Lots of COVID booster appointments available, says pharmacy manager, with 3 weeks left in spring campaign
Linda Gutenberg, who is in charge of pharmacy operations for Heart Pharmacy Group, which operates seven locations in the Greater Victoria Area, said the current vaccine campaign has been particularly slow since it started on April 8.
"We were kind of like all ramped up and ready to go and nobody really showed up," she said during an interview on CBC's On The Island.
She said last week, pharmacists administered about half the booster shots they did compared to one year ago.
However, as of June 1, the province said 287,294 people in B.C. have been vaccinated for COVID-19, up slightly from 282,911 at a similar time last year.
Gutenberg isn't entirely sure why there's a dip in interest, but she has a hunch.
"I think there's a little bit of vaccine fatigue, where people are just kind of tired of just coming in and getting vaccines all the time."
With only a few weeks left in the campaign, which ends June 30, she said there are lots of appointments available.
The latest variant of COVID-19, called NB.1.8.1, may be more transmissible than previous mutations, according to the World Health Organization. The organization's latest risk assessment, which covered July to December of last year, found the health risk from COVID-19 is still high, but suggests the impact is decreasing.
The Ministry of Health said COVID-19 has been increasing globally since February. PCR and wastewater testing have shown low levels of the virus in B.C., but it has been rising since March.
It said the best way to prevent severe illness from the virus is to stay up to date on vaccines.
The ministry recommends anyone over 65, Indigenous adults aged 55 and older, long-term care home and assisted living residents and anyone over six months who has been diagnosed as extremely vulnerable, get a COVID-19 booster this spring.
Anyone who doesn't fall into one of those categories but would still like to be immunized is asked to speak to a health-care provider.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Drug User Advocacy Groups Challenge ‘Recriminalization' in Court
The federal government was in court this week listening to arguments that it made a mistake when it allowed British Columbia to roll back its decriminalization pilot project. Counsel for a coalition of 13 drug user advocacy groups argued in an application for a judicial review that Health Canada didn't properly consider all the evidence before it when it broadly recriminalized public drug use in 2024. Canadian drug laws are set out in the federal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. To provincially change drug laws for decriminalization, B.C. had to ask Health Canada for an exemption under the act. It later asked Health Canada to amend that exemption to recriminalize public drug use. The process will see a federal judge examine the evidence that was available to the federal government at the time, and rule on whether or not the government's decision to allow the decriminalization rollback was fair. Justice Meaghan M. Conroy heard the coalition's arguments Monday and Health Canada's defence Tuesday. She is expected to make a decision in the coming months. She could agree the decision was unfair and ask Health Canada to go over the evidence again, say the decision was fair and no further action is needed, or something in between. While B.C.'s government has made a lot of changes since decriminalization was introduced in January 2023, the judicial review is looking at only the most recent change, which essentially made it illegal again to have or use drugs in all public spaces across B.C. Decriminalization was a three-year pilot project introduced by the BC NDP to help people access harm reduction services and reduce the number of fatal overdoses. It let anyone 18 and older carry and use up to 2.5 grams of opioids, methamphetamines, powdered cocaine or MDMA in most places across B.C. without risking arrest. There were some exemptions — drugs were not allowed on school grounds or licensed child-care facilities, for example. In September 2023 the province added to that list, making playgrounds, splash pads, wading pools and skate parks drug-free zones. One month later it attempted to amend decriminalization further with Bill 34, which would have given police additional powers to control people who use drugs, or people who were suspected of using drugs, and introduced a confusing patchwork of places where people weren't allowed to use drugs. But Bill 34 was blocked by a temporary injunction before it could come into force, after a judge said the bill could cause 'irreparable harms' to people who use drugs. After Bill 34 was blocked, the province asked Health Canada to make possession and public drug use illegal again in April 2024. Drugs were still allowed in homes or shelters. This has been dubbed 'recriminalization' by drug user advocacy groups. The request was approved by Health Canada. This decision is the subject of the judicial review. B.C.'s Ministry of Health told The Tyee that decriminalization is just one part of a multi-pronged approach it is taking to address toxic drug deaths. Drug deaths have been climbing since early 2014 when the synthetic opioid fentanyl started being added to illicit, unregulated drugs in the province. Unregulated drugs have killed more than 17,800 British Columbians since then. Representing the coalition were lawyers Lindsay Frame and Jack Ruttle, who argued recriminalization contravened the general goal of Canada's drug policies, which is to keep people healthy and safe. Prohibiting public drug use, Frame argued, will push people to use drugs while isolated or alone, which increases their risk of fatal overdose because someone might not be around to call 911, administer naloxone or provide first aid. The current unregulated drug supply is often referred to as 'toxic' because of the unpredictability and potency of the supply, which can mean a regular dose can include unexpected drugs, such as benzodiazepines, and be hundreds or thousands times more potent than expected. Representing the federal government was lawyer Adrienne Copithorne, who delivered a technical argument, focusing on how most of the coalition's complaints went against the broad drug prohibitions laid out in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, rather than Health Canada's decision to roll back decriminalization. Decriminalization didn't set a permanent standard that potential future harms can be compared against, she added. It was meant to be only a temporary measure that the health minister could adjust as needed. The federal government was asking to throw the case out due to these technicalities. How prohibition harms the most marginalized The court heard from the coalition that one reason B.C. asked Health Canada to recriminalize drugs was that police weren't able to maintain public order, and the 'vibrancy' of public spaces was being impacted by people who use drugs. But even with decriminalization, police still had laws against public intoxication, littering and trespassing, Frame said. Copithorne disagreed, pointing out how police tried to use the tools they had and later asked for more power when those tools weren't working. Frame said the public and political pushback against decriminalization often conflated poverty and the rise of homelessness with decriminalization. There is no evidence that decriminalization increased drug use, she said. But there was an increase in homelessness that made more people visible while they used drugs, she said. Copithorne said the core problem was still that people were using drugs in public and causing a disturbance. Frame also told the court that recriminalization disproportionately impacts marginalized communities, effectively treating them as second-class citizens. For example, remote Indigenous communities are less likely to have access to harm reduction sites where they can use while supervised by someone who can step in if there's an emergency, such as an overdose prevention site or supervised consumption site, she said. Indigenous people are disproportionately harmed by unregulated drugs, and recriminalizing drugs will reintroduce a lot of those harms, Frame said. At the time of Health Canada's decision to recriminalize drugs, the crisis was killing seven people in B.C. per day. Indigenous people were dying at six times the rate non-Indigenous people were, and First Nations women were dying at 12 times the rate of non-Indigenous women in the province, she said. 'Racism, colonialism and intergenerational trauma all contribute to these drug deaths,' Frame said. Copithorne said the change doesn't specifically target any particular groups and is applied to all people in B.C. equally. Frame argued that there is a 'profound unmet need for places to safely use' across the province, which means unhoused people have nowhere else to use but in public spaces. But using in public spaces increases a person's risk of interacting with a police officer, which can lead to arrest or drugs being confiscated. Both things increase a person's risk of a fatal overdose, Frame said. When someone's drugs are confiscated, Frame said, they might have to turn to an unfamiliar supply, risk going into life-threatening withdrawal or lose drug tolerance, which puts them at a higher risk of overdose the next time they use. An arrest can impact a person's housing, job or access to their children. 'Criminalization feeds into cycles of harm,' Frame said. Kali Rufus-Sedgemore said they feel 'hopeful' that Conroy 'will see the government did something wrong.' Rufus-Sedgemore is the executive director of the Coalition of Peers Dismantling the Drug War. They spoke to The Tyee on behalf of the coalition of 13 organizations that applied for the judicial review. Rufus-Sedgemore said politicians have been feeding into a 'mass hysteria' about people who use drugs, which ignores people's humanity and overlooks the reasons why they might take drugs. Rufus-Sedgemore, who has ADHD, takes methamphetamine, for example. They say drug use calms their brain down and lets them work effectively in their community. They sometimes use a prescription to treat their ADHD but say the medications are expensive, can make them sick and are not strong enough to properly medicate them. But police and health-care workers don't see that and treat Rufus-Sedgemore, who is from the 'Namgis First Nation/Kwakwaka'wakw, like they might become violent at any moment. This is something Indigenous people and stimulant users often have to deal with, Rufus-Sedgemore told The Tyee. 'I've never been violent,' they say softly. 'But if I go to St. Paul's [Hospital] I have to take a sobriety and drug test, with a security guard posted outside of my room. I don't drink and I have to wait for hours before someone even asks me what's wrong.' To actually end the ongoing toxic drug crisis, Rufus-Sedgemore said, the government needs to bring back decriminalization, introduce a regulated safer supply that is more accessible and actually separates people from the unregulated supply, and create comprehensive drug education for kids. They've worked with youth before and remember being asked if you can un-burn microwave popcorn by microwaving it again, or, if drugs are making you feel weird, taking more drugs will make you feel better. Kids are still figuring this world out and won't know something if we don't teach them, they said. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Business Wire
2 hours ago
- Business Wire
AM Best Removes From Under Review With Developing Implications and Affirms Credit Ratings
BUSINESS WIRE)-- AM Best has removed from under review with developing implications and affirmed the Financial Strength Rating of C (Weak) and the Long-Term Issuer Credit Rating of 'ccc' (Weak) of Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York, EmblemHealth Insurance Company and EmblemHealth Plan, Inc., collectively referred to as Emblem. All companies are subsidiaries of EmblemHealth, Inc. and are domiciled in New York (NY). The outlook assigned to these Credit Ratings (ratings) is stable. The ratings reflect Emblem's balance sheet strength, which AM Best assesses as very weak, as well as its marginal operating performance, neutral business profile and marginal enterprise risk management (ERM). AM Best assesses Emblem's balance sheet strength as very weak, with risk-adjusted capitalization, as measured by Best's Capital Adequacy Ratio (BCAR), also assessed as very weak. Absolute capital and surplus improved slightly in 2024, driven by unrealized capital gains that offset net losses. In the first quarter of 2025, Emblem reported further improvement in its capital and surplus as well as gains from the sale of ConnectiCare operations in the first quarter of 2025, which resulted in more than a $60 million improvement in the capital and surplus at Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York, the lead entity. Emblem's investment portfolio is conservative, with cash and short-term comprising over half of the investment portfolio at year-end 2024. Although capital and surplus improved in 2024 and through first-quarter 2025, Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York, the lead operating entity, remains under a capital restoration plan with the New York State Department of Financial Services. The company is forecasting to restore capital by the end of 2025 and conclude the capital restoration plan. Emblem has a long-term trend of net losses and underwriting losses. However, AM Best acknowledges that results improved through year-end 2024, which continued into the first quarter of 2025. In the first quarter of 2025, Emblem reported a significant reduction in underwriting losses year over year and reported a slight net income for the quarter, which keeps a trend of three consecutive quarters of net income. The neutral business profile reflects Emblem's solid market position in the greater New York City market with a long-standing presence. Additionally, the organization derives a large portion of its membership from union and labor accounts, anchored by the City of New York account. Emblem's ERM is assessed as marginal. While the company has a fully developed ERM program, the organization faced challenges over the years (specifically during Covid periods) in meeting projections and the restoration plan with the New York State Department of Financial Services. Emblem has exceeded the restoration plan projections for the last two years. This press release relates to Credit Ratings that have been published on AM Best's website. For all rating information relating to the release and pertinent disclosures, including details of the office responsible for issuing each of the individual ratings referenced in this release, please see AM Best's Recent Rating Activity web page. For additional information regarding the use and limitations of Credit Rating opinions, please view Guide to Best's Credit Ratings. For information on the proper use of Best's Credit Ratings, Best's Performance Assessments, Best's Preliminary Credit Assessments and AM Best press releases, please view Guide to Proper Use of Best's Ratings & Assessments.
Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
Telehealth Isn't a Luxury — It's a Necessity
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hello, and thank you for joining me today. I'm Dr Alison Kole. I'm boarded in pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine, and I have been practicing for over a decade. I also am the creator and host of the Sleep is My Waking Passion podcast and the medical director of the Oak Health Center Concierge Sleep Telemedicine Program. Today I want to speak directly to you about a critical issue that's occurring in sleep medicine, which is the future of telehealth. There's a lot at stake, and decisions made now will impact patient care for years to come. Some of you may not be aware, but the American Academy of Sleep Medicine [AASM] issued a position statement in February of 2025, urging for the consideration of permanent telehealth services. During the COVID-19 pandemic, emergency waivers allowed for widespread use of telehealth, including coverage for both video- and audio-only visits. This expansion was a lifeline for both patients and providers, and was able to ensure that care continued despite unprecedented times. However, these were temporary waivers and the waivers are set to expire. So, there is a real danger that coverage and reimbursement for telehealth, especially in sleep medicine, could be rolled back. You can think of the AASM's position statement as a call to action. Without permanent coverage in adequate reimbursement, millions could lose access to essential sleep care. And this isn't just a theoretical concern. If telehealth goes away, access will be cut off for many who cannot easily reach in-person services due to a variety of reasons, including geography, mobility, work, or technology barriers. So, why is it that sleep telemedicine is so especially suited to telehealth? There are several reasons for your consideration. Perhaps one of the most obvious reasons is that in order to diagnose sleep disorders, many of us can usually do that without much of a physical exam. Most of our assessments are dependent upon history, sleep diaries, and sleep study data. It's not necessarily a hands-on exam, so this makes remote care both practical and effective in sleep. There's also a couple of other reasons, including our ability to do remote patient monitoring. Most of our CPAP devices allow us to be able to track and see if a patient is being compliant with therapy, but also are they getting effective therapy so that we can triage and make adjustments remotely without the patient needing to come into the office for that. And last but not least, 12% of Americans are living with chronic insomnia in this country. The number-one recommended treatment is cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia. This is a series of visits to a behavioral health specialist that can be time-consuming, and there is data that demonstrate that digital cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia platforms performs almost equivocally to that of in-person visits. There are several benefits to sleep telehealth access, and these include access, equity, safety, and cost. So, let's get into it. Expanded access: What do I mean? Well, telehealth bridges gaps for rural patients, those with mobility challenges, and people who live far from specialty centers. It also allows sleep specialists, such as myself, to serve patients across state lines. With regard to health equity, audio-only telehealth happens to be crucial for patients without reliable internet or smart devices. Cutting this option would disproportionately harm lower-income, elderly, and rural populations. There's also a patient and public safety issue worth considering. Many sleep patients happen to be at higher risk for drowsy driving. Telehealth eliminates the need for these patients to travel, which directly reduces accident risk. This protects not only the patient but also the public. And lastly, there is an economic value to sleep telemedicine services because treating sleep disorders like obstructive sleep apnea saves the healthcare system billions by preventing complications related to chronic comorbid conditions. These include hypertension, heart disease, and diabetes. Telehealth adds further savings by reducing travel time off from work and no-show rates. If telehealth goes away, you're looking at a loss of access, worsening health disparities, reduced public safety and patient safety, as well as higher costs of care for patients. Telemedicine is not a luxury; it's a necessity for modern, equitable, and effective care. As primary care providers, you play a crucial role in advocating for and utilizing these services to ensure your patients get the care they need when and where they need it. If you'd like to check out the completed episode with my interview featuring Dr K. Praveen Vohra, the lead author of the AASM position statement, please check out my YouTube channel,
