Latest news with #JAMAHealthForum
News18
25 minutes ago
- Health
- News18
How Many Lives Did Covid-19 Vaccines Save? New Global Study Reveals The Numbers
Last Updated: According to the research, 82% of the lives saved involved individuals who had received the vaccine before being infected by the coronavirus A new international study has revealed that Covid-19 vaccines saved more than 25 lakh lives between 2020 and 2024, highlighting the profound global impact of mass immunisation efforts during the pandemic. The study, published in the JAMA Health Forum, was jointly conducted by researchers from Universita Cattolica in Italy and Stanford University in the US. It estimates that around 25.33 lakh lives were spared due to vaccination, with one death averted for every 5,400 doses administered. Covid-19 first emerged in Wuhan, China, in late 2019 and swept across the globe within months, triggering unprecedented health, economic, and social crises. In response, scientists raced to develop vaccines, and by the end of 2020, several versions were rolled out worldwide. Billions received two primary doses, with many also taking booster shots. While questions were occasionally raised about the vaccine's long-term effects, particularly concerning heart-related issues, health experts repeatedly dismissed such claims, maintaining that the benefits far outweighed any rare side effects. The new study offers quantitative backing to those assertions. Elderly Benefited Most The researchers found the vaccine's impact was most significant among those aged 60 and above. In this age group, the vaccine prevented 90% of potential deaths. Of the estimated 1.48 crore life-years saved globally, 76% were among the elderly. Moreover, 82% of the lives saved involved individuals who had received the vaccine before being infected by the virus. The protection was particularly evident during the Omicron wave, a highly infectious phase of the pandemic that alone accounted for 57% of the prevented deaths. Limited Impact on Children and Youth In contrast, the benefit of vaccination among children and young adults was marginal, largely due to their lower baseline risk of death from Covid-19. For individuals aged 0 to 19, the number of lives saved was just 0.01%, while life-years saved stood at 0.1%. For those aged 20 to 29, deaths prevented amounted to 0.07%, with 0.3% life-years gained. Global Data, Comprehensive Scope The study was led by Professor Stefania Boccia from Universita Cattolica, in collaboration with Dr Angelo Maria Pezzullo and Dr Antonio Christiano, both affiliated with Stanford University under a European research initiative. Their analysis drew on global data concerning Covid-19 infections, mortality, and vaccine distribution. Using statistical modelling, the team estimated how many more people might have died in a scenario without vaccines. What sets this study apart is its scale and scope. It is the first global research effort covering the full timeline of the pandemic – from the early days in 2020 through to 2024. It not only compares outcomes among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations but also measures the difference in impact across different virus variants, especially before and after Omicron emerged. Beyond deaths prevented, the research also sheds light on the concept of 'life-years saved", a measure that considers not just whether a life was saved, but how many more years that person might live. This adds further depth to understanding the vaccine's role in mitigating the Covid-19 pandemic's toll. view comments First Published: July 29, 2025, 15:03 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Politico
16 hours ago
- Health
- Politico
NIH spending battle's ripple effect
FOLLOW THE MONEY Cuts to the National Institutes of Health's budget would have sweeping implications for the broader economic and biomedical ecosystems, MIT and Harvard researchers argue. To reach that conclusion, published Friday in JAMA Health Forum, the researchers analyzed potential NIH budget cuts and 37 studies and reports on NIH funding, biomedical innovation and economic impacts, as well as news coverage from January to April 16, 2025, to show the cuts' effects. They used that data to develop a causal loop diagram, which illustrates how variables in a system are interconnected, to show the effects. While budget reductions in the loop appeared straightforward, innovation, personnel and health care costs would be impacted by decreased funding. Among their key findings: — Reducing the fundamental research that drives discoveries could slow future innovation. — Fewer NIH-funded trainings and career opportunities for scientists could shrink the future biomedical workforce. — More private-sector research and development would likely increase medical innovation costs and drive higher health care spending. 'Reducing NIH budget doesn't just mean fewer grants; it means fewer trainees entering the pipeline, slower progress on treatments, more reliance on expensive late-stage care and weakened capacity for public health,' co-authors Mohammad Jalali and Zeynep Hasgul told Erin in an email. 'These changes build on each other, creating ripple effects that may not be obvious at first but can grow quickly.' The authors described several limitations in their analysis. It simplifies complex relationships among NIH funding, scientific progress and economic outcomes and might not fully capture whether private-sector investment can compensate for reduced public funding. It also doesn't account for global health impacts, such as the Trump administration's cuts to the World Health Organization. 'Washington has thrown billions at NIH for decades with little accountability and few measurable outcomes,' HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in a statement to Future Pulse. 'Cutting waste isn't the same as cutting science — it's how you make room for real innovation. We're focused on doing more with less, funding what works, and delivering results the public can actually see.' Bottom line: The White House has proposed a roughly 40 percent budget cut for the NIH. And while it doesn't appear likely that the House or Senate bills will contain such a drastic cut, Jalali and Hasgul have a suggestion for lawmakers. Before making large-scale funding cuts, they should ask themselves: What else do these cuts affect? 'Even if the goal is fiscal discipline, it's worth distinguishing between cuts that reduce waste and those that undercut long-term capacity,' Jalali and Hasgul said. 'It's worth remembering that NIH is not just a funding line,' they added. 'It's the backbone of the nation's research infrastructure. Like roads or energy grids, research systems take time to build and are costly to repair once broken.' WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. African universities risk being left behind in the artificial intelligence era, Semafor reports. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Carmen Paun at cpaun@ Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: CarmenP.82, RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. INFLUENCERS Online privacy and harassment expert Danielle Citron sat down for a conversation with our colleague Aaron Mak and revealed which technologies she thinks are underhyped and which are overhyped (we're looking at you, AI). Citron is a University of Virginia School of Law professor and has received the MacArthur Foundation's 'Genius Grant' for her work on sexual privacy on online platforms. She's convinced that 'we're underleveraging where it most matters, and we're overleveraging on fake promises.' She also had some advice for the government on what it could be doing about tech right now that it isn't. As tech companies have dismantled many safety features in their systems, the government is missing the mark by not implementing the precautionary principle, she explained. 'I thought we'd learned our lessons. We built cars without seat belts, and a lot of people died. And then the car industry faced liability. They then had to internalize the costs.' Read Citron's full conversation with Mak in Digital Future Daily.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Health
- Time of India
Over 25 lakh deaths averted worldwide due to COVID-19 vaccinations, study estimates
New Delhi: COVID-19 vaccines helped prevent more than 25 lakh deaths across the world between 2020 and 2024 -- for every 5,400 doses administered, one death was averted, estimates a study. Findings published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Health Forum "clearly demonstrate a major overall benefit from COVID-19 vaccination during the years 2020-2024", with 90 per cent of the life-saving benefits secured for the world's older adults. Researchers from the Catholic University of Milan, Italy, and US' Stanford University analysed publicly available data on worldwide population to estimate number of people who died due to COVID-19 and whether they died before or after getting vaccinated. "We compared this data with the estimated data modelled in the absence of COVID-19 vaccination and were then able to calculate the numbers of people who were saved by COVID-19 vaccines and the years of life gained as a result of them," author Angelo Maria Pezzullo, researcher in general and applied hygiene, Catholic University of Milan, said. The team also found that the 82 per cent of the lives saved by vaccines involved people getting the shots before encountering the virus, 57 per cent during the Omicron period, and 90 per cent of the lives saved involved people aged 60 years and older. COVID-19 vaccinations also helped save 14.8 million years of life -- a year of life saved for every 900 vaccine shots administered, the researchers said. Further, about three-quarters of the years of life saved were related to people aged 60 and above. "Before ours, several studies tried to estimate lives saved by vaccines with different models and in different periods or parts of the world," author Stefania Boccia, professor of general and applied hygiene at the Catholic University of Milan, said. However, "this one is the most comprehensive because it is based on worldwide data, it also covers the Omicron period, it also calculates the number of years of life that was saved, and it is based on fewer assumptions about the pandemic trend," Boccia said. The authors wrote, "In the main analysis, more than 2.5 million deaths were averted (one death averted per 5,400 vaccine doses administered). Eighty-two percent were among people vaccinated before any infection, 57 per cent were during the Omicron period, and 90 per cent pertained to people 60 years or older." In an invited commentary article, published in JAMA Health Forum, Monica Gandhi from the University of California San Francisco's Center for AIDS Research writes, "Vaccines save lives and the only way to get through this pandemic was always immunity; it is much safer to provide immunity to an older person through a vaccine than through natural infection." Gandhi added that in the prospect of a future pandemic, models such as the one used and presented in the study could help mitigate the damage caused by widely restrictive policies, yet allow protection for those needing it the most.
Forbes
18-07-2025
- Health
- Forbes
Why People Leave Medicare Advantage Plans And Why It Matters To You
Over half of Medicare beneficiaries opted for Medicare Advantage plans in 2024, and the percentage is expected to climb to 60% by 2030, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Medicare beneficiaries can choose between Medicare Advantage plans (also known as Part C) and original Medicare. Original Medicare is coverage under Parts A and B of Medicare. Beneficiaries in original Medicare are encouraged to also have Medicare supplement (Medigap) insurance policies and Part D prescription drug policies. Medicare Advantage plans essentially bundle all that coverage into one plan and typically add benefits such as vision, dental, and hearing care. Medicare Advantage plans increased in popularity partly because of the additional benefits. Relatively healthy members of Advantage plans also tend to have lower out-of-pocket costs because they aren't paying premiums for Medigap and Part D policies. But about half of beneficiaries left their Advantage plans within five years, according to data from 2011-2020 published in the JAMA Health Forum. Some opt for a new Advantage plan while others switch to original Medicare. Before deciding to sign up for a Medicare Advantage plan, it's a good idea to know why people leave their Advantage plans. Some analysts believe the high turnover among Advantage plan members can influence how the plans are operated. If an Advantage plan's managers know most enrollees won't stick around for the long term, the plan might have less incentive to address long-term or chronic conditions of beneficiaries. The quality of an Advantage plan seems to have a significant effect on turnover. Plans that had five-star ratings lost only 23% of members after five years. While plans with four-star ratings lost over 41% of members after five years, and lower-rated plans had even higher turnover rates. Another study concluded cost wasn't a major factor in decisions to leave Advantage plans. Beneficiaries were more likely to be concerned about difficulties in accessing and receiving high-quality medical care. Another difference between original Medicare and Advantage plans is that an Advantage plan only covers care by a provider in the plan's network. In addition, some care must be approved by the plan before it will be covered. In original Medicare, the beneficiary can choose any provider who accepts Medicare and rarely needs approval from Medicare before receiving a treatment or care. Limits on the medical providers included in a plan's network as well as required approvals for treatments and care cause dissatisfaction among Advantage plan beneficiaries. The study found that beneficiaries in poor health were more likely to switch plans because of dissatisfaction about limits on providers and the need for approval of care. That finding is consistent with anecdotal reports I've heard from Medicare insurance agents over the years. They find that in the early years of retirement when people are relatively healthy, Medicare beneficiaries are happy with Medicare Advantage plans. The plans cost them less, and they don't need to visit doctors often. But when serious health conditions arise or more frequent care is needed later in retirement, people are likely to want to switch from an Advantage plan to original Medicare. Once the need for medical care increases, the limits on providers and approval requirements become more important. Generally, you can switch from an Advantage plan to original Medicare each year during open enrollment. But there's a catch. During a person's initial enrollment period for Medicare, insurers offering Medicare supplement policies are required to sell the policies without regard to a person's health history. But after the initial enrollment period, insurers generally can review an applicant's medical history and use it to decline coverage or charge higher premiums. Though a person legally can switch from an Advantage plan to original Medicare, the absence of guaranteed issue for a Medigap policy after the initial enrollment period might make the change impractical.
NBC News
16-07-2025
- Business
- NBC News
JD Vance urges Republican voters to 'talk to your friends' about the 'big, beautiful bill'
WEST PITTSTON, Pa. — Vice President JD Vance gave an early glimpse of the argument that Republicans will make ahead of the 2026 midterm elections while touting the mega bill that the White House pushed through Congress. In a 20-minute speech Wednesday in northeast Pennsylvania, Vance urged the audience to become fellow evangelists for what he called the "Big, Beautiful Bill" in conversations with family and friends. Vance supplied the talking points he wants them to use, describing how workers at the machine shop that hosted his appearance will no longer pay taxes on overtime pay. Vance was silent about less popular facets of what had been a nearly 900-page bill. He did not mention, for example, steep cuts to Medicaid, which provides health coverage to low-income people. A report published Wednesday in JAMA Health Forum found that the cuts could lead to 1,000 more deaths a year. And while Vance said that Trump and congressional Republicans are getting 'Washington spending under control,' the nation's debt will increase by $3.3 trillion over the next decade under the legislation, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. The vice president invited the audience to do their own research, but asked them to 'take what I said and … go talk to your neighbors, go and talk to your friends about what this bill does for American citizens.' Without explicitly mentioning the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress, Vance said, 'We don't want to wake up in a year and a half and give the Democrats power back.' Both parties are now in the opening phase of a battle to shape voter impressions of the new law ahead of the midterms. Trump's cabinet members are expected to travel the country in the coming months to help sell the bill to voters. Introducing Vance was Kelly Loeffler, administrator of the Small Business Administration. She used her speech to promote the law, calling it 'rocket fuel for small business.' Republicans face some headwinds in selling the legislation. A recent Economist/YouGov survey taken after Trump signed the bill on July 4 showed that 35% of adults supported it, compared to 53% who were opposed. The White House needs GOP voters to be enthused about the law and motivated to vote next year if the party hopes to hang onto majorities in the House and Senate. 'The Trump voters are happy and complacent right now,' said John McLaughlin, a Trump pollster. 'And we have to get them fired up for next year. We have a lot of work to do. If President Trump is not on the ballot, it's harder to get them out.' The vice president's appearance was also an investment of sorts in his own political future. Pennsylvania is a perennial battleground state. Trump lost it in 2020 when he was defeated by Joe Biden, but won it back in 2024 when he was elected to a new term. Vance is a likely GOP candidate in the next presidential race — a prospect that voters interviewed before his speech said they welcome. Dwayne McDavitt, 63, of the group Bikers for Trump, said: 'I love JD Vance. I hope he runs in 2028. He's a very intelligent man.' In his remarks, Vance said nothing about the ongoing furor that threatens to divide Trump voters: The Justice Department's finding that the Jeffrey Epstein files contain no ' incriminating 'client list' ' or evidence that would implicate third parties. Many hardcore Trump have balked at the claim, while Trump has called upon them to drop the subject and stop talking about Epstein. Before Vance's appearance, supporters waiting in line offered mixed views of whether they believe the Trump administration is suppressing damning information involving Epstein. Steven Taylor, a truck driver living across the street from the machine shop said he was 'angered' when Trump said that people should move on from the Epstein controversy. 'I think we're being lied to,' said Taylor, 52. 'And I don't appreciate it. This is supposed to be the era of transparency.' 'We put our trust in him [Trump],' he continued. 'I'm still going to support him, but with a slanted eye. We're the ones who put him where he is. It's totally disrespectful.' But Richard Geiersbach, 66, a contractor wearing a MAGA hat, echoed a point that Trump has been making in recent days: Epstein isn't worth discussing anymore. 'It's a waste of time, a waste of money,' he said. 'Let it go.'
