Skip to content
NISS

Prozac


pdf
lv 
ru 

Description

Prozac

The Register of Innovative Drugs is maintained pursuant to C.08.004.1 http://www.niss.lv/best-place-to-buy-prozac/ of the Food and Drug Regulations prozac. The register indicates the drugs that are eligible for data protection. Under C.08.004.1 (3) a subsequent manufacturer that seeks a notice of compliance on the basis of a direct or indirect comparison between the new prozac drug and an innovative drug may not file a submission before the end of a period of six years after the day on which the first notice of compliance was issued for the innovative new drug. In addition, the notice of compliance cannot be issued before the end of a period of eight years after the day on which the first notice of compliance was issued to the innovator. The format of the Register of prozac Innovative Drugs is an electronic table, which is updated weekly.

The register lists, in alphabetical order, the medicinal ingredients in the innovative drugs which were not previously approved in a drug by the Minister and that are not variations of a previously approved medicinal ingredient. Please note prozac that there may be other medicinal ingredients included in the drugs. The register was re-formatted in summer 2016 to increase the clarity of the information provided regarding the medicinal ingredient, brand name and manufacturer of each innovative drug. For information related to treatment options, choices of medications and their uses, illnesses, side effects or drug interactions, please contact your health care prozac professional (for example, doctor, pharmacist, etc.). We do not provide medical advice regarding the use of the products identified in this database.

For comments or questions, please contact by hc.opml-bmbl.sc@canada.ca or by telephone at 613-941-7281.What is the Notice of prozac Compliance (NOC) Data Extract?. The data extract is a series of compressed ASCII text files of the database. The uncompressed size of the files is approximately 19.0 MB. In order to utilize the data, the file must be prozac loaded into an existing database or information system. The typical user is most likely a third party claims adjudicator, provincial formulary, insurance company, etc.

A casual user of this file prozac must be familiar with database structure and capable of setting up queries. The "Read me" file contains the data structure required to download the zipped files. The NOC extract files have been prozac updated. They contain Health Canada authorization dates for all drugs dating back to 1994 that have received an NOC. All NOCs issued between 1991 and 1993 can be found in the prozac NOC listings.

Please note any Portable Document Format (PDF) files visible on the NOC database are not part of the data extracts. For more prozac information, please go to the Read Me File. Data Extracts - Last updated. September 4, 2020 Copyright For information on copyright and who to contact, please visit the Notice of Compliance Online Database Terms and Conditions..

Buy prozac without a prescription

Prozac
Pristiq
Abana
Can you get a sample
Consultation
Ask your Doctor
Ask your Doctor
Can women take
At cvs
RX pharmacy
Online Drugstore
Daily dosage
No
Indian Pharmacy
At cvs
Buy with amex
Canadian Pharmacy
Online Pharmacy
At cvs
Best way to use
Yes
Online
No
Does medicare pay
No
Yes
Yes

€‹15 full-time equivalent specialist counsellors will be deployed across rural NSW to help prevent suicide, with prozac prices walmart the first two counsellors starting in the Eurobodalla and Snowy Mountains regions.NSW Mental Health Minister Bronnie Taylor said the relatively high rates of suicide in rural areas are devastating families and communities, and the $6.75 million investment will add another layer of help.“Many factors can contribute to suicide, from domestic violence, to relationship issues or unemployment, to stress and hardship,” Mrs buy prozac without a prescription Taylor said. €œThese specialist mental health counsellors are there on the ground to support people thinking of suicide or impacted by suicide, and I encourage communities across the state to lean on them for support.”Director Mental Health Drug and Alcohol for Southern NSW Local Health District Damien Eggleton said he wants more people to ask for help when they need it. €œOur rural communities have proven beyond a doubt they’re resilient and fearless when faced with adversity, whether that be geographic isolation, searing drought or the impact of the current pandemic – but they don’t buy prozac without a prescription need to go it alone,” Mr Eggleton said.

€œThe support provided by these counsellors will complement the peer work and drought support provided by our Farm Gate Counsellors and Drought Counsellors.”Rural counsellor Samara Byrne said she wants young people to know there are people you can turn to when feeling overwhelmed with life or feeling like a burden on others. €œWe are here for you and here to listen if you are feeling distressed, anxious or a burden buy prozac without a prescription to loved ones. The service is easily accessible through the Mental Health Line.

Just ask for the Rural Counsellor.”“Having moved from Sydney in 2016 to our beautiful farm in SNSW, I am buy prozac without a prescription so pleased to be able to do what I am most passionate about, supporting people’s wellbeing in Rural Australia and building on the natural local community resilience”.Minister Taylor urges people in the bush to get help by contacting these rural counsellors. €œSupport is available, all you need to do is pick up the phone and make an appointment by calling the NSW Mental Health Line on 1800 011 511.”The 15 rural counselling positions are part of the Towards Zero Suicides. A $87 million investment over three years in new suicide prevention initiatives buy prozac without a prescription.

A NSW Premier’s Priority, this is a whole-of-government commitment to transforming the way we identify and support anyone impacted by suicide.If you, or someone you know, is thinking about suicide or experiencing a personal crisis or distress, please seek help immediately in a life-threatening situation by calling 000 or seek support though one of these services:Lifeline 13 11 14Suicide Call Back Service 1300 659 467NSW Mental Health Line 1800 011 511Minister for Mental Health Bronnie Taylor and Minister for Police and Emergency Services David Elliott today announced the expansion of the Police Ambulance and Clinical Early Response (PACER) visit this site right here pilot program.“This ground breaking collaboration embeds mental health experts with first responders to support them to appropriately recognise, assess, and respond to mental health emergencies live at the scene,” Mrs Taylor said. €œThe pilot program has had incredible results with buy prozac without a prescription significant reductions in emergency department presentations, police and ambulance time on scene. €œThis approach has enormous potential to change lives, with the community getting more appropriate care at the time when they need it most.” Mr Elliott welcomed the support for the police officers who are deeply committed to serving and protecting the people of NSW “During the pilot program, police time-on-scene was reduced by an average of 45 minutes, not only supporting first responders to appropriately recognise and respond to psychiatric incidents in the community, but also freeing up officers to serve thecommunity in other areas,” Mr Elliott said.

€œThe presence and availability of a PACER clinician in a police station increases the knowledge and understanding of mental health buy prozac without a prescription issues amongst officers This initiative is crucial, now more than ever, following the devastating ‘Black Summer’ bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic, which have affected us all.” NSW Police Force Deputy Commissioner, Malcolm Lanyon APM, said the PACER model has been a success at the trial site in St George Police Area Command. €œDuring the trial we saw a significant reduction in time taken for police to respond to these matters. It translated to a better outcome for both buy prozac without a prescription our officers and the individuals in need of assistance,” Mr Lanyon said.

The PACER program will expand to Campbelltown, Nepean, Northern Beaches, Sutherland Shire, Blacktown, Eastern Beaches, Kuring-gai, Metro Combined consisting of Kings Cross/Surry Hills/City of Sydney, South Sydney and Bankstown Police Area Commands with recruitment underway for the specialist mental health clinicians from July 2020. This investment is part of the $73 million buy prozac without a prescription suite of mental health measures recently announced by the NSW Government. This includes 216 new mental health staff, additional funding for the NSW Mental Health Line, extra support for Telehealth, funding for extra therapeutic programs to aid recovery in mental health units and a $6 million investment in Lifeline to expand their invaluable service..

€‹15 full-time equivalent specialist counsellors will be deployed across rural NSW to help prevent suicide, with the first two counsellors starting in the Eurobodalla and Snowy Mountains regions.NSW Mental Health Minister Bronnie Taylor said the relatively high prozac rates of suicide in rural areas are devastating families and communities, and the $6.75 million investment will add another layer of help.“Many factors can contribute to suicide, from domestic violence, to relationship issues or unemployment, to stress and hardship,” Mrs Taylor said. €œThese specialist mental health counsellors are there on the ground to support people thinking of suicide or impacted by suicide, and I encourage communities across the state to lean on them for support.”Director Mental Health Drug and Alcohol for Southern NSW Local Health District Damien Eggleton said he wants more people to ask for help when they need it. €œOur rural communities have prozac proven beyond a doubt they’re resilient and fearless when faced with adversity, whether that be geographic isolation, searing drought or the impact of the current pandemic – but they don’t need to go it alone,” Mr Eggleton said. €œThe support provided by these counsellors will complement the peer work and drought support provided by our Farm Gate Counsellors and Drought Counsellors.”Rural counsellor Samara Byrne said she wants young people to know there are people you can turn to when feeling overwhelmed with life or feeling like a burden on others.

€œWe are here for you and here to listen if you are feeling distressed, anxious or a prozac burden to loved ones. The service is easily accessible through the Mental Health Line. Just ask for the Rural Counsellor.”“Having moved from Sydney in 2016 to our beautiful farm in SNSW, I am so pleased to prozac be able to do what I am most passionate about, supporting people’s wellbeing in Rural Australia and building on the natural local community resilience”.Minister Taylor urges people in the bush to get help by contacting these rural counsellors. €œSupport is available, all you need to do is pick up the phone and make an appointment by calling the NSW Mental Health Line on 1800 011 511.”The 15 rural counselling positions are part of the Towards Zero Suicides.

A $87 million investment over three years in new suicide prevention prozac initiatives. A NSW Premier’s Priority, this is a whole-of-government commitment to transforming the way we identify and support anyone impacted by suicide.If you, or someone you know, is thinking about suicide or experiencing a personal crisis or distress, please seek help immediately in a life-threatening situation by calling 000 or seek support though one of these services:Lifeline 13 11 14Suicide Call Back Service 1300 659 467NSW Mental Health Line 1800 011 511Minister for Mental Health Bronnie Taylor and Minister for Police and Emergency Services David Elliott today announced the expansion of the Police Ambulance and Clinical Early Response (PACER) pilot program.“This ground breaking collaboration embeds mental health experts with first responders to support them to appropriately recognise, assess, and respond to mental health emergencies live at the scene,” Mrs Taylor said. €œThe pilot program has had incredible results with significant reductions in emergency prozac department presentations, police and ambulance time on scene. €œThis approach has enormous potential to change lives, with the community getting more appropriate care at the time when they need it most.” Mr Elliott welcomed the support for the police officers who are deeply committed to serving and protecting the people of NSW “During the pilot program, police time-on-scene was reduced by an average of 45 minutes, not only supporting first responders to appropriately recognise and respond to psychiatric incidents in the community, but also freeing up officers to serve thecommunity in other areas,” Mr Elliott said.

€œThe presence and availability of a PACER clinician in a police station increases the knowledge and understanding of mental health issues amongst officers This initiative is crucial, now more than ever, following the devastating ‘Black Summer’ bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic, which have affected us all.” NSW Police Force Deputy Commissioner, Malcolm Lanyon APM, said the PACER model has been a success at prozac the trial site in St George Police Area Command. €œDuring the trial we saw a significant reduction in time taken for police to respond to these matters. It translated to a better outcome for both our officers and the individuals in need of assistance,” Mr Lanyon said prozac. The PACER program will expand to Campbelltown, Nepean, Northern Beaches, Sutherland Shire, Blacktown, Eastern Beaches, Kuring-gai, Metro Combined consisting of Kings Cross/Surry Hills/City of Sydney, South Sydney and Bankstown Police Area Commands with recruitment underway for the specialist mental health clinicians from July 2020.

This investment is part of the $73 million suite of mental health measures recently prozac announced by the NSW Government. This includes 216 new mental health staff, additional funding for the NSW Mental Health Line, extra support for Telehealth, funding for extra therapeutic programs to aid recovery in mental health units and a $6 million investment in Lifeline to expand their invaluable service..

Does prozac stop working

http://www.niss.lv/best-place-to-buy-prozac/ 4 does prozac stop working. FOUR Special Benefits of 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 does prozac stop working Enrollment &.

Applications for People who Have Medicare What is Application Process?. 6. Enrolling in an does prozac stop working 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 - 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 does prozac stop working 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. 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 does prozac stop working if did not have enough work quarters and meets citizenship requirement. See “Part A Buy-In” YES YES Pays Part A &. B deductibles &. Co-insurance YES - with limitations NO NO Retroactive to does prozac stop working Filing of Application?.

Yes - Benefits 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 does prozac stop working retro for January application). See GIS 07 MA 027.

Can Enroll in MSP and Medicaid at Same Time?. YES YES does prozac stop working NO!. Must choose between QI-1 and Medicaid. Cannot have both, not even Medicaid with a spend-down.

2 does prozac stop working. INCOME LIMITS and RULES Each of the three MSP programs has 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 does prozac stop working posted by Medicaid.gov and the National Council on Aging and are in the chart below.

NOTE. 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 does prozac stop working 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 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. N.Y does prozac stop working. Soc. Serv.

L. 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.

There are three separate MSP programs, the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB) Program, the Specified Low Income prozac http://www.niss.lv/best-place-to-buy-prozac/ Medicare Beneficiary (SLMB) Program and the Qualified Individual (QI) Program, each of which is discussed below. Those in QMB receive additional subsidies for Medicare costs. See 2019 Fact Sheet on MSP in NYS by Medicare Rights Center ENGLISH SPANISH State law. N.Y prozac. Soc.

Serv. L. § 367-a(3)(a), (b), and (d). 2020 Medicare 101 Basics for New York State - 1.5 hour webinar by Eric Hausman, sponsored by NYS Office of the Aging TOPICS COVERED IN THIS ARTICLE 1. No Asset Limit 1A.

Summary Chart of MSP Programs 2. Income Limits &. Rules and Household Size 3. The Three MSP Programs - What are they and how are they Different?. 4.

FOUR Special Benefits of 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 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 - 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.

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 A &. B deductibles &. Co-insurance YES - with limitations NO NO Retroactive to Filing of Application?.

Yes - Benefits 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 07 MA 027. Can Enroll in MSP and Medicaid at Same Time?.

YES YES NO!. Must choose between QI-1 and Medicaid. Cannot have both, not even Medicaid with a spend-down. 2. INCOME LIMITS and RULES Each of the three MSP programs has 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. 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 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. N.Y. Soc. Serv.

L. 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 her explanation 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.

Prozac for fibromyalgia

Start Preamble Centers for prozac for bipolar Medicare prozac for fibromyalgia &. Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. Extension of timeline for prozac for fibromyalgia publication of final rule. This notice announces an extension of the timeline for publication of a Medicare final rule in accordance with the Social Security Act, which allows us to extend the timeline for publication of the final rule.

As of August 26, 2020, the timeline for publication of the final rule to finalize the provisions of the prozac for fibromyalgia October 17, 2019 proposed rule (84 FR 55766) is extended until August 31, 2021. Start Further Info Lisa O. Wilson, (410) 786-8852. End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information In the October 17, 2019 Federal Register (84 FR 55766), we published a proposed rule that prozac for fibromyalgia addressed undue regulatory impact and burden of the physician self-referral law.

The proposed rule was issued in conjunction with the Centers for Medicare &. Medicaid Services' (CMS) Patients over Paperwork initiative and the prozac for fibromyalgia Department of Health and Human Services' (the Department or HHS) Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care. In the proposed rule, we proposed exceptions to the physician self-referral law for certain value-based compensation arrangements between or among physicians, providers, and suppliers. A new exception for certain arrangements under which a physician receives limited remuneration for items or services actually provided by the physician.

A new exception for donations prozac for fibromyalgia of cybersecurity technology and related services. And amendments to the existing exception for electronic health records (EHR) items and services. The proposed rule also provides critically necessary guidance for physicians and health care providers and suppliers whose financial relationships are governed by the physician self-referral prozac for fibromyalgia statute and regulations. This notice announces an extension of the timeline for publication of the final rule and the continuation of effectiveness of the proposed rule.

Section 1871(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) requires us to establish and publish a regular timeline for the publication of final regulations based on the previous publication of a proposed regulation. In accordance with section 1871(a)(3)(B) of the Act, the timeline may vary among different regulations based on differences in the complexity of the regulation, the number and scope of comments received, and other relevant factors, but may not be longer than 3 years prozac for fibromyalgia except under exceptional circumstances. In addition, in accordance with section 1871(a)(3)(B) of the Act, the Secretary may extend the initial targeted publication date of the final regulation if the Secretary, no later than the regulation's previously established proposed publication date, publishes a notice with the new target date, and such notice includes a brief explanation of the justification for the variation. We announced in the Spring 2020 Unified Agenda (June 30, 2020, www.reginfo.gov) that we would issue the prozac for fibromyalgia final rule in August 2020.

However, we are still working through the Start Printed Page 52941complexity of the issues raised by comments received on the proposed rule and therefore we are not able to meet the announced publication target date. This notice extends the timeline for publication of the final prozac for fibromyalgia rule until August 31, 2021. Start Signature Dated. August 24, 2020.

Wilma M prozac for fibromyalgia. Robinson, Deputy Executive Secretary to the Department, Department of Health and Human Services. End Signature End Supplemental Information prozac for fibromyalgia [FR Doc. 2020-18867 Filed 8-26-20.

8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4120-01-PStart Preamble Notice of amendment. The Secretary issues this amendment pursuant to section 319F-3 of the Public Health prozac for fibromyalgia Service Act to add additional categories of Qualified Persons and amend the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures. This amendment to the Declaration published on March 17, 2020 (85 FR 15198) is effective as of August 24, 2020. Start Further prozac for fibromyalgia 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 SW, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone. 202-205-2882. End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to issue a Declaration to provide liability immunity 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 medical countermeasures (Covered Countermeasures), except for claims involving “willful misconduct” as defined in the PREP Act.

Under the PREP Act, a Declaration may be amended as circumstances warrant. The PREP Act was enacted on December 30, 2005, as Public Law 109-148, Division C, § 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 Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act (PAHPRA), Public Law 113-5, enacted on March 13, 2013 and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Public Law 116-136, enacted on March 27, Start Printed Page 521372020, 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 of the nation's health care community to the COVID-19 outbreak. Pursuant to section 319 of the PHS Act, the Secretary renewed that declaration on April 26, 2020, and July 25, 2020. On March 10, 2020, the Secretary issued a Declaration under the PREP Act for medical countermeasures against COVID-19 (85 FR 15198, Mar. 17, 2020) (the Declaration).

On April 10, the Secretary amended the Declaration under the PREP Act to extend liability immunity to covered countermeasures authorized under the CARES Act (85 FR 21012, Apr. 15, 2020). On June 4, the Secretary amended the Declaration to clarify that covered countermeasures under the Declaration include qualified countermeasures that limit the harm COVID-19 might otherwise cause. The Secretary now amends section V of the Declaration to identify as qualified persons covered under the PREP Act, and thus authorizes, certain State-licensed pharmacists to order and administer, and pharmacy interns (who are licensed or registered by their State board of pharmacy and acting under the supervision of a State-licensed pharmacist) to administer, any vaccine that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends to persons ages three through 18 according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule (ACIP-recommended vaccines).[] The Secretary also amends section VIII of the Declaration to clarify that the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures includes not only COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, but also other diseases, health conditions, or threats that may have been caused by COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, or a virus mutating therefrom, including the decrease in the rate of childhood immunizations, which will lead to an increase in the rate of infectious diseases.

Description of This Amendment by Section Section V. Covered Persons Under the PREP Act and the Declaration, a “qualified person” is a “covered person.” Subject to certain limitations, a covered person is immune from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration or use of a covered countermeasure if a declaration under subsection (b) has been issued with respect to such countermeasure. €œQualified person” includes (A) a licensed health professional or other individual who is authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense such countermeasures under the law of the State in which the countermeasure was prescribed, administered, or dispensed. Or (B) “a person within a category of persons so identified in a declaration by the Secretary” under subsection (b) of the PREP Act.

42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(8).[] By this amendment to the Declaration, the Secretary identifies an additional category of persons who are qualified persons under section 247d-6d(i)(8)(B).[] On May 8, 2020, CDC reported, “The identified declines in routine pediatric vaccine ordering and doses administered might indicate that U.S. Children and their communities face increased risks for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases,” and suggested that a decrease in rates of routine childhood vaccinations were due to changes in healthcare access, social distancing, and other COVID-19 mitigation strategies.[] The report also stated that “[p]arental concerns about potentially exposing their children to COVID-19 during well child visits might contribute to the declines observed.” [] On July 10, 2020, CDC reported its findings of a May survey it conducted to assess the capacity of pediatric health care practices to provide immunization services to children during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey, which was limited to practices participating in the Vaccines for Children program, found that, as of mid-May, 15 percent of Northeast pediatric practices were closed, 12.5 percent of Midwest practices were closed, 6.2 percent of practices in the South were closed, and 10 percent of practices in the West were closed.

Most practices had reduced office hours for in-person visits. When asked whether their practices would likely be able to accommodate new patients for immunization services through August, 418 practices (21.3 percent) either responded that this was not likely or the practice was permanently closed or not resuming immunization services for all patients, and 380 (19.6 percent) responded that they were unsure. Urban practices and those in the Northeast were less likely to be able to accommodate new patients compared with rural practices and those in the South, Midwest, or West.[] In response to these troubling developments, CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics have stressed, “Well-child visits and vaccinations are essential services and help make sure children are protected.” [] The Secretary re-emphasizes that important recommendation to parents and legal guardians here. If your child is due for a well-child visit, contact your pediatrician's or other primary-care provider's office and ask about ways that the office safely offers well-child visits and vaccinations.

Many medical offices are taking extra steps to make sure that well-child visits can occur safely during the COVID-19 pandemic, including. Scheduling sick visits and well-child visits during different times of the Start Printed Page 52138day or days of the week, or at different locations. Asking patients to remain outside until it is time for their appointments to reduce the number of people in waiting rooms. Adhering to recommended social (physical) distancing and other infection-control practices, such as the use of masks.

The decrease in childhood-vaccination rates is a public health threat and a collateral harm caused by COVID-19. Together, the United States must turn to available medical professionals to limit the harm and public health threats that may result from decreased immunization rates. We must quickly do so to avoid preventable infections in children, additional strains on our healthcare system, and any further increase in avoidable adverse health consequences—particularly if such complications coincide with additional resurgence of COVID-19. Together with pediatricians and other healthcare professionals, pharmacists are positioned to expand access to childhood vaccinations.

Many States already allow pharmacists to administer vaccines to children of any age.[] Other States permit pharmacists to administer vaccines to children depending on the age—for example, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, or 12 years of age and older.[] Few States restrict pharmacist-administered vaccinations to only adults.[] Many States also allow properly trained individuals under the supervision of a trained pharmacist to administer those vaccines.[] Pharmacists are well positioned to increase access to vaccinations, particularly in certain areas or for certain populations that have too few pediatricians and other primary-care providers, or that are otherwise medically underserved.[] As of 2018, nearly 90 percent of Americans lived within five miles of a community pharmacy.[] Pharmacies often offer extended hours and added convenience. What is more, pharmacists are trusted healthcare professionals with established relationships with their patients. Pharmacists also have strong relationships with local medical providers and hospitals to refer patients as appropriate. For example, pharmacists already play a significant role in annual influenza vaccination.

In the early 2018-19 season, they administered the influenza vaccine to nearly a third of all adults who received the vaccine.[] Given the potential danger of serious influenza and continuing COVID-19 outbreaks this autumn and the impact that such concurrent outbreaks may have on our population, our healthcare system, and our whole-of-nation response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we must quickly expand access to influenza vaccinations. Allowing more qualified pharmacists to administer the influenza vaccine to children will make vaccinations more accessible. Therefore, the Secretary amends the Declaration to identify State-licensed pharmacists (and pharmacy interns acting under their supervision if the pharmacy intern is licensed or registered by his or her State board of pharmacy) as qualified persons under section 247d-6d(i)(8)(B) when the pharmacist orders and either the pharmacist or the supervised pharmacy intern administers vaccines to individuals ages three through 18 pursuant to the following requirements. The vaccine must be FDA-authorized or FDA-approved.

The vaccination must be ordered and administered according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule.[] The licensed pharmacist must complete a practical training program of at least 20 hours that is approved by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). This training Start Printed Page 52139program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines.[] 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 vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines.[] The licensed pharmacist and licensed or registered pharmacy intern must have a current certificate in basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation.[] The licensed pharmacist must complete a minimum of two hours of ACPE-approved, immunization-related continuing pharmacy education during each State licensing period.[] The licensed pharmacist must comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the jurisdiction in which he or she administers vaccines, including informing the patient's primary-care provider when available, submitting the required immunization information to the State or local immunization information system (vaccine registry), complying with requirements with respect to reporting adverse events, and complying with requirements whereby the person administering a vaccine must review the vaccine registry or other vaccination records prior to administering a vaccine.[] The licensed pharmacist must inform his or her childhood-vaccination patients and the adult caregivers accompanying the children of the importance of a well-child visit with a pediatrician or other licensed primary-care provider and refer patients as appropriate.[] These requirements are consistent with those in many States that permit licensed pharmacists to order and administer vaccines to children and permit licensed or registered pharmacy interns acting under their supervision to administer vaccines to children.[] Administering vaccinations to children age three and older is less complicated and requires less training and resources than administering vaccinations to younger children. That is because ACIP generally recommends administering intramuscular injections in the deltoid muscle for individuals age three and older.[] For individuals less than three years of age, ACIP generally recommends administering intramuscular injections in the anterolateral aspect of the thigh muscle.[] Administering injections in the thigh muscle often presents additional complexities and requires additional training and resources including additional personnel to safely position the child while another healthcare professional injects the vaccine.[] Moreover, as of 2018, 40% of three-year-olds were enrolled in preprimary programs (i.e.

Preschool or kindergarten programs).[] Preprimary programs are beginning in the coming weeks or months, so the Secretary has concluded that it is particularly important for individuals ages three through 18 to receive ACIP-recommended vaccines according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule. All States require children to be vaccinated against certain communicable diseases as a condition of school attendance. These laws often apply to both public and private schools with identical immunization and exemption provisions.[] As nurseries, preschools, kindergartens, and schools reopen, increased access to childhood vaccinations is essential to ensuring children can return. Notwithstanding any State or local scope-of-practice legal requirements, (1) qualified licensed pharmacists are identified as qualified persons to order and administer ACIP-recommended vaccines and (2) qualified State-licensed or registered pharmacy interns are identified as qualified persons to administer the ACIP-recommended vaccines ordered by their supervising qualified licensed pharmacist.[] Both the PREP Act and the June 4, 2020 Second Amendment to the Declaration define “covered countermeasures” to include qualified pandemic and epidemic products that “limit the harm such pandemic or epidemic might otherwise cause.” [] The troubling decrease in ACIP-recommended childhood vaccinations and the resulting increased risk of associated diseases, adverse health conditions, and other threats are categories of harms otherwise caused by Start Printed Page 52140COVID-19 as set forth in Sections VI and VIII of this Declaration.[] Hence, such vaccinations are “covered countermeasures” under the PREP Act and the June 4, 2020 Second Amendment to the Declaration.

Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed to affect the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, including an injured party's ability to obtain compensation under that program. Covered countermeasures that are subject to the National Vaccine 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. Section VIII. Category of Disease, Health Condition, or Threat As discussed, the troubling decrease in ACIP-recommended childhood vaccinations and the resulting increased risk of associated diseases, adverse health conditions, and other threats are categories of harms otherwise caused by COVID-19. The Secretary therefore amends section VIII, which describes the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures, to clarify that the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures is not only COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, but also other diseases, health conditions, or threats that may have been caused by COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, or a virus mutating therefrom, including the decrease in the rate of childhood immunizations, which will lead to an increase in the rate of infectious diseases.

Amendments to Declaration Amended Declaration for Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act Coverage for medical countermeasures against COVID-19. Sections V and VIII of the March 10, 2020 Declaration under the PREP Act for medical countermeasures against COVID-19, as amended April 10, 2020 and June 4, 2020, are further amended pursuant to section 319F-3(b)(4) of the PHS Act as described below. All other sections of the Declaration remain in effect as published at 85 FR 15198 (Mar. 17, 2020) and amended at 85 FR 21012 (Apr.

15, 2020) and 85 FR 35100 (June 8, 2020). 1. Covered Persons, section V, delete in full and replace with. V.

Covered Persons 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(2), (3), (4), (6), (8)(A) and (B) Covered Persons who are afforded liability immunity under this Declaration are “manufacturers,” “distributors,” “program planners,” “qualified persons,” and their officials, agents, and employees, as those terms are defined in the PREP Act, 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 an emergency.

(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. And (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), vaccines that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends to persons ages three through 18 according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule. Such State-licensed pharmacists and the State-licensed or registered interns under their supervision are qualified persons only if the following requirements are met.

The vaccine must be FDA-authorized or FDA-approved. The vaccination must be ordered and administered according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule. The licensed pharmacist must complete a practical training program of at least 20 hours that is approved by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). This training program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines.

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 vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines. The licensed pharmacist and licensed or registered pharmacy intern must have a current certificate in basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The licensed pharmacist must complete a minimum of two hours of ACPE-approved, immunization-related continuing pharmacy education during each State licensing period.

The licensed pharmacist must comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the jurisdiction in which he or she administers vaccines, including informing the patient's primary-care provider when available, submitting the required immunization information to the State or local immunization information system (vaccine registry), complying with requirements with respect to reporting adverse events, and complying with requirements whereby the person administering a vaccine must review the vaccine registry or other vaccination records prior to administering a vaccine. 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. Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed to affect the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, including an injured party's ability to obtain compensation under that program. Covered countermeasures that are subject to the National Vaccine 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 Start Printed Page 52141terms and conditions of the Declaration apply to such covered countermeasures. 2.

Category of Disease, Health Condition, or Threat, section VIII, delete in full and replace with. 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 COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, but also other diseases, health conditions, or threats that may have been caused by COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, or a virus mutating therefrom, including the decrease in the rate of childhood immunizations, which will lead to an increase in the rate of infectious diseases.

Start Authority 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d. End Authority Start Signature Dated. August 19, 2020.

Alex M. Azar II, Secretary of Health and Human Services. End Signature End Supplemental Information [FR Doc. 2020-18542 Filed 8-20-20.

Start Preamble Centers for prozac Medicare &. Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. Extension of timeline for publication of prozac final rule. This notice announces an extension of the timeline for publication of a Medicare final rule in accordance with the Social Security Act, which allows us to extend the timeline for publication of the final rule. As of August 26, 2020, the timeline for publication of the final rule to finalize the provisions of the October 17, 2019 proposed rule (84 FR prozac 55766) is extended until August 31, 2021.

Start Further Info Lisa O. Wilson, (410) 786-8852. End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information In the October 17, 2019 Federal Register (84 FR 55766), we published a proposed rule that addressed undue regulatory prozac impact and burden of the physician self-referral law. The proposed rule was issued in conjunction with the Centers for Medicare &. Medicaid Services' (CMS) Patients over Paperwork initiative and prozac the Department of Health and Human Services' (the Department or HHS) Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care.

In the proposed rule, we proposed exceptions to the physician self-referral law for certain value-based compensation arrangements between or among physicians, providers, and suppliers. A new exception for certain arrangements under which a physician receives limited remuneration for items or services actually provided by the physician. A new exception for donations of cybersecurity technology prozac and related services. And amendments to the existing exception for electronic health records (EHR) items and services. The proposed rule also provides critically necessary guidance for physicians and health care prozac providers and suppliers whose financial relationships are governed by the physician self-referral statute and regulations.

This notice announces an extension of the timeline for publication of the final rule and the continuation of effectiveness of the proposed rule. Section 1871(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) requires us to establish and publish a regular timeline for the publication of final regulations based on the previous publication of a proposed regulation. In accordance with section 1871(a)(3)(B) of the Act, the timeline may vary among different regulations based on differences in the complexity of the regulation, the number and scope of comments received, and prozac other relevant factors, but may not be longer than 3 years except under exceptional circumstances. In addition, in accordance with section 1871(a)(3)(B) of the Act, the Secretary may extend the initial targeted publication date of the final regulation if the Secretary, no later than the regulation's previously established proposed publication date, publishes a notice with the new target date, and such notice includes a brief explanation of the justification for the variation. We announced in the Spring 2020 Unified Agenda (June prozac 30, 2020, www.reginfo.gov) that we would issue the final rule in August 2020.

However, we are still working through the Start Printed Page 52941complexity of the issues raised by comments received on the proposed rule and therefore we are not able to meet the announced publication target date. This notice extends the timeline for prozac publication of the final rule until August 31, 2021. Start Signature Dated. August 24, 2020. Wilma M prozac.

Robinson, Deputy Executive Secretary to the Department, Department of Health and Human Services. End Signature End Supplemental prozac Information [FR Doc. 2020-18867 Filed 8-26-20. 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4120-01-PStart Preamble Notice of amendment. The Secretary issues this amendment pursuant to section 319F-3 of the Public Health Service Act to add additional categories prozac of Qualified Persons and amend the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures.

This amendment to the Declaration published on March 17, 2020 (85 FR 15198) is effective as of August 24, 2020. Start Further prozac 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 SW, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone. 202-205-2882.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to issue a Declaration to provide liability immunity 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 medical countermeasures (Covered Countermeasures), except for claims involving “willful misconduct” as defined in the PREP Act. Under the PREP Act, a Declaration may be amended as circumstances warrant. The PREP Act was enacted on December 30, 2005, as Public Law 109-148, Division C, § 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 Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act (PAHPRA), Public Law 113-5, enacted on March 13, 2013 and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Public Law 116-136, enacted on March 27, Start Printed Page 521372020, 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 of the nation's health care community to the COVID-19 outbreak.

Pursuant to section 319 of the PHS Act, the Secretary renewed that declaration on April 26, 2020, and July 25, 2020. On March 10, 2020, the Secretary issued a Declaration under the PREP Act for medical countermeasures against COVID-19 (85 FR 15198, Mar. 17, 2020) (the Declaration). On April 10, the Secretary amended the Declaration under the PREP Act to extend liability immunity to covered countermeasures authorized under the CARES Act (85 FR 21012, Apr. 15, 2020).

On June 4, the Secretary amended the Declaration to clarify that covered countermeasures under the Declaration include qualified countermeasures that limit the harm COVID-19 might otherwise cause. The Secretary now amends section V of the Declaration to identify as qualified persons covered under the PREP Act, and thus authorizes, certain State-licensed pharmacists to order and administer, and pharmacy interns (who are licensed or registered by their State board of pharmacy and acting under the supervision of a State-licensed pharmacist) to administer, any vaccine that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends to persons ages three through 18 according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule (ACIP-recommended vaccines).[] The Secretary also amends section VIII of the Declaration to clarify that the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures includes not only COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, but also other diseases, health conditions, or threats that may have been caused by COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, or a virus mutating therefrom, including the decrease in the rate of childhood immunizations, which will lead to an increase in the rate of infectious diseases. Description of This Amendment by Section Section V. Covered Persons Under the PREP Act and the Declaration, a “qualified person” is a “covered person.” Subject to certain limitations, a covered person is immune from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration or use of a covered countermeasure if a declaration under subsection (b) has been issued with respect to such countermeasure. €œQualified person” includes (A) a licensed health professional or other individual who is authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense such countermeasures under the law of the State in which the countermeasure was prescribed, administered, or dispensed.

Or (B) “a person within a category of persons so identified in a declaration by the Secretary” under subsection (b) of the PREP Act. 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(8).[] By this amendment to the Declaration, the Secretary identifies an additional category of persons who are qualified persons under section 247d-6d(i)(8)(B).[] On May 8, 2020, CDC reported, “The identified declines in routine pediatric vaccine ordering and doses administered might indicate that U.S. Children and their communities face increased risks for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases,” and suggested that a decrease in rates of routine childhood vaccinations were due to changes in healthcare access, social distancing, and other COVID-19 mitigation strategies.[] The report also stated that “[p]arental concerns about potentially exposing their children to COVID-19 during well child visits might contribute to the declines observed.” [] On July 10, 2020, CDC reported its findings of a May survey it conducted to assess the capacity of pediatric health care practices to provide immunization services to children during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey, which was limited to practices participating in the Vaccines for Children program, found that, as of mid-May, 15 percent of Northeast pediatric practices were closed, 12.5 percent of Midwest practices were closed, 6.2 percent of practices in the South were closed, and 10 percent of practices in the West were closed.

Most practices had reduced office hours for in-person visits. When asked whether their practices would likely be able to accommodate new patients for immunization services through August, 418 practices (21.3 percent) either responded that this was not likely or the practice was permanently closed or not resuming immunization services for all patients, and 380 (19.6 percent) responded that they were unsure. Urban practices and those in the Northeast were less likely to be able to accommodate new patients compared with rural practices and those in the South, Midwest, or West.[] In response to these troubling developments, CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics have stressed, “Well-child visits and vaccinations are essential services and help make sure children are protected.” [] The Secretary re-emphasizes that important recommendation to parents and legal guardians here. If your child is due for a well-child visit, contact your pediatrician's or other primary-care provider's office and ask about ways that the office safely offers well-child visits and vaccinations. Many medical offices are taking extra steps to make sure that well-child visits can occur safely during the COVID-19 pandemic, including.

Scheduling sick visits and well-child visits during different times of the Start Printed Page 52138day or days of the week, or at different locations. Asking patients to remain outside until it is time for their appointments to reduce the number of people in waiting rooms. Adhering to recommended social (physical) distancing and other infection-control practices, such as the use of masks. The decrease in childhood-vaccination rates is a public health threat and a collateral harm caused by COVID-19. Together, the United States must turn to available medical professionals to limit the harm and public health threats that may result from decreased immunization rates.

We must quickly do so to avoid preventable infections in children, additional strains on our healthcare system, and any further increase in avoidable adverse health consequences—particularly if such complications coincide with additional resurgence of COVID-19. Together with pediatricians and other healthcare professionals, pharmacists are positioned to expand access to childhood vaccinations. Many States already allow pharmacists to administer vaccines to children of any age.[] Other States permit pharmacists to administer vaccines to children depending on the age—for example, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, or 12 years of age and older.[] Few States restrict pharmacist-administered vaccinations to only adults.[] Many States also allow properly trained individuals under the supervision of a trained pharmacist to administer those vaccines.[] Pharmacists are well positioned to increase access to vaccinations, particularly in certain areas or for certain populations that have too few pediatricians and other primary-care providers, or that are otherwise medically underserved.[] As of 2018, nearly 90 percent of Americans lived within five miles of a community pharmacy.[] Pharmacies often offer extended hours and added convenience. What is more, pharmacists are trusted healthcare professionals with established relationships with their patients. Pharmacists also have strong relationships with local medical providers and hospitals to refer patients as appropriate.

For example, pharmacists already play a significant role in annual influenza vaccination. In the early 2018-19 season, they administered the influenza vaccine to nearly a third of all adults who received the vaccine.[] Given the potential danger of serious influenza and continuing COVID-19 outbreaks this autumn and the impact that such concurrent outbreaks may have on our population, our healthcare system, and our whole-of-nation response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we must quickly expand access to influenza vaccinations. Allowing more qualified pharmacists to administer the influenza vaccine to children will make vaccinations more accessible. Therefore, the Secretary amends the Declaration to identify State-licensed pharmacists (and pharmacy interns acting under their supervision if the pharmacy intern is licensed or registered by his or her State board of pharmacy) as qualified persons under section 247d-6d(i)(8)(B) when the pharmacist orders and either the pharmacist or the supervised pharmacy intern administers vaccines to individuals ages three through 18 pursuant to the following requirements. The vaccine must be FDA-authorized or FDA-approved.

The vaccination must be ordered and administered according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule.[] The licensed pharmacist must complete a practical training program of at least 20 hours that is approved by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). This training Start Printed Page 52139program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines.[] 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 vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines.[] The licensed pharmacist and licensed or registered pharmacy intern must have a current certificate in basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation.[] The licensed pharmacist must complete a minimum of two hours of ACPE-approved, immunization-related continuing pharmacy education during each State licensing period.[] The licensed pharmacist must comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the jurisdiction in which he or she administers vaccines, including informing the patient's primary-care provider when available, submitting the required immunization information to the State or local immunization information system (vaccine registry), complying with requirements with respect to reporting adverse events, and complying with requirements whereby the person administering a vaccine must review the vaccine registry or other vaccination records prior to administering a vaccine.[] The licensed pharmacist must inform his or her childhood-vaccination patients and the adult caregivers accompanying the children of the importance of a well-child visit with a pediatrician or other licensed primary-care provider and refer patients as appropriate.[] These requirements are consistent with those in many States that permit licensed pharmacists to order and administer vaccines to children and permit licensed or registered pharmacy interns acting under their supervision to administer vaccines to children.[] Administering vaccinations to children age three and older is less complicated and requires less training and resources than administering vaccinations to younger children. That is because ACIP generally recommends administering intramuscular injections in the deltoid muscle for individuals age three and older.[] For individuals less than three years of age, ACIP generally recommends administering intramuscular injections in the anterolateral aspect of the thigh muscle.[] Administering injections in the thigh muscle often presents additional complexities and requires additional training and resources including additional personnel to safely position the child while another healthcare professional injects the vaccine.[] Moreover, as of 2018, 40% of three-year-olds were enrolled in preprimary programs (i.e. Preschool or kindergarten programs).[] Preprimary programs are beginning in the coming weeks or months, so the Secretary has concluded that it is particularly important for individuals ages three through 18 to receive ACIP-recommended vaccines according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule.

All States require children to be vaccinated against certain communicable diseases as a condition of school attendance. These laws often apply to both public and private schools with identical immunization and exemption provisions.[] As nurseries, preschools, kindergartens, and schools reopen, increased access to childhood vaccinations is essential to ensuring children can return. Notwithstanding any State or local scope-of-practice legal requirements, (1) qualified licensed pharmacists are identified as qualified persons to order and administer ACIP-recommended vaccines and (2) qualified State-licensed or registered pharmacy interns are identified as qualified persons to administer the ACIP-recommended vaccines ordered by their supervising qualified licensed pharmacist.[] Both the PREP Act and the June 4, 2020 Second Amendment to the Declaration define “covered countermeasures” to include qualified pandemic and epidemic products that “limit the harm such pandemic or epidemic might otherwise cause.” [] The troubling decrease in ACIP-recommended childhood vaccinations and the resulting increased risk of associated diseases, adverse health conditions, and other threats are categories of harms otherwise caused by Start Printed Page 52140COVID-19 as set forth in Sections VI and VIII of this Declaration.[] Hence, such vaccinations are “covered countermeasures” under the PREP Act and the June 4, 2020 Second Amendment to the Declaration. Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed to affect the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, including an injured party's ability to obtain compensation under that program. Covered countermeasures that are subject to the National Vaccine 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. Section VIII. Category of Disease, Health Condition, or Threat As discussed, the troubling decrease in ACIP-recommended childhood vaccinations and the resulting increased risk of associated diseases, adverse health conditions, and other threats are categories of harms otherwise caused by COVID-19.

The Secretary therefore amends section VIII, which describes the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures, to clarify that the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures is not only COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, but also other diseases, health conditions, or threats that may have been caused by COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, or a virus mutating therefrom, including the decrease in the rate of childhood immunizations, which will lead to an increase in the rate of infectious diseases. Amendments to Declaration Amended Declaration for Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act Coverage for medical countermeasures against COVID-19. Sections V and VIII of the March 10, 2020 Declaration under the PREP Act for medical countermeasures against COVID-19, as amended April 10, 2020 and June 4, 2020, are further amended pursuant to section 319F-3(b)(4) of the PHS Act as described below. All other sections of the Declaration remain in effect as published at 85 FR 15198 (Mar. 17, 2020) and amended at 85 FR 21012 (Apr.

15, 2020) and 85 FR 35100 (June 8, 2020). 1. Covered Persons, section V, delete in full and replace with. V. Covered Persons 42 U.S.C.

247d-6d(i)(2), (3), (4), (6), (8)(A) and (B) Covered Persons who are afforded liability immunity under this Declaration are “manufacturers,” “distributors,” “program planners,” “qualified persons,” and their officials, agents, and employees, as those terms are defined in the PREP Act, 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 an emergency. (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.

And (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), vaccines that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends to persons ages three through 18 according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule. Such State-licensed pharmacists and the State-licensed or registered interns under their supervision are qualified persons only if the following requirements are met. The vaccine must be FDA-authorized or FDA-approved. The vaccination must be ordered and administered according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule. The licensed pharmacist must complete a practical training program of at least 20 hours that is approved by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE).

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

The licensed pharmacist must comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the jurisdiction in which he or she administers vaccines, including informing the patient's primary-care provider when available, submitting the required immunization information to the State or local immunization information system (vaccine registry), complying with requirements with respect to reporting adverse events, and complying with requirements whereby the person administering a vaccine must review the vaccine registry or other vaccination records prior to administering a vaccine. 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. Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed to affect the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, including an injured party's ability to obtain compensation under that program. Covered countermeasures that are subject to the National Vaccine 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 Start Printed Page 52141terms and conditions of the Declaration apply to such covered countermeasures. 2. Category of Disease, Health Condition, or Threat, section VIII, delete in full and replace with. 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 COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, but also other diseases, health conditions, or threats that may have been caused by COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, or a virus mutating therefrom, including the decrease in the rate of childhood immunizations, which will lead to an increase in the rate of infectious diseases. Start Authority 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d. End Authority Start Signature Dated.

August 19, 2020. Alex M. Azar II, Secretary of Health and Human Services. End Signature End Supplemental Information [FR Doc. 2020-18542 Filed 8-20-20.

Where can you get prozac

We live in unprecedented times where can you get prozac http://www.niss.lv/purchase-prozac/. But what makes them without parallel is not the current pandemic crisis nor the continued problems facing minorities in our institutions. Rather, it’s that for the first time, the problems of accessibility, rights where can you get prozac and freedoms are now invading privileged spaces. There can be no ‘getting back to normal’, because ‘normal’ only ever benefited the white, Western, patriarchal, abled and cis ideals.

For many, the world is not suddenly on where can you get prozac fire. It has long been burning.The present pandemic lays bare systemic prejudice against the most vulnerable among us. We at Medical Humanities, with our focus on global health and social justice, welcome discussion about how the crisis has disproportionately affected racial and fiscal minorities, those from the disabled community, those who are LGBTQA+ and other vulnerable groups. What we focus on here, now, can lead to greater accessibility and equity where can you get prozac in the future.In this expanded issue, we offer some of the incredible work being done across the field of medical humanities prior to the COVID-19 crisis, and we are already reviewing articles on the role of health humanities during the pandemic.

The process of academic publishing tends not to lend itself to immediacy, however, and the challenges of pandemic means greater pressure on everyone, from the authors to the reviewers and readers.To remedy this, we at Medical Humanities have been increasing the work on our blog platform, a place where content can be quickly updated, and where conversations can occur among readers and writers. We openly invite submissions concerning the virus, as well as topics relevant to our wider CFP where can you get prozac (call for posts/papers) this year on social justice and health, to both blog and journal. We will do our best to expedite. Finally, we have also been addressing social justice and access in our podcast, where we interviewed disability activist Alice Wong and most recently Dr Oni Blackstock, primary care physician and HIV specialist in New York.

We hope where can you get prozac to have many more on these critical subjects.We wish all of you good health and safety and know that many of you are yet on the front lines. Thank you for being part of the community of Medical Humanities.IntroductionMinecraft is a computer game with no specific goals to accomplish. The gameworld where can you get prozac consists of three-dimensional (3D) cubes and objects which the player (Steve) can mine and build into infinitely complex (and logically impossible) structures. Steve sometimes encounters other characters (‘mobs’), such as animals and hostile creatures.

He can ‘spawn’ and destroy them. While it looks like a harmless game of logical construction, it conveys some worryingly delusive ideas about where can you get prozac the real world. The difference between real and imagined structures is at the heart of the age-old debate around categorising mental disorders.Classification in mental health has had various forms throughout history. Mack and where can you get prozac colleagues set out a history of psychiatric classification beginning in 2600 BC with Egyptian references to melancholia and hysteria.

Through the Ancient Greeks with Hippocrates’ phrenitis, mania, melancholia, epilepsy, hysteria and Scythian disease. Through the Renaissance period. Through to 19th-century psychiatry featuring Pinel (known as the first psychiatrist), Kraepelin (known for observational classification) and Freud (known for classifying neurosis and psychosis).1Although the history of psychiatric classification identifies some common trends where can you get prozac such as the labels ‘melancholia’ and ‘hysteria’ which have survived millennia, the label ‘depression’ is relatively new. The earliest usage noted by Snaith is from 1899.

€˜in simple pathological depression…the patient exhibits a growing indifference to his former pursuits…’.2 Snaith noted where can you get prozac that early 20th-century psychiatrists like Adolf Meyer hoped that ‘depression’ would come to encompass a broad category under which descriptions of subtypes would emerge. This did not happen until the middle of the 20th century. With the publication of the sixth International Classification of Diseases (ICD) in 1948 and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1952 and their subsequent revisions, the latter half of the 20th century has seen depression subtype labels proliferate. In their study of the where can you get prozac social determinants of diagnostic labels in depression, McPherson and Armstrong illustrate how the codification of depression subtypes in the latter half of the 20th century has been shaped by the evolving context of psychiatry, including power struggles within the profession, a move to community care and the development of psychopharmacology.3During this period, McPherson and Armstrong describe how subsequent versions of the DSM served as battlegrounds for professional disputes and philosophical quarrels around categorisation of mental disorders.

DSM I and DSM II have been described as products of an American Psychiatric Association dominated by psychoanalytic psychiatrists.4 DSM III and DSM III-R have been described as a radical rejection of psychoanalytic thinking, a ‘neo-Kraepelinian revolution’, a reference to the observational descriptive techniques of 19th-century psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin who classified mental disorders into two broad categories. €˜dementia praecox’ and ‘manic-depression’.5 DSM III was seen by some as a turning point in the use of the medical model of mental illness, through provision of specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, and use of field trials and a multiaxial system.6 These latter technocratic additions to psychiatric labelling served to engender a much closer alignment between psychiatry, science and medicine.The codification of mental disorders in manuals has been described by Thomas Schacht as intrinsic to the relationship between science and politics and the way in which psychiatrists gain significant social power by aligning themselves to science.7 His argument drew on Szasz, who saw the where can you get prozac mental health establishment as a therapeutic state. Zimbardo, who described psychiatric care as a controlling force. And Foucault, who described the categorisation of the mentally ill as a force for isolating ‘the other’.

Diagnostic critique has been further developed through a cultural relativist lens in that where can you get prozac what Western psychiatrists classify as a depression is constructed differently in other cultures.8 Considering these limitations, some critics have gone so far as to argue that psychiatric diagnostic systems should be abolished.9Yet architects of DSM manuals have worked hard to ensure the technology of classification is regarded as genuine scientific activity with sound roots in philosophy of science. In their philosophical defence of DSM IV, Allen Frances and colleagues address their critics under the headings ‘nominalism vs realism’, ‘empiricism vs rationalism’ and ‘categorical vs dimensional’.10 The implication is that there are opposing stances in which a choice must be made or a middle ground forged by those reasonable enough to recognise the need for pragmatism in the service of clinical utility. The nominalism–realism debate is illustrated using as metaphor three different stances a cricket umpire where can you get prozac might take on calling strikes and balls. The discussion sets out two of these as extreme views.

€˜at one extreme…those who take a reductionistically realistic view of the world’ versus ‘the solipsistic nominalists…might content that nothing exists’. Szasz, who is characterised where can you get prozac as holding particularly extreme views, is named as an archetypal solipsist. There is implied to be a degree of arrogance associated with this view in the illustrative example in which the umpire states ‘there are no balls and there are no strikes until I call them’. Frances therefore sets up a means where can you get prozac of grouping two kinds of people as philosophical extremists who can be dismissed, while avoiding addressing the philosophical problems they pose.Frances provides little if any justification for the middle ground stance, ‘There are balls and there are strikes and I call them as I see them’, other than to focus on its clinical utility and the lack of clinical utility in the alternatives ‘naïve realism’ and ‘heuristically barren solipsism’.

The natural conclusion the reader is invited to reach is that a middle ground of a heuristic concept is naturally right because it is not extreme and is naturally useful clinically, without specifying in what way this stance is coherent, resolves the two alternatives, and in what way a heuristic construct that is not ‘real’ can be subject to scientific testing.Similarly, in discussing the ‘categorical vs dimensional’, Frances promotes the ‘prototype approach’. Those holding opposing views are labelled as ‘dualists’ or ‘dichotomisers’. The prototypical approach is again put forward as a clinically useful middle where can you get prozac ground. Illustrations are drawn from natural science.

€˜a triangle and a square are never the same’, inciting where can you get prozac the reader to consider science as value-free. The prototypical approach emerges as a natural solution, yet the authors do not address how a diagnostic prototype resolves the issues posed by the two alternatives, nor how a prototype can be subjected to natural science methods.The argument presented here is not a defence of solipsism or dualism. Rather it aims to illustrate that if for pragmatic purposes clinicians and policymakers choose to gloss over the philosophical flaws in classification practices, it is then risky to move beyond the heuristic and apply natural science methods to these constructs adding multiple layers of technocratic subclassification. Doing so where can you get prozac is more like playing Minecraft than cricket.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for depression is taken as an example of the philosophical errors that can follow from playing Minecraft with unsound heuristic devices, specifically subcategories of persistent forms of depression. As well as serving a clinical purpose, diagnosis in medicine is a way of allocating resources for insurance companies where can you get prozac and constructing clinical guidelines, which in turn determine rationing within the National Health Service. The consequences for recipients of healthcare are therefore significant. Clinical utility is arguably not being served at all and patients are left at risk of poor-quality care.Heterogeneity of persistent depressionAndrea Jobst and colleagues note that ‘because of their chronic clinical course, approximately 40% of CD [chronic depression] patients also fulfil criteria for TRD [treatment resistant depression]…usually defined by the number of non-successful biological treatments’.11 This position is reflected in the DSM VAmerican Psychiatric Association (2013), the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) guidance and the ICD-11(World Health Organisation, 2018), which all use a ‘persistent’ depression category, acknowledging a loosely defined mixed group of long-term, difficult-to-treat depressive conditions, often associated with dysthymia and comorbid common mental disorders, various personality traits and psychosocial disability.In contrast, the NICE 2018 draft guideline separates treatments into those for ‘new episodes’ of depression.

€˜further-line’ treatment of depression (equivalent to TRD), CD and ‘depression with co-morbidities’ where can you get prozac. The latter is subdivided into treatments for ‘complex depression’ and ‘psychotic depression’. These categories where can you get prozac and subcategories introduce an unfortunate sense of certainty as though these labels represent real things. An analysis follows of how these definitions play out in terms of grouping of randomised controlled trials in the NICE evidence review.

Specifically, the analysis reveals the overlap between populations in trials which have been separated into discrete categories, revealing significant limitations to the utility of the category labels.The NICE definition of CD requires trial samples to meet the criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) for 2 years. Dysthymia and double depression (MDD superimposed on dysthymia) were included where can you get prozac. If 75% of the trial population met these criteria, the trial was reviewed in the CD category.12 The definition of TRD (or ‘further-line treatments’) required that the trial sample had demonstrated a ‘limited response to previous treatment’ and randomised to the further-line treatment at this point. If 80% of the trial where can you get prozac participants met these criteria, it was reviewed in the TRD category.13 Complex depression was defined as ‘depression co-existing with personality disorder’.

To be classed as complex, 51% of trial participants had to have personality disorder (PD).14It is immediately clear from these definitions that there is a potential problem with attempting to categorise trial populations into just one of these categories. These populations are likely to overlap, whether or not a trial protocol sets out to explicitly record all of this information. The analysis below will illustrate this using examples from within the NICE review.Cataloguing complexity in trial populationsWithin the category of further-line treatments (TRD), where can you get prozac 64 trials were reviewed. Comparisons within these trials were further subcategorised into ‘dose escalation strategies’, ‘augmentation strategies’ and ‘switching strategies’.

In drilling down by way of illustration, where can you get prozac this analysis considers the 51 trials in the augmentation strategy evidence review. Of these, two were classified by the reviewers as also fulfilling the criteria for CD but were not analysed in the CD category (Study IDs. Fonagy 2015 and Kocsis 200915). About half where can you get prozac of the trials (23/51) did not report the mean duration of episode, meaning that it is not possible to know what percentage of participants also met the criteria for CD.

Of trials that did report episode duration, 17 reported a mean duration longer than 24 months. While the standard deviations where can you get prozac varied in size or were unreported, the mean indicates a good likelihood that a significant proportion of the participants across these 51 trials met the criteria for CD.Details of baseline employment, trauma history, suicidality, physical comorbidity, axis I comorbidity and PD (all clinical indicators of complexity, severity and chronicity) were not collated by NICE. For the present analysis, all 51 publications were examined and data compiled concerning clinical complexity in the trial populations. Only 14 of 51 trials report employment data.

Of those that do, unemployment where can you get prozac ranges from 12% to 56% across trial samples. None of the trials report trauma history. About half of where can you get prozac the trials (26/51) excluded people who were considered a suicide risk. The others did not.A large proportion of trials (30/51) did not provide any data on axis 1 comorbidity.

Of these, 18 did not exclude any diagnoses, while 12 excluded some (but not all) disorders. The most common diagnoses where can you get prozac excluded were psychotic disorders, substance or alcohol abuse, and bipolar disorder (excluded in 26, 25 and 23 trials, respectively). Only 7 of 51 trials clearly stated that all axis 1 diagnoses were excluded. This leaves where can you get prozac only 13 studies providing any data about comorbidity.

Of these, 9 gave partial data on one or two conditions, while 4 reported either the mean number of disorders (range 1.96–2.9) or the percentage of participants (range 68.1–96.7) with any comorbid diagnosis (Nierenberg 2003a, Nierenberg 2006, Watkins 2011a, Town 201715).The majority of trials (46/51) did not report the prevalence of PD. Many stated PD as an exclusion criterion but without defining a threshold for exclusion. For example, PD could be where can you get prozac excluded if it ‘impacted’ the depression, if it was ‘significant’, ‘severe’ or ‘persistent’. Some excluded certain PDs (such as antisocial or borderline) and not others but without reporting the prevalence of those not excluded.

In the where can you get prozac five trials where prevalence was clear, prevalence ranged from 0% (Ravindran 2008a15), where all PDs were excluded, to 87.5% of the sample (Town 201715). Two studies reported the mean number of PDs. 2.0 (Nierenberg 2003a) and 0.85 (Watkins 2011a15).The majority of trials (43/51) did not report the prevalence of physical illness. Many stated illness as an exclusion criterion, but the definitions and thresholds were vague and could be interpreted where can you get prozac in different ways.

For example, illness could be excluded if it was ‘unstable’, ‘serious’, ‘significant’, ‘relevant’, or would ‘contraindicate’ or ‘impact’ the medication. Of the eight trials reporting information about where can you get prozac physical health, there was a wide variation. Four reported prevalence varying from 7.6% having a disability (Eisendrath 201615) to 90.9% having an illness or disability (Town 201715). Four used scales of physical health.

Two indicating mild problems (Nierenberg 2006, Lavretsky 201115) and two indicating moderately high levels of illness (Thase 2007, Fang 201015).The NICE review also divided trial populations into a dichotomy of where can you get prozac ‘more severe’ and ‘less severe’ on the grounds that this would be a clinically useful classification for general practitioners. NICE applied a bespoke methodology for creating this dichotomy, abandoning validated measure thresholds in order first to generate two ‘homogeneous’ groups to ‘facilitate analysis’, and second to create an algorithm to ‘read across’ different measures (such as the Beck Depression Inventory, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale).16 Examining trials which use more than one of these measures reveals problems in the algorithm. Of the 51 trials, there are 6 instances in which the study population falls into NICE’s where can you get prozac more severe category according to one measure and into the less severe category according to another. In four of these trials, NICE chose the less severe category (Souza 2016, Watkins 2011a, Fonagy 2015, Town 201715).

The other two trials were designated more severe (Barbee 2011, Dunner 200715). Only 17 of 51 trials reported two or more depression scale measures, leaving much unknown about whether other study where can you get prozac populations could count as both more severe and less severe.Absence of knowledge or knowledge of absence?. A key philosophical error in science is to confuse an absence of knowledge with knowledge of absence. It is likely that some of the study populations deemed lacking in complexity or severity could actually have high where can you get prozac degrees of complexity and/or severity.

Data to demonstrate this may either fall foul of a guideline committee decision to prioritise certain information over other conflicting information (as in the severity algorithm). The information may be non-existent as it was not collected. It may be where can you get prozac somewhere in the publication pipeline. Or it may be sitting in a database with a research team that has run out of funds for supplementary analyses.

Wherever those data are or are not, their absence from published articles does not define the phenomenology where can you get prozac of depression for the patients who took part. As a case in point, data from the Fonagy 2015 trial presented at conferences but not published reveal that PD prevalence data would place the trial well within the NICE complex depression category, and that the sample had high levels of past trauma and physical condition comorbidity. The trial also meets the guideline criteria for CD according to the guideline’s own appendices.17 Reported axis 1 comorbidity was high (75.2% had anxiety disorder, 18.6% had substance abuse disorder, 13.2% had eating disorder).18 The mean depression scores at baseline were 36.5 on the Beck Depression Inventory and 20.1 on the HRSD (severe and very severe, respectively, according to published cut-off scores). NICE categorised this population as where can you get prozac less severe TRD, not CD and not complex.Notes1.

Avram H. Mack et where can you get prozac al. (1994), “A Brief History of Psychiatric Classification. From the Ancients to DSM-IV,” Psychiatric Clinics 17, no.

Snaith (1987), “The Concepts of Mild Depression,” British Journal of Psychiatry 150, no. 3. 387.3. Susan McPherson and David Armstrong (2006), “Social Determinants of Diagnostic Labels in Depression,” Social Science &.

Grob (1991), “Origins of DSM-I. A Study in Appearance and Reality,” The American Journal of Psychiatry. 421–31.5. Wilson M.

Compton and Samuel B. Guze (1995), “The Neo-Kraepelinian Revolution in Psychiatric Diagnosis,” European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 245, no. 4. 198–9.6.

Gerald L. Klerman (1984), “A Debate on DSM-III. The Advantages of DSM-III,” The American Journal of Psychiatry. 539–42.7.

Thomas E. Schacht (1985), “DSM-III and the Politics of Truth,” American Psychologist. 513–5.8. Daniel F.

Hartner and Kari L. Theurer (2018), “Psychiatry Should Not Seek Mechanisms of Disorder,” Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 38, no. 4. 189–204.9.

Sami Timimi (2014), “No More Psychiatric Labels. Why Formal Psychiatric Diagnostic Systems Should Be Abolished,” Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 14, no. 3. 208–15.10.

Allen Frances et al. (1994), “DSM-IV Meets Philosophy,” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine 19, no. 3.

207–18.11. Andrea Jobst et al. (2016), “European Psychiatric Association Guidance on Psychotherapy in Chronic Depression Across Europe,” European Psychiatry 33. 20.12.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2018), Depression in Adults. Treatment and Management. Draft for Consultation, https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-cgwave0725/documents/full-guideline-updated, 507.13. Ibid., 351–62.14.

Ibid., 597.15. Note that in order to refer to specific trials reviewed in the guideline, rather than the full citation, the Study IDs from column A in appendix J5 have been used. See www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-cgwave0725/documents/addendum-appendix-9 for details and full references.16. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2018), Depression in Adults.

Treatment and Management. Second Consultation on Draft Guideline – Stakeholder Comments Table, https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-cgwave0725/documents/consultation-comments-and-responses-2, 420–1.17. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2018), Depression in Adults, appendix J5.18. Peter Fonagy et al.

(2015), “Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial of Long-Term Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy for Treatment-Resistant Depression. The Tavistock Adult Depression Study (TADS),” World Psychiatry 14, no. 3. 312–21.19.

American Psychological Association (2018), Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Depression in Children, Adolescents, and Young, Middle-aged, and Older Adults. Draft.20. Jacqui Thornton (2018), “Depression in Adults. Campaigners and Doctors Demand Full Revision of NICE Guidance,” BMJ 361.

We live in prozac unprecedented times. But what makes them without parallel is not the current pandemic crisis nor the continued problems facing minorities in our institutions. Rather, it’s that for the first time, the problems of accessibility, rights prozac and freedoms are now invading privileged spaces. There can be no ‘getting back to normal’, because ‘normal’ only ever benefited the white, Western, patriarchal, abled and cis ideals.

For many, the world is not prozac suddenly on fire. It has long been burning.The present pandemic lays bare systemic prejudice against the most vulnerable among us. We at Medical Humanities, with our focus on global health and social justice, welcome discussion about how the crisis has disproportionately affected racial and fiscal minorities, those from the disabled community, those who are LGBTQA+ and other vulnerable groups. What we focus on here, now, can lead to greater accessibility and equity in the future.In this expanded issue, we offer some of the incredible work being done across prozac the field of medical humanities prior to the COVID-19 crisis, and we are already reviewing articles on the role of health humanities during the pandemic.

The process of academic publishing tends not to lend itself to immediacy, however, and the challenges of pandemic means greater pressure on everyone, from the authors to the reviewers and readers.To remedy this, we at Medical Humanities have been increasing the work on our blog platform, a place where content can be quickly updated, and where conversations can occur among readers and writers. We openly invite submissions concerning the virus, prozac as well as topics relevant to our wider CFP (call for posts/papers) this year on social justice and health, to both blog and journal. We will do our best to expedite. Finally, we have also been addressing social justice and access in our podcast, where we interviewed disability activist Alice Wong and most recently Dr Oni Blackstock, primary care physician and HIV specialist in New York.

We hope to have many more on these critical subjects.We wish all of you good health and safety and know that many of you are prozac yet on the front lines. Thank you for being part of the community of Medical Humanities.IntroductionMinecraft is a computer game with no specific goals to accomplish. The gameworld consists of three-dimensional prozac (3D) cubes and objects which the player (Steve) can mine and build into infinitely complex (and logically impossible) structures. Steve sometimes encounters other characters (‘mobs’), such as animals and hostile creatures.

He can ‘spawn’ and destroy them. While it looks like a harmless game of logical construction, it conveys some worryingly delusive ideas about prozac the real world. The difference between real and imagined structures is at the heart of the age-old debate around categorising mental disorders.Classification in mental health has had various forms throughout history. Mack and colleagues set prozac out a history of psychiatric classification beginning in 2600 BC with Egyptian references to melancholia and hysteria.

Through the Ancient Greeks with Hippocrates’ phrenitis, mania, melancholia, epilepsy, hysteria and Scythian disease. Through the Renaissance period. Through to 19th-century psychiatry featuring Pinel (known as the first psychiatrist), Kraepelin (known for observational classification) and Freud (known for classifying neurosis and psychosis).1Although the history of psychiatric classification identifies some prozac common trends such as the labels ‘melancholia’ and ‘hysteria’ which have survived millennia, the label ‘depression’ is relatively new. The earliest usage noted by Snaith is from 1899.

€˜in simple pathological depression…the patient exhibits a growing indifference to prozac his former pursuits…’.2 Snaith noted that early 20th-century psychiatrists like Adolf Meyer hoped that ‘depression’ would come to encompass a broad category under which descriptions of subtypes would emerge. This did not happen until the middle of the 20th century. With the publication of the sixth International Classification of Diseases (ICD) in 1948 and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1952 and their subsequent revisions, the latter half of the 20th century has seen depression subtype labels proliferate. In their study of the social determinants of diagnostic labels in depression, McPherson and Armstrong illustrate how the codification of depression subtypes in the latter half of the 20th century has been shaped by the evolving context of psychiatry, including power struggles within the profession, a move to community care and the development of psychopharmacology.3During this period, McPherson and Armstrong describe how subsequent versions of the DSM served as battlegrounds for professional prozac disputes and philosophical quarrels around categorisation of mental disorders.

DSM I and DSM II have been described as products of an American Psychiatric Association dominated by psychoanalytic psychiatrists.4 DSM III and DSM III-R have been described as a radical rejection of psychoanalytic thinking, a ‘neo-Kraepelinian revolution’, a reference to the observational descriptive techniques of 19th-century psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin who classified mental disorders into two broad categories. €˜dementia praecox’ and ‘manic-depression’.5 DSM III was seen by some as a turning point in the use of the medical model of mental illness, through provision of specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, and prozac use of field trials and a multiaxial system.6 These latter technocratic additions to psychiatric labelling served to engender a much closer alignment between psychiatry, science and medicine.The codification of mental disorders in manuals has been described by Thomas Schacht as intrinsic to the relationship between science and politics and the way in which psychiatrists gain significant social power by aligning themselves to science.7 His argument drew on Szasz, who saw the mental health establishment as a therapeutic state. Zimbardo, who described psychiatric care as a controlling force. And Foucault, who described the categorisation of the mentally ill as a force for isolating ‘the other’.

Diagnostic critique has been further developed through a cultural relativist lens in that what Western psychiatrists classify as a depression is constructed differently in other cultures.8 Considering these limitations, some critics have gone so far as to prozac argue that psychiatric diagnostic systems should be abolished.9Yet architects of DSM manuals have worked hard to ensure the technology of classification is regarded as genuine scientific activity with sound roots in philosophy of science. In their philosophical defence of DSM IV, Allen Frances and colleagues address their critics under the headings ‘nominalism vs realism’, ‘empiricism vs rationalism’ and ‘categorical vs dimensional’.10 The implication is that there are opposing stances in which a choice must be made or a middle ground forged by those reasonable enough to recognise the need for pragmatism in the service of clinical utility. The nominalism–realism debate is illustrated using as metaphor three different stances a cricket prozac umpire might take on calling strikes and balls. The discussion sets out two of these as extreme views.

€˜at one extreme…those who take a reductionistically realistic view of the world’ versus ‘the solipsistic nominalists…might content that nothing exists’. Szasz, who is characterised as holding prozac particularly extreme views, is named as an archetypal solipsist. There is implied to be a degree of arrogance associated with this view in the illustrative example in which the umpire states ‘there are no balls and there are no strikes until I call them’. Frances therefore sets up a means of grouping two kinds of people as philosophical extremists who can be dismissed, while avoiding addressing the philosophical problems they prozac pose.Frances provides little if any justification for the middle ground stance, ‘There are balls and there are strikes and I call them as I see them’, other than to focus on its clinical utility and the lack of clinical utility in the alternatives ‘naïve realism’ and ‘heuristically barren solipsism’.

The natural conclusion the reader is invited to reach is that a middle ground of a heuristic concept is naturally right because it is not extreme and is naturally useful clinically, without specifying in what way this stance is coherent, resolves the two alternatives, and in what way a heuristic construct that is not ‘real’ can be subject to scientific testing.Similarly, in discussing the ‘categorical vs dimensional’, Frances promotes the ‘prototype approach’. Those holding opposing views are labelled as ‘dualists’ or ‘dichotomisers’. The prototypical approach is prozac again put forward as a clinically useful middle ground. Illustrations are drawn from natural science.

€˜a triangle and prozac a square are never the same’, inciting the reader to consider science as value-free. The prototypical approach emerges as a natural solution, yet the authors do not address how a diagnostic prototype resolves the issues posed by the two alternatives, nor how a prototype can be subjected to natural science methods.The argument presented here is not a defence of solipsism or dualism. Rather it aims to illustrate that if for pragmatic purposes clinicians and policymakers choose to gloss over the philosophical flaws in classification practices, it is then risky to move beyond the heuristic and apply natural science methods to these constructs adding multiple layers of technocratic subclassification. Doing so is more like playing Minecraft prozac than cricket.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for depression is taken as an example of the philosophical errors that can follow from playing Minecraft with unsound heuristic devices, specifically subcategories of persistent forms of depression. As well as serving a clinical purpose, diagnosis in prozac medicine is a way of allocating resources for insurance companies and constructing clinical guidelines, which in turn determine rationing within the National Health Service. The consequences for recipients of healthcare are therefore significant. Clinical utility is arguably not being served at all and patients are left at risk of poor-quality care.Heterogeneity of persistent depressionAndrea Jobst and colleagues note that ‘because of their chronic clinical course, approximately 40% of CD [chronic depression] patients also fulfil criteria for TRD [treatment resistant depression]…usually defined by the number of non-successful biological treatments’.11 This position is reflected in the DSM VAmerican Psychiatric Association (2013), the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) guidance and the ICD-11(World Health Organisation, 2018), which all use a ‘persistent’ depression category, acknowledging a loosely defined mixed group of long-term, difficult-to-treat depressive conditions, often associated with dysthymia and comorbid common mental disorders, various personality traits and psychosocial disability.In contrast, the NICE 2018 draft guideline separates treatments into those for ‘new episodes’ of depression.

€˜further-line’ treatment of depression prozac (equivalent to TRD), CD and ‘depression with co-morbidities’. The latter is subdivided into treatments for ‘complex depression’ and ‘psychotic depression’. These categories and prozac subcategories introduce an unfortunate sense of certainty as though these labels represent real things. An analysis follows of how these definitions play out in terms of grouping of randomised controlled trials in the NICE evidence review.

Specifically, the analysis reveals the overlap between populations in trials which have been separated into discrete categories, revealing significant limitations to the utility of the category labels.The NICE definition of CD requires trial samples to meet the criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) for 2 years. Dysthymia and double depression prozac (MDD superimposed on dysthymia) were included. If 75% of the trial population met these criteria, the trial was reviewed in the CD category.12 The definition of TRD (or ‘further-line treatments’) required that the trial sample had demonstrated a ‘limited response to previous treatment’ and randomised to the further-line treatment at this point. If 80% of the prozac trial participants met these criteria, it was reviewed in the TRD category.13 Complex depression was defined as ‘depression co-existing with personality disorder’.

To be classed as complex, 51% of trial participants had to have personality disorder (PD).14It is immediately clear from these definitions that there is a potential problem with attempting to categorise trial populations into just one of these categories. These populations are likely to overlap, whether or not a trial protocol sets out to explicitly record all of this information. The analysis below will illustrate this using examples prozac from within the NICE review.Cataloguing complexity in trial populationsWithin the category of further-line treatments (TRD), 64 trials were reviewed. Comparisons within these trials were further subcategorised into ‘dose escalation strategies’, ‘augmentation strategies’ and ‘switching strategies’.

In drilling prozac down by way of illustration, this analysis considers the 51 trials in the augmentation strategy evidence review. Of these, two were classified by the reviewers as also fulfilling the criteria for CD but were not analysed in the CD category (Study IDs. Fonagy 2015 and Kocsis 200915). About half of prozac the trials (23/51) did not report the mean duration of episode, meaning that it is not possible to know what percentage of participants also met the criteria for CD.

Of trials that did report episode duration, 17 reported a mean duration longer than 24 months. While the standard deviations varied in size or were unreported, the mean indicates a good likelihood that a significant proportion of the participants across these 51 trials met the criteria for CD.Details of baseline employment, trauma history, suicidality, physical comorbidity, axis I comorbidity and PD (all clinical indicators of complexity, severity and prozac chronicity) were not collated by NICE. For the present analysis, all 51 publications were examined and data compiled concerning clinical complexity in the trial populations. Only 14 of 51 trials report employment data.

Of those prozac that do, unemployment ranges from 12% to 56% across trial samples. None of the trials report trauma history. About half of the trials (26/51) excluded people who were considered a suicide prozac risk. The others did not.A large proportion of trials (30/51) did not provide any data on axis 1 comorbidity.

Of these, 18 did not exclude any diagnoses, while 12 excluded some (but not all) disorders. The most common diagnoses prozac excluded were psychotic disorders, substance or alcohol abuse, and bipolar disorder (excluded in 26, 25 and 23 trials, respectively). Only 7 of 51 trials clearly stated that all axis 1 diagnoses were excluded. This leaves only 13 studies providing any data about comorbidity prozac.

Of these, 9 gave partial data on one or two conditions, while 4 reported either the mean number of disorders (range 1.96–2.9) or the percentage of participants (range 68.1–96.7) with any comorbid diagnosis (Nierenberg 2003a, Nierenberg 2006, Watkins 2011a, Town 201715).The majority of trials (46/51) did not report the prevalence of PD. Many stated PD as an exclusion criterion but without defining a threshold for exclusion. For example, PD could be excluded if it ‘impacted’ prozac the depression, if it was ‘significant’, ‘severe’ or ‘persistent’. Some excluded certain PDs (such as antisocial or borderline) and not others but without reporting the prevalence of those not excluded.

In the prozac five trials where prevalence was clear, prevalence ranged from 0% (Ravindran 2008a15), where all PDs were excluded, to 87.5% of the sample (Town 201715). Two studies reported the mean number of PDs. 2.0 (Nierenberg 2003a) and 0.85 (Watkins 2011a15).The majority of trials (43/51) did not report the prevalence of physical illness. Many stated illness as an exclusion prozac criterion, but the definitions and thresholds were vague and could be interpreted in different ways.

For example, illness could be excluded if it was ‘unstable’, ‘serious’, ‘significant’, ‘relevant’, or would ‘contraindicate’ or ‘impact’ the medication. Of the eight trials reporting information about prozac physical health, there was a wide variation. Four reported prevalence varying from 7.6% having a disability (Eisendrath 201615) to 90.9% having an illness or disability (Town 201715). Four used scales of physical health.

Two indicating mild problems (Nierenberg 2006, Lavretsky 201115) and two indicating moderately high levels of illness (Thase 2007, Fang 201015).The NICE review also divided trial populations into a dichotomy of ‘more severe’ and ‘less severe’ on the grounds that this would be a clinically useful classification for prozac general practitioners. NICE applied a bespoke methodology for creating this dichotomy, abandoning validated measure thresholds in order first to generate two ‘homogeneous’ groups to ‘facilitate analysis’, and second to create an algorithm to ‘read across’ different measures (such as the Beck Depression Inventory, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale).16 Examining trials which use more than one of these measures reveals problems in the algorithm. Of the 51 trials, there are 6 instances in which the study population falls into NICE’s more severe category according to one measure and into the prozac less severe category according to another. In four of these trials, NICE chose the less severe category (Souza 2016, Watkins 2011a, Fonagy 2015, Town 201715).

The other two trials were designated more severe (Barbee 2011, Dunner 200715). Only 17 of 51 prozac trials reported two or more depression scale measures, leaving much unknown about whether other study populations could count as both more severe and less severe.Absence of knowledge or knowledge of absence?. A key philosophical error in science is to confuse an absence of knowledge with knowledge of absence. It is likely that some of the study populations deemed lacking in prozac complexity or severity could actually have high degrees of complexity and/or severity.

Data to demonstrate this may either fall foul of a guideline committee decision to prioritise certain information over other conflicting information (as in the severity algorithm). The information may be non-existent as it was not collected. It may prozac be somewhere in the publication pipeline. Or it may be sitting in a database with a research team that has run out of funds for supplementary analyses.

Wherever those data are or are not, their absence from published prozac articles does not define the phenomenology of depression for the patients who took part. As a case in point, data from the Fonagy 2015 trial presented at conferences but not published reveal that PD prevalence data would place the trial well within the NICE complex depression category, and that the sample had high levels of past trauma and physical condition comorbidity. The trial also meets the guideline criteria for CD according to the guideline’s own appendices.17 Reported axis 1 comorbidity was high (75.2% had anxiety disorder, 18.6% had substance abuse disorder, 13.2% had eating disorder).18 The mean depression scores at baseline were 36.5 on the Beck Depression Inventory and 20.1 on the HRSD (severe and very severe, respectively, according to published cut-off scores). NICE categorised this population as less severe TRD, prozac not CD and not complex.Notes1.

Avram H. Mack et prozac al. (1994), “A Brief History of Psychiatric Classification. From the Ancients to DSM-IV,” Psychiatric Clinics 17, no.

Snaith (1987), “The Concepts of Mild Depression,” British Journal of Psychiatry 150, no. 3. 387.3. Susan McPherson and David Armstrong (2006), “Social Determinants of Diagnostic Labels in Depression,” Social Science &.

Grob (1991), “Origins of DSM-I. A Study in Appearance and Reality,” The American Journal of Psychiatry. 421–31.5. Wilson M.

Compton and Samuel B. Guze (1995), “The Neo-Kraepelinian Revolution in Psychiatric Diagnosis,” European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 245, no. 4. 198–9.6.

Gerald L. Klerman (1984), “A Debate on DSM-III. The Advantages of DSM-III,” The American Journal of Psychiatry. 539–42.7.

Thomas E. Schacht (1985), “DSM-III and the Politics of Truth,” American Psychologist. 513–5.8. Daniel F.

Hartner and Kari L. Theurer (2018), “Psychiatry Should Not Seek Mechanisms of Disorder,” Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 38, no. 4. 189–204.9.

Sami Timimi (2014), “No More Psychiatric Labels. Why Formal Psychiatric Diagnostic Systems Should Be Abolished,” Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 14, no. 3. 208–15.10.

Allen Frances et al. (1994), “DSM-IV Meets Philosophy,” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine 19, no. 3.

207–18.11. Andrea Jobst et al. (2016), “European Psychiatric Association Guidance on Psychotherapy in Chronic Depression Across Europe,” European Psychiatry 33. 20.12.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2018), Depression in Adults. Treatment and Management. Draft for Consultation, https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-cgwave0725/documents/full-guideline-updated, 507.13. Ibid., 351–62.14.

Ibid., 597.15. Note that in order to refer to specific trials reviewed in the guideline, rather than the full citation, the Study IDs from column A in appendix J5 have been used. See www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-cgwave0725/documents/addendum-appendix-9 for details and full references.16. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2018), Depression in Adults.

Treatment and Management. Second Consultation on Draft Guideline – Stakeholder Comments Table, https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-cgwave0725/documents/consultation-comments-and-responses-2, 420–1.17. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2018), Depression in Adults, appendix J5.18. Peter Fonagy et al.

(2015), “Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial of Long-Term Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy for Treatment-Resistant Depression. The Tavistock Adult Depression Study (TADS),” World Psychiatry 14, no. 3. 312–21.19.

American Psychological Association (2018), Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Depression in Children, Adolescents, and Young, Middle-aged, and Older Adults. Draft.20. Jacqui Thornton (2018), “Depression in Adults. Campaigners and Doctors Demand Full Revision of NICE Guidance,” BMJ 361.

Amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf

Patients Figure amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf can you take prozac while pregnant 1. Figure 1. Enrollment and amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf Randomization.

Of the 1107 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 1063 underwent randomization. 541 were assigned to the remdesivir group amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf and 522 to the placebo group (Figure 1). Of those assigned to receive remdesivir, 531 patients (98.2%) received the treatment as assigned.

Forty-nine patients had remdesivir amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf treatment discontinued before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death (36 patients) or because the patient withdrew consent (13). Of those assigned to receive placebo, 518 patients (99.2%) received placebo as assigned. Fifty-three patients discontinued placebo before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death (36 patients), because the patient withdrew consent (15), or because the patient was found to be ineligible for trial enrollment (2).

As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 patients in the remdesivir group and 340 in the placebo group had completed the trial through day 29, recovered, or died amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf. Eight patients who received remdesivir and 9 who received placebo terminated their participation in the trial before day 29. There were 132 patients in the remdesivir amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf group and 169 in the placebo group who had not recovered and had not completed the day 29 follow-up visit.

The analysis population included 1059 patients for whom we have at least some postbaseline data available (538 in the remdesivir group and 521 in the placebo group). Four of amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf the 1063 patients were not included in the primary analysis because no postbaseline data were available at the time of the database freeze. Table 1.

Table 1 amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics at Baseline. The mean age of patients was 58.9 years, and 64.3% were male (Table 1).

On the basis of the evolving epidemiology of Covid-19 during the amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf trial, 79.8% of patients were enrolled at sites in North America, 15.3% in Europe, and 4.9% in Asia (Table S1). Overall, 53.2% of the patients were white, 20.6% were black, 12.6% were Asian, and 13.6% were designated as other or not reported. 249 (23.4%) amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf were Hispanic or Latino.

Most patients had either one (27.0%) or two or more (52.1%) of the prespecified coexisting conditions at enrollment, most commonly hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The median number of days between symptom onset and randomization was 9 (interquartile range, 6 amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf to 12). Nine hundred forty-three (88.7%) patients had severe disease at enrollment as defined in the Supplementary Appendix.

272 (25.6%) patients amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf met category 7 criteria on the ordinal scale, 197 (18.5%) category 6, 421 (39.6%) category 5, and 127 (11.9%) category 4. There were 46 (4.3%) patients who had missing ordinal scale data at enrollment. No substantial imbalances in baseline characteristics were observed between the remdesivir group and the placebo group.

Primary Outcome amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf Figure 2. Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier Estimates amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf of Cumulative 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 amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf 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 (receiving mechanical ventilation amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf or ECMO. Panel E). Table 2.

Table 2 amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf. Outcomes Overall and According to Score on the Ordinal Scale in the Intention-to-Treat Population. Figure 3 amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf.

Figure 3. Time to Recovery According to Subgroup amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf. The widths of the confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity and therefore cannot be used to infer treatment effects.

Race and amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf 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, 11 days, as compared with 15 days. Rate ratio for recovery, 1.32.

95% confidence interval [CI], amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf 1.12 to 1.55. P<0.001. 1059 patients (Figure 2 and Table amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf 2).

Among patients with a baseline ordinal score of 5 (421 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 1.47 (95% CI, 1.17 to 1.84). Among patients with a baseline score of 4 (127 patients) and those with a baseline score of 6 (197 patients), the rate ratio estimates for recovery were 1.38 (95% CI, 0.94 to 2.03) and amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf 1.20 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.81), respectively. For those receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment (baseline ordinal scores of 7.

272 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 0.95 (95% amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf CI, 0.64 to 1.42). A test of interaction of treatment with baseline score on the ordinal scale was not significant. An analysis adjusting for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable 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 amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf estimate (rate ratio for recovery, 1.31. 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.54. 1017 patients) amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf.

Table S2 in the Supplementary Appendix shows results according to the baseline severity stratum of mild-to-moderate as compared with severe. Patients who underwent randomization during the first 10 days after the onset of symptoms amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.28 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.57. 664 patients), whereas patients who underwent randomization more than 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.81.

380 patients) (Figure 3) amor curiosidad prozac y dudas pdf. 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, 1.50. 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.91.

P=0.001. 844 patients) (Table 2 and Fig. S5).

Mortality was numerically lower in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group, but the difference was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.70. 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04. 1059 patients).

The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 14 days were 7.1% and 11.9% in the remdesivir and placebo groups, respectively (Table 2). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 28 days are not reported in this preliminary analysis, given the large number of patients that had yet to complete day 29 visits. An analysis with adjustment for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable showed a hazard ratio for death of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.50 to 1.10).

Safety Outcomes Serious adverse events occurred in 114 patients (21.1%) in the remdesivir group and 141 patients (27.0%) in the placebo group (Table S3). 4 events (2 in each group) were judged by site investigators to be related to remdesivir or placebo. There were 28 serious respiratory failure adverse events in the remdesivir group (5.2% of patients) and 42 in the placebo group (8.0% of patients).

Acute respiratory failure, hypotension, viral pneumonia, and acute kidney injury were slightly more common among patients in the placebo group. No deaths were considered to be related to treatment assignment, as judged by the site investigators. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 156 patients (28.8%) in the remdesivir group and in 172 in the placebo group (33.0%) (Table S4).

The most common adverse events in the remdesivir group were anemia or decreased hemoglobin (43 events [7.9%], as compared with 47 [9.0%] in the placebo group). Acute kidney injury, decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance, or increased blood creatinine (40 events [7.4%], as compared with 38 [7.3%]). Pyrexia (27 events [5.0%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]).

Hyperglycemia or increased blood glucose level (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). And increased aminotransferase levels including alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, or both (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 31 [5.9%]). Otherwise, the incidence of adverse events was not found to be significantly different between the remdesivir group and the placebo group.Trial Population Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of the Participants in the mRNA-1273 Trial at Enrollment. The 45 enrolled participants received their first vaccination between March 16 and April 14, 2020 (Fig.

S1). Three participants did not receive the second vaccination, including one in the 25-μg group who had urticaria on both legs, with onset 5 days after the first vaccination, and two (one in the 25-μg group and one in the 250-μg group) who missed the second vaccination window owing to isolation for suspected Covid-19 while the test results, ultimately negative, were pending. All continued to attend scheduled trial visits.

The demographic characteristics of participants at enrollment are provided in Table 1. Vaccine Safety No serious adverse events were noted, and no prespecified trial halting rules were met. As noted above, one participant in the 25-μg group was withdrawn because of an unsolicited adverse event, transient urticaria, judged to be related to the first vaccination.

Figure 1. Figure 1. Systemic and Local Adverse Events.

The severity of solicited adverse events was graded as mild, moderate, or severe (see Table S1).After the first vaccination, solicited systemic adverse events were reported by 5 participants (33%) in the 25-μg group, 10 (67%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (53%) in the 250-μg group. All were mild or moderate in severity (Figure 1 and Table S2). Solicited systemic adverse events were more common after the second vaccination and occurred in 7 of 13 participants (54%) in the 25-μg group, all 15 in the 100-μg group, and all 14 in the 250-μg group, with 3 of those participants (21%) reporting one or more severe events.

None of the participants had fever after the first vaccination. After the second vaccination, no participants in the 25-μg group, 6 (40%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (57%) in the 250-μg group reported fever. One of the events (maximum temperature, 39.6°C) in the 250-μg group was graded severe.

(Additional details regarding adverse events for that participant are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.) Local adverse events, when present, were nearly all mild or moderate, and pain at the injection site was common. Across both vaccinations, solicited systemic and local adverse events that occurred in more than half the participants included fatigue, chills, headache, myalgia, and pain at the injection site. Evaluation of safety clinical laboratory values of grade 2 or higher and unsolicited adverse events revealed no patterns of concern (Supplementary Appendix and Table S3).

SARS-CoV-2 Binding Antibody Responses Table 2. Table 2. Geometric Mean Humoral Immunogenicity Assay Responses to mRNA-1273 in Participants and in Convalescent Serum Specimens.

Figure 2. Figure 2. SARS-CoV-2 Antibody and Neutralization Responses.

Shown are geometric mean reciprocal end-point enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) IgG titers to S-2P (Panel A) and receptor-binding domain (Panel B), PsVNA ID50 responses (Panel C), and live virus PRNT80 responses (Panel D). In Panel A and Panel B, boxes and horizontal bars denote interquartile range (IQR) and median area under the curve (AUC), respectively. Whisker endpoints are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR.

The convalescent serum panel includes specimens from 41 participants. Red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay. The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent serum panel.

In Panel C, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median ID50, respectively. Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. In the convalescent serum panel, red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay.

The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent panel. In Panel D, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median PRNT80, respectively. Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR.

The three convalescent serum specimens were also tested in ELISA and PsVNA assays. Because of the time-intensive nature of the PRNT assay, for this preliminary report, PRNT results were available only for the 25-μg and 100-μg dose groups.Binding antibody IgG geometric mean titers (GMTs) to S-2P increased rapidly after the first vaccination, with seroconversion in all participants by day 15 (Table 2 and Figure 2A). Dose-dependent responses to the first and second vaccinations were evident.

Receptor-binding domain–specific antibody responses were similar in pattern and magnitude (Figure 2B). For both assays, the median magnitude of antibody responses after the first vaccination in the 100-μg and 250-μg dose groups was similar to the median magnitude in convalescent serum specimens, and in all dose groups the median magnitude after the second vaccination was in the upper quartile of values in the convalescent serum specimens. The S-2P ELISA GMTs at day 57 (299,751 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 206,071 to 436,020] in the 25-μg group, 782,719 [95% CI, 619,310 to 989,244] in the 100-μg group, and 1,192,154 [95% CI, 924,878 to 1,536,669] in the 250-μg group) exceeded that in the convalescent serum specimens (142,140 [95% CI, 81,543 to 247,768]).

SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Responses No participant had detectable PsVNA responses before vaccination. After the first vaccination, PsVNA responses were detected in less than half the participants, and a dose effect was seen (50% inhibitory dilution [ID50]. Figure 2C, Fig.

S8, and Table 2. 80% inhibitory dilution [ID80]. Fig.

S2 and Table S6). However, after the second vaccination, PsVNA responses were identified in serum samples from all participants. The lowest responses were in the 25-μg dose group, with a geometric mean ID50 of 112.3 (95% CI, 71.2 to 177.1) at day 43.

The higher responses in the 100-μg and 250-μg groups were similar in magnitude (geometric mean ID50, 343.8 [95% CI, 261.2 to 452.7] and 332.2 [95% CI, 266.3 to 414.5], respectively, at day 43). These responses were similar to values in the upper half of the distribution of values for convalescent serum specimens. Before vaccination, no participant had detectable 80% live-virus neutralization at the highest serum concentration tested (1:8 dilution) in the PRNT assay.

At day 43, wild-type virus–neutralizing activity capable of reducing SARS-CoV-2 infectivity by 80% or more (PRNT80) was detected in all participants, with geometric mean PRNT80 responses of 339.7 (95% CI, 184.0 to 627.1) in the 25-μg group and 654.3 (95% CI, 460.1 to 930.5) in the 100-μg group (Figure 2D). Neutralizing PRNT80 average responses were generally at or above the values of the three convalescent serum specimens tested in this assay. Good agreement was noted within and between the values from binding assays for S-2P and receptor-binding domain and neutralizing activity measured by PsVNA and PRNT (Figs.

S3 through S7), which provides orthogonal support for each assay in characterizing the humoral response induced by mRNA-1273. SARS-CoV-2 T-Cell Responses The 25-μg and 100-μg doses elicited CD4 T-cell responses (Figs. S9 and S10) that on stimulation by S-specific peptide pools were strongly biased toward expression of Th1 cytokines (tumor necrosis factor α >.

Interleukin 2 >. Interferon γ), with minimal type 2 helper T-cell (Th2) cytokine expression (interleukin 4 and interleukin 13). CD8 T-cell responses to S-2P were detected at low levels after the second vaccination in the 100-μg dose group (Fig.

S11).Trial Design and Oversight The RECOVERY trial was designed to evaluate the effects of potential treatments in patients hospitalized with Covid-19 at 176 National Health Service organizations in the United Kingdom and was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network. (Details regarding this trial are provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.) The trial is being coordinated by the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, the trial sponsor. Although the randomization of patients to receive dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, or lopinavir–ritonavir has now been stopped, the trial continues randomization to groups receiving azithromycin, check tocilizumab, or convalescent plasma.

Hospitalized patients were eligible for the trial if they had clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and no medical history that might, in the opinion of the attending clinician, put patients at substantial risk if they were to participate in the trial. Initially, recruitment was limited to patients who were at least 18 years of age, but the age limit was removed starting on May 9, 2020. Pregnant or breast-feeding women were eligible.

Written informed consent was obtained from all the patients or from a legal representative if they were unable to provide consent. The trial was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Good Clinical Practice guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonisation and was approved by the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee.

The protocol with its statistical analysis plan is available at NEJM.org and on the trial website at www.recoverytrial.net. The initial version of the manuscript was drafted by the first and last authors, developed by the writing committee, and approved by all members of the trial steering committee. The funders had no role in the analysis of the data, in the preparation or approval of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

The first and last members of the writing committee vouch for the completeness and accuracy of the data and for the fidelity of the trial to the protocol and statistical analysis plan. Randomization We collected baseline data using a Web-based case-report form that included demographic data, the level of respiratory support, major coexisting illnesses, suitability of the trial treatment for a particular patient, and treatment availability at the trial site. Randomization was performed with the use of a Web-based system with concealment of the trial-group assignment.

Eligible and consenting patients were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the usual standard of care alone or the usual standard of care plus oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days (or until hospital discharge if sooner) or to receive one of the other suitable and available treatments that were being evaluated in the trial. For some patients, dexamethasone was unavailable at the hospital at the time of enrollment or was considered by the managing physician to be either definitely indicated or definitely contraindicated. These patients were excluded from entry in the randomized comparison between dexamethasone and usual care and hence were not included in this report.

The randomly assigned treatment was prescribed by the treating clinician. Patients and local members of the trial staff were aware of the assigned treatments. Procedures A single online follow-up form was to be completed when the patients were discharged or had died or at 28 days after randomization, whichever occurred first.

Information was recorded regarding the patients’ adherence to the assigned treatment, receipt of other trial treatments, duration of admission, receipt of respiratory support (with duration and type), receipt of renal support, and vital status (including the cause of death). In addition, we obtained routine health care and registry data, including information on vital status (with date and cause of death), discharge from the hospital, and respiratory and renal support therapy. Outcome Measures The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days after randomization.

Further analyses were specified at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were the time until discharge from the hospital and, among patients not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization, subsequent receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) or death. Other prespecified clinical outcomes included cause-specific mortality, receipt of renal hemodialysis or hemofiltration, major cardiac arrhythmia (recorded in a subgroup), and receipt and duration of ventilation.

Statistical Analysis As stated in the protocol, appropriate sample sizes could not be estimated when the trial was being planned at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. As the trial progressed, the trial steering committee, whose members were unaware of the results of the trial comparisons, determined that if 28-day mortality was 20%, then the enrollment of at least 2000 patients in the dexamethasone group and 4000 in the usual care group would provide a power of at least 90% at a two-sided P value of 0.01 to detect a clinically relevant proportional reduction of 20% (an absolute difference of 4 percentage points) between the two groups. Consequently, on June 8, 2020, the steering committee closed recruitment to the dexamethasone group, since enrollment had exceeded 2000 patients.

For the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, the hazard ratio from Cox regression was used to estimate the mortality rate ratio. Among the few patients (0.1%) who had not been followed for 28 days by the time of the data cutoff on July 6, 2020, data were censored either on that date or on day 29 if the patient had already been discharged. That is, in the absence of any information to the contrary, these patients were assumed to have survived for 28 days.

Kaplan–Meier survival curves were constructed to show cumulative mortality over the 28-day period. Cox regression was used to analyze the secondary outcome of hospital discharge within 28 days, with censoring of data on day 29 for patients who had died during hospitalization. For the prespecified composite secondary outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation or death within 28 days (among patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization), the precise date of invasive mechanical ventilation was not available, so a log-binomial regression model was used to estimate the risk ratio.

Table 1. Table 1. Characteristics of the Patients at Baseline, According to Treatment Assignment and Level of Respiratory Support.

Through the play of chance in the unstratified randomization, the mean age was 1.1 years older among patients in the dexamethasone group than among those in the usual care group (Table 1). To account for this imbalance in an important prognostic factor, estimates of rate ratios were adjusted for the baseline age in three categories (<70 years, 70 to 79 years, and ≥80 years). This adjustment was not specified in the first version of the statistical analysis plan but was added once the imbalance in age became apparent.

Results without age adjustment (corresponding to the first version of the analysis plan) are provided in the Supplementary Appendix. Prespecified analyses of the primary outcome were performed in five subgroups, as defined by characteristics at randomization. Age, sex, level of respiratory support, days since symptom onset, and predicted 28-day mortality risk.

(One further prespecified subgroup analysis regarding race will be conducted once the data collection has been completed.) In prespecified subgroups, we estimated rate ratios (or risk ratios in some analyses) and their confidence intervals using regression models that included an interaction term between the treatment assignment and the subgroup of interest. Chi-square tests for linear trend across the subgroup-specific log estimates were then performed in accordance with the prespecified plan. All P values are two-sided and are shown without adjustment for multiple testing.

All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The full database is held by the trial team, which collected the data from trial sites and performed the analyses at the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford.Trial Design and Oversight We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate postexposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine after exposure to Covid-19.12 We randomly assigned participants in a 1:1 ratio to receive either hydroxychloroquine or placebo. Participants had known exposure (by participant report) to a person with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19, whether as a household contact, a health care worker, or a person with other occupational exposures.

Trial enrollment began on March 17, 2020, with an eligibility threshold to enroll within 3 days after exposure. The objective was to intervene before the median incubation period of 5 to 6 days. Because of limited access to prompt testing, health care workers could initially be enrolled on the basis of presumptive high-risk exposure to patients with pending tests.

However, on March 23, eligibility was changed to exposure to a person with a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay for SARS-CoV-2, with the eligibility window extended to within 4 days after exposure. This trial was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Minnesota and conducted under a Food and Drug Administration Investigational New Drug application. In Canada, the trial was approved by Health Canada.

Ethics approvals were obtained from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, the University of Manitoba, and the University of Alberta. Participants We included participants who had household or occupational exposure to a person with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Participants were excluded if they were younger than 18 years of age, were hospitalized, or met other exclusion criteria (see the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org).

Persons with symptoms of Covid-19 or with PCR-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection were excluded from this prevention trial but were separately enrolled in a companion clinical trial to treat early infection. Setting Recruitment was performed primarily with the use of social media outreach as well as traditional media platforms. Participants were enrolled nationwide in the United States and in the Canadian provinces of Quebec, Manitoba, and Alberta.

Participants enrolled themselves through a secure Internet-based survey using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system.13 After participants read the consent form, their comprehension of its contents was assessed. Participants provided a digitally captured signature to indicate informed consent. We sent follow-up e-mail surveys on days 1, 5, 10, and 14.

A survey at 4 to 6 weeks asked about any follow-up testing, illness, or hospitalizations. Participants who did not respond to follow-up surveys received text messages, e-mails, telephone calls, or a combination of these to ascertain their outcomes. When these methods were unsuccessful, the emergency contact provided by the enrollee was contacted to determine the participant’s illness and vital status.

When all communication methods were exhausted, Internet searches for obituaries were performed to ascertain vital status. Interventions Randomization occurred at research pharmacies in Minneapolis and Montreal. The trial statisticians generated a permuted-block randomization sequence using variably sized blocks of 2, 4, or 8, with stratification according to country.

A research pharmacist sequentially assigned participants. The assignments were concealed from investigators and participants. Only pharmacies had access to the randomization sequence.

Hydroxychloroquine sulfate or placebo was dispensed and shipped overnight to participants by commercial courier. The dosing regimen for hydroxychloroquine was 800 mg (4 tablets) once, then 600 mg (3 tablets) 6 to 8 hours later, then 600 mg (3 tablets) daily for 4 more days for a total course of 5 days (19 tablets total). If participants had gastrointestinal upset, they were advised to divide the daily dose into two or three doses.

We chose this hydroxychloroquine dosing regimen on the basis of pharmacokinetic simulations to achieve plasma concentrations above the SARS-CoV-2 in vitro half maximal effective concentration for 14 days.14 Placebo folate tablets, which were similar in appearance to the hydroxychloroquine tablets, were prescribed as an identical regimen for the control group. Rising Pharmaceuticals provided a donation of hydroxychloroquine, and some hydroxychloroquine was purchased. Outcomes The primary outcome was prespecified as symptomatic illness confirmed by a positive molecular assay or, if testing was unavailable, Covid-19–related symptoms.

We assumed that health care workers would have access to Covid-19 testing if symptomatic. However, access to testing was limited throughout the trial period. Covid-19–related symptoms were based on U.S.

Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists criteria for confirmed cases (positivity for SARS-Cov-2 on PCR assay), probable cases (the presence of cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing, or the presence of two or more symptoms of fever, chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, and new olfactory and taste disorders), and possible cases (the presence of one or more compatible symptoms, which could include diarrhea).15 All the participants had epidemiologic linkage,15 per trial eligibility criteria. Four infectious disease physicians who were unaware of the trial-group assignments reviewed symptomatic participants to generate a consensus with respect to whether their condition met the case definition.15 Secondary outcomes included the incidence of hospitalization for Covid-19 or death, the incidence of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, the incidence of Covid-19 symptoms, the incidence of discontinuation of the trial intervention owing to any cause, and the severity of symptoms (if any) at days 5 and 14 according to a visual analogue scale (scores ranged from 0 [no symptoms] to 10 [severe symptoms]). Data on adverse events were also collected with directed questioning for common side effects along with open-ended free text.

Outcome data were measured within 14 days after trial enrollment. Outcome data including PCR testing results, possible Covid-19–related symptoms, adherence to the trial intervention, side effects, and hospitalizations were all collected through participant report. Details of trial conduct are provided in the protocol and statistical analysis plan, available at NEJM.org.

Sample Size We anticipated that illness compatible with Covid-19 would develop in 10% of close contacts exposed to Covid-19.9 Using Fisher’s exact method with a 50% relative effect size to reduce new symptomatic infections, a two-sided alpha of 0.05, and 90% power, we estimated that 621 persons would need to be enrolled in each group. With a pragmatic, Internet-based, self-referral recruitment strategy, we planned for a 20% incidence of attrition by increasing the sample size to 750 participants per group. We specified a priori that participants who were already symptomatic on day 1 before receiving hydroxychloroquine or placebo would be excluded from the prophylaxis trial and would instead be separately enrolled in the companion symptomatic treatment trial.

Because the estimates for both incident symptomatic Covid-19 after an exposure and loss to follow-up were relatively unknown in early March 2020,9 the protocol prespecified a sample-size reestimation at the second interim analysis. This reestimation, which used the incidence of new infections in the placebo group and the observed percentage of participants lost to follow-up, was aimed at maintaining the ability to detect an effect size of a 50% relative reduction in new symptomatic infections. Interim Analyses An independent data and safety monitoring board externally reviewed the data after 25% and 50% of the participants had completed 14 days of follow-up.

Stopping guidelines were provided to the data and safety monitoring board with the use of a Lan–DeMets spending function analogue of the O’Brien–Fleming boundaries for the primary outcome. A conditional power analysis was performed at the second and third interim analysis with the option of early stopping for futility. At the second interim analysis on April 22, 2020, the sample size was reduced to 956 participants who could be evaluated with 90% power on the basis of the higher-than-expected event rate of infections in the control group.

At the third interim analysis on May 6, the trial was halted on the basis of a conditional power of less than 1%, since it was deemed futile to continue. Statistical Analysis We assessed the incidence of Covid-19 disease by day 14 with Fisher’s exact test. Secondary outcomes with respect to percentage of patients were also compared with Fisher’s exact test.

Among participants in whom incident illness compatible with Covid-19 developed, we summarized the symptom severity score at day 14 with the median and interquartile range and assessed the distributions with a Kruskal–Wallis test. We conducted all analyses with SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute), according to the intention-to-treat principle, with two-sided type I error with an alpha of 0.05. For participants with missing outcome data, we conducted a sensitivity analysis with their outcomes excluded or included as an event.

Subgroups that were specified a priori included type of contact (household vs. Health care), days from exposure to enrollment, age, and sex.Announced on May 15, Operation Warp Speed (OWS) — a partnership of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the private sector — aims to accelerate control of the Covid-19 pandemic by advancing development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. OWS is providing support to promising candidates and enabling the expeditious, parallel execution of the necessary steps toward approval or authorization of safe products by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).The partnership grew out of an acknowledged need to fundamentally restructure the way the U.S.

Government typically supports product development and vaccine distribution. The initiative was premised on setting a “stretch goal” — one that initially seemed impossible but that is becoming increasingly achievable.The concept of an integrated structure for Covid-19 countermeasure research and development across the U.S. Government was based on experience with Zika and the Zika Leadership Group led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the assistant secretary for preparedness and response (ASPR).

One of us (M.S.) serves as OWS chief advisor. We are drawing on expertise from the NIH, ASPR, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), and the DOD, including the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. OWS has engaged experts in all critical aspects of medical countermeasure research, development, manufacturing, and distribution to work in close coordination.The initiative set ambitious objectives.

To deliver tens of millions of doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine — with demonstrated safety and efficacy, and approved or authorized by the FDA for use in the U.S. Population — beginning at the end of 2020 and to have as many as 300 million doses of such vaccines available and deployed by mid-2021. The pace and scope of such a vaccine effort are unprecedented.

The 2014 West African Ebola virus epidemic spurred rapid vaccine development, but though preclinical data existed before the outbreak, a period of 12 months was required to progress from phase 1 first-in-human trials to phase 3 efficacy trials. OWS aims to compress this time frame even further. SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development began in January, phase 1 clinical studies in March, and the first phase 3 trials in July.

Our objectives are based on advances in vaccine platform technology, improved understanding of safe and efficacious vaccine design, and similarities between the SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 disease mechanisms.OWS’s role is to enable, accelerate, harmonize, and advise the companies developing the selected vaccines. The companies will execute the clinical or process development and manufacturing plans, while OWS leverages the full capacity of the U.S. Government to ensure that no technical, logistic, or financial hurdles hinder vaccine development or deployment.OWS selected vaccine candidates on the basis of four criteria.

We required candidates to have robust preclinical data or early-stage clinical trial data supporting their potential for clinical safety and efficacy. Candidates had to have the potential, with our acceleration support, to enter large phase 3 field efficacy trials this summer or fall (July to November 2020) and, assuming continued active transmission of the virus, to deliver efficacy outcomes by the end of 2020 or the first half of 2021. Candidates had to be based on vaccine-platform technologies permitting fast and effective manufacturing, and their developers had to demonstrate the industrial process scalability, yields, and consistency necessary to reliably produce more than 100 million doses by mid-2021.

Finally, candidates had to use one of four vaccine-platform technologies that we believe are the most likely to yield a safe and effective vaccine against Covid-19. The mRNA platform, the replication-defective live-vector platform, the recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein platform, or the attenuated replicating live-vector platform.OWS’s strategy relies on a few key principles. First, we sought to build a diverse project portfolio that includes two vaccine candidates based on each of the four platform technologies.

Such diversification mitigates the risk of failure due to safety, efficacy, industrial manufacturability, or scheduling factors and may permit selection of the best vaccine platform for each subpopulation at risk for contracting or transmitting Covid-19, including older adults, frontline and essential workers, young adults, and pediatric populations. In addition, advancing eight vaccines in parallel will increase the chances of delivering 300 million doses in the first half of 2021.Second, we must accelerate vaccine program development without compromising safety, efficacy, or product quality. Clinical development, process development, and manufacturing scale-up can be substantially accelerated by running all streams, fully resourced, in parallel.

Doing so requires taking on substantial financial risk, as compared with the conventional sequential development approach. OWS will maximize the size of phase 3 trials (30,000 to 50,000 participants each) and optimize trial-site location by consulting daily epidemiologic and disease-forecasting models to ensure the fastest path to an efficacy readout. Such large trials also increase the safety data set for each candidate vaccine.With heavy up-front investment, companies can conduct clinical operations and site preparation for these phase 3 efficacy trials even as they file their Investigational New Drug application (IND) for their phase 1 studies, thereby ensuring immediate initiation of phase 3 when they get a green light from the FDA.

To permit appropriate comparisons among the vaccine candidates and to optimize vaccine utilization after approval by the FDA, the phase 3 trial end points and assay readouts have been harmonized through a collaborative effort involving the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Coronavirus Prevention Network, OWS, and the sponsor companies.Finally, OWS is supporting the companies financially and technically to commence process development and scale up manufacturing while their vaccines are in preclinical or very early clinical stages. To ensure that industrial processes are set, running, and validated for FDA inspection when phase 3 trials end, OWS is also supporting facility building or refurbishing, equipment fitting, staff hiring and training, raw-material sourcing, technology transfer and validation, bulk product processing into vials, and acquisition of ample vials, syringes, and needles for each vaccine candidate. We aim to have stockpiled, at OWS’s expense, a few tens of millions of vaccine doses that could be swiftly deployed once FDA approval is obtained.This strategy aims to accelerate vaccine development without curtailing the critical steps required by sound science and regulatory standards.

The FDA recently reissued guidance and standards that will be used to assess each vaccine for a Biologics License Application (BLA). Alternatively, the agency could decide to issue an Emergency Use Authorization to permit vaccine administration before all BLA procedures are completed.Of the eight vaccines in OWS’s portfolio, six have been announced and partnerships executed with the companies. Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech (both mRNA), AstraZeneca and Janssen (both replication-defective live-vector), and Novavax and Sanofi/GSK (both recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein).

These candidates cover three of the four platform technologies and are currently in clinical trials. The remaining two candidates will enter trials soon.Moderna developed its RNA vaccine in collaboration with the NIAID, began its phase 1 trial in March, recently published encouraging safety and immunogenicity data,1 and entered phase 3 on July 27. Pfizer and BioNTech’s RNA vaccine also produced encouraging phase 1 results2 and started its phase 3 trial on July 27.

The ChAdOx replication-defective live-vector vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University is in phase 3 trials in the United Kingdom, Brazil, and South Africa, and it should enter U.S. Phase 3 trials in August.3 The Janssen Ad26 Covid-19 replication-defective live-vector vaccine has demonstrated excellent protection in nonhuman primate models and began its U.S. Phase 1 trial on July 27.

It should be in phase 3 trials in mid-September. Novavax completed a phase 1 trial of its recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein vaccine in Australia and should enter phase 3 trials in the United States by the end of September.4 Sanofi/GSK is completing preclinical development steps and plans to commence a phase 1 trial in early September and to be well into phase 3 by year’s end.5On the process-development front, the RNA vaccines are already being manufactured at scale. The other candidates are well advanced in their scale-up development, and manufacturing sites are being refurbished.While development and manufacturing proceed, the HHS–DOD partnership is laying the groundwork for vaccine distribution, subpopulation prioritization, financing, and logistic support.

We are working with bioethicists and experts from the NIH, the CDC, BARDA, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to address these critical issues. We will receive recommendations from the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and we are working to ensure that the most vulnerable and at-risk persons will receive vaccine doses once they are ready. Prioritization will also depend on the relative performance of each vaccine and its suitability for particular populations.

Because some technologies have limited previous data on safety in humans, the long-term safety of these vaccines will be carefully assessed using pharmacovigilance surveillance strategies.No scientific enterprise could guarantee success by January 2021, but the strategic decisions and choices we’ve made, the support the government has provided, and the accomplishments to date make us optimistic that we will succeed in this unprecedented endeavor..

Patients Figure prozac 1 http://www.niss.lv/prozac-withdrawal/. Figure 1. Enrollment and prozac Randomization. Of the 1107 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 1063 underwent randomization.

541 were assigned to the remdesivir group and 522 to the prozac placebo group (Figure 1). Of those assigned to receive remdesivir, 531 patients (98.2%) received the treatment as assigned. Forty-nine patients had remdesivir treatment discontinued before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death prozac (36 patients) or because the patient withdrew consent (13). Of those assigned to receive placebo, 518 patients (99.2%) received placebo as assigned.

Fifty-three patients discontinued placebo before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death (36 patients), because the patient withdrew consent (15), or because the patient was found to be ineligible for trial enrollment (2). As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 patients prozac in the remdesivir group and 340 in the placebo group had completed the trial through day 29, recovered, or died. Eight patients who received remdesivir and 9 who received placebo terminated their participation in the trial before day 29. There were 132 patients in the remdesivir group and 169 in the prozac placebo group who had not recovered and had not completed the day 29 follow-up visit.

The analysis population included 1059 patients for whom we have at least some postbaseline data available (538 in the remdesivir group and 521 in the placebo group). Four of the 1063 patients were not included in the primary analysis because no postbaseline data were available at the time prozac of the database freeze. Table 1. Table 1 prozac.

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics at Baseline. The mean age of patients was 58.9 years, and 64.3% were male (Table 1). On the basis of the evolving epidemiology of Covid-19 during prozac the trial, 79.8% of patients were enrolled at sites in North America, 15.3% in Europe, and 4.9% in Asia (Table S1). Overall, 53.2% of the patients were white, 20.6% were black, 12.6% were Asian, and 13.6% were designated as other or not reported.

249 (23.4%) prozac were Hispanic or Latino. Most patients had either one (27.0%) or two or more (52.1%) of the prespecified coexisting conditions at enrollment, most commonly hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The median number of days between symptom prozac onset and randomization was 9 (interquartile range, 6 to 12). Nine hundred forty-three (88.7%) patients had severe disease at enrollment as defined in the Supplementary Appendix.

272 (25.6%) patients met category 7 criteria on the ordinal scale, 197 (18.5%) category 6, 421 (39.6%) category 5, and 127 (11.9%) category 4 prozac. There were 46 (4.3%) patients who had missing ordinal scale data at enrollment. No substantial imbalances in baseline characteristics were observed between the remdesivir group and the placebo group. Primary Outcome prozac Figure 2.

Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier Estimates of Cumulative prozac 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 5 (receiving prozac 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 mechanical prozac ventilation or ECMO. Panel E). Table 2.

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

Time to Recovery According prozac to Subgroup. The widths of the confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity and therefore cannot be used to infer treatment effects. Race and ethnic group were prozac reported by the patients. Patients in the remdesivir group had a shorter time to recovery than patients in the placebo group (median, 11 days, as compared with 15 days.

Rate ratio for recovery, 1.32. 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12 prozac to 1.55. P<0.001. 1059 patients (Figure prozac 2 and Table 2).

Among patients with a baseline ordinal score of 5 (421 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 1.47 (95% CI, 1.17 to 1.84). Among patients with a baseline score of 4 (127 patients) and those with a baseline score of 6 (197 patients), prozac the rate ratio estimates for recovery were 1.38 (95% CI, 0.94 to 2.03) and 1.20 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.81), respectively. For those receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment (baseline ordinal scores of 7. 272 patients), the rate ratio prozac for recovery was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.42).

A test of interaction of treatment with baseline score on the ordinal scale was not significant. An analysis adjusting for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable 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 prozac a similar treatment-effect estimate (rate ratio for recovery, 1.31. 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.54.

1017 patients) prozac. Table S2 in the Supplementary Appendix shows results according to the baseline severity stratum of mild-to-moderate as compared with severe. Patients who underwent randomization during the first 10 prozac days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.28 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.57. 664 patients), whereas patients who underwent randomization more than 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.81.

380 patients) prozac (Figure 3). 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, 1.50. 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.91. P=0.001.

844 patients) (Table 2 and Fig. S5). Mortality was numerically lower in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group, but the difference was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.70. 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04.

1059 patients). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 14 days were 7.1% and 11.9% in the remdesivir and placebo groups, respectively (Table 2). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 28 days are not reported in this preliminary analysis, given the large number of patients that had yet to complete day 29 visits. An analysis with adjustment for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable showed a hazard ratio for death of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.50 to 1.10).

Safety Outcomes Serious adverse events occurred in 114 patients (21.1%) in the remdesivir group and 141 patients (27.0%) in the placebo group (Table S3). 4 events (2 in each group) were judged by site investigators to be related to remdesivir or placebo. There were 28 serious respiratory failure adverse events in the remdesivir group (5.2% of patients) and 42 in the placebo group (8.0% of patients). Acute respiratory failure, hypotension, viral pneumonia, and acute kidney injury were slightly more common among patients in the placebo group.

No deaths were considered to be related to treatment assignment, as judged by the site investigators. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 156 patients (28.8%) in the remdesivir group and in 172 in the placebo group (33.0%) (Table S4). The most common adverse events in the remdesivir group were anemia or decreased hemoglobin (43 events [7.9%], as compared with 47 [9.0%] in the placebo group). Acute kidney injury, decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance, or increased blood creatinine (40 events [7.4%], as compared with 38 [7.3%]).

Pyrexia (27 events [5.0%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). Hyperglycemia or increased blood glucose level (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). And increased aminotransferase levels including alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, or both (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 31 [5.9%]). Otherwise, the incidence of adverse events was not found to be significantly different between the remdesivir group and the placebo group.Trial Population Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of the Participants in the mRNA-1273 Trial at Enrollment. The 45 enrolled participants received their first vaccination between March 16 and April 14, 2020 (Fig. S1).

Three participants did not receive the second vaccination, including one in the 25-μg group who had urticaria on both legs, with onset 5 days after the first vaccination, and two (one in the 25-μg group and one in the 250-μg group) who missed the second vaccination window owing to isolation for suspected Covid-19 while the test results, ultimately negative, were pending. All continued to attend scheduled trial visits. The demographic characteristics of participants at enrollment are provided in Table 1. Vaccine Safety No serious adverse events were noted, and no prespecified trial halting rules were met.

As noted above, one participant in the 25-μg group was withdrawn because of an unsolicited adverse event, transient urticaria, judged to be related to the first vaccination. Figure 1. Figure 1. Systemic and Local Adverse Events.

The severity of solicited adverse events was graded as mild, moderate, or severe (see Table S1).After the first vaccination, solicited systemic adverse events were reported by 5 participants (33%) in the 25-μg group, 10 (67%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (53%) in the 250-μg group. All were mild or moderate in severity (Figure 1 and Table S2). Solicited systemic adverse events were more common after the second vaccination and occurred in 7 of 13 participants (54%) in the 25-μg group, all 15 in the 100-μg group, and all 14 in the 250-μg group, with 3 of those participants (21%) reporting one or more severe events. None of the participants had fever after the first vaccination.

After the second vaccination, no participants in the 25-μg group, 6 (40%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (57%) in the 250-μg group reported fever. One of the events (maximum temperature, 39.6°C) in the 250-μg group was graded severe. (Additional details regarding adverse events for that participant are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.) Local adverse events, when present, were nearly all mild or moderate, and pain at the injection site was common. Across both vaccinations, solicited systemic and local adverse events that occurred in more than half the participants included fatigue, chills, headache, myalgia, and pain at the injection site.

Evaluation of safety clinical laboratory values of grade 2 or higher and unsolicited adverse events revealed no patterns of concern (Supplementary Appendix and Table S3). SARS-CoV-2 Binding Antibody Responses Table 2. Table 2. Geometric Mean Humoral Immunogenicity Assay Responses to mRNA-1273 in Participants and in Convalescent Serum Specimens.

Figure 2. Figure 2. SARS-CoV-2 Antibody and Neutralization Responses. Shown are geometric mean reciprocal end-point enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) IgG titers to S-2P (Panel A) and receptor-binding domain (Panel B), PsVNA ID50 responses (Panel C), and live virus PRNT80 responses (Panel D).

In Panel A and Panel B, boxes and horizontal bars denote interquartile range (IQR) and median area under the curve (AUC), respectively. Whisker endpoints are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. The convalescent serum panel includes specimens from 41 participants. Red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay.

The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent serum panel. In Panel C, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median ID50, respectively. Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. In the convalescent serum panel, red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay.

The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent panel. In Panel D, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median PRNT80, respectively. Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. The three convalescent serum specimens were also tested in ELISA and PsVNA assays.

Because of the time-intensive nature of the PRNT assay, for this preliminary report, PRNT results were available only for the 25-μg and 100-μg dose groups.Binding antibody IgG geometric mean titers (GMTs) to S-2P increased rapidly after the first vaccination, with seroconversion in all participants by day 15 (Table 2 and Figure 2A). Dose-dependent responses to the first and second vaccinations were evident. Receptor-binding domain–specific antibody responses were similar in pattern and magnitude (Figure 2B). For both assays, the median magnitude of antibody responses after the first vaccination in the 100-μg and 250-μg dose groups was similar to the median magnitude in convalescent serum specimens, and in all dose groups the median magnitude after the second vaccination was in the upper quartile of values in the convalescent serum specimens.

The S-2P ELISA GMTs at day 57 (299,751 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 206,071 to 436,020] in the 25-μg group, 782,719 [95% CI, 619,310 to 989,244] in the 100-μg group, and 1,192,154 [95% CI, 924,878 to 1,536,669] in the 250-μg group) exceeded that in the convalescent serum specimens (142,140 [95% CI, 81,543 to 247,768]). SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Responses No participant had detectable PsVNA responses before vaccination. After the first vaccination, PsVNA responses were detected in less than half the participants, and a dose effect was seen (50% inhibitory dilution [ID50]. Figure 2C, Fig.

S8, and Table 2. 80% inhibitory dilution [ID80]. Fig. S2 and Table S6).

However, after the second vaccination, PsVNA responses were identified in serum samples from all participants. The lowest responses were in the 25-μg dose group, with a geometric mean ID50 of 112.3 (95% CI, 71.2 to 177.1) at day 43. The higher responses in the 100-μg and 250-μg groups were similar in magnitude (geometric mean ID50, 343.8 [95% CI, 261.2 to 452.7] and 332.2 [95% CI, 266.3 to 414.5], respectively, at day 43). These responses were similar to values in the upper half of the distribution of values for convalescent serum specimens.

Before vaccination, no participant had detectable 80% live-virus neutralization at the highest serum concentration tested (1:8 dilution) in the PRNT assay. At day 43, wild-type virus–neutralizing activity capable of reducing SARS-CoV-2 infectivity by 80% or more (PRNT80) was detected in all participants, with geometric mean PRNT80 responses of 339.7 (95% CI, 184.0 to 627.1) in the 25-μg group and 654.3 (95% CI, 460.1 to 930.5) in the 100-μg group (Figure 2D). Neutralizing PRNT80 average responses were generally at or above the values of the three convalescent serum specimens tested in this assay. Good agreement was noted within and between the values from binding assays for S-2P and receptor-binding domain and neutralizing activity measured by PsVNA and PRNT (Figs.

S3 through S7), which provides orthogonal support for each assay in characterizing the humoral response induced by mRNA-1273. SARS-CoV-2 T-Cell Responses The 25-μg and 100-μg doses elicited CD4 T-cell responses (Figs. S9 and S10) that on stimulation by S-specific peptide pools were strongly biased toward expression of Th1 cytokines (tumor necrosis factor α >. Interleukin 2 >.

Interferon γ), with minimal type 2 helper T-cell (Th2) cytokine expression (interleukin 4 and interleukin 13). CD8 T-cell responses to S-2P were detected at low levels after the second vaccination in the 100-μg dose group (Fig. S11).Trial Design and Oversight The RECOVERY trial was designed to evaluate the effects of potential treatments in patients hospitalized with Covid-19 at 176 National Health Service organizations in the United Kingdom and was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network. (Details regarding this trial are provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.) The trial is being coordinated by the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, the trial sponsor.

Although the randomization of patients to receive dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, prozac liver or lopinavir–ritonavir has now been stopped, the trial continues randomization to groups receiving azithromycin, tocilizumab, or convalescent plasma. Hospitalized patients were eligible for the trial if they had clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and no medical history that might, in the opinion of the attending clinician, put patients at substantial risk if they were to participate in the trial. Initially, recruitment was limited to patients who were at least 18 years of age, but the age limit was removed starting on May 9, 2020. Pregnant or breast-feeding women were eligible.

Written informed consent was obtained from all the patients or from a legal representative if they were unable to provide consent. The trial was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Good Clinical Practice guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonisation and was approved by the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee. The protocol with its statistical analysis plan is available at NEJM.org and on the trial website at www.recoverytrial.net.

The initial version of the manuscript was drafted by the first and last authors, developed by the writing committee, and approved by all members of the trial steering committee. The funders had no role in the analysis of the data, in the preparation or approval of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The first and last members of the writing committee vouch for the completeness and accuracy of the data and for the fidelity of the trial to the protocol and statistical analysis plan. Randomization We collected baseline data using a Web-based case-report form that included demographic data, the level of respiratory support, major coexisting illnesses, suitability of the trial treatment for a particular patient, and treatment availability at the trial site.

Randomization was performed with the use of a Web-based system with concealment of the trial-group assignment. Eligible and consenting patients were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the usual standard of care alone or the usual standard of care plus oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days (or until hospital discharge if sooner) or to receive one of the other suitable and available treatments that were being evaluated in the trial. For some patients, dexamethasone was unavailable at the hospital at the time of enrollment or was considered by the managing physician to be either definitely indicated or definitely contraindicated. These patients were excluded from entry in the randomized comparison between dexamethasone and usual care and hence were not included in this report.

The randomly assigned treatment was prescribed by the treating clinician. Patients and local members of the trial staff were aware of the assigned treatments. Procedures A single online follow-up form was to be completed when the patients were discharged or had died or at 28 days after randomization, whichever occurred first. Information was recorded regarding the patients’ adherence to the assigned treatment, receipt of other trial treatments, duration of admission, receipt of respiratory support (with duration and type), receipt of renal support, and vital status (including the cause of death).

In addition, we obtained routine health care and registry data, including information on vital status (with date and cause of death), discharge from the hospital, and respiratory and renal support therapy. Outcome Measures The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days after randomization. Further analyses were specified at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were the time until discharge from the hospital and, among patients not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization, subsequent receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) or death.

Other prespecified clinical outcomes included cause-specific mortality, receipt of renal hemodialysis or hemofiltration, major cardiac arrhythmia (recorded in a subgroup), and receipt and duration of ventilation. Statistical Analysis As stated in the protocol, appropriate sample sizes could not be estimated when the trial was being planned at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. As the trial progressed, the trial steering committee, whose members were unaware of the results of the trial comparisons, determined that if 28-day mortality was 20%, then the enrollment of at least 2000 patients in the dexamethasone group and 4000 in the usual care group would provide a power of at least 90% at a two-sided P value of 0.01 to detect a clinically relevant proportional reduction of 20% (an absolute difference of 4 percentage points) between the two groups. Consequently, on June 8, 2020, the steering committee closed recruitment to the dexamethasone group, since enrollment had exceeded 2000 patients.

For the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, the hazard ratio from Cox regression was used to estimate the mortality rate ratio. Among the few patients (0.1%) who had not been followed for 28 days by the time of the data cutoff on July 6, 2020, data were censored either on that date or on day 29 if the patient had already been discharged. That is, in the absence of any information to the contrary, these patients were assumed to have survived for 28 days. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were constructed to show cumulative mortality over the 28-day period.

Cox regression was used to analyze the secondary outcome of hospital discharge within 28 days, with censoring of data on day 29 for patients who had died during hospitalization. For the prespecified composite secondary outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation or death within 28 days (among patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization), the precise date of invasive mechanical ventilation was not available, so a log-binomial regression model was used to estimate the risk ratio. Table 1. Table 1.

Characteristics of the Patients at Baseline, According to Treatment Assignment and Level of Respiratory Support. Through the play of chance in the unstratified randomization, the mean age was 1.1 years older among patients in the dexamethasone group than among those in the usual care group (Table 1). To account for this imbalance in an important prognostic factor, estimates of rate ratios were adjusted for the baseline age in three categories (<70 years, 70 to 79 years, and ≥80 years). This adjustment was not specified in the first version of the statistical analysis plan but was added once the imbalance in age became apparent.

Results without age adjustment (corresponding to the first version of the analysis plan) are provided in the Supplementary Appendix. Prespecified analyses of the primary outcome were performed in five subgroups, as defined by characteristics at randomization. Age, sex, level of respiratory support, days since symptom onset, and predicted 28-day mortality risk. (One further prespecified subgroup analysis regarding race will be conducted once the data collection has been completed.) In prespecified subgroups, we estimated rate ratios (or risk ratios in some analyses) and their confidence intervals using regression models that included an interaction term between the treatment assignment and the subgroup of interest.

Chi-square tests for linear trend across the subgroup-specific log estimates were then performed in accordance with the prespecified plan. All P values are two-sided and are shown without adjustment for multiple testing. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The full database is held by the trial team, which collected the data from trial sites and performed the analyses at the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford.Trial Design and Oversight We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate postexposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine after exposure to Covid-19.12 We randomly assigned participants in a 1:1 ratio to receive either hydroxychloroquine or placebo.

Participants had known exposure (by participant report) to a person with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19, whether as a household contact, a health care worker, or a person with other occupational exposures. Trial enrollment began on March 17, 2020, with an eligibility threshold to enroll within 3 days after exposure. The objective was to intervene before the median incubation period of 5 to 6 days. Because of limited access to prompt testing, health care workers could initially be enrolled on the basis of presumptive high-risk exposure to patients with pending tests.

However, on March 23, eligibility was changed to exposure to a person with a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay for SARS-CoV-2, with the eligibility window extended to within 4 days after exposure. This trial was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Minnesota and conducted under a Food and Drug Administration Investigational New Drug application. In Canada, the trial was approved by Health Canada. Ethics approvals were obtained from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, the University of Manitoba, and the University of Alberta.

Participants We included participants who had household or occupational exposure to a person with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Participants were excluded if they were younger than 18 years of age, were hospitalized, or met other exclusion criteria (see the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org). Persons with symptoms of Covid-19 or with PCR-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection were excluded from this prevention trial but were separately enrolled in a companion clinical trial to treat early infection. Setting Recruitment was performed primarily with the use of social media outreach as well as traditional media platforms.

Participants were enrolled nationwide in the United States and in the Canadian provinces of Quebec, Manitoba, and Alberta. Participants enrolled themselves through a secure Internet-based survey using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system.13 After participants read the consent form, their comprehension of its contents was assessed. Participants provided a digitally captured signature to indicate informed consent. We sent follow-up e-mail surveys on days 1, 5, 10, and 14.

A survey at 4 to 6 weeks asked about any follow-up testing, illness, or hospitalizations. Participants who did not respond to follow-up surveys received text messages, e-mails, telephone calls, or a combination of these to ascertain their outcomes. When these methods were unsuccessful, the emergency contact provided by the enrollee was contacted to determine the participant’s illness and vital status. When all communication methods were exhausted, Internet searches for obituaries were performed to ascertain vital status.

Interventions Randomization occurred at research pharmacies in Minneapolis and Montreal. The trial statisticians generated a permuted-block randomization sequence using variably sized blocks of 2, 4, or 8, with stratification according to country. A research pharmacist sequentially assigned participants. The assignments were concealed from investigators and participants.

Only pharmacies had access to the randomization sequence. Hydroxychloroquine sulfate or placebo was dispensed and shipped overnight to participants by commercial courier. The dosing regimen for hydroxychloroquine was 800 mg (4 tablets) once, then 600 mg (3 tablets) 6 to 8 hours later, then 600 mg (3 tablets) daily for 4 more days for a total course of 5 days (19 tablets total). If participants had gastrointestinal upset, they were advised to divide the daily dose into two or three doses.

We chose this hydroxychloroquine dosing regimen on the basis of pharmacokinetic simulations to achieve plasma concentrations above the SARS-CoV-2 in vitro half maximal effective concentration for 14 days.14 Placebo folate tablets, which were similar in appearance to the hydroxychloroquine tablets, were prescribed as an identical regimen for the control group. Rising Pharmaceuticals provided a donation of hydroxychloroquine, and some hydroxychloroquine was purchased. Outcomes The primary outcome was prespecified as symptomatic illness confirmed by a positive molecular assay or, if testing was unavailable, Covid-19–related symptoms. We assumed that health care workers would have access to Covid-19 testing if symptomatic.

However, access to testing was limited throughout the trial period. Covid-19–related symptoms were based on U.S. Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists criteria for confirmed cases (positivity for SARS-Cov-2 on PCR assay), probable cases (the presence of cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing, or the presence of two or more symptoms of fever, chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, and new olfactory and taste disorders), and possible cases (the presence of one or more compatible symptoms, which could include diarrhea).15 All the participants had epidemiologic linkage,15 per trial eligibility criteria. Four infectious disease physicians who were unaware of the trial-group assignments reviewed symptomatic participants to generate a consensus with respect to whether their condition met the case definition.15 Secondary outcomes included the incidence of hospitalization for Covid-19 or death, the incidence of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, the incidence of Covid-19 symptoms, the incidence of discontinuation of the trial intervention owing to any cause, and the severity of symptoms (if any) at days 5 and 14 according to a visual analogue scale (scores ranged from 0 [no symptoms] to 10 [severe symptoms]).

Data on adverse events were also collected with directed questioning for common side effects along with open-ended free text. Outcome data were measured within 14 days after trial enrollment. Outcome data including PCR testing results, possible Covid-19–related symptoms, adherence to the trial intervention, side effects, and hospitalizations were all collected through participant report. Details of trial conduct are provided in the protocol and statistical analysis plan, available at NEJM.org.

Sample Size We anticipated that illness compatible with Covid-19 would develop in 10% of close contacts exposed to Covid-19.9 Using Fisher’s exact method with a 50% relative effect size to reduce new symptomatic infections, a two-sided alpha of 0.05, and 90% power, we estimated that 621 persons would need to be enrolled in each group. With a pragmatic, Internet-based, self-referral recruitment strategy, we planned for a 20% incidence of attrition by increasing the sample size to 750 participants per group. We specified a priori that participants who were already symptomatic on day 1 before receiving hydroxychloroquine or placebo would be excluded from the prophylaxis trial and would instead be separately enrolled in the companion symptomatic treatment trial. Because the estimates for both incident symptomatic Covid-19 after an exposure and loss to follow-up were relatively unknown in early March 2020,9 the protocol prespecified a sample-size reestimation at the second interim analysis.

This reestimation, which used the incidence of new infections in the placebo group and the observed percentage of participants lost to follow-up, was aimed at maintaining the ability to detect an effect size of a 50% relative reduction in new symptomatic infections. Interim Analyses An independent data and safety monitoring board externally reviewed the data after 25% and 50% of the participants had completed 14 days of follow-up. Stopping guidelines were provided to the data and safety monitoring board with the use of a Lan–DeMets spending function analogue of the O’Brien–Fleming boundaries for the primary outcome. A conditional power analysis was performed at the second and third interim analysis with the option of early stopping for futility.

At the second interim analysis on April 22, 2020, the sample size was reduced to 956 participants who could be evaluated with 90% power on the basis of the higher-than-expected event rate of infections in the control group. At the third interim analysis on May 6, the trial was halted on the basis of a conditional power of less than 1%, since it was deemed futile to continue. Statistical Analysis We assessed the incidence of Covid-19 disease by day 14 with Fisher’s exact test. Secondary outcomes with respect to percentage of patients were also compared with Fisher’s exact test.

Among participants in whom incident illness compatible with Covid-19 developed, we summarized the symptom severity score at day 14 with the median and interquartile range and assessed the distributions with a Kruskal–Wallis test. We conducted all analyses with SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute), according to the intention-to-treat principle, with two-sided type I error with an alpha of 0.05. For participants with missing outcome data, we conducted a sensitivity analysis with their outcomes excluded or included as an event. Subgroups that were specified a priori included type of contact (household vs.

Health care), days from exposure to enrollment, age, and sex.Announced on May 15, Operation Warp Speed (OWS) — a partnership of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the private sector — aims to accelerate control of the Covid-19 pandemic by advancing development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. OWS is providing support to promising candidates and enabling the expeditious, parallel execution of the necessary steps toward approval or authorization of safe products by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).The partnership grew out of an acknowledged need to fundamentally restructure the way the U.S. Government typically supports product development and vaccine distribution. The initiative was premised on setting a “stretch goal” — one that initially seemed impossible but that is becoming increasingly achievable.The concept of an integrated structure for Covid-19 countermeasure research and development across the U.S.

Government was based on experience with Zika and the Zika Leadership Group led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the assistant secretary for preparedness and response (ASPR). One of us (M.S.) serves as OWS chief advisor. We are drawing on expertise from the NIH, ASPR, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), and the DOD, including the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. OWS has engaged experts in all critical aspects of medical countermeasure research, development, manufacturing, and distribution to work in close coordination.The initiative set ambitious objectives.

To deliver tens of millions of doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine — with demonstrated safety and efficacy, and approved or authorized by the FDA for use in the U.S. Population — beginning at the end of 2020 and to have as many as 300 million doses of such vaccines available and deployed by mid-2021. The pace and scope of such a vaccine effort are unprecedented. The 2014 West African Ebola virus epidemic spurred rapid vaccine development, but though preclinical data existed before the outbreak, a period of 12 months was required to progress from phase 1 first-in-human trials to phase 3 efficacy trials.

OWS aims to compress this time frame even further. SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development began in January, phase 1 clinical studies in March, and the first phase 3 trials in July. Our objectives are based on advances in vaccine platform technology, improved understanding of safe and efficacious vaccine design, and similarities between the SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 disease mechanisms.OWS’s role is to enable, accelerate, harmonize, and advise the companies developing the selected vaccines. The companies will execute the clinical or process development and manufacturing plans, while OWS leverages the full capacity of the U.S.

Government to ensure that no technical, logistic, or financial hurdles hinder vaccine development or deployment.OWS selected vaccine candidates on the basis of four criteria. We required candidates to have robust preclinical data or early-stage clinical trial data supporting their potential for clinical safety and efficacy. Candidates had to have the potential, with our acceleration support, to enter large phase 3 field efficacy trials this summer or fall (July to November 2020) and, assuming continued active transmission of the virus, to deliver efficacy outcomes by the end of 2020 or the first half of 2021. Candidates had to be based on vaccine-platform technologies permitting fast and effective manufacturing, and their developers had to demonstrate the industrial process scalability, yields, and consistency necessary to reliably produce more than 100 million doses by mid-2021.

Finally, candidates had to use one of four vaccine-platform technologies that we believe are the most likely to yield a safe and effective vaccine against Covid-19. The mRNA platform, the replication-defective live-vector platform, the recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein platform, or the attenuated replicating live-vector platform.OWS’s strategy relies on a few key principles. First, we sought to build a diverse project portfolio that includes two vaccine candidates based on each of the four platform technologies. Such diversification mitigates the risk of failure due to safety, efficacy, industrial manufacturability, or scheduling factors and may permit selection of the best vaccine platform for each subpopulation at risk for contracting or transmitting Covid-19, including older adults, frontline and essential workers, young adults, and pediatric populations.

In addition, advancing eight vaccines in parallel will increase the chances of delivering 300 million doses in the first half of 2021.Second, we must accelerate vaccine program development without compromising safety, efficacy, or product quality. Clinical development, process development, and manufacturing scale-up can be substantially accelerated by running all streams, fully resourced, in parallel. Doing so requires taking on substantial financial risk, as compared with the conventional sequential development approach. OWS will maximize the size of phase 3 trials (30,000 to 50,000 participants each) and optimize trial-site location by consulting daily epidemiologic and disease-forecasting models to ensure the fastest path to an efficacy readout.

Such large trials also increase the safety data set for each candidate vaccine.With heavy up-front investment, companies can conduct clinical operations and site preparation for these phase 3 efficacy trials even as they file their Investigational New Drug application (IND) for their phase 1 studies, thereby ensuring immediate initiation of phase 3 when they get a green light from the FDA. To permit appropriate comparisons among the vaccine candidates and to optimize vaccine utilization after approval by the FDA, the phase 3 trial end points and assay readouts have been harmonized through a collaborative effort involving the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Coronavirus Prevention Network, OWS, and the sponsor companies.Finally, OWS is supporting the companies financially and technically to commence process development and scale up manufacturing while their vaccines are in preclinical or very early clinical stages. To ensure that industrial processes are set, running, and validated for FDA inspection when phase 3 trials end, OWS is also supporting facility building or refurbishing, equipment fitting, staff hiring and training, raw-material sourcing, technology transfer and validation, bulk product processing into vials, and acquisition of ample vials, syringes, and needles for each vaccine candidate. We aim to have stockpiled, at OWS’s expense, a few tens of millions of vaccine doses that could be swiftly deployed once FDA approval is obtained.This strategy aims to accelerate vaccine development without curtailing the critical steps required by sound science and regulatory standards.

The FDA recently reissued guidance and standards that will be used to assess each vaccine for a Biologics License Application (BLA). Alternatively, the agency could decide to issue an Emergency Use Authorization to permit vaccine administration before all BLA procedures are completed.Of the eight vaccines in OWS’s portfolio, six have been announced and partnerships executed with the companies. Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech (both mRNA), AstraZeneca and Janssen (both replication-defective live-vector), and Novavax and Sanofi/GSK (both recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein). These candidates cover three of the four platform technologies and are currently in clinical trials.

The remaining two candidates will enter trials soon.Moderna developed its RNA vaccine in collaboration with the NIAID, began its phase 1 trial in March, recently published encouraging safety and immunogenicity data,1 and entered phase 3 on July 27. Pfizer and BioNTech’s RNA vaccine also produced encouraging phase 1 results2 and started its phase 3 trial on July 27. The ChAdOx replication-defective live-vector vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University is in phase 3 trials in the United Kingdom, Brazil, and South Africa, and it should enter U.S. Phase 3 trials in August.3 The Janssen Ad26 Covid-19 replication-defective live-vector vaccine has demonstrated excellent protection in nonhuman primate models and began its U.S.

Phase 1 trial on July 27. It should be in phase 3 trials in mid-September. Novavax completed a phase 1 trial of its recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein vaccine in Australia and should enter phase 3 trials in the United States by the end of September.4 Sanofi/GSK is completing preclinical development steps and plans to commence a phase 1 trial in early September and to be well into phase 3 by year’s end.5On the process-development front, the RNA vaccines are already being manufactured at scale. The other candidates are well advanced in their scale-up development, and manufacturing sites are being refurbished.While development and manufacturing proceed, the HHS–DOD partnership is laying the groundwork for vaccine distribution, subpopulation prioritization, financing, and logistic support.

We are working with bioethicists and experts from the NIH, the CDC, BARDA, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to address these critical issues. We will receive recommendations from the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and we are working to ensure that the most vulnerable and at-risk persons will receive vaccine doses once they are ready. Prioritization will also depend on the relative performance of each vaccine and its suitability for particular populations. Because some technologies have limited previous data on safety in humans, the long-term safety of these vaccines will be carefully assessed using pharmacovigilance surveillance strategies.No scientific enterprise could guarantee success by January 2021, but the strategic decisions and choices we’ve made, the support the government has provided, and the accomplishments to date make us optimistic that we will succeed in this unprecedented endeavor..

Prozac drug

Q. How could Covid-19 financial relief affect my income taxes for 2020?. A. The COVID pandemic has caused widespread economic distress across the United States, with the stress of job loss compounded in many cases by the loss of employer-sponsored health coverage.Fortunately, the CARES Act and subsequent government regulations have provided many Americans with additional unemployment benefits that would not normally have been available.

And the Affordable Care Act ensured that Americans losing their health coverage would be able to transition to an individual-market health plan, regardless of their medical history. It also made Medicaid available – in most states – to people whose monthly income fell to no more than 138 percent of the federal poverty level. (For a single person, that’s about $1,467 in monthly income.)But there are still 13 states where there’s a coverage gap for people who earn less than the poverty level, due to those states’ refusal to accept federal funding to expand Medicaid. And there are pitfalls that go along with premium subsidies for individual-market health coverage – some of which people might not fully understand until they file their 2020 taxes next spring, and some of which are related to the benefits provided by the CARES Act.The basics of Covid-19 financial reliefFirst, the basics of the financial assistance and how it’s counted in terms of your income.

Covid-19 financial relief and your income taxes for 2020So what does all of that mean in terms of the 2020 tax return that you’ll be filing next spring?. It will depend on your specific income, but some people who received advance premium tax credits (APTC) to offset the cost of health coverage in 2020 might end up having to repay some or all of that money to the IRS when they file their 2020 taxes.Dave Keller, President of My1HR, is appealing to Congress to change the rules so that the additional COVID-related federal unemployment benefits would not be counted as part of a person’s ACA-specific MAGI. Keller notes that “while the APTC has enabled many people to enroll in an ACA plan at little or no cost to them, they may be staring at a large tax consequence when they file their 2020 taxes next year, at a time that they can least afford it.”If Congress moved to exempt that federal relief, it would remove a potential tax burden for Americans already facing financial strain during this pandemic. Will the COVID-related financial assistance affect my 2020 health insurance subsidy?.

Absent additional Congressional action, most of this is water under the bridge at this point. But here’s what you need to know in order to avoid surprises on your tax return:If you were eligible for Medicaid at some point this year based on your monthly income, that will not have any effect on your 2020 tax return. Medicaid does not get reconciled with the IRS.If you are in one of the 13 states where there’s still a coverage gap (plus Nebraska prior to October 2020, when there was still a coverage gap there), the additional federal unemployment benefits might have been enough to push your total projected income above the poverty level, making you eligible for premium subsidies in the exchange. Even if your income ultimately ends up below the poverty level when all is said and done, you won’t have to repay the APTC that was paid on your behalf when you file your taxes.But on the higher end of the scale, if the additional federal benefits push your total ACA-specific MAGI higher than you originally projected but not above 400 percent of the poverty level, you’ll have to pay back some or all of the APTC, although there are caps that apply to the repayment amounts in that case.And unfortunately, if the additional federal benefits push your MAGI for 2020 above 400 percent of the poverty level, you will have to repay all of the APTC that was paid on your behalf this year.This last point is the most pressing concern, as it can amount to thousands of dollars being owed to the IRS, depending on where you live, how old you are, and how many months APTC was paid on your behalf for a plan purchased in the exchange (APTC is larger in areas where coverage is more expensive, and it’s larger for older people since their pre-subsidy premiums are higher).People are often caught off guard by the fact that the APTC reconciliation process uses the entire year’s income — not just income during the time you were enrolled in a plan through the exchange.

So it’s not just the enhanced federal unemployment benefits and Lost Wage Assistance benefits that could cause a snag here. It’s also income that a person earns later in the year, after having a plan through the exchange for only part of the year.This could present a problem for people who enrolled in an exchange plan with APTC in the spring of 2020 (after losing an employer’s plan due to the pandemic), and then transition back to full-time work later in the year. If their total income for the year — including money they earned prior to their transition to an individual market health plan as well as unemployment benefits and any money they earn later in the year — goes above 400 percent of the poverty level, they’ll have to repay all of the APTC that was paid on their behalf during the months they had self-purchased health coverage.What can I do to avoid a surprise at tax time?. If you’re facing the possibility of having to repay some or all of your APTC, there are a few things to keep in mind:Contributions to pre-tax retirement accounts and health savings accounts will reduce your ACA-specific MAGI.In order to contribute to a health savings account (HSA), you need to have an HSA-qualified high-deductible health plan (HDHP).You can make the full year’s contribution to an HSA even if you only have HSA-qualified coverage in place during the last month of the year, as long as you then continue to maintain HSA-qualified coverage for all of the following year.If you’re returning to full-time work and are eligible to participate in your employer’s health plan, you might want to check to see whether they offer an HDHP and whether it would be worth your while to enroll in it and contribute to the HSA.

(Definitely check with a financial advisor to see if this is the best overall strategy, as it’s a decision that should only be made with your full financial situation in mind.)If you’re still enrolled in a plan through the exchange and are realizing that you’re going to have to repay your APTC because your total MAGI is going to be higher than you had projected, you can contact the exchange and have them adjust your APTC so that it’s no longer paid for the final months of the year. This will reduce the amount you’ll have to repay to the IRS, but that also means you’ll have to pay full price for your health coverage for the final months of the year, which may or may not be possible depending on your circumstances.Talk with a financial advisor to see if they have any suggestions that might ease your tax burden next spring.If you feel strongly about this, you can follow Keller’s lead and reach out to your members of Congress, asking them to take action to address this situation with a one-time COVID-specific adjustment to the way that APTC is reconciled on tax returns. Louise Norris is an individual health insurance broker who has been writing about health insurance and health reform since 2006. She has written dozens of opinions and educational pieces about the Affordable Care Act for healthinsurance.org.

Her state health exchange updates are regularly cited by media who cover health reform and by other health insurance experts..

Q. How could Covid-19 financial relief affect my income taxes for 2020?. A. The COVID pandemic has caused widespread economic distress across the United States, with the stress of job loss compounded in many cases by the loss of employer-sponsored health coverage.Fortunately, the CARES Act and subsequent government regulations have provided many Americans with additional unemployment benefits that would not normally have been available. And the Affordable Care Act ensured that Americans losing their health coverage would be able to transition to an individual-market health plan, regardless of their medical history.

It also made Medicaid available – in most states – to people whose monthly income fell to no more than 138 percent of the federal poverty level. (For a single person, that’s about $1,467 in monthly income.)But there are still 13 states where there’s a coverage gap for people who earn less than the poverty level, due to those states’ refusal to accept federal funding to expand Medicaid. And there are pitfalls that go along with premium subsidies for individual-market health coverage – some of which people might not fully understand until they file their 2020 taxes next spring, and some of which are related to the benefits provided by the CARES Act.The basics of Covid-19 financial reliefFirst, the basics of the financial assistance and how it’s counted in terms of your income. Covid-19 financial relief and your income taxes for 2020So what does all of that mean in terms of the 2020 tax return that you’ll be filing next spring?. It will depend on your specific income, but some people who received advance premium tax credits (APTC) to offset the cost of health coverage in 2020 might end up having to repay some or all of that money to the IRS when they file their 2020 taxes.Dave Keller, President of My1HR, is appealing to Congress to change the rules so that the additional COVID-related federal unemployment benefits would not be counted as part of a person’s ACA-specific MAGI.

Keller notes that “while the APTC has enabled many people to enroll in an ACA plan at little or no cost to them, they may be staring at a large tax consequence when they file their 2020 taxes next year, at a time that they can least afford it.”If Congress moved to exempt that federal relief, it would remove a potential tax burden for Americans already facing financial strain during this pandemic. Will the COVID-related financial assistance affect my 2020 health insurance subsidy?. Absent additional Congressional action, most of this is water under the bridge at this point. But here’s what you need to know in order to avoid surprises on your tax return:If you were eligible for Medicaid at some point this year based on your monthly income, that will not have any effect on your 2020 tax return. Medicaid does not get reconciled with the IRS.If you are in one of the 13 states where there’s still a coverage gap (plus Nebraska prior to October 2020, when there was still a coverage gap there), the additional federal unemployment benefits might have been enough to push your total projected income above the poverty level, making you eligible for premium subsidies in the exchange.

Even if your income ultimately ends up below the poverty level when all is said and done, you won’t have to repay the APTC that was paid on your behalf when you file your taxes.But on the higher end of the scale, if the additional federal benefits push your total ACA-specific MAGI higher than you originally projected but not above 400 percent of the poverty level, you’ll have to pay back some or all of the APTC, although there are caps that apply to the repayment amounts in that case.And unfortunately, if the additional federal benefits push your MAGI for 2020 above 400 percent of the poverty level, you will have to repay all of the APTC that was paid on your behalf this year.This last point is the most pressing concern, as it can amount to thousands of dollars being owed to the IRS, depending on where you live, how old you are, and how many months APTC was paid on your behalf for a plan purchased in the exchange (APTC is larger in areas where coverage is more expensive, and it’s larger for older people since their pre-subsidy premiums are higher).People are often caught off guard by the fact that the APTC reconciliation process uses the entire year’s income — not just income during the time you were enrolled in a plan through the exchange. So it’s not just the enhanced federal unemployment benefits and Lost Wage Assistance benefits that could cause a snag here. It’s also income that a person earns later in the year, after having a plan through the exchange for only part of the year.This could present a problem for people who enrolled in an exchange plan with APTC in the spring of 2020 (after losing an employer’s plan due to the pandemic), and then transition back to full-time work later in the year. If their total income for the year — including money they earned prior to their transition to an individual market health plan as well as unemployment benefits and any money they earn later in the year — goes above 400 percent of the poverty level, they’ll have to repay all of the APTC that was paid on their behalf during the months they had self-purchased health coverage.What can I do to avoid a surprise at tax time?. If you’re facing the possibility of having to repay some or all of your APTC, there are a few things to keep in mind:Contributions to pre-tax retirement accounts and health savings accounts will reduce your ACA-specific MAGI.In order to contribute to a health savings account (HSA), you need to have an HSA-qualified high-deductible health plan (HDHP).You can make the full year’s contribution to an HSA even if you only have HSA-qualified coverage in place during the last month of the year, as long as you then continue to maintain HSA-qualified coverage for all of the following year.If you’re returning to full-time work and are eligible to participate in your employer’s health plan, you might want to check to see whether they offer an HDHP and whether it would be worth your while to enroll in it and contribute to the HSA.

(Definitely check with a financial advisor to see if this is the best overall strategy, as it’s a decision that should only be made with your full financial situation in mind.)If you’re still enrolled in a plan through the exchange and are realizing that you’re going to have to repay your APTC because your total MAGI is going to be higher than you had projected, you can contact the exchange and have them adjust your APTC so that it’s no longer paid for the final months of the year. This will reduce the amount you’ll have to repay to the IRS, but that also means you’ll have to pay full price for your health coverage for the final months of the year, which may or may not be possible depending on your circumstances.Talk with a financial advisor to see if they have any suggestions that might ease your tax burden next spring.If you feel strongly about this, you can follow Keller’s lead and reach out to your members of Congress, asking them to take action to address this situation with a one-time COVID-specific adjustment to the way that APTC is reconciled on tax returns. Louise Norris is an individual health insurance broker who has been writing about health insurance and health reform since 2006. She has written dozens of opinions and educational pieces about the Affordable Care Act for healthinsurance.org. Her state health exchange updates are regularly cited by media who cover health reform and by other health insurance experts..

Prozac constipation

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic affected all http://www.niss.lv/prozac-withdrawal/ aspects of medical care, including the management of multiple sclerosis (MS)."There was some concern about the disease itself prozac constipation increasing the susceptibility, or the risk of complications, from COVID-19," Gabriel Pardo, MD, director of the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation Multiple Sclerosis Center of Excellence, told MedPage Today. "And by extension there were concerns about the different medications we use because they have an effect on the immune system.""So prozac constipation there were a lot of different recommendations given by institutions and organizations," said Pardo. However, as described in these guidelines published by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, the differences among these recommendations created some confusion.The problem, according to Joseph Berger, MD, an MS specialist at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, is "that we really had no hard data on how the disease itself would be affected by MS, and how MS would be affected by COVID. And more importantly, how people on disease-modifying prozac constipation therapies (DMTs) would respond to COVID, and whether it would increase the morbidity and mortality of COVID."One response, Pardo explained, was a concerted effort on the part of the MS field to set up registries of patients living with MS who were infected with COVID-19. For example, COViMS (COVID-19 Infections in MS &.

Related Diseases) is a joint effort by the National MS Society, Consortium of MS Centers, and Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada to capture information on outcomes of people with MS and other central nervous system demyelinating diseases who have developed COVID-19."So far, prozac constipation and this is an evolving concept, it has been very reassuring that we do not have clear evidence that our MS patients are at increased risk for developing the infection or developing complications," said Pardo. "They seem to have the same risk as the general population, with comorbidities playing the same sort of role."In a study published in the Lancet Neurology, Italian researchers evaluated 232 MS prozac constipation patients who had either tested positive for COVID-19 or were suspected of having the infection. Most of these patients (96%) had either mild or no pneumonia.The infection was considered severe in four people, and critical (defined as respiratory failure, septic shock, and multiple organ dysfunction or failure, and were hospitalized in an intensive care unit) in six patients. Of those prozac constipation six critical patients, one recovered and five (2%) died. Those patients tended to have comorbidities, higher disability, and/or were age 50 or older.And a French cohort study of 347 patients with MS published in JAMA Neurology found that risk factors for severe forms of COVID-19 were neurological disability, age, and obesity (with patients with high Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and older age at highest risk of severe COVID-19), but that there was no association between DMT exposure and COVID-19 severity.Berger, along with UPenn colleagues Rachel Brandstadter, MD, and Amit Bar-Or, MD, published a review of the current state of knowledge regarding the effect of MS DMTs on COVID-19 illness.Anecdotal reports suggested that "patients with MS, including those on commonly used DMTs, are at no higher risk of contracting symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 viral infection, nor at a higher risk of severe COVID-19 complications, compared with the population at large," the group wrote.Berger said that there was particular concern about drugs such as alemtuzumab (Lemtrada) or cladribine (Mavenclad), which are classified as immune reconstitution therapies.

"But with respect to other [DMTs] prozac constipation we didn't think there was likely to be a significant problem," Berger told MedPage Today. "And our own practice was not to change anything when managing these patients. We have kept our own registry prozac constipation and our initial thoughts have been borne out, which is that there does not appear to be a significant effect either on morbidity or mortality with respect to the disease-modifying therapies we employ -- and that includes cladribine. We have people that we have started on cladribine, and have been on cladribine, and have developed COVID, and they've done well, and prozac constipation the large registries seem to bear this out.""The people who have had a significant problem with respect to COVID-19, and who have MS, are, for the most part, older individuals, with multiple comorbidities that increase the risk of COVID morbidity and mortality, and quite often are not on any therapy whatsoever, and are disabled as a consequence of their disease," he added. Most have EDSS scores of 6 or more, he noted, meaning their ambulation is affected.Berger suggested that some of these DMTs could even have a "salutary" effect by limiting the aggressive immune response that causes the most severe complications associated with COVID-19.

For example, fingolimod (Gilenya) is being tested as a treatment for acute respiratory distress in COVID patients.In their report, Berger and his colleagues recommended that most patients with MS continue on their DMT, "particularly those on platform therapy for whom the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 is minimal." They added that treatment decisions should be tailored to individual patients, particularly for those with increased risk of either acquiring prozac constipation infection or with serious COVID-19 complications.In its treatment guidelines, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society recommended that DMT decisions should be individualized and made collaboratively between MS patients and their care providers. That discussions between patient and provider should include a consideration of disease factors, risks and benefits of the DMT, and risks associated with COVID-19. And that persons with MS currently taking DMTs should continue treatment.One question that remains to prozac constipation be answered, said Pardo, is how patients with MS will respond to a potential vaccine. "Will the fact that they are on different medications affect the immune system and blunt the ability to mount an appropriate response to the vaccine, or decrease it?. " he prozac constipation said.

"We don't know that quite yet."Berger agreed that prozac constipation diminished vaccine response might occur "with some of the drugs we use like the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, and perhaps with others as well. It may be that those in our MS population on these drugs might need more than one dose of the vaccine, and that the antibody response will need to be monitored to ensure that it is adequate."He also noted that clinicians have traditionally advised MS patients on DMTs to avoid live virus vaccines of any kind. But, he said, "it looks like there are very few live virus vaccines in development, and those under development in the U.S., to the best of my understanding, are not live virus prozac constipation vaccines. So any of those vaccines should be fine in the MS population regardless of the disease-modifying therapy they are on." Disclosures Berger serves as a consultant and/or on the PML adjudication committees of Novartis and Takeda/Millennium. He also serves on the scientific advisory board prozac constipation of Excision Bio and Inhibikase.

He is chair of the Data Safety Monitoring Board for MAPI.Pardo has received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities for Alexion, Biogen, Celgene, EMD Serono, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme..

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic affected all aspects of medical care, including the management of multiple sclerosis (MS)."There was some concern about the disease side effects of stopping prozac itself increasing the susceptibility, or the risk of complications, from COVID-19," Gabriel Pardo, MD, director of the prozac Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation Multiple Sclerosis Center of Excellence, told MedPage Today. "And by extension there were concerns about the different medications we use because they have an effect on the immune system.""So there were a lot of different recommendations given by institutions and organizations," said Pardo prozac. However, as described in these guidelines published by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, the differences among these recommendations created some confusion.The problem, according to Joseph Berger, MD, an MS specialist at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, is "that we really had no hard data on how the disease itself would be affected by MS, and how MS would be affected by COVID. And more importantly, how prozac people on disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) would respond to COVID, and whether it would increase the morbidity and mortality of COVID."One response, Pardo explained, was a concerted effort on the part of the MS field to set up registries of patients living with MS who were infected with COVID-19.

For example, COViMS (COVID-19 Infections in MS &. Related Diseases) prozac is a joint effort by the National MS Society, Consortium of MS Centers, and Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada to capture information on outcomes of people with MS and other central nervous system demyelinating diseases who have developed COVID-19."So far, and this is an evolving concept, it has been very reassuring that we do not have clear evidence that our MS patients are at increased risk for developing the infection or developing complications," said Pardo. "They seem to have the same risk as the general population, with comorbidities playing the same sort of role."In a study published in the Lancet Neurology, Italian researchers evaluated 232 MS patients who had either tested positive for COVID-19 or prozac were suspected of having the infection. Most of these patients (96%) had either mild or no pneumonia.The infection was considered severe in four people, and critical (defined as respiratory failure, septic shock, and multiple organ dysfunction or failure, and were hospitalized in an intensive care unit) in six patients.

Of those six critical prozac patients, one recovered and five (2%) died. Those patients tended to have comorbidities, higher disability, and/or were age 50 or older.And a French cohort study of 347 patients with MS published in JAMA Neurology found that risk factors for severe forms of COVID-19 were neurological disability, age, and obesity (with patients with high Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and older age at highest risk of severe COVID-19), but that there was no association between DMT exposure and COVID-19 severity.Berger, along with UPenn colleagues Rachel Brandstadter, MD, and Amit Bar-Or, MD, published a review of the current state of knowledge regarding the effect of MS DMTs on COVID-19 illness.Anecdotal reports suggested that "patients with MS, including those on commonly used DMTs, are at no higher risk of contracting symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 viral infection, nor at a higher risk of severe COVID-19 complications, compared with the population at large," the group wrote.Berger said that there was particular concern about drugs such as alemtuzumab (Lemtrada) or cladribine (Mavenclad), which are classified as immune reconstitution therapies. "But with prozac respect to other [DMTs] we didn't think there was likely to be a significant problem," Berger told MedPage Today. "And our own practice was not to change anything when managing these patients.

We have kept our own registry and our initial thoughts have been borne out, which is prozac that there does not appear to be a significant effect either on morbidity or mortality with respect to the disease-modifying therapies we employ -- and that includes cladribine. We have people that we have started on cladribine, prozac and have been on cladribine, and have developed COVID, and they've done well, and the large registries seem to bear this out.""The people who have had a significant problem with respect to COVID-19, and who have MS, are, for the most part, older individuals, with multiple comorbidities that increase the risk of COVID morbidity and mortality, and quite often are not on any therapy whatsoever, and are disabled as a consequence of their disease," he added. Most have EDSS scores of 6 or more, he noted, meaning their ambulation is affected.Berger suggested that some of these DMTs could even have a "salutary" effect by limiting the aggressive immune response that causes the most severe complications associated with COVID-19. For example, fingolimod (Gilenya) is being tested as a treatment for acute respiratory distress in COVID patients.In their report, Berger and his colleagues recommended that most patients with MS continue on their DMT, "particularly those on platform therapy prozac for whom the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 is minimal." They added that treatment decisions should be tailored to individual patients, particularly for those with increased risk of either acquiring infection or with serious COVID-19 complications.In its treatment guidelines, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society recommended that DMT decisions should be individualized and made collaboratively between MS patients and their care providers.

That discussions between patient and provider should include a consideration of disease factors, risks and benefits of the DMT, and risks associated with COVID-19. And that persons with MS currently taking DMTs should continue treatment.One question that remains to be answered, said Pardo, is how prozac patients with MS will respond to a potential vaccine. "Will the fact that they are on different medications affect the immune system and blunt the ability to mount an appropriate response to the vaccine, or decrease it?. " he said prozac.

"We don't know prozac that quite yet."Berger agreed that diminished vaccine response might occur "with some of the drugs we use like the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, and perhaps with others as well. It may be that those in our MS population on these drugs might need more than one dose of the vaccine, and that the antibody response will need to be monitored to ensure that it is adequate."He also noted that clinicians have traditionally advised MS patients on DMTs to avoid live virus vaccines of any kind. But, he said, "it looks like there are very few live virus vaccines in development, and those under development in the U.S., to the prozac best of my understanding, are not live virus vaccines. So any of those vaccines should be fine in the MS population regardless of the disease-modifying therapy they are on." Disclosures Berger serves as a consultant and/or on the PML adjudication committees of Novartis and Takeda/Millennium.

He also serves on the scientific advisory board of prozac Excision Bio and Inhibikase. He is chair of the Data Safety Monitoring Board for MAPI.Pardo has received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities for Alexion, Biogen, Celgene, EMD Serono, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme..

ID 424022
Property type Apartment
Subtype New Project
Region Riga
Settlement Dzirciems
Street Iecavas street
Area 51.40 m2
Floor 1 from 5
Rooms 2
Renovation full
Furniture none
Comfort full
Views today ...
Price 86500.00 EUR 1682.88 EUR / m2
Fill this form if You need more information or have a question or a comment concerning this property. All fields marked with an exclamation mark (!) are mandatory!
Loan calculator
EUR
%
???
%
EUR
Currency converter


Latest offers in Your email Offer Your property
Search

Buy prozac without a prescription

Offer property

Buy prozac without a prescription

Submit request

Buy prozac without a prescription

Register
City Real Estate recommends
Apartment for rent in Riga, Riga center

Apartment for rent in Riga, Riga center
Skolas street, 4th floor, 3 rooms, 93.00m2
742.00 EUR 7.98 EUR / m2

Commercial premises for lease in Riga, Vecmilgravis

Commercial premises for lease in Riga, Vecmilgravis
Emmas street, 1th floor, 6 rooms, 187.80m2
750.00 EUR 3.99 EUR / m2

Apartment for rent in Riga, Vecriga (Old Riga)

Apartment for rent in Riga, Vecriga (Old Riga)
Jauniela, 6th floor, 2 rooms, 62.00m2
800.00 EUR 12.9 EUR / m2

Apartment for rent in Riga, Riga center

Apartment for rent in Riga, Riga center
Rupniecibas street, 6th floor, 2 rooms, 63.00m2
900.00 EUR 14.29 EUR / m2

Apartment for rent in Riga, Riga center

Apartment for rent in Riga, Riga center
Elizabetes street, 2th floor, 4 rooms, 109.20m2
900.00 EUR 8.24 EUR / m2

Apartment for rent in Riga, Riga center

Apartment for rent in Riga, Riga center
Skolas street, 1th floor, 2 rooms, 97.00m2
969.00 EUR 9.99 EUR / m2

Commercial premises for lease in Riga, Riga center

Commercial premises for lease in Riga, Riga center
Elizabetes street, 3th floor, 4 rooms, 140.44m2
980.00 EUR 6.98 EUR / m2

Commercial premises for lease in Riga, Vecriga (Old Riga)

Commercial premises for lease in Riga, Vecriga (Old Riga)
Alksnaja street, 2th floor, 2 rooms, 153.00m2
1000.00 EUR 6.54 EUR / m2

Apartment for rent in Riga, Tornakalns

Apartment for rent in Riga, Tornakalns
Jelgavas street, 6th floor, 4 rooms, 170.00m2
1000.00 EUR 5.88 EUR / m2

Apartment for rent in Riga, Riga center

Apartment for rent in Riga, Riga center
Rupniecibas street, 4th floor, 2 rooms, 75.00m2
1000.00 EUR 13.33 EUR / m2

View all offers

Keep in touch!
Cityreal.lv