Clinical Psychiatry News

The absence of self-harm does not preclude a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD), according to new findings that may have potential implications for changes to diagnostic criteria for the disorder.

Investigators compared characteristics of almost 400 psychiatric outpatients diagnosed with BPD. About half of the participants met the suicidality/self-injury diagnostic criterion for the disorder, while the other half did not.

Results showed no differences between the two groups in degree of impairment in occupational or social functioning, comorbid psychiatric disorders, history of childhood trauma, or severity of depression, anxiety, or anger.

“Just because a person doesn’t engage in self-harm or suicidal behavior doesn’t mean that the person is free of borderline personality disorder,” lead author Mark Zimmerman, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.

Brown University

A ‘polythetic diagnosis’

Dr. Zimmerman noted the impetus for conducting the study originated with a patient he saw who had all of the features of BPD except for self-harm and suicidality. However, because she didn’t have those two features, she was told by her therapist she could not have BPD.

“This sparked the idea that perhaps there are other individuals whose BPD may not be recognized because they don’t engage in self-harm or suicidal behavior,” Dr. Zimmerman said.

“Most individuals with BPD don’t present for treatment saying, ‘I’m here because I don’t have a sense of myself’ or ‘I feel empty inside’ – but they do say, ‘I’m here because I’m cutting myself’ or ‘I’m suicidal,’ ” he added.

The investigators wondered if there were other “hidden” cases of BPD that were being missed by therapists.

They had previously analyzed each diagnostic criterion for BPD to ascertain its sensitivity. “We had been interested in wanting to see whether there was a criterion so frequent in BPD that every patient with BPD has it,” Dr. Zimmerman said.

BPD is a “polythetic diagnosis,” he added. It is “based on a list of features, with a certain minimum number of those features necessary to make the diagnosis rather than one specific criterion.”

His group’s previous research showed affective instability criterion to be present in more than 90% of individuals with BPD. “It had a very high negative predictive value, meaning that if you didn’t have affective instability, you didn’t have the disorder,” he said.

“Given the clinical and public health significance of suicidal and self-harm behavior in patients with BPD, an important question is whether the absence of this criterion, which might attenuate the likelihood of recognizing and diagnosing the disorder, identifies a subgroup of patients with BPD who are ‘less borderline’ than patients with BPD who do not manifest this criterion,” the investigators write.

The researchers wanted to see if a similar finding applied to self-injury and suicidal behavior and turned to the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project to compare the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with BPD who do and do not engage in repeated suicidal and self-harm behavior.
 

MIDAS project

The study population was derived from 3,800 psychiatric outpatients who had been evaluated in the MIDAS project with semi-structured diagnostic interviews.

Of these, 390 patients were diagnosed with BPD. Since the suicidality/self-harm item was not rated in one patient, the analyzed sample consisted of 389 individuals with BPD (28.3% male; mean age, 32.6 years; 86.3% White). A little more than half the participants (54%) met the BPD suicidality/ self-harm criterion.

Only one-fifth (20.5%) of patients with BPD presented with a chief complaint that was related to a feature of BPD and had received BPD as their principal diagnosis.

Patients who met the suicidality/self-injury criterion were almost twice as likely to be diagnosed with BPD as the principal diagnosis, compared with those who did not have that criterion (24.8% vs. 14.5%, respectively; P < .01).

On the other hand, there was no difference in the mean number of BPD criteria that were met, other than suicidality/self-harm, between those who did and did not present with suicidality/self-harm (5.5 ± 1.2 vs. 5.7 ± 0.8, t = 1.44). The investigators note that this finding was “not significant.”

There also was no difference between patients who did and did not meet the criterion in number of psychiatric diagnoses at time of evaluation (3.4 ± 1.9 vs. 3.5 ± 1.8, t = 0.56).
 

Hidden BPD

Similarly, there was no difference in any specific Axis I or personality disorder – except for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and histrionic personality disorder. Both were more frequent in the patients who did not meet the suicidality/self-injury criterion. However, after controlling for age, the group difference in GAD was no longer deemed significant (F = 3.45, P = .064).

By contrast, histrionic personality disorder remained significant with age as the covariate (F = 6.03, P = .015).

“The patients who met the suicidality/self-injury criterion were significantly more likely to have been hospitalized and reported more suicidal ideation at the time of the evaluation,” the researchers write. Both variables remained significant even after including age as a covariate.

There were no between-group differences on severity of depression, anxiety, or anger at initial evaluation nor were there differences in social functioning, adolescent social functioning, likelihood of persistent unemployment or receiving disability payments, childhood trauma, or neglect.

“I suspect that there are a number of individuals whose BPD is not recognized because they don’t have the more overt feature of self-injury or suicidal behavior,” said Dr. Zimmerman, noting that these patients might be considered as having “hidden” BPD.  

“Repeated self-injurious and suicidal behavior is not synonymous with BPD, and clinicians should be aware that the absence of these behaviors does not rule out a diagnosis of BPD,” he added.
 

Stigmatizing diagnosis?

Monica Carsky, PhD, clinical assistant professor of psychology in psychiatry and senior fellow, Personality Disorders Institute, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, said the study “will be particularly useful in the education of clinicians about the characteristics of individuals with BPD.”

TFP-New York

Dr. Carsky, who is also an adjunct assistant professor in the NYU Postdoctoral Program in Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy, was not involved with the study. She noted that other factors “can contribute to misdiagnosis of the borderline patients who do not have suicidality/self-harm.”

Clinicians and patients “may see BPD as a stigmatizing diagnosis so that clinicians become reluctant to make, share, and explain this personality disorder diagnosis,” she said.

Dr. Carsky suggested that increasing use of the Alternate Model for Personality Disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V), which first rates the severity level of personality by assessing identity and relationship problems and then notes traits of specific personality disorders, “will help clinicians who dread telling patients they are ‘borderline.’ ”   

No source of study funding has been reported. The investigators and Dr. Carsky reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The absence of self-harm does not preclude a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD), according to new findings that may have potential implications for changes to diagnostic criteria for the disorder.

Investigators compared characteristics of almost 400 psychiatric outpatients diagnosed with BPD. About half of the participants met the suicidality/self-injury diagnostic criterion for the disorder, while the other half did not.

Results showed no differences between the two groups in degree of impairment in occupational or social functioning, comorbid psychiatric disorders, history of childhood trauma, or severity of depression, anxiety, or anger.

“Just because a person doesn’t engage in self-harm or suicidal behavior doesn’t mean that the person is free of borderline personality disorder,” lead author Mark Zimmerman, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.

Brown University

A ‘polythetic diagnosis’

Dr. Zimmerman noted the impetus for conducting the study originated with a patient he saw who had all of the features of BPD except for self-harm and suicidality. However, because she didn’t have those two features, she was told by her therapist she could not have BPD.

“This sparked the idea that perhaps there are other individuals whose BPD may not be recognized because they don’t engage in self-harm or suicidal behavior,” Dr. Zimmerman said.

“Most individuals with BPD don’t present for treatment saying, ‘I’m here because I don’t have a sense of myself’ or ‘I feel empty inside’ – but they do say, ‘I’m here because I’m cutting myself’ or ‘I’m suicidal,’ ” he added.

The investigators wondered if there were other “hidden” cases of BPD that were being missed by therapists.

They had previously analyzed each diagnostic criterion for BPD to ascertain its sensitivity. “We had been interested in wanting to see whether there was a criterion so frequent in BPD that every patient with BPD has it,” Dr. Zimmerman said.

BPD is a “polythetic diagnosis,” he added. It is “based on a list of features, with a certain minimum number of those features necessary to make the diagnosis rather than one specific criterion.”

His group’s previous research showed affective instability criterion to be present in more than 90% of individuals with BPD. “It had a very high negative predictive value, meaning that if you didn’t have affective instability, you didn’t have the disorder,” he said.

“Given the clinical and public health significance of suicidal and self-harm behavior in patients with BPD, an important question is whether the absence of this criterion, which might attenuate the likelihood of recognizing and diagnosing the disorder, identifies a subgroup of patients with BPD who are ‘less borderline’ than patients with BPD who do not manifest this criterion,” the investigators write.

The researchers wanted to see if a similar finding applied to self-injury and suicidal behavior and turned to the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project to compare the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with BPD who do and do not engage in repeated suicidal and self-harm behavior.
 

MIDAS project

The study population was derived from 3,800 psychiatric outpatients who had been evaluated in the MIDAS project with semi-structured diagnostic interviews.

Of these, 390 patients were diagnosed with BPD. Since the suicidality/self-harm item was not rated in one patient, the analyzed sample consisted of 389 individuals with BPD (28.3% male; mean age, 32.6 years; 86.3% White). A little more than half the participants (54%) met the BPD suicidality/ self-harm criterion.

Only one-fifth (20.5%) of patients with BPD presented with a chief complaint that was related to a feature of BPD and had received BPD as their principal diagnosis.

Patients who met the suicidality/self-injury criterion were almost twice as likely to be diagnosed with BPD as the principal diagnosis, compared with those who did not have that criterion (24.8% vs. 14.5%, respectively; P < .01).

On the other hand, there was no difference in the mean number of BPD criteria that were met, other than suicidality/self-harm, between those who did and did not present with suicidality/self-harm (5.5 ± 1.2 vs. 5.7 ± 0.8, t = 1.44). The investigators note that this finding was “not significant.”

There also was no difference between patients who did and did not meet the criterion in number of psychiatric diagnoses at time of evaluation (3.4 ± 1.9 vs. 3.5 ± 1.8, t = 0.56).
 

Hidden BPD

Similarly, there was no difference in any specific Axis I or personality disorder – except for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and histrionic personality disorder. Both were more frequent in the patients who did not meet the suicidality/self-injury criterion. However, after controlling for age, the group difference in GAD was no longer deemed significant (F = 3.45, P = .064).

By contrast, histrionic personality disorder remained significant with age as the covariate (F = 6.03, P = .015).

“The patients who met the suicidality/self-injury criterion were significantly more likely to have been hospitalized and reported more suicidal ideation at the time of the evaluation,” the researchers write. Both variables remained significant even after including age as a covariate.

There were no between-group differences on severity of depression, anxiety, or anger at initial evaluation nor were there differences in social functioning, adolescent social functioning, likelihood of persistent unemployment or receiving disability payments, childhood trauma, or neglect.

“I suspect that there are a number of individuals whose BPD is not recognized because they don’t have the more overt feature of self-injury or suicidal behavior,” said Dr. Zimmerman, noting that these patients might be considered as having “hidden” BPD.  

“Repeated self-injurious and suicidal behavior is not synonymous with BPD, and clinicians should be aware that the absence of these behaviors does not rule out a diagnosis of BPD,” he added.
 

Stigmatizing diagnosis?

Monica Carsky, PhD, clinical assistant professor of psychology in psychiatry and senior fellow, Personality Disorders Institute, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, said the study “will be particularly useful in the education of clinicians about the characteristics of individuals with BPD.”

TFP-New York

Dr. Carsky, who is also an adjunct assistant professor in the NYU Postdoctoral Program in Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy, was not involved with the study. She noted that other factors “can contribute to misdiagnosis of the borderline patients who do not have suicidality/self-harm.”

Clinicians and patients “may see BPD as a stigmatizing diagnosis so that clinicians become reluctant to make, share, and explain this personality disorder diagnosis,” she said.

Dr. Carsky suggested that increasing use of the Alternate Model for Personality Disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V), which first rates the severity level of personality by assessing identity and relationship problems and then notes traits of specific personality disorders, “will help clinicians who dread telling patients they are ‘borderline.’ ”   

No source of study funding has been reported. The investigators and Dr. Carsky reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The absence of self-harm does not preclude a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD), according to new findings that may have potential implications for changes to diagnostic criteria for the disorder.

Investigators compared characteristics of almost 400 psychiatric outpatients diagnosed with BPD. About half of the participants met the suicidality/self-injury diagnostic criterion for the disorder, while the other half did not.

Results showed no differences between the two groups in degree of impairment in occupational or social functioning, comorbid psychiatric disorders, history of childhood trauma, or severity of depression, anxiety, or anger.

“Just because a person doesn’t engage in self-harm or suicidal behavior doesn’t mean that the person is free of borderline personality disorder,” lead author Mark Zimmerman, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.

Brown University

A ‘polythetic diagnosis’

Dr. Zimmerman noted the impetus for conducting the study originated with a patient he saw who had all of the features of BPD except for self-harm and suicidality. However, because she didn’t have those two features, she was told by her therapist she could not have BPD.

“This sparked the idea that perhaps there are other individuals whose BPD may not be recognized because they don’t engage in self-harm or suicidal behavior,” Dr. Zimmerman said.

“Most individuals with BPD don’t present for treatment saying, ‘I’m here because I don’t have a sense of myself’ or ‘I feel empty inside’ – but they do say, ‘I’m here because I’m cutting myself’ or ‘I’m suicidal,’ ” he added.

The investigators wondered if there were other “hidden” cases of BPD that were being missed by therapists.

They had previously analyzed each diagnostic criterion for BPD to ascertain its sensitivity. “We had been interested in wanting to see whether there was a criterion so frequent in BPD that every patient with BPD has it,” Dr. Zimmerman said.

BPD is a “polythetic diagnosis,” he added. It is “based on a list of features, with a certain minimum number of those features necessary to make the diagnosis rather than one specific criterion.”

His group’s previous research showed affective instability criterion to be present in more than 90% of individuals with BPD. “It had a very high negative predictive value, meaning that if you didn’t have affective instability, you didn’t have the disorder,” he said.

“Given the clinical and public health significance of suicidal and self-harm behavior in patients with BPD, an important question is whether the absence of this criterion, which might attenuate the likelihood of recognizing and diagnosing the disorder, identifies a subgroup of patients with BPD who are ‘less borderline’ than patients with BPD who do not manifest this criterion,” the investigators write.

The researchers wanted to see if a similar finding applied to self-injury and suicidal behavior and turned to the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project to compare the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with BPD who do and do not engage in repeated suicidal and self-harm behavior.
 

MIDAS project

The study population was derived from 3,800 psychiatric outpatients who had been evaluated in the MIDAS project with semi-structured diagnostic interviews.

Of these, 390 patients were diagnosed with BPD. Since the suicidality/self-harm item was not rated in one patient, the analyzed sample consisted of 389 individuals with BPD (28.3% male; mean age, 32.6 years; 86.3% White). A little more than half the participants (54%) met the BPD suicidality/ self-harm criterion.

Only one-fifth (20.5%) of patients with BPD presented with a chief complaint that was related to a feature of BPD and had received BPD as their principal diagnosis.

Patients who met the suicidality/self-injury criterion were almost twice as likely to be diagnosed with BPD as the principal diagnosis, compared with those who did not have that criterion (24.8% vs. 14.5%, respectively; P < .01).

On the other hand, there was no difference in the mean number of BPD criteria that were met, other than suicidality/self-harm, between those who did and did not present with suicidality/self-harm (5.5 ± 1.2 vs. 5.7 ± 0.8, t = 1.44). The investigators note that this finding was “not significant.”

There also was no difference between patients who did and did not meet the criterion in number of psychiatric diagnoses at time of evaluation (3.4 ± 1.9 vs. 3.5 ± 1.8, t = 0.56).
 

Hidden BPD

Similarly, there was no difference in any specific Axis I or personality disorder – except for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and histrionic personality disorder. Both were more frequent in the patients who did not meet the suicidality/self-injury criterion. However, after controlling for age, the group difference in GAD was no longer deemed significant (F = 3.45, P = .064).

By contrast, histrionic personality disorder remained significant with age as the covariate (F = 6.03, P = .015).

“The patients who met the suicidality/self-injury criterion were significantly more likely to have been hospitalized and reported more suicidal ideation at the time of the evaluation,” the researchers write. Both variables remained significant even after including age as a covariate.

There were no between-group differences on severity of depression, anxiety, or anger at initial evaluation nor were there differences in social functioning, adolescent social functioning, likelihood of persistent unemployment or receiving disability payments, childhood trauma, or neglect.

“I suspect that there are a number of individuals whose BPD is not recognized because they don’t have the more overt feature of self-injury or suicidal behavior,” said Dr. Zimmerman, noting that these patients might be considered as having “hidden” BPD.  

“Repeated self-injurious and suicidal behavior is not synonymous with BPD, and clinicians should be aware that the absence of these behaviors does not rule out a diagnosis of BPD,” he added.
 

Stigmatizing diagnosis?

Monica Carsky, PhD, clinical assistant professor of psychology in psychiatry and senior fellow, Personality Disorders Institute, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, said the study “will be particularly useful in the education of clinicians about the characteristics of individuals with BPD.”

TFP-New York

Dr. Carsky, who is also an adjunct assistant professor in the NYU Postdoctoral Program in Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy, was not involved with the study. She noted that other factors “can contribute to misdiagnosis of the borderline patients who do not have suicidality/self-harm.”

Clinicians and patients “may see BPD as a stigmatizing diagnosis so that clinicians become reluctant to make, share, and explain this personality disorder diagnosis,” she said.

Dr. Carsky suggested that increasing use of the Alternate Model for Personality Disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V), which first rates the severity level of personality by assessing identity and relationship problems and then notes traits of specific personality disorders, “will help clinicians who dread telling patients they are ‘borderline.’ ”   

No source of study funding has been reported. The investigators and Dr. Carsky reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Last year brought welcome relief to psychiatrists, with incomes generally rising as practices reopened after COVID-19 restrictions lifted and patients ventured out of their homes.

Psychiatrists’ average annual income rose to $287,000, according to the Medscape Psychiatrist Wealth and Debt Report 2022. That is up about 4% from $275,000, which was listed in last year’s report.

However, psychiatrists still rank in the bottom third of all specialties when it comes to physicians’ income.

According to the overall Medscape Physician Wealth and Debt Report 2022, the highest-paying speciality is plastic surgery ($576,000), followed by orthopedics ($557,000) and cardiology ($490,000).

The lowest-paying areas of medicine are family medicine ($255,000), pediatrics ($244,000), and public health and preventive medicine ($243,000).

The report is based on responses from more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties. All were surveyed between Oct. 5, 2021 and Jan. 19, 2022.
 

Money-conscious?

Similar to last year’s report, three-quarters of psychiatrists have not done anything to reduce major expenses. Those who have taken cost-cutting measures cited deferring or refinancing loans, moving to a different home, or changing cars as ways to do so.

Most psychiatrists (80%) reported having avoided major financial losses, which is up slightly from last year (76%). Only 6% of psychiatrists (9% last year) reported monetary losses because of issues at their medical practice.

One-quarter reported having a stock or corporate investment go south, which is about the same as last year. In addition, 42% said that they have yet to make a particular investment mistake and 19% said that they have not made any investments.

This year, a somewhat smaller percentage of psychiatrists reported keeping their rates of saving in after-tax accounts level or at increased rates, compared with last year (47% vs. 52%).

About 28% of psychiatrists do not regularly put money into after-tax savings accounts, compared with 25% of physicians overall.

The vast majority said that they kept up with bills amid COVID, as they also did last year.

The percentage of psychiatrists who paid mortgages or other bills late during the pandemic is about the same this year as last year (3% and 5%, respectively).

That is in contrast to one 2021 industry survey, which showed that 46% of Americans missed one or more rent or mortgage payments because of COVID.

Other key findings from Medscape’s latest psychiatrist wealth and debt report include that:

• 61% live in a home of 3,000 square feet or less, which is greater that the current average size of a U.S. house (2,261 square feet)
• 22% have one or two credit cards and 42% have five or more credit cards, while the average American has four cards
• 63% differ in opinion, at least sporadically, with their significant other about spending. A Northwestern Mutual study showed that across the country, around 1 in 4 couples argue about money at least once a month.

In addition, 70% of psychiatrists said that they typically tip at least the recommended 20% for decent service, which is somewhat more generous than the average physician (64%).

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

Last year brought welcome relief to psychiatrists, with incomes generally rising as practices reopened after COVID-19 restrictions lifted and patients ventured out of their homes.

Psychiatrists’ average annual income rose to $287,000, according to the Medscape Psychiatrist Wealth and Debt Report 2022. That is up about 4% from $275,000, which was listed in last year’s report.

However, psychiatrists still rank in the bottom third of all specialties when it comes to physicians’ income.

According to the overall Medscape Physician Wealth and Debt Report 2022, the highest-paying speciality is plastic surgery ($576,000), followed by orthopedics ($557,000) and cardiology ($490,000).

The lowest-paying areas of medicine are family medicine ($255,000), pediatrics ($244,000), and public health and preventive medicine ($243,000).

The report is based on responses from more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties. All were surveyed between Oct. 5, 2021 and Jan. 19, 2022.
 

Money-conscious?

Similar to last year’s report, three-quarters of psychiatrists have not done anything to reduce major expenses. Those who have taken cost-cutting measures cited deferring or refinancing loans, moving to a different home, or changing cars as ways to do so.

Most psychiatrists (80%) reported having avoided major financial losses, which is up slightly from last year (76%). Only 6% of psychiatrists (9% last year) reported monetary losses because of issues at their medical practice.

One-quarter reported having a stock or corporate investment go south, which is about the same as last year. In addition, 42% said that they have yet to make a particular investment mistake and 19% said that they have not made any investments.

This year, a somewhat smaller percentage of psychiatrists reported keeping their rates of saving in after-tax accounts level or at increased rates, compared with last year (47% vs. 52%).

About 28% of psychiatrists do not regularly put money into after-tax savings accounts, compared with 25% of physicians overall.

The vast majority said that they kept up with bills amid COVID, as they also did last year.

The percentage of psychiatrists who paid mortgages or other bills late during the pandemic is about the same this year as last year (3% and 5%, respectively).

That is in contrast to one 2021 industry survey, which showed that 46% of Americans missed one or more rent or mortgage payments because of COVID.

Other key findings from Medscape’s latest psychiatrist wealth and debt report include that:

• 61% live in a home of 3,000 square feet or less, which is greater that the current average size of a U.S. house (2,261 square feet)
• 22% have one or two credit cards and 42% have five or more credit cards, while the average American has four cards
• 63% differ in opinion, at least sporadically, with their significant other about spending. A Northwestern Mutual study showed that across the country, around 1 in 4 couples argue about money at least once a month.

In addition, 70% of psychiatrists said that they typically tip at least the recommended 20% for decent service, which is somewhat more generous than the average physician (64%).

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

Last year brought welcome relief to psychiatrists, with incomes generally rising as practices reopened after COVID-19 restrictions lifted and patients ventured out of their homes.

Psychiatrists’ average annual income rose to $287,000, according to the Medscape Psychiatrist Wealth and Debt Report 2022. That is up about 4% from $275,000, which was listed in last year’s report.

However, psychiatrists still rank in the bottom third of all specialties when it comes to physicians’ income.

According to the overall Medscape Physician Wealth and Debt Report 2022, the highest-paying speciality is plastic surgery ($576,000), followed by orthopedics ($557,000) and cardiology ($490,000).

The lowest-paying areas of medicine are family medicine ($255,000), pediatrics ($244,000), and public health and preventive medicine ($243,000).

The report is based on responses from more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties. All were surveyed between Oct. 5, 2021 and Jan. 19, 2022.
 

Money-conscious?

Similar to last year’s report, three-quarters of psychiatrists have not done anything to reduce major expenses. Those who have taken cost-cutting measures cited deferring or refinancing loans, moving to a different home, or changing cars as ways to do so.

Most psychiatrists (80%) reported having avoided major financial losses, which is up slightly from last year (76%). Only 6% of psychiatrists (9% last year) reported monetary losses because of issues at their medical practice.

One-quarter reported having a stock or corporate investment go south, which is about the same as last year. In addition, 42% said that they have yet to make a particular investment mistake and 19% said that they have not made any investments.

This year, a somewhat smaller percentage of psychiatrists reported keeping their rates of saving in after-tax accounts level or at increased rates, compared with last year (47% vs. 52%).

About 28% of psychiatrists do not regularly put money into after-tax savings accounts, compared with 25% of physicians overall.

The vast majority said that they kept up with bills amid COVID, as they also did last year.

The percentage of psychiatrists who paid mortgages or other bills late during the pandemic is about the same this year as last year (3% and 5%, respectively).

That is in contrast to one 2021 industry survey, which showed that 46% of Americans missed one or more rent or mortgage payments because of COVID.

Other key findings from Medscape’s latest psychiatrist wealth and debt report include that:

• 61% live in a home of 3,000 square feet or less, which is greater that the current average size of a U.S. house (2,261 square feet)
• 22% have one or two credit cards and 42% have five or more credit cards, while the average American has four cards
• 63% differ in opinion, at least sporadically, with their significant other about spending. A Northwestern Mutual study showed that across the country, around 1 in 4 couples argue about money at least once a month.

In addition, 70% of psychiatrists said that they typically tip at least the recommended 20% for decent service, which is somewhat more generous than the average physician (64%).

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

The last 15 years have brought increased effort to screen for postpartum psychiatric illness. That’s exceedingly welcome given the morbidity and potential mortality associated with postpartum psychiatric disorders across the country.

From small community hospitals to major academic centers, screening for postpartum depression is part of the clinical fabric of routine obstetrical care. There is a growing appreciation for the complexity of perinatal psychiatric illness, particularly with respect to the commingling of both mood and anxiety disorders during the postpartum period. However, willingness to treat and appreciation of the urgency to treat with both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions can vary. For women who suffer from postpartum depression and their families, there are real-world implications of both treating and failing to treat this illness, and there is an urgent need to really help these women “climb out of the darkness” that is and defines postpartum depression.

Less common but of great clinical importance is postpartum psychosis, which occurs in approximately 1 in 1,000-2,000 women based on estimates from several studies. As noted in previous columns, the presentation is a dramatic one, with the typical onset of psychotic symptoms in the first days to weeks post partum. The disorder typically has a mood component and is not an exacerbation of underlying chronic psychotic illness. While there have been few systematic treatment studies, the clinical consensus is treatment usually includes hospitalization to ensure the safety of both the patient and infant. Use of medications, including mood stabilizers, antipsychotics, and benzodiazepines may be appropriate when expeditious treatment is needed.

Appropriate treatment by informed clinical staff is essential, as untreated or incompletely treated postpartum psychosis with its attendant morbidity and potential mortality is a very real concern. As I speak with women across the country with histories of postpartum psychosis, I’m often told of the difficult exchanges that women and their partners have at EDs in various clinical settings where diagnosis was delayed, or treatment was incomplete because of staff without expertise in postpartum psychosis management.

Another dilemma that patients and clinicians face after acute treatment is treatment duration, which is derived from how we conceptualize the illness. Even for experts in the area, there is not a consensus on whether postpartum psychosis should be considered as bipolar disorder or whether it is a circumscribed diagnostic entity. This issue has been hotly debated for many years and is one of the reasons why the illness is not included in the DSM classification system.

At Massachusetts General Hospital, we are systematically studying a large cohort of women with histories of postpartum psychosis as part of the MGH Postpartum Psychosis Project to better understand the phenomenology of postpartum psychosis, and also to understand the possible genomic underpinning of the illness. Most recently, we are conducting a neuroimaging study of women with histories of postpartum psychosis, compared with women in a healthy control group. We hope the results of this novel investigation will help to answer whether there is a neural signature identifiable with neuroimaging techniques such as functional MRI, if those findings are similar to other findings of neural circuitry we see in other forms of psychotic illness, or if the illness has a more distinct neural signature.

A question patients and colleagues often ask is what is the long-term nature of postpartum psychosis. If one considers it clearly to be bipolar disorder, the most intuitive approach would be long-term treatment with mood stabilizers. We now have a growing amount of data on the longitudinal course of postpartum psychosis. In one meta-analysis, 64% of women who had an episode of postpartum psychosis developed episodes of recurrent psychiatric disorder mostly consistent with bipolar illness. However, 36% of women appear to have more circumscribed illness without recurrence. In those women with recurrent disease, the presumption was those patients who had bipolar disorder and their presentation postpartum was simply their index episode of bipolar illness. However, there were other women who looked as if they had developed subsequent illness over the 11-26 years of follow-up, and those women did not receive long-term treatment.

A more recent prospective study of 106 women with postpartum psychosis who had their medication tapered and discontinued showed that 32% of women went on to have recurrent disease with a median time to illness of 20.3 months, and those patients presented primarily with illness that looked like bipolar disorder.

These accumulating data support the impression we’ve had for years that there’s a very strong relationship between bipolar disorder and postpartum psychiatric illness. Regardless of what side of the debate you fall on, the acute treatment is really the same. The real question for the clinician is what to do over the long term. Frequently, patients feel very strongly about a taper and discontinuation of medicine, and even the data show between 30% and 45% of women seem to have relatively circumscribed disease. There may be an issue in terms of prophylaxis if a patient gets pregnant and delivers another child, but that’s a separate issue. The issue is really whether there is a way to “thread the clinical needle” and meet patients where they are who do not want to continue long-term treatment.

I think we are at a point where we could argue the clinical treatment algorithm for patients who present with a new-onset manic-like psychosis postpartum is clear: initial treatment to stabilize, and then treatment with mood stabilizers for at least 12 months to follow is indicated. However, it may also be reasonable to taper treatment at 12-18 months, particularly for patients who have discussed this option with their clinician and who have been totally well for a year. (Women with previously documented bipolar disorder who have episodes of postpartum psychosis should obviously be treated with longer-term treatment aimed at maintenance of euthymia, as discontinuation of mood stabilizer is well known to be associated with risk for relapse.)

It should be noted that the longitudinal course and the treatment implications for women with postpartum psychosis are not etched in stone absent a clear evidence base driving care guidelines. Treatment must still be individualized. Women with underlying mood diatheses will typically declare themselves over time, and others may do well if they discontinue treatment, particularly if they are followed closely and instructed to present to a clinician at the earliest symptoms of mood dysregulation. The good news is we’ve seen an evolution of both interest and expertise in acute management of postpartum psychosis and a richer appreciation of the potential heterogeneity of this sample of women. There may be some variability in terms of long-term course requiring personalized treatment and obviously close follow-up of these women.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

The last 15 years have brought increased effort to screen for postpartum psychiatric illness. That’s exceedingly welcome given the morbidity and potential mortality associated with postpartum psychiatric disorders across the country.

From small community hospitals to major academic centers, screening for postpartum depression is part of the clinical fabric of routine obstetrical care. There is a growing appreciation for the complexity of perinatal psychiatric illness, particularly with respect to the commingling of both mood and anxiety disorders during the postpartum period. However, willingness to treat and appreciation of the urgency to treat with both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions can vary. For women who suffer from postpartum depression and their families, there are real-world implications of both treating and failing to treat this illness, and there is an urgent need to really help these women “climb out of the darkness” that is and defines postpartum depression.

Less common but of great clinical importance is postpartum psychosis, which occurs in approximately 1 in 1,000-2,000 women based on estimates from several studies. As noted in previous columns, the presentation is a dramatic one, with the typical onset of psychotic symptoms in the first days to weeks post partum. The disorder typically has a mood component and is not an exacerbation of underlying chronic psychotic illness. While there have been few systematic treatment studies, the clinical consensus is treatment usually includes hospitalization to ensure the safety of both the patient and infant. Use of medications, including mood stabilizers, antipsychotics, and benzodiazepines may be appropriate when expeditious treatment is needed.

Appropriate treatment by informed clinical staff is essential, as untreated or incompletely treated postpartum psychosis with its attendant morbidity and potential mortality is a very real concern. As I speak with women across the country with histories of postpartum psychosis, I’m often told of the difficult exchanges that women and their partners have at EDs in various clinical settings where diagnosis was delayed, or treatment was incomplete because of staff without expertise in postpartum psychosis management.

Another dilemma that patients and clinicians face after acute treatment is treatment duration, which is derived from how we conceptualize the illness. Even for experts in the area, there is not a consensus on whether postpartum psychosis should be considered as bipolar disorder or whether it is a circumscribed diagnostic entity. This issue has been hotly debated for many years and is one of the reasons why the illness is not included in the DSM classification system.

At Massachusetts General Hospital, we are systematically studying a large cohort of women with histories of postpartum psychosis as part of the MGH Postpartum Psychosis Project to better understand the phenomenology of postpartum psychosis, and also to understand the possible genomic underpinning of the illness. Most recently, we are conducting a neuroimaging study of women with histories of postpartum psychosis, compared with women in a healthy control group. We hope the results of this novel investigation will help to answer whether there is a neural signature identifiable with neuroimaging techniques such as functional MRI, if those findings are similar to other findings of neural circuitry we see in other forms of psychotic illness, or if the illness has a more distinct neural signature.

A question patients and colleagues often ask is what is the long-term nature of postpartum psychosis. If one considers it clearly to be bipolar disorder, the most intuitive approach would be long-term treatment with mood stabilizers. We now have a growing amount of data on the longitudinal course of postpartum psychosis. In one meta-analysis, 64% of women who had an episode of postpartum psychosis developed episodes of recurrent psychiatric disorder mostly consistent with bipolar illness. However, 36% of women appear to have more circumscribed illness without recurrence. In those women with recurrent disease, the presumption was those patients who had bipolar disorder and their presentation postpartum was simply their index episode of bipolar illness. However, there were other women who looked as if they had developed subsequent illness over the 11-26 years of follow-up, and those women did not receive long-term treatment.

A more recent prospective study of 106 women with postpartum psychosis who had their medication tapered and discontinued showed that 32% of women went on to have recurrent disease with a median time to illness of 20.3 months, and those patients presented primarily with illness that looked like bipolar disorder.

These accumulating data support the impression we’ve had for years that there’s a very strong relationship between bipolar disorder and postpartum psychiatric illness. Regardless of what side of the debate you fall on, the acute treatment is really the same. The real question for the clinician is what to do over the long term. Frequently, patients feel very strongly about a taper and discontinuation of medicine, and even the data show between 30% and 45% of women seem to have relatively circumscribed disease. There may be an issue in terms of prophylaxis if a patient gets pregnant and delivers another child, but that’s a separate issue. The issue is really whether there is a way to “thread the clinical needle” and meet patients where they are who do not want to continue long-term treatment.

I think we are at a point where we could argue the clinical treatment algorithm for patients who present with a new-onset manic-like psychosis postpartum is clear: initial treatment to stabilize, and then treatment with mood stabilizers for at least 12 months to follow is indicated. However, it may also be reasonable to taper treatment at 12-18 months, particularly for patients who have discussed this option with their clinician and who have been totally well for a year. (Women with previously documented bipolar disorder who have episodes of postpartum psychosis should obviously be treated with longer-term treatment aimed at maintenance of euthymia, as discontinuation of mood stabilizer is well known to be associated with risk for relapse.)

It should be noted that the longitudinal course and the treatment implications for women with postpartum psychosis are not etched in stone absent a clear evidence base driving care guidelines. Treatment must still be individualized. Women with underlying mood diatheses will typically declare themselves over time, and others may do well if they discontinue treatment, particularly if they are followed closely and instructed to present to a clinician at the earliest symptoms of mood dysregulation. The good news is we’ve seen an evolution of both interest and expertise in acute management of postpartum psychosis and a richer appreciation of the potential heterogeneity of this sample of women. There may be some variability in terms of long-term course requiring personalized treatment and obviously close follow-up of these women.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

The last 15 years have brought increased effort to screen for postpartum psychiatric illness. That’s exceedingly welcome given the morbidity and potential mortality associated with postpartum psychiatric disorders across the country.

From small community hospitals to major academic centers, screening for postpartum depression is part of the clinical fabric of routine obstetrical care. There is a growing appreciation for the complexity of perinatal psychiatric illness, particularly with respect to the commingling of both mood and anxiety disorders during the postpartum period. However, willingness to treat and appreciation of the urgency to treat with both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions can vary. For women who suffer from postpartum depression and their families, there are real-world implications of both treating and failing to treat this illness, and there is an urgent need to really help these women “climb out of the darkness” that is and defines postpartum depression.

Less common but of great clinical importance is postpartum psychosis, which occurs in approximately 1 in 1,000-2,000 women based on estimates from several studies. As noted in previous columns, the presentation is a dramatic one, with the typical onset of psychotic symptoms in the first days to weeks post partum. The disorder typically has a mood component and is not an exacerbation of underlying chronic psychotic illness. While there have been few systematic treatment studies, the clinical consensus is treatment usually includes hospitalization to ensure the safety of both the patient and infant. Use of medications, including mood stabilizers, antipsychotics, and benzodiazepines may be appropriate when expeditious treatment is needed.

Appropriate treatment by informed clinical staff is essential, as untreated or incompletely treated postpartum psychosis with its attendant morbidity and potential mortality is a very real concern. As I speak with women across the country with histories of postpartum psychosis, I’m often told of the difficult exchanges that women and their partners have at EDs in various clinical settings where diagnosis was delayed, or treatment was incomplete because of staff without expertise in postpartum psychosis management.

Another dilemma that patients and clinicians face after acute treatment is treatment duration, which is derived from how we conceptualize the illness. Even for experts in the area, there is not a consensus on whether postpartum psychosis should be considered as bipolar disorder or whether it is a circumscribed diagnostic entity. This issue has been hotly debated for many years and is one of the reasons why the illness is not included in the DSM classification system.

At Massachusetts General Hospital, we are systematically studying a large cohort of women with histories of postpartum psychosis as part of the MGH Postpartum Psychosis Project to better understand the phenomenology of postpartum psychosis, and also to understand the possible genomic underpinning of the illness. Most recently, we are conducting a neuroimaging study of women with histories of postpartum psychosis, compared with women in a healthy control group. We hope the results of this novel investigation will help to answer whether there is a neural signature identifiable with neuroimaging techniques such as functional MRI, if those findings are similar to other findings of neural circuitry we see in other forms of psychotic illness, or if the illness has a more distinct neural signature.

A question patients and colleagues often ask is what is the long-term nature of postpartum psychosis. If one considers it clearly to be bipolar disorder, the most intuitive approach would be long-term treatment with mood stabilizers. We now have a growing amount of data on the longitudinal course of postpartum psychosis. In one meta-analysis, 64% of women who had an episode of postpartum psychosis developed episodes of recurrent psychiatric disorder mostly consistent with bipolar illness. However, 36% of women appear to have more circumscribed illness without recurrence. In those women with recurrent disease, the presumption was those patients who had bipolar disorder and their presentation postpartum was simply their index episode of bipolar illness. However, there were other women who looked as if they had developed subsequent illness over the 11-26 years of follow-up, and those women did not receive long-term treatment.

A more recent prospective study of 106 women with postpartum psychosis who had their medication tapered and discontinued showed that 32% of women went on to have recurrent disease with a median time to illness of 20.3 months, and those patients presented primarily with illness that looked like bipolar disorder.

These accumulating data support the impression we’ve had for years that there’s a very strong relationship between bipolar disorder and postpartum psychiatric illness. Regardless of what side of the debate you fall on, the acute treatment is really the same. The real question for the clinician is what to do over the long term. Frequently, patients feel very strongly about a taper and discontinuation of medicine, and even the data show between 30% and 45% of women seem to have relatively circumscribed disease. There may be an issue in terms of prophylaxis if a patient gets pregnant and delivers another child, but that’s a separate issue. The issue is really whether there is a way to “thread the clinical needle” and meet patients where they are who do not want to continue long-term treatment.

I think we are at a point where we could argue the clinical treatment algorithm for patients who present with a new-onset manic-like psychosis postpartum is clear: initial treatment to stabilize, and then treatment with mood stabilizers for at least 12 months to follow is indicated. However, it may also be reasonable to taper treatment at 12-18 months, particularly for patients who have discussed this option with their clinician and who have been totally well for a year. (Women with previously documented bipolar disorder who have episodes of postpartum psychosis should obviously be treated with longer-term treatment aimed at maintenance of euthymia, as discontinuation of mood stabilizer is well known to be associated with risk for relapse.)

It should be noted that the longitudinal course and the treatment implications for women with postpartum psychosis are not etched in stone absent a clear evidence base driving care guidelines. Treatment must still be individualized. Women with underlying mood diatheses will typically declare themselves over time, and others may do well if they discontinue treatment, particularly if they are followed closely and instructed to present to a clinician at the earliest symptoms of mood dysregulation. The good news is we’ve seen an evolution of both interest and expertise in acute management of postpartum psychosis and a richer appreciation of the potential heterogeneity of this sample of women. There may be some variability in terms of long-term course requiring personalized treatment and obviously close follow-up of these women.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

New research provides novel insight into how mindfulness alters pain-related activity in the brain, in findings that point to more targeted pain management.

In a randomized trial, more than 100 healthy individuals were assigned to an 8-week mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program, a health improvement program (HEP) of the same length, or a waiting list.

Scanning participants’ brains during a heat-based stimulus pain task showed those who completed the MBSR had a reduction in a brain signature linked to the sensory intensity of pain.

A complex condition

Dr. Wielgosz told this news organization that pain is “complex,” with multiple stages and several phases between the time signals are sent from pain receptors and the experience of pain.

“The way that mindfulness affects pain processing has more to do with the way the brain interprets pain signals.”

The investigators note that understanding the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the efficacy of nonpharmacologic pain interventions is a “high-priority objective for improving pain treatment.”

Evidence from brief laboratory interventions and cross-sectional studies suggests that mindfulness training is associated with alterations in both sensory processing and cognitive-emotional regulatory networks, the investigators note.

“However, no such study has yet been conducted on a standardized, full-length, and widely used clinical intervention, such as MBSR,” they add.
 

Thermal pain task

The randomized, active-control trial included 115 healthy, meditation-naive individuals (61.7% women; average age, 48.3 years). Just over half (58%) had a graduate degree and their mean score on the Hollingshead index was 58.3, indicting a higher socioeconomic status.

All were randomly assigned to an 8-week MBSR course, an 8-week HEP course as an active control group, or a waiting-list control group with no intervention.

The MBSR involved instruction and practice in continuous focused attention on the breath, bodily sensations, and mental content while in seated postures, walking, and doing yoga.

The HEP matched the MBSR in terms of its length, structure, and nonspecific therapeutic elements, which included a supportive group atmosphere, expert instruction, and positive expectancy for benefit.

To examine the interventions’ effect on the pain experience, participants underwent a pain task in which they had 20 thermal stimuli applied to the inside of the left wrist for 12 seconds, including 8 seconds at peak temperature.

The stimuli were separated by a distractor task and intervals for cued anticipation, recovery, and subjective ratings of intensity and unpleasantness on a scale of 0-20.

During the task, participants underwent MRI to assess the neurologic pain signature (NPS) and the stimulus intensity independent pain signature-1 (SIIPS-1) within the brain.

The NPS is activated by various types of pain stimuli, while responding minimally or not at all to “emotionally evocative stimuli” relating to pain or to placebo treatment, the researchers note.

In contrast, the SIIPS-1 is activated in response to aspects of pain unrelated to the stimulus itself. It incorporates a “broader range of cognitive and emotional modulatory circuits,” including those related to expectancy and cognitive processes to modulate the pain experience.
 

Neural signatures

Results showed that in all groups, age was significantly negatively associated with both NPS (P = .001) and SIIPS-1 response (P < .001), although not subjective pain reports, and was subsequently included in all analyses of neural signatures.

Persons in the MBSR group had a significant decrease in the NPS, compared with those in the HEP group (P = .05), and from pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .023).

Those in the MBSR group also had “marginal” decreases in the NPS vs. the waiting list group (P = .096), and in the SIIPS-1 relative to both the HEP (P = .089) and waiting list groups (P = .087).

In subjective pain ratings, the MBSR group showed a marginal decrease, compared with the waiting list group (P = .078), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .028).

The HEP group also had marginal decreases in pain unpleasantness vs. the waiting list group (P = .043), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments for pain intensity (P = .046) and unpleasantness (P = .007).

The researchers also assessed 30 long-term meditators who had undertaken at least 3 years of formal experience with meditation, including participating in multiple intensive retreats and ongoing daily practice, and compared them with meditation-naive individuals.

Long-term meditators reported significantly less pain intensity and unpleasantness than those who had not undergone the training (P < .001).

In addition, a higher number of practice hours during a retreat was linked to a greater reduction in pain ratings. This association remained even after adjustment for gender and respiration rate.

However, the number of daily practice hours was not significantly associated with pain ratings among long-term meditators.

Although there were no average differences in neural signature responses between long-term meditators and individuals who were naive to the technique, there was an inverse relationship between hours on retreat and SIIPS-1 response (P = .027).
 

‘We’re seeing the biology change’

Commenting for this news organization, Fadel Zeidan, PhD, associate professor of anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego, said that in attenuating the experience of pain, mindfulness engages “very novel” mechanisms.

However, the “most remarkable thing about this study” is that the pain effect occurred when the participants were not meditating, “which gives rise to the notion that mental training is just like physical training,” said Dr. Zeidan, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that the notion was not appreciated previously, “because we weren’t able to see the changes,” as they were based on self-report alone.

However, combining those reports with brain imaging and other objective methods means that “we’re actually seeing the biology change,” Dr. Zeidan said.

He added that mindfulness is different from other techniques for modulating the pain experience, because it is self-facilitated.

“People can learn this technique, ideally, for free online. They can learn the recipe, and it’s one of the only techniques out there that can be used immediately to assuage one’s own pain,” he said.

“There’s nothing else out there on this planet that could immediately reduce one’s own pain. You have to wait 45 minutes for Tylenol, distraction can only work for so long, and you can’t really placebo yourself,” Dr. Zeidan added.

The study was funded by a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine grant, National Institute of Mental Health grants, a Fetzer Institute grant, and a John Templeton Foundation grant, as well as a core grant to the Waisman Center from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Albee Messing. Dr. Wielgosz and Dr. Zeidan have reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the coinvestigators are listed in the original article.

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

New research provides novel insight into how mindfulness alters pain-related activity in the brain, in findings that point to more targeted pain management.

In a randomized trial, more than 100 healthy individuals were assigned to an 8-week mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program, a health improvement program (HEP) of the same length, or a waiting list.

Scanning participants’ brains during a heat-based stimulus pain task showed those who completed the MBSR had a reduction in a brain signature linked to the sensory intensity of pain.

A complex condition

Dr. Wielgosz told this news organization that pain is “complex,” with multiple stages and several phases between the time signals are sent from pain receptors and the experience of pain.

“The way that mindfulness affects pain processing has more to do with the way the brain interprets pain signals.”

The investigators note that understanding the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the efficacy of nonpharmacologic pain interventions is a “high-priority objective for improving pain treatment.”

Evidence from brief laboratory interventions and cross-sectional studies suggests that mindfulness training is associated with alterations in both sensory processing and cognitive-emotional regulatory networks, the investigators note.

“However, no such study has yet been conducted on a standardized, full-length, and widely used clinical intervention, such as MBSR,” they add.
 

Thermal pain task

The randomized, active-control trial included 115 healthy, meditation-naive individuals (61.7% women; average age, 48.3 years). Just over half (58%) had a graduate degree and their mean score on the Hollingshead index was 58.3, indicting a higher socioeconomic status.

All were randomly assigned to an 8-week MBSR course, an 8-week HEP course as an active control group, or a waiting-list control group with no intervention.

The MBSR involved instruction and practice in continuous focused attention on the breath, bodily sensations, and mental content while in seated postures, walking, and doing yoga.

The HEP matched the MBSR in terms of its length, structure, and nonspecific therapeutic elements, which included a supportive group atmosphere, expert instruction, and positive expectancy for benefit.

To examine the interventions’ effect on the pain experience, participants underwent a pain task in which they had 20 thermal stimuli applied to the inside of the left wrist for 12 seconds, including 8 seconds at peak temperature.

The stimuli were separated by a distractor task and intervals for cued anticipation, recovery, and subjective ratings of intensity and unpleasantness on a scale of 0-20.

During the task, participants underwent MRI to assess the neurologic pain signature (NPS) and the stimulus intensity independent pain signature-1 (SIIPS-1) within the brain.

The NPS is activated by various types of pain stimuli, while responding minimally or not at all to “emotionally evocative stimuli” relating to pain or to placebo treatment, the researchers note.

In contrast, the SIIPS-1 is activated in response to aspects of pain unrelated to the stimulus itself. It incorporates a “broader range of cognitive and emotional modulatory circuits,” including those related to expectancy and cognitive processes to modulate the pain experience.
 

Neural signatures

Results showed that in all groups, age was significantly negatively associated with both NPS (P = .001) and SIIPS-1 response (P < .001), although not subjective pain reports, and was subsequently included in all analyses of neural signatures.

Persons in the MBSR group had a significant decrease in the NPS, compared with those in the HEP group (P = .05), and from pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .023).

Those in the MBSR group also had “marginal” decreases in the NPS vs. the waiting list group (P = .096), and in the SIIPS-1 relative to both the HEP (P = .089) and waiting list groups (P = .087).

In subjective pain ratings, the MBSR group showed a marginal decrease, compared with the waiting list group (P = .078), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .028).

The HEP group also had marginal decreases in pain unpleasantness vs. the waiting list group (P = .043), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments for pain intensity (P = .046) and unpleasantness (P = .007).

The researchers also assessed 30 long-term meditators who had undertaken at least 3 years of formal experience with meditation, including participating in multiple intensive retreats and ongoing daily practice, and compared them with meditation-naive individuals.

Long-term meditators reported significantly less pain intensity and unpleasantness than those who had not undergone the training (P < .001).

In addition, a higher number of practice hours during a retreat was linked to a greater reduction in pain ratings. This association remained even after adjustment for gender and respiration rate.

However, the number of daily practice hours was not significantly associated with pain ratings among long-term meditators.

Although there were no average differences in neural signature responses between long-term meditators and individuals who were naive to the technique, there was an inverse relationship between hours on retreat and SIIPS-1 response (P = .027).
 

‘We’re seeing the biology change’

Commenting for this news organization, Fadel Zeidan, PhD, associate professor of anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego, said that in attenuating the experience of pain, mindfulness engages “very novel” mechanisms.

However, the “most remarkable thing about this study” is that the pain effect occurred when the participants were not meditating, “which gives rise to the notion that mental training is just like physical training,” said Dr. Zeidan, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that the notion was not appreciated previously, “because we weren’t able to see the changes,” as they were based on self-report alone.

However, combining those reports with brain imaging and other objective methods means that “we’re actually seeing the biology change,” Dr. Zeidan said.

He added that mindfulness is different from other techniques for modulating the pain experience, because it is self-facilitated.

“People can learn this technique, ideally, for free online. They can learn the recipe, and it’s one of the only techniques out there that can be used immediately to assuage one’s own pain,” he said.

“There’s nothing else out there on this planet that could immediately reduce one’s own pain. You have to wait 45 minutes for Tylenol, distraction can only work for so long, and you can’t really placebo yourself,” Dr. Zeidan added.

The study was funded by a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine grant, National Institute of Mental Health grants, a Fetzer Institute grant, and a John Templeton Foundation grant, as well as a core grant to the Waisman Center from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Albee Messing. Dr. Wielgosz and Dr. Zeidan have reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the coinvestigators are listed in the original article.

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

New research provides novel insight into how mindfulness alters pain-related activity in the brain, in findings that point to more targeted pain management.

In a randomized trial, more than 100 healthy individuals were assigned to an 8-week mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program, a health improvement program (HEP) of the same length, or a waiting list.

Scanning participants’ brains during a heat-based stimulus pain task showed those who completed the MBSR had a reduction in a brain signature linked to the sensory intensity of pain.

A complex condition

Dr. Wielgosz told this news organization that pain is “complex,” with multiple stages and several phases between the time signals are sent from pain receptors and the experience of pain.

“The way that mindfulness affects pain processing has more to do with the way the brain interprets pain signals.”

The investigators note that understanding the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the efficacy of nonpharmacologic pain interventions is a “high-priority objective for improving pain treatment.”

Evidence from brief laboratory interventions and cross-sectional studies suggests that mindfulness training is associated with alterations in both sensory processing and cognitive-emotional regulatory networks, the investigators note.

“However, no such study has yet been conducted on a standardized, full-length, and widely used clinical intervention, such as MBSR,” they add.
 

Thermal pain task

The randomized, active-control trial included 115 healthy, meditation-naive individuals (61.7% women; average age, 48.3 years). Just over half (58%) had a graduate degree and their mean score on the Hollingshead index was 58.3, indicting a higher socioeconomic status.

All were randomly assigned to an 8-week MBSR course, an 8-week HEP course as an active control group, or a waiting-list control group with no intervention.

The MBSR involved instruction and practice in continuous focused attention on the breath, bodily sensations, and mental content while in seated postures, walking, and doing yoga.

The HEP matched the MBSR in terms of its length, structure, and nonspecific therapeutic elements, which included a supportive group atmosphere, expert instruction, and positive expectancy for benefit.

To examine the interventions’ effect on the pain experience, participants underwent a pain task in which they had 20 thermal stimuli applied to the inside of the left wrist for 12 seconds, including 8 seconds at peak temperature.

The stimuli were separated by a distractor task and intervals for cued anticipation, recovery, and subjective ratings of intensity and unpleasantness on a scale of 0-20.

During the task, participants underwent MRI to assess the neurologic pain signature (NPS) and the stimulus intensity independent pain signature-1 (SIIPS-1) within the brain.

The NPS is activated by various types of pain stimuli, while responding minimally or not at all to “emotionally evocative stimuli” relating to pain or to placebo treatment, the researchers note.

In contrast, the SIIPS-1 is activated in response to aspects of pain unrelated to the stimulus itself. It incorporates a “broader range of cognitive and emotional modulatory circuits,” including those related to expectancy and cognitive processes to modulate the pain experience.
 

Neural signatures

Results showed that in all groups, age was significantly negatively associated with both NPS (P = .001) and SIIPS-1 response (P < .001), although not subjective pain reports, and was subsequently included in all analyses of neural signatures.

Persons in the MBSR group had a significant decrease in the NPS, compared with those in the HEP group (P = .05), and from pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .023).

Those in the MBSR group also had “marginal” decreases in the NPS vs. the waiting list group (P = .096), and in the SIIPS-1 relative to both the HEP (P = .089) and waiting list groups (P = .087).

In subjective pain ratings, the MBSR group showed a marginal decrease, compared with the waiting list group (P = .078), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .028).

The HEP group also had marginal decreases in pain unpleasantness vs. the waiting list group (P = .043), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments for pain intensity (P = .046) and unpleasantness (P = .007).

The researchers also assessed 30 long-term meditators who had undertaken at least 3 years of formal experience with meditation, including participating in multiple intensive retreats and ongoing daily practice, and compared them with meditation-naive individuals.

Long-term meditators reported significantly less pain intensity and unpleasantness than those who had not undergone the training (P < .001).

In addition, a higher number of practice hours during a retreat was linked to a greater reduction in pain ratings. This association remained even after adjustment for gender and respiration rate.

However, the number of daily practice hours was not significantly associated with pain ratings among long-term meditators.

Although there were no average differences in neural signature responses between long-term meditators and individuals who were naive to the technique, there was an inverse relationship between hours on retreat and SIIPS-1 response (P = .027).
 

‘We’re seeing the biology change’

Commenting for this news organization, Fadel Zeidan, PhD, associate professor of anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego, said that in attenuating the experience of pain, mindfulness engages “very novel” mechanisms.

However, the “most remarkable thing about this study” is that the pain effect occurred when the participants were not meditating, “which gives rise to the notion that mental training is just like physical training,” said Dr. Zeidan, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that the notion was not appreciated previously, “because we weren’t able to see the changes,” as they were based on self-report alone.

However, combining those reports with brain imaging and other objective methods means that “we’re actually seeing the biology change,” Dr. Zeidan said.

He added that mindfulness is different from other techniques for modulating the pain experience, because it is self-facilitated.

“People can learn this technique, ideally, for free online. They can learn the recipe, and it’s one of the only techniques out there that can be used immediately to assuage one’s own pain,” he said.

“There’s nothing else out there on this planet that could immediately reduce one’s own pain. You have to wait 45 minutes for Tylenol, distraction can only work for so long, and you can’t really placebo yourself,” Dr. Zeidan added.

The study was funded by a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine grant, National Institute of Mental Health grants, a Fetzer Institute grant, and a John Templeton Foundation grant, as well as a core grant to the Waisman Center from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Albee Messing. Dr. Wielgosz and Dr. Zeidan have reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the coinvestigators are listed in the original article.

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

You may have noticed that collecting patient payments has been tough this year. Owing to the pandemic, job loss, and the possible loss of health insurance, patients have had more difficulty managing copays, coinsurance, and deductibles, not to mention other out-of-pocket health care charges.

“Many of our patients have lost their jobs or have had their hours cut back, and as a result, they are struggling to make ends meet,” said Ahmad Chaudhry, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon in Lexington, Ky. “However, we cannot continue to provide care if our patients do not pay their bills.”

This news organization asked physicians what they do when their patients don’t pay. About 43% said that they continue to treat them and develop a payment plan; 13% send their bill to collections; 12% continue their care and write off their balance, and 25% choose other actions. Only 8% of physicians drop patients if they don’t pay.

Because you need to pay your own bills, what can you do about nonpaying patients?
 

Start with price transparency

In the past, patients never knew what their lab work or a chest EKG would cost because it wasn’t listed anywhere, and it was usually more than expected. Because of new legislation concerning health care price transparency, hospitals, health plans, and insurers must pony up with the actual fees, making them transparent to patients. Physician practices should follow suit and keep prices transparent too. Patients are more likely to pay their bills when prepared for the expense.

Patients with insurance often don’t know what they’ll be paying for their visit or their tests because they don’t know how much insurance will cover and what will be left for them to pay. Also, they may not know if they’ve met their deductible yet so they’re unsure whether insurance will even kick in. And patients without insurance still need to know what their costs will be upfront.

According to 10 insights from the Primary Care Consumer Choice Survey, 74% of health care consumers were willing to pay a $50 out-of-pocket charge to know the cost of their primary care visit.
 

Provide payment plans

Many patients have always needed payment plans. It’s one thing to post a sign at check-in telling patients that all monies are due at the time of service, but it’s another reality for a patient who can’t fork over the $250 charge they just unexpectedly spent in your office.

Discover Financial Services recently ran a survey, with results presented in the press release Americans are Delaying Non-Emergency Medical Care in Higher Numbers than Last Year, and found that many Americans with medical debt are delaying nonemergency medical care. For example, they put off seeing a specialist (52%), seeing a doctor for sickness (41%), and undergoing treatment plans recommended by their doctor (31%). 

Turning an account over to collections should be a last resort. In addition, agencies typically charge 30%-40% of the total collected off the top.

Though collecting that amount is better than nothing, using a collection agency may have unexpected consequences. For instance, you’re trusting the agency you hire to collect to represent you and act on your practice’s behalf. If they’re rude or their tactics are harsh in the eyes of the patient or their relatives, it’s your reputation that is on the line.

Rather than use a collection agency, you could collect the payments yourself. When a patient fails to pay within about 3 months, begin mailing statements from the office, followed by firm but generous phone calls trying to collect. Industry estimates put the average cost of sending an invoice, including staff labor, printing, and postage, at about $35 per mailer. Some practices combat the added costs by offering a 20% prompt-pay discount. Offering payment plans is another option that helps garner eventual payment. Plus, practices should direct patients to third-party lenders such as CareCredit for larger bills.

On occasion, some small practices may allow a swap, such as allowing a patient to provide a service such as plumbing, electrical, or painting in exchange for working off the bill. Though it’s not ideal when it comes to finances, you may find it can work in a pinch for a cash-strapped patient. Make sure to keep records of what bills the patient’s work goes toward.

It often helps to incentivize your billing staff to follow up regularly, with various suggestions and tactics, to get patients to pay their bills. The incentive amount you offer will probably be less than if you had to use a collection agency.
 

Have a payment policy

Because your practice’s primary job is caring for patients’ physical and emotional needs, payment collection without coming off as insensitive can be tricky. “We understand these are difficult times for everyone, and we are doing our best to work with our patients,” said Dr. Chaudhry. Having a written payment policy can help build the bridge. A policy lets patients know what they can expect and can help prevent surprises over what occurs in the event of nonpayment. Your written policy should include:

• When payment is due.
• How the practice handles copays and deductibles.
• What forms of payment are accepted.
• Your policy regarding nonpayment.

Why patients don’t pay

A 2021 Healthcare Consumer Experience Study from Cedar found that medical bills are a source of anxiety and frustration for most patients, affecting their financial experience. More than half of the respondents said that paying a medical bill is stressful. Complicating matters, many health care practices rely on outdated payment systems, which may not provide patients with a clear view of what they owe and how to pay it.

The study found that 53% of respondents find understanding their plan’s coverage and benefits stressful, and 37% of patients won’t pay their bill if they can’t understand it.

People may think the patient is trying to get out of paying, which, of course, is sometimes true, but most of the time they want to pay, concluded the study. Most patients need a better explanation, communication, and accurate accounting of their out-of-pocket costs.
 

What can doctors do?

If you’re a physician who regularly sees patients who have problems paying their bills, you can take a few steps to minimize the financial impact on your practice:

• Bill the patient’s insurance directly to ensure you receive at least partial payment.
• Keep adequate records of services in case you need to pursue legal action.
• “Be understanding and flexible when it comes to payment arrangements, as this can often be the difference between getting paid and not getting paid at all,” said Dr. Chaudhry.

Distance yourself

When discussing payment policies, physicians should try to distance themselves from the actual collection process as much as possible. Well-meaning physicians often tell patients things like they can “figure something out “ financially or “work them in” during a scheduling conflict, but that often undermines the authority and credibility of the practice’s office staff. Plus, it teaches patients they can get their way if they work on the doctor’s soft spot – something you don’t want to encourage.

By following some of these measures, you can help ensure that your practice continues to thrive despite the challenges posed by nonpaying patients.

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

You may have noticed that collecting patient payments has been tough this year. Owing to the pandemic, job loss, and the possible loss of health insurance, patients have had more difficulty managing copays, coinsurance, and deductibles, not to mention other out-of-pocket health care charges.

“Many of our patients have lost their jobs or have had their hours cut back, and as a result, they are struggling to make ends meet,” said Ahmad Chaudhry, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon in Lexington, Ky. “However, we cannot continue to provide care if our patients do not pay their bills.”

This news organization asked physicians what they do when their patients don’t pay. About 43% said that they continue to treat them and develop a payment plan; 13% send their bill to collections; 12% continue their care and write off their balance, and 25% choose other actions. Only 8% of physicians drop patients if they don’t pay.

Because you need to pay your own bills, what can you do about nonpaying patients?
 

Start with price transparency

In the past, patients never knew what their lab work or a chest EKG would cost because it wasn’t listed anywhere, and it was usually more than expected. Because of new legislation concerning health care price transparency, hospitals, health plans, and insurers must pony up with the actual fees, making them transparent to patients. Physician practices should follow suit and keep prices transparent too. Patients are more likely to pay their bills when prepared for the expense.

Patients with insurance often don’t know what they’ll be paying for their visit or their tests because they don’t know how much insurance will cover and what will be left for them to pay. Also, they may not know if they’ve met their deductible yet so they’re unsure whether insurance will even kick in. And patients without insurance still need to know what their costs will be upfront.

According to 10 insights from the Primary Care Consumer Choice Survey, 74% of health care consumers were willing to pay a $50 out-of-pocket charge to know the cost of their primary care visit.
 

Provide payment plans

Many patients have always needed payment plans. It’s one thing to post a sign at check-in telling patients that all monies are due at the time of service, but it’s another reality for a patient who can’t fork over the $250 charge they just unexpectedly spent in your office.

Discover Financial Services recently ran a survey, with results presented in the press release Americans are Delaying Non-Emergency Medical Care in Higher Numbers than Last Year, and found that many Americans with medical debt are delaying nonemergency medical care. For example, they put off seeing a specialist (52%), seeing a doctor for sickness (41%), and undergoing treatment plans recommended by their doctor (31%). 

Turning an account over to collections should be a last resort. In addition, agencies typically charge 30%-40% of the total collected off the top.

Though collecting that amount is better than nothing, using a collection agency may have unexpected consequences. For instance, you’re trusting the agency you hire to collect to represent you and act on your practice’s behalf. If they’re rude or their tactics are harsh in the eyes of the patient or their relatives, it’s your reputation that is on the line.

Rather than use a collection agency, you could collect the payments yourself. When a patient fails to pay within about 3 months, begin mailing statements from the office, followed by firm but generous phone calls trying to collect. Industry estimates put the average cost of sending an invoice, including staff labor, printing, and postage, at about $35 per mailer. Some practices combat the added costs by offering a 20% prompt-pay discount. Offering payment plans is another option that helps garner eventual payment. Plus, practices should direct patients to third-party lenders such as CareCredit for larger bills.

On occasion, some small practices may allow a swap, such as allowing a patient to provide a service such as plumbing, electrical, or painting in exchange for working off the bill. Though it’s not ideal when it comes to finances, you may find it can work in a pinch for a cash-strapped patient. Make sure to keep records of what bills the patient’s work goes toward.

It often helps to incentivize your billing staff to follow up regularly, with various suggestions and tactics, to get patients to pay their bills. The incentive amount you offer will probably be less than if you had to use a collection agency.
 

Have a payment policy

Because your practice’s primary job is caring for patients’ physical and emotional needs, payment collection without coming off as insensitive can be tricky. “We understand these are difficult times for everyone, and we are doing our best to work with our patients,” said Dr. Chaudhry. Having a written payment policy can help build the bridge. A policy lets patients know what they can expect and can help prevent surprises over what occurs in the event of nonpayment. Your written policy should include:

• When payment is due.
• How the practice handles copays and deductibles.
• What forms of payment are accepted.
• Your policy regarding nonpayment.

Why patients don’t pay

A 2021 Healthcare Consumer Experience Study from Cedar found that medical bills are a source of anxiety and frustration for most patients, affecting their financial experience. More than half of the respondents said that paying a medical bill is stressful. Complicating matters, many health care practices rely on outdated payment systems, which may not provide patients with a clear view of what they owe and how to pay it.

The study found that 53% of respondents find understanding their plan’s coverage and benefits stressful, and 37% of patients won’t pay their bill if they can’t understand it.

People may think the patient is trying to get out of paying, which, of course, is sometimes true, but most of the time they want to pay, concluded the study. Most patients need a better explanation, communication, and accurate accounting of their out-of-pocket costs.
 

What can doctors do?

If you’re a physician who regularly sees patients who have problems paying their bills, you can take a few steps to minimize the financial impact on your practice:

• Bill the patient’s insurance directly to ensure you receive at least partial payment.
• Keep adequate records of services in case you need to pursue legal action.
• “Be understanding and flexible when it comes to payment arrangements, as this can often be the difference between getting paid and not getting paid at all,” said Dr. Chaudhry.

Distance yourself

When discussing payment policies, physicians should try to distance themselves from the actual collection process as much as possible. Well-meaning physicians often tell patients things like they can “figure something out “ financially or “work them in” during a scheduling conflict, but that often undermines the authority and credibility of the practice’s office staff. Plus, it teaches patients they can get their way if they work on the doctor’s soft spot – something you don’t want to encourage.

By following some of these measures, you can help ensure that your practice continues to thrive despite the challenges posed by nonpaying patients.

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

You may have noticed that collecting patient payments has been tough this year. Owing to the pandemic, job loss, and the possible loss of health insurance, patients have had more difficulty managing copays, coinsurance, and deductibles, not to mention other out-of-pocket health care charges.

“Many of our patients have lost their jobs or have had their hours cut back, and as a result, they are struggling to make ends meet,” said Ahmad Chaudhry, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon in Lexington, Ky. “However, we cannot continue to provide care if our patients do not pay their bills.”

This news organization asked physicians what they do when their patients don’t pay. About 43% said that they continue to treat them and develop a payment plan; 13% send their bill to collections; 12% continue their care and write off their balance, and 25% choose other actions. Only 8% of physicians drop patients if they don’t pay.

Because you need to pay your own bills, what can you do about nonpaying patients?
 

Start with price transparency

In the past, patients never knew what their lab work or a chest EKG would cost because it wasn’t listed anywhere, and it was usually more than expected. Because of new legislation concerning health care price transparency, hospitals, health plans, and insurers must pony up with the actual fees, making them transparent to patients. Physician practices should follow suit and keep prices transparent too. Patients are more likely to pay their bills when prepared for the expense.

Patients with insurance often don’t know what they’ll be paying for their visit or their tests because they don’t know how much insurance will cover and what will be left for them to pay. Also, they may not know if they’ve met their deductible yet so they’re unsure whether insurance will even kick in. And patients without insurance still need to know what their costs will be upfront.

According to 10 insights from the Primary Care Consumer Choice Survey, 74% of health care consumers were willing to pay a $50 out-of-pocket charge to know the cost of their primary care visit.
 

Provide payment plans

Many patients have always needed payment plans. It’s one thing to post a sign at check-in telling patients that all monies are due at the time of service, but it’s another reality for a patient who can’t fork over the $250 charge they just unexpectedly spent in your office.

Discover Financial Services recently ran a survey, with results presented in the press release Americans are Delaying Non-Emergency Medical Care in Higher Numbers than Last Year, and found that many Americans with medical debt are delaying nonemergency medical care. For example, they put off seeing a specialist (52%), seeing a doctor for sickness (41%), and undergoing treatment plans recommended by their doctor (31%). 

Turning an account over to collections should be a last resort. In addition, agencies typically charge 30%-40% of the total collected off the top.

Though collecting that amount is better than nothing, using a collection agency may have unexpected consequences. For instance, you’re trusting the agency you hire to collect to represent you and act on your practice’s behalf. If they’re rude or their tactics are harsh in the eyes of the patient or their relatives, it’s your reputation that is on the line.

Rather than use a collection agency, you could collect the payments yourself. When a patient fails to pay within about 3 months, begin mailing statements from the office, followed by firm but generous phone calls trying to collect. Industry estimates put the average cost of sending an invoice, including staff labor, printing, and postage, at about $35 per mailer. Some practices combat the added costs by offering a 20% prompt-pay discount. Offering payment plans is another option that helps garner eventual payment. Plus, practices should direct patients to third-party lenders such as CareCredit for larger bills.

On occasion, some small practices may allow a swap, such as allowing a patient to provide a service such as plumbing, electrical, or painting in exchange for working off the bill. Though it’s not ideal when it comes to finances, you may find it can work in a pinch for a cash-strapped patient. Make sure to keep records of what bills the patient’s work goes toward.

It often helps to incentivize your billing staff to follow up regularly, with various suggestions and tactics, to get patients to pay their bills. The incentive amount you offer will probably be less than if you had to use a collection agency.
 

Have a payment policy

Because your practice’s primary job is caring for patients’ physical and emotional needs, payment collection without coming off as insensitive can be tricky. “We understand these are difficult times for everyone, and we are doing our best to work with our patients,” said Dr. Chaudhry. Having a written payment policy can help build the bridge. A policy lets patients know what they can expect and can help prevent surprises over what occurs in the event of nonpayment. Your written policy should include:

• When payment is due.
• How the practice handles copays and deductibles.
• What forms of payment are accepted.
• Your policy regarding nonpayment.

Why patients don’t pay

A 2021 Healthcare Consumer Experience Study from Cedar found that medical bills are a source of anxiety and frustration for most patients, affecting their financial experience. More than half of the respondents said that paying a medical bill is stressful. Complicating matters, many health care practices rely on outdated payment systems, which may not provide patients with a clear view of what they owe and how to pay it.

The study found that 53% of respondents find understanding their plan’s coverage and benefits stressful, and 37% of patients won’t pay their bill if they can’t understand it.

People may think the patient is trying to get out of paying, which, of course, is sometimes true, but most of the time they want to pay, concluded the study. Most patients need a better explanation, communication, and accurate accounting of their out-of-pocket costs.
 

What can doctors do?

If you’re a physician who regularly sees patients who have problems paying their bills, you can take a few steps to minimize the financial impact on your practice:

• Bill the patient’s insurance directly to ensure you receive at least partial payment.
• Keep adequate records of services in case you need to pursue legal action.
• “Be understanding and flexible when it comes to payment arrangements, as this can often be the difference between getting paid and not getting paid at all,” said Dr. Chaudhry.

Distance yourself

When discussing payment policies, physicians should try to distance themselves from the actual collection process as much as possible. Well-meaning physicians often tell patients things like they can “figure something out “ financially or “work them in” during a scheduling conflict, but that often undermines the authority and credibility of the practice’s office staff. Plus, it teaches patients they can get their way if they work on the doctor’s soft spot – something you don’t want to encourage.

By following some of these measures, you can help ensure that your practice continues to thrive despite the challenges posed by nonpaying patients.

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

Gun attacks in classrooms across the nation have led principals and other school leaders to implement “active shooter” drills to try to increase the safety of their students and faculty.

The drills can range from staging lockdowns and sheltering in place to quasi dramas with mock shooters roaming the halls. Although the goals of these training exercises are important, equally important are the potential negative effects of drills on students’ mental health, according to doctors with expertise in pediatrics and mental health.

“Dramatic simulation of an active shooter event at school would be expected to provoke the same stress response as the real thing,” said Peter L. Loper Jr., MD, a pediatrician and psychiatrist, in an interview. “While ensuring their physical safety is very important, we must be intentional about making sure that we are not doing so at the expense of their psychosocial or emotional safety.”

“Children may not be able to differentiate a dramatic drill from a real event,” emphasized Dr. Loper, of the neuropsychiatry and behavioral science departments at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. “The parts of the brain responsible for our flight-fight-or-freeze response would interpret both simulated and real events identically and produce the same neurohormonal stress-response.”

Indeed, a study published in the journal Humanities & Social Sciences Communications suggested children experienced mental health problems related to participating in active shooter drills. In the large study, a team of statisticians from the Georgia Institute of Technology found that students reported a 42% increase in stress and anxiety and a 38.7% increase in depression during the 90 days following active shooter drills, compared with the 90 days before the drills.

The authors of this study, including Mai ElSherief, PhD, drew these conclusions after analyzing 54 million social media posts before and after drills in 114 schools across 33 states. The researchers analyzed the language of the social media posts by teachers, parents, and students and found increased use of the words hope, love, home, school, kids, community, support, and help after the drills. The researchers considered posting with these terms in the aftermath of the drills to be indicative of having high anxiety.

They included examples of how high stress, anxiety, and depression manifested in specific posts from parents in their report. The following is an example of a poster expressing high anxiety and stress: “are we really gonna normalize school shooter drills?! holy sh* there has to be a real way to avoid these tragedies. sh*t like this cannot be normalized. teachers injured after being shot with plastic pellets ‘execution style’ in active shooter drill.”

The authors also shared this post to serve as an example of a person who seems depressed: “and now we are revisiting the trauma on our kids, forcing them to act out school drills monthly. i don’t get why gen x parents buy into this concept wholeheartedly. things need to change.”

The published material did not include posts from students, but the researchers’ analysis of the content of posts overall showed increased concerns for health and increased concerns about death during the period after drills, compared with before drills.

The authors also conducted focus groups in communities in which drills occurred, and many teachers and parents reported anecdotal evidence of children who were nervous long after the drills were over, with some showing extreme reactions such as panic over a standard fire alarm at school. Overall, the results show that school shooter drills can negatively affect school communities over prolonged periods of time, they concluded.

According to a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, “there is a need to be cautious about the potential psychological risks and other unintended consequences of directly involving children in live exercises and drills.”

“These risks and consequences are especially a concern when children are deceived and led to believe there is an actual attack and not a drill,” wrote David Schonfeld, MD, the lead author of the statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, and colleagues.
 

Managing the fallout

Physicians can help students experiencing mental health problems from these drills, according to doctors interviewed for this piece.

It’s important for providers to know that stress will show up differently in children than in adults, said Chelsea Younghans, MD, a psychiatrist and military officer in Bethesda, Md., in an interview.

“They may see children with headaches, stomach aches, or nonspecific complaints. They may also see children who have not had difficulty with sleep present with nightmares or bed wetting,” she added.

For teens and preteens, validated tools such as the Child PTSD Symptom Scale (CPSS-5) and Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS) to assess PTSD in youth, may help serve as a starting point for a conversation between providers and their older child population, she noted.

Children who exhibit avoidance or withdrawal behaviors including consistent school refusal, an increase in reassurance-seeking behaviors, or somatic symptoms like vague abdominal pain or headaches that prevent school attendance after participating in a drill, may need more robust mental health services, Dr. Loper noted.

Dr. Schonfeld, who is also director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, called for health care providers to be available to help children process traumatic reactions to these exercises.

Agreeing with Dr. Schonfeld, Dr. Younghans said: “It is vital to debrief with students and staff after drills, making sure that students have a safe space and ample time to speak with trusted staff. As children will undoubtedly have questions and concerns, creating open lines of communication will help alleviate any traumatic effect these drills may have.”
 

Communicating with various stakeholders

Experts also gave recommendations for how clinicians communicate with leaders in their area’s school districts and other members of their communities about these training exercises.

“For primary care providers, it is important to establish meaningful relationships within your community and patient population as much as possible,” Dr. Younghans said. “Having a good relationship with the local schools and being part of the conversation can help increase school and community awareness on the impact these drills can have on students and staff,” she added.

For those pediatricians or other health care providers who serve as consultants to schools, Dr. Schonfeld advised they ask about policies related to exercises and drills, such as what are the limits to what children might be exposed to in a drill, and what requirements there might be at the local and state level in terms of frequency and what the drills will and will not involve.

He also noted that clinicians should encourage school leaders to consider the fact that kids may have personal histories of trauma that are completely unknown to the school when they design these exercises.

School staff and health care providers should explain the nature and reasons for drills, invite family members to express concerns, and make accommodations if necessary for some children to participate in drills in a more limited way, noted Dr. Schonfeld, who is also clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“I think health care providers should work with legislators, so that if they require a drill, it must be done in a way that is physically and emotionally safe,” he added.
 

Executing better drills for students’ mental health

Experts also advised on ways to execute these drills that will be least damaging to students.

The AAP statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, for example, advocates eliminating high-intensity drills, prohibiting deception in drills, and providing accommodations based on children’s vulnerabilities.

Dr. Schonfeld also emphasized, in an interview, that training for an attack need not be extremely realistic to be effective.

“When you are preparing for a crisis, the drills and exercises are for children to practice and develop mastery over something they don’t know how to do fully yet,” said Dr. Schonfeld.

Citing a suggestion from a 2020 report conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety on keeping schools safe from gun violence, Dr. Younghans said, “Schools should be in clear communication with communities and families regarding when drills will be happening,” and advised ensuring that the explanation of drills is developmentally appropriate to the age of the children participating.

The report also recommends conducting drills that do not simulate an actual incident, combining drills with trauma-informed approaches to address students’ well-being during and for a sustained period after the drills, and tracking data on the efficacy and effects of drills.

Dr. Loper suggested ways that clinicians and parents can help navigate the tricky territory of school safety drills.

In his view, they should not be random or unexpected, and anticipatory guidance should be given regarding any visual or auditory stimuli, such as flashing lights or sirens, alarms, or announcements.

“A preventive approach should be utilized to ensure that any child who is experiencing extreme drill-distress be excused from any future disaster drills to prevent retraumatization,” Dr. Loper said.

Physicians interviewed for this piece also provided tips on how to talk about these events with children in a way that is beneficial to their mental health.

“What we want to do is [have a] calm discussion [with kids] about what we are doing and why we are doing it” and guide them through the movements, Dr. Schonfeld said.

When teaching children how to respond to an emergency, some elements of uncertainty need to be discussed. Children need to anticipate “what you might do if you are not in the classroom if something occurs, such as being in the bathroom, or out at recess,” he continued.

Dr. Younghans recommended that parents and staff schedule time to prepare children for the drill and practice in advance, and that behavioral health providers, counselors, and/or primary care providers should be involved in the planning and execution of the drill.

The Georgia Tech study was supported through a grant from Everytown for Gun Safety.

The study authors and experts interviewed for this piece had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Gun attacks in classrooms across the nation have led principals and other school leaders to implement “active shooter” drills to try to increase the safety of their students and faculty.

The drills can range from staging lockdowns and sheltering in place to quasi dramas with mock shooters roaming the halls. Although the goals of these training exercises are important, equally important are the potential negative effects of drills on students’ mental health, according to doctors with expertise in pediatrics and mental health.

“Dramatic simulation of an active shooter event at school would be expected to provoke the same stress response as the real thing,” said Peter L. Loper Jr., MD, a pediatrician and psychiatrist, in an interview. “While ensuring their physical safety is very important, we must be intentional about making sure that we are not doing so at the expense of their psychosocial or emotional safety.”

“Children may not be able to differentiate a dramatic drill from a real event,” emphasized Dr. Loper, of the neuropsychiatry and behavioral science departments at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. “The parts of the brain responsible for our flight-fight-or-freeze response would interpret both simulated and real events identically and produce the same neurohormonal stress-response.”

Indeed, a study published in the journal Humanities & Social Sciences Communications suggested children experienced mental health problems related to participating in active shooter drills. In the large study, a team of statisticians from the Georgia Institute of Technology found that students reported a 42% increase in stress and anxiety and a 38.7% increase in depression during the 90 days following active shooter drills, compared with the 90 days before the drills.

The authors of this study, including Mai ElSherief, PhD, drew these conclusions after analyzing 54 million social media posts before and after drills in 114 schools across 33 states. The researchers analyzed the language of the social media posts by teachers, parents, and students and found increased use of the words hope, love, home, school, kids, community, support, and help after the drills. The researchers considered posting with these terms in the aftermath of the drills to be indicative of having high anxiety.

They included examples of how high stress, anxiety, and depression manifested in specific posts from parents in their report. The following is an example of a poster expressing high anxiety and stress: “are we really gonna normalize school shooter drills?! holy sh* there has to be a real way to avoid these tragedies. sh*t like this cannot be normalized. teachers injured after being shot with plastic pellets ‘execution style’ in active shooter drill.”

The authors also shared this post to serve as an example of a person who seems depressed: “and now we are revisiting the trauma on our kids, forcing them to act out school drills monthly. i don’t get why gen x parents buy into this concept wholeheartedly. things need to change.”

The published material did not include posts from students, but the researchers’ analysis of the content of posts overall showed increased concerns for health and increased concerns about death during the period after drills, compared with before drills.

The authors also conducted focus groups in communities in which drills occurred, and many teachers and parents reported anecdotal evidence of children who were nervous long after the drills were over, with some showing extreme reactions such as panic over a standard fire alarm at school. Overall, the results show that school shooter drills can negatively affect school communities over prolonged periods of time, they concluded.

According to a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, “there is a need to be cautious about the potential psychological risks and other unintended consequences of directly involving children in live exercises and drills.”

“These risks and consequences are especially a concern when children are deceived and led to believe there is an actual attack and not a drill,” wrote David Schonfeld, MD, the lead author of the statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, and colleagues.
 

Managing the fallout

Physicians can help students experiencing mental health problems from these drills, according to doctors interviewed for this piece.

It’s important for providers to know that stress will show up differently in children than in adults, said Chelsea Younghans, MD, a psychiatrist and military officer in Bethesda, Md., in an interview.

“They may see children with headaches, stomach aches, or nonspecific complaints. They may also see children who have not had difficulty with sleep present with nightmares or bed wetting,” she added.

For teens and preteens, validated tools such as the Child PTSD Symptom Scale (CPSS-5) and Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS) to assess PTSD in youth, may help serve as a starting point for a conversation between providers and their older child population, she noted.

Children who exhibit avoidance or withdrawal behaviors including consistent school refusal, an increase in reassurance-seeking behaviors, or somatic symptoms like vague abdominal pain or headaches that prevent school attendance after participating in a drill, may need more robust mental health services, Dr. Loper noted.

Dr. Schonfeld, who is also director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, called for health care providers to be available to help children process traumatic reactions to these exercises.

Agreeing with Dr. Schonfeld, Dr. Younghans said: “It is vital to debrief with students and staff after drills, making sure that students have a safe space and ample time to speak with trusted staff. As children will undoubtedly have questions and concerns, creating open lines of communication will help alleviate any traumatic effect these drills may have.”
 

Communicating with various stakeholders

Experts also gave recommendations for how clinicians communicate with leaders in their area’s school districts and other members of their communities about these training exercises.

“For primary care providers, it is important to establish meaningful relationships within your community and patient population as much as possible,” Dr. Younghans said. “Having a good relationship with the local schools and being part of the conversation can help increase school and community awareness on the impact these drills can have on students and staff,” she added.

For those pediatricians or other health care providers who serve as consultants to schools, Dr. Schonfeld advised they ask about policies related to exercises and drills, such as what are the limits to what children might be exposed to in a drill, and what requirements there might be at the local and state level in terms of frequency and what the drills will and will not involve.

He also noted that clinicians should encourage school leaders to consider the fact that kids may have personal histories of trauma that are completely unknown to the school when they design these exercises.

School staff and health care providers should explain the nature and reasons for drills, invite family members to express concerns, and make accommodations if necessary for some children to participate in drills in a more limited way, noted Dr. Schonfeld, who is also clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“I think health care providers should work with legislators, so that if they require a drill, it must be done in a way that is physically and emotionally safe,” he added.
 

Executing better drills for students’ mental health

Experts also advised on ways to execute these drills that will be least damaging to students.

The AAP statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, for example, advocates eliminating high-intensity drills, prohibiting deception in drills, and providing accommodations based on children’s vulnerabilities.

Dr. Schonfeld also emphasized, in an interview, that training for an attack need not be extremely realistic to be effective.

“When you are preparing for a crisis, the drills and exercises are for children to practice and develop mastery over something they don’t know how to do fully yet,” said Dr. Schonfeld.

Citing a suggestion from a 2020 report conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety on keeping schools safe from gun violence, Dr. Younghans said, “Schools should be in clear communication with communities and families regarding when drills will be happening,” and advised ensuring that the explanation of drills is developmentally appropriate to the age of the children participating.

The report also recommends conducting drills that do not simulate an actual incident, combining drills with trauma-informed approaches to address students’ well-being during and for a sustained period after the drills, and tracking data on the efficacy and effects of drills.

Dr. Loper suggested ways that clinicians and parents can help navigate the tricky territory of school safety drills.

In his view, they should not be random or unexpected, and anticipatory guidance should be given regarding any visual or auditory stimuli, such as flashing lights or sirens, alarms, or announcements.

“A preventive approach should be utilized to ensure that any child who is experiencing extreme drill-distress be excused from any future disaster drills to prevent retraumatization,” Dr. Loper said.

Physicians interviewed for this piece also provided tips on how to talk about these events with children in a way that is beneficial to their mental health.

“What we want to do is [have a] calm discussion [with kids] about what we are doing and why we are doing it” and guide them through the movements, Dr. Schonfeld said.

When teaching children how to respond to an emergency, some elements of uncertainty need to be discussed. Children need to anticipate “what you might do if you are not in the classroom if something occurs, such as being in the bathroom, or out at recess,” he continued.

Dr. Younghans recommended that parents and staff schedule time to prepare children for the drill and practice in advance, and that behavioral health providers, counselors, and/or primary care providers should be involved in the planning and execution of the drill.

The Georgia Tech study was supported through a grant from Everytown for Gun Safety.

The study authors and experts interviewed for this piece had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Gun attacks in classrooms across the nation have led principals and other school leaders to implement “active shooter” drills to try to increase the safety of their students and faculty.

The drills can range from staging lockdowns and sheltering in place to quasi dramas with mock shooters roaming the halls. Although the goals of these training exercises are important, equally important are the potential negative effects of drills on students’ mental health, according to doctors with expertise in pediatrics and mental health.

“Dramatic simulation of an active shooter event at school would be expected to provoke the same stress response as the real thing,” said Peter L. Loper Jr., MD, a pediatrician and psychiatrist, in an interview. “While ensuring their physical safety is very important, we must be intentional about making sure that we are not doing so at the expense of their psychosocial or emotional safety.”

“Children may not be able to differentiate a dramatic drill from a real event,” emphasized Dr. Loper, of the neuropsychiatry and behavioral science departments at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. “The parts of the brain responsible for our flight-fight-or-freeze response would interpret both simulated and real events identically and produce the same neurohormonal stress-response.”

Indeed, a study published in the journal Humanities & Social Sciences Communications suggested children experienced mental health problems related to participating in active shooter drills. In the large study, a team of statisticians from the Georgia Institute of Technology found that students reported a 42% increase in stress and anxiety and a 38.7% increase in depression during the 90 days following active shooter drills, compared with the 90 days before the drills.

The authors of this study, including Mai ElSherief, PhD, drew these conclusions after analyzing 54 million social media posts before and after drills in 114 schools across 33 states. The researchers analyzed the language of the social media posts by teachers, parents, and students and found increased use of the words hope, love, home, school, kids, community, support, and help after the drills. The researchers considered posting with these terms in the aftermath of the drills to be indicative of having high anxiety.

They included examples of how high stress, anxiety, and depression manifested in specific posts from parents in their report. The following is an example of a poster expressing high anxiety and stress: “are we really gonna normalize school shooter drills?! holy sh* there has to be a real way to avoid these tragedies. sh*t like this cannot be normalized. teachers injured after being shot with plastic pellets ‘execution style’ in active shooter drill.”

The authors also shared this post to serve as an example of a person who seems depressed: “and now we are revisiting the trauma on our kids, forcing them to act out school drills monthly. i don’t get why gen x parents buy into this concept wholeheartedly. things need to change.”

The published material did not include posts from students, but the researchers’ analysis of the content of posts overall showed increased concerns for health and increased concerns about death during the period after drills, compared with before drills.

The authors also conducted focus groups in communities in which drills occurred, and many teachers and parents reported anecdotal evidence of children who were nervous long after the drills were over, with some showing extreme reactions such as panic over a standard fire alarm at school. Overall, the results show that school shooter drills can negatively affect school communities over prolonged periods of time, they concluded.

According to a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, “there is a need to be cautious about the potential psychological risks and other unintended consequences of directly involving children in live exercises and drills.”

“These risks and consequences are especially a concern when children are deceived and led to believe there is an actual attack and not a drill,” wrote David Schonfeld, MD, the lead author of the statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, and colleagues.
 

Managing the fallout

Physicians can help students experiencing mental health problems from these drills, according to doctors interviewed for this piece.

It’s important for providers to know that stress will show up differently in children than in adults, said Chelsea Younghans, MD, a psychiatrist and military officer in Bethesda, Md., in an interview.

“They may see children with headaches, stomach aches, or nonspecific complaints. They may also see children who have not had difficulty with sleep present with nightmares or bed wetting,” she added.

For teens and preteens, validated tools such as the Child PTSD Symptom Scale (CPSS-5) and Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS) to assess PTSD in youth, may help serve as a starting point for a conversation between providers and their older child population, she noted.

Children who exhibit avoidance or withdrawal behaviors including consistent school refusal, an increase in reassurance-seeking behaviors, or somatic symptoms like vague abdominal pain or headaches that prevent school attendance after participating in a drill, may need more robust mental health services, Dr. Loper noted.

Dr. Schonfeld, who is also director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, called for health care providers to be available to help children process traumatic reactions to these exercises.

Agreeing with Dr. Schonfeld, Dr. Younghans said: “It is vital to debrief with students and staff after drills, making sure that students have a safe space and ample time to speak with trusted staff. As children will undoubtedly have questions and concerns, creating open lines of communication will help alleviate any traumatic effect these drills may have.”
 

Communicating with various stakeholders

Experts also gave recommendations for how clinicians communicate with leaders in their area’s school districts and other members of their communities about these training exercises.

“For primary care providers, it is important to establish meaningful relationships within your community and patient population as much as possible,” Dr. Younghans said. “Having a good relationship with the local schools and being part of the conversation can help increase school and community awareness on the impact these drills can have on students and staff,” she added.

For those pediatricians or other health care providers who serve as consultants to schools, Dr. Schonfeld advised they ask about policies related to exercises and drills, such as what are the limits to what children might be exposed to in a drill, and what requirements there might be at the local and state level in terms of frequency and what the drills will and will not involve.

He also noted that clinicians should encourage school leaders to consider the fact that kids may have personal histories of trauma that are completely unknown to the school when they design these exercises.

School staff and health care providers should explain the nature and reasons for drills, invite family members to express concerns, and make accommodations if necessary for some children to participate in drills in a more limited way, noted Dr. Schonfeld, who is also clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“I think health care providers should work with legislators, so that if they require a drill, it must be done in a way that is physically and emotionally safe,” he added.
 

Executing better drills for students’ mental health

Experts also advised on ways to execute these drills that will be least damaging to students.

The AAP statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, for example, advocates eliminating high-intensity drills, prohibiting deception in drills, and providing accommodations based on children’s vulnerabilities.

Dr. Schonfeld also emphasized, in an interview, that training for an attack need not be extremely realistic to be effective.

“When you are preparing for a crisis, the drills and exercises are for children to practice and develop mastery over something they don’t know how to do fully yet,” said Dr. Schonfeld.

Citing a suggestion from a 2020 report conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety on keeping schools safe from gun violence, Dr. Younghans said, “Schools should be in clear communication with communities and families regarding when drills will be happening,” and advised ensuring that the explanation of drills is developmentally appropriate to the age of the children participating.

The report also recommends conducting drills that do not simulate an actual incident, combining drills with trauma-informed approaches to address students’ well-being during and for a sustained period after the drills, and tracking data on the efficacy and effects of drills.

Dr. Loper suggested ways that clinicians and parents can help navigate the tricky territory of school safety drills.

In his view, they should not be random or unexpected, and anticipatory guidance should be given regarding any visual or auditory stimuli, such as flashing lights or sirens, alarms, or announcements.

“A preventive approach should be utilized to ensure that any child who is experiencing extreme drill-distress be excused from any future disaster drills to prevent retraumatization,” Dr. Loper said.

Physicians interviewed for this piece also provided tips on how to talk about these events with children in a way that is beneficial to their mental health.

“What we want to do is [have a] calm discussion [with kids] about what we are doing and why we are doing it” and guide them through the movements, Dr. Schonfeld said.

When teaching children how to respond to an emergency, some elements of uncertainty need to be discussed. Children need to anticipate “what you might do if you are not in the classroom if something occurs, such as being in the bathroom, or out at recess,” he continued.

Dr. Younghans recommended that parents and staff schedule time to prepare children for the drill and practice in advance, and that behavioral health providers, counselors, and/or primary care providers should be involved in the planning and execution of the drill.

The Georgia Tech study was supported through a grant from Everytown for Gun Safety.

The study authors and experts interviewed for this piece had no financial conflicts to disclose.

For patients with schizophrenia, long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIAs) are associated with a lower risk than oral antipsychotics (OAs) for disease relapse and hospitalization – and they carry no increased risk for adverse events, new research shows.

Investigators analyzed data for more than 70,000 patients with schizophrenia and found that, compared with OAs, LAIAs were associated with lower risk for hospitalizations for any cause, hospitalizations for psychiatric disorders, hospitalizations for schizophrenia, and incident suicide attempts.

courtesy University of Hong Kong

Among patients treated fully with LAIAs, there were fewer hospitalizations for somatic disorders and cardiovascular diseases and less extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), compared with those treated fully with OAs. In addition, among those for whom treatment with LAIAs was initiated early, the reduction in these outcome events was greater in comparison with patients for whom treatment was initiated later.

The results “reinforced that LAIAs were associated with a lower risk of hospitalizations, disease relapses, and suicide attempts than OAs, and this association remained during subsequent treatment periods,” wrote the investigators, led by Esther Chan, PhD, Center for Safe Medication Practice and Research, department of pharmacology and pharmacy, University of Hong Kong.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Misclassification common

“Current clinical guidelines on the use of LAIAs are derived mainly from randomized clinical trials in which strict inclusion criteria limit generalizability,” the investigators noted. In addition, most of these trials were of “relatively short duration,” so long-term observational studies are “important to establish the safety and effectiveness of LAIAs.”

Moreover, most studies have been based on Western populations, and the findings may not be generalizable to Asian populations, which have been less studied.

Previous studies were also often subject to “misclassification of exposure,” since patients treated with LAIAs alone and those treated concurrently with LAIAs and OAs were categorized together as “LAIA” users and were compared with users of OAs alone, the researchers noted.

To investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of LAIAs, they assessed data from the Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System, an electronic health records database of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. They identified 70,396 patients with schizophrenia (52.8% women; mean age, 44.2 years).

The investigators used a self-controlled case series design – “within-individual comparison, based on a case-only approach” – to analyze the data. This model uses incidence rate ratios derived by “comparing the rate of outcomes between exposed and unexposed or reference periods for the same individual.” In this approach, “only people with both the exposure and the outcome are eligible.”

To be included, a patient had to have received at least one OA and LAIA and had to have had at least one outcome event during the observation period of January 2004 or the date of first schizophrenia diagnosis (whichever came later) through December 2019 or death (whichever came first).

The observation period was further subdivided into four periods: a nontreatment period, a period in which OAs were used alone, a period in which LAIAs were used alone, and a period in which a combination of OAs and LAIAs were used together.

Primary outcomes included health care use and disease relapses, such as hospitalizations for psychiatric disorders, hospitalizations for schizophrenia, and incident suicide attempt. Secondary outcomes included hospitalizations for somatic disorders, hospitalizations for cardiovascular diseases, and EPS.
 

LAIAs superior

Of the total study population, 23,719 patients (33.7%) were prescribed both OAs and LAIAs (mean age, 41.7 years). Of these participants, 15.4% died during the observation period.

The mean duration of follow-up was 12.5 years. The mean duration of exposure to OAs alone was 5 years; for LAIA exposure alone, 1.4 years; and for OA plus LAIA exposure, 4.4 years.

During the observation period, almost all individuals (92.8%) had one or more ED visits, and most (88.4%) had one or more hospitalizations for any psychiatric disorder. Over three-quarters (77.5%) were hospitalized for schizophrenia, and a small percentage (6.1%) had an incident suicide attempt.

Almost all patients experienced EPS (93.5%); over half (64.9%) were hospitalized for somatic disorders; and 15.6% were hospitalized for cardiovascular diseases.

After adjustment, compared with OAs, use of LAIAs was associated with a significantly lower risk for most outcomes.

Proactive approach

Commenting on the study, Brittany Gouse, MD, assistant professor at Boston University School of Medicine and a psychiatrist in the wellness and recovery after psychosis program, Boston Medical Center, said the study “adds to the growing body of evidence supporting the longitudinal benefits” of LAIAs for patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

“In particular, there may be a unique benefit to transitioning to long-acting injectable antipsychotics within the first 2 years of illness,” said Dr. Gouse, who coauthored an accompanying editorial and was not involved with the research.

She also called the study “important,” because it suggests that early initiation of LAIAs “may serve as an important tool to reduce morbidity and bridge the premature mortality gap in schizophrenia.”

Dr. Gouse emphasized the importance of prioritizing “tertiary prevention” right from the onset of psychotic illness.

“Clinicians must take a proactive approach and include long-acting antipsychotics in shared decision-making conversations with patients within the first few years of illness,” she said.

The study was funded by the Excellent Young Scientists Fund of the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Dr. Chan received grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support from the Wellcome Trust; grants from the Research Grants Council, the Research Fund Secretariat of the Food and Health Bureau, the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), the narcotics division of the Security Bureau of Hong Kong SAR, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and Novartis; and personal fees from Pfizer, Novartis, and the Hong Kong SAR Hospital Authority outside the submitted work. The editorialists reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

For patients with schizophrenia, long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIAs) are associated with a lower risk than oral antipsychotics (OAs) for disease relapse and hospitalization – and they carry no increased risk for adverse events, new research shows.

Investigators analyzed data for more than 70,000 patients with schizophrenia and found that, compared with OAs, LAIAs were associated with lower risk for hospitalizations for any cause, hospitalizations for psychiatric disorders, hospitalizations for schizophrenia, and incident suicide attempts.

courtesy University of Hong Kong

Among patients treated fully with LAIAs, there were fewer hospitalizations for somatic disorders and cardiovascular diseases and less extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), compared with those treated fully with OAs. In addition, among those for whom treatment with LAIAs was initiated early, the reduction in these outcome events was greater in comparison with patients for whom treatment was initiated later.

The results “reinforced that LAIAs were associated with a lower risk of hospitalizations, disease relapses, and suicide attempts than OAs, and this association remained during subsequent treatment periods,” wrote the investigators, led by Esther Chan, PhD, Center for Safe Medication Practice and Research, department of pharmacology and pharmacy, University of Hong Kong.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Misclassification common

“Current clinical guidelines on the use of LAIAs are derived mainly from randomized clinical trials in which strict inclusion criteria limit generalizability,” the investigators noted. In addition, most of these trials were of “relatively short duration,” so long-term observational studies are “important to establish the safety and effectiveness of LAIAs.”

Moreover, most studies have been based on Western populations, and the findings may not be generalizable to Asian populations, which have been less studied.

Previous studies were also often subject to “misclassification of exposure,” since patients treated with LAIAs alone and those treated concurrently with LAIAs and OAs were categorized together as “LAIA” users and were compared with users of OAs alone, the researchers noted.

To investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of LAIAs, they assessed data from the Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System, an electronic health records database of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. They identified 70,396 patients with schizophrenia (52.8% women; mean age, 44.2 years).

The investigators used a self-controlled case series design – “within-individual comparison, based on a case-only approach” – to analyze the data. This model uses incidence rate ratios derived by “comparing the rate of outcomes between exposed and unexposed or reference periods for the same individual.” In this approach, “only people with both the exposure and the outcome are eligible.”

To be included, a patient had to have received at least one OA and LAIA and had to have had at least one outcome event during the observation period of January 2004 or the date of first schizophrenia diagnosis (whichever came later) through December 2019 or death (whichever came first).

The observation period was further subdivided into four periods: a nontreatment period, a period in which OAs were used alone, a period in which LAIAs were used alone, and a period in which a combination of OAs and LAIAs were used together.

Primary outcomes included health care use and disease relapses, such as hospitalizations for psychiatric disorders, hospitalizations for schizophrenia, and incident suicide attempt. Secondary outcomes included hospitalizations for somatic disorders, hospitalizations for cardiovascular diseases, and EPS.
 

LAIAs superior

Of the total study population, 23,719 patients (33.7%) were prescribed both OAs and LAIAs (mean age, 41.7 years). Of these participants, 15.4% died during the observation period.

The mean duration of follow-up was 12.5 years. The mean duration of exposure to OAs alone was 5 years; for LAIA exposure alone, 1.4 years; and for OA plus LAIA exposure, 4.4 years.

During the observation period, almost all individuals (92.8%) had one or more ED visits, and most (88.4%) had one or more hospitalizations for any psychiatric disorder. Over three-quarters (77.5%) were hospitalized for schizophrenia, and a small percentage (6.1%) had an incident suicide attempt.

Almost all patients experienced EPS (93.5%); over half (64.9%) were hospitalized for somatic disorders; and 15.6% were hospitalized for cardiovascular diseases.

After adjustment, compared with OAs, use of LAIAs was associated with a significantly lower risk for most outcomes.

Proactive approach

Commenting on the study, Brittany Gouse, MD, assistant professor at Boston University School of Medicine and a psychiatrist in the wellness and recovery after psychosis program, Boston Medical Center, said the study “adds to the growing body of evidence supporting the longitudinal benefits” of LAIAs for patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

“In particular, there may be a unique benefit to transitioning to long-acting injectable antipsychotics within the first 2 years of illness,” said Dr. Gouse, who coauthored an accompanying editorial and was not involved with the research.

She also called the study “important,” because it suggests that early initiation of LAIAs “may serve as an important tool to reduce morbidity and bridge the premature mortality gap in schizophrenia.”

Dr. Gouse emphasized the importance of prioritizing “tertiary prevention” right from the onset of psychotic illness.

“Clinicians must take a proactive approach and include long-acting antipsychotics in shared decision-making conversations with patients within the first few years of illness,” she said.

The study was funded by the Excellent Young Scientists Fund of the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Dr. Chan received grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support from the Wellcome Trust; grants from the Research Grants Council, the Research Fund Secretariat of the Food and Health Bureau, the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), the narcotics division of the Security Bureau of Hong Kong SAR, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and Novartis; and personal fees from Pfizer, Novartis, and the Hong Kong SAR Hospital Authority outside the submitted work. The editorialists reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

For patients with schizophrenia, long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIAs) are associated with a lower risk than oral antipsychotics (OAs) for disease relapse and hospitalization – and they carry no increased risk for adverse events, new research shows.

Investigators analyzed data for more than 70,000 patients with schizophrenia and found that, compared with OAs, LAIAs were associated with lower risk for hospitalizations for any cause, hospitalizations for psychiatric disorders, hospitalizations for schizophrenia, and incident suicide attempts.

courtesy University of Hong Kong

Among patients treated fully with LAIAs, there were fewer hospitalizations for somatic disorders and cardiovascular diseases and less extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), compared with those treated fully with OAs. In addition, among those for whom treatment with LAIAs was initiated early, the reduction in these outcome events was greater in comparison with patients for whom treatment was initiated later.

The results “reinforced that LAIAs were associated with a lower risk of hospitalizations, disease relapses, and suicide attempts than OAs, and this association remained during subsequent treatment periods,” wrote the investigators, led by Esther Chan, PhD, Center for Safe Medication Practice and Research, department of pharmacology and pharmacy, University of Hong Kong.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Misclassification common

“Current clinical guidelines on the use of LAIAs are derived mainly from randomized clinical trials in which strict inclusion criteria limit generalizability,” the investigators noted. In addition, most of these trials were of “relatively short duration,” so long-term observational studies are “important to establish the safety and effectiveness of LAIAs.”

Moreover, most studies have been based on Western populations, and the findings may not be generalizable to Asian populations, which have been less studied.

Previous studies were also often subject to “misclassification of exposure,” since patients treated with LAIAs alone and those treated concurrently with LAIAs and OAs were categorized together as “LAIA” users and were compared with users of OAs alone, the researchers noted.

To investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of LAIAs, they assessed data from the Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System, an electronic health records database of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. They identified 70,396 patients with schizophrenia (52.8% women; mean age, 44.2 years).

The investigators used a self-controlled case series design – “within-individual comparison, based on a case-only approach” – to analyze the data. This model uses incidence rate ratios derived by “comparing the rate of outcomes between exposed and unexposed or reference periods for the same individual.” In this approach, “only people with both the exposure and the outcome are eligible.”

To be included, a patient had to have received at least one OA and LAIA and had to have had at least one outcome event during the observation period of January 2004 or the date of first schizophrenia diagnosis (whichever came later) through December 2019 or death (whichever came first).

The observation period was further subdivided into four periods: a nontreatment period, a period in which OAs were used alone, a period in which LAIAs were used alone, and a period in which a combination of OAs and LAIAs were used together.

Primary outcomes included health care use and disease relapses, such as hospitalizations for psychiatric disorders, hospitalizations for schizophrenia, and incident suicide attempt. Secondary outcomes included hospitalizations for somatic disorders, hospitalizations for cardiovascular diseases, and EPS.
 

LAIAs superior

Of the total study population, 23,719 patients (33.7%) were prescribed both OAs and LAIAs (mean age, 41.7 years). Of these participants, 15.4% died during the observation period.

The mean duration of follow-up was 12.5 years. The mean duration of exposure to OAs alone was 5 years; for LAIA exposure alone, 1.4 years; and for OA plus LAIA exposure, 4.4 years.

During the observation period, almost all individuals (92.8%) had one or more ED visits, and most (88.4%) had one or more hospitalizations for any psychiatric disorder. Over three-quarters (77.5%) were hospitalized for schizophrenia, and a small percentage (6.1%) had an incident suicide attempt.

Almost all patients experienced EPS (93.5%); over half (64.9%) were hospitalized for somatic disorders; and 15.6% were hospitalized for cardiovascular diseases.

After adjustment, compared with OAs, use of LAIAs was associated with a significantly lower risk for most outcomes.

Proactive approach

Commenting on the study, Brittany Gouse, MD, assistant professor at Boston University School of Medicine and a psychiatrist in the wellness and recovery after psychosis program, Boston Medical Center, said the study “adds to the growing body of evidence supporting the longitudinal benefits” of LAIAs for patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

“In particular, there may be a unique benefit to transitioning to long-acting injectable antipsychotics within the first 2 years of illness,” said Dr. Gouse, who coauthored an accompanying editorial and was not involved with the research.

She also called the study “important,” because it suggests that early initiation of LAIAs “may serve as an important tool to reduce morbidity and bridge the premature mortality gap in schizophrenia.”

Dr. Gouse emphasized the importance of prioritizing “tertiary prevention” right from the onset of psychotic illness.

“Clinicians must take a proactive approach and include long-acting antipsychotics in shared decision-making conversations with patients within the first few years of illness,” she said.

The study was funded by the Excellent Young Scientists Fund of the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Dr. Chan received grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support from the Wellcome Trust; grants from the Research Grants Council, the Research Fund Secretariat of the Food and Health Bureau, the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), the narcotics division of the Security Bureau of Hong Kong SAR, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and Novartis; and personal fees from Pfizer, Novartis, and the Hong Kong SAR Hospital Authority outside the submitted work. The editorialists reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hair loss, reduced sex drive, and erectile dysfunction have joined a list of better-known symptoms linked to long COVID in patients who were not hospitalized, according to findings of a large study.

Anuradhaa Subramanian, PhD, with the Institute of Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham (England), led the research published online in Nature Medicine.

The team analyzed 486,149 electronic health records from adult patients with confirmed COVID in the United Kingdom, compared with 1.9 million people with no history of COVID, from January 2020 to April 2021. Researchers matched both groups closely in terms of demographic, social, and clinical traits.
 

New symptoms

The team identified 62 symptoms, including the well-known indicators of long COVID, such as fatigue, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, and brain fog, but also hair loss, sexual dysfunction, chest pain, fever, loss of control of bowel movements, and limb swelling.

“These differences in symptoms reported between the infected and uninfected groups remained even after we accounted for age, sex, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, body mass index, smoking status, the presence of more than 80 health conditions, and past reporting of the same symptom,” Dr. Subramanian and coresearcher Shamil Haroon, PhD, wrote in a summary of their research in The Conversation.

They pointed out that only 20 of the symptoms they found are included in the World Health Organization’s clinical case definition for long COVID.

They also found that people more likely to have persistent symptoms 3 months after COVID infection were also more likely to be young, female, smokers, to belong to certain minority ethnic groups, and to have lower socioeconomic status. They were also more likely to be obese and have a wide range of health conditions.

Dr. Haroon, an associate clinical professor at the University of Birmingham, said that one reason it appeared that younger people were more likely to get symptoms of long COVID may be that older adults with COVID were more likely to be hospitalized and weren’t included in this study.

“Since we only considered nonhospitalized adults, the older adults we included in our study may have been relatively healthier and thus had a lower symptom burden,” he said.

Dr. Subramania noted that older patients were more likely to report lasting COVID-related symptoms in the study, but when researchers accounted for a wide range of other conditions that patients had before infection (which generally more commonly happen in older adults), they found younger age as a risk factor for long-term COVID-related symptoms.

In the study period, most patients were unvaccinated, and results came before the widespread Delta and Omicron variants.

More than half (56.6%) of the patients infected with the virus that causes COVID had been diagnosed in 2020, and 43.4% in 2021. Less than 5% (4.5%) of the patients infected with the virus and 4.7% of the patients with no recorded evidence of a COVID infection had received at least a single dose of a COVID vaccine before the study started.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, said more studies need to be done to see whether results would be different with vaccination status and evolving variants.

But he noted that this study has several strengths: “The hair loss, libido loss, and ejaculation difficulty are all new symptoms,” and the study – large and carefully controlled – shows these issues were among those more likely to occur.

A loss of sense of smell – which is not a new observation – was still the most likely risk shown in the study, followed by hair loss, sneezing, ejaculation difficulty, and reduced sex drive; followed by shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain associated with breathing difficulties, hoarseness, and fever.
 

Three main clusters of symptoms

Given the wide range of symptoms, long COVID likely represents a group of conditions, the authors wrote.

They found three main clusters. The largest, with roughly 80% of people with long COVID in the study, faced a broad spectrum of symptoms, ranging from fatigue to headache and pain. The second-largest group, (15%) mostly had symptoms having to do with mental health and thinking skills, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and insomnia. The smallest group (5%) had mainly respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.

Putting symptoms in clusters will be important to start understanding what leads to long COVID, said Farha Ikramuddin, MD, a rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

She added that, while the symptoms listed in this paper are new in published research, she has certainly been seeing them over time in her long COVID clinic. (The researchers also used only coded health care data, so they were limited in what symptoms they could discover, she notes.)

Dr. Ikramuddin said a strength of the paper is its large size, but she also cautioned that it’s difficult to determine whether members of the comparison group truly had no COVID infection when the information is taken from their medical records. Often, people test at home or assume they have COVID and don’t test; therefore the information wouldn’t be recorded.

Evaluating nonhospitalized patients is also important, she said, as much of the research on long COVID has come from hospitalized patients, so little has been known about the symptoms of those with milder infections.

“Patients who have been hospitalized and have long COVID look very different from the patients who were not hospitalized,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

One clear message from the paper, she said, is that listening and asking extensive questions about symptoms are important with patients who have had COVID.

“Counseling has also become very important for our patients in the pandemic,” she said.

It will also be important to do studies on returning to work for patients with long COVID to see how many are able to return and at what capacity, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

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

Hair loss, reduced sex drive, and erectile dysfunction have joined a list of better-known symptoms linked to long COVID in patients who were not hospitalized, according to findings of a large study.

Anuradhaa Subramanian, PhD, with the Institute of Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham (England), led the research published online in Nature Medicine.

The team analyzed 486,149 electronic health records from adult patients with confirmed COVID in the United Kingdom, compared with 1.9 million people with no history of COVID, from January 2020 to April 2021. Researchers matched both groups closely in terms of demographic, social, and clinical traits.
 

New symptoms

The team identified 62 symptoms, including the well-known indicators of long COVID, such as fatigue, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, and brain fog, but also hair loss, sexual dysfunction, chest pain, fever, loss of control of bowel movements, and limb swelling.

“These differences in symptoms reported between the infected and uninfected groups remained even after we accounted for age, sex, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, body mass index, smoking status, the presence of more than 80 health conditions, and past reporting of the same symptom,” Dr. Subramanian and coresearcher Shamil Haroon, PhD, wrote in a summary of their research in The Conversation.

They pointed out that only 20 of the symptoms they found are included in the World Health Organization’s clinical case definition for long COVID.

They also found that people more likely to have persistent symptoms 3 months after COVID infection were also more likely to be young, female, smokers, to belong to certain minority ethnic groups, and to have lower socioeconomic status. They were also more likely to be obese and have a wide range of health conditions.

Dr. Haroon, an associate clinical professor at the University of Birmingham, said that one reason it appeared that younger people were more likely to get symptoms of long COVID may be that older adults with COVID were more likely to be hospitalized and weren’t included in this study.

“Since we only considered nonhospitalized adults, the older adults we included in our study may have been relatively healthier and thus had a lower symptom burden,” he said.

Dr. Subramania noted that older patients were more likely to report lasting COVID-related symptoms in the study, but when researchers accounted for a wide range of other conditions that patients had before infection (which generally more commonly happen in older adults), they found younger age as a risk factor for long-term COVID-related symptoms.

In the study period, most patients were unvaccinated, and results came before the widespread Delta and Omicron variants.

More than half (56.6%) of the patients infected with the virus that causes COVID had been diagnosed in 2020, and 43.4% in 2021. Less than 5% (4.5%) of the patients infected with the virus and 4.7% of the patients with no recorded evidence of a COVID infection had received at least a single dose of a COVID vaccine before the study started.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, said more studies need to be done to see whether results would be different with vaccination status and evolving variants.

But he noted that this study has several strengths: “The hair loss, libido loss, and ejaculation difficulty are all new symptoms,” and the study – large and carefully controlled – shows these issues were among those more likely to occur.

A loss of sense of smell – which is not a new observation – was still the most likely risk shown in the study, followed by hair loss, sneezing, ejaculation difficulty, and reduced sex drive; followed by shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain associated with breathing difficulties, hoarseness, and fever.
 

Three main clusters of symptoms

Given the wide range of symptoms, long COVID likely represents a group of conditions, the authors wrote.

They found three main clusters. The largest, with roughly 80% of people with long COVID in the study, faced a broad spectrum of symptoms, ranging from fatigue to headache and pain. The second-largest group, (15%) mostly had symptoms having to do with mental health and thinking skills, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and insomnia. The smallest group (5%) had mainly respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.

Putting symptoms in clusters will be important to start understanding what leads to long COVID, said Farha Ikramuddin, MD, a rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

She added that, while the symptoms listed in this paper are new in published research, she has certainly been seeing them over time in her long COVID clinic. (The researchers also used only coded health care data, so they were limited in what symptoms they could discover, she notes.)

Dr. Ikramuddin said a strength of the paper is its large size, but she also cautioned that it’s difficult to determine whether members of the comparison group truly had no COVID infection when the information is taken from their medical records. Often, people test at home or assume they have COVID and don’t test; therefore the information wouldn’t be recorded.

Evaluating nonhospitalized patients is also important, she said, as much of the research on long COVID has come from hospitalized patients, so little has been known about the symptoms of those with milder infections.

“Patients who have been hospitalized and have long COVID look very different from the patients who were not hospitalized,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

One clear message from the paper, she said, is that listening and asking extensive questions about symptoms are important with patients who have had COVID.

“Counseling has also become very important for our patients in the pandemic,” she said.

It will also be important to do studies on returning to work for patients with long COVID to see how many are able to return and at what capacity, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

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

Hair loss, reduced sex drive, and erectile dysfunction have joined a list of better-known symptoms linked to long COVID in patients who were not hospitalized, according to findings of a large study.

Anuradhaa Subramanian, PhD, with the Institute of Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham (England), led the research published online in Nature Medicine.

The team analyzed 486,149 electronic health records from adult patients with confirmed COVID in the United Kingdom, compared with 1.9 million people with no history of COVID, from January 2020 to April 2021. Researchers matched both groups closely in terms of demographic, social, and clinical traits.
 

New symptoms

The team identified 62 symptoms, including the well-known indicators of long COVID, such as fatigue, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, and brain fog, but also hair loss, sexual dysfunction, chest pain, fever, loss of control of bowel movements, and limb swelling.

“These differences in symptoms reported between the infected and uninfected groups remained even after we accounted for age, sex, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, body mass index, smoking status, the presence of more than 80 health conditions, and past reporting of the same symptom,” Dr. Subramanian and coresearcher Shamil Haroon, PhD, wrote in a summary of their research in The Conversation.

They pointed out that only 20 of the symptoms they found are included in the World Health Organization’s clinical case definition for long COVID.

They also found that people more likely to have persistent symptoms 3 months after COVID infection were also more likely to be young, female, smokers, to belong to certain minority ethnic groups, and to have lower socioeconomic status. They were also more likely to be obese and have a wide range of health conditions.

Dr. Haroon, an associate clinical professor at the University of Birmingham, said that one reason it appeared that younger people were more likely to get symptoms of long COVID may be that older adults with COVID were more likely to be hospitalized and weren’t included in this study.

“Since we only considered nonhospitalized adults, the older adults we included in our study may have been relatively healthier and thus had a lower symptom burden,” he said.

Dr. Subramania noted that older patients were more likely to report lasting COVID-related symptoms in the study, but when researchers accounted for a wide range of other conditions that patients had before infection (which generally more commonly happen in older adults), they found younger age as a risk factor for long-term COVID-related symptoms.

In the study period, most patients were unvaccinated, and results came before the widespread Delta and Omicron variants.

More than half (56.6%) of the patients infected with the virus that causes COVID had been diagnosed in 2020, and 43.4% in 2021. Less than 5% (4.5%) of the patients infected with the virus and 4.7% of the patients with no recorded evidence of a COVID infection had received at least a single dose of a COVID vaccine before the study started.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, said more studies need to be done to see whether results would be different with vaccination status and evolving variants.

But he noted that this study has several strengths: “The hair loss, libido loss, and ejaculation difficulty are all new symptoms,” and the study – large and carefully controlled – shows these issues were among those more likely to occur.

A loss of sense of smell – which is not a new observation – was still the most likely risk shown in the study, followed by hair loss, sneezing, ejaculation difficulty, and reduced sex drive; followed by shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain associated with breathing difficulties, hoarseness, and fever.
 

Three main clusters of symptoms

Given the wide range of symptoms, long COVID likely represents a group of conditions, the authors wrote.

They found three main clusters. The largest, with roughly 80% of people with long COVID in the study, faced a broad spectrum of symptoms, ranging from fatigue to headache and pain. The second-largest group, (15%) mostly had symptoms having to do with mental health and thinking skills, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and insomnia. The smallest group (5%) had mainly respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.

Putting symptoms in clusters will be important to start understanding what leads to long COVID, said Farha Ikramuddin, MD, a rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

She added that, while the symptoms listed in this paper are new in published research, she has certainly been seeing them over time in her long COVID clinic. (The researchers also used only coded health care data, so they were limited in what symptoms they could discover, she notes.)

Dr. Ikramuddin said a strength of the paper is its large size, but she also cautioned that it’s difficult to determine whether members of the comparison group truly had no COVID infection when the information is taken from their medical records. Often, people test at home or assume they have COVID and don’t test; therefore the information wouldn’t be recorded.

Evaluating nonhospitalized patients is also important, she said, as much of the research on long COVID has come from hospitalized patients, so little has been known about the symptoms of those with milder infections.

“Patients who have been hospitalized and have long COVID look very different from the patients who were not hospitalized,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

One clear message from the paper, she said, is that listening and asking extensive questions about symptoms are important with patients who have had COVID.

“Counseling has also become very important for our patients in the pandemic,” she said.

It will also be important to do studies on returning to work for patients with long COVID to see how many are able to return and at what capacity, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

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

More and more physicians are being wooed by private equity firms that want to buy their practices. The total value of private equity deals in health care in 2019 is estimated at about $120 billion, and it’s expected to grow over the coming years.

While the potential profit may seem alluring, physicians have mixed feelings as to whether this will be a boon or a disappointment.

Angelo Falcone, MD, a former emergency physician in Rockville, Md., found that a private equity investment transformed his career path.

For 19 years, Dr. Falcone was CEO of an emergency medicine group with 35 partners that staffed 10 emergency departments, mostly in Maryland. “We were a pretty small operation looking to get bigger, but to do that would require a substantial investment,” he said.

In 2015, after checking out all their options, the partners decided to sell to US Acute Care Solutions (USACS), a new private equity company founded by Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, an investment firm in New York. Private equity can be used to expand practices and pay for new equipment. Dr. Falcone, serving as a USACS board member and its operational president, helped spur the company’s astounding growth. Today, USACS has about 5,000 physicians and other clinicians operating in 30 states.

In 2019, Dr. Falcone stepped down from his management post at USACS, took training in integrative medicine, and 2 years later opened a solo integrative medicine practice in Rockville. The new practice, which operates on a concierge model, is not connected with USACS, but Dr, Falcone still sits on the USACS board.

“I had a great experience at USACS. I believe in the power of private equity to support our patients and physicians,” Dr. Falcone said. “Now, at age 58, I have a second career in integrative medicine.”
 

Private equity is still controversial

David Fleeger, MD, has a different opinion of private equity. “I get offers from private equity firms fairly often, but I’m not seriously interested,” said Dr. Fleeger, a surgeon with Central Texas Colon and Rectal Surgeons in Austin.

“We don’t want to sell to anybody; we want to control our destiny,” he said. “We don’t have to borrow money or repay loans, and we don’t expect to get a windfall for the practice. The profits in medicine are too narrow for that to be realistic. There is no free lunch.”

Some of the doctors who sign up for private equity deals become dissatisfied and want to end the arrangement, according to John Pinto, an ophthalmic practice management consultant in San Diego.

“I get calls about once a month from doctors who want to get out of a private equity deal or revise the terms,” he said. “Some complaints are that the PE firm was too tight with the budget, wouldn’t hire needed staff, mismanaged operations, or otherwise mishandled their investment in the practice.”

It’s difficult for disgruntled physicians to exit a private equity deal, Mr. Pinto said. They commonly have to give up part of the payment they had received for their practice if they leave prematurely, and depending on the jurisdiction, stiff noncompete clauses in their contract won’t allow them to practice nearby.

Disillusioned physicians – and even many physicians who had good experiences with private equity – usually don’t want to air their complaints in public. One reason most of these doctors keep silent is that they have signed nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements that are part of most private equity deals.
 

The private equity proposition

Private equity firms typically pay a great deal more for practices than hospitals or even many large private practices, according to James D. Wall, an attorney in Winston-Salem, N.C., who has handled many private equity deals. Mr. Wall said private equity often organizes physicians around one specialty. One advantage these physicians have over hospital-employed physicians is that they aren’t under pressure to refer within a network.

Private equity companies set values for practices on the basis of their earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), said Howard Bogard, an attorney with Burr & Forman in Raleigh, N.C., who has handled many deals. Mr. Bogard said the amount physicians are paid is usually between 4 and 12 times’ EBITDA, so if your practice is earning $1 million a year in EBITDA, you would get $4 million to $12 million for it.

Of the total price tag, “Doctors get a hefty immediate payment when they sell,” Mr. Bogard said. “It might be 70% of the purchase price up front, and the 30% left over is equity in the buyer. The private equity firm then sells the practice 5-7 years later, and at that time, the physician’s equity is converted to cash and equity in the new buyer, often at the same 70/30 ratio. The idea is to keep the doctor interested in staying.”

Private equity firms expand practices to receive more favorable reimbursements and achieve economies of scale, according to Jane Zhu, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who has studied the phenomenon. Dr. Zhu said these firms may enhance profits by contracting with Medicare Advantage plans, joining accountable care organizations (ACOs), having their physicians work longer hours, and using advanced-practice clinicians instead of physicians.

“They want to make a large return in the order of 20% per year over several years, but they don’t want to strip the practice of value, because they’ll need to sell it to a new investor,” Dr. Zhu said.

When doctors sell to a private equity firm, they become employees and often have to take a pay cut, but their pay may rise again as new efficiencies are instituted. This occurred for partners in Minnesota Eye Consultants (MEC), an 11-member ophthalmology practice in Bloomington, Minn., that helped found Unifeye Vision Partners (UVP), a private equity company financed by Chicago-based Waud Capital Partners.

“When we sold the practice in 2017, we expected to see a 30% cut in the partners’ personal income,” said Richard L. Lindstrom, MD, who headed MEC until he retired last year. “Now, coming into the 6th year, all of the former partners who are still working are earning 10% above presale levels, except for one doctor who wanted to work fewer hours.” These doctors aren’t working longer hours but rather are benefiting from efficiencies, such as adding scribes and improving scheduling, he said.

Private equity brought discipline to the practice, said Dr. Lindstrom, who still sits on the Unifeye board. “In an independent practice, the partners may decide on a new piece of equipment because it would be fun to have, not because they’ve done a financial analysis,” he said. “We don’t wing it anymore.”

On the other hand, according to Dr. Zhu, some private equity firms may use draconian methods to improve efficiency. “Doctors may be expected to order or perform more services or work faster or longer to reach a certain threshold,” she said.
 

Can private equity uphold your interests?

To win over doctors, a private equity firm may agree to finance projects that the doctors want. For example, Dr. Lindstrom said after his group joined Unifeye, Waud Capital agreed to finance the doctors’ plan to open a new $6 million office. Before the deal, the partners would have had to take out a $6 million loan and personally guarantee it, he said.

A private equity firm may even agree to support the selling doctors’ practice philosophy, such as serving low-income patients – as long as it has a revenue stream. Luis Benavides, MD, is part of a seven-physician family medicine practice that treats many low-income patients in Laredo, Tex. “There is a lot of poverty here,” he said. This March, the group sold to a large private equity company, whose name Dr. Benavides preferred not to reveal.
One reason they made the new arrangement, Dr. Benavides said, was to qualify for ACO REACH, a new Medicare payment program that is mostly used in underserved areas and that allows more distribution of shared savings payments. “Our goal has always been better care,” he said. “We want to know how we can best serve our community.”

Dr. Benavides acknowledges that he has less independence in the new arrangement, but “I already lost my independence when I went from solo practice to a group,” he said. “The upside of a larger organization is that other people may have better ideas than you have.”

Private equity firms often set up governance structures to give physicians some measure of control. Dr. Lindstrom said the governing board of his former practice is solely made up of physicians and deals with local issues such as what office doctors will work in and how many patients they will see. Waud Capital has control of the Unifeye board of directors, but it mainly deals with larger issues, such as acquisition of more practices, he said.

In rare instances, private equity gives doctors control. Dr. Falcone said that from the start of USACS, doctors owned 65% of the company, and in 2020, the physician partners bought out Welsh Carson. “Then we engaged the private equity firm Apollo Global Management, which lent us money for the buyout and became our capital partner, with the doctors now owning 98% of the company,” he said.

On the other hand, some private equity arrangements reportedly have little regard for doctors’ well-being, especially if they are new doctors who didn’t participate in the deal and don’t have equity in it. Dr. Zhu recalled that a new physician was recruited by a practice and was promised a partnership track, but she wasn’t told that the partners were negotiating a private equity deal. “She didn’t find out until the practice was sold months later,” Dr. Zhu said. “The chances of her getting any equity now are unclear.”

Making sure that you pick a company that has your interests at heart requires a lot of digging. Dr. Lindstrom said he and his partners took 3 years to make a decision. They hired a broker to pick the 10 best private equity firms. Then they met with those companies and hired a law firm and an accounting firm to assess them. As the partners inched toward a deal, they voted on each of five critical steps in the decision-making process, he said. He noted that each vote was unanimous.
 

Impact of private equity

“Private equity deals are changing the health care landscape,” Mr. Wall said. “They are creating large, independent practices that help physicians remain independent from hospital systems and potentially have the clout to get more favorable reimbursements.”

“There is a lot of misunderstanding and mistrust among physicians about private equity,” Dr. Benavides said. “I imagine it will take a while for it to be accepted.”

Until the COVID pandemic, the annual number of private equity deals for doctors had been rising. Will it recover that pace? Mr. Pinto said rising interest rates may dampen activity in the near future.

“The private equity firm often performs a leveraged buyout using borrowed money,” he explained. “This works better when interest rates are low, but interest rates are trending higher. Private equity firms aren’t going away, but they may have to be less generous as the cost of money rises.”

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

More and more physicians are being wooed by private equity firms that want to buy their practices. The total value of private equity deals in health care in 2019 is estimated at about $120 billion, and it’s expected to grow over the coming years.

While the potential profit may seem alluring, physicians have mixed feelings as to whether this will be a boon or a disappointment.

Angelo Falcone, MD, a former emergency physician in Rockville, Md., found that a private equity investment transformed his career path.

For 19 years, Dr. Falcone was CEO of an emergency medicine group with 35 partners that staffed 10 emergency departments, mostly in Maryland. “We were a pretty small operation looking to get bigger, but to do that would require a substantial investment,” he said.

In 2015, after checking out all their options, the partners decided to sell to US Acute Care Solutions (USACS), a new private equity company founded by Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, an investment firm in New York. Private equity can be used to expand practices and pay for new equipment. Dr. Falcone, serving as a USACS board member and its operational president, helped spur the company’s astounding growth. Today, USACS has about 5,000 physicians and other clinicians operating in 30 states.

In 2019, Dr. Falcone stepped down from his management post at USACS, took training in integrative medicine, and 2 years later opened a solo integrative medicine practice in Rockville. The new practice, which operates on a concierge model, is not connected with USACS, but Dr, Falcone still sits on the USACS board.

“I had a great experience at USACS. I believe in the power of private equity to support our patients and physicians,” Dr. Falcone said. “Now, at age 58, I have a second career in integrative medicine.”
 

Private equity is still controversial

David Fleeger, MD, has a different opinion of private equity. “I get offers from private equity firms fairly often, but I’m not seriously interested,” said Dr. Fleeger, a surgeon with Central Texas Colon and Rectal Surgeons in Austin.

“We don’t want to sell to anybody; we want to control our destiny,” he said. “We don’t have to borrow money or repay loans, and we don’t expect to get a windfall for the practice. The profits in medicine are too narrow for that to be realistic. There is no free lunch.”

Some of the doctors who sign up for private equity deals become dissatisfied and want to end the arrangement, according to John Pinto, an ophthalmic practice management consultant in San Diego.

“I get calls about once a month from doctors who want to get out of a private equity deal or revise the terms,” he said. “Some complaints are that the PE firm was too tight with the budget, wouldn’t hire needed staff, mismanaged operations, or otherwise mishandled their investment in the practice.”

It’s difficult for disgruntled physicians to exit a private equity deal, Mr. Pinto said. They commonly have to give up part of the payment they had received for their practice if they leave prematurely, and depending on the jurisdiction, stiff noncompete clauses in their contract won’t allow them to practice nearby.

Disillusioned physicians – and even many physicians who had good experiences with private equity – usually don’t want to air their complaints in public. One reason most of these doctors keep silent is that they have signed nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements that are part of most private equity deals.
 

The private equity proposition

Private equity firms typically pay a great deal more for practices than hospitals or even many large private practices, according to James D. Wall, an attorney in Winston-Salem, N.C., who has handled many private equity deals. Mr. Wall said private equity often organizes physicians around one specialty. One advantage these physicians have over hospital-employed physicians is that they aren’t under pressure to refer within a network.

Private equity companies set values for practices on the basis of their earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), said Howard Bogard, an attorney with Burr & Forman in Raleigh, N.C., who has handled many deals. Mr. Bogard said the amount physicians are paid is usually between 4 and 12 times’ EBITDA, so if your practice is earning $1 million a year in EBITDA, you would get $4 million to $12 million for it.

Of the total price tag, “Doctors get a hefty immediate payment when they sell,” Mr. Bogard said. “It might be 70% of the purchase price up front, and the 30% left over is equity in the buyer. The private equity firm then sells the practice 5-7 years later, and at that time, the physician’s equity is converted to cash and equity in the new buyer, often at the same 70/30 ratio. The idea is to keep the doctor interested in staying.”

Private equity firms expand practices to receive more favorable reimbursements and achieve economies of scale, according to Jane Zhu, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who has studied the phenomenon. Dr. Zhu said these firms may enhance profits by contracting with Medicare Advantage plans, joining accountable care organizations (ACOs), having their physicians work longer hours, and using advanced-practice clinicians instead of physicians.

“They want to make a large return in the order of 20% per year over several years, but they don’t want to strip the practice of value, because they’ll need to sell it to a new investor,” Dr. Zhu said.

When doctors sell to a private equity firm, they become employees and often have to take a pay cut, but their pay may rise again as new efficiencies are instituted. This occurred for partners in Minnesota Eye Consultants (MEC), an 11-member ophthalmology practice in Bloomington, Minn., that helped found Unifeye Vision Partners (UVP), a private equity company financed by Chicago-based Waud Capital Partners.

“When we sold the practice in 2017, we expected to see a 30% cut in the partners’ personal income,” said Richard L. Lindstrom, MD, who headed MEC until he retired last year. “Now, coming into the 6th year, all of the former partners who are still working are earning 10% above presale levels, except for one doctor who wanted to work fewer hours.” These doctors aren’t working longer hours but rather are benefiting from efficiencies, such as adding scribes and improving scheduling, he said.

Private equity brought discipline to the practice, said Dr. Lindstrom, who still sits on the Unifeye board. “In an independent practice, the partners may decide on a new piece of equipment because it would be fun to have, not because they’ve done a financial analysis,” he said. “We don’t wing it anymore.”

On the other hand, according to Dr. Zhu, some private equity firms may use draconian methods to improve efficiency. “Doctors may be expected to order or perform more services or work faster or longer to reach a certain threshold,” she said.
 

Can private equity uphold your interests?

To win over doctors, a private equity firm may agree to finance projects that the doctors want. For example, Dr. Lindstrom said after his group joined Unifeye, Waud Capital agreed to finance the doctors’ plan to open a new $6 million office. Before the deal, the partners would have had to take out a $6 million loan and personally guarantee it, he said.

A private equity firm may even agree to support the selling doctors’ practice philosophy, such as serving low-income patients – as long as it has a revenue stream. Luis Benavides, MD, is part of a seven-physician family medicine practice that treats many low-income patients in Laredo, Tex. “There is a lot of poverty here,” he said. This March, the group sold to a large private equity company, whose name Dr. Benavides preferred not to reveal.
One reason they made the new arrangement, Dr. Benavides said, was to qualify for ACO REACH, a new Medicare payment program that is mostly used in underserved areas and that allows more distribution of shared savings payments. “Our goal has always been better care,” he said. “We want to know how we can best serve our community.”

Dr. Benavides acknowledges that he has less independence in the new arrangement, but “I already lost my independence when I went from solo practice to a group,” he said. “The upside of a larger organization is that other people may have better ideas than you have.”

Private equity firms often set up governance structures to give physicians some measure of control. Dr. Lindstrom said the governing board of his former practice is solely made up of physicians and deals with local issues such as what office doctors will work in and how many patients they will see. Waud Capital has control of the Unifeye board of directors, but it mainly deals with larger issues, such as acquisition of more practices, he said.

In rare instances, private equity gives doctors control. Dr. Falcone said that from the start of USACS, doctors owned 65% of the company, and in 2020, the physician partners bought out Welsh Carson. “Then we engaged the private equity firm Apollo Global Management, which lent us money for the buyout and became our capital partner, with the doctors now owning 98% of the company,” he said.

On the other hand, some private equity arrangements reportedly have little regard for doctors’ well-being, especially if they are new doctors who didn’t participate in the deal and don’t have equity in it. Dr. Zhu recalled that a new physician was recruited by a practice and was promised a partnership track, but she wasn’t told that the partners were negotiating a private equity deal. “She didn’t find out until the practice was sold months later,” Dr. Zhu said. “The chances of her getting any equity now are unclear.”

Making sure that you pick a company that has your interests at heart requires a lot of digging. Dr. Lindstrom said he and his partners took 3 years to make a decision. They hired a broker to pick the 10 best private equity firms. Then they met with those companies and hired a law firm and an accounting firm to assess them. As the partners inched toward a deal, they voted on each of five critical steps in the decision-making process, he said. He noted that each vote was unanimous.
 

Impact of private equity

“Private equity deals are changing the health care landscape,” Mr. Wall said. “They are creating large, independent practices that help physicians remain independent from hospital systems and potentially have the clout to get more favorable reimbursements.”

“There is a lot of misunderstanding and mistrust among physicians about private equity,” Dr. Benavides said. “I imagine it will take a while for it to be accepted.”

Until the COVID pandemic, the annual number of private equity deals for doctors had been rising. Will it recover that pace? Mr. Pinto said rising interest rates may dampen activity in the near future.

“The private equity firm often performs a leveraged buyout using borrowed money,” he explained. “This works better when interest rates are low, but interest rates are trending higher. Private equity firms aren’t going away, but they may have to be less generous as the cost of money rises.”

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

More and more physicians are being wooed by private equity firms that want to buy their practices. The total value of private equity deals in health care in 2019 is estimated at about $120 billion, and it’s expected to grow over the coming years.

While the potential profit may seem alluring, physicians have mixed feelings as to whether this will be a boon or a disappointment.

Angelo Falcone, MD, a former emergency physician in Rockville, Md., found that a private equity investment transformed his career path.

For 19 years, Dr. Falcone was CEO of an emergency medicine group with 35 partners that staffed 10 emergency departments, mostly in Maryland. “We were a pretty small operation looking to get bigger, but to do that would require a substantial investment,” he said.

In 2015, after checking out all their options, the partners decided to sell to US Acute Care Solutions (USACS), a new private equity company founded by Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, an investment firm in New York. Private equity can be used to expand practices and pay for new equipment. Dr. Falcone, serving as a USACS board member and its operational president, helped spur the company’s astounding growth. Today, USACS has about 5,000 physicians and other clinicians operating in 30 states.

In 2019, Dr. Falcone stepped down from his management post at USACS, took training in integrative medicine, and 2 years later opened a solo integrative medicine practice in Rockville. The new practice, which operates on a concierge model, is not connected with USACS, but Dr, Falcone still sits on the USACS board.

“I had a great experience at USACS. I believe in the power of private equity to support our patients and physicians,” Dr. Falcone said. “Now, at age 58, I have a second career in integrative medicine.”
 

Private equity is still controversial

David Fleeger, MD, has a different opinion of private equity. “I get offers from private equity firms fairly often, but I’m not seriously interested,” said Dr. Fleeger, a surgeon with Central Texas Colon and Rectal Surgeons in Austin.

“We don’t want to sell to anybody; we want to control our destiny,” he said. “We don’t have to borrow money or repay loans, and we don’t expect to get a windfall for the practice. The profits in medicine are too narrow for that to be realistic. There is no free lunch.”

Some of the doctors who sign up for private equity deals become dissatisfied and want to end the arrangement, according to John Pinto, an ophthalmic practice management consultant in San Diego.

“I get calls about once a month from doctors who want to get out of a private equity deal or revise the terms,” he said. “Some complaints are that the PE firm was too tight with the budget, wouldn’t hire needed staff, mismanaged operations, or otherwise mishandled their investment in the practice.”

It’s difficult for disgruntled physicians to exit a private equity deal, Mr. Pinto said. They commonly have to give up part of the payment they had received for their practice if they leave prematurely, and depending on the jurisdiction, stiff noncompete clauses in their contract won’t allow them to practice nearby.

Disillusioned physicians – and even many physicians who had good experiences with private equity – usually don’t want to air their complaints in public. One reason most of these doctors keep silent is that they have signed nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements that are part of most private equity deals.
 

The private equity proposition

Private equity firms typically pay a great deal more for practices than hospitals or even many large private practices, according to James D. Wall, an attorney in Winston-Salem, N.C., who has handled many private equity deals. Mr. Wall said private equity often organizes physicians around one specialty. One advantage these physicians have over hospital-employed physicians is that they aren’t under pressure to refer within a network.

Private equity companies set values for practices on the basis of their earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), said Howard Bogard, an attorney with Burr & Forman in Raleigh, N.C., who has handled many deals. Mr. Bogard said the amount physicians are paid is usually between 4 and 12 times’ EBITDA, so if your practice is earning $1 million a year in EBITDA, you would get $4 million to $12 million for it.

Of the total price tag, “Doctors get a hefty immediate payment when they sell,” Mr. Bogard said. “It might be 70% of the purchase price up front, and the 30% left over is equity in the buyer. The private equity firm then sells the practice 5-7 years later, and at that time, the physician’s equity is converted to cash and equity in the new buyer, often at the same 70/30 ratio. The idea is to keep the doctor interested in staying.”

Private equity firms expand practices to receive more favorable reimbursements and achieve economies of scale, according to Jane Zhu, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who has studied the phenomenon. Dr. Zhu said these firms may enhance profits by contracting with Medicare Advantage plans, joining accountable care organizations (ACOs), having their physicians work longer hours, and using advanced-practice clinicians instead of physicians.

“They want to make a large return in the order of 20% per year over several years, but they don’t want to strip the practice of value, because they’ll need to sell it to a new investor,” Dr. Zhu said.

When doctors sell to a private equity firm, they become employees and often have to take a pay cut, but their pay may rise again as new efficiencies are instituted. This occurred for partners in Minnesota Eye Consultants (MEC), an 11-member ophthalmology practice in Bloomington, Minn., that helped found Unifeye Vision Partners (UVP), a private equity company financed by Chicago-based Waud Capital Partners.

“When we sold the practice in 2017, we expected to see a 30% cut in the partners’ personal income,” said Richard L. Lindstrom, MD, who headed MEC until he retired last year. “Now, coming into the 6th year, all of the former partners who are still working are earning 10% above presale levels, except for one doctor who wanted to work fewer hours.” These doctors aren’t working longer hours but rather are benefiting from efficiencies, such as adding scribes and improving scheduling, he said.

Private equity brought discipline to the practice, said Dr. Lindstrom, who still sits on the Unifeye board. “In an independent practice, the partners may decide on a new piece of equipment because it would be fun to have, not because they’ve done a financial analysis,” he said. “We don’t wing it anymore.”

On the other hand, according to Dr. Zhu, some private equity firms may use draconian methods to improve efficiency. “Doctors may be expected to order or perform more services or work faster or longer to reach a certain threshold,” she said.
 

Can private equity uphold your interests?

To win over doctors, a private equity firm may agree to finance projects that the doctors want. For example, Dr. Lindstrom said after his group joined Unifeye, Waud Capital agreed to finance the doctors’ plan to open a new $6 million office. Before the deal, the partners would have had to take out a $6 million loan and personally guarantee it, he said.

A private equity firm may even agree to support the selling doctors’ practice philosophy, such as serving low-income patients – as long as it has a revenue stream. Luis Benavides, MD, is part of a seven-physician family medicine practice that treats many low-income patients in Laredo, Tex. “There is a lot of poverty here,” he said. This March, the group sold to a large private equity company, whose name Dr. Benavides preferred not to reveal.
One reason they made the new arrangement, Dr. Benavides said, was to qualify for ACO REACH, a new Medicare payment program that is mostly used in underserved areas and that allows more distribution of shared savings payments. “Our goal has always been better care,” he said. “We want to know how we can best serve our community.”

Dr. Benavides acknowledges that he has less independence in the new arrangement, but “I already lost my independence when I went from solo practice to a group,” he said. “The upside of a larger organization is that other people may have better ideas than you have.”

Private equity firms often set up governance structures to give physicians some measure of control. Dr. Lindstrom said the governing board of his former practice is solely made up of physicians and deals with local issues such as what office doctors will work in and how many patients they will see. Waud Capital has control of the Unifeye board of directors, but it mainly deals with larger issues, such as acquisition of more practices, he said.

In rare instances, private equity gives doctors control. Dr. Falcone said that from the start of USACS, doctors owned 65% of the company, and in 2020, the physician partners bought out Welsh Carson. “Then we engaged the private equity firm Apollo Global Management, which lent us money for the buyout and became our capital partner, with the doctors now owning 98% of the company,” he said.

On the other hand, some private equity arrangements reportedly have little regard for doctors’ well-being, especially if they are new doctors who didn’t participate in the deal and don’t have equity in it. Dr. Zhu recalled that a new physician was recruited by a practice and was promised a partnership track, but she wasn’t told that the partners were negotiating a private equity deal. “She didn’t find out until the practice was sold months later,” Dr. Zhu said. “The chances of her getting any equity now are unclear.”

Making sure that you pick a company that has your interests at heart requires a lot of digging. Dr. Lindstrom said he and his partners took 3 years to make a decision. They hired a broker to pick the 10 best private equity firms. Then they met with those companies and hired a law firm and an accounting firm to assess them. As the partners inched toward a deal, they voted on each of five critical steps in the decision-making process, he said. He noted that each vote was unanimous.
 

Impact of private equity

“Private equity deals are changing the health care landscape,” Mr. Wall said. “They are creating large, independent practices that help physicians remain independent from hospital systems and potentially have the clout to get more favorable reimbursements.”

“There is a lot of misunderstanding and mistrust among physicians about private equity,” Dr. Benavides said. “I imagine it will take a while for it to be accepted.”

Until the COVID pandemic, the annual number of private equity deals for doctors had been rising. Will it recover that pace? Mr. Pinto said rising interest rates may dampen activity in the near future.

“The private equity firm often performs a leveraged buyout using borrowed money,” he explained. “This works better when interest rates are low, but interest rates are trending higher. Private equity firms aren’t going away, but they may have to be less generous as the cost of money rises.”

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

When it comes to chemsex, the findings of various international studies all agree: 20% to 30% of men who have sex with men (MSM) engage in this practice, which is becoming more and more prevalent. Chemsex combines sex, drugs, and smartphones, and physicians know very little about it. Dedicated consultations were instituted in the fall of 2019 at the Infectious Diseases Department at the Saint-Louis Hospital in Paris. It’s estimated that 1,000 persons who were patients there practice chemsex.

Alexandre Aslan, MD, is one of the department’s physicians; he is also a sexologist and psychotherapist-psychoanalyst. At the ALBATROS International Congress of Addiction, which took place in the French capital in June, he presented the results of a study of patients who engage in chemsex and who regularly attend those consultations. Through this research, light is being shed on the phenomenon.

This news organization invited Dr. Aslan to discuss the issues connected with this practice.

Question: What exactly is chemsex, also known as party ‘n’ play (PnP)?

Dr. Aslan: Hearing the word “chemsex,” one would automatically think that it is what it sounds like it is: having sex while on drugs. That’s not really what it is. According to the definition that’s been published in the scientific literature, chemsex is a practice seen among men who have sex with men, where they take some very specific substances during sexual activity to sustain, enhance, or intensify the sexual experience, but also to “manage” issues related to intimacy, performance, and concerns about sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The substances are most commonly a cocktail of three drugs: GHB [gamma-hydroxybutyrate], cathinones, and crystal meth. In chemsex, smartphones play a central role as well, through the use of social networking and dating applications – those location-based apps that allow users to instantly find partners.

Question: In what ways does meeting through apps influence the sexual relationship and the use of substances?

Dr. Aslan: Because the plan to meet up for sex is being made through these kinds of apps, the promise to have sex is often implied – and this is before the individuals even meet up in real life. Let me explain. It’s not an encounter or a person that’s going to trigger sexual desire. Instead, it’s something within – the sexual “urge” inside of the individual – that’s going to drive them toward sexual activity. Now, finding yourself promising to have sex with someone – someone you don’t know, haven’t spoken to, and haven’t actually met – in an environment where it’s possible that you’ll meet several people and where the moments in which the sexual acts take place are predominantly characterized by pornography-related performance scripts: This can push you to take substances so you can “let go” and get to the point where you’re able to adapt to the requirements of the situation. Seeking to perform well and to not be overly inhibited, these individuals have found that this drug cocktail proves to be quite explosive, imparting a very strong capacity for experiencing excitement and even bringing about new sexual practices.

Question: Can you speak a bit about drug-enhanced sex?

Dr. Aslan: We sexologists consider it to be a very particular type of sex. People who engage in it feel that the sex is very intense, with unbelievable experiences, and that they have a deeper connection with their partner. In fact, it’s a type of sex where taking these substances does away with the very principles of sexual physiology – in other words, desire followed by excitement, plateau, orgasm, and resolution. Little by little, one’s sexual partner is no longer going to exist in the sex session, and the benefit is a succession of partners whose sole purpose is to keep the fire of excitement burning, an excitement that’s also reinforced by the substances taken. It’s “sex” under the influence rather than a sexual encounter linked to desire.

Question: What impact does it have on health?

Dr. Aslan: This practice brings with it numerous complications, such as STIs, but also physical injuries, as these sessions can last for 24 to more than 48 hours. There are also psychological complications, because these drugs can bring about depression, paranoia, self-harm, and even episodes of decompensation. And then, it should be noted that later on, the spotlight gets pulled away from the sex – the pretext from the very beginning – and shifts toward the taking of drugs: The individuals will no longer be able to separate the sexual encounter from the taking of drugs. Then, in a few years, there’s no longer the sexual encounter, only the taking of drugs. In the United States, between 2021 and 2022, there was a decrease in the number of deaths caused by heroin and prescription opioids. On the other hand, since 2020, the overdoses that have exploded in number are those related to fentanyl, nonprescription opioids, and stimulants – cocaine and methamphetamine, which can come back into the practices particularly through the seemingly “playful” arena of sex.

Question: How is it that things have gone from being a practice that’s under control to full-on drug addiction?

Dr. Aslan: You still have people who manage to keep things under control. But the kinds of drugs that are taken are highly addictive and compel the individual to take even more. It’s one big circle: The exciting sexual relationship itself, to which you add substances that cause even more dopamine to be released, and a smartphone screen with excitatory pornographic images on it all the time. In all the patients we see, we notice a trajectory that looks like the trajectory of every drug. When they’re at the beginning – in other words, the first year – after a first experience that they consider to be explosive, they may not return to the scene right away, and then they do return to it. They realize that it’s perhaps not as marvelous as the first time, but they’re going to give it another try. During this novelty phase, a strategy is pursued whereby they adapt and make adjustments in an attempt to feel again what they felt the first time. At the end of a year or two, they become disillusioned and they refocus on all activities having to do with drug use. Our hospital department conducted a survey where we asked detailed questions to over 100 individuals. It showed that people noticed the negative consequences that chemsex had on their work (60%), on their private lives and sex lives (55%), and on their relationships with friends and family (63%). This means that people are well aware of the negative effects that this practice has in very important areas of their lives. But even if they notice all of that, even if they resolve to have a certain number of sexual relations without drugs involved, these substances are so powerful in releasing a rush of dopamine that that very fact can sweep away any capacity the individual may have had to make a decision and stick to it, and they’re going to feel practically “compelled” to use. This is what’s called a craving.

Question: How do you identify patients who engage in chemsex among the patients in your infectious diseases department?

Dr. Aslan: As a rule, all patients admitted to our department are asked a series of questions. Do you use drugs to engage in sexual relations? Which drug do you prefer? How do you take it? Do you have a good time? Do you find that it’s good for you? Are you okay with how much you’re using? We also ask patients to tell us when they last had drug-free sex. It’s a very important question, because if we can identify someone who has had 10 or so partners a month but hasn’t had drug-free sex for over a month, we’ll try to steer the conversation to where they’ll come to think that it might not be such a bad idea to talk about it.

Question: Should a physician be asking younger patients whether they’re engaging in chemsex?

Dr. Aslan: Yes, but the physician has to be very careful. We often have a tendency to believe that we’re capable of speaking with our patients about relevant matters related to sex. We see ourselves as that kind of person, not to mention we’re open-minded. Now, as in all fields of medicine, we have to educate ourselves about how best to approach patients – in this case, about their sexual health. Because sometimes, despite our best intentions, we can do harm. The idea that we have of our own sexual behavior does not necessarily help provide counsel regarding another person’s sexual behavior, particularly when there are differences between the two. If you’re interested in the issue, you need to be trained on all the answers that could come up. There are training courses online. There’s a module on sexual health and chemsex at a site designed to give private practice physicians guidance about PrEP. It’s at least a place to start. This way, physicians will know what questions they can ask and when they should reach out to a specialist, such as a sexologist with training in these specific issues.

Question: What is the treatment based on?

Dr. Aslan: The traditional approach taken by addiction medicine physicians may not be comprehensive enough. Likewise, a sexologist’s approach alone can only go so far. It’s impossible to get by thinking that a single discipline can hold the solution, all the answers. So, it’s a multidisciplinary sexual health treatment. There should be a psychiatrist or addiction medicine physician who knows the drugs and is capable of navigating through this landscape of psychiatric comorbidities (such as psychoses and ADHD).

There also has to be a sexologist for the treatment of any sexual dysfunctions there may be. At Saint-Louis Hospital, 60% of patients who engage in chemsex said that engaging in the practice was related to a sexual problem that they noted – but never went to see a doctor about – before the first time they used. Be that as it may, it’s still the case that if these patients had been able to see a sexologist – who would have treated the problem – the drug may perhaps not have taken hold.

There also has to be a practitioner who can focus on risk reduction. In other words, someone capable of helping the patient get to the desired level of use where the craving, the need for instant gratification, can be kept in check.

In practice, one can sometimes, in addition to all of that, turn to medical treatments to manage the craving or medical comorbidities, an approach based on sexology to provide care for the sexual dysfunction or even to help the person learn how to evoke sexual or erotic fantasies without drugs, and an approach based on addiction medicine or psychotherapy, as some of our patients experienced sexual abuse in childhood. In the end, chemsex is just the outer layer – a problem that only seems to pertain to sex but that, in reality, covers up a wide range of issues. And not only sexual issues or issues that are related to drugs like chemsex is.

Question: What are the outcomes of this multidisciplinary treatment?

Dr. Aslan: Before we finish, I must point out and just state that the patients, when they’re cared for and when they’re provided with the appropriate treatment, change their practices. Some of our patients, even those with more advanced cases in terms of frequency, how often they’re injecting drugs – every 30 minutes over the course of 24 or 48 hours, with complications such as thrombosis, sepsis, and abscesses – they’ve completely stopped after several months of treatment. They now lead lives that, as they’ve told us, work better for them. So, those of us in the health care industry, we have to get organized and set things up in a way that will allow us to focus our efforts on treating these patients.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

When it comes to chemsex, the findings of various international studies all agree: 20% to 30% of men who have sex with men (MSM) engage in this practice, which is becoming more and more prevalent. Chemsex combines sex, drugs, and smartphones, and physicians know very little about it. Dedicated consultations were instituted in the fall of 2019 at the Infectious Diseases Department at the Saint-Louis Hospital in Paris. It’s estimated that 1,000 persons who were patients there practice chemsex.

Alexandre Aslan, MD, is one of the department’s physicians; he is also a sexologist and psychotherapist-psychoanalyst. At the ALBATROS International Congress of Addiction, which took place in the French capital in June, he presented the results of a study of patients who engage in chemsex and who regularly attend those consultations. Through this research, light is being shed on the phenomenon.

This news organization invited Dr. Aslan to discuss the issues connected with this practice.

Question: What exactly is chemsex, also known as party ‘n’ play (PnP)?

Dr. Aslan: Hearing the word “chemsex,” one would automatically think that it is what it sounds like it is: having sex while on drugs. That’s not really what it is. According to the definition that’s been published in the scientific literature, chemsex is a practice seen among men who have sex with men, where they take some very specific substances during sexual activity to sustain, enhance, or intensify the sexual experience, but also to “manage” issues related to intimacy, performance, and concerns about sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The substances are most commonly a cocktail of three drugs: GHB [gamma-hydroxybutyrate], cathinones, and crystal meth. In chemsex, smartphones play a central role as well, through the use of social networking and dating applications – those location-based apps that allow users to instantly find partners.

Question: In what ways does meeting through apps influence the sexual relationship and the use of substances?

Dr. Aslan: Because the plan to meet up for sex is being made through these kinds of apps, the promise to have sex is often implied – and this is before the individuals even meet up in real life. Let me explain. It’s not an encounter or a person that’s going to trigger sexual desire. Instead, it’s something within – the sexual “urge” inside of the individual – that’s going to drive them toward sexual activity. Now, finding yourself promising to have sex with someone – someone you don’t know, haven’t spoken to, and haven’t actually met – in an environment where it’s possible that you’ll meet several people and where the moments in which the sexual acts take place are predominantly characterized by pornography-related performance scripts: This can push you to take substances so you can “let go” and get to the point where you’re able to adapt to the requirements of the situation. Seeking to perform well and to not be overly inhibited, these individuals have found that this drug cocktail proves to be quite explosive, imparting a very strong capacity for experiencing excitement and even bringing about new sexual practices.

Question: Can you speak a bit about drug-enhanced sex?

Dr. Aslan: We sexologists consider it to be a very particular type of sex. People who engage in it feel that the sex is very intense, with unbelievable experiences, and that they have a deeper connection with their partner. In fact, it’s a type of sex where taking these substances does away with the very principles of sexual physiology – in other words, desire followed by excitement, plateau, orgasm, and resolution. Little by little, one’s sexual partner is no longer going to exist in the sex session, and the benefit is a succession of partners whose sole purpose is to keep the fire of excitement burning, an excitement that’s also reinforced by the substances taken. It’s “sex” under the influence rather than a sexual encounter linked to desire.

Question: What impact does it have on health?

Dr. Aslan: This practice brings with it numerous complications, such as STIs, but also physical injuries, as these sessions can last for 24 to more than 48 hours. There are also psychological complications, because these drugs can bring about depression, paranoia, self-harm, and even episodes of decompensation. And then, it should be noted that later on, the spotlight gets pulled away from the sex – the pretext from the very beginning – and shifts toward the taking of drugs: The individuals will no longer be able to separate the sexual encounter from the taking of drugs. Then, in a few years, there’s no longer the sexual encounter, only the taking of drugs. In the United States, between 2021 and 2022, there was a decrease in the number of deaths caused by heroin and prescription opioids. On the other hand, since 2020, the overdoses that have exploded in number are those related to fentanyl, nonprescription opioids, and stimulants – cocaine and methamphetamine, which can come back into the practices particularly through the seemingly “playful” arena of sex.

Question: How is it that things have gone from being a practice that’s under control to full-on drug addiction?

Dr. Aslan: You still have people who manage to keep things under control. But the kinds of drugs that are taken are highly addictive and compel the individual to take even more. It’s one big circle: The exciting sexual relationship itself, to which you add substances that cause even more dopamine to be released, and a smartphone screen with excitatory pornographic images on it all the time. In all the patients we see, we notice a trajectory that looks like the trajectory of every drug. When they’re at the beginning – in other words, the first year – after a first experience that they consider to be explosive, they may not return to the scene right away, and then they do return to it. They realize that it’s perhaps not as marvelous as the first time, but they’re going to give it another try. During this novelty phase, a strategy is pursued whereby they adapt and make adjustments in an attempt to feel again what they felt the first time. At the end of a year or two, they become disillusioned and they refocus on all activities having to do with drug use. Our hospital department conducted a survey where we asked detailed questions to over 100 individuals. It showed that people noticed the negative consequences that chemsex had on their work (60%), on their private lives and sex lives (55%), and on their relationships with friends and family (63%). This means that people are well aware of the negative effects that this practice has in very important areas of their lives. But even if they notice all of that, even if they resolve to have a certain number of sexual relations without drugs involved, these substances are so powerful in releasing a rush of dopamine that that very fact can sweep away any capacity the individual may have had to make a decision and stick to it, and they’re going to feel practically “compelled” to use. This is what’s called a craving.

Question: How do you identify patients who engage in chemsex among the patients in your infectious diseases department?

Dr. Aslan: As a rule, all patients admitted to our department are asked a series of questions. Do you use drugs to engage in sexual relations? Which drug do you prefer? How do you take it? Do you have a good time? Do you find that it’s good for you? Are you okay with how much you’re using? We also ask patients to tell us when they last had drug-free sex. It’s a very important question, because if we can identify someone who has had 10 or so partners a month but hasn’t had drug-free sex for over a month, we’ll try to steer the conversation to where they’ll come to think that it might not be such a bad idea to talk about it.

Question: Should a physician be asking younger patients whether they’re engaging in chemsex?

Dr. Aslan: Yes, but the physician has to be very careful. We often have a tendency to believe that we’re capable of speaking with our patients about relevant matters related to sex. We see ourselves as that kind of person, not to mention we’re open-minded. Now, as in all fields of medicine, we have to educate ourselves about how best to approach patients – in this case, about their sexual health. Because sometimes, despite our best intentions, we can do harm. The idea that we have of our own sexual behavior does not necessarily help provide counsel regarding another person’s sexual behavior, particularly when there are differences between the two. If you’re interested in the issue, you need to be trained on all the answers that could come up. There are training courses online. There’s a module on sexual health and chemsex at a site designed to give private practice physicians guidance about PrEP. It’s at least a place to start. This way, physicians will know what questions they can ask and when they should reach out to a specialist, such as a sexologist with training in these specific issues.

Question: What is the treatment based on?

Dr. Aslan: The traditional approach taken by addiction medicine physicians may not be comprehensive enough. Likewise, a sexologist’s approach alone can only go so far. It’s impossible to get by thinking that a single discipline can hold the solution, all the answers. So, it’s a multidisciplinary sexual health treatment. There should be a psychiatrist or addiction medicine physician who knows the drugs and is capable of navigating through this landscape of psychiatric comorbidities (such as psychoses and ADHD).

There also has to be a sexologist for the treatment of any sexual dysfunctions there may be. At Saint-Louis Hospital, 60% of patients who engage in chemsex said that engaging in the practice was related to a sexual problem that they noted – but never went to see a doctor about – before the first time they used. Be that as it may, it’s still the case that if these patients had been able to see a sexologist – who would have treated the problem – the drug may perhaps not have taken hold.

There also has to be a practitioner who can focus on risk reduction. In other words, someone capable of helping the patient get to the desired level of use where the craving, the need for instant gratification, can be kept in check.

In practice, one can sometimes, in addition to all of that, turn to medical treatments to manage the craving or medical comorbidities, an approach based on sexology to provide care for the sexual dysfunction or even to help the person learn how to evoke sexual or erotic fantasies without drugs, and an approach based on addiction medicine or psychotherapy, as some of our patients experienced sexual abuse in childhood. In the end, chemsex is just the outer layer – a problem that only seems to pertain to sex but that, in reality, covers up a wide range of issues. And not only sexual issues or issues that are related to drugs like chemsex is.

Question: What are the outcomes of this multidisciplinary treatment?

Dr. Aslan: Before we finish, I must point out and just state that the patients, when they’re cared for and when they’re provided with the appropriate treatment, change their practices. Some of our patients, even those with more advanced cases in terms of frequency, how often they’re injecting drugs – every 30 minutes over the course of 24 or 48 hours, with complications such as thrombosis, sepsis, and abscesses – they’ve completely stopped after several months of treatment. They now lead lives that, as they’ve told us, work better for them. So, those of us in the health care industry, we have to get organized and set things up in a way that will allow us to focus our efforts on treating these patients.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

When it comes to chemsex, the findings of various international studies all agree: 20% to 30% of men who have sex with men (MSM) engage in this practice, which is becoming more and more prevalent. Chemsex combines sex, drugs, and smartphones, and physicians know very little about it. Dedicated consultations were instituted in the fall of 2019 at the Infectious Diseases Department at the Saint-Louis Hospital in Paris. It’s estimated that 1,000 persons who were patients there practice chemsex.

Alexandre Aslan, MD, is one of the department’s physicians; he is also a sexologist and psychotherapist-psychoanalyst. At the ALBATROS International Congress of Addiction, which took place in the French capital in June, he presented the results of a study of patients who engage in chemsex and who regularly attend those consultations. Through this research, light is being shed on the phenomenon.

This news organization invited Dr. Aslan to discuss the issues connected with this practice.

Question: What exactly is chemsex, also known as party ‘n’ play (PnP)?

Dr. Aslan: Hearing the word “chemsex,” one would automatically think that it is what it sounds like it is: having sex while on drugs. That’s not really what it is. According to the definition that’s been published in the scientific literature, chemsex is a practice seen among men who have sex with men, where they take some very specific substances during sexual activity to sustain, enhance, or intensify the sexual experience, but also to “manage” issues related to intimacy, performance, and concerns about sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The substances are most commonly a cocktail of three drugs: GHB [gamma-hydroxybutyrate], cathinones, and crystal meth. In chemsex, smartphones play a central role as well, through the use of social networking and dating applications – those location-based apps that allow users to instantly find partners.

Question: In what ways does meeting through apps influence the sexual relationship and the use of substances?

Dr. Aslan: Because the plan to meet up for sex is being made through these kinds of apps, the promise to have sex is often implied – and this is before the individuals even meet up in real life. Let me explain. It’s not an encounter or a person that’s going to trigger sexual desire. Instead, it’s something within – the sexual “urge” inside of the individual – that’s going to drive them toward sexual activity. Now, finding yourself promising to have sex with someone – someone you don’t know, haven’t spoken to, and haven’t actually met – in an environment where it’s possible that you’ll meet several people and where the moments in which the sexual acts take place are predominantly characterized by pornography-related performance scripts: This can push you to take substances so you can “let go” and get to the point where you’re able to adapt to the requirements of the situation. Seeking to perform well and to not be overly inhibited, these individuals have found that this drug cocktail proves to be quite explosive, imparting a very strong capacity for experiencing excitement and even bringing about new sexual practices.

Question: Can you speak a bit about drug-enhanced sex?

Dr. Aslan: We sexologists consider it to be a very particular type of sex. People who engage in it feel that the sex is very intense, with unbelievable experiences, and that they have a deeper connection with their partner. In fact, it’s a type of sex where taking these substances does away with the very principles of sexual physiology – in other words, desire followed by excitement, plateau, orgasm, and resolution. Little by little, one’s sexual partner is no longer going to exist in the sex session, and the benefit is a succession of partners whose sole purpose is to keep the fire of excitement burning, an excitement that’s also reinforced by the substances taken. It’s “sex” under the influence rather than a sexual encounter linked to desire.

Question: What impact does it have on health?

Dr. Aslan: This practice brings with it numerous complications, such as STIs, but also physical injuries, as these sessions can last for 24 to more than 48 hours. There are also psychological complications, because these drugs can bring about depression, paranoia, self-harm, and even episodes of decompensation. And then, it should be noted that later on, the spotlight gets pulled away from the sex – the pretext from the very beginning – and shifts toward the taking of drugs: The individuals will no longer be able to separate the sexual encounter from the taking of drugs. Then, in a few years, there’s no longer the sexual encounter, only the taking of drugs. In the United States, between 2021 and 2022, there was a decrease in the number of deaths caused by heroin and prescription opioids. On the other hand, since 2020, the overdoses that have exploded in number are those related to fentanyl, nonprescription opioids, and stimulants – cocaine and methamphetamine, which can come back into the practices particularly through the seemingly “playful” arena of sex.

Question: How is it that things have gone from being a practice that’s under control to full-on drug addiction?

Dr. Aslan: You still have people who manage to keep things under control. But the kinds of drugs that are taken are highly addictive and compel the individual to take even more. It’s one big circle: The exciting sexual relationship itself, to which you add substances that cause even more dopamine to be released, and a smartphone screen with excitatory pornographic images on it all the time. In all the patients we see, we notice a trajectory that looks like the trajectory of every drug. When they’re at the beginning – in other words, the first year – after a first experience that they consider to be explosive, they may not return to the scene right away, and then they do return to it. They realize that it’s perhaps not as marvelous as the first time, but they’re going to give it another try. During this novelty phase, a strategy is pursued whereby they adapt and make adjustments in an attempt to feel again what they felt the first time. At the end of a year or two, they become disillusioned and they refocus on all activities having to do with drug use. Our hospital department conducted a survey where we asked detailed questions to over 100 individuals. It showed that people noticed the negative consequences that chemsex had on their work (60%), on their private lives and sex lives (55%), and on their relationships with friends and family (63%). This means that people are well aware of the negative effects that this practice has in very important areas of their lives. But even if they notice all of that, even if they resolve to have a certain number of sexual relations without drugs involved, these substances are so powerful in releasing a rush of dopamine that that very fact can sweep away any capacity the individual may have had to make a decision and stick to it, and they’re going to feel practically “compelled” to use. This is what’s called a craving.

Question: How do you identify patients who engage in chemsex among the patients in your infectious diseases department?

Dr. Aslan: As a rule, all patients admitted to our department are asked a series of questions. Do you use drugs to engage in sexual relations? Which drug do you prefer? How do you take it? Do you have a good time? Do you find that it’s good for you? Are you okay with how much you’re using? We also ask patients to tell us when they last had drug-free sex. It’s a very important question, because if we can identify someone who has had 10 or so partners a month but hasn’t had drug-free sex for over a month, we’ll try to steer the conversation to where they’ll come to think that it might not be such a bad idea to talk about it.

Question: Should a physician be asking younger patients whether they’re engaging in chemsex?

Dr. Aslan: Yes, but the physician has to be very careful. We often have a tendency to believe that we’re capable of speaking with our patients about relevant matters related to sex. We see ourselves as that kind of person, not to mention we’re open-minded. Now, as in all fields of medicine, we have to educate ourselves about how best to approach patients – in this case, about their sexual health. Because sometimes, despite our best intentions, we can do harm. The idea that we have of our own sexual behavior does not necessarily help provide counsel regarding another person’s sexual behavior, particularly when there are differences between the two. If you’re interested in the issue, you need to be trained on all the answers that could come up. There are training courses online. There’s a module on sexual health and chemsex at a site designed to give private practice physicians guidance about PrEP. It’s at least a place to start. This way, physicians will know what questions they can ask and when they should reach out to a specialist, such as a sexologist with training in these specific issues.

Question: What is the treatment based on?

Dr. Aslan: The traditional approach taken by addiction medicine physicians may not be comprehensive enough. Likewise, a sexologist’s approach alone can only go so far. It’s impossible to get by thinking that a single discipline can hold the solution, all the answers. So, it’s a multidisciplinary sexual health treatment. There should be a psychiatrist or addiction medicine physician who knows the drugs and is capable of navigating through this landscape of psychiatric comorbidities (such as psychoses and ADHD).

There also has to be a sexologist for the treatment of any sexual dysfunctions there may be. At Saint-Louis Hospital, 60% of patients who engage in chemsex said that engaging in the practice was related to a sexual problem that they noted – but never went to see a doctor about – before the first time they used. Be that as it may, it’s still the case that if these patients had been able to see a sexologist – who would have treated the problem – the drug may perhaps not have taken hold.

There also has to be a practitioner who can focus on risk reduction. In other words, someone capable of helping the patient get to the desired level of use where the craving, the need for instant gratification, can be kept in check.

In practice, one can sometimes, in addition to all of that, turn to medical treatments to manage the craving or medical comorbidities, an approach based on sexology to provide care for the sexual dysfunction or even to help the person learn how to evoke sexual or erotic fantasies without drugs, and an approach based on addiction medicine or psychotherapy, as some of our patients experienced sexual abuse in childhood. In the end, chemsex is just the outer layer – a problem that only seems to pertain to sex but that, in reality, covers up a wide range of issues. And not only sexual issues or issues that are related to drugs like chemsex is.

Question: What are the outcomes of this multidisciplinary treatment?

Dr. Aslan: Before we finish, I must point out and just state that the patients, when they’re cared for and when they’re provided with the appropriate treatment, change their practices. Some of our patients, even those with more advanced cases in terms of frequency, how often they’re injecting drugs – every 30 minutes over the course of 24 or 48 hours, with complications such as thrombosis, sepsis, and abscesses – they’ve completely stopped after several months of treatment. They now lead lives that, as they’ve told us, work better for them. So, those of us in the health care industry, we have to get organized and set things up in a way that will allow us to focus our efforts on treating these patients.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.