JustCare

Category: Health and financial security

  • US health care system ranks dead last among 10 of the world’s richest countries

    US health care system ranks dead last among 10 of the world’s richest countries

    The Commonwealth Fund this week released its biennial ranking of the health systems of 10 of the world’s richest countries, and once again the United States comes in dead last – as it has for the past 20 years – not just overall but on most performance measures, especially access and affordability.

    Throughout the report, it’s clear that one of the reasons the U.S. always brings up the rear internationally is the fact that far too many Americans – including those of us with health insurance – can’t afford to get the care we need. And tragically, so many of us who do seek care – with or without insurance – wind up deep in debt. As the Commonwealth Fund reports over the years have shown, that is a uniquely American tragedy.

    As KFF News has reported, more than 100 million Americans – 41% of adults – are mired in medical debt, and the vast majority of those people have both jobs and health insurance. The problem is that their “coverage” is just not nearly sufficient because of the ever-increasing out-of-pocket demands big insurance conglomerates (and the employers that hire them to administer health care benefits) saddle us with to boost their profits. (We’re the only country that allows for-profit insurance companies to run its health care system.)

    As the Commonwealth Fund’s report shows, we spend around twice as much for health care as the average of the other nine countries and almost twice as much as a percentage of GDP, yet we are the only one of the bunch that has not achieved universal coverage.

    Despite the big gains in coverage we’ve made since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, more than 26 million of us remain uninsured. But just as unacceptable is the fact that far more than that – one of every four working adults in this country – are underinsured because of the uniquely American high-deductible plans that our employers and insurers have forced us into. For many of us they are not just high, they are sky-high. Forbes magazine has called people in such plans functionally uninsured.

    The Commonwealth Fund’s researchers note that unaffordable cost-sharing requirements – deductibles, copays and coinsurance obligations – “render many patients unable to visit a doctor when medical issues arise, causing them to skip medical tests, treatments, or follow-up visits, and avoid filling prescriptions or skip doses of their medications.” And when they do get the tests, treatments and medications they need, they all too often find themselves buried in debt.

    It has become such a problem that the Biden-Harris administration has made alleviating medical debt a priority. The White House is expected to lay out at least some of the steps the federal government can take to do that in the coming weeks.

    One important thing the administration already has done is ask Congress to pass legislation that would cap out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs at $2,000 a year – and make sure that cap applies to all of us – not just Medicare beneficiaries. A $2,000 cap for people enrolled in Medicare Part D (and the private replacement plans marketed as Medicare Advantage) will go into effect in January.

    [This post was originally published in HEALTH CARE un-covered.]

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • 24 health systems drop their Medicare Advantage contracts

    24 health systems drop their Medicare Advantage contracts

    When Congress passed legislation allowing corporate health insurers to offer Medicare benefits, our representatives may not have appreciated that the new law would effectively be increasing shareholder value for the biggest health insurers and putting millions of vulnerable older adults and people with disabilities at risk of not getting needed care. They likely did not imagine that Medicare Advantage insurers would inappropriately underpay hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies and rehabilitation facilities, harming them financially or, worse still, forcing them to close their doors. Jakob Emerson reports for Beckers on how 24 health systems across the country are dropping their Medicare Advantage contracts because they are not able to deliver Medicare Advantage enrollees the care they need and because insurers are not paying them appropriately.

    In all likelihood, the corporate health insurers offering Medicare Advantage likely did not start off engaging in the bad acts many of them currently engage in, including using prior authorization processes excessively, delaying and denying care inappropriately, and failing to pay physicians and hospitals adequately. Nor were they overcharging the government excessively at the outset. But, today, more than six in ten provider CFOs say that the obstacles to care and payment are only getting worse.

    Beckers now lists 24 health systems that are ending their Medicare Advantage contracts, some with all Medicare Advantage insurers. Other health systems are cancelling contracts with UnitedHealthcare and/or Humana, two of the largest Medicare Advantage insurers. The list is not comprehensive. So, if you’re in a Medicare Advantage plan now, check to see whether you will be able to continue to use the doctors and hospitals you want to use or whether they are no longer in the provider network.

    In California, Scripps Health ended all its Medicare Advantage contracts for its integrated medical groups this year.

    In Delaware, ChristianaCare cancelled its contract with Humana’s Medicare Advantage plans as of Jan. 1.

    In Illinois, Blessing Health is only continuing its contracts with BCBS, UnitedHealthcare, Molina and Total Retiree Advantage.

    In Indiana, Powers Health (formerly Community Healthcare System) cancelled their contracts with Humana and Aetna’s Medicare Advantage plans on June 1.

    In Kansas, LMH Health is cancelling contracts with Aetna and Humana Medicare Advantage in 2025.

    In Kentucky, Baptist Health cancelled its contract with UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage and Centene’s WellCare this year.

    In Maine, Northern Light Health is cancelling its Medicare Advantage contract with Humana beginning October 1.

    In Michigan, MyMichigan Health is cancelling its Aetna Medicare Advantage contract in 2025.

    In Minnesota, HealthPartners is cancelling its contract with UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage plans in 2025. Essentia Health is cancelling its contracts with UnitedHealthcare and Humana Medicare Advantage in 2025.

    In Missouri, Cameron (Mo.) Regional Medical Center cancelled its Aetna and Humana Medicare Advantage contracts this year.

    In Nebraska, Kimball (Neb.) Health Services is cancelling all its Medicare Advantage contracts in 2025.

    In Nevada, Carson Tahoe Health is cancelling its contract with UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage in 2025.

    In New York, Med Health System cancelled its contract with Humana Medicare Advantage on July 1.

    In North Carolina, ECU Health cancelled its Humana’s Medicare Advantage plans in January.

    In Ohio, Aultman Health System hospitals are cancelling their contracts with Humana Medicare Advantage in 2025. Genesis Healthcare System cancelled contracts with Anthem BCBS and Humana Medicare Advantage plans in January.

    In Oklahoma, Comanche County Memorial Hospital cancelled its contract with UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage plans on May 1.

    In Oregon, Samaritan Health Services‘ hospitals cancelled its contracts with UnitedHealthcare’s Medicare Advantage plans on Jan. 9. They are cancelling contracts for physicians and provider services on Nov. 1. St. Charles Health System cancelled its contracts with Humana Medicare Advantage and Centene MA.

    In Pennsylvania, WellSpan Health ended its Humana Medicare Advantage and UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage plans on Jan. 1. It still accepts some UnitedHealthcare D-SNP plans.

    In South Dakota, Sanford Health is cancelling its Humana Medicare Advantage in Minnesota in 2025. Brookings (S.D.) Health System cancelled all its Medicare Advantage contracts this year.

    In Texas, Memorial Hermann Health System ended its contract with Humana Medicare Advantage on Jan. 1.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Republicans and Democrats alike love social insurance, why shouldn’t we all benefit from it?

    Republicans and Democrats alike love social insurance, why shouldn’t we all benefit from it?

    An opinion piece in MarketWatch by Brett Arends, a financial writer, makes the seemingly obvious case that if Americans love Medicare, as they do, they love social insurance. Yet, they are not far-left commies nor do they hate freedom. Given the failure of for-profit health care, shouldn’t we all benefit from Medicare?

    The failure of for-profit healthcare: If you have any doubts, read this lead New York Times story on the psychiatric hospital chain that is locking up patients who do not need hospitalization in order to continue to reap revenue from insurers. While you’re at it, take a look at John Oliver’s piece on for-profit hospices. And, check out these blockbuster stories on Medicare Advantage cash monsters and how Medicare Advantage insurers gouge taxpayers.

    Make no mistake, the price we pay for having for-profit health insurance and for-profit hospitals and for-profit pharmaceutical companies setting drug prices is not only financial. Yes, the high costs bankrupt all too many Americans; they also keep us from getting needed care. The for-proft health care industry causes extraordinary physical and emotional harm. According to one analysis in the National Bureau of Economic Review, Medicare Advantage plans lead to tens of thousands of needless deaths of older adults and people with disabilities each year.

    The government is far from perfect. We all know how much harm it can do. But, at it’s best, unlike the for-profit health care companies, it works for the people. It puts patients first, not profits. And, even when the government is not working as well as it should for Americans, government-administered traditional Medicare delivers easy access to good affordable care at far lower cost than privatized for-profit insurance.

    As Arends says, “we are forced to confront some shocking details. Senior citizens are happier with their communist Medicare than the rest of us are with our “freedom” insurance from private companies.” He goes on with some compelling data:

    “A higher share of Medicare beneficiaries was satisfied with their ability to find healthcare providers who accepted their insurance (96%) compared with privately insured people (91%),” MedPAC reported. “In addition, among beneficiaries who had received healthcare, a higher share of Medicare beneficiaries was satisfied with their ability to find healthcare providers that had appointments when they needed them (87%) compared with privately insured people (77%),” it added.

    Furthermore, MedPAC said, “In our focus groups, Medicare beneficiaries also reported high satisfaction with their insurance coverage, with the vast majority of participants rating their coverage as ‘excellent’ or ‘good.’”

    Other polls show that 81% of Americans support Medicare, including not only 89% of Democrats but even 79% of Republicans!”

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • AMA asks Congress for help saving independent medical practices

    AMA asks Congress for help saving independent medical practices

    In a Statement to Congress, the American Medical Association (AMA) asks for help saving independent medical practices. The AMA wants higher physician pay and government intervention to address systemic inequities and administrative burdens, recognizing the calamitous state of our health care system. “This is not just a call for action; it is a plea to safeguard the heart of American health care before it is too late.”

    What’s concerning is that the AMA does not call out the significant role of corporate health insurers in destroying our health care system. The AMA appears to like the higher rates the physicians receive from corporate insurers and doesn’t want to give those up; rather, it wants higher Medicare rates.

    The AMA highlights many big health care problems, without attribution to the insurers. The practice of medicine is not what it used to be. Small independent practices are vanishing. In their place, big corporations are buying up physician practices and intervening in the practice of medicine. (UnitedHealthcare, for example, now controls 10 percent of physicians in the US.)

    Physicians are increasingly no longer free to make treatment decisions for their patients. Rather, insurance companies second-guess their decisions, coming between them and their patients. The consequences can be dire for the patients, as the data indicates. The AMA also recognizes the need for “expanded support for rural and underserved areas” and “a health care infrastructure secured from emerging threats.”

    Of course, it’s the insurers who are responsible for the bulk of our health care system’s failings. They implement prior authorization protocols that harm providers and patients alike. But, while the AMA doesn’t like these protocols, it’s letter to Congress makes it seem as if the insurers are forced to use prior authorization: “This requirement for insurers to approve treatments before they can be administered not only delays diagnosis and treatment but also involves substantial paperwork and diverts critical resources and time that could be better spent on direct patient care.”

    The AMA only indirectly calls out insurers for their role in underpaying providers, undermining competition and patient choice. After all, it’s the insurers who are failing to pay rural and other hospitals appropriately for the care they provide, threatening their very being, forcing many to close, and making it harder for people to access care.

    The question is whether the AMA will ever join forces with patients to call for guaranteed affordable health care for all. Until then, it will be hard to move Congress to overhaul our health care system.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Vice President Harris wants to forgive medical debt

    Vice President Harris wants to forgive medical debt

    Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic plan calls for forgiving medical debt for as many as 15 million Americans, reports Annie Nova for CNBC. Americans should not go bankrupt because they need medical care, says Harris. She wants to erase much of the more than $220 billion in medical debt.

    Harris’ campaign has not laid out any of the details for how she would cancel medical debt. For sure, the government would need to be involved. Today, about 14 million Americans owe at least $1,000 in medical debt. The American Rescue Plan, which became law during the Covid pandemic, provides local governments with the ability to buy and cancel nearly $7 billion in medical debt by December 2026 for about three million Americans.

    A majority of Americans (51 percent) believe it is very important for our government to forgive medical debt. Medical debt drives inequities in society and creates impediments to prosperity. It also can deter people from getting further medical care. Older adults alone owe more than $54 billion in medical debt.

    Donald Trump has never suggested that he would cancel medical debt. He simply has called for more health care price transparency. And, he has called for repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which has reduced the number of uninsured Americans by more than 20 million and prevents insurers from denying health insurance coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. The Congressional Budget Office found that repealing the Affordable Care Act would quickly lead to 27 million Americans losing their insurance coverage and those with insurance coverage seeing their premiums doubled.

    The Biden Administration has been working to eliminate medical debt from people’s credit reports. And, medical debt under $500 is no longer appearing on people’s credit reports. Vice President Harris wants to eliminate all medical debt from people’s credit reports.

    In an interview with Ady Barkan about health care, Harris says “Access to health care should be a human right.” She describes the lunch at which her mom told her that she had been diagnosed with colon cancer and the inhumanity of our health care system, which is so expensive and challenging to navigate.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Harris and Walz: “We’re not going back!” on Medicare and Social Security

    Harris and Walz: “We’re not going back!” on Medicare and Social Security

    Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Governor Tim Walz, have proclaimed, “We’re not going back!” Seniors and our families agree. We are definitely not going back on Social Security, Medicare, or drug prices. Rather, we are going forward. Forward to expanded Social Security, expanded Medicare, and lower drug prices.

    We’re not going back to half of all seniors with below-poverty incomes. Before Social Security, people worked as long as they could, but the fast pace of many jobs “wears out its workers with great rapidity,” a commentator noted in 1912. “The young, the vigorous, the adaptable, the supple of limb, the alert of mind, are in demand,” he explained. “Middle age is old age.”

    Once a job was lost, an older worker could seldom find a new one. Parents, as they aged, routinely moved in with their adult children. Those who had no children or whose children were unable or unwilling to support them wound up in the poorhouse. Literally. The poorhouse was not some ancient Dickensian invention; it was a very real means of subsistence for elderly people in the world before Social Security.

    We are going forward. Forward to expanded Social Security, expanded Medicare, and lower drug prices.

    When Social Security became law, every state but New Mexico had poorhouses. The vast majority of the residents were elderly. Most of the “inmates,” as they were generally labeled, entered the poorhouse late in life, having been independent wage earners until that point. In 1910, a Massachusetts Commission found that 92 percent of the residents entered after age 60.

    The poorhouse was a fate to be dreaded. Even in as progressive a state as New York, the conditions were abysmal. In 1930, the New York State Commission on Old Age Security found that “worthy people are thrown together with whatever dregs of society happen to need the institution’s shelter at the moment…Privacy, even in the most intimate affairs of life, is impossible; married couples are quite generally separated; and all the inmates are regimented as though in a prison or penal colony.”

    A return to that may seem impossible, but it is not. If Social Security did not exist today, more than forty percent of those aged 65 and over would once again have below-poverty incomes.

    We’re not going back! Before Social Security, the death of one parent frequently meant the breakup of a family. Orphanages housed children with a living parent who had been unable to afford them, when the other parent died. People who became disabled and could no longer work routinely could be found begging in the street.

    Those families now have guaranteed monthly benefits, thanks to Social Security, which lifts almost a million children and more than 5.3 million adults between the ages of 18 and 65 out of poverty. And our Social Security system lessens the depth of poverty for millions more.

    Republicans want to take us back. They want to end Medicare as we know it.

    But Republican politicians want to take us back. They have put out plans that not only would cut Social Security, but end it as we know it. We cannot let them take us back.

    Instead of going backwards, we can and must go forward. Vice President Kamala Harris and her Democratic Party have plans to expand Social Security for seniors, for those with disabilities and for families experiencing the death of a provider.

    In fact, when Harris was in the Senate, she was an original cosponsor of the Social Security Expansion Act, and when her running mate, Governor Tim Walz, was in the House of Representatives, he was an original cosponsor of the Social Security 2100 Act. Both bills expand benefits across-the-board, update the cost of living adjustment, so benefits don’t erode over time, expand benefits in other important ways, and ensure that those benefits can be paid on time and in full for the foreseeable future, by requiring the uber-wealthy to pay their fair share.

    And we’re not going back to a time without guaranteed government-provided health insurance for seniors and people with disabilities. Before President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law in 1965, most seniors were not able to find health insurance at any cost. For those who could, the coverage was inadequate and the cost was exorbitant.

    We can and must go forward. Harris and her Democratic colleagues want to expand Medicare. The essential benefits of vision, hearing and dental services must be added and the need for supplemental insurance must be eliminated. And Medicare should be extended to children and all ages in between.

    We’re not going back to Big Pharma ripping off Medicare beneficiaries. For years, politicians promised to rein in Big Pharma and empower Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. The Biden-Harris administration got it done.

    If you too are determined to not go back on these important freedoms, the choice in November is clear.

    Republicans want to take us back. They want to end Medicare as we know it. They want to replace it with vouchers, forcing seniors to fend for themselves in a hostile marketplace. Additionally, they have promised to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act and let Big Pharma charge whatever outrageously high prescription drug prices they decide. We’re not going back to Medicare beneficiaries paying more than $35 per month out-of-pocket for insulin. We’re not going back to Medicare beneficiaries paying more than $2,000 out-of-pocket per year for Medicare Part D prescription drug spending.

    Instead, we will go forward to a future of even lower prices for even more prescription drugs. And that future must include providing those lower prices for all Americans.

    We’re not going back to a world without the Affordable Care Act. We’re not going back to a world without Medicaid expansion, without coverage for “pre-existing conditions.”

    That is just some of what is at stake in November.

    We’re not going back to a world where Republicans hand out tax breaks to billionaires. We want to protect Social Security and expand benefits, paid for by requiring billionaires and other uber-wealthy to pay their fair share.

    Social Security Works is proud to stand with Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Walz in the fight for freedom. The freedom to retire with dignity and independence. The freedom to get the medical care we need. The freedom to get the drugs our doctors prescribe.

    If you too are determined to not go back on these important freedoms, the choice in November is clear. Let’s unite and usher in a future that takes us forward together.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Aspirin is good at preventing blood clots post-surgery. Why don’t hospitals use it?

    Aspirin is good at preventing blood clots post-surgery. Why don’t hospitals use it?

    A recent study found that patients benefit as much from aspirin post-surgery as they do from costly and painful injectables. Both prevent blood clots in patients who have severely fractured a bone, but most hospitals continue to treat patients with the costly injectables. Researchers make the case that prescribing the injectables has serious health equity consequences in a Stat News op-ed and question provider behavior.

    Patients are burdened with far lower costs for aspirin than the low-molecular weight heparin injectables. And, it’s easier for them to take a pill than to get an injection. However, hospitals and physicians appear not to consider health equity issues or simple cost-effectiveness, for that matter, when they treat patients.

    The goal post bone-fracture surgery is to prevent clots, which keep blood from flowing in the lungs and can cause deadly embolisms. And, again, two aspirins a day work just as well as the painful injections into patients’ stomach wall twice a day for three or four weeks post surgery, even for high-risk patients. Moreover, six days of injections cost at least $70 and as much as $300, while the bottle of aspirin costs a few dollars.

    Health insurers will generally pay for the injectable drug even though the less costly aspirin alternative is just as good. But, the injectable drug drives up  patients’ out-of-pocket costs and members’ premiums. Moreover, people prescribed the injectable after their surgery post bone fracture often don’t take it, making it more likely that they will have a blood clot.

    Physicians do not appear to consider that lower-income people, in particular, often do not have the means–financial or social–to comply with the injectable regimen. Only about 15 percent of physicians prescribe aspirin directly after surgery to treat a bone fracture. Only about half of physicians prescribe aspirin to patients after they are discharged.

    At many hospitals, policies have not changed notwithstanding the results of the clinical study showing aspirin’s efficacy. It appears that the hospitals would benefit financially if they used aspirin and stopped using the injectables.

    The insurers should have a role to play. After all, the insurers claim that they offer “value.” Why aren’t they insisting that aspirin is the most cost-effective treatment and refusing to cover the injectable drug post bone-fracture surgery? Are they somehow benefiting financially from patients taking the injectables?

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Emergency or urgent care? Why it matters

    Emergency or urgent care? Why it matters

    A growing number of hospitals are offering people both hospital emergency room services and urgent care at one site, reports Philip Galewitz for KFF Health News. This model could be a financial winner for Intuitive Health, which is offering it in partnership with hospitals. Patients have little say over whether the care is billed as ER or urgent care or the cost.

    The doctors at the Intuitive Health facilities decide whether patients receive ER care or urgent care. And, they have every financial incentive to choose hospital ER care. If the doctors decide the wound treatment is ER care, the cost could be thousands of dollars more than if urgent care.

    There’s no bright line between what services are urgent and what services are emergency. Often care received in a hospital ER could have been gotten at an urgent care facility, such as ultrasounds and blood work. Physicians notify patients when the physicians determine the care needed is emergency care. While patients can choose not to receive ER care, the facilities can still charge them a triage fee.

    The value proposition for Intuitive Health–backed by Altamont Capital Partners, a private equity firm–is even greater than being able to bill for ER care for services that need not be treated as ER care. Intuitive Health can build a large patient base that leads to more medical tests, more physician and hospital services and more revenue.

    Patients using the Intuitive Health facility in Florida had short waits for care. They appear to like having access to both emergency and urgent care services at one location. Intuitive is responsible for administrative activities, such as collecting payment; their hospital partners provide the physicians and do the billing.

    Medicare pays for these services because of the hospital affiliation, as do most other insurers. But, what patients pay varies considerably. If patients pay the “all-inclusive” fee out of pocket, it’s $250. With insurance, their copays could be higher than that, depending upon what the facility charges their insurers.

    Patients with commercial insurance have no federal protection from surprise medical bills, since the protections do not cover urgent care facilities.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Low-income communities are particularly at risk in Medicare Advantage

    Low-income communities are particularly at risk in Medicare Advantage

    Insurers offering Medicare Advantage plans too often delay and deny care inappropriately. If you happen to live in a low-income community, you are more likely to be forced to join a Medicare Advantage plan that does not cover the care to which you are entitled under Medicare, according to a new analysis by Avni Gupta et al. published in JAMA. This analysis adds to the mountains of evidence that insurers are fostering health inequities among Black, Hispanic and other vulnerable Americans in Medicare Advantage.

    To be clear, you should not assume that if you are a middle-class white American in a Medicare Advantage plan that you will get the care you need. Even Medicare Advantage plans with five-star ratings delay and deny care inappropriately. And, there is no way for you to know which ones do.

    You are better off in traditional Medicare if you get sick and need costly and complex care. You can choose your physicians and you will get the care you need in a timely manner without bureaucratic hassle. But, you will need Medicare supplemental insurance or Medigap, to protect you from financial risk. With Medigap you will have few out-of-pocket costs, but it will cost you around $2,500 a year. While Medicare Advantage plans have an out-of-pocket cap, your out-of-pocket costs for in-network care alone can be as high as $8,850 this year, depending upon the Medicare Advantage plan you join. If you go out-of-network, your costs will be even higher.

    But, if you live in a low-income community, you are more likely to have fewer choices of Medicare Advantage plans with five-star ratings. And, it is fair to assume that plans with one, two, three and four-star ratings should be avoided. If a plan is not able to earn a five-star rating, there’s likely something wrong with its performance.

    Put differently, it is harder to enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan with a five-star rating if you live in a community with greater poverty and unemployment. As a result, you are likely to experience worse health outcomes. Specifically, you are more likely to receive poorer chronic care management and less likely to receive screenings and vaccinations. Customer service is more likely not to be good. And, if your Medicare Advantage plan inappropriately denies the care you need, it could be harder to challenge that denial.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Get your Covid vaccine: Reduce your risk of long Covid

    Get your Covid vaccine: Reduce your risk of long Covid

    Pam Belluck reports for the New York Times on new findings showing that people who get Covid-19 vaccines reduce their risk of long Covid. Long Covid can cause serious symptoms such as exhaustion and brain fog.

    Dr. Clifford Rosen writes in the New England Journal of Medicine that people in the United States who had been vaccinated for Covid had a much smaller chance of developing long Covid than people who were not vaccinated.

    Vaccines keep people from getting super sick when they are infected with Covid. And, people who get long Covid tend to be people who become severely sick from Covid.

    That said, some people who only have minor symptoms from Covid also get long Covid. And, some people who are vaccinated still get long Covid. Getting a vaccine will not always prevent you from getting long Covid.

    Rosen’s team looked at millions of medical records, including the records of 450,000 people who had Covid between March 1, 2020 and the end of January 2022. They were not able to look at different subpopulations. They looked at data from the Veterans Administration, which keeps good data, but treats mostly older white men.

    Long Covid was least evident in the last two months of the study among vaccinated people who got Covid. Only 3.5 percent had long Covid at that time. Among unvaccinated people who were infected with Covid at the same time, the incidence of long Covid was 7.8 percent.

    The researchers underscore that. over time, the efficacy of the Covid vaccine diminishes. People need yearly vaccines. Without vaccines, the incidence of long Covid will rise.

    Here’s more from Just Care: