MDedge Surgery

The appeal of working from home is undeniable. It comes with no daily commute, casual dress, and the ability to manage work-life balance more effectively.

Telemedicine is often the first thing that comes to mind when physicians think about remote medical practice. In its traditional sense, telemedicine entails live video consults, replicating the in-person experience as closely as possible, minus the hands-on component. However, this format is just one of many types of virtual care presenting opportunities to practice medicine from home.

The scope and volume of such opportunities are expanding due to technology, regulatory shifts at the state and federal levels favoring remote healthcare, and a wider move toward remote work. Virtual practice options for physicians range from full-time employment to flexible part-time positions that can be used to earn supplementary income.

Just a few of those virtual options are:

Remote Patient Monitoring

Remote patient monitoring uses technology for tracking patient health data, applicable in real-time or asynchronously, through devices ranging from specialized monitors to consumer wearables. Data are securely transmitted to healthcare providers, enabling them to guide or make treatment choices remotely. This method has proven particularly valuable in managing chronic diseases where continuous monitoring can significantly affect outcomes.

Like standard telemedicine, remote patient monitoring offers flexibility, autonomy, and the ability to work from home. It is picking up steam across the healthcare industry, especially in critical care, surgery, post-acute care, and primary care, so there are opportunities for physicians across a variety of specialties.

Online Medication Management and Text-Based Consults

Gathering necessary information for patient care decisions often doesn’t require a direct, face-to-face visit in person or by telemedicine. Clinical data can be efficiently collected through online forms, HIPAA-compliant messaging, medical record reviews, and information gathered by staff.

An approach that uses all these sources enables effective medication management for stable chronic conditions (such as hypertension), as well as straightforward but simple acute issues (such as urinary tract infections). It also is useful for quick follow-ups with patients after starting new treatments, to address questions between visits, and to give them educational material.

Some medical practices and virtual healthcare corporations have made online medication management and text-based consults the center of their business model. Part-time positions with platforms that offer this type of care let physicians fit consultations into their schedule as time permits, without committing to scheduled appointments.

eConsults

Electronic consultations, or eConsults, facilitate collaboration among healthcare professionals about complex cases without direct patient interaction.

These services operate via online platforms that support asynchronous communication and often bypass the need for a traditional referral. Typically, a primary care provider submits a query that is then assigned to a specialist. Next, the specialist reviews the information and offers recommendations for the patient’s care plan.

Major eConsult platforms such as AristaMD and RubiconMD contract with healthcare systems and medical practices. Physicians can easily join the specialist panels of these companies and complete assigned consultations from their homes or offices, paid on a per-consult basis. They should check their employment contracts to make sure such independent contract work is allowed.

Phone-Only On-Call Positions

On-call rotations for after-hour care bring with them challenges in staffing and scheduling vacations. These challenges have helped trigger as-needed or per diem on-call roles, in which a physician provides recommendations and orders over the phone without needing to visit an office or a hospital.

Examples of workplaces that employ phone-only on-call physicians include smaller jails, mental health facilities, dialysis centers, long-term care facilities, and sporting groups or events needing back-up for on-site nurses or emergency medical technicians.

While these positions can sometimes be challenging for a physician to find, they are out there. They can be a fantastic option to earn additional income through low-stress clinical work performed from home.

Supervision of Nurse Practitioners (NPs) and Physician Assistants (PAs)

In states that mandate such physician oversight, it often be conducted remotely — depending on that state’s rules, the practice type, and the scope of services being provided. This remote option introduces part-time opportunities for physicians to oversee NPs and PAs without being in the medical office. Essentially, the doctor needs to be available for phone or email consultations, complete chart reviews, and meet regularly with the provider.

Remote supervision roles are available across various types of healthcare organizations and medical practices. There also are opportunities with insurers, many of which have established NP-run, in-home member assessment programs that require remote supervision by a doctor.

Remote Medical Directorships

Medical directors are a key part of the clinician team in a wide variety of healthcare settings requiring clinical protocol oversight, regulatory compliance, and guidance for other clinicians making treatment decisions. Many directorships do not require direct patient contact and therefore are conducive to remote work, given technologies such as electronic health record and secure messaging systems.

Organizations such as emergency medical service agencies, hospice services, med spas, blood and plasma donation centers, home health agencies, and substance use disorder treatment programs increasingly rely on remote medical directorships to meet legal requirements and accreditation standards.

Although these positions are often viewed as “nonclinical,” they carry significant clinical responsibilities. Examples are developing and reviewing treatment protocols, ensuring adherence to healthcare regulations, and sometimes intervening in complex patient cases or when adverse outcomes occur.

Keeping a Role in Patient Welfare

Clearly, working from home as a physician doesn’t have to mean taking on a nonclinical job. Beyond the options already mentioned, there are numerous others — for example, working as a medical monitor for clinical trials, in utilization management for insurance companies, or in conducting independent medical exams for insurance claims. While these roles don’t involve direct patient treatment, they require similar skills and affect the quality of care.

If such remote opportunities aren’t currently available in your workplace, consider approaching your management about trying them. You can make an effective argument that remote practice alternatives bring value to the organization through expanded patient care capabilities and potential cost savings.

Physicians who are experiencing burnout, seeking a career change, or interested in earning extra income should consider exploring more of the unconventional ways that they can practice medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The appeal of working from home is undeniable. It comes with no daily commute, casual dress, and the ability to manage work-life balance more effectively.

Telemedicine is often the first thing that comes to mind when physicians think about remote medical practice. In its traditional sense, telemedicine entails live video consults, replicating the in-person experience as closely as possible, minus the hands-on component. However, this format is just one of many types of virtual care presenting opportunities to practice medicine from home.

The scope and volume of such opportunities are expanding due to technology, regulatory shifts at the state and federal levels favoring remote healthcare, and a wider move toward remote work. Virtual practice options for physicians range from full-time employment to flexible part-time positions that can be used to earn supplementary income.

Just a few of those virtual options are:

Remote Patient Monitoring

Remote patient monitoring uses technology for tracking patient health data, applicable in real-time or asynchronously, through devices ranging from specialized monitors to consumer wearables. Data are securely transmitted to healthcare providers, enabling them to guide or make treatment choices remotely. This method has proven particularly valuable in managing chronic diseases where continuous monitoring can significantly affect outcomes.

Like standard telemedicine, remote patient monitoring offers flexibility, autonomy, and the ability to work from home. It is picking up steam across the healthcare industry, especially in critical care, surgery, post-acute care, and primary care, so there are opportunities for physicians across a variety of specialties.

Online Medication Management and Text-Based Consults

Gathering necessary information for patient care decisions often doesn’t require a direct, face-to-face visit in person or by telemedicine. Clinical data can be efficiently collected through online forms, HIPAA-compliant messaging, medical record reviews, and information gathered by staff.

An approach that uses all these sources enables effective medication management for stable chronic conditions (such as hypertension), as well as straightforward but simple acute issues (such as urinary tract infections). It also is useful for quick follow-ups with patients after starting new treatments, to address questions between visits, and to give them educational material.

Some medical practices and virtual healthcare corporations have made online medication management and text-based consults the center of their business model. Part-time positions with platforms that offer this type of care let physicians fit consultations into their schedule as time permits, without committing to scheduled appointments.

eConsults

Electronic consultations, or eConsults, facilitate collaboration among healthcare professionals about complex cases without direct patient interaction.

These services operate via online platforms that support asynchronous communication and often bypass the need for a traditional referral. Typically, a primary care provider submits a query that is then assigned to a specialist. Next, the specialist reviews the information and offers recommendations for the patient’s care plan.

Major eConsult platforms such as AristaMD and RubiconMD contract with healthcare systems and medical practices. Physicians can easily join the specialist panels of these companies and complete assigned consultations from their homes or offices, paid on a per-consult basis. They should check their employment contracts to make sure such independent contract work is allowed.

Phone-Only On-Call Positions

On-call rotations for after-hour care bring with them challenges in staffing and scheduling vacations. These challenges have helped trigger as-needed or per diem on-call roles, in which a physician provides recommendations and orders over the phone without needing to visit an office or a hospital.

Examples of workplaces that employ phone-only on-call physicians include smaller jails, mental health facilities, dialysis centers, long-term care facilities, and sporting groups or events needing back-up for on-site nurses or emergency medical technicians.

While these positions can sometimes be challenging for a physician to find, they are out there. They can be a fantastic option to earn additional income through low-stress clinical work performed from home.

Supervision of Nurse Practitioners (NPs) and Physician Assistants (PAs)

In states that mandate such physician oversight, it often be conducted remotely — depending on that state’s rules, the practice type, and the scope of services being provided. This remote option introduces part-time opportunities for physicians to oversee NPs and PAs without being in the medical office. Essentially, the doctor needs to be available for phone or email consultations, complete chart reviews, and meet regularly with the provider.

Remote supervision roles are available across various types of healthcare organizations and medical practices. There also are opportunities with insurers, many of which have established NP-run, in-home member assessment programs that require remote supervision by a doctor.

Remote Medical Directorships

Medical directors are a key part of the clinician team in a wide variety of healthcare settings requiring clinical protocol oversight, regulatory compliance, and guidance for other clinicians making treatment decisions. Many directorships do not require direct patient contact and therefore are conducive to remote work, given technologies such as electronic health record and secure messaging systems.

Organizations such as emergency medical service agencies, hospice services, med spas, blood and plasma donation centers, home health agencies, and substance use disorder treatment programs increasingly rely on remote medical directorships to meet legal requirements and accreditation standards.

Although these positions are often viewed as “nonclinical,” they carry significant clinical responsibilities. Examples are developing and reviewing treatment protocols, ensuring adherence to healthcare regulations, and sometimes intervening in complex patient cases or when adverse outcomes occur.

Keeping a Role in Patient Welfare

Clearly, working from home as a physician doesn’t have to mean taking on a nonclinical job. Beyond the options already mentioned, there are numerous others — for example, working as a medical monitor for clinical trials, in utilization management for insurance companies, or in conducting independent medical exams for insurance claims. While these roles don’t involve direct patient treatment, they require similar skills and affect the quality of care.

If such remote opportunities aren’t currently available in your workplace, consider approaching your management about trying them. You can make an effective argument that remote practice alternatives bring value to the organization through expanded patient care capabilities and potential cost savings.

Physicians who are experiencing burnout, seeking a career change, or interested in earning extra income should consider exploring more of the unconventional ways that they can practice medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The appeal of working from home is undeniable. It comes with no daily commute, casual dress, and the ability to manage work-life balance more effectively.

Telemedicine is often the first thing that comes to mind when physicians think about remote medical practice. In its traditional sense, telemedicine entails live video consults, replicating the in-person experience as closely as possible, minus the hands-on component. However, this format is just one of many types of virtual care presenting opportunities to practice medicine from home.

The scope and volume of such opportunities are expanding due to technology, regulatory shifts at the state and federal levels favoring remote healthcare, and a wider move toward remote work. Virtual practice options for physicians range from full-time employment to flexible part-time positions that can be used to earn supplementary income.

Just a few of those virtual options are:

Remote Patient Monitoring

Remote patient monitoring uses technology for tracking patient health data, applicable in real-time or asynchronously, through devices ranging from specialized monitors to consumer wearables. Data are securely transmitted to healthcare providers, enabling them to guide or make treatment choices remotely. This method has proven particularly valuable in managing chronic diseases where continuous monitoring can significantly affect outcomes.

Like standard telemedicine, remote patient monitoring offers flexibility, autonomy, and the ability to work from home. It is picking up steam across the healthcare industry, especially in critical care, surgery, post-acute care, and primary care, so there are opportunities for physicians across a variety of specialties.

Online Medication Management and Text-Based Consults

Gathering necessary information for patient care decisions often doesn’t require a direct, face-to-face visit in person or by telemedicine. Clinical data can be efficiently collected through online forms, HIPAA-compliant messaging, medical record reviews, and information gathered by staff.

An approach that uses all these sources enables effective medication management for stable chronic conditions (such as hypertension), as well as straightforward but simple acute issues (such as urinary tract infections). It also is useful for quick follow-ups with patients after starting new treatments, to address questions between visits, and to give them educational material.

Some medical practices and virtual healthcare corporations have made online medication management and text-based consults the center of their business model. Part-time positions with platforms that offer this type of care let physicians fit consultations into their schedule as time permits, without committing to scheduled appointments.

eConsults

Electronic consultations, or eConsults, facilitate collaboration among healthcare professionals about complex cases without direct patient interaction.

These services operate via online platforms that support asynchronous communication and often bypass the need for a traditional referral. Typically, a primary care provider submits a query that is then assigned to a specialist. Next, the specialist reviews the information and offers recommendations for the patient’s care plan.

Major eConsult platforms such as AristaMD and RubiconMD contract with healthcare systems and medical practices. Physicians can easily join the specialist panels of these companies and complete assigned consultations from their homes or offices, paid on a per-consult basis. They should check their employment contracts to make sure such independent contract work is allowed.

Phone-Only On-Call Positions

On-call rotations for after-hour care bring with them challenges in staffing and scheduling vacations. These challenges have helped trigger as-needed or per diem on-call roles, in which a physician provides recommendations and orders over the phone without needing to visit an office or a hospital.

Examples of workplaces that employ phone-only on-call physicians include smaller jails, mental health facilities, dialysis centers, long-term care facilities, and sporting groups or events needing back-up for on-site nurses or emergency medical technicians.

While these positions can sometimes be challenging for a physician to find, they are out there. They can be a fantastic option to earn additional income through low-stress clinical work performed from home.

Supervision of Nurse Practitioners (NPs) and Physician Assistants (PAs)

In states that mandate such physician oversight, it often be conducted remotely — depending on that state’s rules, the practice type, and the scope of services being provided. This remote option introduces part-time opportunities for physicians to oversee NPs and PAs without being in the medical office. Essentially, the doctor needs to be available for phone or email consultations, complete chart reviews, and meet regularly with the provider.

Remote supervision roles are available across various types of healthcare organizations and medical practices. There also are opportunities with insurers, many of which have established NP-run, in-home member assessment programs that require remote supervision by a doctor.

Remote Medical Directorships

Medical directors are a key part of the clinician team in a wide variety of healthcare settings requiring clinical protocol oversight, regulatory compliance, and guidance for other clinicians making treatment decisions. Many directorships do not require direct patient contact and therefore are conducive to remote work, given technologies such as electronic health record and secure messaging systems.

Organizations such as emergency medical service agencies, hospice services, med spas, blood and plasma donation centers, home health agencies, and substance use disorder treatment programs increasingly rely on remote medical directorships to meet legal requirements and accreditation standards.

Although these positions are often viewed as “nonclinical,” they carry significant clinical responsibilities. Examples are developing and reviewing treatment protocols, ensuring adherence to healthcare regulations, and sometimes intervening in complex patient cases or when adverse outcomes occur.

Keeping a Role in Patient Welfare

Clearly, working from home as a physician doesn’t have to mean taking on a nonclinical job. Beyond the options already mentioned, there are numerous others — for example, working as a medical monitor for clinical trials, in utilization management for insurance companies, or in conducting independent medical exams for insurance claims. While these roles don’t involve direct patient treatment, they require similar skills and affect the quality of care.

If such remote opportunities aren’t currently available in your workplace, consider approaching your management about trying them. You can make an effective argument that remote practice alternatives bring value to the organization through expanded patient care capabilities and potential cost savings.

Physicians who are experiencing burnout, seeking a career change, or interested in earning extra income should consider exploring more of the unconventional ways that they can practice medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Omitting axillary lymph node dissection does not increase the risk for recurrence or compromise 5-year overall survival outcomes in patients with early-stage, node-negative breast cancer with sentinel-node metastases undergoing surgery and radiation therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• A growing body of evidence has indicated that patients with one or two positive sentinel nodes undergoing breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy can skip axillary lymph node dissection and achieve similar outcomes compared with patients receiving axillary dissection.
• However, these earlier studies had notable limitations, such as limited statistical power, uncertain nodal radiotherapy target volumes, and minimal data on relevant clinical subgroups.
• To fill the gaps in the literature, the researchers conducted a trial with a large, inclusive cohort of patients with node-negative stage T1-T3 breast cancer who had one or two sentinel-node macrometastases and had undergone a mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery.
• The trial randomized 2540 patients to either completion axillary lymph node dissection (n = 1205) or sentinel-node biopsy only (n = 1335). Nearly 90% of patients received adjuvant radiation therapy, and the majority also received systematic therapy.
• Earlier recurrence-free survival findings and patient-reported outcomes were reported last December. The researchers now reported overall survival findings as well as secondary endpoints of breast cancer-specific survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers reported 191 recurrences or deaths over a median follow-up of 46.8 months; 62 patients (4.6%) in the sentinel-node biopsy–only group died, and 69 patients (5.7%) in the dissection group died.
• The biopsy-only group had an estimated 5-year overall survival of 92.9% compared with 92.0% in the dissection group and an estimated 5-year breast cancer-specific survival of 97.1% vs 96.6% in the dissection group.
• The estimated 5-year recurrence-free survival was 89.7% in the biopsy-only group vs 88.7% in the dissection group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66-1.19).
• This non-inferior difference held across all prespecified patient subgroups, except in patients with estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive disease, in which sentinel biopsy alone appeared to be better (HR, 0.26).

IN PRACTICE:

“This trial provides robust evidence that the omission of completion axillary-lymph-node dissection was safe in patients with clinically node-negative T1, T2, or T3 breast cancer and one or two sentinel-node macrometastases who received adjuvant systemic treatment and radiation therapy according to national guidelines,” the authors concluded.

“It is clear that the role of axillary dissection is rapidly disappearing,” Kandace P. McGuire, MD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “However, axillary staging continues to be vital with regard to decisions about appropriate breast cancer therapy.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Jana de Boniface, MD, PhD, from Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, alongside the accompanying editorial by Dr. McGuire.

LIMITATIONS:

The study limitations include unavailable radiation therapy details for comparison, low male recruitment hindering sex-based analysis, short follow-up for luminal subtype breast cancer, unmet enrollment targets, and higher withdrawal rates in the dissection group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, Nordic Cancer Union, and Swedish Breast Cancer Association. One coauthor reported receiving consultancy fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Omitting axillary lymph node dissection does not increase the risk for recurrence or compromise 5-year overall survival outcomes in patients with early-stage, node-negative breast cancer with sentinel-node metastases undergoing surgery and radiation therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• A growing body of evidence has indicated that patients with one or two positive sentinel nodes undergoing breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy can skip axillary lymph node dissection and achieve similar outcomes compared with patients receiving axillary dissection.
• However, these earlier studies had notable limitations, such as limited statistical power, uncertain nodal radiotherapy target volumes, and minimal data on relevant clinical subgroups.
• To fill the gaps in the literature, the researchers conducted a trial with a large, inclusive cohort of patients with node-negative stage T1-T3 breast cancer who had one or two sentinel-node macrometastases and had undergone a mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery.
• The trial randomized 2540 patients to either completion axillary lymph node dissection (n = 1205) or sentinel-node biopsy only (n = 1335). Nearly 90% of patients received adjuvant radiation therapy, and the majority also received systematic therapy.
• Earlier recurrence-free survival findings and patient-reported outcomes were reported last December. The researchers now reported overall survival findings as well as secondary endpoints of breast cancer-specific survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers reported 191 recurrences or deaths over a median follow-up of 46.8 months; 62 patients (4.6%) in the sentinel-node biopsy–only group died, and 69 patients (5.7%) in the dissection group died.
• The biopsy-only group had an estimated 5-year overall survival of 92.9% compared with 92.0% in the dissection group and an estimated 5-year breast cancer-specific survival of 97.1% vs 96.6% in the dissection group.
• The estimated 5-year recurrence-free survival was 89.7% in the biopsy-only group vs 88.7% in the dissection group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66-1.19).
• This non-inferior difference held across all prespecified patient subgroups, except in patients with estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive disease, in which sentinel biopsy alone appeared to be better (HR, 0.26).

IN PRACTICE:

“This trial provides robust evidence that the omission of completion axillary-lymph-node dissection was safe in patients with clinically node-negative T1, T2, or T3 breast cancer and one or two sentinel-node macrometastases who received adjuvant systemic treatment and radiation therapy according to national guidelines,” the authors concluded.

“It is clear that the role of axillary dissection is rapidly disappearing,” Kandace P. McGuire, MD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “However, axillary staging continues to be vital with regard to decisions about appropriate breast cancer therapy.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Jana de Boniface, MD, PhD, from Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, alongside the accompanying editorial by Dr. McGuire.

LIMITATIONS:

The study limitations include unavailable radiation therapy details for comparison, low male recruitment hindering sex-based analysis, short follow-up for luminal subtype breast cancer, unmet enrollment targets, and higher withdrawal rates in the dissection group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, Nordic Cancer Union, and Swedish Breast Cancer Association. One coauthor reported receiving consultancy fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Omitting axillary lymph node dissection does not increase the risk for recurrence or compromise 5-year overall survival outcomes in patients with early-stage, node-negative breast cancer with sentinel-node metastases undergoing surgery and radiation therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• A growing body of evidence has indicated that patients with one or two positive sentinel nodes undergoing breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy can skip axillary lymph node dissection and achieve similar outcomes compared with patients receiving axillary dissection.
• However, these earlier studies had notable limitations, such as limited statistical power, uncertain nodal radiotherapy target volumes, and minimal data on relevant clinical subgroups.
• To fill the gaps in the literature, the researchers conducted a trial with a large, inclusive cohort of patients with node-negative stage T1-T3 breast cancer who had one or two sentinel-node macrometastases and had undergone a mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery.
• The trial randomized 2540 patients to either completion axillary lymph node dissection (n = 1205) or sentinel-node biopsy only (n = 1335). Nearly 90% of patients received adjuvant radiation therapy, and the majority also received systematic therapy.
• Earlier recurrence-free survival findings and patient-reported outcomes were reported last December. The researchers now reported overall survival findings as well as secondary endpoints of breast cancer-specific survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers reported 191 recurrences or deaths over a median follow-up of 46.8 months; 62 patients (4.6%) in the sentinel-node biopsy–only group died, and 69 patients (5.7%) in the dissection group died.
• The biopsy-only group had an estimated 5-year overall survival of 92.9% compared with 92.0% in the dissection group and an estimated 5-year breast cancer-specific survival of 97.1% vs 96.6% in the dissection group.
• The estimated 5-year recurrence-free survival was 89.7% in the biopsy-only group vs 88.7% in the dissection group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66-1.19).
• This non-inferior difference held across all prespecified patient subgroups, except in patients with estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive disease, in which sentinel biopsy alone appeared to be better (HR, 0.26).

IN PRACTICE:

“This trial provides robust evidence that the omission of completion axillary-lymph-node dissection was safe in patients with clinically node-negative T1, T2, or T3 breast cancer and one or two sentinel-node macrometastases who received adjuvant systemic treatment and radiation therapy according to national guidelines,” the authors concluded.

“It is clear that the role of axillary dissection is rapidly disappearing,” Kandace P. McGuire, MD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “However, axillary staging continues to be vital with regard to decisions about appropriate breast cancer therapy.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Jana de Boniface, MD, PhD, from Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, alongside the accompanying editorial by Dr. McGuire.

LIMITATIONS:

The study limitations include unavailable radiation therapy details for comparison, low male recruitment hindering sex-based analysis, short follow-up for luminal subtype breast cancer, unmet enrollment targets, and higher withdrawal rates in the dissection group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, Nordic Cancer Union, and Swedish Breast Cancer Association. One coauthor reported receiving consultancy fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare reimbursement for common breast cancer surgeries decreased significantly over the past two decades, and the resulting shortage of funds could affect quality of care and access to services, especially for vulnerable patient populations.

These were findings of new research presented by Terry P. Gao, MD, at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting.

Medicare reimbursements often set a benchmark that is followed by private insurers, and the impact of changes on various breast surgeries have not been examined, Dr. Gao, a research resident at Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, said during a press briefing in advance of the meeting.

“This study is important because it is the first to analyze trends in Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgery over a long period,” Dr. Gao said during an interview. The findings highlight a critical issue that could impact access to quality care, especially for vulnerable populations, she said.
 

How Were the Data Analyzed?

Dr. Gao and colleagues reviewed percent changes in reimbursement procedures over a 20-year period and compared them to changes in the consumer price index (CPI) to show the real-life impact of inflation.

The study examined reimbursements based on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from 2003 to 2023 for 10 procedures. The procedures were core needle biopsy, open incisional breast biopsy, open excisional breast biopsy, lumpectomy, lumpectomy with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), simple mastectomy, radical mastectomy, modified radical mastectomy, biopsy/removal of lymph nodes, and sentinel lymph node biopsy.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

“Reimbursements did not keep pace with the price of goods and services,” Dr. Gao said during the press briefing.

After the researchers corrected data for inflation, the overall mean Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgeries decreased by approximately 21%, based in part on the 69% increase in the CPI over the study period, Dr. Gao said. The greatest change was in core needle biopsy, for which reimbursement decreased by 36%.

After inflation adjustment, reimbursement increases were seen for only two procedures, lumpectomy and simple mastectomy, of 0.37% and 3.58%, respectively, but these do not represent meaningful gains, Dr. Gao said.

The researchers also used a model to estimate the real-life impact of decreased reimbursement on clinicians. They subtracted the actual 2023 compensation from expected 2023 compensation based on inflation for a breast cancer case incidence of 297,790 patients who underwent axillary surgery, breast lumpectomy, or simple mastectomy. The calculated potential real-world compensation loss for that year was $107,604,444.
 

What are the Clinical Implications? 

The current study is the first to put specific numbers on the trend in declining breast cancer payments, and the findings should encourage physicians to advocate for equitable policies, Dr. Gao noted during the briefing.

The substantial decrease in inflation-adjusted reimbursement rates was significant, she said during the interview. Although the decrease reflects similar trends seen in other specialties, the magnitude is a potential cause for concern, she said.

Declining reimbursements could disproportionately hurt safety-net hospitals serving vulnerable populations by limiting their ability to invest in better care and potentially worsening existing racial disparities, Dr. Gao told this publication. “Additionally, surgeons may opt out of Medicare networks due to low rates, leading to access issues and longer wait times. Finally, these trends could discourage future generations from specializing in breast cancer surgery.”

The study findings should be considered in the context of the complex and rapidly changing clinical landscape in which breast cancer care is evolving, Mediget Teshome, MD, chief of breast surgery at UCLA Health, said during an interview.

“Surgery remains a critically important aspect to curative treatment,” Dr. Teshome said.

Surgical decision-making tailored to each patient’s goals involves coordination from a multidisciplinary team as well as skill and attention from surgeons, she added.

“This degree of specialization and nuance is not always captured in reimbursement models for breast surgery,” Dr. Teshome emphasized. The policy implications of any changes in Medicare reimbursement will be important given the American Cancer Society reports breast cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women in the United States, and as the second leading cause of cancer death in US women, she noted.
 

What Additional Research Is Needed?

Research is needed to understand how declining reimbursements affect patients’ access to care, treatment choices, and long-term outcomes, Dr. Gao said in the interview. Future studies also are needed to examine provider overhead costs, staffing structures, and profit margins to offer a more comprehensive understanding of financial sustainability.

Dr. Gao and Dr. Teshome had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Medicare reimbursement for common breast cancer surgeries decreased significantly over the past two decades, and the resulting shortage of funds could affect quality of care and access to services, especially for vulnerable patient populations.

These were findings of new research presented by Terry P. Gao, MD, at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting.

Medicare reimbursements often set a benchmark that is followed by private insurers, and the impact of changes on various breast surgeries have not been examined, Dr. Gao, a research resident at Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, said during a press briefing in advance of the meeting.

“This study is important because it is the first to analyze trends in Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgery over a long period,” Dr. Gao said during an interview. The findings highlight a critical issue that could impact access to quality care, especially for vulnerable populations, she said.
 

How Were the Data Analyzed?

Dr. Gao and colleagues reviewed percent changes in reimbursement procedures over a 20-year period and compared them to changes in the consumer price index (CPI) to show the real-life impact of inflation.

The study examined reimbursements based on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from 2003 to 2023 for 10 procedures. The procedures were core needle biopsy, open incisional breast biopsy, open excisional breast biopsy, lumpectomy, lumpectomy with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), simple mastectomy, radical mastectomy, modified radical mastectomy, biopsy/removal of lymph nodes, and sentinel lymph node biopsy.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

“Reimbursements did not keep pace with the price of goods and services,” Dr. Gao said during the press briefing.

After the researchers corrected data for inflation, the overall mean Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgeries decreased by approximately 21%, based in part on the 69% increase in the CPI over the study period, Dr. Gao said. The greatest change was in core needle biopsy, for which reimbursement decreased by 36%.

After inflation adjustment, reimbursement increases were seen for only two procedures, lumpectomy and simple mastectomy, of 0.37% and 3.58%, respectively, but these do not represent meaningful gains, Dr. Gao said.

The researchers also used a model to estimate the real-life impact of decreased reimbursement on clinicians. They subtracted the actual 2023 compensation from expected 2023 compensation based on inflation for a breast cancer case incidence of 297,790 patients who underwent axillary surgery, breast lumpectomy, or simple mastectomy. The calculated potential real-world compensation loss for that year was $107,604,444.
 

What are the Clinical Implications? 

The current study is the first to put specific numbers on the trend in declining breast cancer payments, and the findings should encourage physicians to advocate for equitable policies, Dr. Gao noted during the briefing.

The substantial decrease in inflation-adjusted reimbursement rates was significant, she said during the interview. Although the decrease reflects similar trends seen in other specialties, the magnitude is a potential cause for concern, she said.

Declining reimbursements could disproportionately hurt safety-net hospitals serving vulnerable populations by limiting their ability to invest in better care and potentially worsening existing racial disparities, Dr. Gao told this publication. “Additionally, surgeons may opt out of Medicare networks due to low rates, leading to access issues and longer wait times. Finally, these trends could discourage future generations from specializing in breast cancer surgery.”

The study findings should be considered in the context of the complex and rapidly changing clinical landscape in which breast cancer care is evolving, Mediget Teshome, MD, chief of breast surgery at UCLA Health, said during an interview.

“Surgery remains a critically important aspect to curative treatment,” Dr. Teshome said.

Surgical decision-making tailored to each patient’s goals involves coordination from a multidisciplinary team as well as skill and attention from surgeons, she added.

“This degree of specialization and nuance is not always captured in reimbursement models for breast surgery,” Dr. Teshome emphasized. The policy implications of any changes in Medicare reimbursement will be important given the American Cancer Society reports breast cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women in the United States, and as the second leading cause of cancer death in US women, she noted.
 

What Additional Research Is Needed?

Research is needed to understand how declining reimbursements affect patients’ access to care, treatment choices, and long-term outcomes, Dr. Gao said in the interview. Future studies also are needed to examine provider overhead costs, staffing structures, and profit margins to offer a more comprehensive understanding of financial sustainability.

Dr. Gao and Dr. Teshome had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Medicare reimbursement for common breast cancer surgeries decreased significantly over the past two decades, and the resulting shortage of funds could affect quality of care and access to services, especially for vulnerable patient populations.

These were findings of new research presented by Terry P. Gao, MD, at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting.

Medicare reimbursements often set a benchmark that is followed by private insurers, and the impact of changes on various breast surgeries have not been examined, Dr. Gao, a research resident at Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, said during a press briefing in advance of the meeting.

“This study is important because it is the first to analyze trends in Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgery over a long period,” Dr. Gao said during an interview. The findings highlight a critical issue that could impact access to quality care, especially for vulnerable populations, she said.
 

How Were the Data Analyzed?

Dr. Gao and colleagues reviewed percent changes in reimbursement procedures over a 20-year period and compared them to changes in the consumer price index (CPI) to show the real-life impact of inflation.

The study examined reimbursements based on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from 2003 to 2023 for 10 procedures. The procedures were core needle biopsy, open incisional breast biopsy, open excisional breast biopsy, lumpectomy, lumpectomy with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), simple mastectomy, radical mastectomy, modified radical mastectomy, biopsy/removal of lymph nodes, and sentinel lymph node biopsy.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

“Reimbursements did not keep pace with the price of goods and services,” Dr. Gao said during the press briefing.

After the researchers corrected data for inflation, the overall mean Medicare reimbursement for breast cancer surgeries decreased by approximately 21%, based in part on the 69% increase in the CPI over the study period, Dr. Gao said. The greatest change was in core needle biopsy, for which reimbursement decreased by 36%.

After inflation adjustment, reimbursement increases were seen for only two procedures, lumpectomy and simple mastectomy, of 0.37% and 3.58%, respectively, but these do not represent meaningful gains, Dr. Gao said.

The researchers also used a model to estimate the real-life impact of decreased reimbursement on clinicians. They subtracted the actual 2023 compensation from expected 2023 compensation based on inflation for a breast cancer case incidence of 297,790 patients who underwent axillary surgery, breast lumpectomy, or simple mastectomy. The calculated potential real-world compensation loss for that year was $107,604,444.
 

What are the Clinical Implications? 

The current study is the first to put specific numbers on the trend in declining breast cancer payments, and the findings should encourage physicians to advocate for equitable policies, Dr. Gao noted during the briefing.

The substantial decrease in inflation-adjusted reimbursement rates was significant, she said during the interview. Although the decrease reflects similar trends seen in other specialties, the magnitude is a potential cause for concern, she said.

Declining reimbursements could disproportionately hurt safety-net hospitals serving vulnerable populations by limiting their ability to invest in better care and potentially worsening existing racial disparities, Dr. Gao told this publication. “Additionally, surgeons may opt out of Medicare networks due to low rates, leading to access issues and longer wait times. Finally, these trends could discourage future generations from specializing in breast cancer surgery.”

The study findings should be considered in the context of the complex and rapidly changing clinical landscape in which breast cancer care is evolving, Mediget Teshome, MD, chief of breast surgery at UCLA Health, said during an interview.

“Surgery remains a critically important aspect to curative treatment,” Dr. Teshome said.

Surgical decision-making tailored to each patient’s goals involves coordination from a multidisciplinary team as well as skill and attention from surgeons, she added.

“This degree of specialization and nuance is not always captured in reimbursement models for breast surgery,” Dr. Teshome emphasized. The policy implications of any changes in Medicare reimbursement will be important given the American Cancer Society reports breast cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women in the United States, and as the second leading cause of cancer death in US women, she noted.
 

What Additional Research Is Needed?

Research is needed to understand how declining reimbursements affect patients’ access to care, treatment choices, and long-term outcomes, Dr. Gao said in the interview. Future studies also are needed to examine provider overhead costs, staffing structures, and profit margins to offer a more comprehensive understanding of financial sustainability.

Dr. Gao and Dr. Teshome had no financial conflicts to disclose.

In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.

AI 1, Physicians 0

JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.

AI 2, Physicians 0

Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.

AI 3, Physicians 0

A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.

AI 4, Physicians 0

JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.

AI 5, Physicians 0

Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?

65% of Doctors are Concerned

Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.

But the underlying unanswered question is: Physicians spend many years and a lot of money to become really good at what they do. How, exactly, should a doctor feel about a machine that can suddenly do the job better and faster?

The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.

Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.

To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.

‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’

Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.

“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”

Easing the Burden

Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.

“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”

Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.

Could AI Have Diagnosed This?

John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.

“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”

Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.

Empathy From a Robot

All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.

But suppose AI could do that too?

In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.

A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.

Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”

“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”

‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’

One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.

“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”

Time to Restructure Med School

Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”

His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”

Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”

So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?

“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”

“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.

AI 1, Physicians 0

JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.

AI 2, Physicians 0

Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.

AI 3, Physicians 0

A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.

AI 4, Physicians 0

JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.

AI 5, Physicians 0

Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?

65% of Doctors are Concerned

Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.

But the underlying unanswered question is: Physicians spend many years and a lot of money to become really good at what they do. How, exactly, should a doctor feel about a machine that can suddenly do the job better and faster?

The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.

Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.

To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.

‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’

Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.

“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”

Easing the Burden

Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.

“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”

Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.

Could AI Have Diagnosed This?

John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.

“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”

Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.

Empathy From a Robot

All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.

But suppose AI could do that too?

In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.

A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.

Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”

“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”

‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’

One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.

“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”

Time to Restructure Med School

Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”

His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”

Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”

So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?

“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”

“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.

AI 1, Physicians 0

JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.

AI 2, Physicians 0

Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.

AI 3, Physicians 0

A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.

AI 4, Physicians 0

JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.

AI 5, Physicians 0

Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?

65% of Doctors are Concerned

Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.

But the underlying unanswered question is: Physicians spend many years and a lot of money to become really good at what they do. How, exactly, should a doctor feel about a machine that can suddenly do the job better and faster?

The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.

Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.

To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.

‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’

Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.

“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”

Easing the Burden

Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.

“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”

Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.

Could AI Have Diagnosed This?

John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.

“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”

Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.

Empathy From a Robot

All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.

But suppose AI could do that too?

In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.

A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.

Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”

“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”

‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’

One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.

“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”

Time to Restructure Med School

Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”

His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”

Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”

So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?

“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”

“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ATLANTA — Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who had a myocardial infarction or unstable angina and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) had a 76% lower rate of hospital readmission after 6 months if they participated in a remote monitoring protocol compared with similar patients who had standard post-discharge care, results of a new trial suggest.

The TELE-ACS trial showed that at 6 months, telemedicine patients also had statistically significantly lower rates of post-discharge emergency department visits, unplanned coronary revascularizations, and cardiovascular symptoms, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and dizziness. However, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were similar between the two groups. The protocol included consultation with a cardiologist who reviewed home-monitoring data.

“The team was able to aid in preventing unnecessary presentations and advised the patients to seek emergency care whenever was necessary,” Nasser Alshahrani, MSc, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, said while presenting the results at the American College of Cardiology meeting. “The TELE-ACS protocol provided a significant reduction in readmission rates post-ACS and other adverse events.” 

The study findings were published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Telemedicine Protocol

The trial, conducted from January 2022 to April 2023, randomly assigned 337 patients to telemedicine or standard care when they were discharged after PCI and had at least one cardiovascular risk factor. The telemedicine protocol consisted of 12-lead electrocardiogram belt, an automated blood-pressure monitor, and a pulse oximeter. 

Patients in the telemedicine arm initiated the remote monitoring protocol if they thought they had cardiac symptoms. The majority (86%) were men with what the study described as “a high preponderance of cardiovascular risk factors.” Average age was 58.1 years. 

If a telemedicine patient initiated the protocol, a cardiologist remotely assessed the patient’s symptoms and channeled the patient to the appropriate care pathway, whether reassuring the patient or sending them to a primary care physician or emergency department, or to call emergency services. Patients who didn’t get a call back from the cardiologist within 15 minutes were told to seek care in the standard clinical pathway.

Telemedicine patients were given the telemonitoring package and training in how to use the devices before they were discharged. They also received three follow-up quality control calls in the first two months to ensure they were using the equipment correctly. They kept the telemonitoring equipment for 8 months, but were followed out to 9 months. Six telemedicine patients dropped out while one standard care patient withdrew from the study.

Results showed that at 6 months, telemedicine patients had statistically significantly lower rates of post-discharge emergency department visits (25% vs 37%, P < .001), unplanned coronary revascularizations (3% vs 9%, P < .01) and cardiovascular symptoms, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and dizziness (a 13% to 18% difference for each symptom, P < .01).

MACE rates were similar between the two groups.

At 9 months, 3 months after the protocol ended, 20 telemedicine patients and 50 standard-care patients were readmitted to the hospital, while 52 and 73, respectively, went to the emergency department.

The telemedicine patients also had shorter hospital stays: an average of 0.5 and 1.2 days at 6 and 9 months, respectively, vs 1.5 and 1.8 days in the standard treatment arm (P < .001 for both).

Mr. Alshahrani noted several limitations with the study, namely that 86% of participants were men, and that the intervention was only offered to people who had smartphones. “The high level of support for the telemedicine group, with prompt cardiology responses, may be challenging to replicate outside a trial setting, requiring significant investment and training,” he added.
 

Human Element Key

In an interview from London after the presentation, lead author Ramzi Khamis, MB ChB, PhD, said, “This was quite a basic study. Really what we did was we integrated a clinical decision-making algorithm that we perfected with some quite novel but basic technology.” Future research should strive to add a home troponin test to the protocol and an artificial intelligence component, he said.

However, Dr. Khamis noted that human interaction was key to the success of the TELE-ACS trial. “The human factor is very important here and I think it would be really interesting to have a head-to-head comparison of human interaction with remote monitoring vs an AI-driven interaction,” he said. “I have my doubts that AI would be able to beat the human factor here.”

Lawrence Phillips, MD, medical director of outpatient cardiology at NYU Langone Heart, told this news organization that the study was appropriately powered to evaluate the telemedicine protocol, and that it could serve as a template for other studies of remote monitoring in cardiology. 

“I think that this study is forming the foundation of evolving telemedicine data,” he said. “It shows really interesting results, and I’m sure it’s going to be reproduced in different ways going forward.”

While other studies have shown the utility of telemedicine to decrease unnecessary hospitalizations, this study went one step further, Dr. Phillips said. “What was unique about this study was the package that they put together,” he added. “It was a combination of telehealth and being able to speak with someone when you have concerns with objective data of an electrocardiogram, blood-pressure cuff, and oxygen level assessment, which is an interesting approach having that ejective data with [a] subjective element.”

The trial received funding from the British Heart Foundation; King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia via The Saudi Arabian Cultural Bureau; Sansour Fund, Imperial Healthcare Charity; and Safwan Sobhan Fund at Imperial College London. Mr. Alshahrani and Dr. Khamis have no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Phillips has no relevant disclosures.

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

ATLANTA — Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who had a myocardial infarction or unstable angina and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) had a 76% lower rate of hospital readmission after 6 months if they participated in a remote monitoring protocol compared with similar patients who had standard post-discharge care, results of a new trial suggest.

The TELE-ACS trial showed that at 6 months, telemedicine patients also had statistically significantly lower rates of post-discharge emergency department visits, unplanned coronary revascularizations, and cardiovascular symptoms, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and dizziness. However, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were similar between the two groups. The protocol included consultation with a cardiologist who reviewed home-monitoring data.

“The team was able to aid in preventing unnecessary presentations and advised the patients to seek emergency care whenever was necessary,” Nasser Alshahrani, MSc, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, said while presenting the results at the American College of Cardiology meeting. “The TELE-ACS protocol provided a significant reduction in readmission rates post-ACS and other adverse events.” 

The study findings were published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Telemedicine Protocol

The trial, conducted from January 2022 to April 2023, randomly assigned 337 patients to telemedicine or standard care when they were discharged after PCI and had at least one cardiovascular risk factor. The telemedicine protocol consisted of 12-lead electrocardiogram belt, an automated blood-pressure monitor, and a pulse oximeter. 

Patients in the telemedicine arm initiated the remote monitoring protocol if they thought they had cardiac symptoms. The majority (86%) were men with what the study described as “a high preponderance of cardiovascular risk factors.” Average age was 58.1 years. 

If a telemedicine patient initiated the protocol, a cardiologist remotely assessed the patient’s symptoms and channeled the patient to the appropriate care pathway, whether reassuring the patient or sending them to a primary care physician or emergency department, or to call emergency services. Patients who didn’t get a call back from the cardiologist within 15 minutes were told to seek care in the standard clinical pathway.

Telemedicine patients were given the telemonitoring package and training in how to use the devices before they were discharged. They also received three follow-up quality control calls in the first two months to ensure they were using the equipment correctly. They kept the telemonitoring equipment for 8 months, but were followed out to 9 months. Six telemedicine patients dropped out while one standard care patient withdrew from the study.

Results showed that at 6 months, telemedicine patients had statistically significantly lower rates of post-discharge emergency department visits (25% vs 37%, P < .001), unplanned coronary revascularizations (3% vs 9%, P < .01) and cardiovascular symptoms, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and dizziness (a 13% to 18% difference for each symptom, P < .01).

MACE rates were similar between the two groups.

At 9 months, 3 months after the protocol ended, 20 telemedicine patients and 50 standard-care patients were readmitted to the hospital, while 52 and 73, respectively, went to the emergency department.

The telemedicine patients also had shorter hospital stays: an average of 0.5 and 1.2 days at 6 and 9 months, respectively, vs 1.5 and 1.8 days in the standard treatment arm (P < .001 for both).

Mr. Alshahrani noted several limitations with the study, namely that 86% of participants were men, and that the intervention was only offered to people who had smartphones. “The high level of support for the telemedicine group, with prompt cardiology responses, may be challenging to replicate outside a trial setting, requiring significant investment and training,” he added.
 

Human Element Key

In an interview from London after the presentation, lead author Ramzi Khamis, MB ChB, PhD, said, “This was quite a basic study. Really what we did was we integrated a clinical decision-making algorithm that we perfected with some quite novel but basic technology.” Future research should strive to add a home troponin test to the protocol and an artificial intelligence component, he said.

However, Dr. Khamis noted that human interaction was key to the success of the TELE-ACS trial. “The human factor is very important here and I think it would be really interesting to have a head-to-head comparison of human interaction with remote monitoring vs an AI-driven interaction,” he said. “I have my doubts that AI would be able to beat the human factor here.”

Lawrence Phillips, MD, medical director of outpatient cardiology at NYU Langone Heart, told this news organization that the study was appropriately powered to evaluate the telemedicine protocol, and that it could serve as a template for other studies of remote monitoring in cardiology. 

“I think that this study is forming the foundation of evolving telemedicine data,” he said. “It shows really interesting results, and I’m sure it’s going to be reproduced in different ways going forward.”

While other studies have shown the utility of telemedicine to decrease unnecessary hospitalizations, this study went one step further, Dr. Phillips said. “What was unique about this study was the package that they put together,” he added. “It was a combination of telehealth and being able to speak with someone when you have concerns with objective data of an electrocardiogram, blood-pressure cuff, and oxygen level assessment, which is an interesting approach having that ejective data with [a] subjective element.”

The trial received funding from the British Heart Foundation; King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia via The Saudi Arabian Cultural Bureau; Sansour Fund, Imperial Healthcare Charity; and Safwan Sobhan Fund at Imperial College London. Mr. Alshahrani and Dr. Khamis have no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Phillips has no relevant disclosures.

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

ATLANTA — Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who had a myocardial infarction or unstable angina and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) had a 76% lower rate of hospital readmission after 6 months if they participated in a remote monitoring protocol compared with similar patients who had standard post-discharge care, results of a new trial suggest.

The TELE-ACS trial showed that at 6 months, telemedicine patients also had statistically significantly lower rates of post-discharge emergency department visits, unplanned coronary revascularizations, and cardiovascular symptoms, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and dizziness. However, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were similar between the two groups. The protocol included consultation with a cardiologist who reviewed home-monitoring data.

“The team was able to aid in preventing unnecessary presentations and advised the patients to seek emergency care whenever was necessary,” Nasser Alshahrani, MSc, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, said while presenting the results at the American College of Cardiology meeting. “The TELE-ACS protocol provided a significant reduction in readmission rates post-ACS and other adverse events.” 

The study findings were published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Telemedicine Protocol

The trial, conducted from January 2022 to April 2023, randomly assigned 337 patients to telemedicine or standard care when they were discharged after PCI and had at least one cardiovascular risk factor. The telemedicine protocol consisted of 12-lead electrocardiogram belt, an automated blood-pressure monitor, and a pulse oximeter. 

Patients in the telemedicine arm initiated the remote monitoring protocol if they thought they had cardiac symptoms. The majority (86%) were men with what the study described as “a high preponderance of cardiovascular risk factors.” Average age was 58.1 years. 

If a telemedicine patient initiated the protocol, a cardiologist remotely assessed the patient’s symptoms and channeled the patient to the appropriate care pathway, whether reassuring the patient or sending them to a primary care physician or emergency department, or to call emergency services. Patients who didn’t get a call back from the cardiologist within 15 minutes were told to seek care in the standard clinical pathway.

Telemedicine patients were given the telemonitoring package and training in how to use the devices before they were discharged. They also received three follow-up quality control calls in the first two months to ensure they were using the equipment correctly. They kept the telemonitoring equipment for 8 months, but were followed out to 9 months. Six telemedicine patients dropped out while one standard care patient withdrew from the study.

Results showed that at 6 months, telemedicine patients had statistically significantly lower rates of post-discharge emergency department visits (25% vs 37%, P < .001), unplanned coronary revascularizations (3% vs 9%, P < .01) and cardiovascular symptoms, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and dizziness (a 13% to 18% difference for each symptom, P < .01).

MACE rates were similar between the two groups.

At 9 months, 3 months after the protocol ended, 20 telemedicine patients and 50 standard-care patients were readmitted to the hospital, while 52 and 73, respectively, went to the emergency department.

The telemedicine patients also had shorter hospital stays: an average of 0.5 and 1.2 days at 6 and 9 months, respectively, vs 1.5 and 1.8 days in the standard treatment arm (P < .001 for both).

Mr. Alshahrani noted several limitations with the study, namely that 86% of participants were men, and that the intervention was only offered to people who had smartphones. “The high level of support for the telemedicine group, with prompt cardiology responses, may be challenging to replicate outside a trial setting, requiring significant investment and training,” he added.
 

Human Element Key

In an interview from London after the presentation, lead author Ramzi Khamis, MB ChB, PhD, said, “This was quite a basic study. Really what we did was we integrated a clinical decision-making algorithm that we perfected with some quite novel but basic technology.” Future research should strive to add a home troponin test to the protocol and an artificial intelligence component, he said.

However, Dr. Khamis noted that human interaction was key to the success of the TELE-ACS trial. “The human factor is very important here and I think it would be really interesting to have a head-to-head comparison of human interaction with remote monitoring vs an AI-driven interaction,” he said. “I have my doubts that AI would be able to beat the human factor here.”

Lawrence Phillips, MD, medical director of outpatient cardiology at NYU Langone Heart, told this news organization that the study was appropriately powered to evaluate the telemedicine protocol, and that it could serve as a template for other studies of remote monitoring in cardiology. 

“I think that this study is forming the foundation of evolving telemedicine data,” he said. “It shows really interesting results, and I’m sure it’s going to be reproduced in different ways going forward.”

While other studies have shown the utility of telemedicine to decrease unnecessary hospitalizations, this study went one step further, Dr. Phillips said. “What was unique about this study was the package that they put together,” he added. “It was a combination of telehealth and being able to speak with someone when you have concerns with objective data of an electrocardiogram, blood-pressure cuff, and oxygen level assessment, which is an interesting approach having that ejective data with [a] subjective element.”

The trial received funding from the British Heart Foundation; King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia via The Saudi Arabian Cultural Bureau; Sansour Fund, Imperial Healthcare Charity; and Safwan Sobhan Fund at Imperial College London. Mr. Alshahrani and Dr. Khamis have no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Phillips has no relevant disclosures.

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

A group of researchers urged US regulators to revoke the approval of a test marketed for predicting risk for opioid addiction and said government health plans should not pay for the product. 

The focus of the request is AdvertD (SOLVD Health), which the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in December as the first test to use DNA to evaluate if people have an elevated risk for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sample obtained through a cheek swab is meant to help guide decisions about opioid prescriptions for patients not previously treated with these drugs, such as someone undergoing a planned surgery, the FDA said. 

But Michael T. Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher for Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and 30 other physicians and researchers sent an April 4 letter to the Food and Drug Administration calling on the government to reconsider. 

Dr. Abrams and fellow signers of the letters, including longtime opioid watchdog Andrew Kolodny, MD, of Brandeis University, said the algorithm used in creating AvertD “fell into known pitfalls of genetic prediction that give the appearance of predicting genetic risk, without being a true measure of genetic risk.” 

“The harmful consequences of an invalid genetic test for OUD are clear. Patients who test negative, and their clinicians, may have a false sense of security about use of opioids,” the letter states. 

The letter adds that false-positive test results may result in harmful consequences, with clinicians refraining from prescribing needed opioids, a problem that may be magnified in minority populations. 

Among the signers of the letter is Alexander Hatoum, PhD, of Washington University, who conducted an independent evaluation of AdvertD, which he and his colleagues published in 2021 in Drug and Alcohol Dependency. 

Dr. Hatoum said many patients may not fully understand the limit of genetic testing in predicting conditions like risk for OUD, where many factors are at play. The availability of a test may lend the impression that a single DNA trait makes the difference, as happens with conditions like Huntington’s disease and cystic fibrosis, he said. 

“But it’s just not reality for most diseases,” Dr. Hatoum told this news organization. 

The FDA declined to comment on the letter and said its approval of the test was “another step forward” in efforts to prevent new cases of OUD. 

In 2021, a little more than three quarters of people who died by overdose in the United States involved opioids, or more than 80,000 people, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This figure includes prescription opioids, heroin, and fentanyl. 

While deaths from overdoses with prescription opioids peaked in 2017 at 17,029 people, that figure has decreased steadily. Meanwhile, synthetic opioids other than methadone — primarily fentanyl — were the main driver of drug overdose deaths with a nearly 7.5-fold increase from 2015 to 2021. 

The FDA agency said it had “a reasonable assurance of AvertD’s safety and effectiveness, taking into consideration available alternatives, patients’ perspectives, the public health need and the ability to address uncertainty through the collection of post-market data.” 

Slow Rollout

In a separate letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Abrams, Dr. Kolodny, Dr. Hatoum, and the other signers repeated their arguments against the use of AdvertD and asked that the government not use federal funds to pay for the test. 

SOLVD is not yet selling AdvertD in the United States, and it has not yet set a price for the product. The Carlsbad, California-based company told this news organization in an email exchange that it is working with both Medicare and private insurers on questions of future coverage. 

AvertD correctly identified an elevated risk for OUD in about 82.8% of cases, equating to a false-negative rate of 18.2% of patients, the FDA said in its summary of on the data supporting the application. This measure is known as sensitivity, meaning it shows how often an individual has the condition addressed in the test. 

Meanwhile, the false positive rate was 20.8%, the FDA said. 

SOLVD published similar study results in 2021. 

The company failed to impress the FDA’s Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Toxicology Devices Panel, which in October 2022, said the probable risks of the test likely outweighed its benefits. 

Then, in November 2022, the FDA and National Institutes of Health (NIH) held a public workshop meeting  to consider the challenges and possibilities in developing tools to predict the risk of developing OUD. At that meeting, Keri Donaldson, MD, MSCE, the chief executive officer of SOLVD, said the company planned to conduct a controlled rollout of AdvertD on FDA approval. 

Dr. Donaldson said a “defined set” of clinicians would first access the test, allowing the company to understand how results would be used in clinical practice.

“Once a test gets into practice, you have to be very purposeful and thoughtful about how it’s used,” he said.

The FDA approved the test in December 2023, saying it had worked with the company on modifications to its test. It also said that the advisory committee’s feedback helped in the evaluation and ultimate approval of AdvertD. 

Even beyond the debate about the predictive ability of genetic tests for OUD are larger questions that physicians need time to ask patients in assessing their potential risk for addiction when prescribing narcotic painkillers, said Maya Hambright, MD, a physician in New York’s Hudson Valley who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the overdose crisis. 

Genetics are just one of many factors at play in causing people to become addicted to opioids, Dr. Hambright said. 

Physicians must also consider the lasting effects of emotional and physical trauma experienced at any age, but particularly in childhood, as well as what kind of social support a patient has in facing the illness or injury that may require opioids for pain, she said. 

“There is a time and place for narcotic medications to be prescribed appropriately, which means we have to do our due diligence,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “Regardless of the strides we make in research and development, we still must connect and communicate safely and effectively and compassionately with our patients.” 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A group of researchers urged US regulators to revoke the approval of a test marketed for predicting risk for opioid addiction and said government health plans should not pay for the product. 

The focus of the request is AdvertD (SOLVD Health), which the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in December as the first test to use DNA to evaluate if people have an elevated risk for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sample obtained through a cheek swab is meant to help guide decisions about opioid prescriptions for patients not previously treated with these drugs, such as someone undergoing a planned surgery, the FDA said. 

But Michael T. Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher for Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and 30 other physicians and researchers sent an April 4 letter to the Food and Drug Administration calling on the government to reconsider. 

Dr. Abrams and fellow signers of the letters, including longtime opioid watchdog Andrew Kolodny, MD, of Brandeis University, said the algorithm used in creating AvertD “fell into known pitfalls of genetic prediction that give the appearance of predicting genetic risk, without being a true measure of genetic risk.” 

“The harmful consequences of an invalid genetic test for OUD are clear. Patients who test negative, and their clinicians, may have a false sense of security about use of opioids,” the letter states. 

The letter adds that false-positive test results may result in harmful consequences, with clinicians refraining from prescribing needed opioids, a problem that may be magnified in minority populations. 

Among the signers of the letter is Alexander Hatoum, PhD, of Washington University, who conducted an independent evaluation of AdvertD, which he and his colleagues published in 2021 in Drug and Alcohol Dependency. 

Dr. Hatoum said many patients may not fully understand the limit of genetic testing in predicting conditions like risk for OUD, where many factors are at play. The availability of a test may lend the impression that a single DNA trait makes the difference, as happens with conditions like Huntington’s disease and cystic fibrosis, he said. 

“But it’s just not reality for most diseases,” Dr. Hatoum told this news organization. 

The FDA declined to comment on the letter and said its approval of the test was “another step forward” in efforts to prevent new cases of OUD. 

In 2021, a little more than three quarters of people who died by overdose in the United States involved opioids, or more than 80,000 people, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This figure includes prescription opioids, heroin, and fentanyl. 

While deaths from overdoses with prescription opioids peaked in 2017 at 17,029 people, that figure has decreased steadily. Meanwhile, synthetic opioids other than methadone — primarily fentanyl — were the main driver of drug overdose deaths with a nearly 7.5-fold increase from 2015 to 2021. 

The FDA agency said it had “a reasonable assurance of AvertD’s safety and effectiveness, taking into consideration available alternatives, patients’ perspectives, the public health need and the ability to address uncertainty through the collection of post-market data.” 

Slow Rollout

In a separate letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Abrams, Dr. Kolodny, Dr. Hatoum, and the other signers repeated their arguments against the use of AdvertD and asked that the government not use federal funds to pay for the test. 

SOLVD is not yet selling AdvertD in the United States, and it has not yet set a price for the product. The Carlsbad, California-based company told this news organization in an email exchange that it is working with both Medicare and private insurers on questions of future coverage. 

AvertD correctly identified an elevated risk for OUD in about 82.8% of cases, equating to a false-negative rate of 18.2% of patients, the FDA said in its summary of on the data supporting the application. This measure is known as sensitivity, meaning it shows how often an individual has the condition addressed in the test. 

Meanwhile, the false positive rate was 20.8%, the FDA said. 

SOLVD published similar study results in 2021. 

The company failed to impress the FDA’s Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Toxicology Devices Panel, which in October 2022, said the probable risks of the test likely outweighed its benefits. 

Then, in November 2022, the FDA and National Institutes of Health (NIH) held a public workshop meeting  to consider the challenges and possibilities in developing tools to predict the risk of developing OUD. At that meeting, Keri Donaldson, MD, MSCE, the chief executive officer of SOLVD, said the company planned to conduct a controlled rollout of AdvertD on FDA approval. 

Dr. Donaldson said a “defined set” of clinicians would first access the test, allowing the company to understand how results would be used in clinical practice.

“Once a test gets into practice, you have to be very purposeful and thoughtful about how it’s used,” he said.

The FDA approved the test in December 2023, saying it had worked with the company on modifications to its test. It also said that the advisory committee’s feedback helped in the evaluation and ultimate approval of AdvertD. 

Even beyond the debate about the predictive ability of genetic tests for OUD are larger questions that physicians need time to ask patients in assessing their potential risk for addiction when prescribing narcotic painkillers, said Maya Hambright, MD, a physician in New York’s Hudson Valley who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the overdose crisis. 

Genetics are just one of many factors at play in causing people to become addicted to opioids, Dr. Hambright said. 

Physicians must also consider the lasting effects of emotional and physical trauma experienced at any age, but particularly in childhood, as well as what kind of social support a patient has in facing the illness or injury that may require opioids for pain, she said. 

“There is a time and place for narcotic medications to be prescribed appropriately, which means we have to do our due diligence,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “Regardless of the strides we make in research and development, we still must connect and communicate safely and effectively and compassionately with our patients.” 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A group of researchers urged US regulators to revoke the approval of a test marketed for predicting risk for opioid addiction and said government health plans should not pay for the product. 

The focus of the request is AdvertD (SOLVD Health), which the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in December as the first test to use DNA to evaluate if people have an elevated risk for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sample obtained through a cheek swab is meant to help guide decisions about opioid prescriptions for patients not previously treated with these drugs, such as someone undergoing a planned surgery, the FDA said. 

But Michael T. Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher for Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and 30 other physicians and researchers sent an April 4 letter to the Food and Drug Administration calling on the government to reconsider. 

Dr. Abrams and fellow signers of the letters, including longtime opioid watchdog Andrew Kolodny, MD, of Brandeis University, said the algorithm used in creating AvertD “fell into known pitfalls of genetic prediction that give the appearance of predicting genetic risk, without being a true measure of genetic risk.” 

“The harmful consequences of an invalid genetic test for OUD are clear. Patients who test negative, and their clinicians, may have a false sense of security about use of opioids,” the letter states. 

The letter adds that false-positive test results may result in harmful consequences, with clinicians refraining from prescribing needed opioids, a problem that may be magnified in minority populations. 

Among the signers of the letter is Alexander Hatoum, PhD, of Washington University, who conducted an independent evaluation of AdvertD, which he and his colleagues published in 2021 in Drug and Alcohol Dependency. 

Dr. Hatoum said many patients may not fully understand the limit of genetic testing in predicting conditions like risk for OUD, where many factors are at play. The availability of a test may lend the impression that a single DNA trait makes the difference, as happens with conditions like Huntington’s disease and cystic fibrosis, he said. 

“But it’s just not reality for most diseases,” Dr. Hatoum told this news organization. 

The FDA declined to comment on the letter and said its approval of the test was “another step forward” in efforts to prevent new cases of OUD. 

In 2021, a little more than three quarters of people who died by overdose in the United States involved opioids, or more than 80,000 people, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This figure includes prescription opioids, heroin, and fentanyl. 

While deaths from overdoses with prescription opioids peaked in 2017 at 17,029 people, that figure has decreased steadily. Meanwhile, synthetic opioids other than methadone — primarily fentanyl — were the main driver of drug overdose deaths with a nearly 7.5-fold increase from 2015 to 2021. 

The FDA agency said it had “a reasonable assurance of AvertD’s safety and effectiveness, taking into consideration available alternatives, patients’ perspectives, the public health need and the ability to address uncertainty through the collection of post-market data.” 

Slow Rollout

In a separate letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Abrams, Dr. Kolodny, Dr. Hatoum, and the other signers repeated their arguments against the use of AdvertD and asked that the government not use federal funds to pay for the test. 

SOLVD is not yet selling AdvertD in the United States, and it has not yet set a price for the product. The Carlsbad, California-based company told this news organization in an email exchange that it is working with both Medicare and private insurers on questions of future coverage. 

AvertD correctly identified an elevated risk for OUD in about 82.8% of cases, equating to a false-negative rate of 18.2% of patients, the FDA said in its summary of on the data supporting the application. This measure is known as sensitivity, meaning it shows how often an individual has the condition addressed in the test. 

Meanwhile, the false positive rate was 20.8%, the FDA said. 

SOLVD published similar study results in 2021. 

The company failed to impress the FDA’s Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Toxicology Devices Panel, which in October 2022, said the probable risks of the test likely outweighed its benefits. 

Then, in November 2022, the FDA and National Institutes of Health (NIH) held a public workshop meeting  to consider the challenges and possibilities in developing tools to predict the risk of developing OUD. At that meeting, Keri Donaldson, MD, MSCE, the chief executive officer of SOLVD, said the company planned to conduct a controlled rollout of AdvertD on FDA approval. 

Dr. Donaldson said a “defined set” of clinicians would first access the test, allowing the company to understand how results would be used in clinical practice.

“Once a test gets into practice, you have to be very purposeful and thoughtful about how it’s used,” he said.

The FDA approved the test in December 2023, saying it had worked with the company on modifications to its test. It also said that the advisory committee’s feedback helped in the evaluation and ultimate approval of AdvertD. 

Even beyond the debate about the predictive ability of genetic tests for OUD are larger questions that physicians need time to ask patients in assessing their potential risk for addiction when prescribing narcotic painkillers, said Maya Hambright, MD, a physician in New York’s Hudson Valley who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the overdose crisis. 

Genetics are just one of many factors at play in causing people to become addicted to opioids, Dr. Hambright said. 

Physicians must also consider the lasting effects of emotional and physical trauma experienced at any age, but particularly in childhood, as well as what kind of social support a patient has in facing the illness or injury that may require opioids for pain, she said. 

“There is a time and place for narcotic medications to be prescribed appropriately, which means we have to do our due diligence,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “Regardless of the strides we make in research and development, we still must connect and communicate safely and effectively and compassionately with our patients.” 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Reintervention rates after uterus-preserving surgery for leiomyomata were lowest after vaginal myomectomy, the most frequent among four therapeutic approaches, a large cohort study reported.

Accounting for censoring, the 7-year reintervention risk for vaginal myomectomy was 20.6%, followed by uterine artery embolization (26%), endometrial ablation (35.5%), and hysteroscopic myomectomy (37%).

Hysterectomies accounted for 63.2% of reinterventions according to lead author Susanna D. Mitro, PhD, a research scientist in the Division of Research and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, and colleagues.

The Study

In a cohort of 10,324 patients ages 18-50, 19.9% were Asian, 21.2% Black, 21.3% Hispanic, and 32.5% White, with 5.2% of other races and ethnicities. The most affected age groups were 41-45 and 46-50 years. All participants underwent a first uterus-preserving procedure after leiomyoma diagnosis according to 2009-2021 electronic health records at Kaiser Permanente Northern California.

Reintervention referred to a second uterus-preserving procedure or hysterectomy. Median follow-up was 3.8 years (interquartile range, 1.8-7.4 years), and the proportions of index procedures were as follows: 18% (1857) for hysteroscopic myomectomy; 16.2% (1669) for uterine artery embolization; 21.4% (2211) for endometrial ablations; and 44.4% (4,587) for myomectomy.

Reintervention rates were higher in younger patients after uterine artery embolization, with patients ages 18-35 at the index procedure having 1.4-3.7 times greater reintervention rates than patients ages 46-50 years. Reintervention rates for hysteroscopic myomectomy varied by parity, with multiparous patients at 35% greater risk than their nulliparous counterparts.

On the age issue, the authors note that symptom recurrence may be less common in older patients, perhaps because of the onset of menopause. “Alternatively, findings may be explained by age-specific care strategies: Older patients experiencing symptom recurrence may prefer to wait until the onset of menopause rather than pursuing another surgical treatment,” they wrote.

A recent study with 7 years’ follow-up reported a 2.4 times greater risk of hysterectomy after uterine artery embolization versus myomectomy. Reintervention rates may be lower after myomectomy because otherwise asymptomatic patients pursue myomectomy to treat infertility, the authors wrote. Alternatively, myomectomy may more completely remove leiomyomas.

These common benign tumors take a toll on healthcare resources, in 2012 costing up to $9.4 billion annually (in 2010 dollars) for related surgeries, medications, and procedures. Leiomyomas are reportedly the most frequent reason for hysterectomy.

Robust data on the optimal therapeutic approach to fibroids have been sparse, however, with a 2017 comparative-effectiveness review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reporting that evidence on leiomyoma treatments was insufficient to guide clinical care. Few well-conducted trials of leiomyoma treatment have directly compared different treatment options, the authors noted.

The rate of myomectomy is reported to be 9.2 per 10,000 woman-years in Black women and 1.3 per 10,000 woman years in White women, and the recurrence rate after myomectomy can be as great as 60% when patients are followed up to 5 years.

The authors said their findings “may be a reference to discuss expectations for treatment outcomes when choosing initial uterus-preserving treatment for leiomyomas, especially for patients receiving treatment years before the likely onset of menopause.”

This research was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Coauthor Dr. Lauren Wise is a paid consultant for AbbVie and has received in-kind donations from Swiss Precision Diagnostics and Kindara.com; she has also received payment from the Gates Foundation.

Reintervention rates after uterus-preserving surgery for leiomyomata were lowest after vaginal myomectomy, the most frequent among four therapeutic approaches, a large cohort study reported.

Accounting for censoring, the 7-year reintervention risk for vaginal myomectomy was 20.6%, followed by uterine artery embolization (26%), endometrial ablation (35.5%), and hysteroscopic myomectomy (37%).

Hysterectomies accounted for 63.2% of reinterventions according to lead author Susanna D. Mitro, PhD, a research scientist in the Division of Research and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, and colleagues.

The Study

In a cohort of 10,324 patients ages 18-50, 19.9% were Asian, 21.2% Black, 21.3% Hispanic, and 32.5% White, with 5.2% of other races and ethnicities. The most affected age groups were 41-45 and 46-50 years. All participants underwent a first uterus-preserving procedure after leiomyoma diagnosis according to 2009-2021 electronic health records at Kaiser Permanente Northern California.

Reintervention referred to a second uterus-preserving procedure or hysterectomy. Median follow-up was 3.8 years (interquartile range, 1.8-7.4 years), and the proportions of index procedures were as follows: 18% (1857) for hysteroscopic myomectomy; 16.2% (1669) for uterine artery embolization; 21.4% (2211) for endometrial ablations; and 44.4% (4,587) for myomectomy.

Reintervention rates were higher in younger patients after uterine artery embolization, with patients ages 18-35 at the index procedure having 1.4-3.7 times greater reintervention rates than patients ages 46-50 years. Reintervention rates for hysteroscopic myomectomy varied by parity, with multiparous patients at 35% greater risk than their nulliparous counterparts.

On the age issue, the authors note that symptom recurrence may be less common in older patients, perhaps because of the onset of menopause. “Alternatively, findings may be explained by age-specific care strategies: Older patients experiencing symptom recurrence may prefer to wait until the onset of menopause rather than pursuing another surgical treatment,” they wrote.

A recent study with 7 years’ follow-up reported a 2.4 times greater risk of hysterectomy after uterine artery embolization versus myomectomy. Reintervention rates may be lower after myomectomy because otherwise asymptomatic patients pursue myomectomy to treat infertility, the authors wrote. Alternatively, myomectomy may more completely remove leiomyomas.

These common benign tumors take a toll on healthcare resources, in 2012 costing up to $9.4 billion annually (in 2010 dollars) for related surgeries, medications, and procedures. Leiomyomas are reportedly the most frequent reason for hysterectomy.

Robust data on the optimal therapeutic approach to fibroids have been sparse, however, with a 2017 comparative-effectiveness review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reporting that evidence on leiomyoma treatments was insufficient to guide clinical care. Few well-conducted trials of leiomyoma treatment have directly compared different treatment options, the authors noted.

The rate of myomectomy is reported to be 9.2 per 10,000 woman-years in Black women and 1.3 per 10,000 woman years in White women, and the recurrence rate after myomectomy can be as great as 60% when patients are followed up to 5 years.

The authors said their findings “may be a reference to discuss expectations for treatment outcomes when choosing initial uterus-preserving treatment for leiomyomas, especially for patients receiving treatment years before the likely onset of menopause.”

This research was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Coauthor Dr. Lauren Wise is a paid consultant for AbbVie and has received in-kind donations from Swiss Precision Diagnostics and Kindara.com; she has also received payment from the Gates Foundation.

Reintervention rates after uterus-preserving surgery for leiomyomata were lowest after vaginal myomectomy, the most frequent among four therapeutic approaches, a large cohort study reported.

Accounting for censoring, the 7-year reintervention risk for vaginal myomectomy was 20.6%, followed by uterine artery embolization (26%), endometrial ablation (35.5%), and hysteroscopic myomectomy (37%).

Hysterectomies accounted for 63.2% of reinterventions according to lead author Susanna D. Mitro, PhD, a research scientist in the Division of Research and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, and colleagues.

The Study

In a cohort of 10,324 patients ages 18-50, 19.9% were Asian, 21.2% Black, 21.3% Hispanic, and 32.5% White, with 5.2% of other races and ethnicities. The most affected age groups were 41-45 and 46-50 years. All participants underwent a first uterus-preserving procedure after leiomyoma diagnosis according to 2009-2021 electronic health records at Kaiser Permanente Northern California.

Reintervention referred to a second uterus-preserving procedure or hysterectomy. Median follow-up was 3.8 years (interquartile range, 1.8-7.4 years), and the proportions of index procedures were as follows: 18% (1857) for hysteroscopic myomectomy; 16.2% (1669) for uterine artery embolization; 21.4% (2211) for endometrial ablations; and 44.4% (4,587) for myomectomy.

Reintervention rates were higher in younger patients after uterine artery embolization, with patients ages 18-35 at the index procedure having 1.4-3.7 times greater reintervention rates than patients ages 46-50 years. Reintervention rates for hysteroscopic myomectomy varied by parity, with multiparous patients at 35% greater risk than their nulliparous counterparts.

On the age issue, the authors note that symptom recurrence may be less common in older patients, perhaps because of the onset of menopause. “Alternatively, findings may be explained by age-specific care strategies: Older patients experiencing symptom recurrence may prefer to wait until the onset of menopause rather than pursuing another surgical treatment,” they wrote.

A recent study with 7 years’ follow-up reported a 2.4 times greater risk of hysterectomy after uterine artery embolization versus myomectomy. Reintervention rates may be lower after myomectomy because otherwise asymptomatic patients pursue myomectomy to treat infertility, the authors wrote. Alternatively, myomectomy may more completely remove leiomyomas.

These common benign tumors take a toll on healthcare resources, in 2012 costing up to $9.4 billion annually (in 2010 dollars) for related surgeries, medications, and procedures. Leiomyomas are reportedly the most frequent reason for hysterectomy.

Robust data on the optimal therapeutic approach to fibroids have been sparse, however, with a 2017 comparative-effectiveness review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reporting that evidence on leiomyoma treatments was insufficient to guide clinical care. Few well-conducted trials of leiomyoma treatment have directly compared different treatment options, the authors noted.

The rate of myomectomy is reported to be 9.2 per 10,000 woman-years in Black women and 1.3 per 10,000 woman years in White women, and the recurrence rate after myomectomy can be as great as 60% when patients are followed up to 5 years.

The authors said their findings “may be a reference to discuss expectations for treatment outcomes when choosing initial uterus-preserving treatment for leiomyomas, especially for patients receiving treatment years before the likely onset of menopause.”

This research was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Coauthor Dr. Lauren Wise is a paid consultant for AbbVie and has received in-kind donations from Swiss Precision Diagnostics and Kindara.com; she has also received payment from the Gates Foundation.

A longtime Kaiser Permanente surgeon is suing a fellow physician for allegedly submitting false medical board complaints against him in an attempt to get him fired.

Joseph Stalfire III, MD, claims Ming Hsieh, MD, began a campaign to harm his reputation after Dr. Stalfire hurt his leg and went on medical leave. Dr. Stalfire, a board-certified ob.gyn., has worked for Kaiser Permanente in western Oregon for more than 20 years, including several years as a regional chief surgical officer.

Dr. Stalfire is accusing Dr. Hsieh of defamation and intentional emotional distress, according to the March 25 lawsuit filed in Marion County Circuit Court. Northwest Permanente P.C., a Kaiser subsidiary, is also named as a defendant.

Dr. Stalfire is asking for $1.2 million in economic damages and $300,000 in noneconomic damages. Dr. Hsieh has not yet responded to the legal complaint.

Dr. Stalfire’s attorney did not respond to a message seeking comment. Dr. Hsieh is representing himself, according to court records. A Kaiser Permanente spokeswoman told this news organization that Kaiser does not comment on pending litigation.

The conflict began in February 2023, after Dr. Stalfire underwent surgery to correct issues stemming from severe injuries when a tree fell on his leg, according to court records. 

Dr. Hsieh, a Kaiser ob.gyn., senior physician, and quality assurance lead, allegedly contacted Dr. Stalfire after the surgery and demanded he return to work earlier than medically recommended. Dr. Stalfire claims Dr. Hsieh questioned his retirement plans and his ability to continue working to pressure him into quitting. 

Dr. Stalfire reported Dr. Hsieh’s conduct to Kaiser’s human resources department. However, the complaint contends Dr. Hsieh’s actions only escalated after the report was made. According to the complaint, Dr. Hsieh began telling coworkers Dr. Stalfire was “lying” about his injuries. Dr. Hsieh also allegedly contacted administrators and schedulers to ask about Dr. Stalfire’s injuries and suggested that he was not “legitimately recovering from serious injuries.” The complaint claims that Dr. Hsieh told Dr. Stalfire’s colleagues that he was a “con man,” a “criminal,” and “despicable.”

According to Dr. Stalfire’s complaint, in August 2023, Dr. Hsieh submitted numerous anonymous complaints about Dr. Stalfire to the Washington Medical Commission, the Oregon Medical Board, and other governmental agencies. Dr. Stalfire defended himself against the complaints, and they were dismissed. The lawsuit does not specify the nature of the complaints.

Dr. Stalfire later made public record requests for the complaints and discovered Dr. Hsieh had used his deceased mother-in-law’s phone number as his contact information, according to the lawsuit. 

Despite multiple reports about Dr. Hsieh’s conduct, Dr. Stalfire claims Kaiser retained Dr. Hsieh as an employee and took no action to prevent him from making false statements about Dr. Stalfire. 

He claims Dr. Hsieh’s harassment and Kaiser’s inaction harmed his professional reputation, caused lost work time, and resulted in severe emotional distress that required mental health treatment. The harm caused continues to impact his ability to work, the suit contends. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A longtime Kaiser Permanente surgeon is suing a fellow physician for allegedly submitting false medical board complaints against him in an attempt to get him fired.

Joseph Stalfire III, MD, claims Ming Hsieh, MD, began a campaign to harm his reputation after Dr. Stalfire hurt his leg and went on medical leave. Dr. Stalfire, a board-certified ob.gyn., has worked for Kaiser Permanente in western Oregon for more than 20 years, including several years as a regional chief surgical officer.

Dr. Stalfire is accusing Dr. Hsieh of defamation and intentional emotional distress, according to the March 25 lawsuit filed in Marion County Circuit Court. Northwest Permanente P.C., a Kaiser subsidiary, is also named as a defendant.

Dr. Stalfire is asking for $1.2 million in economic damages and $300,000 in noneconomic damages. Dr. Hsieh has not yet responded to the legal complaint.

Dr. Stalfire’s attorney did not respond to a message seeking comment. Dr. Hsieh is representing himself, according to court records. A Kaiser Permanente spokeswoman told this news organization that Kaiser does not comment on pending litigation.

The conflict began in February 2023, after Dr. Stalfire underwent surgery to correct issues stemming from severe injuries when a tree fell on his leg, according to court records. 

Dr. Hsieh, a Kaiser ob.gyn., senior physician, and quality assurance lead, allegedly contacted Dr. Stalfire after the surgery and demanded he return to work earlier than medically recommended. Dr. Stalfire claims Dr. Hsieh questioned his retirement plans and his ability to continue working to pressure him into quitting. 

Dr. Stalfire reported Dr. Hsieh’s conduct to Kaiser’s human resources department. However, the complaint contends Dr. Hsieh’s actions only escalated after the report was made. According to the complaint, Dr. Hsieh began telling coworkers Dr. Stalfire was “lying” about his injuries. Dr. Hsieh also allegedly contacted administrators and schedulers to ask about Dr. Stalfire’s injuries and suggested that he was not “legitimately recovering from serious injuries.” The complaint claims that Dr. Hsieh told Dr. Stalfire’s colleagues that he was a “con man,” a “criminal,” and “despicable.”

According to Dr. Stalfire’s complaint, in August 2023, Dr. Hsieh submitted numerous anonymous complaints about Dr. Stalfire to the Washington Medical Commission, the Oregon Medical Board, and other governmental agencies. Dr. Stalfire defended himself against the complaints, and they were dismissed. The lawsuit does not specify the nature of the complaints.

Dr. Stalfire later made public record requests for the complaints and discovered Dr. Hsieh had used his deceased mother-in-law’s phone number as his contact information, according to the lawsuit. 

Despite multiple reports about Dr. Hsieh’s conduct, Dr. Stalfire claims Kaiser retained Dr. Hsieh as an employee and took no action to prevent him from making false statements about Dr. Stalfire. 

He claims Dr. Hsieh’s harassment and Kaiser’s inaction harmed his professional reputation, caused lost work time, and resulted in severe emotional distress that required mental health treatment. The harm caused continues to impact his ability to work, the suit contends. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A longtime Kaiser Permanente surgeon is suing a fellow physician for allegedly submitting false medical board complaints against him in an attempt to get him fired.

Joseph Stalfire III, MD, claims Ming Hsieh, MD, began a campaign to harm his reputation after Dr. Stalfire hurt his leg and went on medical leave. Dr. Stalfire, a board-certified ob.gyn., has worked for Kaiser Permanente in western Oregon for more than 20 years, including several years as a regional chief surgical officer.

Dr. Stalfire is accusing Dr. Hsieh of defamation and intentional emotional distress, according to the March 25 lawsuit filed in Marion County Circuit Court. Northwest Permanente P.C., a Kaiser subsidiary, is also named as a defendant.

Dr. Stalfire is asking for $1.2 million in economic damages and $300,000 in noneconomic damages. Dr. Hsieh has not yet responded to the legal complaint.

Dr. Stalfire’s attorney did not respond to a message seeking comment. Dr. Hsieh is representing himself, according to court records. A Kaiser Permanente spokeswoman told this news organization that Kaiser does not comment on pending litigation.

The conflict began in February 2023, after Dr. Stalfire underwent surgery to correct issues stemming from severe injuries when a tree fell on his leg, according to court records. 

Dr. Hsieh, a Kaiser ob.gyn., senior physician, and quality assurance lead, allegedly contacted Dr. Stalfire after the surgery and demanded he return to work earlier than medically recommended. Dr. Stalfire claims Dr. Hsieh questioned his retirement plans and his ability to continue working to pressure him into quitting. 

Dr. Stalfire reported Dr. Hsieh’s conduct to Kaiser’s human resources department. However, the complaint contends Dr. Hsieh’s actions only escalated after the report was made. According to the complaint, Dr. Hsieh began telling coworkers Dr. Stalfire was “lying” about his injuries. Dr. Hsieh also allegedly contacted administrators and schedulers to ask about Dr. Stalfire’s injuries and suggested that he was not “legitimately recovering from serious injuries.” The complaint claims that Dr. Hsieh told Dr. Stalfire’s colleagues that he was a “con man,” a “criminal,” and “despicable.”

According to Dr. Stalfire’s complaint, in August 2023, Dr. Hsieh submitted numerous anonymous complaints about Dr. Stalfire to the Washington Medical Commission, the Oregon Medical Board, and other governmental agencies. Dr. Stalfire defended himself against the complaints, and they were dismissed. The lawsuit does not specify the nature of the complaints.

Dr. Stalfire later made public record requests for the complaints and discovered Dr. Hsieh had used his deceased mother-in-law’s phone number as his contact information, according to the lawsuit. 

Despite multiple reports about Dr. Hsieh’s conduct, Dr. Stalfire claims Kaiser retained Dr. Hsieh as an employee and took no action to prevent him from making false statements about Dr. Stalfire. 

He claims Dr. Hsieh’s harassment and Kaiser’s inaction harmed his professional reputation, caused lost work time, and resulted in severe emotional distress that required mental health treatment. The harm caused continues to impact his ability to work, the suit contends. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

After Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) face nearly double the risk for osteoarticular infections compared with those without RA, with similar mortality risks in both groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• The contraction of S aureus bacteremia is linked to poor clinical outcomes in patients with RA; however, no well-sized studies have evaluated the risk for osteoarticular infections and mortality outcomes in patients with RA following S aureus bacteremia.
• This Danish nationwide cohort study aimed to explore whether the cumulative incidence of osteoarticular infections and death would be higher in patients with RA than in those without RA after contracting S aureus bacteremia.
• The study cohort included 18,274 patients with a first episode of S aureus bacteremia between 2006 and 2018, of whom 367 had been diagnosed with RA before contracting S aureus bacteremia.
• The RA cohort had more women (62%) and a higher median age of participants (73 years) than the non-RA cohort (37% women; median age of participants, 70 years).

TAKEAWAY:

• The 90-day cumulative incidence of osteoarticular infections (septic arthritis, spondylitis, osteomyelitis, psoas muscle abscess, or prosthetic joint infection) was nearly double in patients with RA compared with in those without RA (23.1% vs 12.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.93; 95% CI, 1.54-2.41).
• In patients with RA, the risk for osteoarticular infections increased with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor use (HR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.29-3.98) and orthopedic implants (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.08-2.85).
• Moreover, 90-day all-cause mortality was comparable in the RA (35.4%) and non-RA cohorts (33.9%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings stress the need for vigilance in patients with RA who present with S aureus bacteremia to ensure timely identification and treatment of osteoarticular infections, especially in current TNFi [tumor necrosis factor inhibitor] users and patients with orthopedic implants,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Sabine S. Dieperink, MD, of the Centre of Head and Orthopaedics, Copenhagen University Rigshospitalet Glostrup, Denmark, was published online March 9 in Rheumatology (Oxford).

LIMITATIONS:

There might have been chances of misclassification of metastatic S aureus infections owing to the lack of specificity in diagnoses or procedure codes. This study relied on administrative data to record osteoarticular infections, which might have led investigators to underestimate the true cumulative incidence of osteoarticular infections. Also, some patients might have passed away before being diagnosed with osteoarticular infection owing to the high mortality.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by grants from The Danish Rheumatism Association and Beckett Fonden. Some of the authors, including the lead author, declared receiving grants from various funding agencies and other sources, including pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

After Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) face nearly double the risk for osteoarticular infections compared with those without RA, with similar mortality risks in both groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• The contraction of S aureus bacteremia is linked to poor clinical outcomes in patients with RA; however, no well-sized studies have evaluated the risk for osteoarticular infections and mortality outcomes in patients with RA following S aureus bacteremia.
• This Danish nationwide cohort study aimed to explore whether the cumulative incidence of osteoarticular infections and death would be higher in patients with RA than in those without RA after contracting S aureus bacteremia.
• The study cohort included 18,274 patients with a first episode of S aureus bacteremia between 2006 and 2018, of whom 367 had been diagnosed with RA before contracting S aureus bacteremia.
• The RA cohort had more women (62%) and a higher median age of participants (73 years) than the non-RA cohort (37% women; median age of participants, 70 years).

TAKEAWAY:

• The 90-day cumulative incidence of osteoarticular infections (septic arthritis, spondylitis, osteomyelitis, psoas muscle abscess, or prosthetic joint infection) was nearly double in patients with RA compared with in those without RA (23.1% vs 12.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.93; 95% CI, 1.54-2.41).
• In patients with RA, the risk for osteoarticular infections increased with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor use (HR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.29-3.98) and orthopedic implants (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.08-2.85).
• Moreover, 90-day all-cause mortality was comparable in the RA (35.4%) and non-RA cohorts (33.9%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings stress the need for vigilance in patients with RA who present with S aureus bacteremia to ensure timely identification and treatment of osteoarticular infections, especially in current TNFi [tumor necrosis factor inhibitor] users and patients with orthopedic implants,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Sabine S. Dieperink, MD, of the Centre of Head and Orthopaedics, Copenhagen University Rigshospitalet Glostrup, Denmark, was published online March 9 in Rheumatology (Oxford).

LIMITATIONS:

There might have been chances of misclassification of metastatic S aureus infections owing to the lack of specificity in diagnoses or procedure codes. This study relied on administrative data to record osteoarticular infections, which might have led investigators to underestimate the true cumulative incidence of osteoarticular infections. Also, some patients might have passed away before being diagnosed with osteoarticular infection owing to the high mortality.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by grants from The Danish Rheumatism Association and Beckett Fonden. Some of the authors, including the lead author, declared receiving grants from various funding agencies and other sources, including pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

After Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) face nearly double the risk for osteoarticular infections compared with those without RA, with similar mortality risks in both groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• The contraction of S aureus bacteremia is linked to poor clinical outcomes in patients with RA; however, no well-sized studies have evaluated the risk for osteoarticular infections and mortality outcomes in patients with RA following S aureus bacteremia.
• This Danish nationwide cohort study aimed to explore whether the cumulative incidence of osteoarticular infections and death would be higher in patients with RA than in those without RA after contracting S aureus bacteremia.
• The study cohort included 18,274 patients with a first episode of S aureus bacteremia between 2006 and 2018, of whom 367 had been diagnosed with RA before contracting S aureus bacteremia.
• The RA cohort had more women (62%) and a higher median age of participants (73 years) than the non-RA cohort (37% women; median age of participants, 70 years).

TAKEAWAY:

• The 90-day cumulative incidence of osteoarticular infections (septic arthritis, spondylitis, osteomyelitis, psoas muscle abscess, or prosthetic joint infection) was nearly double in patients with RA compared with in those without RA (23.1% vs 12.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.93; 95% CI, 1.54-2.41).
• In patients with RA, the risk for osteoarticular infections increased with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor use (HR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.29-3.98) and orthopedic implants (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.08-2.85).
• Moreover, 90-day all-cause mortality was comparable in the RA (35.4%) and non-RA cohorts (33.9%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings stress the need for vigilance in patients with RA who present with S aureus bacteremia to ensure timely identification and treatment of osteoarticular infections, especially in current TNFi [tumor necrosis factor inhibitor] users and patients with orthopedic implants,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Sabine S. Dieperink, MD, of the Centre of Head and Orthopaedics, Copenhagen University Rigshospitalet Glostrup, Denmark, was published online March 9 in Rheumatology (Oxford).

LIMITATIONS:

There might have been chances of misclassification of metastatic S aureus infections owing to the lack of specificity in diagnoses or procedure codes. This study relied on administrative data to record osteoarticular infections, which might have led investigators to underestimate the true cumulative incidence of osteoarticular infections. Also, some patients might have passed away before being diagnosed with osteoarticular infection owing to the high mortality.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by grants from The Danish Rheumatism Association and Beckett Fonden. Some of the authors, including the lead author, declared receiving grants from various funding agencies and other sources, including pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.