From the COVID-19 vaccine front

• The New York Times reports that “The Food and Drug Administration warned on Monday that Johnson & Johnson’s coronavirus vaccine can lead to an increased risk of a rare neurological condition known as Guillain–Barré syndrome, another setback for a [one dose] vaccine that has largely been sidelined in the United States. Although regulators have found that the chances of developing the condition are low, they appear to be three to five times higher among recipients of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine than among the general population in the United States, according to people familiar with the decision. The warning was attached to fact sheets about the vaccine for providers and patients.”
• USA Today offers a success story on AHIP’s Vaccine Community Connectors program. “Most important, this effort helped the industry home in on one specific strategy to accelerate health equity: better access to health care data that incorporates the social determinants of health.” Speaking SDOH data, Health IT Analytics informs us about the use of SDOH data in researching and managing Alzheimer’s Disease.
• The American Hospital Association reminded folks today to keep its Vaccine Communications Resources website in mind.

Fierce Healthcare reports that

“The Biden administration has started to investigate whether Medicare should cover the extremely pricey Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced Monday it is opening a National Coverage Determination (NCD) analysis on the drug that will cost patients $56,000 a year. Advocates and experts have called for the agency to move quickly to decide whether to cover the drug. “We want to consider Medicare coverage of new treatments very carefully in light of the evidence available,” said CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, in a statement Monday. “That’s why our process will include opportunities to hear from many stakeholders.”

Earlier press reports on Aduhelm, as well as common sense, indicate that commercial health plans likely will follow CMS’s lead on coverage of that drug.

Healthcare Dive tells us that “Telehealth use overall has stabilized at levels 38 times higher than before the COVID-19 pandemic, ranging from 13% to 17% of visits across all specialties, according to new data from McKinsey released roughly a year since the first major spike in COVID-19 cases.” * * * On the provider side, 58% of physicians continue to view virtual care more favorably than before the pandemic, though that’s down slightly from September, when 64% of physicians were in support. As of April this year, 84% of doctors were offering telehealth, and 57% said they’d prefer to continue offering it. However, that’s largely dependent on reimbursement: 54% of doctors said they wouldn’t provide virtual care if it was paid at a 15% discount to physical services.”

HR Dive discusses the President’s July 9 executive order provision “taking aim at” non-compete agreements.

Biden’s order leaves some questions unanswered. It does not ban or impact any existing employment agreement, Chris Marquardt, partner at Alston & Bird, told HR Dive in an email. “Employers will need to wait and see what the Federal Trade Commission does in response to the Executive Order before thinking about its potential impact,” he said.

Among other reasons, intellectual property and trade secrets have been cited as cause for use of non-competes. But the agreements have been the subject of criticism for potentially driving down wages in certain industries and geographic areas.

Govexec.com offers an interesting take on how the July 9 executive order seeks to use Federal procurement and regulations to promote competition