Author: SeniorWomenWeb

  • EPA Advances Science to Protect the Public from PFOA and PFOS in Drinking Water

     great lakes image

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is asking the agency’s Science Advisory Board to review draft scientific documents regarding the health effects of certain Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). EPA is committed to science-based approaches to protect public health from exposure to Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), including by quickly updating drinking water health advisories with new peer-reviewed approaches and expeditiously developing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for these contaminants.

    Above Great Lakes Areas of Concern, https://www.epa.gov/great-lakes-aocs

    “Under our new PFAS Strategic Roadmap, EPA is moving aggressively on clear, robust, and science-based actions to protect communities suffering from legacy PFOA and PFOS contamination,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. “This action will ensure a rigorous review from experienced scientists to strengthen our understanding of this preliminary information as the agency works toward developing revised health advisories for PFOA and PFOS, and soon establishing regulations that protect communities from these contaminants.”

    EPA has transmitted to the Science Advisory Board four draft documents with recent scientific data and new analyses that indicate that negative health effects may occur at much lower levels of exposure to PFOA and PFOS than previously understood and that PFOA is a likely carcinogen. The draft documents present EPA’s initial analysis and findings with respect to this new information. 

    Following peer review, this information will be used to inform health advisories and the development of Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for PFOA and PFOS. EPA is now seeking independent scientific review of these documents. EPA is making these draft documents available to the public to ensure a transparent and robust evaluation of the available information. Epa administrator

    EPA will not wait to take action to protect the public from PFAS exposure. The agency will be actively engaging with its partners regarding PFOA and PFOS in drinking water, including supporting their monitoring and remediation efforts. Importantly, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, signed by President Biden on November 15, 2021, invests $10 billion to help communities test for and clean up PFAS and other emerging contaminants in drinking water and wastewater, and can be used to support projects in disadvantaged communities.

    EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan

    EPA will move as quickly as possible to issue updated health advisories for PFOA and PFOS that reflect this new science and input from the SAB. Concurrently, EPA will continue to develop a proposed PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for publication in Fall 2022. 
    For more information, visit www.epa.gov/pfas

  • GAO: Vaccine Development: Capabilities and Challenges for Addressing Infectious Diseases

    GAO-22-104371; Published: Nov 16, 2021. Publicly Released: Nov 16, 2021. 

     
    Fast Facts

    The CARES Act requires GAO to look at the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including vaccine development. Vaccines prepare the body to respond quickly to an infection and play a key role in keeping people and global communities healthy.

    Overall, vaccine development is still difficult, complex, and costly. But we identified 16 innovative technologies and approaches that may enhance the nation’s ability to respond to high-priority infectious diseases. Some innovative technologies — like reverse vaccinology that uses computers to analyze the genetics of a pathogen—helped researchers develop COVID-19 vaccines quickly and effectively.

    Patient getting a vaccine

    Skip to Highlights

    Highlights

    What GAO Found

    Vaccines protect people from disease by preparing the body to respond to an infection. Vaccinations are a key part of individual and community health, but vaccine development remains complex and costly. Innovative technologies and approaches, such as those identified in this report, may enhance the nation’s ability to respond to infectious disease. For example, reverse vaccinology and next-generation platforms —combined with existing research — helped researchers develop some COVID-19 vaccines more quickly and effectively.

    However, key challenges may hinder the adoption of these innovative technologies and approaches. Some promising technologies face issues and challenges such as inherent technical limitations and high cost. For example, organ chips may facilitate testing, but they are not yet able to replicate many of the complex functions of the human immune system. Similarly, single-use systems may increase the flexibility of vaccine manufacturing facilities, but may require extensive testing to ensure that they do not negatively affect the resulting vaccine. Further, economic challenges may hinder vaccine development. Experts attribute underinvestment in vaccines to market failures (i.e. market interactions that fall short of what would have been socially beneficial). For example, vaccines benefit those who are vaccinated, and, to some degree, those who are not. This additional benefit is not captured in the price, which reduces return on vaccine investment.

    GAO identified 9 policy options that may help address challenges hindering the adoption of vaccine development technologies and approaches or economic challenges. These policy options involve possible new actions by policymakers, who may include Congress, federal agencies, state and local governments, academic and research institutions, and industry. See below for details for some of the policy options and relevant opportunities and considerations.

    Selected Policy Options to Address Challenges in Vaccine Development

      Opportunities Considerations

    Prioritize infectious disease pathogens (report page 21)

    Policymakers could collaborate across sectors (e.g., government, academia, researchers, industry, and nonprofit organizations) to prioritize infectious disease pathogens with pandemic potential for vaccine R&D. For example, policymakers could develop a working group to prioritize pathogens with pandemic potential and work more closely with international organizations to prioritize vaccine development as well as develop monoclonal antibodies.

    • Prioritizing pathogens with pandemic potential could improve strategic vaccine R&D decision-making and help focus resources on developing and adopting key technologies and approaches that most effectively address those pathogens.
    • Appropriately matching the technologies and approaches to the prioritized potential pandemic pathogens then leveraging technologies may help address certain technical limitations and cost.
    • With greater leadership and strategic partnerships, policymakers could more quickly address threats to the U.S. population.
    • As new threats are identified, priorities may change, which may cause uncertainty for vaccine developers.
    • Policymakers may have different priorities based on their respective missions.
    • There may be disagreements as to which key technologies should be prioritized and used, resulting in the need for policymakers to weigh the potential advantages and disadvantages associated with various options.

    Improve preparedness (report page 21)

    Policymakers could provide support for public-private partnerships to strategically address potential pandemic pathogens identified as priorities. These partnerships could, for example, develop and test vaccine candidates that may provide protection from pathogens with pandemic potential.

    • This early development could provide a coordinated foundation that can be mobilized in an emergency. Such an approach could speed vaccine development as well as potentially reduce risk for vaccine researchers and developers concerning questions of safety, efficacy, and manufacturability.
    • The lack of certainty of the commercial market and government funding for vaccines against pathogens with pandemic potential may be too risky for the private sector to undertake.

    Further support development of data standards (report page 32)

    Policymakers could further support coordinated efforts to obtain the views of all stakeholders and to develop standards for health data and their use in clinical trials.

    • Integrating researchers’ needs into the standards development process could better ensure the necessary data are available.
    • Access to high-quality data in a standardized format may allow streamlined patient recruitment for clinical trials.
    • Expanding access to patient heath data requires attention to ensure privacy.
    • Developing and implementing standardized data formats and IT infrastructure is time-consuming and costly.

    Improve preparedness (report page 41)

    Policymakers could provide support for public/private partnerships to strategically develop manufacturing capacity to respond to surge requirements. To maintain this capacity, partnerships could manufacture prototype vaccine candidates against high-priority pathogens.

    • Manufacturing, testing, and stockpiling vaccines could be mobilized in an emergency and more rapidly mitigate future pandemics.
    • By leveraging strategic partnerships, policymakers could take steps to increase the availability of vaccines to more quickly address threats to the U.S. population.
    • May require new resources or reallocation of resources from other efforts.
    • There may be a risk that the vaccines manufactured, tested, and stockpiled against prioritized pathogen classes miss certain pandemic pathogens. 
    • The stockpiled vaccines would need to be regularly replenished prior to expiration.

    Evaluate factors that inhibit vaccine investment and mechanisms to increase it (report page 54)

    Policymakers could collaborate across sectors, such as government, academia, and industry, to conduct a systematic evaluation of factors that inhibit developers from investing in new vaccines.

    • A clear understanding of the range of factors discouraging vaccine investment would provide the basis for effectively addressing those factors.
    • Collaboration between policymakers and other stakeholders to obtain all relevant viewpoints can be time-consuming and it may be hard to reach a consensus.

    Source: GAO. | GAO-22-104371

    Why GAO Did This Study

    The CARES Act included a provision for GAO to report on its ongoing monitoring and oversight efforts related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This report discusses technologies, approaches, and associated challenges for vaccine (1) research and development, (2) testing, and (3) manufacturing, as well as (4) the economic factors that affect vaccine investment.

    GAO conducted literature searches including scholarly articles and government reports relevant to these four areas. GAO interviewed stakeholders and experts with a diverse set of perspectives on the science, administration, and economics of vaccine development. GAO also convened a 3-day meeting of 22 experts with expertise in at least one area related to our four objectives with assistance from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. GAO received technical comments on a draft of this report from 1 federal agency and 9 participants at its expert meeting, which it incorporated as appropriate.

    GAO is identifying policy options in this report.

    For more information, contact Karen L. Howard at (202) 512-6888 or howardk@gao.gov.

     
  • National Institutes of Health Supported Research Will Track Effects of COVID-19 Infection On Children Over Three Years

    Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2This scanning electron microscope image shows SARS-CoV-2 (round yellow particles) emerging from the surface of a cell cultured in the lab. SARS-CoV-2, also known as 2019-nCoV, is the virus that causes COVID-19. NIAID

    A large, long-term study of the impacts of COVID-19 on children has enrolled its first participant at the National Institutes of Health’s Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. The study, which is supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, will track up to 1,000 children and young adults who previously tested positive for COVID-19 and evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on their physical and mental health over three years. The study is expected to yield a detailed picture of COVID-19’s effects on the overall health of children, their development and immune responses to infection, and their overall quality of life in the years following infection. This work is part of NIH’s Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative(link is external), to better understand the long-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

    In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, initial data suggested that children were less likely to suffer from severe cases of COVID-19 than older people. However, among the 6 million reported pediatric COVID-19 cases the United States, many children have experienced significant acute and long-term effects of the disease. Although increasing numbers of children are becoming eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, the lack of vaccine-derived protection for most children has made this age group especially vulnerable to infection. In addition, children can suffer from a suite of inflammatory symptoms, collectively called Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C), that can affect multiple organs and lead to severe illness. MIS-C can arise even when the child initially appeared to be asymptomatic for COVID.

    “Although we know that children are vulnerable to COVID-19, we still do not have a clear picture of how COVID-19 affects them in the long term,” said NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. “In adult patients, the long-term sequelae of COVID, including post-acute COVID-19, can significantly affect quality of life. Our investigations into the pediatric population will deepen our understanding of the public health impact that the pandemic has had and will continue to have in the months and years to come.”

    Study participants will be enrolled with the consent of their parents or guardians. The NIH Clinical Center will recruit children ranging from 3 to 21 years of age, and Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC, will recruit children ranging in age from birth to 21 years. In addition to tracking the long-term health effects of COVID-19 and attempting to determine risk factors for complications, the study also will evaluate the long-term immune responses to the disease, screen for genetic factors that may affect how children respond to COVID-19 infection, and determine whether immunological factors influence long-term outcomes.

    Children may be eligible to be enrolled if they have tested positive for COVID-19 in the past, even if they were asymptomatic. Participants will receive a full physical examination and undergo a complete medical history. Study physicians will collect a variety of baseline samples, including blood, nasal swabs, stool and urine. An optional genetic analysis may be performed to identify potential genetic risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes. Participants also will undergo scans of their hearts and other organs. Members of their households without a history of COVID infection also will be asked to enroll as part of a control cohort. In all, the study may enroll up to 2,000 people, the participants who have tested positive for COVID-19 and their household contacts.

    Children and young adults who enroll within 12 weeks of a COVID-19 infection or a positive COVID-19 test will visit a clinic for follow-up at three and six months and then every six months for a total of three years. Those who enroll more than 12 weeks after a positive COVID-19 test will have clinic visits scheduled every six months for three years. At these follow-up visits, participants will undergo additional scans, sample analyses, questionnaires, and other means of tracking their health, development, and overall quality of life, including their mental and social well-being. Any re-infections or adverse events that may be linked to a prior COVID-19 infection will be documented. The researchers anticipate that the study will take approximately six years to complete.           

    For more information about the study, please visit ClinicalTrials.gov using the study identifier NCT04830852.

    NIAID conducts and supports research — at NIH, throughout the United States, and worldwide — to study the causes of infectious and immune-mediated diseases, and to develop better means of preventing, diagnosing and treating these illnesses. News releases, fact sheets and other NIAID-related materials are available on the NIAID website.

    About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation’s medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

    NIH…Turning Discovery Into Health®

  • Medicare’s Open Enrollment Is Open Season for Scammers; Here’s How You Know

     Scammers

    November 11, 2021

    Finding the best private Medicare drug or medical insurance plan among dozens of choices is tough enough without throwing misleading sales tactics into the mix.

    (KHN Illustration/Getty Images)

    Yet federal officials say complaints are rising from seniors tricked into buying policies — without their consent or lured by questionable information — that may not cover their drugs or include their doctors. In response, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has threatened to penalize private insurance companies selling Medicare Advantage and drug plans if they or agents working on their behalf mislead consumers.

    The agency has also revised rules making it easier for beneficiaries to escape plans they didn’t sign up for or enrolled in only to discover promised benefits didn’t exist or they couldn’t see their providers.

    The problems are especially prevalent during Medicare’s open-enrollment period, which began Oct. 15 and runs through Dec. 7.  A common trap begins with a phone call like the one Linda Heimer, an Iowa resident, received in October.  She won’t answer the phone unless her caller ID displays a number she recognizes, but this call showed the number of the hospital where her doctor works.

    The person on the phone said she needed Heimer’s Medicare number to make sure it was correct for the new card she would receive. When Heimer hesitated, the woman said, “We’re not asking for a Social Security number or bank numbers or anything like that. This is OK.”

    “I can’t believe this, but I gave her my card number,” said Heimer. Then the caller asked questions about her medical history and offered to send her a saliva test “absolutely free.” That’s when Heimer became suspicious and hung up. She contacted the 1-800-MEDICARE helpline to get a new Medicare number and called the AARP Fraud Watch Network Helpline and the Federal Trade Commission.

    But later that morning the phone rang again and this time the caller ID displayed a number matching the toll-free Medicare helpline. When she answered, she recognized the voice of the same woman.

    “You’re not from Medicare,” Heimer told her.

    “Yes, yes, yes, we are,” the woman insisted. Heimer hung up again.

    It’s been only two weeks since Heimer disclosed her Medicare number to a stranger and, so far, nothing’s gone wrong. But armed with that number, scammers could bill Medicare for services and medical supplies that beneficiaries never receive, and the scammers could sign seniors up for a Medicare Advantage or drug plan without their knowledge.

    In California, reports of deceptive sales practices for Medicare Advantage and drug plans have been the top complaints to the state Senior Medicare Patrol for the past two years, said Sandy Morales, a case manager for the group. The patrol is a federally funded program that helps seniors untangle insurance problems.

    Nationwide, the Senior Medical Patrol has sent 74% more cases in the first nine months of this year than in all of 2020 to CMS and the Health and Human Services Inspector General for investigation, said Rebecca Kinney, director of the Administration for Community Living’s Office of Healthcare Information and Counseling at HHS, which oversees the patrols. She expects more complaints to come in during Medicare’s open-enrollment period.

    And last month, CMS officials warned the private insurance companies selling Medicare Advantage and drug plans that federal requirements prohibit deceptive sales practices.

    Kathryn Coleman, director of CMS’ Medicare Drug and Health Plan Contract Administration Group, said in a memo to insurers that the agency is concerned about ads widely promoting Advantage plan benefits that are available only in a limited area or to a restricted number of beneficiaries. CMS has also received complaints about sales information that could be construed as coming from the government and pressure tactics to get seniors to enroll, she noted.

    Coleman reminded the companies they are “accountable and responsible for their marketing materials and activities, including marketing completed on a MA plan’s behalf” by sales representatives. Companies that violate federal marketing rules can be fined and/or face enrollment suspensions. But a CMS spokesperson could not provide examples of recent violators or their penalties.

    If beneficiaries discover a problem before March 31, the date the three-month disenrollment period ends each year, they have one chance to switch to another plan or to original Medicare. (Those who choose the latter may be unable to buy supplemental or Medigap insurance, with rare exceptions, in all but four states: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New York.) After March, they are generally locked into their Advantage or drug plans for the entire year unless they’re eligible for one of the rare exceptions to the rule.

    CMS this year spelled out another remedy for the first time.

    Officials can grant a “special enrollment period” for people who want to leave their plan because of deceptive sales tactics. These include “situations in which a beneficiary provides a verbal or written allegation that his or her enrollment in a MA or Part D plan was based upon misleading or incorrect information … [or] where a beneficiary states that he or she was enrolled into a plan without his or her knowledge,” according to the Medicare Managed Care Manual.

    “This is a really important safety valve for beneficiaries that clearly goes beyond just the limited opportunity to switch plans when someone feels buyer’s remorse,” said David Lipschutz, associate director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy. To use the new option, beneficiaries should contact their state’s health insurance assistance program at www.shiphelp.org/.

    The option to leave is also available if a significant number of plan members are unable to access the doctors or hospitals that were supposed to be in the provider network.

    Nonetheless, the scams continue around the country, experts say.

    A misleading television commercial in the San Francisco area has enticed seniors with a host of new benefits including dental, vision, transportation benefits and even “money back into your Social Security account,” said Morales. Beneficiaries have told her group that when they called for information they were “erroneously enrolled into a plan that they never gave permission to enroll into,” she said.

    In August, an Ohio senior received a call from someone telling him Medicare was issuing new cards because of the covid-19 pandemic. When he wouldn’t provide his Medicare number, the caller became angry and the beneficiary felt threatened, said Chris Reeg, director of the Ohio Senior Health Insurance Information Program.

    Reeg said another senior received a call from a salesperson with bad news: She wasn’t getting all the benefits from Medicare she was entitled to. The beneficiary provided her Medicare number and other information but didn’t realize the caller was enrolling her in a Medicare Advantage plan. She found out when she visited her doctor, who did not accept her new insurance.

    In western New York, the culprit is an official-looking postcard, said Beth Nelson, the state’s Senior Medicare Patrol director. “Our records indicate … you may be eligible to receive additional benefits,” it says, enticingly. When Nelson’s client called the number on the card in September for more details, she provided her Medicare number and later ended up in a Medicare Advantage plan without her consent.

    Heimer’s scammer was persistent. When the stranger tried to reach her a third time, Heimer said, the caller ID displayed the phone number of another local hospital. She told the woman she had reported the calls to CMS, the AARP Fraud Watch Network Helpline and the FTC. That finally did the trick — the woman abruptly hung up.

    KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

    © 2021 KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION

    This story can be republished for free (details).

    Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

  • History of Veterans Day; November 11, 1918: “A celebration to honor America’s veterans for their patriotism, love of country, and willingness to serve and sacrifice for the common good”

    World War I — known at the time as “The Great War” — officially ended when the Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919, in the Palace of Versailles outside the town of Versailles, France. However, fighting ceased seven months earlier when an armistice, or temporary cessation of hostilities, between the Allied nations and Germany went into effect on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. For that reason, November 11, 1918, is generally regarded as the end of “the war to end all wars.”

    Soldiers of the 353rd Infantry near a church at Stenay, Meuse in France.

    Soldiers of the 353rd Infantry near a church at Stenay, Meuse in France, wait for the end of hostilities.  This photo was taken at 10:58 a.m., on November 11, 1918, two minutes before the armistice ending World War I went into effect

    In November 1919, President Wilson proclaimed November 11 as the first commemoration of Armistice Day with the following words: “To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations…”

    The original concept for the celebration was for a day observed with parades and public meetings and a brief suspension of business beginning at 11:00 a.m.

    The United States Congress officially recognized the end of World War I when it passed a concurrent resolution on June 4, 1926, with these words:

    Whereas the 11th of November 1918, marked the cessation of the most destructive, sanguinary, and far reaching war in human annals and the resumption by the people of the United States of peaceful relations with other nations, which we hope may never again be severed, and

    Whereas it is fitting that the recurring anniversary of this date should be commemorated with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations; and

    Whereas the legislatures of twenty-seven of our States have already declared November 11 to be a legal holiday: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), that the President of the United States is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the officials to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on November 11 and inviting the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches, or other suitable places, with appropriate ceremonies of friendly relations with all other peoples.

    An Act (52 Stat. 351; 5 U. S. Code, Sec. 87a) approved May 13, 1938, made the 11th of November in each year a legal holiday — a day to be dedicated to the cause of world peace and to be thereafter celebrated and known as “Armistice Day.” Armistice Day was primarily a day set aside to honor veterans of World War I, but in 1954, after World War II had required the greatest mobilization of soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen in the Nation’s history; after American forces had fought aggression in Korea, the 83rd Congress, at the urging of the veterans service organizations, amended the Act of 1938 by striking out the word “Armistice” and inserting in its place the word “Veterans.” With the approval of this legislation (Public Law 380) on June 1, 1954, November 11th became a day to honor American veterans of all wars.

  • The US Housing and Mortgage Market, Risks and Resilience: Federal Reserve Governor Michelle W. Bowman

    Good afternoon, everyone. It is a pleasure to join you today. Thank you for the invitation. Developments in the housing and mortgage markets have a major effect on the economy and the financial system, so the Federal Reserve Board monitors these markets closely. I am happy to share some of my observations about these markets and to learn from your knowledge and experiences as well.1

    Chair Jerome H. Powell swears in Michelle W. Bowman for her second term, accompanied by Wes Bowman, as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

    I know I am speaking to an audience with considerable expertise in these areas, and so you know already that 2020 and 2021 have been interesting times, to say the least, in housing and mortgage markets. I will focus my comments today on three areas: the strong increase in home prices in the past year and a half, the wind-down of forbearance programs enacted after the advent of COVID-19, and what we learned about the financial stability risks associated with nonbank mortgage companies during the pandemic. As I hope will become apparent during these remarks, these three topics may seem unrelated but they are actually connected.

    I will start with some comments on home prices. Home prices had been rising at a moderate rate since 2012, but since mid-2020, their growth has accelerated significantly. In total, home prices in September were 21 percent higher than in June 2020. Home price increases are also widespread. In September, about 90 percent of American cities had experienced rising home prices over the past three months, and the home price increases were substantial in most of these cities.2

    These sharp increases raise the concern that housing is overvalued and that home prices may decline. Historically, large home price increases are somewhat less concerning if they are supported by economic fundamentals rather than speculation. Fundamentals certainly seem to be a large part of the story behind the increases we’ve seen since the middle of last year. The demand for housing has risen for several reasons. Interest rates are low, families have accumulated savings, and income growth in the past 18 months has been quite strong. Families are also reconsidering where, and in what kind of home, they want to live. Purchases of second homes, for example, have been somewhat high in the past 18 months. Meanwhile, the supply of new homes has been held back by shortages of materials, labor, and developed lots.

    Another reason to be less concerned about the recent escalation in home prices is that we do not see much of the decline in underwriting standards that fueled the home price bubble in the mid-2000s. Mortgage underwriting standards have remained conservative relative to the mid-2000s, in part because of the mortgage policy reforms that were put in place in the aftermath of the housing crisis. Investor activity is subdued relative to that time as well.

    Nonetheless, home prices do decline from time to time. In inflation-adjusted terms, U.S. home prices fell from 1979 to 1982 and from 1989 to 1993, although by much less than from 2006 to 2012.3 Although the declines in national home prices were modest in some of these episodes, some areas of the country experienced sharp declines. As we all know, home price declines cause problems and strain throughout the economy. To give just one example, families and small business owners borrow against their homes to fund big-ticket purchases and business expansions, and house price declines make it harder to use homes as loan collateral. This effect can be amplified if a credit crunch occurs, in which lenders react to the decline in house prices by pulling back on their lending. With banks and the broader financial system currently quite robust, such a credit crunch seems unlikely. Nonetheless, I know how painful these declines can be, especially in certain markets. For example, from my experience living in rural Kansas, I understand how smaller communities with a less diversified housing and employment base can take a long time to recover from a fall in home prices. I wonder also about communities with a sizable share of second-home owners. So I will continue to watch the incoming data closely.

    Falling home prices would certainly be very dramatic, but continued outsized increases could also be problematic. First, high home prices make it more difficult for low- to moderate-income households to become homeowners, as larger down payments and other financing requirements effectively lock these households out of the housing market. Second, and related to one of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy goals, rising home prices and rents raise the cost of housing. Because housing costs are a large share of living expenses for most people, these increases are adding to current inflationary pressures in the economy. Indeed, we are already seeing sizable increases in rent and owners’ equivalent rent in many parts of the country.

    In addition, there are signs of underlying supply and demand imbalances that will contribute to increases in housing costs and inflation. Early in the pandemic, the strength in home prices was thought to be driven by the decline in mortgage rates. But it has become increasingly clear that the low supply of homes, in combination with a strong demand for housing, is an important part of the story. Before this past year, the pace of construction of new homes was below its long-run average for more than a decade. The supply chain bottlenecks that I mentioned earlier are slowing down construction further. These issues affect the rental market too: The multifamily rental market is at historic levels of tightness, with over 95 percent occupancy in major markets.4 I anticipate that these housing supply issues are unlikely to reverse materially in the short term, which suggests that we are likely to see higher inflation from housing for a while.

    I am also watching carefully what happens as borrowers reach the end of the forbearance on mortgage payments. As of October, 1.2 million borrowers were still in forbearance, down from a peak of 4.7 million in June 2020. Of these remaining borrowers, 850,000 will reach the end of their forbearance period by the end of January 2022. Meanwhile, the temporary limitations on foreclosures put in place by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will expire at the end of the year.5

    Forbearance has been an important support for workers dislocated by the pandemic and for their families. Transitioning the remaining borrowers from forbearance to a mortgage modification or other resolution may be a heavy lift for some servicers. Each transition requires getting in contact with the borrower, discussing options, and figuring out which resolution makes the most sense for each borrower. This is time-consuming and detailed work. It is also crucially important. Obviously, we want to ensure that borrowers who are struggling financially receive the help that they need, and I want to acknowledge that many of these borrowers are from communities that have traditionally been underserved by the mortgage market. In addition, if servicers handle loan modifications poorly and on a large scale, the macroeconomy and financial stability can be affected as well. In the aftermath of the last financial crisis, the flood of foreclosures led to downward pressure on home prices. The same dynamic has not unfolded during the pandemic. Forbearance, foreclosure moratoriums, and fiscal support have kept distressed borrowers in their homes.6

    Fed supervisory staff are communicating with significant supervised institutions to ensure that they are preparing for the increased operational risks. If the transition out of forbearance is handled smoothly, I am cautiously optimistic that it will not have a material effect on the larger economy. The share of mortgages in distress — defined as those in forbearance or seriously delinquent—was about 4.5 percent in October 2021, about half the share of mortgages that were seriously delinquent in 2010.7 In addition, many of the mortgages in distress now are insured by the Federal Housing Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs, and these agencies can require that certain mortgage modification protocols are followed. Outside of these mortgages, the share of borrowers who are not making mortgage payments has returned to pre-pandemic levels. Nonetheless, we are aware of the risks and will monitor this situation closely.

    Mortgage servicing, however, has increasingly moved from Fed supervised banks and into nonbank mortgage companies that are supervised by state regulators. In a speech late last year, I focused on some of the possible financial stability risks associated with nonbank mortgage servicers.8 I would like to update you on my thinking about this issue today.

  • puzzle

    Julia Sneden Wrote: Puzzling: Jumbled Words, Anagrams, Crosswords, Cryptograms, Acrostics, I Love Them All

    puzzle

     

    by Julia Sneden

    As a lifelong addict of puzzle-solving, or at least of taking a whack at it, I’ve been delighted to note that nowadays neurologists and gerontologists recommend that we seniors keep our minds sharp by doing crossword puzzles. To me, that’s a bit like giving a chocolate lover the key to the Godiva factory.

    German-style cross-word.  Michael Joachim Lucke,  Wikimedia Commons

    Give me almost any kind of word puzzle: jumbled words, anagrams, crosswords, cryptograms, acrostics; I love them all. I do avoid those “puns and anagrams” things, perhaps because I suffered mightily from an older relative who made a groan-worthy pun out of almost any utterance, as in:

    (me) “Good morning”

    (he) “Who died?” (i.e. good mourning)

    Those puns were his only sin, as far as I know, and we all loved him so dearly that we endured his excesses. But an entire puzzle based on that kind of cleverness doesn’t appeal to me at all.

    In any event, back in my sixties, when I read the advice of those who are experts in the elderly mind, I figured that as a word puzzle addict, I was well set to keep myself mentally fit. I come from a family whose women have remarkable (and some would say dreadful) genes for living long. All my older female relatives have died in their 90’s, and both grandmothers and a great aunt came close to a hundred. If you’re likely to live that long, you need to do everything you can to take care of your mental agility.

    So why, please tell me, did I, so well-armed for bear, reach my current age of 74 only to find that what used to be a remarkable memory has suddenly gone south on me? In the past couple of years I have had to admit that I’ve fallen prey to almost every cliché concerning old age/memory loss.

    Oh, I’m not talking deep memories. Those lie buried under the dross of many years, but they’re there. They seem to come in two types: those that pop up at need unaided, and those that take their own sweet time. The latter may not be readily accessible, but eventually they do float to the surface, usually in the wee hours of the morning. My husband and I refer to them as “the 2 a.m. elbow-jab type,” something which happens in answer to a blank moment at the dinner table, when neither of us can recall a name or event, but which then pops up with a blaze of triumph at an ungodly hour.

    “It was (fill in the blank),” one of us will say with an elbow nudge. The only possible response is a muttered “Right. Thanks” as one turns over and goes back to sleep. Both of us may have forgotten the answer by morning, but at least we’ve had our moment of glory.

  • The National Institutes of Health’s Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx): When to Test Offers Free Online Tool to Help Individuals Make Informed COVID-19 Testing Decisions

    November 3, 2021

    When to Test offers free online tool to help individuals make informed COVID-19 testing decisions

    smart phone in person's hands
    The When To Test Calculator for Individuals; iStock image modified by L. Smith

    What:

    Demand is increasing for COVID-19 testing among individuals and families, especially as winter approaches and people shift to indoor activities. The National Institutes of Health’s Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) initiative today announced the launch of the When To Test Calculator for Individuals, a companion to the version for organizations introduced last winter. By responding to just a few prompts, the new individual impact calculator indicates whether a person should get a test — now or soon.  

    The When To Test Calculator for Individuals was developed and tested by computer modelers to help people determine if they are at risk of getting or transmitting COVID-19 based on just a few variables, such as vaccination status, transmission rates in the geographic area, and mitigation behaviors. The calculator includes answers to frequently asked questions and links both to resources on testing strategies and on obtaining supplies, including home tests.   

    The National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) supported development of the When To Test website and calculators through the RADx Tech program.  

    Who:

    About the Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx®) initiative: The RADx initiative was launched on April 29, 2020, to speed innovation in the development, commercialization, and implementation of technologies for COVID-19 testing. The initiative has four programs: RADx Tech, RADx Advanced Technology Platforms, RADx Underserved Populations and RADx Radical. It leverages the existing NIH Point-of-Care Technology Research Network. The RADx initiative partners with federal agencies, including the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health, Department of Defense, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Learn more about the RADx initiative and its programs.  

    About the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB): NIBIB’s mission is to improve health by leading the development and accelerating the application of biomedical technologies. The Institute is committed to integrating the physical and engineering sciences with the life sciences to advance basic research and medical care. NIBIB supports emerging technology research and development within its internal laboratories and through grants, collaborations, and training. More information is available at the NIBIB website

    About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation’s medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

    NIH…Turning Discovery Into Health®

  • The Federal Open Market Committee Statement: The Path of the Economy Continues to Depend On The Course Of The Virus

    November 03, 2021

    Federal Reserve issues FOMC statementMyths and Facts

    CDC image: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/facts.html

    The Federal Reserve is committed to using its full range of tools to support the U.S. economy in this challenging time, thereby promoting its maximum employment and price stability goals.

    With progress on vaccinations and strong policy support, indicators of economic activity and employment have continued to strengthen. The sectors most adversely affected by the pandemic have improved in recent months, but the summer’s rise in COVID-19 cases has slowed their recovery. Inflation is elevated, largely reflecting factors that are expected to be transitory. Supply and demand imbalances related to the pandemic and the reopening of the economy have contributed to sizable price increases in some sectors. Overall financial conditions remain accommodative, in part reflecting policy measures to support the economy and the flow of credit to U.S. households and businesses.

    The path of the economy continues to depend on the course of the virus. Progress on vaccinations and an easing of supply constraints are expected to support continued gains in economic activity and employment as well as a reduction in inflation. Risks to the economic outlook remain.

    The Committee seeks to achieve maximum employment and inflation at the rate of 2 percent over the longer run. With inflation having run persistently below this longer-run goal, the Committee will aim to achieve inflation moderately above 2 percent for some time so that inflation averages 2 percent over time and longer‑term inflation expectations remain well anchored at 2 percent. The Committee expects to maintain an accommodative stance of monetary policy until these outcomes are achieved. The Committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and expects it will be appropriate to maintain this target range until labor market conditions have reached levels consistent with the Committee’s assessments of maximum employment and inflation has risen to 2 percent and is on track to moderately exceed 2 percent for some time. In light of the substantial further progress the economy has made toward the Committee’s goals since last December, the Committee decided to begin reducing the monthly pace of its net asset purchases by $10 billion for Treasury securities and $5 billion for agency mortgage-backed securities. Beginning later this month, the Committee will increase its holdings of Treasury securities by at least $70 billion per month and of agency mortgage‑backed securities by at least $35 billion per month. Beginning in December, the Committee will increase its holdings of Treasury securities by at least $60 billion per month and of agency mortgage-backed securities by at least $30 billion per month. The Committee judges that similar reductions in the pace of net asset purchases will likely be appropriate each month, but it is prepared to adjust the pace of purchases if warranted by changes in the economic outlook. The Federal Reserve’s ongoing purchases and holdings of securities will continue to foster smooth market functioning and accommodative financial conditions, thereby supporting the flow of credit to households and businesses.

    In assessing the appropriate stance of monetary policy, the Committee will continue to monitor the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook. The Committee would be prepared to adjust the stance of monetary policy as appropriate if risks emerge that could impede the attainment of the Committee’s goals. The Committee’s assessments will take into account a wide range of information, including readings on public health, labor market conditions, inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and financial and international developments.

    Voting for the monetary policy action were Jerome H. Powell, Chair; John C. Williams, Vice Chair; Thomas I. Barkin; Raphael W. Bostic; Michelle W. Bowman; Lael Brainard; Richard H. Clarida; Mary C. Daly; Charles L. Evans; Randal K. Quarles; and Christopher J. Waller.

    Implementation Note issued November 3, 2021

    Last Update: November 03, 2021
  • GAO, COVID-19: State [Department] Carried Out Historic Repatriation Effort but Should Strengthen Its Preparedness for Future Crises

    GAO-22-104354; Published: Nov 02, 2021. Publicly Released: Nov 02, 2021.

     
    Fast Facts

    The State Department brought home more than 100,000 U.S. citizens and permanent residents from 137 countries during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Despite acting quickly to assist Americans abroad, State didn’t follow some of its own policies and didn’t have guidance needed for certain aspects of the effort. For example, State couldn’t show that the prices it charged passengers for some chartered flights complied with its fare policy because it didn’t have written guidance for calculating and documenting actual costs.

    Our recommendations to State could help to improve its preparedness for future repatriations during crises.

    (State Department personnel greet passengers and collect information before repatriation flights in India.)

    What GAO Found

    From January to June 2020, the Department of State carried out a historic effort in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, helping to repatriate more than 100,000 individuals who were in 137 countries. In the previous 5 years, State had repatriated fewer than 6,000 people. Most responses to a GAO survey of repatriated individuals expressed positive views of State’s communication, among other things, though some expressed concerns about matters such as the prices of repatriation flights. State reported learning several lessons from challenges it faced, such as the importance of using social media and cell phones to communicate with U.S. citizens.

    State Personnel Assisting with Repatriations in Tanzania (Left) and Montenegro (right)

    State Personnel Assisting with Repatriations in Tanzania (Left) and Montenegro (right)

    Despite acting swiftly to assist Americans abroad, State did not follow some of its policies and lacked guidance for certain aspects of its repatriation effort. For example, as of May 2021, an interagency group State established to coordinate plans to evacuate U.S. citizens abroad in emergencies had not met since April 2019, hampering interagency communication early in the crisis. Also, incomplete guidance for calculating and documenting actual costs of State-chartered flights led to missing or inconsistent documentation and limited State’s ability to show that the prices it charged passengers complied with its fare policy.

    Additionally, while State requires overseas posts to take steps to prepare for crises, its oversight of their preparedness has gaps.

    • State requires posts to update emergency action plans but does not ensure timely submission of those plans. In the 20 countries from which State helped repatriate the largest numbers of people, 17 of 30 posts did not submit their updated plans for certification within required time frames in 2020.
    • State requires posts to complete annual emergency preparedness drills, but does not ensure completion of the drills. In 2019, 16 of the 30 posts failed to complete all the drills within the required time frames.
    • State lacks a mechanism for assessing posts’ crisis preparedness. Though State encourages posts to assess their own preparedness annually, data from these assessments are not current or complete.

    As a result of these gaps, State lacks assurance that posts will be prepared to respond to a future global crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Why GAO Did This Study

    State provides repatriation assistance to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents abroad during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. State’s Office of Crisis Management and Strategy and Bureau of Consular Affairs were primarily responsible for State’s COVID-19 repatriation effort.

    The CARES Act includes a provision for GAO to report on its ongoing COVID-19 monitoring and oversight efforts. In addition, GAO was asked to examine State’s COVID-19 repatriation effort. This report examines, among other things, (1) the results of State’s repatriation effort, including lessons State reported learning from challenges it faced; (2) the consistency of selected aspects of State’s repatriation effort with its policies and procedures; and (3) State’s oversight of its overseas posts’ crisis preparedness.

    GAO reviewed relevant State documents, such as cables and guidance. GAO also interviewed State officials in Washington, D.C., and in Ghana, Honduras, India, Morocco, and Peru. In addition, GAO surveyed a generalizable sample of passengers repatriated on State-chartered flights.

    Skip to Recommendations

    Recommendations

    GAO is making six recommendations to improve State’s preparedness to repatriate U.S. citizens during crises—including three recommendations to improve agencywide preparedness and three to improve State’s oversight of posts’ preparedness. State agreed with all of the recommendations.

     

    Recommendations for Executive Action

    Agency Affected Recommendation Status
    Department of State The Secretary of State should ensure that the Deputy Director for CMS reconvenes quarterly meetings for the WLG, to maintain interagency communication regarding crisis preparedness and response. (Recommendation 1)
    Open
    When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Department of State The Secretary of State should ensure that the Deputy Director for CMS develops guidance for initiating task forces that is consistent with State’s policies and practices. (Recommendation 2)
    Open
    When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Department of State The Secretary of State should ensure that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs works with key stakeholders—including the Deputy Assistant Secretary for A/LM and Deputy Controller for CGFS—to develop guidance for systematically collecting information for, and formatting, flight manifests. (Recommendation 3)
    Open
    When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Department of State The Secretary of State should ensure that the Executive Secretary, the Under Secretary for Management (M), and the Under Secretary for Political Affairs work with the regional bureaus to develop a mechanism for ensuring that each post certifies required annual updates of its EAP as required by State policy. (Recommendation 4)
    Open
    When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Department of State The Secretary of State should ensure that the Executive Secretary, the Under Secretary for Management (M), and the Under Secretary for Political Affairs work with the regional bureaus to develop a mechanism for ensuring that each post completes, and documents completion of, required emergency preparedness drills. (Recommendation 5)
    Open
    When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Department of State The Secretary of State should ensure that the relevant bureaus and offices establish a mechanism to systematically assess overseas posts’ preparedness to respond to crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. (Recommendation 6)
    Open
    When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

    Full Report

     

    GAO Contacts