A New $16,000 Postpartum Depression Drug Is Here. How Will Insurers Handle It?

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

A much-awaited treatment for postpartum depression, zuranolone, hit the market in December, promising an accessible and fast-acting medication for a debilitating illness. But most private health insurers have yet to publish criteria for when they will cover it, according to a new analysis of insurance policies.

The lack of guidance could limit use of the drug, which is both novel — it targets hormone function to relieve symptoms instead of the brain’s serotonin system, as typical antidepressants do — and expensive, at $15,900 for the 14-day pill regimen.

Lawyers, advocates, and regulators are watching closely to see how insurance companies will shape policies for zuranolone because of how some handled its predecessor, an intravenous form of the same drug called brexanolone, which came on the market in 2019. Many insurers required patients to try other, cheaper medications first — known as the fail-first approach — before they could be approved for brexanolone, which was shown in early trials reviewed by the FDA to provide relief within days. Typical antidepressants take four to six weeks to take effect.

“We’ll have to see if insurers cover this drug and what fail-first requirements they put in” for zuranolone, said Meiram Bendat, a licensed psychotherapist and an attorney who represents patients.

Most health plans have yet to issue any guidelines for zuranolone, and maternal health advocates worry that the few that have are taking a restrictive approach. Some policies require that patients first try and fail a standard antidepressant before the insurer will pay for zuranolone.

In other cases, guidelines require psychiatrists to prescribe it, rather than obstetricians, potentially delaying treatment since OB-GYN practitioners are usually the first medical providers to see signs of postpartum depression.

Advocates are most worried about the lack of coverage guidance.

“If you don’t have a published policy, there is going to be more variation in decision-making that isn’t fair and is less efficient. Transparency is really important,” said Joy Burkhard, executive director of the nonprofit Policy Center for Maternal Mental Health, which commissioned the study.

With brexanolone, which was priced at $34,000 for the three-day infusion, California’s largest insurer, Kaiser Permanente, had such rigorous criteria for prescribing it that experts said the policy amounted to a blanket denial for all patients, according to an NPR investigation in 2021.

KP’s written guidelines required patients to try and fail four medications and electroconvulsive therapy before they would be eligible for brexanolone. Because the drug was approved only for up to six months postpartum, and trials of typical antidepressants take four to six weeks each, the clock would run out before a patient had time to try brexanolone.

An analysis by NPR of a dozen other health plans at the time showed Kaiser Permanente’s policy on brexanolone to be an outlier. Some did require that patients fail one or two other drugs first, but KP was the only one that recommended four.

Miriam McDonald, who developed severe postpartum depression and suicidal ideation after giving birth in late 2019, battled Kaiser Permanente for more than a year to find effective treatment. Her doctors put her on a merry-go-round of medications that didn’t work and often carried unbearable side effects, she said. Her doctors refused to prescribe brexanolone, the only FDA-approved medication specifically for postpartum depression at the time.

“No woman should suffer like I did after having a child,” McDonald said. “The policy was completely unfair. I was in purgatory.”

One month after NPR published its investigation, KP overhauled its criteria to recommend that women try just one medication before becoming eligible for brexanolone.

Then, in March 2023, after the federal Department of Labor launched an investigation into the insurer — citing NPR’s reporting — the insurer revised its brexanolone guidelines again, removing all fail-first recommendations, according to internal documents recently obtained by NPR. Patients need only decline a trial of another medication.

“Since brexanolone was first approved for use, more experience and research have added to information about its efficacy and safety,” the insurer said in a statement. “Kaiser Permanente is committed to ensuring brexanolone is available when physicians and patients determine it is an appropriate treatment.”

“Kaiser basically went from having the most restrictive policy to the most robust,” said Burkhard of the Policy Center for Maternal Mental Health. “It’s now a gold standard for the rest of the industry.”

McDonald is hopeful that her willingness to speak out and the subsequent regulatory actions and policy changes for brexanolone will lead Kaiser Permanente and other health plans to set patient-friendly policies for zuranolone.

“This will prevent other women from having to go through a year of depression to find something that works,” she said.

Clinicians were excited when the FDA approved zuranolone last August, believing the pill form, taken once a day at home over two weeks, will be more accessible to women compared with the three-day hospital stay for the IV infusion. Many perinatal psychiatrists told NPR it is imperative to treat postpartum depression as quickly as possible to avoid negative effects, including cognitive and social problems in the baby, anxiety or depression in the father or partner, or the death of the mother to suicide, which accounts for up to 20% of maternal deaths.

So far, only one of the country’s six largest private insurers, Centene, has set a policy for zuranolone. It is unclear what criteria KP will set for the new pill. California’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, has not yet established coverage criteria.

Insurers’ policies for zuranolone will be written at a time when the regulatory environment around mental health treatment is shifting. The U.S. Department of Labor is cracking down on violations of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, which requires insurers to cover psychiatric treatments the same as physical treatments.

Insurers must now comply with stricter reporting and auditing requirements intended to increase patient access to mental health care, which advocates hope will compel health plans to be more careful about the policies they write in the first place.

In California, insurers must also comply with an even broader state mental health parity law from 2021, which requires them to use clinically based, expert-recognized criteria and guidelines in making medical decisions. The law was designed to limit arbitrary or cost-driven denials for mental health treatments and has been hailed as a model for the rest of the country. Much-anticipated regulations for the law are expected to be released this spring and could offer further guidance for insurers in California setting policies for zuranolone.

In the meantime, Burkhard said, patients suffering from postpartum depression should not hold back from asking their doctors about zuranolone. Insurers can still grant access to the drug on a case-by-case basis before they formalize their coverage criteria.

“Providers shouldn’t be deterred from prescribing zuranolone,” Burkhard said. 

This article is from a partnership that includes KQEDNPR and KFF Health News.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • Cancer is increasingly survivable – but it shouldn’t depend on your ability to ‘wrangle’ the health system
  • Thinking about trying physiotherapy for endometriosis pain? Here’s what to expect
    Endometriosis affects millions, but physiotherapy offers hope for pain relief and improved quality of life despite no cure. Here’s what to expect from treatments.

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Butter vs Plant Oils: What The Latest Evidence Shows

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    We’ve done some relevant head-to-head comparisons before in our “This or That” section:

    We also did a deeper-dive into butter vs margarine:

    Butter vs Margarine – Mythbusting Edition ← this one clears up a lot of misinformation about both butter and margarine

    As well as: Saturated Fats: What’s The Truth? Can Saturated Fats Be Healthy?

    So, we’re not coming into this one today unawares, and/but it’s an interesting comparison we haven’t directly written about before: butter vs plant oils in general

    The Study

    It was a JAMA Internal Medicine cohort study, which followed 221,054 adults (average age 56 at the start of the study, with a standard deviation of 7 years from that age) for up to 33 years.

    Why “up to”? Because not everybody survived the study.

    Specifically, 50,932 deaths were recorded, including 12,241 from cancer and 11,240 from cardiovascular disease (CVD).

    Participants were categorized into quartiles based on butter or plant-based oil intake, and…

    • The highest quartile (i.e. the 25% of people who consumed the most) butter intake linked to a 15% higher total mortality.
    • The highest quartile (i.e. the 25% of people who consumed the most) plant-based oil intake linked to a 16% lower total mortality.

    But, if those are the opposite ends of the spectrum, what about smaller differences?

    Every 10g/day increase in consumption of plant-based oils yielded…

    • 11% lower cancer mortality.
    • 6% lower CVD mortality.

    Meanwhile, 10g/day increase in butter consumption yielded…

    • 12% higher cancer mortality.
    • 17% higher CVD mortality.

    These benefits must have a cap (after all, one cannot just drink liters of olive oil per day for for a 3400% decrease in mortality), but that cap was not ascertained, because there was no group drinking liters of plant oils per day, not even for science.

    However, in the realm of small changes, substituting even 10g/intake of total butter with an equivalent amount of plant-based oils yielded 17% lower total mortality.

    You can read the study in full, here: Butter and Plant-Based Oils Intake and Mortality

    “So, what about the surely great difference between seed oils and olive oil?”

    Compared the the vast gaping statistical chasm that lay between the results of butter and the results of plant oils, which plant oil one chooses doesn’t make a huge difference, iff one isn’t consuming a large amount—the important thing was skipping butter in favor of a plant oil of some kind.

    Note also that, for example, deep-frying a starchy food like potatoes will cause the resultant fries (or such), even if not visibly oily, to now have about 10–15% of their original weight in water, replaced with oil. So, 100g (about 3oz) of fries may have around 10-15g oil. Obviously, this does depend on the cut and other factors, but that’s a ballpark figure.

    Here’s a lengthier discussion about seed oils than we have room for today:

    If you’re worried about inflammation, stop stressing about seed oils and focus on the basics ← in other words, yes it counts, but there are other things that count a lot more, such that if you’re paying attention to the other things, the fact that you sprayed your wok with a little canola oil before stir-frying those vegetables isn’t going to make a meaningful difference.

    An as for olive oil? It’s a famously healthy oil, and certainly a candidate for the top spot along with avocado oil*:

    All About Olive Oil ← we talk lipids, polyphenols, virginity, and more!

    *…and it’s worth noting that these two oils’ (excellent) lipids profiles are very similar, meaning that the main factor between them is that olive oil usually retains vitamins that avocado oil doesn’t.

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Why Some People Get Sick More (And How To Not Be One Of Them)

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Some people have never yet had COVID (so far so good, this writer included); others are on their third bout already; others have not been so lucky and are no longer with us to share their stories.

    Obviously, even the healthiest and/or most careful person can get sick, and it would be folly to be complacent and think “I’m not a person who gets sick; that happens to other people”.

    Nor is COVID the only thing out there to worry about; there’s always the latest outbreak-du-jour of something, and there are always the perennials such as cold and flu—which are also not to be underestimated, because both weaken us to other things, and flu has killed very many, from the 50,000,000+ in the 1918 pandemic, to the 700,000ish that it kills each year nowadays.

    And then there are the combination viruses:

    Move over, COVID and Flu! We Have “Hybrid Viruses” To Contend With Now

    So, why are some people more susceptible?

    Firstly, some people are simply immunocompromised. This means for example that:

    • perhaps they have an inflammatory/autoimmune disease of some kind (e.g. lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, type 1 diabetes), or…
    • perhaps they are taking immunosuppressants for some reason (e.g. because they had an organ transplant), or…
    • perhaps they have a primary infection that leaves them vulnerable to secondary infections. Most infections will do this to some degree or another, but some are worse for it than others; untreated HIV is a clear example. The HIV itself may not kill people, but (if untreated) the resultant AIDS will leave a person open to being killed by almost any passing opportunistic pathogen. Pneumonia of various kinds being high on the list, but it could even be something as simple as the common cold, without a working immune system to fight it.

    See also: How To Prevent (Or Reduce) Inflammation

    And for that matter, since pneumonia is a very common last-nail-in-the-coffin secondary infection (especially: older people going into hospital with one thing, getting a secondary infection and ultimately dying as a result), it’s particularly important to avoid that, so…

    See also: Pneumonia: What We Can & Can’t Do About It

    Secondly, some people are not immunocompromised per the usual definition of the word, but their immune system is, arguably, compromised.

    Cortisol, the stress hormone, is an immunosuppressant. We need cortisol to live, but we only need it in small bursts here and there (such as when we are waking up the morning). When high cortisol levels become chronic, so too does cortisol’s immunosuppressant effect.

    Top things that cause elevated cortisol levels include:

    • Stress
    • Alcohol
    • Smoking

    Thus, the keys here are to 1) not smoke 2) not drink, ideally, or at least keep consumption low, but honestly even one drink will elevate cortisol levels, so it’s better not to, and 3) manage stress.

    See also: Lower Your Cortisol! (Here’s Why & How)

    Other modifiable factors

    Being aware of infection risk and taking steps to reduce it (e.g. avoiding being with many people in confined indoor places, masking as appropriate, handwashing frequently) is a good preventative strategy, along with of course getting any recommended vaccines as they come available.

    What if they fail? How can we boost the immune system?

    We talked about not sabotaging the immune system, but what about actively boosting it? The answer is yes, we certainly can (barring serious medical reasons why not), as there are some very important lifestyle factors too:

    Beyond Supplements: The Real Immune-Boosters!

    One final last-line thing…

    Since if we do get an infection, it’s better to know sooner rather than later… A recent study shows that wearable activity trackers can (if we pay attention to the right things) help predict disease, including highlighting COVID status (positive or negative) about as accurately (88% accuracy) as rapid screening tests. Here’s a pop-science article about it:

    Wearable activity trackers show promise in detecting early signals of disease

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • In Vermont, Where Almost Everyone Has Insurance, Many Can’t Find or Afford Care

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    RICHMOND, Vt. — On a warm autumn morning, Roger Brown walked through a grove of towering trees whose sap fuels his maple syrup business. He was checking for damage after recent flooding. But these days, his workers’ health worries him more than his trees’.

    The cost of Slopeside Syrup’s employee health insurance premiums spiked 24% this year. Next year it will rise 14%.

    The jumps mean less money to pay workers, and expensive insurance coverage that doesn’t ensure employees can get care, Brown said. “Vermont is seen as the most progressive state, so how is health care here so screwed up?”

    Vermont consistently ranks among the healthiest states, and its unemployment and uninsured rates are among the lowest. Yet Vermonters pay the highest prices nationwide for individual health coverage, and state reports show its providers and insurers are in financial trouble. Nine of the state’s 14 hospitals are losing money, and the state’s largest insurer is struggling to remain solvent. Long waits for care have become increasingly common, according to state reports and interviews with residents and industry officials.

    Rising health costs are a problem across the country, but Vermont’s situation surprises health experts because virtually all its residents have insurance and the state regulates care and coverage prices.

    For more than 15 years, federal and state policymakers have focused on increasing the number of people insured, which they expected would shore up hospital finances and make care more available and affordable.

    “Vermont’s struggles are a wake-up call that insurance is only one piece of the puzzle to ensuring access to care,” said Keith Mueller, a rural health expert at the University of Iowa.

    Regulators and consultants say the state’s small, aging population of about 650,000 makes spreading insurance risk difficult. That demographic challenge is compounded by geography, as many Vermonters live in rural areas, where it’s difficult to attract more health workers to address shortages.

    At least part of the cost spike can be attributed to patients crossing state lines for quicker care in New York and Massachusetts. Those visits can be more expensive for both insurers and patients because of long ambulance rides and charges from out-of-network providers.

    Patients who stay, like Lynne Drevik, face long waits. Drevik said her doctor told her in April that she needed knee replacement surgeries — but the earliest appointment would be in January for one knee and the following April for the other.

    Drevik, 59, said it hurts to climb the stairs in the 19th-century farmhouse in Montgomery Center she and her husband operate as an inn and a spa. “My life is on hold here, and it’s hard to make any plans,” she said. “It’s terrible.”

    Health experts say some of the state’s health system troubles are self-inflicted.

    Unlike most states, Vermont regulates hospital and insurance prices through an independent agency, the Green Mountain Care Board. Until recently, the board typically approved whatever price changes companies wanted, said Julie Wasserman, a health consultant in Vermont.

    The board allowed one health system — the University of Vermont Health Network — to control about two-thirds of the state’s hospital market and allowed its main facility, the University of Vermont Medical Center in Burlington, to raise its prices until it ranked among the nation’s most expensive, she said, citing data the board presented in September.

    Hospital officials contend their prices are no higher than industry averages.

    But for 2025, the board required the University of Vermont Medical Center to cut the prices it bills private insurers by 1%.

    The nonprofit system says it is navigating its own challenges. Top officials say a severe lack of housing makes it hard to recruit workers, while too few mental health providers, nursing homes, and long-term care services often create delays in discharging patients, adding to costs.

    Two-thirds of the system’s patients are covered by Medicare or Medicaid, said CEO Sunny Eappen. Both government programs pay providers lower rates than private insurance, which Eappen said makes it difficult to afford rising prices for drugs, medical devices, and labor.

    Officials at the University of Vermont Medical Center point to several ways they are trying to adapt. They cited, for example, $9 million the hospital system has contributed to the construction of two large apartment buildings to house new workers, at a subsidized price for lower-income employees.

    The hospital also has worked with community partners to open a mental health urgent care center, providing an alternative to the emergency room.

    In the ER, curtains separate areas in the hallway where patients can lie on beds or gurneys for hours waiting for a room. The hospital also uses what was a storage closet as an overflow room to provide care.

    “It’s good to get patients into a hallway, as it’s better than a chair,” said Mariah McNamara, an ER doctor and associate chief medical officer with the hospital.

    For the about 250 days a year when the hospital is full, doctors face pressure to discharge patients without the ideal home or community care setup, she said. “We have to go in the direction of letting you go home without patient services and giving that a try, because otherwise the hospital is going to be full of people, and that includes people that don’t need to be here,” McNamara said.

    Searching for solutions, the Green Mountain Care Board hired a consultant who recommended a number of changes, including converting four rural hospitals into outpatient facilities, in a worst-case scenario, and consolidating specialty services at several others.

    The consultant, Bruce Hamory, said in a call with reporters that his report provides a road map for Vermont, where “the health care system is no match for demographic, workforce, and housing challenges.”

    But he cautioned that any fix would require sacrifice from everyone, including patients, employers, and health providers. “There is no simple single policy solution,” he said.

    One place Hamory recommended converting to an outpatient center only was North Country Hospital in Newport, a village in Vermont’s least populated region, known as the Northeast Kingdom.

    The 25-bed hospital has lost money for years, partly because of an electronic health record system that has made it difficult to bill patients. But the hospital also has struggled to attract providers and make enough money to pay them.

    Officials said they would fight any plans to close the hospital, which recently dropped several specialty services, including pulmonology, neurology, urology, and orthopedics. It doesn’t have the cash to upgrade patient rooms to include bathroom doors wide enough for wheelchairs.

    On a recent morning, CEO Tom Frank walked the halls of his hospital. The facility was quiet, with just 14 admitted patients and only a couple of people in the ER. “This place used to be bustling,” he said of the former pulmonology clinic.

    Frank said the hospital breaks even treating Medicare patients, loses money treating Medicaid patients, and makes money from a dwindling number of privately insured patients.

    The state’s strict regulations have earned it an antihousing, antibusiness reputation, he said. “The cost of health care is a symptom of a larger problem.”

    About 30 miles south of Newport, Andy Kehler often worries about the cost of providing health insurance to the 85 workers at Jasper Hill Farm, the cheesemaking business he co-owns.

    “It’s an issue every year for us, and it looks like there is no end in sight,” he said.

    Jasper Hill pays half the cost of its workers’ health insurance premiums because that’s all it can afford, Kehler said. Employees pay $1,700 a month for a family, with a $5,000 deductible.

    “The coverage we provide is inadequate for what you pay,” he said.

     

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

    Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

    This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Cancer is increasingly survivable – but it shouldn’t depend on your ability to ‘wrangle’ the health system
  • How do I handle it if my parent is refusing aged care? 4 things to consider

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    It’s a shock when we realise our parents aren’t managing well at home.

    Perhaps the house and garden are looking more chaotic, and Mum or Dad are relying more on snacks than nutritious meals. Maybe their grooming or hygiene has declined markedly, they are socially isolated or not doing the things they used to enjoy. They may be losing weight, have had a fall, aren’t managing their medications correctly, and are at risk of getting scammed.

    You’re worried and you want them to be safe and healthy. You’ve tried to talk to them about aged care but been met with swift refusal and an indignant declaration “I don’t need help – everything is fine!” Now what?

    Here are four things to consider.

    1. Start with more help at home

    Getting help and support at home can help keep Mum or Dad well and comfortable without them needing to move.

    Consider drawing up a roster of family and friends visiting to help with shopping, cleaning and outings. You can also use home aged care services – or a combination of both.

    Government subsidised home care services provide from one to 13 hours of care a week. You can get more help if you are a veteran or are able to pay privately. You can take advantage of things like rehabilitation, fall risk-reduction programs, personal alarms, stove automatic switch-offs and other technology aimed at increasing safety.

    Call My Aged Care to discuss your options.

    An older man with a serious expression on his face looks out a window.
    Is Mum or Dad OK at home?
    Nadino/Shutterstock

    2. Be prepared for multiple conversations

    Getting Mum or Dad to accept paid help can be tricky. Many families often have multiple conversations around aged care before a decision is made.

    Ideally, the older person feels supported rather than attacked during these conversations.

    Some families have a meeting, so everyone is coming together to help. In other families, certain family members or friends might be better placed to have these conversations – perhaps the daughter with the health background, or the auntie or GP who Mum trusts more to provide good advice.

    Mum or Dad’s main emotional support person should try to maintain their relationship. It’s OK to get someone else (like the GP, the hospital or an adult child) to play “bad cop”, while a different person (such as the older person’s spouse, or a different adult child) plays “good cop”.

    3. Understand the options when help at home isn’t enough

    If you have maximised home support and it’s not enough, or if the hospital won’t discharge Mum or Dad without extensive supports, then you may be considering a nursing home (also known as residential aged care in Australia).

    Every person has a legal right to choose where we live (unless they have lost capacity to make that decision).

    This means families can’t put Mum or Dad into residential aged care against their will. Every person also has the right to choose to take risks. People can choose to continue to live at home, even if it means they might not get help immediately if they fall, or eat poorly. We should respect Mum or Dad’s decisions, even if we disagree with them. Researchers call this “dignity of risk”.

    It’s important to understand Mum or Dad’s point of view. Listen to them. Try to figure out what they are feeling, and what they are worried might happen (which might not be rational).

    Try to understand what’s really important to their quality of life. Is it the dog, having privacy in their safe space, seeing grandchildren and friends, or something else?

    Older people are often understandably concerned about losing independence, losing control, and having strangers in their personal space.

    Sometimes families prioritise physical health over psychological wellbeing. But we need to consider both when considering nursing home admission.

    Research suggests going into a nursing home temporarily increases loneliness, risk of depression and anxiety, and sense of losing control.

    Mum and Dad should be involved in the decision-making process about where they live, and when they might move.

    Some families start looking “just in case” as it often takes some time to find the right nursing home and there can be a wait.

    After you have your top two or three choices, take Mum or Dad to visit them. If this is not possible, take pictures of the rooms, the public areas in the nursing home, the menu and the activities schedule.

    We should give Mum or Dad information about their options and risks so they can make informed (and hopefully better) decisions.

    For instance, if they visit a nursing home and the manager says they can go on outings whenever they want, this might dispel a belief they are “locked up”.

    Having one or two weeks “respite” in a home may let them try it out before making the big decision about staying permanently. And if they find the place unacceptable, they can try another nursing home instead.

    An older Asian woman sits with her daughter.
    You might need to have multiple conversations about aged care.
    CGN089/Shutterstock

    4. Understand the options if a parent has lost capacity to make decisions

    If Mum or Dad have lost capacity to choose where they live, family may be able to make that decision in their best interests.

    If it’s not clear whether a person has capacity to make a particular decision, a medical practitioner can assess for that capacity.

    Mum or Dad may have appointed an enduring guardian to make decisions about their health and lifestyle decisions when they are not able to.

    An enduring guardian can make the decision that the person should live in residential aged care, if the person no longer has the capacity to make that decision themselves.

    If Mum or Dad didn’t appoint an enduring guardian, and have lost capacity, then a court or tribunal can appoint that person a private guardian (usually a family member, close friend or unpaid carer).

    If no such person is available to act as private guardian, a public official may be appointed as public guardian.

    Deal with your own feelings

    Families often feel guilt and grief during the decision-making and transition process.

    Families need to act in the best interest of Mum or Dad, but also balance other caring responsibilities, financial priorities and their own wellbeing.The Conversation

    Lee-Fay Low, Professor in Ageing and Health, University of Sydney

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Skin Care Down There (Incl. Butt Acne, Hyperpigmentation, & More)

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Dr. Sam Ellis, dermatologist, gives us the low-down:

    Where the sun don’t shine

    Common complaints and remedies that Dr. Ellis covers in this video include:

    • Butt acne/folliculitis: most butt breakouts are actually folliculitis, not traditional acne. Folliculitis is caused by friction, sitting for long periods, or wearing tight clothes. Solutions include antimicrobial washes like benzoyl peroxide and changing sitting habits (i.e. to sit less)
    • Keratosis pilaris: rough bumps around hair follicles can appear on the butt, often confused with acne.
    • Boils and abscesses: painful, large lumps; these need medical attention for drainage.
    • Hidradenitis suppurativa: recurrent painful cysts and boils in skin creases, often in the groin and buttocks. These require medical intervention and treatment.
    • Ingrown hairs: are common in people who shave or wax. Treat with warm compresses and gentle exfoliants.
    • Hyperpigmentation: is often caused by hormonal changes, friction, or other irritation. Laser hair removal and gentle chemical exfoliants can help.

    In the event that the sun does, in fact, shine on your genitals (for example you sunbathe nude and have little or no pubic hair), then sun protection is essential to prevent further darkening (and also, incidentally, reduce the risk of cancer).

    For more on all of this, plus a general introduction to skincare in the bikini zone (i.e. if everything’s fine there right now and you’d like to keep it that way), enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like to read:

    The Evidence-Based Skincare That Beats Product-Specific Hype

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • 4 Ways Vaccine Skeptics Mislead You on Measles and More

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Measles is on the rise in the United States. In the first quarter of this year, the number of cases was about 17 times what it was, on average, during the same period in each of the four years before, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Half of the people infected — mainly children — have been hospitalized.

    It’s going to get worse, largely because a growing number of parents are deciding not to get their children vaccinated against measles as well as diseases like polio and pertussis. Unvaccinated people, or those whose immunization status is unknown, account for 80% of the measles cases this year. Many parents have been influenced by a flood of misinformation spouted by politicians, podcast hosts, and influential figures on television and social media. These personalities repeat decades-old notions that erode confidence in the established science backing routine childhood vaccines. KFF Health News examined the rhetoric and explains why it’s misguided:

    The No-Big-Deal Trope

    A common distortion is that vaccines aren’t necessary because the diseases they prevent are not very dangerous, or too rare to be of concern. Cynics accuse public health officials and the media of fear-mongering about measles even as 19 states report cases.

    For example, an article posted on the website of the National Vaccine Information Center — a regular source of vaccine misinformation — argued that a resurgence in concern about the disease “is ‘sky is falling’ hype.” It went on to call measles, mumps, chicken pox, and influenza “politically incorrect to get.”

    Measles kills roughly 2 of every 1,000 children infected, according to the CDC. If that seems like a bearable risk, it’s worth pointing out that a far larger portion of children with measles will require hospitalization for pneumonia and other serious complications. For every 10 measles cases, one child with the disease develops an ear infection that can lead to permanent hearing loss. Another strange effect is that the measles virus can destroy a person’s existing immunity, meaning they’ll have a harder time recovering from influenza and other common ailments.

    Measles vaccines have averted the deaths of about 94 million people, mainly children, over the past 50 years, according to an April analysis led by the World Health Organization. Together with immunizations against polio and other diseases, vaccines have saved an estimated 154 million lives globally.

    Some skeptics argue that vaccine-preventable diseases are no longer a threat because they’ve become relatively rare in the U.S. (True — due to vaccination.) This reasoning led Florida’s surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, to tell parents that they could send their unvaccinated children to school amid a measles outbreak in February. “You look at the headlines and you’d think the sky was falling,” Ladapo said on a News Nation newscast. “There’s a lot of immunity.”

    As this lax attitude persuades parents to decline vaccination, the protective group immunity will drop, and outbreaks will grow larger and faster. A rapid measles outbreak hit an undervaccinated population in Samoa in 2019, killing 83 people within four months. A chronic lack of measles vaccination in the Democratic Republic of the Congo led to more than 5,600 people dying from the disease in massive outbreaks last year.

    The ‘You Never Know’ Trope

    Since the earliest days of vaccines, a contingent of the public has considered them bad because they’re unnatural, as compared with nature’s bounty of infections and plagues. “Bad” has been redefined over the decades. In the 1800s, vaccine skeptics claimed that smallpox vaccines caused people to sprout horns and behave like beasts. More recently, they blame vaccines for ailments ranging from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder to autism to immune system disruption. Studies don’t back the assertions. However, skeptics argue that their claims remain valid because vaccines haven’t been adequately tested.

    In fact, vaccines are among the most studied medical interventions. Over the past century, massive studies and clinical trials have tested vaccines during their development and after their widespread use. More than 12,000 people took part in clinical trials of the most recent vaccine approved to prevent measles, mumps, and rubella. Such large numbers allow researchers to detect rare risks, which are a major concern because vaccines are given to millions of healthy people.

    To assess long-term risks, researchers sift through reams of data for signals of harm. For example, a Danish group analyzed a database of more than 657,000 children and found that those who had been vaccinated against measles as babies were no more likely to later be diagnosed with autism than those who were not vaccinated. In another study, researchers analyzed records from 805,000 children born from 1990 through 2001 and found no evidence to back a concern that multiple vaccinations might impair children’s immune systems.

    Nonetheless, people who push vaccine misinformation, like candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., dismiss massive, scientifically vetted studies. For example, Kennedy argues that clinical trials of new vaccines are unreliable because vaccinated kids aren’t compared with a placebo group that gets saline solution or another substance with no effect. Instead, many modern trials compare updated vaccines with older ones. That’s because it’s unethical to endanger children by giving them a sham vaccine when the protective effect of immunization is known. In a 1950s clinical trial of polio vaccines, 16 children in the placebo group died of polio and 34 were paralyzed, said Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and author of a book on the first polio vaccine.

    The Too-Much-Too-Soon Trope

    Several bestselling vaccine books on Amazon promote the risky idea that parents should skip or delay their children’s vaccines. “All vaccines on the CDC’s schedule may not be right for all children at all times,” writes Paul Thomas in his bestselling book “The Vaccine-Friendly Plan.” He backs up this conviction by saying that children who have followed “my protocol are among the healthiest in the world.”

    Since the book was published, Thomas’ medical license was temporarily suspended in Oregon and Washington. The Oregon Medical Board documented how Thomas persuaded parents to skip vaccines recommended by the CDC, and reported that he “reduced to tears” a mother who disagreed.  Several children in his care came down with pertussis and rotavirus, diseases easily prevented by vaccines, wrote the board. Thomas recommended fish oil supplements and homeopathy to an unvaccinated child with a deep scalp laceration, rather than an emergency tetanus vaccine. The boy developed severe tetanus, landing in the hospital for nearly two months, where he required intubation, a tracheotomy, and a feeding tube to survive.

    The vaccination schedule recommended by the CDC has been tailored to protect children at their most vulnerable points in life and minimize side effects. The combination measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine isn’t given for the first year of a baby’s life because antibodies temporarily passed on from their mother can interfere with the immune response. And because some babies don’t generate a strong response to that first dose, the CDC recommends a second one around the time a child enters kindergarten because measles and other viruses spread rapidly in group settings.

    Delaying MMR doses much longer may be unwise because data suggests that children vaccinated at 10 or older have a higher chance of adverse reactions, such as a seizure or fatigue.

    Around a dozen other vaccines have discrete timelines, with overlapping windows for the best response. Studies have shown that MMR vaccines may be given safely and effectively in combination with other vaccines.

    ’They Don’t Want You to Know’ Trope

    Kennedy compares the Florida surgeon general to Galileo in the introduction to Ladapo’s new book on transcending fear in public health. Just as the Roman Catholic inquisition punished the renowned astronomer for promoting theories about the universe, Kennedy suggests that scientific institutions oppress dissenting voices on vaccines for nefarious reasons.

    “The persecution of scientists and doctors who dare to challenge contemporary orthodoxies is not a new phenomenon,” Kennedy writes. His running mate, lawyer Nicole Shanahan, has campaigned on the idea that conversations about vaccine harms are censored and the CDC and other federal agencies hide data due to corporate influence.

    Claims like “they don’t want you to know” aren’t new among the anti-vaccine set, even though the movement has long had an outsize voice. The most listened-to podcast in the U.S., “The Joe Rogan Experience,” regularly features guests who cast doubt on scientific consensus. Last year on the show, Kennedy repeated the debunked claim that vaccines cause autism.

    Far from ignoring that concern, epidemiologists have taken it seriously. They have conducted more than a dozen studies searching for a link between vaccines and autism, and repeatedly found none. “We have conclusively disproven the theory that vaccines are connected to autism,” said Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia. “So, the public health establishment tends to shut those conversations down quickly.”

    Federal agencies are transparent about seizures, arm pain, and other reactions that vaccines can cause. And the government has a program to compensate individuals whose injuries are scientifically determined to result from them. Around 1 to 3.5 out of every million doses of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine can cause a life-threatening allergic reaction; a person’s lifetime risk of death by lightning is estimated to be as much as four times as high.

    “The most convincing thing I can say is that my daughter has all her vaccines and that every pediatrician and public health person I know has vaccinated their kids,” Meyerowitz-Katz said. “No one would do that if they thought there were serious risks.”

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

    Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: