Skip to main content

Puerto Rico’s Health Faces Prolonged Recovery

As President Donald Trump signals impatience to wind down emergency aid to Puerto Rico, the challenges wrought by Hurricane Maria to the health of Puerto Ricans and the island’s fragile health system are in many ways just beginning.
Three weeks after that direct hit, nearly four dozen deaths are associated with the storm. But the true toll on Puerto Rico’s 3.4 million residents is likely to involve sickness and loss of life that will only become apparent in the coming months and in indirect ways.
As victims continue to be found and stranded people reached, it will take time to assess the consequences of their missed care or undertreatment.
The situation in Puerto Rico’s health system is far more vulnerable than those in Texas or Florida, which also weathered hurricanes this fall — medically, economically and politically. A month after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, only about half of the final official fatalities had been tallied.
Puerto Rico has a higher rate of diabetes than any state, according to 2015 data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About half of the island’s population depends on Medicaid. And, unlike in the States, Puerto Rico’s Medicaid system receives a fixed amount to meet residents’ needs, a pot of money that could run dry next month, said Jenniffer González-Colón, Puerto Rico’s delegate to Congress.
“We’ve had a fiscal crisis, a Medicaid funding cliff, Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Maria —we are being hit from every angle,” she said.
Orlando Gutiérrez, an associate professor of nephrology at the University of Alabama-Birmingham and a board member of the American Kidney Fund, said Puerto Rico is the “perfect storm” for a disaster.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has distributed food and water to help stave off disease or dehydration, relief workers have prioritized efforts to get hospitals and other health facilities operating again, and the Navy dispatched the hospital ship USNS Comfort, which has 250 beds.
Coordinated efforts to deliver fuel, water and medications to health facilities have allowed some to reopen. As of Oct. 12, federal emergency officials said nearly all Puerto Rican hospitals were open, although some are still dependent on generators. The Puerto Rican government said electricity has been restored to more than half of the hospitals. Nearly all of the dialysis centers are operating now, though many patients have missed treatments.
But Katia León, deputy director of primary care for the Association of Primary Care in Puerto Rico, said she believes the population’s health has worsened since the storm hit. Cases of diarrhea, pink eye and skin rashes are appearing in larger numbers, she said, and health officials are concerned about infections from contaminated water.
The potential for outbreaks means it is now more important than ever to keep clinics open, León said, even though the operating costs are likely to be high.
“We are talking about a situation that is going to continue in the long term … because this is a crisis without precedent,” she said.
Many residents are still unable to get to clinics or health centers for their chronic health conditions, such as diabetes or heart disease. Diabetes test strips and dialysis equipment have been in short supply since the storm. Patients went days or weeks without medication and treatment. Nutritious food and working refrigerators to store it in are scarce.
Some medicines are in tight supply or require arduous travel to secure.
Slow gains to provide electricity threaten patients on dialysis, who rely on power to filter their blood and survive. And mental trauma caused by the storm will linger long after buildings are reconstructed.
In addition, Puerto Rico was already facing a significant “brain drain,” as many young professionals, including doctors, moved to the U.S. mainland, said Andrew Schroeder, who works for DirectRelief, a private charity that has been coordinating shipments of medical supplies to the island. It will be an uphill battle to persuade these doctors and other health specialists to stay on the island now.
Hospitals and health clinics are working hard to get back to speed. Eddie Perez-Caban, the executive director of the Camuy Health Services clinic on the western side of Puerto Rico, said he was astonished after making the 25-minute commute through downed wires and fallen electric poles the day after Maria hit. He found a damaged roof, a broken air conditioning system and no electricity or running water — and about 75 of his employees ready to work. Five days later, the clinic opened with running water and AC and light powered by a generator.
“For so many people to show up — truthfully, it filled me with a lot of satisfaction to work with a group of people that have that commitment to the community and the patients we serve,” he said.
Republican leaders in the House of Representatives have proposed allotting an additional $1 billion for Puerto Rico’s Medicaid program to resupply its coffers as part of a bill that would extend the Children’s Health Insurance Program. But the legislation has been stalled in committee.
Puerto Rico’s program is different than those in the States. While states receive open-ended federal funding, Puerto Rico’s annual funding amount is capped — typically at more than $300 million. Nearly half of the island’s residents rely on the program for coverage. If the money runs out, as many as 900,000 beneficiaries could lose their health coverage, according to estimates from the Department of Health and Human Services under the Obama administration.
Another bill under consideration in Congress could offer Puerto Rico millions of dollars in disaster relief, an effort that has broad support. More than 6 in 10 Americans said Puerto Rico isn’t getting all the help it needs yet, and more than half said the emergency response has been too slow, with the federal government not doing enough to restore electricity and access to food and water, according to a poll released Thursday by the Kaiser Family Foundation. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)
In Puerto Rico, most of the roughly four dozen dialysis centers are now seeing patients, though that service is dependent on getting shipments of fuel to power generators and water and dialysis solution for the treatments. Some clinics are shortening their hours and the time of treatment. Instead of four-hour treatments, patients are receiving only three hours of dialysis, which saves on staffing time, supplies and use of generators.
Mike Spigler, an official with the American Kidney Fund, who is handling some of the emergency response for kidney patients on the island, describes the situation as “tenuous.”
In the short term, patients can function without dialysis, or with limited treatments. But as time goes on, the risk of heart failure and stroke begins to climb.
Schroeder also said he is worried about mental health services, which often get lower priority than food and shelter after a storm. He said people are traumatized and, without counseling, anxiety and depression could become major public problems. Multiple news outlets report that two of the island’s 34 total deaths attributed to the hurricane were suicides.
Older residents of the island are particularly vulnerable to mental trauma in the aftermath of the storm, said José Acarón, the director of the Puerto Rican branch of AARP. Approximately 1.2 million people in Puerto Rico are 50 or older, Acarón said. Many of them live outside of traditional nursing homes or independent living facilities, making them harder to reach.
“We still have a lot of challenges to overcome before things can go back to normal,” said Acarón. “But a return to normal is not going back to where we were before the hurricane. It’s a new normal.”
Staff writer Phil Galewitz contributed to this article.
Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...

Contact Precautions May Have Unintended Consequences

Contact precautions, including gloves, gowns, and isolated rooms, have helped stem the transmission of hospital pathogens but have also had some negative consequences, according to findings from a new study. Healthcare worker (HCWs) visited patients on contact precautions less frequently than other patients and spent less time with those patients when they did visit, report Daniel J. Morgan, MD, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, and colleagues. Moreover, patients on contact precautions also received fewer outside visitors. "Less contact with HCWs suggests that other unintended consequences of contact precautions still exist," Dr. Morgan and coauthors write. "The resulting decrease in HCW contact may lead to increased adverse events and a lower quality of patient care due to less consistent patient monitoring and poorer adherence to standard adverse event prevention methods (such...