What you should know about the Healthcare.gov Open Enrollment

Nissa Shaffi

By Nissa Shaffi, NCL Associate Director of Health Policy

From November 1, 2020 to December 15, 2020, consumers will be able to enroll in health coverage through the health insurance marketplace, Healthcare.gov. Choosing the right health plan involves thoughtful decision-making, with careful consideration of your needs and your budget. COVID-19 testing and treatment, telehealth, and mental health services have been vital pandemic necessities, and consumers are advised to pay attention to any changes in their current health plans to account for any adjustments in health needs.

It is estimated that annually consumers typically spend 17 minutes when selecting plan options during open enrollment, most simply sticking with their plans from the previous year. If you need assistance navigating the health insurance marketplace, you can consult a healthcare navigator to help in comparing the coverage options that make sense for you. Healthcare navigators provide free, unbiased advice and offer services in a number of languages. To find a navigator in your area, please click here.

Even with the election and looming challenge to the ACA coming before the Supreme Court, California v. Texas, consumers should know that the federal health insurance marketplace, also known as Obamacare, is still available. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on November 10, but the ultimate decision can come as late as June 2021. We’ve written more about the implications of California v. Texas here. Despite multiple attempts by opponents to repeal the ACA, over 20 million people have gained coverage through the marketplace in the past decade.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced that marketplace premiums have dropped by 2 percent nationally. Additionally, as a result of the pandemic, the marketplace has seen greater insurer participation – in turn, offering consumers with more robust options for coverage. Plans offered via Healthcare.gov are required to cover a set of essential health benefits mandated by the ACA, ensuring that you have access to comprehensive care – a provision that is of chief importance during this time. The ACA has afforded consumers with a host of health protections and prohibits insurance plans from discriminating against enrollees based on health status, including pre-existing conditions. To learn more about the marketplace, click here.

The National Consumers League encourages consumers to seek coverage via ACA compliant plans offered on the marketplace. If you miss the deadline to apply for coverage within the open enrollment period, you may be able to qualify for a Special Enrollment Period (SEP). Applying during a SEP is contingent upon meeting certain criteria, such as life events like having a child or losing health coverage. If you qualify for Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), you can apply at any time. Most importantly, in order to have coverage that is effective by January 1, 2021, you must sign up by December 15, 2020.

CMS Proposed Rule Ignores Data & Bipartisan Support for the Value of Copay Assistance Programs

By NCL Director of Health Policy Jeanette Contreras

Americans love getting a discount. As consumers, we like to shop to save without compromising the quality of the products we buy. But in healthcare, the stakes are higher at the checkout counter. Patients not only want a discount, they depend on it to afford necessary, sometimes lifesaving, medication to treat their health condition.

Despite what we know about the value and impact of copay assistance programs, a new policy from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) could put a barrier between these critical programs and the patients who need them most.

Manufacturer copay assistance programs include discounts, coupon cards, and vouchers which many of our friends, family members, and neighbors use to afford their prescriptions. Studies have shown that without these financial support systems, many patients couldn’t afford their medicines.

The CMS proposal, which has yet to be finalized, would require manufacturers to guarantee that this assistance goes directly to patients—and if manufacturers do not, they would be required to include the value of the copay assistance in Medicaid Best Price and Average Manufacturer Price (AMP) calculations. That would be fine but there’s a  problem.

CMS has a separate policy that was already finalized earlier this year: the Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters (NBPP) Rule for 2021. In part, the NBPP allows health insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to use policies that stop copay assistance from counting towards a patient’s out-of-pocket burden—sometimes called copay accumulator adjustment programs.

NCL criticized HHS for permitting health plans to use these so-called copay accumulator adjustment programs.

“Removing this cost-sharing assistance will force those patients to pay thousands of dollars more in unexpected costs at the pharmacy. These new costs could push some to forego those medications, leading to worsened health outcomes. This could compromise medication adherence and will lead to increased health care costs over time.” – NCL Executive Director Sally Greenberg

Separate studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and IQVIA show that out-of-pocket costs can contribute substantially to reduced adherence or to patients not taking their medication altogether. This is counterproductive because if patients do not take their meds as directed, it means higher costs in other parts of the healthcare system stemming from increased hospitalizations, ER visits, and long-term health issues.

If the data doesn’t convince CMS, voters should. Weeks before the presidential election, we can clearly see widespread support for the value of copay assistance regardless of political affiliation. According to a new National Hemophilia Foundation national survey, more than 80 percent of registered voters believe the government should require copay assistance to be applied to patients’ out-of-pocket costs. Even lawmakers agree that CMS should stop this policy before it launches. A bipartisan group of 36 members of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter to CMS urging the agency to not finalize the “contentious line extension section or the Medicaid best price change as currently defined in the notice of proposed rulemaking.”

Clearly, copay assistance is critical to Americans. We hope CMS reevaluates the potentially harmful consequences of this new rule on patients and pulls back this counterproductive proposal.

NCL testified before FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee

Media contact: National Consumers League – Carol McKay, carolm@nclnet.org, (412) 945-3242 or Taun Sterling, tauns@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC – The National Consumers League (NCL) testified before the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). For over 120 years, NCL has advocated on behalf of consumers who depend on vaccines as lifesaving medical interventions. NCL extended its gratitude to the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee for all they do to protect public health and for the opportunity to speak before the Committee.

In its testimony, NCL highlighted the following priorities: the deployment of Emergency Use Authorizations; the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine; and the inclusion of diversity in clinical trials. These three concerns align directly with NCL’s efforts to enhance vaccine confidence and uptake, especially in the context of COVID-19.

Safety and Effectiveness:

NCL trusts that the FDA will release a vaccine only upon careful consideration of its safety and effectiveness. Post-market surveillance of the vaccine is imperative to determining the ongoing efficacy of the vaccine. Implementing the release of a vaccine on such a magnificent scale will involve precise coordination that traverses all levels of government and consumers will rely on public health agencies to communicate and respond to any potential adverse events regarding the COVID-19 vaccine.

Emergency Use Authorization (EUA):

There has never been a more critical time for consumers to have confidence in the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA is entrusted with ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of the treatments needed to treat and prevent the spread of the virus.

Throughout the pandemic, consumers have received conflicting information from the Administration on various COVID-19 treatments. NCL is aware that developing a vaccine for COVID-19 is a time-sensitive priority, however, we are concerned that consumers may believe that the FDA is hastily approving investigational tests and drugs.

NCL appreciates that the FDA recognizes that EUA is not intended to replace randomized clinical trials and that clinical trials are critically important for the definitive demonstration of safety and efficacy of a treatment. Through our education and outreach of consumers, we support the FDA in its efforts to develop a safe, effective, and expedited pathway towards a COVID-19 vaccine.

Diversity in Clinical Trials:

Finally, to mitigate the disproportionate disease burden experienced by people of color during the pandemic, NCL requests that clinical trials for the COVID-19 vaccine are inclusive and consist of diverse subjects. People of color are significantly underrepresented in clinical trials and undertreated in medical settings. This phenomenon will prove to be a challenge when encouraging vaccine uptake. Ensuring adequate representation in clinical trials would foster vaccine confidence across all demographics.

In closing, to stem the tide of deaths from these vaccine-preventable diseases, NCL submits these comments for review by the Committee to ensure that consumers are afforded with safe and effective vaccines to combat the pandemic.

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

Equitable allocation of a COVID-19 vaccine

Nissa Shaffi

By Nissa Shaffi, NCL Associate Director of Health Policy

As the world waits with bated breath for the release of a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine, one concern that is paramount is the proper distribution of the vaccine. According to leaders of Operation Warp Speed (OWS)—a coordinated partnership between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Defense (DoD)—detailed planning is ongoing to realize OWS’s lofty goal of delivering 300 million doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, with the initial doses available by January 2021.

Implementing a vaccine program of this magnitude is contingent upon precise coordination that traverses federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments. The prodigious task ahead is determining who would get the first initial doses of the vaccine upon release. The pandemic has further illustrated that communities most vulnerable to COVID-19 are often rife with systemic racism and socioeconomic factors conducive to higher infection rates. An initial limited supply of a vaccine will only intensify these inequities.

Multiple analyses conducted on the federal, state, and local levels confirm that people of color have experienced a disproportionate burden of COVID-19 cases and deaths. Hispanic or Latinx, and American Indian and Alaskan Native (AI/AN) communities have experienced three times the rate of infection, and Black communities two times the rate of infection, compared to White populations. The CDC warns that this imbalance in morbidity and mortality is begotten by deep-seated disparities that stem from generations of racism and unaddressed social determinants of health.

To mitigate these inequities, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) have formed a committee to establish an overarching framework addressing key considerations for the equitable allocation of a COVID-19 vaccine, including at-risk communities, priority populations, geographic distribution, scalable measures, and vaccine hesitancy.

The framework proposes four phases of vaccine distribution and their corresponding priority populations, as follows:

[Source: NASEM]

The above proposal will inform CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ (ACIP) recommendations in advance of a COVID-19 vaccine release; and it was developed through careful consideration of CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index (CDC SVI), and the apropos, COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index (CCVI). To elucidate, these phases were designed with people of color in mind, as they experience heightened risk of exposure working in essential roles in society, and therefore succumb to higher rates of infection.

Another key component of the vaccine plan is addressing vaccine hesitancy. People of Color are significantly underrepresented in clinical trials and undertreated in medical settings. This phenomenon, compounded by a general mistrust of medical establishments by minorities, will prove to be a challenge when encouraging vaccine uptake. Community engagement will be essential in building trust among the vaccine hesitant and messaging should be delivered by community leaders, or healthcare providers that resemble the population they treat. Culturally competent care has proven to have favorable effects on health outcomes and it is critical in encouraging vaccine confidence.

Once a vaccine becomes available, health officials across the country will need to deploy resources and personnel to ensure access to the vaccine among our most vulnerable. As affirmed by U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Paul Ostrowski (OWS), “We have to be able to go beyond the pharmacies, the hospitals and so forth to get after nursing homes; to get after meatpacking facilities; to get after those that are sheltered [at home]. We have to get this out to all four corners of this nation.” Getting to a vaccine is a challenge in itself, but once its released, it’s all hands-on deck.

The FDA must create a win-win path leading to new data on 17P and protect access for pregnant mothers

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

You may never have heard of hydroxyprogesterone caproate or “17P”—it’s a mouthful, but the role it has played in the lives of thousands of pregnant mothers and babies is easy to understand. For nearly a decade, it has been the only FDA-approved therapy to reduce the risk of recurrent preterm birth. It is available to women and their healthcare providers in both branded and generic prescription versions.

I have personally spoken with healthcare providers whose patients have had longer pregnancies thanks to 17P and a longer pregnancy can be a very good thing. As we noted in a letter we signed, along with 15 leading women’s and children’s health advocates, and sent to the FDA a few months ago, premature birth is the leading cause of infant death in the U.S. and has devastating effects on families and is very costly to our health care system. Among those babies who do survive, short and long-term complications can accompany preterm birth.

Prematurity also has a very significantly disproportionate impact on women of color. It is not something to take lightly. In fact, the preterm birth rate among U.S. black women is 49 percent higher than the rate among all other women. Factors associated with being African American—including experiencing institutional racism, racial health inequities, and higher psychosocial stress—contribute to prematurity.

One would think that preserving access to the one branded and five generic forms of 17P would be a priority for the FDA. Yet shockingly, earlier this week, the FDA proposed that all versions of 17P (branded, generics, and compounded for this indication) be withdrawn from the market.

The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) within the FDA made this recommendation despite the fact that 17P has a very strong safety profile (two trials and a decade of use by U.S. women and their providers bear that out). It also made its recommendation without meeting with affected women or providers who have personal experience with the benefits of 17P, without comprehensively considering alternative methods to assess which patients benefit most, and without, in our view, fully accounting for the unique needs of black women, who face a rate of preterm birth in the U.S. that is about 50 percent higher than the rate of preterm birth among white women.

To be fully transparent, 17P does have conflicting efficacy data from two clinical trials with markedly different patient populations: the first of which included a majority of U.S.-based African American women (59 percent). This was the trial that led the FDA to approve 17P for use in the U.S. in 2011, and another which included data of a population of women, most of whom lived in the Ukraine and Russia, and few of whom (7 percent) where African American.

There are questions on the table about who specifically benefits most from 17P and those questions do need to be answered. But access to 17P should not be compromised without substantial evidence that there is lack of benefit in the appropriate population and we don’t believe that evidence exists today. We strongly believe that the FDA should accept any request for a hearing in order to allow providers and patients an opportunity to discuss these concerns in more detail.

The FDA was provided with a proposal to keep 17P on the market and gather data to determine which populations of pregnant women benefit most from the therapy. The company that makes the branded version of 17P provided a detailed plan for generating additional data and predictors of benefit in women with a history of recurrent preterm birth.

Utilizing alternate ways to evaluate and define the patient populations that benefit most from 17P while allowing continued access to those in need seems like a win-win approach, especially considering the fact that the second, predominantly international based clinical trial was conducted outside of the U.S. because U.S. healthcare facilities refused to give their patients a placebo rather than 17P, and the same would undoubtedly happen if another clinical trial was attempted on American soil.

We’re talking about pregnant women and babies, not just ‘clinical trial participants.’

As our nation continues to grapple with the effects of the pandemic on our health and lives, evidence has shown that there may be an increased risk of preterm birth and pregnancy loss among pregnant women with COVID-19, particularly pregnant women of color. And while no single solution will improve maternal and infant health outcomes, only one proven intervention currently exists to help pregnant women prevent a recurrent preterm birth.

By factoring in the experiences of mothers and providers, the FDA can continue upholding its strong history of regulatory integrity while taking a necessary, comprehensive view of 17P’s real-world clinical implications on pregnant women and their newborn babies. We urge the FDA not to leave at-risk pregnant women and their healthcare teams without a path forward in the middle of a pandemic.
[/av_textblock]

Hispanic Heritage Month: Focus on the importance of participating in research through clinical trials

Hispanic Heritage Month: Focus on the importance of participating in research through clinical trials
by Elena Rios, MD, MSPH, FACP
President & CEO, National Hispanic Medical Association

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the world and the United States with a double threat: decreasing health and function of many, especially older patients with underlying diseases (obesity, asthma, diabetes, hypertension, etc.) that decrease the body’s immune response to fight off the virus; and millions left jobless as businesses downsize or close. In the healthcare arena, scientists and physicians are learning about the disease and how to treat it: We now know to limit ventilators to avoid high air pressures that can hurt damaged lungs; to place infected patients on their stomachs to allow lungs to expand; to use dexamethasone to decrease inflammation; and to use new antiviral therapies like Remdesivir and monoclonal antibodies. While there is no vaccine to prevent COVID-19, vaccine developers, researchers, and manufacturers are expediting the development of one.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and several pharmaceutical companies are conducting research through clinical trials that have found potential vaccines to be safe. This summer they started to enroll people and closely follow them for any adverse effects. Historically, Hispanics, Blacks, and Native Americans have been underrepresented in clinical trial research for a variety of factors, chief among them, a distrust of research and the concept of fatalism (leaving life’s challenges in God’s hands). But it is crucially important to have diversity in clinical trials to have information on the vaccine impact for Hispanics, for example. I encourage all persons over the age of 18 to enroll in the important COVID-19 clinical trials — and recommend websites for two ongoing clinical trials: the CoronaVirusPreventionNetwork.org from the NIH and Moderna, and the CovidVaccineStudy1.com

from Pfizer Inc. Each site provides consumers with information on the locations and how to enroll.

The National Hispanic Medical Association (NHMA) was established in 1994 to represent trusted Hispanic physicians and to improve the health of Hispanics and underserved populations. Given that, by 2042, one out of four people living in our nation will be Latino, NHMA has joined as a partner to encourage the Latino community to join the NIH All of Us Research Program. In May 2018, the NIH opened national enrollment for the All of Us Research Program—a momentous effort to advance individualized prevention, treatment, and care for people of all backgrounds—in collaboration with NHMA and other national partners. People ages 18 and older who reside in the United States, regardless of health status, are eligible to enroll. The overall aim is to enroll 1 million or more volunteers and to oversample communities that have historically been underrepresented in research to make the program the largest, most diverse resource of its kind. Our participation will provide information on how to better develop health care prevention and treatment programs for generations to come.

Precision medicine is an emerging approach to disease treatment and prevention that considers differences in people’s lifestyles, environments and biological makeup, including genes. By partnering with 1 million diverse people who share information about themselves over a 10-year period, the All of Us Research Program will enable research to more precisely prevent and treat a variety of health conditions.

Participants can access their own health information, including genetics information, summary data about the entire participant community, and information about studies and findings, that come from All of Us. Participants are asked to share different types of health and lifestyle information, through online surveys and electronic health records (EHRs), which will continue to be collected over the course of the program. At different times over the coming months and years, some participants will be asked to visit a local partner site to provide blood and urine samples and to have basic physical measurements taken, such as height and weight, to ensure that the program gathers information fromall types of people. This program is especially focused on those who have been underrepresented in research, but not everyone will be asked to give physical measures and samples. In the future, participants may be invited to share data through wearable devices and to join follow-up research studies, including clinical trials.

In addition, data from the program will be broadly accessible for research purposes. Ultimately, the All of Us Research program will be a rich and open data resource for traditional academic researchers as well as citizen scientists—and everyone in between. To learn more about the program and how to join, please visit https://www.JoinAllofUs.org.

About NHMA

NHMA is a nonprofit association representing the interests of 50,000 Hispanic physicians with the mission to improve the health of Hispanics in the U.S. For more information, please visit www.NHMAmd.org

Our work to preserve America’s treatment option to fight premature birth

You may never have heard of hydroxyprogesterone caproate or “17P”—it’s a mouthful, but the role it has played in the lives of thousands of pregnant mothers and babies is easy to understand.

National Consumers League statement urging FDA to make patient-centered decision on only available treatment option for pregnant mothers at risk for recurrent preterm birth

Oct. 7, 2020

Removing FDA-approved 17P could put countless pregnancies at risk even as COVID-19 adds new barriers for mothers with a history of spontaneous preterm birth

Media contact: National Consumers League – Carol McKay, carolm@nclnet.org, (412) 945-3242 or Taun Sterling, tauns@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC—The National Consumers League is urging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to protect patient access to the only approved treatment to reduce the risk of preterm birth in women with a history of spontaneous preterm birth, following this week’s proposal that all approved treatment options be withdrawn. We maintain that it is not in the best interests of patients, nor their healthcare providers, to deprive pregnant women of access—especially as there are no other approved treatment options—without considering alternative methods to better understand which patients benefit the most from 17P.

Hydroxyprogesterone caproate or “17P” has been the only available FDA-approved treatment option for nearly a decade to reduce the risk of recurrent preterm birth. Patients and the healthcare providers who serve them currently have access to one branded and five generic versions of the prescription product.

Since last year, the FDA has considered whether to remove FDA-approved formulations of 17P due to conflicting data from two clinical trials with notably different patient populations: one of which included a majority of African American women (59 percent) from the United States, and another where African American women represented 7 percent of a predominantly international patient population.

Despite the strengths of the original clinical trial and experiences of thousands of women to whom 17P was administered over the past decade, the strong safety profile of 17P, and the fact that 15 leading patient advocates and providers urged them to carefully consider all of the data and recognize the needs of women of color, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) within the FDA recently proposed that approval for all versions of 17P (branded, generics, and compounded for this indication) be withdrawn from the market.

CDER made this recommendation without meeting with advocates or providers who have personal experience of the positive impact 17P can have on the lives of mothers and babies at risk of being born prematurely.

We strongly urge CDER and the FDA to commit to a transparent and patient-centered process before making a decision about the fate of this vital treatment. Removal of 17P from the market would leave at-risk pregnant women and their providers without a recommended standard of care, and in the interim, extends a period of uncertainty that has already lasted too long.

Appreciating the importance of continued access to FDA-approved treatment options for at-risk pregnant women, including those that reduce their risk of early delivery, several months ago, we led a joint effort to urge the FDA to maintain and protect patient access to 17P. An array of leading consumer, women’s health, and maternal health organizations and thought-leading healthcare providers joined our efforts, together expressing serious concerns that a regulatory decision could be based on a single study that was largely conducted outside of the U.S., in a predominantly white population of women.

In our outreach to the FDA, we urged the agency to consider alternative ways to further evaluate and define the patient populations that most benefit from 17P, without depriving women of access. We regret to state that the agency did not respond to our letter, nor two separate requests to meet with stakeholders who have stood ready to discuss these concerns for months.

Moreover, the company that makes the branded version of 17P reported that it submitted a proposal to the FDA earlier this year with a plan to generate additional data and predictors of benefit in women with a history of recurrent preterm birth. Despite the company’s effort to proactively initiate the first part of a retrospective study, it has indicated that it was not provided an opportunity to discuss this research with the agency before its recent response.

While we recognize there is no single solution that will improve maternal and infant health outcomes, only one proven intervention exists to help pregnant women prevent recurrent preterm birth. Especially during this pandemic, pregnant women and their unborn babies are under extreme stress, yet providers have few therapeutic options to help at-risk mothers. There may be an increased risk of preterm birth and pregnancy loss among pregnant women with COVID-19, and even under normal circumstances, preterm birth places mothers and babies at significant risk—particularly among pregnant women of color.

Access to FDA-approved treatment options should not be compromised without substantial evidence that there is a lack of benefit in the appropriate population—which we don’t believe we have today. Instead, it is our belief that findings from a study where the majority of participants resided outside the U.S. in countries with different health systems and different rates of preterm birth shouldn’t be generalized and that it is reasonable to pursue real-world data sources to help us better understand the overall benefits in a patient population where there are no other options.

We believe it is possible for the FDA to continue to uphold its strong history of regulatory integrity while listening to perspectives from patient advocates and providers that are rooted in years of clinical use. What we can’t believe is the alternative, which leaves providers and pregnant women without a path forward in the middle of a pandemic.

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

Be wary of bad hand sanitizers

By NCL Executive Assistant Adrienne Archer

Hand sanitizers help protect and prevent the spread of COVID-19 when soap and water are not readily available. When the coronavirus first emerged, demand for hand sanitizers soared. Stores were unable to maintain ample inventory, resulting in rampant hoarding and price gouging. Essential workers that desperately needed hand sanitizer couldn’t get them, prompting some companies to start making sanitizers that originally did not produce them (i.e. distilleries, cosmetic companies, etc.)

Guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) require hand sanitizer to have at least 60 percent ethanol (ethyl alcohol) in order for it to be effective. The CDC does not encourage members of the public to make hand sanitizer for individual use.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has observed a sharp increase in those that, in addition to ethanol, also contain methanol—an ingredient that can be toxic when absorbed through the skin and can be fatal when ingested. Children and adults ingesting certain sanitizers led to blindness, hospitalizations, and even death.

Extended exposure to methanol can cause nausea, vomiting, seizures, permanent blindness, or death. The FDA has also found sanitizers with 1-propanol are also harmful. Accidental ingestions can cause central nervous system depression or death. Consumers that may have been exposed to hand sanitizers containing methanol or 1-propanol should seek medical attention immediately.

The FDA recently updated its guidelines on temporary policies about testing hand sanitizers to determine methanol levels. As companies produce hand sanitizers, they should frequently test to ensure that methanol is not created as a byproduct of either ethanol or isopropyl alcohol. The testing should be performed by an FDA inspected lab to ensure that it has met current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) standards. CGMP ensures the proper design, monitoring, and control of manufacturing processes and facilities. If alcohol (ethanol) has been found to contain more than 630 parts per million of methanol, it is contaminated and should be disposed of in hazardous waste containers. This guidance serves to help state-licensed pharmacies and outsourcing facilities report any incidents. The FDA has guidelines for an additional deterrent formula of alcohol to prevent children from ingesting them.

Consumers should also be cautious of false claims that hand sanitizers provide prolonged protection against COVID-19. Carefully inspect any purchased hand sanitizers to see if methanol or 1-propanol is listed.

FDA maintains a current list of hand sanitizers that are not recommended. As consumers review the list, they should compare the manufacturer name, product name, and National Drug Code (NDC) # on the hand sanitizer. If you find a product on the list, dispose of it immediately in a hazardous waste container and NOT down the drain.

The FDA encourages health professionals, consumers, and patients to report adverse effects and problems to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Program. Questions can be emailed to COVID-19-HandSanitizers@FHA.nns.gov. The FDA has also created a quiz to test consumer’s knowledge about hand sanitizers and a Q&A section on hand sanitizers and COVID-19 to keep consumers informed.

‘Should I stay or should I go?’ How the pandemic has affected higher education

By NCL Health Policy intern Talia Zitner

Every morning, I wake up with a new decision to make. Am I going back to campus? Or am I spending the Fall semester taking online classes from the comfort of my childhood bedroom? I’m a rising sophomore at Wesleyan University, and to add insult to injury, I’m also an incoming transfer student. My internal debate about going back to school is near-constant, and despite weighing the pros and cons of each, I still can’t seem to come to a comfortable conclusion.

Around the country, colleges and students are faced with this same, nearly impossible challenge. If schools can’t or won’t open in the fall, they risk closing forever without tuition money. If they do allow students to come back to campus, and an outbreak occurs, they put students, professors, faculty, staff, their families, and the greater community at risk. Students rely on colleges to be their home away from home, a place where they can work and learn in a structured, safe, and healthy environment, not to mention the social benefits.

Consequently, coming back to campus poses a serious financial and ethical question. Like anything else, college and higher education is a business. Consumers want to get the most for their money, and the colleges and universities need consumers to engage to have a sustainable business model. The pandemic has shifted the conversation in many areas of life, higher education included.

This issue is especially complicated because it can be broken down from multiple perspectives. For example, an economic point of view argues that colleges are only re-opening because they need the money. Like many other businesses, they stay open because they have no other choice. Without the money generated through tuition and other forms of revenue like donation and state funding, it would take years for schools to recover from the impact of COVID. But college is a substantial investment for families. Why should consumers be expected to pay full (or reduced) tuition for an experience that is more like a monastery than college? Will the investment really be worth it if schools are simply shut down again because of an outbreak at a campus party?

On the other hand, if students aren’t in school come fall semester, what else would they be doing? Most students are hard-pressed to find a job or internship that’s worth taking a semester off for in this environment. And time off may push back a student’s graduation time, putting them behind the rest of their peers. For very legitimate reasons, students want to come to campus and keep their college experience intact.

This seems to be where my own expectations fall. I have no idea if the situation will improve between now and the spring semester. To me, the only course of action is to enjoy the experience that I will have, even if it means wearing a mask.

Talia is a Washington, DC native and a rising sophomore at Wesleyan University, where she is studying English. Beyond health policy, Talia’s interests are in journalism, law, and social justice.