The National Institutes of Health has begun a nationwide research project to better understand how to prevent and treat what's become known as "long" COVID, as well as determine who's at risk.

The COVID-19 virus has affected millions of Americans, but most people recover from the illness - at least initially.

But doctors say thousands of people who thought they were done with the virus develop "long" COVID, weeks and even months after the initial symptoms are gone.

"Long-haulers," as they're called, often experience heart and lung problems, severe fatigue and cognitive issues such as "brain fog," according to NIH neurologist Dr. Walter Koroshetz - a co-director of the study.

Koroshetz, who is also the director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, said they are looking for volunteers to participate.

"Some of the doctors are seeing people who are two years out and still having trouble," said Koroshetz. "That's the big worry, that it may turn into a chronic illness for some people if we don't figure it out quick enough to be able to find a treatment."

Koroshetz said the study is seeking volunteers of all ages and ethnicities from Arizona and elsewhere. They are looking for people who have - and have not - had COVID-19, including those who are pregnant.

He said they particularly need volunteers from rural areas.

To sign up, go online at 'RecoverCOVID.org.'

He said the RECOVER Initiative's primary goal is to understand how people recover from COVID and determine why some of them develop long-haul symptoms and others don't.

"We'd like to get a group of people that are representative from around the country," said Koroshetz. "So, in your area - University of Arizona in Tucson, Banner Health in Tucson, University of Utah in Salt Lake City are all enrolling. We have hundreds of sites around the country."

Koroshetz said the study needs a wide variety of volunteers to share their experiences.

"The real heroes are the subjects who enroll in this study," said Koroshetz. "The people who are having trouble enroll, I think, because they want to understand what's wrong with them and they want to contribute to the knowledge. We also need people who do it for purely altruistic reasons, the people who are not having trouble."

He added that volunteers can expect a phone call from a study representative to gather basic demographic information, ask about their experience with COVID-19 and to find out why they want to be part of the study.

Access to reduced-price medication is a necessity for many rural Missourians with low income.

Rep. Cindy O'Laughlin, R-Shelbina, the Senate Floor Leader, said Big Pharma is trying to confuse legislators with unrelated hot-button topics such as abortion access and illegal immigration in a last-ditch effort to stop the state from joining a program to force drugmakers to sell medicines at a discount.

"Appealing to nuclear topics, which really do not apply in this situation, is a disingenuous way to try to defeat a bill that is actually good for Missouri," O'Laughlin asserted.

O'Laughlin pointed out the program is transparent, and uses the tax money saved to help low-income families deal with chronic conditions such as diabetes.

The drugmakers object to the government forcing them to give significant discounts, arguing hospitals' and for-profit pharmacies' bottom lines, particularly those owned by pharmacy benefits managers, are being exploited. Nationally, 46% of contract pharmacy agreements involve pharmacies linked to the three largest benefits managers.

Rep. Tara Peters, R-Rolla, introduced the 340B contract pharmacy access billand said the lobbying is absurd.

"Federally, 340B program does not allow for abortion drugs," Peters stressed. "Why would any legislation that we're trying to pass in the state allow for that? I mean, the thought of that even being in existence is absolutely ludicrous."

The Missouri Senate passed the bill 27-3 on Monday and it now goes to the House.


get more stories like this via email

Alabama is running out of time to tackle Medicaid expansion this legislative session.

More than 230 people gathered earlier this month with the group Alabama Arise, urging state lawmakers to prioritize the issue. Their message: Access to health care isn't just a matter of policy, it can be a matter of life and death.

Debbie Smith, Cover Alabama campaign director for Alabama Arise, said as the session winds down, the group will continue to echo the call for increased access to health coverage. She thinks it would not only save lives but revitalize communities across the state.

"Over 80% of our rural hospitals are operating in the red," Smith pointed out. "Not a great stat. About 19 rural hospitals are at immediate risk of closure, and those are the lifeblood of those communities. They're on life support."

Smith emphasized hospitals at financial risk also put their workforce at risk. Those who are against Medicaid expansion believe it is ultimately unaffordable for the state. However, Smith argued it could save the state nearly $400 million over the next six years. According to the Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama, those savings would be enough to cover the cost.

The council's study also showed Medicaid expansion would generate nearly $2 billion of economic growth. Beyond economic benefits, Smith pointed to the stark disparities in maternal and infant mortality rates in Alabama.

She stressed Medicaid expansion would do more than provide health care coverage during pregnancy or postpartum, it is about ensuring comprehensive coverage.

"We've been lucky enough to expand Medicaid coverage up to 12 months postpartum but we still need to figure out how to cover people before they even get pregnant," Smith asserted. "It's really important for people to have health coverage so they can address any kind of issues they might have, like if they have diabetes or high blood pressure that might affect their pregnancy in the future."

With limited time left in the legislative session, she noted one option could be Gov. Kay Ivey's executive authority to enact Medicaid expansion. Smith added using the power could be the simplest path forward, backed by the promise of additional funding from the American Rescue Plan.

A Connecticut bill would expand the state's paid sick leave law.

The initial 2011 law requires 40 hours of paid sick leave for workers at employers with 50 businesses or more. The new bill covers all workers regardless of their employer's size.

Janée Woods Weber, executive director of the nonprofit She Leads Justice, said the legislation can benefit workers without access to paid sick leave.

"These are people for whom taking a few hours off when their child has a cold or perhaps they need to take themselves to a doctor's appointment are the kinds of challenges that many of us don't worry about, those of us who do have access to paid sick days," Woods Weber explained.

Small businesses were concerned about how the change could affect them. To address worries, the bill has a three-year implementation cycle giving them time to adapt. It also creates a task force studying the feasibility of providing tax credits to businesses with the smallest workforces. The bill passed the House and awaits a vote in the Senate.

An estimated 11% of workers are eligible for paid sick leave under the current criteria. Though expanding the law has taken over a decade, Woods Weber argued it has always been necessary.

"Nobody should be forced to make what is often times a very difficult and sometimes impossible choice between their livelihood," Woods Weber emphasized. "Getting a paycheck and getting to take paid time off to take care of themselves or a loved one if they get sick."

She added that once the bill is passed, the state can build off it by allowing people to earn more than 40 hours of paid sick time. Woods Weber said the isolation requirements during the pandemic forced anyone who got COVID-19 to use their allotted sick time all at once for isolation.


get more stories like this via email