Cardiology News

Our dermatology department is composed of 25 doctors spread across 4 offices. It can be difficult to sustain cohesion so we have a few rituals to help hold us together. One is the morning huddle. This is a stand-up meeting lasting 3-5 minutes at 8:42 a.m. (just before the 8:45 a.m. patients). Led by our staff, huddle is a quick review of the priorities, issues, and celebrations across our department. While enthusiastically celebrating a staff member’s promotion one morning, a patient swung open the exam door and shouted, “What’s going on out here?! I’m sitting here waiting!” before slamming the door closed again. “Well, that was unnecessary,” our morning lead interjected as she went to reprimand him.

His behavior was easily recognizable to any doctor with children. It was an emotional outburst we call a tantrum. Although a graphic of tantrums by age would show a steep curve that drops precipitously after 4-years-old (please God, I hope), it persists throughout life. Even adults have tantrums. After? When I broke my pinky toe saving the family from flaming tornadoes a few weeks ago (I ran into the sofa), I flung the ice bag across the room in frustration. “You’ve a right to be mad,” my wife said returning the ice to where I was elevating my foot. She was spot on, it is understandable that I would be angry. It will be weeks before I can run again. And also my toe was broken. Both things were true.

Dr. Benabio

“Two things are true” is a technique for managing tantrums in toddlers. I first learned of it from Dr. Becky Kennedy, a clinical psychologist specializing in family therapy. She has a popular podcast called “Good Inside” based on her book of the same name. Her approach is to use positive psychology with an emphasis on connecting with children to not only shape behavior, but also to help them learn to manage their emotions. I read her book to level up dad skills and realized many of her principles are applicable to various types of relationships. Instead of viewing behaviors as an end, she instead recommends using them as an opportunity to probe for understanding. When someone exhibits poor behavior rather than assume they are being a jerk, try to find the most generous interpretation of what just happened. Assume they are doing the best they can. When my 4-year-old obstinately refused to go to bed despite the usual colored night lights and bedtime rituals, it seemed she was being a typical tantrum-y toddler. The more I insisted — lights-out! the more she resisted. It wasn’t until I asked why that I learned she was worried that the trash truck was going to come overnight. What seemed like just a behavioral problem, time for bed, was actually an opportunity for her to be seen and for us to connect.

I was finishing up with a patient last week when my medical assistant interrupted to advise my next patient was leaving. I walked out to see her storm into the corridor heading for the exit. “I am sorry, you must be quite frustrated having to wait for me.” “Yes, you don’t respect my time,” she said loudly enough for everyone pretending to not notice. I coaxed her back into the room and sat down. After apologizing for her wait and explaining it was because an urgent patient had been added to my schedule, she calmed down and allowed me to continue. At her previous visit, I had biopsied a firm dermal papule on her upper abdomen that turned out to be metastatic breast cancer. She was treated years ago and believed she was in complete remission. Now she was alone, terrified, and wanted her full appointment with me. Because I was running late, she assumed I wouldn’t have the time for her. It was an opportunity for me to connect with her and help her feel safe. I would have missed that opportunity if I had labeled her as just another angry “Karen” brassly asserting herself.

Dr. Kennedy talks a lot in her book about taking the “Most generous interpretation” of whatever behavioral issue arises. Take the time to validate what they are feeling and empathize as best as we can. Acknowledge that it’s normal to be angry and also these are the truths we have to work with. Two truths commonly appear in these emotional episodes. One, the immutable facts, for example, insurance doesn’t cover that drug, and two, your right to be frustrated by that. Above all, remember you, the doctor, are good inside as is your discourteous patient, disaffected staff member or sometimes mendacious teenager. “All good decisions start with feeling secure and nothing feels more secure than being recognized for the good people we are,” says Dr. Kennedy. True I believe even if we sometimes slam the door.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

Our dermatology department is composed of 25 doctors spread across 4 offices. It can be difficult to sustain cohesion so we have a few rituals to help hold us together. One is the morning huddle. This is a stand-up meeting lasting 3-5 minutes at 8:42 a.m. (just before the 8:45 a.m. patients). Led by our staff, huddle is a quick review of the priorities, issues, and celebrations across our department. While enthusiastically celebrating a staff member’s promotion one morning, a patient swung open the exam door and shouted, “What’s going on out here?! I’m sitting here waiting!” before slamming the door closed again. “Well, that was unnecessary,” our morning lead interjected as she went to reprimand him.

His behavior was easily recognizable to any doctor with children. It was an emotional outburst we call a tantrum. Although a graphic of tantrums by age would show a steep curve that drops precipitously after 4-years-old (please God, I hope), it persists throughout life. Even adults have tantrums. After? When I broke my pinky toe saving the family from flaming tornadoes a few weeks ago (I ran into the sofa), I flung the ice bag across the room in frustration. “You’ve a right to be mad,” my wife said returning the ice to where I was elevating my foot. She was spot on, it is understandable that I would be angry. It will be weeks before I can run again. And also my toe was broken. Both things were true.

Dr. Benabio

“Two things are true” is a technique for managing tantrums in toddlers. I first learned of it from Dr. Becky Kennedy, a clinical psychologist specializing in family therapy. She has a popular podcast called “Good Inside” based on her book of the same name. Her approach is to use positive psychology with an emphasis on connecting with children to not only shape behavior, but also to help them learn to manage their emotions. I read her book to level up dad skills and realized many of her principles are applicable to various types of relationships. Instead of viewing behaviors as an end, she instead recommends using them as an opportunity to probe for understanding. When someone exhibits poor behavior rather than assume they are being a jerk, try to find the most generous interpretation of what just happened. Assume they are doing the best they can. When my 4-year-old obstinately refused to go to bed despite the usual colored night lights and bedtime rituals, it seemed she was being a typical tantrum-y toddler. The more I insisted — lights-out! the more she resisted. It wasn’t until I asked why that I learned she was worried that the trash truck was going to come overnight. What seemed like just a behavioral problem, time for bed, was actually an opportunity for her to be seen and for us to connect.

I was finishing up with a patient last week when my medical assistant interrupted to advise my next patient was leaving. I walked out to see her storm into the corridor heading for the exit. “I am sorry, you must be quite frustrated having to wait for me.” “Yes, you don’t respect my time,” she said loudly enough for everyone pretending to not notice. I coaxed her back into the room and sat down. After apologizing for her wait and explaining it was because an urgent patient had been added to my schedule, she calmed down and allowed me to continue. At her previous visit, I had biopsied a firm dermal papule on her upper abdomen that turned out to be metastatic breast cancer. She was treated years ago and believed she was in complete remission. Now she was alone, terrified, and wanted her full appointment with me. Because I was running late, she assumed I wouldn’t have the time for her. It was an opportunity for me to connect with her and help her feel safe. I would have missed that opportunity if I had labeled her as just another angry “Karen” brassly asserting herself.

Dr. Kennedy talks a lot in her book about taking the “Most generous interpretation” of whatever behavioral issue arises. Take the time to validate what they are feeling and empathize as best as we can. Acknowledge that it’s normal to be angry and also these are the truths we have to work with. Two truths commonly appear in these emotional episodes. One, the immutable facts, for example, insurance doesn’t cover that drug, and two, your right to be frustrated by that. Above all, remember you, the doctor, are good inside as is your discourteous patient, disaffected staff member or sometimes mendacious teenager. “All good decisions start with feeling secure and nothing feels more secure than being recognized for the good people we are,” says Dr. Kennedy. True I believe even if we sometimes slam the door.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

Our dermatology department is composed of 25 doctors spread across 4 offices. It can be difficult to sustain cohesion so we have a few rituals to help hold us together. One is the morning huddle. This is a stand-up meeting lasting 3-5 minutes at 8:42 a.m. (just before the 8:45 a.m. patients). Led by our staff, huddle is a quick review of the priorities, issues, and celebrations across our department. While enthusiastically celebrating a staff member’s promotion one morning, a patient swung open the exam door and shouted, “What’s going on out here?! I’m sitting here waiting!” before slamming the door closed again. “Well, that was unnecessary,” our morning lead interjected as she went to reprimand him.

His behavior was easily recognizable to any doctor with children. It was an emotional outburst we call a tantrum. Although a graphic of tantrums by age would show a steep curve that drops precipitously after 4-years-old (please God, I hope), it persists throughout life. Even adults have tantrums. After? When I broke my pinky toe saving the family from flaming tornadoes a few weeks ago (I ran into the sofa), I flung the ice bag across the room in frustration. “You’ve a right to be mad,” my wife said returning the ice to where I was elevating my foot. She was spot on, it is understandable that I would be angry. It will be weeks before I can run again. And also my toe was broken. Both things were true.

Dr. Benabio

“Two things are true” is a technique for managing tantrums in toddlers. I first learned of it from Dr. Becky Kennedy, a clinical psychologist specializing in family therapy. She has a popular podcast called “Good Inside” based on her book of the same name. Her approach is to use positive psychology with an emphasis on connecting with children to not only shape behavior, but also to help them learn to manage their emotions. I read her book to level up dad skills and realized many of her principles are applicable to various types of relationships. Instead of viewing behaviors as an end, she instead recommends using them as an opportunity to probe for understanding. When someone exhibits poor behavior rather than assume they are being a jerk, try to find the most generous interpretation of what just happened. Assume they are doing the best they can. When my 4-year-old obstinately refused to go to bed despite the usual colored night lights and bedtime rituals, it seemed she was being a typical tantrum-y toddler. The more I insisted — lights-out! the more she resisted. It wasn’t until I asked why that I learned she was worried that the trash truck was going to come overnight. What seemed like just a behavioral problem, time for bed, was actually an opportunity for her to be seen and for us to connect.

I was finishing up with a patient last week when my medical assistant interrupted to advise my next patient was leaving. I walked out to see her storm into the corridor heading for the exit. “I am sorry, you must be quite frustrated having to wait for me.” “Yes, you don’t respect my time,” she said loudly enough for everyone pretending to not notice. I coaxed her back into the room and sat down. After apologizing for her wait and explaining it was because an urgent patient had been added to my schedule, she calmed down and allowed me to continue. At her previous visit, I had biopsied a firm dermal papule on her upper abdomen that turned out to be metastatic breast cancer. She was treated years ago and believed she was in complete remission. Now she was alone, terrified, and wanted her full appointment with me. Because I was running late, she assumed I wouldn’t have the time for her. It was an opportunity for me to connect with her and help her feel safe. I would have missed that opportunity if I had labeled her as just another angry “Karen” brassly asserting herself.

Dr. Kennedy talks a lot in her book about taking the “Most generous interpretation” of whatever behavioral issue arises. Take the time to validate what they are feeling and empathize as best as we can. Acknowledge that it’s normal to be angry and also these are the truths we have to work with. Two truths commonly appear in these emotional episodes. One, the immutable facts, for example, insurance doesn’t cover that drug, and two, your right to be frustrated by that. Above all, remember you, the doctor, are good inside as is your discourteous patient, disaffected staff member or sometimes mendacious teenager. “All good decisions start with feeling secure and nothing feels more secure than being recognized for the good people we are,” says Dr. Kennedy. True I believe even if we sometimes slam the door.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

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

Air pollution, high temperatures, and metabolic risk factors are driving global increases in stroke, contributing to 12 million cases and more than 7 million deaths from stroke each year, new data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study showed.

Between 1990 and 2021, the number of people who experienced a stroke increased to 11.9 million (up by 70% since 1990), while the number of stroke survivors rose to 93.8 million (up by 86%), and stroke-related deaths rose to 7.3 million (up by 44%), making stroke the third leading cause of death worldwide after ischemic heart disease and COVID-19, investigators found.

Stroke is highly preventable, the investigators noted, with 84% of the stroke burden in 2021 attributable to 23 modifiable risk factors, including air pollution, excess body weight, high blood pressure, smoking, and physical inactivity.

This means there are “tremendous opportunities to alter the trajectory of stroke risk for the next generation,” Catherine O. Johnson, MPH, PhD, co-author and lead research scientist at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), University of Washington, Seattle, said in a news release.

The study was published online in The Lancet Neurology.
 

Top Risk Factor for Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Since 1990, the contribution of high temperatures to poor health and early death due to stroke has risen 72%, a trend likely to increase in the future — underscoring the impact of environmental factors on the growing stroke burden, the authors said.

“Given that ambient air pollution is reciprocally linked with ambient temperature and climate change, the importance of urgent climate actions and measures to reduce air pollution cannot be overestimated,” Dr. Johnson said.

Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, MS, chief clinical science officer for the American Heart Association, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization that environmental factors such as air pollution, particulate matter from wildfires and other sources, and excessive heat are now recognized as major contributors to the risk for stroke. “This should not be surprising as we have long recognized the risks of stroke associated with toxins in cigarette smoke, which likely share mechanisms for vascular damage with pollutants,” Dr. Elkind said.

The data also reveal for the first time that ambient particulate matter air pollution is a top risk factor for subarachnoid hemorrhage, contributing to 14% of the death and disability caused by this serious stroke subtype, on a par with smoking.

Dr. Elkind noted that smoking is “a major risk factor for subarachnoid hemorrhage. It makes sense that particulate air pollution would therefore similarly be a risk factor for subarachnoid hemorrhage, which similarly damages blood vessels. Prior studies were likely too small or did not assess the role of air pollution in subarachnoid hemorrhage.”

The analysis also showed substantial increases between 1990 and 2021 in the global stroke burden linked to high body mass index (up by 88%), high blood sugar (up 32%), a diet high in sugar-sweetened drinks (up 23%), low physical activity (up 11%), high systolic blood pressure (up 7%), and a diet low in omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (up 5%).

“And with increasing exposure to risk factors such as high blood sugar and diet high in sugar-sweetened drinks, there is a critical need for interventions focused on obesity and metabolic syndromes,” Dr. Johnson said.

“Identifying sustainable ways to work with communities to take action to prevent and control modifiable risk factors for stroke is essential to address this growing crisis,” she added.
 

Prevention Strategies Fall Short

The data also showed that stroke-related disability-adjusted life-years rose from around 121.4 million years of healthy life lost in 1990 to 160.5 million years in 2021, making stroke the fourth leading cause of health loss worldwide after COVID-19, ischemic heart disease, and neonatal disorders.

“The global growth of the number of people who develop stroke and died from or remain disabled by stroke is growing fast, strongly suggesting that currently used stroke prevention strategies are not sufficiently effective,” lead author Valery L. Feigin, MD, PhD, from Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, and affiliate professor at IHME, said in the release.

“New, proven effective population-wide and motivational individual prevention strategies that could be applied to all people at risk of having a stroke, regardless of the level of risk, as recommended in the recent Lancet Neurology Commission on Stroke should be implemented across the globe urgently,” said Dr. Feigin.

Dr. Elkind said the AHA supports research on the effects of air quality on risk for vascular injury and stroke and has “long advocated for policies to mitigate the adverse health impacts of air pollutants, including reduction of vehicle emissions and renewable portfolio standards, taking into account racial, ethnic, and economic disparities.”

“AHA, and the healthcare sector more broadly, must take a leadership role in recommending policies to improve environmental air quality and in working with the private sector and industry to improve air quality,” Dr. Elkind said.

In an accompanying commentary, Ming Liu, MD, and Simiao Wu, MD, PhD, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, wrote that “pragmatic solutions to the enormous and increasing stroke burden include surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation.”

“Surveillance strategies include establishing a national-level framework for regular monitoring of stroke burden, risk factors, and healthcare services via community-based surveys and health records,” they noted.

“Artificial intelligence and mobile technologies might not only facilitate the dissemination of evidence-based health services but also increase the number of data sources and encourage participation of multidisciplinary collaborators, potentially improving the validity and accuracy of future GBD estimates,” they added.

This study was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Author disclosures are listed with the original article.

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

Air pollution, high temperatures, and metabolic risk factors are driving global increases in stroke, contributing to 12 million cases and more than 7 million deaths from stroke each year, new data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study showed.

Between 1990 and 2021, the number of people who experienced a stroke increased to 11.9 million (up by 70% since 1990), while the number of stroke survivors rose to 93.8 million (up by 86%), and stroke-related deaths rose to 7.3 million (up by 44%), making stroke the third leading cause of death worldwide after ischemic heart disease and COVID-19, investigators found.

Stroke is highly preventable, the investigators noted, with 84% of the stroke burden in 2021 attributable to 23 modifiable risk factors, including air pollution, excess body weight, high blood pressure, smoking, and physical inactivity.

This means there are “tremendous opportunities to alter the trajectory of stroke risk for the next generation,” Catherine O. Johnson, MPH, PhD, co-author and lead research scientist at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), University of Washington, Seattle, said in a news release.

The study was published online in The Lancet Neurology.
 

Top Risk Factor for Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Since 1990, the contribution of high temperatures to poor health and early death due to stroke has risen 72%, a trend likely to increase in the future — underscoring the impact of environmental factors on the growing stroke burden, the authors said.

“Given that ambient air pollution is reciprocally linked with ambient temperature and climate change, the importance of urgent climate actions and measures to reduce air pollution cannot be overestimated,” Dr. Johnson said.

Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, MS, chief clinical science officer for the American Heart Association, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization that environmental factors such as air pollution, particulate matter from wildfires and other sources, and excessive heat are now recognized as major contributors to the risk for stroke. “This should not be surprising as we have long recognized the risks of stroke associated with toxins in cigarette smoke, which likely share mechanisms for vascular damage with pollutants,” Dr. Elkind said.

The data also reveal for the first time that ambient particulate matter air pollution is a top risk factor for subarachnoid hemorrhage, contributing to 14% of the death and disability caused by this serious stroke subtype, on a par with smoking.

Dr. Elkind noted that smoking is “a major risk factor for subarachnoid hemorrhage. It makes sense that particulate air pollution would therefore similarly be a risk factor for subarachnoid hemorrhage, which similarly damages blood vessels. Prior studies were likely too small or did not assess the role of air pollution in subarachnoid hemorrhage.”

The analysis also showed substantial increases between 1990 and 2021 in the global stroke burden linked to high body mass index (up by 88%), high blood sugar (up 32%), a diet high in sugar-sweetened drinks (up 23%), low physical activity (up 11%), high systolic blood pressure (up 7%), and a diet low in omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (up 5%).

“And with increasing exposure to risk factors such as high blood sugar and diet high in sugar-sweetened drinks, there is a critical need for interventions focused on obesity and metabolic syndromes,” Dr. Johnson said.

“Identifying sustainable ways to work with communities to take action to prevent and control modifiable risk factors for stroke is essential to address this growing crisis,” she added.
 

Prevention Strategies Fall Short

The data also showed that stroke-related disability-adjusted life-years rose from around 121.4 million years of healthy life lost in 1990 to 160.5 million years in 2021, making stroke the fourth leading cause of health loss worldwide after COVID-19, ischemic heart disease, and neonatal disorders.

“The global growth of the number of people who develop stroke and died from or remain disabled by stroke is growing fast, strongly suggesting that currently used stroke prevention strategies are not sufficiently effective,” lead author Valery L. Feigin, MD, PhD, from Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, and affiliate professor at IHME, said in the release.

“New, proven effective population-wide and motivational individual prevention strategies that could be applied to all people at risk of having a stroke, regardless of the level of risk, as recommended in the recent Lancet Neurology Commission on Stroke should be implemented across the globe urgently,” said Dr. Feigin.

Dr. Elkind said the AHA supports research on the effects of air quality on risk for vascular injury and stroke and has “long advocated for policies to mitigate the adverse health impacts of air pollutants, including reduction of vehicle emissions and renewable portfolio standards, taking into account racial, ethnic, and economic disparities.”

“AHA, and the healthcare sector more broadly, must take a leadership role in recommending policies to improve environmental air quality and in working with the private sector and industry to improve air quality,” Dr. Elkind said.

In an accompanying commentary, Ming Liu, MD, and Simiao Wu, MD, PhD, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, wrote that “pragmatic solutions to the enormous and increasing stroke burden include surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation.”

“Surveillance strategies include establishing a national-level framework for regular monitoring of stroke burden, risk factors, and healthcare services via community-based surveys and health records,” they noted.

“Artificial intelligence and mobile technologies might not only facilitate the dissemination of evidence-based health services but also increase the number of data sources and encourage participation of multidisciplinary collaborators, potentially improving the validity and accuracy of future GBD estimates,” they added.

This study was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Author disclosures are listed with the original article.

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

Air pollution, high temperatures, and metabolic risk factors are driving global increases in stroke, contributing to 12 million cases and more than 7 million deaths from stroke each year, new data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study showed.

Between 1990 and 2021, the number of people who experienced a stroke increased to 11.9 million (up by 70% since 1990), while the number of stroke survivors rose to 93.8 million (up by 86%), and stroke-related deaths rose to 7.3 million (up by 44%), making stroke the third leading cause of death worldwide after ischemic heart disease and COVID-19, investigators found.

Stroke is highly preventable, the investigators noted, with 84% of the stroke burden in 2021 attributable to 23 modifiable risk factors, including air pollution, excess body weight, high blood pressure, smoking, and physical inactivity.

This means there are “tremendous opportunities to alter the trajectory of stroke risk for the next generation,” Catherine O. Johnson, MPH, PhD, co-author and lead research scientist at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), University of Washington, Seattle, said in a news release.

The study was published online in The Lancet Neurology.
 

Top Risk Factor for Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Since 1990, the contribution of high temperatures to poor health and early death due to stroke has risen 72%, a trend likely to increase in the future — underscoring the impact of environmental factors on the growing stroke burden, the authors said.

“Given that ambient air pollution is reciprocally linked with ambient temperature and climate change, the importance of urgent climate actions and measures to reduce air pollution cannot be overestimated,” Dr. Johnson said.

Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, MS, chief clinical science officer for the American Heart Association, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization that environmental factors such as air pollution, particulate matter from wildfires and other sources, and excessive heat are now recognized as major contributors to the risk for stroke. “This should not be surprising as we have long recognized the risks of stroke associated with toxins in cigarette smoke, which likely share mechanisms for vascular damage with pollutants,” Dr. Elkind said.

The data also reveal for the first time that ambient particulate matter air pollution is a top risk factor for subarachnoid hemorrhage, contributing to 14% of the death and disability caused by this serious stroke subtype, on a par with smoking.

Dr. Elkind noted that smoking is “a major risk factor for subarachnoid hemorrhage. It makes sense that particulate air pollution would therefore similarly be a risk factor for subarachnoid hemorrhage, which similarly damages blood vessels. Prior studies were likely too small or did not assess the role of air pollution in subarachnoid hemorrhage.”

The analysis also showed substantial increases between 1990 and 2021 in the global stroke burden linked to high body mass index (up by 88%), high blood sugar (up 32%), a diet high in sugar-sweetened drinks (up 23%), low physical activity (up 11%), high systolic blood pressure (up 7%), and a diet low in omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (up 5%).

“And with increasing exposure to risk factors such as high blood sugar and diet high in sugar-sweetened drinks, there is a critical need for interventions focused on obesity and metabolic syndromes,” Dr. Johnson said.

“Identifying sustainable ways to work with communities to take action to prevent and control modifiable risk factors for stroke is essential to address this growing crisis,” she added.
 

Prevention Strategies Fall Short

The data also showed that stroke-related disability-adjusted life-years rose from around 121.4 million years of healthy life lost in 1990 to 160.5 million years in 2021, making stroke the fourth leading cause of health loss worldwide after COVID-19, ischemic heart disease, and neonatal disorders.

“The global growth of the number of people who develop stroke and died from or remain disabled by stroke is growing fast, strongly suggesting that currently used stroke prevention strategies are not sufficiently effective,” lead author Valery L. Feigin, MD, PhD, from Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, and affiliate professor at IHME, said in the release.

“New, proven effective population-wide and motivational individual prevention strategies that could be applied to all people at risk of having a stroke, regardless of the level of risk, as recommended in the recent Lancet Neurology Commission on Stroke should be implemented across the globe urgently,” said Dr. Feigin.

Dr. Elkind said the AHA supports research on the effects of air quality on risk for vascular injury and stroke and has “long advocated for policies to mitigate the adverse health impacts of air pollutants, including reduction of vehicle emissions and renewable portfolio standards, taking into account racial, ethnic, and economic disparities.”

“AHA, and the healthcare sector more broadly, must take a leadership role in recommending policies to improve environmental air quality and in working with the private sector and industry to improve air quality,” Dr. Elkind said.

In an accompanying commentary, Ming Liu, MD, and Simiao Wu, MD, PhD, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, wrote that “pragmatic solutions to the enormous and increasing stroke burden include surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation.”

“Surveillance strategies include establishing a national-level framework for regular monitoring of stroke burden, risk factors, and healthcare services via community-based surveys and health records,” they noted.

“Artificial intelligence and mobile technologies might not only facilitate the dissemination of evidence-based health services but also increase the number of data sources and encourage participation of multidisciplinary collaborators, potentially improving the validity and accuracy of future GBD estimates,” they added.

This study was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Author disclosures are listed with the original article.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There’s a very interesting story in the medical press. A few years ago, a plastic surgeon named Edmond Cabbabe was preparing to do a follow-up cosmetic procedure on his wife at Mercy Hospital South, which is a big hospital in the St. Louis, Missouri, area.

He put her on the operating schedule, and he had done that when he had performed the original operation on her. On the day of the surgery, he got a call from the hospital saying the procedure was canceled. They said that the hospital’s policy, maybe a new one, would not allow doctors to operate on family members.

This physician was a past president of the Missouri State Medical Association. I think he was also on the board or president of the American Medical Association (AMA) Foundation. This was a physician not only in a skilled area where he felt confident he could take care of his wife, but also someone who was prominent in medical politics and medical policy.

The AMA forever has had a policy that says don’t treat relatives. This physician basically said, I think that policy is too restrictive, too cautious, and it doesn’t make much sense to continue to say that you can’t treat family and friends.

By implication, he was saying, I know exactly what I’m doing in my field and I know exactly what I’m doing with her procedure. I should have a right to perform it. I think I do a great job and I’d be best for her.

If you look at medical boards, every once in a while in some state, someone is brought up on a charge of doing different things with family members and saying that they’re going to get censured. They don’t usually lose their license, but they get a reprimand or get told that is just not ethical to do.

I think, in the long run, the policy about not treating your family and friends makes sense. The problem is, as is well known from the social sciences and psychology, people get biased when they deal with those they care about, love, and hold close to them.

It’s hard for the doctor to be objective when dealing with people that they really like or love. It’s also difficult for patients because they may not want to bring up something or they are uncomfortable talking with a doctor who’s a family member or close friend. They may not want to complain. They may be a little bit embarrassed about things. It just adds an emotional edge, I think, that’s difficult.

All that said, do I know doctors who regularly prescribe, say, an ointment for something that’s itchy or some kind of a pill when allergy season breaks out? I do. Do I think they’re acting in a horribly unethical manner? I don’t.

You need some judgment here. There are absolutely minor things where objectivity, fear, and anxiety are not in play. You’re going to be able to prescribe the routine thing for the routine itch without worrying too much about whether it’s a stranger, a friend, or your daughter.

What sorts of things am I really talking about when I say that minor variability ought to be allowed? It’s one thing when someone has poison ivy and they’re going to need some kind of standard medicine to treat it. A very different area that’s much more dangerous, and one I would avoid, is in the mental health field, and for that matter, the pain field.

It’s tempting to say: “Oh, my relative is just having a bad time. I’ll give her a little bit of antidepressant medicine,” or “They seem to be having pain after an operation or something, and I’m going to give them a little bit of pain meds just to get them through.”

Those areas are flying red flags. It’s easy to abuse and easy for someone to become a user and manipulate a friend or a doctor who’s a relative into getting things that another doctor wouldn’t be giving. I think that’s the space where you’ve got to exercise extreme caution.

Time and again, when those people get called up in front of the boards for treating relatives, it’s in those spaces of mental health, anxiety, and pain control. Again, when you know that there’s a likelihood of abuse, I think that’s the place where the line has to hold. Don’t treat the relative. Don’t treat the friend.

At the end of the day, I wouldn’t change the AMA policy. I think we should keep it in place and morally try to discourage doctors from caring for those they’re close to or they have emotional ties to.

At the same time, as with all ethical situations, there has to be a little bit of wiggle room for those super-minor cases where it just makes sense to say: “You don’t have to go find somebody else to do this. I can prescribe this ointment or this minor thing for you. No one’s objectivity is going to be soured, and you’re not going to feel in any way at risk because I’m going to prescribe this for you.”

Common sense ought to prevail. The default position is don’t do it; however, maybe with a tiny bit of space for what’s minor, what’s routine, and what really does just save people some inconvenience, there I might just give a little.

Dr. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, has disclosed relationships with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There’s a very interesting story in the medical press. A few years ago, a plastic surgeon named Edmond Cabbabe was preparing to do a follow-up cosmetic procedure on his wife at Mercy Hospital South, which is a big hospital in the St. Louis, Missouri, area.

He put her on the operating schedule, and he had done that when he had performed the original operation on her. On the day of the surgery, he got a call from the hospital saying the procedure was canceled. They said that the hospital’s policy, maybe a new one, would not allow doctors to operate on family members.

This physician was a past president of the Missouri State Medical Association. I think he was also on the board or president of the American Medical Association (AMA) Foundation. This was a physician not only in a skilled area where he felt confident he could take care of his wife, but also someone who was prominent in medical politics and medical policy.

The AMA forever has had a policy that says don’t treat relatives. This physician basically said, I think that policy is too restrictive, too cautious, and it doesn’t make much sense to continue to say that you can’t treat family and friends.

By implication, he was saying, I know exactly what I’m doing in my field and I know exactly what I’m doing with her procedure. I should have a right to perform it. I think I do a great job and I’d be best for her.

If you look at medical boards, every once in a while in some state, someone is brought up on a charge of doing different things with family members and saying that they’re going to get censured. They don’t usually lose their license, but they get a reprimand or get told that is just not ethical to do.

I think, in the long run, the policy about not treating your family and friends makes sense. The problem is, as is well known from the social sciences and psychology, people get biased when they deal with those they care about, love, and hold close to them.

It’s hard for the doctor to be objective when dealing with people that they really like or love. It’s also difficult for patients because they may not want to bring up something or they are uncomfortable talking with a doctor who’s a family member or close friend. They may not want to complain. They may be a little bit embarrassed about things. It just adds an emotional edge, I think, that’s difficult.

All that said, do I know doctors who regularly prescribe, say, an ointment for something that’s itchy or some kind of a pill when allergy season breaks out? I do. Do I think they’re acting in a horribly unethical manner? I don’t.

You need some judgment here. There are absolutely minor things where objectivity, fear, and anxiety are not in play. You’re going to be able to prescribe the routine thing for the routine itch without worrying too much about whether it’s a stranger, a friend, or your daughter.

What sorts of things am I really talking about when I say that minor variability ought to be allowed? It’s one thing when someone has poison ivy and they’re going to need some kind of standard medicine to treat it. A very different area that’s much more dangerous, and one I would avoid, is in the mental health field, and for that matter, the pain field.

It’s tempting to say: “Oh, my relative is just having a bad time. I’ll give her a little bit of antidepressant medicine,” or “They seem to be having pain after an operation or something, and I’m going to give them a little bit of pain meds just to get them through.”

Those areas are flying red flags. It’s easy to abuse and easy for someone to become a user and manipulate a friend or a doctor who’s a relative into getting things that another doctor wouldn’t be giving. I think that’s the space where you’ve got to exercise extreme caution.

Time and again, when those people get called up in front of the boards for treating relatives, it’s in those spaces of mental health, anxiety, and pain control. Again, when you know that there’s a likelihood of abuse, I think that’s the place where the line has to hold. Don’t treat the relative. Don’t treat the friend.

At the end of the day, I wouldn’t change the AMA policy. I think we should keep it in place and morally try to discourage doctors from caring for those they’re close to or they have emotional ties to.

At the same time, as with all ethical situations, there has to be a little bit of wiggle room for those super-minor cases where it just makes sense to say: “You don’t have to go find somebody else to do this. I can prescribe this ointment or this minor thing for you. No one’s objectivity is going to be soured, and you’re not going to feel in any way at risk because I’m going to prescribe this for you.”

Common sense ought to prevail. The default position is don’t do it; however, maybe with a tiny bit of space for what’s minor, what’s routine, and what really does just save people some inconvenience, there I might just give a little.

Dr. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, has disclosed relationships with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There’s a very interesting story in the medical press. A few years ago, a plastic surgeon named Edmond Cabbabe was preparing to do a follow-up cosmetic procedure on his wife at Mercy Hospital South, which is a big hospital in the St. Louis, Missouri, area.

He put her on the operating schedule, and he had done that when he had performed the original operation on her. On the day of the surgery, he got a call from the hospital saying the procedure was canceled. They said that the hospital’s policy, maybe a new one, would not allow doctors to operate on family members.

This physician was a past president of the Missouri State Medical Association. I think he was also on the board or president of the American Medical Association (AMA) Foundation. This was a physician not only in a skilled area where he felt confident he could take care of his wife, but also someone who was prominent in medical politics and medical policy.

The AMA forever has had a policy that says don’t treat relatives. This physician basically said, I think that policy is too restrictive, too cautious, and it doesn’t make much sense to continue to say that you can’t treat family and friends.

By implication, he was saying, I know exactly what I’m doing in my field and I know exactly what I’m doing with her procedure. I should have a right to perform it. I think I do a great job and I’d be best for her.

If you look at medical boards, every once in a while in some state, someone is brought up on a charge of doing different things with family members and saying that they’re going to get censured. They don’t usually lose their license, but they get a reprimand or get told that is just not ethical to do.

I think, in the long run, the policy about not treating your family and friends makes sense. The problem is, as is well known from the social sciences and psychology, people get biased when they deal with those they care about, love, and hold close to them.

It’s hard for the doctor to be objective when dealing with people that they really like or love. It’s also difficult for patients because they may not want to bring up something or they are uncomfortable talking with a doctor who’s a family member or close friend. They may not want to complain. They may be a little bit embarrassed about things. It just adds an emotional edge, I think, that’s difficult.

All that said, do I know doctors who regularly prescribe, say, an ointment for something that’s itchy or some kind of a pill when allergy season breaks out? I do. Do I think they’re acting in a horribly unethical manner? I don’t.

You need some judgment here. There are absolutely minor things where objectivity, fear, and anxiety are not in play. You’re going to be able to prescribe the routine thing for the routine itch without worrying too much about whether it’s a stranger, a friend, or your daughter.

What sorts of things am I really talking about when I say that minor variability ought to be allowed? It’s one thing when someone has poison ivy and they’re going to need some kind of standard medicine to treat it. A very different area that’s much more dangerous, and one I would avoid, is in the mental health field, and for that matter, the pain field.

It’s tempting to say: “Oh, my relative is just having a bad time. I’ll give her a little bit of antidepressant medicine,” or “They seem to be having pain after an operation or something, and I’m going to give them a little bit of pain meds just to get them through.”

Those areas are flying red flags. It’s easy to abuse and easy for someone to become a user and manipulate a friend or a doctor who’s a relative into getting things that another doctor wouldn’t be giving. I think that’s the space where you’ve got to exercise extreme caution.

Time and again, when those people get called up in front of the boards for treating relatives, it’s in those spaces of mental health, anxiety, and pain control. Again, when you know that there’s a likelihood of abuse, I think that’s the place where the line has to hold. Don’t treat the relative. Don’t treat the friend.

At the end of the day, I wouldn’t change the AMA policy. I think we should keep it in place and morally try to discourage doctors from caring for those they’re close to or they have emotional ties to.

At the same time, as with all ethical situations, there has to be a little bit of wiggle room for those super-minor cases where it just makes sense to say: “You don’t have to go find somebody else to do this. I can prescribe this ointment or this minor thing for you. No one’s objectivity is going to be soured, and you’re not going to feel in any way at risk because I’m going to prescribe this for you.”

Common sense ought to prevail. The default position is don’t do it; however, maybe with a tiny bit of space for what’s minor, what’s routine, and what really does just save people some inconvenience, there I might just give a little.

Dr. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, has disclosed relationships with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

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

NEW YORK — Underrepresentation by gender and race in major clinical trials has been a cause for complaint for decades, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has drafted a regulatory solution to this issue expected to be implemented sometime in 2025.

This initiative, known as the FDA’s Diversity Action Plan (DAP), will require plans for all pivotal and phase 3 trials to provide details in their design of how diversity will be achieved or, if there are no plans for diversity, the reason why, according to Valerie M. Harvey, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Blacksburg, Virginia. These rules will be codified, she said at the 2024 Skin of Color Update.

Once the DAP is enacted, “the sponsor must specify the rationale and goals for study enrollment by age, ethnicity, sex, and race,” she said. Furthermore, the submission to the FDA must “describe the methods to meet the diversity benchmarks.”
 

Lack of Trial Diversity Is Common Across Medicine

Although she focused on the relevance of this initiative to dermatology, Dr. Harvey said the lack of diversity in clinical trials is pervasive throughout medicine. In one survey of randomized controlled trials, less than 60% of trials even specified the race and ethnicity of the participants. In recent psoriasis trials, only 30% met a diversity definition of ≥ 20% of patients identifying as minority (Black, Hispanic, Asian, or other non-White group), said Dr. Harvey, who practices dermatology in Newport News, Virginia.

The FDA draft guidance for the DAP was released in June 2024 and is now available for submitting comments (until September 26). The plan is expected to be published in June 2025, according to Dr. Harvey. It will pertain to all pivotal and phase 3 trials enrolling 180 days after the publication date and will be relevant to all drugs and biologics as well as certain devices.

This initiative could be a critical step toward ensuring diversity in major clinical trials after years of stagnation, Dr. Harvey said, noting that despite repeated calls for more diversity in clinical trials, the literature suggests “little progress.”

However, she said that increasing diversity in clinical trials is just one step toward gathering data about the generalizability of efficacy and safety across racial and ethnic groups. A much more complex issue involves how race and ethnicity are defined in order to understand differences, if any, for efficacy and risk.

“Race is a dynamic social construct and a poor measure for biologic variation and skin color,” Dr. Harvey said. This means that work is needed to address the more complex issue of race and ethnicity stratification that will help clinicians understand the relative benefits and risks for the drugs in these trials.

Rather than differences based on genetic or other sources of biologic differences, she said, outcomes by race alone are often suspected of reflecting disparities in access to healthcare rather than a difference in therapeutic response.
 

Skin Color Is Inadequate to Define Race

When stratifying patients by race or ethnicity, Dr. Harvey said that “we have to be very, very careful in considering the study purpose and what the study question is.” A study attempting to compare benefits and risks among subgroups by race or ethnicity will require descriptors beyond skin color.

The recognized limitations of measuring skin tone as a surrogate of race are one reason for widespread interest in moving away from the Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) rating that has been widely considered a standard, according to Dr. Harvey. Several alternatives have been proposed, including the Monk Skin Tone Scale, the Individual Typology Angle, and the Eumelanin Human Skin Color Scale, but she cautioned that these are less well validated and generally have the limitations of the FST.

If skin color was ever useful for grouping individuals on the basis of shared physiology, growing rates of intermarriage and immigration have made skin color increasingly irrelevant to racial identity. If the goal is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs across racial groups and ethnicities, the characterization of populations will almost certainly require multiple descriptors and biomarkers, she said.

“It is very important to have many tools for characterizing patients by skin type,” Susan Taylor, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair for diversity, equity, and inclusion for the Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview at the meeting.

The reason is “there are limitations to all of them,” she said, noting also that the questions being asked about how and if skin color and race are relevant to therapeutic options differ by the question, such as innate response or access to care.

Dr. Taylor is part of a workshop that she said is evaluating a combination of instruments for characterizing skin color and race in ways relevant to the specific question being asked.

The solutions might differ. While simple clinical assessments involving skin color might be made with methods captured on a smartphone app, Dr. Taylor acknowledged that far more complex tools might be required to document the effect of racial or ethnic differences in drug efficacy and safety in a research setting.

Outside of a research setting, any tools that might be useful for assessing race as a variable must be practical, according to Dr. Harvey. She suggested that these must be time efficient, of reasonable cost, and most importantly, reliable.

Tools meeting these criteria do not currently exist, but Dr. Harvey said the work is underway. She expects a “top-down” collaborative approach to validate alternatives to the FST. If such tools can be developed with buy-in from the FDA, they might be particularly useful for translating trial data to patient care, she added.

Dr. Harvey reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oréal, and SkinCeuticals. Dr. Taylor, president-elect of the American Academy of Dermatology, reported financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Underrepresentation by gender and race in major clinical trials has been a cause for complaint for decades, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has drafted a regulatory solution to this issue expected to be implemented sometime in 2025.

This initiative, known as the FDA’s Diversity Action Plan (DAP), will require plans for all pivotal and phase 3 trials to provide details in their design of how diversity will be achieved or, if there are no plans for diversity, the reason why, according to Valerie M. Harvey, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Blacksburg, Virginia. These rules will be codified, she said at the 2024 Skin of Color Update.

Once the DAP is enacted, “the sponsor must specify the rationale and goals for study enrollment by age, ethnicity, sex, and race,” she said. Furthermore, the submission to the FDA must “describe the methods to meet the diversity benchmarks.”
 

Lack of Trial Diversity Is Common Across Medicine

Although she focused on the relevance of this initiative to dermatology, Dr. Harvey said the lack of diversity in clinical trials is pervasive throughout medicine. In one survey of randomized controlled trials, less than 60% of trials even specified the race and ethnicity of the participants. In recent psoriasis trials, only 30% met a diversity definition of ≥ 20% of patients identifying as minority (Black, Hispanic, Asian, or other non-White group), said Dr. Harvey, who practices dermatology in Newport News, Virginia.

The FDA draft guidance for the DAP was released in June 2024 and is now available for submitting comments (until September 26). The plan is expected to be published in June 2025, according to Dr. Harvey. It will pertain to all pivotal and phase 3 trials enrolling 180 days after the publication date and will be relevant to all drugs and biologics as well as certain devices.

This initiative could be a critical step toward ensuring diversity in major clinical trials after years of stagnation, Dr. Harvey said, noting that despite repeated calls for more diversity in clinical trials, the literature suggests “little progress.”

However, she said that increasing diversity in clinical trials is just one step toward gathering data about the generalizability of efficacy and safety across racial and ethnic groups. A much more complex issue involves how race and ethnicity are defined in order to understand differences, if any, for efficacy and risk.

“Race is a dynamic social construct and a poor measure for biologic variation and skin color,” Dr. Harvey said. This means that work is needed to address the more complex issue of race and ethnicity stratification that will help clinicians understand the relative benefits and risks for the drugs in these trials.

Rather than differences based on genetic or other sources of biologic differences, she said, outcomes by race alone are often suspected of reflecting disparities in access to healthcare rather than a difference in therapeutic response.
 

Skin Color Is Inadequate to Define Race

When stratifying patients by race or ethnicity, Dr. Harvey said that “we have to be very, very careful in considering the study purpose and what the study question is.” A study attempting to compare benefits and risks among subgroups by race or ethnicity will require descriptors beyond skin color.

The recognized limitations of measuring skin tone as a surrogate of race are one reason for widespread interest in moving away from the Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) rating that has been widely considered a standard, according to Dr. Harvey. Several alternatives have been proposed, including the Monk Skin Tone Scale, the Individual Typology Angle, and the Eumelanin Human Skin Color Scale, but she cautioned that these are less well validated and generally have the limitations of the FST.

If skin color was ever useful for grouping individuals on the basis of shared physiology, growing rates of intermarriage and immigration have made skin color increasingly irrelevant to racial identity. If the goal is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs across racial groups and ethnicities, the characterization of populations will almost certainly require multiple descriptors and biomarkers, she said.

“It is very important to have many tools for characterizing patients by skin type,” Susan Taylor, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair for diversity, equity, and inclusion for the Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview at the meeting.

The reason is “there are limitations to all of them,” she said, noting also that the questions being asked about how and if skin color and race are relevant to therapeutic options differ by the question, such as innate response or access to care.

Dr. Taylor is part of a workshop that she said is evaluating a combination of instruments for characterizing skin color and race in ways relevant to the specific question being asked.

The solutions might differ. While simple clinical assessments involving skin color might be made with methods captured on a smartphone app, Dr. Taylor acknowledged that far more complex tools might be required to document the effect of racial or ethnic differences in drug efficacy and safety in a research setting.

Outside of a research setting, any tools that might be useful for assessing race as a variable must be practical, according to Dr. Harvey. She suggested that these must be time efficient, of reasonable cost, and most importantly, reliable.

Tools meeting these criteria do not currently exist, but Dr. Harvey said the work is underway. She expects a “top-down” collaborative approach to validate alternatives to the FST. If such tools can be developed with buy-in from the FDA, they might be particularly useful for translating trial data to patient care, she added.

Dr. Harvey reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oréal, and SkinCeuticals. Dr. Taylor, president-elect of the American Academy of Dermatology, reported financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Underrepresentation by gender and race in major clinical trials has been a cause for complaint for decades, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has drafted a regulatory solution to this issue expected to be implemented sometime in 2025.

This initiative, known as the FDA’s Diversity Action Plan (DAP), will require plans for all pivotal and phase 3 trials to provide details in their design of how diversity will be achieved or, if there are no plans for diversity, the reason why, according to Valerie M. Harvey, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Blacksburg, Virginia. These rules will be codified, she said at the 2024 Skin of Color Update.

Once the DAP is enacted, “the sponsor must specify the rationale and goals for study enrollment by age, ethnicity, sex, and race,” she said. Furthermore, the submission to the FDA must “describe the methods to meet the diversity benchmarks.”
 

Lack of Trial Diversity Is Common Across Medicine

Although she focused on the relevance of this initiative to dermatology, Dr. Harvey said the lack of diversity in clinical trials is pervasive throughout medicine. In one survey of randomized controlled trials, less than 60% of trials even specified the race and ethnicity of the participants. In recent psoriasis trials, only 30% met a diversity definition of ≥ 20% of patients identifying as minority (Black, Hispanic, Asian, or other non-White group), said Dr. Harvey, who practices dermatology in Newport News, Virginia.

The FDA draft guidance for the DAP was released in June 2024 and is now available for submitting comments (until September 26). The plan is expected to be published in June 2025, according to Dr. Harvey. It will pertain to all pivotal and phase 3 trials enrolling 180 days after the publication date and will be relevant to all drugs and biologics as well as certain devices.

This initiative could be a critical step toward ensuring diversity in major clinical trials after years of stagnation, Dr. Harvey said, noting that despite repeated calls for more diversity in clinical trials, the literature suggests “little progress.”

However, she said that increasing diversity in clinical trials is just one step toward gathering data about the generalizability of efficacy and safety across racial and ethnic groups. A much more complex issue involves how race and ethnicity are defined in order to understand differences, if any, for efficacy and risk.

“Race is a dynamic social construct and a poor measure for biologic variation and skin color,” Dr. Harvey said. This means that work is needed to address the more complex issue of race and ethnicity stratification that will help clinicians understand the relative benefits and risks for the drugs in these trials.

Rather than differences based on genetic or other sources of biologic differences, she said, outcomes by race alone are often suspected of reflecting disparities in access to healthcare rather than a difference in therapeutic response.
 

Skin Color Is Inadequate to Define Race

When stratifying patients by race or ethnicity, Dr. Harvey said that “we have to be very, very careful in considering the study purpose and what the study question is.” A study attempting to compare benefits and risks among subgroups by race or ethnicity will require descriptors beyond skin color.

The recognized limitations of measuring skin tone as a surrogate of race are one reason for widespread interest in moving away from the Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) rating that has been widely considered a standard, according to Dr. Harvey. Several alternatives have been proposed, including the Monk Skin Tone Scale, the Individual Typology Angle, and the Eumelanin Human Skin Color Scale, but she cautioned that these are less well validated and generally have the limitations of the FST.

If skin color was ever useful for grouping individuals on the basis of shared physiology, growing rates of intermarriage and immigration have made skin color increasingly irrelevant to racial identity. If the goal is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs across racial groups and ethnicities, the characterization of populations will almost certainly require multiple descriptors and biomarkers, she said.

“It is very important to have many tools for characterizing patients by skin type,” Susan Taylor, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair for diversity, equity, and inclusion for the Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview at the meeting.

The reason is “there are limitations to all of them,” she said, noting also that the questions being asked about how and if skin color and race are relevant to therapeutic options differ by the question, such as innate response or access to care.

Dr. Taylor is part of a workshop that she said is evaluating a combination of instruments for characterizing skin color and race in ways relevant to the specific question being asked.

The solutions might differ. While simple clinical assessments involving skin color might be made with methods captured on a smartphone app, Dr. Taylor acknowledged that far more complex tools might be required to document the effect of racial or ethnic differences in drug efficacy and safety in a research setting.

Outside of a research setting, any tools that might be useful for assessing race as a variable must be practical, according to Dr. Harvey. She suggested that these must be time efficient, of reasonable cost, and most importantly, reliable.

Tools meeting these criteria do not currently exist, but Dr. Harvey said the work is underway. She expects a “top-down” collaborative approach to validate alternatives to the FST. If such tools can be developed with buy-in from the FDA, they might be particularly useful for translating trial data to patient care, she added.

Dr. Harvey reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oréal, and SkinCeuticals. Dr. Taylor, president-elect of the American Academy of Dermatology, reported financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five years have passed since the member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) gathered at the 72nd World Health Assembly and decided that September 17 should be recognized as World Patient Safety Day, acknowledging it as a global health priority.

WHO data indicate the following findings related to medical safety:

• One in 10 patients is harmed while receiving healthcare, and 3 million die as a result.
• More than half of these incidents could be prevented.
• Indirect costs could amount to several billion US dollars annually.

Given the magnitude of preventable harm related to medication use, in 2017, the WHO launched the third Global Patient Safety Challenge: Medication Without Harm with the goal of reducing serious and preventable harm related to medication by 50%. In addition, considering the volume of medication packages prescribed in 2023 by physicians in Spain’s National Health System, it is necessary to understand the most common types of medication errors to provide an effective and efficient response.

According to Spain’s Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), the 10 types of medication errors detected in 2020 with the most serious consequences were the following:

• Errors due to omission or delay in medication.
• Administration of medication to the wrong patient.
• Errors related to allergies or known adverse effects of medications.
• Dosing errors in pediatric patients.
• Errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.
• Errors associated with the lack of use of smart infusion pumps.
• Errors due to accidental administration of neuromuscular blocking agents.
• Incorrect intravenous administration of oral liquid medications.
• Errors in medication reconciliation upon hospital admission and discharge.
• Errors due to patient misunderstandings regarding medication use.

I would like to focus on the fifth item, errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.

Medications with similar names or with similar labeling or packaging are known as “look alike–sound alike” medications. They are estimated to account for between 6.2% and 14.7% of all medication errors. Confusion can arise due to spelling and phonetic similarities.

As shown in bulletin no. 50 of the ISMP, difficulties in distinguishing different medications or different presentations of the same medication due to similar packaging and labeling have frequently been associated with reported incidents.

Most cases involve either medications marketed by the same laboratory with a design based on brand image or different medications marketed by different laboratories in screen-printed ampoules used in the same settings.

In 2020, the ISMP published 11 new cases of labeling or packaging that may promote errors on its website. It reported 49 incidents to the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices.

Shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have further contributed to these incidents, as healthcare facilities sometimes had to change the medications they usually acquired and purchase whatever was available, without being able to select products that would not be confused with existing medications in the facility.

The ISMP recommends the following general practices for healthcare institutions, professionals, and patients to prevent these errors:

• Develop short lists of easily confused medication names and distribute them among all healthcare professionals.
• Prioritize medication names by active ingredient instead of brand name.
• For similar names, highlight the differences in capital letters, eg, DOBUTamine, DOPamine.
• For similar active ingredients, use brand names.
• Avoid placing similar medications near each other.
• Prescribe all medications electronically to minimize the risk of selecting the wrong medication.
• Make manual prescriptions legible, with clearly written dosages and pharmaceutical forms.
• Encourage patients to actively participate in their treatment and consult a clinician if they have any questions about the medications they are receiving.
• Raise awareness among patients, family members, and caregivers about the issues caused by medication name confusion and inform them about how to avoid these errors.
• Instruct patients to focus on and always use the active ingredient name as an identifying element for the medications they are taking.
• Review treatments with patients to ensure they know the medications they are taking.
•  

Julia María Ruiz Redondo is the regional nursing advisor inspector of Spanish Society of General and Family Physicians of Castilla-La Mancha (SEMG-CLM), coordinator of the National Working Group on Public Health in the SEMG, and director of the international public health master’s degree at TECH Technological University. This article is the result of an editorial collaboration between the SEMG and Univadis, which you can access here. 

This story was translated from Univadis Spain, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five years have passed since the member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) gathered at the 72nd World Health Assembly and decided that September 17 should be recognized as World Patient Safety Day, acknowledging it as a global health priority.

WHO data indicate the following findings related to medical safety:

• One in 10 patients is harmed while receiving healthcare, and 3 million die as a result.
• More than half of these incidents could be prevented.
• Indirect costs could amount to several billion US dollars annually.

Given the magnitude of preventable harm related to medication use, in 2017, the WHO launched the third Global Patient Safety Challenge: Medication Without Harm with the goal of reducing serious and preventable harm related to medication by 50%. In addition, considering the volume of medication packages prescribed in 2023 by physicians in Spain’s National Health System, it is necessary to understand the most common types of medication errors to provide an effective and efficient response.

According to Spain’s Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), the 10 types of medication errors detected in 2020 with the most serious consequences were the following:

• Errors due to omission or delay in medication.
• Administration of medication to the wrong patient.
• Errors related to allergies or known adverse effects of medications.
• Dosing errors in pediatric patients.
• Errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.
• Errors associated with the lack of use of smart infusion pumps.
• Errors due to accidental administration of neuromuscular blocking agents.
• Incorrect intravenous administration of oral liquid medications.
• Errors in medication reconciliation upon hospital admission and discharge.
• Errors due to patient misunderstandings regarding medication use.

I would like to focus on the fifth item, errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.

Medications with similar names or with similar labeling or packaging are known as “look alike–sound alike” medications. They are estimated to account for between 6.2% and 14.7% of all medication errors. Confusion can arise due to spelling and phonetic similarities.

As shown in bulletin no. 50 of the ISMP, difficulties in distinguishing different medications or different presentations of the same medication due to similar packaging and labeling have frequently been associated with reported incidents.

Most cases involve either medications marketed by the same laboratory with a design based on brand image or different medications marketed by different laboratories in screen-printed ampoules used in the same settings.

In 2020, the ISMP published 11 new cases of labeling or packaging that may promote errors on its website. It reported 49 incidents to the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices.

Shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have further contributed to these incidents, as healthcare facilities sometimes had to change the medications they usually acquired and purchase whatever was available, without being able to select products that would not be confused with existing medications in the facility.

The ISMP recommends the following general practices for healthcare institutions, professionals, and patients to prevent these errors:

• Develop short lists of easily confused medication names and distribute them among all healthcare professionals.
• Prioritize medication names by active ingredient instead of brand name.
• For similar names, highlight the differences in capital letters, eg, DOBUTamine, DOPamine.
• For similar active ingredients, use brand names.
• Avoid placing similar medications near each other.
• Prescribe all medications electronically to minimize the risk of selecting the wrong medication.
• Make manual prescriptions legible, with clearly written dosages and pharmaceutical forms.
• Encourage patients to actively participate in their treatment and consult a clinician if they have any questions about the medications they are receiving.
• Raise awareness among patients, family members, and caregivers about the issues caused by medication name confusion and inform them about how to avoid these errors.
• Instruct patients to focus on and always use the active ingredient name as an identifying element for the medications they are taking.
• Review treatments with patients to ensure they know the medications they are taking.
•  

Julia María Ruiz Redondo is the regional nursing advisor inspector of Spanish Society of General and Family Physicians of Castilla-La Mancha (SEMG-CLM), coordinator of the National Working Group on Public Health in the SEMG, and director of the international public health master’s degree at TECH Technological University. This article is the result of an editorial collaboration between the SEMG and Univadis, which you can access here. 

This story was translated from Univadis Spain, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five years have passed since the member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) gathered at the 72nd World Health Assembly and decided that September 17 should be recognized as World Patient Safety Day, acknowledging it as a global health priority.

WHO data indicate the following findings related to medical safety:

• One in 10 patients is harmed while receiving healthcare, and 3 million die as a result.
• More than half of these incidents could be prevented.
• Indirect costs could amount to several billion US dollars annually.

Given the magnitude of preventable harm related to medication use, in 2017, the WHO launched the third Global Patient Safety Challenge: Medication Without Harm with the goal of reducing serious and preventable harm related to medication by 50%. In addition, considering the volume of medication packages prescribed in 2023 by physicians in Spain’s National Health System, it is necessary to understand the most common types of medication errors to provide an effective and efficient response.

According to Spain’s Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), the 10 types of medication errors detected in 2020 with the most serious consequences were the following:

• Errors due to omission or delay in medication.
• Administration of medication to the wrong patient.
• Errors related to allergies or known adverse effects of medications.
• Dosing errors in pediatric patients.
• Errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.
• Errors associated with the lack of use of smart infusion pumps.
• Errors due to accidental administration of neuromuscular blocking agents.
• Incorrect intravenous administration of oral liquid medications.
• Errors in medication reconciliation upon hospital admission and discharge.
• Errors due to patient misunderstandings regarding medication use.

I would like to focus on the fifth item, errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.

Medications with similar names or with similar labeling or packaging are known as “look alike–sound alike” medications. They are estimated to account for between 6.2% and 14.7% of all medication errors. Confusion can arise due to spelling and phonetic similarities.

As shown in bulletin no. 50 of the ISMP, difficulties in distinguishing different medications or different presentations of the same medication due to similar packaging and labeling have frequently been associated with reported incidents.

Most cases involve either medications marketed by the same laboratory with a design based on brand image or different medications marketed by different laboratories in screen-printed ampoules used in the same settings.

In 2020, the ISMP published 11 new cases of labeling or packaging that may promote errors on its website. It reported 49 incidents to the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices.

Shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have further contributed to these incidents, as healthcare facilities sometimes had to change the medications they usually acquired and purchase whatever was available, without being able to select products that would not be confused with existing medications in the facility.

The ISMP recommends the following general practices for healthcare institutions, professionals, and patients to prevent these errors:

• Develop short lists of easily confused medication names and distribute them among all healthcare professionals.
• Prioritize medication names by active ingredient instead of brand name.
• For similar names, highlight the differences in capital letters, eg, DOBUTamine, DOPamine.
• For similar active ingredients, use brand names.
• Avoid placing similar medications near each other.
• Prescribe all medications electronically to minimize the risk of selecting the wrong medication.
• Make manual prescriptions legible, with clearly written dosages and pharmaceutical forms.
• Encourage patients to actively participate in their treatment and consult a clinician if they have any questions about the medications they are receiving.
• Raise awareness among patients, family members, and caregivers about the issues caused by medication name confusion and inform them about how to avoid these errors.
• Instruct patients to focus on and always use the active ingredient name as an identifying element for the medications they are taking.
• Review treatments with patients to ensure they know the medications they are taking.
•  

Julia María Ruiz Redondo is the regional nursing advisor inspector of Spanish Society of General and Family Physicians of Castilla-La Mancha (SEMG-CLM), coordinator of the National Working Group on Public Health in the SEMG, and director of the international public health master’s degree at TECH Technological University. This article is the result of an editorial collaboration between the SEMG and Univadis, which you can access here. 

This story was translated from Univadis Spain, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Optimal management of blood pressure, A1c levels, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), albuminuria, smoking, and physical activity may reduce the excess risk for chronic kidney disease (CKD) typically linked to obesity. The protective effect is more pronounced in men, in those with lower healthy food scores, and in users of diabetes medication.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity is a significant risk factor for CKD, but it is unknown if managing multiple other obesity-related CKD risk factors can mitigate the excess CKD risk.
• Researchers assessed CKD risk factor control in 97,538 participants with obesity from the UK Biobank and compared them with an equal number of age- and sex-matched control participants with normal body weight and no CKD at baseline.
• Participants with obesity were assessed for six modifiable risk factors: Blood pressure, A1c levels, LDL-C, albuminuria, smoking, and physical activity.
• Overall, 2487, 12,720, 32,388, 36,988, and 15,381 participants with obesity had at most two, three, four, five, and six risk factors under combined control, respectively, with the two or fewer group serving as the reference.
• The primary outcome was incident CKD and the degree of combined risk factor control in persons. The CKD risk and risk factor control in participants with obesity were also compared with CKD incidence in matched normal weight participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up period of 10.8 years, 3954 cases of incident CKD were reported in participants with obesity and 1498 cases in matched persons of normal body mass index (BMI).
• In a stepwise pattern, optimal control of each additional risk factor was associated with 11% (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.91) reduction in the incidence of CKD events, down to a 49% reduction in CKD incidence (aHR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43-0.61) for combined control of all six risk factors in participants with obesity.
• The protective effect of combined control of risk factors was more pronounced in men vs women, in those with lower vs higher healthy diet scores, and in users vs nonusers of diabetes medication.
• A similar stepwise pattern emerged between the number of risk factors controlled and CKD risk in participants with obesity compared with matched individuals of normal BMI, with the excess CKD risk eliminated in participants with obesity with six risk factors under control.

IN PRACTICE:

“Comprehensive control of risk factors might effectively neutralize the excessive CKD risk associated with obesity, emphasizing the potential of a joint management approach in the prevention of CKD in this population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rui Tang, MS, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana. It was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The evaluated risk factors for CKD were arbitrarily selected, which may not represent the ideal group. The study did not consider the time-varying effect of joint risk factor control owing to the lack of some variables such as A1c. The generalizability of the findings was limited because over 90% of the UK Biobank cohort is composed of White people and individuals with healthier behaviors compared with the overall UK population.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Optimal management of blood pressure, A1c levels, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), albuminuria, smoking, and physical activity may reduce the excess risk for chronic kidney disease (CKD) typically linked to obesity. The protective effect is more pronounced in men, in those with lower healthy food scores, and in users of diabetes medication.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity is a significant risk factor for CKD, but it is unknown if managing multiple other obesity-related CKD risk factors can mitigate the excess CKD risk.
• Researchers assessed CKD risk factor control in 97,538 participants with obesity from the UK Biobank and compared them with an equal number of age- and sex-matched control participants with normal body weight and no CKD at baseline.
• Participants with obesity were assessed for six modifiable risk factors: Blood pressure, A1c levels, LDL-C, albuminuria, smoking, and physical activity.
• Overall, 2487, 12,720, 32,388, 36,988, and 15,381 participants with obesity had at most two, three, four, five, and six risk factors under combined control, respectively, with the two or fewer group serving as the reference.
• The primary outcome was incident CKD and the degree of combined risk factor control in persons. The CKD risk and risk factor control in participants with obesity were also compared with CKD incidence in matched normal weight participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up period of 10.8 years, 3954 cases of incident CKD were reported in participants with obesity and 1498 cases in matched persons of normal body mass index (BMI).
• In a stepwise pattern, optimal control of each additional risk factor was associated with 11% (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.91) reduction in the incidence of CKD events, down to a 49% reduction in CKD incidence (aHR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43-0.61) for combined control of all six risk factors in participants with obesity.
• The protective effect of combined control of risk factors was more pronounced in men vs women, in those with lower vs higher healthy diet scores, and in users vs nonusers of diabetes medication.
• A similar stepwise pattern emerged between the number of risk factors controlled and CKD risk in participants with obesity compared with matched individuals of normal BMI, with the excess CKD risk eliminated in participants with obesity with six risk factors under control.

IN PRACTICE:

“Comprehensive control of risk factors might effectively neutralize the excessive CKD risk associated with obesity, emphasizing the potential of a joint management approach in the prevention of CKD in this population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rui Tang, MS, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana. It was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The evaluated risk factors for CKD were arbitrarily selected, which may not represent the ideal group. The study did not consider the time-varying effect of joint risk factor control owing to the lack of some variables such as A1c. The generalizability of the findings was limited because over 90% of the UK Biobank cohort is composed of White people and individuals with healthier behaviors compared with the overall UK population.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Optimal management of blood pressure, A1c levels, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), albuminuria, smoking, and physical activity may reduce the excess risk for chronic kidney disease (CKD) typically linked to obesity. The protective effect is more pronounced in men, in those with lower healthy food scores, and in users of diabetes medication.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity is a significant risk factor for CKD, but it is unknown if managing multiple other obesity-related CKD risk factors can mitigate the excess CKD risk.
• Researchers assessed CKD risk factor control in 97,538 participants with obesity from the UK Biobank and compared them with an equal number of age- and sex-matched control participants with normal body weight and no CKD at baseline.
• Participants with obesity were assessed for six modifiable risk factors: Blood pressure, A1c levels, LDL-C, albuminuria, smoking, and physical activity.
• Overall, 2487, 12,720, 32,388, 36,988, and 15,381 participants with obesity had at most two, three, four, five, and six risk factors under combined control, respectively, with the two or fewer group serving as the reference.
• The primary outcome was incident CKD and the degree of combined risk factor control in persons. The CKD risk and risk factor control in participants with obesity were also compared with CKD incidence in matched normal weight participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up period of 10.8 years, 3954 cases of incident CKD were reported in participants with obesity and 1498 cases in matched persons of normal body mass index (BMI).
• In a stepwise pattern, optimal control of each additional risk factor was associated with 11% (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.91) reduction in the incidence of CKD events, down to a 49% reduction in CKD incidence (aHR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43-0.61) for combined control of all six risk factors in participants with obesity.
• The protective effect of combined control of risk factors was more pronounced in men vs women, in those with lower vs higher healthy diet scores, and in users vs nonusers of diabetes medication.
• A similar stepwise pattern emerged between the number of risk factors controlled and CKD risk in participants with obesity compared with matched individuals of normal BMI, with the excess CKD risk eliminated in participants with obesity with six risk factors under control.

IN PRACTICE:

“Comprehensive control of risk factors might effectively neutralize the excessive CKD risk associated with obesity, emphasizing the potential of a joint management approach in the prevention of CKD in this population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rui Tang, MS, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana. It was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The evaluated risk factors for CKD were arbitrarily selected, which may not represent the ideal group. The study did not consider the time-varying effect of joint risk factor control owing to the lack of some variables such as A1c. The generalizability of the findings was limited because over 90% of the UK Biobank cohort is composed of White people and individuals with healthier behaviors compared with the overall UK population.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I’d like to pose a question: When should doctors retire? When, as practicing physicians or surgeons, do we become too old to deliver competent service? 

You will be amazed to hear, those of you who have listened to my videos before — and although it is a matter of public knowledge — that I’m 68. I know it’s impossible to imagine, due to this youthful appearance, visage, and so on, but I am. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years; therefore, I need to think a little about retirement. 

There are two elements of this for me. I’m a university professor, and in Oxford we did vote, as a democracy of scholars, to have a mandatory retirement age around 68. This is so that we can bring new blood forward so that we can create the space to promote new professors, to bring youngsters in to make new ideas, and to get rid of us fusty old lot. 

The other argument would be, of course, that we are wise, we’re experienced, we are world-weary, and we’re successful — otherwise, we wouldn’t have lasted as academics as long. Nevertheless, we voted to do that. 

It’s possible to have a discussion with the university to extend this, and for those of us who are clinical academics, I have an honorary appointment as a consultant cancer physician in the hospital and my university professorial appointment, too.

I can extend it probably until I’m about 70. It feels like a nice, round number at which to retire — somewhat arbitrarily, one would admit. But does that feel right? 

In the United States, more than 25% of the physician workforce is over the age of 65. There are many studies showing that there is a 20% cognitive decline for most individuals between the ages of 45 and 65.

Are we as capable as an elderly workforce as once we were? Clearly, it’s hardly individualistic. It depends on each of our own health status, where we started from, and so on, but are there any general rules that we can apply? I think these are starting to creep in around the sense of revalidation.

In the United Kingdom, we have a General Medical Council (GMC). I need to have a license to practice from the GMC and a sense of fitness to practice. I have annual appraisals within the hospital system, in which I explore delivery of care, how I’m doing as a mentor, am I reaching the milestones I’ve set in terms of academic achievements, and so on.

This is a peer-to-peer process. We have senior physicians — people like myself — who act as appraisers to support our colleagues and to maintain that sense of fitness to practice. Every 5 years, I’m revalidated by the GMC. They take account of the annual appraisals and a report made by the senior physician within my hospital network who’s a so-called designated person.

These two elements come together with patient feedback, with 360-degree feedback from colleagues, and so on. This is quite a firmly regulated system that I think works. Our mandatory retirement age of 65 has gone. That was phased out by the government. In fact, our NHS is making an effort to retain older elders in the workforce.

They see the benefits of mentorship, experience, leadership, and networks. At a time when the majority of NHS are actively seeking to retire when 65, the NHS is trying to retain and pull back those of us who have been around for that wee bit longer and who still feel committed to doing it. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. There’s variation from country to country. I know that, in Australia, they’re talking about annual appraisals of doctors over the age of 70. I’d be very interested to hear what you think is likely to happen in the United States. 

I think our system works pretty well, as long as you’re within the NHS and hospital system. If you wanted to still practice, but practice privately, you would still have to find somebody who’d be prepared to conduct appraisals and so on outside of the NHS. It’s an interesting area. 

For myself, I still feel competent. Patients seem to like me. That’s an objective assessment by this 360-degree thing in which patients reflected very positively, indeed, in my approach to the delivery of the care and so on, as did colleagues. I’m still publishing, I go to meetings, I cheer things, bits and bobs. I’d say I’m a wee bit unusual in terms of still having a strong academic profile in doing stuff.

It’s an interesting question. Richard Doll, one of the world’s great epidemiologists who, of course, was the dominant discoverer of the link between smoking and lung cancer, was attending seminars, sitting in the front row, and coming into university 3 days a week at age 90, continuing to be contributory with his extraordinarily sharp intellect and vast, vast experience.

When I think of experience, all young cancer doctors are now immunologists. When I was a young doctor, I was a clinical pharmacologist. There are many lessons and tricks that I learned which I do need to pass on to the younger generation of today. What do you think? Should there be a mandatory retirement age? How do we best measure, assess, and revalidate elderly physicians and surgeons? How can we continue to contribute to those who choose to do so? For the time being, as always, thanks for listening.
 

Dr. Kerr is professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford, and professor of cancer medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom. He has disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (Board of Directors); Afrox (charity; Trustee); GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (Consultant), Genomic Health; Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I’d like to pose a question: When should doctors retire? When, as practicing physicians or surgeons, do we become too old to deliver competent service? 

You will be amazed to hear, those of you who have listened to my videos before — and although it is a matter of public knowledge — that I’m 68. I know it’s impossible to imagine, due to this youthful appearance, visage, and so on, but I am. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years; therefore, I need to think a little about retirement. 

There are two elements of this for me. I’m a university professor, and in Oxford we did vote, as a democracy of scholars, to have a mandatory retirement age around 68. This is so that we can bring new blood forward so that we can create the space to promote new professors, to bring youngsters in to make new ideas, and to get rid of us fusty old lot. 

The other argument would be, of course, that we are wise, we’re experienced, we are world-weary, and we’re successful — otherwise, we wouldn’t have lasted as academics as long. Nevertheless, we voted to do that. 

It’s possible to have a discussion with the university to extend this, and for those of us who are clinical academics, I have an honorary appointment as a consultant cancer physician in the hospital and my university professorial appointment, too.

I can extend it probably until I’m about 70. It feels like a nice, round number at which to retire — somewhat arbitrarily, one would admit. But does that feel right? 

In the United States, more than 25% of the physician workforce is over the age of 65. There are many studies showing that there is a 20% cognitive decline for most individuals between the ages of 45 and 65.

Are we as capable as an elderly workforce as once we were? Clearly, it’s hardly individualistic. It depends on each of our own health status, where we started from, and so on, but are there any general rules that we can apply? I think these are starting to creep in around the sense of revalidation.

In the United Kingdom, we have a General Medical Council (GMC). I need to have a license to practice from the GMC and a sense of fitness to practice. I have annual appraisals within the hospital system, in which I explore delivery of care, how I’m doing as a mentor, am I reaching the milestones I’ve set in terms of academic achievements, and so on.

This is a peer-to-peer process. We have senior physicians — people like myself — who act as appraisers to support our colleagues and to maintain that sense of fitness to practice. Every 5 years, I’m revalidated by the GMC. They take account of the annual appraisals and a report made by the senior physician within my hospital network who’s a so-called designated person.

These two elements come together with patient feedback, with 360-degree feedback from colleagues, and so on. This is quite a firmly regulated system that I think works. Our mandatory retirement age of 65 has gone. That was phased out by the government. In fact, our NHS is making an effort to retain older elders in the workforce.

They see the benefits of mentorship, experience, leadership, and networks. At a time when the majority of NHS are actively seeking to retire when 65, the NHS is trying to retain and pull back those of us who have been around for that wee bit longer and who still feel committed to doing it. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. There’s variation from country to country. I know that, in Australia, they’re talking about annual appraisals of doctors over the age of 70. I’d be very interested to hear what you think is likely to happen in the United States. 

I think our system works pretty well, as long as you’re within the NHS and hospital system. If you wanted to still practice, but practice privately, you would still have to find somebody who’d be prepared to conduct appraisals and so on outside of the NHS. It’s an interesting area. 

For myself, I still feel competent. Patients seem to like me. That’s an objective assessment by this 360-degree thing in which patients reflected very positively, indeed, in my approach to the delivery of the care and so on, as did colleagues. I’m still publishing, I go to meetings, I cheer things, bits and bobs. I’d say I’m a wee bit unusual in terms of still having a strong academic profile in doing stuff.

It’s an interesting question. Richard Doll, one of the world’s great epidemiologists who, of course, was the dominant discoverer of the link between smoking and lung cancer, was attending seminars, sitting in the front row, and coming into university 3 days a week at age 90, continuing to be contributory with his extraordinarily sharp intellect and vast, vast experience.

When I think of experience, all young cancer doctors are now immunologists. When I was a young doctor, I was a clinical pharmacologist. There are many lessons and tricks that I learned which I do need to pass on to the younger generation of today. What do you think? Should there be a mandatory retirement age? How do we best measure, assess, and revalidate elderly physicians and surgeons? How can we continue to contribute to those who choose to do so? For the time being, as always, thanks for listening.
 

Dr. Kerr is professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford, and professor of cancer medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom. He has disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (Board of Directors); Afrox (charity; Trustee); GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (Consultant), Genomic Health; Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I’d like to pose a question: When should doctors retire? When, as practicing physicians or surgeons, do we become too old to deliver competent service? 

You will be amazed to hear, those of you who have listened to my videos before — and although it is a matter of public knowledge — that I’m 68. I know it’s impossible to imagine, due to this youthful appearance, visage, and so on, but I am. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years; therefore, I need to think a little about retirement. 

There are two elements of this for me. I’m a university professor, and in Oxford we did vote, as a democracy of scholars, to have a mandatory retirement age around 68. This is so that we can bring new blood forward so that we can create the space to promote new professors, to bring youngsters in to make new ideas, and to get rid of us fusty old lot. 

The other argument would be, of course, that we are wise, we’re experienced, we are world-weary, and we’re successful — otherwise, we wouldn’t have lasted as academics as long. Nevertheless, we voted to do that. 

It’s possible to have a discussion with the university to extend this, and for those of us who are clinical academics, I have an honorary appointment as a consultant cancer physician in the hospital and my university professorial appointment, too.

I can extend it probably until I’m about 70. It feels like a nice, round number at which to retire — somewhat arbitrarily, one would admit. But does that feel right? 

In the United States, more than 25% of the physician workforce is over the age of 65. There are many studies showing that there is a 20% cognitive decline for most individuals between the ages of 45 and 65.

Are we as capable as an elderly workforce as once we were? Clearly, it’s hardly individualistic. It depends on each of our own health status, where we started from, and so on, but are there any general rules that we can apply? I think these are starting to creep in around the sense of revalidation.

In the United Kingdom, we have a General Medical Council (GMC). I need to have a license to practice from the GMC and a sense of fitness to practice. I have annual appraisals within the hospital system, in which I explore delivery of care, how I’m doing as a mentor, am I reaching the milestones I’ve set in terms of academic achievements, and so on.

This is a peer-to-peer process. We have senior physicians — people like myself — who act as appraisers to support our colleagues and to maintain that sense of fitness to practice. Every 5 years, I’m revalidated by the GMC. They take account of the annual appraisals and a report made by the senior physician within my hospital network who’s a so-called designated person.

These two elements come together with patient feedback, with 360-degree feedback from colleagues, and so on. This is quite a firmly regulated system that I think works. Our mandatory retirement age of 65 has gone. That was phased out by the government. In fact, our NHS is making an effort to retain older elders in the workforce.

They see the benefits of mentorship, experience, leadership, and networks. At a time when the majority of NHS are actively seeking to retire when 65, the NHS is trying to retain and pull back those of us who have been around for that wee bit longer and who still feel committed to doing it. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. There’s variation from country to country. I know that, in Australia, they’re talking about annual appraisals of doctors over the age of 70. I’d be very interested to hear what you think is likely to happen in the United States. 

I think our system works pretty well, as long as you’re within the NHS and hospital system. If you wanted to still practice, but practice privately, you would still have to find somebody who’d be prepared to conduct appraisals and so on outside of the NHS. It’s an interesting area. 

For myself, I still feel competent. Patients seem to like me. That’s an objective assessment by this 360-degree thing in which patients reflected very positively, indeed, in my approach to the delivery of the care and so on, as did colleagues. I’m still publishing, I go to meetings, I cheer things, bits and bobs. I’d say I’m a wee bit unusual in terms of still having a strong academic profile in doing stuff.

It’s an interesting question. Richard Doll, one of the world’s great epidemiologists who, of course, was the dominant discoverer of the link between smoking and lung cancer, was attending seminars, sitting in the front row, and coming into university 3 days a week at age 90, continuing to be contributory with his extraordinarily sharp intellect and vast, vast experience.

When I think of experience, all young cancer doctors are now immunologists. When I was a young doctor, I was a clinical pharmacologist. There are many lessons and tricks that I learned which I do need to pass on to the younger generation of today. What do you think? Should there be a mandatory retirement age? How do we best measure, assess, and revalidate elderly physicians and surgeons? How can we continue to contribute to those who choose to do so? For the time being, as always, thanks for listening.
 

Dr. Kerr is professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford, and professor of cancer medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom. He has disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (Board of Directors); Afrox (charity; Trustee); GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (Consultant), Genomic Health; Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

You’ve been sued for medical malpractice. If you are a physician in the United States, that is not an unlikely scenario.

An analysis by the American Medical Association shows that almost half of all physicians are sued by the time they reach 54. In some specialties, such as ob.gyn., one is almost guaranteed to be sued at some point.

But that’s what medical malpractice insurance is for, right? Your medical malpractice insurer will assign an attorney to take care of you and help you through this situation. Won’t they?

Maybe so, but the attorney and the claims representative your insurer assigns to your case may have a different idea about how to proceed than you do. Though the defense attorney assigned to you represents you, he or she gets paid by the insurance carrier.

This can create a conflict when your defense counsel and your insurance claims representative aim to take your case in a direction you don’t like.

Issues dividing defendant physicians, their insurers, and insurance company lawyers who represent them often arise from conflicting perspectives on risk, financial considerations, and reputation damage. Disagreements might include:

• Choice of expert witnesses
• Tactical decisions related to trial strategy
• Public relations considerations
• Admissions of liability
• Allocation of resources

To Settle or Not?

One of the most challenging — and common — disagreements is whether to settle the case.

Sometimes a malpractice insurer wants to settle the case against the defendant doctor’s wishes. Or the doctor wants to settle but is pushed into going to trial. In the following case, one doctor had to face the consequences of a decision he didn’t even make.
 

The Underlying Medical Malpractice Case

Dr. D was sued by a patient who had allegedly called Dr. D’s office six times in 2 days complaining of intermittent chest pain.

Dr. D had been swamped with patients and couldn’t squeeze this patient in for an office visit, but he did call back. The patient later claimed that during the call he told the doctor he was suffering from chest pain. The doctor recalled that the patient had complained of abdominal discomfort that began after he had exercised.

The physician wrote a prescription for an ECG at the local hospital and called to ensure that the patient could just walk in. The ECG was allegedly abnormal but was not read as representing an impending or current heart attack. Later that evening, however, the patient went to the emergency department of another hospital where it was confirmed that he had suffered a heart attack. The patient underwent cardiac catheterization and stent placement to address a blockage in his left anterior descending artery.

The patient subsequently sued Dr. D and the hospital where he had the original ECG. Dr. D contacted his medical malpractice insurance company. The insurance company assigned an attorney to represent Dr. D. Discovery in the case began.

The plaintiff’s own medical expert testified in a deposition that there was no way for the heart attack to have been prevented and that the treatment would have been the same either way. But Dr. D could not find a record of the phone calls with the patient, and he had not noted his conversation the patient in their medical records.

Dr. D held a policy for $1 million, and his state had a fund that would kick in an additional $1 million. But the plaintiffs demanded $4 million to settle.

A month before trial, the plaintiff’s attorney sent a threatening letter to Dr. D’s attorney warning him that Dr. D was underinsured and suggesting that it would be in the physician’s best interests to settle.

“I want to stress to you that it is not my desire to harm your client’s reputation or to destroy his business,” wrote the plaintiff’s attorney. “However, now is the time to avoid consequences such as these by making a good faith effort to get this case resolved.”

The letter went on to note that the defense attorney should give Dr. D a copy of the letter so that everyone would be aware of the potential consequences of an award against Dr. D in excess of his limits of insurance coverage. The plaintiff’s attorney even suggested that Dr. D should retain personal counsel.

Dr. D’s defense attorney downplayed the letter and assured him that there was no reason to worry.

Meanwhile the case inched closer to trial.

The codefendant hospital settled with the plaintiff on the night before jury selection, leaving Dr. D in the uncomfortable position of being the only defendant in the case. At this point, Dr. D decided he would like to settle, and he sent his attorney an email telling him so. But the attorney instead referred him to an insurance company claims.

Just days before the trial was to start, Dr. D repeatedly told the claims representative assigned to his claim that he did not want to go to trial but rather wanted to settle. The representative told Dr. D that he had no choice in whether the action settled.

A committee at the insurance company had decided to proceed with the trial rather than settle.

The trial proved a painful debacle for Dr. D. His attorney’s idea of showing a “gotcha” video of the allegedly permanently injured plaintiff carrying a large, heavy box backfired when the jury was shown by the plaintiff that the box actually contained ice cream cones and weighed very little.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff offered to settle for $1 million. On the first day of trial, they lowered that amount to $750,000, yet the defense attorney did not settle the case, and it proceeded to a jury verdict. The jury awarded the plaintiff over $4 million — well in excess of Dr. D’s policy limits.
 

The Follow-up

Dr. D was horrified, but the insurance company claims representative said the insurer would promptly offer $2 million in available insurance coverage to settle the case post verdict. This did not happen. Instead, the insurer chose to appeal the verdict against Dr. D’s wishes.

Ultimately, Dr. D was forced to hire his own lawyer. He ultimately sued the insurance company for breach of contract and bad faith.

The insurance company eventually attempted to settle with the plaintiffs’ counsel, but the plaintiff refused to accept the available insurance coverage. The insurance carrier still has not posted the entire appeal bond. The case is still pending.
 

Protecting Yourself

The lesson from Dr. D’s experience: Understand that the insurance company is not your friend. It’s a business looking out for its own interests.

The plaintiff’s attorney was absolutely correct in suggesting that Dr. D retain his own attorney to represent his own interests. You should hire your own lawyer when:

• You disagree with your insurer on how to proceed in a case.
• You receive a demand that exceeds your available insurance coverage or for damages that may not be covered by your policy, such as punitive damages.
• Your insurance carrier attempts to deny insurance coverage for your claim or sends you a letter stating that it is “reserving its rights” not to cover or to limit coverage for your claim.

Retaining independent counsel protects your interests, not those of your insurance company.

Independent counsel can give you a second opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of your claim, help you prepare for your deposition, and attend court dates with you to ensure that you are completely protected.

Independent counsel can challenge your insurance company’s decision to deny or limit your insurance coverage and ensure that you receive all of the benefits to which you are entitled under your insurance policy. Some policies may include an independent lawyer to be paid for by your insurance carrier in case of a conflicts.

The most important takeaway? Your medical malpractice insurance carrier is not your friend, so act accordingly in times of conflict.

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

You’ve been sued for medical malpractice. If you are a physician in the United States, that is not an unlikely scenario.

An analysis by the American Medical Association shows that almost half of all physicians are sued by the time they reach 54. In some specialties, such as ob.gyn., one is almost guaranteed to be sued at some point.

But that’s what medical malpractice insurance is for, right? Your medical malpractice insurer will assign an attorney to take care of you and help you through this situation. Won’t they?

Maybe so, but the attorney and the claims representative your insurer assigns to your case may have a different idea about how to proceed than you do. Though the defense attorney assigned to you represents you, he or she gets paid by the insurance carrier.

This can create a conflict when your defense counsel and your insurance claims representative aim to take your case in a direction you don’t like.

Issues dividing defendant physicians, their insurers, and insurance company lawyers who represent them often arise from conflicting perspectives on risk, financial considerations, and reputation damage. Disagreements might include:

• Choice of expert witnesses
• Tactical decisions related to trial strategy
• Public relations considerations
• Admissions of liability
• Allocation of resources

To Settle or Not?

One of the most challenging — and common — disagreements is whether to settle the case.

Sometimes a malpractice insurer wants to settle the case against the defendant doctor’s wishes. Or the doctor wants to settle but is pushed into going to trial. In the following case, one doctor had to face the consequences of a decision he didn’t even make.
 

The Underlying Medical Malpractice Case

Dr. D was sued by a patient who had allegedly called Dr. D’s office six times in 2 days complaining of intermittent chest pain.

Dr. D had been swamped with patients and couldn’t squeeze this patient in for an office visit, but he did call back. The patient later claimed that during the call he told the doctor he was suffering from chest pain. The doctor recalled that the patient had complained of abdominal discomfort that began after he had exercised.

The physician wrote a prescription for an ECG at the local hospital and called to ensure that the patient could just walk in. The ECG was allegedly abnormal but was not read as representing an impending or current heart attack. Later that evening, however, the patient went to the emergency department of another hospital where it was confirmed that he had suffered a heart attack. The patient underwent cardiac catheterization and stent placement to address a blockage in his left anterior descending artery.

The patient subsequently sued Dr. D and the hospital where he had the original ECG. Dr. D contacted his medical malpractice insurance company. The insurance company assigned an attorney to represent Dr. D. Discovery in the case began.

The plaintiff’s own medical expert testified in a deposition that there was no way for the heart attack to have been prevented and that the treatment would have been the same either way. But Dr. D could not find a record of the phone calls with the patient, and he had not noted his conversation the patient in their medical records.

Dr. D held a policy for $1 million, and his state had a fund that would kick in an additional $1 million. But the plaintiffs demanded $4 million to settle.

A month before trial, the plaintiff’s attorney sent a threatening letter to Dr. D’s attorney warning him that Dr. D was underinsured and suggesting that it would be in the physician’s best interests to settle.

“I want to stress to you that it is not my desire to harm your client’s reputation or to destroy his business,” wrote the plaintiff’s attorney. “However, now is the time to avoid consequences such as these by making a good faith effort to get this case resolved.”

The letter went on to note that the defense attorney should give Dr. D a copy of the letter so that everyone would be aware of the potential consequences of an award against Dr. D in excess of his limits of insurance coverage. The plaintiff’s attorney even suggested that Dr. D should retain personal counsel.

Dr. D’s defense attorney downplayed the letter and assured him that there was no reason to worry.

Meanwhile the case inched closer to trial.

The codefendant hospital settled with the plaintiff on the night before jury selection, leaving Dr. D in the uncomfortable position of being the only defendant in the case. At this point, Dr. D decided he would like to settle, and he sent his attorney an email telling him so. But the attorney instead referred him to an insurance company claims.

Just days before the trial was to start, Dr. D repeatedly told the claims representative assigned to his claim that he did not want to go to trial but rather wanted to settle. The representative told Dr. D that he had no choice in whether the action settled.

A committee at the insurance company had decided to proceed with the trial rather than settle.

The trial proved a painful debacle for Dr. D. His attorney’s idea of showing a “gotcha” video of the allegedly permanently injured plaintiff carrying a large, heavy box backfired when the jury was shown by the plaintiff that the box actually contained ice cream cones and weighed very little.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff offered to settle for $1 million. On the first day of trial, they lowered that amount to $750,000, yet the defense attorney did not settle the case, and it proceeded to a jury verdict. The jury awarded the plaintiff over $4 million — well in excess of Dr. D’s policy limits.
 

The Follow-up

Dr. D was horrified, but the insurance company claims representative said the insurer would promptly offer $2 million in available insurance coverage to settle the case post verdict. This did not happen. Instead, the insurer chose to appeal the verdict against Dr. D’s wishes.

Ultimately, Dr. D was forced to hire his own lawyer. He ultimately sued the insurance company for breach of contract and bad faith.

The insurance company eventually attempted to settle with the plaintiffs’ counsel, but the plaintiff refused to accept the available insurance coverage. The insurance carrier still has not posted the entire appeal bond. The case is still pending.
 

Protecting Yourself

The lesson from Dr. D’s experience: Understand that the insurance company is not your friend. It’s a business looking out for its own interests.

The plaintiff’s attorney was absolutely correct in suggesting that Dr. D retain his own attorney to represent his own interests. You should hire your own lawyer when:

• You disagree with your insurer on how to proceed in a case.
• You receive a demand that exceeds your available insurance coverage or for damages that may not be covered by your policy, such as punitive damages.
• Your insurance carrier attempts to deny insurance coverage for your claim or sends you a letter stating that it is “reserving its rights” not to cover or to limit coverage for your claim.

Retaining independent counsel protects your interests, not those of your insurance company.

Independent counsel can give you a second opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of your claim, help you prepare for your deposition, and attend court dates with you to ensure that you are completely protected.

Independent counsel can challenge your insurance company’s decision to deny or limit your insurance coverage and ensure that you receive all of the benefits to which you are entitled under your insurance policy. Some policies may include an independent lawyer to be paid for by your insurance carrier in case of a conflicts.

The most important takeaway? Your medical malpractice insurance carrier is not your friend, so act accordingly in times of conflict.

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

You’ve been sued for medical malpractice. If you are a physician in the United States, that is not an unlikely scenario.

An analysis by the American Medical Association shows that almost half of all physicians are sued by the time they reach 54. In some specialties, such as ob.gyn., one is almost guaranteed to be sued at some point.

But that’s what medical malpractice insurance is for, right? Your medical malpractice insurer will assign an attorney to take care of you and help you through this situation. Won’t they?

Maybe so, but the attorney and the claims representative your insurer assigns to your case may have a different idea about how to proceed than you do. Though the defense attorney assigned to you represents you, he or she gets paid by the insurance carrier.

This can create a conflict when your defense counsel and your insurance claims representative aim to take your case in a direction you don’t like.

Issues dividing defendant physicians, their insurers, and insurance company lawyers who represent them often arise from conflicting perspectives on risk, financial considerations, and reputation damage. Disagreements might include:

• Choice of expert witnesses
• Tactical decisions related to trial strategy
• Public relations considerations
• Admissions of liability
• Allocation of resources

To Settle or Not?

One of the most challenging — and common — disagreements is whether to settle the case.

Sometimes a malpractice insurer wants to settle the case against the defendant doctor’s wishes. Or the doctor wants to settle but is pushed into going to trial. In the following case, one doctor had to face the consequences of a decision he didn’t even make.
 

The Underlying Medical Malpractice Case

Dr. D was sued by a patient who had allegedly called Dr. D’s office six times in 2 days complaining of intermittent chest pain.

Dr. D had been swamped with patients and couldn’t squeeze this patient in for an office visit, but he did call back. The patient later claimed that during the call he told the doctor he was suffering from chest pain. The doctor recalled that the patient had complained of abdominal discomfort that began after he had exercised.

The physician wrote a prescription for an ECG at the local hospital and called to ensure that the patient could just walk in. The ECG was allegedly abnormal but was not read as representing an impending or current heart attack. Later that evening, however, the patient went to the emergency department of another hospital where it was confirmed that he had suffered a heart attack. The patient underwent cardiac catheterization and stent placement to address a blockage in his left anterior descending artery.

The patient subsequently sued Dr. D and the hospital where he had the original ECG. Dr. D contacted his medical malpractice insurance company. The insurance company assigned an attorney to represent Dr. D. Discovery in the case began.

The plaintiff’s own medical expert testified in a deposition that there was no way for the heart attack to have been prevented and that the treatment would have been the same either way. But Dr. D could not find a record of the phone calls with the patient, and he had not noted his conversation the patient in their medical records.

Dr. D held a policy for $1 million, and his state had a fund that would kick in an additional $1 million. But the plaintiffs demanded $4 million to settle.

A month before trial, the plaintiff’s attorney sent a threatening letter to Dr. D’s attorney warning him that Dr. D was underinsured and suggesting that it would be in the physician’s best interests to settle.

“I want to stress to you that it is not my desire to harm your client’s reputation or to destroy his business,” wrote the plaintiff’s attorney. “However, now is the time to avoid consequences such as these by making a good faith effort to get this case resolved.”

The letter went on to note that the defense attorney should give Dr. D a copy of the letter so that everyone would be aware of the potential consequences of an award against Dr. D in excess of his limits of insurance coverage. The plaintiff’s attorney even suggested that Dr. D should retain personal counsel.

Dr. D’s defense attorney downplayed the letter and assured him that there was no reason to worry.

Meanwhile the case inched closer to trial.

The codefendant hospital settled with the plaintiff on the night before jury selection, leaving Dr. D in the uncomfortable position of being the only defendant in the case. At this point, Dr. D decided he would like to settle, and he sent his attorney an email telling him so. But the attorney instead referred him to an insurance company claims.

Just days before the trial was to start, Dr. D repeatedly told the claims representative assigned to his claim that he did not want to go to trial but rather wanted to settle. The representative told Dr. D that he had no choice in whether the action settled.

A committee at the insurance company had decided to proceed with the trial rather than settle.

The trial proved a painful debacle for Dr. D. His attorney’s idea of showing a “gotcha” video of the allegedly permanently injured plaintiff carrying a large, heavy box backfired when the jury was shown by the plaintiff that the box actually contained ice cream cones and weighed very little.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff offered to settle for $1 million. On the first day of trial, they lowered that amount to $750,000, yet the defense attorney did not settle the case, and it proceeded to a jury verdict. The jury awarded the plaintiff over $4 million — well in excess of Dr. D’s policy limits.
 

The Follow-up

Dr. D was horrified, but the insurance company claims representative said the insurer would promptly offer $2 million in available insurance coverage to settle the case post verdict. This did not happen. Instead, the insurer chose to appeal the verdict against Dr. D’s wishes.

Ultimately, Dr. D was forced to hire his own lawyer. He ultimately sued the insurance company for breach of contract and bad faith.

The insurance company eventually attempted to settle with the plaintiffs’ counsel, but the plaintiff refused to accept the available insurance coverage. The insurance carrier still has not posted the entire appeal bond. The case is still pending.
 

Protecting Yourself

The lesson from Dr. D’s experience: Understand that the insurance company is not your friend. It’s a business looking out for its own interests.

The plaintiff’s attorney was absolutely correct in suggesting that Dr. D retain his own attorney to represent his own interests. You should hire your own lawyer when:

• You disagree with your insurer on how to proceed in a case.
• You receive a demand that exceeds your available insurance coverage or for damages that may not be covered by your policy, such as punitive damages.
• Your insurance carrier attempts to deny insurance coverage for your claim or sends you a letter stating that it is “reserving its rights” not to cover or to limit coverage for your claim.

Retaining independent counsel protects your interests, not those of your insurance company.

Independent counsel can give you a second opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of your claim, help you prepare for your deposition, and attend court dates with you to ensure that you are completely protected.

Independent counsel can challenge your insurance company’s decision to deny or limit your insurance coverage and ensure that you receive all of the benefits to which you are entitled under your insurance policy. Some policies may include an independent lawyer to be paid for by your insurance carrier in case of a conflicts.

The most important takeaway? Your medical malpractice insurance carrier is not your friend, so act accordingly in times of conflict.

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

Each and every day, 1 billion people on this planet ingest a particular psychoactive substance. This chemical has fairly profound physiologic effects. It increases levels of nitric oxide in the blood, leads to vasodilation, and, of course, makes you feel more awake. The substance comes in many forms but almost always in a liquid medium. Do you have it yet? That’s right. The substance is caffeine, quite possibly the healthiest recreational drug that has ever been discovered.

This might be my New England upbringing speaking, but when it comes to lifestyle and health, one of the rules I’ve internalized is that things that are pleasurable are generally bad for you. I know, I know — some of you love to exercise. Some of you love doing crosswords. But you know what I mean. I’m talking French fries, smoked meats, drugs, smoking, alcohol, binge-watching Firefly. You’d be suspicious if a study came out suggesting that eating ice cream in bed reduces your risk for heart attack, and so would I. So I’m always on the lookout for those unicorns of lifestyle factors, those rare things that you want to do and are also good for you.

So far, the data are strong for three things: sleeping, (safe) sexual activity, and coffee. You’ll have to stay tuned for articles about the first two. Today, we’re brewing up some deeper insights about the power of java.

I was inspired to write this article because of a paper, “Habitual Coffee, Tea, and Caffeine Consumption, Circulating Metabolites, and the Risk of Cardiometabolic Multimorbidity,” appearing September 17 in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (JCEM). This study may be the most comprehensive study yet to go beyond the simple associations between caffeine intake and outcomes, to try to answer the question of how this miraculous substance does what it does.

This is not the first study to suggest that coffee intake may be beneficial. A 2013 meta-analysis summarized the results of 36 studies with more than a million participants and found a U-shaped relationship between coffee intake and cardiovascular risk. The sweet spot was at three to five cups a day; people drinking that much coffee had about a 15% reduced risk for cardiovascular disease compared with nondrinkers.

AHA/ASA Journals

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

Dr. Wilson, associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator, reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Each and every day, 1 billion people on this planet ingest a particular psychoactive substance. This chemical has fairly profound physiologic effects. It increases levels of nitric oxide in the blood, leads to vasodilation, and, of course, makes you feel more awake. The substance comes in many forms but almost always in a liquid medium. Do you have it yet? That’s right. The substance is caffeine, quite possibly the healthiest recreational drug that has ever been discovered.

This might be my New England upbringing speaking, but when it comes to lifestyle and health, one of the rules I’ve internalized is that things that are pleasurable are generally bad for you. I know, I know — some of you love to exercise. Some of you love doing crosswords. But you know what I mean. I’m talking French fries, smoked meats, drugs, smoking, alcohol, binge-watching Firefly. You’d be suspicious if a study came out suggesting that eating ice cream in bed reduces your risk for heart attack, and so would I. So I’m always on the lookout for those unicorns of lifestyle factors, those rare things that you want to do and are also good for you.

So far, the data are strong for three things: sleeping, (safe) sexual activity, and coffee. You’ll have to stay tuned for articles about the first two. Today, we’re brewing up some deeper insights about the power of java.

I was inspired to write this article because of a paper, “Habitual Coffee, Tea, and Caffeine Consumption, Circulating Metabolites, and the Risk of Cardiometabolic Multimorbidity,” appearing September 17 in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (JCEM). This study may be the most comprehensive study yet to go beyond the simple associations between caffeine intake and outcomes, to try to answer the question of how this miraculous substance does what it does.

This is not the first study to suggest that coffee intake may be beneficial. A 2013 meta-analysis summarized the results of 36 studies with more than a million participants and found a U-shaped relationship between coffee intake and cardiovascular risk. The sweet spot was at three to five cups a day; people drinking that much coffee had about a 15% reduced risk for cardiovascular disease compared with nondrinkers.

AHA/ASA Journals

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

Dr. Wilson, associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator, reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Each and every day, 1 billion people on this planet ingest a particular psychoactive substance. This chemical has fairly profound physiologic effects. It increases levels of nitric oxide in the blood, leads to vasodilation, and, of course, makes you feel more awake. The substance comes in many forms but almost always in a liquid medium. Do you have it yet? That’s right. The substance is caffeine, quite possibly the healthiest recreational drug that has ever been discovered.

This might be my New England upbringing speaking, but when it comes to lifestyle and health, one of the rules I’ve internalized is that things that are pleasurable are generally bad for you. I know, I know — some of you love to exercise. Some of you love doing crosswords. But you know what I mean. I’m talking French fries, smoked meats, drugs, smoking, alcohol, binge-watching Firefly. You’d be suspicious if a study came out suggesting that eating ice cream in bed reduces your risk for heart attack, and so would I. So I’m always on the lookout for those unicorns of lifestyle factors, those rare things that you want to do and are also good for you.

So far, the data are strong for three things: sleeping, (safe) sexual activity, and coffee. You’ll have to stay tuned for articles about the first two. Today, we’re brewing up some deeper insights about the power of java.

I was inspired to write this article because of a paper, “Habitual Coffee, Tea, and Caffeine Consumption, Circulating Metabolites, and the Risk of Cardiometabolic Multimorbidity,” appearing September 17 in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (JCEM). This study may be the most comprehensive study yet to go beyond the simple associations between caffeine intake and outcomes, to try to answer the question of how this miraculous substance does what it does.

This is not the first study to suggest that coffee intake may be beneficial. A 2013 meta-analysis summarized the results of 36 studies with more than a million participants and found a U-shaped relationship between coffee intake and cardiovascular risk. The sweet spot was at three to five cups a day; people drinking that much coffee had about a 15% reduced risk for cardiovascular disease compared with nondrinkers.

AHA/ASA Journals

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

Dr. Wilson, associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator, reported no conflicts of interest.

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