Frances Correa

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution on June 21 to "vigorously" work to change the Affordable Care Act so that the law better lines up with the organization’s policies.

The resolution that passed by a voice vote specifically addressed the need to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and enact comprehensive medical liability reform and antitrust reform. Delegates such as Dr. Bruce Scott of the Kentucky delegation said that this is an effort to prove a point to the AMA members who have left the organization.

"I think that this will begin to satisfy some of the unhappy physicians back home who believe, mistakenly, that the AMA embraced wholeheartedly the [Affordable Care Act] legislation," Dr. Scott said from the house floor.

Alabama delegate Dr. Jeff Terry agreed. "I think some of us feel like perhaps some of the decisions that we’ve made through [the AMA’s] government relations [department] don’t go along with our policy, and I’d like to make an effort to try to make sure our AMA policy is what moves forward on the ACA as we attempt to change it," he said on the house floor.

Block granting in the Medicaid program also was addressed by the House of Delegates. A resolution proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the AMA strongly oppose block granting the Medicaid program.

Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AAP delegation, spoke on the need to maintain the federal/state partnership under Medicaid so that recipients can be ensured of basic benefits no matter where in the United States they live.

"Right now, what this language says is that the state gets to decide," said Dr. Garretson of Fort Worth, Tex. "Well, I live in that state where they could give a you-know-what about the 1.1 million uninsured kids and they don’t want to do anything with Medicaid. That’s just not where they are."

Dr. Marion Burton, also an AAP delegate, agreed. "For the AMA to go on record as supporting block grants would cause millions of children to be thrown under the uninsured bus," he said.

The resolution was referred to the board of trustees for a later decision.

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution on June 21 to "vigorously" work to change the Affordable Care Act so that the law better lines up with the organization’s policies.

The resolution that passed by a voice vote specifically addressed the need to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and enact comprehensive medical liability reform and antitrust reform. Delegates such as Dr. Bruce Scott of the Kentucky delegation said that this is an effort to prove a point to the AMA members who have left the organization.

"I think that this will begin to satisfy some of the unhappy physicians back home who believe, mistakenly, that the AMA embraced wholeheartedly the [Affordable Care Act] legislation," Dr. Scott said from the house floor.

Alabama delegate Dr. Jeff Terry agreed. "I think some of us feel like perhaps some of the decisions that we’ve made through [the AMA’s] government relations [department] don’t go along with our policy, and I’d like to make an effort to try to make sure our AMA policy is what moves forward on the ACA as we attempt to change it," he said on the house floor.

Block granting in the Medicaid program also was addressed by the House of Delegates. A resolution proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the AMA strongly oppose block granting the Medicaid program.

Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AAP delegation, spoke on the need to maintain the federal/state partnership under Medicaid so that recipients can be ensured of basic benefits no matter where in the United States they live.

"Right now, what this language says is that the state gets to decide," said Dr. Garretson of Fort Worth, Tex. "Well, I live in that state where they could give a you-know-what about the 1.1 million uninsured kids and they don’t want to do anything with Medicaid. That’s just not where they are."

Dr. Marion Burton, also an AAP delegate, agreed. "For the AMA to go on record as supporting block grants would cause millions of children to be thrown under the uninsured bus," he said.

The resolution was referred to the board of trustees for a later decision.

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution on June 21 to "vigorously" work to change the Affordable Care Act so that the law better lines up with the organization’s policies.

The resolution that passed by a voice vote specifically addressed the need to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and enact comprehensive medical liability reform and antitrust reform. Delegates such as Dr. Bruce Scott of the Kentucky delegation said that this is an effort to prove a point to the AMA members who have left the organization.

"I think that this will begin to satisfy some of the unhappy physicians back home who believe, mistakenly, that the AMA embraced wholeheartedly the [Affordable Care Act] legislation," Dr. Scott said from the house floor.

Alabama delegate Dr. Jeff Terry agreed. "I think some of us feel like perhaps some of the decisions that we’ve made through [the AMA’s] government relations [department] don’t go along with our policy, and I’d like to make an effort to try to make sure our AMA policy is what moves forward on the ACA as we attempt to change it," he said on the house floor.

Block granting in the Medicaid program also was addressed by the House of Delegates. A resolution proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the AMA strongly oppose block granting the Medicaid program.

Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AAP delegation, spoke on the need to maintain the federal/state partnership under Medicaid so that recipients can be ensured of basic benefits no matter where in the United States they live.

"Right now, what this language says is that the state gets to decide," said Dr. Garretson of Fort Worth, Tex. "Well, I live in that state where they could give a you-know-what about the 1.1 million uninsured kids and they don’t want to do anything with Medicaid. That’s just not where they are."

Dr. Marion Burton, also an AAP delegate, agreed. "For the AMA to go on record as supporting block grants would cause millions of children to be thrown under the uninsured bus," he said.

The resolution was referred to the board of trustees for a later decision.

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution on June 21 to "vigorously" work to change the Affordable Care Act so that the law better lines up with the organization’s policies.

The resolution that passed by a voice vote specifically addressed the need to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and enact comprehensive medical liability reform and antitrust reform. Delegates such as Dr. Bruce Scott of the Kentucky delegation said that this is an effort to prove a point to the AMA members who have left the organization.

"I think that this will begin to satisfy some of the unhappy physicians back home who believe, mistakenly, that the AMA embraced wholeheartedly the [Affordable Care Act] legislation," Dr. Scott said from the house floor.

Alabama delegate Dr. Jeff Terry agreed. "I think some of us feel like perhaps some of the decisions that we’ve made through [the AMA’s] government relations [department] don’t go along with our policy, and I’d like to make an effort to try to make sure our AMA policy is what moves forward on the ACA as we attempt to change it," he said on the house floor.

Block granting in the Medicaid program also was addressed by the House of Delegates. A resolution proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the AMA strongly oppose block granting the Medicaid program.

Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AAP delegation, spoke on the need to maintain the federal/state partnership under Medicaid so that recipients can be ensured of basic benefits no matter where in the United States they live.

"Right now, what this language says is that the state gets to decide," said Dr. Garretson of Fort Worth, Tex. "Well, I live in that state where they could give a you-know-what about the 1.1 million uninsured kids and they don’t want to do anything with Medicaid. That’s just not where they are."

Dr. Marion Burton, also an AAP delegate, agreed. "For the AMA to go on record as supporting block grants would cause millions of children to be thrown under the uninsured bus," he said.

The resolution was referred to the board of trustees for a later decision.

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution on June 21 to "vigorously" work to change the Affordable Care Act so that the law better lines up with the organization’s policies.

The resolution that passed by a voice vote specifically addressed the need to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and enact comprehensive medical liability reform and antitrust reform. Delegates such as Dr. Bruce Scott of the Kentucky delegation said that this is an effort to prove a point to the AMA members who have left the organization.

"I think that this will begin to satisfy some of the unhappy physicians back home who believe, mistakenly, that the AMA embraced wholeheartedly the [Affordable Care Act] legislation," Dr. Scott said from the house floor.

Alabama delegate Dr. Jeff Terry agreed. "I think some of us feel like perhaps some of the decisions that we’ve made through [the AMA’s] government relations [department] don’t go along with our policy, and I’d like to make an effort to try to make sure our AMA policy is what moves forward on the ACA as we attempt to change it," he said on the house floor.

Block granting in the Medicaid program also was addressed by the House of Delegates. A resolution proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the AMA strongly oppose block granting the Medicaid program.

Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AAP delegation, spoke on the need to maintain the federal/state partnership under Medicaid so that recipients can be ensured of basic benefits no matter where in the United States they live.

"Right now, what this language says is that the state gets to decide," said Dr. Garretson of Fort Worth, Tex. "Well, I live in that state where they could give a you-know-what about the 1.1 million uninsured kids and they don’t want to do anything with Medicaid. That’s just not where they are."

Dr. Marion Burton, also an AAP delegate, agreed. "For the AMA to go on record as supporting block grants would cause millions of children to be thrown under the uninsured bus," he said.

The resolution was referred to the board of trustees for a later decision.

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution on June 21 to "vigorously" work to change the Affordable Care Act so that the law better lines up with the organization’s policies.

The resolution that passed by a voice vote specifically addressed the need to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and enact comprehensive medical liability reform and antitrust reform. Delegates such as Dr. Bruce Scott of the Kentucky delegation said that this is an effort to prove a point to the AMA members who have left the organization.

"I think that this will begin to satisfy some of the unhappy physicians back home who believe, mistakenly, that the AMA embraced wholeheartedly the [Affordable Care Act] legislation," Dr. Scott said from the house floor.

Alabama delegate Dr. Jeff Terry agreed. "I think some of us feel like perhaps some of the decisions that we’ve made through [the AMA’s] government relations [department] don’t go along with our policy, and I’d like to make an effort to try to make sure our AMA policy is what moves forward on the ACA as we attempt to change it," he said on the house floor.

Block granting in the Medicaid program also was addressed by the House of Delegates. A resolution proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the AMA strongly oppose block granting the Medicaid program.

Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AAP delegation, spoke on the need to maintain the federal/state partnership under Medicaid so that recipients can be ensured of basic benefits no matter where in the United States they live.

"Right now, what this language says is that the state gets to decide," said Dr. Garretson of Fort Worth, Tex. "Well, I live in that state where they could give a you-know-what about the 1.1 million uninsured kids and they don’t want to do anything with Medicaid. That’s just not where they are."

Dr. Marion Burton, also an AAP delegate, agreed. "For the AMA to go on record as supporting block grants would cause millions of children to be thrown under the uninsured bus," he said.

The resolution was referred to the board of trustees for a later decision.

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution on June 21 to "vigorously" work to change the Affordable Care Act so that the law better lines up with the organization’s policies.

The resolution that passed by a voice vote specifically addressed the need to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and enact comprehensive medical liability reform and antitrust reform. Delegates such as Dr. Bruce Scott of the Kentucky delegation said that this is an effort to prove a point to the AMA members who have left the organization.

"I think that this will begin to satisfy some of the unhappy physicians back home who believe, mistakenly, that the AMA embraced wholeheartedly the [Affordable Care Act] legislation," Dr. Scott said from the house floor.

Alabama delegate Dr. Jeff Terry agreed. "I think some of us feel like perhaps some of the decisions that we’ve made through [the AMA’s] government relations [department] don’t go along with our policy, and I’d like to make an effort to try to make sure our AMA policy is what moves forward on the ACA as we attempt to change it," he said on the house floor.

Block granting in the Medicaid program also was addressed by the House of Delegates. A resolution proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the AMA strongly oppose block granting the Medicaid program.

Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AAP delegation, spoke on the need to maintain the federal/state partnership under Medicaid so that recipients can be ensured of basic benefits no matter where in the United States they live.

"Right now, what this language says is that the state gets to decide," said Dr. Garretson of Fort Worth, Tex. "Well, I live in that state where they could give a you-know-what about the 1.1 million uninsured kids and they don’t want to do anything with Medicaid. That’s just not where they are."

Dr. Marion Burton, also an AAP delegate, agreed. "For the AMA to go on record as supporting block grants would cause millions of children to be thrown under the uninsured bus," he said.

The resolution was referred to the board of trustees for a later decision.

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution on June 21 to "vigorously" work to change the Affordable Care Act so that the law better lines up with the organization’s policies.

The resolution that passed by a voice vote specifically addressed the need to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and enact comprehensive medical liability reform and antitrust reform. Delegates such as Dr. Bruce Scott of the Kentucky delegation said that this is an effort to prove a point to the AMA members who have left the organization.

"I think that this will begin to satisfy some of the unhappy physicians back home who believe, mistakenly, that the AMA embraced wholeheartedly the [Affordable Care Act] legislation," Dr. Scott said from the house floor.

Alabama delegate Dr. Jeff Terry agreed. "I think some of us feel like perhaps some of the decisions that we’ve made through [the AMA’s] government relations [department] don’t go along with our policy, and I’d like to make an effort to try to make sure our AMA policy is what moves forward on the ACA as we attempt to change it," he said on the house floor.

Block granting in the Medicaid program also was addressed by the House of Delegates. A resolution proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the AMA strongly oppose block granting the Medicaid program.

Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AAP delegation, spoke on the need to maintain the federal/state partnership under Medicaid so that recipients can be ensured of basic benefits no matter where in the United States they live.

"Right now, what this language says is that the state gets to decide," said Dr. Garretson of Fort Worth, Tex. "Well, I live in that state where they could give a you-know-what about the 1.1 million uninsured kids and they don’t want to do anything with Medicaid. That’s just not where they are."

Dr. Marion Burton, also an AAP delegate, agreed. "For the AMA to go on record as supporting block grants would cause millions of children to be thrown under the uninsured bus," he said.

The resolution was referred to the board of trustees for a later decision.

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution on June 21 to "vigorously" work to change the Affordable Care Act so that the law better lines up with the organization’s policies.

The resolution that passed by a voice vote specifically addressed the need to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and enact comprehensive medical liability reform and antitrust reform. Delegates such as Dr. Bruce Scott of the Kentucky delegation said that this is an effort to prove a point to the AMA members who have left the organization.

"I think that this will begin to satisfy some of the unhappy physicians back home who believe, mistakenly, that the AMA embraced wholeheartedly the [Affordable Care Act] legislation," Dr. Scott said from the house floor.

Alabama delegate Dr. Jeff Terry agreed. "I think some of us feel like perhaps some of the decisions that we’ve made through [the AMA’s] government relations [department] don’t go along with our policy, and I’d like to make an effort to try to make sure our AMA policy is what moves forward on the ACA as we attempt to change it," he said on the house floor.

Block granting in the Medicaid program also was addressed by the House of Delegates. A resolution proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that the AMA strongly oppose block granting the Medicaid program.

Dr. Melissa Garretson, a member of the AAP delegation, spoke on the need to maintain the federal/state partnership under Medicaid so that recipients can be ensured of basic benefits no matter where in the United States they live.

"Right now, what this language says is that the state gets to decide," said Dr. Garretson of Fort Worth, Tex. "Well, I live in that state where they could give a you-know-what about the 1.1 million uninsured kids and they don’t want to do anything with Medicaid. That’s just not where they are."

Dr. Marion Burton, also an AAP delegate, agreed. "For the AMA to go on record as supporting block grants would cause millions of children to be thrown under the uninsured bus," he said.

The resolution was referred to the board of trustees for a later decision.

Physicians at the AMA House of Delegates meeting on June 19 spent almost 3 hours debating whether the AMA should continue to support the so-called individual mandate. That mandate, which is part of the Affordable Care Act, would require Americans to purchase health insurance coverage.

Photo credit: Alicia Ault

On the pro side, physicians argued that having health insurance had been shown to equate with longer and healthier lives. On the con side, many doctors said that the mandate would take away individual freedom and possibly result in the collapse of the insurance market.

Elsewhere at the meeting, physicians talked about gay marriage and civil unions, and whether Medicaid should be converted to a block grant program.  They also discussed a physician's right to counsel patients about gun use.

For more, listen to a special edition of the Policy & Practice Podcast.

Physicians at the AMA House of Delegates meeting on June 19 spent almost 3 hours debating whether the AMA should continue to support the so-called individual mandate. That mandate, which is part of the Affordable Care Act, would require Americans to purchase health insurance coverage.

Photo credit: Alicia Ault

On the pro side, physicians argued that having health insurance had been shown to equate with longer and healthier lives. On the con side, many doctors said that the mandate would take away individual freedom and possibly result in the collapse of the insurance market.

Elsewhere at the meeting, physicians talked about gay marriage and civil unions, and whether Medicaid should be converted to a block grant program.  They also discussed a physician's right to counsel patients about gun use.

For more, listen to a special edition of the Policy & Practice Podcast.

Physicians at the AMA House of Delegates meeting on June 19 spent almost 3 hours debating whether the AMA should continue to support the so-called individual mandate. That mandate, which is part of the Affordable Care Act, would require Americans to purchase health insurance coverage.

Photo credit: Alicia Ault

On the pro side, physicians argued that having health insurance had been shown to equate with longer and healthier lives. On the con side, many doctors said that the mandate would take away individual freedom and possibly result in the collapse of the insurance market.

Elsewhere at the meeting, physicians talked about gay marriage and civil unions, and whether Medicaid should be converted to a block grant program.  They also discussed a physician's right to counsel patients about gun use.

For more, listen to a special edition of the Policy & Practice Podcast.

As the American Medical Association opened its annual House of Delegates meeting in Chicago on Saturday, there was a foreshadowing of the tussle that likely will come over the coming days. The annual policy-making confab always has contentious debate; this year (and as it was last year), the Affordable Care Act stands as more of a dividing than a unifying element for the nation's physicians.

Photo credit: Alicia Ault

The AMA's president, Dr. Cecil Wilson, told the delegates in his opening speech that while others may pretend to speak for organized medicine, patients and lawmakers look to the AMA as the voice of organized medicine.  Other professional societies can -- and have -- disagreed.

For more on this, listen to the Policy & Practice Podcast:

As the American Medical Association opened its annual House of Delegates meeting in Chicago on Saturday, there was a foreshadowing of the tussle that likely will come over the coming days. The annual policy-making confab always has contentious debate; this year (and as it was last year), the Affordable Care Act stands as more of a dividing than a unifying element for the nation's physicians.

Photo credit: Alicia Ault

The AMA's president, Dr. Cecil Wilson, told the delegates in his opening speech that while others may pretend to speak for organized medicine, patients and lawmakers look to the AMA as the voice of organized medicine.  Other professional societies can -- and have -- disagreed.

For more on this, listen to the Policy & Practice Podcast:

As the American Medical Association opened its annual House of Delegates meeting in Chicago on Saturday, there was a foreshadowing of the tussle that likely will come over the coming days. The annual policy-making confab always has contentious debate; this year (and as it was last year), the Affordable Care Act stands as more of a dividing than a unifying element for the nation's physicians.

Photo credit: Alicia Ault

The AMA's president, Dr. Cecil Wilson, told the delegates in his opening speech that while others may pretend to speak for organized medicine, patients and lawmakers look to the AMA as the voice of organized medicine.  Other professional societies can -- and have -- disagreed.

For more on this, listen to the Policy & Practice Podcast:

Children who get their health insurance through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Plan may not have the same access to specialist care as do their privately insured peers, according to a study conducted in Chicago.

Researchers at the University of Chicago completed calls to 273 specialty clinics in dermatology, otolaryngology, endocrinology, neurology, orthopedics, psychiatry, and allergy/immunology, posing as mothers seeking appointments for a child who needed specialty care. Every caller said that he or she was referred from the child’s primary care physician or an emergency department.

Data were collected by trained, graduated university students from January through May 2010, and the study’s results were published June 15 in the New England Journal of Medicine (N. Engl. J. Med. 364;24:2324-33).

Two-thirds of callers who said their child was insured by Medicaid or CHIP were denied appointments, compared with 11% of those claiming private insurance. Only 89 clinics accepted both Medicaid and CHIP insurance.

Medicaid/CHIP enrollees had to wait an average of 42 days for their appointment, compared with 20 days for those with private insurance.

The study was conducted in Cook County, Ill., where the ratio of specialists to the population is 218 to 100,000, the highest in the nation.

Dr. Karin Rhodes of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and the study’s lead author said that although she was not entirely surprised by the findings, she was disappointed to see such disparities. As state and federal governments struggle to pay for Medicaid, cutting the funding will only further exacerbate existing access disparities, she said.

Although this issue is not unique to Illinois, it occurs almost exclusively among private practices that function under the fee-for-service payment model, according to Dr. Ronald E. Kleinman, physician-in-chief of MassGeneral Hospital for Children, Boston.

Private practices often are daunted by the logistics of these public plans, such as onerous paperwork, low reimbursements, and extended waiting periods – often 6-12 months – for payment, Dr. Kleinman said in an interview.

Despite her disappointment, Dr. Rhodes said that she has not lost hope. Improvements to the physician payment system and other incentives could help solve the problem, she said.

"I think that if we align the incentive appropriately, we can fix this problem; but we will need to care about it, and we will need to measure it so that we have real data to work with," Dr. Rhodes said.

The state of Illinois supported the study. Dr. Rhodes and her colleague reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Children who get their health insurance through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Plan may not have the same access to specialist care as do their privately insured peers, according to a study conducted in Chicago.

Researchers at the University of Chicago completed calls to 273 specialty clinics in dermatology, otolaryngology, endocrinology, neurology, orthopedics, psychiatry, and allergy/immunology, posing as mothers seeking appointments for a child who needed specialty care. Every caller said that he or she was referred from the child’s primary care physician or an emergency department.

Data were collected by trained, graduated university students from January through May 2010, and the study’s results were published June 15 in the New England Journal of Medicine (N. Engl. J. Med. 364;24:2324-33).

Two-thirds of callers who said their child was insured by Medicaid or CHIP were denied appointments, compared with 11% of those claiming private insurance. Only 89 clinics accepted both Medicaid and CHIP insurance.

Medicaid/CHIP enrollees had to wait an average of 42 days for their appointment, compared with 20 days for those with private insurance.

The study was conducted in Cook County, Ill., where the ratio of specialists to the population is 218 to 100,000, the highest in the nation.

Dr. Karin Rhodes of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and the study’s lead author said that although she was not entirely surprised by the findings, she was disappointed to see such disparities. As state and federal governments struggle to pay for Medicaid, cutting the funding will only further exacerbate existing access disparities, she said.

Although this issue is not unique to Illinois, it occurs almost exclusively among private practices that function under the fee-for-service payment model, according to Dr. Ronald E. Kleinman, physician-in-chief of MassGeneral Hospital for Children, Boston.

Private practices often are daunted by the logistics of these public plans, such as onerous paperwork, low reimbursements, and extended waiting periods – often 6-12 months – for payment, Dr. Kleinman said in an interview.

Despite her disappointment, Dr. Rhodes said that she has not lost hope. Improvements to the physician payment system and other incentives could help solve the problem, she said.

"I think that if we align the incentive appropriately, we can fix this problem; but we will need to care about it, and we will need to measure it so that we have real data to work with," Dr. Rhodes said.

The state of Illinois supported the study. Dr. Rhodes and her colleague reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Children who get their health insurance through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Plan may not have the same access to specialist care as do their privately insured peers, according to a study conducted in Chicago.

Researchers at the University of Chicago completed calls to 273 specialty clinics in dermatology, otolaryngology, endocrinology, neurology, orthopedics, psychiatry, and allergy/immunology, posing as mothers seeking appointments for a child who needed specialty care. Every caller said that he or she was referred from the child’s primary care physician or an emergency department.

Data were collected by trained, graduated university students from January through May 2010, and the study’s results were published June 15 in the New England Journal of Medicine (N. Engl. J. Med. 364;24:2324-33).

Two-thirds of callers who said their child was insured by Medicaid or CHIP were denied appointments, compared with 11% of those claiming private insurance. Only 89 clinics accepted both Medicaid and CHIP insurance.

Medicaid/CHIP enrollees had to wait an average of 42 days for their appointment, compared with 20 days for those with private insurance.

The study was conducted in Cook County, Ill., where the ratio of specialists to the population is 218 to 100,000, the highest in the nation.

Dr. Karin Rhodes of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and the study’s lead author said that although she was not entirely surprised by the findings, she was disappointed to see such disparities. As state and federal governments struggle to pay for Medicaid, cutting the funding will only further exacerbate existing access disparities, she said.

Although this issue is not unique to Illinois, it occurs almost exclusively among private practices that function under the fee-for-service payment model, according to Dr. Ronald E. Kleinman, physician-in-chief of MassGeneral Hospital for Children, Boston.

Private practices often are daunted by the logistics of these public plans, such as onerous paperwork, low reimbursements, and extended waiting periods – often 6-12 months – for payment, Dr. Kleinman said in an interview.

Despite her disappointment, Dr. Rhodes said that she has not lost hope. Improvements to the physician payment system and other incentives could help solve the problem, she said.

"I think that if we align the incentive appropriately, we can fix this problem; but we will need to care about it, and we will need to measure it so that we have real data to work with," Dr. Rhodes said.

The state of Illinois supported the study. Dr. Rhodes and her colleague reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Children who get their health insurance through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Plan may not have the same access to specialist care as do their privately insured peers, according to a study conducted in Chicago.

Researchers at the University of Chicago completed calls to 273 specialty clinics in dermatology, otolaryngology, endocrinology, neurology, orthopedics, psychiatry, and allergy/immunology, posing as mothers seeking appointments for a child who needed specialty care. Every caller said that he or she was referred from the child’s primary care physician or an emergency department.

Data were collected by trained, graduated university students from January through May 2010, and the study’s results were published June 15 in the New England Journal of Medicine (N. Engl. J. Med. 364;24:2324-33).

Two-thirds of callers who said their child was insured by Medicaid or CHIP were denied appointments, compared with 11% of those claiming private insurance. Only 89 clinics accepted both Medicaid and CHIP insurance.

Medicaid/CHIP enrollees had to wait an average of 42 days for their appointment, compared with 20 days for those with private insurance.

The study was conducted in Cook County, Ill., where the ratio of specialists to the population is 218 to 100,000, the highest in the nation.

Dr. Karin Rhodes of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and the study’s lead author said that although she was not entirely surprised by the findings, she was disappointed to see such disparities. As state and federal governments struggle to pay for Medicaid, cutting the funding will only further exacerbate existing access disparities, she said.

Although this issue is not unique to Illinois, it occurs almost exclusively among private practices that function under the fee-for-service payment model, according to Dr. Ronald E. Kleinman, physician-in-chief of MassGeneral Hospital for Children, Boston.

Private practices often are daunted by the logistics of these public plans, such as onerous paperwork, low reimbursements, and extended waiting periods – often 6-12 months – for payment, Dr. Kleinman said in an interview.

Despite her disappointment, Dr. Rhodes said that she has not lost hope. Improvements to the physician payment system and other incentives could help solve the problem, she said.

"I think that if we align the incentive appropriately, we can fix this problem; but we will need to care about it, and we will need to measure it so that we have real data to work with," Dr. Rhodes said.

The state of Illinois supported the study. Dr. Rhodes and her colleague reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Children who get their health insurance through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Plan may not have the same access to specialist care as do their privately insured peers, according to a study conducted in Chicago.

Researchers at the University of Chicago completed calls to 273 specialty clinics in dermatology, otolaryngology, endocrinology, neurology, orthopedics, psychiatry, and allergy/immunology, posing as mothers seeking appointments for a child who needed specialty care. Every caller said that he or she was referred from the child’s primary care physician or an emergency department.

Data were collected by trained, graduated university students from January through May 2010, and the study’s results were published June 15 in the New England Journal of Medicine (N. Engl. J. Med. 364;24:2324-33).

Two-thirds of callers who said their child was insured by Medicaid or CHIP were denied appointments, compared with 11% of those claiming private insurance. Only 89 clinics accepted both Medicaid and CHIP insurance.

Medicaid/CHIP enrollees had to wait an average of 42 days for their appointment, compared with 20 days for those with private insurance.

The study was conducted in Cook County, Ill., where the ratio of specialists to the population is 218 to 100,000, the highest in the nation.

Dr. Karin Rhodes of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and the study’s lead author said that although she was not entirely surprised by the findings, she was disappointed to see such disparities. As state and federal governments struggle to pay for Medicaid, cutting the funding will only further exacerbate existing access disparities, she said.

Although this issue is not unique to Illinois, it occurs almost exclusively among private practices that function under the fee-for-service payment model, according to Dr. Ronald E. Kleinman, physician-in-chief of MassGeneral Hospital for Children, Boston.

Private practices often are daunted by the logistics of these public plans, such as onerous paperwork, low reimbursements, and extended waiting periods – often 6-12 months – for payment, Dr. Kleinman said in an interview.

Despite her disappointment, Dr. Rhodes said that she has not lost hope. Improvements to the physician payment system and other incentives could help solve the problem, she said.

"I think that if we align the incentive appropriately, we can fix this problem; but we will need to care about it, and we will need to measure it so that we have real data to work with," Dr. Rhodes said.

The state of Illinois supported the study. Dr. Rhodes and her colleague reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Children who get their health insurance through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Plan may not have the same access to specialist care as do their privately insured peers, according to a study conducted in Chicago.

Researchers at the University of Chicago completed calls to 273 specialty clinics in dermatology, otolaryngology, endocrinology, neurology, orthopedics, psychiatry, and allergy/immunology, posing as mothers seeking appointments for a child who needed specialty care. Every caller said that he or she was referred from the child’s primary care physician or an emergency department.

Data were collected by trained, graduated university students from January through May 2010, and the study’s results were published June 15 in the New England Journal of Medicine (N. Engl. J. Med. 364;24:2324-33).

Two-thirds of callers who said their child was insured by Medicaid or CHIP were denied appointments, compared with 11% of those claiming private insurance. Only 89 clinics accepted both Medicaid and CHIP insurance.

Medicaid/CHIP enrollees had to wait an average of 42 days for their appointment, compared with 20 days for those with private insurance.

The study was conducted in Cook County, Ill., where the ratio of specialists to the population is 218 to 100,000, the highest in the nation.

Dr. Karin Rhodes of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and the study’s lead author said that although she was not entirely surprised by the findings, she was disappointed to see such disparities. As state and federal governments struggle to pay for Medicaid, cutting the funding will only further exacerbate existing access disparities, she said.

Although this issue is not unique to Illinois, it occurs almost exclusively among private practices that function under the fee-for-service payment model, according to Dr. Ronald E. Kleinman, physician-in-chief of MassGeneral Hospital for Children, Boston.

Private practices often are daunted by the logistics of these public plans, such as onerous paperwork, low reimbursements, and extended waiting periods – often 6-12 months – for payment, Dr. Kleinman said in an interview.

Despite her disappointment, Dr. Rhodes said that she has not lost hope. Improvements to the physician payment system and other incentives could help solve the problem, she said.

"I think that if we align the incentive appropriately, we can fix this problem; but we will need to care about it, and we will need to measure it so that we have real data to work with," Dr. Rhodes said.

The state of Illinois supported the study. Dr. Rhodes and her colleague reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Children who get their health insurance through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Plan may not have the same access to specialist care as do their privately insured peers, according to a study conducted in Chicago.

Researchers at the University of Chicago completed calls to 273 specialty clinics in dermatology, otolaryngology, endocrinology, neurology, orthopedics, psychiatry, and allergy/immunology, posing as mothers seeking appointments for a child who needed specialty care. Every caller said that he or she was referred from the child’s primary care physician or an emergency department.

Data were collected by trained, graduated university students from January through May 2010, and the study’s results were published June 15 in the New England Journal of Medicine (N. Engl. J. Med. 364;24:2324-33).

Two-thirds of callers who said their child was insured by Medicaid or CHIP were denied appointments, compared with 11% of those claiming private insurance. Only 89 clinics accepted both Medicaid and CHIP insurance.

Medicaid/CHIP enrollees had to wait an average of 42 days for their appointment, compared with 20 days for those with private insurance.

The study was conducted in Cook County, Ill., where the ratio of specialists to the population is 218 to 100,000, the highest in the nation.

Dr. Karin Rhodes of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and the study’s lead author said that although she was not entirely surprised by the findings, she was disappointed to see such disparities. As state and federal governments struggle to pay for Medicaid, cutting the funding will only further exacerbate existing access disparities, she said.

Although this issue is not unique to Illinois, it occurs almost exclusively among private practices that function under the fee-for-service payment model, according to Dr. Ronald E. Kleinman, physician-in-chief of MassGeneral Hospital for Children, Boston.

Private practices often are daunted by the logistics of these public plans, such as onerous paperwork, low reimbursements, and extended waiting periods – often 6-12 months – for payment, Dr. Kleinman said in an interview.

Despite her disappointment, Dr. Rhodes said that she has not lost hope. Improvements to the physician payment system and other incentives could help solve the problem, she said.

"I think that if we align the incentive appropriately, we can fix this problem; but we will need to care about it, and we will need to measure it so that we have real data to work with," Dr. Rhodes said.

The state of Illinois supported the study. Dr. Rhodes and her colleague reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Children who get their health insurance through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Plan may not have the same access to specialist care as do their privately insured peers, according to a study conducted in Chicago.

Researchers at the University of Chicago completed calls to 273 specialty clinics in dermatology, otolaryngology, endocrinology, neurology, orthopedics, psychiatry, and allergy/immunology, posing as mothers seeking appointments for a child who needed specialty care. Every caller said that he or she was referred from the child’s primary care physician or an emergency department.

Data were collected by trained, graduated university students from January through May 2010, and the study’s results were published June 15 in the New England Journal of Medicine (N. Engl. J. Med. 364;24:2324-33).

Two-thirds of callers who said their child was insured by Medicaid or CHIP were denied appointments, compared with 11% of those claiming private insurance. Only 89 clinics accepted both Medicaid and CHIP insurance.

Medicaid/CHIP enrollees had to wait an average of 42 days for their appointment, compared with 20 days for those with private insurance.

The study was conducted in Cook County, Ill., where the ratio of specialists to the population is 218 to 100,000, the highest in the nation.

Dr. Karin Rhodes of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and the study’s lead author said that although she was not entirely surprised by the findings, she was disappointed to see such disparities. As state and federal governments struggle to pay for Medicaid, cutting the funding will only further exacerbate existing access disparities, she said.

Although this issue is not unique to Illinois, it occurs almost exclusively among private practices that function under the fee-for-service payment model, according to Dr. Ronald E. Kleinman, physician-in-chief of MassGeneral Hospital for Children, Boston.

Private practices often are daunted by the logistics of these public plans, such as onerous paperwork, low reimbursements, and extended waiting periods – often 6-12 months – for payment, Dr. Kleinman said in an interview.

Despite her disappointment, Dr. Rhodes said that she has not lost hope. Improvements to the physician payment system and other incentives could help solve the problem, she said.

"I think that if we align the incentive appropriately, we can fix this problem; but we will need to care about it, and we will need to measure it so that we have real data to work with," Dr. Rhodes said.

The state of Illinois supported the study. Dr. Rhodes and her colleague reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Children who get their health insurance through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Plan may not have the same access to specialist care as do their privately insured peers, according to a study conducted in Chicago.

Researchers at the University of Chicago completed calls to 273 specialty clinics in dermatology, otolaryngology, endocrinology, neurology, orthopedics, psychiatry, and allergy/immunology, posing as mothers seeking appointments for a child who needed specialty care. Every caller said that he or she was referred from the child’s primary care physician or an emergency department.

Data were collected by trained, graduated university students from January through May 2010, and the study’s results were published June 15 in the New England Journal of Medicine (N. Engl. J. Med. 364;24:2324-33).

Two-thirds of callers who said their child was insured by Medicaid or CHIP were denied appointments, compared with 11% of those claiming private insurance. Only 89 clinics accepted both Medicaid and CHIP insurance.

Medicaid/CHIP enrollees had to wait an average of 42 days for their appointment, compared with 20 days for those with private insurance.

The study was conducted in Cook County, Ill., where the ratio of specialists to the population is 218 to 100,000, the highest in the nation.

Dr. Karin Rhodes of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and the study’s lead author said that although she was not entirely surprised by the findings, she was disappointed to see such disparities. As state and federal governments struggle to pay for Medicaid, cutting the funding will only further exacerbate existing access disparities, she said.

Although this issue is not unique to Illinois, it occurs almost exclusively among private practices that function under the fee-for-service payment model, according to Dr. Ronald E. Kleinman, physician-in-chief of MassGeneral Hospital for Children, Boston.

Private practices often are daunted by the logistics of these public plans, such as onerous paperwork, low reimbursements, and extended waiting periods – often 6-12 months – for payment, Dr. Kleinman said in an interview.

Despite her disappointment, Dr. Rhodes said that she has not lost hope. Improvements to the physician payment system and other incentives could help solve the problem, she said.

"I think that if we align the incentive appropriately, we can fix this problem; but we will need to care about it, and we will need to measure it so that we have real data to work with," Dr. Rhodes said.

The state of Illinois supported the study. Dr. Rhodes and her colleague reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Workers with rheumatic diseases need to inform their employers of their condition, in the hope that the employers will respond by modifying the job enough to make it safer. That is the goal of an ongoing campaign to educate employers and employees about rheumatoid arthritis that is being sponsored by the U.K. National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society.

More than 56% of patients with RA stopped working within a year of receiving their diagnosis, according to the 2010 National Rheumatoid Arthritis Survey that will be discussed today by Clare Jacklin, external affairs manager of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society (NRAS). Ms. Jacklin said in an interview that the society is working to address this most startling finding. Although the 2010 survey focused on Scotland, a similar study in 2007 showed the same issues spanning the entire United Kingdom.

To achieve this goal, NRAS led a series of 10 workshops throughout the United Kingdom in 2010 to educate employers and employees about RA.

"With the right information at the right time, people are given the confidence to disclose their condition to their employers and many lost jobs can be avoided," Ms. Jacklin said in an interview. The most common areas of employment for respondents with a full or part-time job were professionals (nearly 35%), office workers (approximately 30%), and health workers (about 25%).

Since starting the campaign in 2007, the society has experienced an influx of calls to their help center for information and support in work-related issues, Ms. Jacklin said. She added that the majority of calls come from recently diagnosed patients who are unsure how to talk to their manager or colleagues about their disease. Others who call the society’s help center don’t know their rights and think they are experiencing discrimination. In addition to employer awareness, NRAS is seeking U.K. government support so that even small businesses can accommodate their employees with a chronic condition to continue working, Ms. Jacklin said.

Of the 45 respondents in the 2010 survey who reported that they were not working because of their disease, 56% (25 respondents) said they stopped working 1 year after diagnosis, and 80% (36 respondents) after 6 years. However, within the same group that reported they’d stopped working, 51% (23 respondents) said they would return to work if they could find a job that would accommodate their disease. Those who reported still working said that their work is often affected by their pain (64.4%) or fatigue (81.1%). An additional 58.8% said that they are often unable to carry out their duties because of physical limitations, and 55.6% have had to take time off work. NRAS included responses from 198 participants in their survey results.

NRAS would like to see the government reward employers who support people with disabilities in order to highlight the benefit of such accommodations to everyone: the individual, the company, the economy, and society, Ms. Jacklin said. NRAS recommendations for improvement in the workplace include expedited access to a rheumatology team for managing flares and drug side effects, increased government education and support, increased flexibility and support from the employer, and patient awareness of their own rights.

Ms. Jacklin reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Workers with rheumatic diseases need to inform their employers of their condition, in the hope that the employers will respond by modifying the job enough to make it safer. That is the goal of an ongoing campaign to educate employers and employees about rheumatoid arthritis that is being sponsored by the U.K. National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society.

More than 56% of patients with RA stopped working within a year of receiving their diagnosis, according to the 2010 National Rheumatoid Arthritis Survey that will be discussed today by Clare Jacklin, external affairs manager of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society (NRAS). Ms. Jacklin said in an interview that the society is working to address this most startling finding. Although the 2010 survey focused on Scotland, a similar study in 2007 showed the same issues spanning the entire United Kingdom.

To achieve this goal, NRAS led a series of 10 workshops throughout the United Kingdom in 2010 to educate employers and employees about RA.

"With the right information at the right time, people are given the confidence to disclose their condition to their employers and many lost jobs can be avoided," Ms. Jacklin said in an interview. The most common areas of employment for respondents with a full or part-time job were professionals (nearly 35%), office workers (approximately 30%), and health workers (about 25%).

Since starting the campaign in 2007, the society has experienced an influx of calls to their help center for information and support in work-related issues, Ms. Jacklin said. She added that the majority of calls come from recently diagnosed patients who are unsure how to talk to their manager or colleagues about their disease. Others who call the society’s help center don’t know their rights and think they are experiencing discrimination. In addition to employer awareness, NRAS is seeking U.K. government support so that even small businesses can accommodate their employees with a chronic condition to continue working, Ms. Jacklin said.

Of the 45 respondents in the 2010 survey who reported that they were not working because of their disease, 56% (25 respondents) said they stopped working 1 year after diagnosis, and 80% (36 respondents) after 6 years. However, within the same group that reported they’d stopped working, 51% (23 respondents) said they would return to work if they could find a job that would accommodate their disease. Those who reported still working said that their work is often affected by their pain (64.4%) or fatigue (81.1%). An additional 58.8% said that they are often unable to carry out their duties because of physical limitations, and 55.6% have had to take time off work. NRAS included responses from 198 participants in their survey results.

NRAS would like to see the government reward employers who support people with disabilities in order to highlight the benefit of such accommodations to everyone: the individual, the company, the economy, and society, Ms. Jacklin said. NRAS recommendations for improvement in the workplace include expedited access to a rheumatology team for managing flares and drug side effects, increased government education and support, increased flexibility and support from the employer, and patient awareness of their own rights.

Ms. Jacklin reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Workers with rheumatic diseases need to inform their employers of their condition, in the hope that the employers will respond by modifying the job enough to make it safer. That is the goal of an ongoing campaign to educate employers and employees about rheumatoid arthritis that is being sponsored by the U.K. National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society.

More than 56% of patients with RA stopped working within a year of receiving their diagnosis, according to the 2010 National Rheumatoid Arthritis Survey that will be discussed today by Clare Jacklin, external affairs manager of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society (NRAS). Ms. Jacklin said in an interview that the society is working to address this most startling finding. Although the 2010 survey focused on Scotland, a similar study in 2007 showed the same issues spanning the entire United Kingdom.

To achieve this goal, NRAS led a series of 10 workshops throughout the United Kingdom in 2010 to educate employers and employees about RA.

"With the right information at the right time, people are given the confidence to disclose their condition to their employers and many lost jobs can be avoided," Ms. Jacklin said in an interview. The most common areas of employment for respondents with a full or part-time job were professionals (nearly 35%), office workers (approximately 30%), and health workers (about 25%).

Since starting the campaign in 2007, the society has experienced an influx of calls to their help center for information and support in work-related issues, Ms. Jacklin said. She added that the majority of calls come from recently diagnosed patients who are unsure how to talk to their manager or colleagues about their disease. Others who call the society’s help center don’t know their rights and think they are experiencing discrimination. In addition to employer awareness, NRAS is seeking U.K. government support so that even small businesses can accommodate their employees with a chronic condition to continue working, Ms. Jacklin said.

Of the 45 respondents in the 2010 survey who reported that they were not working because of their disease, 56% (25 respondents) said they stopped working 1 year after diagnosis, and 80% (36 respondents) after 6 years. However, within the same group that reported they’d stopped working, 51% (23 respondents) said they would return to work if they could find a job that would accommodate their disease. Those who reported still working said that their work is often affected by their pain (64.4%) or fatigue (81.1%). An additional 58.8% said that they are often unable to carry out their duties because of physical limitations, and 55.6% have had to take time off work. NRAS included responses from 198 participants in their survey results.

NRAS would like to see the government reward employers who support people with disabilities in order to highlight the benefit of such accommodations to everyone: the individual, the company, the economy, and society, Ms. Jacklin said. NRAS recommendations for improvement in the workplace include expedited access to a rheumatology team for managing flares and drug side effects, increased government education and support, increased flexibility and support from the employer, and patient awareness of their own rights.

Ms. Jacklin reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Workers with rheumatic diseases need to inform their employers of their condition, in the hope that the employers will respond by modifying the job enough to make it safer. That is the goal of an ongoing campaign to educate employers and employees about rheumatoid arthritis that is being sponsored by the U.K. National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society.

More than 56% of patients with RA stopped working within a year of receiving their diagnosis, according to the 2010 National Rheumatoid Arthritis Survey that will be discussed today by Clare Jacklin, external affairs manager of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society (NRAS). Ms. Jacklin said in an interview that the society is working to address this most startling finding. Although the 2010 survey focused on Scotland, a similar study in 2007 showed the same issues spanning the entire United Kingdom.

To achieve this goal, NRAS led a series of 10 workshops throughout the United Kingdom in 2010 to educate employers and employees about RA.

"With the right information at the right time, people are given the confidence to disclose their condition to their employers and many lost jobs can be avoided," Ms. Jacklin said in an interview. The most common areas of employment for respondents with a full or part-time job were professionals (nearly 35%), office workers (approximately 30%), and health workers (about 25%).

Since starting the campaign in 2007, the society has experienced an influx of calls to their help center for information and support in work-related issues, Ms. Jacklin said. She added that the majority of calls come from recently diagnosed patients who are unsure how to talk to their manager or colleagues about their disease. Others who call the society’s help center don’t know their rights and think they are experiencing discrimination. In addition to employer awareness, NRAS is seeking U.K. government support so that even small businesses can accommodate their employees with a chronic condition to continue working, Ms. Jacklin said.

Of the 45 respondents in the 2010 survey who reported that they were not working because of their disease, 56% (25 respondents) said they stopped working 1 year after diagnosis, and 80% (36 respondents) after 6 years. However, within the same group that reported they’d stopped working, 51% (23 respondents) said they would return to work if they could find a job that would accommodate their disease. Those who reported still working said that their work is often affected by their pain (64.4%) or fatigue (81.1%). An additional 58.8% said that they are often unable to carry out their duties because of physical limitations, and 55.6% have had to take time off work. NRAS included responses from 198 participants in their survey results.

NRAS would like to see the government reward employers who support people with disabilities in order to highlight the benefit of such accommodations to everyone: the individual, the company, the economy, and society, Ms. Jacklin said. NRAS recommendations for improvement in the workplace include expedited access to a rheumatology team for managing flares and drug side effects, increased government education and support, increased flexibility and support from the employer, and patient awareness of their own rights.

Ms. Jacklin reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Workers with rheumatic diseases need to inform their employers of their condition, in the hope that the employers will respond by modifying the job enough to make it safer. That is the goal of an ongoing campaign to educate employers and employees about rheumatoid arthritis that is being sponsored by the U.K. National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society.

More than 56% of patients with RA stopped working within a year of receiving their diagnosis, according to the 2010 National Rheumatoid Arthritis Survey that will be discussed today by Clare Jacklin, external affairs manager of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society (NRAS). Ms. Jacklin said in an interview that the society is working to address this most startling finding. Although the 2010 survey focused on Scotland, a similar study in 2007 showed the same issues spanning the entire United Kingdom.

To achieve this goal, NRAS led a series of 10 workshops throughout the United Kingdom in 2010 to educate employers and employees about RA.

"With the right information at the right time, people are given the confidence to disclose their condition to their employers and many lost jobs can be avoided," Ms. Jacklin said in an interview. The most common areas of employment for respondents with a full or part-time job were professionals (nearly 35%), office workers (approximately 30%), and health workers (about 25%).

Since starting the campaign in 2007, the society has experienced an influx of calls to their help center for information and support in work-related issues, Ms. Jacklin said. She added that the majority of calls come from recently diagnosed patients who are unsure how to talk to their manager or colleagues about their disease. Others who call the society’s help center don’t know their rights and think they are experiencing discrimination. In addition to employer awareness, NRAS is seeking U.K. government support so that even small businesses can accommodate their employees with a chronic condition to continue working, Ms. Jacklin said.

Of the 45 respondents in the 2010 survey who reported that they were not working because of their disease, 56% (25 respondents) said they stopped working 1 year after diagnosis, and 80% (36 respondents) after 6 years. However, within the same group that reported they’d stopped working, 51% (23 respondents) said they would return to work if they could find a job that would accommodate their disease. Those who reported still working said that their work is often affected by their pain (64.4%) or fatigue (81.1%). An additional 58.8% said that they are often unable to carry out their duties because of physical limitations, and 55.6% have had to take time off work. NRAS included responses from 198 participants in their survey results.

NRAS would like to see the government reward employers who support people with disabilities in order to highlight the benefit of such accommodations to everyone: the individual, the company, the economy, and society, Ms. Jacklin said. NRAS recommendations for improvement in the workplace include expedited access to a rheumatology team for managing flares and drug side effects, increased government education and support, increased flexibility and support from the employer, and patient awareness of their own rights.

Ms. Jacklin reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Workers with rheumatic diseases need to inform their employers of their condition, in the hope that the employers will respond by modifying the job enough to make it safer. That is the goal of an ongoing campaign to educate employers and employees about rheumatoid arthritis that is being sponsored by the U.K. National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society.

More than 56% of patients with RA stopped working within a year of receiving their diagnosis, according to the 2010 National Rheumatoid Arthritis Survey that will be discussed today by Clare Jacklin, external affairs manager of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society (NRAS). Ms. Jacklin said in an interview that the society is working to address this most startling finding. Although the 2010 survey focused on Scotland, a similar study in 2007 showed the same issues spanning the entire United Kingdom.

To achieve this goal, NRAS led a series of 10 workshops throughout the United Kingdom in 2010 to educate employers and employees about RA.

"With the right information at the right time, people are given the confidence to disclose their condition to their employers and many lost jobs can be avoided," Ms. Jacklin said in an interview. The most common areas of employment for respondents with a full or part-time job were professionals (nearly 35%), office workers (approximately 30%), and health workers (about 25%).

Since starting the campaign in 2007, the society has experienced an influx of calls to their help center for information and support in work-related issues, Ms. Jacklin said. She added that the majority of calls come from recently diagnosed patients who are unsure how to talk to their manager or colleagues about their disease. Others who call the society’s help center don’t know their rights and think they are experiencing discrimination. In addition to employer awareness, NRAS is seeking U.K. government support so that even small businesses can accommodate their employees with a chronic condition to continue working, Ms. Jacklin said.

Of the 45 respondents in the 2010 survey who reported that they were not working because of their disease, 56% (25 respondents) said they stopped working 1 year after diagnosis, and 80% (36 respondents) after 6 years. However, within the same group that reported they’d stopped working, 51% (23 respondents) said they would return to work if they could find a job that would accommodate their disease. Those who reported still working said that their work is often affected by their pain (64.4%) or fatigue (81.1%). An additional 58.8% said that they are often unable to carry out their duties because of physical limitations, and 55.6% have had to take time off work. NRAS included responses from 198 participants in their survey results.

NRAS would like to see the government reward employers who support people with disabilities in order to highlight the benefit of such accommodations to everyone: the individual, the company, the economy, and society, Ms. Jacklin said. NRAS recommendations for improvement in the workplace include expedited access to a rheumatology team for managing flares and drug side effects, increased government education and support, increased flexibility and support from the employer, and patient awareness of their own rights.

Ms. Jacklin reported no financial conflicts of interest.