Contingency & Crisis Standards of Care: A Refresher

As pressure continues to mount in Arizona’s hospital system, I thought it would be good to provide a little summary in plain language about what those words mean.

Hospitals generally operate under conventional standards of care. That just really means that they’re providing patient care without any change in daily practice.  Every cold and flu season hospitals face surges in demand (like the week after Christmas and off and on during January and February in Arizona). But hospitals are still operating under conventional care standards.

They juggle space and staffing and may temporarily ask ambulances to go to alternate facilities or accelerate the discharge of healthy patients. Staff may be asked to work in a different part of the hospital than they’re used to (for example a surgeon might be asked to work in the ER) but everyone is still working in their bounds of expertise, under normal staffing ratios, and following standard protocols.

As hospitals transition to contingency standards of care (where AZ is operating right now) hospitals change their practices and do everything they can to maintain the standard level of care. 

For example, under contingency care hospitals may repurpose rooms of the hospital for different kinds of clinical care than usual, like converting surgical rooms for emergency services or using recovery rooms as a makeshift intensive care unit. Doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists make different decisions about what therapies to use because of resource shortages too. Staffing rations may be altered, with nurses on general ward and ICU floors managing more than the standard number of patients.

Practitioners may start conserving supplies by, for example, not providing precautionary oxygen to patients who under normal circumstances would receive it, but who can survive and recover without it.

Patients are transferred between hospitals as they try to level out patient loads when they have periods of time. Some hospital systems like Banner are large enough to do interfacility transfers using their own resources and data. Others will need to contact the ADHS Surge Line, where transfers can be facilitated.

Hospitals restrict non-emergency procedures. This isn’t something hospitals like to do because patients really need these important procedures and because general surgery and elective procedures contribute much to the financial bottom-line. Nevertheless, these procedures will begin to be postponed or canceled. 

Hospitals change their admission decisions. For example, persons presenting in the emergency department may be sent home when, under normal circumstances, they would be admitted. Likewise, a patient that would normally be admitted to an Intensive Care Unit (with robust staffing rations) might instead be placed on a general ward bed.

Hospitals change their discharge decisions. People that have been admitted and who would normally stay for a couple more days will be discharged rather than observed. In some cases, persons that are in the ICU may be discharged directly to home rather than admitted to a general ward bed. Others will be discharged to a skilled nursing facility rather than a general ward hospital bed.

When the system becomes totally saturated, as may be the case at some point in December, hospitals will ask the ADHS to allow them to operate under Crisis Standards of Care

Crisis Standards of Care” is basically a protocol for making healthcare decisions when the system can’t provide all of the care that everybody needs because the needs outstrip the resources. Ethics panel discussions will be held to make difficult decisions regarding who will get care and who will not.

Under Crisis standards hospitals need to make even more substantial changes to the way they provide care. For example, staff are asked to practice outside of the scope of their usual expertise. Supplies are reused and recycled. In some circumstances, resources may become completely exhausted.

Core strategies that get used under Crisis standards include substitution, adaptation, conservation, reuse, and reallocation in the areas of for oxygen, medication administration, IV fluids, mechanical ventilation, nutrition, and staffing.

The Crisis Standards of Care also provides a protocol to help healthcare providers objectively decide who gets care when resources don’t allow everyone to get treatment.  These blog posts flesh it out:

Here’s a link to the ADHS Crisis Standards of Care Planning Document. It’s 141 pages, but the real heady stuff is on pages 29 through 38 where it discusses the scoring system to prioritize which patients will get treatment and which will not and how to ration care to all patients when resources are outstripped by demand.

The ADHS also has an Addendum to the report called Arizona Crisis Standards of Care Addendum April 2021.

The Arizona Crisis Standards of Care Addendum is COVID specific and outlines specific triage protocols that hospitals should use to decide who gets care and who doesn’t. Once we get to Crisis Standards of Care (likely to happen sometime in December) doctors will be using this document to decide who gets for example the last extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) machine or who needs to be pulled off an ECMO to make room for a patient more likely to survive.

Pretty grizzly stuff… but it will probably become a reality again this December due to the decisions that Governor Ducey made last summer to refuse to use policy interventions to encourage vaccination and universal indoor masking.

Arizona Hospital Bed Availability At It’s Lowest Point During the Pandemic

View Dr. Joe Gerald’s Weekly Epidemiological & Hospital Occupancy Report

The situation in Arizona hospitals is becoming increasingly dire. The number of available ward beds are now at the lowest point they have been during the pandemic. Access to care will continue to be restricted in the face of staff shortages in inpatient and outpatient settings. There’s undoubtedly primary and probably secondary triage happening already, and many Arizona hospitals are likely already operating under Contingency Standards of Care.

Read More About Contingency & Crisis Standards of Care

As of November 17th, 2403 (27%) of Arizona’s 8774 general ward beds were occupied by COVID-19 patients, a 14% increase from last week. Thirty-four percent (34%) of Arizona’s 1782 ICU beds are occupied by COVID-19 patients, a 12% increase from last week

COVID-19 hospital occupancy is holding steady and will likely exceed 25% of all beds in the general ward and 30% of beds in the ICU for the remainder of the year. Because ADHS uses licensed beds in the denominator of their occupancy statistics rather than staffed beds- there’s less room at the inn than meets the eye. 

Arizona also continues to experience high levels of community transmission. Test positivity also remains high reminding us that test capacity, accessibility, and/or uptake is inadequate. Increasing case rates among older, highly vaccinated groups serves as a warning that major behavioral shifts and/or waning immunity could result in future increases in not only cases but also hospitalizations.

New cases were being diagnosed at a rate of 347 cases per 100K residents per week. The rate was increasing by 13 cases per 100K residents per week. Navajo, Greenlee, and Gila counties have case rates nearing their previous pandemic highs.

Meanwhile, Governor Ducey & Interim Director Herrington continue to nonchalantly shrug their collective shoulders.

View Dr. Joe Gerald’s Complete Weekly Epidemiological & Hospital Occupancy Report

Who’s At Highest Risk for a Bad Breakthrough Case?

This study in the British Medical Journal analyzes who is at highest risk of death even after having been vaccinated

The authors of this article use a risk prediction model to stratify risk of severe covid-19 outcomes among people that are already fully vaccinated. They found that the dominant risk factors for breakthrough hospitalization and death are people with:

  • Down syndrome
  • Kidney transplantation
  • Sickle cell disease
  • Nursing home residents
  • People undergoing chemotherapy
  • People with a recent bone marrow or solid organ transplant
  • People with HIV/AIDS, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, neurological conditions, and liver cirrhosis.

Everybody in all of these categories should get a booster shot 6 months after they were fully vaccinated.

Climate Change & the Federal Build Back Better Act (BBBA)

Democratic Leadership in the House started last week with a goal of passing the BBBA and the bipartisan infrastructure bill by the weekend. They ended the week with the bipartisan infrastructure bill passed but a vote on the larger Build Back Better Act is on hold until this week or later. 

The initial regular infrastructure bipartisan bill will be signed into law this coming week, which is a good thing. This initial infrastructure bill does little to transition to U.S. to carbon free energy sources and doesn’t do anything for the human infrastructure pieces like making childcare more affordable etc.

I’ll keep my eye out for critical control points this week so we can do what we can to keep up the pressure to seal the deal on the Build Back Better Act. In short, the initial bipartisan infrastructure package that will be signed this coming week is not a climate bill! We need the BBBA bill to pass, which does have several important climate change provisions built into it.

We need to reach priority members of congress this week like Senator Sinema and Kelly to shore up support for the Build Back Better Act. I’ve had conversations with their office staff in the last couple of weeks about climate and prescription drugs.

If any of you have relationships with the staff, I urge you to make appointments and make your voice known- and make sure to mention that you are a member of AzPHA. Here’s a toolkit to reach moderate members. 

 Climate Change Talking Points to help you:

  • To fight the climate crisis, create millions of new good-paying clean energy jobs, and build the foundation of an equitable and thriving clean energy future: we need the Build Back Better Act.
  • The bipartisan infrastructure bill that just passed makes no meaningful reductions in carbon emissions, and commitments on other key environmental justice and climate issues.
  • Key parts of the bipartisan infrastructure bill (like electric vehicle charging stations, power infrastructure, and climate resilience) can only be unlocked if passed with the complementary, transformative climate investments in BBBA.
  • Climate action is the only fiscally responsible choice. Climate-fueled disasters are already costing us hundreds of billions of dollars every year—Hurricane Ida alone resulted in more than $64.5 billion in damages across the country—we can’t afford to wait to act any longer.

Senator Sinema Contact Info: @SenatorSinema

3333 E. Camelback Rd, Suite 200
Phoenix, Arizona 85018
Phone: 602-598-7327

317 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Phone: 202-224-4521

Senator Kelly Contact Info: @SenMarkKelly

2201 E. Camelback Rd
Suite 115
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone:  602-671-7901

Hart Senate Office Building
Suite 516
Washington, DC 20510
Phone:  202-224-2235

Modest Drug Pricing Reform May Finally Be On the Way

Final Deal is an Improvement but a Missed Opportunity for More Meaningful Drug Pricing Reform

For the last 20 years, all Americans have been getting ripped off by pharmaceutical companies. The heist began when a prescription drug benefit was added for Medicare enrollees (Medicare Part D). Drug company lobbyists made sure Congress wrote the law to prohibit Medicare from negotiating drug prices.

As a result, Medicare pays 300% more for prescription drugs than in Europe or Canada, and close to 10x higher than in developing nations. That means every American who gets a paycheck is paying way more than necessary for prescription drugs.

We’re ALL being scammed, not just Medicare beneficiaries, because Medicare is financed with a (regressive) payroll tax.

Medicare Part D is financed by Medicare Trust Fund payroll tax revenue (71%), Part D premiums (17%) and state payments for people dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid (12%)Employers & employees each pay a 1.45% tax on wages up to $200,000 (2.9% total) into the Trust Fund. Individuals (not employers) pay a 0.9% tax on income above $200,000 per year (no upper limit).

Because Medicare is paid for by a payroll tax, everybody who earns a paycheck is getting ripped off by drug companies- even if they’re not enrolled in Medicare and even if they don’t even take prescription drugs!

Compromises that were reached last week in the Senate make it look like modest prescription drug pricing reform might now survive the intense lobbying that the pharmaceutical industry has been doing, but not before the proposal was greatly watered down.

Previous AzPHA Blog Posts:

The latest version of the plan before congress would reduce some out-of-pocket costs for seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D, but the Medicare Trust Fund will continue to be fleeced, unnecessarily draining the Medicare Trust Fund.

Here’s a summary of what the weakened compromise bill looks like:

If the compromise bill passes, the first changes would come in 2023 when there will be a limit on annual price increases for existing drugs and out-of-pocket cost limits for insulin for Medicare beneficiaries.

There will be modest penalties if companies raise prices faster than inflation. The formula for penalties will consider prices charged to private health insurance to prevent them from shifting exorbitant prices to private health insurance.

In 2023, Medicare enrollees with diabetes will only have to pay $35 monthly copays for all insulin products covered by their prescription plan. People with private insurance would be able to also have their insulin co-pays capped a $35 copay.

Note: This policy will help the actual patients but will raise private health insurance premiums because the actual price that the drug companies charge health plans will continue to be unreasonable.

In 2024, there will be a cap on out-of-pocket costs for people enrolled in Medicare Part D (the prescription drug part of Medicare). The people that will benefit the most from the out-of-pocket caps will be folks with cancer, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and those who take combinations of expensive medicine for complicated health problems. Out-of-pocket caps would be $2,000 a year (the current annual out-of-pocket average for Part D people is $3,200 (2019).

A year later (2025), Medicare would FINALLY begin to be able to negotiate price with drug companies on a handful name-brand drugs, but drug companies will still be able to set launch prices for new meds. Medicare will only be able to negotiate the price for 10 drugs that year. The number of medicines with negotiated prices will slowly grow over time reaching 100 in several years.

The drug company lobbyists were able to get to certain members of the Senate to get huge concessions on what would have otherwise been a strong bill:

  • Drug companies will still be able to set launch prices for new meds under Medicare;
  • Drug companies were able to limit the number of drugs whose prices can be negotiated (10 drugs beginning in 2025, but slowly increasing to more drugs over the years);
  • Numerous super-expensive medications are exempt from negotiation (half of the top 25 Medicare drugs care can’t be on the negotiation list); and
  • The initial negotiation start date was pushed back several years (to 2025).

The proposal won’t use drug prices in the G7 nations as Medicare’s yardstick (greatly weakening the ability of Medicare to use overseas drug costs as a yardstick to compel honest negotiations).

For the handful of drugs that will be able to be negotiated (only 10 at first) there will be a ceiling on the Medicare price that’s 60% of the existing market price. If the drug manufacturer doesn’t accept the negotiated price, the federal government can take up to 95% of the gross receipts from all sales (not just Medicare). But remember, this provision only applies to 10 of the thousands of drugs Medicare covers.

In the end, it looks like we will get modest reform to drug pricing. Not what we could have achieved, but it’s better than nothing.

Addendum: More Meaningful Reform That Could Have Been

The US House of Representatives previously passed a measure called “H.R. 3, the Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019” which would require HHS to negotiate the price of between 25-125 brand-name drugs without generic competitors. That negotiated price would be available Medicare, Medicaid, and private payers. Importantly, HR 3 also provides negotiating leverage to HHS.

It would have established an upper limit for the negotiated price equal to 120% of the Average International Market price paid by Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the UK.

It would have also imposed financial penalties on drug companies that don’t comply with the negotiating process. Manufacturers that fail to negotiate would face an escalating excise tax on the previous year’s gross sales of the drug in question, starting at 65% and increasing by 10% every quarter to a maximum of 95%.

President Biden’s plan went even further than H.R. 3 by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices across the board, not just on 25–125 drugs (ending the drug companies into a panic).

He proposed allowing Medicare to negotiate a fair drug price for all drugs – including the costs of the research and development and a reasonable profit. Drug companies could then only set prices based on the rate of inflation after it’s determined how much they’ve invested and what a reasonable profit constitutes. Once Medicare negotiates a lower drug price, employer-based plans would get access to the same drug for the same price as Medicare.

Arizona Back on an Exponential COVID-19 Growth Curve

View the 11/13/21 Arizona Epidemiology & Hospital Occupancy Report

Excerpts from Dr. Joe Gerald’s Weekly Epidemiology & Hospital Occupancy Report:

Arizona continues to experience high levels of community transmission with case rates unexpectedly climbing 62% in the past 3 weeks. Test positivity remains high reminding us that test capacity, accessibility, and/or uptake is inadequate. Increasing case rates among older, highly vaccinated groups serves as a warning that major behavioral shifts and/or waning immunity could result in future increases in not only cases but also hospitalizations.

As of November 7th, new cases were being diagnosed at a rate of 328 cases per 100K residents per week. The rate was increasing by 54 cases per 100K residents per week. For most counties, current rates exceed those observed at the height of the summer 2020 wave.

COVID-19 hospital occupancy is holding steady and will likely exceed 20% of all beds in the general ward and 25% of beds in the ICU for the remainder of the year. Access to care will continue to be restricted in the face of staff shortages in inpatient and outpatient settings.

Waning vaccine efficacy and a short duration of acquired immunity means the unvaccinated cannot “free ride” on high levels of community immunity. At this time vaccine mandates for adults are warranted for their protection as well as the community’s. Persistently high levels of community transmission, and more importantly hospitalizations, are possible for an extended time until the supply of unvaccinated, previously uninfected adults is exhausted. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0620

Waning vaccine immunity also makes it imperative that those who were previously vaccinated obtain a third shot booster, particularly those 50+ years of age. While vaccination provides greater durability of protection for severe illness than mild reinfection, a third dose booster provides important incremental benefits to individuals, families, and communities. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2786040

Risk factors for breakthrough hospitalization and death were recently elucidated in the British Medical Journal: Down’s syndrome, kidney transplantation, sickle cell disease, nursing home residents, chemotherapy, recent bone marrow or solid organ transplantation (ever), HIV/AIDS, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, neurological conditions, and liver cirrhosis. https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2244

Vaccination remains the most important public health priority to reduce transmission and severe illness; however, mask mandates, restrictions on indoor gatherings, and targeted business mitigations are needed to reduce/control transmission in the short-run with the primary goal being to avoid overwhelming our critical care facilities.

Weekly COVID-19 deaths continue to exceed 200 per week and will once again reach, and likely exceed, 300 per week in the coming weeks. So far, 21,651 Arizonans have lost their lives to COVID-19.

Pharma’s Big Con: Keep the Scam Going by Confusing Prescription Drug Prices with Out of Pocket Costs

For the last 20 years, all Americans have been getting ripped off by pharmaceutical companies.  The heist began way back when a prescription drug benefit was added for Medicare enrollees. Drug company lobbyists got Congress to write the law so that Medicare is prohibited from negotiating drug prices.

As a result, Medicare pays 300% more for prescription drugs than in Europe or Canada, and close to 10x higher than in developing nations. That means every American who gets a paycheck is pay way more than necessary for prescription drugs.

Why are we ALL being scammed (not just Medicare beneficiaries)? Simple: because Medicare is paid for by a payroll tax.

Employers & employees each pay a 1.45% tax on wages up to $200,000 (2.9% total) into the Medicare Trust Fund. Individuals (not employers) pay a 0.9% tax on income above $200,000 per year (with no upper limit).

Because Medicare is paid for by a payroll tax, everybody who earns a paycheck is getting ripped off by drug companies- even if they’re not enrolled in Medicare and even if they don’t even take prescription drugs!

The gravy that the drug companies are taking from us is tremendously expensive. Last year, Medicare paid out $129 Billion dollars for prescription drugs. If Medicare were allowed to negotiate prices, taxpayers could save about $60B per year (enough to pay for dental and vision benefits for Medicare recipients).

Because healthcare costs in private health insurance plans is often driven by Medicare reimbursement, people in employer and other private health insurance plans are paying way too much too (resulting in higher monthly premiums).

Previous AzPHA Blog Posts on this Subject:

Fortunately, there’s a simple market-based solution. 

The president’s Build Back Better plan includes a provision that would save the federal government and everyday consumers billions of dollars per year by finally allowing Medicare to negotiate brand name drug prices with manufacturers.

The US House of Representatives already passed a measure called “H.R. 3, the Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019” which would require HHS to negotiate the price of between 25-125 brand-name drugs. That negotiated price would be available to Medicare, Medicaid and private payers.

It would establish an upper limit for the negotiated price equal to 120% of the Average International Market price paid by Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the UK.

The plan would impose financial penalties on drug companies that don’t comply with the negotiating process. Manufacturers that fail to negotiate would face an escalating excise tax on the previous year’s gross sales of the drug in question, starting at 65% and increasing by 10% every quarter to a maximum of 95%.

The Big Con

The drug companies are trying to confuse the public and seniors by substituting real drug pricing reform (Medicare negotiation) with a cosmetic plan to lower out-of-pocket costs at the pharmacy counter for Medicare enrollees. 

Under the con, prescription drug prices would appear to be lower because Medicare recipients would have lower co-pays. The scam is that that the Medicare Trust Fund would continue to pay 300% more than necessary for drugs.

The Medicare Trust Fund would continue to be unnecessarily drained, and private health plans would also continue to pass along extra costs to their customers in the form of increased premiums.

It’s frustrating that even though 94% of the public supports this common-sense market-based reform (allowing Medicare to negotiate prices), has been significantly watered down in the latest plan being negotiated in Congress. I’ll have a blog post next week on the details of that watered down plan.

New AzPHA Data Brief: Arizona is the ONLY State in the U.S. In Which COVID-19 Is the Leading Cause of Death During the Pandemic

A couple of weeks ago we published a new report establishing COVID-19 as the leading cause of death in Arizona during the pandemic.  Nationally, COVID-19 is the 3rd leading cause of death (behind cancer and heart disease).

COVID-19 is a distant 3rd (well behind heart disease and cancer) in states that had governors and health directors who made evidence-based intervention decisions and who properly executed key operational priorities.

In that initial report, we compared COVID-19 mortality in Arizona to Colorado and Washington State (two Western states with similar populations but with governors and health directors that used evidence rather than politics to drive their decision-making). COVID-19 was a distant third in those states.

Last week, we explored which other states also had COVID-19 as the leading cause of death in their state. Our new Data Brief entitled Arizona: The Only State in the U.S. Where COVID-19 Has Been the Leading Cause of Death During the Pandemic we establish that Arizona is the ONLY state in which COVID-19 has been the leading cause of death during the pandemic.

Our Data Brief displays the rate ratio for annualized crude COVID-19 death rates to heart disease death rates for all 50 states and the US, while Figure 2 in the Brief shows the rate ratio of COVID-19 deaths to cancer deaths.

There were five states in which COVID-19 was the second leading cause or virtually tied for second: Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. COVID-19 was the third leading cause of death in 40 states. In 4 states COVID-19 was lower than the third leading cause: Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, and Vermont.

Editorial Note: Last week on KTAR’s Broomhead Show, Governor Ducey again made the claim that “Arizona has done as well as anybody at saving lives and livelihoods during the pandemic.” A patently false statement given the poor results as documented in our and many other reports.

He even took a veiled swipe at those of us that have been urging him to make better decisions saying that “… there will always be people throwing stones from the cheap seats”.

AzPHA 2021 Annual Members Meeting Agenda

November 10, 2020, 11:00 am – 1 pm

Program

11:00 – 11:05    

Welcome & Thank You to Our Members and Public Health Workers Pele Fischer, Outgoing President

11:05 – 11:20    

COVID-19 Update – Will Humble, Executive Director

Business Meeting

11:20 – 11:25    

Approval of the 2020 Business Meeting Minutes

Pele Fischer, Outgoing President

11:25 – 11:35     

Professional Development Report

Eric Tomlon, Director of Personal Development

11:35-11:45        

Treasurer’s Report

Sean Clendaniel, Treasurer

11:45-12:00       

Public Policy Report

Zaida Dedolph, Director of Policy

12:00-12:10        

APHA Affiliate Report

Rebecca Nevedale, Affiliate Representative to the Governing Council

12:10-12:20        

Membership Report

Kelli Donley Williams, Vice President

12:20-12:30       

Community Health Justice Committee Report

Lilliana Cardenas, Director at Large

12:30-12:45        

Executive Director Report

Will Humble, Executive Director

  • Executive Director Report (ppt)
  • Executive Director Report (document)

12:45-12:50       

Recognition of Outgoing Board Members

Pele Fischer, Outgoing President

  • Eric Tomlon, Director of Professional Development
  • Zeruiah Buchanan, Public Member
  • Michael Murphy, Marketing and Public Relations
  • Aimee Sitzler, Immediate Past President

12:50-12:55

Recognition of Recommended Slate for New Board Members

Pele Fischer, Outgoing President

  • Liliana Cardenas, Vice President
  • Felicia Trembath, Director of Academic Relations and Professional Development
  • Lauriane Hanson, Secretary
  • Holly Ward, Director of Marketing and Public Relations
  • Dr. Satya Sarma, Public Member

12:55- 1:00

Recognition of Outgoing and Incoming President

  • Pele Peacock Fischer, Outgoing President
  • Kim VanPelt, Incoming President
 

Topic: AzPHA Annual Members Meeting (2021)

Time: Nov 10, 2021 11:00 AM Arizona

OSHA & CMS Issue Vaccine Mandate Rules

5th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Stay’s OSHA Rule Pending A Hearing this Week

The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) issued Interim Final Rules making the COVID vaccine or periodic testing of employees compulsory by January 4th. In a separate rule, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) required facilities that provide services paid for by Medicare or Medicaid to make sure that their staff is vaccinated against COVID-19.

For the OSHA standard, all covered employers must ensure that their employees have received either two doses of Pfizer or Moderna, or one dose of Johnson & Johnson by January 4th.  Any employees who have not received the necessary shots will need to produce a verified negative test weekly. Noncompliant employees must be removed from the workplace. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements are spelled out here.

Last weekend, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily halted implementation of the OSHA vaccine requirement by granting an emergency stay. It’s unclear what will happen next. It’s possible that the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately determine whether the new vaccine rule is consistent with OSHA’s authority. 

CMS is requiring workers at health care facilities participating in Medicare or Medicaid (almost every healthcare facility) to have received the necessary shots to be fully vaccinated by January 4th. The rule covers approximately 76,000 health care facilities and more than 17 million health care workers. Here’s a link to the CMS requirements: Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Omnibus COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination. The 5th Circuit’s ruling applies only to the OSHA mandate (not the CMS requirement).

Editorial Note: Enforcement of the new provisions will be largely up to state governments. Given the fact that Governor Ducey is hostile to vaccine requirements I’m concerned that he will instruct the Arizona Occupational Health and Safety Commission and the Arizona Department of Health Services to ignore and not enforce the new requirements.