Tag: Idaho

Idaho’s OB-GYN Exodus Throws Women in Rural Towns Into a Care Void

SANDPOINT, Idaho — The ultrasound in February that found a mass growing in her uterus and abnormally thick uterine lining brought Jonell Anderson more than anxiety over diagnosis and treatment.

For Anderson and other patients in this rural community who need gynecological care, stress over discovering an illness is compounded by the challenges they face getting to a doctor.

After that initial ultrasound, Anderson’s primary care provider referred her to an OB-GYN nearly an hour’s drive away in Coeur d’Alene for more testing.

Getting care for more serious gynecological issues, like a hysteroscopy, endometriosis, or polycystic ovary syndrome, has become much more difficult in Sandpoint, a town of about 10,000 people in Idaho’s panhandle region. A state law criminalizing abortions drove multiple OB-GYNs to leave town about a year ago.

The effects have been far-reaching. The OB-GYNs who left Sandpoint were also providing care to patients in nearby outlying areas, like Bonners Ferry, a roughly 40-minute drive into Idaho’s northernmost county. Doctors have spoken out about not feeling safe practicing medicine where they could face criminal charges for providing care to their patients. Republican lawmakers in Idaho contend doctors are being used in an effort to roll back the ban, and they declined to amend the law this year.

According to the Idaho Coalition for Safe Healthcare, a group advocating for a rollback of the state’s strict abortion ban, at least two hospitals, including Bonner General Health in Sandpoint, ended labor and delivery services in the 15 months after the state criminalized abortion in 2022. During that same time period, the number of OB-GYNs practicing in Idaho dropped by 22%. The report’s authors noted that many rural residents rely on consultations from medical specialists in urban parts of the state that are already struggling to provide care.

Those departures have expanded care deserts and added obstacles between patients and care, including for Anderson, 49.

A portrait of Jonell Anderson, who is sitting on a wooden bench by a large body of water on a partly-sunny day.
Jonell Anderson drove nearly two hours round trip from Sandpoint, Idaho, to Coeur d’Alene to receive testing for a mass found in her uterus this year. The burden of traveling outside her community for care adds to the emotional roller coaster of the experience, she says. (Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez/KFF Health News)

Anderson’s car broke down when she was on the way to see an OB-GYN in Coeur d’Alene a few weeks after her initial ultrasound. Her husband took off work to drive her to a rescheduled appointment the same day. After hours of mishaps, she arrived for the visit, which lasted about 15 minutes. There, the doctor told her she’d need to come back for a hysteroscopy — an exam that shows the inside of the cervix and uterus — a few weeks later, followed by another appointment to go over results.

Four months later, in June, early results showed that the mass in Anderson’s uterus did not appear to be cancerous. She’s relieved, she said, but still concerned about nearing menopause and not having the support of an OB-GYN nearby to help her manage any symptoms or health issues that could come up.

“It sure was a whole level of stress that just added on because I had so much further to transport,” Anderson said. “Three years ago I would have been 10 minutes away from my appointment, not 60 minutes away.”

Those hardships patients face weigh heavily on the specialists who left.

Amelia Huntsberger, an OB-GYN, said that she and her husband are still grappling with a feeling of grief after being “forced out of Idaho” last year. They had lived in the state for more than a decade and practiced in Sandpoint. While leaving was a difficult decision, she said, she has no doubt it was the right one for her; her husband, who was a doctor in the emergency room at Bonner General; and their children.

“I think about things like who we are as a people,” Huntsberger said. “What do we value, and do our actions reflect our values?” Limiting access to care for women, pregnant or not, and their infants suggests lawmakers do not consider them important, she said.

Usha Ranji, an associate director for Women’s Health Policy at KFF, said she has heard anecdotally about providers leaving states with strict abortion bans like Idaho’s. Some recent medical graduates are also avoiding residency positions in states restricting abortion, making it harder to replace the outgoing providers, Ranji said.

Sandy Brower, a spokesperson for Bonner General, said the hospital is working to hire a gynecologist and is focused on building out its family provider team. She said other providers at the hospital are still treating women before and after pregnancy, but not during delivery unless it’s an emergency and the person cannot be transported.

Susie Keller, CEO of the Idaho Medical Association, said there’s a growing number of doctor vacancies in the state and that the number of applicants has “absolutely plummeted and those jobs are taking about twice as long as normal to fill.

“We are witnessing the dismantling of our health system,” Keller said.

A photo of two posters on a wall. The poster on the left reads, "How would you architect women's healthcare?" and is further broken down into sections that say "legislation," "healthcare," "social/moral," "insurance," and "financial." Below, it continues to say, "If you could design it yourself, what would you choose? / How should we approach reproductive rights and social support for families in Idaho?" followed by an informational section about some specific individuals. The poster on the left says, "I want to live in an Idaho where... / What do you want to see for the future of women and healthcare in the state of Idaho? Tell us, and tell the world. Let's start a conversation. Choose your prompt from the collection below."
Posters in the “Worth of a Woman” exhibit explore different women’s health issues. (Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez/KFF Health News)

As more community members feel the effects of a strained health system, some are following in the path of the doctors — they’re considering leaving. Anderson is among them.

Local education issues play a large part in that decision-making process, she said, as she considers her 9-year-old daughter’s future. But access to women’s health care is another piece of the puzzle.

“If I don’t have the care I need and she doesn’t have the care she needs,” Anderson said, “is that really somewhere we want to live?”

Ranji said polling indicates health care is a priority for people, so it could play into decisions about where they want to plant roots. And that leads into another way community members could respond to the changes in local care — by voting in state elections.

Primary election results from May in northern Idaho, where Sandpoint is located, showed signs of voters backing Republican candidates who hold more moderate views on abortion. Former state Sen. Jim Woodward narrowly beat Sen. Scott Herndon, a fellow Republican who sought reelection to his seat in the legislature.

Woodward, a self-described pro-life candidate with a stance against elective abortions, supports efforts to include exceptions for the health of the mother and removing the threat of felony charges against doctors who perform abortions. Herndon, on the other hand, provoked strong reactions during last year’s legislative session when he sponsored a bill that would have removed the already strict law’s current narrow exceptions for rape and incest.

A portrait of Kathryn Larson, who sits in an office overflowing with plants.
Kathryn Larson, a Democrat running for a seat in the Idaho House of Representatives, saw a doctor in the eastern Washington city of Spokane, more than an hour’s drive from her community, to treat her prolapsed bladder. Before OB-GYNs left Sandpoint, she might have been able to receive care locally.(Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez/KFF Health News)

Kathryn Larson, 66, has been campaigning as a Democrat for a seat representing most of Boundary and Bonner counties, the two northernmost in the panhandle region, in the state’s House of Representatives. She also has had recent firsthand experience falling into the care gap created by the exodus of OB-GYNs in Sandpoint.

In January, Larson went to the emergency room at Bonner General, a 25-bed critical access hospital, with severe chest pains. A cardiologist suggested an infection could be to blame. Larson said she also experienced vertigo and rapid heartbeat and later developed symptoms of a urinary tract infection. She was given rounds of antibiotics to treat the infection, but the symptoms returned.

More testing finally revealed the crux of the issue — Larson was dealing with a prolapsed bladder, which is not life-threatening but causes discomfort or pain and affects 1 in 3 women in their 60s.

After about five months of back-and-forth communication with providers in Post Falls and the eastern Washington city of Spokane, she scheduled an appointment for surgery in early June in Spokane, more than an hour’s drive from Sandpoint. Following surgery, during which doctors implanted a mesh structure to support her bladder, Larson is spending six to eight weeks recovering before heading into the final stretches of election season.

She said the November election will help others in her party tell if it will be possible to work across the aisle to loosen restrictions on the abortion policy during next year’s legislative session. She wants to slow the loss of needed providers across the state.

“People don’t feel safe,” Larson said.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 27 that Idaho must for now continue to allow abortions in medical emergencies. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the Biden administration, which argued that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act requires such care.

But the ruling does not provide a permanent solution. It kicks the case back to lower courts. Confusion remains over a doctor’s ability to perform abortions even in emergency settings, and the Idaho Medical Association said it will continue to work toward a clear health-of-the-mother exception within state law during next year’s legislative session.

“We still need more clarity for our state’s doctors,” OB-GYN Megan Kasper said in a medical association press release.

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’: SCOTUS Ruling Strips Power From Federal Health Agencies

The Host

In what will certainly be remembered as a landmark decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority this week overruled a 40-year-old legal precedent that required judges in most cases to yield to the expertise of federal agencies. It is unclear how the elimination of what’s known as the “Chevron deference” will affect the day-to-day business of the federal government, but the decision is already sending shockwaves through the policymaking community. Administrative experts say it will dramatically change the way key health agencies, such as the FDA and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, do business.

The Supreme Court also this week decided not to decide a case out of Idaho that centered on whether a federal health law that requires hospitals to provide emergency care overrides the state’s near-total ban on abortion.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico Magazine, Victoria Knight of Axios, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled broadly that courts should defer to the decision-making of federal agencies when an ambiguous law is challenged. On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the courts, not federal agencies, should have the final say. The ruling will make it more difficult to implement federal laws — and draws attention to the fact that Congress, frequently and pointedly, leaves federal agencies much of the job of turning written laws into reality.
  • That was hardly the only Supreme Court decision with major health implications this week: On Thursday, the court temporarily restored access to emergency abortions in Idaho. But as with its abortion-pill decision, it ruled on a technicality, with other, similar cases in the wings — like one challenging Texas’ abortion ban.
  • In separate rulings, the court struck down a major opioid settlement agreement, and it effectively allowed the federal government to petition social media companies to remove falsehoods. Plus, the court agreed to hear a case next term on transgender health care for minors.
  • The first general-election debate of the 2024 presidential cycle left abortion activists frustrated with their standard-bearers — on both sides of the aisle. Opponents didn’t like that former President Donald Trump doubled down on his stance that abortion should be left to the states. And abortion rights supporters felt President Joe Biden failed to forcefully rebut Trump’s outlandish falsehoods about abortion — and also failed to take a strong enough position on abortion rights himself.

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “Masks Are Going From Mandated to Criminalized in Some States,” by Fenit Nirappil.  

Victoria Knight: The New York Times’ “The Opaque Industry Secretly Inflating Prices for Prescription Drugs,” by Rebecca Robbins and Reed Abelson. 

Joanne Kenen: The Washington Post’s “Social Security To Drop Obsolete Jobs Used To Deny Disability Benefits,” by Lisa Rein.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “Opioid Deaths Rose 50 Percent During the Pandemic. in These Places, They Fell,” by Ruth Reader.  

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:


To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on SpotifyApple PodcastsPocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Republicans Are Downplaying Abortion, but It Keeps Coming Up

For generations, the GOP campaigned on eliminating the right to an abortion in the United States. Now, torn between a base that wants more restrictions on reproductive health care and a moderate majority that does not, it seems many Republicans would rather take an off-ramp than a victory lap.

And yet, they just can’t escape talking about it.

The policy high point for abortion opponents — the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to strike down Roe v. Wade — is proving a low point for public support for their cause. More American adults consider themselves “pro-choice” than at any time in the past 30 years, according to a recent survey from Gallup: 54%, compared with 41% who identify as “pro-life.”

The tide is turning even as some conservatives seek restrictions on birth control and fertility treatments. A new KFF survey of women voters found that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say that abortion is the most important issue in their vote for president — a reversal from recent elections. One in 5 women under age 30 and 13% of those under age 50 said it is their top concern. Among independents, 81% said they believed abortion should be legal.

Democrats are counting on the issue to help turn out their votes and ensure President Joe Biden’s reelection, despite persistent dissatisfaction with his leadership. Abortion could prove particularly disruptive in battleground states expected to have initiatives on the ballot to enshrine access to abortion in state constitutions, including Arizona and Nevada.

Eight in 10 Democratic women in states with possible ballot measures said they were “absolutely certain” they would vote — and also said they were more likely to back Biden compared with Democratic women in other states, KFF found.

So far, abortion rights supporters have prevailed in each of the seven states that have put ballot initiatives before voters — including in states where Republicans control the legislatures, such as Kansas, Ohio, and Kentucky. About two-thirds of women in Arizona told KFF they support the state’s proposed Right to Abortion Initiative, including 68% of independents.

On the campaign trail, Republicans are bobbing and weaving to avoid the subject, even when that means distancing themselves from — well, themselves. Former President Donald Trump, who has taken a few different stances since calling himself “pro-choice” in 1999, reportedly urged lawmakers during a recent closed-door visit to the Capitol not to shy away from the issue, but also to support exceptions to bans, including to protect the life of the pregnant person.

In pivotal Arizona, U.S. Senate Republican candidate Kari Lake, who embraced a near-complete abortion ban while running for governor two years ago, recently said “a full ban on abortion is not where the people are.” In Nevada, the GOP Senate nominee, Sam Brown, who as recently as 2022 headed up a branch of a conservative anti-abortion group, has said he will respect his state’s permissive abortion law and would not vote for a nationwide ban if elected.

The Supreme Court is keeping the issue on the front burner. In a decision June 27, the court left emergency abortions legal in Idaho, a state with a strict ban, though the issue remains unsettled nationally. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who joined the majority in an unusual ruling that sent the case back to the lower court and declared it had been accepted prematurely, accused her colleagues of dawdling on the issue.

“Pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires,” she wrote.

The KFF survey found broad, strong support for preserving access to abortion in cases of pregnancy-related emergencies: 86% of women voters — including 79% of Republican women — support laws protecting access in those circumstances.

In mid-June, the court rejected an effort to overturn the FDA’s 24-year-old approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, but only on a technicality. With no actual ruling on the merits of the case, the justices left open the possibility that different plaintiffs could provoke a different outcome. Nevertheless, the push to redefine reproductive health care post-Roe v. Wade continues. The influential evangelical Southern Baptist Convention recently called for significant legislative restrictions on in vitro fertilization, which its members call morally incompatible with the belief that life begins at fertilization.

Abortion opposition groups are pressing Trump not to discard a main plank of the GOP’s presidential platform since 1976: a federal abortion ban. Trump has recently said states should make their own decisions about whether to restrict abortion.

Democrats and Democratic-aligned groups are exploiting Republicans’ discomfort with the issue. On the day Senate Democrats forced a vote on legislation that would have guaranteed a federal right to contraception, a group called Americans for Contraception floated a giant balloon shaped like an IUD near the Capitol. (Republicans blocked the bill, as expected — and no doubt Democrats will frequently remind voters of that this year.)

A week later, Senate Democrats tried to bring up a bill to guarantee access to IVF, which Republicans also voted down. No giant balloon for that one, though.

Republicans still appear bent on dodging accountability for the unpopularity of their reproductive health positions, if only by highlighting other issues they hope voters care about even more — notably, the economy. But one thing they’re unlikely to accomplish is keeping the issue out of the news.

HealthBent, a regular feature of KFF Health News, offers insight into and analysis of policies and politics from KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner, who has covered health care for more than 30 years.

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’: Alabama’s IVF Ruling Still Making Waves

The Host

Reverberations from the Alabama Supreme Court’s first-in-the-nation ruling that embryos are legally children continued this week, both in the states and in Washington. As Alabama lawmakers scrambled to find a way to protect in vitro fertilization services without directly denying the “personhood” of embryos, lawmakers in Florida postponed a vote on the state’s own “personhood” law. And in Washington, Republicans worked to find a way to satisfy two factions of their base: those who support IVF and those who believe embryos deserve full legal rights.

Meanwhile, Congress may finally be nearing a funding deal for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. And while a few bipartisan health bills may catch a ride on the overall spending bill, several other priorities, including an overhaul of the pharmacy benefit manager industry, failed to make the cut.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, Riley Griffin of Bloomberg News, and Joanne Kenen of Johns Hopkins University’s schools of nursing and public health and Politico Magazine.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • Lawmakers are readying short-term deals to keep the government funded and running for at least a few more weeks, though some health priorities like preparing for a future pandemic and keeping down prescription drug prices may not make the cut.
  • After the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision that frozen embryos are people, Republicans find themselves divided over the future of IVF. The emotionally charged debate over the procedure — which many conservatives, including former Vice President Mike Pence, believe should remain available — is causing turmoil for the party. And Democrats will no doubt keep reminding voters about it, highlighting the repercussions of the conservative push into reproductive health care.
  • A significant number of physicians in Idaho are leaving the state or the field of reproductive care entirely because of its strict abortion ban. With many hospitals struggling with the cost of labor and delivery services, the ban is only making it harder for women in some areas to get care before, during, and after childbirth — whether they need abortion care or not.
  • A major cyberattack targeting the personal information of patients enrolled in a health plan owned by UnitedHealth Group is drawing attention to the heightened risks of consolidation in health care. Meanwhile, the Justice Department is separately investigating UnitedHealth for possible antitrust violations.
  • “This Week in Health misinformation”: Panelist Joanne Kenen explains how efforts to prevent wrong information about a new vaccine for RSV have been less than successful.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Greer Donley, an associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, about how a 150-year-old anti-vice law that’s still on the books could be used to ban abortion nationwide.

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

Julie Rovner: ProPublica’s “Their States Banned Abortion. Doctors Now Say They Can’t Give Women Potential Lifesaving Care,” by Kavitha Surana.

Rachel Cohrs: The New York Times’ “$1 Billion Donation Will Provide Free Tuition at a Bronx Medical School,” by Joseph Goldstein.

Joanne Kenen: Axios’ “An Unexpected Finding Suggests Full Moons May Actually Be Tough on Hospitals,” by Tina Reed.

Riley Griffin: Bloomberg News’ “US Seeks to Limit China’s Access to Americans’ Personal Data,” by Riley Griffin and Mackenzie Hawkins.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:


To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on SpotifyApple PodcastsPocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

What to Know About the Federal Law at the Heart of the Latest Supreme Court Abortion Case

The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, known as EMTALA, requires hospitals to provide medically necessary care to stabilize patients in emergency situations.

Legal Actions Seek Guarantee of Abortion Access for Patients in Medical Emergencies

New cases say fear and confusion about abortion bans in three states are causing doctors and hospitals to deny medically necessary abortions.

Decisiones financieras de los hospitales juegan un papel en la escasez de camas pediátricas para pacientes con VRS

La grave escasez de camas pediátricas que azota a la nación este otoño es en parte producto de las decisiones financieras tomadas por los hospitales durante la última década, como cerrar las salas infantiles, que a menudo operan en números rojos, y ampliar la cantidad de camas disponibles para proyectos más rentables como reemplazos articulares y atención del cáncer.

Para hacer frente a la avalancha de niños enfermos por una convergencia radical de virus desagradables, especialmente el virus respiratorio sincitial (VRS), la influenza y el coronavirus, los centros médicos de todo el país han desplegado carpas de triage, retrasado cirugías electivas y trasladado fuera del estado a menores gravemente enfermos.

Un factor importante en la escasez de camas es una tendencia de muchos años entre los hospitales de eliminar las unidades pediátricas, que tienden a ser menos rentables que las de adultos, dijo Mark Wietecha, director ejecutivo de la Children’s Hospital Association.

Los hospitales optimizan los ingresos tratando de mantener sus camas llenas al 100 %, y llenas de pacientes con condiciones que las aseguradoras reembolsan bien.

“Realmente tiene que ver con los dólares”, dijo el doctor Scott Krugman, vicepresidente de pediatría del Hospital Pediátrico Herman and Walter Samuelson en Baltimore. “Los hospitales dependen de procedimientos de alto volumen y alto reembolso de seguros que paguen bien para ganar dinero”.

El número de unidades pediátricas para pacientes internados en los hospitales cayó un 19% entre 2008 y 2018, según un estudio publicado en 2021 en la revista Pediatrics. Solo este año, los hospitales han cerrado unidades pediátricas en Boston y Springfield, Massachusetts; Richmond, Virginia; y Tulsa, Oklahoma.

El aumento actual de enfermedades respiratorias peligrosas para los niños es otro ejemplo de cómo covid-19 ha alterado el sistema de atención médica. Los bloqueos y el aislamiento que marcaron los primeros años de la pandemia dejaron a los niños en gran medida sin exposición, y aún vulnerables, a virus distintos al covid durante dos inviernos, y los médicos ahora están tratando esencialmente enfermedades respiratorias de varios años.

La pandemia también aceleró los cambios en la industria de la atención de salud que han dejado a muchas comunidades con menos camas de hospital disponibles para niños gravemente enfermos, junto con menos médicos y enfermeras para atenderlos.

Cuando las unidades de cuidados intensivos se inundaron con pacientes mayores con covid en 2020, algunos hospitales comenzaron a usar camas infantiles para tratar a adultos. Muchas de esas camas pediátricas no se han repuesto, dijo el doctor Daniel Rauch, presidente del comité de atención hospitalaria de la Academia Estadounidense de Pediatría.

“Simplemente no hay suficiente espacio para todos los niños que necesitan camas”, dijo la doctora Megan Ranney, quien trabaja en varios departamentos de emergencia en Providence, Rhode Island, incluido el Hasbro Children’s Hospital. La cantidad de niños que buscaron atención de emergencia en las últimas semanas fue un 25% más alta que el récord anterior del hospital.

“Tenemos médicos que limpian las camas para que podamos acomodar a los niños más rápido”, dijo Ranney, vicedecana de la Escuela de Salud Pública de la Universidad Brown.

No hay mucho dinero en el tratamiento de niños. Alrededor del 40% de los niños estadounidenses están cubiertos por Medicaid, un programa federal y estatal conjunto para pacientes de bajos ingresos y personas con discapacidades. Las tarifas básicas de Medicaid suelen ser más de un 20% inferiores a las que paga Medicare, el programa de seguro del gobierno para adultos mayores, y son aún más bajas en comparación con los seguros privados.

Si bien la atención especializada para una variedad de procedimientos comunes para adultos, desde reemplazos de rodilla y cadera hasta cirugías cardíacas y tratamientos contra el cáncer, genera importantes ganancias para los centros médicos, los hospitales se quejan de que generalmente pierden dinero en la atención pediátrica de pacientes hospitalizados.

Cuando Tufts Children’s Hospital cerró 41 camas pediátricas este verano, los funcionarios del hospital aseguraron a los residentes que los pacientes jóvenes podrían recibir atención en el cercano Boston Children’s Hospital. Ahora, Boston Children’s está retrasando algunas cirugías electivas para dejar espacio a los niños que están gravemente enfermos.

Rauch señaló que los hospitales infantiles, que se especializan en el tratamiento de enfermedades raras y graves como el cáncer pediátrico, la fibrosis quística y los defectos cardíacos, simplemente no están diseñados para manejar la avalancha de niños gravemente enfermos de esta temporada con virus respiratorios.

Incluso antes de la trifecta viral del otoño, las unidades pediátricas se esforzaban por absorber un número creciente de jóvenes con angustia mental aguda.

Abundan las historias de niños en crisis mentales que se quedan en el limbo durante semanas en las salas de emergencia mientras esperan ser transferidos a una unidad psiquiátrica pediátrica. En un buen día, dijo Ranney, el 20% de las camas de la sala de emergencias pediátrica del Hasbro Children’s Hospital están ocupadas por niños que experimentan problemas de salud mental.

Con la esperanza de aumentar la capacidad pediátrica, el mes pasado, la Academia Estadounidense de Pediatría se unió a la Asociación de Hospitales Infantiles para pedir a la Casa Blanca que declare una emergencia nacional debido a infecciones respiratorias infantiles y proporcione recursos adicionales para ayudar a cubrir los costos de la atención.

La administración Biden ha dicho que la flexibilidad que se les ha dado a los sistemas hospitalarios y a los proveedores durante la pandemia para eludir ciertos requisitos de personal también se aplica al VRS y la gripe.

El Doernbecher Children’s Hospital de Oregon Health & Science University ha cambiado a “estándares de atención de crisis”, lo que permite que las enfermeras de cuidados intensivos traten a más pacientes de los que normalmente se les asignan. Mientras tanto, los hospitales en Atlanta, Pittsburgh y Aurora, Colorado, han recurrido al tratamiento de pacientes jóvenes en carpas desbordadas en estacionamientos.

El doctor Alex Kon, pediatra de cuidados intensivos en el Centro Médico Comunitario en Missoula, Montana, dijo que los proveedores han hecho planes para cuidar a los niños mayores en la unidad de cuidados intensivos para adultos y desviar las ambulancias a otras instalaciones cuando sea necesario. Con solo tres UCI pediátricas en el estado, eso significa que los pacientes jóvenes pueden volar hasta Seattle o Spokane, Washington o Idaho.

Hollis Lillard llevó a su hijo de 1 año, Calder, a un hospital del ejército en el norte de Virginia el mes pasado después de experimentar varios días de fiebre, tos y dificultad para respirar. Pasaron siete horas angustiosas en la sala de emergencias antes de que el hospital encontrara una cama abierta y los trasladaran en ambulancia al Centro Médico Militar Nacional Walter Reed en Maryland.

Con la terapia adecuada y las instrucciones para el cuidado en el hogar, el virus de Calder fue fácilmente tratable: se recuperó después de que le administraran oxígeno y lo trataran con esteroides, que combaten la inflamación, y albuterol, que controla los broncoespasmos. Fue dado de alta al día siguiente.

Aunque las hospitalizaciones por VRS están disminuyendo, las tasas se mantienen muy por encima de la media para esta época del año. Y es posible que los hospitales no tengan mucho alivio.

Las personas pueden infectarse con este virus más de una vez al año, y Krugman se preocupa por un resurgimiento en los próximos meses. Debido al coronavirus, que compite con otros virus, “el patrón estacional habitual de virus se ha ido por la ventana”, dijo.

Al igual que el VRS, la influenza llegó temprano esta temporada. Ambos virus suelen alcanzar su punto máximo alrededor de enero. Tres cepas de la gripe están circulando y han causado aproximadamente 8,7 millones de casos, 78,000 hospitalizaciones y 4,500 muertes, según los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC).

Krugman duda que la industria de la atención de salud aprenda lecciones rápidas de la crisis actual. “A menos que haya un cambio radical en la forma en que pagamos la atención hospitalaria pediátrica”, dijo Krugman, “la escasez de camas solo empeorará”.