User login
-
Not all white coats are doctors: Why titles are important at the doctor’s office
says Cyndy Flores, a physician assistant (PA) in the emergency department at Vituity, Emeryville, Calif. “Sometimes, I can go through a complete history and physical, explain a treatment plan, and perform a procedure, and [the patient] will say, ‘Thank you, doctor.’ ”
“I always come back and say, ‘You’re very welcome, but my name is Cyndy, and I’m the PA.’ ”
Ms. Flores is used to patients calling her “doctor” when she greets them. She typically offers a quick correction and moves on with the appointment.
With 355,000 nurse practitioners (NPs) and 149,000 certified PAs practicing in the United States, it’s more common than ever for health care providers who don’t go by the title “doctor” to diagnose and treat patients.
A recent report, Evolving Scope of Practice, found that more than 70% of physicians were “somewhat satisfied to very satisfied” with patient treatment by PAs and NPs.
But for patients, having a health care team that includes physicians, NPs, and PAs can be confusing. Additionally, it creates a need for education about their correct titles and roles in patient care.
“It’s really important for patients to understand who is taking care of them,” Ms. Flores says.
Education starts in your practice
Educating patients about the roles of different providers on their health care team starts long before patients enter the exam room, Ms. Flores explains.
Some patients may not understand the difference, some may just forget because they’re used to calling all providers doctors, and others may find it awkward to use a provider’s first name or not know the respectful way to address an NP or a PA.
Practices can help by listing the names and biographies of the health care team on the clinic website. In addition, when patients call for an appointment, Ms. Flores believes front desk staff can reinforce that information. When offering appointments with a physician, NP, or PA, clearly use the practitioner’s title and reiterate it throughout the conversation. For example, “Would you like to see our nurse practitioner, Alice Smith, next week?” or “So, our physician assistant Mrs. Jones will see you Friday at 3 PM.”
The report also found that 76% of patients expressed a preference to see a physician over a PA, and 71% expressed a preference to see a physician over an NP, but offering appointments with nonphysician providers is part of the education process.
“Some families are super savvy and know the differences between nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and doctors, and ... there are families who don’t understand those titles, [and] we need to explain what they do in our practice,” adds Nicole Aaronson, MD, MBA, attending surgeon at Nemours Children’s Health of Delaware. Dr. Aaronson believes there’s an opportunity for educating patients when speaking about all the available providers they may see.
Hanging posters or using brochures in the clinic or hospital is another effective way to reinforce the roles of various providers on the care team. Include biographies and educational information on practice materials and video programs running in the waiting room.
“Patients mean it [calling everyone doctor] as a way to respectfully address the nurse practitioner or physician assistant rather than meaning it as a denigration of the physician,” Dr. Aaronson says. “But everyone appreciates being called by the correct title.”
Helping patients understand the members of their care team and the correct titles to use for those health care professionals could also help patients feel more confident about their health care experience.
“Patients really like knowing that there are specialists in each of the areas taking care of them,” Ms. Flores says. “I think that conveys a feeling of trust in your provider.”
Not everyone is a doctor
Even when PAs and NPs remind patients of their roles and reinforce the use of their preferred names, there will still be patients who continue referring to their nonphysician provider as “doctor.”
“There’s a perception that anyone who walks into a room with a stethoscope is your doctor,” says Graig Straus, DNP, an NP and president and CEO of Rockland Urgent Care Family Health NP, P.C., West Haverstraw, N.Y. “You do get a little bit of burnout correcting people all the time.”
Dr. Straus, who earned his doctorate in nursing practice, notes that patients using the honorific with him aren’t incorrect, but he still educates them on his role within the health care team.
“NPs and PAs have a valuable role to play independently and in concert with the physician,” Dr. Aaronson says. This understanding is essential, as states consider expanding treatment abilities for NPs and PAs.
NPs have expanded treatment abilities or full practice authority in almost half the states, and 31% of the physicians surveyed agreed that NPs should have expanded treatment abilities.
An estimated 1 in 5 states characterizes the physician-PA relationship as collaborative, not supervisory, according to the American Academy of Physician Associates. At the same time, only 39% of physicians surveyed said they favored this trend.
“Patients need great quality care, and there are many different types of providers that can provide that care as part of the team,” Ms. Flores says. “When you have a team taking care of a patient, that patient [gets] the best care possible – and ... that’s why we went into medicine: to deliver high-quality, compassionate care to our patients, and we should all be in this together.”
When practices do their part explaining who is and isn’t a doctor and what each provider’s title and role is and what to call them, and everyone reinforces it, health care becomes not only more manageable for patients to traverse but easier to understand, leading to a better experience.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
says Cyndy Flores, a physician assistant (PA) in the emergency department at Vituity, Emeryville, Calif. “Sometimes, I can go through a complete history and physical, explain a treatment plan, and perform a procedure, and [the patient] will say, ‘Thank you, doctor.’ ”
“I always come back and say, ‘You’re very welcome, but my name is Cyndy, and I’m the PA.’ ”
Ms. Flores is used to patients calling her “doctor” when she greets them. She typically offers a quick correction and moves on with the appointment.
With 355,000 nurse practitioners (NPs) and 149,000 certified PAs practicing in the United States, it’s more common than ever for health care providers who don’t go by the title “doctor” to diagnose and treat patients.
A recent report, Evolving Scope of Practice, found that more than 70% of physicians were “somewhat satisfied to very satisfied” with patient treatment by PAs and NPs.
But for patients, having a health care team that includes physicians, NPs, and PAs can be confusing. Additionally, it creates a need for education about their correct titles and roles in patient care.
“It’s really important for patients to understand who is taking care of them,” Ms. Flores says.
Education starts in your practice
Educating patients about the roles of different providers on their health care team starts long before patients enter the exam room, Ms. Flores explains.
Some patients may not understand the difference, some may just forget because they’re used to calling all providers doctors, and others may find it awkward to use a provider’s first name or not know the respectful way to address an NP or a PA.
Practices can help by listing the names and biographies of the health care team on the clinic website. In addition, when patients call for an appointment, Ms. Flores believes front desk staff can reinforce that information. When offering appointments with a physician, NP, or PA, clearly use the practitioner’s title and reiterate it throughout the conversation. For example, “Would you like to see our nurse practitioner, Alice Smith, next week?” or “So, our physician assistant Mrs. Jones will see you Friday at 3 PM.”
The report also found that 76% of patients expressed a preference to see a physician over a PA, and 71% expressed a preference to see a physician over an NP, but offering appointments with nonphysician providers is part of the education process.
“Some families are super savvy and know the differences between nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and doctors, and ... there are families who don’t understand those titles, [and] we need to explain what they do in our practice,” adds Nicole Aaronson, MD, MBA, attending surgeon at Nemours Children’s Health of Delaware. Dr. Aaronson believes there’s an opportunity for educating patients when speaking about all the available providers they may see.
Hanging posters or using brochures in the clinic or hospital is another effective way to reinforce the roles of various providers on the care team. Include biographies and educational information on practice materials and video programs running in the waiting room.
“Patients mean it [calling everyone doctor] as a way to respectfully address the nurse practitioner or physician assistant rather than meaning it as a denigration of the physician,” Dr. Aaronson says. “But everyone appreciates being called by the correct title.”
Helping patients understand the members of their care team and the correct titles to use for those health care professionals could also help patients feel more confident about their health care experience.
“Patients really like knowing that there are specialists in each of the areas taking care of them,” Ms. Flores says. “I think that conveys a feeling of trust in your provider.”
Not everyone is a doctor
Even when PAs and NPs remind patients of their roles and reinforce the use of their preferred names, there will still be patients who continue referring to their nonphysician provider as “doctor.”
“There’s a perception that anyone who walks into a room with a stethoscope is your doctor,” says Graig Straus, DNP, an NP and president and CEO of Rockland Urgent Care Family Health NP, P.C., West Haverstraw, N.Y. “You do get a little bit of burnout correcting people all the time.”
Dr. Straus, who earned his doctorate in nursing practice, notes that patients using the honorific with him aren’t incorrect, but he still educates them on his role within the health care team.
“NPs and PAs have a valuable role to play independently and in concert with the physician,” Dr. Aaronson says. This understanding is essential, as states consider expanding treatment abilities for NPs and PAs.
NPs have expanded treatment abilities or full practice authority in almost half the states, and 31% of the physicians surveyed agreed that NPs should have expanded treatment abilities.
An estimated 1 in 5 states characterizes the physician-PA relationship as collaborative, not supervisory, according to the American Academy of Physician Associates. At the same time, only 39% of physicians surveyed said they favored this trend.
“Patients need great quality care, and there are many different types of providers that can provide that care as part of the team,” Ms. Flores says. “When you have a team taking care of a patient, that patient [gets] the best care possible – and ... that’s why we went into medicine: to deliver high-quality, compassionate care to our patients, and we should all be in this together.”
When practices do their part explaining who is and isn’t a doctor and what each provider’s title and role is and what to call them, and everyone reinforces it, health care becomes not only more manageable for patients to traverse but easier to understand, leading to a better experience.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
says Cyndy Flores, a physician assistant (PA) in the emergency department at Vituity, Emeryville, Calif. “Sometimes, I can go through a complete history and physical, explain a treatment plan, and perform a procedure, and [the patient] will say, ‘Thank you, doctor.’ ”
“I always come back and say, ‘You’re very welcome, but my name is Cyndy, and I’m the PA.’ ”
Ms. Flores is used to patients calling her “doctor” when she greets them. She typically offers a quick correction and moves on with the appointment.
With 355,000 nurse practitioners (NPs) and 149,000 certified PAs practicing in the United States, it’s more common than ever for health care providers who don’t go by the title “doctor” to diagnose and treat patients.
A recent report, Evolving Scope of Practice, found that more than 70% of physicians were “somewhat satisfied to very satisfied” with patient treatment by PAs and NPs.
But for patients, having a health care team that includes physicians, NPs, and PAs can be confusing. Additionally, it creates a need for education about their correct titles and roles in patient care.
“It’s really important for patients to understand who is taking care of them,” Ms. Flores says.
Education starts in your practice
Educating patients about the roles of different providers on their health care team starts long before patients enter the exam room, Ms. Flores explains.
Some patients may not understand the difference, some may just forget because they’re used to calling all providers doctors, and others may find it awkward to use a provider’s first name or not know the respectful way to address an NP or a PA.
Practices can help by listing the names and biographies of the health care team on the clinic website. In addition, when patients call for an appointment, Ms. Flores believes front desk staff can reinforce that information. When offering appointments with a physician, NP, or PA, clearly use the practitioner’s title and reiterate it throughout the conversation. For example, “Would you like to see our nurse practitioner, Alice Smith, next week?” or “So, our physician assistant Mrs. Jones will see you Friday at 3 PM.”
The report also found that 76% of patients expressed a preference to see a physician over a PA, and 71% expressed a preference to see a physician over an NP, but offering appointments with nonphysician providers is part of the education process.
“Some families are super savvy and know the differences between nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and doctors, and ... there are families who don’t understand those titles, [and] we need to explain what they do in our practice,” adds Nicole Aaronson, MD, MBA, attending surgeon at Nemours Children’s Health of Delaware. Dr. Aaronson believes there’s an opportunity for educating patients when speaking about all the available providers they may see.
Hanging posters or using brochures in the clinic or hospital is another effective way to reinforce the roles of various providers on the care team. Include biographies and educational information on practice materials and video programs running in the waiting room.
“Patients mean it [calling everyone doctor] as a way to respectfully address the nurse practitioner or physician assistant rather than meaning it as a denigration of the physician,” Dr. Aaronson says. “But everyone appreciates being called by the correct title.”
Helping patients understand the members of their care team and the correct titles to use for those health care professionals could also help patients feel more confident about their health care experience.
“Patients really like knowing that there are specialists in each of the areas taking care of them,” Ms. Flores says. “I think that conveys a feeling of trust in your provider.”
Not everyone is a doctor
Even when PAs and NPs remind patients of their roles and reinforce the use of their preferred names, there will still be patients who continue referring to their nonphysician provider as “doctor.”
“There’s a perception that anyone who walks into a room with a stethoscope is your doctor,” says Graig Straus, DNP, an NP and president and CEO of Rockland Urgent Care Family Health NP, P.C., West Haverstraw, N.Y. “You do get a little bit of burnout correcting people all the time.”
Dr. Straus, who earned his doctorate in nursing practice, notes that patients using the honorific with him aren’t incorrect, but he still educates them on his role within the health care team.
“NPs and PAs have a valuable role to play independently and in concert with the physician,” Dr. Aaronson says. This understanding is essential, as states consider expanding treatment abilities for NPs and PAs.
NPs have expanded treatment abilities or full practice authority in almost half the states, and 31% of the physicians surveyed agreed that NPs should have expanded treatment abilities.
An estimated 1 in 5 states characterizes the physician-PA relationship as collaborative, not supervisory, according to the American Academy of Physician Associates. At the same time, only 39% of physicians surveyed said they favored this trend.
“Patients need great quality care, and there are many different types of providers that can provide that care as part of the team,” Ms. Flores says. “When you have a team taking care of a patient, that patient [gets] the best care possible – and ... that’s why we went into medicine: to deliver high-quality, compassionate care to our patients, and we should all be in this together.”
When practices do their part explaining who is and isn’t a doctor and what each provider’s title and role is and what to call them, and everyone reinforces it, health care becomes not only more manageable for patients to traverse but easier to understand, leading to a better experience.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Off their pricey CML meds, many thrive
When imatinib (Gleevec) appeared on the market just over 2 decades ago, it revolutionized the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) and transformed it from a grim diagnosis into a largely treatable form of blood cancer. New generations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have continued to expand options for patients, and many can look forward to normal lifespans.
But these medications cause side effects and can be expensive. Long-term data doesn’t exist for the newer therapies, so no one knows whether they can harm patients over time. None of this is particularly unusual for medications to treat chronic illness, but now there’s a twist:
“Our focus has changed because the results of treatment are so good,” hematologist-oncologist Ehab L. Atallah, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview. “We’re trying to get people off their medication.”
Still, research estimates that only 20% of patients with CML will be eligible for treatment discontinuation and benefit from it in the long term. As a result, the wide majority of patients will need to be on drugs indefinitely.
Gleevec: A new age dawns
In the early 1990s, before the era of TKIs, the 5-year relative survival rate from CML was just 27%, and the 10-year rate was only 9.5%, according to a 2008 report. “If someone showed up with CML, their only option was to go to a bone marrow transplant. About half survived the transplant, and half of those had significant complications from it,” Dr. Atallah said. According to him, just about everyone who didn’t get transplantation would go on to die.
Then came Gleevec, which received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2001. It ushered in the era of “targeted” cancer treatment by specifically killing CML cells, instead of relying on traditional chemotherapy’s carpet-bombing approach.
“Gleevec and other TKIs have revolutionized how CML is treated, and patients are now living normal lives,” hematologist-oncologist Catherine Lai, MD, MPH, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
Alan Fahnestock, a 68-year-old retired telecommunications specialist in north-central Washington state, is one of the fortunate patients.
He was diagnosed with CML in 2004 after he underwent a thoracic CT scan in light of his tobacco use. “My GP found something odd in my lungs and referred me to a pulmonologist, who couldn’t figure it out either. He transmitted blood samples to my eventual hematologist/oncologist,” Mr. Fahnestock said in an interview. “It’s not clear to me that anybody ever figured out what the ‘oddity’ was. It has since apparently gone away. But the oncologist ran all the tests and came up with CML.”
Mr. Fahnestock hadn’t noticed any symptoms, although “this is, perhaps, because I tend not to pay a lot of attention to such things, having abused my body fairly severely over the years and having been borderline anemic since I was a kid. I don’t really expect to feel great and am a bit of a fatalist: I just get on with things until I no longer can.”
His physician prescribed Gleevec. “I had no particularly notable side effects, and carried on with my life pretty much as if nothing had happened,” Mr. Fahnestock said. He stayed on the drug for almost 20 years.
CML rooted in chromosome swap
It’s not clear exactly what causes CML, although the Mayo Clinic says most cases are linked to an abnormal, extra-short “Philadelphia chromosome,” created when two chromosomes swap material. This happens after birth.
Mr. Fahnestock thinks he happened to develop a random mutation. He also wonders if his work stints in the former Soviet Union in Vladivostok, “where the Soviet nuclear submarine fleet was decomposing,” and in Kiev, Ukraine, “which is not all that far from Chernobyl,” may be responsible.
Most patients, like Mr. Fahnestock, are men. Males will account for about 5,190 of the cases diagnosed in 2023, according to the American Cancer Society, compared to 3,740 in females.
Mr. Fahnestock’s CML diagnosis came at a fairly young age, when he was in his 40s. The average patient is diagnosed at 64. But it’s not unusual that he experienced no apparent symptoms when the cancer was found. In fact, that’s the norm.
Most patients with the disease – which is diagnosed in about 8,900 patients in the United States each year – are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms, Dr. Lai said. Their disease is discovered when “an elevated white count is found on routine blood work,” she said.
“The other group of patients typically present with very elevated white blood cell counts and splenomegaly with symptoms of fatigue and other constitutional symptoms. When the WBC count is very high, it is important to rule out transformation to accelerated or blast phase and also rule out an acute leukemia.”
Polymerase chain reaction is an especially important test during diagnosis, Dr. Atallah said, since it provides baseline data about the cancer that can be tracked.
TKIs: Mainstay of treatment
Four drugs are FDA approved for initial treatment of CML: imatinib (Gleevec), the second-generation TKIs dasatinib (Sprycel) and the third-generation TKI nilotinib (Tasigna). The third-generation TKIs bosutinib (Bosulif) and ponatinib (Iclusig) are approved for use as first-line treatments for patients who cannot tolerate the other drugs or are resistant to them.
The first-in-class drug asciminib (Scemblix), approved by the FDA in 2021, is a third-line drug for patients who failed treatment with two other TKIs and certain patients with the T315I mutation.
Dr. Lai said that it’s crucial to avoid side effects as much as possible “since the goal is for patients to be compliant and take the pill every day and not miss doses.” In younger patients, “I typically choose a second-generation TKI as my first choice, since there is a higher likelihood of getting into a deep molecular remission more quickly. If treatment-free remission is something a patient is interested in, a second-generation TKI is more likely to make this happen.”
According to Dr. Atallah, about half of patients end up using more than one drug because their initial choices either don’t work or cause intolerable side effects. Nevertheless, Dr. Lai noted: “Overall, patients do extremely well if compliant with their medication.”
Exceptions include the noncompliant and patients with more aggressive disease, like an accelerated or a blast phase, she said. For the latter patients, “allogenic bone marrow transplant should be considered once the patient is in remission.”
In remission, consider drug omission
How should patients be monitored if they are doing well?
“In general, I tend to follow patients monthly for the first six months after starting therapy, to make sure they are tolerating it well and to help manage side effects,” Dr. Lai said. “After that, I follow once every three months, and then often space out visits depending on whether they hit their molecular milestones and how long they’re in remission.”
In certain cases, patients may be taken off medication. The most recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for treatment of CML, published in 2021, say that “discontinuation of TKI therapy (with close monitoring) is feasible in carefully selected, consenting patients” with early stage CML who’ve reached remission, defined as deep molecular response (DMR) of at least MR 4.0 for at least 2 years.
The guidelines caution that disease recurrence appears in “approximately 40%-60% of patients who discontinue TKI therapy after achieving DMR experience recurrence within 12 months of treatment cessation, in some cases as early as one month after discontinuation of TKI therapy.”
Still, the guidelines add that “resumption of TKI therapy immediately after recurrence results in the achievement of DMR in almost all patients.”
Dr. Atallah said stopping medication can be especially helpful for patients who grapple with side effects such as fatigue, diarrhea, and muscle aches. Some patients who take the drugs fear losing their health insurance and facing sky-high drug expenses. In 2018, average daily TKI costs for patients with CML were over $350, a 2020 report found.
Many patients were prescribed hugely expensive second-line treatments rather than inexpensive generic imatinib, the report said, despite “no evidence that later-generation TKIs provide superior progression free or overall survival.”
Many patients, however, refuse to consider stopping their medication, Dr. Atallah said. More data about treatment-free remission is needed, and the 21 U.S. academic medical centers in the H. Jean Khoury Cure CML Consortium are gathering information about patient outcomes.
Mr. Fahnestock is a fan of treatment-free remission. He stopped taking Gleevec about 2 years ago on the advice of his physician after he reached undetectable levels of disease.
“It was sort of a nonevent, really, with no discernible physical effects beyond exacerbation of the osteoarthritis in my hands,” he said. According to him, it’s not clear if this effect is linked to his eliminating the medication.
“I also vaguely hoped I’d feel better, even though I’d never been able to nail down any deleterious side effects,” he said. “No such luck, as it happens.”
Blood work has indicated no resurgence of the disease, and Mr. Fahnestock continues to volunteer as a rural firefighter.
“In general, I’m apparently reasonably healthy for my age, despite my folly [in younger years], and firefighting requires me to stay in reasonable shape,” he said. “I’ve recently been made aware of minor kidney issues and prediabetes. But, hell, I’m genetically scheduled to croak within 5 years or so, so why worry?”
National survival statistics in CML vary by factors such as gender and age, as a 2021 study revealed, and men have worse outcomes. Still, there’s a good chance Mr. Fahnestock won’t need to worry about CML ever again.
Dr. Atallah disclosed research support from Novartis and Takeda and has served both of those firms and Bristol-Myers Squibb as a consultant advisor. Dr. Lai discloses tied with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jazz, Genentech, Novartis, Abbvie, Daiichi Sankyo, Astellas, MacroGenics, Servier, and Taiho. Mr. Fahnestock has no disclosures.
When imatinib (Gleevec) appeared on the market just over 2 decades ago, it revolutionized the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) and transformed it from a grim diagnosis into a largely treatable form of blood cancer. New generations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have continued to expand options for patients, and many can look forward to normal lifespans.
But these medications cause side effects and can be expensive. Long-term data doesn’t exist for the newer therapies, so no one knows whether they can harm patients over time. None of this is particularly unusual for medications to treat chronic illness, but now there’s a twist:
“Our focus has changed because the results of treatment are so good,” hematologist-oncologist Ehab L. Atallah, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview. “We’re trying to get people off their medication.”
Still, research estimates that only 20% of patients with CML will be eligible for treatment discontinuation and benefit from it in the long term. As a result, the wide majority of patients will need to be on drugs indefinitely.
Gleevec: A new age dawns
In the early 1990s, before the era of TKIs, the 5-year relative survival rate from CML was just 27%, and the 10-year rate was only 9.5%, according to a 2008 report. “If someone showed up with CML, their only option was to go to a bone marrow transplant. About half survived the transplant, and half of those had significant complications from it,” Dr. Atallah said. According to him, just about everyone who didn’t get transplantation would go on to die.
Then came Gleevec, which received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2001. It ushered in the era of “targeted” cancer treatment by specifically killing CML cells, instead of relying on traditional chemotherapy’s carpet-bombing approach.
“Gleevec and other TKIs have revolutionized how CML is treated, and patients are now living normal lives,” hematologist-oncologist Catherine Lai, MD, MPH, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
Alan Fahnestock, a 68-year-old retired telecommunications specialist in north-central Washington state, is one of the fortunate patients.
He was diagnosed with CML in 2004 after he underwent a thoracic CT scan in light of his tobacco use. “My GP found something odd in my lungs and referred me to a pulmonologist, who couldn’t figure it out either. He transmitted blood samples to my eventual hematologist/oncologist,” Mr. Fahnestock said in an interview. “It’s not clear to me that anybody ever figured out what the ‘oddity’ was. It has since apparently gone away. But the oncologist ran all the tests and came up with CML.”
Mr. Fahnestock hadn’t noticed any symptoms, although “this is, perhaps, because I tend not to pay a lot of attention to such things, having abused my body fairly severely over the years and having been borderline anemic since I was a kid. I don’t really expect to feel great and am a bit of a fatalist: I just get on with things until I no longer can.”
His physician prescribed Gleevec. “I had no particularly notable side effects, and carried on with my life pretty much as if nothing had happened,” Mr. Fahnestock said. He stayed on the drug for almost 20 years.
CML rooted in chromosome swap
It’s not clear exactly what causes CML, although the Mayo Clinic says most cases are linked to an abnormal, extra-short “Philadelphia chromosome,” created when two chromosomes swap material. This happens after birth.
Mr. Fahnestock thinks he happened to develop a random mutation. He also wonders if his work stints in the former Soviet Union in Vladivostok, “where the Soviet nuclear submarine fleet was decomposing,” and in Kiev, Ukraine, “which is not all that far from Chernobyl,” may be responsible.
Most patients, like Mr. Fahnestock, are men. Males will account for about 5,190 of the cases diagnosed in 2023, according to the American Cancer Society, compared to 3,740 in females.
Mr. Fahnestock’s CML diagnosis came at a fairly young age, when he was in his 40s. The average patient is diagnosed at 64. But it’s not unusual that he experienced no apparent symptoms when the cancer was found. In fact, that’s the norm.
Most patients with the disease – which is diagnosed in about 8,900 patients in the United States each year – are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms, Dr. Lai said. Their disease is discovered when “an elevated white count is found on routine blood work,” she said.
“The other group of patients typically present with very elevated white blood cell counts and splenomegaly with symptoms of fatigue and other constitutional symptoms. When the WBC count is very high, it is important to rule out transformation to accelerated or blast phase and also rule out an acute leukemia.”
Polymerase chain reaction is an especially important test during diagnosis, Dr. Atallah said, since it provides baseline data about the cancer that can be tracked.
TKIs: Mainstay of treatment
Four drugs are FDA approved for initial treatment of CML: imatinib (Gleevec), the second-generation TKIs dasatinib (Sprycel) and the third-generation TKI nilotinib (Tasigna). The third-generation TKIs bosutinib (Bosulif) and ponatinib (Iclusig) are approved for use as first-line treatments for patients who cannot tolerate the other drugs or are resistant to them.
The first-in-class drug asciminib (Scemblix), approved by the FDA in 2021, is a third-line drug for patients who failed treatment with two other TKIs and certain patients with the T315I mutation.
Dr. Lai said that it’s crucial to avoid side effects as much as possible “since the goal is for patients to be compliant and take the pill every day and not miss doses.” In younger patients, “I typically choose a second-generation TKI as my first choice, since there is a higher likelihood of getting into a deep molecular remission more quickly. If treatment-free remission is something a patient is interested in, a second-generation TKI is more likely to make this happen.”
According to Dr. Atallah, about half of patients end up using more than one drug because their initial choices either don’t work or cause intolerable side effects. Nevertheless, Dr. Lai noted: “Overall, patients do extremely well if compliant with their medication.”
Exceptions include the noncompliant and patients with more aggressive disease, like an accelerated or a blast phase, she said. For the latter patients, “allogenic bone marrow transplant should be considered once the patient is in remission.”
In remission, consider drug omission
How should patients be monitored if they are doing well?
“In general, I tend to follow patients monthly for the first six months after starting therapy, to make sure they are tolerating it well and to help manage side effects,” Dr. Lai said. “After that, I follow once every three months, and then often space out visits depending on whether they hit their molecular milestones and how long they’re in remission.”
In certain cases, patients may be taken off medication. The most recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for treatment of CML, published in 2021, say that “discontinuation of TKI therapy (with close monitoring) is feasible in carefully selected, consenting patients” with early stage CML who’ve reached remission, defined as deep molecular response (DMR) of at least MR 4.0 for at least 2 years.
The guidelines caution that disease recurrence appears in “approximately 40%-60% of patients who discontinue TKI therapy after achieving DMR experience recurrence within 12 months of treatment cessation, in some cases as early as one month after discontinuation of TKI therapy.”
Still, the guidelines add that “resumption of TKI therapy immediately after recurrence results in the achievement of DMR in almost all patients.”
Dr. Atallah said stopping medication can be especially helpful for patients who grapple with side effects such as fatigue, diarrhea, and muscle aches. Some patients who take the drugs fear losing their health insurance and facing sky-high drug expenses. In 2018, average daily TKI costs for patients with CML were over $350, a 2020 report found.
Many patients were prescribed hugely expensive second-line treatments rather than inexpensive generic imatinib, the report said, despite “no evidence that later-generation TKIs provide superior progression free or overall survival.”
Many patients, however, refuse to consider stopping their medication, Dr. Atallah said. More data about treatment-free remission is needed, and the 21 U.S. academic medical centers in the H. Jean Khoury Cure CML Consortium are gathering information about patient outcomes.
Mr. Fahnestock is a fan of treatment-free remission. He stopped taking Gleevec about 2 years ago on the advice of his physician after he reached undetectable levels of disease.
“It was sort of a nonevent, really, with no discernible physical effects beyond exacerbation of the osteoarthritis in my hands,” he said. According to him, it’s not clear if this effect is linked to his eliminating the medication.
“I also vaguely hoped I’d feel better, even though I’d never been able to nail down any deleterious side effects,” he said. “No such luck, as it happens.”
Blood work has indicated no resurgence of the disease, and Mr. Fahnestock continues to volunteer as a rural firefighter.
“In general, I’m apparently reasonably healthy for my age, despite my folly [in younger years], and firefighting requires me to stay in reasonable shape,” he said. “I’ve recently been made aware of minor kidney issues and prediabetes. But, hell, I’m genetically scheduled to croak within 5 years or so, so why worry?”
National survival statistics in CML vary by factors such as gender and age, as a 2021 study revealed, and men have worse outcomes. Still, there’s a good chance Mr. Fahnestock won’t need to worry about CML ever again.
Dr. Atallah disclosed research support from Novartis and Takeda and has served both of those firms and Bristol-Myers Squibb as a consultant advisor. Dr. Lai discloses tied with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jazz, Genentech, Novartis, Abbvie, Daiichi Sankyo, Astellas, MacroGenics, Servier, and Taiho. Mr. Fahnestock has no disclosures.
When imatinib (Gleevec) appeared on the market just over 2 decades ago, it revolutionized the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) and transformed it from a grim diagnosis into a largely treatable form of blood cancer. New generations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have continued to expand options for patients, and many can look forward to normal lifespans.
But these medications cause side effects and can be expensive. Long-term data doesn’t exist for the newer therapies, so no one knows whether they can harm patients over time. None of this is particularly unusual for medications to treat chronic illness, but now there’s a twist:
“Our focus has changed because the results of treatment are so good,” hematologist-oncologist Ehab L. Atallah, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview. “We’re trying to get people off their medication.”
Still, research estimates that only 20% of patients with CML will be eligible for treatment discontinuation and benefit from it in the long term. As a result, the wide majority of patients will need to be on drugs indefinitely.
Gleevec: A new age dawns
In the early 1990s, before the era of TKIs, the 5-year relative survival rate from CML was just 27%, and the 10-year rate was only 9.5%, according to a 2008 report. “If someone showed up with CML, their only option was to go to a bone marrow transplant. About half survived the transplant, and half of those had significant complications from it,” Dr. Atallah said. According to him, just about everyone who didn’t get transplantation would go on to die.
Then came Gleevec, which received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2001. It ushered in the era of “targeted” cancer treatment by specifically killing CML cells, instead of relying on traditional chemotherapy’s carpet-bombing approach.
“Gleevec and other TKIs have revolutionized how CML is treated, and patients are now living normal lives,” hematologist-oncologist Catherine Lai, MD, MPH, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
Alan Fahnestock, a 68-year-old retired telecommunications specialist in north-central Washington state, is one of the fortunate patients.
He was diagnosed with CML in 2004 after he underwent a thoracic CT scan in light of his tobacco use. “My GP found something odd in my lungs and referred me to a pulmonologist, who couldn’t figure it out either. He transmitted blood samples to my eventual hematologist/oncologist,” Mr. Fahnestock said in an interview. “It’s not clear to me that anybody ever figured out what the ‘oddity’ was. It has since apparently gone away. But the oncologist ran all the tests and came up with CML.”
Mr. Fahnestock hadn’t noticed any symptoms, although “this is, perhaps, because I tend not to pay a lot of attention to such things, having abused my body fairly severely over the years and having been borderline anemic since I was a kid. I don’t really expect to feel great and am a bit of a fatalist: I just get on with things until I no longer can.”
His physician prescribed Gleevec. “I had no particularly notable side effects, and carried on with my life pretty much as if nothing had happened,” Mr. Fahnestock said. He stayed on the drug for almost 20 years.
CML rooted in chromosome swap
It’s not clear exactly what causes CML, although the Mayo Clinic says most cases are linked to an abnormal, extra-short “Philadelphia chromosome,” created when two chromosomes swap material. This happens after birth.
Mr. Fahnestock thinks he happened to develop a random mutation. He also wonders if his work stints in the former Soviet Union in Vladivostok, “where the Soviet nuclear submarine fleet was decomposing,” and in Kiev, Ukraine, “which is not all that far from Chernobyl,” may be responsible.
Most patients, like Mr. Fahnestock, are men. Males will account for about 5,190 of the cases diagnosed in 2023, according to the American Cancer Society, compared to 3,740 in females.
Mr. Fahnestock’s CML diagnosis came at a fairly young age, when he was in his 40s. The average patient is diagnosed at 64. But it’s not unusual that he experienced no apparent symptoms when the cancer was found. In fact, that’s the norm.
Most patients with the disease – which is diagnosed in about 8,900 patients in the United States each year – are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms, Dr. Lai said. Their disease is discovered when “an elevated white count is found on routine blood work,” she said.
“The other group of patients typically present with very elevated white blood cell counts and splenomegaly with symptoms of fatigue and other constitutional symptoms. When the WBC count is very high, it is important to rule out transformation to accelerated or blast phase and also rule out an acute leukemia.”
Polymerase chain reaction is an especially important test during diagnosis, Dr. Atallah said, since it provides baseline data about the cancer that can be tracked.
TKIs: Mainstay of treatment
Four drugs are FDA approved for initial treatment of CML: imatinib (Gleevec), the second-generation TKIs dasatinib (Sprycel) and the third-generation TKI nilotinib (Tasigna). The third-generation TKIs bosutinib (Bosulif) and ponatinib (Iclusig) are approved for use as first-line treatments for patients who cannot tolerate the other drugs or are resistant to them.
The first-in-class drug asciminib (Scemblix), approved by the FDA in 2021, is a third-line drug for patients who failed treatment with two other TKIs and certain patients with the T315I mutation.
Dr. Lai said that it’s crucial to avoid side effects as much as possible “since the goal is for patients to be compliant and take the pill every day and not miss doses.” In younger patients, “I typically choose a second-generation TKI as my first choice, since there is a higher likelihood of getting into a deep molecular remission more quickly. If treatment-free remission is something a patient is interested in, a second-generation TKI is more likely to make this happen.”
According to Dr. Atallah, about half of patients end up using more than one drug because their initial choices either don’t work or cause intolerable side effects. Nevertheless, Dr. Lai noted: “Overall, patients do extremely well if compliant with their medication.”
Exceptions include the noncompliant and patients with more aggressive disease, like an accelerated or a blast phase, she said. For the latter patients, “allogenic bone marrow transplant should be considered once the patient is in remission.”
In remission, consider drug omission
How should patients be monitored if they are doing well?
“In general, I tend to follow patients monthly for the first six months after starting therapy, to make sure they are tolerating it well and to help manage side effects,” Dr. Lai said. “After that, I follow once every three months, and then often space out visits depending on whether they hit their molecular milestones and how long they’re in remission.”
In certain cases, patients may be taken off medication. The most recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for treatment of CML, published in 2021, say that “discontinuation of TKI therapy (with close monitoring) is feasible in carefully selected, consenting patients” with early stage CML who’ve reached remission, defined as deep molecular response (DMR) of at least MR 4.0 for at least 2 years.
The guidelines caution that disease recurrence appears in “approximately 40%-60% of patients who discontinue TKI therapy after achieving DMR experience recurrence within 12 months of treatment cessation, in some cases as early as one month after discontinuation of TKI therapy.”
Still, the guidelines add that “resumption of TKI therapy immediately after recurrence results in the achievement of DMR in almost all patients.”
Dr. Atallah said stopping medication can be especially helpful for patients who grapple with side effects such as fatigue, diarrhea, and muscle aches. Some patients who take the drugs fear losing their health insurance and facing sky-high drug expenses. In 2018, average daily TKI costs for patients with CML were over $350, a 2020 report found.
Many patients were prescribed hugely expensive second-line treatments rather than inexpensive generic imatinib, the report said, despite “no evidence that later-generation TKIs provide superior progression free or overall survival.”
Many patients, however, refuse to consider stopping their medication, Dr. Atallah said. More data about treatment-free remission is needed, and the 21 U.S. academic medical centers in the H. Jean Khoury Cure CML Consortium are gathering information about patient outcomes.
Mr. Fahnestock is a fan of treatment-free remission. He stopped taking Gleevec about 2 years ago on the advice of his physician after he reached undetectable levels of disease.
“It was sort of a nonevent, really, with no discernible physical effects beyond exacerbation of the osteoarthritis in my hands,” he said. According to him, it’s not clear if this effect is linked to his eliminating the medication.
“I also vaguely hoped I’d feel better, even though I’d never been able to nail down any deleterious side effects,” he said. “No such luck, as it happens.”
Blood work has indicated no resurgence of the disease, and Mr. Fahnestock continues to volunteer as a rural firefighter.
“In general, I’m apparently reasonably healthy for my age, despite my folly [in younger years], and firefighting requires me to stay in reasonable shape,” he said. “I’ve recently been made aware of minor kidney issues and prediabetes. But, hell, I’m genetically scheduled to croak within 5 years or so, so why worry?”
National survival statistics in CML vary by factors such as gender and age, as a 2021 study revealed, and men have worse outcomes. Still, there’s a good chance Mr. Fahnestock won’t need to worry about CML ever again.
Dr. Atallah disclosed research support from Novartis and Takeda and has served both of those firms and Bristol-Myers Squibb as a consultant advisor. Dr. Lai discloses tied with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jazz, Genentech, Novartis, Abbvie, Daiichi Sankyo, Astellas, MacroGenics, Servier, and Taiho. Mr. Fahnestock has no disclosures.
Physician sues AMA for defamation over 2022 election controversy
If Willarda Edwards, MD, MBA, had won her 2022 campaign for president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), she would have been the second Black woman to head the group.
The lawsuit sheds light on the power dynamics of a politically potent organization that has more than 271,000 members and holds assets of $1.2 billion. The AMA president is one of the most visible figures in American medicine.
“The AMA impugned Dr. Edwards with these false charges, which destroyed her candidacy and irreparably damaged her reputation,” according to the complaint, which was filed Nov. 9, 2022, in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case was later moved to federal court.
The AMA “previously rejected our attempt to resolve this matter without litigation,” Dr. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Maloney, told this news organization. An AMA spokesman said the organization had no comment on Dr. Edwards’ suit.
Dr. Edwards is a past president of the National Medical Association, MedChi, the Baltimore City Medical Society, the Monumental City Medical Society, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America. She joined the AMA in 1994 and has served as a trustee since 2016.
As chair of the AMA Task Force on Health Equity, “she helped lead the way in consensus building and driving action that in 2019 resulted in the AMA House of Delegates establishing the AMA Center on Health Equity,” according to her AMA bio page.
‘Quid pro quo’ alleged
In June 2022, Dr. Edwards was one of three individuals running to be AMA president-elect.
According to Dr. Edwards’ complaint, she was “incorrectly advised by colleagues” that Virginia urologist William Reha, MD, had decided not to seek the AMA vice-speakership in 2023. This was important because both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Reha were in the Southeastern delegation. It could be in Dr. Edwards’ favor if Dr. Reha was not running, as it would mean one less leadership candidate from the same region.
Dr. Edwards called Dr. Reha on June 6 to discuss the matter. When they talked, Dr. Reha allegedly recorded the call without Dr. Edwards’ knowledge or permission – a felony in Maryland – and also steered her toward discussions about how his decision could benefit her campaign, according to the complaint.
The suit alleges that Dr. Reha’s questions were “clearly calculated to draw some statements by Dr. Edwards that he could use later to thwart her candidacy and to benefit her opponent.”
On June 10, at the AMA’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, Dr. Edwards was taken aside and questioned by members of the AMA’s Election Campaign Committee, according to the complaint. They accused her of “vote trading” but did not provide any evidence or a copy of a complaint they said had been filed against her, the suit said.
Dr. Edwards was given no opportunity to produce her own evidence or rebut the accusations, the suit alleges.
Just before the delegates started formal business on June 13, House Speaker Bruce Scott, MD, read a statement to the assembly saying that a complaint of a possible campaign violation had been filed against Dr. Edwards.
Dr. Scott told the delegates that “committee members interviewed the complainant and multiple other individuals said to have knowledge of the circumstances. In addition to conducting multiple interviews, the committee reviewed evidence that was deemed credible and corroborated that a campaign violation did in fact occur,” according to the complaint.
The supposed violation: A “quid pro quo” in which an unnamed delegation would support Dr. Edwards’ current candidacy, and the Southeastern delegation would support a future candidate from that other unnamed delegation.
Dr. Edwards was given a short opportunity to speak, in which she denied any violations.
According to a news report, Dr. Edwards said, “I’ve been in the House of Delegates for 30 years, and you know me as a process person – a person who truly believes in the process and trying to follow the complexities of our election campaign.”
The lawsuit alleges that “this defamatory conduct was repeated the next day to more than 600 delegates just minutes prior to the casting of votes, when Dr Scott repeated these allegations.”
Dr. Edwards lost the election.
AMA: Nothing more to add
The suit alleges that neither the Election Campaign Committee nor the AMA itself has made any accusers or complaints available to Dr. Edwards and that it has not provided any audio or written evidence of her alleged violation.
In July, the AMA’s Southeastern delegation told its membership, “We continue to maintain that Willarda was ‘set up’ ... The whole affair lacked any reasonable semblance of due process.”
The delegation has filed a counter claim against the AMA seeking “to address this lack of due process as well as the reputational harm” to the delegation.
The AMA said that it has nothing it can produce. “The Speaker of the House presented a verbal report to the attending delegates,” said a spokesman. “The Speaker’s report remains the only remarks from an AMA officer, and no additional remarks can be expected at this time.”
He added that there “is no official transcript of the Speaker’s report.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
If Willarda Edwards, MD, MBA, had won her 2022 campaign for president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), she would have been the second Black woman to head the group.
The lawsuit sheds light on the power dynamics of a politically potent organization that has more than 271,000 members and holds assets of $1.2 billion. The AMA president is one of the most visible figures in American medicine.
“The AMA impugned Dr. Edwards with these false charges, which destroyed her candidacy and irreparably damaged her reputation,” according to the complaint, which was filed Nov. 9, 2022, in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case was later moved to federal court.
The AMA “previously rejected our attempt to resolve this matter without litigation,” Dr. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Maloney, told this news organization. An AMA spokesman said the organization had no comment on Dr. Edwards’ suit.
Dr. Edwards is a past president of the National Medical Association, MedChi, the Baltimore City Medical Society, the Monumental City Medical Society, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America. She joined the AMA in 1994 and has served as a trustee since 2016.
As chair of the AMA Task Force on Health Equity, “she helped lead the way in consensus building and driving action that in 2019 resulted in the AMA House of Delegates establishing the AMA Center on Health Equity,” according to her AMA bio page.
‘Quid pro quo’ alleged
In June 2022, Dr. Edwards was one of three individuals running to be AMA president-elect.
According to Dr. Edwards’ complaint, she was “incorrectly advised by colleagues” that Virginia urologist William Reha, MD, had decided not to seek the AMA vice-speakership in 2023. This was important because both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Reha were in the Southeastern delegation. It could be in Dr. Edwards’ favor if Dr. Reha was not running, as it would mean one less leadership candidate from the same region.
Dr. Edwards called Dr. Reha on June 6 to discuss the matter. When they talked, Dr. Reha allegedly recorded the call without Dr. Edwards’ knowledge or permission – a felony in Maryland – and also steered her toward discussions about how his decision could benefit her campaign, according to the complaint.
The suit alleges that Dr. Reha’s questions were “clearly calculated to draw some statements by Dr. Edwards that he could use later to thwart her candidacy and to benefit her opponent.”
On June 10, at the AMA’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, Dr. Edwards was taken aside and questioned by members of the AMA’s Election Campaign Committee, according to the complaint. They accused her of “vote trading” but did not provide any evidence or a copy of a complaint they said had been filed against her, the suit said.
Dr. Edwards was given no opportunity to produce her own evidence or rebut the accusations, the suit alleges.
Just before the delegates started formal business on June 13, House Speaker Bruce Scott, MD, read a statement to the assembly saying that a complaint of a possible campaign violation had been filed against Dr. Edwards.
Dr. Scott told the delegates that “committee members interviewed the complainant and multiple other individuals said to have knowledge of the circumstances. In addition to conducting multiple interviews, the committee reviewed evidence that was deemed credible and corroborated that a campaign violation did in fact occur,” according to the complaint.
The supposed violation: A “quid pro quo” in which an unnamed delegation would support Dr. Edwards’ current candidacy, and the Southeastern delegation would support a future candidate from that other unnamed delegation.
Dr. Edwards was given a short opportunity to speak, in which she denied any violations.
According to a news report, Dr. Edwards said, “I’ve been in the House of Delegates for 30 years, and you know me as a process person – a person who truly believes in the process and trying to follow the complexities of our election campaign.”
The lawsuit alleges that “this defamatory conduct was repeated the next day to more than 600 delegates just minutes prior to the casting of votes, when Dr Scott repeated these allegations.”
Dr. Edwards lost the election.
AMA: Nothing more to add
The suit alleges that neither the Election Campaign Committee nor the AMA itself has made any accusers or complaints available to Dr. Edwards and that it has not provided any audio or written evidence of her alleged violation.
In July, the AMA’s Southeastern delegation told its membership, “We continue to maintain that Willarda was ‘set up’ ... The whole affair lacked any reasonable semblance of due process.”
The delegation has filed a counter claim against the AMA seeking “to address this lack of due process as well as the reputational harm” to the delegation.
The AMA said that it has nothing it can produce. “The Speaker of the House presented a verbal report to the attending delegates,” said a spokesman. “The Speaker’s report remains the only remarks from an AMA officer, and no additional remarks can be expected at this time.”
He added that there “is no official transcript of the Speaker’s report.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
If Willarda Edwards, MD, MBA, had won her 2022 campaign for president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), she would have been the second Black woman to head the group.
The lawsuit sheds light on the power dynamics of a politically potent organization that has more than 271,000 members and holds assets of $1.2 billion. The AMA president is one of the most visible figures in American medicine.
“The AMA impugned Dr. Edwards with these false charges, which destroyed her candidacy and irreparably damaged her reputation,” according to the complaint, which was filed Nov. 9, 2022, in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case was later moved to federal court.
The AMA “previously rejected our attempt to resolve this matter without litigation,” Dr. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Maloney, told this news organization. An AMA spokesman said the organization had no comment on Dr. Edwards’ suit.
Dr. Edwards is a past president of the National Medical Association, MedChi, the Baltimore City Medical Society, the Monumental City Medical Society, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America. She joined the AMA in 1994 and has served as a trustee since 2016.
As chair of the AMA Task Force on Health Equity, “she helped lead the way in consensus building and driving action that in 2019 resulted in the AMA House of Delegates establishing the AMA Center on Health Equity,” according to her AMA bio page.
‘Quid pro quo’ alleged
In June 2022, Dr. Edwards was one of three individuals running to be AMA president-elect.
According to Dr. Edwards’ complaint, she was “incorrectly advised by colleagues” that Virginia urologist William Reha, MD, had decided not to seek the AMA vice-speakership in 2023. This was important because both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Reha were in the Southeastern delegation. It could be in Dr. Edwards’ favor if Dr. Reha was not running, as it would mean one less leadership candidate from the same region.
Dr. Edwards called Dr. Reha on June 6 to discuss the matter. When they talked, Dr. Reha allegedly recorded the call without Dr. Edwards’ knowledge or permission – a felony in Maryland – and also steered her toward discussions about how his decision could benefit her campaign, according to the complaint.
The suit alleges that Dr. Reha’s questions were “clearly calculated to draw some statements by Dr. Edwards that he could use later to thwart her candidacy and to benefit her opponent.”
On June 10, at the AMA’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, Dr. Edwards was taken aside and questioned by members of the AMA’s Election Campaign Committee, according to the complaint. They accused her of “vote trading” but did not provide any evidence or a copy of a complaint they said had been filed against her, the suit said.
Dr. Edwards was given no opportunity to produce her own evidence or rebut the accusations, the suit alleges.
Just before the delegates started formal business on June 13, House Speaker Bruce Scott, MD, read a statement to the assembly saying that a complaint of a possible campaign violation had been filed against Dr. Edwards.
Dr. Scott told the delegates that “committee members interviewed the complainant and multiple other individuals said to have knowledge of the circumstances. In addition to conducting multiple interviews, the committee reviewed evidence that was deemed credible and corroborated that a campaign violation did in fact occur,” according to the complaint.
The supposed violation: A “quid pro quo” in which an unnamed delegation would support Dr. Edwards’ current candidacy, and the Southeastern delegation would support a future candidate from that other unnamed delegation.
Dr. Edwards was given a short opportunity to speak, in which she denied any violations.
According to a news report, Dr. Edwards said, “I’ve been in the House of Delegates for 30 years, and you know me as a process person – a person who truly believes in the process and trying to follow the complexities of our election campaign.”
The lawsuit alleges that “this defamatory conduct was repeated the next day to more than 600 delegates just minutes prior to the casting of votes, when Dr Scott repeated these allegations.”
Dr. Edwards lost the election.
AMA: Nothing more to add
The suit alleges that neither the Election Campaign Committee nor the AMA itself has made any accusers or complaints available to Dr. Edwards and that it has not provided any audio or written evidence of her alleged violation.
In July, the AMA’s Southeastern delegation told its membership, “We continue to maintain that Willarda was ‘set up’ ... The whole affair lacked any reasonable semblance of due process.”
The delegation has filed a counter claim against the AMA seeking “to address this lack of due process as well as the reputational harm” to the delegation.
The AMA said that it has nothing it can produce. “The Speaker of the House presented a verbal report to the attending delegates,” said a spokesman. “The Speaker’s report remains the only remarks from an AMA officer, and no additional remarks can be expected at this time.”
He added that there “is no official transcript of the Speaker’s report.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Will your smartphone be the next doctor’s office?
A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.
In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.
But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.
Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.
Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.
“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.
Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning–based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.
Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Eugene Yang, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Currently, Dr. Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.
Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Dr. Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.
“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.
Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.
“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.
Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Mr. Patel said.
Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.
The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.
Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.
The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:
- With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
- Australia-based ResApp Health last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
- Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.
In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone – rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.
But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.
Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.
Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.
“We’re not there yet,” Dr. Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.
In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.
But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.
Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.
Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.
“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.
Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning–based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.
Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Eugene Yang, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Currently, Dr. Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.
Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Dr. Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.
“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.
Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.
“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.
Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Mr. Patel said.
Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.
The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.
Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.
The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:
- With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
- Australia-based ResApp Health last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
- Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.
In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone – rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.
But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.
Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.
Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.
“We’re not there yet,” Dr. Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.
In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.
But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.
Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.
Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.
“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.
Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning–based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.
Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Eugene Yang, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Currently, Dr. Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.
Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Dr. Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.
“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.
Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.
“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.
Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Mr. Patel said.
Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.
The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.
Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.
The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:
- With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
- Australia-based ResApp Health last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
- Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.
In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone – rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.
But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.
Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.
Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.
“We’re not there yet,” Dr. Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
It’s all about the brains: Guilt placebos, transplants, and negative feelings
Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms
Guilt plagues a lot of us, sometimes regularly. Maybe you felt bad about eating the leftovers that your partner was looking forward to eating at the end of the day. Or for not saving a seat for your friend who was running late to the movies. Maybe even hiding a secret that you know would hurt a person’s feelings. We’ve all felt it, and it doesn’t feel good.
But what if there was a pill that would make those feelings seem to hurt less? There’s already a pill for almost everything, right?
Well, researchers from the University of Basel are on the case and have conducted a study suggesting that a placebo might work. They asked participants to write down a time they felt super guilty about something, just to stir up those feelings again, then they were divided into three groups. One group was told they would receive real medication that was actually a placebo, one was told they would get a placebo, and one got nothing. The subjects’ guilty feelings were reduced in both the medication-that-was-really-a-placebo group and placebo-that-was-a-placebo group.
“Our study therefore supports the intriguing finding that placebos work even when they are administered openly, and that explanation of the treatment is key to its effectiveness,” lead author Dilan Sezer said in a written statement.
More research is needed, but the human mind is a very interesting place. It seems like we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Especially to feel less guilty.
It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad scientist’s world
Mad scientists. Life’s just more interesting with a few of them running around, but they’re mostly relegated to works of fiction. Real life is boring; we don’t actually have neurosurgeons going around claiming human brain transplant is technically feasible.
Best of all, this isn’t even Dr. Sergio Canavero’s first rodeo with mad science: In 2015 he claimed human head transplants were technically feasible, and in the past few years has claimed to have rehearsed head transplants on cadavers and successfully repaired spinal cord injuries in animals. Lots of claims in there, but precious little evidence. And contrary to what everyone at the head enhancement clinic says, people will notice if you start going around with a new head.
But let’s get back to brains. Ignoring the fact that brain transplant sounds like a zombie with a PhD nibbling on your skull, the article does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So surely there’s some level of legitimacy. After all, it’s not like Dr. Canavero is an editor for this journal. [Editor’s note: By that we mean he is an editor for the journal.]
Man, he’s taking all the fun out of this.
Anyway, now that we’ve prefaced this with the mother of all caveats, what exactly is Dr. Canavero proposing with his brain transplant? It’s pretty simple: Just have a robot scoop out the first brain and place it into a fresh body, either a donated but moribund younger body or a cloned body. Reconnect all the nerves and vasculature and you’re good to go. Enjoy your wine and laugh in the face of death.
Naturally, such a … bold proposal is lacking in the details, but who cares about details, anyway? This is mad science, not respectable science. Professionals have standards. And if we hear that a human brain transplant was successfully completed on a non–dark and stormy night and the doctor didn’t cackle madly “It’s alive! It’s alive!” then honestly, what even was the point?
Ambivalence rules!
As the office’s unofficial Sith lord/Star Wars nerd, LOTME takes notice when science extols the benefits of unhappiness: “It’s good to be grumpy: Bad moods make us more detail-oriented, study shows.”
The investigators manipulated the emotions of participants by having them watch a clip from “Sophie’s Choice” or one from “Friends.” Then the subjects listened to short, emotionally neutral stories, some of which contained inconsistencies, with the text displayed on a computer screen. Sorry to say, gang at Central Perk, but round one went to the sad movie.
“When people are in a negative mood, they are more careful and analytical. They scrutinize what’s actually stated in a text, and they don’t just fall back on their default world knowledge,” lead author Vicky Lai, PhD, of the University of Arizona said in a statement from the school.
Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.
You’ve fallen into Darth Science’s little trap, and we have you now.
A study conducted at the University of Geneva offers a slightly different conclusion. And by slightly different, we mean completely different. People over age 65 who watched a series of short TV clips depicting people in a state of emotional suffering experienced excessive modification of their neuronal connections, compared with those who watched emotionally neutral videos.
The brains of these subjects remained “frozen in a negative state by relating the suffering of others to their own emotional memories,” lead author Sebastian Baez Lugo said in a written release from the university.
Emotional suffering. Frozen brains. Grumpy is … not good?
So there you have it. Darth Science’s lesson for the day: A negative mood makes you careful and analytical, but negative thoughts are bad for your brain.
Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms
Guilt plagues a lot of us, sometimes regularly. Maybe you felt bad about eating the leftovers that your partner was looking forward to eating at the end of the day. Or for not saving a seat for your friend who was running late to the movies. Maybe even hiding a secret that you know would hurt a person’s feelings. We’ve all felt it, and it doesn’t feel good.
But what if there was a pill that would make those feelings seem to hurt less? There’s already a pill for almost everything, right?
Well, researchers from the University of Basel are on the case and have conducted a study suggesting that a placebo might work. They asked participants to write down a time they felt super guilty about something, just to stir up those feelings again, then they were divided into three groups. One group was told they would receive real medication that was actually a placebo, one was told they would get a placebo, and one got nothing. The subjects’ guilty feelings were reduced in both the medication-that-was-really-a-placebo group and placebo-that-was-a-placebo group.
“Our study therefore supports the intriguing finding that placebos work even when they are administered openly, and that explanation of the treatment is key to its effectiveness,” lead author Dilan Sezer said in a written statement.
More research is needed, but the human mind is a very interesting place. It seems like we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Especially to feel less guilty.
It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad scientist’s world
Mad scientists. Life’s just more interesting with a few of them running around, but they’re mostly relegated to works of fiction. Real life is boring; we don’t actually have neurosurgeons going around claiming human brain transplant is technically feasible.
Best of all, this isn’t even Dr. Sergio Canavero’s first rodeo with mad science: In 2015 he claimed human head transplants were technically feasible, and in the past few years has claimed to have rehearsed head transplants on cadavers and successfully repaired spinal cord injuries in animals. Lots of claims in there, but precious little evidence. And contrary to what everyone at the head enhancement clinic says, people will notice if you start going around with a new head.
But let’s get back to brains. Ignoring the fact that brain transplant sounds like a zombie with a PhD nibbling on your skull, the article does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So surely there’s some level of legitimacy. After all, it’s not like Dr. Canavero is an editor for this journal. [Editor’s note: By that we mean he is an editor for the journal.]
Man, he’s taking all the fun out of this.
Anyway, now that we’ve prefaced this with the mother of all caveats, what exactly is Dr. Canavero proposing with his brain transplant? It’s pretty simple: Just have a robot scoop out the first brain and place it into a fresh body, either a donated but moribund younger body or a cloned body. Reconnect all the nerves and vasculature and you’re good to go. Enjoy your wine and laugh in the face of death.
Naturally, such a … bold proposal is lacking in the details, but who cares about details, anyway? This is mad science, not respectable science. Professionals have standards. And if we hear that a human brain transplant was successfully completed on a non–dark and stormy night and the doctor didn’t cackle madly “It’s alive! It’s alive!” then honestly, what even was the point?
Ambivalence rules!
As the office’s unofficial Sith lord/Star Wars nerd, LOTME takes notice when science extols the benefits of unhappiness: “It’s good to be grumpy: Bad moods make us more detail-oriented, study shows.”
The investigators manipulated the emotions of participants by having them watch a clip from “Sophie’s Choice” or one from “Friends.” Then the subjects listened to short, emotionally neutral stories, some of which contained inconsistencies, with the text displayed on a computer screen. Sorry to say, gang at Central Perk, but round one went to the sad movie.
“When people are in a negative mood, they are more careful and analytical. They scrutinize what’s actually stated in a text, and they don’t just fall back on their default world knowledge,” lead author Vicky Lai, PhD, of the University of Arizona said in a statement from the school.
Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.
You’ve fallen into Darth Science’s little trap, and we have you now.
A study conducted at the University of Geneva offers a slightly different conclusion. And by slightly different, we mean completely different. People over age 65 who watched a series of short TV clips depicting people in a state of emotional suffering experienced excessive modification of their neuronal connections, compared with those who watched emotionally neutral videos.
The brains of these subjects remained “frozen in a negative state by relating the suffering of others to their own emotional memories,” lead author Sebastian Baez Lugo said in a written release from the university.
Emotional suffering. Frozen brains. Grumpy is … not good?
So there you have it. Darth Science’s lesson for the day: A negative mood makes you careful and analytical, but negative thoughts are bad for your brain.
Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms
Guilt plagues a lot of us, sometimes regularly. Maybe you felt bad about eating the leftovers that your partner was looking forward to eating at the end of the day. Or for not saving a seat for your friend who was running late to the movies. Maybe even hiding a secret that you know would hurt a person’s feelings. We’ve all felt it, and it doesn’t feel good.
But what if there was a pill that would make those feelings seem to hurt less? There’s already a pill for almost everything, right?
Well, researchers from the University of Basel are on the case and have conducted a study suggesting that a placebo might work. They asked participants to write down a time they felt super guilty about something, just to stir up those feelings again, then they were divided into three groups. One group was told they would receive real medication that was actually a placebo, one was told they would get a placebo, and one got nothing. The subjects’ guilty feelings were reduced in both the medication-that-was-really-a-placebo group and placebo-that-was-a-placebo group.
“Our study therefore supports the intriguing finding that placebos work even when they are administered openly, and that explanation of the treatment is key to its effectiveness,” lead author Dilan Sezer said in a written statement.
More research is needed, but the human mind is a very interesting place. It seems like we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Especially to feel less guilty.
It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad scientist’s world
Mad scientists. Life’s just more interesting with a few of them running around, but they’re mostly relegated to works of fiction. Real life is boring; we don’t actually have neurosurgeons going around claiming human brain transplant is technically feasible.
Best of all, this isn’t even Dr. Sergio Canavero’s first rodeo with mad science: In 2015 he claimed human head transplants were technically feasible, and in the past few years has claimed to have rehearsed head transplants on cadavers and successfully repaired spinal cord injuries in animals. Lots of claims in there, but precious little evidence. And contrary to what everyone at the head enhancement clinic says, people will notice if you start going around with a new head.
But let’s get back to brains. Ignoring the fact that brain transplant sounds like a zombie with a PhD nibbling on your skull, the article does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So surely there’s some level of legitimacy. After all, it’s not like Dr. Canavero is an editor for this journal. [Editor’s note: By that we mean he is an editor for the journal.]
Man, he’s taking all the fun out of this.
Anyway, now that we’ve prefaced this with the mother of all caveats, what exactly is Dr. Canavero proposing with his brain transplant? It’s pretty simple: Just have a robot scoop out the first brain and place it into a fresh body, either a donated but moribund younger body or a cloned body. Reconnect all the nerves and vasculature and you’re good to go. Enjoy your wine and laugh in the face of death.
Naturally, such a … bold proposal is lacking in the details, but who cares about details, anyway? This is mad science, not respectable science. Professionals have standards. And if we hear that a human brain transplant was successfully completed on a non–dark and stormy night and the doctor didn’t cackle madly “It’s alive! It’s alive!” then honestly, what even was the point?
Ambivalence rules!
As the office’s unofficial Sith lord/Star Wars nerd, LOTME takes notice when science extols the benefits of unhappiness: “It’s good to be grumpy: Bad moods make us more detail-oriented, study shows.”
The investigators manipulated the emotions of participants by having them watch a clip from “Sophie’s Choice” or one from “Friends.” Then the subjects listened to short, emotionally neutral stories, some of which contained inconsistencies, with the text displayed on a computer screen. Sorry to say, gang at Central Perk, but round one went to the sad movie.
“When people are in a negative mood, they are more careful and analytical. They scrutinize what’s actually stated in a text, and they don’t just fall back on their default world knowledge,” lead author Vicky Lai, PhD, of the University of Arizona said in a statement from the school.
Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.
You’ve fallen into Darth Science’s little trap, and we have you now.
A study conducted at the University of Geneva offers a slightly different conclusion. And by slightly different, we mean completely different. People over age 65 who watched a series of short TV clips depicting people in a state of emotional suffering experienced excessive modification of their neuronal connections, compared with those who watched emotionally neutral videos.
The brains of these subjects remained “frozen in a negative state by relating the suffering of others to their own emotional memories,” lead author Sebastian Baez Lugo said in a written release from the university.
Emotional suffering. Frozen brains. Grumpy is … not good?
So there you have it. Darth Science’s lesson for the day: A negative mood makes you careful and analytical, but negative thoughts are bad for your brain.
How to talk with patients in ways that help them feel heard and understood
How do we become those professionals and make sure that we are doing a good job connecting and communicating with our patients?
Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
Practice intent listening
When a patient shares their symptoms with you, show genuine curiosity and concern. Ask clarifying questions. Ask how the symptom or problem is affecting their day-to-day life. Avoid quick, rapid-fire questions back at the patient. Do not accept a patient self-diagnosis.
When a patient with a first-time headache says they are having a migraine headache, for example, ask many clarifying questions to make sure you can make a diagnosis of headache type, then use all the information you have gathered to educate the patient on what you believe they have.
It is easy to jump to treatment, but we always want to make sure we have the diagnosis correct first. By intently listening, it also makes it much easier to tell a patient you do not know what is causing their symptoms, but that you and the patient will be vigilant for any future clues that may lead to a diagnosis.
Use terminology that patients understand
Rachael Gotlieb, MD, and colleagues published an excellent study with eye-opening results on common phrases we use as health care providers and how often patients do not understand them.
Only 9% of patients understood what was meant when they were asked if they have been febrile. Only 2% understood what was meant by “I am concerned the patient has an occult infection.” Only 21% understood that “your xray findings were quite impressive” was bad news.
It is easy to avoid these medical language traps, we just have to check our doctor speak. Ask, “Do you have a fever?” Say, “I am concerned you may have an infection that is hard to find.”
Several other terms we use all the time in explaining things to patients that I have found most patients do not understand are the terms bilateral, systemic, and significant. Think carefully as you explain things to patients and check back to have them repeat to you what they think you said.
Be comfortable saying you don’t know
Many symptoms in medicine end up not being diagnosable. When a patient shares symptoms that do not fit a pattern of a disease, it is important to share with them why you think it is okay to wait and watch, even if you do not have a diagnosis.
Patients find it comforting that you are so honest with them. Doing this also has the benefit of gaining patients’ trust when you are sure about something, because it tells them you don’t have an answer for everything.
Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms
This way, you know what their big fear is. You can address what they are worried about, even if it isn’t something you are considering.
Patients are often fearful of a disease a close friend or relative has, so when they get new symptoms, they fear diseases that we might not think of. By knowing what they are fearful of, you can reassure when appropriate.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].
How do we become those professionals and make sure that we are doing a good job connecting and communicating with our patients?
Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
Practice intent listening
When a patient shares their symptoms with you, show genuine curiosity and concern. Ask clarifying questions. Ask how the symptom or problem is affecting their day-to-day life. Avoid quick, rapid-fire questions back at the patient. Do not accept a patient self-diagnosis.
When a patient with a first-time headache says they are having a migraine headache, for example, ask many clarifying questions to make sure you can make a diagnosis of headache type, then use all the information you have gathered to educate the patient on what you believe they have.
It is easy to jump to treatment, but we always want to make sure we have the diagnosis correct first. By intently listening, it also makes it much easier to tell a patient you do not know what is causing their symptoms, but that you and the patient will be vigilant for any future clues that may lead to a diagnosis.
Use terminology that patients understand
Rachael Gotlieb, MD, and colleagues published an excellent study with eye-opening results on common phrases we use as health care providers and how often patients do not understand them.
Only 9% of patients understood what was meant when they were asked if they have been febrile. Only 2% understood what was meant by “I am concerned the patient has an occult infection.” Only 21% understood that “your xray findings were quite impressive” was bad news.
It is easy to avoid these medical language traps, we just have to check our doctor speak. Ask, “Do you have a fever?” Say, “I am concerned you may have an infection that is hard to find.”
Several other terms we use all the time in explaining things to patients that I have found most patients do not understand are the terms bilateral, systemic, and significant. Think carefully as you explain things to patients and check back to have them repeat to you what they think you said.
Be comfortable saying you don’t know
Many symptoms in medicine end up not being diagnosable. When a patient shares symptoms that do not fit a pattern of a disease, it is important to share with them why you think it is okay to wait and watch, even if you do not have a diagnosis.
Patients find it comforting that you are so honest with them. Doing this also has the benefit of gaining patients’ trust when you are sure about something, because it tells them you don’t have an answer for everything.
Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms
This way, you know what their big fear is. You can address what they are worried about, even if it isn’t something you are considering.
Patients are often fearful of a disease a close friend or relative has, so when they get new symptoms, they fear diseases that we might not think of. By knowing what they are fearful of, you can reassure when appropriate.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].
How do we become those professionals and make sure that we are doing a good job connecting and communicating with our patients?
Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
Practice intent listening
When a patient shares their symptoms with you, show genuine curiosity and concern. Ask clarifying questions. Ask how the symptom or problem is affecting their day-to-day life. Avoid quick, rapid-fire questions back at the patient. Do not accept a patient self-diagnosis.
When a patient with a first-time headache says they are having a migraine headache, for example, ask many clarifying questions to make sure you can make a diagnosis of headache type, then use all the information you have gathered to educate the patient on what you believe they have.
It is easy to jump to treatment, but we always want to make sure we have the diagnosis correct first. By intently listening, it also makes it much easier to tell a patient you do not know what is causing their symptoms, but that you and the patient will be vigilant for any future clues that may lead to a diagnosis.
Use terminology that patients understand
Rachael Gotlieb, MD, and colleagues published an excellent study with eye-opening results on common phrases we use as health care providers and how often patients do not understand them.
Only 9% of patients understood what was meant when they were asked if they have been febrile. Only 2% understood what was meant by “I am concerned the patient has an occult infection.” Only 21% understood that “your xray findings were quite impressive” was bad news.
It is easy to avoid these medical language traps, we just have to check our doctor speak. Ask, “Do you have a fever?” Say, “I am concerned you may have an infection that is hard to find.”
Several other terms we use all the time in explaining things to patients that I have found most patients do not understand are the terms bilateral, systemic, and significant. Think carefully as you explain things to patients and check back to have them repeat to you what they think you said.
Be comfortable saying you don’t know
Many symptoms in medicine end up not being diagnosable. When a patient shares symptoms that do not fit a pattern of a disease, it is important to share with them why you think it is okay to wait and watch, even if you do not have a diagnosis.
Patients find it comforting that you are so honest with them. Doing this also has the benefit of gaining patients’ trust when you are sure about something, because it tells them you don’t have an answer for everything.
Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms
This way, you know what their big fear is. You can address what they are worried about, even if it isn’t something you are considering.
Patients are often fearful of a disease a close friend or relative has, so when they get new symptoms, they fear diseases that we might not think of. By knowing what they are fearful of, you can reassure when appropriate.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].
Adverse events reported in one-quarter of inpatient admissions
as indicated from data from 2,809 admissions at 11 hospitals.
The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which focused on medical injury and litigation, documented an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 admissions; 28% of those events were attributed to negligence, write David W. Bates, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.
Although patient safety has changed significantly since 1991, documenting improvements has been challenging, the researchers say. Several reports have shown a decrease in health care–associated infections. However, other aspects of safety – notably, adverse drug events, defined as injuries resulting from drugs taken – are not easily measured and tracked, the researchers say.
“We have not had good estimates of how much harm is being caused by care in hospitals in an ongoing way that looked across all types of adverse events,” and the current review is therefore important, Dr. Bates said in an interview.
In a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers analyzed a random sample of 2,809 hospital admissions from 11 hospitals in Massachusetts during the 2018 calendar year. The hospitals ranged in size from fewer than 100 beds to more than 700 beds; all patients were aged 18 years and older. A panel of nine nurses reviewed the admissions records to identify potential adverse events, and eight physicians reviewed the adverse event summaries and either agreed or disagreed with the adverse event type. The severity of each event was ranked using a general severity scale into categories of significant, serious, life-threatening, or fatal.
Overall, at least one adverse event was identified in 23.6% of the hospital admissions. A total of 978 adverse events were deemed to have occurred during the index admission, and 222 of these (22.7%) were deemed preventable. Among the preventable adverse events, 19.7% were classified as serious, 3.3% as life-threatening, and 0.5% as fatal.
A total of 523 admissions (18.6%) involved at least one significant adverse event, defined as an event that caused unnecessary harm but from which recovery was rapid. A total of 211 admissions involved a serious adverse event, defined as harm resulting in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery; 34 included at least one life-threatening event; and seven admissions involved a fatal adverse event.
A total of 191 admissions involved at least one adverse event deemed preventable. Of those, 29 involved at least one preventable adverse event that was serious, life-threatening, or fatal, the researchers write. Of the seven deaths in the study population, one was deemed preventable.
The most common adverse events were adverse drug events, which accounted for 39.0% of the adverse events; surgical or other procedural events accounted for 30.4%; patient care events (including falls and pressure ulcers) accounted for 15.0%; and health care–associated infections accounted for 11.9%.
Overcoming barriers to better safety
“The overall level of harm, with nearly 1 in 4 patients suffering an adverse event, was higher than I expected it might be,” Dr. Bates told this news organization. However, techniques for identifying adverse events have improved, and “it is easier to find them in electronic records than in paper records,” he noted.
“Hospitals have many issues they are currently dealing with since COVID, and one issue is simply prioritization,” Dr. Bates said. “But it is now possible to measure harm for all patients using electronic tools, and if hospitals know how much harm they are having in specific areas, they can make choices about which ones to focus on.”
“We now have effective prevention strategies for most of the main kinds of harm,” he said. Generally, rates of harm are high because these strategies are not being used effectively, he said. “In addition, there are new tools that can be used – for example, to identify patients who are decompensating earlier,” he noted.
As for additional research, some specific types of harm that have been resistant to interventions, such as pressure ulcers, deserve more attention, said Dr. Bates. “In addition, diagnostic errors appear to cause a great deal of harm, but we don’t yet have good strategies for preventing these,” he said.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from hospitals that might not represent hospitals at large and by the inclusion mainly of patients with private insurance, the researchers write. Other limitations include the likelihood that some adverse events were missed and the level of agreement on adverse events between adjudicators was only fair.
However, the findings serve as a reminder to health care professionals of the need for continued attention to improving patient safety, and measuring adverse events remains a critical part of guiding these improvements, the researchers conclude.
Timely reassessment and opportunities to improve
In the decades since the publication of the report, “To Err Is Human,” by the National Academies in 2000, significant attention has been paid to improving patient safety during hospitalizations, and health care systems have increased in both system and disease complexity, Said Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “Therefore, this study is important in reassessing the safety of inpatient care at the current time,” he said.
“The findings of this study showing preventable adverse events in approximately 7% of all admissions; while concerning, is not surprising, as it is consistent with other studies over time, as the authors have also noted in their discussion,” said Dr. Pal. The current findings “underscore the importance of continuous quality improvement efforts to increase the safety of patient care for hospitalized patients,” he noted.
“The increasing complexity of medical care, fragmentation of health care, structural inequities of health systems, and more recent widespread public health challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been, in my opinion, barriers to improving patient safety,” Dr. Pal said. “The use of innovation and an interdisciplinary approach to patient safety and quality improvement in hospital-based care, such as the use of machine learning to monitor trends and predict the individualized risk of harm, could be a potential way out” to help reduce barriers and improve safety, he said.
“Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of preventable harm for hospitalized patients in the United States,” said Dr. Pal. “When planning for change, keen attention must be paid to understanding how these [drivers] may differ for patients who have been historically marginalized or are otherwise underserved so as to not exacerbate health care inequities,” he added.
The study was funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Dr. Bates owns stock options with AESOP, Clew, FeelBetter, Guided Clinical Solutions, MDClone, and ValeraHealth and has grants/contracts from IBM Watson and EarlySense. He has also served as a consultant for CDI Negev. Dr. Pal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
as indicated from data from 2,809 admissions at 11 hospitals.
The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which focused on medical injury and litigation, documented an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 admissions; 28% of those events were attributed to negligence, write David W. Bates, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.
Although patient safety has changed significantly since 1991, documenting improvements has been challenging, the researchers say. Several reports have shown a decrease in health care–associated infections. However, other aspects of safety – notably, adverse drug events, defined as injuries resulting from drugs taken – are not easily measured and tracked, the researchers say.
“We have not had good estimates of how much harm is being caused by care in hospitals in an ongoing way that looked across all types of adverse events,” and the current review is therefore important, Dr. Bates said in an interview.
In a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers analyzed a random sample of 2,809 hospital admissions from 11 hospitals in Massachusetts during the 2018 calendar year. The hospitals ranged in size from fewer than 100 beds to more than 700 beds; all patients were aged 18 years and older. A panel of nine nurses reviewed the admissions records to identify potential adverse events, and eight physicians reviewed the adverse event summaries and either agreed or disagreed with the adverse event type. The severity of each event was ranked using a general severity scale into categories of significant, serious, life-threatening, or fatal.
Overall, at least one adverse event was identified in 23.6% of the hospital admissions. A total of 978 adverse events were deemed to have occurred during the index admission, and 222 of these (22.7%) were deemed preventable. Among the preventable adverse events, 19.7% were classified as serious, 3.3% as life-threatening, and 0.5% as fatal.
A total of 523 admissions (18.6%) involved at least one significant adverse event, defined as an event that caused unnecessary harm but from which recovery was rapid. A total of 211 admissions involved a serious adverse event, defined as harm resulting in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery; 34 included at least one life-threatening event; and seven admissions involved a fatal adverse event.
A total of 191 admissions involved at least one adverse event deemed preventable. Of those, 29 involved at least one preventable adverse event that was serious, life-threatening, or fatal, the researchers write. Of the seven deaths in the study population, one was deemed preventable.
The most common adverse events were adverse drug events, which accounted for 39.0% of the adverse events; surgical or other procedural events accounted for 30.4%; patient care events (including falls and pressure ulcers) accounted for 15.0%; and health care–associated infections accounted for 11.9%.
Overcoming barriers to better safety
“The overall level of harm, with nearly 1 in 4 patients suffering an adverse event, was higher than I expected it might be,” Dr. Bates told this news organization. However, techniques for identifying adverse events have improved, and “it is easier to find them in electronic records than in paper records,” he noted.
“Hospitals have many issues they are currently dealing with since COVID, and one issue is simply prioritization,” Dr. Bates said. “But it is now possible to measure harm for all patients using electronic tools, and if hospitals know how much harm they are having in specific areas, they can make choices about which ones to focus on.”
“We now have effective prevention strategies for most of the main kinds of harm,” he said. Generally, rates of harm are high because these strategies are not being used effectively, he said. “In addition, there are new tools that can be used – for example, to identify patients who are decompensating earlier,” he noted.
As for additional research, some specific types of harm that have been resistant to interventions, such as pressure ulcers, deserve more attention, said Dr. Bates. “In addition, diagnostic errors appear to cause a great deal of harm, but we don’t yet have good strategies for preventing these,” he said.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from hospitals that might not represent hospitals at large and by the inclusion mainly of patients with private insurance, the researchers write. Other limitations include the likelihood that some adverse events were missed and the level of agreement on adverse events between adjudicators was only fair.
However, the findings serve as a reminder to health care professionals of the need for continued attention to improving patient safety, and measuring adverse events remains a critical part of guiding these improvements, the researchers conclude.
Timely reassessment and opportunities to improve
In the decades since the publication of the report, “To Err Is Human,” by the National Academies in 2000, significant attention has been paid to improving patient safety during hospitalizations, and health care systems have increased in both system and disease complexity, Said Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “Therefore, this study is important in reassessing the safety of inpatient care at the current time,” he said.
“The findings of this study showing preventable adverse events in approximately 7% of all admissions; while concerning, is not surprising, as it is consistent with other studies over time, as the authors have also noted in their discussion,” said Dr. Pal. The current findings “underscore the importance of continuous quality improvement efforts to increase the safety of patient care for hospitalized patients,” he noted.
“The increasing complexity of medical care, fragmentation of health care, structural inequities of health systems, and more recent widespread public health challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been, in my opinion, barriers to improving patient safety,” Dr. Pal said. “The use of innovation and an interdisciplinary approach to patient safety and quality improvement in hospital-based care, such as the use of machine learning to monitor trends and predict the individualized risk of harm, could be a potential way out” to help reduce barriers and improve safety, he said.
“Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of preventable harm for hospitalized patients in the United States,” said Dr. Pal. “When planning for change, keen attention must be paid to understanding how these [drivers] may differ for patients who have been historically marginalized or are otherwise underserved so as to not exacerbate health care inequities,” he added.
The study was funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Dr. Bates owns stock options with AESOP, Clew, FeelBetter, Guided Clinical Solutions, MDClone, and ValeraHealth and has grants/contracts from IBM Watson and EarlySense. He has also served as a consultant for CDI Negev. Dr. Pal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
as indicated from data from 2,809 admissions at 11 hospitals.
The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which focused on medical injury and litigation, documented an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 admissions; 28% of those events were attributed to negligence, write David W. Bates, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.
Although patient safety has changed significantly since 1991, documenting improvements has been challenging, the researchers say. Several reports have shown a decrease in health care–associated infections. However, other aspects of safety – notably, adverse drug events, defined as injuries resulting from drugs taken – are not easily measured and tracked, the researchers say.
“We have not had good estimates of how much harm is being caused by care in hospitals in an ongoing way that looked across all types of adverse events,” and the current review is therefore important, Dr. Bates said in an interview.
In a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers analyzed a random sample of 2,809 hospital admissions from 11 hospitals in Massachusetts during the 2018 calendar year. The hospitals ranged in size from fewer than 100 beds to more than 700 beds; all patients were aged 18 years and older. A panel of nine nurses reviewed the admissions records to identify potential adverse events, and eight physicians reviewed the adverse event summaries and either agreed or disagreed with the adverse event type. The severity of each event was ranked using a general severity scale into categories of significant, serious, life-threatening, or fatal.
Overall, at least one adverse event was identified in 23.6% of the hospital admissions. A total of 978 adverse events were deemed to have occurred during the index admission, and 222 of these (22.7%) were deemed preventable. Among the preventable adverse events, 19.7% were classified as serious, 3.3% as life-threatening, and 0.5% as fatal.
A total of 523 admissions (18.6%) involved at least one significant adverse event, defined as an event that caused unnecessary harm but from which recovery was rapid. A total of 211 admissions involved a serious adverse event, defined as harm resulting in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery; 34 included at least one life-threatening event; and seven admissions involved a fatal adverse event.
A total of 191 admissions involved at least one adverse event deemed preventable. Of those, 29 involved at least one preventable adverse event that was serious, life-threatening, or fatal, the researchers write. Of the seven deaths in the study population, one was deemed preventable.
The most common adverse events were adverse drug events, which accounted for 39.0% of the adverse events; surgical or other procedural events accounted for 30.4%; patient care events (including falls and pressure ulcers) accounted for 15.0%; and health care–associated infections accounted for 11.9%.
Overcoming barriers to better safety
“The overall level of harm, with nearly 1 in 4 patients suffering an adverse event, was higher than I expected it might be,” Dr. Bates told this news organization. However, techniques for identifying adverse events have improved, and “it is easier to find them in electronic records than in paper records,” he noted.
“Hospitals have many issues they are currently dealing with since COVID, and one issue is simply prioritization,” Dr. Bates said. “But it is now possible to measure harm for all patients using electronic tools, and if hospitals know how much harm they are having in specific areas, they can make choices about which ones to focus on.”
“We now have effective prevention strategies for most of the main kinds of harm,” he said. Generally, rates of harm are high because these strategies are not being used effectively, he said. “In addition, there are new tools that can be used – for example, to identify patients who are decompensating earlier,” he noted.
As for additional research, some specific types of harm that have been resistant to interventions, such as pressure ulcers, deserve more attention, said Dr. Bates. “In addition, diagnostic errors appear to cause a great deal of harm, but we don’t yet have good strategies for preventing these,” he said.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from hospitals that might not represent hospitals at large and by the inclusion mainly of patients with private insurance, the researchers write. Other limitations include the likelihood that some adverse events were missed and the level of agreement on adverse events between adjudicators was only fair.
However, the findings serve as a reminder to health care professionals of the need for continued attention to improving patient safety, and measuring adverse events remains a critical part of guiding these improvements, the researchers conclude.
Timely reassessment and opportunities to improve
In the decades since the publication of the report, “To Err Is Human,” by the National Academies in 2000, significant attention has been paid to improving patient safety during hospitalizations, and health care systems have increased in both system and disease complexity, Said Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “Therefore, this study is important in reassessing the safety of inpatient care at the current time,” he said.
“The findings of this study showing preventable adverse events in approximately 7% of all admissions; while concerning, is not surprising, as it is consistent with other studies over time, as the authors have also noted in their discussion,” said Dr. Pal. The current findings “underscore the importance of continuous quality improvement efforts to increase the safety of patient care for hospitalized patients,” he noted.
“The increasing complexity of medical care, fragmentation of health care, structural inequities of health systems, and more recent widespread public health challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been, in my opinion, barriers to improving patient safety,” Dr. Pal said. “The use of innovation and an interdisciplinary approach to patient safety and quality improvement in hospital-based care, such as the use of machine learning to monitor trends and predict the individualized risk of harm, could be a potential way out” to help reduce barriers and improve safety, he said.
“Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of preventable harm for hospitalized patients in the United States,” said Dr. Pal. “When planning for change, keen attention must be paid to understanding how these [drivers] may differ for patients who have been historically marginalized or are otherwise underserved so as to not exacerbate health care inequities,” he added.
The study was funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Dr. Bates owns stock options with AESOP, Clew, FeelBetter, Guided Clinical Solutions, MDClone, and ValeraHealth and has grants/contracts from IBM Watson and EarlySense. He has also served as a consultant for CDI Negev. Dr. Pal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Possible bivalent vaccine link to strokes in people over 65
who got the shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration said in a joint news release.
The release did not recommend people change their vaccine practices, saying the database finding probably did not represent a “true clinical risk.” The CDC said everybody, including people over 65, should stay up to date on their COVID vaccines, including the bivalent booster.
The news release said the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), “a near real-time surveillance system,” raised a safety concern about the Pfizer/BioNTech booster.
“Rapid-response investigation of the signal in the VSD raised a question of whether people 65 and older who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with days 22-44 following vaccination,” the news release said.
Ischemic strokes are blockages of blood to the brain, often caused by blood clots.
“Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal,” the release said.
No higher likelihood of strokes linked to the Pfizer bivalent vaccine had been found by Pfizer/BioNTech, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System maintained by the CDC and the FDA, or other agencies that monitor reactions of vaccines, the news release said. No safety issues about strokes have been identified with the Moderna bivalent vaccine.
CNN, citing a CDC official, reported that about 550,000 seniors who got Pfizer bivalent boosters were tracked by the VSD, and 130 of them had strokes within 3 weeks of getting the shot. None of those 130 people died, CNN said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to share the data.
The issue will be discussed at the January meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.
In a joint statement, Pfizer and BioNTech said: “Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or FDA have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies’ COVID-19 vaccines.”
Bivalent boosters contain two strains of vaccine – one to protect against the original COVID-19 virus and another targeting Omicron subvariants.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
who got the shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration said in a joint news release.
The release did not recommend people change their vaccine practices, saying the database finding probably did not represent a “true clinical risk.” The CDC said everybody, including people over 65, should stay up to date on their COVID vaccines, including the bivalent booster.
The news release said the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), “a near real-time surveillance system,” raised a safety concern about the Pfizer/BioNTech booster.
“Rapid-response investigation of the signal in the VSD raised a question of whether people 65 and older who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with days 22-44 following vaccination,” the news release said.
Ischemic strokes are blockages of blood to the brain, often caused by blood clots.
“Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal,” the release said.
No higher likelihood of strokes linked to the Pfizer bivalent vaccine had been found by Pfizer/BioNTech, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System maintained by the CDC and the FDA, or other agencies that monitor reactions of vaccines, the news release said. No safety issues about strokes have been identified with the Moderna bivalent vaccine.
CNN, citing a CDC official, reported that about 550,000 seniors who got Pfizer bivalent boosters were tracked by the VSD, and 130 of them had strokes within 3 weeks of getting the shot. None of those 130 people died, CNN said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to share the data.
The issue will be discussed at the January meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.
In a joint statement, Pfizer and BioNTech said: “Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or FDA have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies’ COVID-19 vaccines.”
Bivalent boosters contain two strains of vaccine – one to protect against the original COVID-19 virus and another targeting Omicron subvariants.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
who got the shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration said in a joint news release.
The release did not recommend people change their vaccine practices, saying the database finding probably did not represent a “true clinical risk.” The CDC said everybody, including people over 65, should stay up to date on their COVID vaccines, including the bivalent booster.
The news release said the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), “a near real-time surveillance system,” raised a safety concern about the Pfizer/BioNTech booster.
“Rapid-response investigation of the signal in the VSD raised a question of whether people 65 and older who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with days 22-44 following vaccination,” the news release said.
Ischemic strokes are blockages of blood to the brain, often caused by blood clots.
“Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal,” the release said.
No higher likelihood of strokes linked to the Pfizer bivalent vaccine had been found by Pfizer/BioNTech, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System maintained by the CDC and the FDA, or other agencies that monitor reactions of vaccines, the news release said. No safety issues about strokes have been identified with the Moderna bivalent vaccine.
CNN, citing a CDC official, reported that about 550,000 seniors who got Pfizer bivalent boosters were tracked by the VSD, and 130 of them had strokes within 3 weeks of getting the shot. None of those 130 people died, CNN said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to share the data.
The issue will be discussed at the January meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.
In a joint statement, Pfizer and BioNTech said: “Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or FDA have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies’ COVID-19 vaccines.”
Bivalent boosters contain two strains of vaccine – one to protect against the original COVID-19 virus and another targeting Omicron subvariants.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
What the FTC’s proposed ban on noncompete agreements could mean for physicians, other clinicians
The proposed rule seeks to ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses in employment contracts, a practice that represents an “unfair method of competition” with “exploitative and widespread” impacts, including suppression of wages, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit, the FTC said. The public has 60 days to submit comments on the proposal before the FTC issues the final rule.
Employers often include noncompete clauses in physician contracts because they want to avoid having patients leave their health care system and follow a doctor to a competitor. A 2018 survey of primary care physicians found that about half of office-based physicians and 37% of physicians employed at hospitals or freestanding care centers were bound by restrictive covenants.
“A federal ban on noncompete agreements will ensure that physicians nationwide can finally change jobs without fear of being sued,” Erik B. Smith, MD, JD, clinical assistant professor of anesthesiology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.
Many doctors would like to see noncompete agreements vanish, but some physicians still favor them.
“As a small-practice owner, I am personally against this. The noncompete helps me take a risk and hire a physician. It typically takes 2-3 years for me to break even. I think this will further consolidate employment with large hospital systems unfortunately,” Texas cardiologist Rishin Shah, MD, recently tweeted in response to the FTC announcement.
Dr. Smith, who has advocated for noncompete reform, said about half of states currently allow the controversial clauses.
However, several states have recently passed laws restricting their use. California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma ban noncompetes, although some narrowly defined exceptions, such as the sale of a business, remain.
Other states, like Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon, broadly ban noncompete clauses, except for workers earning above a certain threshold. For example, in Colorado, noncompete agreements are permitted for highly compensated employees earning more than $101,250.
Despite additional restrictions on noncompete agreements for workers in the District of Columbia, the new legislation does not apply to physicians earning total compensation of $250,000 or more. However, their employers must define the geographic parameters of the noncompete and limit postemployment restrictions to 2 years.
Restrictive covenants are “uniquely challenging to family medicine’s emphasis on longitudinal care and the patient-physician relationship,” said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. The limitations imposed by noncompete agreements “potentially reduce patient choice, lower the quality of care for patients, and ultimately harm the foundation of family medicine – our relationships with our patients.”
Although the proposed rule aligns with President Biden’s executive order promoting economic competition, Dr. Smith said a national ban on noncompete agreements may push the limits of FTC authority.
“This new rule will certainly result in a ‘major questions doctrine’ Supreme Court challenge,” said Dr. Smith, and possibly be struck down if the court determines an administrative overstep into areas of “vast economic or political significance.”
A controversial policy
The American Medical Association’s code of ethics discourages covenants that “unreasonably restrict” the ability of physicians to practice following contract termination. And in 2022, the AMA cited “overly broad” noncompete language as a red flag young physicians should watch out for during contract negotiations.
But in 2020, the AMA asked the FTC not to use its rulemaking authority to regulate noncompete clauses in physician employment contracts, and instead, relegate enforcement of such agreements to each state. The American Hospital Association expressed similar views.
Still, the FTC said that eliminating noncompete clauses will increase annual wages by $300 billion, allow 30 million Americans to pursue better job opportunities, and encourage hiring competition among employers. It will also save consumers up to $148 billion in health care costs annually.
“Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand,” Lina M. Khan, FTC chair, said in a press release about the proposal.
A national ban on noncompetes would keep more physicians in the industry and practicing in their communities, a win for patients and providers, said Dr. Smith. It could also compel employers to offer more competitive employment packages, including fair wages, better work conditions, and a culture of well-being and patient safety.
“Whatever the final rule is, I’m certain it will be legally challenged,” said Dr. Smith, adding that the nation’s most prominent business lobbying group, the Chamber of Commerce, has already issued a statement calling the rule “blatantly unlawful."
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The proposed rule seeks to ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses in employment contracts, a practice that represents an “unfair method of competition” with “exploitative and widespread” impacts, including suppression of wages, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit, the FTC said. The public has 60 days to submit comments on the proposal before the FTC issues the final rule.
Employers often include noncompete clauses in physician contracts because they want to avoid having patients leave their health care system and follow a doctor to a competitor. A 2018 survey of primary care physicians found that about half of office-based physicians and 37% of physicians employed at hospitals or freestanding care centers were bound by restrictive covenants.
“A federal ban on noncompete agreements will ensure that physicians nationwide can finally change jobs without fear of being sued,” Erik B. Smith, MD, JD, clinical assistant professor of anesthesiology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.
Many doctors would like to see noncompete agreements vanish, but some physicians still favor them.
“As a small-practice owner, I am personally against this. The noncompete helps me take a risk and hire a physician. It typically takes 2-3 years for me to break even. I think this will further consolidate employment with large hospital systems unfortunately,” Texas cardiologist Rishin Shah, MD, recently tweeted in response to the FTC announcement.
Dr. Smith, who has advocated for noncompete reform, said about half of states currently allow the controversial clauses.
However, several states have recently passed laws restricting their use. California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma ban noncompetes, although some narrowly defined exceptions, such as the sale of a business, remain.
Other states, like Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon, broadly ban noncompete clauses, except for workers earning above a certain threshold. For example, in Colorado, noncompete agreements are permitted for highly compensated employees earning more than $101,250.
Despite additional restrictions on noncompete agreements for workers in the District of Columbia, the new legislation does not apply to physicians earning total compensation of $250,000 or more. However, their employers must define the geographic parameters of the noncompete and limit postemployment restrictions to 2 years.
Restrictive covenants are “uniquely challenging to family medicine’s emphasis on longitudinal care and the patient-physician relationship,” said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. The limitations imposed by noncompete agreements “potentially reduce patient choice, lower the quality of care for patients, and ultimately harm the foundation of family medicine – our relationships with our patients.”
Although the proposed rule aligns with President Biden’s executive order promoting economic competition, Dr. Smith said a national ban on noncompete agreements may push the limits of FTC authority.
“This new rule will certainly result in a ‘major questions doctrine’ Supreme Court challenge,” said Dr. Smith, and possibly be struck down if the court determines an administrative overstep into areas of “vast economic or political significance.”
A controversial policy
The American Medical Association’s code of ethics discourages covenants that “unreasonably restrict” the ability of physicians to practice following contract termination. And in 2022, the AMA cited “overly broad” noncompete language as a red flag young physicians should watch out for during contract negotiations.
But in 2020, the AMA asked the FTC not to use its rulemaking authority to regulate noncompete clauses in physician employment contracts, and instead, relegate enforcement of such agreements to each state. The American Hospital Association expressed similar views.
Still, the FTC said that eliminating noncompete clauses will increase annual wages by $300 billion, allow 30 million Americans to pursue better job opportunities, and encourage hiring competition among employers. It will also save consumers up to $148 billion in health care costs annually.
“Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand,” Lina M. Khan, FTC chair, said in a press release about the proposal.
A national ban on noncompetes would keep more physicians in the industry and practicing in their communities, a win for patients and providers, said Dr. Smith. It could also compel employers to offer more competitive employment packages, including fair wages, better work conditions, and a culture of well-being and patient safety.
“Whatever the final rule is, I’m certain it will be legally challenged,” said Dr. Smith, adding that the nation’s most prominent business lobbying group, the Chamber of Commerce, has already issued a statement calling the rule “blatantly unlawful."
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The proposed rule seeks to ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses in employment contracts, a practice that represents an “unfair method of competition” with “exploitative and widespread” impacts, including suppression of wages, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit, the FTC said. The public has 60 days to submit comments on the proposal before the FTC issues the final rule.
Employers often include noncompete clauses in physician contracts because they want to avoid having patients leave their health care system and follow a doctor to a competitor. A 2018 survey of primary care physicians found that about half of office-based physicians and 37% of physicians employed at hospitals or freestanding care centers were bound by restrictive covenants.
“A federal ban on noncompete agreements will ensure that physicians nationwide can finally change jobs without fear of being sued,” Erik B. Smith, MD, JD, clinical assistant professor of anesthesiology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.
Many doctors would like to see noncompete agreements vanish, but some physicians still favor them.
“As a small-practice owner, I am personally against this. The noncompete helps me take a risk and hire a physician. It typically takes 2-3 years for me to break even. I think this will further consolidate employment with large hospital systems unfortunately,” Texas cardiologist Rishin Shah, MD, recently tweeted in response to the FTC announcement.
Dr. Smith, who has advocated for noncompete reform, said about half of states currently allow the controversial clauses.
However, several states have recently passed laws restricting their use. California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma ban noncompetes, although some narrowly defined exceptions, such as the sale of a business, remain.
Other states, like Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon, broadly ban noncompete clauses, except for workers earning above a certain threshold. For example, in Colorado, noncompete agreements are permitted for highly compensated employees earning more than $101,250.
Despite additional restrictions on noncompete agreements for workers in the District of Columbia, the new legislation does not apply to physicians earning total compensation of $250,000 or more. However, their employers must define the geographic parameters of the noncompete and limit postemployment restrictions to 2 years.
Restrictive covenants are “uniquely challenging to family medicine’s emphasis on longitudinal care and the patient-physician relationship,” said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. The limitations imposed by noncompete agreements “potentially reduce patient choice, lower the quality of care for patients, and ultimately harm the foundation of family medicine – our relationships with our patients.”
Although the proposed rule aligns with President Biden’s executive order promoting economic competition, Dr. Smith said a national ban on noncompete agreements may push the limits of FTC authority.
“This new rule will certainly result in a ‘major questions doctrine’ Supreme Court challenge,” said Dr. Smith, and possibly be struck down if the court determines an administrative overstep into areas of “vast economic or political significance.”
A controversial policy
The American Medical Association’s code of ethics discourages covenants that “unreasonably restrict” the ability of physicians to practice following contract termination. And in 2022, the AMA cited “overly broad” noncompete language as a red flag young physicians should watch out for during contract negotiations.
But in 2020, the AMA asked the FTC not to use its rulemaking authority to regulate noncompete clauses in physician employment contracts, and instead, relegate enforcement of such agreements to each state. The American Hospital Association expressed similar views.
Still, the FTC said that eliminating noncompete clauses will increase annual wages by $300 billion, allow 30 million Americans to pursue better job opportunities, and encourage hiring competition among employers. It will also save consumers up to $148 billion in health care costs annually.
“Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand,” Lina M. Khan, FTC chair, said in a press release about the proposal.
A national ban on noncompetes would keep more physicians in the industry and practicing in their communities, a win for patients and providers, said Dr. Smith. It could also compel employers to offer more competitive employment packages, including fair wages, better work conditions, and a culture of well-being and patient safety.
“Whatever the final rule is, I’m certain it will be legally challenged,” said Dr. Smith, adding that the nation’s most prominent business lobbying group, the Chamber of Commerce, has already issued a statement calling the rule “blatantly unlawful."
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Early retirement and the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad cognitive decline
The ‘scheme’ in the name should have been a clue
Retirement. The shiny reward to a lifetime’s worth of working and saving. We’re all literally working to get there, some of us more to get there early, but current research reveals that early retirement isn’t the relaxing finish line we dream about, cognitively speaking.
Researchers at Binghamton (N.Y.) University set out to examine just how retirement plans affect cognitive performance. They started off with China’s New Rural Pension Scheme (scheme probably has a less negative connotation in Chinese), a plan that financially aids the growing rural retirement-age population in the country. Then they looked at data from the Chinese Health and Retirement Longitudinal Survey, which tests cognition with a focus on episodic memory and parts of intact mental status.
What they found was the opposite of what you would expect out of retirees with nothing but time on their hands.
The pension program, which had been in place for almost a decade, led to delayed recall, especially among women, supporting “the mental retirement hypothesis that decreased mental activity results in worsening cognitive skills,” the investigators said in a written statement.
There also was a drop in social engagement, with lower rates of volunteering and social interaction than people who didn’t receive the pension. Some behaviors, like regular alcohol consumption, did improve over the previous year, as did total health in general, but “the adverse effects of early retirement on mental and social engagement significantly outweigh the program’s protective effect on various health behaviors,” Plamen Nikolov, PhD, said about his research.
So if you’re looking to retire early, don’t skimp on the crosswords and the bingo nights. Stay busy in a good way. Your brain will thank you.
Indiana Jones and the First Smallpox Ancestor
Smallpox was, not that long ago, one of the most devastating diseases known to humanity, killing 300 million people in the 20th century alone. Eradicating it has to be one of medicine’s crowning achievements. Now it can only be found in museums, which is where it belongs.
Here’s the thing with smallpox though: For all it did to us, we know frustratingly little about where it came from. Until very recently, the best available genetic evidence placed its emergence in the 17th century, which clashes with historical data. You know what that means, right? It’s time to dig out the fedora and whip, cue the music, and dig into a recently published study spanning continents in search of the mythical smallpox origin story.
We pick up in 2020, when genetic evidence definitively showed smallpox in a Viking burial site, moving the disease’s emergence a thousand years earlier. Which is all well and good, but there’s solid visual evidence that Egyptian pharaohs were dying of smallpox, as their bodies show the signature scarring. Historians were pretty sure smallpox went back about 4,000 years, but there was no genetic material to prove it.
Since there aren’t any 4,000-year-old smallpox germs laying around, the researchers chose to attack the problem another way – by burning down a Venetian catacomb, er, conducting a analysis of historical smallpox genetics to find the virus’s origin. By analyzing the genomes of various strains at different periods of time, they were able to determine that the variola virus had a definitive common ancestor. Some of the genetic components in the Viking-age sample, for example, persisted until the 18th century.
Armed with this information, the scientists determined that the first smallpox ancestor emerged about 3,800 years ago. That’s very close to the historians’ estimate for the disease’s emergence. Proof at last of smallpox’s truly ancient origin. One might even say the researchers chose wisely.
The only hall of fame that really matters
LOTME loves the holiday season – the food, the gifts, the radio stations that play nothing but Christmas music – but for us the most wonderful time of the year comes just a bit later. No, it’s not our annual Golden Globes slap bet. Nope, not even the “excitement” of the College Football Playoff National Championship. It’s time for the National Inventors Hall of Fame to announce its latest inductees, and we could hardly sleep last night after putting cookies out for Thomas Edison. Fasten your seatbelts!
- Robert G. Bryant is a NASA chemist who developed Langley Research Center-Soluble Imide (yes, that’s the actual name) a polymer used as an insulation material for leads in implantable cardiac resynchronization therapy devices.
- Rory Cooper is a biomedical engineer who was paralyzed in a bicycle accident. His work has improved manual and electric wheelchairs and advanced the health, mobility, and social inclusion of people with disabilities and older adults. He is also the first NIHF inductee named Rory.
- Katalin Karikó, a biochemist, and Drew Weissman, an immunologist, “discovered how to enable messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) to enter cells without triggering the body’s immune system,” NIHF said, and that laid the foundation for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. That, of course, led to the antivax movement, which has provided so much LOTME fodder over the years.
- Angela Hartley Brodie was a biochemist who discovered and developed a class of drugs called aromatase inhibitors, which can stop the production of hormones that fuel cancer cell growth and are used to treat breast cancer in 500,000 women worldwide each year.
We can’t mention all of the inductees for 2023 (our editor made that very clear), but we would like to offer a special shout-out to brothers Cyril (the first Cyril in the NIHF, by the way) and Louis Keller, who invented the world’s first compact loader, which eventually became the Bobcat skid-steer loader. Not really medical, you’re probably thinking, but we’re sure that someone, somewhere, at some time, used one to build a hospital, landscape a hospital, or clean up after the demolition of a hospital.
The ‘scheme’ in the name should have been a clue
Retirement. The shiny reward to a lifetime’s worth of working and saving. We’re all literally working to get there, some of us more to get there early, but current research reveals that early retirement isn’t the relaxing finish line we dream about, cognitively speaking.
Researchers at Binghamton (N.Y.) University set out to examine just how retirement plans affect cognitive performance. They started off with China’s New Rural Pension Scheme (scheme probably has a less negative connotation in Chinese), a plan that financially aids the growing rural retirement-age population in the country. Then they looked at data from the Chinese Health and Retirement Longitudinal Survey, which tests cognition with a focus on episodic memory and parts of intact mental status.
What they found was the opposite of what you would expect out of retirees with nothing but time on their hands.
The pension program, which had been in place for almost a decade, led to delayed recall, especially among women, supporting “the mental retirement hypothesis that decreased mental activity results in worsening cognitive skills,” the investigators said in a written statement.
There also was a drop in social engagement, with lower rates of volunteering and social interaction than people who didn’t receive the pension. Some behaviors, like regular alcohol consumption, did improve over the previous year, as did total health in general, but “the adverse effects of early retirement on mental and social engagement significantly outweigh the program’s protective effect on various health behaviors,” Plamen Nikolov, PhD, said about his research.
So if you’re looking to retire early, don’t skimp on the crosswords and the bingo nights. Stay busy in a good way. Your brain will thank you.
Indiana Jones and the First Smallpox Ancestor
Smallpox was, not that long ago, one of the most devastating diseases known to humanity, killing 300 million people in the 20th century alone. Eradicating it has to be one of medicine’s crowning achievements. Now it can only be found in museums, which is where it belongs.
Here’s the thing with smallpox though: For all it did to us, we know frustratingly little about where it came from. Until very recently, the best available genetic evidence placed its emergence in the 17th century, which clashes with historical data. You know what that means, right? It’s time to dig out the fedora and whip, cue the music, and dig into a recently published study spanning continents in search of the mythical smallpox origin story.
We pick up in 2020, when genetic evidence definitively showed smallpox in a Viking burial site, moving the disease’s emergence a thousand years earlier. Which is all well and good, but there’s solid visual evidence that Egyptian pharaohs were dying of smallpox, as their bodies show the signature scarring. Historians were pretty sure smallpox went back about 4,000 years, but there was no genetic material to prove it.
Since there aren’t any 4,000-year-old smallpox germs laying around, the researchers chose to attack the problem another way – by burning down a Venetian catacomb, er, conducting a analysis of historical smallpox genetics to find the virus’s origin. By analyzing the genomes of various strains at different periods of time, they were able to determine that the variola virus had a definitive common ancestor. Some of the genetic components in the Viking-age sample, for example, persisted until the 18th century.
Armed with this information, the scientists determined that the first smallpox ancestor emerged about 3,800 years ago. That’s very close to the historians’ estimate for the disease’s emergence. Proof at last of smallpox’s truly ancient origin. One might even say the researchers chose wisely.
The only hall of fame that really matters
LOTME loves the holiday season – the food, the gifts, the radio stations that play nothing but Christmas music – but for us the most wonderful time of the year comes just a bit later. No, it’s not our annual Golden Globes slap bet. Nope, not even the “excitement” of the College Football Playoff National Championship. It’s time for the National Inventors Hall of Fame to announce its latest inductees, and we could hardly sleep last night after putting cookies out for Thomas Edison. Fasten your seatbelts!
- Robert G. Bryant is a NASA chemist who developed Langley Research Center-Soluble Imide (yes, that’s the actual name) a polymer used as an insulation material for leads in implantable cardiac resynchronization therapy devices.
- Rory Cooper is a biomedical engineer who was paralyzed in a bicycle accident. His work has improved manual and electric wheelchairs and advanced the health, mobility, and social inclusion of people with disabilities and older adults. He is also the first NIHF inductee named Rory.
- Katalin Karikó, a biochemist, and Drew Weissman, an immunologist, “discovered how to enable messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) to enter cells without triggering the body’s immune system,” NIHF said, and that laid the foundation for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. That, of course, led to the antivax movement, which has provided so much LOTME fodder over the years.
- Angela Hartley Brodie was a biochemist who discovered and developed a class of drugs called aromatase inhibitors, which can stop the production of hormones that fuel cancer cell growth and are used to treat breast cancer in 500,000 women worldwide each year.
We can’t mention all of the inductees for 2023 (our editor made that very clear), but we would like to offer a special shout-out to brothers Cyril (the first Cyril in the NIHF, by the way) and Louis Keller, who invented the world’s first compact loader, which eventually became the Bobcat skid-steer loader. Not really medical, you’re probably thinking, but we’re sure that someone, somewhere, at some time, used one to build a hospital, landscape a hospital, or clean up after the demolition of a hospital.
The ‘scheme’ in the name should have been a clue
Retirement. The shiny reward to a lifetime’s worth of working and saving. We’re all literally working to get there, some of us more to get there early, but current research reveals that early retirement isn’t the relaxing finish line we dream about, cognitively speaking.
Researchers at Binghamton (N.Y.) University set out to examine just how retirement plans affect cognitive performance. They started off with China’s New Rural Pension Scheme (scheme probably has a less negative connotation in Chinese), a plan that financially aids the growing rural retirement-age population in the country. Then they looked at data from the Chinese Health and Retirement Longitudinal Survey, which tests cognition with a focus on episodic memory and parts of intact mental status.
What they found was the opposite of what you would expect out of retirees with nothing but time on their hands.
The pension program, which had been in place for almost a decade, led to delayed recall, especially among women, supporting “the mental retirement hypothesis that decreased mental activity results in worsening cognitive skills,” the investigators said in a written statement.
There also was a drop in social engagement, with lower rates of volunteering and social interaction than people who didn’t receive the pension. Some behaviors, like regular alcohol consumption, did improve over the previous year, as did total health in general, but “the adverse effects of early retirement on mental and social engagement significantly outweigh the program’s protective effect on various health behaviors,” Plamen Nikolov, PhD, said about his research.
So if you’re looking to retire early, don’t skimp on the crosswords and the bingo nights. Stay busy in a good way. Your brain will thank you.
Indiana Jones and the First Smallpox Ancestor
Smallpox was, not that long ago, one of the most devastating diseases known to humanity, killing 300 million people in the 20th century alone. Eradicating it has to be one of medicine’s crowning achievements. Now it can only be found in museums, which is where it belongs.
Here’s the thing with smallpox though: For all it did to us, we know frustratingly little about where it came from. Until very recently, the best available genetic evidence placed its emergence in the 17th century, which clashes with historical data. You know what that means, right? It’s time to dig out the fedora and whip, cue the music, and dig into a recently published study spanning continents in search of the mythical smallpox origin story.
We pick up in 2020, when genetic evidence definitively showed smallpox in a Viking burial site, moving the disease’s emergence a thousand years earlier. Which is all well and good, but there’s solid visual evidence that Egyptian pharaohs were dying of smallpox, as their bodies show the signature scarring. Historians were pretty sure smallpox went back about 4,000 years, but there was no genetic material to prove it.
Since there aren’t any 4,000-year-old smallpox germs laying around, the researchers chose to attack the problem another way – by burning down a Venetian catacomb, er, conducting a analysis of historical smallpox genetics to find the virus’s origin. By analyzing the genomes of various strains at different periods of time, they were able to determine that the variola virus had a definitive common ancestor. Some of the genetic components in the Viking-age sample, for example, persisted until the 18th century.
Armed with this information, the scientists determined that the first smallpox ancestor emerged about 3,800 years ago. That’s very close to the historians’ estimate for the disease’s emergence. Proof at last of smallpox’s truly ancient origin. One might even say the researchers chose wisely.
The only hall of fame that really matters
LOTME loves the holiday season – the food, the gifts, the radio stations that play nothing but Christmas music – but for us the most wonderful time of the year comes just a bit later. No, it’s not our annual Golden Globes slap bet. Nope, not even the “excitement” of the College Football Playoff National Championship. It’s time for the National Inventors Hall of Fame to announce its latest inductees, and we could hardly sleep last night after putting cookies out for Thomas Edison. Fasten your seatbelts!
- Robert G. Bryant is a NASA chemist who developed Langley Research Center-Soluble Imide (yes, that’s the actual name) a polymer used as an insulation material for leads in implantable cardiac resynchronization therapy devices.
- Rory Cooper is a biomedical engineer who was paralyzed in a bicycle accident. His work has improved manual and electric wheelchairs and advanced the health, mobility, and social inclusion of people with disabilities and older adults. He is also the first NIHF inductee named Rory.
- Katalin Karikó, a biochemist, and Drew Weissman, an immunologist, “discovered how to enable messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) to enter cells without triggering the body’s immune system,” NIHF said, and that laid the foundation for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. That, of course, led to the antivax movement, which has provided so much LOTME fodder over the years.
- Angela Hartley Brodie was a biochemist who discovered and developed a class of drugs called aromatase inhibitors, which can stop the production of hormones that fuel cancer cell growth and are used to treat breast cancer in 500,000 women worldwide each year.
We can’t mention all of the inductees for 2023 (our editor made that very clear), but we would like to offer a special shout-out to brothers Cyril (the first Cyril in the NIHF, by the way) and Louis Keller, who invented the world’s first compact loader, which eventually became the Bobcat skid-steer loader. Not really medical, you’re probably thinking, but we’re sure that someone, somewhere, at some time, used one to build a hospital, landscape a hospital, or clean up after the demolition of a hospital.