CHARLOTTE, N.C. To show its appreciation to those in the community working to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, Bojangles’ is giving away any size of its Legendary Iced Tea to healthcare workers, first responders and law enforcement no purchase necessary.
The promotion kicked off today and will run through National Iced Tea Day on June 10. Healthcare workers, first responders and law enforcement will just need to show their credentials to receive the deal at any participating Bojangles’ restaurant.
“This is just one sweet way we can thank those on the frontlines of the current crisis,” said Ken Reynolds, Director of Corporate and Community Affairs for Bojangles’. “We hope our signature legendary iced tea will bring a little joy to their days and provide a well-deserved, refreshing break from their tireless commitment to the health of our communities.”
Bojangles’ restaurants throughout the Southeast continue to show why the brand is so well-known for its Southern hospitality and acts of kindness. For instance, restaurant teams have assisted with kids programs, fed local hospital staff and donated dinner to local police stations, among other community donations throughout the company’s footprint.
“We are so proud of all the ways our team members are serving and supporting their communities during these unprecedented times,” Reynolds added. “Caring for each other – in good times and bad – is what our Southern hospitality is all about.”
As an essential service, Bojangles’ locations throughout the Southeast remain open to serve the company’s delicious one-of-a-kind Southern menu via drive-thru, takeout and delivery through DoorDash and Postmates as available. The company continues to reinforce its existing high standards for cleanliness and good handwashing techniques, while consulting real-time information and resources provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
An article “Understanding the impact of unmet social needs on consumer
health and healthcare” by Erica Coe, Jenny Cordina, Danielle Feffer, and
Seema Parmar, dissected two surveys by Mckinsey conducted on US
residents aged 18 – 84 in 2019. “Consumer Social Determinants of Healthy”
examined 2,010 low-income respondents who are uninsured, have private
insurance, Medicaid and Medicare. The US has two major social healthcare
programs, Medicaid and Medicare. Some people qualify for both Medicaid
and Medicare. “Consumer Health Insights” surveyed 4,958 respondents who
participated in making health insurance decisions regardless of whether they
were uninsured or had coverage.
Medicaid is a federal-state assistance program where local governments set
eligibility criteria and coverage according to federal guidelines. Recipients are
no- to low- income families and individuals of all ages where patients pay very
little to nothing for healthcare services. Notwithstanding discrepancies in each
state, mandatory benefits include coverage for care and services at hospitals,
skilled nursing facilities, federally qualified medical centers, and certified
pediatrics doctors and related medical providers.
Medicare is a federal insurance program that pays for medical services from
trust funds for consumers who have previously paid for these services. It is
primarily offered to individuals aged 65, below 65 with certain disabilities, and
to all patients with End Stage Renal Disease or Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS).
As payments vary according to coverage, patients pay for some of the
hospital and related costs themselves, and non-hospital coverage will require
small monthly premiums.
These differences between patients and insurance categories have some
bearing on the findings. Of the 10 categories of social needs examined in both
surveys which included income, family size, education, and employment, the
article only focused on evaluating how well six social needs or basic
resources were met based on the quality and access to safe housing,
transportation, community safety, food security, community and personal
safety, and social support to see how each variable impinges on respondents’
overall health and wellbeing.
UNMET SOCIAL NEEDS AFFECTS ALL CONSUMERS
“Consumer Health Insights” revealed that while 52% of respondents had no
unmet needs, of the 48% who had one or more unmet social needs, Medicare
consumers reported higher levels of unmet needs than other insured
consumers, primarily due to their socioeconomic circumstances, while
Medicare had the least proportion of unmet social needs. Nevertheless, 24%
had two or more unmet needs, though certain health problems leads to
reporting more unmet needs as people with good mental health tend to be
less dissatisfied than those with poor mental health. Service providers have to
examine patients’ problems in the community context to more closely
CONSUMERS WITH MORE UNMET NEEDS RELY MORE ON
Individual social risk scores are used to quantify and predict the link between
unmet social needs and health, whereby higher scores indicate both greater
unmet social needs, and the potential degree to which their health is affected
in the long run. This also led to some broad conclusions given the divergent
demographic targets of each type of coverage. Consumers who use in-patient
and emergency room (ER) healthcare services tend to report more unmet
social needs than those who rarely use healthcare services. Nevertheless,
individual needs and utilization rates vary the way transportation is more
important to an ailing Medicare consumer than a healthy Medicaid consumer.
Overall, Medicare consumers listed that their greatest priorities are safe
housing and transportation, while those who have poor health value
community safety as the key determinant of their rates of in-patient and ER
utilization. Medicaid respondents and those with unstable incomes causing
them to shift in and out of the system illustrated that food and personal safety
were key markers of good health. Medicaid consumers in poor health showed
that the level of community safety is correlated with their in-patient stays but
not ER utilization.
As empirical findings match intuitive hypotheses, it is useful to see how each
social need is prioritized and used to deliver tailored solutions to various
populations and locales. As Medicare and Medicaid service providers have
clear target populations, they can improve key areas of unmet social needs
where possible to reduce the burden on healthcare services. Local service
providers will also need to increase their capacity in locations with structural
deficiencies that naturally raises in-patient and ER utilization.
HIGH SOCIAL RISK OFTEN RESULTS IN LIMITED ACCESS & HIGH
DISSATISFACTION WITH HEALTHCARE
Among respondents with public coverage with high social risk scores, 37%
reported that they did not receive all the healthcare services they need.
Among consumers with at least one healthcare encounter over a year, 52% of
those with high social risk scores were satisfied with their experience
compared to 81% of those with lower social risk scores. Even lower social risk
score consumers did not receive all the care needed as 24% were not
sufficiently served and 64% of those who had at least one annual healthcare
encounter were satisfied. Yet much of the dissatisfaction due to receiving
insufficient healthcare services is not due to social factors, but factors such as
health literacy, affordability, expectations, and access illustrating that much as
to be done to make healthcare more readily available to those who need it
HIGH SOCIAL RISK CONSUMERS PREFER ALTERNATIVE HEALTH
Rather than visiting designated healthcare providers, high social risk
consumers with some form of government insurance and support prefer to
use ER or alternative treatment such as pharmacies and telemedicine. In fact,
81% prefer to be supported from a wide range of people: 58% want a primary
care provider, 27% from friends and family, and 21% from therapists.
Consumers with limited health risks also prefer primary care providers, family
and friends but only 2% want support from a therapist. Ironically, the
availability of smartphones which elicited high interest as it provides digital
health solutions had little uptake. Neither do extending hours at drop-in clinics
generate significantly more visits as 30% of at risk consumers never used
This gap between initial interest, uptake and actual usage reveals
mismatched requirements and offered solutions. This outcome points to a
need for greater engagement of all parties to create more specific solutions
for each consumer, and stock preferred alternative care sites with sufficient
resources to support some social deficiencies. But more importantly, it means
that more solutions have to be co-designed with consumers to give them what
they need delivered to their expectations.
For example each consumer’s care plan strategy is discussed and the next
steps set forth according to their social context which could include
partnerships and targeted interventions from local communities to provide
missing social services as needed. Paying consumers have to be more proactive
in informing service providers of areas they want more support to make
better future investments that yield effective solutions with higher engagement
of all parties. Success in each location is specific, so an effective healthcare
model has to be inherently flexible enough to be tailored according the
population needs everywhere.
The coronavirus outbreak is first and foremost a human tragedy, affecting hundreds of thousands of people. It is also having a growing impact on the global economy. This article is intended to provide business leaders with a perspective on the evolving situation and implications for their companies. The outbreak is moving quickly, and some of the perspectives in this article may fall rapidly out of date. This article reflects our perspective as of March 9, 2020. We will update it regularly as the outbreak evolves.
COVID-19: Briefing note, March 9, 2020
A range of outcomes is possible. Decision makers should not assume the worst.
less than ten weeks have passed since China reported the existence of a new virus to the World Health Organization. This virus, now known as SARS-CoV-2, causing COVID-19 disease, spread quickly in the city of Wuhan and throughout China. The country has experienced a deep humanitarian challenge, with more than 80,000 cases and more than 3,000 deaths. COVID-19 progressed quickly beyond China’s borders. Four other major transmission complexes are now established across the world: East Asia (especially South Korea, with more than 7,000 cases, as well as Singapore and Japan), the Middle East (centered in Iran, with more than 6,500 cases), Europe (especially the Lombardy region in northern Italy, with more than 7,300 cases, but with widespread transmission across the continent), and the United States, with more than 200 cases. Each of these transmission complexes has sprung up in a region where millions of people travel every day for social and economic reasons, making it difficult to prevent the spread of the disease. In addition to these major complexes, many other countries have been affected. Exhibit 1 offers a snapshot of the current progress of the disease and its economic impact.
The next phases of the outbreak are profoundly uncertain. In our view, the prevalent narrative, focused on pandemic, to which both markets and policy makers have gravitated as they respond to the virus, is possible but underweights the possibility of a more optimistic outcome. In this briefing note, we attempt to distinguish the things we know from those we don’t, and the potential implications of both sets of factors. We then outline three potential economic scenarios, to illustrate the range of possibilities, and conclude with some discussion of the implications for companies’ supply chains, and seven steps businesses can take now to prepare.
Our perspective is based on our analysis of past emergencies and on our industry expertise. It is only one view, however. Others could review the same facts and emerge with a different view. Our scenarios should be considered only as three among many possibilities. This perspective is current as of March 9, 2020. We will update it regularly as the outbreak evolves.
What we know, and what we are discovering
What we know. Epidemiologists are in general agreement on two characteristics of COVID-19:
- The virus is highly transmissible. Both observed experience and emerging scientific evidence show that the virus causing COVID-19 is easily transmitted from person to person. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the virus’s reproduction number (the number of additional cases that likely result from an initial case) is between 1.6 and 2.4, making COVID-19 significantly more transmissible than seasonal flu (whose reproduction number is estimated at 1.2 to 1.4) (Exhibit 2).
- The virus disproportionately affects older people with underlying conditions. Epidemiologists Zunyou Wu and Jennifer McGoogan analyzed a report from China Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that looked at more than 72,000 cases and concluded that the fatality rate for patients 80 and older was seven times the average, and three to four times the average for patients in their 70s.1 Other reports describe fatality rates for people under 40 to be 0.2 percent.
What we are still discovering. Three characteristics of the virus are not fully understood, but are key variables that will affect how the disease progresses, and the economic scenario that evolves:
- The extent of undetected milder cases. We know that those infected often display only mild symptoms (or no symptoms at all), so it is easy for public-health systems to miss such cases. For example, 55 percent of the cases on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship did not exhibit significant symptoms (even though many passengers were middle-aged or older). But we don’t know for sure whether official statistics are capturing 80 percent, 50 percent, or 20 percent of cases.
- Seasonality. There is no evidence so far about the virus’s seasonality (that is, a tendency to subside in the northern hemisphere as spring progresses). Coronaviruses in animals are not always seasonal but have historically been so in humans for reasons that are not fully understood. In the current outbreak, regions with higher temperatures (such as Singapore, India, and Africa) have not yet seen a broad, rapid propagation of the disease.
- Asymptomatic transmission. The evidence is mixed about whether asymptomatic people can transmit the virus, and about the length of the incubation period. If asymptomatic transfer is a major driver of the epidemic, then different public-health measures will be needed.
These factors notwithstanding, we have seen that robust public-health responses, like those in China outside Hubei and in Singapore, can help stem the epidemic (Exhibit 3). But it remains to be seen how these factors will play out and the direct impact they will have. The economic impact too will vary considerably.
In our analysis, three broad economic scenarios might unfold: a quick recovery, a global slowdown, and a pandemic-driven recession. Here, we outline all three (Exhibit 4). We believe that the prevalent pessimistic narrative (which both markets and policy makers seem to favor as they respond to the virus) underweights the possibility of a more optimistic outcome to COVID-19 evolution.
In this scenario, case count continues to grow, given the virus’s high transmissibility. While this inevitably causes a strong public reaction and drop in demand, other countries are able to achieve the same rapid control seen in China, so that the peak in public concern comes relatively soon (within one to two weeks). Given the low fatality rates in children and working-age adults, we might also see levels of concern start to ebb even as the disease continues to spread. Working-age adults remain concerned about their parents and older friends, neighbors, and colleagues, and take steps to ensure their safety. Older people, especially those with underlying conditions, pull back from many activities. Most people outside the transmission complexes continue their normal daily lives.
The scenario assumes that younger people are affected enough to change some daily habits (for example, they wash hands more frequently) but not so much that they shift to survival mode and take steps that come at a higher cost, such as staying home from work and keeping children home from school. A complicating factor, not yet analyzed, is that workers in the gig economy, such as rideshare drivers, may continue to report to work despite requests to stay home, lest they lose income. This scenario also presumes that the virus is seasonal.
In this scenario, our model developed in partnership with Oxford Economics suggests that global GDP growth for 2020 falls from previous consensus estimates of about 2.5 percent to about 2.0 percent (Exhibit 5). The biggest factors are a fall in China’s GDP from nearly 6 percent growth to about 4.7 percent; a one-percentage-point drop in GDP growth for East Asia; and drops of up to 0.5 percentage points for other large economies around the world. The US economy recovers by the end of Q1. By that point, China resumes most of its factory output; but consumer confidence there does not fully recover until end Q2. These are estimates, based on a particular scenario. They should not be considered predictions.
This scenario assumes that most countries are not able to achieve the same rapid control that China managed. In Europe and the United States, transmission is high but remains localized, partly because individuals, firms, and governments take strong countermeasures (including school closings and cancellation of public events). For the United States, the scenario assumes between 10,000 and 500,000 total cases. It assumes one major epicenter with 40 to 50 percent of all cases, two or three smaller centers with 10 to 15 percent of all cases, and a “long tail” of towns with a handful or a few dozen cases. This scenario sees some spread in Africa, India, and other densely populated areas, but the transmissibility of the virus declines naturally with the northern hemisphere spring.
This scenario sees much greater shifts in people’s daily behaviors. This reaction lasts for six to eight weeks in towns and cities with active transmission, and three to four weeks in neighboring towns. The resulting demand shock cuts global GDP growth for 2020 in half, to between 1 percent and 1.5 percent, and pulls the global economy into a slowdown, though not recession.
In this scenario, a global slowdown would affect small and mid-size companies more acutely. Less developed economies would suffer more than advanced economies. And not all sectors are equally affected in this scenario. Service sectors, including aviation, travel, and tourism, are likely to be hardest hit. Airlines have already experienced a steep fall in traffic on their highest-profit international routes (especially in Asia–Pacific). In this scenario, airlines miss out on the summer peak travel season, leading to bankruptcies (FlyBe, the UK regional carrier, is an early example) and consolidation across the sector. A wave of consolidation was already possible in some parts of the industry; COVID-19 would serve as an accelerant.
In consumer goods, the steep drop in consumer demand will likely mean delayed demand. This has implications for the many consumer companies (and their suppliers) that operate on thin working-capital margins. But demand returns in May–June as concern about the virus diminishes. For most other sectors, the impact is a function primarily of the drop in national and global GDP, rather than a direct impact of changed behaviors. Oil and gas, for instance, will be adversely affected as oil prices stay lower than expected until Q3.
Pandemic and recession
This scenario is similar to the global slowdown, except it assumes that the virus is not seasonal (unaffected by spring in the northern hemisphere). Case growth continues throughout Q2 and Q3, potentially overwhelming healthcare systems around the world and pushing out a recovery in consumer confidence to Q3 or beyond. This scenario results in a recession, with global growth in 2020 falling to between –1.5 percent and 0.5 percent.
For many companies around the world, the most important consideration from the first ten weeks of the COVID-19 outbreak has been the effect on supply chains that begin in or go through China. As a result of the factory shutdowns in China during Q1, many disruptions have been felt across the supply chain, though the full effects are of course still unclear.
Hubei is still in the early phases of its recovery; case count is down, but fatality rates remain high, and many restrictions remain that will prevent a resumption of normal activity until early Q2. In the rest of China, however, many large companies report that they are running at more than 90 percent capacity as of March 1. While some real challenges remain, such as lower than usual availability of migrant labor, there is little question that plants are returning back to work quickly.
Trucking capacity to ship goods from factories to ports is at about 60 to 80 percent of normal capacity. Goods are facing delays of between eight and ten days on their journey to ports.
The Baltic Dry Index (which measures freight rates for grains and other dry goods around the world) dropped by about 15 percent at the onset of the outbreak but has increased by nearly 30 percent since then. The TAC index, which measures air-freight prices, has also risen by about 15 percent since early February.
In the next few months, the phased restart of plants outside Hubei (and the slower progress of plants within Hubei) is likely to lead to challenges in securing critical parts. As inventories are run down faster, parts shortages are likely to become the new reason why plants in China cannot operate at full capacity. Moreover, plants that depend on Chinese output (which is to say, most factories around the world) have not yet experienced the brunt of the initial Chinese shutdown and are likely to experience inventory “whiplash” in the coming weeks.
Perhaps the biggest uncertainty for supply-chain managers and production heads is customer demand. Customers that have prebooked logistics capacity may not use it; customers may compete for prioritization in receiving a factory’s output; and the unpredictability of the timing and extent of demand rebound will mean confusing signals for several weeks.
Source : https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/risk/our-insights/covid-19-implications-for-business?cid=other-eml-nsl-mip-mck&hlkid=889f9c230f214a76911941b688aa29a1&hctky=11706684&hdpid=802e7585-5757-4ed6-9a6c-de278572bdf9