Category: Health

  • Buscando respuestas sobre el autismo: un experto de CHOP desmiente los 5 mitos principales

    Buscando respuestas sobre el autismo: un experto de CHOP desmiente los 5 mitos principales

    Varios padres me pidieron mi opinión cuando la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos (FDA) anunció recientemente una advertencia sobre el acetaminofén por su supuesto vínculo con el autismo, y cuando la agencia apoyó el uso de leucovorina como tratamiento para el autismo pese a la falta de evidencia científica. Y estoy segura de que recibiré preguntas sobre la nueva afirmación en la página web de los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC) de que no se puede “descartar” un vínculo entre las vacunas y el autismo.

    Como pediatra del desarrollo y del comportamiento quien atiende a muchos niños dentro del espectro autista, me gusta conversar con las familias sobre lo que escuchan.

    Las familias con niños en el espectro pueden sentirse desorientadas por los “influencers” del internet quienes promocionan diferentes teorías, productos y tratamientos alternativos. Estas familias quieren hacer todo lo posible para apoyar a sus hijos, por lo tanto buscan información en todas partes.

    Las familias buscan alternativas porque muchos de nuestros tratamientos actuales no son efectivos para todos los niños, y aquellos que funcionan bien pueden requerir un esfuerzo intenso por parte de maestros, terapeutas y cuidadores. Como doctora, intento compartir con las familias la evidencia disponible para que puedan tomar decisiones informadas.

    La promoción de tratamientos y teorías sobre el supuesto aumento en autismo no es nueva. Pero cuando los funcionarios del gobierno hablan mucho sobre el autismo y el internet está lleno de “información” desconectada de la prueba científica, es más importante que nunca que los clínicos y los funcionarios de salud pública se acerquen a los padres con compasión, honestidad y evidencia.

    En el Hospital de Niños de Filadelphia (CHOP), El Pediatric Health Chat está rastreando mitos y rumores médicos, incluyendo aquellos relacionados al autismo. Basado en esos datos y en conversaciones con padres, aquí están las cinco cosas principales que desearía que mis familias supieran:

    1. El autismo no es una epidemia

    Aunque es cierto que el número de niños con trastorno del espectro autista sigue aumentando en todos los grupos sociodemográficos, no hay evidencia de que un único tóxico ambiental u otro factor sea la causa. De hecho, los estudios más sólidos muestran que gran parte del aumento del autismo durante los últimos 20 años se debe a una mayor detección de la condición, lo que ha permitido dejar de lado diagnósticos incorrectos establecidos antes; y al hecho de que ahora se conocen más características y conductas como señales de autismo. Así que, aunque los diagnósticos de autismo estén en alza, no hay evidencia de una epidemia: el autismo está aumentando, pero no es un brote de enfermedad repentino como COVID.

    2. Las vacunas no causan autismo

    El mito de que las vacunas causan autismo se originó en un estudio británico de los años 90 con apenas 12 niños que resultó ser tan fraudulento que la revista científica que lo publicó terminó retrayéndolo. Algunas personas insisten en que, dado que el autismo ha seguido en aumento —y se han desarrollado vacunas nuevas— debe existir algún tipo de vínculo. Pero que dos cosas ocurran al mismo tiempo, no significa que una cause la otra. (Un ejemplo clásico es que tanto las ventas de helado como los ahogamientos aumentan en verano, pero nadie afirma que el helado cause ahogamientos).

    Como explica el Centro de Educación de Vacunas de CHOP, han habido varios estudios bien realizados que no han encontrado vínculo entre las vacunas y el autismo. Las vacunas salvan vidas, y la evidencia sobre su seguridad en relación con el autismo es extensiva. Animo a todas las familias de mis pacientes a vacunar a sus hijos. Me enorgullece decir que vacuno a mis propios hijos siguiendo los calendarios recomendados, para protegerlos de infecciones prevenibles.

    3. El acetaminofén no causa autismo

    Aunque algunos estudios pequeños han encontrado una asociación entre el uso prenatal de acetaminofén y el autismo, los estudios más grandes y sólidos no han encontrado esa asociación. Estudios que no consideran factores como el motivo por el que la persona embarazada toma acetaminofén o si hay hermanos en el espectro autista pueden concluir de manera inexacta que el acetaminofén es una causa cuando no lo es. La verdad es que las fiebres altas durante el embarazo son peligrosas, y el acetaminofén, el ingrediente activo de Tylenol, es el medicamento más seguro que tenemos para combatir la fiebre. No dudaría en recomendar acetaminofén durante el embarazo cuando sea necesario.

    4. La leucovorina no es un tratamiento probado para el autismo

    La primavera pasada apareció una noticia sobre un niño que se volvió más verbal tras tomar leucovorina (también conocida como ácido folínico, un medicamento usado en pacientes con cáncere quereciben quimioterapia). Desde entonces, las solicitudes para empezar leucovorina de parte de familias en la comunidad del autismo han aumentado. Sin embargo, la evidencia sobre la efectividad de la leucovorina es extremadamente limitada. Por ejemplo, niños en grupos con placebo —los que no recibieron leucovorina— mostraron mejoramientos similares a los que la recibieron. Algunas familias abandonaron el tratamiento porque sus hijos se volvieron más agresivos al recibir leucovorina. Necesitamos ensayos controlados aleatorizados más grandes y bien diseñados antes de sentirme cómoda recomendando leucovorina a mis pacientes.

    5. La suspuesta “comunicación facilitada” no ayuda a los niños con autismo

    Hace varias décadas, la comunicación facilitada (en la cual un facilitador toca al paciente para “ayudarle a deletrear” en un teclado o tablero de letras) fue completamente desacreditada por estudios que demostraron que el facilitador guiaba las respuestas y no ayudaba a la persona a comunicar sus propios pensamientos.

    Sin embargo, la comunicación facilitada (CF) ha reaparecido en forma de otras “terapias” como la mecanografía apoyada y a través del podcast “Telepathy Tapes”. No son más que CF con otro nombre y tampoco llevan evidencia.

    Por otra parte, la comunicación aumentativa o alternativa, mediante la cual los individuos usan por sí mismos estrategias alternativas o dispositivos “hablantes” para expresarse (en lugar de que un facilitador les ayude físicamente), está fuertemente respaldada por la evidencia. Entiendo por qué las familias quieren brindar a sus hijos todas las oportunidades para expresarse; por eso les insto a optar por los métodos que han demostrado ayudarles a alcanzar sus objetivos.

    Lo que más me preocupa es que, entrelazado en todos estos mitos y desinformación, esté la creencia implícita de que las personas con autismo no tienen valor o no pueden llevar vidas felices y exitosas. Si bien algunas personas del espectro autista tienen dificultades para vivir de forma independiente y pueden presentar conductas desafiantes, todas estas personas merecen dignidad y respeto. Seguir encontrando maneras de apoyar mejor a las personas con autismo y a sus familias, para permitirles alcanzar su máximo potencial, debe ser la prioridad.

    Gracias a Dra. Gloria Gutierrez por su ayuda con la traducción.

    Nota del editor: El Pediatric Health Chat es una iniciativa en el internet del Hospital de Niños de Filadelphia (CHOP) que investiga a los mitos y conceptos erróneos más recientes sobre la salud infantil. Kate E. Wallis, MD, MPH, es una pediatra del desarrollo y del comportamiento en la División de Pediatría del Desarrollo y del Comportamiento del Hospital de Niños de Filadelphia (CHOP).

  • One year of inspections at Doylestown Hospital: November 2024 – October 2025

    One year of inspections at Doylestown Hospital: November 2024 – October 2025

    Doylestown Hospital was not cited by the Pennsylvania Department of Health for any safety violations between November 2024 and October of this year.

    Here’s a look at the publicly available details:

    • Nov. 6, 2024: Inspectors came to investigate a complaint but found the hospital was in compliance. Complaint details are not made public when inspectors determine it was unfounded.
    • Nov. 14: Inspectors followed up on an October 2024 complaint and found the hospital was in compliance. The hospital had been cited for not following protocol for admitting mental health patients.
    • Nov. 20: Inspectors followed up on a July 2024 complaint and found the hospital was in compliance. The hospital had been cited for not following protocol for identifying patients prior to surgery.
    • Jan. 10, 2025: Inspectors visited for a special monitoring survey and found the hospital was in compliance.
    • July 24: Inspectors came to investigate a complaint but found the hospital was in compliance.
  • Trump seeks to cut restrictions on marijuana through planned order

    Trump seeks to cut restrictions on marijuana through planned order

    President Donald Trump is expected to push the government to dramatically loosen federal restrictions on marijuana, reducing oversight of the plant and its derivatives to the same level as some common prescription painkillers and other drugs, according to six people familiar with the discussions.

    Trump discussed the plan with House Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) in a Wednesday phone call from the Oval Office, said four of the people, who, like the others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The president is expected to seek to ease access to the drug through an upcoming executive order that directs federal agencies to pursue reclassification, the people said.

    The move would not legalize or decriminalize marijuana, but it would ease barriers to research and boost the bottom lines of legal businesses.

    Trump in August said he was “looking at reclassification.” He would be finishing what started under President Joe Biden’s Justice Department, which followed the recommendation of federal health officials in proposing a rule to reclassify marijuana; that proposal has stalled since Trump took office.

    “We’re looking at it. Some people like it, some people hate it,” Trump said this summer. “Some people hate the whole concept of marijuana because it does bad for the children, it does bad for the people that are older than children.”

    Trump cannot unilaterally reclassify marijuana, said Shane Pennington, a D.C. attorney who represents two pro-rescheduling companies involved in the hearing. But he can direct the Justice Department to forgo the hearing and issue the final rule, Pennington said.

    “This would be the biggest reform in federal cannabis policy since marijuana was made a Schedule I drug in the 1970s,” Pennington said.

    The president was joined on the Wednesday call with Johnson by marijuana industry executives, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services chief Mehmet Oz, three of the people said.

    Johnson was skeptical of the idea and gave a list of reasons, including several studies and data, to support his position against reclassifying the drug, two of the people said.

    Trump then turned the phone over to the executives gathered around his desk, who rebutted Johnson’s arguments, the people said.

    Trump ended the call appearing ready to go ahead with loosing restrictions on marijuana, the people said, though they caution the plans were not finalized and Trump could still change his mind.

    A White House official said no final decisions have been made on rescheduling of marijuana.

    The Department of Health and Human Services referred questions to the White House. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A representative from Johnson’s office declined to comment.

    Marijuana is currently classified as a Schedule I substance, the same classification as heroin and LSD. Federal regulations consider those drugs to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted use for medical treatment.

    Trump would move to classify marijuana as a Schedule III substance, which regulators say carry less potential for abuse and are used for certain medical treatments, but can also create risks of physical or psychological dependence.

    Other Schedule III drugs include Tylenol with codeine, as well as certain steroid and hormone treatments.

    Democrats and Republicans alike have been interested in reclassifying marijuana, with some politicians citing its potential benefit as a medical treatment and the political popularity of the widely used drug.

    Marijuana has become easier than ever to obtain, growing into an industry worth billions of dollars in the United States. Dozens of states and Washington, D.C., have legalized medical marijuana programs, and 24 have approved recreational marijuana.

    The Biden administration pursued efforts to ease access to the drug, with health officials recommending reclassification to Schedule III in 2023. But health officials have said that those recommendations were slowed down by the Drug Enforcement Administration, which took months to undergo required administrative reviews and were not completed before the end of Biden’s term.

    The Drug Enforcement Administration was supposed to hold an administrative hearing on the proposal, with a judge hearing from experts on the health benefits and risks of marijuana. But the hearing has been in legal limbo since Trump took office, amid allegations from cannabis companies that the DEA was working to torpedo the measure.

  • Senate rejects extension of healthcare subsidies as costs are set to rise for millions of Americans

    Senate rejects extension of healthcare subsidies as costs are set to rise for millions of Americans

    WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday rejected legislation to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits, essentially guaranteeing that millions of Americans will see a steep rise in costs at the beginning of the year.

    As Republicans and Democrats have failed to find compromise, senators voted on two partisan bills instead that they knew would fail — the Democratic bill to extend the subsidies, and a Republican alternative that would have created new health savings accounts.

    It was an unceremonious end to a monthslong effort by Democrats to prevent the COVID-19-era subsidies from expiring on Jan. 1, including a 43-day government shutdown that they forced over the issue.

    Ahead of the votes, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York warned Republicans that if they did not vote to extend the tax credits, “there won’t be another chance to act,” before premiums rise for many people who buy insurance off the ACA marketplaces.

    “Let’s avert a disaster,” Schumer said. “The American people are watching.”

    Republicans and Democrats never engaged in meaningful or high-level negotiations on a solution, even after a small group of centrist Democrats struck a deal with Republicans last month to end the shutdown in exchange for a vote. Most Democratic lawmakers opposed the move as many Republicans made clear that they wanted the tax credits to expire.

    The deal raised hopes for a compromise on healthcare. But that quickly faded with a lack of any real bipartisan talks.

    “We failed,” said Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, one of four Republicans who voted for the Democratic bill, after the vote. “We’ve got to do better. We can’t just say ‘happy holidays, brace for next year.’”

    A Republican alternative

    The dueling Senate votes were the latest political messaging exercise in a Congress that has operated almost entirely on partisan terms, as Republicans pushed through a massive tax and spending cuts bill this summer using budget maneuvers that eliminated the need for Democratic votes. In September, Republicans tweaked Senate rules to push past a Democratic blockade of all of Trump’s nominees.

    On healthcare, Republicans similarly negotiated among themselves, without Democrats. The health savings accounts in the GOP bill that they eventually settled on would give money directly to consumers instead of to insurance companies, an idea that has been echoed by President Donald Trump.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R., S.D.) said ahead of the vote that the Democrats’ simple extension of the subsidies is “an attempt to disguise the real impact of Obamacare’s spiraling healthcare costs.”

    But Democrats immediately rejected the GOP plan, saying that the accounts wouldn’t be enough to cover costs for most consumers.

    The Senate voted 51-48 not to move forward on the Democratic bill, with four Republicans — Maine Sen. Susan Collins, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley and Alaska Sens. Murkowski and Dan Sullivan — voting with Democrats. The legislation needed 60 votes to proceed, as did the Republican bill, which was also blocked on a 51-48 vote.

    An intractable issue

    The votes were the latest failed salvo in the debate over the Affordable Care Act, former President Barack Obama’s signature law that Democrats passed along party lines in 2010 to expand access to insurance coverage.

    Republicans have tried unsuccessfully since then to repeal or overhaul the law, arguing that healthcare is still too expensive. But they have struggled to find an alternative. In the meantime, Democrats have made the policy a central political issue in several elections, betting that the millions of people who buy healthcare on the government marketplaces want to keep their coverage.

    “When people’s monthly payments spike next year, they’ll know it was Republicans that made it happen,” Schumer said in November, while making clear that Democrats would not seek a compromise.

    Even if they view it as a political win, the failed votes are a loss for Democrats who demanded an extension of the benefits during the shutdown — and for the millions of people facing premium increases on Jan. 1.

    Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said the group tried to negotiate with Republicans after the shutdown ended. But, he said, the talks became unproductive when Republicans demanded language adding new limits for abortion coverage that were a “red line” for Democrats. He said Republicans were going to “own these increases.”

    House to try again

    Republicans have used the looming expiration of the subsidies to renew their longstanding criticisms of the ACA, also called Obamacare, and to try, once more, to agree on what should be done.

    In the House, Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) has promised a vote next week on some type of healthcare legislation. Republicans weighed different options in a conference meeting on Wednesday, with no apparent consensus.

    Murkowski and other Senate Republicans who want to extend the subsidies expressed hope that the House could find a way to do it. GOP leaders were considering bills that would not extend the tax credits, but some Republicans have launched longshot efforts to try to go around Johnson and force a vote.

    “Hopefully some ideas emerge” before the new year, said Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who has been pushing his colleagues for a short-term extension.

    “Real Americans are paying the price for this body not working together in the way it should,” said Alabama Sen. Katie Britt, a Republican.

    Republican moderates in the House who could have competitive reelection bids next year are pushing Johnson to find a way to extend the subsidies. But more conservative members want to see the law overhauled.

    Rep. Kevin Kiley (R., Calif.) has also been pushing for a short extension.

    If they fail to act and healthcare costs go up, the approval rating for Congress “will get even lower,” Kiley said.

  • Restrictions on Kensington outreach services take effect as City Council approves a broader ban

    Restrictions on Kensington outreach services take effect as City Council approves a broader ban

    Philadelphia lawmakers voted Thursday to ban mobile outreach groups that provide medical care and support services to people in addiction across a swath of Kensington, the epicenter of the city’s drug crisis.

    The vote came just days after the city began enforcing controversial new regulations in a different part of the neighborhood, where the same providers may operate only if they have a permit to do so and park in areas designated by the city.

    Taken together, the actions spearheaded by City Council members who represent Kensington and Mayor Cherelle L. Parker’s administration amount to a major shift in how transient people who use drugs obtain medical care and basic needs like food, water, and clothing.

    Many have long relied on mobile outreach services that met them on the street. Those same providers can now park only in designated areas or serve people for limited amounts of time.

    Council members who support the legislation say residents in the neighborhood do not want people in addiction lining up for medical care or support services near their homes.

    Councilmember Mike Driscoll authored the bill banning mobile service providers entirely from his 6th District, which includes parts of the neighborhood that are northeast of the infamous open-air drug market at the intersection of Kensington and Allegheny Avenues.

    Driscoll said his bill, which passed Council 14-3 on Thursday, is not aimed at punishing providers. He said he is open to finding a location in his district where they can operate with the city’s permission.

    “I just don’t want the service providers picking where they want to go at the expense of the kids and the neighbors,” he said.

    Councilmember Michael Driscoll in chambers as City Council meets Thursday, Dec. 11, 2025, on the last day of the 2025 session.

    But advocates for people who use drugs slammed the bill, and said reducing access to care will not help people in addiction.

    “Restrictions like these will not end the opioid crisis. They will not make anyone in Kensington or District 6 safer,” said Katie Glick, a nurse who treats people in addiction and lives in the neighborhood. “These restrictions will disable and kill people.”

    In Kensington, inconsistent rules for providers

    If Parker — who has never issued a veto — signs Driscoll’s bill, it would result in a patchwork of rules for mobile service providers in Kensington, which is represented by three different Council members.

    The western side of Kensington is in the 7th District, where Councilmember Quetcy Lozada’s legislation that required the permitting system applies. Organizations that do everything from handing out water to providing medical care now face a $1,000 fine for operating without a permit.

    The city began enforcing those new rules on Dec. 1. No citations had been issued as of Wednesday, police said.

    In the southern parts of Kensington that fall in the 1st District, represented by Councilmember Mark Squilla, no legislation applies to mobile providers.

    (function() {
    var l2 = function() {
    new pym.Parent(‘kensington_districts’,
    ‘https://media.inquirer.com/storage/inquirer/projects/innovation/arcgis_iframe/kensington_districts.html’);
    };
    if (typeof(pym) === ‘undefined’) {
    var h = document.getElementsByTagName(‘head’)[0],
    s = document.createElement(‘script’);
    s.type = ‘text/javascript’;
    s.src = ‘https://pym.nprapps.org/pym.v1.min.js’;
    s.onload = l2;
    h.appendChild(s);
    } else {
    l2();
    }
    })();

    The inconsistency is the result of councilmanic prerogative, the unwritten rule that gives Council members who represent geographic areas a large amount of sway over what happens in their districts. Lawmakers largely approve legislation offered by a district Council member when it affects only that member’s district.

    Some of Council’s progressive members who represent the city at-large have bucked that practice several times on matters related to Kensington, where Parker and her allies in Council have placed an intense focus on improving quality of life.

    In this 2023 file photo, the mobile home belonging to the Behavioral Wellness Center at Girard parked along Kensington Avenue. It is one of the city’s so-called mobile service providers that have faced increasing regulation from City Council.

    The progressives — who favor an approach to the crisis called harm reduction that aims to keep people alive until they are ready to enter treatment — argue that placing restrictions on mobile service providers will make it harder for them to reach vulnerable people in addiction and ultimately reduce the number of providers on the street.

    “When human beings are trying to provide help,” said Councilmember Nicolas O’Rourke, “the attitude should never be ‘how can we limit them.’”

    O’Rourke and Councilmember Kendra Brooks, both of the Working Families Party, and Democrat Rue Landau voted against Driscoll’s measure.

    But Lozada said implementing new regulations was not about restricting care.

    “We’re hoping that services continue,” she said. “People have just moved to other spaces to find a way to be able to continue to provide the services that people need.”

    And Parker administration officials said the goal is not to reduce the number of providers, but to better coordinate them and ensure safety, especially for people receiving medical services.

    Councilmember Quetcy Lozada in chambers as City Council meets Thursday, Dec. 11, 2025, on the last day of the 2025 session.

    Kensington has been a key issue for the Parker administration and Council members who have pushed for more law enforcement in the neighborhood, where sprawling homelessness, open drug use, and violent crime have been commonplace for years. There have been some signs of progress, including a reduction in the number of people living on the street.

    The city has tried new tactics, including opening its own recovery house and expanding police foot patrols. The local government has also at times operated its own mobile medical services and contracts with organizations that do so.

    So far, the city has issued nine permits to providers who perform mobile medical services and 40 to organizations considered “nonmedical,” like those that distribute food. Some of those organizations also operate in other neighborhoods.

    “We don’t have a problem if there’s five or 500 providers,” said Crystal Yates-Gale, deputy managing director for health and human services. “As long as they’re qualified to provide the care, and as long as we can help coordinate the care.”

    Despite the changes, city says ‘people are still coming’

    Under the new rules, nonmedical providers are prohibited from staying in one place for more than 45 minutes. Medical providers can station on a two-block stretch of Allegheny Avenue at nighttime or at a designated parking lot at 265 E. Lehigh Ave. during the day.

    That lot, which is managed by the city and addiction service provider Merakey, is connected to the city’s Wellness Support Center.

    Inside, people can access first aid, showers, and food, as well as get directed to treatment, legal aid, housing assistance, and other services.

    People walk near Kensington Ave. in January 2025.

    In the parking lot, two mobile medical service providers run by Merakey and Kensington Hospital are currently stationed, according to Kurt August, executive director of the Philadelphia Office of Public Safety’s Criminal Justice Division. He said officials are looking to expand the number of providers that operate there.

    In late October, Merakey began dispensing methadone out of an RV parked in the lot. The tightly regulated opioid medication is a popular treatment for people experiencing withdrawal because it helps stave off cravings.

    Raymond Bobb, a medical director at Merakey, said he has seen promising results in just a few weeks, including starting people on methadone and getting them stable enough to transition to inpatient drug treatment. Merakey offers to transport people on the street to the RV to enroll them in medication-assisted treatment.

    “We’ve been able to take everything right to the heart of the epidemic and engage people the way you would treat your brother, or your sister, or your family,” said Bobb, who is also in recovery and became emotional when speaking about the program.

    “Our goal,” he added, “is to build people up and motivate them to want treatment for themselves.”

    August said retention has been high, despite the police presence at the support center. The officers, he said, were “handpicked” to be stationed alongside behavioral health professionals.

    “It’s not a secret that police are on site, and people are still coming,” August said.

    Still, other providers have expressed concern that requiring people to travel to the lot adds an additional barrier to care, especially for those who were used to mobile services coming to them.

    Sarah Laurel, who runs the addiction outreach program Savage Sisters and has a nonmedical permit, said she fears that providers who offered medication-assisted treatment on the street will now be less accessible.

    However, she said, some clients greeted the news of service limits with a shrug.

    “The friends we serve are so used to not being heard that when they realize that services are going away, they adjust quickly to not having things,” Laurel said. “They just say, ‘No one cares about us. They hate us anyway.’ That is how people feel seen in this city.”

    Staff writer Ellie Rushing contributed to this article.

  • Bancroft, a South Jersey provider of IDD services, hired Gregory Passanante as its next CEO

    Bancroft, a South Jersey provider of IDD services, hired Gregory Passanante as its next CEO

    Bancroft, a South Jersey nonprofit provider of services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, has hired Gregory Passanante to succeed Toni Pergolin as president and CEO.

    Passanante, who will be the 10th president in the organization’s 143-year history, is scheduled to start Jan. 7.

    Since 2023, Passanante has been northeast market administrator for Shriners Children’s Hospital Philadelphia. Before that, he was chief nursing officer at Wills Eye Hospital.

    Passanante will take over a Cherry-Hill-based organization that is in solid financial condition, especially compared to 2004 when Pergolin arrived as chief financial officer and had to worry about making payroll because the organization was so weak financially.

    In the 12 months that ended June 30, the nonprofit had operating income of $13 million on $284 million in revenue, according to its audited financial statement. Bancroft had 1,642 clients and employed 2,853 people on a full-time basis at the end of the fiscal year.

  • ‘Tis the season for laser treatments

    ‘Tis the season for laser treatments

    After a summer under the sun, my patients’ skin is telling me the story of their beach days and backyard gatherings, especially for those who spend weekends at the Jersey Shore. What started as cute freckles in June now appear as stubborn brown spots; fine lines deepen; redness and rough texture emerge; and that “sun-kissed glow” begins to look more like early aging.

    In my dermatology clinic, I call the fall months our laser season.

    I tell patients that fall is the perfect time to reduce the harmful effects of summer sun and prepare their skin to look its best for the holidays and the year ahead. The cooler weather, shorter days, and slower pace create the perfect conditions for skin renewal, allowing us to repair damage and restore radiance.

    Why fall is the sweet spot for laser treatments

    Lasers and energy-based treatments are among the most effective tools for improving skin tone, pigmentation, texture, and fine lines — but timing is everything. After any laser or energy-based procedure, the skin becomes temporarily more sensitive to UV rays. That’s why fall is a sweet spot: the UV index drops, we spend more time indoors, and therefore recovery is easier and more comfortable.

    Cooler weather also makes it easier to protect healing skin with hats, scarves, and cozy layers which help shield it from the sun. The conditions will stay good all winter, but many of my patients prefer to start treatments now, giving their skin time to fully recover by the holidays.

    What can we address with lasers?

    Lasers and energy-based treatments can treat a variety of skin concerns:

    • Resurfacing lasers stimulate collagen production and improve fine lines, brown spots, acne scars, and uneven tone. They can also treat precancerous skin changes and help prevent the development of skin cancer.
    • Vascular lasers target redness, rosacea, and broken capillaries for a clearer complexion.
    • Pigment-specific lasers address brown spots, post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, and unwanted tattoos.
    • Radiofrequency devices provide subtle skin tightening and enhance collagen production.

    Downtime can range from none at all to about a week, depending on the treatment. Most patients need a series of sessions to achieve their desired results.

    One of my patients, a 42-year-old marketing executive from the Philadelphia suburbs, came to see me after a summer filled with travel. “My freckles have gotten so dark, and my rosacea is flaring,” she said. “What can I do to make my skin look better?”

    We created a combination plan to target pigmentation, fine lines, and redness using both a fractional resurfacing laser and a vascular laser. The procedure took less than an hour, and after a week of mild downtime, her skin looked brighter, smoother, and more even.

    After a month, the collagen stimulation was starting to become noticeable and her skin appeared plumper, firmer, and healthier. She told me, “I feel like all that sun damage was aging me 10 years. Now I finally look like myself again.”

    Not just cosmetic

    Beyond cosmetic procedures, certain lasers can remove or treat precancerous lesions called actinic keratoses, which are rough, sun-damaged patches that sometimes progress to skin cancer if untreated.

    1. By gently removing these damaged cells and stimulating healthy new growth, laser resurfacing not only improves the skin’s appearance but also reduces future skin cancer risk.

    As a cosmetic dermatologist and Mohs surgeon, I approach each patient not only from the perspective of how they can look better, but also how we can enhance skin quality and skin health.

    Finding that intersection, where beauty meets prevention, is one of my favorite parts of practicing dermatology. Ultimately, healthy skin simply looks better: free of pigmentation, redness, fine lines, and rough texture.

    We’re now in the peak of what I call laser season, and my advice to patients is to seize the pause between the intensity of summer and the rush of the holidays to help their skin recover from UV exposure.

    Alternatives to lasers

    Of course, laser treatment isn’t for everyone. Lasers offer a safe, medical approach to address damage before it worsens, but some people can’t tolerate downtime associated with some lasers. Others are looking for a more affordable option, as lasers can range in cost from $450-1200 per session, depending on the laser and location, with multiple sessions typically recommended.

    Another powerful option is a regimen known as the “ABC’s plus sunscreen.” This means using products with vitamin A (a retinoid) to boost cell turnover and promote collagen production, vitamin B (niacinamide) to calm inflammation and support the skin barrier (and for some patients, an oral form may be appropriate after discussing with their dermatologist), and vitamin C to brighten and protect against environmental stress.

    Protection is always the best prevention. I consider daily sunscreen a nonnegotiable, even on cloudy days. I recommend a broad-spectrum sunscreen with SPF 30 or higher, and UPF clothing adds another reliable layer of protection. A consistent skincare routine can meaningfully prevent and even reverse signs of sun damage and skin aging, no lasers required.

    May Elgash is a board-certified dermatologist and Mohs surgeon practicing at the Jefferson Laser Surgery and Cosmetic Dermatology Center.

  • Can zinc shorten your cold? Here’s how to take it the right way.

    Can zinc shorten your cold? Here’s how to take it the right way.

    The question: Can zinc cure a cold?

    The science: Everyone loves a good cold remedy — vitamins, homemade concoctions, nasal irrigation systems. And zinc, a mineral, is a popular one, sold over the counter as lozenges, quick-dissolve tablets, and nasal sprays.

    While there’s no conclusive evidence that zinc can prevent a cold, there is research suggesting it might help shave a little time off the duration of a cold, which usually runs for seven to 10 days.

    “If you’re trying to get better, say, before you go see your brand-new grandchild or because you have a big presentation coming up at work, it may cut a day or two off your cold but you might still have persistent symptoms,” said Rebecca Andrews, a professor at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine and chair of the Board of Regents for the American College of Physicians.

    Scientists have hypothesized that zinc may prevent rhinoviruses — which are common viruses that cause about 50% of colds — from infecting our cells, said Roy Gulick, the chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Weill Cornell Medicine and attending physician at New York Presbyterian Hospital in New York City.

    The mineral also enhances immune function and responses to infection, among other things, he said.

    In a 2024 Cochrane review, researchers analyzed 34 trials using zinc to prevent and treat colds. The authors found little to no evidence that zinc, when taken proactively, can prevent a cold or reduce the number of colds a person gets.

    For people who already have a cold, the reviewers found some evidence that zinc might shorten the duration of symptoms by about two days compared with a placebo. However, they also found that zinc was associated with mild side effects such as nasal and oral irritation, problems with taste, stomach pain, constipation, diarrhea, and vomiting, among others.

    Outside those trials, some people who use certain zinc nasal products have reported a loss of smell. It prompted the Food and Drug Administration to issue a public health advisory in 2009, warning people about the link between some zinc nasal products and long-lasting or permanent loss of smell.

    Our bodies don’t produce zinc, which we need for proper immune system and metabolism functioning and wound healing. Adult women should get 8 milligrams of zinc from their diets each day and men 11 mg, according to federal health authorities. Zinc-rich foods include meat, fish, and seafood such as oysters.

    The optimal zinc dose for the treatment of colds is uncertain because researchers conduct studies in different ways, and test different forms of zinc and different doses. However, a number of studies on zinc as cold treatments use doses of 80 mg or more per day. Many over-the-counter zinc lozenges are supposed to be taken every few hours, which amounts to about 80 mg.

    But Andrews said that if you exceed 50 mg of zinc per day, you increase your likelihood of side effects. And don’t use it to prevent a cold — only to treat an ongoing one, she said.

    “When you supplement, you’re going to get a lot more than what you need in your diet, which is more likely to cause stomach upset and send you either into my office or an urgent care, where you might get treated for something that you don’t have because the symptom could be from the zinc,” she said.

    What else you should know

    Before taking zinc, speak with your healthcare provider, as the mineral can interact with some medications. For instance, high zinc intake may make certain chemotherapy drugs less effective, Andrews said.

    If you want to try zinc to treat a cold, consider these suggestions:

    • Don’t use zinc supplements as a preventive, only a treatment. Because there’s little to no evidence that zinc can prevent a cold and it’s associated with a number of side effects, use it only when you have symptoms of a cold.
    • Try lozenges, but in moderation. Most studies have evaluated the effectiveness of zinc lozenges over other formulations, probably because they are easy to take and may help ease sore throats, a common symptom of a cold, Andrews said. But don’t overdo it. If you exceed 50 mg daily, you increase your risk of stomach upset and other side effects, she said.
    • Don’t take zinc with certain foods. High-fiber foods, legumes, and grains, foods rich in calcium and iron, and excessive alcohol, among other things, can reduce zinc absorption.
    • Zinc aside, build up your immune system. Eating a healthy, well-balanced diet, drinking plenty of water, and getting enough sleep are key for ensuring your immune system “is top-notch from a cold-fighting perspective,” Andrews said.

    The bottom line: While zinc is unlikely to prevent a cold, it may help reduce the duration of a cold by a day or two. But potential benefits of zinc, particularly at higher levels, may be offset by adverse reactions, including irritation in the nose and mouth, an upset stomach, and other side effects.

  • CHOP was Southeastern Pa.’s most profitable nonprofit health system in first quarter of fiscal 2026. Four systems lost money.

    CHOP was Southeastern Pa.’s most profitable nonprofit health system in first quarter of fiscal 2026. Four systems lost money.

    Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia was the most profitable nonprofit health system in Southeastern Pennsylvania during the three months that ended Sept. 30, according to an Inquirer review of financial filings.

    CHOP reported $70 million in operating income in the first quarter of fiscal 2026, up from $67 million the same period a year ago. The nonprofit’s revenue climbed nearly 9% to $1.3 billion.

    The biggest loss in percentage terms was at Redeemer Health, the region’s smallest health system and the only remaining operator with a single hospital. Redeemer had an $11.7 million operating loss on $103.4 million in quarterly revenue. That was an improvement over an $18.9 million loss last year.

    Jefferson Health had the most patient revenue following its acquisition last year of Lehigh Valley Health Network. The 32-hospital system had $2.9 billion in patient revenue, $100 million more than the $2.8 billion at the University of Pennsylvania Health System, which has seven hospitals.

    window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a){if(void 0!==a.data[“datawrapper-height”]){var e=document.querySelectorAll(“iframe”);for(var t in a.data[“datawrapper-height”])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data[“datawrapper-height”][t]+”px”;r.style.height=d}}});

    Here’s a recap of selected systems’ results for September quarter:

    Jefferson Health

    Jefferson Health reported a $104 million operating loss, as its insurance business continued to drag down results. The loss included $19.4 million in restructuring charges for employee severance related to earlier job cuts and moves designed to make the system more efficient.

    University of Pennsylvania Health System

    University of Pennsylvania Health System had an operating gain of $109.3 million, up from $49.3 million in the same period a year ago. This year’s results include Doylestown Health, which Penn acquired April 1. Total revenue was $3.3 billion, up from $2.8 billion a year ago.

    Temple University Health System

    Temple University Health System’s loss in the quarter was $15 million, an improvement over a $17 million loss last year. Total revenue was $800 million, up 13% from $712.5 million a year ago. Outpatient revenue increased by nearly $62 million, much of it from the health system’s specialty and retail pharmacy business.

  • Scientists discover oldest evidence of human-made fire in a 400,000-year-old hearth

    Scientists discover oldest evidence of human-made fire in a 400,000-year-old hearth

    Scientists have discovered the oldest evidence of ancient humans igniting fires: a 400,000-year-old open-air hearth buried in an old clay pit in southern England.

    The study, published in the journal Nature, is based on a years-long examination of a reddish patch of sediment excavated at a site in Barnham. It pushes back the timeline on fire-making by about 350,000 years.

    The nebulous question of how far back human ancestors conjured fire is deeply intertwined with some of the biggest outstanding mysteries about human evolution. The ability to reliably set fires would have allowed humans to cook food, expanding the range of what they could eat and making meals more digestible. That, in turn, could have supported bigger brains that consumed more energy, catalyzing new social behaviors as humans gathered around campfires.

    But campfires don’t leave fossils. It takes painstaking work to reconstruct these ephemeral uses of technology. And what remains unclear is who set them. No telltale bones have been recovered at Barnham, but researchers think it was Neanderthals, close cousins of our species who interbred with our ancestors.

    “The evidence of fire is incredibly difficult to preserve. If you get to ash and charcoal, it can wash away. Sediment can get washed away,” said Nicholas Ashton, curator of Paleolithic collections at the British Museum and one of the leaders of the work. “We just found this one pocket — quite a large site — where it happens to be preserved.”

    Even when traces of fire remain, the task of distinguishing incidental flames sparked by lightning strikes or wildfires from those set by people is difficult. Perhaps most challenging is distinguishing between fires ignited by humans with the know-how from those produced by scavenging embers from wildfires.

    The study could spark more debate.

    “The authors did an excellent job with their analysis of the Barnham data, but they seem to be stretching the evidence with their claim that this constitutes the ‘earliest evidence of fire making,’” Wil Roebroeks, an archaeologist at Leiden University, said in an email, calling the evidence “circumstantial.”

    Ségolène Vandevelde, an archaeologist and adjunct professor at the University of Quebec at Chicoutimi, praised the multidisciplinary approaches the authors used and said the finding was “solid.”

    Pyroarchaeology

    In the Paleolithic era, the Barnham site would have been a woodland with a seasonal pond — set away from the main river valley, where predators might have roamed, according to Robert Davis, an archaeologist at the British Museum and one of the authors of the study. The wildlife would have included elephants, lions, deer, fish and other small mammals.

    Despite the fleeting nature of fire, it can leave traces under the right conditions. At the site in Barnham, where artifacts such as heat-shattered flint hand axes were also found, researchers were intrigued by a layer of reddish sediment — a result of iron-rich sediments being heated to produce a mineral called hematite. For four years, they studied it, trying to determine whether it was the result of a wildfire or deliberate human activity.

    One of the first questions they asked was whether this was a one-time blaze or something closer to a fireplace that was lit and relit many times.

    To deconstruct this question, scientists studied the magnetism of the sediment, which is altered by heating. They conducted modern experiments, to see if they could come up with an estimate of how many heating events might have resulted in the magnetic profile of the sediment — and found that after about a dozen heating events, each one four hours long, their modern samples mimicked the archaeological one.

    Then they examined the chemistry of the site — scrutinizing particular chemical compounds left behind. The patterns they found suggested humans had been using these fires.

    The last element was small pieces of cracked flint scattered about the site — as well as two bits of pyrite, which can create a spark when struck together. A geological study of the area showed that pyrite was scarce in the local landscape, leading the authors to argue that the inhabitants had carried it there for the specific purpose of making fire.

    Scavenging sparks vs. setting fires

    The archaeological record with examples of fires used by hominins — the ancestors of humans — stretches back more than a million years ago in Africa.

    But what interests scientists is not just the ability to successfully scavenge sparks from wildfires or lightning strikes, but also the ability to reliably create it — possibly by striking flint and pyrite together to create sparks.

    The oldest accepted evidence of fires purposefully set are from a Neanderthal site dated to 50,000 years ago in France. That evidence is considered convincing in part because there are chunks of flint showing “microwear traces of having been struck” to create sparks, Roebroeks said. But at Barnham, there are no microwear traces, leaving room for disagreement.

    “It’s a very contentious debate that’s been going on for some time,” Davis said.

    Early hominins would have learned to harvest fire by collecting embers, harvesting the right fuel and tending the fire. And eventually, they had to learn how to make it on demand — which would allow them to live in colder places, cook, fend off predators and socialize after dark.

    The study does not suggest that Barnham was where fire originated; it was probably widespread across the ancient world. But it does offer a rare, preserved snapshot of prehistoric life.

    “The maintenance of fire requires social cooperation, cultural rules and work coupled with knowledge of wood types, and means that a complicated tradition is at play,” said John Hawks, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.