Kenneth W. Lin, MD, MPH

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

For the past 4 years, primary care clinicians have labored under a seemingly endless onslaught of bad news. A recent report estimated that there were over 1.3 million excess deaths in the United States from March 2020 to May 2023, including nearly half a million Americans younger than age 65. Social isolation and an ailing economy accelerated preexisting rises in drug overdoses and obesity, while teenage vaping threatened to hook a new generation on tobacco products even as adult smoking plummeted. Meanwhile, more than half of the nation’s physicians now report feelings of burnout, pay for family doctors appears to be stagnating, and our interactions with an increasing number of patients are fraught with suspicions about the value of vaccines— not just against COVID-19 but against flu and other viruses, too — and the medical system as a whole, doctors included. 

Now, for the good news.

A year and a half since the end of the pandemic emergency, we are seeing gains on several fronts, and physicians deserve much of the credit. Preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 10,000 fewer people died from drug overdoses than in the previous year. Although multiple factors contributed to this change, the elimination of the X-waiver, which had previously been required for physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, in January 2023 has improved access to medications for addiction treatment. In addition, the expansion of state requirements to check prescription drug monitoring programs when opioids or benzodiazepines are prescribed, and to prescribe naloxone to patients taking more than a certain number of morphine milligram equivalents per day, has probably reduced the harms of hazardous drug use.

On the obesity front, recent data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that the prevalence of obesity in adults fell for the first time in more than a decade, from 41.9% to 40.3%. To be sure, obesity remains far too common, and this finding could be the result of statistical chance rather than representing a true decline. But the widespread prescribing of GLP-1 receptor agonists by primary care physicians, in particular, could have played a role in the encouraging trend.

Although more research is needed to prove causality, one analysis suggests that these drugs could easily have lowered the body mass index (BMI) of more than enough patients to account for the observed decline. What’s more, the rise in prevalence of BMIs above 40 (from 7.7% to 9.7%) could be explained by the mortality benefit of the drugs: More people remained in this severe obesity category because they didn’t die from complications of their weight. Whether future studies support keeping people on GLP-1s for life or eventually “off-ramping” them to other weight control strategies, family physicians are well positioned to help.

Finally, with little fanfare, the youth smoking rate has fallen precipitously. In 2023, 1.9% of high school students and 1.1% of middle-schoolers reported smoking cigarettes in the past 30 days. And they didn’t simply swap one form of nicotine delivery device for another. The 30-day prevalence of vaping among high school students fell from 27.5% in 2019 to 7.8% this year. Changing social norms and stricter federal regulation of tobacco products are probably more responsible for this positive trend than medical care, though the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends education or brief counseling to prevent initiation of tobacco use among school-aged children and adolescents. Should tobacco use in youth remain at these historically low levels, millions of premature deaths from lung cancer and heart disease will have been prevented.

America’s doctors have earned the right to take a bow. We have much more work to do, but our efforts are making a meaningful difference in three seemingly intractable health problems.

Dr. Lin, Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

For the past 4 years, primary care clinicians have labored under a seemingly endless onslaught of bad news. A recent report estimated that there were over 1.3 million excess deaths in the United States from March 2020 to May 2023, including nearly half a million Americans younger than age 65. Social isolation and an ailing economy accelerated preexisting rises in drug overdoses and obesity, while teenage vaping threatened to hook a new generation on tobacco products even as adult smoking plummeted. Meanwhile, more than half of the nation’s physicians now report feelings of burnout, pay for family doctors appears to be stagnating, and our interactions with an increasing number of patients are fraught with suspicions about the value of vaccines— not just against COVID-19 but against flu and other viruses, too — and the medical system as a whole, doctors included. 

Now, for the good news.

A year and a half since the end of the pandemic emergency, we are seeing gains on several fronts, and physicians deserve much of the credit. Preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 10,000 fewer people died from drug overdoses than in the previous year. Although multiple factors contributed to this change, the elimination of the X-waiver, which had previously been required for physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, in January 2023 has improved access to medications for addiction treatment. In addition, the expansion of state requirements to check prescription drug monitoring programs when opioids or benzodiazepines are prescribed, and to prescribe naloxone to patients taking more than a certain number of morphine milligram equivalents per day, has probably reduced the harms of hazardous drug use.

On the obesity front, recent data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that the prevalence of obesity in adults fell for the first time in more than a decade, from 41.9% to 40.3%. To be sure, obesity remains far too common, and this finding could be the result of statistical chance rather than representing a true decline. But the widespread prescribing of GLP-1 receptor agonists by primary care physicians, in particular, could have played a role in the encouraging trend.

Although more research is needed to prove causality, one analysis suggests that these drugs could easily have lowered the body mass index (BMI) of more than enough patients to account for the observed decline. What’s more, the rise in prevalence of BMIs above 40 (from 7.7% to 9.7%) could be explained by the mortality benefit of the drugs: More people remained in this severe obesity category because they didn’t die from complications of their weight. Whether future studies support keeping people on GLP-1s for life or eventually “off-ramping” them to other weight control strategies, family physicians are well positioned to help.

Finally, with little fanfare, the youth smoking rate has fallen precipitously. In 2023, 1.9% of high school students and 1.1% of middle-schoolers reported smoking cigarettes in the past 30 days. And they didn’t simply swap one form of nicotine delivery device for another. The 30-day prevalence of vaping among high school students fell from 27.5% in 2019 to 7.8% this year. Changing social norms and stricter federal regulation of tobacco products are probably more responsible for this positive trend than medical care, though the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends education or brief counseling to prevent initiation of tobacco use among school-aged children and adolescents. Should tobacco use in youth remain at these historically low levels, millions of premature deaths from lung cancer and heart disease will have been prevented.

America’s doctors have earned the right to take a bow. We have much more work to do, but our efforts are making a meaningful difference in three seemingly intractable health problems.

Dr. Lin, Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

For the past 4 years, primary care clinicians have labored under a seemingly endless onslaught of bad news. A recent report estimated that there were over 1.3 million excess deaths in the United States from March 2020 to May 2023, including nearly half a million Americans younger than age 65. Social isolation and an ailing economy accelerated preexisting rises in drug overdoses and obesity, while teenage vaping threatened to hook a new generation on tobacco products even as adult smoking plummeted. Meanwhile, more than half of the nation’s physicians now report feelings of burnout, pay for family doctors appears to be stagnating, and our interactions with an increasing number of patients are fraught with suspicions about the value of vaccines— not just against COVID-19 but against flu and other viruses, too — and the medical system as a whole, doctors included. 

Now, for the good news.

A year and a half since the end of the pandemic emergency, we are seeing gains on several fronts, and physicians deserve much of the credit. Preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 10,000 fewer people died from drug overdoses than in the previous year. Although multiple factors contributed to this change, the elimination of the X-waiver, which had previously been required for physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, in January 2023 has improved access to medications for addiction treatment. In addition, the expansion of state requirements to check prescription drug monitoring programs when opioids or benzodiazepines are prescribed, and to prescribe naloxone to patients taking more than a certain number of morphine milligram equivalents per day, has probably reduced the harms of hazardous drug use.

On the obesity front, recent data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that the prevalence of obesity in adults fell for the first time in more than a decade, from 41.9% to 40.3%. To be sure, obesity remains far too common, and this finding could be the result of statistical chance rather than representing a true decline. But the widespread prescribing of GLP-1 receptor agonists by primary care physicians, in particular, could have played a role in the encouraging trend.

Although more research is needed to prove causality, one analysis suggests that these drugs could easily have lowered the body mass index (BMI) of more than enough patients to account for the observed decline. What’s more, the rise in prevalence of BMIs above 40 (from 7.7% to 9.7%) could be explained by the mortality benefit of the drugs: More people remained in this severe obesity category because they didn’t die from complications of their weight. Whether future studies support keeping people on GLP-1s for life or eventually “off-ramping” them to other weight control strategies, family physicians are well positioned to help.

Finally, with little fanfare, the youth smoking rate has fallen precipitously. In 2023, 1.9% of high school students and 1.1% of middle-schoolers reported smoking cigarettes in the past 30 days. And they didn’t simply swap one form of nicotine delivery device for another. The 30-day prevalence of vaping among high school students fell from 27.5% in 2019 to 7.8% this year. Changing social norms and stricter federal regulation of tobacco products are probably more responsible for this positive trend than medical care, though the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends education or brief counseling to prevent initiation of tobacco use among school-aged children and adolescents. Should tobacco use in youth remain at these historically low levels, millions of premature deaths from lung cancer and heart disease will have been prevented.

America’s doctors have earned the right to take a bow. We have much more work to do, but our efforts are making a meaningful difference in three seemingly intractable health problems.

Dr. Lin, Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Earlier this year, I wrote a Medscape commentary to explain my disagreement with the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)’s updated recommendation that all women at average risk for breast cancer start screening mammography at age 40. The bottom line is that when the evidence doesn’t change, the guidelines shouldn’t change. Since then, other screening experts have criticized the USPSTF guideline on similar grounds, and a national survey reported that nearly 4 out of 10 women in their 40s preferred to delay breast cancer screening after viewing a decision aid and a personalized breast cancer risk estimate.

The decision analysis performed for the USPSTF guideline estimated that compared with having mammography beginning at age 50, 1000 women who begin at age 40 experience 519 more false-positive results and 62 more benign breast biopsies. Another study suggested that anxiety and other psychosocial harms resulting from a false-positive test are similar between patients who require a biopsy vs additional imaging only. Of greater concern, women who have false-positive results are less likely to return for their next scheduled screening exam.

A recent analysis of 2005-2017 data from the US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium found that about 1 in 10 mammograms had a false-positive result. Sixty percent of these patients underwent immediate additional imaging, 27% were recalled for diagnostic imaging within the next few days to weeks, and 13% were advised to have a biopsy. While patients who had additional imaging at the same visit were only 1.9% less likely to return for screening mammography within 30 months compared with those with normal mammograms, women who were recalled for short-interval follow-up or recommended for biopsy were 15.9% and 10% less likely to return, respectively. For unclear reasons, women who identified as Asian or Hispanic had even lower rates of return screening after false-positive results.

These differences matter because women in their 40s, with the lowest incidence of breast cancer among those undergoing screening, have a lot of false positives. A patient who follows the USPSTF recommendation and starts screening at age 40 has a 42% chance of having at least one false positive with every-other-year screening, or a 61% chance with annual screening, by the time she turns 50. If some of these patients are so turned off by false positives that they don’t return for regular mammography in their 50s and 60s, when screening is the most likely to catch clinically significant cancers at treatable stages, then moving up the starting age may backfire and cause net harm.

The recently implemented FDA rule requiring mammography reports to include breast density could compound this problem. Because younger women are more likely to have dense breasts, more of them will probably decide to have supplemental imaging for cancer. I previously pointed out that we don’t know whether supplemental imaging with breast ultrasonography or MRI reduces cancer deaths, but we do know that it increases false-positive results.

I have personally cared for several patients who abandoned screening mammography for long stretches, or permanently, after having endured one or more benign biopsies prompted by a false-positive result. I vividly recall one woman in her 60s who was very reluctant to have screening tests in general, and mammography in particular, for that reason. After she had been my patient for a few years, I finally persuaded her to resume screening. We were both surprised when her first mammogram in more than a decade revealed an early-stage breast cancer. Fortunately, the tumor was successfully treated, but for her, an earlier false-positive result nearly ended up having critical health consequences.

Dr. Lin is associate director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor. He has no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Earlier this year, I wrote a Medscape commentary to explain my disagreement with the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)’s updated recommendation that all women at average risk for breast cancer start screening mammography at age 40. The bottom line is that when the evidence doesn’t change, the guidelines shouldn’t change. Since then, other screening experts have criticized the USPSTF guideline on similar grounds, and a national survey reported that nearly 4 out of 10 women in their 40s preferred to delay breast cancer screening after viewing a decision aid and a personalized breast cancer risk estimate.

The decision analysis performed for the USPSTF guideline estimated that compared with having mammography beginning at age 50, 1000 women who begin at age 40 experience 519 more false-positive results and 62 more benign breast biopsies. Another study suggested that anxiety and other psychosocial harms resulting from a false-positive test are similar between patients who require a biopsy vs additional imaging only. Of greater concern, women who have false-positive results are less likely to return for their next scheduled screening exam.

A recent analysis of 2005-2017 data from the US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium found that about 1 in 10 mammograms had a false-positive result. Sixty percent of these patients underwent immediate additional imaging, 27% were recalled for diagnostic imaging within the next few days to weeks, and 13% were advised to have a biopsy. While patients who had additional imaging at the same visit were only 1.9% less likely to return for screening mammography within 30 months compared with those with normal mammograms, women who were recalled for short-interval follow-up or recommended for biopsy were 15.9% and 10% less likely to return, respectively. For unclear reasons, women who identified as Asian or Hispanic had even lower rates of return screening after false-positive results.

These differences matter because women in their 40s, with the lowest incidence of breast cancer among those undergoing screening, have a lot of false positives. A patient who follows the USPSTF recommendation and starts screening at age 40 has a 42% chance of having at least one false positive with every-other-year screening, or a 61% chance with annual screening, by the time she turns 50. If some of these patients are so turned off by false positives that they don’t return for regular mammography in their 50s and 60s, when screening is the most likely to catch clinically significant cancers at treatable stages, then moving up the starting age may backfire and cause net harm.

The recently implemented FDA rule requiring mammography reports to include breast density could compound this problem. Because younger women are more likely to have dense breasts, more of them will probably decide to have supplemental imaging for cancer. I previously pointed out that we don’t know whether supplemental imaging with breast ultrasonography or MRI reduces cancer deaths, but we do know that it increases false-positive results.

I have personally cared for several patients who abandoned screening mammography for long stretches, or permanently, after having endured one or more benign biopsies prompted by a false-positive result. I vividly recall one woman in her 60s who was very reluctant to have screening tests in general, and mammography in particular, for that reason. After she had been my patient for a few years, I finally persuaded her to resume screening. We were both surprised when her first mammogram in more than a decade revealed an early-stage breast cancer. Fortunately, the tumor was successfully treated, but for her, an earlier false-positive result nearly ended up having critical health consequences.

Dr. Lin is associate director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor. He has no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Earlier this year, I wrote a Medscape commentary to explain my disagreement with the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)’s updated recommendation that all women at average risk for breast cancer start screening mammography at age 40. The bottom line is that when the evidence doesn’t change, the guidelines shouldn’t change. Since then, other screening experts have criticized the USPSTF guideline on similar grounds, and a national survey reported that nearly 4 out of 10 women in their 40s preferred to delay breast cancer screening after viewing a decision aid and a personalized breast cancer risk estimate.

The decision analysis performed for the USPSTF guideline estimated that compared with having mammography beginning at age 50, 1000 women who begin at age 40 experience 519 more false-positive results and 62 more benign breast biopsies. Another study suggested that anxiety and other psychosocial harms resulting from a false-positive test are similar between patients who require a biopsy vs additional imaging only. Of greater concern, women who have false-positive results are less likely to return for their next scheduled screening exam.

A recent analysis of 2005-2017 data from the US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium found that about 1 in 10 mammograms had a false-positive result. Sixty percent of these patients underwent immediate additional imaging, 27% were recalled for diagnostic imaging within the next few days to weeks, and 13% were advised to have a biopsy. While patients who had additional imaging at the same visit were only 1.9% less likely to return for screening mammography within 30 months compared with those with normal mammograms, women who were recalled for short-interval follow-up or recommended for biopsy were 15.9% and 10% less likely to return, respectively. For unclear reasons, women who identified as Asian or Hispanic had even lower rates of return screening after false-positive results.

These differences matter because women in their 40s, with the lowest incidence of breast cancer among those undergoing screening, have a lot of false positives. A patient who follows the USPSTF recommendation and starts screening at age 40 has a 42% chance of having at least one false positive with every-other-year screening, or a 61% chance with annual screening, by the time she turns 50. If some of these patients are so turned off by false positives that they don’t return for regular mammography in their 50s and 60s, when screening is the most likely to catch clinically significant cancers at treatable stages, then moving up the starting age may backfire and cause net harm.

The recently implemented FDA rule requiring mammography reports to include breast density could compound this problem. Because younger women are more likely to have dense breasts, more of them will probably decide to have supplemental imaging for cancer. I previously pointed out that we don’t know whether supplemental imaging with breast ultrasonography or MRI reduces cancer deaths, but we do know that it increases false-positive results.

I have personally cared for several patients who abandoned screening mammography for long stretches, or permanently, after having endured one or more benign biopsies prompted by a false-positive result. I vividly recall one woman in her 60s who was very reluctant to have screening tests in general, and mammography in particular, for that reason. After she had been my patient for a few years, I finally persuaded her to resume screening. We were both surprised when her first mammogram in more than a decade revealed an early-stage breast cancer. Fortunately, the tumor was successfully treated, but for her, an earlier false-positive result nearly ended up having critical health consequences.

Dr. Lin is associate director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor. He has no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An estimated 450,000 US deaths are expected this year from conditions attributed to cigarette smoking. Although the percentage of adults who smoke declined from 21% in 2005 to 11% in 2022, the annual death toll has been stable since 2005 and isn’t expected to decline until 2030, owing to an aging population of current and former smokers.

In 2022, based on a national survey, two thirds of the 28.8 million US adult smokers wanted to quit, and more than half tried quitting on their own or with the help of clinicians, but less than 9% succeeded in kicking the habit. The health benefits of quitting, summarized in a patient education handout from the American Cancer Society, include a lower risk for cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, the handout states, “quitting smoking can add as much as 10 years to your life, compared to if you continued to smoke.”

For my patients older than age 50 who are lifelong smokers, the qualifier “as much as” can be a sticking point. Although most recognize that continuing to smoke exposes them to greater health risks and are willing to undergo lung cancer screening and receive pneumococcal vaccines, a kind of fatalism frequently sets in. I’ve heard more times than I can recall some version of the declaration, “It’s too late for quitting to make much difference for me.” Many smokers think that once they reach middle age, gains in life expectancy will be too small to be worth the intense effort and multiple failed attempts that are typically required to quit permanently. Until recently, there were few data I could call on to persuade them they were wrong.

In February 2024, Dr. Eo Rin Cho and colleagues pooled data from four national cohort studies (United States, United Kingdom, Norway, and Canada) to calculate mortality differences among current, former, and never smokers aged 20-79 years. Compared with never smokers, lifelong smokers died an average of 12-13 years earlier. However, quitting before age 50 nearly eliminated the excess mortality associated with smoking, and in the 50- to 59-year-old age group, cessation eventually reduced excess mortality by 92%-95%. Better yet, more than half of the benefits occurred within the first 3 years after cessation.

At first glance, these estimates may seem too good to be true. A few months later, though, a different research group, using data from a large cancer prevention study and 2018 US population census and mortality rates, largely confirmed their findings. Dr. Thuy Le and colleagues found that quitting at age 35, 45, 55, 65, or 75 years resulted in average life gains of 8, 5.6, 3.5, 1.7, and 0.7 years, respectively, relative to continuing to smoke. Because no patient is average, the analysis also presented some helpful probabilities. For example, a smoker who quits at age 65 has about a 1 in 4 chance of gaining at least 1 full year of life and a 1 in 6 chance of gaining at least 4 years. In other words, from a life expectancy perspective alone, it’s almost never too late to quit smoking.

Dr. Lin is a family physician and Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An estimated 450,000 US deaths are expected this year from conditions attributed to cigarette smoking. Although the percentage of adults who smoke declined from 21% in 2005 to 11% in 2022, the annual death toll has been stable since 2005 and isn’t expected to decline until 2030, owing to an aging population of current and former smokers.

In 2022, based on a national survey, two thirds of the 28.8 million US adult smokers wanted to quit, and more than half tried quitting on their own or with the help of clinicians, but less than 9% succeeded in kicking the habit. The health benefits of quitting, summarized in a patient education handout from the American Cancer Society, include a lower risk for cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, the handout states, “quitting smoking can add as much as 10 years to your life, compared to if you continued to smoke.”

For my patients older than age 50 who are lifelong smokers, the qualifier “as much as” can be a sticking point. Although most recognize that continuing to smoke exposes them to greater health risks and are willing to undergo lung cancer screening and receive pneumococcal vaccines, a kind of fatalism frequently sets in. I’ve heard more times than I can recall some version of the declaration, “It’s too late for quitting to make much difference for me.” Many smokers think that once they reach middle age, gains in life expectancy will be too small to be worth the intense effort and multiple failed attempts that are typically required to quit permanently. Until recently, there were few data I could call on to persuade them they were wrong.

In February 2024, Dr. Eo Rin Cho and colleagues pooled data from four national cohort studies (United States, United Kingdom, Norway, and Canada) to calculate mortality differences among current, former, and never smokers aged 20-79 years. Compared with never smokers, lifelong smokers died an average of 12-13 years earlier. However, quitting before age 50 nearly eliminated the excess mortality associated with smoking, and in the 50- to 59-year-old age group, cessation eventually reduced excess mortality by 92%-95%. Better yet, more than half of the benefits occurred within the first 3 years after cessation.

At first glance, these estimates may seem too good to be true. A few months later, though, a different research group, using data from a large cancer prevention study and 2018 US population census and mortality rates, largely confirmed their findings. Dr. Thuy Le and colleagues found that quitting at age 35, 45, 55, 65, or 75 years resulted in average life gains of 8, 5.6, 3.5, 1.7, and 0.7 years, respectively, relative to continuing to smoke. Because no patient is average, the analysis also presented some helpful probabilities. For example, a smoker who quits at age 65 has about a 1 in 4 chance of gaining at least 1 full year of life and a 1 in 6 chance of gaining at least 4 years. In other words, from a life expectancy perspective alone, it’s almost never too late to quit smoking.

Dr. Lin is a family physician and Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An estimated 450,000 US deaths are expected this year from conditions attributed to cigarette smoking. Although the percentage of adults who smoke declined from 21% in 2005 to 11% in 2022, the annual death toll has been stable since 2005 and isn’t expected to decline until 2030, owing to an aging population of current and former smokers.

In 2022, based on a national survey, two thirds of the 28.8 million US adult smokers wanted to quit, and more than half tried quitting on their own or with the help of clinicians, but less than 9% succeeded in kicking the habit. The health benefits of quitting, summarized in a patient education handout from the American Cancer Society, include a lower risk for cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, the handout states, “quitting smoking can add as much as 10 years to your life, compared to if you continued to smoke.”

For my patients older than age 50 who are lifelong smokers, the qualifier “as much as” can be a sticking point. Although most recognize that continuing to smoke exposes them to greater health risks and are willing to undergo lung cancer screening and receive pneumococcal vaccines, a kind of fatalism frequently sets in. I’ve heard more times than I can recall some version of the declaration, “It’s too late for quitting to make much difference for me.” Many smokers think that once they reach middle age, gains in life expectancy will be too small to be worth the intense effort and multiple failed attempts that are typically required to quit permanently. Until recently, there were few data I could call on to persuade them they were wrong.

In February 2024, Dr. Eo Rin Cho and colleagues pooled data from four national cohort studies (United States, United Kingdom, Norway, and Canada) to calculate mortality differences among current, former, and never smokers aged 20-79 years. Compared with never smokers, lifelong smokers died an average of 12-13 years earlier. However, quitting before age 50 nearly eliminated the excess mortality associated with smoking, and in the 50- to 59-year-old age group, cessation eventually reduced excess mortality by 92%-95%. Better yet, more than half of the benefits occurred within the first 3 years after cessation.

At first glance, these estimates may seem too good to be true. A few months later, though, a different research group, using data from a large cancer prevention study and 2018 US population census and mortality rates, largely confirmed their findings. Dr. Thuy Le and colleagues found that quitting at age 35, 45, 55, 65, or 75 years resulted in average life gains of 8, 5.6, 3.5, 1.7, and 0.7 years, respectively, relative to continuing to smoke. Because no patient is average, the analysis also presented some helpful probabilities. For example, a smoker who quits at age 65 has about a 1 in 4 chance of gaining at least 1 full year of life and a 1 in 6 chance of gaining at least 4 years. In other words, from a life expectancy perspective alone, it’s almost never too late to quit smoking.

Dr. Lin is a family physician and Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A few months ago, my health system added a clinical decision support function to our electronic health record to reduce inappropriate ordering of vitamin D levels. Clinicians are now required to select from a list of approved indications or diagnoses (including a history of vitamin D deficiency) before ordering the test.

Although I don’t know yet whether this process has had the desired effect, I felt that it was long overdue. Several years ago, I wrote an editorial that questioned the dramatic increase in vitamin D testing given the uncertainty about what level is adequate for good health and clinical trials showing that supplementing people with lower levels has no benefits for a variety of medical conditions. A more recent review of prospective studies of vitamin D supplements concluded that most correlations between vitamin D levels and outcomes in common and high-mortality conditions are unlikely to be causal.

A new Endocrine Society guideline recommends against routine measurement of vitamin D levels in healthy individuals. The guideline reinforces my current practice of not screening for vitamin D deficiency except in special situations, such as an individual with dark skin who works the night shift and rarely goes outdoors during daytime hours. But I haven’t been offering empirical vitamin D supplements to the four at-risk groups identified by the Endocrine Society: children, adults older than 75 years, pregnant patients, and adults with prediabetes. The evidence behind these recommendations merits a closer look.

In exclusively or primarily breastfed infants, I follow the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation to prescribe a daily supplement containing 400 IU of vitamin D. However, the Endocrine Society found evidence from several studies conducted in other countries that continuing supplementation throughout childhood reduces the risk for rickets and possibly reduces the incidence of respiratory infections, with few adverse effects.

Many older women, and some older men, choose to take a calcium and vitamin D supplement for bone health, even though there is scant evidence that doing so prevents fractures in community-dwelling adults without osteoporosis. The Endocrine Society’s meta-analysis, however, found that 1000 adults aged 75 years or older who took an average of 900 IU of vitamin D daily for 2 years could expect to experience six fewer deaths than an identical group not taking supplements.

A typical prenatal vitamin contains 400 IU of vitamin D. Placebo-controlled trials reviewed by the Endocrine Society that gave an average of 2500 IU daily found statistically insignificant reductions in preeclampsia, intrauterine death, preterm birth, small for gestation age birth, and neonatal deaths.

Finally, the Endocrine Society’s recommendation for adults with prediabetes was based on 11 trials (three conducted in the United States) that tested a daily average of 3500 IU and found a slightly lower risk for progression to diabetes (24 fewer diagnoses of type 2 diabetes per 1000 persons) in the group who took supplements.

Of the four groups highlighted by the guideline, the strongest case for vitamin D supplements is in older adults — it’s hard to argue with lower mortality, even if the difference is small. Therefore, I will start suggesting that my patients over age 75 take a daily vitamin D supplement containing at least 800 IU if they aren’t already doing so.

On the other hand, I don’t plan to change my approach to pregnant patients (whose benefits in studies could have been due to chance), children after age 1 year (studies of children in other countries with different nutritional status may not apply to the United States), or adults with prediabetes (where we already have proven lifestyle interventions with much greater effects). In these cases, either I am unconvinced that the data support benefits for my patients, or I feel that the benefits of vitamin D supplements are small enough to be outweighed by potential harms, such as increased kidney stones.

Kenneth W. Lin, Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A few months ago, my health system added a clinical decision support function to our electronic health record to reduce inappropriate ordering of vitamin D levels. Clinicians are now required to select from a list of approved indications or diagnoses (including a history of vitamin D deficiency) before ordering the test.

Although I don’t know yet whether this process has had the desired effect, I felt that it was long overdue. Several years ago, I wrote an editorial that questioned the dramatic increase in vitamin D testing given the uncertainty about what level is adequate for good health and clinical trials showing that supplementing people with lower levels has no benefits for a variety of medical conditions. A more recent review of prospective studies of vitamin D supplements concluded that most correlations between vitamin D levels and outcomes in common and high-mortality conditions are unlikely to be causal.

A new Endocrine Society guideline recommends against routine measurement of vitamin D levels in healthy individuals. The guideline reinforces my current practice of not screening for vitamin D deficiency except in special situations, such as an individual with dark skin who works the night shift and rarely goes outdoors during daytime hours. But I haven’t been offering empirical vitamin D supplements to the four at-risk groups identified by the Endocrine Society: children, adults older than 75 years, pregnant patients, and adults with prediabetes. The evidence behind these recommendations merits a closer look.

In exclusively or primarily breastfed infants, I follow the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation to prescribe a daily supplement containing 400 IU of vitamin D. However, the Endocrine Society found evidence from several studies conducted in other countries that continuing supplementation throughout childhood reduces the risk for rickets and possibly reduces the incidence of respiratory infections, with few adverse effects.

Many older women, and some older men, choose to take a calcium and vitamin D supplement for bone health, even though there is scant evidence that doing so prevents fractures in community-dwelling adults without osteoporosis. The Endocrine Society’s meta-analysis, however, found that 1000 adults aged 75 years or older who took an average of 900 IU of vitamin D daily for 2 years could expect to experience six fewer deaths than an identical group not taking supplements.

A typical prenatal vitamin contains 400 IU of vitamin D. Placebo-controlled trials reviewed by the Endocrine Society that gave an average of 2500 IU daily found statistically insignificant reductions in preeclampsia, intrauterine death, preterm birth, small for gestation age birth, and neonatal deaths.

Finally, the Endocrine Society’s recommendation for adults with prediabetes was based on 11 trials (three conducted in the United States) that tested a daily average of 3500 IU and found a slightly lower risk for progression to diabetes (24 fewer diagnoses of type 2 diabetes per 1000 persons) in the group who took supplements.

Of the four groups highlighted by the guideline, the strongest case for vitamin D supplements is in older adults — it’s hard to argue with lower mortality, even if the difference is small. Therefore, I will start suggesting that my patients over age 75 take a daily vitamin D supplement containing at least 800 IU if they aren’t already doing so.

On the other hand, I don’t plan to change my approach to pregnant patients (whose benefits in studies could have been due to chance), children after age 1 year (studies of children in other countries with different nutritional status may not apply to the United States), or adults with prediabetes (where we already have proven lifestyle interventions with much greater effects). In these cases, either I am unconvinced that the data support benefits for my patients, or I feel that the benefits of vitamin D supplements are small enough to be outweighed by potential harms, such as increased kidney stones.

Kenneth W. Lin, Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A few months ago, my health system added a clinical decision support function to our electronic health record to reduce inappropriate ordering of vitamin D levels. Clinicians are now required to select from a list of approved indications or diagnoses (including a history of vitamin D deficiency) before ordering the test.

Although I don’t know yet whether this process has had the desired effect, I felt that it was long overdue. Several years ago, I wrote an editorial that questioned the dramatic increase in vitamin D testing given the uncertainty about what level is adequate for good health and clinical trials showing that supplementing people with lower levels has no benefits for a variety of medical conditions. A more recent review of prospective studies of vitamin D supplements concluded that most correlations between vitamin D levels and outcomes in common and high-mortality conditions are unlikely to be causal.

A new Endocrine Society guideline recommends against routine measurement of vitamin D levels in healthy individuals. The guideline reinforces my current practice of not screening for vitamin D deficiency except in special situations, such as an individual with dark skin who works the night shift and rarely goes outdoors during daytime hours. But I haven’t been offering empirical vitamin D supplements to the four at-risk groups identified by the Endocrine Society: children, adults older than 75 years, pregnant patients, and adults with prediabetes. The evidence behind these recommendations merits a closer look.

In exclusively or primarily breastfed infants, I follow the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation to prescribe a daily supplement containing 400 IU of vitamin D. However, the Endocrine Society found evidence from several studies conducted in other countries that continuing supplementation throughout childhood reduces the risk for rickets and possibly reduces the incidence of respiratory infections, with few adverse effects.

Many older women, and some older men, choose to take a calcium and vitamin D supplement for bone health, even though there is scant evidence that doing so prevents fractures in community-dwelling adults without osteoporosis. The Endocrine Society’s meta-analysis, however, found that 1000 adults aged 75 years or older who took an average of 900 IU of vitamin D daily for 2 years could expect to experience six fewer deaths than an identical group not taking supplements.

A typical prenatal vitamin contains 400 IU of vitamin D. Placebo-controlled trials reviewed by the Endocrine Society that gave an average of 2500 IU daily found statistically insignificant reductions in preeclampsia, intrauterine death, preterm birth, small for gestation age birth, and neonatal deaths.

Finally, the Endocrine Society’s recommendation for adults with prediabetes was based on 11 trials (three conducted in the United States) that tested a daily average of 3500 IU and found a slightly lower risk for progression to diabetes (24 fewer diagnoses of type 2 diabetes per 1000 persons) in the group who took supplements.

Of the four groups highlighted by the guideline, the strongest case for vitamin D supplements is in older adults — it’s hard to argue with lower mortality, even if the difference is small. Therefore, I will start suggesting that my patients over age 75 take a daily vitamin D supplement containing at least 800 IU if they aren’t already doing so.

On the other hand, I don’t plan to change my approach to pregnant patients (whose benefits in studies could have been due to chance), children after age 1 year (studies of children in other countries with different nutritional status may not apply to the United States), or adults with prediabetes (where we already have proven lifestyle interventions with much greater effects). In these cases, either I am unconvinced that the data support benefits for my patients, or I feel that the benefits of vitamin D supplements are small enough to be outweighed by potential harms, such as increased kidney stones.

Kenneth W. Lin, Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Last year, I concluded a commentary for this news organization on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by stating that between stool-based tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy, “the best screening test is the test that gets done.” But should that maxim apply to the new blood-based screening test, Guardant Health Shield? This proprietary test, which costs $895 and is not generally covered by insurance, identifies alterations in cell-free DNA that are characteristic of CRC.

Shield’s test characteristics were recently evaluated in a prospective study of more than 10,000 adults aged 45-84 at average risk for CRC. The test had an 87.5% sensitivity for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer but only a 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. Test specificity was 89.6%, meaning that about 1 in 10 participants without CRC or advanced precancerous lesions on colonoscopy had a false-positive result.

Although the Shield blood test has a higher rate of false positives than the traditional fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and lower sensitivity and specificity than a multitarget stool DNA (FIT-DNA) test designed to improve on Cologuard, it meets the previously established criteria set forth by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to be covered for Medicare beneficiaries at 3-year intervals, pending FDA approval. If public and private payers start covering Shield alongside other CRC screening tests, it presents an opportunity for primary care physicians to reach the approximately 3 in 10 adults between ages 45 and 75 who are not being routinely screened.

A big concern, however, is that the availability of a blood test may cause patients who would have otherwise been screened with colonoscopy or stool tests to switch to the blood test. A cost-effectiveness analysis found that offering a blood test to patients who decline screening colonoscopy saves additional lives, but at the cost of more than $377,000 per life-year gained. Another study relying on three microsimulation models previously utilized by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found that annual FIT results in more life-years gained at substantially lower cost than blood-based screening every 3 years “even when uptake of blood-based screening was 20 percentage points higher than uptake of FIT.” As a result, a multidisciplinary expert panel concluded that blood-based screening should not substitute for established CRC screening tests, but instead be offered only to patients who decline those tests.

In practice, this will increase the complexity of the CRC screening conversations we have with patients. We will need to be clear that the blood test is not yet endorsed by the USPSTF or any major guideline group and is a second-line test that will miss most precancerous polyps. As with the stool tests, it is essential to emphasize that a positive result must be followed by diagnostic colonoscopy. To addend the cancer screening maxim I mentioned before, the blood test is not the best test for CRC, but it’s probably better than no test at all.

Dr. Lin is a family physician and associate director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Last year, I concluded a commentary for this news organization on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by stating that between stool-based tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy, “the best screening test is the test that gets done.” But should that maxim apply to the new blood-based screening test, Guardant Health Shield? This proprietary test, which costs $895 and is not generally covered by insurance, identifies alterations in cell-free DNA that are characteristic of CRC.

Shield’s test characteristics were recently evaluated in a prospective study of more than 10,000 adults aged 45-84 at average risk for CRC. The test had an 87.5% sensitivity for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer but only a 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. Test specificity was 89.6%, meaning that about 1 in 10 participants without CRC or advanced precancerous lesions on colonoscopy had a false-positive result.

Although the Shield blood test has a higher rate of false positives than the traditional fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and lower sensitivity and specificity than a multitarget stool DNA (FIT-DNA) test designed to improve on Cologuard, it meets the previously established criteria set forth by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to be covered for Medicare beneficiaries at 3-year intervals, pending FDA approval. If public and private payers start covering Shield alongside other CRC screening tests, it presents an opportunity for primary care physicians to reach the approximately 3 in 10 adults between ages 45 and 75 who are not being routinely screened.

A big concern, however, is that the availability of a blood test may cause patients who would have otherwise been screened with colonoscopy or stool tests to switch to the blood test. A cost-effectiveness analysis found that offering a blood test to patients who decline screening colonoscopy saves additional lives, but at the cost of more than $377,000 per life-year gained. Another study relying on three microsimulation models previously utilized by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found that annual FIT results in more life-years gained at substantially lower cost than blood-based screening every 3 years “even when uptake of blood-based screening was 20 percentage points higher than uptake of FIT.” As a result, a multidisciplinary expert panel concluded that blood-based screening should not substitute for established CRC screening tests, but instead be offered only to patients who decline those tests.

In practice, this will increase the complexity of the CRC screening conversations we have with patients. We will need to be clear that the blood test is not yet endorsed by the USPSTF or any major guideline group and is a second-line test that will miss most precancerous polyps. As with the stool tests, it is essential to emphasize that a positive result must be followed by diagnostic colonoscopy. To addend the cancer screening maxim I mentioned before, the blood test is not the best test for CRC, but it’s probably better than no test at all.

Dr. Lin is a family physician and associate director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Last year, I concluded a commentary for this news organization on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by stating that between stool-based tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy, “the best screening test is the test that gets done.” But should that maxim apply to the new blood-based screening test, Guardant Health Shield? This proprietary test, which costs $895 and is not generally covered by insurance, identifies alterations in cell-free DNA that are characteristic of CRC.

Shield’s test characteristics were recently evaluated in a prospective study of more than 10,000 adults aged 45-84 at average risk for CRC. The test had an 87.5% sensitivity for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer but only a 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. Test specificity was 89.6%, meaning that about 1 in 10 participants without CRC or advanced precancerous lesions on colonoscopy had a false-positive result.

Although the Shield blood test has a higher rate of false positives than the traditional fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and lower sensitivity and specificity than a multitarget stool DNA (FIT-DNA) test designed to improve on Cologuard, it meets the previously established criteria set forth by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to be covered for Medicare beneficiaries at 3-year intervals, pending FDA approval. If public and private payers start covering Shield alongside other CRC screening tests, it presents an opportunity for primary care physicians to reach the approximately 3 in 10 adults between ages 45 and 75 who are not being routinely screened.

A big concern, however, is that the availability of a blood test may cause patients who would have otherwise been screened with colonoscopy or stool tests to switch to the blood test. A cost-effectiveness analysis found that offering a blood test to patients who decline screening colonoscopy saves additional lives, but at the cost of more than $377,000 per life-year gained. Another study relying on three microsimulation models previously utilized by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found that annual FIT results in more life-years gained at substantially lower cost than blood-based screening every 3 years “even when uptake of blood-based screening was 20 percentage points higher than uptake of FIT.” As a result, a multidisciplinary expert panel concluded that blood-based screening should not substitute for established CRC screening tests, but instead be offered only to patients who decline those tests.

In practice, this will increase the complexity of the CRC screening conversations we have with patients. We will need to be clear that the blood test is not yet endorsed by the USPSTF or any major guideline group and is a second-line test that will miss most precancerous polyps. As with the stool tests, it is essential to emphasize that a positive result must be followed by diagnostic colonoscopy. To addend the cancer screening maxim I mentioned before, the blood test is not the best test for CRC, but it’s probably better than no test at all.

Dr. Lin is a family physician and associate director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A former colleague once told me that there are few primary care procedures more satisfying for the patient and physician than removing part of an ingrown toenail. I disagree, but I performed this procedure quite a few times during my residency and first few years in practice. The patient would usually have been in pain for days to weeks and have tried soaking their foot or putting wisps of cotton under the ingrown nail edge, without relief. I would draw up a syringe of lidocaine with epinephrine and perform a digital block on the affected toe. After waiting 5-10 minutes for the toe to become numb, I would clean the area, use a nail elevator to push the cuticle off the nail plate, and lift up the lateral edge of the plate. I would then cut the lateral edge with a nail splitter and remove the cut nail fragment with a hemostat. Finally, after an inspection to make sure that I hadn›t left any pieces behind, I or my nurse would apply petrolatum gauze and a bandage.

I don’t do toenails anymore. Because this procedure was requested every several weeks at most, the offices where I worked weren’t organized to make it easy to do; sometimes my medical assistants didn’t know what supplies were needed or where to find them. Adding up the time it took to obtain consent, wait for the local anesthetic to take effect, and do the procedure, it was more efficient for me to see two or three patients for medication checkups and refer toenail problems to a podiatrist instead. The same thing happened with circumcisions on infants who, for whatever reason, hadn›t had them done in the hospital. After a few years of doing these, I decided it would be easier to send these patients to pediatric urologists.

My choice to reduce my scope of practice during the early part of my career mirrored a national trend among graduating family medicine residents. I value the joint injections, laceration repairs, biopsies, and other skin procedures that remain in my repertoire for the change of pace and saving my patients more costly visits to specialists with long waiting lists. In fact, a previous study showed that family physicians who provide more comprehensive care generate lower healthcare spending and fewer hospitalizations than those with a narrower scope of practice.

A recent evaluation of Comprehensive Primary Care Plus, one of several alternative payment models that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has piloted over the past decade, found that it modestly reduced emergency department visits and inpatient costs but didn’t save money after accounting for additional dollars going to primary care. However, when researchers looked at six specific services — immunizations, behavioral counseling, laceration management, skin lesion removal, joint or tendon injections, and point-of-care ultrasound — they found that patients who saw physicians who provided more of these had lower care costs and sought less acute care outside of the office. On average, independent-practice physicians provided more services than physicians who practiced at sites affiliated with hospitals or health systems. That makes sense: While health systems bring in more income for procedures performed in their operating rooms and subspecialists› offices, private practices do better by keeping services in-house.

Supporting physicians in maintaining the broadest possible scope of practice is, in my opinion, the missing piece in the federal government’s initiatives to strengthen primary care. Investing in primary care training programs and paying practices for care coordination are necessary but insufficient steps if family physicians are expected to improve population health and bend the cost curve.

Dr. Lin is Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A former colleague once told me that there are few primary care procedures more satisfying for the patient and physician than removing part of an ingrown toenail. I disagree, but I performed this procedure quite a few times during my residency and first few years in practice. The patient would usually have been in pain for days to weeks and have tried soaking their foot or putting wisps of cotton under the ingrown nail edge, without relief. I would draw up a syringe of lidocaine with epinephrine and perform a digital block on the affected toe. After waiting 5-10 minutes for the toe to become numb, I would clean the area, use a nail elevator to push the cuticle off the nail plate, and lift up the lateral edge of the plate. I would then cut the lateral edge with a nail splitter and remove the cut nail fragment with a hemostat. Finally, after an inspection to make sure that I hadn›t left any pieces behind, I or my nurse would apply petrolatum gauze and a bandage.

I don’t do toenails anymore. Because this procedure was requested every several weeks at most, the offices where I worked weren’t organized to make it easy to do; sometimes my medical assistants didn’t know what supplies were needed or where to find them. Adding up the time it took to obtain consent, wait for the local anesthetic to take effect, and do the procedure, it was more efficient for me to see two or three patients for medication checkups and refer toenail problems to a podiatrist instead. The same thing happened with circumcisions on infants who, for whatever reason, hadn›t had them done in the hospital. After a few years of doing these, I decided it would be easier to send these patients to pediatric urologists.

My choice to reduce my scope of practice during the early part of my career mirrored a national trend among graduating family medicine residents. I value the joint injections, laceration repairs, biopsies, and other skin procedures that remain in my repertoire for the change of pace and saving my patients more costly visits to specialists with long waiting lists. In fact, a previous study showed that family physicians who provide more comprehensive care generate lower healthcare spending and fewer hospitalizations than those with a narrower scope of practice.

A recent evaluation of Comprehensive Primary Care Plus, one of several alternative payment models that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has piloted over the past decade, found that it modestly reduced emergency department visits and inpatient costs but didn’t save money after accounting for additional dollars going to primary care. However, when researchers looked at six specific services — immunizations, behavioral counseling, laceration management, skin lesion removal, joint or tendon injections, and point-of-care ultrasound — they found that patients who saw physicians who provided more of these had lower care costs and sought less acute care outside of the office. On average, independent-practice physicians provided more services than physicians who practiced at sites affiliated with hospitals or health systems. That makes sense: While health systems bring in more income for procedures performed in their operating rooms and subspecialists› offices, private practices do better by keeping services in-house.

Supporting physicians in maintaining the broadest possible scope of practice is, in my opinion, the missing piece in the federal government’s initiatives to strengthen primary care. Investing in primary care training programs and paying practices for care coordination are necessary but insufficient steps if family physicians are expected to improve population health and bend the cost curve.

Dr. Lin is Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A former colleague once told me that there are few primary care procedures more satisfying for the patient and physician than removing part of an ingrown toenail. I disagree, but I performed this procedure quite a few times during my residency and first few years in practice. The patient would usually have been in pain for days to weeks and have tried soaking their foot or putting wisps of cotton under the ingrown nail edge, without relief. I would draw up a syringe of lidocaine with epinephrine and perform a digital block on the affected toe. After waiting 5-10 minutes for the toe to become numb, I would clean the area, use a nail elevator to push the cuticle off the nail plate, and lift up the lateral edge of the plate. I would then cut the lateral edge with a nail splitter and remove the cut nail fragment with a hemostat. Finally, after an inspection to make sure that I hadn›t left any pieces behind, I or my nurse would apply petrolatum gauze and a bandage.

I don’t do toenails anymore. Because this procedure was requested every several weeks at most, the offices where I worked weren’t organized to make it easy to do; sometimes my medical assistants didn’t know what supplies were needed or where to find them. Adding up the time it took to obtain consent, wait for the local anesthetic to take effect, and do the procedure, it was more efficient for me to see two or three patients for medication checkups and refer toenail problems to a podiatrist instead. The same thing happened with circumcisions on infants who, for whatever reason, hadn›t had them done in the hospital. After a few years of doing these, I decided it would be easier to send these patients to pediatric urologists.

My choice to reduce my scope of practice during the early part of my career mirrored a national trend among graduating family medicine residents. I value the joint injections, laceration repairs, biopsies, and other skin procedures that remain in my repertoire for the change of pace and saving my patients more costly visits to specialists with long waiting lists. In fact, a previous study showed that family physicians who provide more comprehensive care generate lower healthcare spending and fewer hospitalizations than those with a narrower scope of practice.

A recent evaluation of Comprehensive Primary Care Plus, one of several alternative payment models that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has piloted over the past decade, found that it modestly reduced emergency department visits and inpatient costs but didn’t save money after accounting for additional dollars going to primary care. However, when researchers looked at six specific services — immunizations, behavioral counseling, laceration management, skin lesion removal, joint or tendon injections, and point-of-care ultrasound — they found that patients who saw physicians who provided more of these had lower care costs and sought less acute care outside of the office. On average, independent-practice physicians provided more services than physicians who practiced at sites affiliated with hospitals or health systems. That makes sense: While health systems bring in more income for procedures performed in their operating rooms and subspecialists› offices, private practices do better by keeping services in-house.

Supporting physicians in maintaining the broadest possible scope of practice is, in my opinion, the missing piece in the federal government’s initiatives to strengthen primary care. Investing in primary care training programs and paying practices for care coordination are necessary but insufficient steps if family physicians are expected to improve population health and bend the cost curve.

Dr. Lin is Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

I’m 47 years old. Two years ago, when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) followed the American Cancer Society and lowered the starting age for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening from 50 to 45, my family physician brought up screening options at a health maintenance visit. Although I had expressed some skepticism about this change when the ACS updated its screening guideline in 2018, I generally follow the USPSTF recommendations in my own clinical practice, so I dutifully selected a test that, fortunately, came out negative.

Not everyone in the primary care community, however, is on board with screening average-risk adults in their late 40s for colorectal cancer. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) published a notable dissent, arguing that the evidence from modeling studies cited by the USPSTF to support lowering the starting age was insufficient. The AAFP also expressed concern that devoting screening resources to younger adults could come at the expense of improving screening rates in older adults who are at higher risk for CRC and increase health care costs without corresponding benefit.

Now, the American College of Physicians has joined the AAFP by releasing an updated guidance statement for CRC screening that discourages screening asymptomatic, average-risk adults between the ages of 45 and 49. In addition to the uncertainty surrounding benefits of screening adults in this age range, the ACP pointed out that starting screening at age 45, compared with age 50, would increase the number of colonoscopies and colonoscopy complications. My colleagues and I recently published a systematic review estimating that for every 10,000 screening colonoscopies performed, 8 people suffer a bowel perforation and 16 to 36 have severe bleeding requiring hospitalization. One in 3 patients undergoing colonoscopies report minor adverse events such as abdominal pain, bloating, and abdominal discomfort in the first 2 weeks following the procedure.

Other aspects of the ACP guidance differ from other colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Unlike the USPSTF, which made no distinctions between various recommended screening tests, the ACP preferentially endorsed fecal immunochemical or high-sensitivity fecal occult blood testing every 2 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus a fecal immunochemical test every 2 years. That leaves out stool DNA testing, which my patients increasingly request because they have seen television or online advertisements, and newer blood tests that detect methylation sequences in circulating tumor DNA.

Perhaps most controversial is the ACP’s suggestion that it is probably reasonable for some adults to start screening later than age 50 or undergo screening at longer intervals than currently recommended (for example, colonoscopy every 15 years). Recent data support extending the interval to repeat screening colonoscopy in selected populations; a large cross-sectional study found a low prevalence of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancers in colonoscopies performed 10 or more years after an initial negative colonoscopy, particularly in women and younger patients without gastrointestinal symptoms. A prominent BMJ guideline suggests that patients need not be screened until their estimated 15-year CRC risk is greater than 3% (which most people do not reach until their 60s) and then only need a single sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy.

Despite some departures from other guidelines, it’s worth emphasizing that the ACP guideline agrees that screening for CRC is generally worthwhile between the ages of 50 and 75 years. On that front, we in primary care have more work to do; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 28% of American adults older than 50 are not up-to-date on CRC screening. And despite some recent debate about the relative benefits and harms of screening colonoscopy, compared with less invasive fecal tests, gastroenterologists and family physicians can agree that the best screening test is the test that gets done.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

I’m 47 years old. Two years ago, when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) followed the American Cancer Society and lowered the starting age for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening from 50 to 45, my family physician brought up screening options at a health maintenance visit. Although I had expressed some skepticism about this change when the ACS updated its screening guideline in 2018, I generally follow the USPSTF recommendations in my own clinical practice, so I dutifully selected a test that, fortunately, came out negative.

Not everyone in the primary care community, however, is on board with screening average-risk adults in their late 40s for colorectal cancer. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) published a notable dissent, arguing that the evidence from modeling studies cited by the USPSTF to support lowering the starting age was insufficient. The AAFP also expressed concern that devoting screening resources to younger adults could come at the expense of improving screening rates in older adults who are at higher risk for CRC and increase health care costs without corresponding benefit.

Now, the American College of Physicians has joined the AAFP by releasing an updated guidance statement for CRC screening that discourages screening asymptomatic, average-risk adults between the ages of 45 and 49. In addition to the uncertainty surrounding benefits of screening adults in this age range, the ACP pointed out that starting screening at age 45, compared with age 50, would increase the number of colonoscopies and colonoscopy complications. My colleagues and I recently published a systematic review estimating that for every 10,000 screening colonoscopies performed, 8 people suffer a bowel perforation and 16 to 36 have severe bleeding requiring hospitalization. One in 3 patients undergoing colonoscopies report minor adverse events such as abdominal pain, bloating, and abdominal discomfort in the first 2 weeks following the procedure.

Other aspects of the ACP guidance differ from other colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Unlike the USPSTF, which made no distinctions between various recommended screening tests, the ACP preferentially endorsed fecal immunochemical or high-sensitivity fecal occult blood testing every 2 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus a fecal immunochemical test every 2 years. That leaves out stool DNA testing, which my patients increasingly request because they have seen television or online advertisements, and newer blood tests that detect methylation sequences in circulating tumor DNA.

Perhaps most controversial is the ACP’s suggestion that it is probably reasonable for some adults to start screening later than age 50 or undergo screening at longer intervals than currently recommended (for example, colonoscopy every 15 years). Recent data support extending the interval to repeat screening colonoscopy in selected populations; a large cross-sectional study found a low prevalence of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancers in colonoscopies performed 10 or more years after an initial negative colonoscopy, particularly in women and younger patients without gastrointestinal symptoms. A prominent BMJ guideline suggests that patients need not be screened until their estimated 15-year CRC risk is greater than 3% (which most people do not reach until their 60s) and then only need a single sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy.

Despite some departures from other guidelines, it’s worth emphasizing that the ACP guideline agrees that screening for CRC is generally worthwhile between the ages of 50 and 75 years. On that front, we in primary care have more work to do; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 28% of American adults older than 50 are not up-to-date on CRC screening. And despite some recent debate about the relative benefits and harms of screening colonoscopy, compared with less invasive fecal tests, gastroenterologists and family physicians can agree that the best screening test is the test that gets done.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

I’m 47 years old. Two years ago, when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) followed the American Cancer Society and lowered the starting age for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening from 50 to 45, my family physician brought up screening options at a health maintenance visit. Although I had expressed some skepticism about this change when the ACS updated its screening guideline in 2018, I generally follow the USPSTF recommendations in my own clinical practice, so I dutifully selected a test that, fortunately, came out negative.

Not everyone in the primary care community, however, is on board with screening average-risk adults in their late 40s for colorectal cancer. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) published a notable dissent, arguing that the evidence from modeling studies cited by the USPSTF to support lowering the starting age was insufficient. The AAFP also expressed concern that devoting screening resources to younger adults could come at the expense of improving screening rates in older adults who are at higher risk for CRC and increase health care costs without corresponding benefit.

Now, the American College of Physicians has joined the AAFP by releasing an updated guidance statement for CRC screening that discourages screening asymptomatic, average-risk adults between the ages of 45 and 49. In addition to the uncertainty surrounding benefits of screening adults in this age range, the ACP pointed out that starting screening at age 45, compared with age 50, would increase the number of colonoscopies and colonoscopy complications. My colleagues and I recently published a systematic review estimating that for every 10,000 screening colonoscopies performed, 8 people suffer a bowel perforation and 16 to 36 have severe bleeding requiring hospitalization. One in 3 patients undergoing colonoscopies report minor adverse events such as abdominal pain, bloating, and abdominal discomfort in the first 2 weeks following the procedure.

Other aspects of the ACP guidance differ from other colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Unlike the USPSTF, which made no distinctions between various recommended screening tests, the ACP preferentially endorsed fecal immunochemical or high-sensitivity fecal occult blood testing every 2 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus a fecal immunochemical test every 2 years. That leaves out stool DNA testing, which my patients increasingly request because they have seen television or online advertisements, and newer blood tests that detect methylation sequences in circulating tumor DNA.

Perhaps most controversial is the ACP’s suggestion that it is probably reasonable for some adults to start screening later than age 50 or undergo screening at longer intervals than currently recommended (for example, colonoscopy every 15 years). Recent data support extending the interval to repeat screening colonoscopy in selected populations; a large cross-sectional study found a low prevalence of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancers in colonoscopies performed 10 or more years after an initial negative colonoscopy, particularly in women and younger patients without gastrointestinal symptoms. A prominent BMJ guideline suggests that patients need not be screened until their estimated 15-year CRC risk is greater than 3% (which most people do not reach until their 60s) and then only need a single sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy.

Despite some departures from other guidelines, it’s worth emphasizing that the ACP guideline agrees that screening for CRC is generally worthwhile between the ages of 50 and 75 years. On that front, we in primary care have more work to do; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 28% of American adults older than 50 are not up-to-date on CRC screening. And despite some recent debate about the relative benefits and harms of screening colonoscopy, compared with less invasive fecal tests, gastroenterologists and family physicians can agree that the best screening test is the test that gets done.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Compared with the complicated and ever-changing recommended vaccine schedule for infants and children, vaccines for adults have been straightforward. Adults without compromised immunity who received all their childhood vaccinations are eligible for a tetanus and diphtheria (Td) or tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap) booster every 10 years, recombinant herpes zoster vaccine at age 50, and pneumococcal vaccines at age 65, along with annual influenza and (likely) COVID-19 vaccines. Last year, due to rising rates of acute hepatitis B, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first recommended universal hepatitis B vaccination for adults aged 19-59 years without a record of previous hepatitis B infection or vaccination.

An additional routine vaccine for adults is now on the horizon. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved Arexvy, a vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) for adults aged 60 years or older. Two more RSV vaccines are in the final stages of development. Why should family physicians prioritize vaccinating older adults against RSV, and how can we incorporate this new vaccine into our practices and overcome patient hesitancy to receive yet another vaccine?

Clinicians tend to think of RSV as a serious disease in young children – which it is – but data suggest that in 2019, RSV infection led to more than 100,000 hospitalizations and 7,700 deaths in older adults in the United States. In a randomized controlled trial of 25,000 adults aged 60 years or older with a median of 6.7 months of follow-up, Arexvy reduced severe RSV disease by 94% and RSV-related acute respiratory infections by 71%, with similar effectiveness in adults with underlying health conditions. That’s considerably better protection than current influenza vaccines and comparable to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines before variants became widespread. Pain and fatigue were the most common side effects and usually resolved within 1-2 days.

Although the seasonal pattern of RSV shifted during the COVID-19 pandemic, RSV season historically begins in October, peaks in December, and ends in April. If the vaccine is recommended by the CDC and is widely available by fall, as the manufacturer, GSK, expects, it could be administered around the same time as influenza and COVID-19 vaccines.

The challenges of incorporating this new vaccine into practice will feel familiar: Many of our patients won’t have heard about it, may feel that they don’t need it, or may decline it because of concerns about side effects, real or imagined. (Of note, the FDA is requiring GSK to perform a postmarketing study to rule out associations with rare cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and the company also plans to monitor the incidence of atrial fibrillation, which was slightly more common in the vaccine group than the placebo group.)

While a strong recommendation from a family physician is often enough to convince patients to accept vaccination, rampant misinformation during the pandemic may have worsened vaccine hesitancy for some. It may feel like a fruitless exercise to try to convince adults who have refused COVID-19 and influenza vaccines to accept a newer vaccine against a respiratory virus that causes less serious illness overall. But with other RSV vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for older adults and infants likely to be approved soon, it’s important for us to start laying the groundwork now by educating colleagues, staff, and patients about preventing serious illness caused by RSV.

Dr. Lin is an associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine at Georgetown University and a staff physician atMedStar Health Center, both in Washington. He has received income from UpToDate, Wiley-Blackwell, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Compared with the complicated and ever-changing recommended vaccine schedule for infants and children, vaccines for adults have been straightforward. Adults without compromised immunity who received all their childhood vaccinations are eligible for a tetanus and diphtheria (Td) or tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap) booster every 10 years, recombinant herpes zoster vaccine at age 50, and pneumococcal vaccines at age 65, along with annual influenza and (likely) COVID-19 vaccines. Last year, due to rising rates of acute hepatitis B, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first recommended universal hepatitis B vaccination for adults aged 19-59 years without a record of previous hepatitis B infection or vaccination.

An additional routine vaccine for adults is now on the horizon. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved Arexvy, a vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) for adults aged 60 years or older. Two more RSV vaccines are in the final stages of development. Why should family physicians prioritize vaccinating older adults against RSV, and how can we incorporate this new vaccine into our practices and overcome patient hesitancy to receive yet another vaccine?

Clinicians tend to think of RSV as a serious disease in young children – which it is – but data suggest that in 2019, RSV infection led to more than 100,000 hospitalizations and 7,700 deaths in older adults in the United States. In a randomized controlled trial of 25,000 adults aged 60 years or older with a median of 6.7 months of follow-up, Arexvy reduced severe RSV disease by 94% and RSV-related acute respiratory infections by 71%, with similar effectiveness in adults with underlying health conditions. That’s considerably better protection than current influenza vaccines and comparable to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines before variants became widespread. Pain and fatigue were the most common side effects and usually resolved within 1-2 days.

Although the seasonal pattern of RSV shifted during the COVID-19 pandemic, RSV season historically begins in October, peaks in December, and ends in April. If the vaccine is recommended by the CDC and is widely available by fall, as the manufacturer, GSK, expects, it could be administered around the same time as influenza and COVID-19 vaccines.

The challenges of incorporating this new vaccine into practice will feel familiar: Many of our patients won’t have heard about it, may feel that they don’t need it, or may decline it because of concerns about side effects, real or imagined. (Of note, the FDA is requiring GSK to perform a postmarketing study to rule out associations with rare cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and the company also plans to monitor the incidence of atrial fibrillation, which was slightly more common in the vaccine group than the placebo group.)

While a strong recommendation from a family physician is often enough to convince patients to accept vaccination, rampant misinformation during the pandemic may have worsened vaccine hesitancy for some. It may feel like a fruitless exercise to try to convince adults who have refused COVID-19 and influenza vaccines to accept a newer vaccine against a respiratory virus that causes less serious illness overall. But with other RSV vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for older adults and infants likely to be approved soon, it’s important for us to start laying the groundwork now by educating colleagues, staff, and patients about preventing serious illness caused by RSV.

Dr. Lin is an associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine at Georgetown University and a staff physician atMedStar Health Center, both in Washington. He has received income from UpToDate, Wiley-Blackwell, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Compared with the complicated and ever-changing recommended vaccine schedule for infants and children, vaccines for adults have been straightforward. Adults without compromised immunity who received all their childhood vaccinations are eligible for a tetanus and diphtheria (Td) or tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap) booster every 10 years, recombinant herpes zoster vaccine at age 50, and pneumococcal vaccines at age 65, along with annual influenza and (likely) COVID-19 vaccines. Last year, due to rising rates of acute hepatitis B, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first recommended universal hepatitis B vaccination for adults aged 19-59 years without a record of previous hepatitis B infection or vaccination.

An additional routine vaccine for adults is now on the horizon. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved Arexvy, a vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) for adults aged 60 years or older. Two more RSV vaccines are in the final stages of development. Why should family physicians prioritize vaccinating older adults against RSV, and how can we incorporate this new vaccine into our practices and overcome patient hesitancy to receive yet another vaccine?

Clinicians tend to think of RSV as a serious disease in young children – which it is – but data suggest that in 2019, RSV infection led to more than 100,000 hospitalizations and 7,700 deaths in older adults in the United States. In a randomized controlled trial of 25,000 adults aged 60 years or older with a median of 6.7 months of follow-up, Arexvy reduced severe RSV disease by 94% and RSV-related acute respiratory infections by 71%, with similar effectiveness in adults with underlying health conditions. That’s considerably better protection than current influenza vaccines and comparable to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines before variants became widespread. Pain and fatigue were the most common side effects and usually resolved within 1-2 days.

Although the seasonal pattern of RSV shifted during the COVID-19 pandemic, RSV season historically begins in October, peaks in December, and ends in April. If the vaccine is recommended by the CDC and is widely available by fall, as the manufacturer, GSK, expects, it could be administered around the same time as influenza and COVID-19 vaccines.

The challenges of incorporating this new vaccine into practice will feel familiar: Many of our patients won’t have heard about it, may feel that they don’t need it, or may decline it because of concerns about side effects, real or imagined. (Of note, the FDA is requiring GSK to perform a postmarketing study to rule out associations with rare cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and the company also plans to monitor the incidence of atrial fibrillation, which was slightly more common in the vaccine group than the placebo group.)

While a strong recommendation from a family physician is often enough to convince patients to accept vaccination, rampant misinformation during the pandemic may have worsened vaccine hesitancy for some. It may feel like a fruitless exercise to try to convince adults who have refused COVID-19 and influenza vaccines to accept a newer vaccine against a respiratory virus that causes less serious illness overall. But with other RSV vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for older adults and infants likely to be approved soon, it’s important for us to start laying the groundwork now by educating colleagues, staff, and patients about preventing serious illness caused by RSV.

Dr. Lin is an associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine at Georgetown University and a staff physician atMedStar Health Center, both in Washington. He has received income from UpToDate, Wiley-Blackwell, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster (Pa.) General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

For most of my career, I have precepted residents in primary care clinics. Generally, 1st years are scheduled to see a patient every 45 minutes on average, then every 30 minutes after the first 6 months. By the 3rd year, residents are scheduled to see a patient every 15 minutes to approximate the frequency at which patients are routinely seen in practice. Adult health maintenance visits are typically allotted two slots, for a total of 30 minutes.

The gradually increased pace of seeing patients is a challenge for many residents. It requires them to not only perform more focused medical histories and physical examinations but also to address a select handful of issues in patients who may have a long list of health concerns or preventive care needs. Prioritizing tasks into those that are necessary to do today vs. those that can be deferred to a follow-up visit is an essential skill that is equal parts art and science. In a previous commentary, I wrote about a research group’s efforts to create visual decision aids to generate individualized estimates of life expectancy gains from various preventive services.

Of course, it’s uncommon to have the luxury of focusing exclusively on preventive care in older adults, most of whom have one or more chronic conditions. Obesity, diabetes, hypertension, hypothyroidism, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease each has its own set of management guidelines. According to a recent estimate, following all guideline recommendations for chronic diseases plus those for preventive and acute care would require a primary care physician with a nationally representative panel of adult patients to work an impossible 27-hour day. That’s another good reason for me to continue seeing children in practice!

In a commentary in The BMJ, Dr Minna Johansson and colleagues argued that guideline panels should explicitly consider the estimated clinician time needed to improve the desired outcome for one person in the targeted population, a metric that they call “time needed to treat” (TNT). For example, to implement a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for U.K. general practitioners (GPs) about providing advice to physically inactive adults would require 3 hours for one more person to increase their self-reported physical activity. For a patient panel of 2000 adults, the absolute TNT would be 167 hours per GP, representing 15% of yearly total face time with all patients, which seems clearly excessive.

In fact, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force does occasionally consider the “opportunity costs” of recommending preventive services. When they first reviewed screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in 2008, the USPSTF reasoned that the minimal benefit of screening hundreds of patients to prevent a single COPD exacerbation was at least offset by the time and resources it would take to perform spirometry on every adult with a smoking history, a conclusion that it reaffirmed last year. In contrast to NICE, the USPSTF recommends selectively counseling adults without cardiovascular risk factors to promote a healthy diet and physical activity rather than counseling every single person.

Other US guideline groups would do well to adopt the advice of Johansson and colleagues to consider TNT. Last year, the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) recommended counseling every woman aged 40-60 years with normal or overweight body mass index “to maintain weight or limit weight gain to prevent obesity.” Though preventing obesity is a laudable goal, I’d prefer to counsel those who are obese and suffering from obesity-related conditions and spend my 15 or 30 minutes with others doing something more valuable, like listening to the patient. As Dr. Johansson and colleagues wrote in their commentary, “Healthcare policies also need to account for the time clinicians should spend listening in silence, noticing carefully, and cocreating sensible plans of care with patients.”

Having served on several guideline panels in the past, I believe that thoughtfully developed evidence-based guidelines can help family physicians care for patients. But guidelines will never make up all of medicine, particularly primary care, where following too many well-intended recommendations can sometimes get in the way of being a good doctor.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster (Pa.) General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

For most of my career, I have precepted residents in primary care clinics. Generally, 1st years are scheduled to see a patient every 45 minutes on average, then every 30 minutes after the first 6 months. By the 3rd year, residents are scheduled to see a patient every 15 minutes to approximate the frequency at which patients are routinely seen in practice. Adult health maintenance visits are typically allotted two slots, for a total of 30 minutes.

The gradually increased pace of seeing patients is a challenge for many residents. It requires them to not only perform more focused medical histories and physical examinations but also to address a select handful of issues in patients who may have a long list of health concerns or preventive care needs. Prioritizing tasks into those that are necessary to do today vs. those that can be deferred to a follow-up visit is an essential skill that is equal parts art and science. In a previous commentary, I wrote about a research group’s efforts to create visual decision aids to generate individualized estimates of life expectancy gains from various preventive services.

Of course, it’s uncommon to have the luxury of focusing exclusively on preventive care in older adults, most of whom have one or more chronic conditions. Obesity, diabetes, hypertension, hypothyroidism, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease each has its own set of management guidelines. According to a recent estimate, following all guideline recommendations for chronic diseases plus those for preventive and acute care would require a primary care physician with a nationally representative panel of adult patients to work an impossible 27-hour day. That’s another good reason for me to continue seeing children in practice!

In a commentary in The BMJ, Dr Minna Johansson and colleagues argued that guideline panels should explicitly consider the estimated clinician time needed to improve the desired outcome for one person in the targeted population, a metric that they call “time needed to treat” (TNT). For example, to implement a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for U.K. general practitioners (GPs) about providing advice to physically inactive adults would require 3 hours for one more person to increase their self-reported physical activity. For a patient panel of 2000 adults, the absolute TNT would be 167 hours per GP, representing 15% of yearly total face time with all patients, which seems clearly excessive.

In fact, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force does occasionally consider the “opportunity costs” of recommending preventive services. When they first reviewed screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in 2008, the USPSTF reasoned that the minimal benefit of screening hundreds of patients to prevent a single COPD exacerbation was at least offset by the time and resources it would take to perform spirometry on every adult with a smoking history, a conclusion that it reaffirmed last year. In contrast to NICE, the USPSTF recommends selectively counseling adults without cardiovascular risk factors to promote a healthy diet and physical activity rather than counseling every single person.

Other US guideline groups would do well to adopt the advice of Johansson and colleagues to consider TNT. Last year, the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) recommended counseling every woman aged 40-60 years with normal or overweight body mass index “to maintain weight or limit weight gain to prevent obesity.” Though preventing obesity is a laudable goal, I’d prefer to counsel those who are obese and suffering from obesity-related conditions and spend my 15 or 30 minutes with others doing something more valuable, like listening to the patient. As Dr. Johansson and colleagues wrote in their commentary, “Healthcare policies also need to account for the time clinicians should spend listening in silence, noticing carefully, and cocreating sensible plans of care with patients.”

Having served on several guideline panels in the past, I believe that thoughtfully developed evidence-based guidelines can help family physicians care for patients. But guidelines will never make up all of medicine, particularly primary care, where following too many well-intended recommendations can sometimes get in the way of being a good doctor.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster (Pa.) General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

For most of my career, I have precepted residents in primary care clinics. Generally, 1st years are scheduled to see a patient every 45 minutes on average, then every 30 minutes after the first 6 months. By the 3rd year, residents are scheduled to see a patient every 15 minutes to approximate the frequency at which patients are routinely seen in practice. Adult health maintenance visits are typically allotted two slots, for a total of 30 minutes.

The gradually increased pace of seeing patients is a challenge for many residents. It requires them to not only perform more focused medical histories and physical examinations but also to address a select handful of issues in patients who may have a long list of health concerns or preventive care needs. Prioritizing tasks into those that are necessary to do today vs. those that can be deferred to a follow-up visit is an essential skill that is equal parts art and science. In a previous commentary, I wrote about a research group’s efforts to create visual decision aids to generate individualized estimates of life expectancy gains from various preventive services.

Of course, it’s uncommon to have the luxury of focusing exclusively on preventive care in older adults, most of whom have one or more chronic conditions. Obesity, diabetes, hypertension, hypothyroidism, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease each has its own set of management guidelines. According to a recent estimate, following all guideline recommendations for chronic diseases plus those for preventive and acute care would require a primary care physician with a nationally representative panel of adult patients to work an impossible 27-hour day. That’s another good reason for me to continue seeing children in practice!

In a commentary in The BMJ, Dr Minna Johansson and colleagues argued that guideline panels should explicitly consider the estimated clinician time needed to improve the desired outcome for one person in the targeted population, a metric that they call “time needed to treat” (TNT). For example, to implement a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for U.K. general practitioners (GPs) about providing advice to physically inactive adults would require 3 hours for one more person to increase their self-reported physical activity. For a patient panel of 2000 adults, the absolute TNT would be 167 hours per GP, representing 15% of yearly total face time with all patients, which seems clearly excessive.

In fact, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force does occasionally consider the “opportunity costs” of recommending preventive services. When they first reviewed screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in 2008, the USPSTF reasoned that the minimal benefit of screening hundreds of patients to prevent a single COPD exacerbation was at least offset by the time and resources it would take to perform spirometry on every adult with a smoking history, a conclusion that it reaffirmed last year. In contrast to NICE, the USPSTF recommends selectively counseling adults without cardiovascular risk factors to promote a healthy diet and physical activity rather than counseling every single person.

Other US guideline groups would do well to adopt the advice of Johansson and colleagues to consider TNT. Last year, the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) recommended counseling every woman aged 40-60 years with normal or overweight body mass index “to maintain weight or limit weight gain to prevent obesity.” Though preventing obesity is a laudable goal, I’d prefer to counsel those who are obese and suffering from obesity-related conditions and spend my 15 or 30 minutes with others doing something more valuable, like listening to the patient. As Dr. Johansson and colleagues wrote in their commentary, “Healthcare policies also need to account for the time clinicians should spend listening in silence, noticing carefully, and cocreating sensible plans of care with patients.”

Having served on several guideline panels in the past, I believe that thoughtfully developed evidence-based guidelines can help family physicians care for patients. But guidelines will never make up all of medicine, particularly primary care, where following too many well-intended recommendations can sometimes get in the way of being a good doctor.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a recently published editorial, Tom Frieden, MD, MPH, former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, argued that primary care is in deep trouble, its long-standing financial problems exacerbated by the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. Those arguments resonated with Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, a family physician, professor at Georgetown University School of Medicine, and a regular contributor to Medscape. He spoke with Dr. Frieden about his concerns.

Dr. Lin: Why did you feel that it was important to write this piece focused on primary care?

Dr. Frieden: I’m glad you asked that question. Given all that is going on, one might ask, what is the importance of primary care? We’ve got this epidemic going on that requires public health and hospital systems. Why voice concern about primary care now?

When I’ve looked around the United States, I’ve been extremely concerned about both the risk that primary care practitioners are subjected to in their everyday practice and the economic risk that we could lose many of our primary care practices around the country. It’s really striking to see that the number of visits has plummeted. Because of our payment structure, that means incomes have plummeted. We’re hearing about doctors’ offices getting boarded up and shuttering. As I write in the piece, it’s one thing for a theater or a restaurant or another important community entity to shut because of economic downturn, and these are real losses, but to lose their only primary care practice or one of the few in an area really is a matter of life and death for many communities.
 

Dr. Lin: I agree. In my own practice we haven’t had to furlough anyone, but we’ve put people on forced paid time off. We’ve been reallocating physicians to other parts of our health system. It is definitely a concern. A solo practitioner or someone in a rural practice would most likely be even much more heavily hit. You’ve argued that the neglect of our public health system on a national level has led to many preventable deaths from COVID-19. Do you feel that something similar has happened in primary care? How could a stronger, better-funded primary care infrastructure better prepare us for the next pandemic?

Dr. Frieden: All over the world, we see an overemphasis on hospital care and an underemphasis on primary care, outpatient care, family medicine. As a result, we pay more. We have larger risks, and we don’t prevent diseases that we could prevent. It’s fundamentally about the economic incentives of our health care system. Of course, that often reflects the political reality of different profit centers and cost centers of care. That won’t change with tweaking around the edges. It will only change if we change the way we pay for health care. Money talks. We need to start paying at least part of what we pay based on health outcomes.

Many years ago a colleague and I wrote an article, “Health Care as If Health Mattered.” If you step back and look at how we pay for health care, very little, if any, of our payment structure is based on how much health the care system delivers. Part of that can be addressed by going to capitated models, which I think do better. But you have also got to put into those capitated systems some quality and outcome measures that are both valid and not too burdensome to report on. That’s not easy. We could talk a lot about some of the information systems and payment systems, but I think the bottom line is that we need to be able to deal not only with health emergencies, but also with preventive care, care of chronic diseases, and behavioral health care in ways that maximize health.

One of the ways to do that is simple, monthly, capitated payments along with what I call a registry-based outcomes system.

I’m a tuberculosis specialist by training. In tuberculosis there really is a great information system. We track every single patient who has been diagnosed, and we hold every clinician accountable for whether or not they’ve successfully treated that patient. An optimal health care system should do the same with treatment of hypertension, diabetes, seizure disorder, and other common conditions in which treatment makes a really big difference. Preventive care, especially vaccine delivery, is another example.

I understand that physicians will point out that patients may not come in for that care, or they’re hard to deal with, or they refuse recommended treatment. We don’t expect 100%. But we should expect that, if we’re paying for health care, we should get health.

To do that, I think we need much more support for primary care, both in terms of the absolute amount of dollars going in and the administrative support. Some of our systems are so complicated that you can’t manage them without a billing department. How does a one- or two-physician practice deal with systems that will take dozens of hours a week to manage? You have to deal with the administrative complexity, the structure of the incentives, and the structure of care.

I think these are all things that we have to address. But for a minute, let’s helicopter up and look at the big picture. Without additional help from Congress, tens of thousands of primary care physicians could go out of business in the coming weeks. This is a crisis, and this will be very hard to rebuild. We don’t have a strong, resilient primary care infrastructure today, and if we’re not careful it’ll be even weaker as we try to rebuild.

It has been encouraging to see some of the care innovations that have occurred in response to the pandemic. I’m particularly encouraged by the widespread interest in and support for telemedicine. Telemedicine is a very important way of making care safer, more accessible, less expensive, more efficient. There have been a lot of restrictions on it, not just in the United States but globally, for many years. It’s really interesting to see those restrictions rapidly change. I give credit to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for quick changes in this area.

Now, telemedicine isn’t a cure-all. There are lots of things you can’t do from a distance. It’s a pale reflection of reality, compared with an in-person first visit with a patient. But it’s a whole lot better than nothing. If we look at some of the best health systems in the United States, they’ve gone to as much as 80% of clinical visits done by telemedicine. I don’t think we’re going to go back. Even if COVID is no longer the threat that it is today, if you can do things more quickly, more efficiently, and more conveniently for both patients and doctors, do them. Obviously, it won’t be all visits, but it could be a large proportion of visits and an important part of strengthening our primary care system.

My initiative, Resolve to Save Lives, which is part of the global health organization Vital Strategies, has done work in the area of public health around the world. I am really struck by how weak primary care systems are in so many countries. Strong primary care systems are the exception rather than the rule, but they’re also a best buy in health care. They’re crucially important, and they’re going to work differently in different countries, in different states, in different communities. We need to do a better job of supporting primary care, building primary care, and paying for primary care.
 

Dr. Lin: You’ve identified two needs. The immediate need is that primary care practices need revenue now to not have to close in the immediate aftermath or the ongoing COVID epidemic, but also there’s the long term, the percentage of health care dollars that are going to primary care in the long term. You pointed out in your article that currently 5% or less of health care spending is in primary care, which is a lot less percentage-wise than in many other countries. I think the question always comes up is that we want to increase that share, but the money has to come from somewhere. Where is that extra money going to come from?
Dr. Frieden: I’m not an expert in health care finance, but one thing I’ve learned over the years is that one person’s waste, fraud, and abuse is somebody else’s profit center. It’s not going to be easy. On the one hand, we do need to think about more efficient ways to organize primary care; on the other hand, we have to figure out a way to internalize some of the savings. If you give good primary care and, therefore, someone doesn’t get hospitalized, you can actually lose money in the current system, whereas you’re saving the system a lot of money by preventing that hospitalization.

I think our health system does have significant inefficiencies in terms of the number of tests and interventions that are done that are really not proven to help patients. It has been demonstrated for decades now that the usual economic incentives don’t operate in health care. In health care, supply often generates demand. The number of gallbladder operations is proportional not to population but to the number of gallbladder surgeons. That’s a problem, and it’s a problem that we’re going to have to assess. “Gatekeeper” is an unpleasant word, but if a primary care practitioner could be the advocate for patients so that we’re not pushing for patients to get more care or to get less care but to get the right care, we have the potential to reduce costs while improving quality.
 

Dr. Lin: You accurately point out that the fee-for-service payment system has been the major culprit in the declining revenues of primary care practices since the start of the pandemic. But for the majority of primary care physicians, including myself, fee-for-service is all that we’ve ever known. Do you think that primary care is ready for such an abrupt financing change, particularly in a very short period of time?Dr. Frieden: You’re certainly accurate in saying that nothing about health care finance is easy. Trying to address these problems at the national or state level has been extremely difficult. I think that the pilot programs in Medicare are very important. Medicaid is a particular challenge because it’s a state-based program and many of the costs are driven by nursing home and long-term care. When you take those costs out, the actual funding per patient or per provider is quite low in most places.

It’s hard enough to reorganize if you’ve got ample resources, but to reorganize when they are insufficient is particularly hard. I would say only that there are no quick and simple answers to this question, but there is a widespread understanding that what we’re doing now doesn’t make sense. We pay top dollar and we get – despite fantastic doctors and fantastic hospitals – lousy outcomes. I’m a public health physician. I’m an internal medicine and infectious disease specialist. Fundamentally, I look at the data. If you think of our health care system as a patient, the patient is not doing well. We’re not functional to the degree we need to be, particularly when you think of what an enormous outlier our per capita expenditures are [compared with other developed countries] – almost twice the average upper-income country and 25% more than any other upper-income country.

Now, anyone who tells you that change is going to be pain-free is not leveling with you. In addition to things like telemedicine, we have to make much more use of team-based care and task sharing. There are lots of things that doctors are doing these days that they really shouldn’t.
 

Dr. Lin: In your recent op-ed, you noted the pivot to telehealth that primary care practices have made very quickly in response to the pandemic. That certainly was the experience for my practice. But what are some other strategies that you think are important to support the goal of better care delivery in our primary care practices?Dr. Frieden: Another really important innovation is team-based care. There are lots of things that doctors are doing today that nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and community health workers can do better and for less money. Frankly, I think that should increase the job satisfaction of physicians, to be doing work that is specific to the physician, requiring either more patient interaction or advanced reasoning or experience.

In my own field of tuberculosis control, I learned how to treat tuberculosis because the nurse at the TB clinic kept correcting me because that’s all she did. She did tuberculosis care, so she had seen everything. Even though I’d finished an infectious disease fellowship and internal medicine residency, the public health nurse knew TB a whole lot better than I did.

Similarly, as we work on hypertension control, you can protocolize most of this care and do a much better job. That’s been proven for more than 40 years, and yet we still don’t do it.

One of the big parts of being able to do more with the same or fewer resources is going to be more team-based care. That’s really a task-sharing approach. I think of that as a triple win: You get better care for lower costs with more employment. What’s not to like?
 

Dr. Lin: I’m hopeful, as you are, that many of these innovations that have been made by necessity will persist beyond the duration of COVID-19. As you said, the health care system has been really difficult to change, and it often takes something like this to galvanize enough consensus that things need to change.

Dr. Frieden: I think the bottom line here is that we should pay our primary health care providers to keep us healthy and ensure that we have a payment system that lets them do that without risking bankruptcy. That’s not too much to ask of our system. It’s important for our health. It’s important for our economy. It’s important for our communities.

Dr. Lin teaches family medicine, preventive medicine, and health policy at Georgetown University School of Medicine. He is deputy editor of the journal American Family Physician. Follow him on Twitter. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for MedStar Georgetown University Hospital and received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from UpToDate, Wiley-Blackwell, and American Academy of Family Physicians.

Dr. Frieden is a physician with advanced training in internal medicine, infectious disease, public health, and epidemiology. He has served as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and as commissioner of the New York City Health Department. Currently he is president and CEO of Resolve to Save Lives. Follow him on Twitter. Thomas R. Frieden, MD, MPH, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In a recently published editorial, Tom Frieden, MD, MPH, former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, argued that primary care is in deep trouble, its long-standing financial problems exacerbated by the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. Those arguments resonated with Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, a family physician, professor at Georgetown University School of Medicine, and a regular contributor to Medscape. He spoke with Dr. Frieden about his concerns.

Dr. Lin: Why did you feel that it was important to write this piece focused on primary care?

Dr. Frieden: I’m glad you asked that question. Given all that is going on, one might ask, what is the importance of primary care? We’ve got this epidemic going on that requires public health and hospital systems. Why voice concern about primary care now?

When I’ve looked around the United States, I’ve been extremely concerned about both the risk that primary care practitioners are subjected to in their everyday practice and the economic risk that we could lose many of our primary care practices around the country. It’s really striking to see that the number of visits has plummeted. Because of our payment structure, that means incomes have plummeted. We’re hearing about doctors’ offices getting boarded up and shuttering. As I write in the piece, it’s one thing for a theater or a restaurant or another important community entity to shut because of economic downturn, and these are real losses, but to lose their only primary care practice or one of the few in an area really is a matter of life and death for many communities.
 

Dr. Lin: I agree. In my own practice we haven’t had to furlough anyone, but we’ve put people on forced paid time off. We’ve been reallocating physicians to other parts of our health system. It is definitely a concern. A solo practitioner or someone in a rural practice would most likely be even much more heavily hit. You’ve argued that the neglect of our public health system on a national level has led to many preventable deaths from COVID-19. Do you feel that something similar has happened in primary care? How could a stronger, better-funded primary care infrastructure better prepare us for the next pandemic?

Dr. Frieden: All over the world, we see an overemphasis on hospital care and an underemphasis on primary care, outpatient care, family medicine. As a result, we pay more. We have larger risks, and we don’t prevent diseases that we could prevent. It’s fundamentally about the economic incentives of our health care system. Of course, that often reflects the political reality of different profit centers and cost centers of care. That won’t change with tweaking around the edges. It will only change if we change the way we pay for health care. Money talks. We need to start paying at least part of what we pay based on health outcomes.

Many years ago a colleague and I wrote an article, “Health Care as If Health Mattered.” If you step back and look at how we pay for health care, very little, if any, of our payment structure is based on how much health the care system delivers. Part of that can be addressed by going to capitated models, which I think do better. But you have also got to put into those capitated systems some quality and outcome measures that are both valid and not too burdensome to report on. That’s not easy. We could talk a lot about some of the information systems and payment systems, but I think the bottom line is that we need to be able to deal not only with health emergencies, but also with preventive care, care of chronic diseases, and behavioral health care in ways that maximize health.

One of the ways to do that is simple, monthly, capitated payments along with what I call a registry-based outcomes system.

I’m a tuberculosis specialist by training. In tuberculosis there really is a great information system. We track every single patient who has been diagnosed, and we hold every clinician accountable for whether or not they’ve successfully treated that patient. An optimal health care system should do the same with treatment of hypertension, diabetes, seizure disorder, and other common conditions in which treatment makes a really big difference. Preventive care, especially vaccine delivery, is another example.

I understand that physicians will point out that patients may not come in for that care, or they’re hard to deal with, or they refuse recommended treatment. We don’t expect 100%. But we should expect that, if we’re paying for health care, we should get health.

To do that, I think we need much more support for primary care, both in terms of the absolute amount of dollars going in and the administrative support. Some of our systems are so complicated that you can’t manage them without a billing department. How does a one- or two-physician practice deal with systems that will take dozens of hours a week to manage? You have to deal with the administrative complexity, the structure of the incentives, and the structure of care.

I think these are all things that we have to address. But for a minute, let’s helicopter up and look at the big picture. Without additional help from Congress, tens of thousands of primary care physicians could go out of business in the coming weeks. This is a crisis, and this will be very hard to rebuild. We don’t have a strong, resilient primary care infrastructure today, and if we’re not careful it’ll be even weaker as we try to rebuild.

It has been encouraging to see some of the care innovations that have occurred in response to the pandemic. I’m particularly encouraged by the widespread interest in and support for telemedicine. Telemedicine is a very important way of making care safer, more accessible, less expensive, more efficient. There have been a lot of restrictions on it, not just in the United States but globally, for many years. It’s really interesting to see those restrictions rapidly change. I give credit to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for quick changes in this area.

Now, telemedicine isn’t a cure-all. There are lots of things you can’t do from a distance. It’s a pale reflection of reality, compared with an in-person first visit with a patient. But it’s a whole lot better than nothing. If we look at some of the best health systems in the United States, they’ve gone to as much as 80% of clinical visits done by telemedicine. I don’t think we’re going to go back. Even if COVID is no longer the threat that it is today, if you can do things more quickly, more efficiently, and more conveniently for both patients and doctors, do them. Obviously, it won’t be all visits, but it could be a large proportion of visits and an important part of strengthening our primary care system.

My initiative, Resolve to Save Lives, which is part of the global health organization Vital Strategies, has done work in the area of public health around the world. I am really struck by how weak primary care systems are in so many countries. Strong primary care systems are the exception rather than the rule, but they’re also a best buy in health care. They’re crucially important, and they’re going to work differently in different countries, in different states, in different communities. We need to do a better job of supporting primary care, building primary care, and paying for primary care.
 

Dr. Lin: You’ve identified two needs. The immediate need is that primary care practices need revenue now to not have to close in the immediate aftermath or the ongoing COVID epidemic, but also there’s the long term, the percentage of health care dollars that are going to primary care in the long term. You pointed out in your article that currently 5% or less of health care spending is in primary care, which is a lot less percentage-wise than in many other countries. I think the question always comes up is that we want to increase that share, but the money has to come from somewhere. Where is that extra money going to come from?
Dr. Frieden: I’m not an expert in health care finance, but one thing I’ve learned over the years is that one person’s waste, fraud, and abuse is somebody else’s profit center. It’s not going to be easy. On the one hand, we do need to think about more efficient ways to organize primary care; on the other hand, we have to figure out a way to internalize some of the savings. If you give good primary care and, therefore, someone doesn’t get hospitalized, you can actually lose money in the current system, whereas you’re saving the system a lot of money by preventing that hospitalization.

I think our health system does have significant inefficiencies in terms of the number of tests and interventions that are done that are really not proven to help patients. It has been demonstrated for decades now that the usual economic incentives don’t operate in health care. In health care, supply often generates demand. The number of gallbladder operations is proportional not to population but to the number of gallbladder surgeons. That’s a problem, and it’s a problem that we’re going to have to assess. “Gatekeeper” is an unpleasant word, but if a primary care practitioner could be the advocate for patients so that we’re not pushing for patients to get more care or to get less care but to get the right care, we have the potential to reduce costs while improving quality.
 

Dr. Lin: You accurately point out that the fee-for-service payment system has been the major culprit in the declining revenues of primary care practices since the start of the pandemic. But for the majority of primary care physicians, including myself, fee-for-service is all that we’ve ever known. Do you think that primary care is ready for such an abrupt financing change, particularly in a very short period of time?Dr. Frieden: You’re certainly accurate in saying that nothing about health care finance is easy. Trying to address these problems at the national or state level has been extremely difficult. I think that the pilot programs in Medicare are very important. Medicaid is a particular challenge because it’s a state-based program and many of the costs are driven by nursing home and long-term care. When you take those costs out, the actual funding per patient or per provider is quite low in most places.

It’s hard enough to reorganize if you’ve got ample resources, but to reorganize when they are insufficient is particularly hard. I would say only that there are no quick and simple answers to this question, but there is a widespread understanding that what we’re doing now doesn’t make sense. We pay top dollar and we get – despite fantastic doctors and fantastic hospitals – lousy outcomes. I’m a public health physician. I’m an internal medicine and infectious disease specialist. Fundamentally, I look at the data. If you think of our health care system as a patient, the patient is not doing well. We’re not functional to the degree we need to be, particularly when you think of what an enormous outlier our per capita expenditures are [compared with other developed countries] – almost twice the average upper-income country and 25% more than any other upper-income country.

Now, anyone who tells you that change is going to be pain-free is not leveling with you. In addition to things like telemedicine, we have to make much more use of team-based care and task sharing. There are lots of things that doctors are doing these days that they really shouldn’t.
 

Dr. Lin: In your recent op-ed, you noted the pivot to telehealth that primary care practices have made very quickly in response to the pandemic. That certainly was the experience for my practice. But what are some other strategies that you think are important to support the goal of better care delivery in our primary care practices?Dr. Frieden: Another really important innovation is team-based care. There are lots of things that doctors are doing today that nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and community health workers can do better and for less money. Frankly, I think that should increase the job satisfaction of physicians, to be doing work that is specific to the physician, requiring either more patient interaction or advanced reasoning or experience.

In my own field of tuberculosis control, I learned how to treat tuberculosis because the nurse at the TB clinic kept correcting me because that’s all she did. She did tuberculosis care, so she had seen everything. Even though I’d finished an infectious disease fellowship and internal medicine residency, the public health nurse knew TB a whole lot better than I did.

Similarly, as we work on hypertension control, you can protocolize most of this care and do a much better job. That’s been proven for more than 40 years, and yet we still don’t do it.

One of the big parts of being able to do more with the same or fewer resources is going to be more team-based care. That’s really a task-sharing approach. I think of that as a triple win: You get better care for lower costs with more employment. What’s not to like?
 

Dr. Lin: I’m hopeful, as you are, that many of these innovations that have been made by necessity will persist beyond the duration of COVID-19. As you said, the health care system has been really difficult to change, and it often takes something like this to galvanize enough consensus that things need to change.

Dr. Frieden: I think the bottom line here is that we should pay our primary health care providers to keep us healthy and ensure that we have a payment system that lets them do that without risking bankruptcy. That’s not too much to ask of our system. It’s important for our health. It’s important for our economy. It’s important for our communities.

Dr. Lin teaches family medicine, preventive medicine, and health policy at Georgetown University School of Medicine. He is deputy editor of the journal American Family Physician. Follow him on Twitter. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for MedStar Georgetown University Hospital and received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from UpToDate, Wiley-Blackwell, and American Academy of Family Physicians.

Dr. Frieden is a physician with advanced training in internal medicine, infectious disease, public health, and epidemiology. He has served as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and as commissioner of the New York City Health Department. Currently he is president and CEO of Resolve to Save Lives. Follow him on Twitter. Thomas R. Frieden, MD, MPH, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In a recently published editorial, Tom Frieden, MD, MPH, former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, argued that primary care is in deep trouble, its long-standing financial problems exacerbated by the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. Those arguments resonated with Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, a family physician, professor at Georgetown University School of Medicine, and a regular contributor to Medscape. He spoke with Dr. Frieden about his concerns.

Dr. Lin: Why did you feel that it was important to write this piece focused on primary care?

Dr. Frieden: I’m glad you asked that question. Given all that is going on, one might ask, what is the importance of primary care? We’ve got this epidemic going on that requires public health and hospital systems. Why voice concern about primary care now?

When I’ve looked around the United States, I’ve been extremely concerned about both the risk that primary care practitioners are subjected to in their everyday practice and the economic risk that we could lose many of our primary care practices around the country. It’s really striking to see that the number of visits has plummeted. Because of our payment structure, that means incomes have plummeted. We’re hearing about doctors’ offices getting boarded up and shuttering. As I write in the piece, it’s one thing for a theater or a restaurant or another important community entity to shut because of economic downturn, and these are real losses, but to lose their only primary care practice or one of the few in an area really is a matter of life and death for many communities.
 

Dr. Lin: I agree. In my own practice we haven’t had to furlough anyone, but we’ve put people on forced paid time off. We’ve been reallocating physicians to other parts of our health system. It is definitely a concern. A solo practitioner or someone in a rural practice would most likely be even much more heavily hit. You’ve argued that the neglect of our public health system on a national level has led to many preventable deaths from COVID-19. Do you feel that something similar has happened in primary care? How could a stronger, better-funded primary care infrastructure better prepare us for the next pandemic?

Dr. Frieden: All over the world, we see an overemphasis on hospital care and an underemphasis on primary care, outpatient care, family medicine. As a result, we pay more. We have larger risks, and we don’t prevent diseases that we could prevent. It’s fundamentally about the economic incentives of our health care system. Of course, that often reflects the political reality of different profit centers and cost centers of care. That won’t change with tweaking around the edges. It will only change if we change the way we pay for health care. Money talks. We need to start paying at least part of what we pay based on health outcomes.

Many years ago a colleague and I wrote an article, “Health Care as If Health Mattered.” If you step back and look at how we pay for health care, very little, if any, of our payment structure is based on how much health the care system delivers. Part of that can be addressed by going to capitated models, which I think do better. But you have also got to put into those capitated systems some quality and outcome measures that are both valid and not too burdensome to report on. That’s not easy. We could talk a lot about some of the information systems and payment systems, but I think the bottom line is that we need to be able to deal not only with health emergencies, but also with preventive care, care of chronic diseases, and behavioral health care in ways that maximize health.

One of the ways to do that is simple, monthly, capitated payments along with what I call a registry-based outcomes system.

I’m a tuberculosis specialist by training. In tuberculosis there really is a great information system. We track every single patient who has been diagnosed, and we hold every clinician accountable for whether or not they’ve successfully treated that patient. An optimal health care system should do the same with treatment of hypertension, diabetes, seizure disorder, and other common conditions in which treatment makes a really big difference. Preventive care, especially vaccine delivery, is another example.

I understand that physicians will point out that patients may not come in for that care, or they’re hard to deal with, or they refuse recommended treatment. We don’t expect 100%. But we should expect that, if we’re paying for health care, we should get health.

To do that, I think we need much more support for primary care, both in terms of the absolute amount of dollars going in and the administrative support. Some of our systems are so complicated that you can’t manage them without a billing department. How does a one- or two-physician practice deal with systems that will take dozens of hours a week to manage? You have to deal with the administrative complexity, the structure of the incentives, and the structure of care.

I think these are all things that we have to address. But for a minute, let’s helicopter up and look at the big picture. Without additional help from Congress, tens of thousands of primary care physicians could go out of business in the coming weeks. This is a crisis, and this will be very hard to rebuild. We don’t have a strong, resilient primary care infrastructure today, and if we’re not careful it’ll be even weaker as we try to rebuild.

It has been encouraging to see some of the care innovations that have occurred in response to the pandemic. I’m particularly encouraged by the widespread interest in and support for telemedicine. Telemedicine is a very important way of making care safer, more accessible, less expensive, more efficient. There have been a lot of restrictions on it, not just in the United States but globally, for many years. It’s really interesting to see those restrictions rapidly change. I give credit to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for quick changes in this area.

Now, telemedicine isn’t a cure-all. There are lots of things you can’t do from a distance. It’s a pale reflection of reality, compared with an in-person first visit with a patient. But it’s a whole lot better than nothing. If we look at some of the best health systems in the United States, they’ve gone to as much as 80% of clinical visits done by telemedicine. I don’t think we’re going to go back. Even if COVID is no longer the threat that it is today, if you can do things more quickly, more efficiently, and more conveniently for both patients and doctors, do them. Obviously, it won’t be all visits, but it could be a large proportion of visits and an important part of strengthening our primary care system.

My initiative, Resolve to Save Lives, which is part of the global health organization Vital Strategies, has done work in the area of public health around the world. I am really struck by how weak primary care systems are in so many countries. Strong primary care systems are the exception rather than the rule, but they’re also a best buy in health care. They’re crucially important, and they’re going to work differently in different countries, in different states, in different communities. We need to do a better job of supporting primary care, building primary care, and paying for primary care.
 

Dr. Lin: You’ve identified two needs. The immediate need is that primary care practices need revenue now to not have to close in the immediate aftermath or the ongoing COVID epidemic, but also there’s the long term, the percentage of health care dollars that are going to primary care in the long term. You pointed out in your article that currently 5% or less of health care spending is in primary care, which is a lot less percentage-wise than in many other countries. I think the question always comes up is that we want to increase that share, but the money has to come from somewhere. Where is that extra money going to come from?
Dr. Frieden: I’m not an expert in health care finance, but one thing I’ve learned over the years is that one person’s waste, fraud, and abuse is somebody else’s profit center. It’s not going to be easy. On the one hand, we do need to think about more efficient ways to organize primary care; on the other hand, we have to figure out a way to internalize some of the savings. If you give good primary care and, therefore, someone doesn’t get hospitalized, you can actually lose money in the current system, whereas you’re saving the system a lot of money by preventing that hospitalization.

I think our health system does have significant inefficiencies in terms of the number of tests and interventions that are done that are really not proven to help patients. It has been demonstrated for decades now that the usual economic incentives don’t operate in health care. In health care, supply often generates demand. The number of gallbladder operations is proportional not to population but to the number of gallbladder surgeons. That’s a problem, and it’s a problem that we’re going to have to assess. “Gatekeeper” is an unpleasant word, but if a primary care practitioner could be the advocate for patients so that we’re not pushing for patients to get more care or to get less care but to get the right care, we have the potential to reduce costs while improving quality.
 

Dr. Lin: You accurately point out that the fee-for-service payment system has been the major culprit in the declining revenues of primary care practices since the start of the pandemic. But for the majority of primary care physicians, including myself, fee-for-service is all that we’ve ever known. Do you think that primary care is ready for such an abrupt financing change, particularly in a very short period of time?Dr. Frieden: You’re certainly accurate in saying that nothing about health care finance is easy. Trying to address these problems at the national or state level has been extremely difficult. I think that the pilot programs in Medicare are very important. Medicaid is a particular challenge because it’s a state-based program and many of the costs are driven by nursing home and long-term care. When you take those costs out, the actual funding per patient or per provider is quite low in most places.

It’s hard enough to reorganize if you’ve got ample resources, but to reorganize when they are insufficient is particularly hard. I would say only that there are no quick and simple answers to this question, but there is a widespread understanding that what we’re doing now doesn’t make sense. We pay top dollar and we get – despite fantastic doctors and fantastic hospitals – lousy outcomes. I’m a public health physician. I’m an internal medicine and infectious disease specialist. Fundamentally, I look at the data. If you think of our health care system as a patient, the patient is not doing well. We’re not functional to the degree we need to be, particularly when you think of what an enormous outlier our per capita expenditures are [compared with other developed countries] – almost twice the average upper-income country and 25% more than any other upper-income country.

Now, anyone who tells you that change is going to be pain-free is not leveling with you. In addition to things like telemedicine, we have to make much more use of team-based care and task sharing. There are lots of things that doctors are doing these days that they really shouldn’t.
 

Dr. Lin: In your recent op-ed, you noted the pivot to telehealth that primary care practices have made very quickly in response to the pandemic. That certainly was the experience for my practice. But what are some other strategies that you think are important to support the goal of better care delivery in our primary care practices?Dr. Frieden: Another really important innovation is team-based care. There are lots of things that doctors are doing today that nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and community health workers can do better and for less money. Frankly, I think that should increase the job satisfaction of physicians, to be doing work that is specific to the physician, requiring either more patient interaction or advanced reasoning or experience.

In my own field of tuberculosis control, I learned how to treat tuberculosis because the nurse at the TB clinic kept correcting me because that’s all she did. She did tuberculosis care, so she had seen everything. Even though I’d finished an infectious disease fellowship and internal medicine residency, the public health nurse knew TB a whole lot better than I did.

Similarly, as we work on hypertension control, you can protocolize most of this care and do a much better job. That’s been proven for more than 40 years, and yet we still don’t do it.

One of the big parts of being able to do more with the same or fewer resources is going to be more team-based care. That’s really a task-sharing approach. I think of that as a triple win: You get better care for lower costs with more employment. What’s not to like?
 

Dr. Lin: I’m hopeful, as you are, that many of these innovations that have been made by necessity will persist beyond the duration of COVID-19. As you said, the health care system has been really difficult to change, and it often takes something like this to galvanize enough consensus that things need to change.

Dr. Frieden: I think the bottom line here is that we should pay our primary health care providers to keep us healthy and ensure that we have a payment system that lets them do that without risking bankruptcy. That’s not too much to ask of our system. It’s important for our health. It’s important for our economy. It’s important for our communities.

Dr. Lin teaches family medicine, preventive medicine, and health policy at Georgetown University School of Medicine. He is deputy editor of the journal American Family Physician. Follow him on Twitter. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for MedStar Georgetown University Hospital and received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from UpToDate, Wiley-Blackwell, and American Academy of Family Physicians.

Dr. Frieden is a physician with advanced training in internal medicine, infectious disease, public health, and epidemiology. He has served as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and as commissioner of the New York City Health Department. Currently he is president and CEO of Resolve to Save Lives. Follow him on Twitter. Thomas R. Frieden, MD, MPH, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.