User login
Women psychiatrists struggle to balance work-life demands during COVID-19
Daily life is now a juggling act for Misty Richards, MD, MS. As the program director of a rigorous child psychiatry fellowship, a psychiatrist caring for women with perinatal psychiatric disorders, and the mother of three young children, Dr. Richards tries to view these tasks as an opportunity for growth. But some days it feels as if she’s navigating a storm in the middle of the ocean without a life jacket.
In the age of COVID, “the wave of demands has morphed into one giant tidal wave of desperate need,” Dr. Richards, of the department of psychiatry & biobehavioral sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, Semel Institute of Neuroscience & Human Behavior, said in an interview. “The painfully loud and clear message is that our patients need us, and our children – who have been stripped from healthy routines and peer interactions that nourish social-emotional development – rely on us. We cannot turn our backs for even a moment, or else they will suffer.”
Tasked with caring for a much sicker and distressed population, navigating home duties such as child care, online school, and taking care of certain family members, women psychiatrists are feeling the impact of COVID-19.
Many have seamlessly transferred their practices online, maintaining a lifeline with their patients through telehealth visits. Even with this convenience, the emotional labor of being a psychiatrist is still very stressful, Pooja Lakshmin, MD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. Because the nature of work has changed, and many are doing things virtually at home, separating home from work life can be a challenge. “It’s harder to disconnect,” admitted Dr. Lakshmin. “Even my patients tell me that they have no time to themselves anymore.”
– a moving target that remains nowhere in sight, Dr. Richards said. “In this process, we are expected to fill the emotional cups of a broken nation, to provide answers that do not exist, and to do so with never-ending gratitude for a demanding system that has no ‘off’ switch,” she noted.
‘In two places at once’
COVID-19’s physical and emotional toll has swept across the various subspecialties of clinical psychiatry. As some navigate outpatient/telehealth work, inpatient psychiatrists directly interact with COVID patients.
“Our inpatient psychiatry unit regularly takes care of COVID patients, including perinatal patients who are COVID positive,” Samantha Meltzer-Brody, MD, MPH, distinguished professor and chair, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, department of psychiatry and director of medical school’s Center for Women’s Mood Disorders, said in an interview. A psychiatry consultation-liaison service also provides psychiatry care to medical and surgical patients, including medically ill COVID patients across the hospital.
“We are on the front lines in the sense that we are dealing with the trauma of the general population and having to be present for that emotional distress,” Dr. Meltzer-Brody said.
The struggle to balance rising caseloads and home responsibilities makes things difficult, she continued. “There’s a never-ending onslaught of patient referrals,” reflecting the anxiety and depression issues people are experiencing in the wake of a global pandemic, frenetic political situation in the United States, and job uncertainty.
Child care and elder care responsibilities affect both men and women, yet research shows that caregiving demands disproportionately affect women, observed Dr. Meltzer-Brody.
Overall, the stress of caregiving and parenting responsibilities for men and women has been markedly higher during the pandemic. Most clinical psychiatrists “have been extraordinarily busy for a very long time,” she added.
Tiffani L. Bell, MD, a psychiatrist in Winston-Salem, N.C., has seen an increase in anxiety and depression in people with no previous history of diagnosed mental illness. “The impact of the pandemic has truly been multifaceted. People are struggling with loss of jobs, loss of wages, and loss of loved ones, along with grieving the loss of the usual way of life,” she said in an interview.
Many of her colleagues report feeling overburdened at work with increased admissions and patient loads, decreased time to see each patient, and the feeling of “needing to be in two places at once.”
“As a female psychiatrist, I do believe that we can sometimes have an increased mental burden due to the emotional and physical burnout that can occur when our routines are shaken,” added Dr. Bell, who specializes in adult, child, and adolescent psychiatry, and obesity and lifestyle medicine. Even in the early months of the pandemic, Dr. Bell said she heard people joke that “they don’t know if they are working from home or living at work.”
Physicians aren’t the only ones who are overwhelmed. “We’re also hearing stories from our patients – those at risk for partner violence, dealing with kids out of school, working full time while providing support at home,” Ludmila De Faria, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Committee on Women’s Mental Health, said in an interview.
American mothers in particular spend nearly twice as much time caring for their children and cooking than their spouses, said Dr. Bell, citing recent studies. “Even if one is not a mom, if you couple the increased housework at baseline with the added responsibilities of working as a front-line physician and/or working from home while managing a household, it can lead to increased stress for all involved.”
Women leaving the workforce
Nationally, a growing number of women are either reducing their hours or leaving the workforce in response to the pandemic. Fidelity Investments, which surveyed 1,902 U.S. adults in mid-2020 projected that 4 in 10 women were mulling such options. Among 951 women surveyed, 42% were considering stepping back from their jobs because of their children’s homeschooling needs, and 27% cited difficulties of balancing home and job responsibilities.
Interruptions caused by child care affect women more than men, according to a report from the Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress. “Study after study has shown that, in response to school, child care, and camp closings, as well as reduced hours and reduced class sizes, significantly more women than men have reduced their work hours, left work to care for children, and spent more time on education and household tasks,” the authors noted.
They estimated that the American economy could incur $64.5 billion per year in lost wages and economic activity from the fallout of these trends. In September 2020, four times as many women as men left the workforce, nearly 865,000 women in comparison to 216,000 men.
Many women psychiatrists have been forced to choose between their careers or child care duties – decisions they don’t want to make, but that may be necessary during these unprecedented circumstances. They may be reducing their work hours to assist at home. Others are leaving their jobs, “a terrible situation given the enormous mental health needs of the pandemic” and the fact that so many areas of the United States already suffer from a shortage of clinical psychiatrists, said Dr. Meltzer-Brody.
She has personally seen the effects of this in the large academic department she supervises. “I’m seeing women reducing their work hours or leave positions,” she continued. In addition to child care needs, these women are tending to aging parents affected by COVID-19 or other illnesses, or dealing with the fact that options for elder care aren’t available.
“I have multiple faculty contending with that situation,” added Dr. Meltzer-Brody. As a result, productivity is going down. “These women are trying to keep all of the balls in the air but find they can’t.”
Dr. Richards believes some changes are in order to take the disproportionate burden off of women in psychiatry, and the workforce as a whole. The health care system “places too much pressure on individuals to compensate for its deficiencies. Those individuals who often step up to the plate are women, and this is not their sole burden to carry.”
A move toward telehealth in clinical psychiatry has made it possible for patients and physicians to meet virtually in their respective homes and discuss treatment options. “Even while this is both a blessing and privilege, it comes with the unique challenges of having to manage Zoom calls, child care, meals, distance learning, cleaning, and work responsibilities, while previously there was a clearer delineation to the day for many,” Dr. Bell said.
Clinical psychiatrists educating the public about the mental stressors of COVID-19 face their own unique challenges.
Dr. Lakshmin, who makes appearances in various media and social media outlets, said this adds more pressure to the job. “One of the challenges for me is to figure out how much outward facing I do. That’s hard when you’re navigating working and living through a pandemic. This is something I do because I enjoy doing it. But it’s still a type of work. And it’s certainly increased because the media has been paying more attention to mental health” since the pandemic started, she added.
The dual stress of COVID and social justice
Some women psychiatrists of color are dealing with social justice issues on top of other COVID stressors, Dr. De Faria said. The focus on addressing institutionalized racism means that minority women are taking on extra work to advocate for their peers.
Michelle Jacobs-Elliott, MD, of the department of psychiatry and assistant dean of the Office of Diversity and Health Equity at the University of Florida, Gainesville, knows of such responsibilities. “I have been in many discussions either with my coworkers in my department or others who work for the University of Florida” on systemic racism, she said in an interview.
Dr. Jacobs-Elliott became a trainer for Bias Reduction in Internal Medicine, a workshop aimed at reducing bias, and prior to 2020 participated in a social justice summit at the University of Florida. “Talking with my medical as well as undergraduate students about their experiences both here in Gainesville and elsewhere, they are all feeling the hurt, disappointment, and disbelief that we are still fighting battles that our grandparents fought in health care, housing, and employment. This adds an extra layer of stress to everyone’s life.”
The tense social climate has made the apparent racial inequalities in COVID-19 deaths and severity of disease hard to ignore, Dr. Bell noted. “It is my sincere hope that the availability of COVID-19 vaccines will help decrease the number of people affected by this horrible disease. The added burden of racism on top of the stressors of this pandemic can feel insurmountable. I hope 2021 will provide a way forward for us all.”
Taking time for self-care
Amid the endless referrals and increasing demands at home, women psychiatrists often don’t have the time to do normal activities, Dr. Meltzer-Brody observed. Like most people, COVID restrictions prevent them from traveling or going to the gym or restaurants. Dr. De Faria has not been able to visit family in Latin America, a trip she used to make twice a year. “That was once my de-stress time. But now, I can’t connect with my roots. My father is elderly and very much at risk.”
This is the time to get creative and resourceful – to make time for self-care, several sources said.
“We need to realize that we cannot be all things to all people, at the same time,” noted Dr. Bell. It’s important to prioritize what’s most important – and keep assessing your priorities. There’s no shame in tending to your own needs. Dr. Bell recommended that women in her profession should pick 1 day a week, put it in their calendar, and stick to this goal of self-care.
“Even if it’s only 15 minutes, it is important to put time aside. Some quick, cheap ideas are to do a quick meditation session, read a chapter in a book, listen to an audiobook, journal, go for a walk and get fresh air. Eat a healthy meal. Even 10 minutes helps,” she urged.
COVID-19 has pushed society to find new ways to do things, Dr. Bell continued. Women psychiatrists, in assessing their work-life balance, may need to reassess their goals. Consider work schedules and see if there’s a place to scale back a task. Delegate tasks at home to family members, if necessary. Most importantly, exercise self-compassion, she stressed. “During this pandemic, I believe it is vital to keep our cups filled so we can pour into others.”
Dr. Lakshmin said she has benefited greatly from having a therapist during the pandemic. “It has been so instrumental in forcing me to take that time for myself, to give me a space to take care of me, and remember it’s okay to take care of me. It’s so important for us as psychiatrists to have that for ourselves. It’s not just for our patients – we need it, too.”
The APA has resources and numerous support groups that meet regularly to address and discuss the stressors of the pandemic. Its College Mental Health Caucus, for example, holds a monthly, hour-long Zoom meeting. Not surprisingly, women comprise the majority of attendees, Dr. De Faria said. “Most women in academic psychiatry are working from home and using telehealth, which isolates people a lot.” Maureen Sayres Van Niel, MD, who is head of the APA’s Women’s Caucus, sends out a regular newsletter that advises on self-care. Women psychiatrists should also contact their local psychiatric organizations to get support from their professional peers.
Sometimes it’s wise to leave work behind and engage with friends. Dr. De Faria regularly Zooms with a group of friends outside of her profession to de-stress and reconnect. “At least I can talk to them about things other than psychiatry.”
Mentally and physically exhausted, Dr. Jacobs-Elliott said she looks forward to the day when society can return to meeting with friends and family “without being afraid that we are an asymptomatic carrier who is infecting our loved ones.”
Daily life is now a juggling act for Misty Richards, MD, MS. As the program director of a rigorous child psychiatry fellowship, a psychiatrist caring for women with perinatal psychiatric disorders, and the mother of three young children, Dr. Richards tries to view these tasks as an opportunity for growth. But some days it feels as if she’s navigating a storm in the middle of the ocean without a life jacket.
In the age of COVID, “the wave of demands has morphed into one giant tidal wave of desperate need,” Dr. Richards, of the department of psychiatry & biobehavioral sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, Semel Institute of Neuroscience & Human Behavior, said in an interview. “The painfully loud and clear message is that our patients need us, and our children – who have been stripped from healthy routines and peer interactions that nourish social-emotional development – rely on us. We cannot turn our backs for even a moment, or else they will suffer.”
Tasked with caring for a much sicker and distressed population, navigating home duties such as child care, online school, and taking care of certain family members, women psychiatrists are feeling the impact of COVID-19.
Many have seamlessly transferred their practices online, maintaining a lifeline with their patients through telehealth visits. Even with this convenience, the emotional labor of being a psychiatrist is still very stressful, Pooja Lakshmin, MD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. Because the nature of work has changed, and many are doing things virtually at home, separating home from work life can be a challenge. “It’s harder to disconnect,” admitted Dr. Lakshmin. “Even my patients tell me that they have no time to themselves anymore.”
– a moving target that remains nowhere in sight, Dr. Richards said. “In this process, we are expected to fill the emotional cups of a broken nation, to provide answers that do not exist, and to do so with never-ending gratitude for a demanding system that has no ‘off’ switch,” she noted.
‘In two places at once’
COVID-19’s physical and emotional toll has swept across the various subspecialties of clinical psychiatry. As some navigate outpatient/telehealth work, inpatient psychiatrists directly interact with COVID patients.
“Our inpatient psychiatry unit regularly takes care of COVID patients, including perinatal patients who are COVID positive,” Samantha Meltzer-Brody, MD, MPH, distinguished professor and chair, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, department of psychiatry and director of medical school’s Center for Women’s Mood Disorders, said in an interview. A psychiatry consultation-liaison service also provides psychiatry care to medical and surgical patients, including medically ill COVID patients across the hospital.
“We are on the front lines in the sense that we are dealing with the trauma of the general population and having to be present for that emotional distress,” Dr. Meltzer-Brody said.
The struggle to balance rising caseloads and home responsibilities makes things difficult, she continued. “There’s a never-ending onslaught of patient referrals,” reflecting the anxiety and depression issues people are experiencing in the wake of a global pandemic, frenetic political situation in the United States, and job uncertainty.
Child care and elder care responsibilities affect both men and women, yet research shows that caregiving demands disproportionately affect women, observed Dr. Meltzer-Brody.
Overall, the stress of caregiving and parenting responsibilities for men and women has been markedly higher during the pandemic. Most clinical psychiatrists “have been extraordinarily busy for a very long time,” she added.
Tiffani L. Bell, MD, a psychiatrist in Winston-Salem, N.C., has seen an increase in anxiety and depression in people with no previous history of diagnosed mental illness. “The impact of the pandemic has truly been multifaceted. People are struggling with loss of jobs, loss of wages, and loss of loved ones, along with grieving the loss of the usual way of life,” she said in an interview.
Many of her colleagues report feeling overburdened at work with increased admissions and patient loads, decreased time to see each patient, and the feeling of “needing to be in two places at once.”
“As a female psychiatrist, I do believe that we can sometimes have an increased mental burden due to the emotional and physical burnout that can occur when our routines are shaken,” added Dr. Bell, who specializes in adult, child, and adolescent psychiatry, and obesity and lifestyle medicine. Even in the early months of the pandemic, Dr. Bell said she heard people joke that “they don’t know if they are working from home or living at work.”
Physicians aren’t the only ones who are overwhelmed. “We’re also hearing stories from our patients – those at risk for partner violence, dealing with kids out of school, working full time while providing support at home,” Ludmila De Faria, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Committee on Women’s Mental Health, said in an interview.
American mothers in particular spend nearly twice as much time caring for their children and cooking than their spouses, said Dr. Bell, citing recent studies. “Even if one is not a mom, if you couple the increased housework at baseline with the added responsibilities of working as a front-line physician and/or working from home while managing a household, it can lead to increased stress for all involved.”
Women leaving the workforce
Nationally, a growing number of women are either reducing their hours or leaving the workforce in response to the pandemic. Fidelity Investments, which surveyed 1,902 U.S. adults in mid-2020 projected that 4 in 10 women were mulling such options. Among 951 women surveyed, 42% were considering stepping back from their jobs because of their children’s homeschooling needs, and 27% cited difficulties of balancing home and job responsibilities.
Interruptions caused by child care affect women more than men, according to a report from the Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress. “Study after study has shown that, in response to school, child care, and camp closings, as well as reduced hours and reduced class sizes, significantly more women than men have reduced their work hours, left work to care for children, and spent more time on education and household tasks,” the authors noted.
They estimated that the American economy could incur $64.5 billion per year in lost wages and economic activity from the fallout of these trends. In September 2020, four times as many women as men left the workforce, nearly 865,000 women in comparison to 216,000 men.
Many women psychiatrists have been forced to choose between their careers or child care duties – decisions they don’t want to make, but that may be necessary during these unprecedented circumstances. They may be reducing their work hours to assist at home. Others are leaving their jobs, “a terrible situation given the enormous mental health needs of the pandemic” and the fact that so many areas of the United States already suffer from a shortage of clinical psychiatrists, said Dr. Meltzer-Brody.
She has personally seen the effects of this in the large academic department she supervises. “I’m seeing women reducing their work hours or leave positions,” she continued. In addition to child care needs, these women are tending to aging parents affected by COVID-19 or other illnesses, or dealing with the fact that options for elder care aren’t available.
“I have multiple faculty contending with that situation,” added Dr. Meltzer-Brody. As a result, productivity is going down. “These women are trying to keep all of the balls in the air but find they can’t.”
Dr. Richards believes some changes are in order to take the disproportionate burden off of women in psychiatry, and the workforce as a whole. The health care system “places too much pressure on individuals to compensate for its deficiencies. Those individuals who often step up to the plate are women, and this is not their sole burden to carry.”
A move toward telehealth in clinical psychiatry has made it possible for patients and physicians to meet virtually in their respective homes and discuss treatment options. “Even while this is both a blessing and privilege, it comes with the unique challenges of having to manage Zoom calls, child care, meals, distance learning, cleaning, and work responsibilities, while previously there was a clearer delineation to the day for many,” Dr. Bell said.
Clinical psychiatrists educating the public about the mental stressors of COVID-19 face their own unique challenges.
Dr. Lakshmin, who makes appearances in various media and social media outlets, said this adds more pressure to the job. “One of the challenges for me is to figure out how much outward facing I do. That’s hard when you’re navigating working and living through a pandemic. This is something I do because I enjoy doing it. But it’s still a type of work. And it’s certainly increased because the media has been paying more attention to mental health” since the pandemic started, she added.
The dual stress of COVID and social justice
Some women psychiatrists of color are dealing with social justice issues on top of other COVID stressors, Dr. De Faria said. The focus on addressing institutionalized racism means that minority women are taking on extra work to advocate for their peers.
Michelle Jacobs-Elliott, MD, of the department of psychiatry and assistant dean of the Office of Diversity and Health Equity at the University of Florida, Gainesville, knows of such responsibilities. “I have been in many discussions either with my coworkers in my department or others who work for the University of Florida” on systemic racism, she said in an interview.
Dr. Jacobs-Elliott became a trainer for Bias Reduction in Internal Medicine, a workshop aimed at reducing bias, and prior to 2020 participated in a social justice summit at the University of Florida. “Talking with my medical as well as undergraduate students about their experiences both here in Gainesville and elsewhere, they are all feeling the hurt, disappointment, and disbelief that we are still fighting battles that our grandparents fought in health care, housing, and employment. This adds an extra layer of stress to everyone’s life.”
The tense social climate has made the apparent racial inequalities in COVID-19 deaths and severity of disease hard to ignore, Dr. Bell noted. “It is my sincere hope that the availability of COVID-19 vaccines will help decrease the number of people affected by this horrible disease. The added burden of racism on top of the stressors of this pandemic can feel insurmountable. I hope 2021 will provide a way forward for us all.”
Taking time for self-care
Amid the endless referrals and increasing demands at home, women psychiatrists often don’t have the time to do normal activities, Dr. Meltzer-Brody observed. Like most people, COVID restrictions prevent them from traveling or going to the gym or restaurants. Dr. De Faria has not been able to visit family in Latin America, a trip she used to make twice a year. “That was once my de-stress time. But now, I can’t connect with my roots. My father is elderly and very much at risk.”
This is the time to get creative and resourceful – to make time for self-care, several sources said.
“We need to realize that we cannot be all things to all people, at the same time,” noted Dr. Bell. It’s important to prioritize what’s most important – and keep assessing your priorities. There’s no shame in tending to your own needs. Dr. Bell recommended that women in her profession should pick 1 day a week, put it in their calendar, and stick to this goal of self-care.
“Even if it’s only 15 minutes, it is important to put time aside. Some quick, cheap ideas are to do a quick meditation session, read a chapter in a book, listen to an audiobook, journal, go for a walk and get fresh air. Eat a healthy meal. Even 10 minutes helps,” she urged.
COVID-19 has pushed society to find new ways to do things, Dr. Bell continued. Women psychiatrists, in assessing their work-life balance, may need to reassess their goals. Consider work schedules and see if there’s a place to scale back a task. Delegate tasks at home to family members, if necessary. Most importantly, exercise self-compassion, she stressed. “During this pandemic, I believe it is vital to keep our cups filled so we can pour into others.”
Dr. Lakshmin said she has benefited greatly from having a therapist during the pandemic. “It has been so instrumental in forcing me to take that time for myself, to give me a space to take care of me, and remember it’s okay to take care of me. It’s so important for us as psychiatrists to have that for ourselves. It’s not just for our patients – we need it, too.”
The APA has resources and numerous support groups that meet regularly to address and discuss the stressors of the pandemic. Its College Mental Health Caucus, for example, holds a monthly, hour-long Zoom meeting. Not surprisingly, women comprise the majority of attendees, Dr. De Faria said. “Most women in academic psychiatry are working from home and using telehealth, which isolates people a lot.” Maureen Sayres Van Niel, MD, who is head of the APA’s Women’s Caucus, sends out a regular newsletter that advises on self-care. Women psychiatrists should also contact their local psychiatric organizations to get support from their professional peers.
Sometimes it’s wise to leave work behind and engage with friends. Dr. De Faria regularly Zooms with a group of friends outside of her profession to de-stress and reconnect. “At least I can talk to them about things other than psychiatry.”
Mentally and physically exhausted, Dr. Jacobs-Elliott said she looks forward to the day when society can return to meeting with friends and family “without being afraid that we are an asymptomatic carrier who is infecting our loved ones.”
Daily life is now a juggling act for Misty Richards, MD, MS. As the program director of a rigorous child psychiatry fellowship, a psychiatrist caring for women with perinatal psychiatric disorders, and the mother of three young children, Dr. Richards tries to view these tasks as an opportunity for growth. But some days it feels as if she’s navigating a storm in the middle of the ocean without a life jacket.
In the age of COVID, “the wave of demands has morphed into one giant tidal wave of desperate need,” Dr. Richards, of the department of psychiatry & biobehavioral sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, Semel Institute of Neuroscience & Human Behavior, said in an interview. “The painfully loud and clear message is that our patients need us, and our children – who have been stripped from healthy routines and peer interactions that nourish social-emotional development – rely on us. We cannot turn our backs for even a moment, or else they will suffer.”
Tasked with caring for a much sicker and distressed population, navigating home duties such as child care, online school, and taking care of certain family members, women psychiatrists are feeling the impact of COVID-19.
Many have seamlessly transferred their practices online, maintaining a lifeline with their patients through telehealth visits. Even with this convenience, the emotional labor of being a psychiatrist is still very stressful, Pooja Lakshmin, MD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. Because the nature of work has changed, and many are doing things virtually at home, separating home from work life can be a challenge. “It’s harder to disconnect,” admitted Dr. Lakshmin. “Even my patients tell me that they have no time to themselves anymore.”
– a moving target that remains nowhere in sight, Dr. Richards said. “In this process, we are expected to fill the emotional cups of a broken nation, to provide answers that do not exist, and to do so with never-ending gratitude for a demanding system that has no ‘off’ switch,” she noted.
‘In two places at once’
COVID-19’s physical and emotional toll has swept across the various subspecialties of clinical psychiatry. As some navigate outpatient/telehealth work, inpatient psychiatrists directly interact with COVID patients.
“Our inpatient psychiatry unit regularly takes care of COVID patients, including perinatal patients who are COVID positive,” Samantha Meltzer-Brody, MD, MPH, distinguished professor and chair, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, department of psychiatry and director of medical school’s Center for Women’s Mood Disorders, said in an interview. A psychiatry consultation-liaison service also provides psychiatry care to medical and surgical patients, including medically ill COVID patients across the hospital.
“We are on the front lines in the sense that we are dealing with the trauma of the general population and having to be present for that emotional distress,” Dr. Meltzer-Brody said.
The struggle to balance rising caseloads and home responsibilities makes things difficult, she continued. “There’s a never-ending onslaught of patient referrals,” reflecting the anxiety and depression issues people are experiencing in the wake of a global pandemic, frenetic political situation in the United States, and job uncertainty.
Child care and elder care responsibilities affect both men and women, yet research shows that caregiving demands disproportionately affect women, observed Dr. Meltzer-Brody.
Overall, the stress of caregiving and parenting responsibilities for men and women has been markedly higher during the pandemic. Most clinical psychiatrists “have been extraordinarily busy for a very long time,” she added.
Tiffani L. Bell, MD, a psychiatrist in Winston-Salem, N.C., has seen an increase in anxiety and depression in people with no previous history of diagnosed mental illness. “The impact of the pandemic has truly been multifaceted. People are struggling with loss of jobs, loss of wages, and loss of loved ones, along with grieving the loss of the usual way of life,” she said in an interview.
Many of her colleagues report feeling overburdened at work with increased admissions and patient loads, decreased time to see each patient, and the feeling of “needing to be in two places at once.”
“As a female psychiatrist, I do believe that we can sometimes have an increased mental burden due to the emotional and physical burnout that can occur when our routines are shaken,” added Dr. Bell, who specializes in adult, child, and adolescent psychiatry, and obesity and lifestyle medicine. Even in the early months of the pandemic, Dr. Bell said she heard people joke that “they don’t know if they are working from home or living at work.”
Physicians aren’t the only ones who are overwhelmed. “We’re also hearing stories from our patients – those at risk for partner violence, dealing with kids out of school, working full time while providing support at home,” Ludmila De Faria, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Committee on Women’s Mental Health, said in an interview.
American mothers in particular spend nearly twice as much time caring for their children and cooking than their spouses, said Dr. Bell, citing recent studies. “Even if one is not a mom, if you couple the increased housework at baseline with the added responsibilities of working as a front-line physician and/or working from home while managing a household, it can lead to increased stress for all involved.”
Women leaving the workforce
Nationally, a growing number of women are either reducing their hours or leaving the workforce in response to the pandemic. Fidelity Investments, which surveyed 1,902 U.S. adults in mid-2020 projected that 4 in 10 women were mulling such options. Among 951 women surveyed, 42% were considering stepping back from their jobs because of their children’s homeschooling needs, and 27% cited difficulties of balancing home and job responsibilities.
Interruptions caused by child care affect women more than men, according to a report from the Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress. “Study after study has shown that, in response to school, child care, and camp closings, as well as reduced hours and reduced class sizes, significantly more women than men have reduced their work hours, left work to care for children, and spent more time on education and household tasks,” the authors noted.
They estimated that the American economy could incur $64.5 billion per year in lost wages and economic activity from the fallout of these trends. In September 2020, four times as many women as men left the workforce, nearly 865,000 women in comparison to 216,000 men.
Many women psychiatrists have been forced to choose between their careers or child care duties – decisions they don’t want to make, but that may be necessary during these unprecedented circumstances. They may be reducing their work hours to assist at home. Others are leaving their jobs, “a terrible situation given the enormous mental health needs of the pandemic” and the fact that so many areas of the United States already suffer from a shortage of clinical psychiatrists, said Dr. Meltzer-Brody.
She has personally seen the effects of this in the large academic department she supervises. “I’m seeing women reducing their work hours or leave positions,” she continued. In addition to child care needs, these women are tending to aging parents affected by COVID-19 or other illnesses, or dealing with the fact that options for elder care aren’t available.
“I have multiple faculty contending with that situation,” added Dr. Meltzer-Brody. As a result, productivity is going down. “These women are trying to keep all of the balls in the air but find they can’t.”
Dr. Richards believes some changes are in order to take the disproportionate burden off of women in psychiatry, and the workforce as a whole. The health care system “places too much pressure on individuals to compensate for its deficiencies. Those individuals who often step up to the plate are women, and this is not their sole burden to carry.”
A move toward telehealth in clinical psychiatry has made it possible for patients and physicians to meet virtually in their respective homes and discuss treatment options. “Even while this is both a blessing and privilege, it comes with the unique challenges of having to manage Zoom calls, child care, meals, distance learning, cleaning, and work responsibilities, while previously there was a clearer delineation to the day for many,” Dr. Bell said.
Clinical psychiatrists educating the public about the mental stressors of COVID-19 face their own unique challenges.
Dr. Lakshmin, who makes appearances in various media and social media outlets, said this adds more pressure to the job. “One of the challenges for me is to figure out how much outward facing I do. That’s hard when you’re navigating working and living through a pandemic. This is something I do because I enjoy doing it. But it’s still a type of work. And it’s certainly increased because the media has been paying more attention to mental health” since the pandemic started, she added.
The dual stress of COVID and social justice
Some women psychiatrists of color are dealing with social justice issues on top of other COVID stressors, Dr. De Faria said. The focus on addressing institutionalized racism means that minority women are taking on extra work to advocate for their peers.
Michelle Jacobs-Elliott, MD, of the department of psychiatry and assistant dean of the Office of Diversity and Health Equity at the University of Florida, Gainesville, knows of such responsibilities. “I have been in many discussions either with my coworkers in my department or others who work for the University of Florida” on systemic racism, she said in an interview.
Dr. Jacobs-Elliott became a trainer for Bias Reduction in Internal Medicine, a workshop aimed at reducing bias, and prior to 2020 participated in a social justice summit at the University of Florida. “Talking with my medical as well as undergraduate students about their experiences both here in Gainesville and elsewhere, they are all feeling the hurt, disappointment, and disbelief that we are still fighting battles that our grandparents fought in health care, housing, and employment. This adds an extra layer of stress to everyone’s life.”
The tense social climate has made the apparent racial inequalities in COVID-19 deaths and severity of disease hard to ignore, Dr. Bell noted. “It is my sincere hope that the availability of COVID-19 vaccines will help decrease the number of people affected by this horrible disease. The added burden of racism on top of the stressors of this pandemic can feel insurmountable. I hope 2021 will provide a way forward for us all.”
Taking time for self-care
Amid the endless referrals and increasing demands at home, women psychiatrists often don’t have the time to do normal activities, Dr. Meltzer-Brody observed. Like most people, COVID restrictions prevent them from traveling or going to the gym or restaurants. Dr. De Faria has not been able to visit family in Latin America, a trip she used to make twice a year. “That was once my de-stress time. But now, I can’t connect with my roots. My father is elderly and very much at risk.”
This is the time to get creative and resourceful – to make time for self-care, several sources said.
“We need to realize that we cannot be all things to all people, at the same time,” noted Dr. Bell. It’s important to prioritize what’s most important – and keep assessing your priorities. There’s no shame in tending to your own needs. Dr. Bell recommended that women in her profession should pick 1 day a week, put it in their calendar, and stick to this goal of self-care.
“Even if it’s only 15 minutes, it is important to put time aside. Some quick, cheap ideas are to do a quick meditation session, read a chapter in a book, listen to an audiobook, journal, go for a walk and get fresh air. Eat a healthy meal. Even 10 minutes helps,” she urged.
COVID-19 has pushed society to find new ways to do things, Dr. Bell continued. Women psychiatrists, in assessing their work-life balance, may need to reassess their goals. Consider work schedules and see if there’s a place to scale back a task. Delegate tasks at home to family members, if necessary. Most importantly, exercise self-compassion, she stressed. “During this pandemic, I believe it is vital to keep our cups filled so we can pour into others.”
Dr. Lakshmin said she has benefited greatly from having a therapist during the pandemic. “It has been so instrumental in forcing me to take that time for myself, to give me a space to take care of me, and remember it’s okay to take care of me. It’s so important for us as psychiatrists to have that for ourselves. It’s not just for our patients – we need it, too.”
The APA has resources and numerous support groups that meet regularly to address and discuss the stressors of the pandemic. Its College Mental Health Caucus, for example, holds a monthly, hour-long Zoom meeting. Not surprisingly, women comprise the majority of attendees, Dr. De Faria said. “Most women in academic psychiatry are working from home and using telehealth, which isolates people a lot.” Maureen Sayres Van Niel, MD, who is head of the APA’s Women’s Caucus, sends out a regular newsletter that advises on self-care. Women psychiatrists should also contact their local psychiatric organizations to get support from their professional peers.
Sometimes it’s wise to leave work behind and engage with friends. Dr. De Faria regularly Zooms with a group of friends outside of her profession to de-stress and reconnect. “At least I can talk to them about things other than psychiatry.”
Mentally and physically exhausted, Dr. Jacobs-Elliott said she looks forward to the day when society can return to meeting with friends and family “without being afraid that we are an asymptomatic carrier who is infecting our loved ones.”
"Lipid paradox” seen in nonobese RA patients with low LDL
Oxidative stress may account for the “lipid paradox,” a higher incidence of heart disease burden found in nonobese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with lower levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL). George Karpouzas, MD, an investigator at the Lundquist Institute of Biomedical Innovation, St, Torrance, Calif., discussed this exploratory finding at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
A complex dynamic exists between traditional risk factors and cardiovascular (CV) events in RA patients, said Dr. Karpouzas, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and chief of the division of rheumatology, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. “Lower lipid levels, specifically total cholesterol and to a lesser extent LDL, may be associated with higher risk,” he said. One recent study found that coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores were four times higher in RA patients with lower LDL concentrations (> 70 mg/dL) than those in control groups. “This was especially true in patients who were nonobese, non-Hispanic Whites and never smokers,” said Dr. Karpouzas. Other studies have reported this association between low LDL and increased CVD risk.
These paradoxes led to several questions: Does obesity modify the effect of LDL on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in RA and does it moderate the effect of LDL on coronary plaque burden and progression? Do LDL particle composition and oxidation variations underlie the paradoxical association of low LDL with higher coronary atherosclerosis burden in RA? To find answers, Dr. Karpouzas’ team in the Prospective Evaluation of Latent Coronary Atherosclerosis in Rheumatoid Arthritis (PROTECT-RA) trial studied a cohort of 150 established RA patients without symptoms or diagnosis of CV disease.
Dr. Karpouzas presented two oral abstracts that summarized this research during the ACR 2020 session, “RA, diagnosis, manifestations and outcomes: heart of the matter,” which was held virtually.
Higher plaque burden seen in nonobese patients
In one part of the study, patients underwent baseline cardiac coronary CT angiography (CTA) over 1 year (2010-2011). Investigators evaluated CAC scores, segment involvement scores (SIS), segment stenosis scores (SSS), and extensive and obstructive disease. Low LDL was defined as < 70 mg/dL, obesity as a waist to height ratio of > 0.58 squared.
Investigators in follow-up work (2017-2018) evaluated for plaque progression, prospectively recording all cardiovascular disease events such as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke, and heart failure hospitalization. Multivariable models assessed the effects of LDL lower than 70 mg/dL, obesity, and their interaction, accounting for factors such as age, sex, statin use, diabetes and hypertension.
Four LDL obesity cohorts
Nonobese RA patients with low LDL exhibited the highest plaque burden. “Despite no differences in RA inflammation, patients in this group were more likely to exhibit high levels of LDL oxidation,” Dr. Karpouzas said in an interview. “Nonobese patients with low LDL more likely exhibited new coronary plaque formation as well as increased stenotic severity of prevalent plaque after adjustments for relevant covariates,” he added.
The study’s observational nature exposed it to biases and unmeasured confounding, Dr. Karpouzas emphasized. Because it took place in a single center, the results might not be generalizable to ethnically and racially diverse cohorts. Patients with calcifications, extensive or obstructive coronary plaque at baseline scan received more aggressive treatments, which could have slowed CVD event risk and plaque progression. Investigators cautioned that the results should be seen as “exploratory,” given that CVD event analysis wasn’t applied to the original study design.
The oxidation-LDL connection
Another arm of the study examined the oxidation association question. Investigators did a similar analysis of the same patients but also evaluated for cholesterol content, Lp(a) mass, OxLDL levels, IgG and IgM anti-OxLDL and apoB100 immune complexes and proinflammatory cytokines.
RA patients with LDL lower than 70 mg/dL had higher SSS and CAC scores and were more likely to have extensive or obstructive plaque. Statin-naive patients with lower LDL exhibited greater LDL oxidation than higher LDL groups. In addition, those with lower LDL had higher anti-OxLDL and apoB100 than patients with higher LDL.
“Oxidation makes the cholesterol more ‘sticky,’ allowing it to penetrate into the walls of the endothelium, and changes macrophages to foam cells. This malignant process is very powerful and can potentially increase atheroma burden,” study coauthor Matthew Budoff, MD, professor of medicine at UCLA and endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute, said in an interview.
Investigators also found an independent association between Lp(a) content and LDL oxidation. This association seemed strong in patients with lower LDL compared to higher LDL groups. In addition, “greater oxidation and immune recognition of oxLDL further associated with higher IL-6 elaboration which may in turn augment atherosclerosis burden in the low LDL group,” said Dr. Karpouzas.
The analysis did not explore alternate mechanisms such as increased cholesterol loading capacity, lower efflux capacity or increased hepatocyte uptake through LDL-R upregulation, a key limitation. Dr. Karpouzas also acknowledged that higher cumulative inflammatory burden incurred before evaluating low LDL patients at baseline may have led to greater coronary plaque burden.
Overall, the study shows that low LDL is not protective in this population, said Dr. Budoff. “Low LDL patients who have atherosclerosis should be treated with statins and other therapies to lower their CV risk.”
Larger studies to confirm associations
Attendees of the ACR 2020 session called for additional studies to confirm that LDL oxidation leads to increased coronary atherosclerotic burden in RA patients.
The study provides “mechanistic insight into this important problem for patients with RA,” noted Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
Some of the patients studied were on lipid-lowering drugs such as statins, though the statistical analysis adjusted for use of these medications, noted Dr. Sparks. “It is possible that excess systemic inflammation alone is responsible for changes in LDL oxidation that may ultimately lead to cardiovascular disease,” he offered.
Future mechanistic and interventional studies related specifically to LDL oxidation “should establish the importance of this pathway in the development of cardiovascular disease in patients with RA,” said Dr. Sparks.
Large studies of patients with different BMI and LDL values followed prospectively for CV events would be ideal, said Joel M. Kremer, MD, president of the Corrona Research Foundation and founder of Corrona, a biopharma data solutions firm. Investigators would need to follow patients for several years. And, such a venture might face some obstacles. “The practical impediments and cost would be substantial. Also, as LDL oxidation may be related to disease activity, there would be ethical and pragmatic issues associated with controlling disease activity in these patients. This would obscure these outcomes of interest,” said Dr. Kremer.
Dr. Karpouzas receives grant and research support from the American Heart Association and Pfizer-Aspire. Dr. Budoff receives grant support from General Electric.
SOURCE: Karpouzas G et al. ACR 2020. Abstract 0485 and Abstract 0486.
Oxidative stress may account for the “lipid paradox,” a higher incidence of heart disease burden found in nonobese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with lower levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL). George Karpouzas, MD, an investigator at the Lundquist Institute of Biomedical Innovation, St, Torrance, Calif., discussed this exploratory finding at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
A complex dynamic exists between traditional risk factors and cardiovascular (CV) events in RA patients, said Dr. Karpouzas, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and chief of the division of rheumatology, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. “Lower lipid levels, specifically total cholesterol and to a lesser extent LDL, may be associated with higher risk,” he said. One recent study found that coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores were four times higher in RA patients with lower LDL concentrations (> 70 mg/dL) than those in control groups. “This was especially true in patients who were nonobese, non-Hispanic Whites and never smokers,” said Dr. Karpouzas. Other studies have reported this association between low LDL and increased CVD risk.
These paradoxes led to several questions: Does obesity modify the effect of LDL on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in RA and does it moderate the effect of LDL on coronary plaque burden and progression? Do LDL particle composition and oxidation variations underlie the paradoxical association of low LDL with higher coronary atherosclerosis burden in RA? To find answers, Dr. Karpouzas’ team in the Prospective Evaluation of Latent Coronary Atherosclerosis in Rheumatoid Arthritis (PROTECT-RA) trial studied a cohort of 150 established RA patients without symptoms or diagnosis of CV disease.
Dr. Karpouzas presented two oral abstracts that summarized this research during the ACR 2020 session, “RA, diagnosis, manifestations and outcomes: heart of the matter,” which was held virtually.
Higher plaque burden seen in nonobese patients
In one part of the study, patients underwent baseline cardiac coronary CT angiography (CTA) over 1 year (2010-2011). Investigators evaluated CAC scores, segment involvement scores (SIS), segment stenosis scores (SSS), and extensive and obstructive disease. Low LDL was defined as < 70 mg/dL, obesity as a waist to height ratio of > 0.58 squared.
Investigators in follow-up work (2017-2018) evaluated for plaque progression, prospectively recording all cardiovascular disease events such as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke, and heart failure hospitalization. Multivariable models assessed the effects of LDL lower than 70 mg/dL, obesity, and their interaction, accounting for factors such as age, sex, statin use, diabetes and hypertension.
Four LDL obesity cohorts
Nonobese RA patients with low LDL exhibited the highest plaque burden. “Despite no differences in RA inflammation, patients in this group were more likely to exhibit high levels of LDL oxidation,” Dr. Karpouzas said in an interview. “Nonobese patients with low LDL more likely exhibited new coronary plaque formation as well as increased stenotic severity of prevalent plaque after adjustments for relevant covariates,” he added.
The study’s observational nature exposed it to biases and unmeasured confounding, Dr. Karpouzas emphasized. Because it took place in a single center, the results might not be generalizable to ethnically and racially diverse cohorts. Patients with calcifications, extensive or obstructive coronary plaque at baseline scan received more aggressive treatments, which could have slowed CVD event risk and plaque progression. Investigators cautioned that the results should be seen as “exploratory,” given that CVD event analysis wasn’t applied to the original study design.
The oxidation-LDL connection
Another arm of the study examined the oxidation association question. Investigators did a similar analysis of the same patients but also evaluated for cholesterol content, Lp(a) mass, OxLDL levels, IgG and IgM anti-OxLDL and apoB100 immune complexes and proinflammatory cytokines.
RA patients with LDL lower than 70 mg/dL had higher SSS and CAC scores and were more likely to have extensive or obstructive plaque. Statin-naive patients with lower LDL exhibited greater LDL oxidation than higher LDL groups. In addition, those with lower LDL had higher anti-OxLDL and apoB100 than patients with higher LDL.
“Oxidation makes the cholesterol more ‘sticky,’ allowing it to penetrate into the walls of the endothelium, and changes macrophages to foam cells. This malignant process is very powerful and can potentially increase atheroma burden,” study coauthor Matthew Budoff, MD, professor of medicine at UCLA and endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute, said in an interview.
Investigators also found an independent association between Lp(a) content and LDL oxidation. This association seemed strong in patients with lower LDL compared to higher LDL groups. In addition, “greater oxidation and immune recognition of oxLDL further associated with higher IL-6 elaboration which may in turn augment atherosclerosis burden in the low LDL group,” said Dr. Karpouzas.
The analysis did not explore alternate mechanisms such as increased cholesterol loading capacity, lower efflux capacity or increased hepatocyte uptake through LDL-R upregulation, a key limitation. Dr. Karpouzas also acknowledged that higher cumulative inflammatory burden incurred before evaluating low LDL patients at baseline may have led to greater coronary plaque burden.
Overall, the study shows that low LDL is not protective in this population, said Dr. Budoff. “Low LDL patients who have atherosclerosis should be treated with statins and other therapies to lower their CV risk.”
Larger studies to confirm associations
Attendees of the ACR 2020 session called for additional studies to confirm that LDL oxidation leads to increased coronary atherosclerotic burden in RA patients.
The study provides “mechanistic insight into this important problem for patients with RA,” noted Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
Some of the patients studied were on lipid-lowering drugs such as statins, though the statistical analysis adjusted for use of these medications, noted Dr. Sparks. “It is possible that excess systemic inflammation alone is responsible for changes in LDL oxidation that may ultimately lead to cardiovascular disease,” he offered.
Future mechanistic and interventional studies related specifically to LDL oxidation “should establish the importance of this pathway in the development of cardiovascular disease in patients with RA,” said Dr. Sparks.
Large studies of patients with different BMI and LDL values followed prospectively for CV events would be ideal, said Joel M. Kremer, MD, president of the Corrona Research Foundation and founder of Corrona, a biopharma data solutions firm. Investigators would need to follow patients for several years. And, such a venture might face some obstacles. “The practical impediments and cost would be substantial. Also, as LDL oxidation may be related to disease activity, there would be ethical and pragmatic issues associated with controlling disease activity in these patients. This would obscure these outcomes of interest,” said Dr. Kremer.
Dr. Karpouzas receives grant and research support from the American Heart Association and Pfizer-Aspire. Dr. Budoff receives grant support from General Electric.
SOURCE: Karpouzas G et al. ACR 2020. Abstract 0485 and Abstract 0486.
Oxidative stress may account for the “lipid paradox,” a higher incidence of heart disease burden found in nonobese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with lower levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL). George Karpouzas, MD, an investigator at the Lundquist Institute of Biomedical Innovation, St, Torrance, Calif., discussed this exploratory finding at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
A complex dynamic exists between traditional risk factors and cardiovascular (CV) events in RA patients, said Dr. Karpouzas, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and chief of the division of rheumatology, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. “Lower lipid levels, specifically total cholesterol and to a lesser extent LDL, may be associated with higher risk,” he said. One recent study found that coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores were four times higher in RA patients with lower LDL concentrations (> 70 mg/dL) than those in control groups. “This was especially true in patients who were nonobese, non-Hispanic Whites and never smokers,” said Dr. Karpouzas. Other studies have reported this association between low LDL and increased CVD risk.
These paradoxes led to several questions: Does obesity modify the effect of LDL on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in RA and does it moderate the effect of LDL on coronary plaque burden and progression? Do LDL particle composition and oxidation variations underlie the paradoxical association of low LDL with higher coronary atherosclerosis burden in RA? To find answers, Dr. Karpouzas’ team in the Prospective Evaluation of Latent Coronary Atherosclerosis in Rheumatoid Arthritis (PROTECT-RA) trial studied a cohort of 150 established RA patients without symptoms or diagnosis of CV disease.
Dr. Karpouzas presented two oral abstracts that summarized this research during the ACR 2020 session, “RA, diagnosis, manifestations and outcomes: heart of the matter,” which was held virtually.
Higher plaque burden seen in nonobese patients
In one part of the study, patients underwent baseline cardiac coronary CT angiography (CTA) over 1 year (2010-2011). Investigators evaluated CAC scores, segment involvement scores (SIS), segment stenosis scores (SSS), and extensive and obstructive disease. Low LDL was defined as < 70 mg/dL, obesity as a waist to height ratio of > 0.58 squared.
Investigators in follow-up work (2017-2018) evaluated for plaque progression, prospectively recording all cardiovascular disease events such as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke, and heart failure hospitalization. Multivariable models assessed the effects of LDL lower than 70 mg/dL, obesity, and their interaction, accounting for factors such as age, sex, statin use, diabetes and hypertension.
Four LDL obesity cohorts
Nonobese RA patients with low LDL exhibited the highest plaque burden. “Despite no differences in RA inflammation, patients in this group were more likely to exhibit high levels of LDL oxidation,” Dr. Karpouzas said in an interview. “Nonobese patients with low LDL more likely exhibited new coronary plaque formation as well as increased stenotic severity of prevalent plaque after adjustments for relevant covariates,” he added.
The study’s observational nature exposed it to biases and unmeasured confounding, Dr. Karpouzas emphasized. Because it took place in a single center, the results might not be generalizable to ethnically and racially diverse cohorts. Patients with calcifications, extensive or obstructive coronary plaque at baseline scan received more aggressive treatments, which could have slowed CVD event risk and plaque progression. Investigators cautioned that the results should be seen as “exploratory,” given that CVD event analysis wasn’t applied to the original study design.
The oxidation-LDL connection
Another arm of the study examined the oxidation association question. Investigators did a similar analysis of the same patients but also evaluated for cholesterol content, Lp(a) mass, OxLDL levels, IgG and IgM anti-OxLDL and apoB100 immune complexes and proinflammatory cytokines.
RA patients with LDL lower than 70 mg/dL had higher SSS and CAC scores and were more likely to have extensive or obstructive plaque. Statin-naive patients with lower LDL exhibited greater LDL oxidation than higher LDL groups. In addition, those with lower LDL had higher anti-OxLDL and apoB100 than patients with higher LDL.
“Oxidation makes the cholesterol more ‘sticky,’ allowing it to penetrate into the walls of the endothelium, and changes macrophages to foam cells. This malignant process is very powerful and can potentially increase atheroma burden,” study coauthor Matthew Budoff, MD, professor of medicine at UCLA and endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute, said in an interview.
Investigators also found an independent association between Lp(a) content and LDL oxidation. This association seemed strong in patients with lower LDL compared to higher LDL groups. In addition, “greater oxidation and immune recognition of oxLDL further associated with higher IL-6 elaboration which may in turn augment atherosclerosis burden in the low LDL group,” said Dr. Karpouzas.
The analysis did not explore alternate mechanisms such as increased cholesterol loading capacity, lower efflux capacity or increased hepatocyte uptake through LDL-R upregulation, a key limitation. Dr. Karpouzas also acknowledged that higher cumulative inflammatory burden incurred before evaluating low LDL patients at baseline may have led to greater coronary plaque burden.
Overall, the study shows that low LDL is not protective in this population, said Dr. Budoff. “Low LDL patients who have atherosclerosis should be treated with statins and other therapies to lower their CV risk.”
Larger studies to confirm associations
Attendees of the ACR 2020 session called for additional studies to confirm that LDL oxidation leads to increased coronary atherosclerotic burden in RA patients.
The study provides “mechanistic insight into this important problem for patients with RA,” noted Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
Some of the patients studied were on lipid-lowering drugs such as statins, though the statistical analysis adjusted for use of these medications, noted Dr. Sparks. “It is possible that excess systemic inflammation alone is responsible for changes in LDL oxidation that may ultimately lead to cardiovascular disease,” he offered.
Future mechanistic and interventional studies related specifically to LDL oxidation “should establish the importance of this pathway in the development of cardiovascular disease in patients with RA,” said Dr. Sparks.
Large studies of patients with different BMI and LDL values followed prospectively for CV events would be ideal, said Joel M. Kremer, MD, president of the Corrona Research Foundation and founder of Corrona, a biopharma data solutions firm. Investigators would need to follow patients for several years. And, such a venture might face some obstacles. “The practical impediments and cost would be substantial. Also, as LDL oxidation may be related to disease activity, there would be ethical and pragmatic issues associated with controlling disease activity in these patients. This would obscure these outcomes of interest,” said Dr. Kremer.
Dr. Karpouzas receives grant and research support from the American Heart Association and Pfizer-Aspire. Dr. Budoff receives grant support from General Electric.
SOURCE: Karpouzas G et al. ACR 2020. Abstract 0485 and Abstract 0486.
FROM ACR 2020
Joint guidelines favor antibody testing for certain Lyme disease manifestations
New clinical practice guidelines on Lyme disease place a strong emphasis on antibody testing to assess for rheumatologic and neurologic syndromes. “Diagnostically, we recommend testing via antibodies, and an index of antibodies in cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] versus serum. Importantly, we recommend against using polymerase chain reaction [PCR] in CSF,” Jeffrey A. Rumbaugh, MD, PhD, a coauthor of the guidelines and a member of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America, AAN, and the American College of Rheumatology convened a multidisciplinary panel to develop the 43 recommendations, seeking input from 12 additional medical specialties, and patients. The panel conducted a systematic review of available evidence on preventing, diagnosing, and treating Lyme disease, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation model to evaluate clinical evidence and strength of recommendations. The guidelines were simultaneous published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, Neurology, Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Arthritis Care & Research.
This is the first time these organizations have collaborated on joint Lyme disease guidelines, which focus mainly on neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations.
“We are very excited to provide these updated guidelines to assist clinicians working in numerous medical specialties around the country, and even the world, as they care for patients suffering from Lyme disease,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.
When to use and not to use PCR
Guideline authors called for specific testing regimens depending on presentation of symptoms. Generally, they advised that individuals with a skin rash suggestive of early disease seek a clinical diagnosis instead of laboratory testing.
Recommendations on Lyme arthritis support previous IDSA guidelines published in 2006, Linda K. Bockenstedt, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and a coauthor of the guidelines, said in an interview.
To evaluate for potential Lyme arthritis, clinicians should choose serum antibody testing over PCR or culture of blood or synovial fluid/tissue. However, if a doctor is assessing a seropositive patient for Lyme arthritis diagnosis but needs more information for treatment decisions, the authors recommended PCR applied to synovial fluid or tissue over Borrelia culture.
“Synovial fluid can be analyzed by PCR, but sensitivity is generally lower than serology,” Dr. Bockenstedt explained. Additionally, culture of joint fluid or synovial tissue for Lyme spirochetes has 0% sensitivity in multiple studies. “For these reasons, we recommend serum antibody testing over PCR of joint fluid or other methods for an initial diagnosis.”
Serum antibody testing over PCR or culture is also recommended for identifying Lyme neuroborreliosis in the peripheral nervous system (PNS) or CNS.
Despite the recent popularity of Lyme PCR testing in hospitals and labs, “with Lyme at least, antibodies are better in the CSF,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. Studies have shown that “most patients with even early neurologic Lyme disease are seropositive by conventional antibody testing at time of initial clinical presentation, and that intrathecal antibody production, as demonstrated by an elevated CSF:serum index, is highly specific for CNS involvement.”
If done correctly, antibody testing is both sensitive and specific for neurologic Lyme disease. “On the other hand, sensitivity of Lyme PCR performed on CSF has been only in the 5%-17% range in studies. Incidentally, Lyme PCR on blood is also not sensitive and therefore not recommended,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.
Guideline authors recommended testing in patients with the following conditions: acute neurologic disorders such as meningitis, painful radiculoneuritis, mononeuropathy multiplex; evidence of spinal cord or brain inflammation; and acute myocarditis/pericarditis of unknown cause in an appropriate epidemiologic setting.
They did not recommend testing in patients with typical amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis; Parkinson’s disease, dementia, or cognitive decline; new-onset seizures; other neurologic syndromes or those lacking clinical or epidemiologic history that would support a diagnosis of Lyme disease; and patients with chronic cardiomyopathy of unknown cause.
The authors also called for judicious use of electrocardiogram to screen for Lyme carditis, recommending it only in patients signs or symptoms of this condition. However, patients at risk for or showing signs of severe cardiac complications of Lyme disease should be hospitalized and monitored via ECG.
Timelines for antibiotics
Most patients with Lyme disease should receive oral antibiotics, although duration times vary depending on the disease state. “We recommend that prophylactic antibiotic therapy be given to adults and children only within 72 hours of removal of an identified high-risk tick bite, but not for bites that are equivocal risk or low risk,” according to the guideline authors.
Specific antibiotic treatment regimens by condition are as follows: 10-14 days for early-stage disease, 14 days for Lyme carditis, 14-21 days for neurologic Lyme disease, and 28 days for late Lyme arthritis.
“Despite arthritis occurring late in the course of infection, treatment with a 28-day course of oral antibiotic is effective, although the rates of complete resolution of joint swelling can vary,” Dr. Bockenstedt said. Clinicians may consider a second 28-day course of oral antibiotics or a 2- to 4-week course of ceftriaxone in patients with persistent swelling, after an initial course of oral antibiotics.
Citing knowledge gaps, the authors made no recommendation on secondary antibiotic treatment for unresolved Lyme arthritis. Rheumatologists can play an important role in the care of this small subset of patients, Dr. Bockenstedt noted. “Studies of patients with ‘postantibiotic Lyme arthritis’ show that they can be treated successfully with intra-articular steroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic response modifiers, and even synovectomy with successful outcomes.” Some of these therapies also work in cases where first courses of oral and intravenous antibiotics are unsuccessful.
“Antibiotic therapy for longer than 8 weeks is not expected to provide additional benefit to patients with persistent arthritis if that treatment has included one course of IV therapy,” the authors clarified.
For patients with Lyme disease–associated meningitis, cranial neuropathy, radiculoneuropathy, or other PNS manifestations, the authors recommended intravenous ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, penicillin G, or oral doxycycline over other antimicrobials.
“For most neurologic presentations, oral doxycycline is just as effective as appropriate IV antibiotics,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. “The exception is the relatively rare situation where the patient is felt to have parenchymal involvement of brain or spinal cord, in which case the guidelines recommend IV antibiotics over oral antibiotics.” In the studies, there was no statistically significant difference between oral or intravenous regimens in response rate or risk of adverse effects.
Patients with nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, pain, or cognitive impairment following treatment should not receive additional antibiotic therapy if there’s no evidence of treatment failure or infection. These two markers “would include objective signs of disease activity, such as arthritis, meningitis, or neuropathy,” the guideline authors wrote in comments accompanying the recommendation.
Clinicians caring for patients with symptomatic bradycardia caused by Lyme carditis should consider temporary pacing measures instead of a permanent pacemaker. For patients hospitalized with Lyme carditis, “we suggest initially using IV ceftriaxone over oral antibiotics until there is evidence of clinical improvement, then switching to oral antibiotics to complete treatment,” they advised. Outpatients with this condition should receive oral antibiotics instead of intravenous antibiotics.
Advice on antibodies testing ‘particularly cogent’
For individuals without expertise in these areas, the recommendations are clear and useful, Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy), said in an interview.
“As a rheumatologist, I would have appreciated literature references for some of the recommendations but, nevertheless, find these useful. I applaud the care with which the evidence was gathered and the general formatting, which tried to review multiple possible scenarios surrounding Lyme arthritis,” said Dr. Furst, offering a third-party perspective.
The advice on using antibodies tests to make a diagnosis of Lyme arthritis “is particularly cogent and more useful than trying to culture these fastidious organisms,” he added.
The IDSA, AAN, and ACR provided support for the guideline. Dr. Bockenstedt reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Gordon and the Llura Gund Foundation and remuneration from L2 Diagnostics for investigator-initiated NIH-sponsored research. Dr. Rumbaugh had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Furst reported no conflicts of interest in commenting on these guidelines.
SOURCE: Rumbaugh JA et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1215.
New clinical practice guidelines on Lyme disease place a strong emphasis on antibody testing to assess for rheumatologic and neurologic syndromes. “Diagnostically, we recommend testing via antibodies, and an index of antibodies in cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] versus serum. Importantly, we recommend against using polymerase chain reaction [PCR] in CSF,” Jeffrey A. Rumbaugh, MD, PhD, a coauthor of the guidelines and a member of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America, AAN, and the American College of Rheumatology convened a multidisciplinary panel to develop the 43 recommendations, seeking input from 12 additional medical specialties, and patients. The panel conducted a systematic review of available evidence on preventing, diagnosing, and treating Lyme disease, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation model to evaluate clinical evidence and strength of recommendations. The guidelines were simultaneous published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, Neurology, Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Arthritis Care & Research.
This is the first time these organizations have collaborated on joint Lyme disease guidelines, which focus mainly on neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations.
“We are very excited to provide these updated guidelines to assist clinicians working in numerous medical specialties around the country, and even the world, as they care for patients suffering from Lyme disease,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.
When to use and not to use PCR
Guideline authors called for specific testing regimens depending on presentation of symptoms. Generally, they advised that individuals with a skin rash suggestive of early disease seek a clinical diagnosis instead of laboratory testing.
Recommendations on Lyme arthritis support previous IDSA guidelines published in 2006, Linda K. Bockenstedt, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and a coauthor of the guidelines, said in an interview.
To evaluate for potential Lyme arthritis, clinicians should choose serum antibody testing over PCR or culture of blood or synovial fluid/tissue. However, if a doctor is assessing a seropositive patient for Lyme arthritis diagnosis but needs more information for treatment decisions, the authors recommended PCR applied to synovial fluid or tissue over Borrelia culture.
“Synovial fluid can be analyzed by PCR, but sensitivity is generally lower than serology,” Dr. Bockenstedt explained. Additionally, culture of joint fluid or synovial tissue for Lyme spirochetes has 0% sensitivity in multiple studies. “For these reasons, we recommend serum antibody testing over PCR of joint fluid or other methods for an initial diagnosis.”
Serum antibody testing over PCR or culture is also recommended for identifying Lyme neuroborreliosis in the peripheral nervous system (PNS) or CNS.
Despite the recent popularity of Lyme PCR testing in hospitals and labs, “with Lyme at least, antibodies are better in the CSF,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. Studies have shown that “most patients with even early neurologic Lyme disease are seropositive by conventional antibody testing at time of initial clinical presentation, and that intrathecal antibody production, as demonstrated by an elevated CSF:serum index, is highly specific for CNS involvement.”
If done correctly, antibody testing is both sensitive and specific for neurologic Lyme disease. “On the other hand, sensitivity of Lyme PCR performed on CSF has been only in the 5%-17% range in studies. Incidentally, Lyme PCR on blood is also not sensitive and therefore not recommended,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.
Guideline authors recommended testing in patients with the following conditions: acute neurologic disorders such as meningitis, painful radiculoneuritis, mononeuropathy multiplex; evidence of spinal cord or brain inflammation; and acute myocarditis/pericarditis of unknown cause in an appropriate epidemiologic setting.
They did not recommend testing in patients with typical amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis; Parkinson’s disease, dementia, or cognitive decline; new-onset seizures; other neurologic syndromes or those lacking clinical or epidemiologic history that would support a diagnosis of Lyme disease; and patients with chronic cardiomyopathy of unknown cause.
The authors also called for judicious use of electrocardiogram to screen for Lyme carditis, recommending it only in patients signs or symptoms of this condition. However, patients at risk for or showing signs of severe cardiac complications of Lyme disease should be hospitalized and monitored via ECG.
Timelines for antibiotics
Most patients with Lyme disease should receive oral antibiotics, although duration times vary depending on the disease state. “We recommend that prophylactic antibiotic therapy be given to adults and children only within 72 hours of removal of an identified high-risk tick bite, but not for bites that are equivocal risk or low risk,” according to the guideline authors.
Specific antibiotic treatment regimens by condition are as follows: 10-14 days for early-stage disease, 14 days for Lyme carditis, 14-21 days for neurologic Lyme disease, and 28 days for late Lyme arthritis.
“Despite arthritis occurring late in the course of infection, treatment with a 28-day course of oral antibiotic is effective, although the rates of complete resolution of joint swelling can vary,” Dr. Bockenstedt said. Clinicians may consider a second 28-day course of oral antibiotics or a 2- to 4-week course of ceftriaxone in patients with persistent swelling, after an initial course of oral antibiotics.
Citing knowledge gaps, the authors made no recommendation on secondary antibiotic treatment for unresolved Lyme arthritis. Rheumatologists can play an important role in the care of this small subset of patients, Dr. Bockenstedt noted. “Studies of patients with ‘postantibiotic Lyme arthritis’ show that they can be treated successfully with intra-articular steroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic response modifiers, and even synovectomy with successful outcomes.” Some of these therapies also work in cases where first courses of oral and intravenous antibiotics are unsuccessful.
“Antibiotic therapy for longer than 8 weeks is not expected to provide additional benefit to patients with persistent arthritis if that treatment has included one course of IV therapy,” the authors clarified.
For patients with Lyme disease–associated meningitis, cranial neuropathy, radiculoneuropathy, or other PNS manifestations, the authors recommended intravenous ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, penicillin G, or oral doxycycline over other antimicrobials.
“For most neurologic presentations, oral doxycycline is just as effective as appropriate IV antibiotics,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. “The exception is the relatively rare situation where the patient is felt to have parenchymal involvement of brain or spinal cord, in which case the guidelines recommend IV antibiotics over oral antibiotics.” In the studies, there was no statistically significant difference between oral or intravenous regimens in response rate or risk of adverse effects.
Patients with nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, pain, or cognitive impairment following treatment should not receive additional antibiotic therapy if there’s no evidence of treatment failure or infection. These two markers “would include objective signs of disease activity, such as arthritis, meningitis, or neuropathy,” the guideline authors wrote in comments accompanying the recommendation.
Clinicians caring for patients with symptomatic bradycardia caused by Lyme carditis should consider temporary pacing measures instead of a permanent pacemaker. For patients hospitalized with Lyme carditis, “we suggest initially using IV ceftriaxone over oral antibiotics until there is evidence of clinical improvement, then switching to oral antibiotics to complete treatment,” they advised. Outpatients with this condition should receive oral antibiotics instead of intravenous antibiotics.
Advice on antibodies testing ‘particularly cogent’
For individuals without expertise in these areas, the recommendations are clear and useful, Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy), said in an interview.
“As a rheumatologist, I would have appreciated literature references for some of the recommendations but, nevertheless, find these useful. I applaud the care with which the evidence was gathered and the general formatting, which tried to review multiple possible scenarios surrounding Lyme arthritis,” said Dr. Furst, offering a third-party perspective.
The advice on using antibodies tests to make a diagnosis of Lyme arthritis “is particularly cogent and more useful than trying to culture these fastidious organisms,” he added.
The IDSA, AAN, and ACR provided support for the guideline. Dr. Bockenstedt reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Gordon and the Llura Gund Foundation and remuneration from L2 Diagnostics for investigator-initiated NIH-sponsored research. Dr. Rumbaugh had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Furst reported no conflicts of interest in commenting on these guidelines.
SOURCE: Rumbaugh JA et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1215.
New clinical practice guidelines on Lyme disease place a strong emphasis on antibody testing to assess for rheumatologic and neurologic syndromes. “Diagnostically, we recommend testing via antibodies, and an index of antibodies in cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] versus serum. Importantly, we recommend against using polymerase chain reaction [PCR] in CSF,” Jeffrey A. Rumbaugh, MD, PhD, a coauthor of the guidelines and a member of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America, AAN, and the American College of Rheumatology convened a multidisciplinary panel to develop the 43 recommendations, seeking input from 12 additional medical specialties, and patients. The panel conducted a systematic review of available evidence on preventing, diagnosing, and treating Lyme disease, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation model to evaluate clinical evidence and strength of recommendations. The guidelines were simultaneous published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, Neurology, Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Arthritis Care & Research.
This is the first time these organizations have collaborated on joint Lyme disease guidelines, which focus mainly on neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations.
“We are very excited to provide these updated guidelines to assist clinicians working in numerous medical specialties around the country, and even the world, as they care for patients suffering from Lyme disease,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.
When to use and not to use PCR
Guideline authors called for specific testing regimens depending on presentation of symptoms. Generally, they advised that individuals with a skin rash suggestive of early disease seek a clinical diagnosis instead of laboratory testing.
Recommendations on Lyme arthritis support previous IDSA guidelines published in 2006, Linda K. Bockenstedt, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and a coauthor of the guidelines, said in an interview.
To evaluate for potential Lyme arthritis, clinicians should choose serum antibody testing over PCR or culture of blood or synovial fluid/tissue. However, if a doctor is assessing a seropositive patient for Lyme arthritis diagnosis but needs more information for treatment decisions, the authors recommended PCR applied to synovial fluid or tissue over Borrelia culture.
“Synovial fluid can be analyzed by PCR, but sensitivity is generally lower than serology,” Dr. Bockenstedt explained. Additionally, culture of joint fluid or synovial tissue for Lyme spirochetes has 0% sensitivity in multiple studies. “For these reasons, we recommend serum antibody testing over PCR of joint fluid or other methods for an initial diagnosis.”
Serum antibody testing over PCR or culture is also recommended for identifying Lyme neuroborreliosis in the peripheral nervous system (PNS) or CNS.
Despite the recent popularity of Lyme PCR testing in hospitals and labs, “with Lyme at least, antibodies are better in the CSF,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. Studies have shown that “most patients with even early neurologic Lyme disease are seropositive by conventional antibody testing at time of initial clinical presentation, and that intrathecal antibody production, as demonstrated by an elevated CSF:serum index, is highly specific for CNS involvement.”
If done correctly, antibody testing is both sensitive and specific for neurologic Lyme disease. “On the other hand, sensitivity of Lyme PCR performed on CSF has been only in the 5%-17% range in studies. Incidentally, Lyme PCR on blood is also not sensitive and therefore not recommended,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.
Guideline authors recommended testing in patients with the following conditions: acute neurologic disorders such as meningitis, painful radiculoneuritis, mononeuropathy multiplex; evidence of spinal cord or brain inflammation; and acute myocarditis/pericarditis of unknown cause in an appropriate epidemiologic setting.
They did not recommend testing in patients with typical amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis; Parkinson’s disease, dementia, or cognitive decline; new-onset seizures; other neurologic syndromes or those lacking clinical or epidemiologic history that would support a diagnosis of Lyme disease; and patients with chronic cardiomyopathy of unknown cause.
The authors also called for judicious use of electrocardiogram to screen for Lyme carditis, recommending it only in patients signs or symptoms of this condition. However, patients at risk for or showing signs of severe cardiac complications of Lyme disease should be hospitalized and monitored via ECG.
Timelines for antibiotics
Most patients with Lyme disease should receive oral antibiotics, although duration times vary depending on the disease state. “We recommend that prophylactic antibiotic therapy be given to adults and children only within 72 hours of removal of an identified high-risk tick bite, but not for bites that are equivocal risk or low risk,” according to the guideline authors.
Specific antibiotic treatment regimens by condition are as follows: 10-14 days for early-stage disease, 14 days for Lyme carditis, 14-21 days for neurologic Lyme disease, and 28 days for late Lyme arthritis.
“Despite arthritis occurring late in the course of infection, treatment with a 28-day course of oral antibiotic is effective, although the rates of complete resolution of joint swelling can vary,” Dr. Bockenstedt said. Clinicians may consider a second 28-day course of oral antibiotics or a 2- to 4-week course of ceftriaxone in patients with persistent swelling, after an initial course of oral antibiotics.
Citing knowledge gaps, the authors made no recommendation on secondary antibiotic treatment for unresolved Lyme arthritis. Rheumatologists can play an important role in the care of this small subset of patients, Dr. Bockenstedt noted. “Studies of patients with ‘postantibiotic Lyme arthritis’ show that they can be treated successfully with intra-articular steroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic response modifiers, and even synovectomy with successful outcomes.” Some of these therapies also work in cases where first courses of oral and intravenous antibiotics are unsuccessful.
“Antibiotic therapy for longer than 8 weeks is not expected to provide additional benefit to patients with persistent arthritis if that treatment has included one course of IV therapy,” the authors clarified.
For patients with Lyme disease–associated meningitis, cranial neuropathy, radiculoneuropathy, or other PNS manifestations, the authors recommended intravenous ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, penicillin G, or oral doxycycline over other antimicrobials.
“For most neurologic presentations, oral doxycycline is just as effective as appropriate IV antibiotics,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. “The exception is the relatively rare situation where the patient is felt to have parenchymal involvement of brain or spinal cord, in which case the guidelines recommend IV antibiotics over oral antibiotics.” In the studies, there was no statistically significant difference between oral or intravenous regimens in response rate or risk of adverse effects.
Patients with nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, pain, or cognitive impairment following treatment should not receive additional antibiotic therapy if there’s no evidence of treatment failure or infection. These two markers “would include objective signs of disease activity, such as arthritis, meningitis, or neuropathy,” the guideline authors wrote in comments accompanying the recommendation.
Clinicians caring for patients with symptomatic bradycardia caused by Lyme carditis should consider temporary pacing measures instead of a permanent pacemaker. For patients hospitalized with Lyme carditis, “we suggest initially using IV ceftriaxone over oral antibiotics until there is evidence of clinical improvement, then switching to oral antibiotics to complete treatment,” they advised. Outpatients with this condition should receive oral antibiotics instead of intravenous antibiotics.
Advice on antibodies testing ‘particularly cogent’
For individuals without expertise in these areas, the recommendations are clear and useful, Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy), said in an interview.
“As a rheumatologist, I would have appreciated literature references for some of the recommendations but, nevertheless, find these useful. I applaud the care with which the evidence was gathered and the general formatting, which tried to review multiple possible scenarios surrounding Lyme arthritis,” said Dr. Furst, offering a third-party perspective.
The advice on using antibodies tests to make a diagnosis of Lyme arthritis “is particularly cogent and more useful than trying to culture these fastidious organisms,” he added.
The IDSA, AAN, and ACR provided support for the guideline. Dr. Bockenstedt reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Gordon and the Llura Gund Foundation and remuneration from L2 Diagnostics for investigator-initiated NIH-sponsored research. Dr. Rumbaugh had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Furst reported no conflicts of interest in commenting on these guidelines.
SOURCE: Rumbaugh JA et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1215.
FROM CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Telepsychiatry poised to thrive after the pandemic
Once the fog lifts on a global pandemic that led to an explosion in telehealth visits in 2020, mental health experts expect virtual and in-person visits to merge to become a standard model of care in clinical psychiatry.
Hybrid care is the future, Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, a professor of psychiatry and chief wellness officer at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview. “I’ve been working this way for several years – where all of my patients get to see me in person or online, or both.”
The model’s increasing popularity reflects a major shift toward virtual consults. Telemedicine offers safer, quicker, and less expensive alternatives, Steven Chan, MD, MBA, of Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “This continuity is essential to helping to reduce emergency room visits, reduce inpatient hospitalizations and readmissions, and improving adherence to treatment,” Dr. Chan said. State and federal regulators’ actions to lift certain licensing and prescribing restrictions and expand coverage made it easier for clinical psychiatrists to offer and get paid for these services.
The catch is that no one knows whether these easements will remain in place once COVID-19 recedes, ending the national public health emergency, Jay H. Shore, MD, MPH, chairperson of the American Psychiatric Association telepsychiatry committee, and professor and director of telemedicine programming at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora’s department of psychiatry, said in an interview. “These all temporarily changed during this time period, but we have no idea when they’re going to end or if they’re going to continue off of COVID. So now, there’s a lot of uncertainty.”
‘Suite of different technologies’
New freedoms to deliver telehealth care left some practices scrambling to adopt or refine technology. Once COVID-19 hit, “I can’t think of a psychiatrist or provider or institution that didn’t have to rapidly virtualize and do at least some video conferencing,” Dr. Shore said. This immediate shift signaled a key move toward hybrid patient-doctor relations. “It means you hold a relationship with your patients through multiple different mediums, email, portal, telephone, in person. It’s not just about in-person versus video, it’s about a suite of different technologies.”
Dr. Shore began practicing telehealth 20 years ago, long before the age of COVID. He’s since established rewarding relationships with patients he’s never met. “I’ve done everything from medical management to long-term psychotherapy, group psychotherapy, and I’ve been successful with different populations.”
Many nuances exist around matching the right patient with the right videoconferencing adaptation, Dr. Shore continued. However, “in general, the literature supports that you can get equal clinical outcomes with telehealth versus in-person treatment.”
‘I see their garden’
While some may eschew the idea of providing care over a virtual platform, other physicians see it as an insightful window into a person’s mental state. “I think some are actually quite surprised by how much good care you can give using video,” said Dr. Yellowlees. Unlike a phone conversation, video allows you to see a person’s home. “The beauty of a video is not just that you can see the person, you can also look around their home, and learn more about them.”
In his own visits, he asks patients to take him on a virtual “walk” through their house, provided there are no confidentiality issues.
“I get to meet their pets, the carers, the spouses; I get to see their garden. I get to see what their interests are from looking at the paintings on their walls. I learn more about my patients that way. If you use video to purely see people from the neck up, then that’s fine, but I think you can also use it to your advantage, seeing people at home.” He also encourages patients to do visits in their cars – as long as the windows are shut, they’re in a safe area, and most importantly, they’re not driving.
Nina Vasan, MD, MBA, who treats patients at Stanford and in a concierge private practice for executives, agrees that seeing patients in the home offers a more direct view of patients’ lives. “These little extra pieces of information are things that we didn’t get before COVID, when patients would come by themselves into the office week after week. I do feel like I know some patients much better by being able to see their surroundings and home interactions,” Dr. Vasan, founder and executive director of Brainstorm: The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation and chair of the APA’s committee on innovation, said in an interview.
She uses Zoom for her sessions, and regularly texts with her concierge patients. In both clinics, where most visits have gone virtual, “the no-show rate is near zero. Before COVID, it was around 10%-20%.”
Safety is a key advantage of virtual visits, noted Dr. Shore. “It’s certainly better than some of the risks of seeing people in person.”
Lack of integration causes frustration
Some challenges exist around access and adaptation of virtual technology. The pandemic’s sudden onslaught left many clinicians scrambling to adjust to a virtual format without any training or tools to support them. “This has caused some stress,” Dr. Shore said.
Electronic health record systems may or may not integrate video visits, noted Dr. Chan. “For instance, I work at a health system where mental health questionnaires, imaging systems, notes, and video visit scheduling are housed in separate systems.”
Without a seamless national, integrated system in place, physicians are often left to couple different IT formats together. “There are some systems that work pretty well, and there are some that are really clunky where you’re forcing the two together, so that’s a challenge,” Dr. Shore said. Providers may be using one system for their office and another system to provide care. “They may be using different EHRs and different teleconferencing platforms. That adds complexity.” Video conferencing platforms aren’t as challenging to use as EHRs. However, if some people are self-taught, there’s no way of knowing if they’re using best practices, he added.
Many health systems do offer video built into EMRs. Companies such as Epic have provided integrations with Vidyo, Amwell, and other platforms, noted Dr. Chan.
An integrated platform is useful if done well – but isn’t necessarily essential, according to Dr. Yellowlees. In his own setup, he signs a laptop into an EMR and uses an iPad to communicate with patients via video on the iPad and all video on the phone.
“The big advantage of telemedicine is you can type your notes in a socially appropriate way while talking to the patient on video. I do that, and it saves me a considerable amount of time. I don’t have to spend time after a consultation typing up notes.”
Still, others may struggle with bandwidth or connectivity. “Perhaps there’s a problem with privacy or the types of patients you’re dealing with,” Dr. Shore said. Older patients in a nursing home, for example, may require a team of people that works onsite. Suddenly, their care has to transition to a virtual system. “You may need to figure how to put the right team together to do straightforward and individual interactions,” he said.
Virtual care also suffers from the “digital divide,” an issue that predates COVID-19, said Dr. Shore. Not all patients have access to bandwidth and the technology to see clinicians. Other lack expertise and comfort with using the technology, or can’t afford the equipment necessary to bring them online. The pandemic has highlighted all of these disparities, he emphasized.
Dr. Chan offered that the digital divide is part of a larger socioeconomic divide, where barriers to any care – including transportation for in-person care – exist.
Technology and access issues aside, insidious “Zoom fatigue” is affecting everyone right now. “That’s clearly real,” Dr. Shore said. “And it’s not just about videoconferencing; it’s about being in quarantine. We’re all in this virtual lockdown, where people are using the term ‘videoconferencing fatigue.’ It’s a complicated problem.”
To assist with telehealth implementation, the APA has issued practice guidance and a toolkit that includes an extensive set of educational materials, including 40 videos on various topics. It’s also hosted webinars on telehealth policies and written up standard operating procedures on this topic, Dr. Yellowlees said. “The most important thing is APA, like other organizations, is advocating to have the relaxation of regulations during COVID made permanent,” he said.
Reimbursement post pandemic
As virtual visits rose in 2020, so did billing for such services. According to America’s Health Insurance Plans, claims to private insurers exploded by more than 4,000% in 2020. AHIP last July reported that mental health conditions made up one-third or more than 33% of telehealth claims to private insurers during the pandemic. Dr. Yellowlees said the health insurers he’s dealt with “have been good about paying for telehealth visits during the COVID-declared emergency.”
Whether this coverage will continue once the public health emergency ends, is unclear, some contend. “My sense is that there will be a rollback of coverage, but it won’t be back to what we had prepandemic,” said Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, who studies telemedicine trends, in an interview. Right now, there’s still a great deal of uncertainty about reimbursement, “and that’s what’s giving providers pause,” said Dr. Mehrotra, of the department of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston.
AHIP will continue to support federal and state policies to further promote telehealth access during the public health emergency, spokesman David Allen said in a statement. “Insurance providers have independently shifted their policies to increase access to care and services, ranging from acute care needs and triage services to chronic disease management and behavioral health. We are still awaiting information on what changes will remain in place beyond the public health emergency,” he said.
Even before COVID-19, Mr. Allen noted, nearly all large employers (96%) offered access to telehealth services as a covered benefit in 2019. In May, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that many insurers were reducing or lifting cost sharing for telehealth for limited time periods.
Some of the larger payers said they’re continuing benefits, although it’s not clear how long some benefits will remain in place.
UnitedHealthcare offers no-cost coverage for COVID-19 testing–related telehealth visits, but that benefit is set to expire once the public health emergency presumably ends on Jan. 20, 2021. Through Dec. 31, 2020, the payer said it would offer coverage with no cost sharing for telehealth visits related to COVID-19 treatment and expanded access to telehealth visits not related to COVID-19 through its network. Similarly, Anthem is waiving cost sharing for COVID-19 treatments via telehealth or in-person visits, and for telehealth visits not related to COVID-19 for Medicare members through the end of the year.
Anthem will continue to cover telehealth and encourage members and clinicians to use telehealth for behavioral health, a spokesperson said. Anthem also has a telehealth provider, LiveHealth Online, “another safe and effective way for members to see a doctor to receive health guidance from their home via mobile device or a computer with a webcam,” said the spokesperson.
Dr. Vasan hopes that insurers will increase coverage for telehealth and at the same rate as in-person visits, especially for mental health. “I have not felt that the quality of the clinic has decreased, and in fact, in some ways it’s gotten better, and insurance coverage should reflect this.”
Outlook for the hybrid model
As long as there’s COVID-19, psychiatry practices must remain virtual, at least for now, Dr. Shore said. “We will emerge from this pandemic, I suspect in bits and starts.” When that happens, practices will need to have a transition plan in place. “Once we get away from COVID, I don’t think our mental health will ever be the same again. We’ll have much more virtual technology along the lines of a hybrid model, where we’ll see patients in person, but we’ll use more technology to work with patients, but it will be more of a blend.” Practices will also have to address the regulatory, reimbursement, and prescribing conditions the new world offers.
Some practices are already discovering the benefits of relying less on a brick-and-mortar office.
Dr. Chan said his colleagues are finding that they no longer have to deal with the expense and upkeep of renting and furnishing office space. “Many are taking their practice virtual-only because the monthly recurring costs are so cheap, and they can see patients in distant, underserved communities.” In-person visits are now inconvenient and risky, he continued. They require expensive personal protective equipment and cleaning protocols. “Plus, there’s the risk that services must shut down when stay-at-home orders return or when a staff member gets infected.”
Physicians prescribing certain controlled substances will likely continue to use office space, once the public health emergency expires and face-to-face visits resume. “In such cases, they can rent office space part-time,” Dr. Chan added.
Dr. Vasan, also of the department of psychiatry at Stanford and chief medical officer of Real, hopes that such a model prevails. “I do miss seeing patients in person and think a hybrid will be a good balance.”
Most patients want it, as do the influx of Generation Z physicians coming into the profession, Dr. Yellowlees noted. These are young, technologically savvy doctors who grew up in the age of the Internet. “I think the silver lining of COVID is it led telemedicine past the tipping point, where both patients and providers are learning that it’s an appropriate way to get care, as long as you’re careful, use professional guidelines – and don’t drop your standards of care.”
Dr. Yellowlees and Dr. Shore are coauthors of Telepsychiatry and Health Technologies: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals (Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2018), and receive royalties from the book. Dr. Shore also reported working with AccessCare and receiving royalties from Springer Press. Dr. Chan reported consulting for Orbit Health. Dr. Vasan reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mehrotra has received research funding from several U.S. agencies, including the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
Once the fog lifts on a global pandemic that led to an explosion in telehealth visits in 2020, mental health experts expect virtual and in-person visits to merge to become a standard model of care in clinical psychiatry.
Hybrid care is the future, Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, a professor of psychiatry and chief wellness officer at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview. “I’ve been working this way for several years – where all of my patients get to see me in person or online, or both.”
The model’s increasing popularity reflects a major shift toward virtual consults. Telemedicine offers safer, quicker, and less expensive alternatives, Steven Chan, MD, MBA, of Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “This continuity is essential to helping to reduce emergency room visits, reduce inpatient hospitalizations and readmissions, and improving adherence to treatment,” Dr. Chan said. State and federal regulators’ actions to lift certain licensing and prescribing restrictions and expand coverage made it easier for clinical psychiatrists to offer and get paid for these services.
The catch is that no one knows whether these easements will remain in place once COVID-19 recedes, ending the national public health emergency, Jay H. Shore, MD, MPH, chairperson of the American Psychiatric Association telepsychiatry committee, and professor and director of telemedicine programming at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora’s department of psychiatry, said in an interview. “These all temporarily changed during this time period, but we have no idea when they’re going to end or if they’re going to continue off of COVID. So now, there’s a lot of uncertainty.”
‘Suite of different technologies’
New freedoms to deliver telehealth care left some practices scrambling to adopt or refine technology. Once COVID-19 hit, “I can’t think of a psychiatrist or provider or institution that didn’t have to rapidly virtualize and do at least some video conferencing,” Dr. Shore said. This immediate shift signaled a key move toward hybrid patient-doctor relations. “It means you hold a relationship with your patients through multiple different mediums, email, portal, telephone, in person. It’s not just about in-person versus video, it’s about a suite of different technologies.”
Dr. Shore began practicing telehealth 20 years ago, long before the age of COVID. He’s since established rewarding relationships with patients he’s never met. “I’ve done everything from medical management to long-term psychotherapy, group psychotherapy, and I’ve been successful with different populations.”
Many nuances exist around matching the right patient with the right videoconferencing adaptation, Dr. Shore continued. However, “in general, the literature supports that you can get equal clinical outcomes with telehealth versus in-person treatment.”
‘I see their garden’
While some may eschew the idea of providing care over a virtual platform, other physicians see it as an insightful window into a person’s mental state. “I think some are actually quite surprised by how much good care you can give using video,” said Dr. Yellowlees. Unlike a phone conversation, video allows you to see a person’s home. “The beauty of a video is not just that you can see the person, you can also look around their home, and learn more about them.”
In his own visits, he asks patients to take him on a virtual “walk” through their house, provided there are no confidentiality issues.
“I get to meet their pets, the carers, the spouses; I get to see their garden. I get to see what their interests are from looking at the paintings on their walls. I learn more about my patients that way. If you use video to purely see people from the neck up, then that’s fine, but I think you can also use it to your advantage, seeing people at home.” He also encourages patients to do visits in their cars – as long as the windows are shut, they’re in a safe area, and most importantly, they’re not driving.
Nina Vasan, MD, MBA, who treats patients at Stanford and in a concierge private practice for executives, agrees that seeing patients in the home offers a more direct view of patients’ lives. “These little extra pieces of information are things that we didn’t get before COVID, when patients would come by themselves into the office week after week. I do feel like I know some patients much better by being able to see their surroundings and home interactions,” Dr. Vasan, founder and executive director of Brainstorm: The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation and chair of the APA’s committee on innovation, said in an interview.
She uses Zoom for her sessions, and regularly texts with her concierge patients. In both clinics, where most visits have gone virtual, “the no-show rate is near zero. Before COVID, it was around 10%-20%.”
Safety is a key advantage of virtual visits, noted Dr. Shore. “It’s certainly better than some of the risks of seeing people in person.”
Lack of integration causes frustration
Some challenges exist around access and adaptation of virtual technology. The pandemic’s sudden onslaught left many clinicians scrambling to adjust to a virtual format without any training or tools to support them. “This has caused some stress,” Dr. Shore said.
Electronic health record systems may or may not integrate video visits, noted Dr. Chan. “For instance, I work at a health system where mental health questionnaires, imaging systems, notes, and video visit scheduling are housed in separate systems.”
Without a seamless national, integrated system in place, physicians are often left to couple different IT formats together. “There are some systems that work pretty well, and there are some that are really clunky where you’re forcing the two together, so that’s a challenge,” Dr. Shore said. Providers may be using one system for their office and another system to provide care. “They may be using different EHRs and different teleconferencing platforms. That adds complexity.” Video conferencing platforms aren’t as challenging to use as EHRs. However, if some people are self-taught, there’s no way of knowing if they’re using best practices, he added.
Many health systems do offer video built into EMRs. Companies such as Epic have provided integrations with Vidyo, Amwell, and other platforms, noted Dr. Chan.
An integrated platform is useful if done well – but isn’t necessarily essential, according to Dr. Yellowlees. In his own setup, he signs a laptop into an EMR and uses an iPad to communicate with patients via video on the iPad and all video on the phone.
“The big advantage of telemedicine is you can type your notes in a socially appropriate way while talking to the patient on video. I do that, and it saves me a considerable amount of time. I don’t have to spend time after a consultation typing up notes.”
Still, others may struggle with bandwidth or connectivity. “Perhaps there’s a problem with privacy or the types of patients you’re dealing with,” Dr. Shore said. Older patients in a nursing home, for example, may require a team of people that works onsite. Suddenly, their care has to transition to a virtual system. “You may need to figure how to put the right team together to do straightforward and individual interactions,” he said.
Virtual care also suffers from the “digital divide,” an issue that predates COVID-19, said Dr. Shore. Not all patients have access to bandwidth and the technology to see clinicians. Other lack expertise and comfort with using the technology, or can’t afford the equipment necessary to bring them online. The pandemic has highlighted all of these disparities, he emphasized.
Dr. Chan offered that the digital divide is part of a larger socioeconomic divide, where barriers to any care – including transportation for in-person care – exist.
Technology and access issues aside, insidious “Zoom fatigue” is affecting everyone right now. “That’s clearly real,” Dr. Shore said. “And it’s not just about videoconferencing; it’s about being in quarantine. We’re all in this virtual lockdown, where people are using the term ‘videoconferencing fatigue.’ It’s a complicated problem.”
To assist with telehealth implementation, the APA has issued practice guidance and a toolkit that includes an extensive set of educational materials, including 40 videos on various topics. It’s also hosted webinars on telehealth policies and written up standard operating procedures on this topic, Dr. Yellowlees said. “The most important thing is APA, like other organizations, is advocating to have the relaxation of regulations during COVID made permanent,” he said.
Reimbursement post pandemic
As virtual visits rose in 2020, so did billing for such services. According to America’s Health Insurance Plans, claims to private insurers exploded by more than 4,000% in 2020. AHIP last July reported that mental health conditions made up one-third or more than 33% of telehealth claims to private insurers during the pandemic. Dr. Yellowlees said the health insurers he’s dealt with “have been good about paying for telehealth visits during the COVID-declared emergency.”
Whether this coverage will continue once the public health emergency ends, is unclear, some contend. “My sense is that there will be a rollback of coverage, but it won’t be back to what we had prepandemic,” said Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, who studies telemedicine trends, in an interview. Right now, there’s still a great deal of uncertainty about reimbursement, “and that’s what’s giving providers pause,” said Dr. Mehrotra, of the department of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston.
AHIP will continue to support federal and state policies to further promote telehealth access during the public health emergency, spokesman David Allen said in a statement. “Insurance providers have independently shifted their policies to increase access to care and services, ranging from acute care needs and triage services to chronic disease management and behavioral health. We are still awaiting information on what changes will remain in place beyond the public health emergency,” he said.
Even before COVID-19, Mr. Allen noted, nearly all large employers (96%) offered access to telehealth services as a covered benefit in 2019. In May, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that many insurers were reducing or lifting cost sharing for telehealth for limited time periods.
Some of the larger payers said they’re continuing benefits, although it’s not clear how long some benefits will remain in place.
UnitedHealthcare offers no-cost coverage for COVID-19 testing–related telehealth visits, but that benefit is set to expire once the public health emergency presumably ends on Jan. 20, 2021. Through Dec. 31, 2020, the payer said it would offer coverage with no cost sharing for telehealth visits related to COVID-19 treatment and expanded access to telehealth visits not related to COVID-19 through its network. Similarly, Anthem is waiving cost sharing for COVID-19 treatments via telehealth or in-person visits, and for telehealth visits not related to COVID-19 for Medicare members through the end of the year.
Anthem will continue to cover telehealth and encourage members and clinicians to use telehealth for behavioral health, a spokesperson said. Anthem also has a telehealth provider, LiveHealth Online, “another safe and effective way for members to see a doctor to receive health guidance from their home via mobile device or a computer with a webcam,” said the spokesperson.
Dr. Vasan hopes that insurers will increase coverage for telehealth and at the same rate as in-person visits, especially for mental health. “I have not felt that the quality of the clinic has decreased, and in fact, in some ways it’s gotten better, and insurance coverage should reflect this.”
Outlook for the hybrid model
As long as there’s COVID-19, psychiatry practices must remain virtual, at least for now, Dr. Shore said. “We will emerge from this pandemic, I suspect in bits and starts.” When that happens, practices will need to have a transition plan in place. “Once we get away from COVID, I don’t think our mental health will ever be the same again. We’ll have much more virtual technology along the lines of a hybrid model, where we’ll see patients in person, but we’ll use more technology to work with patients, but it will be more of a blend.” Practices will also have to address the regulatory, reimbursement, and prescribing conditions the new world offers.
Some practices are already discovering the benefits of relying less on a brick-and-mortar office.
Dr. Chan said his colleagues are finding that they no longer have to deal with the expense and upkeep of renting and furnishing office space. “Many are taking their practice virtual-only because the monthly recurring costs are so cheap, and they can see patients in distant, underserved communities.” In-person visits are now inconvenient and risky, he continued. They require expensive personal protective equipment and cleaning protocols. “Plus, there’s the risk that services must shut down when stay-at-home orders return or when a staff member gets infected.”
Physicians prescribing certain controlled substances will likely continue to use office space, once the public health emergency expires and face-to-face visits resume. “In such cases, they can rent office space part-time,” Dr. Chan added.
Dr. Vasan, also of the department of psychiatry at Stanford and chief medical officer of Real, hopes that such a model prevails. “I do miss seeing patients in person and think a hybrid will be a good balance.”
Most patients want it, as do the influx of Generation Z physicians coming into the profession, Dr. Yellowlees noted. These are young, technologically savvy doctors who grew up in the age of the Internet. “I think the silver lining of COVID is it led telemedicine past the tipping point, where both patients and providers are learning that it’s an appropriate way to get care, as long as you’re careful, use professional guidelines – and don’t drop your standards of care.”
Dr. Yellowlees and Dr. Shore are coauthors of Telepsychiatry and Health Technologies: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals (Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2018), and receive royalties from the book. Dr. Shore also reported working with AccessCare and receiving royalties from Springer Press. Dr. Chan reported consulting for Orbit Health. Dr. Vasan reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mehrotra has received research funding from several U.S. agencies, including the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
Once the fog lifts on a global pandemic that led to an explosion in telehealth visits in 2020, mental health experts expect virtual and in-person visits to merge to become a standard model of care in clinical psychiatry.
Hybrid care is the future, Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, a professor of psychiatry and chief wellness officer at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview. “I’ve been working this way for several years – where all of my patients get to see me in person or online, or both.”
The model’s increasing popularity reflects a major shift toward virtual consults. Telemedicine offers safer, quicker, and less expensive alternatives, Steven Chan, MD, MBA, of Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “This continuity is essential to helping to reduce emergency room visits, reduce inpatient hospitalizations and readmissions, and improving adherence to treatment,” Dr. Chan said. State and federal regulators’ actions to lift certain licensing and prescribing restrictions and expand coverage made it easier for clinical psychiatrists to offer and get paid for these services.
The catch is that no one knows whether these easements will remain in place once COVID-19 recedes, ending the national public health emergency, Jay H. Shore, MD, MPH, chairperson of the American Psychiatric Association telepsychiatry committee, and professor and director of telemedicine programming at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora’s department of psychiatry, said in an interview. “These all temporarily changed during this time period, but we have no idea when they’re going to end or if they’re going to continue off of COVID. So now, there’s a lot of uncertainty.”
‘Suite of different technologies’
New freedoms to deliver telehealth care left some practices scrambling to adopt or refine technology. Once COVID-19 hit, “I can’t think of a psychiatrist or provider or institution that didn’t have to rapidly virtualize and do at least some video conferencing,” Dr. Shore said. This immediate shift signaled a key move toward hybrid patient-doctor relations. “It means you hold a relationship with your patients through multiple different mediums, email, portal, telephone, in person. It’s not just about in-person versus video, it’s about a suite of different technologies.”
Dr. Shore began practicing telehealth 20 years ago, long before the age of COVID. He’s since established rewarding relationships with patients he’s never met. “I’ve done everything from medical management to long-term psychotherapy, group psychotherapy, and I’ve been successful with different populations.”
Many nuances exist around matching the right patient with the right videoconferencing adaptation, Dr. Shore continued. However, “in general, the literature supports that you can get equal clinical outcomes with telehealth versus in-person treatment.”
‘I see their garden’
While some may eschew the idea of providing care over a virtual platform, other physicians see it as an insightful window into a person’s mental state. “I think some are actually quite surprised by how much good care you can give using video,” said Dr. Yellowlees. Unlike a phone conversation, video allows you to see a person’s home. “The beauty of a video is not just that you can see the person, you can also look around their home, and learn more about them.”
In his own visits, he asks patients to take him on a virtual “walk” through their house, provided there are no confidentiality issues.
“I get to meet their pets, the carers, the spouses; I get to see their garden. I get to see what their interests are from looking at the paintings on their walls. I learn more about my patients that way. If you use video to purely see people from the neck up, then that’s fine, but I think you can also use it to your advantage, seeing people at home.” He also encourages patients to do visits in their cars – as long as the windows are shut, they’re in a safe area, and most importantly, they’re not driving.
Nina Vasan, MD, MBA, who treats patients at Stanford and in a concierge private practice for executives, agrees that seeing patients in the home offers a more direct view of patients’ lives. “These little extra pieces of information are things that we didn’t get before COVID, when patients would come by themselves into the office week after week. I do feel like I know some patients much better by being able to see their surroundings and home interactions,” Dr. Vasan, founder and executive director of Brainstorm: The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation and chair of the APA’s committee on innovation, said in an interview.
She uses Zoom for her sessions, and regularly texts with her concierge patients. In both clinics, where most visits have gone virtual, “the no-show rate is near zero. Before COVID, it was around 10%-20%.”
Safety is a key advantage of virtual visits, noted Dr. Shore. “It’s certainly better than some of the risks of seeing people in person.”
Lack of integration causes frustration
Some challenges exist around access and adaptation of virtual technology. The pandemic’s sudden onslaught left many clinicians scrambling to adjust to a virtual format without any training or tools to support them. “This has caused some stress,” Dr. Shore said.
Electronic health record systems may or may not integrate video visits, noted Dr. Chan. “For instance, I work at a health system where mental health questionnaires, imaging systems, notes, and video visit scheduling are housed in separate systems.”
Without a seamless national, integrated system in place, physicians are often left to couple different IT formats together. “There are some systems that work pretty well, and there are some that are really clunky where you’re forcing the two together, so that’s a challenge,” Dr. Shore said. Providers may be using one system for their office and another system to provide care. “They may be using different EHRs and different teleconferencing platforms. That adds complexity.” Video conferencing platforms aren’t as challenging to use as EHRs. However, if some people are self-taught, there’s no way of knowing if they’re using best practices, he added.
Many health systems do offer video built into EMRs. Companies such as Epic have provided integrations with Vidyo, Amwell, and other platforms, noted Dr. Chan.
An integrated platform is useful if done well – but isn’t necessarily essential, according to Dr. Yellowlees. In his own setup, he signs a laptop into an EMR and uses an iPad to communicate with patients via video on the iPad and all video on the phone.
“The big advantage of telemedicine is you can type your notes in a socially appropriate way while talking to the patient on video. I do that, and it saves me a considerable amount of time. I don’t have to spend time after a consultation typing up notes.”
Still, others may struggle with bandwidth or connectivity. “Perhaps there’s a problem with privacy or the types of patients you’re dealing with,” Dr. Shore said. Older patients in a nursing home, for example, may require a team of people that works onsite. Suddenly, their care has to transition to a virtual system. “You may need to figure how to put the right team together to do straightforward and individual interactions,” he said.
Virtual care also suffers from the “digital divide,” an issue that predates COVID-19, said Dr. Shore. Not all patients have access to bandwidth and the technology to see clinicians. Other lack expertise and comfort with using the technology, or can’t afford the equipment necessary to bring them online. The pandemic has highlighted all of these disparities, he emphasized.
Dr. Chan offered that the digital divide is part of a larger socioeconomic divide, where barriers to any care – including transportation for in-person care – exist.
Technology and access issues aside, insidious “Zoom fatigue” is affecting everyone right now. “That’s clearly real,” Dr. Shore said. “And it’s not just about videoconferencing; it’s about being in quarantine. We’re all in this virtual lockdown, where people are using the term ‘videoconferencing fatigue.’ It’s a complicated problem.”
To assist with telehealth implementation, the APA has issued practice guidance and a toolkit that includes an extensive set of educational materials, including 40 videos on various topics. It’s also hosted webinars on telehealth policies and written up standard operating procedures on this topic, Dr. Yellowlees said. “The most important thing is APA, like other organizations, is advocating to have the relaxation of regulations during COVID made permanent,” he said.
Reimbursement post pandemic
As virtual visits rose in 2020, so did billing for such services. According to America’s Health Insurance Plans, claims to private insurers exploded by more than 4,000% in 2020. AHIP last July reported that mental health conditions made up one-third or more than 33% of telehealth claims to private insurers during the pandemic. Dr. Yellowlees said the health insurers he’s dealt with “have been good about paying for telehealth visits during the COVID-declared emergency.”
Whether this coverage will continue once the public health emergency ends, is unclear, some contend. “My sense is that there will be a rollback of coverage, but it won’t be back to what we had prepandemic,” said Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, who studies telemedicine trends, in an interview. Right now, there’s still a great deal of uncertainty about reimbursement, “and that’s what’s giving providers pause,” said Dr. Mehrotra, of the department of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston.
AHIP will continue to support federal and state policies to further promote telehealth access during the public health emergency, spokesman David Allen said in a statement. “Insurance providers have independently shifted their policies to increase access to care and services, ranging from acute care needs and triage services to chronic disease management and behavioral health. We are still awaiting information on what changes will remain in place beyond the public health emergency,” he said.
Even before COVID-19, Mr. Allen noted, nearly all large employers (96%) offered access to telehealth services as a covered benefit in 2019. In May, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that many insurers were reducing or lifting cost sharing for telehealth for limited time periods.
Some of the larger payers said they’re continuing benefits, although it’s not clear how long some benefits will remain in place.
UnitedHealthcare offers no-cost coverage for COVID-19 testing–related telehealth visits, but that benefit is set to expire once the public health emergency presumably ends on Jan. 20, 2021. Through Dec. 31, 2020, the payer said it would offer coverage with no cost sharing for telehealth visits related to COVID-19 treatment and expanded access to telehealth visits not related to COVID-19 through its network. Similarly, Anthem is waiving cost sharing for COVID-19 treatments via telehealth or in-person visits, and for telehealth visits not related to COVID-19 for Medicare members through the end of the year.
Anthem will continue to cover telehealth and encourage members and clinicians to use telehealth for behavioral health, a spokesperson said. Anthem also has a telehealth provider, LiveHealth Online, “another safe and effective way for members to see a doctor to receive health guidance from their home via mobile device or a computer with a webcam,” said the spokesperson.
Dr. Vasan hopes that insurers will increase coverage for telehealth and at the same rate as in-person visits, especially for mental health. “I have not felt that the quality of the clinic has decreased, and in fact, in some ways it’s gotten better, and insurance coverage should reflect this.”
Outlook for the hybrid model
As long as there’s COVID-19, psychiatry practices must remain virtual, at least for now, Dr. Shore said. “We will emerge from this pandemic, I suspect in bits and starts.” When that happens, practices will need to have a transition plan in place. “Once we get away from COVID, I don’t think our mental health will ever be the same again. We’ll have much more virtual technology along the lines of a hybrid model, where we’ll see patients in person, but we’ll use more technology to work with patients, but it will be more of a blend.” Practices will also have to address the regulatory, reimbursement, and prescribing conditions the new world offers.
Some practices are already discovering the benefits of relying less on a brick-and-mortar office.
Dr. Chan said his colleagues are finding that they no longer have to deal with the expense and upkeep of renting and furnishing office space. “Many are taking their practice virtual-only because the monthly recurring costs are so cheap, and they can see patients in distant, underserved communities.” In-person visits are now inconvenient and risky, he continued. They require expensive personal protective equipment and cleaning protocols. “Plus, there’s the risk that services must shut down when stay-at-home orders return or when a staff member gets infected.”
Physicians prescribing certain controlled substances will likely continue to use office space, once the public health emergency expires and face-to-face visits resume. “In such cases, they can rent office space part-time,” Dr. Chan added.
Dr. Vasan, also of the department of psychiatry at Stanford and chief medical officer of Real, hopes that such a model prevails. “I do miss seeing patients in person and think a hybrid will be a good balance.”
Most patients want it, as do the influx of Generation Z physicians coming into the profession, Dr. Yellowlees noted. These are young, technologically savvy doctors who grew up in the age of the Internet. “I think the silver lining of COVID is it led telemedicine past the tipping point, where both patients and providers are learning that it’s an appropriate way to get care, as long as you’re careful, use professional guidelines – and don’t drop your standards of care.”
Dr. Yellowlees and Dr. Shore are coauthors of Telepsychiatry and Health Technologies: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals (Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2018), and receive royalties from the book. Dr. Shore also reported working with AccessCare and receiving royalties from Springer Press. Dr. Chan reported consulting for Orbit Health. Dr. Vasan reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mehrotra has received research funding from several U.S. agencies, including the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
A call to make four telehealth provisions permanent
Lawmakers, physicians, and advocates alike have hailed a relaxation of telehealth rules under the COVID-19 emergency declaration, and they’d like things to stay this way.
Regulators previously restricted telemedicine use “by insisting that you could only see patients in the state you’re licensed in, by not reimbursing as widely for telehealth, and by not allowing us to prescribe controlled substances. They also didn’t allow us to see patients on the phone. So, there’s very good reasons to keep those regulations permanently relaxed,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, a professor of psychiatry and chief wellness officer at the University of California, Davis.
In his view, changes should take place in four key areas:
- Licensing. “Traditionally, state medical boards have been very insistent that clinical psychiatrists license in the state the patient resides in. This means physicians must have licenses in many different states. It’s very restrictive, because physicians can’t follow patients from one state to another. Under COVID, we can do this, but physicians want these licensing changes to be made permanent.”
- Reimbursement. “In the past, federal regulators have only allowed reimbursement for telemedicine in very specific, defined rural areas and specified clinical environments. This rule has since been relaxed, allowing us to see patients anywhere, especially in their homes. This is another area that should become permanent. Payers should continue to pay telehealth services on par with in-person visits.”
- Telephony. “Psychiatrists and other physicians haven’t been traditionally paid for telephone visits. But there’s no doubt that telephone follow-up visits can be very beneficial, so while I wouldn’t personally see a new patient on the phone, I now follow up with them on the phone once I have gotten to know them, and this works well.”
- Prescribing. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 was introduced to stop overseas pharmacies prescribing narcotics. “It was very successful, but as a side effect, it stopped most physicians from prescribing controlled substances on video. With COVID, we can now do this. For psychiatry, this is very important because it means we can use video to treat people for addictions with medications like buprenorphine and [prescribe] stimulants for children with ADHD. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration should finalize regulations for the Ryan Haight Act to allow for the prescribing of controlled substances via telehealth without a prior in-person exam.”
The American Psychiatric Association has called for an extension of the telehealth waiver authority under COVID-19 beyond the emergency declaration to study its impact. It will continue to advocate to allow for telephone-only telehealth to be reimbursed at the same rate as live audio-video, said a spokesperson. “We also will continue to advocate for the removal of geographic and originating site restrictions in Medicare, which prevent Medicare patients from being seen in the home,” with some exceptions, the spokesperson said.
The APA has also issued guidance to practitioners seeking clarity on telehealth coverage and COVID-19.
Lawmakers, physicians, and advocates alike have hailed a relaxation of telehealth rules under the COVID-19 emergency declaration, and they’d like things to stay this way.
Regulators previously restricted telemedicine use “by insisting that you could only see patients in the state you’re licensed in, by not reimbursing as widely for telehealth, and by not allowing us to prescribe controlled substances. They also didn’t allow us to see patients on the phone. So, there’s very good reasons to keep those regulations permanently relaxed,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, a professor of psychiatry and chief wellness officer at the University of California, Davis.
In his view, changes should take place in four key areas:
- Licensing. “Traditionally, state medical boards have been very insistent that clinical psychiatrists license in the state the patient resides in. This means physicians must have licenses in many different states. It’s very restrictive, because physicians can’t follow patients from one state to another. Under COVID, we can do this, but physicians want these licensing changes to be made permanent.”
- Reimbursement. “In the past, federal regulators have only allowed reimbursement for telemedicine in very specific, defined rural areas and specified clinical environments. This rule has since been relaxed, allowing us to see patients anywhere, especially in their homes. This is another area that should become permanent. Payers should continue to pay telehealth services on par with in-person visits.”
- Telephony. “Psychiatrists and other physicians haven’t been traditionally paid for telephone visits. But there’s no doubt that telephone follow-up visits can be very beneficial, so while I wouldn’t personally see a new patient on the phone, I now follow up with them on the phone once I have gotten to know them, and this works well.”
- Prescribing. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 was introduced to stop overseas pharmacies prescribing narcotics. “It was very successful, but as a side effect, it stopped most physicians from prescribing controlled substances on video. With COVID, we can now do this. For psychiatry, this is very important because it means we can use video to treat people for addictions with medications like buprenorphine and [prescribe] stimulants for children with ADHD. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration should finalize regulations for the Ryan Haight Act to allow for the prescribing of controlled substances via telehealth without a prior in-person exam.”
The American Psychiatric Association has called for an extension of the telehealth waiver authority under COVID-19 beyond the emergency declaration to study its impact. It will continue to advocate to allow for telephone-only telehealth to be reimbursed at the same rate as live audio-video, said a spokesperson. “We also will continue to advocate for the removal of geographic and originating site restrictions in Medicare, which prevent Medicare patients from being seen in the home,” with some exceptions, the spokesperson said.
The APA has also issued guidance to practitioners seeking clarity on telehealth coverage and COVID-19.
Lawmakers, physicians, and advocates alike have hailed a relaxation of telehealth rules under the COVID-19 emergency declaration, and they’d like things to stay this way.
Regulators previously restricted telemedicine use “by insisting that you could only see patients in the state you’re licensed in, by not reimbursing as widely for telehealth, and by not allowing us to prescribe controlled substances. They also didn’t allow us to see patients on the phone. So, there’s very good reasons to keep those regulations permanently relaxed,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, a professor of psychiatry and chief wellness officer at the University of California, Davis.
In his view, changes should take place in four key areas:
- Licensing. “Traditionally, state medical boards have been very insistent that clinical psychiatrists license in the state the patient resides in. This means physicians must have licenses in many different states. It’s very restrictive, because physicians can’t follow patients from one state to another. Under COVID, we can do this, but physicians want these licensing changes to be made permanent.”
- Reimbursement. “In the past, federal regulators have only allowed reimbursement for telemedicine in very specific, defined rural areas and specified clinical environments. This rule has since been relaxed, allowing us to see patients anywhere, especially in their homes. This is another area that should become permanent. Payers should continue to pay telehealth services on par with in-person visits.”
- Telephony. “Psychiatrists and other physicians haven’t been traditionally paid for telephone visits. But there’s no doubt that telephone follow-up visits can be very beneficial, so while I wouldn’t personally see a new patient on the phone, I now follow up with them on the phone once I have gotten to know them, and this works well.”
- Prescribing. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 was introduced to stop overseas pharmacies prescribing narcotics. “It was very successful, but as a side effect, it stopped most physicians from prescribing controlled substances on video. With COVID, we can now do this. For psychiatry, this is very important because it means we can use video to treat people for addictions with medications like buprenorphine and [prescribe] stimulants for children with ADHD. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration should finalize regulations for the Ryan Haight Act to allow for the prescribing of controlled substances via telehealth without a prior in-person exam.”
The American Psychiatric Association has called for an extension of the telehealth waiver authority under COVID-19 beyond the emergency declaration to study its impact. It will continue to advocate to allow for telephone-only telehealth to be reimbursed at the same rate as live audio-video, said a spokesperson. “We also will continue to advocate for the removal of geographic and originating site restrictions in Medicare, which prevent Medicare patients from being seen in the home,” with some exceptions, the spokesperson said.
The APA has also issued guidance to practitioners seeking clarity on telehealth coverage and COVID-19.
2020 and the telehealth boom
This year saw an unprecedented rise in medical consults over virtual platforms, as the COVID-19 pandemic raged on in the United States and worldwide.
Statistics from major health care groups and payers underscore this effect. Polling 1,004 U.S. adults this fall, the American Psychiatric Association found that 31% had used telehealth services – with 72% reporting they had ventured into this mode of care over the last 6 months.
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, was a major catalyst, waiving geographic and Medicare telehealth payment restrictions for mental health services during certain emergency periods. Medicare beneficiaries gained access to telehealth services – they could start seeing doctors via videoconferencing in their homes, regardless of location. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services began paying doctors for telehealth services at the same rate as in-office visits for all diagnoses and issued a toolkit to promote adoption of telehealth coverage policies among state Medicaid agencies.
Most states responded, expanding telehealth in Medicaid programs and relaxing restrictions on provider licensing, online prescribing, and patient consent for telehealth, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported in May. Other federal agencies took actions during the public health emergency. The Drug Enforcement Administration allowed for the prescribing of controlled substances through telemedicine, and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’s Office for Civil Rights agreed not to impose penalties for noncompliance of HIPAA during video conferencing, provided that physicians were acting in the best interests of the patient.
“The benefits we’re seeing on both sides – for patients and for doctors – around convenience and access are wonderful,” Nina Vasan, MD, MBA, founder and executive director of Brainstorm: The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation and chair of APA’s Committee on Innovation, said in an interview. Before COVID began, only a handful of clinicians were seeing patients via televideo at Stanford, said Dr. Vasan. “Now, almost everyone is. The forced uptake and change of behavior was something we’ve needed for years, and now that it has happened, I don’t see it going away.”
This year saw an unprecedented rise in medical consults over virtual platforms, as the COVID-19 pandemic raged on in the United States and worldwide.
Statistics from major health care groups and payers underscore this effect. Polling 1,004 U.S. adults this fall, the American Psychiatric Association found that 31% had used telehealth services – with 72% reporting they had ventured into this mode of care over the last 6 months.
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, was a major catalyst, waiving geographic and Medicare telehealth payment restrictions for mental health services during certain emergency periods. Medicare beneficiaries gained access to telehealth services – they could start seeing doctors via videoconferencing in their homes, regardless of location. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services began paying doctors for telehealth services at the same rate as in-office visits for all diagnoses and issued a toolkit to promote adoption of telehealth coverage policies among state Medicaid agencies.
Most states responded, expanding telehealth in Medicaid programs and relaxing restrictions on provider licensing, online prescribing, and patient consent for telehealth, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported in May. Other federal agencies took actions during the public health emergency. The Drug Enforcement Administration allowed for the prescribing of controlled substances through telemedicine, and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’s Office for Civil Rights agreed not to impose penalties for noncompliance of HIPAA during video conferencing, provided that physicians were acting in the best interests of the patient.
“The benefits we’re seeing on both sides – for patients and for doctors – around convenience and access are wonderful,” Nina Vasan, MD, MBA, founder and executive director of Brainstorm: The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation and chair of APA’s Committee on Innovation, said in an interview. Before COVID began, only a handful of clinicians were seeing patients via televideo at Stanford, said Dr. Vasan. “Now, almost everyone is. The forced uptake and change of behavior was something we’ve needed for years, and now that it has happened, I don’t see it going away.”
This year saw an unprecedented rise in medical consults over virtual platforms, as the COVID-19 pandemic raged on in the United States and worldwide.
Statistics from major health care groups and payers underscore this effect. Polling 1,004 U.S. adults this fall, the American Psychiatric Association found that 31% had used telehealth services – with 72% reporting they had ventured into this mode of care over the last 6 months.
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, was a major catalyst, waiving geographic and Medicare telehealth payment restrictions for mental health services during certain emergency periods. Medicare beneficiaries gained access to telehealth services – they could start seeing doctors via videoconferencing in their homes, regardless of location. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services began paying doctors for telehealth services at the same rate as in-office visits for all diagnoses and issued a toolkit to promote adoption of telehealth coverage policies among state Medicaid agencies.
Most states responded, expanding telehealth in Medicaid programs and relaxing restrictions on provider licensing, online prescribing, and patient consent for telehealth, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported in May. Other federal agencies took actions during the public health emergency. The Drug Enforcement Administration allowed for the prescribing of controlled substances through telemedicine, and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’s Office for Civil Rights agreed not to impose penalties for noncompliance of HIPAA during video conferencing, provided that physicians were acting in the best interests of the patient.
“The benefits we’re seeing on both sides – for patients and for doctors – around convenience and access are wonderful,” Nina Vasan, MD, MBA, founder and executive director of Brainstorm: The Stanford Lab for Mental Health Innovation and chair of APA’s Committee on Innovation, said in an interview. Before COVID began, only a handful of clinicians were seeing patients via televideo at Stanford, said Dr. Vasan. “Now, almost everyone is. The forced uptake and change of behavior was something we’ve needed for years, and now that it has happened, I don’t see it going away.”
Neurologist as patient: A missed diagnosis, poor communication, and incompetent care could have led to quadriplegia
When Steven Horowitz, MD, began experiencing neck and arm pain, numbness, and tingling following a bike ride several years ago, he immediately sought care at an elite medical center in California. As he recalls, an incompetent clinical exam and no access to highly abnormal test results done in the ED almost cost him his health. Had he listened to the doctors at that facility, he believes he would have become quadriplegic.
His training as a neurologist likely saved his life: “I was able to recover because, after arriving home, I reviewed my blood work and MRI online and recognized multiple problems.” He was able to get excellent care at his own local health care facility in Maine. The staff and leadership at the hospital in California wouldn’t admit wrongdoing, and efforts to seek recourse have proved fruitless, he said.
A lingering question nags at him: What if he had been an ordinary patient without medical expertise? What do his experiences say about the health care system’s management of medical omissions and errors?
Dr. Horowitz, 78 years old and retired, continues to teach medical students as an adjunct clinical professor of neurology at the Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. He is also on the teaching faculty of the Maine Medical Center. He was professor and chief of neurology at a major university in the Midwest for many years.
In 2018, he visited his daughter on the West Coast, enjoying a day of biking. The neck pain began 5 or 6 hours after the ride and spread to his arms. “There was also numbness and tingling,” he said.
“I told them I was a neurologist”
The next day the pain got worse. Dr. Horowitz went to the ED of a nearby medical center with his daughter and immediately disclosed that he was a neurologist. “I did this for several reasons,” he explained. He wanted to alert staff that he had a cervical spine problem because “I wanted them to do a cervical MRI scan, and I wanted to read it because I’m capable of doing that.” He also related a past history of infection and antibiotic use and asked for C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate tests in addition to regular blood work. “Those inflammatory markers, if abnormal, would indicate an infection,” said Dr. Horowitz.
No reflex hammer or Babinski test
During the reflex exam with a spine consultant, Dr. Horowitz noticed that the consultant wasn’t using a reflex hammer, the clinical equivalent of evaluating the heart or lungs without a stethoscope. “I asked where the reflex hammer was, and he said he didn’t need one or own one. He used the inside of his hand. Apparently, there was some mild weakness in some muscle groups, but he didn’t address that,” said Dr. Horowitz. The consultant also didn’t test for the Babinski sign until reminded of it.
He took out a stethoscope and struck the middle of the soles of Dr. Horowitz’s feet. “I thought to myself, this consultant is the consultant for the spine service? How is it possible that he has a stethoscope and not a reflex hammer and didn’t know how to test for the Babinski sign?” The consultant also didn’t examine for gait, coordination, or hand dexterity. “He took his finger and touched my feet and legs. That was his sensory exam. He didn’t use a pin or a tuning fork” or other methods including touch, temperature, position sense, and vibration to assess sensory abnormalities that might signal spinal cord dysfunction.
An MRI at the hospital revealed a mass at the back of the neck. No contrast material was used during the MRI even though this step would have signaled the presence of infection. “Gadolinium should have been injected during the MRI because that would have strongly suggested that this mass in my neck was not a little blood clot and more likely an infection. They would have realized something more complicated than degenerative arthritis was going on. They told me that I had advanced spondylosis and that the mass was a hematoma. They told me not to worry about the blood results. Then they discharged me.”
A life-threatening discovery
Dr. Horowitz didn’t see the results of the blood work-up until returning to Maine a few days later, when he checked the online report. There was a highly elevated CRP level – 30 times above the normal limit – and elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate and white blood cell counts. “This showed that there was an infective process going on. And it wasn’t just a localized process, it was in my bloodstream,” he said.
Alarmed by the elevated markers, he immediately went to his local hospital. “Not only did I have arthritis, but my spinal cord was compressed.” Urgent surgery was performed, including a C2-7 fusion. The mass in the back of his neck turned out to be an abscess.
His training and experience as a physician/neurologist saved him from further damage, he said. “Because the compression of the spine was at the C2, C3, C4 level, not only would I have become quadriplegic, but my diaphragm would likely have been paralyzed and I would have needed a ventilator.”
Following a month’s care in the hospital and a rehabilitation center, he wrote to the CEO of the California hospital where he received his initial care.
“I wrote about the incompetent exam, the missed infection, a discharge without information. I wrote all that out to the CEO and sent the letter registered so that he would receive it.” The CEO forwarded the letter to a patient risk manager, who interviewed staff and supervisors in the ED, radiology, and the spine program. They responded 3 months later. According to Dr. Horowitz, the spine supervisor said, “The consultant performed the exam to the best of his ability.” No one admitted to any errors in care or the lack of recognition of the infection, although the neuroradiologist did apologize for not allowing Dr. Horowitz to read his own MRI in a timely manner.
“They had promised to wheel a portable computer into my alcove so I could view the MRI.” Several hours later, after persistent complaints, he was given 1 minute to look over at least 300 images at a desktop computer in the crowded ED. They gave him the MRI images on a disk, but he wasn’t able to read it on his iMac computer.
According to Dr. Horowitz, the ED should have called in an infectious disease consultant and a neurologist or neurosurgeon to do a more complete neurologic exam. “Instead of discharging me, they should have admitted me, telling me that I had spinal cord compression, an infection, and a mass in my neck—that they don’t know what this is about, and I shouldn’t go home.”
Eventually, after long-term intravenous antibiotics and extensive physical therapy, Dr. Horowitz recovered. “I definitely had PTSD afterwards. How could a non-eventful bike ride result in an unrecognized threatening illness? I thought a healing opportunity for me and an educational opportunity for the medical staff and students at this medical center would be for me to present my case to them at a conference at their facility the next time I visited my daughter in California. I thought an experienced clinician discussing his own illness in his own specialty would be unique.”
The hospital ignored his offer.
By happenstance, a year and a half later, Dr. Horowitz made contact with a hospital administrator after hearing her speak during a TED Radio Hour in his car. “We had several telephone conversations and email correspondences in October and November 2019 but none since,” he said. In one email, she wrote that “hospitals don’t seem to know what to do with the opportunity you present. I don’t think the challenge is unique to [this institution]. A forum for these kinds of discussions – constructive, insightful patient feedback – does not exist.”
Dr. Horowitz hasn’t considered a malpractice lawsuit. “The only result would be a monetary reward based on damages. Since permanent clinical damage did not occur, the suit would have been time consuming and the reward limited. I was able to recover because I was able to review the blood work and recognize my own problem and get excellent care at my own local health care facility. I was really hoping the doctors at the California hospital would learn from this episode.”
Dr. Horowitz also wrote the Medical Board of California a detailed letter, citing relevant medical literature, guidelines on spinal care, and his test results. Nearly 2 years later, he finally got a response. The board said there was no “clear and convincing evidence that negligence took place.” In Dr. Horowitz’s opinion, “the fact that CRP was 30 times past normal is ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ That the consultant didn’t have a reflex hammer is also ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ That the clinical neurologic exam was incompetent, by any measure, is ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ Even the Medical Board, tasked with patient protection, didn’t recognize negligent medical care. They might have if I had become quadriplegic.”
A new normal?
Dr. Horowitz, who wrote of his experience in The Washington Post, said it reflects a persistent, systemic problem in health care: the inability to address medical errors and correct them. In the article, he addressed a phenomenon called the “the normalization of deviance.” Diane Vaughn wrote about this phenomenon in a 1997 book about the Space Shuttle disaster. Multiple flaws were noted in previous shuttle launches but then rationalized and “normalized” when they didn’t cause a disaster – until they ultimately did.
“That’s relevant to my situation,” Dr. Horowitz said. “The spine supervisor at this hospital excused the consultant by saying, ‘he did the exam to the best of his ability.’ Further, the response to my complaints came from hospital representatives rather than physicians, meaning that the ‘normalization’ was institutional, and it was willing to accept his poor performance without sanctions.”
He imagines that he could not be the only case handled poorly by this hospital or that particular consultant. “He could have done the same thing to another patient who didn’t have my medical knowledge,” added Dr. Horowitz.
In her book, Ms. Vaughan noted that whistleblower activity is sometimes the only device that reveals normalization of deviance.
Dr. Horowitz sees himself as a whistleblower for these types of mistakes. “The question is, how do we deal with medical errors even in sophisticated patients who see these errors, and how do you manage this in the average patient? I don’t want to see this type of medical care rendered for any patient, hence my attempt to make this situation public.”
A teachable moment lost?
Commenting on this case, Alan Rapoport, MD, said, “[it]illustrates inadequate physician evaluation in the ED, poor communication from the examining doctor about abnormal lab and MRI findings, unwillingness to call in consultants to properly evaluate the situation, and no recognition of the need to admit the patient.”
Dr. Rapoport is the editor in chief of Neurology Reviews and a clinical professor of neurology at UCLA in Los Angeles. He is a past president of the International Headache Society.
He noted that the patient is in his late 70s and needed to fly across the country to arrive at home. “Months later, when this situation was explained to the hospital via the mail, they totally failed to recognize their inadequacies and apologize for their mistakes. They were probably concerned about being sued, but I believe that their actions increased their chances of a lawsuit,” Dr. Rapoport said.
“When a teaching remedy was offered by the patient to the hospital so the doctors involved could learn from the experience, the hospital was not interested. The only party that learned from this unfortunate episode was the patient, not the doctors, or the ER, or the hospital administration,” Dr. Rapoport said.
He continued, “It is scary to think that an excellent hospital would act in this manner and refuse to learn from their mistakes. The California medical board was notified and did not investigate. It is not too late for the hospital to apologize, communicate their shortcomings, and fix the problem at multiple levels in the hospital.”
Dr. Rapoport consulted Morris Levin, MD, a professor of neurology and director of the Headache Program at UCSF, to ask what he thought, theoretically, about how a hospital should respond when they make a mistake and how much they should divulge. Dr. Levin is involved in Medical Ethics and often lectures about it at conferences.
Dr. Levin said, “When medical errors are made, to me, it is ethically sound to identify them and ‘fess up.’ There has always been reluctance to do so because of fears of lawsuits, but it turns out that when institutions do disclose errors, their liability costs actually go down.” Dr. Levin cited the University of Michigan, which tried a full disclosure policy as an experiment. “It led to reduced costs, not to mention a boost in patient satisfaction,” Dr. Levin noted.
He continued, “I think patients want and deserve to know the truth. I also believe they understand that medical errors can and will happen. It is my observation that patients have several key concerns: 1) how the error(s) happened, 2) how the error affected their health and what can be done to restore them to optimal health, and 3) what the institution is going to do to prevent this kind of error from happening to others.”
Dr. Rapoport concurs with Dr. Levin. “I am glad Dr. Horowitz has fully recovered and at least he has learned from the experience. I do not think the hospital and doctors did,” Dr. Rapoport said.
This article was updated 11/12/20.
When Steven Horowitz, MD, began experiencing neck and arm pain, numbness, and tingling following a bike ride several years ago, he immediately sought care at an elite medical center in California. As he recalls, an incompetent clinical exam and no access to highly abnormal test results done in the ED almost cost him his health. Had he listened to the doctors at that facility, he believes he would have become quadriplegic.
His training as a neurologist likely saved his life: “I was able to recover because, after arriving home, I reviewed my blood work and MRI online and recognized multiple problems.” He was able to get excellent care at his own local health care facility in Maine. The staff and leadership at the hospital in California wouldn’t admit wrongdoing, and efforts to seek recourse have proved fruitless, he said.
A lingering question nags at him: What if he had been an ordinary patient without medical expertise? What do his experiences say about the health care system’s management of medical omissions and errors?
Dr. Horowitz, 78 years old and retired, continues to teach medical students as an adjunct clinical professor of neurology at the Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. He is also on the teaching faculty of the Maine Medical Center. He was professor and chief of neurology at a major university in the Midwest for many years.
In 2018, he visited his daughter on the West Coast, enjoying a day of biking. The neck pain began 5 or 6 hours after the ride and spread to his arms. “There was also numbness and tingling,” he said.
“I told them I was a neurologist”
The next day the pain got worse. Dr. Horowitz went to the ED of a nearby medical center with his daughter and immediately disclosed that he was a neurologist. “I did this for several reasons,” he explained. He wanted to alert staff that he had a cervical spine problem because “I wanted them to do a cervical MRI scan, and I wanted to read it because I’m capable of doing that.” He also related a past history of infection and antibiotic use and asked for C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate tests in addition to regular blood work. “Those inflammatory markers, if abnormal, would indicate an infection,” said Dr. Horowitz.
No reflex hammer or Babinski test
During the reflex exam with a spine consultant, Dr. Horowitz noticed that the consultant wasn’t using a reflex hammer, the clinical equivalent of evaluating the heart or lungs without a stethoscope. “I asked where the reflex hammer was, and he said he didn’t need one or own one. He used the inside of his hand. Apparently, there was some mild weakness in some muscle groups, but he didn’t address that,” said Dr. Horowitz. The consultant also didn’t test for the Babinski sign until reminded of it.
He took out a stethoscope and struck the middle of the soles of Dr. Horowitz’s feet. “I thought to myself, this consultant is the consultant for the spine service? How is it possible that he has a stethoscope and not a reflex hammer and didn’t know how to test for the Babinski sign?” The consultant also didn’t examine for gait, coordination, or hand dexterity. “He took his finger and touched my feet and legs. That was his sensory exam. He didn’t use a pin or a tuning fork” or other methods including touch, temperature, position sense, and vibration to assess sensory abnormalities that might signal spinal cord dysfunction.
An MRI at the hospital revealed a mass at the back of the neck. No contrast material was used during the MRI even though this step would have signaled the presence of infection. “Gadolinium should have been injected during the MRI because that would have strongly suggested that this mass in my neck was not a little blood clot and more likely an infection. They would have realized something more complicated than degenerative arthritis was going on. They told me that I had advanced spondylosis and that the mass was a hematoma. They told me not to worry about the blood results. Then they discharged me.”
A life-threatening discovery
Dr. Horowitz didn’t see the results of the blood work-up until returning to Maine a few days later, when he checked the online report. There was a highly elevated CRP level – 30 times above the normal limit – and elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate and white blood cell counts. “This showed that there was an infective process going on. And it wasn’t just a localized process, it was in my bloodstream,” he said.
Alarmed by the elevated markers, he immediately went to his local hospital. “Not only did I have arthritis, but my spinal cord was compressed.” Urgent surgery was performed, including a C2-7 fusion. The mass in the back of his neck turned out to be an abscess.
His training and experience as a physician/neurologist saved him from further damage, he said. “Because the compression of the spine was at the C2, C3, C4 level, not only would I have become quadriplegic, but my diaphragm would likely have been paralyzed and I would have needed a ventilator.”
Following a month’s care in the hospital and a rehabilitation center, he wrote to the CEO of the California hospital where he received his initial care.
“I wrote about the incompetent exam, the missed infection, a discharge without information. I wrote all that out to the CEO and sent the letter registered so that he would receive it.” The CEO forwarded the letter to a patient risk manager, who interviewed staff and supervisors in the ED, radiology, and the spine program. They responded 3 months later. According to Dr. Horowitz, the spine supervisor said, “The consultant performed the exam to the best of his ability.” No one admitted to any errors in care or the lack of recognition of the infection, although the neuroradiologist did apologize for not allowing Dr. Horowitz to read his own MRI in a timely manner.
“They had promised to wheel a portable computer into my alcove so I could view the MRI.” Several hours later, after persistent complaints, he was given 1 minute to look over at least 300 images at a desktop computer in the crowded ED. They gave him the MRI images on a disk, but he wasn’t able to read it on his iMac computer.
According to Dr. Horowitz, the ED should have called in an infectious disease consultant and a neurologist or neurosurgeon to do a more complete neurologic exam. “Instead of discharging me, they should have admitted me, telling me that I had spinal cord compression, an infection, and a mass in my neck—that they don’t know what this is about, and I shouldn’t go home.”
Eventually, after long-term intravenous antibiotics and extensive physical therapy, Dr. Horowitz recovered. “I definitely had PTSD afterwards. How could a non-eventful bike ride result in an unrecognized threatening illness? I thought a healing opportunity for me and an educational opportunity for the medical staff and students at this medical center would be for me to present my case to them at a conference at their facility the next time I visited my daughter in California. I thought an experienced clinician discussing his own illness in his own specialty would be unique.”
The hospital ignored his offer.
By happenstance, a year and a half later, Dr. Horowitz made contact with a hospital administrator after hearing her speak during a TED Radio Hour in his car. “We had several telephone conversations and email correspondences in October and November 2019 but none since,” he said. In one email, she wrote that “hospitals don’t seem to know what to do with the opportunity you present. I don’t think the challenge is unique to [this institution]. A forum for these kinds of discussions – constructive, insightful patient feedback – does not exist.”
Dr. Horowitz hasn’t considered a malpractice lawsuit. “The only result would be a monetary reward based on damages. Since permanent clinical damage did not occur, the suit would have been time consuming and the reward limited. I was able to recover because I was able to review the blood work and recognize my own problem and get excellent care at my own local health care facility. I was really hoping the doctors at the California hospital would learn from this episode.”
Dr. Horowitz also wrote the Medical Board of California a detailed letter, citing relevant medical literature, guidelines on spinal care, and his test results. Nearly 2 years later, he finally got a response. The board said there was no “clear and convincing evidence that negligence took place.” In Dr. Horowitz’s opinion, “the fact that CRP was 30 times past normal is ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ That the consultant didn’t have a reflex hammer is also ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ That the clinical neurologic exam was incompetent, by any measure, is ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ Even the Medical Board, tasked with patient protection, didn’t recognize negligent medical care. They might have if I had become quadriplegic.”
A new normal?
Dr. Horowitz, who wrote of his experience in The Washington Post, said it reflects a persistent, systemic problem in health care: the inability to address medical errors and correct them. In the article, he addressed a phenomenon called the “the normalization of deviance.” Diane Vaughn wrote about this phenomenon in a 1997 book about the Space Shuttle disaster. Multiple flaws were noted in previous shuttle launches but then rationalized and “normalized” when they didn’t cause a disaster – until they ultimately did.
“That’s relevant to my situation,” Dr. Horowitz said. “The spine supervisor at this hospital excused the consultant by saying, ‘he did the exam to the best of his ability.’ Further, the response to my complaints came from hospital representatives rather than physicians, meaning that the ‘normalization’ was institutional, and it was willing to accept his poor performance without sanctions.”
He imagines that he could not be the only case handled poorly by this hospital or that particular consultant. “He could have done the same thing to another patient who didn’t have my medical knowledge,” added Dr. Horowitz.
In her book, Ms. Vaughan noted that whistleblower activity is sometimes the only device that reveals normalization of deviance.
Dr. Horowitz sees himself as a whistleblower for these types of mistakes. “The question is, how do we deal with medical errors even in sophisticated patients who see these errors, and how do you manage this in the average patient? I don’t want to see this type of medical care rendered for any patient, hence my attempt to make this situation public.”
A teachable moment lost?
Commenting on this case, Alan Rapoport, MD, said, “[it]illustrates inadequate physician evaluation in the ED, poor communication from the examining doctor about abnormal lab and MRI findings, unwillingness to call in consultants to properly evaluate the situation, and no recognition of the need to admit the patient.”
Dr. Rapoport is the editor in chief of Neurology Reviews and a clinical professor of neurology at UCLA in Los Angeles. He is a past president of the International Headache Society.
He noted that the patient is in his late 70s and needed to fly across the country to arrive at home. “Months later, when this situation was explained to the hospital via the mail, they totally failed to recognize their inadequacies and apologize for their mistakes. They were probably concerned about being sued, but I believe that their actions increased their chances of a lawsuit,” Dr. Rapoport said.
“When a teaching remedy was offered by the patient to the hospital so the doctors involved could learn from the experience, the hospital was not interested. The only party that learned from this unfortunate episode was the patient, not the doctors, or the ER, or the hospital administration,” Dr. Rapoport said.
He continued, “It is scary to think that an excellent hospital would act in this manner and refuse to learn from their mistakes. The California medical board was notified and did not investigate. It is not too late for the hospital to apologize, communicate their shortcomings, and fix the problem at multiple levels in the hospital.”
Dr. Rapoport consulted Morris Levin, MD, a professor of neurology and director of the Headache Program at UCSF, to ask what he thought, theoretically, about how a hospital should respond when they make a mistake and how much they should divulge. Dr. Levin is involved in Medical Ethics and often lectures about it at conferences.
Dr. Levin said, “When medical errors are made, to me, it is ethically sound to identify them and ‘fess up.’ There has always been reluctance to do so because of fears of lawsuits, but it turns out that when institutions do disclose errors, their liability costs actually go down.” Dr. Levin cited the University of Michigan, which tried a full disclosure policy as an experiment. “It led to reduced costs, not to mention a boost in patient satisfaction,” Dr. Levin noted.
He continued, “I think patients want and deserve to know the truth. I also believe they understand that medical errors can and will happen. It is my observation that patients have several key concerns: 1) how the error(s) happened, 2) how the error affected their health and what can be done to restore them to optimal health, and 3) what the institution is going to do to prevent this kind of error from happening to others.”
Dr. Rapoport concurs with Dr. Levin. “I am glad Dr. Horowitz has fully recovered and at least he has learned from the experience. I do not think the hospital and doctors did,” Dr. Rapoport said.
This article was updated 11/12/20.
When Steven Horowitz, MD, began experiencing neck and arm pain, numbness, and tingling following a bike ride several years ago, he immediately sought care at an elite medical center in California. As he recalls, an incompetent clinical exam and no access to highly abnormal test results done in the ED almost cost him his health. Had he listened to the doctors at that facility, he believes he would have become quadriplegic.
His training as a neurologist likely saved his life: “I was able to recover because, after arriving home, I reviewed my blood work and MRI online and recognized multiple problems.” He was able to get excellent care at his own local health care facility in Maine. The staff and leadership at the hospital in California wouldn’t admit wrongdoing, and efforts to seek recourse have proved fruitless, he said.
A lingering question nags at him: What if he had been an ordinary patient without medical expertise? What do his experiences say about the health care system’s management of medical omissions and errors?
Dr. Horowitz, 78 years old and retired, continues to teach medical students as an adjunct clinical professor of neurology at the Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. He is also on the teaching faculty of the Maine Medical Center. He was professor and chief of neurology at a major university in the Midwest for many years.
In 2018, he visited his daughter on the West Coast, enjoying a day of biking. The neck pain began 5 or 6 hours after the ride and spread to his arms. “There was also numbness and tingling,” he said.
“I told them I was a neurologist”
The next day the pain got worse. Dr. Horowitz went to the ED of a nearby medical center with his daughter and immediately disclosed that he was a neurologist. “I did this for several reasons,” he explained. He wanted to alert staff that he had a cervical spine problem because “I wanted them to do a cervical MRI scan, and I wanted to read it because I’m capable of doing that.” He also related a past history of infection and antibiotic use and asked for C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate tests in addition to regular blood work. “Those inflammatory markers, if abnormal, would indicate an infection,” said Dr. Horowitz.
No reflex hammer or Babinski test
During the reflex exam with a spine consultant, Dr. Horowitz noticed that the consultant wasn’t using a reflex hammer, the clinical equivalent of evaluating the heart or lungs without a stethoscope. “I asked where the reflex hammer was, and he said he didn’t need one or own one. He used the inside of his hand. Apparently, there was some mild weakness in some muscle groups, but he didn’t address that,” said Dr. Horowitz. The consultant also didn’t test for the Babinski sign until reminded of it.
He took out a stethoscope and struck the middle of the soles of Dr. Horowitz’s feet. “I thought to myself, this consultant is the consultant for the spine service? How is it possible that he has a stethoscope and not a reflex hammer and didn’t know how to test for the Babinski sign?” The consultant also didn’t examine for gait, coordination, or hand dexterity. “He took his finger and touched my feet and legs. That was his sensory exam. He didn’t use a pin or a tuning fork” or other methods including touch, temperature, position sense, and vibration to assess sensory abnormalities that might signal spinal cord dysfunction.
An MRI at the hospital revealed a mass at the back of the neck. No contrast material was used during the MRI even though this step would have signaled the presence of infection. “Gadolinium should have been injected during the MRI because that would have strongly suggested that this mass in my neck was not a little blood clot and more likely an infection. They would have realized something more complicated than degenerative arthritis was going on. They told me that I had advanced spondylosis and that the mass was a hematoma. They told me not to worry about the blood results. Then they discharged me.”
A life-threatening discovery
Dr. Horowitz didn’t see the results of the blood work-up until returning to Maine a few days later, when he checked the online report. There was a highly elevated CRP level – 30 times above the normal limit – and elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate and white blood cell counts. “This showed that there was an infective process going on. And it wasn’t just a localized process, it was in my bloodstream,” he said.
Alarmed by the elevated markers, he immediately went to his local hospital. “Not only did I have arthritis, but my spinal cord was compressed.” Urgent surgery was performed, including a C2-7 fusion. The mass in the back of his neck turned out to be an abscess.
His training and experience as a physician/neurologist saved him from further damage, he said. “Because the compression of the spine was at the C2, C3, C4 level, not only would I have become quadriplegic, but my diaphragm would likely have been paralyzed and I would have needed a ventilator.”
Following a month’s care in the hospital and a rehabilitation center, he wrote to the CEO of the California hospital where he received his initial care.
“I wrote about the incompetent exam, the missed infection, a discharge without information. I wrote all that out to the CEO and sent the letter registered so that he would receive it.” The CEO forwarded the letter to a patient risk manager, who interviewed staff and supervisors in the ED, radiology, and the spine program. They responded 3 months later. According to Dr. Horowitz, the spine supervisor said, “The consultant performed the exam to the best of his ability.” No one admitted to any errors in care or the lack of recognition of the infection, although the neuroradiologist did apologize for not allowing Dr. Horowitz to read his own MRI in a timely manner.
“They had promised to wheel a portable computer into my alcove so I could view the MRI.” Several hours later, after persistent complaints, he was given 1 minute to look over at least 300 images at a desktop computer in the crowded ED. They gave him the MRI images on a disk, but he wasn’t able to read it on his iMac computer.
According to Dr. Horowitz, the ED should have called in an infectious disease consultant and a neurologist or neurosurgeon to do a more complete neurologic exam. “Instead of discharging me, they should have admitted me, telling me that I had spinal cord compression, an infection, and a mass in my neck—that they don’t know what this is about, and I shouldn’t go home.”
Eventually, after long-term intravenous antibiotics and extensive physical therapy, Dr. Horowitz recovered. “I definitely had PTSD afterwards. How could a non-eventful bike ride result in an unrecognized threatening illness? I thought a healing opportunity for me and an educational opportunity for the medical staff and students at this medical center would be for me to present my case to them at a conference at their facility the next time I visited my daughter in California. I thought an experienced clinician discussing his own illness in his own specialty would be unique.”
The hospital ignored his offer.
By happenstance, a year and a half later, Dr. Horowitz made contact with a hospital administrator after hearing her speak during a TED Radio Hour in his car. “We had several telephone conversations and email correspondences in October and November 2019 but none since,” he said. In one email, she wrote that “hospitals don’t seem to know what to do with the opportunity you present. I don’t think the challenge is unique to [this institution]. A forum for these kinds of discussions – constructive, insightful patient feedback – does not exist.”
Dr. Horowitz hasn’t considered a malpractice lawsuit. “The only result would be a monetary reward based on damages. Since permanent clinical damage did not occur, the suit would have been time consuming and the reward limited. I was able to recover because I was able to review the blood work and recognize my own problem and get excellent care at my own local health care facility. I was really hoping the doctors at the California hospital would learn from this episode.”
Dr. Horowitz also wrote the Medical Board of California a detailed letter, citing relevant medical literature, guidelines on spinal care, and his test results. Nearly 2 years later, he finally got a response. The board said there was no “clear and convincing evidence that negligence took place.” In Dr. Horowitz’s opinion, “the fact that CRP was 30 times past normal is ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ That the consultant didn’t have a reflex hammer is also ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ That the clinical neurologic exam was incompetent, by any measure, is ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ Even the Medical Board, tasked with patient protection, didn’t recognize negligent medical care. They might have if I had become quadriplegic.”
A new normal?
Dr. Horowitz, who wrote of his experience in The Washington Post, said it reflects a persistent, systemic problem in health care: the inability to address medical errors and correct them. In the article, he addressed a phenomenon called the “the normalization of deviance.” Diane Vaughn wrote about this phenomenon in a 1997 book about the Space Shuttle disaster. Multiple flaws were noted in previous shuttle launches but then rationalized and “normalized” when they didn’t cause a disaster – until they ultimately did.
“That’s relevant to my situation,” Dr. Horowitz said. “The spine supervisor at this hospital excused the consultant by saying, ‘he did the exam to the best of his ability.’ Further, the response to my complaints came from hospital representatives rather than physicians, meaning that the ‘normalization’ was institutional, and it was willing to accept his poor performance without sanctions.”
He imagines that he could not be the only case handled poorly by this hospital or that particular consultant. “He could have done the same thing to another patient who didn’t have my medical knowledge,” added Dr. Horowitz.
In her book, Ms. Vaughan noted that whistleblower activity is sometimes the only device that reveals normalization of deviance.
Dr. Horowitz sees himself as a whistleblower for these types of mistakes. “The question is, how do we deal with medical errors even in sophisticated patients who see these errors, and how do you manage this in the average patient? I don’t want to see this type of medical care rendered for any patient, hence my attempt to make this situation public.”
A teachable moment lost?
Commenting on this case, Alan Rapoport, MD, said, “[it]illustrates inadequate physician evaluation in the ED, poor communication from the examining doctor about abnormal lab and MRI findings, unwillingness to call in consultants to properly evaluate the situation, and no recognition of the need to admit the patient.”
Dr. Rapoport is the editor in chief of Neurology Reviews and a clinical professor of neurology at UCLA in Los Angeles. He is a past president of the International Headache Society.
He noted that the patient is in his late 70s and needed to fly across the country to arrive at home. “Months later, when this situation was explained to the hospital via the mail, they totally failed to recognize their inadequacies and apologize for their mistakes. They were probably concerned about being sued, but I believe that their actions increased their chances of a lawsuit,” Dr. Rapoport said.
“When a teaching remedy was offered by the patient to the hospital so the doctors involved could learn from the experience, the hospital was not interested. The only party that learned from this unfortunate episode was the patient, not the doctors, or the ER, or the hospital administration,” Dr. Rapoport said.
He continued, “It is scary to think that an excellent hospital would act in this manner and refuse to learn from their mistakes. The California medical board was notified and did not investigate. It is not too late for the hospital to apologize, communicate their shortcomings, and fix the problem at multiple levels in the hospital.”
Dr. Rapoport consulted Morris Levin, MD, a professor of neurology and director of the Headache Program at UCSF, to ask what he thought, theoretically, about how a hospital should respond when they make a mistake and how much they should divulge. Dr. Levin is involved in Medical Ethics and often lectures about it at conferences.
Dr. Levin said, “When medical errors are made, to me, it is ethically sound to identify them and ‘fess up.’ There has always been reluctance to do so because of fears of lawsuits, but it turns out that when institutions do disclose errors, their liability costs actually go down.” Dr. Levin cited the University of Michigan, which tried a full disclosure policy as an experiment. “It led to reduced costs, not to mention a boost in patient satisfaction,” Dr. Levin noted.
He continued, “I think patients want and deserve to know the truth. I also believe they understand that medical errors can and will happen. It is my observation that patients have several key concerns: 1) how the error(s) happened, 2) how the error affected their health and what can be done to restore them to optimal health, and 3) what the institution is going to do to prevent this kind of error from happening to others.”
Dr. Rapoport concurs with Dr. Levin. “I am glad Dr. Horowitz has fully recovered and at least he has learned from the experience. I do not think the hospital and doctors did,” Dr. Rapoport said.
This article was updated 11/12/20.
Review finds mortality rates low in young pregnant women with SJS, TEN
Investigators who but higher rates of C-sections.
The systematic review found that early diagnosis and withdrawal of the causative medications, such as antiretrovirals, were beneficial.
While SJS and TEN have been reported in pregnant women, “the outcomes and treatment of these cases are poorly characterized in the literature,” noted Ajay N. Sharma, a medical student at the University of California, Irvine, and coauthors, who published their findings in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.
“Immune changes that occur during pregnancy create a relative state of immunosuppression, likely increasing the risk of these skin reactions,” Mr. Sharma said in an interview. Allopurinol, antiepileptic drugs, antibacterial sulfonamides, nevirapine, and oxicam NSAIDs are agents most often associated with SJS/TEN.
He and his coauthors conducted a systematic literature review to analyze the risk factors, outcomes, and treatment of SJS and TEN in pregnant patients and their newborns using PubMed and Cochrane data from September 2019. The review included 26 articles covering 177 pregnant patients with SJS or TEN. Affected women were fairly young, averaging 29.9 years of age and more than 24 weeks along in their pregnancy when they experienced a reaction.
The majority of cases (81.9%) involved SJS diagnoses. Investigators identified antiretroviral therapy (90% of all cases), antibiotics (3%), and gestational drugs (2%) as the most common causative agents. “Multiple large cohort studies included in our review specifically assessed outcomes in only pregnant patients with HIV, resulting in an overall distribution of offending medications biased toward antiretroviral therapy,” noted Mr. Sharma. Nevirapine, a staple antiretroviral in developing countries (the site of most studies in the review), emerged as the biggest causal agent linked to 75 cases; 1 case was linked to the antiretroviral drug efavirenz.
Approximately 85% of pregnant women in this review had HIV. However, the young patient population studied had few comorbidities and low transmission rates to the fetus. In the 94 cases where outcomes data were available, 98% of the mothers and 96% of the newborns survived. Two pregnant patients in this cohort died, one from septic shock secondary to a TEN superinfection, and the other from intracranial hemorrhage secondary to metastatic melanoma. Of the 94 fetuses, 4 died: 2 of sepsis after birth, 1 in utero with its mother, and there was 1 stillbirth.
“Withdrawal of the offending drug was enacted in every recorded case of SJS or TEN during pregnancy. This single intervention was adequate in 159 patients; no additional therapy was needed in these cases aside from standard wound care, fluid and electrolyte repletion, and pain control,” wrote the investigators. Clinicians administered antibiotics, fluid resuscitation, steroids, and intravenous immunoglobulin in patients needing further assistance.
The investigators also reported high rates of C-section – almost 50% – in this group of pregnant women.
Inconsistent reporting between studies limited results, Mr. Sharma and colleagues noted. “Not every report specified body surface area involvement, treatment regimen, maternal or fetal outcome, or delivery method. Although additional studies in the form of large-scale, randomized, clinical trials are needed to better delineate treatment, this systematic review provides a framework for managing this population.”
The study authors reported no conflicts of interest and no funding for the study.
SOURCE: Sharma AN et al. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020 Apr 13;6(4):239-47.
Investigators who but higher rates of C-sections.
The systematic review found that early diagnosis and withdrawal of the causative medications, such as antiretrovirals, were beneficial.
While SJS and TEN have been reported in pregnant women, “the outcomes and treatment of these cases are poorly characterized in the literature,” noted Ajay N. Sharma, a medical student at the University of California, Irvine, and coauthors, who published their findings in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.
“Immune changes that occur during pregnancy create a relative state of immunosuppression, likely increasing the risk of these skin reactions,” Mr. Sharma said in an interview. Allopurinol, antiepileptic drugs, antibacterial sulfonamides, nevirapine, and oxicam NSAIDs are agents most often associated with SJS/TEN.
He and his coauthors conducted a systematic literature review to analyze the risk factors, outcomes, and treatment of SJS and TEN in pregnant patients and their newborns using PubMed and Cochrane data from September 2019. The review included 26 articles covering 177 pregnant patients with SJS or TEN. Affected women were fairly young, averaging 29.9 years of age and more than 24 weeks along in their pregnancy when they experienced a reaction.
The majority of cases (81.9%) involved SJS diagnoses. Investigators identified antiretroviral therapy (90% of all cases), antibiotics (3%), and gestational drugs (2%) as the most common causative agents. “Multiple large cohort studies included in our review specifically assessed outcomes in only pregnant patients with HIV, resulting in an overall distribution of offending medications biased toward antiretroviral therapy,” noted Mr. Sharma. Nevirapine, a staple antiretroviral in developing countries (the site of most studies in the review), emerged as the biggest causal agent linked to 75 cases; 1 case was linked to the antiretroviral drug efavirenz.
Approximately 85% of pregnant women in this review had HIV. However, the young patient population studied had few comorbidities and low transmission rates to the fetus. In the 94 cases where outcomes data were available, 98% of the mothers and 96% of the newborns survived. Two pregnant patients in this cohort died, one from septic shock secondary to a TEN superinfection, and the other from intracranial hemorrhage secondary to metastatic melanoma. Of the 94 fetuses, 4 died: 2 of sepsis after birth, 1 in utero with its mother, and there was 1 stillbirth.
“Withdrawal of the offending drug was enacted in every recorded case of SJS or TEN during pregnancy. This single intervention was adequate in 159 patients; no additional therapy was needed in these cases aside from standard wound care, fluid and electrolyte repletion, and pain control,” wrote the investigators. Clinicians administered antibiotics, fluid resuscitation, steroids, and intravenous immunoglobulin in patients needing further assistance.
The investigators also reported high rates of C-section – almost 50% – in this group of pregnant women.
Inconsistent reporting between studies limited results, Mr. Sharma and colleagues noted. “Not every report specified body surface area involvement, treatment regimen, maternal or fetal outcome, or delivery method. Although additional studies in the form of large-scale, randomized, clinical trials are needed to better delineate treatment, this systematic review provides a framework for managing this population.”
The study authors reported no conflicts of interest and no funding for the study.
SOURCE: Sharma AN et al. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020 Apr 13;6(4):239-47.
Investigators who but higher rates of C-sections.
The systematic review found that early diagnosis and withdrawal of the causative medications, such as antiretrovirals, were beneficial.
While SJS and TEN have been reported in pregnant women, “the outcomes and treatment of these cases are poorly characterized in the literature,” noted Ajay N. Sharma, a medical student at the University of California, Irvine, and coauthors, who published their findings in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.
“Immune changes that occur during pregnancy create a relative state of immunosuppression, likely increasing the risk of these skin reactions,” Mr. Sharma said in an interview. Allopurinol, antiepileptic drugs, antibacterial sulfonamides, nevirapine, and oxicam NSAIDs are agents most often associated with SJS/TEN.
He and his coauthors conducted a systematic literature review to analyze the risk factors, outcomes, and treatment of SJS and TEN in pregnant patients and their newborns using PubMed and Cochrane data from September 2019. The review included 26 articles covering 177 pregnant patients with SJS or TEN. Affected women were fairly young, averaging 29.9 years of age and more than 24 weeks along in their pregnancy when they experienced a reaction.
The majority of cases (81.9%) involved SJS diagnoses. Investigators identified antiretroviral therapy (90% of all cases), antibiotics (3%), and gestational drugs (2%) as the most common causative agents. “Multiple large cohort studies included in our review specifically assessed outcomes in only pregnant patients with HIV, resulting in an overall distribution of offending medications biased toward antiretroviral therapy,” noted Mr. Sharma. Nevirapine, a staple antiretroviral in developing countries (the site of most studies in the review), emerged as the biggest causal agent linked to 75 cases; 1 case was linked to the antiretroviral drug efavirenz.
Approximately 85% of pregnant women in this review had HIV. However, the young patient population studied had few comorbidities and low transmission rates to the fetus. In the 94 cases where outcomes data were available, 98% of the mothers and 96% of the newborns survived. Two pregnant patients in this cohort died, one from septic shock secondary to a TEN superinfection, and the other from intracranial hemorrhage secondary to metastatic melanoma. Of the 94 fetuses, 4 died: 2 of sepsis after birth, 1 in utero with its mother, and there was 1 stillbirth.
“Withdrawal of the offending drug was enacted in every recorded case of SJS or TEN during pregnancy. This single intervention was adequate in 159 patients; no additional therapy was needed in these cases aside from standard wound care, fluid and electrolyte repletion, and pain control,” wrote the investigators. Clinicians administered antibiotics, fluid resuscitation, steroids, and intravenous immunoglobulin in patients needing further assistance.
The investigators also reported high rates of C-section – almost 50% – in this group of pregnant women.
Inconsistent reporting between studies limited results, Mr. Sharma and colleagues noted. “Not every report specified body surface area involvement, treatment regimen, maternal or fetal outcome, or delivery method. Although additional studies in the form of large-scale, randomized, clinical trials are needed to better delineate treatment, this systematic review provides a framework for managing this population.”
The study authors reported no conflicts of interest and no funding for the study.
SOURCE: Sharma AN et al. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020 Apr 13;6(4):239-47.
FROM THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WOMEN’S DERMATOLOGY
Global stomach cancer deaths decline as colorectal cancer deaths stagnate, rise
The data suggest fewer people are dying from stomach cancer, but in some countries, the risk of colorectal cancer death is increasing or declining much more slowly than other causes of premature death.
As for other cancers, in more than half of the countries analyzed, the risk of liver and prostate cancer death is on the rise in men, and the risk of lung cancer death is on the rise in women.
The global decrease in the risk of stomach cancer death may be explained by the fact that stomach cancer’s main cause is Helicobacter pylori infection, which correlates with general food hygiene, the study’s corresponding author Majid Ezzati, PhD, professor of global environmental health at Imperial College London, said in an interview.
“Factors such as more widespread electrification and refrigeration tend to drive the rates down,” he explained.
Dr. Ezzati and colleagues detailed their findings in the second edition of the NCD Countdown 2030 report, recently published in The Lancet.
The report revolves around the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 3.4, which is to reduce premature deaths from NCDs by one-third between 2015 and 2030. The causes of death include cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, and diabetes, which are collectively known as NCD4. “Premature” deaths are defined as deaths in people aged 30-70 years.
SDG target 3.4 is still attainable, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. However, their report showed that many countries are falling short of this goal.
The findings come from an analysis of 2016 World Health Organization global estimate data on age-, sex-, and cause-specific mortality for 176 countries and territories with at least 200,000 inhabitants. Mathematical modeling was used to assess the number of approaches countries used to accelerate declines in mortality.
Results of the analysis
“Trends in the risk of death from 2010 to 2016 varied considerably among NCD4 causes of death,” Dr. Ezzati and colleagues wrote.
Stomach cancer, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic heart disease, and chronic respiratory diseases had the fastest rates of decline among risks of premature death.
In fact, stomach cancer was the fastest declining cause of death in 45 countries (25.6%) among men and in 40 countries (22.7%) among women.
On the other hand, the risk of premature death from colorectal, liver, breast, prostate, and other cancers declined more slowly than the risk of premature death from other NCDs.
The risk of death from colorectal, liver, and prostate cancers in men and lung cancer in women rose in more than 50% of the countries surveyed.
“The median annual rate of change in the probability of dying prematurely from various causes ranged from +0.2% per year for lung cancer to –2.5% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in women, and from +0.5% per year for colorectal cancer to –1.8% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in men,” the investigators summarized.
Explaining the GI cancer results
“There are dramatic differences between the upper and lower GI tract, both in terms of anatomy/embryologic origin but also in terms of exposures,” observed Mark Lewis, MD, medical director of the gastrointestinal oncology program at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, in an interview.
H. pylori infection, family history, and diet factor into stomach cancer risk, Dr. Lewis said.
While family history isn’t modifiable, “we are much better now at identifying and eradicating the potentially carcinogenic H. pylori bacterium. In terms of diet, the advent of modern refrigeration has made the prevalence of heavily salted/preserved foods decline,” he added.
A 14-day course of treatment (with a proton pump inhibitor and antibiotics) can eliminate H. pylori, Dr. Lewis continued. “The prophylactic effect against gastric cancer is massive, cutting risk by roughly half,” he said.
At least in the United States, colorectal cancer rates have declined in people 50 years and older, but rates have risen sharply in younger age groups, increasing by 2% annually in the last decade, according to statistics in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.
“One prevailing theory is prior antibiotic prescriptions [even in childhood] might perturb the microbiome of the lower GI tract and predispose to cancer,” Dr. Lewis said, pointing to a recent study in the British Journal of Cancer that identified an association between repeated antibiotic use and colorectal cancer.
Reducing NCD deaths
Dr. Ezzati and colleagues said six high-income countries – Denmark, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, and South Korea – are likely to meet SDG target 3.4 if they maintain or exceed average rates of decline seen during 2010-2016. Seventeen countries are on track to reach the target for women, and 15 countries are on track for men.
High-income countries in Asia-Pacific, western Europe, Australasia, and Canada have seen the lowest NCD4 mortality risk, whereas low- and middle-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and men in central Asia and eastern Europe have seen the highest risk.
“To move forward, we must learn from those countries that are doing well and replicate their strategies to NCD prevention and healthcare,” Dr. Ezzati said in a statement. “Our analysis shows that every country still has options to achieve SDG target 3.4, but they need to address multiple diseases and have strong health systems.”
Increasing access to effective cancer screening and diagnosing and treating cancers earlier could help reduce long-term health consequences and premature deaths from cancer, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. Screening would help even the playing field on cancer diagnosis and survival rates between higher-income countries and low- and middle-income countries.
“This approach will allow earlier diagnosis during precancerous or early stages of disease, followed by treatment of those cancers with effective treatment,” the authors stated.
Tobacco and alcohol interventions and increasing access to quality primary care would also help tamp down on NCD-related deaths.
The authors acknowledged that low-income countries, which may be struggling with other health crises such as COVID-19 and Ebola, may find it a challenge to stage such interventions.
“COVID-19 has exposed how a failure to invest in effective public health to prevent NCDs and provide health care for people living with NCDs can come back to bite us,” said Katie Dain, CEO of the NCD Alliance.
“The good news is that all countries can still meet the 2030 targets, with sound policies and smart investments. NCD prevention and treatment can no longer be seen a ‘nice to have.’ It must be considered as part of pandemic preparedness,” she added.
COVID-19 should serve as an impetus for governments to invest in healthier lifestyle and diet habits and curb alcohol and tobacco use, according to an editorial in The Lancet related to the analysis.
The current report updates 2018’s first NCD Countdown Report, which linked NCD4 conditions to approximately 32 million or 80% of NCD deaths. Unlike the recent report, 2018’s data didn’t focus on specific diseases.
The current report was funded by Research England. Dr. Ezzati received a charitable grant from the AstraZeneca Young Health Programme and personal fees from Prudential and Scor, outside of this report. None of the other authors reported competing interests. Dr. Lewis has no relevant disclosures except that he is a commentator for Medscape, which is owned by the same parent company as MDedge.
SOURCE: Bennett JE et al. Lancet. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31761-X.
The data suggest fewer people are dying from stomach cancer, but in some countries, the risk of colorectal cancer death is increasing or declining much more slowly than other causes of premature death.
As for other cancers, in more than half of the countries analyzed, the risk of liver and prostate cancer death is on the rise in men, and the risk of lung cancer death is on the rise in women.
The global decrease in the risk of stomach cancer death may be explained by the fact that stomach cancer’s main cause is Helicobacter pylori infection, which correlates with general food hygiene, the study’s corresponding author Majid Ezzati, PhD, professor of global environmental health at Imperial College London, said in an interview.
“Factors such as more widespread electrification and refrigeration tend to drive the rates down,” he explained.
Dr. Ezzati and colleagues detailed their findings in the second edition of the NCD Countdown 2030 report, recently published in The Lancet.
The report revolves around the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 3.4, which is to reduce premature deaths from NCDs by one-third between 2015 and 2030. The causes of death include cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, and diabetes, which are collectively known as NCD4. “Premature” deaths are defined as deaths in people aged 30-70 years.
SDG target 3.4 is still attainable, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. However, their report showed that many countries are falling short of this goal.
The findings come from an analysis of 2016 World Health Organization global estimate data on age-, sex-, and cause-specific mortality for 176 countries and territories with at least 200,000 inhabitants. Mathematical modeling was used to assess the number of approaches countries used to accelerate declines in mortality.
Results of the analysis
“Trends in the risk of death from 2010 to 2016 varied considerably among NCD4 causes of death,” Dr. Ezzati and colleagues wrote.
Stomach cancer, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic heart disease, and chronic respiratory diseases had the fastest rates of decline among risks of premature death.
In fact, stomach cancer was the fastest declining cause of death in 45 countries (25.6%) among men and in 40 countries (22.7%) among women.
On the other hand, the risk of premature death from colorectal, liver, breast, prostate, and other cancers declined more slowly than the risk of premature death from other NCDs.
The risk of death from colorectal, liver, and prostate cancers in men and lung cancer in women rose in more than 50% of the countries surveyed.
“The median annual rate of change in the probability of dying prematurely from various causes ranged from +0.2% per year for lung cancer to –2.5% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in women, and from +0.5% per year for colorectal cancer to –1.8% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in men,” the investigators summarized.
Explaining the GI cancer results
“There are dramatic differences between the upper and lower GI tract, both in terms of anatomy/embryologic origin but also in terms of exposures,” observed Mark Lewis, MD, medical director of the gastrointestinal oncology program at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, in an interview.
H. pylori infection, family history, and diet factor into stomach cancer risk, Dr. Lewis said.
While family history isn’t modifiable, “we are much better now at identifying and eradicating the potentially carcinogenic H. pylori bacterium. In terms of diet, the advent of modern refrigeration has made the prevalence of heavily salted/preserved foods decline,” he added.
A 14-day course of treatment (with a proton pump inhibitor and antibiotics) can eliminate H. pylori, Dr. Lewis continued. “The prophylactic effect against gastric cancer is massive, cutting risk by roughly half,” he said.
At least in the United States, colorectal cancer rates have declined in people 50 years and older, but rates have risen sharply in younger age groups, increasing by 2% annually in the last decade, according to statistics in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.
“One prevailing theory is prior antibiotic prescriptions [even in childhood] might perturb the microbiome of the lower GI tract and predispose to cancer,” Dr. Lewis said, pointing to a recent study in the British Journal of Cancer that identified an association between repeated antibiotic use and colorectal cancer.
Reducing NCD deaths
Dr. Ezzati and colleagues said six high-income countries – Denmark, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, and South Korea – are likely to meet SDG target 3.4 if they maintain or exceed average rates of decline seen during 2010-2016. Seventeen countries are on track to reach the target for women, and 15 countries are on track for men.
High-income countries in Asia-Pacific, western Europe, Australasia, and Canada have seen the lowest NCD4 mortality risk, whereas low- and middle-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and men in central Asia and eastern Europe have seen the highest risk.
“To move forward, we must learn from those countries that are doing well and replicate their strategies to NCD prevention and healthcare,” Dr. Ezzati said in a statement. “Our analysis shows that every country still has options to achieve SDG target 3.4, but they need to address multiple diseases and have strong health systems.”
Increasing access to effective cancer screening and diagnosing and treating cancers earlier could help reduce long-term health consequences and premature deaths from cancer, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. Screening would help even the playing field on cancer diagnosis and survival rates between higher-income countries and low- and middle-income countries.
“This approach will allow earlier diagnosis during precancerous or early stages of disease, followed by treatment of those cancers with effective treatment,” the authors stated.
Tobacco and alcohol interventions and increasing access to quality primary care would also help tamp down on NCD-related deaths.
The authors acknowledged that low-income countries, which may be struggling with other health crises such as COVID-19 and Ebola, may find it a challenge to stage such interventions.
“COVID-19 has exposed how a failure to invest in effective public health to prevent NCDs and provide health care for people living with NCDs can come back to bite us,” said Katie Dain, CEO of the NCD Alliance.
“The good news is that all countries can still meet the 2030 targets, with sound policies and smart investments. NCD prevention and treatment can no longer be seen a ‘nice to have.’ It must be considered as part of pandemic preparedness,” she added.
COVID-19 should serve as an impetus for governments to invest in healthier lifestyle and diet habits and curb alcohol and tobacco use, according to an editorial in The Lancet related to the analysis.
The current report updates 2018’s first NCD Countdown Report, which linked NCD4 conditions to approximately 32 million or 80% of NCD deaths. Unlike the recent report, 2018’s data didn’t focus on specific diseases.
The current report was funded by Research England. Dr. Ezzati received a charitable grant from the AstraZeneca Young Health Programme and personal fees from Prudential and Scor, outside of this report. None of the other authors reported competing interests. Dr. Lewis has no relevant disclosures except that he is a commentator for Medscape, which is owned by the same parent company as MDedge.
SOURCE: Bennett JE et al. Lancet. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31761-X.
The data suggest fewer people are dying from stomach cancer, but in some countries, the risk of colorectal cancer death is increasing or declining much more slowly than other causes of premature death.
As for other cancers, in more than half of the countries analyzed, the risk of liver and prostate cancer death is on the rise in men, and the risk of lung cancer death is on the rise in women.
The global decrease in the risk of stomach cancer death may be explained by the fact that stomach cancer’s main cause is Helicobacter pylori infection, which correlates with general food hygiene, the study’s corresponding author Majid Ezzati, PhD, professor of global environmental health at Imperial College London, said in an interview.
“Factors such as more widespread electrification and refrigeration tend to drive the rates down,” he explained.
Dr. Ezzati and colleagues detailed their findings in the second edition of the NCD Countdown 2030 report, recently published in The Lancet.
The report revolves around the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 3.4, which is to reduce premature deaths from NCDs by one-third between 2015 and 2030. The causes of death include cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, and diabetes, which are collectively known as NCD4. “Premature” deaths are defined as deaths in people aged 30-70 years.
SDG target 3.4 is still attainable, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. However, their report showed that many countries are falling short of this goal.
The findings come from an analysis of 2016 World Health Organization global estimate data on age-, sex-, and cause-specific mortality for 176 countries and territories with at least 200,000 inhabitants. Mathematical modeling was used to assess the number of approaches countries used to accelerate declines in mortality.
Results of the analysis
“Trends in the risk of death from 2010 to 2016 varied considerably among NCD4 causes of death,” Dr. Ezzati and colleagues wrote.
Stomach cancer, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic heart disease, and chronic respiratory diseases had the fastest rates of decline among risks of premature death.
In fact, stomach cancer was the fastest declining cause of death in 45 countries (25.6%) among men and in 40 countries (22.7%) among women.
On the other hand, the risk of premature death from colorectal, liver, breast, prostate, and other cancers declined more slowly than the risk of premature death from other NCDs.
The risk of death from colorectal, liver, and prostate cancers in men and lung cancer in women rose in more than 50% of the countries surveyed.
“The median annual rate of change in the probability of dying prematurely from various causes ranged from +0.2% per year for lung cancer to –2.5% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in women, and from +0.5% per year for colorectal cancer to –1.8% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in men,” the investigators summarized.
Explaining the GI cancer results
“There are dramatic differences between the upper and lower GI tract, both in terms of anatomy/embryologic origin but also in terms of exposures,” observed Mark Lewis, MD, medical director of the gastrointestinal oncology program at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, in an interview.
H. pylori infection, family history, and diet factor into stomach cancer risk, Dr. Lewis said.
While family history isn’t modifiable, “we are much better now at identifying and eradicating the potentially carcinogenic H. pylori bacterium. In terms of diet, the advent of modern refrigeration has made the prevalence of heavily salted/preserved foods decline,” he added.
A 14-day course of treatment (with a proton pump inhibitor and antibiotics) can eliminate H. pylori, Dr. Lewis continued. “The prophylactic effect against gastric cancer is massive, cutting risk by roughly half,” he said.
At least in the United States, colorectal cancer rates have declined in people 50 years and older, but rates have risen sharply in younger age groups, increasing by 2% annually in the last decade, according to statistics in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.
“One prevailing theory is prior antibiotic prescriptions [even in childhood] might perturb the microbiome of the lower GI tract and predispose to cancer,” Dr. Lewis said, pointing to a recent study in the British Journal of Cancer that identified an association between repeated antibiotic use and colorectal cancer.
Reducing NCD deaths
Dr. Ezzati and colleagues said six high-income countries – Denmark, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, and South Korea – are likely to meet SDG target 3.4 if they maintain or exceed average rates of decline seen during 2010-2016. Seventeen countries are on track to reach the target for women, and 15 countries are on track for men.
High-income countries in Asia-Pacific, western Europe, Australasia, and Canada have seen the lowest NCD4 mortality risk, whereas low- and middle-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and men in central Asia and eastern Europe have seen the highest risk.
“To move forward, we must learn from those countries that are doing well and replicate their strategies to NCD prevention and healthcare,” Dr. Ezzati said in a statement. “Our analysis shows that every country still has options to achieve SDG target 3.4, but they need to address multiple diseases and have strong health systems.”
Increasing access to effective cancer screening and diagnosing and treating cancers earlier could help reduce long-term health consequences and premature deaths from cancer, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. Screening would help even the playing field on cancer diagnosis and survival rates between higher-income countries and low- and middle-income countries.
“This approach will allow earlier diagnosis during precancerous or early stages of disease, followed by treatment of those cancers with effective treatment,” the authors stated.
Tobacco and alcohol interventions and increasing access to quality primary care would also help tamp down on NCD-related deaths.
The authors acknowledged that low-income countries, which may be struggling with other health crises such as COVID-19 and Ebola, may find it a challenge to stage such interventions.
“COVID-19 has exposed how a failure to invest in effective public health to prevent NCDs and provide health care for people living with NCDs can come back to bite us,” said Katie Dain, CEO of the NCD Alliance.
“The good news is that all countries can still meet the 2030 targets, with sound policies and smart investments. NCD prevention and treatment can no longer be seen a ‘nice to have.’ It must be considered as part of pandemic preparedness,” she added.
COVID-19 should serve as an impetus for governments to invest in healthier lifestyle and diet habits and curb alcohol and tobacco use, according to an editorial in The Lancet related to the analysis.
The current report updates 2018’s first NCD Countdown Report, which linked NCD4 conditions to approximately 32 million or 80% of NCD deaths. Unlike the recent report, 2018’s data didn’t focus on specific diseases.
The current report was funded by Research England. Dr. Ezzati received a charitable grant from the AstraZeneca Young Health Programme and personal fees from Prudential and Scor, outside of this report. None of the other authors reported competing interests. Dr. Lewis has no relevant disclosures except that he is a commentator for Medscape, which is owned by the same parent company as MDedge.
SOURCE: Bennett JE et al. Lancet. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31761-X.
FROM THE LANCET
Advocacy strategies: Leveraging patient testimonials, physician expertise, and Google
When an insurance coverage snafu threatened to take away a vital infusion drug for one of her patients, Julie Baak discovered that writing a letter wasn’t enough. Simponi Aria (golimumab) is the least expensive of all rheumatoid arthritis drugs for infusion, and at only six infusions a year offers a better experience for patients when compared with more expensive drugs like Humira (adalimumab), said Ms. Baak, practice manager at the Arthritis Center in St. Louis.
United Healthcare had drafted, then retracted, policy changes affecting and delaying access to RA drugs like Simponi Aria. Ms. Baak’s patient thrived on this drug after failing with others. UHC “kept pointing the finger at the employer, a self-funded plan,” she explained. Once correspondence efforts between the employer and payer fell through, she called a local news reporter, arranging an interview between Steven Baak, MD, the office’s medical director, and the patient, who was willing to go on the news. Through a 3-minute news segment, “we got that insurance company to allow us to get coverage for Simponi Aria on the medical side.”
Ms. Baak joined Karen Ferguson, Nilsa Cruz, and Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, at the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations 2020 State Society Advocacy Conference Virtual Meeting to discuss the power of advocacy in rheumatology, and impart strategies for enabling change. The Simponi Aria example underscores the importance of media and social media, Ms. Baak said. “When people do the wrong thing, you can bring light to others.”
The news spot on Dr. Baak and his patient mobilized Ms. Cruz to share it with others. “I took that interview and blasted it all over Wisconsin and to my colleagues because they needed to know what the options were for us in advocacy,” stressed Ms. Cruz, practice administrator of Milwaukee Rheumatology Center.
Rheumatologists are master problem solvers – the Sherlock Holmes’ of the medical industry, she continued. However, not many insurance companies understand the cognitive value of what they do. “There’s a lack of communication and education,” Ms. Cruz noted. Any advocacy measures calls for research on the topic, the panel stressed. It involves looking through medical and administrative insurance companies’ policies and using Google and social media, such as Twitter, to identify topics and key decision makers, a practice Ms. Cruz favors in particular.
Physicians as reliable sources
You need good documentation to support why you’re doing what you’re doing, advised Ms. Ferguson, practice administrator of Arthritis Northwest, Spokane, Wash. When an issue comes up, she always consults her doctors and her billing staff.
She recalled when biosimilars first came out, and one of them for Rituxan (rituximab) had not been indicated by the Food and Drug Administration for RA. “And yet, an insurance company was mandating that we use this nonindicated biosimilar,” said Ms. Ferguson, who learned about this from her billing staff. “I went immediately to the doctors and asked how they felt about this, and they said they were uncomfortable,” she continued. Ms. Ferguson found out that 45 states had legislation that prohibited interchangeability with non–FDA-indicated drugs. She was able to show this literature to the insurance company and get the mandate reversed. “One thing that’s so important is to be able to use your physicians’ knowledge and how they really feel and advocate based off of that,” using sound statutes to support your argument, she added.
“Ensuring that patients get the right medications that their physicians deem is important is critical for improved safety and efficacy,” Ms. Ferguson said. Yet, she acknowledged that facing off against an insurance company or a pharmacy benefit manager is often hard to do.
Many practices don’t have a Julie Baak or Karen Ferguson to fight on their behalf, Ms. Cruz noted. In this case, they should look within their state for high-profile advocates. “I guarantee you, every state has one. Practices should be able to reach out to those individuals, or respective state societies, or CSRO,” Ms. Cruz said. Best results are obtained when working through coalitions.
Patient testimony can make an impact
CSRO recently enacted a public relations campaign to shine a light on certain health plan policies that are harmful to patients. “We have been able to get the real impact of the policy on patients and their stories into the public eye,” Dr. Feldman, a rheumatologist in New Orleans and CSRO president, said in an interview. The group has spearheaded the effort to keep Stelara off of the Medicare self-administered drug list. CSRO has also built coalitions and provided testimony on several state step therapy and nonmedical switching bills. “When asked if these are pharma-backed bills, we say: ‘No, these are patient-backed bills,’ ” she added.
Patients act as powerful witnesses at hearings. “When legislation is being considered, it is important for both physicians and patients to be heard and to tell their stories,” Dr. Feldman said.
Ms. Cruz makes a point of getting involved with the payers themselves. As an example, she serves as a member on UHC’s National Steering Committee. “They know me to be very outspoken. Sometimes they listen, sometimes they don’t. Nevertheless, I consider it a compliment when they say they like that I hold them accountable. Every little thing that I can do to bring issues to the table,” filtering into their other divisions, is an accomplishment, she said.
When an insurance coverage snafu threatened to take away a vital infusion drug for one of her patients, Julie Baak discovered that writing a letter wasn’t enough. Simponi Aria (golimumab) is the least expensive of all rheumatoid arthritis drugs for infusion, and at only six infusions a year offers a better experience for patients when compared with more expensive drugs like Humira (adalimumab), said Ms. Baak, practice manager at the Arthritis Center in St. Louis.
United Healthcare had drafted, then retracted, policy changes affecting and delaying access to RA drugs like Simponi Aria. Ms. Baak’s patient thrived on this drug after failing with others. UHC “kept pointing the finger at the employer, a self-funded plan,” she explained. Once correspondence efforts between the employer and payer fell through, she called a local news reporter, arranging an interview between Steven Baak, MD, the office’s medical director, and the patient, who was willing to go on the news. Through a 3-minute news segment, “we got that insurance company to allow us to get coverage for Simponi Aria on the medical side.”
Ms. Baak joined Karen Ferguson, Nilsa Cruz, and Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, at the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations 2020 State Society Advocacy Conference Virtual Meeting to discuss the power of advocacy in rheumatology, and impart strategies for enabling change. The Simponi Aria example underscores the importance of media and social media, Ms. Baak said. “When people do the wrong thing, you can bring light to others.”
The news spot on Dr. Baak and his patient mobilized Ms. Cruz to share it with others. “I took that interview and blasted it all over Wisconsin and to my colleagues because they needed to know what the options were for us in advocacy,” stressed Ms. Cruz, practice administrator of Milwaukee Rheumatology Center.
Rheumatologists are master problem solvers – the Sherlock Holmes’ of the medical industry, she continued. However, not many insurance companies understand the cognitive value of what they do. “There’s a lack of communication and education,” Ms. Cruz noted. Any advocacy measures calls for research on the topic, the panel stressed. It involves looking through medical and administrative insurance companies’ policies and using Google and social media, such as Twitter, to identify topics and key decision makers, a practice Ms. Cruz favors in particular.
Physicians as reliable sources
You need good documentation to support why you’re doing what you’re doing, advised Ms. Ferguson, practice administrator of Arthritis Northwest, Spokane, Wash. When an issue comes up, she always consults her doctors and her billing staff.
She recalled when biosimilars first came out, and one of them for Rituxan (rituximab) had not been indicated by the Food and Drug Administration for RA. “And yet, an insurance company was mandating that we use this nonindicated biosimilar,” said Ms. Ferguson, who learned about this from her billing staff. “I went immediately to the doctors and asked how they felt about this, and they said they were uncomfortable,” she continued. Ms. Ferguson found out that 45 states had legislation that prohibited interchangeability with non–FDA-indicated drugs. She was able to show this literature to the insurance company and get the mandate reversed. “One thing that’s so important is to be able to use your physicians’ knowledge and how they really feel and advocate based off of that,” using sound statutes to support your argument, she added.
“Ensuring that patients get the right medications that their physicians deem is important is critical for improved safety and efficacy,” Ms. Ferguson said. Yet, she acknowledged that facing off against an insurance company or a pharmacy benefit manager is often hard to do.
Many practices don’t have a Julie Baak or Karen Ferguson to fight on their behalf, Ms. Cruz noted. In this case, they should look within their state for high-profile advocates. “I guarantee you, every state has one. Practices should be able to reach out to those individuals, or respective state societies, or CSRO,” Ms. Cruz said. Best results are obtained when working through coalitions.
Patient testimony can make an impact
CSRO recently enacted a public relations campaign to shine a light on certain health plan policies that are harmful to patients. “We have been able to get the real impact of the policy on patients and their stories into the public eye,” Dr. Feldman, a rheumatologist in New Orleans and CSRO president, said in an interview. The group has spearheaded the effort to keep Stelara off of the Medicare self-administered drug list. CSRO has also built coalitions and provided testimony on several state step therapy and nonmedical switching bills. “When asked if these are pharma-backed bills, we say: ‘No, these are patient-backed bills,’ ” she added.
Patients act as powerful witnesses at hearings. “When legislation is being considered, it is important for both physicians and patients to be heard and to tell their stories,” Dr. Feldman said.
Ms. Cruz makes a point of getting involved with the payers themselves. As an example, she serves as a member on UHC’s National Steering Committee. “They know me to be very outspoken. Sometimes they listen, sometimes they don’t. Nevertheless, I consider it a compliment when they say they like that I hold them accountable. Every little thing that I can do to bring issues to the table,” filtering into their other divisions, is an accomplishment, she said.
When an insurance coverage snafu threatened to take away a vital infusion drug for one of her patients, Julie Baak discovered that writing a letter wasn’t enough. Simponi Aria (golimumab) is the least expensive of all rheumatoid arthritis drugs for infusion, and at only six infusions a year offers a better experience for patients when compared with more expensive drugs like Humira (adalimumab), said Ms. Baak, practice manager at the Arthritis Center in St. Louis.
United Healthcare had drafted, then retracted, policy changes affecting and delaying access to RA drugs like Simponi Aria. Ms. Baak’s patient thrived on this drug after failing with others. UHC “kept pointing the finger at the employer, a self-funded plan,” she explained. Once correspondence efforts between the employer and payer fell through, she called a local news reporter, arranging an interview between Steven Baak, MD, the office’s medical director, and the patient, who was willing to go on the news. Through a 3-minute news segment, “we got that insurance company to allow us to get coverage for Simponi Aria on the medical side.”
Ms. Baak joined Karen Ferguson, Nilsa Cruz, and Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, at the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations 2020 State Society Advocacy Conference Virtual Meeting to discuss the power of advocacy in rheumatology, and impart strategies for enabling change. The Simponi Aria example underscores the importance of media and social media, Ms. Baak said. “When people do the wrong thing, you can bring light to others.”
The news spot on Dr. Baak and his patient mobilized Ms. Cruz to share it with others. “I took that interview and blasted it all over Wisconsin and to my colleagues because they needed to know what the options were for us in advocacy,” stressed Ms. Cruz, practice administrator of Milwaukee Rheumatology Center.
Rheumatologists are master problem solvers – the Sherlock Holmes’ of the medical industry, she continued. However, not many insurance companies understand the cognitive value of what they do. “There’s a lack of communication and education,” Ms. Cruz noted. Any advocacy measures calls for research on the topic, the panel stressed. It involves looking through medical and administrative insurance companies’ policies and using Google and social media, such as Twitter, to identify topics and key decision makers, a practice Ms. Cruz favors in particular.
Physicians as reliable sources
You need good documentation to support why you’re doing what you’re doing, advised Ms. Ferguson, practice administrator of Arthritis Northwest, Spokane, Wash. When an issue comes up, she always consults her doctors and her billing staff.
She recalled when biosimilars first came out, and one of them for Rituxan (rituximab) had not been indicated by the Food and Drug Administration for RA. “And yet, an insurance company was mandating that we use this nonindicated biosimilar,” said Ms. Ferguson, who learned about this from her billing staff. “I went immediately to the doctors and asked how they felt about this, and they said they were uncomfortable,” she continued. Ms. Ferguson found out that 45 states had legislation that prohibited interchangeability with non–FDA-indicated drugs. She was able to show this literature to the insurance company and get the mandate reversed. “One thing that’s so important is to be able to use your physicians’ knowledge and how they really feel and advocate based off of that,” using sound statutes to support your argument, she added.
“Ensuring that patients get the right medications that their physicians deem is important is critical for improved safety and efficacy,” Ms. Ferguson said. Yet, she acknowledged that facing off against an insurance company or a pharmacy benefit manager is often hard to do.
Many practices don’t have a Julie Baak or Karen Ferguson to fight on their behalf, Ms. Cruz noted. In this case, they should look within their state for high-profile advocates. “I guarantee you, every state has one. Practices should be able to reach out to those individuals, or respective state societies, or CSRO,” Ms. Cruz said. Best results are obtained when working through coalitions.
Patient testimony can make an impact
CSRO recently enacted a public relations campaign to shine a light on certain health plan policies that are harmful to patients. “We have been able to get the real impact of the policy on patients and their stories into the public eye,” Dr. Feldman, a rheumatologist in New Orleans and CSRO president, said in an interview. The group has spearheaded the effort to keep Stelara off of the Medicare self-administered drug list. CSRO has also built coalitions and provided testimony on several state step therapy and nonmedical switching bills. “When asked if these are pharma-backed bills, we say: ‘No, these are patient-backed bills,’ ” she added.
Patients act as powerful witnesses at hearings. “When legislation is being considered, it is important for both physicians and patients to be heard and to tell their stories,” Dr. Feldman said.
Ms. Cruz makes a point of getting involved with the payers themselves. As an example, she serves as a member on UHC’s National Steering Committee. “They know me to be very outspoken. Sometimes they listen, sometimes they don’t. Nevertheless, I consider it a compliment when they say they like that I hold them accountable. Every little thing that I can do to bring issues to the table,” filtering into their other divisions, is an accomplishment, she said.
FROM CSRO 2020