back in 2014, researchers from the Kinsey Institute, the preeminent U.S. Academy for the study of sex and relationships, said as much. In a survey of nearly 3,000 people, they found that men, straight or gay, orgasmed 85 percent of the time during consensual sexual encounters. Lesbian women orgasmed less often, 75 percent of the time, while straight women fared worst with just a 60 percent chance of orgasm.

Other studies have shown that something like 10-15 percent of women experience lifelong anorgasmia, meaning they’ve never experienced orgasm. A further 40 percent of women report some kind of inability to reach orgasm in the past year.The orgasm gap is hard to explain. Some think that it comes down to straight men’s finesse, or lack thereof, citing the difference between straight and lesbian satisfaction. Indeed, it makes sense that knowing your way around the territory would help. But for many couples this isn’t a helpful revelation, since the emotional maturity necessary to teach sexual dexterity is often out of reach.

Shortcut to SatisfactionLuckily, we live in an era of Silicon Valley disruption, which has even started lapping at the shores of sex research. Technologist Liz Klinger is at the forefront of this transition. She and her team have built a platform that lets people become citizen scientists of sex —without ever having to get out from between the sheets.About a decade ago, Klinger’s company, Lioness, released what they billed as the first “smart vibrator,” a sex toy that could actually learn about you. The final product was a far cry from the first prototype, which was much more laboratory object than sex toy.The “test device was this whole mess of wires, with a hard connection. We had to physically send it to our beta testers, who used it and sent it back,” recalls Klinger.

The researchers would download the data collected by the toy’s four sensors — temperature, motion, acceleration and pressure — and compile it into a chart that represented arousal and orgasm, as told through the story of pelvic-floor muscle contractions.It was an immediate success for sex partners who needed ways to talk about pleasure in a more objective way. Klinger recalled that when she got the first beta-test couple on the phone, “the wife was like ‘holy crap, we finally were able to talk about these things that I’ve had a lot of trouble talking about.’ It turned out that she wanted more foreplay, and he didn’t know quite that that meant. He’d spend more time, but it just didn’t match up, you know?. € With the company’s signature offering in hand — a chart of sexual arousal over time — Klinger found that couples could have a conversation “without the subtext of ‘oh, you’re not good enough, or I don’t like you enough,’ on the husband’s part and ‘I’m so tired of talking about this’ on the wife’s part,” she says. The chart “can change people’s perceptions of their own experiences, and how they talk about them with others.”Doing the Deed — For ScienceThis spring, the company has launched a research platform dubbed Lioness 2.0 — a new optional service that, unsurprisingly, their data-obsessed users have greeted with open arms.

Now, instead of simply using the toy to understand themselves better, Lioness owners can opt in to the kinds of hands-on studies that are necessary for a deeper understanding of sex and pleasure. So far, the company is working with Nigeria’s Society for Family Health to study how pleasure changes with menopause across age, race and orientation, as well as with the U.S.’s Center for Genital Health and Education to explore the role of pelvic floor muscles in orgasm.Pani Farvid, a professor of applied psychology at The New School in New York City, has some reservations about the platform. €œI really like what they’re trying to do, but there could be more added to make it a bit more comprehensive. My concern is that there's a misconception that sex is just about the orgasm, that it’s just physiological and that pleasure just has to do with the genitals.” From where she’s sitting, “that’s a very mechanical view of sexuality.” If the Lioness is helping to equalize the orgasm gap, or helping people understand their bodies better, “I think that's great,” says Farvid. €œBut as a critical sexologist, I'm interested in delving deeper into what these practices mean.” If sex is hyper-focused on orgasm, to exclusion of everything else, she cautions that these norms “have real-life negative impacts on people's sex lives and their sense of themselves.”At this point, knee-deep in an era of data collection that was once the sole purview of white-coat-wearing scientists, it’s old news that we need to be careful with what our technology is doing to us.

No tool can serve as a cure-all, even if it comes loaded with a neat app and some space-age sensors. What it can offer, though, is the opportunity to start a conversation, and the chance to take a long, honest look at something about yourself — whether it’s the number of steps you take every day, or the way you want to be touched.Wondering how to keep your glasses from fogging up when your mask is on?. Look no further. If we've learned one thing throughout the hair loss treatment propecia, it's the importance of wearing a mask. Countless studies have shown over the past eight months that wearing a protective barrier over your nose and mouth — whether it's a standard-issue surgical mask or an N95 respirator — can significantly decrease the odds of catching and transmitting disease.

What's more, some research shows that masking up can reduce the severity of an if a masked person does contract hair loss treatment. But while masks are potentially lifesaving, they can be uncomfortable, often changing your breathing patterns and fogging up your glasses when breath escapes through the top of the mask. Among people who choose not to wear a mask to prevent the spread of hair loss treatment, many cite discomfort as a key reason why.Wesley Wilson, a tumor immunologist in Pennsylvania, knows how annoying it can be when your glasses are fogging up. He says fogging is “definitely a problem” among his hospital colleagues, who need to wear protective goggles and surgical masks while on the job. Fortunately, they've also picked up a few helpful hacks for keeping their vision clear while wearing a mask with glasses.#1.

Use Tape“If you have to keep your mask on for hours, tape works like a charm,” Wilson says. This especially applies to healthcare professionals in his practice who are required to keep their masks on at all times, except during lunch. €œIf you're putting on your mask and taking it off a lot, tape probably isn't practical — but two small pieces of tape on the cheeks keep the mask fitted closer to your face, and the hot air out of your glasses,” he says.#2. Fit the Mask to Your FaceWhile some air leakage is to be expected, wearing a mask that fits securely to your face will prevent glass fogging and filter the propecia more effectively since less air is coming in or out. Find surgical masks or N95s that come with a nose bridge, a small, flexible piece of metal or plastic that allows the mask to more closely fit the contours of your face.

Nose bridges can be sewn inside masks or affixed to the front.Read More. Why It Feels Like You Can't Breathe Inside Your Face Mask#3. Adjust Your MaskAccording to the American Academy of Ophthalmology, a minor adjustment in how you wear your mask could be enough to prevent fog as well. Simply pull the mask over your nose and rest your glasses on top of your face mask. As long as the mask is fitted close to your face, this should prevent hot air from slipping out.#4.

Spray Your GlassesA former ice hockey player, Wilson says the protective visor under his helmet would often fog with hot air while he was on the ice during games. Like an ocean diver, he would use de-misting solution or a defogging spray (such as this one) to keep his visor free of fog. The same concept applies to eyeglass fog caused by masking, he says. €œYou can either buy a spray or you can make your own with either shaving cream or soap and water,” says Wilson. €œWiping some shaving cream on your glasses and then wiping it off will coat them with a similar surface-tension altering compound that prevents fog.”.

As flu Where to buy flagyl in uk season creeps up on the Northern Hemisphere, cold and cost of propecia at walmart flu relief medications will inevitably fly off store shelves. A natural remedy that shoppers might reach for is elderberry, a small, blackish-purple fruit that companies turn into syrups, lozenges and gummies. Though therapeutic uses of the berry date back centuries, Michael Macknin, a pediatrician at the Cleveland Clinic, cost of propecia at walmart hadn’t heard of using elderberry to treat the flu until a patient’s mother asked him about it. Some industry-sponsored research claims that the herbal remedy could cut the length of the symptoms by up to four days.

For a comparison, Tamiflu, an FDA-approved treatment, only reduces flu duration by about a cost of propecia at walmart single day. €œI said, 'Gee, if that’s really true [about elderberry], it would be a huge benefit,'” Macknin says. But the effectiveness and safety of elderberry is still fairly unclear. Unlike the over-the-counter medicines at your local pharmacy, elderberry hasn't cost of propecia at walmart been through rigorous FDA testing and approval.

However, Macknin and his team recently published a study in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, which found that elderberry treatments did nothing for flu patients. This prompts a need for further studies into the remedy — work that cost of propecia at walmart unfortunately stands a low chance of happening in the future, Macknin says. Looking For ProofElderberries are full of chemicals that could be good for your health. Like similar fruits, the cost of propecia at walmart berries contain high levels of antioxidants, compounds that shut down reactions in our bodies that damage cells.

But whether or not elderberry's properties also help immune systems fend off a propecia is murky. There are only a handful of studies that have examined if elderberries reduced the severity or duration of the flu. And though some of the work prior to cost of propecia at walmart Macknin’s was well-designed and supported this herbal remedy as a helpful flu aid, at least some — and potentially all — of those studies were funded by elderberry treatment manufacturers.Macknin says an elderberry supplement company provided his team with their products and a placebo version for free, but that the company wasn’t involved in the research beyond that. Macknin's study is the largest one conducted on elderberry to date, with 87 influenza patients completing the entire treatment course.

Participants in the study were also welcome cost of propecia at walmart to take Tamiflu, for ethical reasons, as the team didn’t want to exclude anyone from taking a proven flu therapy. Additionally, each participant took home either a bottle of elderberry syrup or the placebo with instructions on when and how to take it. The research team called participants every day for a symptom check and to remind them to take their medication.By chance, it turned out that a higher percentage of the patients given elderberry syrup had gotten their flu shot cost of propecia at walmart and also chose to take Tamiflu. Since the vaccination can reduce the severity of in recipients who still come down with the flu, the study coincidentally operated in favor of those who took the herbal remedy, Macknin says.

Those patients could have dealt with a shorter, less-intense illness because of the Tamiflu and vaccination. €œEverything was stacked to have it cost of propecia at walmart turn out better [for the elderberry group],” Macknin says, “and it turned out the same.” The researchers found no difference in illness duration or severity between the elderberry and placebo groups. While analyzing the data, the team also found that those on the herbal treatment might have actually fared worse than those on the placebo. The potential cost of propecia at walmart for this intervention to actually harm instead of help influenza patients explains why Macknin thinks the therapy needs further research.But, don't expect that work to happen any time soon.

Researchers are faced with a number of challenges when it comes to studying the efficacy of herbal remedies. For starters, there's little financial incentive to investigate if cost of propecia at walmart they actually work. Plant products are challenging to patent, making them less lucrative prospects for pharmaceutical companies or research organizations to investigate. Additionally, investigations that try and prove a proposed therapy as an effective drug — like the one Macknin and his team accomplished — are expensive, Macknin says.

Those projects need FDA oversight and additional paperwork, components that cost of propecia at walmart drive up study costs. €œIt’s extraordinarily expensive and there’s no money in it for anybody,” Macknin says.Talk To Your DoctorUltimately, research on elderberry therapies for flu patients is a mixed bag, and deserves more attention from scientists. However, if you still want to discuss elderberry treatments for cost of propecia at walmart the flu with your doctor, that’s a conversation you should feel comfortable having, says Erica McIntyre, an expert focused on health and environmental psychology in the School of Public Health at the University of Technology Sydney. Navigating what research says about a particular herbal medicine is challenging for patients and health practitioners alike.

The process is made more complex by the range of similar-sounding products on the market that cost of propecia at walmart lack standardized ingredients, McIntyre says. But when doctors judge or shame patients for asking about non-conventional healthcare interventions, the response can distance people and push them closer to potentially unproven treatments. Even worse, those individuals might start to keep their herbal remedies a secret. €œIt is that fear about being judged for use of that medication,” McIntyre says, that drives up to 50 percent cost of propecia at walmart of people taking herbal treatments to withhold that information from healthcare practitioners.

That’s a dangerous choice, as some herbal and traditional medications can interact and cause health problems.If a physician shames someone for asking about alternative medicines, it’s likely time to find a new doctor, McIntyre says. Look for someone who will listen to your concerns — whether it's that you feel traditional treatments cost of propecia at walmart haven’t worked for you, or that you didn’t like the side effects, the two common reasons people pursue herbal treatments in the first place. €œYou’re not necessarily looking for a doctor that will let you do whatever you want,” McIntyre says, “but that they actually consider you as a patient, your treatment choices and your treatment priorities, and communicate in a way that’s supportive.” And if a doctor suggests that you avoid a treatment you’re interested in, ask why. They generally have a good reason, McIntyre says.For now, know that even if your doctor doesn’t support you taking elderberry, there are other proven preventative measures that are worth your while — like the flu shot.

Anyone six months or older should get it, Macknin says, and stick to the cost of propecia at walmart protocols we’re used to following to prevent hair loss treatment s, like social distancing, mask-wearing and hand-washing. Those measures also help prevent flu transmission, too — something, so far, no elderberry supplement package can claim.The yearly influenza season threatens to make the hair loss treatment propecia doubly deadly, but I believe that this isn’t inevitable.There are two commonly given treatments – the pneumococcal treatment and the Hib treatment – that protect against bacterial pneumonias. These bacteria cost of propecia at walmart complicate both influenza and hair loss treatment, often leading to death. My examination of disease trends and vaccination rates leads me to believe that broader use of the pneumococcal and Hib treatments could guard against the worst effects of a hair loss treatment illness.I am an immunologist and physiologist interested in the effects of combined s on immunity.

I have cost of propecia at walmart reached my insight by juxtaposing two seemingly unrelated puzzles. Infants and children get hair loss, the propecia that causes hair loss treatment, but very rarely become hospitalized or die. And case numbers and death rates from hair loss treatment began varying greatly from nation to nation and city to city even before lockdowns began. I wondered why.One night I woke up with a possible cost of propecia at walmart answer.

Vaccination rates. Most children, beginning at age two months, are vaccinated against cost of propecia at walmart numerous diseases. Adults less so. And, both infant and adult vaccination rates vary cost of propecia at walmart widely across the world.

Could differences in the rates of vaccination against one or more diseases account for differences in hair loss treatment risks?. As someone who had previously investigated other propecias such as the Great Flu propecia of 1918-19 and AIDS, and who has worked with treatments, I had a strong background for tracking down the relevant data to test my hypothesis.Pneumococcal Vaccination Rates Correlate With Lower hair loss treatment Cases and DeathsI gathered national and some local data on vaccination rates against influenza, polio, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP), tuberculosis (BCG), pneumococci and Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib). I correlated them with hair loss treatment case rates and death rates for 24 nations that had experienced their hair loss treatment outbreaks at cost of propecia at walmart about the same time. I controlled for factors such as percentage of the population who were obese, diabetic or elderly.I found that only pneumococcal treatments afforded statistically significant protection against hair loss treatment.

Nations such cost of propecia at walmart as Spain, Italy, Belgium, Brazil, Peru and Chile that have the highest hair loss treatment rates per million have the poorest pneumococcal vaccination rates among both infants and adults. Nations with the lowest rates of hair loss treatment – Japan, Korea, Denmark, Australia and New Zealand – have the highest rates of pneumococcal vaccination among both infants and adults.A recent preprint study (not yet peer-reviewed) from researchers at the Mayo Clinic has also reported very strong associations between pneumococcal vaccination and protection against hair loss treatment. This is especially true among minority patients who are bearing the brunt cost of propecia at walmart of the hair loss propecia. The report also suggests that other treatments, or combinations of treatments, such as Hib and MMR may also provide protection.These results are important because in the U.S., childhood vaccination against pneumococci – which protects against Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria – varies by state from 74% to 92%.

Although the CDC recommends that all adults 18-64 in high risk groups for hair loss treatment and all adults over the age of 65 get a pneumococcal vaccination, only 23% of high-risk adults and 64% of those over the age of 65 do so.Similarly, although the CDC recommends at all infants and some high-risk adults be vaccinated against Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib), only 80.7% of children in the U.S. And a handful of immunologically compromised adults have been cost of propecia at walmart. Pneumococcal and Hib vaccination rates are significantly lower in minority populations in the U.S. And in countries that have been hit harder by hair loss treatment than the U.S.Based on these data, I advocate universal pneumococcal and Hib vaccination among children, cost of propecia at walmart at-risk adults and all adults over 65 to prevent serious hair loss treatment disease.Left.

Combined rates of childhood and adult (over 65) pneumococcal vaccination (out of a possible 200). Right. Cases (per million) population of hair loss treatment at about 90 days into the propecia for 24 nations. Nations with high pneumococcal vaccination rates have low hair loss treatment case rates.

(Credit. CC BY-SA)How Pneumococcal Vaccination Protects Against hair loss treatmentProtection against serious hair loss treatment disease by pneumococcal and Hib treatments makes sense for several reasons. First, recent studies reveal that the majority of hospitalized hair loss treatment patients, and in some studies nearly all, are infected with streptococci, which causes pneumococcal pneumonias, Hib or other pneumonia-causing bacteria. Pneumococcal and Hib vaccinations should protect hair loss patients from these s and thus significantly cut the risk of serious pneumonia.I also found that pneumococcal, Hib and possibly rubella treatments may confer specific protection against the hair loss propecia that causes hair loss treatment by means of “molecular mimicry.”Molecular mimicry occurs when the immune system thinks one microbe looks like another.

In this case, proteins found in pneumococcal treatments and, to a lesser degree, ones found in Hib and rubella treatments as well look like several proteins produced by the hair loss propecia.Two of these proteins found in pneumococcal treatments mimic the spike and membrane proteins that permit the propecia to infect cells. This suggests pneumococcal vaccination may prevent hair loss . Two other mimics are the nucleoprotein and replicase that control propecia replication. These proteins are made after viral , in which case pneumococcal vaccination may control, but not prevent, hair loss replication.Either way, these treatments may provide proxy protection against hair loss that we can implement right now, even before we have a specific propecia treatment.

Such protection may not be complete. People might still suffer a weakened version of hair loss treatment but, like most infants and children, be protected against the worst effects of the .Fighting Influenza-related Pneumonias During the hair loss treatment propeciaWhile the specific protection these other treatments confer against hair loss treatment has not yet been tested in a clinical trial, I advocate broader implementation of pneumococcal and Hib vaccination for one additional, well-validated reason.Pneumococcal and Hib pneumonias – both caused by bacteria – are the major causes of death following viral influenza. The influenza propecia rarely causes death directly. Most often, the propecia makes the lungs more susceptible to bacterial pneumonias, which are deadly.

Dozens of studies around the world have demonstrated that increasing rates of pneumococcal and Hib vaccination dramatically lowers influenza-related pneumonias.Similar studies demonstrate that the price of using these treatments is balanced by savings due to lower rates of influenza-related hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions and deaths. In the context of hair loss treatment, lowering rates of influenza-related hospitalizations and ICU admissions would free up resources to fight the hair loss, independent of any effect these treatments might have on hair loss itself. In my opinion, that is a winning scenario.In short, we need not wait for a hair loss treatment to slow down hair loss treatment.I believe that we can and should act now by fighting the hair loss with all the tools at our disposal, including influenza, Hib, pneumococcal and perhaps rubella vaccinations.Preventing pneumococcal and Hib complications of influenza and hair loss treatment, and perhaps proxy-vaccinating against hair loss itself, helps everyone. Administering these already available and well-tested pneumococcal and Hib treatments to people will save money by freeing up hospital beds and ICUs.

It will also improve public health by reducing the spread of multiple s and boost the economy by nurturing a healthier population.Robert Root-Bernstein is a Professor of Physiology at Michigan State University. This article was originally published on The Conversation under a Creative Commons liscense Read the original here.This story appeared in the November 2020 issue as "Bacteria and the Brain." Subscribe to Discover magazine for more stories like this.It’s not always easy to convince people that the human gut is a sublime and wondrous place worthy of special attention. Sarkis Mazmanian discovered that soon after arriving at Caltech for his first faculty job 14 years ago, when he explained to a local artist what he had in mind for the walls outside his new office.The resulting mural greets visitors to the Mazmanian Lab today. A vaguely psychedelic, 40-foot-long, tube-shaped colon that’s pink, purple and red snakes down the hallway.

In a panel next to it, fluorescent yellow and green bacteria explode out of a deeply inflamed section of the intestinal tract, like radioactive lava from outer space.The mural is modest compared with what the scientist has been working on since. Over the last decade or so, Mazmanian has been a leading proponent of the idea that the flora of the human digestive tract has a far more powerful effect on the human body and mind than we thought — a scientific effort that earned him a $500,000 MacArthur Fellowship “Genius Grant” in 2012. Since then, Mazmanian and a small but growing cadre of fellow microbiologists have amassed a tantalizing body of evidence on the microbiome’s role in all kinds of brain disorders, including schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and depression.But the results they’ve seen in autism could, in the end, prove the most transformative. Autism affects about 1 in 59 children in the U.S., and involves profound social withdrawal, communication problems, and sometimes anxiety and aggression.

The causes of the brain disorder have remained speculative. Now, Mazmanian and other researchers are finding that autism may be inextricably linked to — or even caused by — irregularities in the gut microbiome.A Biology StoryAt 47, Mazmanian — with his shaved head, flannel shirt and skinny jeans — resembles a young, urban hipster on his way to write at the local café. Originally, literary life was his plan. Born in Lebanon to two Armenian refugees, neither of whom had more than a first-grade education, Mazmanian landed in the class of an energetic high school English teacher in California’s San Fernando Valley, where his family first settled.

The teacher recognized his gift for language and encouraged him to pursue a career in literature. Mazmanian enrolled at UCLA in 1990, planning to major in English.Everything changed when he took his first biology class. Hunched over his new, thick textbook in the library, reading about basic biological concepts like photosynthesis, Mazmanian felt a vast new world opening up to him.Sarkis Mazmanian, shown in front of a mural that celebrates the human gut, is part of a group of microbiologists researching the effects of the digestive tract on a range of disorders. (Credit.

Caltech)“For the first time in my life, I wanted to turn the page and see where the story was going to go,” he says. €œI think I decided that minute to become a scientist.”Mazmanian was most fascinated by the idea that tiny organisms, invisible to the naked eye, could function as powerful, self-contained machines — powerful enough to take over and destroy the human body. After graduating with a degree in microbiology, Mazmanian joined a UCLA infectious diseases lab and began studying bacteria that cause staph s.As his dissertation defense approached, Mazmanian read a one-page commentary penned by a prominent microbiologist, highlighting the fact that our intestines are teeming with hundreds, if not thousands, of different species of bacteria. But it was still largely unknown what they are and how they affect the human body.When Mazmanian dug further, he found that no one had yet answered what seemed to him to be the most obvious question.

Why would the human immune system, designed to attack and destroy foreign invaders, allow hundreds of species of bacteria to live and thrive in our guts unmolested?. To him, the bacteria’s survival implied that we had evolved to coexist with them. And if that were so, he reasoned, there must be some benefit to both the microbes and the human body — a symbiotic relationship. But what was it?.

Gut InvadersMazmanian set out to study the link between gut microbes and the immune system. As a postdoctoral researcher, he joined the lab of Harvard University infectious disease specialist Dennis Kasper.To start, Mazmanian examined how the immune systems of germ-free mice — lab mice completely protected, starting at birth, from all microbes — differed from those of mice with either few or normal levels of microbes. He expected this initial census would be just a first step in a long and arduous quest for scientific pay dirt. But when he went to examine a printout of his results in the lab, he realized immediately he might already be onto something big.

The germ-free mice had a 30 to 40 percent reduction in a specific type of immune cell known as helper T-cells.This colorized close-up of a mouse’s gut reveals the tight relationship between the gut microbe Bacteroides fragilis (red) and the epithelial surface of the colon (blue). (Credit. Caltech)Since helper T-cells play a key role in coordinating attacks against invading pathogens, the finding suggested that the immune systems of the germ-free mice were far less robust than those found in peers with normal levels of microbes.“That was exciting, right?. € Mazmanian recalls.

€œObviously I repeated it and tested it in a number of different ways. Then I asked the next question. €˜Can I restore the [immune] function in an adult animal?. €™â€‰â€Mazmanian colonized the guts of the immunocompromised, germ-free mice with microbes from standard lab mice.

After receiving the fecal transplant, their T-cell counts shot up. Within a month, their numbers were identical to mice raised outside the germ-free bubble.Resolving to identify the microorganisms causing this transformation, Mazmanian resorted to trial and error. One by one, he added strains of bacteria found in the guts of mice to the guts of germ-free mice.He got nowhere with the first five or six species he examined. Then, simply because it was convenient, he decided to test one more that was readily available in his lab.

Mazmanian’s adviser, Kasper, had been studying a gut microbe called Bacteroides fragilis. When Mazmanian implanted one of Kasper’s specimens into the gut of his germ-free mice, the results were dramatic. The T-cell numbers spiked to normal. Eventually, Mazmanian demonstrated he could reproduce this effect simply by adding a single molecule that these bacteria produce, called polysaccharide A, to their guts.“There was no logic in the choice whatsoever,” Mazmanian recalls.

€œ[B. Fragilis] was available, it came from the gut.” In other words, he got lucky.Mazmanian dug deeper and discovered that the biggest impact B. Fragilis had was on the population of a subtype of helper T-cells called regulatory, or suppressor, T-cells. These cells play a key role in preventing the immune system from attacking its host body, protecting against autoimmune or inflammatory diseases.

It was the first time any scientist had demonstrated that a single compound from a single microbe could reverse a specific problem with the immune system.To Mazmanian, the finding, published in 2005 in the journal Cell, alluded to new approaches to treating a wide array of autoimmune, inflammatory and allergic disorders. What if it were possible to help a faulty immune system by tweaking a patient’s microbiome?. It was with this exploration in mind that he arrived in Pasadena in 2006 to set up his lab at Caltech.A Convenient CollaborationA few years later, Mazmanian was having lunch on campus with neuroscientist and colleague Paul Patterson. Patterson had been preoccupied with a mystery that had, for years, confounded those studying autism in humans.

When pregnant mothers have a severe in the second trimester, their babies are much more likely to develop autism.As Mazmanian tells it, Patterson was a man of few words, and at lunch Mazmanian was “going on and on” about his own work.“You know,” Patterson interjected thoughtfully, “I think kids with autism have GI issues.”Patterson recalled reading that something like 60 percent of children with autism had some form of clinical GI problem, such as bloating, constipation, flatulence or diarrhea. Was it possible, he wondered, that there was a microbiome connection?. As they talked, Mazmanian’s excitement grew.A few years earlier, Patterson had discovered that when he exposed pregnant mice to pathogens like the influenza propecia, they gave birth to pups that grew up more likely to be startled by loud noises, to shy away from social contact and to groom themselves repetitively — symptoms that resemble those of autism. Patterson was in the process of comparing the brains of these autism-mimicking mice with their neurotypical cousins to see if he could detect any differences that might explain how the maternal immune system was somehow interfering with the pups’ brain development.Mazmanian had a suggestion.

The next time Patterson sacrificed one of his autistic mice to study their brains, what if he set the intestines aside for his colleague down the hall?. When the guts arrived in Mazmanian’s lab, he found that the intestines of the neurotypical mice looked normal. But the guts of the autism-mimicking offspring were almost uniformly inflamed. Could it be that the microbiome was the cause of this inflammation?.

And could that, in turn, be somehow connected to the behavioral symptoms?. Throughout the winter and spring of 2012, Mazmanian and Patterson continued their conversation. Mazmanian found distinct differences in the microbiomes of the mice. And, they noticed, the mice with the features of autism had leaky gut syndrome, an increased permeability of the gut lining that can allow pathogens and allergens to leach out.

This condition had also been reported in children with autism.So Mazmanian and Patterson turned their attention outside the gut. They took blood samples to see if any gut microbes, or the compounds they produce, were circulating in the rest of the body. They homed in on one molecule in particular, called 4-ethylphenyl sulfate, which was roughly 45 times as abundant in the mice that had symptoms of autism. And it looked familiar.

Structurally, it was almost identical to a molecule recently found to be significantly elevated in human children with autism.It was enough to take the next step. Every day for three weeks, Mazmanian injected the molecule, harvested from the mice with autism-like symptoms, directly into the bloodstream of 5-week-old normal lab mice (the age at which the autistic mice normally developed leaky gut). Then Mazmanian and his team gave them a series of behavioral tests. The mice were far more easily startled and were less comfortable in large empty spaces than their untreated peers, indications of an increase in anxiety-related behaviors commonly seen in the mice with autism-like symptoms.

The researchers published their results in Cell in 2013.Though surprising, the data made sense in some ways. Many drug companies rely on small-molecule drugs that can be taken orally, but still manage to cross the blood-brain barrier and affect behavior. It seemed entirely possible that small molecules, created by bacteria in the gut, could enter the bloodstream and reach the brain. And they don’t even have to leak out of the gut to do so.Of Mice and MenPatterson died in 2014, at age 70, just six months after the publication of the duo’s groundbreaking Cell paper.

Around the same time, a series of parallel experiments in a clinic hundreds of miles away was already paving the way forward. While Patterson and Mazmanian had been working in mice, Rosa Krajmalnik-Brown, a microbiologist at Arizona State University, had teamed up with Jim Adams, who directs the university’s autism and Asperger’s research program, to study humans.The researchers were conducting a detailed analysis of the microbiome of human autism patients and found that the bacteria were far less diverse in the children with autism. Notably, several important species involved in the digestion of carbohydrates were severely depleted.Krajmalnik-Brown and Adams launched a preliminary trial to test the effects of fecal transplants on 18 children between the ages of 7 and 16 with severe autism, who also had severe GI issues. The researchers administered powerful antibiotics to kill off the microbiomes of the children and followed them with a bowel cleanse.

They then replaced the microbes with transplanted flora taken from the guts of healthy neurotypical adult volunteers.The results were better than anyone could have expected. The procedure resulted in a large reduction in GI symptoms and increased the diversity of bacteria in the children’s guts. But more significantly, their neurological symptoms were reduced. At the onset of the study in 2017, an independent evaluator found 83 percent of participants had severe autism.

Two years after the initial trial, only 17 percent were rated as severely autistic. And 44 percent were no longer on the autism scale.“[My child] did a complete 180,” says Dana Woods, whose then-7-year-old son Ethan enrolled in the initial study five years ago. €œHis ability to communicate is so much different now. He’s just so much more present.

He’s so much more aware. He’s no longer in occupational therapy. He’s no longer in speech therapy. After the study, he tested two points away from a neurotypical child.”In their first report on the trial in 2017, the team highlighted a number of distinct changes in the microbiome after the transplants, in particular a surge in the populations of three types of bacteria.

Among them was a four-fold increase in Bifidobacterium, a probiotic organism that seems to play a key role in the maintenance of a healthy gut.But figuring out what was happening on a cellular level — to really look inside some guts — would require another vehicle. The ASU team needed Mazmanian’s mice.“At the end of the day, what we care about is healing people and how the microbiome affects people,” explains Krajmalnik-Brown. €œThat’s why we work with people. But with mice you can do things that are more mechanistic.”The Great Mouse Detective(Credit.

Caltech)Together, Krajmalnik-Brown, Mazmanian and their collaborators would uncover some tantalizing new insights that go a long way to solving the mystery. In May 2019, the team published another high-profile paper in Cell, after they transplanted stool samples from Krajmalnik-Brown’s severely autistic patients into the guts of Mazmanian’s germ-free mice. The offspring of these mice showed the autism-like symptoms, such as repetitive and compulsive behavior.This time, the team dug even deeper into the biochemical processes playing out in the brain, looking not just at behavior but at the chemicals involved in creating it. The mice that developed autism-like behaviors had measurably lower levels of two substances called taurine and 5-aminovaleric acid (5AV).

When they dug into the literature, the team learned that these two substances are known to mimic activity of a key signaling agent in the brain called gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) — a neurotransmitter that other studies have found is deficient in the brains of children with autism.What’s more, some have speculated that the tendency of children with autism to experience sensory overstimulation may stem from the inability to tamp down overexcited neurons. A lack of GABA could lead to just that.The scientists next orally administered high levels of taurine and 5AV to pregnant mice with the autistic children’s microbiomes. When their pups were born, the researchers continued to feed the young the substances until they reached adulthood. Compared with untreated animals, the second-generation mice had significantly fewer behavioral symptoms.

Taurine reduced repetitive behavior, as measured by marble burying, increased the level of social interaction, and relieved anxiety. Mice administered 5AV were more active and social.“We healed humans with behavioral problems,” says Krajmalnik-Brown. €œ[And we] transferred some of those deficits and behaviors to mice — basically the opposite. It’s huge.”Mazmanian hopes to take the next step in the months ahead.“I can flip a switch, turn on a light, I know that switch turns on that light.

I don’t know the circuit, I don’t know where the wire is,” Mazmanian says. €œExactly how that’s happening … we just don’t understand that.”This most recent study, by itself, hardly proves that dysregulated microbiomes cause the brain disorder — a point that plenty of other scientists skeptical of Mazmanian’s work are happy to make.“The paper made a big splash, but trying to model psychiatric-related human conditions in mice, in my view, is a little bit of a stretch,” says Sangram Sisodia, a neurobiologist at the University of Chicago who studies the microbiome. €œA mouse with autism?. €Nor was that the only criticism.

Several researchers have suggested that the group didn’t give proper attention to one of their tests ­— one whose results conflicted with their thesis ­— while others found flaws in the statistical methods they used to assess their results. Mazmanian downplays these criticisms, but agrees the work is not yet conclusive.Meanwhile, the ASU trial has also engendered skepticism, mainly due to its tiny sample size, the lack of a control group and the methods by which the children were assessed for autism severity. Krajmalnik-Brown and Adams say they stand by their results, but agree more research is needed. In recent months, they have launched two new studies that will address these issues.Adams insists the work is already changing lives.

€œWe followed up with every one of our 18 participants,” he says, referring to the children who received fecal transplants. €œSure enough, we found that most of the GI benefits had remained. And family after family said their child just slowly, steadily continued making more improvement.” They published the update in Scientific Reports in spring 2019.“I’m not ready to say the case is closed,” says Mazmanian. €œHealthy skepticism is a good thing.

I believe the preclinical data, I believe the mouse data. But there’s a lot of studies that still need to be done.” A Healthy Gut, A New OutlookEthan Woods had GI issues and symptoms of autism until researchers introduced new microbes to his gut. His mother says the treatment changed everything. (Credit.

Dana Woods)Prior to his fecal transplant at age 7, Ethan Woods suffered from chronic and severe diarrhea, constipation and cramping, symptoms so extreme that to his mother, Dana, he sounded like “a bit like a woman in labor when he was trying to have a bowel movement.” “It was just awful watching your child go through this,” she says, explaining that when she enrolled her autistic son in the Arizona State study, her “only goal was to fix his gut.”Remarkably, Ethan’s agony began to disappear just a few weeks into the trial. But that was not the most dramatic difference. Before the transplant, Ethan’s speech was drawn out and slow, his language skills rudimentary. He seemed to live in his own bubble.

He had frequent outbursts. For as long as Dana could remember, her mornings with Ethan had been marked by arguing, fighting, pushing and anger. But then one morning, something shocking happened.“He woke me up one morning with his face right in my face with this big smile and he said, ‘Morning, Mom!. €™â€‰â€ she recalls.

€œAnd he was just excited and happy and ready to go about his day with this big smile. It choked me up to the point where I teared up because I had never experienced a happy kid in the morning.”Later, Ethan carried over an iPad and opened an app with a talking cat that repeats back the words children speak aloud. He played back a video recording of himself from just a few weeks earlier.“[He] looks me in the eye and says, ‘Mom, why did I talk like that?. What is wrong with me?.

€™ And as soon as he did that, I caught my breath. I had to compose myself and say, ‘I don’t know. But do you feel better?. Do you feel different?.

Why do you think?. €™â€‰â€Ethan’s communication skills had already begun to improve. Within a year of the study, his speech therapist graduated him from speech therapy because he had met all his goals.“He went from one end of the rainbow all the way to the other end of the rainbow,” she says. €œPrior to the study, I was very afraid.

My biggest fear was ‘how is he going to navigate the world when I’m not here?. €™ And I think I have a lot of hope now that he is going to be OK now on his own.”There’s something strange about the female orgasm, something that scientists have been unable to explain. Biological functions are normally discussed in terms of evolutionary pressure, or reproductive advantage. If a biological trait improves your chances of having more offspring, then it’s more likely to stick around in your species.

The male orgasm makes perfect sense — ejaculate contains the genetic material that’s necessary for making babies. But the female orgasm has been harder to nail down. Fertilization doesn’t depend on it, and “fun” isn’t exactly in the pantheon of evolutionary explanations.Researchers that study how the female orgasm relates to reproductive success have two main options — either ask people invasive questions about their most personal moments, or to find a way to stick probes in or on them during said moments. Neither of these approaches have resulted in the kind of “wet lab” research that’s the gold standard for biological understanding.What we do know, despite widespread cultural discomfort with talking openly about sex and pleasure, is that there appears to be significant sexual dysfunction in American society.

Back in 2014, researchers from the Kinsey Institute, the preeminent U.S. Academy for the study of sex and relationships, said as much. In a survey of nearly 3,000 people, they found that men, straight or gay, orgasmed 85 percent of the time during consensual sexual encounters. Lesbian women orgasmed less often, 75 percent of the time, while straight women fared worst with just a 60 percent chance of orgasm.

Other studies have shown that something like 10-15 percent of women experience lifelong anorgasmia, meaning they’ve never experienced orgasm. A further 40 percent of women report some kind of inability to reach orgasm in the past year.The orgasm gap is hard to explain. Some think that it comes down to straight men’s finesse, or lack thereof, citing the difference between straight and lesbian satisfaction. Indeed, it makes sense that knowing your way around the territory would help.

But for many couples this isn’t a helpful revelation, since the emotional maturity necessary to teach sexual dexterity is often out of reach. Shortcut to SatisfactionLuckily, we live in an era of Silicon Valley disruption, which has even started lapping at the shores of sex research. Technologist Liz Klinger is at the forefront of this transition. She and her team have built a platform that lets people become citizen scientists of sex —without ever having to get out from between the sheets.About a decade ago, Klinger’s company, Lioness, released what they billed as the first “smart vibrator,” a sex toy that could actually learn about you.

The final product was a far cry from the first prototype, which was much more laboratory object than sex toy.The “test device was this whole mess of wires, with a hard connection. We had to physically send it to our beta testers, who used it and sent it back,” recalls Klinger. The researchers would download the data collected by the toy’s four sensors — temperature, motion, acceleration and pressure — and compile it into a chart that represented arousal and orgasm, as told through the story of pelvic-floor muscle contractions.It was an immediate success for sex partners who needed ways to talk about pleasure in a more objective way. Klinger recalled that when she got the first beta-test couple on the phone, “the wife was like ‘holy crap, we finally were able to talk about these things that I’ve had a lot of trouble talking about.’ It turned out that she wanted more foreplay, and he didn’t know quite that that meant.

He’d spend more time, but it just didn’t match up, you know?. € With the company’s signature offering in hand — a chart of sexual arousal over time — Klinger found that couples could have a conversation “without the subtext of ‘oh, you’re not good enough, or I don’t like you enough,’ on the husband’s part and ‘I’m so tired of talking about this’ on the wife’s part,” she says. The chart “can change people’s perceptions of their own experiences, and how they talk about them with others.”Doing the Deed — For ScienceThis spring, the company has launched a research platform dubbed Lioness 2.0 — a new optional service that, unsurprisingly, their data-obsessed users have greeted with open arms. Now, instead of simply using the toy to understand themselves better, Lioness owners can opt in to the kinds of hands-on studies that are necessary for a deeper understanding of sex and pleasure.

So far, the company is working with Nigeria’s Society for Family Health to study how pleasure changes with menopause across age, race and orientation, as well as with the U.S.’s Center for Genital Health and Education to explore the role of pelvic floor muscles in orgasm.Pani Farvid, a professor of applied psychology at The New School in New York City, has some reservations about the platform. €œI really like what they’re trying to do, but there could be more added to make it a bit more comprehensive. My concern is that there's a misconception that sex is just about the orgasm, that it’s just physiological and that pleasure just has to do with the genitals.” From where she’s sitting, “that’s a very mechanical view of sexuality.” If the Lioness is helping to equalize the orgasm gap, or helping people understand their bodies better, “I think that's great,” says Farvid. €œBut as a critical sexologist, I'm interested in delving deeper into what these practices mean.” If sex is hyper-focused on orgasm, to exclusion of everything else, she cautions that these norms “have real-life negative impacts on people's sex lives and their sense of themselves.”At this point, knee-deep in an era of data collection that was once the sole purview of white-coat-wearing scientists, it’s old news that we need to be careful with what our technology is doing to us.

No tool can serve as a cure-all, even if it comes loaded with a neat app and some space-age sensors. What it can offer, though, is the opportunity to start a conversation, and the chance to take a long, honest look at something about yourself — whether it’s the number of steps you take every day, or the way you want to be touched.Wondering how to keep your glasses from fogging up when your mask is on?. Look no further. If we've learned one thing throughout the hair loss treatment propecia, it's the importance of wearing a mask.

Countless studies have shown over the past eight months that wearing a protective barrier over your nose and mouth — whether it's a standard-issue surgical mask or an N95 respirator — can significantly decrease the odds of catching and transmitting disease. What's more, some research shows that masking up can reduce the severity of an if a masked person does contract hair loss treatment. But while masks are potentially lifesaving, they can be uncomfortable, often changing your breathing patterns and fogging up your glasses when breath escapes through the top of the mask. Among people who choose not to wear a mask to prevent the spread of hair loss treatment, many cite discomfort as a key reason why.Wesley Wilson, a tumor immunologist in Pennsylvania, knows how annoying it can be when your glasses are fogging up.

He says fogging is “definitely a problem” among his hospital colleagues, who need to wear protective goggles and surgical masks while on the job. Fortunately, they've also picked up a few helpful hacks for keeping their vision clear while wearing a mask with glasses.#1. Use Tape“If you have to keep your mask on for hours, tape works like a charm,” Wilson says. This especially applies to healthcare professionals in his practice who are required to keep their masks on at all times, except during lunch.

€œIf you're putting on your mask and taking it off a lot, tape probably isn't practical — but two small pieces of tape on the cheeks keep the mask fitted closer to your face, and the hot air out of your glasses,” he says.#2. Fit the Mask to Your FaceWhile some air leakage is to be expected, wearing a mask that fits securely to your face will prevent glass fogging and filter the propecia more effectively since less air is coming in or out. Find surgical masks or N95s that come with a nose bridge, a small, flexible piece of metal or plastic that allows the mask to more closely fit the contours of your face. Nose bridges can be sewn inside masks or affixed to the front.Read More.

Why It Feels Like You Can't Breathe Inside Your Face Mask#3. Adjust Your MaskAccording to the American Academy of Ophthalmology, a minor adjustment in how you wear your mask could be enough to prevent fog as well. Simply pull the mask over your nose and rest your glasses on top of your face mask. As long as the mask is fitted close to your face, this should prevent hot air from slipping out.#4.

Spray Your GlassesA former ice hockey player, Wilson says the protective visor under his helmet would often fog with hot air while he was on the ice during games. Like an ocean diver, he would use de-misting solution or a defogging spray (such as this one) to keep his visor free of fog. The same concept applies to eyeglass fog caused by masking, he says. €œYou can either buy a spray or you can make your own with either shaving cream or soap and water,” says Wilson.

€œWiping some shaving cream on your glasses and then wiping it off will coat them with a similar surface-tension altering compound that prevents fog.”.

Hair loss pills propecia side effects

By Erik Skinner Children in Medicaid received more than 7 million fewer dental services between hair loss pills propecia side effects March and buy propecia canada May of this year compared to the same period last year. The problem is not confined to Medicaid, as the hair loss treatment propecia also exacerbated broader disparities in children accessing preventive oral health services. The propecia suspended school-based health center programs, which can be the only source of dental care for low-income and minority children who also experience disparities such as lower rates of dental utilization hair loss pills propecia side effects and lower rates of dental insurance. School-based health centers, federally qualified health centers, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and Medicaid programs, and academic institutions are community settings that make up the oral health safety net. This safety net serves one-third of the U.S.

Population, primarily minority, low-income and underserved groups, making it a central mechanism to address oral health hair loss pills propecia side effects disparities. While the propecia has limited these community-based options for delivering children’s oral health services, state public health strategies can provide options for policymakers to close gaps in care. This year saw hair loss pills propecia side effects less state legislation related to children’s oral health compared to previous years. However, four states passed bills to address the oral health workforce in community settings for children. In Nebraska, the legislature expanded dental hygienists’ authority to provide services to children and other populations in public health settings, such as schools and community health centers.

Iowa passed a bill to hair loss pills propecia side effects certify dental assistants to administer dental sealants subject to rules from the Board of Dentistry. Virginia passed a bill allowing medical assistants to apply fluoride varnish after receiving a verbal order, written order or standing protocol from a doctor of medicine, osteopathic medicine or dentistry. The Ohio General Assembly passed a law hair loss pills propecia side effects to allow for mobile dental clinics to provide services to children with permission from their parents. For dental clinics in rural areas, school-based health centers and other community settings, teledentistry can be a tool to reach vulnerable children. While not always specific to children, providers can use teledentistry to maintain routine care and identify children with more urgent oral health issues.

Teledentistry has expanded rapidly since the beginning of the propecia, and at least 15 states hair loss pills propecia side effects addressed their policies since then. For example, Oregon issued guidance in September on changes to billing and service processes for teledentistry. Utah passed legislation in March hair loss pills propecia side effects to provide for teledentistry services by dental professionals in the state. Pre-propecia state action on teledentistry also affects current practices and services. Illinois enacted legislation in May 2019 to define teledentistry and authorize asynchronous and synchronous communications for patient care and education.

Ohio passed hair loss pills propecia side effects legislation in March 2019 to define teledentistry, authorize its use and require coverage to the same extent as services provided in person. States also address teledentistry through the department of health and the Medicaid rulemaking process. In Rhode Island, the department of health used funds from a Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) hair loss pills propecia side effects grant to implement virtual dental homes in high-need schools. Texas’s Smiles in Schools program transitioned to providing virtual oral health education and toolkits in place of in-person screening activities. Arizona developed a Medicaid billing manual that defines teledentistry and its authorized activities.

Delivering dental care to children, virtually when necessary, is currently a moving target for many policymakers and providers hair loss pills propecia side effects. As the hair loss persists, states continue to pursue policies and strategies – leveraging workforce, teledentistry and other policy tools – to meet families where they are and reach children in a variety of settings to mitigate the effects of the propecia. NCSL Resources NCSL would like to acknowledge the DentaQuest Partnership for Oral Health Advancement for supporting this blog hair loss pills propecia side effects post. Erik Skinner is a policy associate in NCSL’s health program. Email ErikStart Preamble Notice of Amendment and Republished Declaration.

The Secretary issues this amendment pursuant to section 319F-3 of the Public Health Service Act to amend his March 10, 2020 hair loss pills propecia side effects Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against hair loss treatment. The amendments to the Declaration are applicable as of February 4, 2020, except as otherwise specified in Section XII. Start Further Info hair loss pills propecia side effects Robert P. Kadlec, MD, MTM&H, MS, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue Start Printed Page 79191SW, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone.

202-205-2882. End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d et. Seq., authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to issue a declaration to provide liability protections to certain individuals and entities (Covered Persons) against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from, the manufacture, distribution, administration, or use of certain medical countermeasures (Covered Countermeasures), except for claims involving “willful misconduct,” as defined in the PREP Act. Such declarations are subject to amendment as circumstances warrant.

The PREP Act was enacted on December 30, 2005, as Public Law 109-148, Division C, Section 2. It amended the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, adding Section 319F-3, which addresses liability immunity, and Section 319F-4, which creates a compensation program. These sections are codified at 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d and 42 U.S.C. 247d-6e, respectively.

Section 319F-3 of the PHS Act has been amended by the propecia and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act (PAHPRA), Public Law 113-5, enacted on March 13, 2013, and the hair loss Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Public Law 116-136, enacted on March 27, 2020, to expand Covered Countermeasures under the PREP Act. On January 31, 2020, the Secretary declared a public health emergency pursuant to section 319 of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d, effective January 27, 2020, for the entire United States to aid in the response to the hair loss Disease 2019 (hair loss treatment) outbreak, which subsequently became a global propecia. Pursuant to section 319 of the PHS Act, the Secretary renewed that declaration on April 21, 2020, July 23, 2020, and October 2, 2020. On March 10, 2020, the Secretary issued a declaration under the PREP Act for medical countermeasures against hair loss treatment.[] On April 10, the Secretary amended the Declaration to extend liability protections to Covered Countermeasures authorized under the CARES Act.[] On June 4, the Secretary amended the Declaration to clarify that Covered Countermeasures under the Declaration include qualified propecia and epidemic products that limit the harm that hair loss treatment might otherwise cause.[] On August 19, the Secretary amended the Declaration to add additional categories of Qualified Persons and to amend the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of Covered Countermeasures.[] The Secretary now further amends the Declaration pursuant to section 319F-3 of the Public Health Service Act.

This Fourth Amendment to the Declaration. (a) Clarifies that the Declaration must be construed in accordance with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the General Counsel (OGC) Advisory Opinions on the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act and the Declaration (Advisory Opinions).[] The Declaration incorporates the Advisory Opinions for that purpose. (b) Incorporates authorizations that the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH) has issued as an Authority Having Jurisdiction.[] (c) Adds an additional category of Qualified Persons under Section V of the Declaration and 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(8)(B), i.e., healthcare personnel using telehealth to order or administer Covered Countermeasures for patients in a state other than the state where the healthcare personnel are permitted to practice.[] (d) Modifies and clarifies the training requirements for certain licensed pharmacists and pharmacy interns to administer certain routine childhood or hair loss treatment vaccinations. (e) Makes explicit that Section VI covers all qualified propecia and epidemic products under the PREP Act.

(f) Adds a third method of distribution under Section VII of the Declaration and 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(a)(5) that would provide liability protections for, among other things, additional private-distribution channels. (g) Makes explicit in Section IX that there can be situations where not administering a covered countermeasure to a particular individual can fall within the PREP Act and this Declaration's liability protections. (h) Makes explicit in Section XI that there are substantial federal legal and policy issues, and substantial federal legal and policy interests, in having a unified, whole-of-nation response to the hair loss treatment propecia among federal, state, local, and private-sector entities. The world is facing an unprecedented propecia.

To effectively respond, there must be a more consistent pathway for Covered Persons to manufacture, distribute, administer or use Covered Countermeasures across the nation and the world.Start Printed Page 79192 (i) Revises the effective time period of the Declaration in light of the amendments to the Declaration.[] The Secretary republishes the Declaration, as amended, in full. Unless otherwise noted, all statutory citations are to the U.S. Code. Description of This Amendment Declaration The Declaration has fifteen sections describing PREP Act coverage for medical countermeasures against hair loss treatment. OGC has issued Advisory Opinions interpreting the PREP Act and reflecting the Secretary's interpretation of the Declaration.[] The Secretary now amends the Declaration to clarify that the Declaration must be construed in accordance with the Advisory Opinions.

The Secretary expressly incorporates the Advisory Opinions for that purpose. Section V. Covered Persons Section V of the Declaration describes Covered Persons, including additional qualified persons identified by the Secretary, as required under the PREP Act. The Secretary amends Section V to specify an additional category of qualified persons. Specifically, healthcare personnel who are permitted to order and administer a Covered Countermeasure through telehealth in a state may do so for patients in another state so long as the healthcare personnel comply with the legal requirements of the state in which the healthcare personnel are permitted to order and administer the Covered Countermeasure by means of telehealth.

Telehealth is widely recognized as a valuable tool to promote public health during this propecia. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Telehealth services can facilitate public health mitigation strategies during this propecia by increasing social distancing. These services can be a safer option for [healthcare personnel (HCP)] and patients by reducing potential infectious exposures. They can reduce the strain on healthcare systems by minimizing the surge of patient demand on facilities and reduce the use of [personal protective equipment (PPE)] by healthcare providers. Maintaining continuity of care to the extent possible can avoid additional negative consequences from delayed preventive, chronic, or routine care.

Remote access to healthcare services may increase participation for those who are medically or socially vulnerable or who do not have ready access to providers. Remote access can also help preserve the patient-provider relationship at times when an in-person visit is not practical or feasible. Telehealth services can be used to. Screen patients who may have symptoms of hair loss treatment and refer as appropriate Provide low-risk urgent care for non-hair loss treatment conditions, identify those persons who may need additional medical consultation or assessment, and refer as appropriate Access primary care providers and specialists, including mental and behavioral health, for chronic health conditions and medication management Provide coaching and support for patients managing chronic health conditions, including weight management and nutrition counseling Participate in physical therapy, occupational therapy, and other modalities as a hybrid approach to in-person care for optimal health Monitor clinical signs of certain chronic medical conditions (e.g., blood pressure, blood glucose, other remote assessments) Engage in case management for patients who have difficulty accessing care (e.g., those who live in very rural settings, older adults, those with limited mobility) Follow up with patients after hospitalization Deliver advance care planning and counseling to patients and caregivers to document preferences if a life-threatening event or medical crisis occurs Provide non-emergent care to residents in long-term care facilities Provide education and training for HCP through peer-to-peer professional medical consultations (inpatient or outpatient) that are not locally available, particularly in rural areas.[] Similarly, CMS has stressed the importance of telehealth during this propecia. Telehealth, telemedicine, and related terms generally refer to the exchange of medical information from one site to another through electronic communication to improve a patient's health.

Innovative uses of this kind of technology in the provision of healthcare is increasing. And with the emergence of the propecia causing the disease hair loss treatment, there is an urgency to expand the use of technology to help people who need routine care, and keep vulnerable beneficiaries and beneficiaries with mild symptoms in their homes while maintaining access to the care they need. Limiting community spread of the propecia, as well as limiting the exposure to other patients and staff members will slow viral spread.[] Accordingly, CMS and other HHS components has substantially expanded the scope of services paid under Medicare when furnished using telehealth technologies during this propecia. Other HHS components have also taken steps to expand the use of telehealth during the propecia.[] Moreover, to expand the use of telehealth during this propecia, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at HHS is exercising enforcement discretion and will not impose penalties for noncompliance with the regulatory requirements under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Rules against covered healthcare providers that serve patients through everyday communications technologies during the hair loss treatment nationwide public health emergency.[] This exercise of discretion Start Printed Page 79193applies to widely available communications apps, such as FaceTime or Skype, when used in good faith for any telehealth treatment or diagnostic purpose, regardless of whether the telehealth service is directly related to hair loss treatment.[] Many states have authorized out-of-state healthcare personnel to deliver telehealth services to in-state patients, either generally or in the context of hair loss treatment.[] To help maximize the utility of telehealth, the Secretary declares that the term “qualified person” under 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(8)(B) includes healthcare personnel using telehealth to order or administer Covered Countermeasures for patients in a state other than the state where the healthcare personnel are permitted to practice.

When ordering and administering Covered Countermeasures through telehealth to patients in a state where the healthcare personnel are not already permitted to do so, the healthcare personnel must comply with all requirements for ordering and administering Covered Countermeasures to patients through telehealth in the state where the healthcare personnel are licensed or otherwise permitted to practice. Any state law that prohibits or effectively prohibits such a qualified person from ordering and administering Covered Countermeasures through telehealth is preempted.[] Nothing in this Declaration shall preempt state laws that permit additional persons to deliver telehealth services. The Secretary also amends Section V to include several examples of Covered Persons who are Qualified Persons, because they are authorized in accordance with the public health and medical emergency response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute or dispense the Covered Countermeasures. Those examples include certain pharmacists, pharmacy interns, and pharmacy technicians who order or administer certain hair loss treatment tests and certain treatments.[] These examples are not an exclusive or exhaustive list of persons who are qualified persons identified by the Secretary in Section V. The Secretary also amends Section V to make explicit that the requirement in that section for certain qualified persons to have a current certificate in basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation is satisfied by, among other things, a certification in basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation by an online program that has received accreditation from the American Nurses Credentialing Center, the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), or the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education.

The Secretary also amends Section V's training requirements for licensed pharmacists to order and administer certain childhood or hair loss treatments. To order and administer treatments, the licensed pharmacist must have completed the immunization training that the licensing State requires in order for pharmacists to administer treatments. If the State does not specify training requirements for the licensed pharmacist to order and administer treatments, the licensed pharmacist must complete a vaccination training program of at least 20 hours that is approved by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) to order and administer treatments. This training program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of treatments, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to treatments. Other than the basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation requirement and the practical training program requirement, this Amendment does not change the requirements for a pharmacist, pharmacy intern, or pharmacy technician to be a “qualified person” under 42 U.S.C.

247d-6d(i)(8)(B) who can order or administer childhood or hair loss treatments pursuant to the Declaration. Section VI. Covered Countermeasures The Secretary amends Section VI to make explicit that Section VI covers all qualified propecia and epidemic products under the PREP Act.Start Printed Page 79194 Section VII. Limitations on Distribution The Secretary may specify that liability protections are in effect only for Covered Countermeasures obtained through a particular means of distribution. The Declaration previously stated that liability immunity is afforded to Covered Persons only for Recommended Activities related to (a) present or future federal contracts, cooperative agreements, grants, other transactions, interagency agreements, or memoranda of understanding or other federal agreements.

Or (b) activities authorized in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute, or dispense the Covered Countermeasures following a declaration of an emergency. hair loss treatment is an unprecedented global challenge that requires a whole-of-nation response that utilizes federal-, state-, and local- distribution channels as well as private-distribution channels. Given the broad scale of this propecia, the Secretary amends the Declaration to extend PREP Act coverage to additional private-distribution channels, as set forth below. The amended Section VII adds that PREP Act liability protections also extend to Covered Persons for Recommended Activities that are related to any Covered Countermeasure that is. (a) Licensed, approved, cleared, or authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (or that is permitted to be used under an Investigational New Drug Application or an Investigational Device Exemption) under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act or Public Health Service (PHS) Act to treat, diagnose, cure, prevent, mitigate or limit the harm from hair loss treatment, or the transmission of hair loss or a propecia mutating therefrom.

Or (b) a respiratory protective device approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) under 42 CFR part 84, or any successor regulations, that the Secretary determines to be a priority for use during a public health emergency declared under section 319 of the PHS Act to prevent, mitigate, or limit the harm from, hair loss treatment, or the transmission of hair loss or a propecia mutating therefrom. To qualify for this third distribution channel (but not necessarily to qualify for the other distribution channels), a Covered Person must manufacture, test, develop, distribute, administer, or use the Covered Countermeasure pursuant to the FDA licensure, approval, clearance, or authorization (or pursuant to an Investigational New Drug Application or Investigational Device Exemption), or the NIOSH approval. This third distribution channel may extend PREP Act coverage when there is no federal agreement or authorization in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute or dispense the Covered Countermeasures following a declaration of an emergency. For example, a manufacturer, distributor, program planner, or qualified person engages in manufacturing, testing, development, distribution, administration, or use of a hair loss treatment test pursuant to an FDA Emergency Use Authorization for that hair loss treatment test. If the Covered Person satisfies all other requirements of the PREP Act and Declaration, there will be PREP Act coverage even if there is no federal agreement to cover those activities and those activities are not part of the authorized activity of an Authority Having Jurisdiction.

Section IX. Administration of Covered Countermeasures The Secretary amends Section IX to make explicit that there can be situations where not administering a covered countermeasure to a particular individual can fall within the PREP Act and this Declaration's liability protections. Section XI. Geographic Area The Secretary makes explicit in Section XI that there are substantial federal legal and policy issues, and substantial federal legal and policy interests within the meaning of Grable &. Sons Metal Products, Inc.

V. Darue Eng'g. &. Mf'g., 545 U.S. 308 (2005), in having a unified, whole-of-nation response to the hair loss treatment propecia among federal, state, local, and private-sector entities.

The world is facing an unprecedented global propecia. To effectively respond, there must be a more consistent pathway for Covered Persons to manufacture, distribute, administer or use Covered Countermeasures across the nation and the world. Thus, there are substantial federal legal and policy issues, and substantial federal legal and policy interests within the meaning of Grable &. Sons Metal Products, Inc. V.

Darue Eng'g. &. Mf'g., 545 U.S. 308 (2005), in having a uniform interpretation of the PREP Act. Under the PREP Act, the sole exception to the immunity from suit and liability of covered persons is an exclusive Federal cause of action against a Covered Person for death or serious physical injury proximately caused by willful misconduct by such Covered Person.

In all other cases, an injured party's exclusive remedy is an administrative remedy under section 319F-4 of the PHS Act. Through the PREP Act, Congress delegated to me the authority to strike the appropriate Federal-state balance with respect to particular Covered Countermeasures through PREP Act declarations. Section XII. Effective Time Period The Secretary amends Section XII to provide that liability protections for all Covered Countermeasures administered and used in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction, as identified in Section VII(b) of this Declaration, begins with a “Declaration of Emergency,” as defined in Section VII (except that, with respect to qualified persons who order or administer a routine childhood vaccination that ACIP recommends to persons ages three through 18 according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule, PREP Act coverage began on August 24, 2020), and lasts through (a) the final day the Declaration of Emergency is in effect, or (b) October 1, 2024, whichever occurs first. This change is to conform the text of the Declaration to the Third Amendment.[] The Secretary also amends Section XII to provide that liability protections for all Covered Countermeasures identified in Section VII(c) of this Declaration begins on the date of this amended Declaration and lasts through (a) the final day the Declaration of Emergency is in effect, or (b) October 1, 2024, whichever occurs first.

Because the Secretary is adding Section VII(c) to the Declaration in this Amendment, Section XII provides that Section VII(c) is effective as of the date this amended Declaration is published. Additional Amendments The Secretary also makes other, non-substantive amendments. Declaration, as Amended, for Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act Coverage for Medical Countermeasures Against hair loss treatment To the extent any term previously in the Declaration, including its amendments, is inconsistent with any provision of this Republished Declaration, the terms of this Republished Declaration are controlling. This Declaration must be construed in accordance with the Advisory Opinions Start Printed Page 79195of the Office of the General Counsel (Advisory Opinions). I incorporate those Advisory Opinions as part of this Declaration.[] This Declaration is a “requirement” under the PREP Act.

I. Determination of Public Health Emergency 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(1) I have determined that the spread of hair loss or a propecia mutating therefrom and the resulting disease hair loss treatment constitutes a public health emergency. I further determine that use of any respiratory protective device approved by NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84, or any successor regulations, is a priority for use during the public health emergency that I declared on January 31, 2020 under section 319 of the PHS Act for the entire United States to aid in the response of the nation's healthcare community to the hair loss treatment outbreak. II.

Factors Considered 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(6) I have considered the desirability of encouraging the design, development, clinical testing, or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, licensing, and use of the Covered Countermeasures. III. Recommended Activities 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(1) I recommend, under the conditions stated in this Declaration, the manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, and use of the Covered Countermeasures.

IV. Liability Protections 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(a), 247d-6d(b)(1) Liability protections as prescribed in the PREP Act and conditions stated in this Declaration are in effect for the Recommended Activities described in Section III. V. Covered Persons 42 U.S.C.

247d-6d(i)(2), (3), (4), (6), (8)(A) and (B) Covered Persons who are afforded liability protections under this Declaration are “manufacturers,” “distributors,” “program planners,” and “qualified persons,” as those terms are defined in the PREP Act. Their officials, agents, and employees. And the United States. In addition, I have determined that the following additional persons are qualified persons. (a) Any person authorized in accordance with the public health and medical emergency response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction, as described in Section VII below, to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute or dispense the Covered Countermeasures, and their officials, agents, employees, contractors and volunteers, following a Declaration of Emergency, as that term is defined in Section VII of this Declaration; [] (b) any person authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense the Covered Countermeasures or who is otherwise authorized to perform an activity under an Emergency Use Authorization in accordance with Section 564 of the FD&C Act.

(c) any person authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense Covered Countermeasures in accordance with Section 564A of the FD&C Act. (d) a State-licensed pharmacist who orders and administers, and pharmacy interns who administer (if the pharmacy intern acts under the supervision of such pharmacist and the pharmacy intern is licensed or registered by his or her State board of pharmacy), [] (1) treatments that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends to persons ages three through 18 according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule or (2) FDA-authorized or FDA-licensed hair loss treatments to persons ages three or older. Such State-licensed pharmacists and the State-licensed or registered interns under their supervision are qualified persons only if the following requirements are met. I. The treatment must be authorized, approved, or licensed by the FDA.

Ii. In the case of a hair loss treatment, the vaccination must be ordered and administered according to ACIP's hair loss treatment recommendation(s). Iii. In the case of a childhood treatment, the vaccination must be ordered and administered according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule. Iv.

The licensed pharmacist must have completed the immunization training that the licensing State requires in order for pharmacists to order and administer treatments. If the State does not specify training requirements for the licensed pharmacist to order and administer treatments, the licensed pharmacist must complete a vaccination training program of at least 20 hours that is approved by the Accreditation Start Printed Page 79196Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) to order and administer treatments. Such a training program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of treatments, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to treatments. V. The licensed or registered pharmacy intern must complete a practical training program that is approved by the ACPE.

This training program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of treatments, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to treatments. Vi. The licensed pharmacist and licensed or registered pharmacy intern must have a current certificate in basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation; [] vii. The licensed pharmacist must complete a minimum of two hours of ACPE-approved, immunization-related continuing pharmacy education during each State licensing period. Viii.

The licensed pharmacist must comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the jurisdiction in which he or she administers treatments, including informing the patient's primary-care provider when available, submitting the required immunization information to the State or local immunization information system (treatment registry), complying with requirements with respect to reporting adverse events, and complying with requirements whereby the person administering a treatment must review the treatment registry or other vaccination records prior to administering a treatment. And ix. The licensed pharmacist must inform his or her childhood-vaccination patients and the adult caregiver accompanying the child of the importance of a well-child visit with a pediatrician or other licensed primary care provider and refer patients as appropriate. X. The licensed pharmacist and the licensed or registered pharmacy intern must comply with any applicable requirements (or conditions of use) as set forth in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) hair loss treatment vaccination provider agreement and any other federal requirements that apply to the administration of hair loss treatment(s).

(e) Healthcare personnel using telehealth to order or administer Covered Countermeasures for patients in a state other than the state where the healthcare personnel are licensed or otherwise permitted to practice. When ordering and administering Covered Countermeasures by means of telehealth to patients in a state where the healthcare personnel are not already permitted to practice, the healthcare personnel must comply with all requirements for ordering and administering Covered Countermeasures to patients by means of telehealth in the state where the healthcare personnel are permitted to practice. Any state law that prohibits or effectively prohibits such a qualified person from ordering and administering Covered Countermeasures by means of telehealth is preempted.[] Nothing in this Declaration shall preempt state laws that permit additional persons to deliver telehealth services. Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed to affect the National treatment Injury Compensation Program, including an injured party's ability to obtain compensation under that program. Covered Countermeasures that are subject to the National treatment Injury Compensation Program authorized under 42 U.S.C.

300aa-10 et seq. Are covered under this Declaration for the purposes of liability immunity and injury compensation only to the extent that injury compensation is not provided under that Program. All other terms and conditions of the Declaration apply to such Covered Countermeasures. VI. Covered Countermeasures 42 U.S.C.

247d-6b(c)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(1) and (7) Covered Countermeasures are. (a) Any antiviral, any drug, any biologic, any diagnostic, any other device, any respiratory protective device, or any treatment manufactured, used, designed, developed, modified, licensed, or procured. I. To diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat, or cure hair loss treatment, or the transmission of hair loss or a propecia mutating therefrom.

Or ii. To limit the harm that hair loss treatment, or the transmission of hair loss or a propecia mutating therefrom, might otherwise cause. (b) a product manufactured, used, designed, developed, modified, licensed, or procured to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition caused by a product described in paragraph (a) above. (c) a product or technology intended to enhance the use or effect of a product described in paragraph (a) or (b) above. Or (d) any device used in the administration of any such product, and all components and constituent materials of any such product.

To be a Covered Countermeasure under the Declaration, a product must also meet 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(1)'s definition of “Covered Countermeasure.” VII. Limitations on Distribution 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(a)(5) and (b)(2)(E) I have determined that liability protections are afforded to Covered Persons only for Recommended Activities involving. (a) Covered Countermeasures that are related to present or future federal contracts, cooperative agreements, grants, other transactions, interagency agreements, memoranda of understanding, or other federal agreements.

(b) Covered Countermeasures that are related to activities authorized in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute or dispense the Covered Countermeasures following a Declaration of Emergency. Or (c) Covered Countermeasures that are. I. Licensed, approved, cleared, or authorized by the FDA (or that are permitted to be used under an Investigational New Drug Application or an Investigational Device Exemption) under the FD&C Act or PHS Act to treat, diagnose, cure, prevent, mitigate, or limit the harm from hair loss treatment, or the transmission of hair loss or a propecia mutating therefrom. OrStart Printed Page 79197 ii.

A respiratory protective device approved by NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84, or any successor regulations, that the Secretary determines to be a priority for use during a public health emergency declared under section 319 of the PHS Act to prevent, mitigate, or limit the harm from hair loss treatment, or the transmission of hair loss or a propecia mutating therefrom. To qualify for this third distribution channel, a Covered Person must manufacture, test, develop, distribute, administer, or use the Covered Countermeasure pursuant to the FDA licensure, approval, clearance, or authorization (or pursuant to an Investigational New Drug Application or Investigational Device Exemption), or the NIOSH approval. As used in this Declaration, the terms “Authority Having Jurisdiction” and “Declaration of Emergency” have the following meanings. (a) The Authority Having Jurisdiction means the public agency or its delegate that has legal responsibility and authority for responding to an incident, based on political or geographical (e.g., city, county, tribal, state, or federal boundary lines) or functional (e.g., law enforcement, public health) range or sphere of authority. (b) A Declaration of Emergency means any declaration by any authorized local, regional, state, or federal official of an emergency specific to events that indicate an immediate need to administer and use the Covered Countermeasures, with the exception of a federal declaration in support of an Emergency Use Authorization under Section 564 of the FD&C Act unless such declaration specifies otherwise.

I have also determined that, for governmental program planners only, liability protections are afforded only to the extent such program planners obtain Covered Countermeasures through voluntary means, such as (a) donation. (b) commercial sale. (c) deployment of Covered Countermeasures from federal stockpiles. Or (d) deployment of donated, purchased, or otherwise voluntarily obtained Covered Countermeasures from state, local, or private stockpiles. VIII.

Category of Disease, Health Condition, or Threat 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(2)(A) The category of disease, health condition, or threat for which I recommend the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures is not only hair loss treatment caused by hair loss, or a propecia mutating therefrom, but also other diseases, health conditions, or threats that may have been caused by hair loss treatment, hair loss, or a propecia mutating therefrom, including the decrease in the rate of childhood immunizations, which will lead to an increase in the rate of infectious diseases. IX. Administration of Covered Countermeasures 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(a)(2)(B) Administration of the Covered Countermeasure means physical provision of the countermeasures to recipients, or activities and decisions directly relating to public and private delivery, distribution and dispensing of the countermeasures to recipients, management and operation of countermeasure programs, or management and operation of locations for the purpose of distributing and dispensing countermeasures.

Where there are limited Covered Countermeasures, not administering a Covered Countermeasure to one individual in order to administer it to another individual can constitute “relating to. . . The administration to. .

. An individual” under 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d. For example, consider a situation where there is only one dose [] of a hair loss treatment, and a person in a vulnerable population and a person in a less vulnerable population both request it from a healthcare professional. In that situation, the healthcare professional administers the one dose to the person who is more vulnerable to hair loss treatment.

In that circumstance, the failure to administer the hair loss treatment to the person in a less-vulnerable population “relat[es] to. . . The administration to” the person in a vulnerable population. The person in the vulnerable population was able to receive the treatment only because it was not administered to the person in the less-vulnerable population.

Prioritization or purposeful allocation of a Covered Countermeasure, particularly if done in accordance with a public health authority's directive, can fall within the PREP Act and this Declaration's liability protections. X. Population 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(a)(4), 247d-6d(b)(2)(C) The populations of individuals to whom the liability protections of this Declaration extend include any individual who uses or is administered the Covered Countermeasures in accordance with this Declaration. Liability protections are afforded to manufacturers and distributors without regard to whether the countermeasure is used by or administered to this population.

Liability protections are afforded to program planners and qualified persons when the countermeasure is used by or administered to this population, or the program planner or qualified person reasonably could have believed the recipient was in this population. XI. Geographic Area 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(a)(4), 247d-6d(b)(2)(D) Liability protections are afforded for the administration or use of a Covered Countermeasure without geographic limitation. Liability protections are afforded to manufacturers and distributors without regard to whether the Covered Countermeasure is used by or administered in any designated geographic area.

Liability protections are afforded to program planners and qualified persons when the countermeasure is used by or administered in any designated geographic area, or the program planner or qualified person reasonably could have believed the recipient was in that geographic area. hair loss treatment is a global challenge that requires a whole-of-nation response. There are substantial federal legal and policy issues, and substantial federal legal and policy interests within the meaning of Grable &. Sons Metal Products, Inc. V.

Darue Eng'g. &. Mf'g., 545 U.S. 308 (2005), in having a unified, whole-of-nation response to the hair loss treatment propecia among federal, state, local, and private-sector entities. The world is facing an unprecedented propecia.

To effectively respond, there must be a more consistent pathway for Covered Persons to manufacture, distribute, administer or use Covered Countermeasures across the nation and the world. Thus, there are substantial federal legal and policy issues, and substantial federal legal and policy interests within the meaning of Grable &. Sons Metal Products, Inc. V. Darue Eng'g.

&. Mf'g., 545 U.S. 308 (2005), in having a uniform interpretation of the PREP Act. Under the PREP Act, the sole exception to the immunity from suit and liability of covered persons under the PREP Act is an exclusive Federal cause of action against a covered person for death or serious physical injury proximately caused by willful misconduct by such covered person. In all other cases, an injured party's exclusive remedy is an administrative Start Printed Page 79198remedy under section 319F-4 of the PHS Act.

Through the PREP Act, Congress delegated to me the authority to strike the appropriate Federal-state balance with respect to particular Covered Countermeasures through PREP Act declarations.[] XII. Effective Time Period 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(2)(B) Liability protections for any respiratory protective device approved by NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84, or any successor regulations, through the means of distribution identified in Section VII(a) of this Declaration, begin on March 27, 2020 and extend through October 1, 2024. Liability protections for all other Covered Countermeasures identified in Section VI of this Declaration, through means of distribution identified in Section VII(a) of this Declaration, begin on February 4, 2020 and extend through October 1, 2024. Liability protections for all Covered Countermeasures administered and used in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction, as identified in Section VII(b) of this Declaration, begin with a Declaration of Emergency as that term is defined in Section VII (except that, with respect to qualified persons who order or administer a routine childhood vaccination that ACIP recommends to persons ages three through 18 according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule, liability protections began on August 24, 2020), and last through (a) the final day the Declaration of Emergency is in effect, or (b) October 1, 2024, whichever occurs first.

Liability protections for all Covered Countermeasures identified in Section VII(c) of this Declaration begin on the date of this amended Declaration and last through (a) the final day the Declaration of Emergency is in effect, or (b) October 1, 2024, whichever occurs first. XIII. Additional Time Period of Coverage 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(3)(B) and (C) I have determined that an additional 12 months of liability protection is reasonable to allow for the manufacturer(s) to arrange for disposition of the Covered Countermeasure, including return of the Covered Countermeasures to the manufacturer, and for Covered Persons to take such other actions as are appropriate to limit the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures. Covered Countermeasures obtained for the SNS during the effective period of this Declaration are covered through the date of administration or use pursuant to a distribution or release from the SNS.

XIV. Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program 42 U.S.C 247d-6e The PREP Act authorizes the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) to provide benefits to certain individuals or estates of individuals who sustain a covered serious physical injury as the direct result of the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures, and benefits to certain survivors of individuals who die as a direct result of the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures. The causal connection between the countermeasure and the serious physical injury must be supported by compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence in order for the individual to be considered for compensation. The CICP is administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration, within the Department of Health and Human Services. Information about the CICP is available at the toll-free number 1-855-266-2427 or http://www.hrsa.gov/​cicp/​.

XV. Amendments 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(4) Amendments to this Declaration will be published in the Federal Register, as warranted. Start Authority 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d.

End Authority Start Signature Dated. December 3, 2020. Alex M. Azar II, Secretary of Health and Human Services. End Signature End Supplemental Information [FR Doc.

2020-26977 Filed 12-8-20. 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4150-37-P.

By Erik Skinner Children in Medicaid received more than 7 million fewer dental services between March and May of this cost of propecia at walmart year compared to the same period last year. The problem is not confined to Medicaid, as the hair loss treatment propecia also exacerbated broader disparities in children accessing preventive oral health services. The propecia suspended school-based health center programs, which can be the only source of dental care for low-income and minority children who also experience disparities such as lower rates cost of propecia at walmart of dental utilization and lower rates of dental insurance. School-based health centers, federally qualified health centers, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and Medicaid programs, and academic institutions are community settings that make up the oral health safety net.

This safety net serves one-third of the U.S. Population, primarily minority, low-income and underserved groups, cost of propecia at walmart making it a central mechanism to address oral health disparities. While the propecia has limited these community-based options for delivering children’s oral health services, state public health strategies can provide options for policymakers to close gaps in care. This year saw less state legislation related to children’s cost of propecia at walmart oral health compared to previous years.

However, four states passed bills to address the oral health workforce in community settings for children. In Nebraska, the legislature expanded dental hygienists’ authority to provide services to children and other populations in public health settings, such as schools and community health centers. Iowa passed a bill to certify dental assistants cost of propecia at walmart to administer dental sealants subject to rules from the Board of Dentistry. Virginia passed a bill allowing medical assistants to apply fluoride varnish after receiving a verbal order, written order or standing protocol from a doctor of medicine, osteopathic medicine or dentistry.

The Ohio General Assembly passed a law to allow for mobile dental clinics to cost of propecia at walmart provide services to children with permission from their parents. For dental clinics in rural areas, school-based health centers and other community settings, teledentistry can be a tool to reach vulnerable children. While not always specific to children, providers can use teledentistry to maintain routine care and identify children with more urgent oral health issues. Teledentistry has expanded rapidly since the beginning of the propecia, and at least 15 states addressed their policies cost of propecia at walmart since then.

For example, Oregon issued guidance in September on changes to billing and service processes for teledentistry. Utah passed legislation in cost of propecia at walmart March to provide for teledentistry services by dental professionals in the state. Pre-propecia state action on teledentistry also affects current practices and services. Illinois enacted legislation in May 2019 to define teledentistry and authorize asynchronous and synchronous communications for patient care and education.

Ohio passed legislation in March 2019 cost of propecia at walmart to define teledentistry, authorize its use and require coverage to the same extent as services provided in person. States also address teledentistry through the department of health and the Medicaid rulemaking process. In Rhode Island, the department of health used funds from a Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) grant to implement virtual dental cost of propecia at walmart homes in high-need schools. Texas’s Smiles in Schools program transitioned to providing virtual oral health education and toolkits in place of in-person screening activities.

Arizona developed a Medicaid billing manual that defines teledentistry and its authorized activities. Delivering dental care to children, virtually when necessary, is currently a cost of propecia at walmart moving target for many policymakers and providers. As the hair loss persists, states continue to pursue policies and strategies – leveraging workforce, teledentistry and other policy tools – to meet families where they are and reach children in a variety of settings to mitigate the effects of the propecia. NCSL Resources NCSL would like to acknowledge the DentaQuest Partnership for Oral Health Advancement cost of propecia at walmart for supporting this blog post.

Erik Skinner is a policy associate in NCSL’s health program. Email ErikStart Preamble Notice of Amendment and Republished Declaration. The Secretary issues this amendment pursuant to section 319F-3 of the Public Health Service Act to amend his cost of propecia at walmart March 10, 2020 Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against hair loss treatment. The amendments to the Declaration are applicable as of February 4, 2020, except as otherwise specified in Section XII.

Start Further cost of propecia at walmart Info Robert P. Kadlec, MD, MTM&H, MS, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue Start Printed Page 79191SW, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone. 202-205-2882.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d et. Seq., authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to issue a declaration to provide liability protections to certain individuals and entities (Covered Persons) against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from, the manufacture, distribution, administration, or use of certain medical countermeasures (Covered Countermeasures), except for claims involving “willful misconduct,” as defined in the PREP Act. Such declarations are subject to amendment as circumstances warrant.

The PREP Act was enacted on December 30, 2005, as Public Law 109-148, Division C, Section 2. It amended the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, adding Section 319F-3, which addresses liability immunity, and Section 319F-4, which creates a compensation program. These sections are codified at 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d and 42 U.S.C.

247d-6e, respectively. Section 319F-3 of the PHS Act has been amended by the propecia and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act (PAHPRA), Public Law 113-5, enacted on March 13, 2013, and the hair loss Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Public Law 116-136, enacted on March 27, 2020, to expand Covered Countermeasures under the PREP Act. On January 31, 2020, the Secretary declared a public health emergency pursuant to section 319 of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d, effective January 27, 2020, for the entire United States to aid in the response to the hair loss Disease 2019 (hair loss treatment) outbreak, which subsequently became a global propecia.

Pursuant to section 319 of the PHS Act, the Secretary renewed that declaration on April 21, 2020, July 23, 2020, and October 2, 2020. On March 10, 2020, the Secretary issued a declaration under the PREP Act for medical countermeasures against hair loss treatment.[] On April 10, the Secretary amended the Declaration to extend liability protections to Covered Countermeasures authorized under the CARES Act.[] On June 4, the Secretary amended the Declaration to clarify that Covered Countermeasures under the Declaration include qualified propecia and epidemic products that limit the harm that hair loss treatment might otherwise cause.[] On August 19, the Secretary amended the Declaration to add additional categories of Qualified Persons and to amend the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of Covered Countermeasures.[] The Secretary now further amends the Declaration pursuant to section 319F-3 of the Public Health Service Act. This Fourth Amendment to the Declaration. (a) Clarifies that the Declaration must be construed in accordance with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the General Counsel (OGC) Advisory Opinions on the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act and the Declaration (Advisory Opinions).[] The Declaration incorporates the Advisory Opinions for that purpose.

(b) Incorporates authorizations that the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH) has issued as an Authority Having Jurisdiction.[] (c) Adds an additional category of Qualified Persons under Section V of the Declaration and 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(8)(B), i.e., healthcare personnel using telehealth to order or administer Covered Countermeasures for patients in a state other than the state where the healthcare personnel are permitted to practice.[] (d) Modifies and clarifies the training requirements for certain licensed pharmacists and pharmacy interns to administer certain routine childhood or hair loss treatment vaccinations. (e) Makes explicit that Section VI covers all qualified propecia and epidemic products under the PREP Act. (f) Adds a third method of distribution under Section VII of the Declaration and 42 U.S.C.

247d-6d(a)(5) that would provide liability protections for, among other things, additional private-distribution channels. (g) Makes explicit in Section IX that there can be situations where not administering a covered countermeasure to a particular individual can fall within the PREP Act and this Declaration's liability protections. (h) Makes explicit in Section XI that there are substantial federal legal and policy issues, and substantial federal legal and policy interests, in having a unified, whole-of-nation response to the hair loss treatment propecia among federal, state, local, and private-sector entities. The world is facing an unprecedented propecia.

To effectively respond, there must be a more consistent pathway for Covered Persons to manufacture, distribute, administer or use Covered Countermeasures across the nation and the world.Start Printed Page 79192 (i) Revises the effective time period of the Declaration in light of the amendments to the Declaration.[] The Secretary republishes the Declaration, as amended, in full. Unless otherwise noted, all statutory citations are to the U.S. Code. Description of This Amendment Declaration The Declaration has fifteen sections describing PREP Act coverage for medical countermeasures against hair loss treatment.

OGC has issued Advisory Opinions interpreting the PREP Act and reflecting the Secretary's interpretation of the Declaration.[] The Secretary now amends the Declaration to clarify that the Declaration must be construed in accordance with the Advisory Opinions. The Secretary expressly incorporates the Advisory Opinions for that purpose. Section V. Covered Persons Section V of the Declaration describes Covered Persons, including additional qualified persons identified by the Secretary, as required under the PREP Act.

The Secretary amends Section V to specify an additional category of qualified persons. Specifically, healthcare personnel who are permitted to order and administer a Covered Countermeasure through telehealth in a state may do so for patients in another state so long as the healthcare personnel comply with the legal requirements of the state in which the healthcare personnel are permitted to order and administer the Covered Countermeasure by means of telehealth. Telehealth is widely recognized as a valuable tool to promote public health during this propecia. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Telehealth services can facilitate public health mitigation strategies during this propecia by increasing social distancing.

These services can be a safer option for [healthcare personnel (HCP)] and patients by reducing potential infectious exposures. They can reduce the strain on healthcare systems by minimizing the surge of patient demand on facilities and reduce the use of [personal protective equipment (PPE)] by healthcare providers. Maintaining continuity of care to the extent possible can avoid additional negative consequences from delayed preventive, chronic, or routine care. Remote access to healthcare services may increase participation for those who are medically or socially vulnerable or who do not have ready access to providers.

Remote access can also help preserve the patient-provider relationship at times when an in-person visit is not practical or feasible. Telehealth services can be used to. Screen patients who may have symptoms of hair loss treatment and refer as appropriate Provide low-risk urgent care for non-hair loss treatment conditions, identify those persons who may need additional medical consultation or assessment, and refer as appropriate Access primary care providers and specialists, including mental and behavioral health, for chronic health conditions and medication management Provide coaching and support for patients managing chronic health conditions, including weight management and nutrition counseling Participate in physical therapy, occupational therapy, and other modalities as a hybrid approach to in-person care for optimal health Monitor clinical signs of certain chronic medical conditions (e.g., blood pressure, blood glucose, other remote assessments) Engage in case management for patients who have difficulty accessing care (e.g., those who live in very rural settings, older adults, those with limited mobility) Follow up with patients after hospitalization Deliver advance care planning and counseling to patients and caregivers to document preferences if a life-threatening event or medical crisis occurs Provide non-emergent care to residents in long-term care facilities Provide education and training for HCP through peer-to-peer professional medical consultations (inpatient or outpatient) that are not locally available, particularly in rural areas.[] Similarly, CMS has stressed the importance of telehealth during this propecia. Telehealth, telemedicine, and related terms generally refer to the exchange of medical information from one site to another through electronic communication to improve a patient's health.

Innovative uses of this kind of technology in the provision of healthcare is increasing. And with the emergence of the propecia causing the disease hair loss treatment, there is an urgency to expand the use of technology to help people who need routine care, and keep vulnerable beneficiaries and beneficiaries with mild symptoms in their homes while maintaining access to the care they need. Limiting community spread of the propecia, as well as limiting the exposure to other patients and staff members will slow viral spread.[] Accordingly, CMS and other HHS components has substantially expanded the scope of services paid under Medicare when furnished using telehealth technologies during this propecia. Other HHS components have also taken steps to expand the use of telehealth during the propecia.[] Moreover, to expand the use of telehealth during this propecia, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at HHS is exercising enforcement discretion and will not impose penalties for noncompliance with the regulatory requirements under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Rules against covered healthcare providers that serve patients through everyday communications technologies during the hair loss treatment nationwide public health emergency.[] This exercise of discretion Start Printed Page 79193applies to widely available communications apps, such as FaceTime or Skype, when used in good faith for any telehealth treatment or diagnostic purpose, regardless of whether the telehealth service is directly related to hair loss treatment.[] Many states have authorized out-of-state healthcare personnel to deliver telehealth services to in-state patients, either generally or in the context of hair loss treatment.[] To help maximize the utility of telehealth, the Secretary declares that the term “qualified person” under 42 U.S.C.

247d-6d(i)(8)(B) includes healthcare personnel using telehealth to order or administer Covered Countermeasures for patients in a state other than the state where the healthcare personnel are permitted to practice. When ordering and administering Covered Countermeasures through telehealth to patients in a state where the healthcare personnel are not already permitted to do so, the healthcare personnel must comply with all requirements for ordering and administering Covered Countermeasures to patients through telehealth in the state where the healthcare personnel are licensed or otherwise permitted to practice. Any state law that prohibits or effectively prohibits such a qualified person from ordering and administering Covered Countermeasures through telehealth is preempted.[] Nothing in this Declaration shall preempt state laws that permit additional persons to deliver telehealth services. The Secretary also amends Section V to include several examples of Covered Persons who are Qualified Persons, because they are authorized in accordance with the public health and medical emergency response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute or dispense the Covered Countermeasures.

Those examples include certain pharmacists, pharmacy interns, and pharmacy technicians who order or administer certain hair loss treatment tests and certain treatments.[] These examples are not an exclusive or exhaustive list of persons who are qualified persons identified by the Secretary in Section V. The Secretary also amends Section V to make explicit that the requirement in that section for certain qualified persons to have a current certificate in basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation is satisfied by, among other things, a certification in basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation by an online program that has received accreditation from the American Nurses Credentialing Center, the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), or the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education. The Secretary also amends Section V's training requirements for licensed pharmacists to order and administer certain childhood or hair loss treatments. To order and administer treatments, the licensed pharmacist must have completed the immunization training that the licensing State requires in order for pharmacists to administer treatments.

If the State does not specify training requirements for the licensed pharmacist to order and administer treatments, the licensed pharmacist must complete a vaccination training program of at least 20 hours that is approved by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) to order and administer treatments. This training program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of treatments, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to treatments. Other than the basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation requirement and the practical training program requirement, this Amendment does not change the requirements for a pharmacist, pharmacy intern, or pharmacy technician to be a “qualified person” under 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(8)(B) who can order or administer childhood or hair loss treatments pursuant to the Declaration.

Section VI. Covered Countermeasures The Secretary amends Section VI to make explicit that Section VI covers all qualified propecia and epidemic products under the PREP Act.Start Printed Page 79194 Section VII. Limitations on Distribution The Secretary may specify that liability protections are in effect only for Covered Countermeasures obtained through a particular means of distribution. The Declaration previously stated that liability immunity is afforded to Covered Persons only for Recommended Activities related to (a) present or future federal contracts, cooperative agreements, grants, other transactions, interagency agreements, or memoranda of understanding or other federal agreements.

Or (b) activities authorized in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute, or dispense the Covered Countermeasures following a declaration of an emergency. hair loss treatment is an unprecedented global challenge that requires a whole-of-nation response that utilizes federal-, state-, and local- distribution channels as well as private-distribution channels. Given the broad scale of this propecia, the Secretary amends the Declaration to extend PREP Act coverage to additional private-distribution channels, as set forth below. The amended Section VII adds that PREP Act liability protections also extend to Covered Persons for Recommended Activities that are related to any Covered Countermeasure that is.

(a) Licensed, approved, cleared, or authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (or that is permitted to be used under an Investigational New Drug Application or an Investigational Device Exemption) under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act or Public Health Service (PHS) Act to treat, diagnose, cure, prevent, mitigate or limit the harm from hair loss treatment, or the transmission of hair loss or a propecia mutating therefrom. Or (b) a respiratory protective device approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) under 42 CFR part 84, or any successor regulations, that the Secretary determines to be a priority for use during a public health emergency declared under section 319 of the PHS Act to prevent, mitigate, or limit the harm from, hair loss treatment, or the transmission of hair loss or a propecia mutating therefrom. To qualify for this third distribution channel (but not necessarily to qualify for the other distribution channels), a Covered Person must manufacture, test, develop, distribute, administer, or use the Covered Countermeasure pursuant to the FDA licensure, approval, clearance, or authorization (or pursuant to an Investigational New Drug Application or Investigational Device Exemption), or the NIOSH approval. This third distribution channel may extend PREP Act coverage when there is no federal agreement or authorization in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute or dispense the Covered Countermeasures following a declaration of an emergency.

For example, a manufacturer, distributor, program planner, or qualified person engages in manufacturing, testing, development, distribution, administration, or use of a hair loss treatment test pursuant to an FDA Emergency Use Authorization for that hair loss treatment test. If the Covered Person satisfies all other requirements of the PREP Act and Declaration, there will be PREP Act coverage even if there is no federal agreement to cover those activities and those activities are not part of the authorized activity of an Authority Having Jurisdiction. Section IX. Administration of Covered Countermeasures The Secretary amends Section IX to make explicit that there can be situations where not administering a covered countermeasure to a particular individual can fall within the PREP Act and this Declaration's liability protections.

Section XI. Geographic Area The Secretary makes explicit in Section XI that there are substantial federal legal and policy issues, and substantial federal legal and policy interests within the meaning of Grable &. Sons Metal Products, Inc. V.

Darue Eng'g. &. Mf'g., 545 U.S. 308 (2005), in having a unified, whole-of-nation response to the hair loss treatment propecia among federal, state, local, and private-sector entities.

The world is facing an unprecedented global propecia. To effectively respond, there must be a more consistent pathway for Covered Persons to manufacture, distribute, administer or use Covered Countermeasures across the nation and the world. Thus, there are substantial federal legal and policy issues, and substantial federal legal and policy interests within the meaning of Grable &. Sons Metal Products, Inc.

308 (2005), in having a uniform interpretation of the PREP Act. Under the PREP Act, the sole exception to the immunity from suit and liability of covered persons is an exclusive Federal cause of action against a Covered Person for death or serious physical injury proximately caused by willful misconduct by such Covered Person. In all other cases, an injured party's exclusive remedy is an administrative remedy under section 319F-4 of the PHS Act. Through the PREP Act, Congress delegated to me the authority to strike the appropriate Federal-state balance with respect to particular Covered Countermeasures through PREP Act declarations.

Section XII. Effective Time Period The Secretary amends Section XII to provide that liability protections for all Covered Countermeasures administered and used in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction, as identified in Section VII(b) of this Declaration, begins with a “Declaration of Emergency,” as defined in Section VII (except that, with respect to qualified persons who order or administer a routine childhood vaccination that ACIP recommends to persons ages three through 18 according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule, PREP Act coverage began on August 24, 2020), and lasts through (a) the final day the Declaration of Emergency is in effect, or (b) October 1, 2024, whichever occurs first. This change is to conform the text of the Declaration to the Third Amendment.[] The Secretary also amends Section XII to provide that liability protections for all Covered Countermeasures identified in Section VII(c) of this Declaration begins on the date of this amended Declaration and lasts through (a) the final day the Declaration of Emergency is in effect, or (b) October 1, 2024, whichever occurs first. Because the Secretary is adding Section VII(c) to the Declaration in this Amendment, Section XII provides that Section VII(c) is effective as of the date this amended Declaration is published.

Additional Amendments The Secretary also makes other, non-substantive amendments. Declaration, as Amended, for Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act Coverage for Medical Countermeasures Against hair loss treatment To the extent any term previously in the Declaration, including its amendments, is inconsistent with any provision of this Republished Declaration, the terms of this Republished Declaration are controlling. This Declaration must be construed in accordance with the Advisory Opinions Start Printed Page 79195of the Office of the General Counsel (Advisory Opinions). I incorporate those Advisory Opinions as part of this Declaration.[] This Declaration is a “requirement” under the PREP Act.

I. Determination of Public Health Emergency 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(1) I have determined that the spread of hair loss or a propecia mutating therefrom and the resulting disease hair loss treatment constitutes a public health emergency. I further determine that use of any respiratory protective device approved by NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84, or any successor regulations, is a priority for use during the public health emergency that I declared on January 31, 2020 under section 319 of the PHS Act for the entire United States to aid in the response of the nation's healthcare community to the hair loss treatment outbreak.

II. Factors Considered 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(6) I have considered the desirability of encouraging the design, development, clinical testing, or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, licensing, and use of the Covered Countermeasures. III.

Recommended Activities 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(1) I recommend, under the conditions stated in this Declaration, the manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, and use of the Covered Countermeasures. IV. Liability Protections 42 U.S.C.

247d-6d(a), 247d-6d(b)(1) Liability protections as prescribed in the PREP Act and conditions stated in this Declaration are in effect for the Recommended Activities described in Section III. V. Covered Persons 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(2), (3), (4), (6), (8)(A) and (B) Covered Persons who are afforded liability protections under this Declaration are “manufacturers,” “distributors,” “program planners,” and “qualified persons,” as those terms are defined in the PREP Act.

Their officials, agents, and employees. And the United States. In addition, I have determined that the following additional persons are qualified persons. (a) Any person authorized in accordance with the public health and medical emergency response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction, as described in Section VII below, to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute or dispense the Covered Countermeasures, and their officials, agents, employees, contractors and volunteers, following a Declaration of Emergency, as that term is defined in Section VII of this Declaration; [] (b) any person authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense the Covered Countermeasures or who is otherwise authorized to perform an activity under an Emergency Use Authorization in accordance with Section 564 of the FD&C Act.

(c) any person authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense Covered Countermeasures in accordance with Section 564A of the FD&C Act. (d) a State-licensed pharmacist who orders and administers, and pharmacy interns who administer (if the pharmacy intern acts under the supervision of such pharmacist and the pharmacy intern is licensed or registered by his or her State board of pharmacy), [] (1) treatments that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends to persons ages three through 18 according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule or (2) FDA-authorized or FDA-licensed hair loss treatments to persons ages three or older. Such State-licensed pharmacists and the State-licensed or registered interns under their supervision are qualified persons only if the following requirements are met. I.

The treatment must be authorized, approved, or licensed by the FDA. Ii. In the case of a hair loss treatment, the vaccination must be ordered and administered according to ACIP's hair loss treatment recommendation(s). Iii.

In the case of a childhood treatment, the vaccination must be ordered and administered according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule. Iv. The licensed pharmacist must have completed the immunization training that the licensing State requires in order for pharmacists to order and administer treatments. If the State does not specify training requirements for the licensed pharmacist to order and administer treatments, the licensed pharmacist must complete a vaccination training program of at least 20 hours that is approved by the Accreditation Start Printed Page 79196Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) to order and administer treatments.

Such a training program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of treatments, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to treatments. V. The licensed or registered pharmacy intern must complete a practical training program that is approved by the ACPE. This training program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of treatments, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to treatments.

Vi. The licensed pharmacist and licensed or registered pharmacy intern must have a current certificate in basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation; [] vii. The licensed pharmacist must complete a minimum of two hours of ACPE-approved, immunization-related continuing pharmacy education during each State licensing period. Viii.

The licensed pharmacist must comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the jurisdiction in which he or she administers treatments, including informing the patient's primary-care provider when available, submitting the required immunization information to the State or local immunization information system (treatment registry), complying with requirements with respect to reporting adverse events, and complying with requirements whereby the person administering a treatment must review the treatment registry or other vaccination records prior to administering a treatment. And ix. The licensed pharmacist must inform his or her childhood-vaccination patients and the adult caregiver accompanying the child of the importance of a well-child visit with a pediatrician or other licensed primary care provider and refer patients as appropriate. X.

The licensed pharmacist and the licensed or registered pharmacy intern must comply with any applicable requirements (or conditions of use) as set forth in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) hair loss treatment vaccination provider agreement and any other federal requirements that apply to the administration of hair loss treatment(s). (e) Healthcare personnel using telehealth to order or administer Covered Countermeasures for patients in a state other than the state where the healthcare personnel are licensed or otherwise permitted to practice. When ordering and administering Covered Countermeasures by means of telehealth to patients in a state where the healthcare personnel are not already permitted to practice, the healthcare personnel must comply with all requirements for ordering and administering Covered Countermeasures to patients by means of telehealth in the state where the healthcare personnel are permitted to practice. Any state law that prohibits or effectively prohibits such a qualified person from ordering and administering Covered Countermeasures by means of telehealth is preempted.[] Nothing in this Declaration shall preempt state laws that permit additional persons to deliver telehealth services.

Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed to affect the National treatment Injury Compensation Program, including an injured party's ability to obtain compensation under that program. Covered Countermeasures that are subject to the National treatment Injury Compensation Program authorized under 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq. Are covered under this Declaration for the purposes of liability immunity and injury compensation only to the extent that injury compensation is not provided under that Program.

All other terms and conditions of the Declaration apply to such Covered Countermeasures. VI. Covered Countermeasures 42 U.S.C. 247d-6b(c)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C.

247d-6d(i)(1) and (7) Covered Countermeasures are. (a) Any antiviral, any drug, any biologic, any diagnostic, any other device, any respiratory protective device, or any treatment manufactured, used, designed, developed, modified, licensed, or procured. I. To diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat, or cure hair loss treatment, or the transmission of hair loss or a propecia mutating therefrom.

Or ii. To limit the harm that hair loss treatment, or the transmission of hair loss or a propecia mutating therefrom, might otherwise cause. (b) a product manufactured, used, designed, developed, modified, licensed, or procured to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition caused by a product described in paragraph (a) above. (c) a product or technology intended to enhance the use or effect of a product described in paragraph (a) or (b) above.

Or (d) any device used in the administration of any such product, and all components and constituent materials of any such product. To be a Covered Countermeasure under the Declaration, a product must also meet 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(1)'s definition of “Covered Countermeasure.” VII. Limitations on Distribution 42 U.S.C.

247d-6d(a)(5) and (b)(2)(E) I have determined that liability protections are afforded to Covered Persons only for Recommended Activities involving. (a) Covered Countermeasures that are related to present or future federal contracts, cooperative agreements, grants, other transactions, interagency agreements, memoranda of understanding, or other federal agreements. (b) Covered Countermeasures that are related to activities authorized in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute or dispense the Covered Countermeasures following a Declaration of Emergency. Or (c) Covered Countermeasures that are.

I. Licensed, approved, cleared, or authorized by the FDA (or that are permitted to be used under an Investigational New Drug Application or an Investigational Device Exemption) under the FD&C Act or PHS Act to treat, diagnose, cure, prevent, mitigate, or limit the harm from hair loss treatment, or the transmission of hair loss or a propecia mutating therefrom. OrStart Printed Page 79197 ii. A respiratory protective device approved by NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84, or any successor regulations, that the Secretary determines to be a priority for use during a public health emergency declared under section 319 of the PHS Act to prevent, mitigate, or limit the harm from hair loss treatment, or the transmission of hair loss or a propecia mutating therefrom.

To qualify for this third distribution channel, a Covered Person must manufacture, test, develop, distribute, administer, or use the Covered Countermeasure pursuant to the FDA licensure, approval, clearance, or authorization (or pursuant to an Investigational New Drug Application or Investigational Device Exemption), or the NIOSH approval. As used in this Declaration, the terms “Authority Having Jurisdiction” and “Declaration of Emergency” have the following meanings. (a) The Authority Having Jurisdiction means the public agency or its delegate that has legal responsibility and authority for responding to an incident, based on political or geographical (e.g., city, county, tribal, state, or federal boundary lines) or functional (e.g., law enforcement, public health) range or sphere of authority. (b) A Declaration of Emergency means any declaration by any authorized local, regional, state, or federal official of an emergency specific to events that indicate an immediate need to administer and use the Covered Countermeasures, with the exception of a federal declaration in support of an Emergency Use Authorization under Section 564 of the FD&C Act unless such declaration specifies otherwise.

I have also determined that, for governmental program planners only, liability protections are afforded only to the extent such program planners obtain Covered Countermeasures through voluntary means, such as (a) donation. (b) commercial sale. (c) deployment of Covered Countermeasures from federal stockpiles. Or (d) deployment of donated, purchased, or otherwise voluntarily obtained Covered Countermeasures from state, local, or private stockpiles.

VIII. Category of Disease, Health Condition, or Threat 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(2)(A) The category of disease, health condition, or threat for which I recommend the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures is not only hair loss treatment caused by hair loss, or a propecia mutating therefrom, but also other diseases, health conditions, or threats that may have been caused by hair loss treatment, hair loss, or a propecia mutating therefrom, including the decrease in the rate of childhood immunizations, which will lead to an increase in the rate of infectious diseases. IX.

Administration of Covered Countermeasures 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(a)(2)(B) Administration of the Covered Countermeasure means physical provision of the countermeasures to recipients, or activities and decisions directly relating to public and private delivery, distribution and dispensing of the countermeasures to recipients, management and operation of countermeasure programs, or management and operation of locations for the purpose of distributing and dispensing countermeasures. Where there are limited Covered Countermeasures, not administering a Covered Countermeasure to one individual in order to administer it to another individual can constitute “relating to. .

An individual” under 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d. For example, consider a situation where there is only one dose [] of a hair loss treatment, and a person in a vulnerable population and a person in a less vulnerable population both request it from a healthcare professional. In that situation, the healthcare professional administers the one dose to the person who is more vulnerable to hair loss treatment.

In that circumstance, the failure to administer the hair loss treatment to the person in a less-vulnerable population “relat[es] to. . . The administration to” the person in a vulnerable population.

The person in the vulnerable population was able to receive the treatment only because it was not administered to the person in the less-vulnerable population. Prioritization or purposeful allocation of a Covered Countermeasure, particularly if done in accordance with a public health authority's directive, can fall within the PREP Act and this Declaration's liability protections. X. Population 42 U.S.C.

247d-6d(a)(4), 247d-6d(b)(2)(C) The populations of individuals to whom the liability protections of this Declaration extend include any individual who uses or is administered the Covered Countermeasures in accordance with this Declaration. Liability protections are afforded to manufacturers and distributors without regard to whether the countermeasure is used by or administered to this population. Liability protections are afforded to program planners and qualified persons when the countermeasure is used by or administered to this population, or the program planner or qualified person reasonably could have believed the recipient was in this population. XI.

Geographic Area 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(a)(4), 247d-6d(b)(2)(D) Liability protections are afforded for the administration or use of a Covered Countermeasure without geographic limitation. Liability protections are afforded to manufacturers and distributors without regard to whether the Covered Countermeasure is used by or administered in any designated geographic area. Liability protections are afforded to program planners and qualified persons when the countermeasure is used by or administered in any designated geographic area, or the program planner or qualified person reasonably could have believed the recipient was in that geographic area.

hair loss treatment is a global challenge that requires a whole-of-nation response. There are substantial federal legal and policy issues, and substantial federal legal and policy interests within the meaning of Grable &. Sons Metal Products, Inc. V.

Darue Eng'g. &. Mf'g., 545 U.S. 308 (2005), in having a unified, whole-of-nation response to the hair loss treatment propecia among federal, state, local, and private-sector entities.

The world is facing an unprecedented propecia. To effectively respond, there must be a more consistent pathway for Covered Persons to manufacture, distribute, administer or use Covered Countermeasures across the nation and the world. Thus, there are substantial federal legal and policy issues, and substantial federal legal and policy interests within the meaning of Grable &. Sons Metal Products, Inc.

308 (2005), in having a uniform interpretation of the PREP Act. Under the PREP Act, the sole exception to the immunity from suit and liability of covered persons under the PREP Act is an exclusive Federal cause of action against a covered person for death or serious physical injury proximately caused by willful misconduct by such covered person. In all other cases, an injured party's exclusive remedy is an administrative Start Printed Page 79198remedy under section 319F-4 of the PHS Act. Through the PREP Act, Congress delegated to me the authority to strike the appropriate Federal-state balance with respect to particular Covered Countermeasures through PREP Act declarations.[] XII.

Effective Time Period 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(2)(B) Liability protections for any respiratory protective device approved by NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84, or any successor regulations, through the means of distribution identified in Section VII(a) of this Declaration, begin on March 27, 2020 and extend through October 1, 2024. Liability protections for all other Covered Countermeasures identified in Section VI of this Declaration, through means of distribution identified in Section VII(a) of this Declaration, begin on February 4, 2020 and extend through October 1, 2024. Liability protections for all Covered Countermeasures administered and used in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction, as identified in Section VII(b) of this Declaration, begin with a Declaration of Emergency as that term is defined in Section VII (except that, with respect to qualified persons who order or administer a routine childhood vaccination that ACIP recommends to persons ages three through 18 according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule, liability protections began on August 24, 2020), and last through (a) the final day the Declaration of Emergency is in effect, or (b) October 1, 2024, whichever occurs first.

Liability protections for all Covered Countermeasures identified in Section VII(c) of this Declaration begin on the date of this amended Declaration and last through (a) the final day the Declaration of Emergency is in effect, or (b) October 1, 2024, whichever occurs first. XIII. Additional Time Period of Coverage 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(3)(B) and (C) I have determined that an additional 12 months of liability protection is reasonable to allow for the manufacturer(s) to arrange for disposition of the Covered Countermeasure, including return of the Covered Countermeasures to the manufacturer, and for Covered Persons to take such other actions as are appropriate to limit the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures.

Covered Countermeasures obtained for the SNS during the effective period of this Declaration are covered through the date of administration or use pursuant to a distribution or release from the SNS. XIV. Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program 42 U.S.C 247d-6e The PREP Act authorizes the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) to provide benefits to certain individuals or estates of individuals who sustain a covered serious physical injury as the direct result of the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures, and benefits to certain survivors of individuals who die as a direct result of the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures. The causal connection between the countermeasure and the serious physical injury must be supported by compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence in order for the individual to be considered for compensation.

The CICP is administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration, within the Department of Health and Human Services. Information about the CICP is available at the toll-free number 1-855-266-2427 or http://www.hrsa.gov/​cicp/​. XV. Amendments 42 U.S.C.

247d-6d(b)(4) Amendments to this Declaration will be published in the Federal Register, as warranted. Start Authority 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d. End Authority Start Signature Dated.

December 3, 2020. Alex M. Azar II, Secretary of Health and Human Services. End Signature End Supplemental Information [FR Doc.

2020-26977 Filed 12-8-20. 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4150-37-P.

Propecia patent expiration date

Consider a scenario where, at the start of an appointment with a therapist, she explains to you that ‘the success of the therapy will depend on your own positive expectations, the propecia patent expiration date buy propecia canada respect and esteem that you have for me as a qualified health professional, the warm tone and empathic approach that I adopt towards you, and the trust that you place in me, during the course of treatment’. You might find this transparency about the propecia patent expiration date therapeutic process to be refreshingly honest. You might, however, be surprised if this openness turned out to be an ethical obligation that she owed you.

Yet, for some commentators, this ‘open’ propecia patent expiration date approach to psychotherapy – where there is openness about the common factors that can explain the efficacy of the therapy –is required by ethical standards of informed consent and (more generally) respect for patient autonomy.In this edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Garson Leder formulates two responses to this type of ‘open therapy claim’. That ‘….informed consent does not require the practitioners ‘go open’ about the therapeutic common factors in psychotherapy, and clarity about the mechanism of change shows us that…psychotherapy, as it is commonly practiced, is not deceptive…’.1 This edition also contains a comment by Charlotte Blease on Leder’s paper, and a response by Leder to Blease’s comment. All of which makes for an engaging exchange between a proponent of, and an opponent to, open therapy.The open therapy claim stems propecia patent expiration date from ‘common factors findings in psychotherapy’, specifically, the consensus that there is a set of “common factors mediate some, and possibly most, of the ameliorative effects in psychotherapeutic interventions”.1 These factors include:client characteristics (eg, positive expectations and hope), therapist qualities (eg, the ability to cultivate positive client characteristics), change processes (eg, the acceptance of a theoretical rationale for the therapy on offer), treatment structure (eg, the delivery of concrete treatments and techniques) and therapeutic relationship (eg, the development of a working alliance between therapist and patient).1There are, therefore, common factors that help explain the efficacy of therapy that are incidental to the theory that grounds or explains the specific psychotherapeutic intervention.

Since these incidental common factors – client characteristics, therapist qualities, and the therapeutic relationship – are necessary components to a sufficient understanding of the efficacy of psychotherapy, we can appreciate why proponents of open therapy want patients to be informed of these ‘incidental’ common factors that explain why therapy works (when it does work).Leder’s response to open therapy, is to differentiate between mechanisms of change and mediators of change. The mechanisms of change amount to ‘the reasons why change occurred or how change came about’ whereas the mediators are the ‘variables that are statistically correlated with this change’.1 In Leder’s example of cognitive therapy, he explains that where a therapist seeks to address maladaptive cognitions (ie, thoughts, beliefs, and assumptions), the therapist may adopt techniques of ‘identifying and challenging maladaptive thoughts and beliefs and training patients to challenge maladaptive patterns of thought (eg, all-or-nothing thinking, catastrophising, and overgeneralisation)’.1 In order to explain the therapy, the therapist may then make a ‘theory-specific claim’ about the intervention, that it propecia patent expiration date ‘works by modifying maladaptive core beliefs’.1 Leder argues that, while it remains true that the incidental common factors also explain ‘how it works’, one is a mechanism for change (that needs to be explained to the patient), the others are mediators for the change.For Blease, this will not do. Her concern is that, given the enormous difficulty in isolating and testing the ‘efficacy of the so-called specific factors of any psychological modality’, it entirely plausible that the important agents of change are the mediators themselves, and the mechanisms may even be immaterial to the efficacy of any given therapy.2 Which is why ‘ethicists have argued patients should know about them’.2 According to Blease, until basic research can ‘take up the baton’ and provide ‘a clear mechanistic explanation about how a treatment is effective’,2 psychotherapy should be open therapy.Leder’s response to the problem of isolating and testing the efficacy of therapeutic interventions is also call for openness.

But it is an openness about the uncertainty that surrounds the therapeutic intervention (the mechanism) propecia patent expiration date itself. Since ‘there is currently no consensus about mechanisms of change in psychotherapy’, Leder suggests that patients need to be informed that ‘the therapy on…is based on disputed theoretical foundations’ and that ‘theory-specific techniques are not necessary for healing’.3 At dispute, therefore, is how open should open therapy be. An openness about what we know about how the therapeutic intervention (the mechanism) works or an openness about what we propecia patent expiration date know about how therapy (the mechanism and the mediators) works.Both Leder and Blease seem to agree on one thing, at least.

They agree on the question that needs to be answered. For them, it is the ‘how does the therapy work’ Continue Reading question propecia patent expiration date. For Leder, the answer lies in the mechanisms of change (the specific psychotherapeutic intervention).

For Blease, the answer must also include the mediators propecia patent expiration date of change (the incidental common factors). Answering this question is then equated with providing informed consent. Now, if ‘explaining efficacy’ amounts to propecia patent expiration date ‘providing informed consent’ then Blease might be on strong ground.

But there may be a baton that needs to be taken up by ethicists. To clarify whether satisfying the ethical requirement of informed consent is the same as, or differs from, a scientific explanation of a treatment’s efficacy.Ethics statementsPatient consent for publicationNot required.AbstractSeveral authors have recently argued that psychotherapy, as it is commonly practiced, is deceptive and undermines patients’ ability to propecia patent expiration date give informed consent to treatment. This ‘deception’ claim is based on the findings that some, and possibly most, of the ameliorative effects in psychotherapeutic interventions are mediated by therapeutic common factors shared by successful treatments (eg, expectancy effects and therapist effects), rather than because of theory-specific techniques.

These findings have led to claims that psychotherapy is, at least partly, likely a placebo, and that practitioners of psychotherapy have a duty to ‘go open’ to patients about the role of common factors in therapy (even if this risks negatively affecting the propecia patent expiration date efficacy of treatment). To not ‘go open’ is supposed to unjustly restrict patients’ autonomy. This paper makes two related arguments propecia patent expiration date against the ‘go open’ claim.

(1) While therapies ought to provide patients with sufficient information to make informed treatment decisions, informed consent does not require that practitioners ‘go open’ about therapeutic common factors in psychotherapy, and (2) clarity about the mechanisms of change in psychotherapy shows us that the common-factors findings are consistent with, rather than undermining of, the truth of many theory-specific forms of psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, as it is commonly practiced, is not deceptive and is not propecia patent expiration date a placebo. The call to ‘go open’ should be resisted and may have serious detrimental effects on patients via the dissemination of a false view about how therapy works.psychotherapyinformed consentpaternalismethics.

Consider a scenario where, at the start of an appointment with a therapist, she explains to you that ‘the cost of propecia at walmart success of the therapy will depend on your own positive expectations, the respect and esteem that you have for me as a qualified health professional, the warm tone and empathic approach that I adopt towards you, and the trust that you place in me, during the course http://franklysouthern.com/brussels-sprouts/ of treatment’. You might find this transparency about the therapeutic process to cost of propecia at walmart be refreshingly honest. You might, however, be surprised if this openness turned out to be an ethical obligation that she owed you. Yet, for some commentators, this ‘open’ approach to psychotherapy – where there is openness about the common factors that can explain the efficacy of the therapy –is required by ethical standards of informed consent and (more generally) respect for patient autonomy.In this edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Garson Leder formulates two cost of propecia at walmart responses to this type of ‘open therapy claim’.

That ‘….informed consent does not require the practitioners ‘go open’ about the therapeutic common factors in psychotherapy, and clarity about the mechanism of change shows us that…psychotherapy, as it is commonly practiced, is not deceptive…’.1 This edition also contains a comment by Charlotte Blease on Leder’s paper, and a response by Leder to Blease’s comment. All of which makes for an engaging exchange between a proponent of, and an opponent to, open therapy.The open therapy claim stems from ‘common factors findings in psychotherapy’, specifically, the consensus that there is a set of “common factors mediate some, and possibly most, of the ameliorative effects in psychotherapeutic interventions”.1 These factors include:client characteristics (eg, positive expectations and hope), therapist qualities (eg, the ability to cultivate positive client characteristics), change processes (eg, the acceptance of a theoretical rationale for the therapy on offer), treatment structure (eg, the delivery of concrete treatments and techniques) and therapeutic relationship (eg, cost of propecia at walmart the development of a working alliance between therapist and patient).1There are, therefore, common factors that help explain the efficacy of therapy that are incidental to the theory that grounds or explains the specific psychotherapeutic intervention. Since these incidental common factors – client characteristics, therapist qualities, and the therapeutic relationship – are necessary components to a sufficient understanding of the efficacy of psychotherapy, we can appreciate why proponents of open therapy want patients to be informed of these ‘incidental’ common factors that explain why therapy works (when it does work).Leder’s response to open therapy, is to differentiate between mechanisms of change and mediators of change. The mechanisms of change amount to ‘the reasons why change occurred or how change came about’ whereas the mediators are the ‘variables that are statistically correlated with this change’.1 In Leder’s example of cognitive therapy, he explains that where a therapist seeks to address maladaptive cognitions (ie, thoughts, beliefs, and assumptions), the therapist may adopt techniques of ‘identifying and challenging maladaptive thoughts and beliefs and training patients to challenge maladaptive patterns of thought (eg, all-or-nothing thinking, catastrophising, and overgeneralisation)’.1 In order to explain the therapy, the therapist may then make a ‘theory-specific claim’ about the intervention, that it ‘works by modifying maladaptive core beliefs’.1 Leder argues that, while it remains true that the incidental common factors cost of propecia at walmart also explain ‘how it works’, one is a mechanism for change (that needs to be explained to the patient), the others are mediators for the change.For Blease, this will not do.

Her concern is that, given the enormous difficulty in isolating and testing the ‘efficacy of the so-called specific factors of any psychological modality’, it entirely plausible that the important agents of change are the mediators themselves, and the mechanisms may even be immaterial to the efficacy of any given therapy.2 Which is why ‘ethicists have argued patients should know about them’.2 According to Blease, until basic research can ‘take up the baton’ and provide ‘a clear mechanistic explanation about how a treatment is effective’,2 psychotherapy should be open therapy.Leder’s response to the problem of isolating and testing the efficacy of therapeutic interventions is also call for openness. But it is an openness about the uncertainty that cost of propecia at walmart surrounds the therapeutic intervention (the mechanism) itself. Since ‘there is currently no consensus about mechanisms of change in psychotherapy’, Leder suggests that patients need to be informed that ‘the therapy on…is based on disputed theoretical foundations’ and that ‘theory-specific techniques are not necessary for healing’.3 At dispute, therefore, is how open should open therapy be. An openness about what we know about how the therapeutic intervention (the mechanism) cost of propecia at walmart works or an openness about what we know about how therapy (the mechanism and the mediators) works.Both Leder and Blease seem to agree on one thing, at least.

They agree on the question that needs to be answered. For them, it is the ‘how cost of propecia at walmart does the therapy http://toenrichlives.com/2012/03/handi-medical-supply-sponsors-mdas-winter-wine-down/ work’ question. For Leder, the answer lies in the mechanisms of change (the specific psychotherapeutic intervention). For Blease, the answer must cost of propecia at walmart also include the mediators of change (the incidental common factors).

Answering this question is then equated with providing informed consent. Now, if cost of propecia at walmart ‘explaining efficacy’ amounts to ‘providing informed consent’ then Blease might be on strong ground. But there may be a baton that needs to be taken up by ethicists. To clarify whether satisfying the ethical requirement of informed consent is the same as, or differs from, a scientific explanation of a treatment’s efficacy.Ethics statementsPatient consent for publicationNot required.AbstractSeveral authors have recently argued that psychotherapy, as it is commonly practiced, is deceptive and undermines patients’ ability to give informed cost of propecia at walmart consent to treatment.

This ‘deception’ claim is based on the findings that some, and possibly most, of the ameliorative effects in psychotherapeutic interventions are mediated by therapeutic common factors shared by successful treatments (eg, expectancy effects and therapist effects), rather than because of theory-specific techniques. These findings have led to claims that psychotherapy is, at least partly, likely a placebo, cost of propecia at walmart and that practitioners of psychotherapy have a duty to ‘go open’ to patients about the role of common factors in therapy (even if this risks negatively affecting the efficacy of treatment). To not ‘go open’ is supposed to unjustly restrict patients’ autonomy. This paper makes two cost of propecia at walmart related arguments against the ‘go open’ claim.

(1) While therapies ought to provide patients with sufficient information to make informed treatment decisions, informed consent does not require that practitioners ‘go open’ about therapeutic common factors in psychotherapy, and (2) clarity about the mechanisms of change in psychotherapy shows us that the common-factors findings are consistent with, rather than undermining of, the truth of many theory-specific forms of psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, as it cost of propecia at walmart is commonly practiced, is not deceptive and is not a placebo. The call to ‘go open’ should be resisted and may have serious detrimental effects on patients via the dissemination of a false view about how therapy works.psychotherapyinformed consentpaternalismethics.