From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Thank you all for participating in our Tagging Project! We're glad to hear you enjoyed it. All volunteers were entered into a drawing for a $50 Amazon gift card. See a video of the drawing attached.  I'm happy to announce that the winner is ...  @Jonathan Amaya-Hodges ! Thanks again to all who participated. If you're interested in more volunteer opportunities, see our full list here .​​ ------------------------------ Danielle Fezell Manager, Chapter & Volunteer Relations, RAPS Rockville MD United [More]

Files Attached Document
RE: Sort It Out by participating in the RAPS Tagging Project

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Thank you RAPS, what a pleasant surprise! I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the project! Now, if only Amazon had any toilet paper in stock... ------------------------------ Jonathan Amaya-Hodges Associate Director, Regulatory Affairs CMC Combination Products and Medical Devices Cambridge MA United States ------------------------------

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
I disagree with Richard. I just had a conversation with the COVID-19 hotline (11:45 am, May 7) and asked about this issue after having read an update from the FDA that said UDIs for EUA devices are waived and GMPs are under limited enforcement. The person I spoke with said the update is correct and that UDIs are waived for EUA devices.  Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.  Bob Bard ------------------------------ Robert Bard JD, RAC [Managing Director] South Lyon MI United States - [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Hello,  I can see many unapproved combinations of Minoxidil as topical solution like minoxidil+ Azelaic Acid; Minoxidil + Finasteride; Minoxdil+ niacin+retinol+caffeine that are available online for sale in US but these drug products are not approved by FDA as visble from USFDA website.  Can anyone explain that is there any mechanism or guideline to allows to sell such unapproved drug products online in US and also in EU? Or is this totally illegal practice?  Thanks Ankur RAC

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Bob, I stand corrected; if you confirmed with FDA that is good.  From what I was reading and seeing (I must have missed that update) there was nothing addressing UDI or no UDI.for EUA products.  (Personally I am a bit surprised at this since the whole concept of UDI is traceability and they waive this for emergency use products - when there is an issue this is where UDI becomes so important.  Shrugs.) ------------------------------ Richard Vincins RAC Vice President Global Regulatory Affairs --- [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Hi, Ankur - Some may be "legal," others not. It's a big industry, and it is fair to be cynical. Combination products for sale that have not been approved-as the combination-by FDA are just that, unapproved drugs. I assume you checked for the approval status in FDA's "Orange Book" (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/index.cfm). Even if both active pharmaceutical ingredients in a 2-drug mixture were approved separately on their own, it does not mean the combined product is approved for [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Hello Richard, Yesterday, I received a follow up from the Hotline (CDRH-EUA-Templates ) to my query. I was reminded that the waiver to good manufacturing practice and labeling requirements were included in the individual authorization letter. The person responding to my question concerning the UDI requirement provided the following: UDI is not specifically noted; however we are not enforcing UDI during the emergency. The specific authorization letter I was reviewing was for [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
These are all unapproved new drugs. Many people who have very limited knowledge of our OTC drug system, assume that if it is sold OTC, it is a monographed drug and they can change the formulation. They do not know that there are two types of OTC drugs allowed-compliance with a monograph or NDA. Minoxidil is one and chlorhexidine antiseptic wash is another. ------------------------------ David Steinberg,FRAPS President Steinberg & Associates, Inc. Pompton Plains NJ USA 609-902-8860 -------------- [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
The only  possible way I can see any of these products being legally marketed in the US without going the OTC NDA route would be if the ingredients  other than Minoxidil are considered "inactive" and have some purpose (other than their active ingredient purposes) in the formulation.  That said, this might work for the last combination in your listing because all of these can and are often used in OTC products as inactive ingredients with understood and current reasons for existing in a formulation [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous For device-lead drug combination products, is there any difference in the quality (grade) of API used compared to a pure drug product? The cGMP guidance for combination products does not seem to specify, and since drug claims cannot be made on device-lead drug combination products, it was not clear what quality of drug is required. Thank you!

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
​I doubt FDA would have any willingness to change the requirements or expectations for a drug product based on whether it is in a strictly drug product versus in a combination product.  The fact also that there is not a published allowance for this is further evidence that FDA expects that the drug will meet the requirements as expected for drug products without providing any allowed changes or classes of changes.  Remember, FDA expects that drug products meet specific requirements.  Things like [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
These types of products and combinations you mention are all unapproved drugs and unapproved combinations.  Unless the specific combination is approved or listed in an OTC monograph, it is a new drug and requires a NDA to market it.  Minoxidil is a Rx to OTC switch product so it requires a NDA or ANDA to market this drug in the US, even as a OTC drug.  Thus any combination with minoxidil is a new drug. In the past the FDA has also specifically stated that combining different types of products (drug [More]

By Laurie Meehan

SOP revision. It falls somewhere between income tax prep and colonoscopy prep on the likability scale.  So why would you want to read about it?  Maybe you’re hoping someone’s figured out a way to make the process more efficient and less painful.  Maybe we have.

The SWAT Technique

Last month, we worked with a company to revise a set of SOPs using a technique we call SWAT.  (Any edgy appeal that name might have otherwise had will be immediately dulled by its acronym expansion: “SOP Working Analysis Team.”  It’s the best we could do.  Don’t judge.)

The goal of the SWAT technique is to revise the most documents in the least time, while preserving friendships, sobriety, and original hair color.  The heart of SWAT is an immersive, multi-day working session in which participants discuss SOP revisions and incorporate them in real time.  Careful planning, thorough preparation, and commitment from management and participants are keys to keeping the SWAT session productive.

It’s Not For Everyone

Up front, we need to say that SWAT won’t work for every organization.  While the size of the company may not be important, the size of the working team needs to be fairly small.  Also SWAT won’t work for every set of SOPs.  The documents need to be part of a natural grouping – a set of similar procedures – and not a random collection.

But in the right situations, SWAT works very well.  Last month, we conducted a 2-day SWAT session with a client’s QA department to revise a set of 10 auditing SOPs.  We’ve also successfully used the technique with ClinOps teams, for example, to revise sets of monitoring SOPs.

SWAT Planning and Preparation

The SWAT process begins with central planning.  A coordination team selects a logical grouping of SOPs to revise, and assembles a list of specific revisions to be made.  Where it’s not possible to provide specific revisions, instructions and guidelines are developed, such as “remove audit report distribution details” or “update to reflect new file safeguarding practices.”

Each SWAT participant is assigned an SOP from the revision set.  The participant doesn’t need to be the author of record, but must be knowledgeable enough to “represent” the SOP – to learn the document well and understand how it’s similar to the other SOPs in the revision set and in what ways it’s unique.  Based on this understanding, prior to the SWAT session, participants make applicable revisions to their individual documents using the information received from the coordination team.  Participants should also note questions and any open issues appropriate for SWAT discussion using inline comments. 

SWAT Session

The result of the SWAT session is a set of approval-ready SOPs.  The precise structure of the SWAT session to get you there depends on a variety of factors, such as how similar or dissimilar the SOPs are, the extent and complexity of the revisions, and whether subject matter expertise is concentrated or distributed among the group.  But all successful SWAT sessions we’ve conducted share these attributes:

• Duration of 2 to 3 days.  Just long enough to accomplish the aggressive goal, just short enough to keep everyone from diving out the window.
• Real-time revision.  The “SOP of the hour” is projected on a screen while participants sit in front of PCs and update their assigned SOPs accordingly.
• Rigorous facilitation. It’s natural for discussions about company procedures to morph into other topics, such as business strategy or staffing requirements.  Discussion *will* get off topic.  When it does, the facilitator must act quickly to table it.  You can maintain a list of tangent topics on a flip chart, schedule a meeting to discuss the most pressing items, ring a cowbell, blow an air horn, or drop a quarter in the “Diversion Jar” and move on, but keep those conversations out of your SWAT session.  Save the war stories for dinner.
• Commitment to the process.  Scheduling the session is one thing, but remaining dedicated to the session is an act of will. It’s so ridiculously easy for outside work to creep in.  Management and participants must be committed to carving out the time and keeping the barbarians at the gate.
• Of course: Plenty of caffeine and yummy treats.

If you’ve ever worked on SOPs, you know there’s a big difference between done and almost done.  To help ensure you emerge from the SWAT session with the former, time must be allotted for participants to format, polish, and conduct a quality review.  If it’s possible to scare up some on-site administrative support, that could help expedite the process.

SWAT Benefits

When you look on your team’s Outlook calendar and see 3 entire days blocked out, it can seem like an awful lot of time devoted to SOP revision.  But SWAT really doesn’t take any longer than the usual process, it’s just more obvious.  Does SWAT take significantly *less* time?  Mmmm, not sure, but SWAT brings with it other benefits.

SWAT produces a more consistent set of SOPs.  Since every document is compared to every other, it’s easy to notice and correct incidental differences.

SWAT is a cross-training opportunity.  Participants enter SWAT knowing their own SOP very well.  They leave knowing the whole SOP revision set very well.

SWAT gets it done.  Auditors, how many times have you cited facilities for failure to revise their SOPs within the specified window?  It’s not because there’s a willful disregard for SOP procedures.  It’s because, in the real world of work, revising SOPs is seldom prioritized highly enough to get on anyone’s schedule until the end of the revision window encroaches or – oops – has passed.  But schedule a SWAT and they will come. (And because the effort is so visible and so obviously resource-intensive, no one wants to be the one to drop the ball.  Participants come prepared and the resulting documents are the better for it.)

SWAT is a lot more fun.  Revising SOPs on your own is really boring.  Revising them in immersive sessions with colleagues is significantly more enjoyable.  Gallows humor reigns supreme.  Copious amounts of chocolate are consumed.  Air horns are blown in celebration.  Friendships, sobriety, and hair color remain intact.  Participants live to write another day.



_______________________________________________________________________
Photo Credit:  Tenaciousme CoffeeArt, under Creative Commons License

Year in and year out, protocol deviations are the most common FDA Site Inspection finding. Why does this keep happening?

If you’ve seen FDA’s Inspectional Observation Summaries, you know that in 2015 the most frequently cited violation in clinical research by far was “failure to conduct research in accordance with the investigational plan.”  Do you know this finding also topped the list the year before that?  And the year before that?  In fact, deviating from the protocol has been the most common observation every year for the last decade.

Why does this keep happening?



The Nature of Protocols
This will come as a surprise to no one: not all protocols are well written.  Important procedures can be hidden in the most obscure places.  Charts depicting Time and Events Schedules are famous for carrying dozens of footnotes that appear nowhere else in the protocol, yet convey important study procedures.   For instance, a pre-dosing column may include a footnote that provides a timeframe for performing a physical exam; a post-dosing footnote might specify the interval at which vitals must be taken.   Failing to follow study procedures compromises subject safety and data integrity; FDA won’t care whether the procedures were in big bold italics or 7-point font.

This, too, may come as no surprise, but not all protocols are error-free.   Information in charts may not match the narrative.  Procedures in Section A may conflict with procedures in Section B.  When the FDA investigator spots an inconsistency, you’ll be asked which of the two conflicting procedures you followed and why.  If you performed procedure A only because you didn’t even notice there was a B, it will be clear you didn’t read the protocol as thoroughly as you needed to.  The FDA investigator may become concerned that your study execution differed from the sponsor’s intention.  This is not a concern you want to trigger.

For these reasons, it’s imperative that study staff read and understand the protocol.  Study team members need to ask questions about anything they’re unsure of, seek clarification on protocol inconsistencies, and get responses that satisfy before starting the study.   A PowerPoint overview is not sufficient training.

One more irksome attribute of protocols that can make them difficult to follow -- they change.  While most study sites allocate time and resources for initial protocol training, many lack a plan for training staff on protocol amendments.   A disproportionate number of protocol deviations occur in amended procedures, and it’s often because staff members have been insufficiently trained on them.  (And when you do train on protocol amendments, don’t forget to document it.)

Deviation Temptation
A protocol is not a suggestion; PIs cannot substitute their own judgment for prescribed procedures, no matter how well-intentioned the departure.  The protocol for a psoriasis study might call for the PI to perform a series of punch biopsies, very invasive procedures.  After the first biopsy, an empathetic PI might be tempted to skip a second if he observes the plaque is clearing up; the drug is working.  But this would be a protocol deviation.  The protocol for another study might preclude the use of a particular drug, even though the drug is routinely used throughout the practice to treat a symptom that a study participant is exhibiting.  But the study protocol trumps standard of care; prescribing the drug would be a protocol deviation.

A PI who feels she must deviate from the protocol for some reason must obtain prior approval, since failure to follow the protocol can jeopardize the reliability of the study data, if not subject rights and safety.



Deviations Happen
So you’ve thoroughly read the protocol, you’ve asked your questions and received the necessary clarifications, you’ve trained your staff on the protocol and its amendments, and you do your best to follow them.

Despite all your preparation and vigilance, protocol deviations happen.  They just do.  And when they do, here are two don'ts.

(1) Don’t panic.

(2) Don’t let an FDA investigator find them first.
Take the time to fully document any protocol deviations.  Be sure to record why they happened, how they were corrected, and what was submitted to the IRB.

[Note: IRBs have different requirements about what types of protocol deviations should be communicated.  Out-of-window visits are common and are frequently considered too minor to report.  But nothing’s black and white.  If the missed visit resulted in missed doses, that would probably change the calculus. The PI needs to determine whether to notify the IRB, and if no submission is thought necessary, it’s a good idea to document why not.]

_______________________________________________________________

A version of this article originally appeared in InSite, the Journal of the Society for Clinical Research Sites.

Protocol trumps practice. This principle seems clear enough, but complying with it is not always as straight-forward as it sounds. Years of practicing medicine has reinforced the way a physician responds to medical situations. But do these responses run counter to the investigational plan? Can a site’s commitment to standard of care affect its ability to meet enrollment targets?


There’s a lot to consider.



What’s Your Standard of Care?
When deciding whether or not to conduct a particular study, a PI needs to verify that the protocol is aligned with practice norms. For example, an early phase trial might exclude a medication that is part of a practice’s routine therapy. Is the study placebo-controlled? Does it feature a specific comparator drug? Will it include a washout period? Any of these elements could present enrollment challenges or preclude a site from accepting a study at all. Responsible sites want to make thoughtful decisions about study suitability; they want to provide realistic enrollment estimates. Sponsors want this too, and can help sites do both these things by providing them a sufficient level of detail about protocol procedures as early as possible.


The Road to Deviations is Often Paved with Good Intentions
Therapeutic misconception – a well-documented phenomenon in clinical research – occurs when a study participant “fails to appreciate the distinction between the imperatives of clinical research and of ordinary treatment.”* Study participants are not alone in this. Researchers blur the distinction themselves when they conduct procedures that are consistent with clinical care but deviate from the protocol. This may be particularly true for PIs who recruit participants from their own practices. An endocrinologist might ordinarily reduce dosage for a particularly diminutive patient. A pulmonologist would often skip a scheduled chest x-ray she felt wasn’t needed to avoid exposing her patient to unnecessary radiation. An orthopedic surgeon may decide his patient needs more recovery time than usual before attempting her first walk. In a clinical care setting, these decisions are sound, made in an individual patient’s best interest. In a clinical trial, if they differ from the investigational plan and haven’t been approved by the Sponsor, they’re protocol deviations.**

It May be Par for the Course, But It's Still an AE
Specialists who have experience treating particular conditions are also familiar with the complications that ordinarily accompany them. A nephrologist, for instance, knows that a patient with end-stage renal disease frequently experiences bloat from a buildup of fluid between dialysis sessions. Though useful for a doctor treating patients, this knowledge can actually work against a doctor running a trial. How? A PI may fail to report a stomach ache as an AE because it’s so typical, so expected. “Bloat is common for renal patients. If I recorded every GI incident, I’d be recording AEs all day.” At its surface, this PI’s argument sounds reasonable, but what if the study drug itself is contributing to the participant’s discomfort? In order to assess the drug’s gastrointestinal effect, the PI must document the frequency and severity of all GI events.

Lab values that are either above or below normal range are also prime candidates for AE underreporting. “Of course the participant’s liver enzyme is high – we’re testing a cholesterol drug.”

The Importance of Study Oversight
Any GCP course worth its registration fee will discuss the distinction between standard of care and the study protocol. In practice, the distinction is not always as obvious as training sessions might suggest. This is where well-trained CRAs come in. As site monitors, CRAs are in a position to catch deviations that result from lapses into standard of care. Reading through progress notes, a monitor can ensure that any untoward medical event has been reported as an Adverse Event. They can verify that procedures conducted by the PI and site staff are compliant with the protocol. Then, by reviewing which types of data must be collected and emphasizing the importance of following certain protocol procedures, monitors can take the opportunity to re-educate study personnel and help them avoid these common pitfalls.

_______________________________________________________________________
* Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS (2002) The therapeutic misconception: problems and solutions. Med Care 40: V55-V63.

**Andrew Snyder of the HealthEast Care System wrote a thoughtful piece describing the compatibilities that do exist between clinical care and clinical research. His arguments provide a useful counterpoint to the issues we’re raising here. https://firstclinical.com/journal/2017/1707_Research_vs_Care.pdf

A version of this article originally appeared in InSite, the Journal of the Society for Clinical Research Sites.

When I was a teenager, my grandfather would invite my new boyfriends to run short, pointless errands with him, just so he could watch them drive. He said he could tell a lot about a boy’s character simply by observing his actions behind the wheel. Did he stay under the speed limit? Did he use his signal when he was switching lanes? Did he slow down when children were playing near the road? If so, it was a good sign that the boy was generally a careful and attentive fellow. If not, it was an early indication of reckless tendencies, and I would do well to be on my guard.

What does this have to do with PI oversight?



As Sponsors and CROs, you’re sometimes forced to make site selection decisions based on a limited set of criteria that you deem to be – hope to be – reflective of the site as a whole. In a short space of time, you need to assess a PI’s commitment to study oversight. On what should your pre-study “test drive” focus to help you gauge the level of care and attention a prospective PI will devote to your study?

We have some suggestions.


Assessing Attention to Detail
Any GCP-compliant site can produce a set of current CVs, job descriptions, and training records; they’re essential documents. But the most attentive sites are able to show you more than a collection of records during your pre-study visit with them. These sites keep a complete, organized set of uniform records and can describe their tight system for maintaining it. All documents for each staff member are found in dedicated tabs inside a records binder, or are equally well-organized in an electronic records system. All CVs are in a standard format so Sponsors can easily compare qualifications across individuals. Every document is current; CVs are up to date, and there’s a system in place to track which medical licenses are expiring when. Training records are comprehensive and include training on GCP regulations, site SOPs, and EMRs.

This is not sexy stuff. That’s why it’s a good indicator of PI oversight.  A site that is disciplined enough to keep such tight control over its personnel records is likely to carry that control into all aspects of trial execution.

Assessing Commitment to Protocol Compliance
During site initiation visits, Sponsor/CRO staff is on site to conduct protocol training; all study sites start off the same in this respect. But protocol amendments are inevitable, and sometimes – though nobody’s happy about it – frequent. You need assurances that a site’s response to each amendment will be swift, well-coordinated, and deliberate. Ask the prospective PI, “What procedures does your site follow for managing protocol amendments?”

The A answer:
“When a protocol amendment arrives, we convene a special team meeting to review the changes and discuss their effects. For example, if additional safety tests are required, the team discusses who shall be delegated to perform them? Do we have adequate time scheduled into the visit for any additional procedures the amendment requires? How will I be demonstrating oversight of any new test results? Once we’ve asked and answered these kinds of questions, we document attendance at the meeting, record assignments of delegated duties, and publish meeting minutes.”

The F answer:
“I email the amendment out to my team. I assume they’re all adults and know how to read.” (#TrueStory)

Just Ask
After reviewing essential documents and protocol amendment procedures, you should ask about other PI oversight mechanisms the site has in place. A good prospective site might tell you the PI holds biweekly meetings to review the items raised during monitoring visits. A PI may block out time at regular intervals to review adverse events and other study documents, and sign off on labs. A PI who values staff excellence may actively encourage and support Study Coordinator certification; some may even require it after an initial period of employment. In the past, we’ve worked with sites that have established internal Quality Control procedures, some maintain CAPA programs, and others conduct mock inspections.

There’s a wide variety of responses that can give you confidence a prospective PI is committed to running your study in a constant state of control. Whatever oversight measures are discussed, remember to ask how they will be documented, so during the study you’ll be able to verify that each activity is being consistently carried out.

Epilogue
After running an errand with a boy I met at college, my grandfather happily reported back to me, “He didn’t roll through a single stop sign coming down Green Hill Road. He’s all right, that one.”

My grandfather, a retired police detective for the city of Pittsburgh, knew how to read a person. That boy and I celebrated our 30th anniversary last month.

I was a child bride.

If you found this article helpful, you might also like:
Anticipating Tensions Between Clinical Care and Study Protocol
Avoiding Protocol Deviations

We may call them “site inspections”, but it’s not the site that’s being inspected when a regulator visits; it’s the Principal Investigator. Though a PI typically delegates study tasks to other staff members, he or she remains solely responsible for the conduct of the study. In fact, the ICH E6(R2) addendum adds two new sections to the international guidance that emphasize PI supervision.

That’s what makes the Delegation of Authority (DoA) log so important and why regulatory inspectors care about it so much. A DoA log serves as evidence that a PI has assigned study tasks only to those staff members with the education, training, and experience to carry them out. If delegates are unqualified to perform their tasks, subject safety could be at risk and it’s highly likely that the study data would be unusable.



Monitors – you can really make a big contribution here. At the outset of the study, you can verify that your PI has made appropriate delegations and the DoA log is complete. You can cross-match the log with training records, CVs, licenses, and source documents and correct any problems as early in the study as possible. Then, throughout the study, you can verify that the DoA log is being maintained.

Coverage
Without referencing any other site document, monitors can spot two types of DoA log omissions.

(1) Missing Assignments. Are there study tasks to which no one has been delegated? The tasks in a DoA log are often represented by a short code to conserve space. A legend at the end of the log translates the code into its corresponding task. Monitors can compare the legend to the DoA log entries to see if any tasks are omitted.


(2) Gap in Assignments. Due to staff turnover, reassignment, leaves of absence, etc., delegation for a task frequently does not last the duration of the entire study. A column in the DoA log indicates the delegation start and stop date.  Monitors can check to make sure that when the delegation for a task ends for one staff member, it is picked up by another.

Qualifications
Once you’re satisfied the DoA log completely covers all tasks for the duration of the study, you can check to make sure delegates have the necessary qualifications. You’ll want to compare the log with training records, CVs, and medical licenses from the regulatory binder.

• Has the staffer charged with recording vital signs during a subject visit been formally trained to take blood pressure? Is it documented?
• Did an incoming pharmacist receive protocol training prior to the start date of his study assignments?
• Does state law allow a registered nurse to dispense investigational product, or is a nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant required? Does the protocol require only an M.D. conduct certain procedures? Does the DoA log show the requirement is being followed?

Study Procedures
Even after the focus of the monitoring visit moves past the DoA log itself, you should revisit the log during source document review.

• Have any study tasks been conducted by staff members who have not received official delegation to do so?
• Perhaps the protocol requires a blinded IP dispenser. If so, has the delegated dispenser conducted any other study procedure?

PI Oversight
The PI is responsible for ensuring subject safety, compliance with the regs and the protocol, and control of the investigational product. That obligation cannot be delegated away. PI oversight is critical to a successful study, and the DoA log is where PI oversight starts.

Procedures that are performed by unqualified or ineligible personnel put both study participants and study data at risk. These are the very things regulatory inspectors work to guard against. Good monitors know it and make verifying the DoA log a priority.

__________________
A version of this article originally appeared in InSite, the Journal of the Society for Clinical Research Sites.

Last month, I scheduled one-on-one discussions with our most experienced GCP auditors to ask each of them the same question: What surprises you most about the audits you conduct?

I guess you could say that I was the one who was surprised. I’m not sure exactly what I was expecting to hear, but I thought my teammates were going to talk about things that were new. Instead, I heard a lot more about things that have been around for a long time. To a person, my colleagues said they were surprised to be observing some of the same audit findings they were observing 30 years ago...which *is* surprising when you consider most of them were mere children at the time. ;-)  It seems we have some stubbornly persistent quality and compliance issues in the biopharma industry that decades of neither experience nor technology have seemed to remedy. And the problems are not just persistent; they’re interrelated.



Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
It’s quite common for auditors to encounter sponsors, CROs, and sites that lack an adequate set of SOPs to describe local procedures. There are several reasons for this. Sometimes it’s a lack of resources. Sometimes smaller, established organizations believe writing it all down is unnecessary, as “people know their jobs.” Sometimes newer companies are simply unaware that written procedures are required for particular operations. But when procedures are not documented, organizations are unable to demonstrate GCP compliance, cannot ensure that activities are performed correctly or consistently, and have difficulty training new staff members. (We’ll come back to training in a bit.)

Frequently missing from a good working set of SOPs are procedures for Disaster Recovery, Handling of Suspected Fraud, and Management of Regulatory Inspections. These SOPs are not used for day-to-day operations, so perhaps that’s why they don’t garner as much attention. Nevertheless, the inability to recover from a disaster, protect the organization from fraud allegations, or pass a regulatory inspection can sink a company.

A fourth SOP that is commonly absent from the set is the document that describes how to write, approve, distribute, revise, and retire SOPs. Also frequently missing from a working set of SOPs is our next topic: Training.

Training
Training can be expensive and time-consuming, and companies increasingly have to do more with less. In-person training has largely been replaced by computer-based systems, on-site training has given way to distance learning, and mentoring has gone the way of the dodo.

The good news is that study sites typically adhere to formal GCP training requirements. What’s often missing, though, is the training that connects GCP concepts to everyday activities. A trainee might correctly answer a multiple-choice question about audit trails, but without that “last mile” of coaching, use Wite-Out to correct a source document error. This is where SOPs come in. When training is conducted using well-written SOPs, it can help bridge the gap between standard GCP training and specific site operations.

It is not uncommon for study-specific training to be lacking in CROs – protocol training, device training, computer systems user training. As part of their vendor oversight procedures (also an SOP!), sponsors should be making sure that CRO staff is adequately trained. 

Trial Master Files (TMFs)
Whether paper or electronic, it’s common for TMF documents to be missing or expired. Replacements for these documents can usually be produced and filed at the time of the audit. Misfiled documents are another matter; they are already there but cannot easily be found. Locating and refiling them essentially doubles the time and cost of the original effort. For example, documents from multiple labs, such as certificates, credentials, vendor audit results, etc., are often mistakenly commingled. Documents must be sorted and refiled so that each facility listed on the 1572 has its own file or electronic folder.


Another very common mistake is treating every document on letterhead as if it’s general correspondence. Search for the word “letter” in the DIA Reference Model and you can see how many opportunities exist for misclassifying correspondence. For example, an IND safety report sent by the sponsor on letterhead should be filed under “Notification of Safety Information,” Section 8.3.18 in ICH E6(R2), not “Relevant Communications,” Section 8.3.11. In an eTMF, an IRB approval letter belongs in 04.01.02, its designated DIA Reference Model position, not 04.04.01, which is reserved for general communication.

The root cause of these misfilings? The filer does not know enough about the filing structure of the TMF and often is not familiar enough with clinical research to know the purpose of each document and where it belongs. The corrective action? Training. Training on the TMF plan, the TMF Management SOP, ICH GCP, and study operations in general.

Technology to the Rescue?
No doubt, CTMSs, eTMFs, eCRFs, ePRO, and other systems have improved clinical operations and reduced error. However, three decades of technological advances have done little to address the most common quality and compliance issues encountered by GCP auditors – and by extension regulators. Some might find that discouraging, but isn’t it also a little satisfying that the solution to our most persistent problems comes down to human communication?

______________________________________________________________________
A version of this article originally appeared in InSite, the Journal of the Society for Clinical Research Sites.

On Friday, 21 emerging medical device companies will present their technologies and business plans to a group of local investors at the annual MedTech Showcase, hosted by the Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council. More than 300 venture leaders and business leaders are expected to attend the event tomorrow, Oct. 28 from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the Westin Waltham, 70 Third Ave. As a main event, John McDonough, president and CEO of Lexington-based T2 Biosystems (Nasdaq: TTOO), will be interviewed…

The results of a 33-patient study conducted by a Burlington biotech suggest its long-acting steroid injection for osteoarthritis of the knee may be safer for the large percentage of those patients who also have type 2 diabetes. Flexion Therapeutics (Nasdaq: FLXN) has for years been developing its lead drug candidate, Zilretta (formerly called FX006), a reformulation of a common corticosteroid that’s used with osteoarthritis patients. Flexion’s version combines the drug with a employs proprietary…

Latest innovation in quadrivalent meningococcal vaccination designed for use in persons 2 years of age and older in the U.S.

• Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended continuing ongoing Phase 3 trial only in the more advanced “critical” group with Kevzara higher-dose versus placebo and discontinuing less advanced “severe” group

Do we ever learn from our past mistakes? For many years we believed that technology was an inevitable force for good. It would give us instant access to a near infinite amount of information and allow us to easily and instantly connect with nearly anyone on earth. What could go wrong? The answer is that...

Click here to continue reading...

There are major regulatory lapses in the manufacturing of similar biologics in India. The use of scientific audits could strengthen the regulatory system and improve the provision of high quality biosimilars in the country, according to a recent opinion piece [1] by Dr GR Soni, which was published in GaBI Journal.

Celltrion has submitted an application to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for its adalimumab biosimilar, currently known as CT-P17.

An online educational course has been published by Medscape in collaboration with the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialist.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, authorities in Australia and the European Union have allowed drug producers to collaborate to ensure medicine production and supply.

Top-line: The Congressional schedule and work practices are uncertain over the next few months, leaving many questions about whether and how appropriations bills will move forward. There is a possibility that increased funding at public health agencies, including FDA, may be exempt from FY 21 budget caps. The Alliance’s meeting with Dr. Boon, FDA Associate Commissioner […]

Top-Line: There is no new information about the appropriations schedule for Congress. The House will require a rules change for appropriators to work remotely. The death of former FDA Commissioner Donald Kennedy is noted. More on FDA’s extraordinary efforts to address food safety and supply issues. Eventually, Congress will need to address FY 21 funding and […]

Q: Congress must act on FY 21 appropriations. What are the possible ways for Congress to address this? A: Congress must decide if they will do substantive work on the 12 appropriations bills with the goal of passing full-year funding bills before October 1. One alternative would be to fund the beginning of the fiscal year […]

Top-Line: This week we look at House and Senate schedules for returning to DC and starting on the FY 21 appropriations process. This week’s Analysis and Commentary explores the reasons why advances in science and technology foretell that FDA will need significant additional funding in FY 21. This column focuses on vaccine development. Senate Returns […]

Top-line: Congress is inching forward on the FY 21 appropriations process. However, neither the House nor the Senate has adopted rules permitting virtual committee mark-ups. Also hanging over the process is the tight budget ceiling for non-defense discretionary (NDD) programs. Various ways it might be solved and implications for FDA are discussed in this week’s Analysis […]

Catalent announces partnership with J&J to manufacture lead COVID-19 vaccine candidate, plans to hire 300 staff and manufacture 24/7.

Ajinomoto agrees partnership to manufacture leronlimab, which is currently undergoing clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19.

The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic bring change shifts the status quo on a daily basis with both breadth and depth. Everything we as individuals and as a society would normally do is undergoing change. FDA regulatory oversight is one … Continue reading →

On February 21 I published a piece on LinkedIn – Communications Considerations for Medical Manufacturers as the COVID-19 Epidemic Emerges – that provided an overview of some of the communications considerations for pharma, biotech and device manufacturers related to the … Continue reading →

Earlier this month I published a blog posting that raised questions related to the potential for disruption of approvals in the wake of FDA actions to limit inspections due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Subsequently I had the opportunity to pose … Continue reading →

With the COVID-19 impact making itself apparent on a daily basis as the numbers climb and organizations respond, the effects on the pharma and biotech sector also shifts. Yesterday FDA announced a new concentration of agency assets to be focused … Continue reading →

Virtually everyone is going virtual. Even in February, which seems like a very long time ago, many organizers began either postponing or canceling major conferences and meetings. This has included major medical meetings and given that large gatherings will be … Continue reading →

In response to written questions submitted last month regarding the potential for delays, FDA had stated that “CDER remains fully capable to continue daily activities, while responding to the public needs of the current COVID-19 outbreak.” In a subsequent blog … Continue reading →

Posted by Roger Bate My op-ed with Dinesh Thakur in The Hill today highlights the recent recommendation by Europe's chief drug regulator to suspend 700 generic drugs whose approvals were based on flawed – or forged – clinical studies conducted by GVK Bio, an Indian contract research organization. We urge U.S. Federal regulators to follow Europe’s lead and move to rescind market approval for these drugs while conducting their own investigation. You can read the op-ed here [...]

by Derek Willis

In an April report that warns of the risks of fraud in mail-in voting, a conservative legal group significantly inflated a key statistic, a ProPublica analysis found. The Public Interest Legal Foundation reported that more than 1 million ballots sent out to voters in 2018 were returned as undeliverable. Taken at face value, that would represent a 91% increase over the number of undeliverable mail ballots in 2016, a sign that a vote-by-mail system would be a “catastrophe” for elections, the group argued.

However, after ProPublica provided evidence to PILF that it had in fact doubled the official government numbers, the organization corrected its figure. The number of undeliverable mail ballots dropped slightly from 2016 to 2018.

The PILF report said that one in five mail ballots issued between 2012 and 2018, a total of 28.3 million, were not returned by voters and were “missing,” which, according to the organization, creates an opportunity for fraud. In a May 1 tweet that included a link to coverage of the report, President Donald Trump wrote: “Don’t allow RIGGED ELECTIONS.”

PILF regularly sues state and local election officials to force them to purge some voters from registration rolls, including those it claims have duplicate registrations from another state or who are dead. It is headed by J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department attorney who was a member of the Trump administration’s disbanded commission on election integrity.

The report describes as “missing” all mail ballots that were delivered to a valid address but not returned to be counted. In a statement accompanying the report, Adams said that unaccounted-for ballots “represent 28 million opportunities for someone to cheat.” In particular, the organization argues that the number of unreturned ballots would grow if more states adopt voting by mail.

Experts who study voting and use the same data PILF used in the report, which is from the Election Administration and Voting Survey produced by the federal Election Assistance Commission, say that it’s wrong to describe unreturned ballots as missing.

“Election officials ‘know’ what happened to those ballots,” said Paul Gronke, a professor at Reed College, who is the director of the Early Voting Information Center, a research group based there. “They were received by eligible citizens and not filled out. Where are they now? Most likely, in landfills,” Gronke said by email.

A recent RealClear Politics article based on the PILF report suggested that an increase in voting by mail this year could make the kind of fraud uncovered in North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District in 2018 more likely. In that case, a political consultant to a Republican candidate was indicted on charges of absentee ballot fraud for overseeing a paid ballot collection operation. “The potential to affect elections by chasing down unused mail-in ballots and make sure they get counted — using methods that may or may not be legal — is great,” the article argues.

PILF’s report was mentioned in other news outlets including the Grand Junction Sentinel in Colorado, “PBS NewsHour” and the New York Post. The Washington Times repeated the inaccurate claim of 1 million undeliverable mail ballots.

In a statement, the National Vote at Home Institute, an advocacy group, challenged the characterization of the 28.3 million ballots as missing. Of those ballots, 12 million were mailed by election officials in Colorado, Oregon and Washington, which by law send a mail-in ballot to every registered voter, roughly 30% of which are not returned for any given election. “Conflating voters choosing not to cast their ballots with ‘missing’ ballots is a fundamental flaw,” the statement reads.

In an interview, Logan Churchwell, the communications director for PILF, acknowledged the error in the number of undelivered ballots, but defended the report’s conclusions, saying that it showed potential vulnerabilities in the voting system. “Election officials send these ballots out in the mail, and for them to say ‘I have no idea what happened after that’ speaks more to the investments they haven’t made to track them,” he said in a telephone interview.

But 36 states have adopted processes where voters and local officials can track the status of mail ballots through delivery, much like they can track packages delivered to a home. Churchwell said there are other explanations why mail ballots are not returned and that state and local election officials could report more information about the status of mail ballots. “If you know a ballot got to a house, you can credibly say that ballot’s status is not unknown,” he said.

The EAVS data has been published after every general election since 2004, although not every local jurisdiction provides complete responses to its questions.

In the data, election officials are asked to provide the number of mail ballots sent to voters, the number returned to be counted and the number of ballots returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Postal Service, which provides specific ballot-tracking services. The survey also asks for the number of ballots that are turned in or invalidated by voters who chose to cast their ballots in person. It asks officials to report the number of ballots that do not fit into any of those categories, or are “otherwise unable to be tracked by your office.”

Gronke described the last category as “a placeholder for elections officials to put numbers so that the whole column adds up,” and said that there was no evidence to support calling those ballots a pathway to large-scale voter fraud.

Numerous academic studies have shown that cases of voter fraud are extremely rare, although they do occur, and that fraud in mail voting seems to occur more often than with in-person voting.

by Alice Wilder, WNYC

Presidential lawyer and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has largely fallen out of the public eye since his starring role in President Donald Trump’s impeachment. But Giuliani hasn’t gone silent.

Instead, he’s in his home, doing a call-in radio show and a podcast — “Common Sense” — during which he has repeatedly gone on bigoted rants about China and its government.

“They have no morals,” he said on his April 28 radio show. “They’re amoral in the sense that human life means something in Western civilization, it means a lot. Human life doesn’t mean the same thing to them.”

Giuliani has also speculated that the spread of the coronavirus may be a plot by the Chinese government.

For example, Giuliani has raised the possibility that China purposely released the virus from a biological lab in Wuhan. “We have to say accidentally,” Giuliani said in a recent radio broadcast. “But I don’t think as responsible investigators we can rule out that it wasn’t done deliberately.”

Experts say there’s no public evidence the virus came from the lab. Amid a reported White House push, U.S. intelligence agencies have said they are investigating the origins of the virus.

Giuliani is also fixated on the idea that the Chinese government sent sick people overseas. In an April 27 episode of his podcast, he said that China allowed “over a million people from Wuhan travel to us, to the United States, to England to France to Italy to Germany.” He added, “I hope the people there have the same reaction we have to the value of human life and the loss of human life.”

“When they found out about this terrible virus that escaped, assuming they didn’t do it on purpose,” Giuliani said a day later on his radio show, “they were going to make sure the West suffered as much if not more than they did and jumped on top of an opportunity, it’s not a big assumption to make. And there isn’t a contrary explanation.”

The New York Times found that thousands, not millions, of people flew internationally out of Wuhan.

Asked about his comments, Giuliani did not respond.

The comments by Giuliani have come as discrimination against Asian Americans has spiked. And they reinforce the White House’s emerging push to blame China for the pandemic.

Giuliani has said he’s spoken to the president a number of times about the coronavirus. Two days after Giuliani said he was sure the virus came from the Wuhan lab, Trump said he has evidence of the same. (The president declined to give the evidence, saying it’s secret.)

Giuliani appears to have found a receptive wider audience too. An advertising executive at 77 WABC, which airs Giuliani’s radio show, said “feedback has been amazing” and online listening has “skyrocketed.”

The station’s parent company, Red Apple Media, did not respond to a request for comment.

In an April 23 radio show, Giuliani interviewed Gordon Chang, a conservative pundit who frequently predicts the collapse of the Chinese government. Chang said if China released the virus accidentally — for which, again, there’s no evidence — it then decided to create a global pandemic. “I think what Xi Jinping did was he decided he was going to spread the virus so that he would level the playing field so that China would not be in such a hole,” Chang said, referring to China’s president.

“Wow,” Giuliani responded. “So he saw an opportunity, if that theory is correct, and it wasn’t a bioweapon to start with, he saw an opportunity that was sort of accidentally presented to him, and then he took advantage of it. It was opportunistic.”

Chang acknowledged, “We can’t know what was in Xi Jinping’s mind for sure.” But then he went on, “It looks more like they were deliberate and malicious and that means Mr. Mayor ... this is a crime against all of humanity.”

Giuliani ended the interview by inviting Chang to be a guest on his other show, the podcast.

Giuliani has also said he’d use his access to help guests on his show move ahead with exploratory treatments. Talking with one pharmaceutical executive on his show in late March, Giuliani told his guest, “I’ll use whatever my yelling and screaming can do to do it faster, to help you.”

As the Times reported, the executive’s company received initial trial approval from the Food and Drug Administration soon after. (The FDA has said the application was subject to “internal scientific review.” And Giuliani has said he has no business connection to the company.)

“I don’t lobby the government,” Giuliani emailed in response to a request for comment. “I do hope, however, that they and others are successful.”

Giuliani appears to have strong feelings about the government’s process for approving drugs.

In an April 23 broadcast, Mark, a pharmacist from New Jersey, called in to report on his “informal study” of the patients who have used a drug cocktail that includes hydroxychloroquine — the anti-malaria drug that Trump long has touted.

Giuliani was excited when Mark reported that none of his patients had been hospitalized: “Why doesn’t this count with all these geniuses in Washington? The double blind study and the triple blind study and this study and that study, we don’t have time for that, we’ve got to go to people like Mark in New Jersey!”

In fact, the FDA has warned against widespread use of the drug, noting that it can cause heart problems.

The discussions with his listeners, though, often come back to China.

One caller to Giuliani’s radio show, identifying himself as “George from Bay Ridge,” went on a rant against Chinese people, likening them to serial killers with “no conscience” who are attempting to take over businesses all over the world.

Giuliani responded, “George, I’ve been getting complaints about this for a long time.” He added: “It almost reminds me of the Mafia. You know, they say, if you do business with America it’s one thing. If you do business with China you don’t realize, all of a sudden you start owing them too much and they believe they own you.”

---

by Yeganeh Torbati

Democratic members of Congress are urging President Donald Trump to authorize FEMA to reimburse funeral expenses for victims of the coronavirus pandemic, citing ProPublica’s reporting about the administration’s policies.

“Just as with all previous disasters, we should not expect the families of those that died — or the hardest hit states — to pay for burials,” said the statement issued Friday from Rep. Bennie Thompson, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Peter DeFazio, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. “President Trump needs to step up and approve this assistance so FEMA can pay for the funerals of our fellow Americans so they can be buried in dignity. It is the least he can do.”

ProPublica reported last week that Trump has yet to free up a pool of disaster funding specifically intended to help families cover burial costs, despite requests from approximately 30 states and territories. In lieu of federal help, grieving families are turning to religious institutions and online fundraisers to bury the dead.

Trump has sharply limited the kinds of assistance that FEMA can provide in responding to the coronavirus pandemic. In an April 28 memorandum, he authorized FEMA to provide crisis counseling services but said that authority “shall not be construed to encompass any authority to approve other forms of assistance.”

In a statement last week, a FEMA spokesperson said the approval of assistance programs “is made at the discretion of the President.” A spokeswoman for the White House’s Office of Management and Budget last week referred questions to FEMA, and she and two White House spokesmen did not respond to a request for comment on Monday.

The administration’s failure so far to pay for funeral costs does not appear to be because of a lack of funds. Congress gave FEMA’s disaster relief fund an extra boost of $45 billion in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act in March.

On Sunday, NJ Advance Media reported that as of April 25, FEMA had committed less than $6 billion in disaster relief for the coronavirus pandemic, and it has $80.5 billion in available disaster relief funds. The information was attributed to a FEMA spokesperson. FEMA did not respond to a request to confirm the figures.

Calls for FEMA aid are likely to spike in the coming months, as hurricane season approaches and wildfire activity hits an anticipated peak.

The amount FEMA reimburses for funeral expenses can vary, but a September 2019 report from the Government Accountability Office found that FEMA paid about $2.6 million in response to 976 applications for funeral costs of victims of three 2017 hurricanes, or an average of about $2,700 per approved application. If FEMA provided that amount for every one of the nearly 68,000 people in America reported to have died in the pandemic thus far, it would cost the government about $183 million.

Do you have access to information about the U.S. government response to the coronavirus that should be public? Email yeganeh.torbati@propublica.org. Here’s how to send tips and documents to ProPublica securely.

---

by ProPublica

The Pulitzer Board announced Monday that two series published by ProPublica were awarded Pulitzer Prizes. “Lawless,” a ProPublica Local Reporting Network project by the Anchorage Daily News that revealed how indigenous people in Alaska are denied public safety services, was awarded the prize for public service. “Disaster in the Pacific,” an investigation on the staggering leadership failures that led to deadly accidents in the Navy and Marines, won a national reporting prize. The two designations are ProPublica’s 6th Pulitzer win in 12 years and the first Pulitzer awarded to a Local Reporting Network partner.

Led by Daily News reporter Kyle Hopkins, “Lawless” was the first comprehensive investigation to lay bare Alaska’s failing, two-tiered justice system in which Native villages are denied access to first responders. In much of rural Alaska, villages can only be reached by plane, and calling 911 to report an emergency often means waiting hours or days for help to arrive.

The series evolved from a string of stories that Hopkins reported in 2018 for the Daily News, recounting horrific incidents of sexual assault in Alaska — which has the nation’s highest rate of sexual violence — and policing failures that have allowed offenders to continue the abuse with impunity. To fully investigate issues of lawlessness and sexual assault in the most remote communities in the U.S., the Daily News applied to participate in ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network. The program partners with newsrooms across the country, paying the salary and a stipend for benefits for local reporters who spend a year tackling big investigative stories that are crucial to their communities. Participating reporters work with a ProPublica senior editor and receive support, including from ProPublica’s data, research and engagement teams.

The collaboration’s first story, based on more than 750 public records requests and interviews, found that one in three rural Alaska communities has no local law enforcement of any kind. These indigenous communities are also among the country’s most vulnerable, with the highest rates of sexual assault, suicide and domestic violence. The series’ second major installment found that dozens of Alaska communities, desperate for police of any kind, hired officers convicted of felonies, domestic violence, assault and other offenses that would make them ineligible to work in law enforcement or even as security guards anywhere else in the country.

Next, Hopkins revealed how the state’s 40-year-old Village Public Safety Officer Program, designed to recruit villagers to work as life-saving first responders, has failed by every measure. Alaska had quietly denied funding for basic recruitment and equipment costs for these unarmed village officers while publicly claiming to prioritize public safety spending. “Lawless” also exposed how the Alaska State Troopers agency, created to protect Alaska Native villages, instead patrols mostly white suburbs surrounding cities on the road system like Wasilla. The series ended with a list of six practical solutions to Alaska’s law enforcement crisis, based on interviews with experts, village leaders, the Alaska congressional delegation and sexual assault survivors.

The Daily News and ProPublica faced a number of challenges in reporting the series. The first: No one knew which remote Alaska villages had police officers of any kind. So they built the first-ever statewide policing database by drawing on payroll, arrest and hiring records from communities spread across the state. They also contacted every village city government, sovereign tribal administrator and Alaska Native corporation in the state — more than 600 organizations.

The vastness of the state and the fact that 80% of communities aren’t on the road system posed another challenge. Journalists flew hundreds of miles, sleeping on the floors of schoolhouse libraries and riding in sleds and on snowmobiles. To aid the reporting, they also held a community meeting in Kotzebue, Alaska, where a 10-year-old girl had been raped and murdered in 2018, providing residents, advocates, tribal leaders and law enforcement their first chance for a public discussion on sexual violence. Throughout the year the reporters spoke to more than 300 people across the state.

Following publication of the first major story, U.S. Attorney General William Barr visited the state and declared the lack of law enforcement in rural Alaska to be a federal emergency. The declaration led the Department of Justice to promise more than $52 million in federal funding for public safety in Alaska villages. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Anchorage announced the hiring of additional rural prosecutors, while Gov. Mike Dunleavy said the state will post 15 additional state troopers in rural Alaska. In addition, the Alaska Police Standards Council has proposed changing state regulations that govern the hiring and screening of village police officers, and Alaska legislators proposed legislation that would increase pay for VPSOs and overhaul funding of the program.

The Daily News’ Loren Holmes, Bill Roth, Marc Lester, David Hulen, Anne Raup, Vicky Ho, Alex Demarban, Jeff Parrott, Michelle Theriault Boots, Tess Williams, Tegan Hanlon, Zaz Hollander, Annie Zak, Shady Grove Oliver and Kevin Powell, as well as ProPublica’s Charles Ornstein, Adriana Gallardo, Alex Mierjeski, Beena Raghavendran, Nadia Sussman, Lylla Younes, Agnel Philip, Setareh Baig and David Sleight also contributed to the series.

“The ProPublica Local Reporting Network was started to give local newsrooms across America the resources and support they need to execute investigative journalism that digs deep and holds power to account,” Ornstein, a ProPublica deputy managing editor, said. “This powerful collaboration with the Anchorage Daily News investigation does exactly that, going far beyond reporting on isolated incidents to provide meticulous research and context on how the justice system has failed Alaska’s most remote and vulnerable communities. Most importantly, it has been a force for real change.”

In their “Disaster in the Pacific” series, ProPublica reporters T. Christian Miller, Megan Rose and Robert Faturechi centered on three deadly accidents in the Navy and Marines in 2017 and 2018. They exposed America’s vaunted 7th Fleet as being in crisis with broken ships and planes, poor training for and multiple warnings ignored by its commanders. The costs: 17 dead sailors in crashes involving Navy warships, and six Marines killed in a training accident.

The back-to-back accidents in 2017 and 2018 gained initial attention from Congress and the national media, but they had been told an incomplete, misleading and dangerous story of half-truths and cover-ups. ProPublica’s series provided the first full accounting of culpability, tracing responsibility to the highest uniformed and civilian ranks of the Navy. The reporting team spent 18 months on the investigation, obtaining more than 13,000 pages of confidential Navy records and interviewing hundreds of officials up and down the chain-of-command.

The first article in the series, “Fight the Ship,” reconstructed a 2017 crash involving the USS Fitzgerald, one of the deadliest accidents in the history of the Navy. The story showed that the accident was entirely preventable, and that the Navy’s senior leadership had endangered the warship by sending a shorthanded and undertrained crew to sea with outdated and poorly maintained equipment. To show readers what happened, ProPublica hired designer Xaquín G.V. Working with investigations producer Lucas Waldron, Xaquín used geodata on the ships’ locations, mapped the path of each vessel and created a graphic that simulated the crash, down to the moment the Fitzgerald was sent spinning out of control, rotating 360 degrees. The team also collected radar images, ship blueprints, hand-drawn images made by surviving sailors and video taken inside the ship, which allowed them to portray the disaster from the perspective of the sailors onboard.

A second story, “Years of Warnings, Then Death and Disaster,” detailed how the fatal crash of the USS Fitzgerald, and of the USS McCain weeks later, were the result of a congressional gutting of the Navy and the Navy’s prioritization of building new ships. Top Navy officials gave urgent, repeated warnings to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus about the deadly risks facing its fleet, including being short of sailors, sailors poorly trained and worked to exhaustion, warships physically coming apart, and ships routinely failing tests to see if they were prepared to handle warfighting duties. They were ignored, told to be quiet or even ordered to resign.

Another story captured the Marine Corps multiple failures that were responsible for the deaths of six men in a nighttime training exercise 15,000 feet above the Pacific — an accident that senior leaders had been warned was possible, even likely. ProPublica created an animated short documentary, using a combination of an on-camera interview, 3D animation, 2D illustration and atmospheric footage to bring the excruciating hours of a needless tragedy to light. Through extensive interviews with eyewitnesses, the team reconstructed the moments leading up to the crash, the crash itself and the botched search and rescue effort.

The series also illuminated how the Navy’s reckless management of the 7th Fleet was measured not only in fatalities, but also in the hurt and shame of the rank-and-file sailors whom the Navy blamed and prosecuted for the accidents. The Navy’s prosecution of Navy Cmdr. Bryce Benson for what were clearly systemic shortcomings, traceable all the way to the Pentagon, left many of its own furious and demoralized.

Weeks after the first story’s publication, the House Armed Services Committee convened a panel to challenge senior Navy leaders over their claims that they had been fully truthful about its failings and its efforts at reform. The reporting forced the Navy to admit to Congress that its claims about its rate of progress on reform were misleading. In light of ProPublica’s reporting on the improper role that the Navy’s top commander played in the prosecution of Benson, one of captains on the USS Fitzgerald, the Navy dropped all criminal charges. U.S. and NATO Navy commands throughout the world have ordered sailors and officers to read the ProPublica accounts as part of training and education.

Joseph Sexton, Tracy Weber, Agnes Chang, Katie Campbell, Joe Singer, Kengo Tsutsumi, Ruth Baron, David Sleight, Sisi Wei, Claire Perlman, Joshua Hunt and Nate Schweber also contributed to this series.

“The Navy actively blocked reporting at every step, with communications officers attempting to dissuade officials from conducting interviews with ProPublica and leaking positive stories to competing media outlets in an attempt to front-run our stories,” ProPublica Managing Editor Robin Fields said. “The military even threatened that we could be criminally prosecuted for publishing the material we obtained. This tour de force of investigative journalism is a testament to the unflinching tenacity of the reporters and the innovation of ProPublica’s data, graphics, research and design teams. Their essential work laid bare the avoidance of responsibility by the military’s most senior leaders.”

by Abrahm Lustgarten

The scientists who study how diseases emerge in a changing environment knew this moment was coming. Climate change is making outbreaks of disease more common and more dangerous.

Over the past few decades, the number of emerging infectious diseases that spread to people — especially coronaviruses and other respiratory illnesses believed to have come from bats and birds — has skyrocketed. A new emerging disease surfaces five times a year. One study estimates that more than 3,200 strains of coronaviruses already exist among bats, awaiting an opportunity to jump to people.

The diseases may have always been there, buried deep in wild and remote places out of reach of people. But until now, the planet’s natural defense systems were better at fighting them off.

Today, climate warming is demolishing those defense systems, driving a catastrophic loss in biodiversity that, when coupled with reckless deforestation and aggressive conversion of wildland for economic development, pushes farms and people closer to the wild and opens the gates for the spread of disease.

Aaron Bernstein, the interim director for the C-Change Center for Climate, Health and the Global Environment at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said that ignoring how climate and rapid land development were putting disease-carrying animals in a squeeze was akin to playing Russian roulette.

“Nature is trying to tell us something,” Bernstein said.

Scientists have not suggested that climate played any direct role in causing the current COVID-19 outbreak. Though the virus is believed to have originated with the horseshoe bat, part of a genus that’s been roaming the forests of the planet for 40 million years and thrives in the remote jungles of south China, even that remains uncertain.

Scientists have, however, been studying the coronaviruses of southern China for years and warning that swift climate and environmental change there — in both loss of biodiversity and encroachment by civilization — was going to help new viruses jump to people.

There are three ways climate influences emerging diseases. Roughly 60% of new pathogens come from animals — including those pressured by diversity loss — and roughly one-third of those can be directly attributed to changes in human land use, meaning deforestation, the introduction of farming, development or resource extraction in otherwise natural settings. Vector-borne diseases — those carried by insects like mosquitoes and ticks and transferred in the blood of infected people — are also on the rise as warming weather and erratic precipitation vastly expand the geographic regions vulnerable to contagion. Climate is even bringing old viruses back from the dead, thawing zombie contagions like the anthrax released from a frozen reindeer in 2016, which can come down from the arctic and haunt us from the past.

Thus the COVID-19 pandemic, even as it unfolds in the form of an urgent crisis, is offering a larger lesson. It is demonstrating in real time the enormous and undeniable power that nature has over civilization and even over its politics. That alone may make the pandemic prologue for more far-reaching and disruptive changes to come. But it also makes clear that climate policy today is indivisible from efforts to prevent new infectious outbreaks, or, as Bernstein put it, the notion that climate and health and environmental policy might not be related is “a ​dangerous delusion.”

---

The warming of the climate is one of the principal drivers of the greatest — and fastest — loss of species diversity in the history of the planet, as shifting climate patterns force species to change habitats, push them into new regions or threaten their food and water supplies. What’s known as biodiversity is critical because the natural variety of plants and animals lends each species greater resiliency against threat and together offers a delicately balanced safety net for natural systems. As diversity wanes, the balance is upset, and remaining species are both more vulnerable to human influences and, according to a landmark 2010 study in the journal Nature, more likely to pass along powerful pathogens.

The casualties are amplified by civilization’s relentless push into forests and wild areas on the hunt for timber, cropland and other natural resources. Epidemiologists tracking the root of disease in South Asia have learned that even incremental and seemingly manageable injuries to local environments — say, the construction of a livestock farm adjacent to stressed natural forest — can add up to outsized consequences.

Around the world, according to the World Resources Institute, only 15% of the planet’s forests remain intact. The rest have been cut down, degraded or fragmented to the point that they disrupt the natural ecosystems that depend on them. As the forests die, and grasslands and wetlands are also destroyed, biodiversity sharply decreases further. The United Nations warns that the number of species on the planet has already dropped by 20% and that more than a million animal and plant species now face extinction.

Losing species has, in certain cases, translated directly to a rise in infectious disease.

Americans have been experiencing this phenomenon directly in recent years as migratory birds have become less diverse and the threat posed by West Nile encephalitis has spread. It turns out that the birds that host the disease happen to also be the tough ones that prevail amid a thinned population. Those survivors have supported higher infection rates in mosquitoes and more spread to people.

Similarly, a study published last month in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B found that as larger mammals suffer declines at the hands of hunters or loggers or shifting climate patterns, smaller species, including bats, rats and other rodents, are thriving, either because they are more resilient to the degraded environment or they are able to live better among people.

It is these small animals, the ones that manage to find food in garbage cans or build nests in the eaves of buildings, that are proving most adaptable to human interference and also happen to spread disease. Rodents alone accounted for more than 60% of all the diseases transmitted from animals to people, the researchers found.

Warmer temperatures and higher rainfall associated with climate change — coupled with the loss of predators — are bound to make the rodent problem worse, with calamitous implications. In 1999, for example, parts of Panama saw three times as much rainfall as usual. The rat population exploded, researchers found. And so did the viruses rats carry, along with the chances those viruses would jump to people. That same year, a fatal lung disease transmitted through the saliva, feces and urine of rats and mice called hantavirus pulmonary syndrome emerged in Panama for the first time, according to a report in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases.

As much as weather changes can drive changes in species, so does altering the landscape for new farms and new cities. In fact, researchers attribute a full 30% of emerging contagion to what they call “land use change.” Nothing drives land use shifts more than conversion for farmland and feedstock — a result of the push to feed the planet’s 7.8 billion people. As the global population surges to 10 billion over the next 35 years, and the capacity to farm food is stressed further again by the warming climate, the demand for land will only get more intense. Already, more than one-third of the planet’s land surface, and three-quarters of all of its fresh water, go toward the cultivation of crops and raising of livestock. These are the places where infectious diseases spread most often.

Take, for example, the 1999 Nipah outbreak in Malaysia — the true-life subject matter adapted for the film “Contagion.” Rapid clearcutting of the forests there to make way for palm plantations drove fruit bats to the edge of the trees. (Separate research also suggests that climate changes are shifting fruit bats’ food supply.) They found places to roost, as it happens, alongside a hog farm. As the bats gorged themselves on fruit, they dropped pieces of food from the branches, along with their urine, into the pigsties, where at least one pig is believed to have eaten some. When the pig was slaughtered and brought to market, an outbreak is believed to have been spread by the man who handled the meat. More than 100 people died.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that fully three-quarters of all new viruses have emerged from animals. Even the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa is believed to have begun when a boy dug into a tree stump that happened to be the roost of bats carrying the virus.

As Christine Johnson, the associate director of the One Health Institute, an interdisciplinary epidemiological program at the University of California, Davis, puts it, global health policymakers have a responsibility to understand how climate, habitat and land use changes lead to disease. Almost every major epidemic we know of over the past couple of decades — SARS, COVID-19, Ebola and Nipah virus — jumped to people from wildlife enduring extreme climate and habitat strain, and still, “we’re naive to them,” she said. “That puts us in a dangerous place.”

---

Once new diseases are let loose in our environment, changing temperatures and precipitation are also changing how those diseases spread — and not for the better. Warming climates increase the range within which a disease can find a home, especially those transmitted by “vectors,” mosquitoes and ticks that carry a pathogen from its primary host to its new victim.

A 2008 study in the journal Nature found nearly one-third of emerging infectious diseases over the past 10 years were vector-borne, and that the jumps matched unusual changes in the climate. Especially in cases where insects like infection-bearing mosquitoes are chasing warmer temperatures, the study said, “climate change may drive the emergence of diseases.”

Ticks and mosquitoes now thrive in places they’d never ventured before. As tropical species move northward, they are bringing dangerous pathogens with them. The Zika virus or Chikungunya, a mosquito-spread virus that manifests in intense joint pain, were once unseen in the United States, but both were transmitted locally, not brought home by travelers, in southern Texas and Florida in recent years.

Soon, they’ll be spreading further northward. According to a 2019 study in the journal PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, by 2050, disease-carrying mosquitoes will ultimately reach 500 million more people than they do today, including some 55 million more Americans. In 2013, dengue fever — an affliction affecting nearly 400 million people a year, but normally associated with the poorest regions of Africa — was transmitted locally in New York for the first time.

“The long-term risk from dengue may be much higher than COVID,” said Scott Weaver, the director of the Institute for Human Infections and Immunity at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston. “It’s a disease of poor countries, so it doesn’t get the attention it deserves.”

The chain of events that ultimately leads to a pandemic can be long and subtle, steered by shifts in the ecosystem. The 1999 West Nile outbreak in the U.S., for example, came after climate-driven droughts dried up streams and rivers, leaving pools of stagnant water where mosquitoes bred unhindered. It turns out the loss of water also killed off their predators — dragonflies and frogs that depend on large watering holes were gone.

Coronaviruses like COVID-19 aren’t likely to be carried by insects — they don’t leave enough infected virus cells in the blood. But one in five other viruses transmitted from animals to people are vector-borne, said U.C. Davis’ Johnson, meaning it’s only a matter of time before other exotic animal-driven pathogens are driven from the forests of the global tropics to the United States or Canada or Europe because of the warming climate. “Climate is going to shift vulnerability to that,” Johnson said, “and I think some of these regions are not prepared.”

The changing climate won’t just affect how the diseases move about the planet, it will also shape how easily we get sick. According to a 2013 study in the journal PLOS Currents Influenza, warm winters were predictors of the most severe flu seasons in the following year. The brief respite in year one, it turns out, relaxed people’s natural defenses and reduced “herd immunity,” setting conditions for the virus to rage back with a vengeance.

Even harsh swings from hot to cold, or sudden storms — exactly the kinds of climate-induced patterns we’re already seeing — make people more likely to get sick. A study in the journal Environmental Research Letters linked the brutal 2017-18 flu season — which killed 79,000 people — to erratic temperature swings and extreme weather that winter, the same period in which a spate of floods and hurricanes devastated much of the country. If the climate crisis continues on its current trajectory, the authors wrote, respiratory infections like the flu will sharply increase. The chance of a flu epidemic in America’s most populated cities will increase by as much as 50% this century, and flu-related deaths in Europe could also jump by 50%.

“We’re on a very dangerous path right now,” said the University of Texas’ Weaver. Slow action on climate has made dramatic warming and large-scale environmental changes inevitable, he said, “and I think that increases in disease are going to come along with it.”

---

Twelve months before the first COVID-19 case was diagnosed, a group of epidemiologists working with a U.S. Agency for International Development project called PREDICT, or Pandemic Influenza and other Emerging Threats, was deep in the remote leafy jungle of southern China’s Yunnan province hunting for what it believed to be one of the greatest dangers to civilization: a wellspring of emerging viruses.

A decade of study there had identified a pattern of obscure illnesses affecting remote villagers who used bat guano as fertilizer and sometimes for medicine. Scientists traced dozens of unnamed, emerging viruses to caves inhabited by horseshoe bats. Any one of them might have triggered a global pandemic killing a million people. But luck — and mostly luck alone — had so far kept the viruses from leaping out of those remote communities and into the mainstream population.

The luck is likely to run out, as Yunnan is undergoing enormous change. Quaint subsistence farm plots were overtaken by hastily erected apartment towers and high-speed rail lines, as the province endured dizzying development fueled by decades of Chinese economic expansion. Cities’ footprints swelled, pushing back the forests. More people moved into rural places and the wildlife trade, common to such frontier regions, thrived. With every new person and every felled tree, the bats’ habitat shrank, putting the viruses they carried on a collision course with humanity. By late 2018, epidemiologists there were bracing for what they call “spillover,” or the failure to keep a virus locally contained as it jumped from the bats and villages of Yunnan into the wider world.

In late 2018, the Trump administration, as part of a sweeping effort to bring U.S. programs in China to a halt, abruptly shut down the research — and its efforts to intercept the spread of a new novel coronavirus along with it. “We got a cease and desist,” said Dennis Carroll, who founded the PREDICT program and has been instrumental in global work to address the risks from emerging viruses. By late 2019, USAID had cut the program’s global funding.

USAID did not respond to a detailed list of questions from ProPublica.

The loss is immense. The researchers believed they were on the cusp of a breakthrough, racing to sequence the genes of the coronaviruses they’d extracted from the horseshoe bat and to begin work on vaccines. They’d campaigned for years for policymakers to fully consider what they’d learned about how land development and climate changes were driving the spread of disease, and they thought their research could literally provide governments a map to the hot spots most likely to spawn the next pandemic. They also hoped the genetic material they’d collected could lead to a vaccine not just for one lethal variation of COVID, but perhaps — like a missile defense shield for the biosphere — to address a whole family of viruses at once. (In fact, the gene work they were able to complete was used to test the efficacy of remdesivir, an experimental drug that early clinical trial data shows can help COVID-19 patients.)

Carroll said knowledge of the virus genomes had the potential “to totally transform how we think about future biomedical interventions before there’s an emergence.” His goal was to not just react to a pandemic, but to change the very definition of preparedness.

If PREDICT’s efforts in China had the remote potential to fend off the current COVID pandemic, though, it also offered an opportunity to study how climate and land development were driving disease.

But there has been little appetite for that inquiry among policymakers. PREDICT’s staff and advisers have pushed the U.S. government to consider how welding public health policy with environmental and climate science could help stem the spread of contagions. Climate change was featured in presentations that PREDICT staff made to Congress, according to U.C. Davis’ Johnson, who is now also the director of PREDICT, which received a temporary funding extension this spring. And until 2016, leadership of New York-based EcoHealth Alliance, the research group working under PREDICT funding in Yunnan, was invited several times to the White House to advise on global health policy.

Since Donald Trump was elected, the group hasn’t been invited back.

“It’s falling on deaf ears,” said Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance’s president.

A White House spokesperson did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

What Daszak really wants — in addition to restored funding to continue his work — is the public and leaders to understand that it’s human behavior driving the rise in disease, just as it drives the climate crisis. In China’s forests, he looks past the destruction of trees and asks why they are being cut in the first place, and who is paying the cost. Metals for iPhones and palm oil for processed foods are among the products that come straight out of South Asian and African emerging disease hot spots.

“We turn a blind eye to the fact that our behavior is driving this,” he said. “We get cheap goods through Walmart, and then we pay for it forever through the rise in pandemics. It’s upside down.”

---

by Michael Grabell

On Tuesday, March 31, an emergency room doctor at the main hospital in Grand Island, Nebraska, sent an urgent email to the regional health department: “Numerous patients” from the JBS beef packing plant had tested positive for COVID-19. The plant, he feared, was becoming a coronavirus “hot spot.”

The town’s medical clinics were also reporting a rapid increase in cases among JBS workers. The next day, Dr. Rebecca Steinke, a family medicine doctor at one of the clinics, wrote to the department’s director: “Our message is really that JBS should shut down for 2 weeks and have a solid screening plan before re-opening.”

Teresa Anderson, the regional health director, immediately drafted a letter to the governor.

But during a conference call that Sunday, Gov. Pete Ricketts made it clear that the plant, which produces nearly 1 billion pounds of beef a year and is the town’s largest employer, would not be shut down.

Since then, Nebraska has become one of the fastest-growing hot spots for the novel coronavirus in the United States, and Grand Island has led the way. Cases in the city of 50,000 people have skyrocketed from a few dozen when local health officials first reported their concerns to more than 1,200 this week as the virus spread to workers, their families and the community.

The dismissed warnings in Grand Island, documented in emails that ProPublica obtained under the state’s public records law, show how quickly the virus can spread when politicians overrule local health officials. But on a broader scale, the events unfolding in Nebraska provide an alarming case study of what may come now that President Donald Trump has used the Defense Production Act to try to ensure meat processing plants remain open, severely weakening public health officials’ leverage to stop the spread of the virus in their communities.

Ricketts spokesman Taylor Gage said the governor explained on the call with local officials that the plant would stay open because it was declared an essential industry by the federal government. Two and a half weeks later, as cases were rising among the state’s meatpacking workers, Ricketts, a Republican businessman whose father founded the brokerage TD Ameritrade, held a news conference and said he couldn’t foresee a scenario where he would tell the meatpacking plants to close because of their importance to the nation’s food supply.

“Can you imagine what would happen if people could not go to the store and get food?” he asked. “Think about how mad people were when they couldn’t get paper products.”

“Trust me,” he added, “this would cause civil unrest.”

In the last two weeks, small meatpacking towns across Nebraska have experienced outbreaks, including at a Tyson Foods beef plant in Dakota City, a Costco chicken plant in Fremont and a Smithfield Foods pork plant in Crete. With the governor vowing to keep plants open, the companies have only in recent days decided to close for deep cleanings as cases have grown to staggering levels.

In Grand Island, two hours west of Omaha, the consequences of the governor’s decision came quickly. The CHI Health St. Francis hospital, which has 16 intensive care beds, was soon overwhelmed. At one point in April, it had so many critical patients that it had to call in three different helicopter companies to airlift patients to larger hospitals in Lincoln and Omaha, said Beth Bartlett, the hospital’s vice president for patient care.

JBS workers felt the strain, too. Under pressure to keep the food supply chain flowing, some of the plant’s 3,500 workers, many hailing from Latin America, Somalia and Sudan, said they were told to report for work regardless. In a letter to the governor last week, Nebraska Appleseed, a nonprofit advocacy group, said a JBS worker had been told by his supervisor that if he tested positive, he should come to work anyway and “keep it on the DL” or he’d be fired. Some workers who’d been told to quarantine after being exposed told ProPublica this week that they were called back to work before the 14-day window recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — even if they felt sick. One worker in the offal, or entrails, section recently fainted in the plant, they said, but was told he couldn’t go home.

Cameron Bruett, head of corporate affairs for JBS, said the company has worked in partnership with local officials to prevent the spread of the coronavirus and did not influence the governor’s decision to keep the plant open. He pointed to comments made recently by University of Nebraska Medical Center officials who toured the plant, who said JBS has put in place some “best practices,” including installing barriers on the meat cutting line, communicating new precautions in multiple languages and ensuring the proper use of masks.

Bruett said no one is forced to come to work or punished for calling in sick. “Such actions, if true, would be grotesque and a clear violation of our culture,” he said.

The emails obtained by ProPublica show that local health officials have traced 260 cases to the JBS plant. But that was nearly two weeks ago and almost certainly underestimates the total. Anderson, who directs the Central District Health Department, said she hasn’t had enough tests to do targeted testing of JBS employees and is only testing people when they’re symptomatic. In Grand Island and its surrounding county, 32 people have died from the virus. According to workers, at least one of those was a JBS employee.

Across the country, more than 10,000 COVID-19 cases have been linked to meatpacking plants, and at least three dozen workers are known to have died, a ProPublica review of news reports and government health data shows.

While cases in the worst hit urban areas like New York appear to have plateaued, the nation’s meatpacking towns have continued to see spikes. A few large outbreaks have dominated public attention, but COVID-19 cases have popped up in well over 100 plants in mostly rural communities. There the virus’s impact is magnified by the workers’ sometimes cramped living conditions, with multiple generations of immigrant and refugee families often residing together in apartments, houses and trailers.

Before Trump’s order, more than 30 plants had shut down at least briefly to increase cleaning and control the spread among their workforces. The various closures have cut beef and pork production by more than a third compared with last year, causing supply chain disruptions for some supermarkets and fast-food chains.

Some of those closures show the role public health officials have had in the actions of large meatpacking companies like JBS, which has beef, pork and poultry plants in 27 states.

In Colorado, Dr. Mark Wallace of the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment and state health director Jill Hunsaker Ryan grew worried that that if the coronavirus spread at JBS’ Greeley plant, it would have a “devastating” effect on the community that “would quickly overwhelm the medical resources available in the hospitals.”

Unlike Nebraska, Colorado’s health officials eventually ordered the JBS plant to close. But documents obtained by ProPublica show the protracted debate that came before that decision, with JBS invoking the governor to question the formal closure order. By the time the order was issued, some public officials felt the virus had been given too big a head start.

Like Grand Island, Greeley officials were already hearing by the end of March that hospital emergency rooms were seeing a “high number of JBS employees,” according to an email Wallace sent April 1 to the plant’s occupational health director.

“Their concern, and mine, is far too many employees must be working when sick and spreading infection to others,” Wallace wrote, urging the plant to take additional safety measures.

Three days later, Wallace wrote a more detailed letter to JBS’ human resources director, Chris Gaddis, documenting the virus’s spread and threatening to shut the plant down if it didn’t screen employees and ensure they could work 6 feet apart.

But as days passed, the situation in Greeley didn’t improve.

“Want you to know my colleagues are not reassured by what I’m sharing about measures being implemented,” Wallace wrote to Gaddis. “‘The cat’s out of the bag’ is what all health care providers are saying — too many sick people already, too much spread already, etc.”

After nine days of back-and-forth, JBS agreed to close the plant and Hunsaker Ryan and Wallace issued a formal shutdown order. But negotiations seemed to stretch until the last minute, emails show.

After Hunsaker Ryan sent JBS the order on the afternoon of April 10, Gaddis appeared confused. “It is our understanding from the telephone conversation that the governor did not want this letter sent,” Gaddis wrote. “Please confirm it was properly sent.”

Bruett said the company’s impression was that the governor didn’t feel a formal order “was necessary given our voluntary decision to shut down.” But Conor Cahill, a spokesman for Gov. Jared Polis, said: “Of course the governor wanted the health order sent. The governor has been clear that JBS needs to be more transparent with their staff and the public about the situation at their plant.”

Notified of the shutdown by his staff, Greeley Mayor John Gates wrote in an email, “In my opinion, that should have happened a week ago for the health and safety of their employees.”

On Wednesday, the state announced the latest numbers on the JBS outbreak: 280 employees had tested positive for COVID-19, and seven of them had died.

The Grand Island beef plant opened in 1965 in a sugar beet farming area. In recent decades, the plant has drawn immigrants from Mexico and Central America, and more recently refugees from Somalia and Sudan. In a sign of the area’s shifting workforce, Somali residents have opened a mosque in the old El Diamante nightclub and a community center in the former Lucky 7 Saloon next to a Salvadoran restaurant named El Tazumal.

Members of those communities became among the first to hit the area’s medical clinics as the virus began to spread. By the last week in March, the Family Practice of Grand Island, where Steinke works, had opened a special respiratory clinic to handle COVID-19 patients. That week, six of the patients had come from JBS. But over three days from March 30 to April 1, the clinic saw 25 patients that carried JBS insurance, indicating they were either employees or their dependents.

Danny Lemos’ father was one of the first JBS workers to get sick from the virus in late March. The 62-year-old, who’d worked at the plant for a year, had developed a fever and a cough.

“One day, he was laying in the living room on a chair, wrapped up in a blanket, shivering,” Lemos said. “My mom takes his temperature, and he had a temperature of 105 and he was really having trouble breathing.”

His father was rushed to the hospital and put on a ventilator.

Within days, Lemos said he also started having trouble breathing and joined his father in the ICU. Lemos, 39, was put in a medically induced coma and given a 20% chance of living, he said.

Surprisingly, he said, he eventually recovered and was released from the hospital in late April. His father, Danny Lemos Sr., has been in the hospital for more than a month, most of the time on a ventilator, and is only now starting to recover.

Lemos said JBS should have taken better precautions.

“Shutting down right away, I think, probably would have helped a ton,” he said. “Do I think it would have kept everybody from getting sick? No, because those same people are still going to be out and about in the community. But just being so many people in one building, it was like a ticking time bomb.”

In an interview this week, Steinke said that it was hard to get the message across to JBS that more needed to be done.

“Even if they did not stop or shut down, if they would have put in better protections right from the start,” she said, “we would not have seen such a rapid rise in cases.”

At one point before the governor’s decision, the emails ProPublica obtained show, officials found language on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s website that said local authorities could close a plant and the USDA would follow those decisions, potentially giving the health district some leverage.

“I guess I will send it to … HR there and maybe he will take us more seriously,” Anderson, the local health director, wrote in an email to the city administrator.

Under Trump’s executive order, that guidance has been reversed: The USDA could try to overrule local decisions if federal officials disagree.

That could pose a risk to the USDA’s own workforce of federal food inspectors, who work inside the plants to ensure the meat is safe to eat. According to the emails, some inspectors at the JBS plant also tested positive. Because inspectors sometimes monitor multiple sites, one inspector noted that she had recently worked in two other plants that have also had outbreaks, potentially spreading the virus within other plants.

“From my perspective,” temporarily closing the JBS plant “would have reduced the transmission,” Anderson said in an interview this week. “But if you shut down a plant and your 3,700 employees have nowhere to go, where are they going to go and how far is the spread going to be outside the plant vs. inside the plant? And if you end up going a month, what happens to their ability to feed their families?”

Anderson said that the “general feeling” she got from the call with the governor was that they needed to do more testing. So after the governor blocked the effort to close the plant, she continued to try to work collaboratively with JBS to encourage more testing of their employees.

In the emails, JBS officials said they were open to testing but repeatedly expressed concern about public disclosure of the results. “We want to make sure that testing is conducted in a way that does not foment fear or panic among our employees or the community,” JBS chief ethics and compliance officer Nicholas White wrote in an email to Anderson on April 15.

A week later, after the number of JBS cases was released by Anderson, Tim Schellpeper, president of the company’s U.S. beef processing operations, emailed her that he was worried about the amount of national attention it was attracting. “Have you given more thought to adding clarity/correction around this in your comments today?” he asked.

As JBS officials fretted about the optics of testing their employees, tensions within the families of the workers mounted. As the number of sick workers grew, the daughter of one worker, Miriam, said she was panicking about what would happen to her mother, who worked on the plant’s kill floor. At the end of every shift, she said, she called her mother to make sure she was okay.

“It was dreadful,” said Miriam, who asked that her last name not be used to protect her mother from retaliation. “It was just kind of living in fear waiting for the day she would have a fever. We knew it was going to happen because she’s a JBS employee. We didn’t think it was preventable anymore.”

Then, one day, she got a call from her mother, telling her that she had developed a fever and was being sent home.

“As she was changing in the locker room, she calls me and you can just hear the fear in her voice,” Miriam said.

Shortly after, her father tested positive for the virus too. Thankfully, she said, both her parents had only mild symptoms and have since recovered. But JBS and the governor should have done more, Miriam said.

“It just seemed like they were kind of careless,” she said. “I think it would have been a smart idea if not to close down the plant, to take more action to help the employees. They’re essential, but they need protection. They need to be kept safe.”

In the meantime, Ricketts has said that his approach of keeping the state “open for business” worked. And at a news conference Friday, he underscored the importance of the meatpacking industry to the state’s economy, proclaiming May as “Beef Month” in Nebraska.

---

by Joaquin Sapien

New York Attorney General Letitia James is looking into allegations that a Queens adult care facility has failed to protect residents from the deadly coronavirus and misled families about its spread, according to two lawmakers who asked for the inquiry and a relative of a resident who spoke to an investigator with the attorney general’s office.

In a separate action Tuesday, three residents of the Queens Adult Care Center sued the facility in federal court over similar allegations.

Both developments were prompted largely by ProPublica’s recent coverage of the facility, which houses both frail elderly residents and those with mental health issues. On April 2, we reported that workers and residents at the home were becoming ill with the coronavirus as residents wandered in and out of the home without any personal protective equipment. Family members later told ProPublica the management said no residents were sick with the virus at the time.

On April 25, ProPublica published a story and a short film with the PBS series Frontline about the harrowing experience of Natasha Roland, who rescued her father in the middle of the night as he suffered coronavirus symptoms so severe he could barely breathe. Roland, in heart-wrenching detail, described how the management of the Queens Adult Care Center repeatedly assured her that her 82-year-old father, Willie Roland, was safe, even as the virus swept through the facility. She said workers were too scared to care for him, forcing his girlfriend, Annetta King-Simpson, to do so. King-Simpson later fell ill herself. Roland and King-Simpson are now suing the facility in federal court.

In an interview, Assemblywoman Catalina Cruz, whose district covers Corona, Elmhurst and Jackson Heights, said she was troubled by what ProPublica reported. She said she hoped the attorney general can determine whether the Queens Adult Care Center had broken any laws.

“It didn’t sit right with me. I thought something was off here. So I said let’s have the experts look at whether there was a crime or a civil violation,” she said. “Folks who live in this adult home deserve the same dignity as everyone else, and if their rights have been violated, someone needs to pay for that.”

Cruz said she had been suspicious of the facility for several years and had come across a community Facebook page where people posted complaints about treatment of residents at the center. When she saw the ProPublica stories, she said she decided to take action, along with City Council member Daniel Dromm, who had already written to the New York State Department of Health and the office of Gov. Andrew Cuomo about the spread of the coronavirus in the facility on several occasions.

“The plight of those living in adult care centers during this crisis was highlighted in a recent article published by ProPublica, which focused on the perils faced by the residents at the Queens Adult Day Care Center,” the lawmakers wrote in their April 27 letter to the attorney general and the governor’s office. “Failure to inform families about the health of loved ones, to lying and covering up deaths have become regular concerns we have received. We are aware that adult care centers are struggling to keep COVID-19 from affecting their residents and we also know that minorities have been disproportionately affected by the virus. It seems to us that management at this particular center have struggled to implement procedures and policies to protect the lives of its residents.”

Cruz said she received an update from the attorney general’s office on May 5, saying it was looking into the matter but would not provide specific details.

Days after the lawmakers sent the letter, Natasha Roland, 35, said she received a phone call from an investigator with the attorney general’s office. Roland said she recapped what she had previously told ProPublica: She began to worry about her father’s safety when nearby Elmhurst Hospital became a viral hot spot, but the management repeatedly told her there were no coronavirus cases in the facility. She said she only found out the truth weeks later when a worker she was friendly with advised her to come and pick up her father because the virus was raging through the facility and aides were becoming too scared to check on residents. In a subsequent interview, that worker denied telling Roland to pick up her dad.

A spokesperson for the attorney general would not confirm or deny a specific, active investigation into the Queens Adult Care Center, but said James has received hundreds of complaints related to COVID-19 inside nursing homes and adult care facilities across the state and is investigating many of them.

For its part, the Queens Adult Care Center has denied any wrongdoing and repeated its belief that Roland’s allegations are “baseless.”

“Sadly, select elected officials and ProPublica have been intentionally misled with baseless assertions and utter fabrications crafted by the daughter of one of our long-term residents,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a crisis communications spokesperson hired by the facility. “We have strong reason to believe that this individual is seeking to use her father and other select residents as pawns in an attempt to extort the facility. We are considering our legal options.”

He said the facility has “worked tirelessly” to protect its residents and is unaware of a “potential investigation,” but understood that “the AG’s office has contacted many nursing homes, adult care, and assisted living facilities seeking information. We are glad to be a resource to the AG’s office and have nothing to hide.”

Bruce Schoengood’s 61-year-old brother, Bryan, lives in the facility and shared a room with one of the first residents to become infected with COVID-19 and subsequently die of the disease. Bruce told ProPublica he only learned that his brother’s roommate had died by happenstance during a casual conversation with his brother, and that he has complained for more than a month about a lack of communication from the facility. He said he had not yet heard from anyone with the attorney general’s office but would welcome such a conversation.

In the meantime, Bryan Schoengood, Willie Roland and King-Simpson are suing the facility under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In a 59-page complaint, the group has asked a federal judge to appoint a special master to oversee the facility at the home’s expense to ensure that residents there are safe.

The lawsuit argues that residents have experienced a “gross failure to provide the most basic level of care to safeguard their health and safety in the context of a global health pandemic. People with disabilities are exposed to high risks of contracting the virus with no or few preventative measures in place. Residents who fall sick are left to languish in their room without proper access to medical care.”

The lawsuit claims that because the facility has failed to follow state and federal guidelines, “COVID-19 is rampant in the facility among residents and staff alike.”

Alan Fuchsberg is the Manhattan-based personal injury and civil rights attorney representing the three Queens Adult Care Center residents.

In an interview, he said that the facility may not have the resources to properly follow the guidelines, which is why a special master should be assigned to work with a team of outside experts to make sure it can.

“Right now the residents are in a tinderbox,” he said. “And if you drop a match in there, all hell breaks loose. It should be run right. We don’t need dozens of people dying in all our nursing homes and adult care facilities. Some are running better than others and QACC sounds like a place that is not run up to standards.”

He and Bruce Schoengood pointed out that they are not currently suing for damages, but rather to persuade a court to immediately intervene and offer support to the facility’s roughly 350 residents.

Schoengood said the goals of the lawsuit are twofold.

“I think it is both short term and long term,” he said. “Immediate intervention to put proper protocols in place to treat the sick and stop the spread of coronavirus and to communicate with family members. And in the long term I would like to see this facility much better prepared to handle another pandemic or a second wave.”

Responding to the charges in the lawsuit, Sheinkopf again said that “the allegations are baseless and utter fabrications. Queens Adult Care Center (QACC) continues to meet all state issued guidelines.”

---