Connect with us

Science

Opinion: Should you sleep with your pet? It depends

Published

on

Opinion: Should you sleep with your pet? It depends

Do you sleep with animals?

No, I don’t mean people who, you know, do wild and crazy things in bed.

I am talking about actual animals: dogs, cats, bunnies, guinea pigs and maybe — bear with me — Vietnamese pot-bellied pigs.

Opinion Columnist

Robin Abcarian

Advertisement

Every few years, new research reveals that human-animal co-sleeping is either a) medically fraught; b) emotionally fulfilling; or c) a confirmation of your mother’s fears that she will never have grandchildren, because what man in his right mind is going to share a bed with you and your damn Bernedoodle?

As someone who has always had boundary issues with my pets, it never occurred to me not to allow them into my bed. My Poppy is a nearly 3-year-old golden retriever, and when I tell you that I sleep with her, what I really mean is that she deigns to sleep with me.

Most nights she starts out on the hardwood floor and ends up at the foot of my bed. Sometimes, in the morning, I flip around so my head is at the foot of the bed and try to spoon with her. At 80 pounds, she is a solid and satisfying creature to wrap my arms around. She only tolerates this contact as long as I rub her belly. Otherwise, like my ex-husband, she’s not super cuddly.

Advertisement

I do, however, sleep better knowing that Poppy is nearby. Her barking warns me of squirrels messing around outside and malevolent tree limbs that brush against my windows in a storm. If an intruder were ever to break in at night, Poppy’s enthusiastic greeting and her habit of flopping onto her back to demand a belly rub might trip him and buy me a few minutes to call 911.

It’s surprising how much time has been spent studying what happens when humans sleep with pets.

Two primary areas draw the interest of researchers: the medical risks involved in bringing a four-legged creature into bed, and the effect that the practice has on our sleep.

Medical downsides can be considerable, if rare.

Pets can bring dust and pollen into bed, which may aggravate allergies and asthma. In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a disturbing paper, “Zoonoses in the Bedroom,” by two California doctors who surveyed medical literature. (Zoonoses are diseases that animals spread to people.) They compiled a medical encyclopedia’s worth of icky pathogens that have infected people, albeit rarely.

Advertisement

What I learned from reading this disturbing paper is that it’s probably better not to let your pets lick your mouth or any tear in your skin. But mostly, at least in the U.S., sleeping with pets won’t make you sick as long as your pet is healthy, clean and properly treated for fleas and ticks.

As far as I can tell, no one has studied whether it’s dangerous for the pets to sleep with humans. But I can tell you from experience that things did not turn out well for the small guinea pig my little sister brought into her bed and rolled onto in her sleep when we were kids.

As for the impact on sleep quality, there is almost too much research to take in, and much of it is contradictory.

In the 2011 paper “Human-Animal Co-Sleeping: An Actigraphy-Based Assessment of Dogs’ Impacts on Women’s Nighttime Movements,” researchers found that when dogs move around in bed, they cause people to move around in bed, but that people “rarely” reported that their dogs disrupted their sleep.

In 2021, researchers at the Pediatric Public Health Psychology Lab at Montreal’s Concordia University found that about a third of pet-owning children sleep with their pets, and that the children’s sleep does not seem to be adversely impacted.

Advertisement

A variation on that theme was explored the same year in Australia, where researchers looked at the sleep quality of adolescents who slumber with their pets and discovered that pets didn’t have much of an effect because adolescents generally don’t sleep well in the first place.

Last year, the scientific clearinghouse that publishes the journal Human-Animal Interactions released the results of an American study examining whether there was a correlation between pet ownership, sleep quality and sleep disorders. Multivariable logistic regression models — ahem — looked at sleep-quality issues including snoring, snorting, trouble falling or staying asleep, waking up midsleep or too early, feeling unrested, and leg jerks and cramps, among other things.

“Our results,” wrote the researchers, “indicated that having a dog was associated with greater odds of having a sleep disorder and having trouble sleeping. Having a cat was associated with greater odds of having leg jerks.” (I reached out to one of that paper’s authors to get some clarity on “leg jerks,” but did not hear back by deadline.)

A few years ago, when I still owned two cats, I do not recall my legs jerking during sleep. I do recall, however, that Camille frequently stood on my chest staring at me like a malevolent vulture as I slept, and Patches often curled up on my pillow and licked my hair.

Some professionals advise just keeping pets out of the bedroom at night altogether. Are they serious? Just try locking your codependent pet out for the night. See how well you sleep with a furry bundle howling in the hallway or hurling itself at your door.

Advertisement

@robinkabcarian

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Science

Trump's first term brought world-changing vaccine. His second could bring retreat

Published

on

Trump's first term brought world-changing vaccine. His second could bring retreat

President Trump once celebrated the COVID-19 vaccines released at the end of his first term as “one of the greatest achievements of mankind,” echoing the sentiments of mainstream medical officials who praised their rapid development as pivotal in combating the then-raging pandemic.

But as his second administration takes shape, some are sounding the alarm regarding Trump’s picks to lead major public health agencies, concerned that the nominees’ skepticism, if not hostility, toward vaccines could jeopardize the nation’s ability to respond to new or resurgent infectious threats.

There’s Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s pick to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, who has called the COVID-19 vaccine the “deadliest vaccine ever made” and said that “there’s no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has contended that he’s not against vaccines, but has spread the myth that they commonly injure children and can cause autism.

(Morry Gash / Associated Press)

Advertisement

Nominated to lead the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is Dr. Dave Weldon, a former congressman from Florida who has expressed skepticism of the safety of vaccines and promoted the discredited idea that a preservative, thimerosal, that has been used in some vaccines, or the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine — which has never used thimerosal — may be linked to autism.

Skepticism and outright conspiracy theories about vaccines are nothing new, and health officials have long warned about the potential pitfalls of such misinformation.

But now, some top doubters could be in the position to shape federal health policy.

While COVID is no longer the grave public health threat it once was, the disease spikes periodically — as it did this summer — and has continued to be responsible for the most hospitalizations and deaths of any respiratory disease nationally, with nearly 60,000 fatalities for the yearlong period that ended Sept. 30. And other infectious threats, be they whooping cough, measles or the latest strain of bird flu, continue to loom.

Advertisement

“We really don’t want to return to the era where these vaccine-preventable diseases were frequent, and children were getting sick or hospitalized or even dying,” said Dr. Anne Schuchat, a former deputy director at the CDC, who served at the agency for more than three decades, starting in the Reagan administration. “We’ve been fortunate in the past couple decades to have high levels of vaccination and low levels of most of the diseases.”

Neither the Trump transition team, a spokesperson for Kennedy, nor Weldon answered requests for comment for this story.

Trump, who had his own brush with the coronavirus near the end of his first term, hailed the rapid development of the COVID vaccines as a “monumental national achievement” and celebrated the production of “a verifiably safe and effective vaccine.”

He continued in 2021 to promote COVID vaccines in interviews and at rallies, though he also said he didn’t support making the shots mandatory. That year alone, the World Health Organization estimates, the vaccines likely saved at least 14.4 million lives worldwide.

But even then, skepticism surrounding the shots was starting to take root — including among Trump’s supporters. A KFF survey found that 60% of Republicans who support his “Make America Great Again” agenda got at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine at some point. But by late 2023, another KFF survey found that 70% of self-identified MAGA Republicans were either not too confident or not at all confident in the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Advertisement

That same survey found that only 36% of Republicans were very or somewhat confident the COVID-19 vaccines are safe, compared with 54% of independents and 84% of Democrats.

Kennedy has contended he is not “anti-vaccine,” but his organization, the Children’s Health Defense, has questioned their safety. Kennedy himself has criticized what he sees as deficits in the science on vaccine safety and spread the myth that vaccines commonly injure children.

When asked by a documentary maker whether there were any vaccines in history that were a benefit to mankind, Kennedy replied: “I don’t know the answer to that.”

More recently, he has said he would not “take away anybody’s vaccines.”

But even if a vaccine isn’t taken away entirely, “you can just make it much harder for people to get,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health and a former White House COVID-19 Response coordinator under President Biden.

Advertisement
Dr. Ashish Jha gestures while speaking with a White House logo on the wall behind him

Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “consistently shows that he doesn’t believe in modern medicine, doesn’t believe in the scientific process that has led to these huge gains that we’ve had” in public health.

(Susan Walsh / Associated Press)

For instance, Jha said, newly appointed officials could demand randomized clinical trials for every annual update to the COVID vaccine — “even though we don’t do that for the flu vaccines.”

“If that is a new standard that they create, it probably will make it impossible for [updated] COVID vaccines to be available in time for the holiday season,” Jha said. “If they follow through on their own previous critiques, they may box themselves in and make it very, very hard for Americans to even get COVID vaccines.”

Kennedy has also advanced the baseless claim that thimerosal in vaccines can cause autism, which has been thoroughly discredited by scientists. Thimerosal has been removed from childhood vaccines since 2001, according to the CDC, and “research does not show any link between thimerosal and autism.” While it is still used in some flu vaccines, parents can request a formulation without the preservative for their children.

Advertisement

Organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics also say the MMR vaccine — which protects against measles, mumps and rubella and is a major target of the anti-vax movement — is safe.

Critics have also accused Kennedy of spreading misinformation regarding the safety of the measles vaccine in Samoa. The Associated Press reported that Kennedy traveled to the island nation in June 2019 and met with anti-vaccine activists before a severe outbreak that killed 83, mostly infants and children.

At the time, public health officials said anti-vaccine misinformation had made the nation vulnerable. Kennedy has denied playing a role in the outbreak, which he has characterized as “mild.” “I had nothing to do with people not vaccinating in Samoa. I never told anybody not to vaccinate,” Kennedy told an interviewer in the 2023 documentary “Shot in the Arm.”

In a video published by the New York Post in 2023, Kennedy floated the conspiracy theory that COVID-19 may have been engineered to avoid harming Jews and Chinese people. Critics called his comments antisemitic and anti-Asian.

In a social media post, Kennedy said “the insinuation” that “I am somehow antisemitic, is a disgusting fabrication.” In another post, Kennedy said he has “never, ever suggested that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews” and asserted “that the U.S. and other governments are developing ethnically targeted bioweapons and that a 2021 study of the COVID-19 virus shows that COVID-19 appears to disproportionately affect certain races.”

Advertisement

Some scientists have dismissed some of Kennedy’s assertions as absurd and not based in science.

“One of my biggest concerns about about him is the misinformation that he spreads around vaccination,” said Dr. Richard Besser, who served as acting CDC director during the initial response to the 2009 H1N1 “swine flu” pandemic and is now president and chief executive of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

The Health and Human Services secretary plays a major role in setting health priorities for the nation — suggesting how much money various agencies should get, helping determine what is covered for people on Medicare or Medicaid, and having a say in what kind of public recommendations the agency issues, Besser said.

Kennedy “consistently shows that he doesn’t believe in modern medicine, doesn’t believe in the scientific process that has led to these huge gains that we’ve had” in public health, Jha said.

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, whom Trump appointed as commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration during his first term, said on CNBC that if Kennedy follows through on his rhetoric, “You’re going to see measles, mumps and rubella vaccination rates go down,” which he expects would result in large outbreaks. “For every 1,000 cases of measles that occur in children, there will be one death,” he added.

Advertisement

Trump’s apparent skepticism toward some vaccine requirements — during the campaign he pledged to “not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate” — is also raising alarm bells in some corners.

Making moves that would erode the share of schoolchildren receiving vaccines they have been getting for generations would “create health risks” for the community at large, said Dr. Mark Ghaly, former secretary of California’s Health and Human Services Agency.

Dr. Mark Ghaly smiling for a portrait beside his reflection in a window

“I can imagine that some states may be pushed into a corner” if federal funding for public health work is reduced, said Dr. Mark Ghaly, former secretary of California’s Health and Human Services Agency.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

If a policy scrapping federal funding at schools that enforce vaccination requirements for schoolchildren were enacted, some districts or states may have to make tough decisions. While most public schools largely rely on state and local funding, federal dollars flow to support certain programs, such as school lunches.

Advertisement

California is a little less reliant on federal funding for public health work, but “I can imagine that some states may be pushed into a corner,” Ghaly said.

State and local health officials should also speak up if they see messaging from the federal government that amounts to misinformation, Jha said. “It is, I think, really critical for state and local public health officials to speak up and not cede the floor to federal officials, especially if those federal officials are not sort of sticking to where the scientific evidence is,” Jha said.

Different leadership at national health agencies could also affect the availability or cost of vaccines.

“Could they become harder to get? Could it become more expensive to get in some places? Maybe not in the first year or two, but down the road, absolutely,” Ghaly said.

The federal government’s childhood vaccination program, run out of the CDC with oversight from Health and Human Services, plays a major role in getting half the kids in America their childhood vaccines essentially for free, Jha said. If federal officials decide to gut the program, “a lot of poor kids are not going to have easy access to vaccines, which, of course, would be tragic and would put everybody at risk.”

Advertisement

Other questions include whether future federal health officials would seek next fall to water down the CDC’s current recommendation that everyone age 6 months and up get vaccinated against COVID — and whether that would affect whether insurers cover the costs of vaccines.

One glimpse into a sharply different way of managing COVID vaccination recommendations is in Florida.

In a move at direct odds with the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, Florida’s surgeon general, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, advised against getting mRNA COVID vaccinations this fall and suggested that healthcare providers look into a non-mRNA shot for the elderly and immunocompromised. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines both use mRNA technology, while a different vaccine from Novavax does not.

Ladapo, a former professor at UCLA, is viewed favorably by some highly ranked Republicans, including Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor who appointed him. Just after the election, DeSantis urged Trump to appoint Ladapo as the next secretary of Health and Human Services.

The CDC and FDA have rebuked earlier claims by Ladapo, saying his suggestion that there was an increased risk of harmful, life-threatening side effects caused by the COVID-19 vaccines was “incorrect, misleading and could be harmful to the American public.” The letter said the FDA-approved COVID vaccines have met rigorous standards for safety and effectiveness.

Advertisement

Jha said he thought some of Trump’s other administration picks were reasonable, including the nomination of Dr. Marty Makary, a surgical oncologist at Johns Hopkins University, to run the FDA.

Makary drew attention for a February 2021 op-ed in which he wrote he expected COVID-19 to be “mostly gone” by that April, a prediction that failed to materialize. Later that year, he criticized federal recommendations to have 16- and 17-year-olds receive a COVID-19 vaccine booster, citing a lack of supporting clinical data. In early 2022, he criticized experts who he said discounted infection-derived immunity to COVID.

Jha said he disagrees with Makary on a number of topics — such as, in his view, discounting the value of COVID vaccinations in kids. The difference between Kennedy and Makary, Jha said, is that Makary’s views “are within the range of medical professionals who believe in modern medicine, who can disagree honestly.”

Among Trump’s other picks Jha said he considered reasonable was Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford University health policy professor and economist who was critical of pandemic lockdowns, and offered pandemic policy advice to Florida. Nominated to run the National Institutes of Health, Bhattacharya supported a pandemic response called “focused protection” — protecting those at highest risk of death while allowing others to “live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection.”

“I think some of his ideas and recommendations during the pandemic were really problematic and caused a lot of suffering,” Jha said of Bhattacharya, adding that no state was able to implement “focused protection” and that “lots of Floridians died.”

Advertisement

But, Jha added, “If the question is — is he qualified? This is a guy who has an MD, PhD at Stanford … he’s got a very broad body of work, mostly in health economics … He’s very smart, very experienced.”

Continue Reading

Science

L.A.'s mountain lions become more nocturnal to avoid people. Does it come at a cost?

Published

on

L.A.'s mountain lions become more nocturnal to avoid people. Does it come at a cost?

Griffith Park’s late celebrity mountain lion P-22 took the night shift to avoid hordes of hikers, bikers and dawdlers who frequented his home in the heart of Los Angeles — and it’s a pattern replicated by other pumas in the region, according to a new study.

The move to a later schedule is an encouraging example of a species doing its part to coexist in a bustling megalopolis, according to researchers from UC Davis and other institutions who conducted the study.

But the temporal gymnastics they perform may come at a cost, experts said, consuming energy and limiting the amount of time they can spend on critical tasks such as hunting. And it may compound other urban stressors, like whizzing traffic and rat poison.

The study, published last month in the journal Biological Conservation, found that Southland mountain lions became more nocturnal and less crepuscular — i.e., active at dusk or dawn — in popular recreation areas.

To examine the impact of recreation on the lions, researchers used GPS and activity data gleaned from the tracking collars of 22 mountain lions roaming the Santa Monica Mountains and surrounding region between 2011 and 2018.

Advertisement

They also drew data from Strava, a popular app in which users publicly document runs, hikes and more to determine how much recreation was happening in each lion’s home range, and to test how it influenced the patterns and timing of their activity.

The “most nocturnal” puma in the study was the late P-41, who inhabited the Verdugo Mountains, a range bounded by freeways and development on the northeast edge of the San Fernando Valley, and a recreation haven. Ranked second was P-22, affectionately called the Brad Pitt of mountain lions when he stalked the Hollywood Hills.

The study revealed that female lions were less nocturnal than males, possibly because males pose a threat to them and their kittens.

(National Park Service via Associated Press)

Advertisement

Researchers wondered if mountain lions who were exposed to more recreation would become immune to it — and simply not care.

“We saw the opposite,” said Ellie Bolas, lead author and a PhD candidate at UC Davis.

“Seeing that mountain lions are flexible in their activity and sensitive to recreation is, I think, a reason we can feel optimistic that they’re willing to avoid us and want to avoid us,” she added.

Other institutions involved included Cal Poly Pomona, the National Park Service, UCLA, the University of Nebraska and Harvard Westlake High School.

The findings are good news for Angelenos worried about becoming a lion’s lunch — given that the cats are steering clear of people. And it helps explain how the apex predators manage to hack it in an intensely urban environment. Los Angeles is just one of two megacities in the world that are home to a big cat; the other is Mumbai, in India, where leopards prowl the streets.

Advertisement

So why are local lions rearranging their schedules for people? The new study notes that animals might high-tail it to areas where there are less people when they can. But in the greater L.A. metropolitan area, with more than 18 million people, even natural areas get gridlocked. So they adopted another strategy.

The National Park Service has monitored lions in and around the Santa Monica Mountains for more than 20 years, which is where the long-term data for the recent research came from.

“A major thing that we’ve been studying all along is the effects of urbanization and fragmentation on these animals,” said Seth Riley, study co-author and branch chief for wildlife at Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, a unit of the park service.

The new study revealed that the lions’ timing shifts weren’t more pronounced on weekends when recreation spikes, contrary to what researchers expected.

There were also differences between the sexes, with female mountain lions found to be more active during the day and closer to sunrise. Researchers surmised that they avoid overlapping with male lions who will kill kittens in tow — and sometimes even the females themselves.

Advertisement

The least nocturnal puma tracked was P-13, a female with a home range in the central and western Santa Monicas.

Beth Pratt, California regional executive director for the National Wildlife Federation, said that while it’s good news that the charismatic cats are “coping,” there are likely tradeoffs.

“By switching their hunting strategy, it’s not ideal,” said Pratt, who was one of P-22’s biggest boosters. “It takes more energy, it doesn’t give them as many options, but the animals here are doing their part.”

People should pitch in, too, by minimizing challenges, she said. Panthers stalking the Santa Monica Mountains are imperiled by inbreeding because of freeways that essentially lock them in — and visitors with needed genetic diversity out.

“At a certain point they’re not going to be able to cope with all these challenges stacked up,” she said, pointing to threats such as cars and rodenticides — both of which took a toll on P-22. He was captured and euthanized in late 2022, deemed too sick to return to the wild because of injuries and infection.

Advertisement

One way to give lions “the edge” is by putting up wildlife crossings, said Pratt, who is a major force behind the largest such passageway in the world rising over the 101 Freeway in Agoura Hills.

The more than $90-million Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing currently under construction is seen as a potential lifeline for the lions of the Santa Monicas. Without an outlet, the population is at risk of blinking out.

Pratt said the new study shows that actions as seemingly innocuous as how we site trails and enjoy the outdoors can impact the species — and that it would behoove us to consider our approach as we navigate a biodiversity crisis.

“It’s not that we shouldn’t do them, but how can we do them differently so that animals aren’t as impacted,” she said.

Bolas said there’s currently no research to tell us if the lions’ flexibility in the timing of their activity is also a cost to them, but that “it very well may be.”

Advertisement

Revelations from the study arrive as some Southern California and Central Coast cougars are at a crossroads.

California wildlife officials are poised to decide whether to designate six isolated clans of pumas as endangered or threatened species under state law.

The state Fish and Game Commission in 2020 granted the cougars who are roaming regions between Santa Cruz and the U.S.-Mexico border temporary endangered status as a candidate to be listed under the state Endangered Species Act.

A final decision is expected next year.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

Column: UnitedHealthcare's chief executive was shot dead. Why did thousands react with glee?

Published

on

Column: UnitedHealthcare's chief executive was shot dead. Why did thousands react with glee?

The apparent assassination of UnitedHealthcare Chief Executive Brian Thompson on a Midtown Manhattan sidewalk Wednesday has unleashed an extraordinary outpouring of emotion. But it’s not all horror or sadness over a 50-year-old father of two being shot dead in public by a man in a mask.

Thompson’s death has inspired a torrent of fury about the way his insurance company and others treat — or mistreat — people in their moments of greatest need. Some of the reactions, particularly on social media, have been downright gleeful about the killing.

What a stunning illustration of the hatred so many Americans feel toward for-profit health insurance companies, which too often make money for stockholders by withholding care from sick people.

UnitedHealthcare is a particularly awful exemplar. It is infamous for high denial rates and low reimbursement levels.

According to an investigation by the medical news site Stat and a federal lawsuit recently filed in Minnesota, UnitedHealthcare has been using a deeply flawed artificial intelligence algorithm to wrongfully deny healthcare to elderly and disabled patients. Stat reported that the company “pressured its medical staff to cut off payments for seriously ill patients … denying rehabilitation care for older and disabled Americans as profits soared.”

Advertisement

ProPublica reported last month that the company was using algorithms to identify people it deemed guilty of “therapy overuse” and deny mental health treatment. Both California and Massachusetts determined that the company was breaking the federal law that requires insurers to cover mental health issues the same way they cover physical ailments. UnitedHealthcare denied claims for more than 34,000 therapy sessions from 2013 to 2020 in New York alone, saving the company about $8 million.

Adding to this unsavory picture, four of its top executives, including Thompson, have been under scrutiny for $101.5 million in stock trades they made after the company was informed that it was the target of a federal antitrust investigation but before the news became public and the stock price dropped.

Perhaps all this helps explain why, as of Friday morning, more than 85,000 people had reacted to UnitedHealthcare’s solemn Facebook statement about Thompson’s death with a laugh emoji.

People on other social media platforms also piled on.

“All human life is sacred, so it’s not proper to laugh when serious harm befalls someone,” wrote one Bluesky user. “The moral thing to do is instead charge them hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

Advertisement

“UnitedHealth CEO meets the same fate as many of his clients,” posted another Bluesky user above photos of the shooter pointing his gun at Thompson’s back before he reportedly rode off on an e-bike.

Stories of terrible interactions with the largest health insurer in the country also poured forth.

Elizabeth Austin, a single mother who lives in Bucks County, Pa., told me she had a miserable experience with UnitedHealthcare after her young daughter, Carolyn, was diagnosed with leukemia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Her chemotherapy caused nausea, so Carolyn’s doctor ordered a nighttime feeding tube to supplement what little she was able to eat while awake. She said United Healthcare wouldn’t pay for the feeding tube unless Carolyn ate no solid food at all.

“I was like, ‘She’s 9! She wants to eat food!’” Austin told me. Unmoved, the insurer forced Austin to pay $900 a month out of pocket for the device.

Later, when Carolyn developed a sensitivity to a sedative used during her monthly lumbar punctures, her doctors switched to another medicine, and the company again denied payment, Austin said. She paid for that herself too.

Advertisement

Austin said she eventually developed a stress-related heart condition that required ablation surgery. She and her daughter are healthy now, but the scars remain. She said she was saddened but not shocked to learn about Thompson’s death.

“These things are happening because people are really struggling,” she told me. “I don’t think the CEO was responsible for my daughter’s caregiving issues, but it’s smart to ask, ‘Why did this happen?’ Could it be a systemic issue?’ People are buckling under the pressure.”

At this point, the motive for Thompson’s killing is a matter of speculation. But ammunition recovered from the scene was inscribed with words often used to describe insurance companies’ anti-patient strategies, including “deny” and “defend,” the Associated Press and others reported.

In the 2010 book “Delay, Deny, Defend: Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It,” Jay M. Feinman, a Rutgers law professor, traces the evolution of insurance companies from generally helpful organizations where adjusters — that is, human beings — were responsible for reimbursements into the antagonistic, algorithm-driven behemoths they are today.

In the 1990s, he writes, insurance companies such as Allstate turned to the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. to develop new strategies.

Advertisement

“McKinsey,” Feinman writes, “saw claims as a ‘zero-sum game,’ with the policyholder and the company competing for the same dollars. No longer would each claim be treated on its merits.” Computers would determine reimbursements, and settlements would be offered on a “take-it-or-litigate basis.” Feinman writes that McKinsey urged Allstate to move “from ‘Good Hands’ to ‘Boxing Gloves.’”

Earlier this year, the insurance giant Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield announced that it would start limiting reimbursements for anesthesia based on its own time limits for surgeries. The idea, Anthem said, was to prevent overbilling. Doctors, predictably, were outraged.

“This is just the latest in a long line of appalling behavior by commercial health insurers looking to drive their profits up at the expense of patients and physicians providing essential care,” Donald Arnold, the president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, told NPR.

On Thursday, after the outpouring of rage against health insurers sparked by Thompson’s killing, Anthem reversed course, blaming “significant widespread misinformation” about its proposed policy for the about-face.

No wonder there is so little empathy for Brian Thompson, who was by many accounts a lovely human being. In death, he has become an unwitting symbol of the terrible things health insurance companies do to people for money.

Advertisement

Bluesky: @rabcarian.bsky.social. Threads: @rabcarian

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending