MDedge Neurology

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Kesimpta ofatumumab (Kesimpta) injection for the treatment of adults with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis, including relapsing-remitting MS, active secondary progressive MS, and clinically isolated syndrome, Novartis announced in a press release. This is the first FDA approval of a self-administered, targeted B-cell therapy for these conditions, and is delivered via an autoinjector pen.

“This approval is wonderful news for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis,” Stephen Hauser, MD, director of the Weill Institute for Neurosciences at the University of California, San Francisco, said in the press release. “Through its favorable safety profile and well-tolerated monthly injection regimen, patients can self-administer the treatment at home, avoiding visits to the infusion center,” he noted.

Dr. Hauser is cochair of the steering committee for the phase 3 ASCLEPIOS I and II studies that were part of the basis for the FDA’s approval.

Bruce Bebo, PhD, executive vice president of research at the National MS Society, said because response to disease-modifying treatments varies among individuals with MS, it’s important to have a range of treatment options available with differing mechanisms of action. “We are pleased to have an additional option approved for the treatment of relapsing forms of MS,” he said.

Twin studies

Formerly known as OMB157, ofatumumab is a precisely-dosed anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody administered subcutaneously via once-monthly injection. However, Novartis noted that initial doses are given at weeks 0, 1, and 2 – with the first injection occurring with a health care professional present.

The drug “is thought to work by binding to a distinct epitope on the CD20 molecule inducing potent B-cell lysis and depletion,” the manufacturer noted.

As previously reported, results for the ACLEPIOS I and II studies were presented at the 2019 Congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS), with additional results presented at the 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. In addition, the findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The twin, identically designed phase 3 studies assessed the safety and efficacy of the drug at a monthly subcutaneous dose of 20 mg versus once daily teriflunomide 14-mg oral tablets. Together, the studies included 1,882 adult patients at more than 350 sites in 37 countries.

Results showed that the study drug reduced the annualized relapse rate (ARR) by 51% in the first study and by 59% in the second versus teriflunomide (P < .001 in both studies), meeting the primary endpoint. Both studies also showed significant reductions of gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) T1 lesions (by 98% and 94%, respectively) and new or enlarging T2 lesions (by 82% and 85%).

The most commonly observed treatment-related adverse events for ofatumumab were upper respiratory tract infection, headache, and injection-related reactions.

Although the FDA first approved ofatumumab in 2009 for treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), it was administered as a high-dose intravenous infusion by a healthcare provider. “This is a different dosing regimen and route of administration than was previously approved for the CLL indication,” the company noted.

The drug is expected to be available in the United States in September.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Kesimpta ofatumumab (Kesimpta) injection for the treatment of adults with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis, including relapsing-remitting MS, active secondary progressive MS, and clinically isolated syndrome, Novartis announced in a press release. This is the first FDA approval of a self-administered, targeted B-cell therapy for these conditions, and is delivered via an autoinjector pen.

“This approval is wonderful news for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis,” Stephen Hauser, MD, director of the Weill Institute for Neurosciences at the University of California, San Francisco, said in the press release. “Through its favorable safety profile and well-tolerated monthly injection regimen, patients can self-administer the treatment at home, avoiding visits to the infusion center,” he noted.

Dr. Hauser is cochair of the steering committee for the phase 3 ASCLEPIOS I and II studies that were part of the basis for the FDA’s approval.

Bruce Bebo, PhD, executive vice president of research at the National MS Society, said because response to disease-modifying treatments varies among individuals with MS, it’s important to have a range of treatment options available with differing mechanisms of action. “We are pleased to have an additional option approved for the treatment of relapsing forms of MS,” he said.

Twin studies

Formerly known as OMB157, ofatumumab is a precisely-dosed anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody administered subcutaneously via once-monthly injection. However, Novartis noted that initial doses are given at weeks 0, 1, and 2 – with the first injection occurring with a health care professional present.

The drug “is thought to work by binding to a distinct epitope on the CD20 molecule inducing potent B-cell lysis and depletion,” the manufacturer noted.

As previously reported, results for the ACLEPIOS I and II studies were presented at the 2019 Congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS), with additional results presented at the 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. In addition, the findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The twin, identically designed phase 3 studies assessed the safety and efficacy of the drug at a monthly subcutaneous dose of 20 mg versus once daily teriflunomide 14-mg oral tablets. Together, the studies included 1,882 adult patients at more than 350 sites in 37 countries.

Results showed that the study drug reduced the annualized relapse rate (ARR) by 51% in the first study and by 59% in the second versus teriflunomide (P < .001 in both studies), meeting the primary endpoint. Both studies also showed significant reductions of gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) T1 lesions (by 98% and 94%, respectively) and new or enlarging T2 lesions (by 82% and 85%).

The most commonly observed treatment-related adverse events for ofatumumab were upper respiratory tract infection, headache, and injection-related reactions.

Although the FDA first approved ofatumumab in 2009 for treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), it was administered as a high-dose intravenous infusion by a healthcare provider. “This is a different dosing regimen and route of administration than was previously approved for the CLL indication,” the company noted.

The drug is expected to be available in the United States in September.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Kesimpta ofatumumab (Kesimpta) injection for the treatment of adults with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis, including relapsing-remitting MS, active secondary progressive MS, and clinically isolated syndrome, Novartis announced in a press release. This is the first FDA approval of a self-administered, targeted B-cell therapy for these conditions, and is delivered via an autoinjector pen.

“This approval is wonderful news for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis,” Stephen Hauser, MD, director of the Weill Institute for Neurosciences at the University of California, San Francisco, said in the press release. “Through its favorable safety profile and well-tolerated monthly injection regimen, patients can self-administer the treatment at home, avoiding visits to the infusion center,” he noted.

Dr. Hauser is cochair of the steering committee for the phase 3 ASCLEPIOS I and II studies that were part of the basis for the FDA’s approval.

Bruce Bebo, PhD, executive vice president of research at the National MS Society, said because response to disease-modifying treatments varies among individuals with MS, it’s important to have a range of treatment options available with differing mechanisms of action. “We are pleased to have an additional option approved for the treatment of relapsing forms of MS,” he said.

Twin studies

Formerly known as OMB157, ofatumumab is a precisely-dosed anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody administered subcutaneously via once-monthly injection. However, Novartis noted that initial doses are given at weeks 0, 1, and 2 – with the first injection occurring with a health care professional present.

The drug “is thought to work by binding to a distinct epitope on the CD20 molecule inducing potent B-cell lysis and depletion,” the manufacturer noted.

As previously reported, results for the ACLEPIOS I and II studies were presented at the 2019 Congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS), with additional results presented at the 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. In addition, the findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The twin, identically designed phase 3 studies assessed the safety and efficacy of the drug at a monthly subcutaneous dose of 20 mg versus once daily teriflunomide 14-mg oral tablets. Together, the studies included 1,882 adult patients at more than 350 sites in 37 countries.

Results showed that the study drug reduced the annualized relapse rate (ARR) by 51% in the first study and by 59% in the second versus teriflunomide (P < .001 in both studies), meeting the primary endpoint. Both studies also showed significant reductions of gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) T1 lesions (by 98% and 94%, respectively) and new or enlarging T2 lesions (by 82% and 85%).

The most commonly observed treatment-related adverse events for ofatumumab were upper respiratory tract infection, headache, and injection-related reactions.

Although the FDA first approved ofatumumab in 2009 for treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), it was administered as a high-dose intravenous infusion by a healthcare provider. “This is a different dosing regimen and route of administration than was previously approved for the CLL indication,” the company noted.

The drug is expected to be available in the United States in September.

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

Editor’s Note: This transcript from the August 20 episode of the Blood & Cancer podcast has been edited for clarity. Click this link to listen to the full episode.

David Henry, MD: Welcome to this Blood & Cancer podcast. I’m your host, Dr. David Henry. This podcast airs on Thursday morning each week. This interview and others are archived with show notes from our residents at Pennsylvania Hospital at this link.

Each week we interview key opinion leaders involved in various aspects of blood and cancer. Today, we have a different kind of key opinion leader, as I have the privilege of interviewing Mason Plumlee, a forward with the National Basketball Association’s (NBA) Denver Nuggets. Mason was a first round pick in the NBA, a gold medalist for the U.S. men’s national team, and NBA All-Rookie first team honoree. He’s one of the top playmaking forwards in the country, if not the world, in my opinion. In his four-year college career at Duke University, he helped lead the Blue Devils to a National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) championship and twice earned All-America first team academic honors at Duke. So he’s not just a basketball star, but an academic star as well. Mason, thanks so much for taking some time out from the bubble in Florida to talk with us today.
 

Mason Plumlee: Thanks for having me on. I’m happy to be here.

Henry: Beginning in March, the NBA didn’t know what to do about the COVID pandemic but finally decided to put you professional players in a ‘bubble.’ What did you have to go through to get there? You, your teammates, coaches, trainers, etc. And what’s the ongoing plan to be sure you continue to be safe?

Plumlee: Back to when the season shut down in March, the NBA shut down the practice facilities at the same time. Most people went home. I went back to Indiana. And then, as the idea of this bubble came up and the NBA formalized a plan to start the season again, players started to go back to market. I went back to Denver and was working out there.

About two weeks before we were scheduled to arrive in Orlando, they started testing us every other day. They used the deep nasal swab as well as the throat swab. But they were also taking two to three blood tests in that time period. You needed a certain number of consecutive negative tests before they would allow you to fly on the team plane down to Orlando. So there was an incredible amount of testing in the market. Once you got to Orlando, you went into a 48-hour quarantine. You had to have two negative tests with 48 hours between them before you could leave your hotel room.

Since then, it’s been quite strict down here. And although it’s annoying in a lot of ways, I think it’s one of the reasons our league has been able to pull this off. We’ve had no positive tests within the bubble and we are tested every day. A company called BioReference Laboratories has a setup in one of the meeting rooms here, and it’s like clockwork—we go in, we get our tests. One of my teammates missed a test and they made him stay in his room until he could get another test and get the results, so he missed a game because of that.
 

Henry: During this bubble time, no one has tested positive—players, coaches, staff?

Plumlee: Correct.

Henry: That’s incredible, and it’s allowed those of us who want to watch the NBA and those of you who are in it professionally to continue the sport. It must be a real nuisance for you and your family and friends, because no one can visit you, right?

Plumlee: Right. There’s no visitation. We had one false positive. It was our media relations person and the actions they took when that positive test came in -- they quarantined him in his room and interviewed everybody he had talked to; they tested anyone who had any interaction with him and those people had to go into quarantine. They’re on top of things down here. In addition to the testing, we each have a pulse oximeter and a thermometer, and we use these to check in everyday on an app. So, they’re getting all the insight they need. After the first round of the playoffs, they’re going to open the bubble to friends and family, but those friends and family will be subject to all the same protocols that we were coming in and once they’re here as well.

Henry: I’m sure you’ve heard about the Broadway star [Nick Cordero] who was healthy and suddenly got sick, lost a leg, and then lost his life. There have been some heart attacks that surprised us. Have your colleagues—players, coaches, etc.—been worried? Or are they thinking, what’s the big deal? Has the sense of how serious this is permeated through this sport?

Plumlee: The NBA is one of the groups that has heightened the understanding and awareness of this by shutting down. I think a lot of people were moving forward as is, and then, when the NBA decided to cancel the season, it let the world know, look, this is to be taken seriously.

Henry: A couple of players did test positive early on.

Plumlee: Exactly. A couple of people tested positive. I think at the outset, the unknown is always scarier. As we’ve learned more about the virus, the guys have become more comfortable. You know, I tested positive back in March. At the time, a loss of taste and smell was not a reported symptom.

Henry: And you had that?

Plumlee: I did have that, but I didn’t know what to think. More research has come out and we have a better understanding of that. I think most of the players are comfortable with the virus. We’re at a time in our lives where we’re healthy, we’re active, and we should be able to fight it off. We know the numbers for our age group. Even still, I think nobody wants to get it. Nobody wants to have to go through it. So why chance it?

Henry: Hats off to you and your sport. Other sports such as Major League Baseball haven’t been quite so successful. Of course, they’re wrestling with the players testing positive, and this has stopped games this season.

I was looking over your background prior to the interview and learned that your mother and father have been involved in the medical arena. Can you tell us about that and how it’s rubbed off on you?

Plumlee: Definitely. My mom is a pharmacist, so I spent a lot of time as a kid going to see her at work. And my dad is general counsel for an orthopedic company. My hometown is Warsaw, Ind. Some people refer to it as the “Orthopedic Capital of the World.” Zimmer Biomet is headquartered there. DePuy Synthes is there. Medtronic has offices there, as well as a lot of cottage businesses that support the orthopedic industry. In my hometown, the rock star was Dane Miller, who founded Biomet. I have no formal education in medicine or health care, but I’ve seen the impact of it. From my parents and some cousins, uncles who are doctors and surgeons, it’s been interesting to see their work and learn about what’s the latest and greatest in health care.

Henry: What’s so nice about you in particular is, with that background of interests from your family and your celebrity and accomplishments in professional basketball, you have used that to explore and promote ways to make progress in health care and help others who are less fortunate. For example, you’re involved in a telehealth platform for all-in-one practice management; affordable telehealth for pediatrics; health benefits for small businesses; prior authorization—if you can help with prior authorization, we will be in the stands for you at every game because it’s the bane of our existence; radiotherapy; and probably from mom’s background, pharmacy benefit management. Pick any of those you’d like to talk about, and tell us about your involvement and how it’s going.

Plumlee: My ticket into the arena is investment. Nobody’s calling me, asking for my expertise. But a lot of these visionary founders need financial support, and that’s where I get involved. Then also, with the celebrity angle from being an athlete, sometimes you can open doors for a start-up founder that they may not be able to open themselves.

I’m happy to speak about any of those companies. I am excited about the relaxed regulation that’s come from the pandemic; not that it’s like the Wild West out here, but I think it has allowed companies to implement solutions or think about problems in a way that they couldn’t before the pandemic. Take the prior authorization play, for example, and a company called Banjo Health, with one of my favorite founders, a guy named Saar Mahna. Medicare mandates that you turn around prior authorizations within three days. This company has an artificial intelligence and machine-learning play on prior authorizations that can deliver on that.

So efficiencies, things that increase access or affordability, better outcomes, those are the things that attract me. I lean on other people for the due diligence. The pediatric play that you referenced is a company called Blueberry Pediatrics. You have a monthly subscription for $15 that can be reimbursed by Medicaid. They send two devices to your home—an otoscope and an oximeter. The company is live in Florida right now, and it’s diverting a ton of emergency room (ER) visits. From home, for $15 a month, a mom has an otoscope and an oximeter, and she can chat or video conference with a pediatrician. There’s no additional fee. So that’s saving everyone time and saving the system money. Those are the kinds of things I’m attracted to.

Henry: You’ve touched on a couple of hot button issues for us. In oncology, unfortunately, most of our patients have pain. I am mystified every time I try to get a narcotic or a strong painkiller for a patient on a Friday night and I’m told it requires prior authorization and they’ll open up again on Monday. Well, that’s insane. These patients need something right away. So if you have a special interest in helping all of us with prior authorization, the artificial intelligence is a no brainer. If this kind of computer algorithm could happen overnight, that would be wonderful.

You mentioned the ER. Many people go to the ER as a default. They don’t know what else to do. In the COVID era, we’re trying to dial that down because we want to be able to see the sickest and have the non-sick get care elsewhere. If this particular person or people don’t know what to do, they go to the ER, it costs money, takes a lot of time, and others who may be sick are diverted from care. Families worry terribly about their children, so a device for mom and access to a pediatrician for $15 a month is another wonderful idea. These are both very interesting. Another company is in the pharmacy benefit management (PBM) space. Anything you could say about how that works?
 

Plumlee: I can give an overview of how I look at this as an investor in the PBM space. Three companies control about 75% of a multibillion dollar market. Several initiatives have been pursued politically to provide transparent pricing between these PBMs and pharmaceutical companies, and a lot of people are pointing fingers, but ultimately, drug prices just keep going up. Everybody knows it.

A couple of start-up founders are really set on bringing a competitive marketplace back to the pharmacy benefit manager. As an investor, when you see three people controlling a market, and you have small or medium PBMs that depend on aggregators to get competitive pricing with those big three, you get interested. It’s an interesting industry. My feeling is that somebody is going to disrupt it and bring competition back to that space. Ultimately, drug prices will come down because it’s not sustainable. The insurance companies just accommodate whatever the drug pricing is. If the drug prices go up, your premiums go up. I think these new companies will be level-setting.
 

Henry: In my world of oncology, we’re just a little more than halfway through 2020 and we’ve had five, six, seven new drugs approved. They all will be very expensive. One of the nicer things that’s happening and may help to tamp this down involves biosimilars. When you go to CVS or Rite Aid, you go down the aspirin aisle and see the generics, and they’re identical to the brand name aspirin. Well, these very complex molecules we used to treat cancer are antibodies or proteins, and they’re made in nature’s factories called cells. They’re not identical to the brand name drugs, but they’re called biosimilars. They work exactly the same as the branded drugs with exactly the same safety–our U.S. FDA has done a nice job of vetting that, to be sure. X, Y, Z Company has copied the brand drug after the patent expires. They were hoping for about a 30% discount in price but we’re seeing more like 15%. Nothing’s ever easy. So you make a very good point. This is not sustainable and the competition will be wonderful to tamp down these prices.

Plumlee: My hope is that those biosimilars and generics get placement in these formularies because the formularies are what’s valuable to the drug manufacturers. But they have to accommodate what the Big Three want in the PBM space. To me, making things affordable and accessible is what a lot of these startups are trying to do. And hopefully they will win.

Henry: What have you been going through, in terms of COVID? Have you recovered fully? Have your taste and smell returned, and you’re back to normal?

Plumlee: I’m all good. It caught me off guard but the symptoms weren’t too intense. For me, it was less than a flu, but more than a cold. And I’m all good today.

Henry: We’re so glad and wish you the best of luck.

Dr. Henry is a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and vice chairman of the department of medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia and the host of the Blood & Cancer podcast. He has no relevant financial conflicts.

Mr. Plumlee is a board advisor to both Formsense and the Prysm Institute and a board observer with Voiceitt.

Editor’s Note: This transcript from the August 20 episode of the Blood & Cancer podcast has been edited for clarity. Click this link to listen to the full episode.

David Henry, MD: Welcome to this Blood & Cancer podcast. I’m your host, Dr. David Henry. This podcast airs on Thursday morning each week. This interview and others are archived with show notes from our residents at Pennsylvania Hospital at this link.

Each week we interview key opinion leaders involved in various aspects of blood and cancer. Today, we have a different kind of key opinion leader, as I have the privilege of interviewing Mason Plumlee, a forward with the National Basketball Association’s (NBA) Denver Nuggets. Mason was a first round pick in the NBA, a gold medalist for the U.S. men’s national team, and NBA All-Rookie first team honoree. He’s one of the top playmaking forwards in the country, if not the world, in my opinion. In his four-year college career at Duke University, he helped lead the Blue Devils to a National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) championship and twice earned All-America first team academic honors at Duke. So he’s not just a basketball star, but an academic star as well. Mason, thanks so much for taking some time out from the bubble in Florida to talk with us today.
 

Mason Plumlee: Thanks for having me on. I’m happy to be here.

Henry: Beginning in March, the NBA didn’t know what to do about the COVID pandemic but finally decided to put you professional players in a ‘bubble.’ What did you have to go through to get there? You, your teammates, coaches, trainers, etc. And what’s the ongoing plan to be sure you continue to be safe?

Plumlee: Back to when the season shut down in March, the NBA shut down the practice facilities at the same time. Most people went home. I went back to Indiana. And then, as the idea of this bubble came up and the NBA formalized a plan to start the season again, players started to go back to market. I went back to Denver and was working out there.

About two weeks before we were scheduled to arrive in Orlando, they started testing us every other day. They used the deep nasal swab as well as the throat swab. But they were also taking two to three blood tests in that time period. You needed a certain number of consecutive negative tests before they would allow you to fly on the team plane down to Orlando. So there was an incredible amount of testing in the market. Once you got to Orlando, you went into a 48-hour quarantine. You had to have two negative tests with 48 hours between them before you could leave your hotel room.

Since then, it’s been quite strict down here. And although it’s annoying in a lot of ways, I think it’s one of the reasons our league has been able to pull this off. We’ve had no positive tests within the bubble and we are tested every day. A company called BioReference Laboratories has a setup in one of the meeting rooms here, and it’s like clockwork—we go in, we get our tests. One of my teammates missed a test and they made him stay in his room until he could get another test and get the results, so he missed a game because of that.
 

Henry: During this bubble time, no one has tested positive—players, coaches, staff?

Plumlee: Correct.

Henry: That’s incredible, and it’s allowed those of us who want to watch the NBA and those of you who are in it professionally to continue the sport. It must be a real nuisance for you and your family and friends, because no one can visit you, right?

Plumlee: Right. There’s no visitation. We had one false positive. It was our media relations person and the actions they took when that positive test came in -- they quarantined him in his room and interviewed everybody he had talked to; they tested anyone who had any interaction with him and those people had to go into quarantine. They’re on top of things down here. In addition to the testing, we each have a pulse oximeter and a thermometer, and we use these to check in everyday on an app. So, they’re getting all the insight they need. After the first round of the playoffs, they’re going to open the bubble to friends and family, but those friends and family will be subject to all the same protocols that we were coming in and once they’re here as well.

Henry: I’m sure you’ve heard about the Broadway star [Nick Cordero] who was healthy and suddenly got sick, lost a leg, and then lost his life. There have been some heart attacks that surprised us. Have your colleagues—players, coaches, etc.—been worried? Or are they thinking, what’s the big deal? Has the sense of how serious this is permeated through this sport?

Plumlee: The NBA is one of the groups that has heightened the understanding and awareness of this by shutting down. I think a lot of people were moving forward as is, and then, when the NBA decided to cancel the season, it let the world know, look, this is to be taken seriously.

Henry: A couple of players did test positive early on.

Plumlee: Exactly. A couple of people tested positive. I think at the outset, the unknown is always scarier. As we’ve learned more about the virus, the guys have become more comfortable. You know, I tested positive back in March. At the time, a loss of taste and smell was not a reported symptom.

Henry: And you had that?

Plumlee: I did have that, but I didn’t know what to think. More research has come out and we have a better understanding of that. I think most of the players are comfortable with the virus. We’re at a time in our lives where we’re healthy, we’re active, and we should be able to fight it off. We know the numbers for our age group. Even still, I think nobody wants to get it. Nobody wants to have to go through it. So why chance it?

Henry: Hats off to you and your sport. Other sports such as Major League Baseball haven’t been quite so successful. Of course, they’re wrestling with the players testing positive, and this has stopped games this season.

I was looking over your background prior to the interview and learned that your mother and father have been involved in the medical arena. Can you tell us about that and how it’s rubbed off on you?

Plumlee: Definitely. My mom is a pharmacist, so I spent a lot of time as a kid going to see her at work. And my dad is general counsel for an orthopedic company. My hometown is Warsaw, Ind. Some people refer to it as the “Orthopedic Capital of the World.” Zimmer Biomet is headquartered there. DePuy Synthes is there. Medtronic has offices there, as well as a lot of cottage businesses that support the orthopedic industry. In my hometown, the rock star was Dane Miller, who founded Biomet. I have no formal education in medicine or health care, but I’ve seen the impact of it. From my parents and some cousins, uncles who are doctors and surgeons, it’s been interesting to see their work and learn about what’s the latest and greatest in health care.

Henry: What’s so nice about you in particular is, with that background of interests from your family and your celebrity and accomplishments in professional basketball, you have used that to explore and promote ways to make progress in health care and help others who are less fortunate. For example, you’re involved in a telehealth platform for all-in-one practice management; affordable telehealth for pediatrics; health benefits for small businesses; prior authorization—if you can help with prior authorization, we will be in the stands for you at every game because it’s the bane of our existence; radiotherapy; and probably from mom’s background, pharmacy benefit management. Pick any of those you’d like to talk about, and tell us about your involvement and how it’s going.

Plumlee: My ticket into the arena is investment. Nobody’s calling me, asking for my expertise. But a lot of these visionary founders need financial support, and that’s where I get involved. Then also, with the celebrity angle from being an athlete, sometimes you can open doors for a start-up founder that they may not be able to open themselves.

I’m happy to speak about any of those companies. I am excited about the relaxed regulation that’s come from the pandemic; not that it’s like the Wild West out here, but I think it has allowed companies to implement solutions or think about problems in a way that they couldn’t before the pandemic. Take the prior authorization play, for example, and a company called Banjo Health, with one of my favorite founders, a guy named Saar Mahna. Medicare mandates that you turn around prior authorizations within three days. This company has an artificial intelligence and machine-learning play on prior authorizations that can deliver on that.

So efficiencies, things that increase access or affordability, better outcomes, those are the things that attract me. I lean on other people for the due diligence. The pediatric play that you referenced is a company called Blueberry Pediatrics. You have a monthly subscription for $15 that can be reimbursed by Medicaid. They send two devices to your home—an otoscope and an oximeter. The company is live in Florida right now, and it’s diverting a ton of emergency room (ER) visits. From home, for $15 a month, a mom has an otoscope and an oximeter, and she can chat or video conference with a pediatrician. There’s no additional fee. So that’s saving everyone time and saving the system money. Those are the kinds of things I’m attracted to.

Henry: You’ve touched on a couple of hot button issues for us. In oncology, unfortunately, most of our patients have pain. I am mystified every time I try to get a narcotic or a strong painkiller for a patient on a Friday night and I’m told it requires prior authorization and they’ll open up again on Monday. Well, that’s insane. These patients need something right away. So if you have a special interest in helping all of us with prior authorization, the artificial intelligence is a no brainer. If this kind of computer algorithm could happen overnight, that would be wonderful.

You mentioned the ER. Many people go to the ER as a default. They don’t know what else to do. In the COVID era, we’re trying to dial that down because we want to be able to see the sickest and have the non-sick get care elsewhere. If this particular person or people don’t know what to do, they go to the ER, it costs money, takes a lot of time, and others who may be sick are diverted from care. Families worry terribly about their children, so a device for mom and access to a pediatrician for $15 a month is another wonderful idea. These are both very interesting. Another company is in the pharmacy benefit management (PBM) space. Anything you could say about how that works?
 

Plumlee: I can give an overview of how I look at this as an investor in the PBM space. Three companies control about 75% of a multibillion dollar market. Several initiatives have been pursued politically to provide transparent pricing between these PBMs and pharmaceutical companies, and a lot of people are pointing fingers, but ultimately, drug prices just keep going up. Everybody knows it.

A couple of start-up founders are really set on bringing a competitive marketplace back to the pharmacy benefit manager. As an investor, when you see three people controlling a market, and you have small or medium PBMs that depend on aggregators to get competitive pricing with those big three, you get interested. It’s an interesting industry. My feeling is that somebody is going to disrupt it and bring competition back to that space. Ultimately, drug prices will come down because it’s not sustainable. The insurance companies just accommodate whatever the drug pricing is. If the drug prices go up, your premiums go up. I think these new companies will be level-setting.
 

Henry: In my world of oncology, we’re just a little more than halfway through 2020 and we’ve had five, six, seven new drugs approved. They all will be very expensive. One of the nicer things that’s happening and may help to tamp this down involves biosimilars. When you go to CVS or Rite Aid, you go down the aspirin aisle and see the generics, and they’re identical to the brand name aspirin. Well, these very complex molecules we used to treat cancer are antibodies or proteins, and they’re made in nature’s factories called cells. They’re not identical to the brand name drugs, but they’re called biosimilars. They work exactly the same as the branded drugs with exactly the same safety–our U.S. FDA has done a nice job of vetting that, to be sure. X, Y, Z Company has copied the brand drug after the patent expires. They were hoping for about a 30% discount in price but we’re seeing more like 15%. Nothing’s ever easy. So you make a very good point. This is not sustainable and the competition will be wonderful to tamp down these prices.

Plumlee: My hope is that those biosimilars and generics get placement in these formularies because the formularies are what’s valuable to the drug manufacturers. But they have to accommodate what the Big Three want in the PBM space. To me, making things affordable and accessible is what a lot of these startups are trying to do. And hopefully they will win.

Henry: What have you been going through, in terms of COVID? Have you recovered fully? Have your taste and smell returned, and you’re back to normal?

Plumlee: I’m all good. It caught me off guard but the symptoms weren’t too intense. For me, it was less than a flu, but more than a cold. And I’m all good today.

Henry: We’re so glad and wish you the best of luck.

Dr. Henry is a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and vice chairman of the department of medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia and the host of the Blood & Cancer podcast. He has no relevant financial conflicts.

Mr. Plumlee is a board advisor to both Formsense and the Prysm Institute and a board observer with Voiceitt.

Editor’s Note: This transcript from the August 20 episode of the Blood & Cancer podcast has been edited for clarity. Click this link to listen to the full episode.

David Henry, MD: Welcome to this Blood & Cancer podcast. I’m your host, Dr. David Henry. This podcast airs on Thursday morning each week. This interview and others are archived with show notes from our residents at Pennsylvania Hospital at this link.

Each week we interview key opinion leaders involved in various aspects of blood and cancer. Today, we have a different kind of key opinion leader, as I have the privilege of interviewing Mason Plumlee, a forward with the National Basketball Association’s (NBA) Denver Nuggets. Mason was a first round pick in the NBA, a gold medalist for the U.S. men’s national team, and NBA All-Rookie first team honoree. He’s one of the top playmaking forwards in the country, if not the world, in my opinion. In his four-year college career at Duke University, he helped lead the Blue Devils to a National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) championship and twice earned All-America first team academic honors at Duke. So he’s not just a basketball star, but an academic star as well. Mason, thanks so much for taking some time out from the bubble in Florida to talk with us today.
 

Mason Plumlee: Thanks for having me on. I’m happy to be here.

Henry: Beginning in March, the NBA didn’t know what to do about the COVID pandemic but finally decided to put you professional players in a ‘bubble.’ What did you have to go through to get there? You, your teammates, coaches, trainers, etc. And what’s the ongoing plan to be sure you continue to be safe?

Plumlee: Back to when the season shut down in March, the NBA shut down the practice facilities at the same time. Most people went home. I went back to Indiana. And then, as the idea of this bubble came up and the NBA formalized a plan to start the season again, players started to go back to market. I went back to Denver and was working out there.

About two weeks before we were scheduled to arrive in Orlando, they started testing us every other day. They used the deep nasal swab as well as the throat swab. But they were also taking two to three blood tests in that time period. You needed a certain number of consecutive negative tests before they would allow you to fly on the team plane down to Orlando. So there was an incredible amount of testing in the market. Once you got to Orlando, you went into a 48-hour quarantine. You had to have two negative tests with 48 hours between them before you could leave your hotel room.

Since then, it’s been quite strict down here. And although it’s annoying in a lot of ways, I think it’s one of the reasons our league has been able to pull this off. We’ve had no positive tests within the bubble and we are tested every day. A company called BioReference Laboratories has a setup in one of the meeting rooms here, and it’s like clockwork—we go in, we get our tests. One of my teammates missed a test and they made him stay in his room until he could get another test and get the results, so he missed a game because of that.
 

Henry: During this bubble time, no one has tested positive—players, coaches, staff?

Plumlee: Correct.

Henry: That’s incredible, and it’s allowed those of us who want to watch the NBA and those of you who are in it professionally to continue the sport. It must be a real nuisance for you and your family and friends, because no one can visit you, right?

Plumlee: Right. There’s no visitation. We had one false positive. It was our media relations person and the actions they took when that positive test came in -- they quarantined him in his room and interviewed everybody he had talked to; they tested anyone who had any interaction with him and those people had to go into quarantine. They’re on top of things down here. In addition to the testing, we each have a pulse oximeter and a thermometer, and we use these to check in everyday on an app. So, they’re getting all the insight they need. After the first round of the playoffs, they’re going to open the bubble to friends and family, but those friends and family will be subject to all the same protocols that we were coming in and once they’re here as well.

Henry: I’m sure you’ve heard about the Broadway star [Nick Cordero] who was healthy and suddenly got sick, lost a leg, and then lost his life. There have been some heart attacks that surprised us. Have your colleagues—players, coaches, etc.—been worried? Or are they thinking, what’s the big deal? Has the sense of how serious this is permeated through this sport?

Plumlee: The NBA is one of the groups that has heightened the understanding and awareness of this by shutting down. I think a lot of people were moving forward as is, and then, when the NBA decided to cancel the season, it let the world know, look, this is to be taken seriously.

Henry: A couple of players did test positive early on.

Plumlee: Exactly. A couple of people tested positive. I think at the outset, the unknown is always scarier. As we’ve learned more about the virus, the guys have become more comfortable. You know, I tested positive back in March. At the time, a loss of taste and smell was not a reported symptom.

Henry: And you had that?

Plumlee: I did have that, but I didn’t know what to think. More research has come out and we have a better understanding of that. I think most of the players are comfortable with the virus. We’re at a time in our lives where we’re healthy, we’re active, and we should be able to fight it off. We know the numbers for our age group. Even still, I think nobody wants to get it. Nobody wants to have to go through it. So why chance it?

Henry: Hats off to you and your sport. Other sports such as Major League Baseball haven’t been quite so successful. Of course, they’re wrestling with the players testing positive, and this has stopped games this season.

I was looking over your background prior to the interview and learned that your mother and father have been involved in the medical arena. Can you tell us about that and how it’s rubbed off on you?

Plumlee: Definitely. My mom is a pharmacist, so I spent a lot of time as a kid going to see her at work. And my dad is general counsel for an orthopedic company. My hometown is Warsaw, Ind. Some people refer to it as the “Orthopedic Capital of the World.” Zimmer Biomet is headquartered there. DePuy Synthes is there. Medtronic has offices there, as well as a lot of cottage businesses that support the orthopedic industry. In my hometown, the rock star was Dane Miller, who founded Biomet. I have no formal education in medicine or health care, but I’ve seen the impact of it. From my parents and some cousins, uncles who are doctors and surgeons, it’s been interesting to see their work and learn about what’s the latest and greatest in health care.

Henry: What’s so nice about you in particular is, with that background of interests from your family and your celebrity and accomplishments in professional basketball, you have used that to explore and promote ways to make progress in health care and help others who are less fortunate. For example, you’re involved in a telehealth platform for all-in-one practice management; affordable telehealth for pediatrics; health benefits for small businesses; prior authorization—if you can help with prior authorization, we will be in the stands for you at every game because it’s the bane of our existence; radiotherapy; and probably from mom’s background, pharmacy benefit management. Pick any of those you’d like to talk about, and tell us about your involvement and how it’s going.

Plumlee: My ticket into the arena is investment. Nobody’s calling me, asking for my expertise. But a lot of these visionary founders need financial support, and that’s where I get involved. Then also, with the celebrity angle from being an athlete, sometimes you can open doors for a start-up founder that they may not be able to open themselves.

I’m happy to speak about any of those companies. I am excited about the relaxed regulation that’s come from the pandemic; not that it’s like the Wild West out here, but I think it has allowed companies to implement solutions or think about problems in a way that they couldn’t before the pandemic. Take the prior authorization play, for example, and a company called Banjo Health, with one of my favorite founders, a guy named Saar Mahna. Medicare mandates that you turn around prior authorizations within three days. This company has an artificial intelligence and machine-learning play on prior authorizations that can deliver on that.

So efficiencies, things that increase access or affordability, better outcomes, those are the things that attract me. I lean on other people for the due diligence. The pediatric play that you referenced is a company called Blueberry Pediatrics. You have a monthly subscription for $15 that can be reimbursed by Medicaid. They send two devices to your home—an otoscope and an oximeter. The company is live in Florida right now, and it’s diverting a ton of emergency room (ER) visits. From home, for $15 a month, a mom has an otoscope and an oximeter, and she can chat or video conference with a pediatrician. There’s no additional fee. So that’s saving everyone time and saving the system money. Those are the kinds of things I’m attracted to.

Henry: You’ve touched on a couple of hot button issues for us. In oncology, unfortunately, most of our patients have pain. I am mystified every time I try to get a narcotic or a strong painkiller for a patient on a Friday night and I’m told it requires prior authorization and they’ll open up again on Monday. Well, that’s insane. These patients need something right away. So if you have a special interest in helping all of us with prior authorization, the artificial intelligence is a no brainer. If this kind of computer algorithm could happen overnight, that would be wonderful.

You mentioned the ER. Many people go to the ER as a default. They don’t know what else to do. In the COVID era, we’re trying to dial that down because we want to be able to see the sickest and have the non-sick get care elsewhere. If this particular person or people don’t know what to do, they go to the ER, it costs money, takes a lot of time, and others who may be sick are diverted from care. Families worry terribly about their children, so a device for mom and access to a pediatrician for $15 a month is another wonderful idea. These are both very interesting. Another company is in the pharmacy benefit management (PBM) space. Anything you could say about how that works?
 

Plumlee: I can give an overview of how I look at this as an investor in the PBM space. Three companies control about 75% of a multibillion dollar market. Several initiatives have been pursued politically to provide transparent pricing between these PBMs and pharmaceutical companies, and a lot of people are pointing fingers, but ultimately, drug prices just keep going up. Everybody knows it.

A couple of start-up founders are really set on bringing a competitive marketplace back to the pharmacy benefit manager. As an investor, when you see three people controlling a market, and you have small or medium PBMs that depend on aggregators to get competitive pricing with those big three, you get interested. It’s an interesting industry. My feeling is that somebody is going to disrupt it and bring competition back to that space. Ultimately, drug prices will come down because it’s not sustainable. The insurance companies just accommodate whatever the drug pricing is. If the drug prices go up, your premiums go up. I think these new companies will be level-setting.
 

Henry: In my world of oncology, we’re just a little more than halfway through 2020 and we’ve had five, six, seven new drugs approved. They all will be very expensive. One of the nicer things that’s happening and may help to tamp this down involves biosimilars. When you go to CVS or Rite Aid, you go down the aspirin aisle and see the generics, and they’re identical to the brand name aspirin. Well, these very complex molecules we used to treat cancer are antibodies or proteins, and they’re made in nature’s factories called cells. They’re not identical to the brand name drugs, but they’re called biosimilars. They work exactly the same as the branded drugs with exactly the same safety–our U.S. FDA has done a nice job of vetting that, to be sure. X, Y, Z Company has copied the brand drug after the patent expires. They were hoping for about a 30% discount in price but we’re seeing more like 15%. Nothing’s ever easy. So you make a very good point. This is not sustainable and the competition will be wonderful to tamp down these prices.

Plumlee: My hope is that those biosimilars and generics get placement in these formularies because the formularies are what’s valuable to the drug manufacturers. But they have to accommodate what the Big Three want in the PBM space. To me, making things affordable and accessible is what a lot of these startups are trying to do. And hopefully they will win.

Henry: What have you been going through, in terms of COVID? Have you recovered fully? Have your taste and smell returned, and you’re back to normal?

Plumlee: I’m all good. It caught me off guard but the symptoms weren’t too intense. For me, it was less than a flu, but more than a cold. And I’m all good today.

Henry: We’re so glad and wish you the best of luck.

Dr. Henry is a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and vice chairman of the department of medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia and the host of the Blood & Cancer podcast. He has no relevant financial conflicts.

Mr. Plumlee is a board advisor to both Formsense and the Prysm Institute and a board observer with Voiceitt.

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy beat radiotherapy alone for treatment of certain patients with World Health Organization (WHO)–defined low-grade glioma (LGG), according to researchers.

Prior results from this trial, NRG Oncology/RTOG 9802 (NCT00003375), demonstrated an increase in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) when procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) chemotherapy was added to radiation in patients with high-risk LGG.

The current results, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, displayed highly variable survival outcomes depending on molecular subgroup.

The initial report included only IDH1 R132H immunohistochemistry data because of limited tissue availability. However, retrospective retrieval of additional tissues subsequently enabled rigorous examination of the prognostic and predictive significance of these genetic biomarkers.

Prognostic and predictive

The trial included 251 patients with LGG (grade 2). Among the 106 eligible patients with WHO-defined molecular groups successfully profiled, 26 (24%) were IDH wild-type, 43 (41%) were IDH-mutant/non-codeleted, and 37 (35%) were IDH-mutant/codeleted.

After adjustment for clinical variables and treatment, multivariate analysis confirmed WHO-defined subgroup was a significant predictor of survival. All predictive analyses, however, were considered exploratory because of small sample sizes for patients with specific biomarker features in most cases.

In prognostic multivariable analyses, significantly favorable molecular subgroup associations were observed for OS in the IDH-mutant subgroups versus that in the wild type group (IDH-mutant/codeleted group HR, 0.18; P < .0001; IDH mutant/non-codeleleted group HR, 0.56; P = .048). Individually, the statistical significance was maintained for favorable OS for IDH1/2 mutations and 1p/19q codeletions.

In the predictive analyses, OS was longer for patients harboring IDH mutant/codeleted tumors receiving radiotherapy plus PCV than for those receiving radiotherapy alone (HR, 0.21; P = .029). The  median OS was 13.9 years for radiotherapy and was not reached for PCV and radiotherapy.

PFS in the IDH-mutant/codeleted subgroup also was longer for patients receiving PCV (HR, 0.13; P < .001). The median PFS was 5.8 years for radiotherapy alone and was not reached for added PCV.

In the IDH-mutant/non-codeleted subgroup, OS was longer with PCV (HR, 0.38; P = .013). The median OS was 4.3 years for radiotherapy alone and 11.4 years when PCV was added.

PFS was also longer in the IDH-mutant/non-codeleted subgroup (HR, 0.32; P = .003). The median PFS was 3.3 years for radiotherapy and 10.4 years with PCV added.

IDH–wild type patients displayed no significant clinical benefit from the addition of PCV.

“Historically, many have thought that primarily patients with codeletions received benefit from PCV,” study author Erica H. Bell, PhD, of The Ohio State University in Columbus, said in an interview. “But we showed here that there is benefit in both IDH-mutant groups.”

Primary predictor

“Our evidence suggests that IDH mutation status could serve as the primary predictor of response to PCV in addition to radiotherapy in high-risk, low-grade gliomas and is a more accurate predictor of response than historical histopathological classifications,” Dr. Bell and colleagues wrote. “Consideration should be given for adjuvant PCV in the setting of high-risk, low-grade glioma patients harboring IDH mutations.”

High-risk was defined as being 40 years or older or having a subtotal resection biopsy.

“While both IDH mutant subgroups received benefit from the addition of PCV for both overall survival and PFS, the patients in the wild-type subgroup did not do well," Dr. Bell said. "We need to treat them more aggressively. We need to determine exactly what therapy modality they should receive. This is an active question in our field.”

“Another conclusion from the study,” she added, “is that upfront tissue collection and molecular subtyping are absolutely necessary for moving our field forward.”

Finding novel biomarkers and novel therapeutic targets remain as a further goal.

Dr. Bell commented that results of the CODEL trial of temozolomide in newly diagnosed 1p/19q-codeleted anaplastic glioma are widely anticipated.

“PCV is a very toxic treatment," she said. "If another agent that is less toxic, but just as efficacious, becomes available, we would rather use that. At this point, though, there are no head-to-head trials comparing temozolomide with PCV in codeleted populations.”

The current study was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute and The Ohio State University. The authors disclosed patents, royalties, and other intellectual property.

SOURCE: Bell EH et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02983.

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy beat radiotherapy alone for treatment of certain patients with World Health Organization (WHO)–defined low-grade glioma (LGG), according to researchers.

Prior results from this trial, NRG Oncology/RTOG 9802 (NCT00003375), demonstrated an increase in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) when procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) chemotherapy was added to radiation in patients with high-risk LGG.

The current results, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, displayed highly variable survival outcomes depending on molecular subgroup.

The initial report included only IDH1 R132H immunohistochemistry data because of limited tissue availability. However, retrospective retrieval of additional tissues subsequently enabled rigorous examination of the prognostic and predictive significance of these genetic biomarkers.

Prognostic and predictive

The trial included 251 patients with LGG (grade 2). Among the 106 eligible patients with WHO-defined molecular groups successfully profiled, 26 (24%) were IDH wild-type, 43 (41%) were IDH-mutant/non-codeleted, and 37 (35%) were IDH-mutant/codeleted.

After adjustment for clinical variables and treatment, multivariate analysis confirmed WHO-defined subgroup was a significant predictor of survival. All predictive analyses, however, were considered exploratory because of small sample sizes for patients with specific biomarker features in most cases.

In prognostic multivariable analyses, significantly favorable molecular subgroup associations were observed for OS in the IDH-mutant subgroups versus that in the wild type group (IDH-mutant/codeleted group HR, 0.18; P < .0001; IDH mutant/non-codeleleted group HR, 0.56; P = .048). Individually, the statistical significance was maintained for favorable OS for IDH1/2 mutations and 1p/19q codeletions.

In the predictive analyses, OS was longer for patients harboring IDH mutant/codeleted tumors receiving radiotherapy plus PCV than for those receiving radiotherapy alone (HR, 0.21; P = .029). The  median OS was 13.9 years for radiotherapy and was not reached for PCV and radiotherapy.

PFS in the IDH-mutant/codeleted subgroup also was longer for patients receiving PCV (HR, 0.13; P < .001). The median PFS was 5.8 years for radiotherapy alone and was not reached for added PCV.

In the IDH-mutant/non-codeleted subgroup, OS was longer with PCV (HR, 0.38; P = .013). The median OS was 4.3 years for radiotherapy alone and 11.4 years when PCV was added.

PFS was also longer in the IDH-mutant/non-codeleted subgroup (HR, 0.32; P = .003). The median PFS was 3.3 years for radiotherapy and 10.4 years with PCV added.

IDH–wild type patients displayed no significant clinical benefit from the addition of PCV.

“Historically, many have thought that primarily patients with codeletions received benefit from PCV,” study author Erica H. Bell, PhD, of The Ohio State University in Columbus, said in an interview. “But we showed here that there is benefit in both IDH-mutant groups.”

Primary predictor

“Our evidence suggests that IDH mutation status could serve as the primary predictor of response to PCV in addition to radiotherapy in high-risk, low-grade gliomas and is a more accurate predictor of response than historical histopathological classifications,” Dr. Bell and colleagues wrote. “Consideration should be given for adjuvant PCV in the setting of high-risk, low-grade glioma patients harboring IDH mutations.”

High-risk was defined as being 40 years or older or having a subtotal resection biopsy.

“While both IDH mutant subgroups received benefit from the addition of PCV for both overall survival and PFS, the patients in the wild-type subgroup did not do well," Dr. Bell said. "We need to treat them more aggressively. We need to determine exactly what therapy modality they should receive. This is an active question in our field.”

“Another conclusion from the study,” she added, “is that upfront tissue collection and molecular subtyping are absolutely necessary for moving our field forward.”

Finding novel biomarkers and novel therapeutic targets remain as a further goal.

Dr. Bell commented that results of the CODEL trial of temozolomide in newly diagnosed 1p/19q-codeleted anaplastic glioma are widely anticipated.

“PCV is a very toxic treatment," she said. "If another agent that is less toxic, but just as efficacious, becomes available, we would rather use that. At this point, though, there are no head-to-head trials comparing temozolomide with PCV in codeleted populations.”

The current study was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute and The Ohio State University. The authors disclosed patents, royalties, and other intellectual property.

SOURCE: Bell EH et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02983.

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy beat radiotherapy alone for treatment of certain patients with World Health Organization (WHO)–defined low-grade glioma (LGG), according to researchers.

Prior results from this trial, NRG Oncology/RTOG 9802 (NCT00003375), demonstrated an increase in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) when procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) chemotherapy was added to radiation in patients with high-risk LGG.

The current results, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, displayed highly variable survival outcomes depending on molecular subgroup.

The initial report included only IDH1 R132H immunohistochemistry data because of limited tissue availability. However, retrospective retrieval of additional tissues subsequently enabled rigorous examination of the prognostic and predictive significance of these genetic biomarkers.

Prognostic and predictive

The trial included 251 patients with LGG (grade 2). Among the 106 eligible patients with WHO-defined molecular groups successfully profiled, 26 (24%) were IDH wild-type, 43 (41%) were IDH-mutant/non-codeleted, and 37 (35%) were IDH-mutant/codeleted.

After adjustment for clinical variables and treatment, multivariate analysis confirmed WHO-defined subgroup was a significant predictor of survival. All predictive analyses, however, were considered exploratory because of small sample sizes for patients with specific biomarker features in most cases.

In prognostic multivariable analyses, significantly favorable molecular subgroup associations were observed for OS in the IDH-mutant subgroups versus that in the wild type group (IDH-mutant/codeleted group HR, 0.18; P < .0001; IDH mutant/non-codeleleted group HR, 0.56; P = .048). Individually, the statistical significance was maintained for favorable OS for IDH1/2 mutations and 1p/19q codeletions.

In the predictive analyses, OS was longer for patients harboring IDH mutant/codeleted tumors receiving radiotherapy plus PCV than for those receiving radiotherapy alone (HR, 0.21; P = .029). The  median OS was 13.9 years for radiotherapy and was not reached for PCV and radiotherapy.

PFS in the IDH-mutant/codeleted subgroup also was longer for patients receiving PCV (HR, 0.13; P < .001). The median PFS was 5.8 years for radiotherapy alone and was not reached for added PCV.

In the IDH-mutant/non-codeleted subgroup, OS was longer with PCV (HR, 0.38; P = .013). The median OS was 4.3 years for radiotherapy alone and 11.4 years when PCV was added.

PFS was also longer in the IDH-mutant/non-codeleted subgroup (HR, 0.32; P = .003). The median PFS was 3.3 years for radiotherapy and 10.4 years with PCV added.

IDH–wild type patients displayed no significant clinical benefit from the addition of PCV.

“Historically, many have thought that primarily patients with codeletions received benefit from PCV,” study author Erica H. Bell, PhD, of The Ohio State University in Columbus, said in an interview. “But we showed here that there is benefit in both IDH-mutant groups.”

Primary predictor

“Our evidence suggests that IDH mutation status could serve as the primary predictor of response to PCV in addition to radiotherapy in high-risk, low-grade gliomas and is a more accurate predictor of response than historical histopathological classifications,” Dr. Bell and colleagues wrote. “Consideration should be given for adjuvant PCV in the setting of high-risk, low-grade glioma patients harboring IDH mutations.”

High-risk was defined as being 40 years or older or having a subtotal resection biopsy.

“While both IDH mutant subgroups received benefit from the addition of PCV for both overall survival and PFS, the patients in the wild-type subgroup did not do well," Dr. Bell said. "We need to treat them more aggressively. We need to determine exactly what therapy modality they should receive. This is an active question in our field.”

“Another conclusion from the study,” she added, “is that upfront tissue collection and molecular subtyping are absolutely necessary for moving our field forward.”

Finding novel biomarkers and novel therapeutic targets remain as a further goal.

Dr. Bell commented that results of the CODEL trial of temozolomide in newly diagnosed 1p/19q-codeleted anaplastic glioma are widely anticipated.

“PCV is a very toxic treatment," she said. "If another agent that is less toxic, but just as efficacious, becomes available, we would rather use that. At this point, though, there are no head-to-head trials comparing temozolomide with PCV in codeleted populations.”

The current study was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute and The Ohio State University. The authors disclosed patents, royalties, and other intellectual property.

SOURCE: Bell EH et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02983.

Jon Paul was leery entering his first wildfire camp of the year late last month to fight three lightning-caused fires scorching parts of a Northern California forest that hadn’t burned in 40 years.

Courtesy of U.S. Forest Service

The 54-year-old engine captain from southern Oregon knew from experience that these crowded, grimy camps can be breeding grounds for norovirus and a respiratory illness that firefighters call the “camp crud” in a normal year. He wondered what the coronavirus would do in the tent cities where hundreds of men and women eat, sleep, wash, and spend their downtime between shifts.

Mr. Paul thought about his immunocompromised wife and his 84-year-old mother back home. Then he joined the approximately 1,300 people spread across the Modoc National Forest who would provide a major test for the COVID-prevention measures that had been developed for wildland firefighters.

“We’re still first responders and we have that responsibility to go and deal with these emergencies,” he said in a recent interview. “I don’t scare easy, but I’m very wary and concerned about my surroundings. I’m still going to work and do my job.”

Mr. Paul is one of thousands of firefighters from across the United States battling dozens of wildfires burning throughout the West. It’s an inherently dangerous job that now carries the additional risk of COVID-19 transmission. Any outbreak that ripples through a camp could easily sideline crews and spread the virus across multiple fires – and back to communities across the country – as personnel transfer in and out of “hot zones” and return home.

Though most firefighters are young and fit, some will inevitably fall ill in these remote makeshift communities of shared showers and portable toilets, where medical care can be limited. The pollutants in the smoke they breathe daily also make them more susceptible to COVID-19 and can worsen the effects of the disease, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Also, one suspected or positive case in a camp will mean many other firefighters will need to be quarantined, unable to work. The worst-case scenario is that multiple outbreaks could hamstring the nation’s ability to respond as wildfire season peaks in August, the hottest and driest month of the year in the western United States.

The number of acres burned so far this year is below the 10-year average, but the fire outlook for August is above average in nine states, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. Twenty-two large fires were ignited on Monday alone after lightning storms passed through the Northwest.

A study published this month by researchers at Colorado State University and the U.S. Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station concluded that COVID outbreaks “could be a serious threat to the firefighting mission” and urged vigilant social distancing and screening measures in the camps.

“If simultaneous fires incurred outbreaks, the entire wildland response system could be stressed substantially, with a large portion of the workforce quarantined,” the study’s authors wrote.

This spring, the National Wildfire Coordinating Group’s Fire Management Board wrote – and has since been updating – protocols to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in fire camps, based on CDC guidelines. Though they can be adapted by managers at different fires and even by individual team, they center on some key recommendations, including the following:

• Firefighters should be screened for fever and other COVID symptoms when they arrive at camp.
• Every crew should insulate itself as a “module of one” for the fire season and limit interactions with other crews.
• Firefighters should maintain social distancing and wear face coverings when social distancing isn’t possible. Smaller satellite camps, known as spike camps, can be built to ensure enough space.
• Shared areas should be regularly cleaned and disinfected, and sharing tools and radios should be minimized.

The guidance does not include routine testing of newly arrived firefighters – a practice used for athletes at training camps and students returning to college campuses.

The Fire Management Board’s Wildland Fire Medical and Public Health Advisory Team wrote in a July 2 memo that it “does not recommend utilizing universal COVID-19 laboratory testing as a standalone risk mitigation or screening measure among wildland firefighters.” Rather, the group recommends testing an individual and directly exposed coworkers, saying that approach is in line with CDC guidance.

The lack of testing capacity and long turnaround times are factors, according to Forest Service spokesperson Dan Hottle.

The exception is Alaska, where firefighters are tested upon arrival at the airport and are quarantined in a hotel while awaiting results, which come within 24 hours, Mr. Hottle said.

Fire crews responding to early-season fires in the spring had some problems adjusting to the new protocols, according to assessments written by fire leaders and compiled by the Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center.

Shawn Faiella, superintendent of the interagency “hotshot crew” – so named because they work the most challenging or “hottest” parts of wildfires – based at Montana’s Lolo National Forest, questioned the need to wear masks inside vehicles and the safety of bringing extra vehicles to space out firefighters traveling to a blaze. Parking extra vehicles at the scene of a fire is difficult in tight dirt roads – and would be dangerous if evacuations are necessary, he wrote.

“It’s damn tough to take these practices to the fire line,” Mr. Faiella wrote after his team responded to a 40-acre Montana fire in April.

One recommendation that fire managers say has been particularly effective is the “module of one” concept requiring crews to eat and sleep together in isolation for the entire fire season.

“Whoever came up with it, it is working,” said Mike Goicoechea, the Montana-based incident commander for the Forest Service’s Northern Region Type 1 team, which manages the nation’s largest and most complex wildfires and natural disasters. “Somebody may test positive, and you end up having to take that module out of service for 14 days. But the nice part is you’re not taking out a whole camp. ... It’s just that module.”

The total number of positive COVID cases among wildland firefighters among the various federal, state, local, and tribal agencies is not being tracked. Each fire agency has its own system for tracking and reporting COVID-19, said Jessica Gardetto, a spokesperson for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the National Interagency Fire Center in Idaho.

The largest wildland firefighting agency is the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service, with 10,000 firefighters. Another major agency is the Department of the Interior, which BLM is part of and which had more than 3,500 full-time fire employees last year. As of the first week of August, 111 Forest Service firefighters and 40 BLM firefighters (who work underneath the broader Interior Department agency) had tested positive for COVID-19, according to officials for the respective agencies.

“Considering we’ve now been experiencing fire activity for several months, this number is surprisingly low if you think about the thousands of fire personnel who’ve been suppressing wildfires this summer,” Ms. Gardetto said.

Mr. Goicoechea and his Montana team traveled north of Tucson, Arizona, on June 22 to manage a rapidly spreading fire in the Santa Catalina Mountains that required 1,200 responders at its peak. Within 2 days of the team’s arrival, his managers were overwhelmed by calls from firefighters worried or with questions about preventing the spread of COVID-19 or carrying the virus home to their families.

In an unusual move, Mr. Goicoechea called upon Montana physician – and former National Park Service ranger with wildfire experience – Harry Sibold, MD, to join the team. Physicians are rarely, if ever, part of a wildfire camp’s medical team, Mr. Goicoechea said.

Dr. Sibold gave regular coronavirus updates during morning briefings, consulted with local health officials, soothed firefighters worried about bringing the virus home to their families, and advised fire managers on how to handle scenarios that might come up.

But Dr. Sibold said he wasn’t optimistic at the beginning about keeping the coronavirus in check in a large camp in Pima County, which has the second-highest number of confirmed cases in Arizona, at the time a national COVID-19 hot spot. “I quite firmly expected that we might have two or three outbreaks,” he said.

There were no positive cases during the team’s 2-week deployment, just three or four cases in which a firefighter showed symptoms but tested negative for the virus. After the Montana team returned home, nine firefighters at the Arizona fire from other units tested positive, Mr. Goicoechea said. Contact tracers notified the Montana team, some of whom were tested. All tests returned negative.

“I can’t say enough about having that doctor to help,” Mr. Goicoechea said, suggesting other teams might consider doing the same. “We’re not the experts in a pandemic. We’re the experts with fire.”

That early success will be tested as the number of fires increases across the West, along with the number of firefighters responding to them. There were more than 15,000 firefighters and support personnel assigned to fires across the nation as of mid-August, and the success of those COVID-19 prevention protocols depend largely on them.

Mr. Paul, the Oregon firefighter, said that the guidelines were followed closely in camp, but less so out on the fire line. It also appeared to him that younger firefighters were less likely to follow the masking and social-distancing rules than the veterans like him. That worried him as he realized it wouldn’t take much to spark an outbreak that could sideline crews and cripple the ability to respond to a fire.

“We’re outside, so it definitely helps with mitigation and makes it simpler to social distance,” Mr. Paul said. “But I think if there’s a mistake made, it could happen.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Jon Paul was leery entering his first wildfire camp of the year late last month to fight three lightning-caused fires scorching parts of a Northern California forest that hadn’t burned in 40 years.

Courtesy of U.S. Forest Service

The 54-year-old engine captain from southern Oregon knew from experience that these crowded, grimy camps can be breeding grounds for norovirus and a respiratory illness that firefighters call the “camp crud” in a normal year. He wondered what the coronavirus would do in the tent cities where hundreds of men and women eat, sleep, wash, and spend their downtime between shifts.

Mr. Paul thought about his immunocompromised wife and his 84-year-old mother back home. Then he joined the approximately 1,300 people spread across the Modoc National Forest who would provide a major test for the COVID-prevention measures that had been developed for wildland firefighters.

“We’re still first responders and we have that responsibility to go and deal with these emergencies,” he said in a recent interview. “I don’t scare easy, but I’m very wary and concerned about my surroundings. I’m still going to work and do my job.”

Mr. Paul is one of thousands of firefighters from across the United States battling dozens of wildfires burning throughout the West. It’s an inherently dangerous job that now carries the additional risk of COVID-19 transmission. Any outbreak that ripples through a camp could easily sideline crews and spread the virus across multiple fires – and back to communities across the country – as personnel transfer in and out of “hot zones” and return home.

Though most firefighters are young and fit, some will inevitably fall ill in these remote makeshift communities of shared showers and portable toilets, where medical care can be limited. The pollutants in the smoke they breathe daily also make them more susceptible to COVID-19 and can worsen the effects of the disease, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Also, one suspected or positive case in a camp will mean many other firefighters will need to be quarantined, unable to work. The worst-case scenario is that multiple outbreaks could hamstring the nation’s ability to respond as wildfire season peaks in August, the hottest and driest month of the year in the western United States.

The number of acres burned so far this year is below the 10-year average, but the fire outlook for August is above average in nine states, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. Twenty-two large fires were ignited on Monday alone after lightning storms passed through the Northwest.

A study published this month by researchers at Colorado State University and the U.S. Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station concluded that COVID outbreaks “could be a serious threat to the firefighting mission” and urged vigilant social distancing and screening measures in the camps.

“If simultaneous fires incurred outbreaks, the entire wildland response system could be stressed substantially, with a large portion of the workforce quarantined,” the study’s authors wrote.

This spring, the National Wildfire Coordinating Group’s Fire Management Board wrote – and has since been updating – protocols to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in fire camps, based on CDC guidelines. Though they can be adapted by managers at different fires and even by individual team, they center on some key recommendations, including the following:

• Firefighters should be screened for fever and other COVID symptoms when they arrive at camp.
• Every crew should insulate itself as a “module of one” for the fire season and limit interactions with other crews.
• Firefighters should maintain social distancing and wear face coverings when social distancing isn’t possible. Smaller satellite camps, known as spike camps, can be built to ensure enough space.
• Shared areas should be regularly cleaned and disinfected, and sharing tools and radios should be minimized.

The guidance does not include routine testing of newly arrived firefighters – a practice used for athletes at training camps and students returning to college campuses.

The Fire Management Board’s Wildland Fire Medical and Public Health Advisory Team wrote in a July 2 memo that it “does not recommend utilizing universal COVID-19 laboratory testing as a standalone risk mitigation or screening measure among wildland firefighters.” Rather, the group recommends testing an individual and directly exposed coworkers, saying that approach is in line with CDC guidance.

The lack of testing capacity and long turnaround times are factors, according to Forest Service spokesperson Dan Hottle.

The exception is Alaska, where firefighters are tested upon arrival at the airport and are quarantined in a hotel while awaiting results, which come within 24 hours, Mr. Hottle said.

Fire crews responding to early-season fires in the spring had some problems adjusting to the new protocols, according to assessments written by fire leaders and compiled by the Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center.

Shawn Faiella, superintendent of the interagency “hotshot crew” – so named because they work the most challenging or “hottest” parts of wildfires – based at Montana’s Lolo National Forest, questioned the need to wear masks inside vehicles and the safety of bringing extra vehicles to space out firefighters traveling to a blaze. Parking extra vehicles at the scene of a fire is difficult in tight dirt roads – and would be dangerous if evacuations are necessary, he wrote.

“It’s damn tough to take these practices to the fire line,” Mr. Faiella wrote after his team responded to a 40-acre Montana fire in April.

One recommendation that fire managers say has been particularly effective is the “module of one” concept requiring crews to eat and sleep together in isolation for the entire fire season.

“Whoever came up with it, it is working,” said Mike Goicoechea, the Montana-based incident commander for the Forest Service’s Northern Region Type 1 team, which manages the nation’s largest and most complex wildfires and natural disasters. “Somebody may test positive, and you end up having to take that module out of service for 14 days. But the nice part is you’re not taking out a whole camp. ... It’s just that module.”

The total number of positive COVID cases among wildland firefighters among the various federal, state, local, and tribal agencies is not being tracked. Each fire agency has its own system for tracking and reporting COVID-19, said Jessica Gardetto, a spokesperson for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the National Interagency Fire Center in Idaho.

The largest wildland firefighting agency is the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service, with 10,000 firefighters. Another major agency is the Department of the Interior, which BLM is part of and which had more than 3,500 full-time fire employees last year. As of the first week of August, 111 Forest Service firefighters and 40 BLM firefighters (who work underneath the broader Interior Department agency) had tested positive for COVID-19, according to officials for the respective agencies.

“Considering we’ve now been experiencing fire activity for several months, this number is surprisingly low if you think about the thousands of fire personnel who’ve been suppressing wildfires this summer,” Ms. Gardetto said.

Mr. Goicoechea and his Montana team traveled north of Tucson, Arizona, on June 22 to manage a rapidly spreading fire in the Santa Catalina Mountains that required 1,200 responders at its peak. Within 2 days of the team’s arrival, his managers were overwhelmed by calls from firefighters worried or with questions about preventing the spread of COVID-19 or carrying the virus home to their families.

In an unusual move, Mr. Goicoechea called upon Montana physician – and former National Park Service ranger with wildfire experience – Harry Sibold, MD, to join the team. Physicians are rarely, if ever, part of a wildfire camp’s medical team, Mr. Goicoechea said.

Dr. Sibold gave regular coronavirus updates during morning briefings, consulted with local health officials, soothed firefighters worried about bringing the virus home to their families, and advised fire managers on how to handle scenarios that might come up.

But Dr. Sibold said he wasn’t optimistic at the beginning about keeping the coronavirus in check in a large camp in Pima County, which has the second-highest number of confirmed cases in Arizona, at the time a national COVID-19 hot spot. “I quite firmly expected that we might have two or three outbreaks,” he said.

There were no positive cases during the team’s 2-week deployment, just three or four cases in which a firefighter showed symptoms but tested negative for the virus. After the Montana team returned home, nine firefighters at the Arizona fire from other units tested positive, Mr. Goicoechea said. Contact tracers notified the Montana team, some of whom were tested. All tests returned negative.

“I can’t say enough about having that doctor to help,” Mr. Goicoechea said, suggesting other teams might consider doing the same. “We’re not the experts in a pandemic. We’re the experts with fire.”

That early success will be tested as the number of fires increases across the West, along with the number of firefighters responding to them. There were more than 15,000 firefighters and support personnel assigned to fires across the nation as of mid-August, and the success of those COVID-19 prevention protocols depend largely on them.

Mr. Paul, the Oregon firefighter, said that the guidelines were followed closely in camp, but less so out on the fire line. It also appeared to him that younger firefighters were less likely to follow the masking and social-distancing rules than the veterans like him. That worried him as he realized it wouldn’t take much to spark an outbreak that could sideline crews and cripple the ability to respond to a fire.

“We’re outside, so it definitely helps with mitigation and makes it simpler to social distance,” Mr. Paul said. “But I think if there’s a mistake made, it could happen.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Jon Paul was leery entering his first wildfire camp of the year late last month to fight three lightning-caused fires scorching parts of a Northern California forest that hadn’t burned in 40 years.

Courtesy of U.S. Forest Service

The 54-year-old engine captain from southern Oregon knew from experience that these crowded, grimy camps can be breeding grounds for norovirus and a respiratory illness that firefighters call the “camp crud” in a normal year. He wondered what the coronavirus would do in the tent cities where hundreds of men and women eat, sleep, wash, and spend their downtime between shifts.

Mr. Paul thought about his immunocompromised wife and his 84-year-old mother back home. Then he joined the approximately 1,300 people spread across the Modoc National Forest who would provide a major test for the COVID-prevention measures that had been developed for wildland firefighters.

“We’re still first responders and we have that responsibility to go and deal with these emergencies,” he said in a recent interview. “I don’t scare easy, but I’m very wary and concerned about my surroundings. I’m still going to work and do my job.”

Mr. Paul is one of thousands of firefighters from across the United States battling dozens of wildfires burning throughout the West. It’s an inherently dangerous job that now carries the additional risk of COVID-19 transmission. Any outbreak that ripples through a camp could easily sideline crews and spread the virus across multiple fires – and back to communities across the country – as personnel transfer in and out of “hot zones” and return home.

Though most firefighters are young and fit, some will inevitably fall ill in these remote makeshift communities of shared showers and portable toilets, where medical care can be limited. The pollutants in the smoke they breathe daily also make them more susceptible to COVID-19 and can worsen the effects of the disease, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Also, one suspected or positive case in a camp will mean many other firefighters will need to be quarantined, unable to work. The worst-case scenario is that multiple outbreaks could hamstring the nation’s ability to respond as wildfire season peaks in August, the hottest and driest month of the year in the western United States.

The number of acres burned so far this year is below the 10-year average, but the fire outlook for August is above average in nine states, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. Twenty-two large fires were ignited on Monday alone after lightning storms passed through the Northwest.

A study published this month by researchers at Colorado State University and the U.S. Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station concluded that COVID outbreaks “could be a serious threat to the firefighting mission” and urged vigilant social distancing and screening measures in the camps.

“If simultaneous fires incurred outbreaks, the entire wildland response system could be stressed substantially, with a large portion of the workforce quarantined,” the study’s authors wrote.

This spring, the National Wildfire Coordinating Group’s Fire Management Board wrote – and has since been updating – protocols to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in fire camps, based on CDC guidelines. Though they can be adapted by managers at different fires and even by individual team, they center on some key recommendations, including the following:

• Firefighters should be screened for fever and other COVID symptoms when they arrive at camp.
• Every crew should insulate itself as a “module of one” for the fire season and limit interactions with other crews.
• Firefighters should maintain social distancing and wear face coverings when social distancing isn’t possible. Smaller satellite camps, known as spike camps, can be built to ensure enough space.
• Shared areas should be regularly cleaned and disinfected, and sharing tools and radios should be minimized.

The guidance does not include routine testing of newly arrived firefighters – a practice used for athletes at training camps and students returning to college campuses.

The Fire Management Board’s Wildland Fire Medical and Public Health Advisory Team wrote in a July 2 memo that it “does not recommend utilizing universal COVID-19 laboratory testing as a standalone risk mitigation or screening measure among wildland firefighters.” Rather, the group recommends testing an individual and directly exposed coworkers, saying that approach is in line with CDC guidance.

The lack of testing capacity and long turnaround times are factors, according to Forest Service spokesperson Dan Hottle.

The exception is Alaska, where firefighters are tested upon arrival at the airport and are quarantined in a hotel while awaiting results, which come within 24 hours, Mr. Hottle said.

Fire crews responding to early-season fires in the spring had some problems adjusting to the new protocols, according to assessments written by fire leaders and compiled by the Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center.

Shawn Faiella, superintendent of the interagency “hotshot crew” – so named because they work the most challenging or “hottest” parts of wildfires – based at Montana’s Lolo National Forest, questioned the need to wear masks inside vehicles and the safety of bringing extra vehicles to space out firefighters traveling to a blaze. Parking extra vehicles at the scene of a fire is difficult in tight dirt roads – and would be dangerous if evacuations are necessary, he wrote.

“It’s damn tough to take these practices to the fire line,” Mr. Faiella wrote after his team responded to a 40-acre Montana fire in April.

One recommendation that fire managers say has been particularly effective is the “module of one” concept requiring crews to eat and sleep together in isolation for the entire fire season.

“Whoever came up with it, it is working,” said Mike Goicoechea, the Montana-based incident commander for the Forest Service’s Northern Region Type 1 team, which manages the nation’s largest and most complex wildfires and natural disasters. “Somebody may test positive, and you end up having to take that module out of service for 14 days. But the nice part is you’re not taking out a whole camp. ... It’s just that module.”

The total number of positive COVID cases among wildland firefighters among the various federal, state, local, and tribal agencies is not being tracked. Each fire agency has its own system for tracking and reporting COVID-19, said Jessica Gardetto, a spokesperson for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the National Interagency Fire Center in Idaho.

The largest wildland firefighting agency is the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service, with 10,000 firefighters. Another major agency is the Department of the Interior, which BLM is part of and which had more than 3,500 full-time fire employees last year. As of the first week of August, 111 Forest Service firefighters and 40 BLM firefighters (who work underneath the broader Interior Department agency) had tested positive for COVID-19, according to officials for the respective agencies.

“Considering we’ve now been experiencing fire activity for several months, this number is surprisingly low if you think about the thousands of fire personnel who’ve been suppressing wildfires this summer,” Ms. Gardetto said.

Mr. Goicoechea and his Montana team traveled north of Tucson, Arizona, on June 22 to manage a rapidly spreading fire in the Santa Catalina Mountains that required 1,200 responders at its peak. Within 2 days of the team’s arrival, his managers were overwhelmed by calls from firefighters worried or with questions about preventing the spread of COVID-19 or carrying the virus home to their families.

In an unusual move, Mr. Goicoechea called upon Montana physician – and former National Park Service ranger with wildfire experience – Harry Sibold, MD, to join the team. Physicians are rarely, if ever, part of a wildfire camp’s medical team, Mr. Goicoechea said.

Dr. Sibold gave regular coronavirus updates during morning briefings, consulted with local health officials, soothed firefighters worried about bringing the virus home to their families, and advised fire managers on how to handle scenarios that might come up.

But Dr. Sibold said he wasn’t optimistic at the beginning about keeping the coronavirus in check in a large camp in Pima County, which has the second-highest number of confirmed cases in Arizona, at the time a national COVID-19 hot spot. “I quite firmly expected that we might have two or three outbreaks,” he said.

There were no positive cases during the team’s 2-week deployment, just three or four cases in which a firefighter showed symptoms but tested negative for the virus. After the Montana team returned home, nine firefighters at the Arizona fire from other units tested positive, Mr. Goicoechea said. Contact tracers notified the Montana team, some of whom were tested. All tests returned negative.

“I can’t say enough about having that doctor to help,” Mr. Goicoechea said, suggesting other teams might consider doing the same. “We’re not the experts in a pandemic. We’re the experts with fire.”

That early success will be tested as the number of fires increases across the West, along with the number of firefighters responding to them. There were more than 15,000 firefighters and support personnel assigned to fires across the nation as of mid-August, and the success of those COVID-19 prevention protocols depend largely on them.

Mr. Paul, the Oregon firefighter, said that the guidelines were followed closely in camp, but less so out on the fire line. It also appeared to him that younger firefighters were less likely to follow the masking and social-distancing rules than the veterans like him. That worried him as he realized it wouldn’t take much to spark an outbreak that could sideline crews and cripple the ability to respond to a fire.

“We’re outside, so it definitely helps with mitigation and makes it simpler to social distance,” Mr. Paul said. “But I think if there’s a mistake made, it could happen.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Hospitalists nationwide have put in longer hours, played new clinical roles, and stretched beyond their medical specialty and comfort level to meet their hospital’s COVID-19 care demands. Can they expect some kind of financial recognition – perhaps in the form of “hazard pay” for going above and beyond – even though their institutions are experiencing negative financial fallout from the crisis?

Hospitals in regions experiencing a COVID-19 surge have limited elective procedures, discouraged non–COVID-19 admissions, and essentially entered crisis management mode. Other facilities in less hard-hit communities are also standing by, with reduced hospital census, smaller caseloads and less work to do, while trying to prepare their bottom lines for lower demand.

“This crisis has put most hospitals in financial jeopardy and that is likely to trickle down to all employees – including hospitalists,” said Ron Greeno, MD, FCCP, MHM, a past president of SHM and the society’s current senior advisor for government affairs. “But it’s not like hospitals could or would forgo an effective hospitalist program today. Hospitalists will be important players in defining the hospital’s future direction post crisis.”

That doesn’t mean tighter financials, caps on annual salary increases, or higher productivity expectations won’t be part of future conversations between hospital administrators and their hospitalists, Dr. Greeno said. Administrators are starting to look ahead to the post–COVID-19 era even as numbers of cases and rates of growth continue to rise in various regions, and Dr. Greeno sees a lot of uncertainty ahead.

Even prior to the crisis, he noted, hospital margins had been falling, while the cost of labor, including hospitalist labor, was going up. That was pointing toward an inevitable collision, which has only intensified with the new financial crisis facing hospitals – created by SARS-CoV-2 and by policies such as shutting down elective surgeries in anticipation of a COVID-19 patient surge that, for some institutions, may never come.

Brian Harte, MD, MHM, president of Cleveland Clinic Akron General and a past president of SHM, said that the Cleveland Clinic system has been planning since January its response to the coming crisis. “Governor Mike DeWine and the state Department of Health led the way in flattening the curve in Ohio. We engaged our hospitalists in brainstorming solutions. They have been excellent partners,” he said.

Approaching the crisis with a sense of urgency from the outset, the Cleveland Clinic built a COVID-19 surge team and incident command structure, with nursing, infectious diseases, critical care and hospital medicine represented. “We used that time to get ready for what was coming. We worked on streamlining consultant work flows.”

But utilization numbers are off in almost every service line, Dr. Harte said. “It has forced us to look at things we’ve always talked about, including greater use of telemedicine and exploring other ways of caring for patients, such as increased use of evening hours.”

Cleveland Clinic contracts with Sound Physicians of Tacoma, Wash., for its hospitalist coverage. “We have an excellent working relationship with Sound at the local, regional, and national levels, with common goals for quality and utilization. We tried to involve our hospitalists as early as possible in planning. We needed them to step in and role model and lead the way,” Dr. Harte said, for everybody’s anxiety levels.

“We’re still in the process of understanding the long-term financial impact of the epidemic,” Dr. Harte added. “But at this point I see no reason to think our relationship with our hospitalists needs to change. We’re the stewards of long-term finances. We’ll need to keep a close eye on this. But we’re committed to working through this together.”

Hazard pay for frontline health care workers was included in the COVID-19 relief package assembled in mid-May by Democrats in the House of Representatives. The $3 trillion HEROES Act includes $200 billion to award hazard pay to essential workers, including those in the health field, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declared the legislation “dead on arrival” in the Senate.

Supplementary hazard payments made by hospitals to their hospitalists as a reward for sacrifices they made in the crisis is an interesting question, Dr. Greeno noted, and it’s definitely on the table at some hospitals. “But I think it is going to be a tough ask in these times.”

Dr. Harte said he has not offered nor been asked about hazard pay for hospitalists. Cleveland Clinic Akron General made a strategic decision that hazard pay was not going to be part of its response to the pandemic. Other hospital administrators interviewed for this article concur.

Hospitals respond to the fiscal crisis

Hospitals in other parts of the country also report significant fiscal fallout from the COVID-19 crisis, with predictions that 100 or more hospitals may be forced to close. Jeff Dye, president of the New Mexico Hospital Association, told the Albuquerque Journal on May 1 that hospitals in his state have been squeezed on all sides by increased costs, patients delaying routine care, and public health orders restricting elective surgeries. New Mexico hospitals, especially in rural areas, face incredible financial strain.

The University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville, recently announced 20% reductions in total compensation for its providers through July 31, along with suspension of retirement contributions. Those changes won’t affect team members caring for COVID-19 patients. And the Spectrum Health Medical Group of 15 hospitals in western Michigan, according to Michigan Public Radio, told its doctors they either needed to sign “contract addendums” giving the system more control over their hours – or face a 25% pay cut, or worse.

Cheyenne (Wyo.) Regional Medical Center issued a statement April 24 that it expected losses of $10 million for the month of April. “CRMC, like every other hospital in Wyoming, is certainly feeling the financial impact that COVID-19 is having,” CEO Tim Thornell told the Cowboy State Daily on April 24. That includes a 30% reduction in inpatient care and 50% reduction in outpatient care, while the hospital has only had a handful of COVID-19 patients at any time. Capital projects are now on hold, overtime is limited, and a hiring freeze is in effect.

“We’re certainly prepared for a larger surge, which hasn’t come yet,” Mr. Thornell said in an interview. CRMC’s ICU was split to create a nine-bed dedicated COVID-19 unit. Intensivists see most of the critical care patients, while the hospital’s 15 directly-employed hospitalists are treating all of the non-ICU COVID-19 patients. “Among themselves, the hospitalists volunteered who would work on the unit. We’ve been fortunate enough to have enough volunteers and enough PPE [personal protective equipment],” he said.

Preparing for the COVID-19 pandemic has strengthened the medical center’s relationship with its hospitalists, Mr. Thornell explained. “Hospitalists are key to our operations, involved in so much that happens here. We’re trying to staff to volume with decreased utilization. We’ve scaled back, which only makes fiscal sense. Now, how do we reinfuse patients back into the mix? Our hospitalists are paid by the number of shifts, and as you distribute shift reductions over 15 providers, it shouldn’t be an intolerable burden.” But two open hospitalist positions have not been filled, he noted.

CRMC is trying to approach these changes with a Lean perspective, Mr. Thornell said. “We had already adopted a Lean program, but this has been a chance to go through a life-altering circumstance using the tools of Lean planning and applying them instantaneously.”
 

Providers step up

At Emory Healthcare in Atlanta, a major center for COVID-19 cases, communication has been essential in the crisis, said Bryce Gartland, MD, SFHM, Emory’s hospital group president and cochief of clinical operations. “Our group was prepared for a significant influx of patients. Like every other institution, we made the decision to postpone elective care, with a resulting plummet in volume,” he said.

As COVID-19 patients entered the Emory system, frontline hospitalists stepped up to care for those patients. “We’ve had ample providers in terms of clinical care. We guaranteed our physicians’ base compensation. They have flexed teams up and down as needed.” Advanced practice professionals also stepped up to bridge gaps.

With regard to the return of volumes of non–COVID-19 patients, the jury’s still out, Dr. Gartland said. “None of us has a crystal ball, and there are tremendous variables and decision points that will have significant impact. We have started to see numbers of time-sensitive and essential cases increase as of the first week of May.”

What lies ahead will likely include some rightsizing to future volumes. On top of that, the broader economic pressures on hospitals from high rates of unemployment, uninsured patients, bad debt, and charity care will push health care systems to significantly address costs and infrastructure, he said. “We’re still early in planning, and striving to maintain flexibility and nimbleness, given the uncertainties to this early understanding of our new normal. No hospital is immune from the financial impact. We’ll see and hear about more of these conversations in the months ahead.”

But the experience has also generated some positives, Dr. Gartland noted. “Things like telehealth, which we’ve been talking about for years but previously faced barriers to widespread adoption.” Now with COVID-19, the federal government issued waivers, and barriers – both internal and external – came down. “With telehealth, what will the role and deployment of hospitalists look like in this new model? How will traditional productivity expectations change, or the numbers and types of providers? This will make the relationship and partnership between hospitalist groups and hospital administrators ever more important as we consider the evolution toward new care models.”

Dr. Gartland said that “one of the great things about hospital medicine as a field is its flexibility and adaptability. Where there have been gaps, hospitalists were quick to step in. As long as hospital medicine continues to embrace those kinds of behaviors, it will be successful.” But if the conversation with hospitals is just about money, it will be harder, he acknowledged. “Where there is this kind of disruption in our usual way of doing things, there are also tremendous opportunities for care model innovation. I would encourage hospitalist groups to try to be true value partners.”

Command center mode

Like other physicians in hospital C-suites, Chad Whelan MD, FACP, SFHM, chief executive officer of Banner–University Medicine in Tucson, Ariz., led his two hospitals into command center mode when the crisis hit, planning for a surge of COVID-19 cases that could overwhelm hospital capacity.

“In terms of our hospitalists, we leaned in to them hard in the beginning, preparing them to supervise other physicians who came in to help if needed,” he said. “Our [non–COVID-19] census is down, revenues are down, and the implications are enormous – like nothing we’ve ever seen before.”

“We’re fortunate that we’re part of the Banner health system. We made a decision that we would essentially keep our physicians financially protected through this crisis,” Dr. Whelan said. “In return, we called on them to step up and be on the front lines and to put in enormous hours for planning. We asked them to consider: How could you contribute if the surge comes?”

He affirmed that hospital medicine has been a major part of his medical center’s planning and implementation. “I’ve been overwhelmed by the degree to which the entire delivery team has rallied around the pandemic, with everybody saying they want to keep people safe and be part of the solution. We have always had hospitalist leaders at the table as we’ve planned our response and as decisions were made,” said Dr. Whelan, a practicing hospitalist and teaching service attending since 2000 until he assumed his current executive position in Arizona 18 months ago.

“While we have kept people whole during the immediate crisis, we have acknowledged that we don’t know what our recovery will look like. What if [non–COVID-19] volume doesn’t return? That keeps me awake at night,” he said. “I have talked to our physician leadership in hospital medicine and more broadly. We need to ask ourselves many questions, including: do we have the right levels of staffing? Is this the time to consider alternate models of staffing, for example, advanced practice providers? And does the compensation plan need adjustments?”

Dr. Whelan thinks that the COVID-19 crisis is an opportunity for hospital medicine to more rapidly explore different models and to ask what additional value hospitalists can bring to the care model. “For example, what would it mean to redefine the hospitalist’s scope of practice as an acute medicine specialist, not defined by the hospital’s four walls?” he noted.

“One of the reasons our smaller hospital reached capacity with COVID-19 patients was the skilled nursing facility located a few hundred feet away that turned into a hot spot. If we had imported the hospital medicine model virtually into that SNF early on, could there have been a different scenario? Have we thought through what that would have even looked like?” Dr. Whelan asked.

He challenges the hospital medicine field, once it gets to the other side of this crisis, to not fall back on old way of doing things. “Instead, let’s use this time to create a better model today,” he said. “That’s what we’re trying to do at a system level at Banner, with our hospital medicine groups partnering with the hospital. I want to see our hospitalists create and thrive in that new model.”

Hospitalists nationwide have put in longer hours, played new clinical roles, and stretched beyond their medical specialty and comfort level to meet their hospital’s COVID-19 care demands. Can they expect some kind of financial recognition – perhaps in the form of “hazard pay” for going above and beyond – even though their institutions are experiencing negative financial fallout from the crisis?

Hospitals in regions experiencing a COVID-19 surge have limited elective procedures, discouraged non–COVID-19 admissions, and essentially entered crisis management mode. Other facilities in less hard-hit communities are also standing by, with reduced hospital census, smaller caseloads and less work to do, while trying to prepare their bottom lines for lower demand.

“This crisis has put most hospitals in financial jeopardy and that is likely to trickle down to all employees – including hospitalists,” said Ron Greeno, MD, FCCP, MHM, a past president of SHM and the society’s current senior advisor for government affairs. “But it’s not like hospitals could or would forgo an effective hospitalist program today. Hospitalists will be important players in defining the hospital’s future direction post crisis.”

That doesn’t mean tighter financials, caps on annual salary increases, or higher productivity expectations won’t be part of future conversations between hospital administrators and their hospitalists, Dr. Greeno said. Administrators are starting to look ahead to the post–COVID-19 era even as numbers of cases and rates of growth continue to rise in various regions, and Dr. Greeno sees a lot of uncertainty ahead.

Even prior to the crisis, he noted, hospital margins had been falling, while the cost of labor, including hospitalist labor, was going up. That was pointing toward an inevitable collision, which has only intensified with the new financial crisis facing hospitals – created by SARS-CoV-2 and by policies such as shutting down elective surgeries in anticipation of a COVID-19 patient surge that, for some institutions, may never come.

Brian Harte, MD, MHM, president of Cleveland Clinic Akron General and a past president of SHM, said that the Cleveland Clinic system has been planning since January its response to the coming crisis. “Governor Mike DeWine and the state Department of Health led the way in flattening the curve in Ohio. We engaged our hospitalists in brainstorming solutions. They have been excellent partners,” he said.

Approaching the crisis with a sense of urgency from the outset, the Cleveland Clinic built a COVID-19 surge team and incident command structure, with nursing, infectious diseases, critical care and hospital medicine represented. “We used that time to get ready for what was coming. We worked on streamlining consultant work flows.”

But utilization numbers are off in almost every service line, Dr. Harte said. “It has forced us to look at things we’ve always talked about, including greater use of telemedicine and exploring other ways of caring for patients, such as increased use of evening hours.”

Cleveland Clinic contracts with Sound Physicians of Tacoma, Wash., for its hospitalist coverage. “We have an excellent working relationship with Sound at the local, regional, and national levels, with common goals for quality and utilization. We tried to involve our hospitalists as early as possible in planning. We needed them to step in and role model and lead the way,” Dr. Harte said, for everybody’s anxiety levels.

“We’re still in the process of understanding the long-term financial impact of the epidemic,” Dr. Harte added. “But at this point I see no reason to think our relationship with our hospitalists needs to change. We’re the stewards of long-term finances. We’ll need to keep a close eye on this. But we’re committed to working through this together.”

Hazard pay for frontline health care workers was included in the COVID-19 relief package assembled in mid-May by Democrats in the House of Representatives. The $3 trillion HEROES Act includes $200 billion to award hazard pay to essential workers, including those in the health field, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declared the legislation “dead on arrival” in the Senate.

Supplementary hazard payments made by hospitals to their hospitalists as a reward for sacrifices they made in the crisis is an interesting question, Dr. Greeno noted, and it’s definitely on the table at some hospitals. “But I think it is going to be a tough ask in these times.”

Dr. Harte said he has not offered nor been asked about hazard pay for hospitalists. Cleveland Clinic Akron General made a strategic decision that hazard pay was not going to be part of its response to the pandemic. Other hospital administrators interviewed for this article concur.

Hospitals respond to the fiscal crisis

Hospitals in other parts of the country also report significant fiscal fallout from the COVID-19 crisis, with predictions that 100 or more hospitals may be forced to close. Jeff Dye, president of the New Mexico Hospital Association, told the Albuquerque Journal on May 1 that hospitals in his state have been squeezed on all sides by increased costs, patients delaying routine care, and public health orders restricting elective surgeries. New Mexico hospitals, especially in rural areas, face incredible financial strain.

The University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville, recently announced 20% reductions in total compensation for its providers through July 31, along with suspension of retirement contributions. Those changes won’t affect team members caring for COVID-19 patients. And the Spectrum Health Medical Group of 15 hospitals in western Michigan, according to Michigan Public Radio, told its doctors they either needed to sign “contract addendums” giving the system more control over their hours – or face a 25% pay cut, or worse.

Cheyenne (Wyo.) Regional Medical Center issued a statement April 24 that it expected losses of $10 million for the month of April. “CRMC, like every other hospital in Wyoming, is certainly feeling the financial impact that COVID-19 is having,” CEO Tim Thornell told the Cowboy State Daily on April 24. That includes a 30% reduction in inpatient care and 50% reduction in outpatient care, while the hospital has only had a handful of COVID-19 patients at any time. Capital projects are now on hold, overtime is limited, and a hiring freeze is in effect.

“We’re certainly prepared for a larger surge, which hasn’t come yet,” Mr. Thornell said in an interview. CRMC’s ICU was split to create a nine-bed dedicated COVID-19 unit. Intensivists see most of the critical care patients, while the hospital’s 15 directly-employed hospitalists are treating all of the non-ICU COVID-19 patients. “Among themselves, the hospitalists volunteered who would work on the unit. We’ve been fortunate enough to have enough volunteers and enough PPE [personal protective equipment],” he said.

Preparing for the COVID-19 pandemic has strengthened the medical center’s relationship with its hospitalists, Mr. Thornell explained. “Hospitalists are key to our operations, involved in so much that happens here. We’re trying to staff to volume with decreased utilization. We’ve scaled back, which only makes fiscal sense. Now, how do we reinfuse patients back into the mix? Our hospitalists are paid by the number of shifts, and as you distribute shift reductions over 15 providers, it shouldn’t be an intolerable burden.” But two open hospitalist positions have not been filled, he noted.

CRMC is trying to approach these changes with a Lean perspective, Mr. Thornell said. “We had already adopted a Lean program, but this has been a chance to go through a life-altering circumstance using the tools of Lean planning and applying them instantaneously.”
 

Providers step up

At Emory Healthcare in Atlanta, a major center for COVID-19 cases, communication has been essential in the crisis, said Bryce Gartland, MD, SFHM, Emory’s hospital group president and cochief of clinical operations. “Our group was prepared for a significant influx of patients. Like every other institution, we made the decision to postpone elective care, with a resulting plummet in volume,” he said.

As COVID-19 patients entered the Emory system, frontline hospitalists stepped up to care for those patients. “We’ve had ample providers in terms of clinical care. We guaranteed our physicians’ base compensation. They have flexed teams up and down as needed.” Advanced practice professionals also stepped up to bridge gaps.

With regard to the return of volumes of non–COVID-19 patients, the jury’s still out, Dr. Gartland said. “None of us has a crystal ball, and there are tremendous variables and decision points that will have significant impact. We have started to see numbers of time-sensitive and essential cases increase as of the first week of May.”

What lies ahead will likely include some rightsizing to future volumes. On top of that, the broader economic pressures on hospitals from high rates of unemployment, uninsured patients, bad debt, and charity care will push health care systems to significantly address costs and infrastructure, he said. “We’re still early in planning, and striving to maintain flexibility and nimbleness, given the uncertainties to this early understanding of our new normal. No hospital is immune from the financial impact. We’ll see and hear about more of these conversations in the months ahead.”

But the experience has also generated some positives, Dr. Gartland noted. “Things like telehealth, which we’ve been talking about for years but previously faced barriers to widespread adoption.” Now with COVID-19, the federal government issued waivers, and barriers – both internal and external – came down. “With telehealth, what will the role and deployment of hospitalists look like in this new model? How will traditional productivity expectations change, or the numbers and types of providers? This will make the relationship and partnership between hospitalist groups and hospital administrators ever more important as we consider the evolution toward new care models.”

Dr. Gartland said that “one of the great things about hospital medicine as a field is its flexibility and adaptability. Where there have been gaps, hospitalists were quick to step in. As long as hospital medicine continues to embrace those kinds of behaviors, it will be successful.” But if the conversation with hospitals is just about money, it will be harder, he acknowledged. “Where there is this kind of disruption in our usual way of doing things, there are also tremendous opportunities for care model innovation. I would encourage hospitalist groups to try to be true value partners.”

Command center mode

Like other physicians in hospital C-suites, Chad Whelan MD, FACP, SFHM, chief executive officer of Banner–University Medicine in Tucson, Ariz., led his two hospitals into command center mode when the crisis hit, planning for a surge of COVID-19 cases that could overwhelm hospital capacity.

“In terms of our hospitalists, we leaned in to them hard in the beginning, preparing them to supervise other physicians who came in to help if needed,” he said. “Our [non–COVID-19] census is down, revenues are down, and the implications are enormous – like nothing we’ve ever seen before.”

“We’re fortunate that we’re part of the Banner health system. We made a decision that we would essentially keep our physicians financially protected through this crisis,” Dr. Whelan said. “In return, we called on them to step up and be on the front lines and to put in enormous hours for planning. We asked them to consider: How could you contribute if the surge comes?”

He affirmed that hospital medicine has been a major part of his medical center’s planning and implementation. “I’ve been overwhelmed by the degree to which the entire delivery team has rallied around the pandemic, with everybody saying they want to keep people safe and be part of the solution. We have always had hospitalist leaders at the table as we’ve planned our response and as decisions were made,” said Dr. Whelan, a practicing hospitalist and teaching service attending since 2000 until he assumed his current executive position in Arizona 18 months ago.

“While we have kept people whole during the immediate crisis, we have acknowledged that we don’t know what our recovery will look like. What if [non–COVID-19] volume doesn’t return? That keeps me awake at night,” he said. “I have talked to our physician leadership in hospital medicine and more broadly. We need to ask ourselves many questions, including: do we have the right levels of staffing? Is this the time to consider alternate models of staffing, for example, advanced practice providers? And does the compensation plan need adjustments?”

Dr. Whelan thinks that the COVID-19 crisis is an opportunity for hospital medicine to more rapidly explore different models and to ask what additional value hospitalists can bring to the care model. “For example, what would it mean to redefine the hospitalist’s scope of practice as an acute medicine specialist, not defined by the hospital’s four walls?” he noted.

“One of the reasons our smaller hospital reached capacity with COVID-19 patients was the skilled nursing facility located a few hundred feet away that turned into a hot spot. If we had imported the hospital medicine model virtually into that SNF early on, could there have been a different scenario? Have we thought through what that would have even looked like?” Dr. Whelan asked.

He challenges the hospital medicine field, once it gets to the other side of this crisis, to not fall back on old way of doing things. “Instead, let’s use this time to create a better model today,” he said. “That’s what we’re trying to do at a system level at Banner, with our hospital medicine groups partnering with the hospital. I want to see our hospitalists create and thrive in that new model.”

Hospitalists nationwide have put in longer hours, played new clinical roles, and stretched beyond their medical specialty and comfort level to meet their hospital’s COVID-19 care demands. Can they expect some kind of financial recognition – perhaps in the form of “hazard pay” for going above and beyond – even though their institutions are experiencing negative financial fallout from the crisis?

Hospitals in regions experiencing a COVID-19 surge have limited elective procedures, discouraged non–COVID-19 admissions, and essentially entered crisis management mode. Other facilities in less hard-hit communities are also standing by, with reduced hospital census, smaller caseloads and less work to do, while trying to prepare their bottom lines for lower demand.

“This crisis has put most hospitals in financial jeopardy and that is likely to trickle down to all employees – including hospitalists,” said Ron Greeno, MD, FCCP, MHM, a past president of SHM and the society’s current senior advisor for government affairs. “But it’s not like hospitals could or would forgo an effective hospitalist program today. Hospitalists will be important players in defining the hospital’s future direction post crisis.”

That doesn’t mean tighter financials, caps on annual salary increases, or higher productivity expectations won’t be part of future conversations between hospital administrators and their hospitalists, Dr. Greeno said. Administrators are starting to look ahead to the post–COVID-19 era even as numbers of cases and rates of growth continue to rise in various regions, and Dr. Greeno sees a lot of uncertainty ahead.

Even prior to the crisis, he noted, hospital margins had been falling, while the cost of labor, including hospitalist labor, was going up. That was pointing toward an inevitable collision, which has only intensified with the new financial crisis facing hospitals – created by SARS-CoV-2 and by policies such as shutting down elective surgeries in anticipation of a COVID-19 patient surge that, for some institutions, may never come.

Brian Harte, MD, MHM, president of Cleveland Clinic Akron General and a past president of SHM, said that the Cleveland Clinic system has been planning since January its response to the coming crisis. “Governor Mike DeWine and the state Department of Health led the way in flattening the curve in Ohio. We engaged our hospitalists in brainstorming solutions. They have been excellent partners,” he said.

Approaching the crisis with a sense of urgency from the outset, the Cleveland Clinic built a COVID-19 surge team and incident command structure, with nursing, infectious diseases, critical care and hospital medicine represented. “We used that time to get ready for what was coming. We worked on streamlining consultant work flows.”

But utilization numbers are off in almost every service line, Dr. Harte said. “It has forced us to look at things we’ve always talked about, including greater use of telemedicine and exploring other ways of caring for patients, such as increased use of evening hours.”

Cleveland Clinic contracts with Sound Physicians of Tacoma, Wash., for its hospitalist coverage. “We have an excellent working relationship with Sound at the local, regional, and national levels, with common goals for quality and utilization. We tried to involve our hospitalists as early as possible in planning. We needed them to step in and role model and lead the way,” Dr. Harte said, for everybody’s anxiety levels.

“We’re still in the process of understanding the long-term financial impact of the epidemic,” Dr. Harte added. “But at this point I see no reason to think our relationship with our hospitalists needs to change. We’re the stewards of long-term finances. We’ll need to keep a close eye on this. But we’re committed to working through this together.”

Hazard pay for frontline health care workers was included in the COVID-19 relief package assembled in mid-May by Democrats in the House of Representatives. The $3 trillion HEROES Act includes $200 billion to award hazard pay to essential workers, including those in the health field, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declared the legislation “dead on arrival” in the Senate.

Supplementary hazard payments made by hospitals to their hospitalists as a reward for sacrifices they made in the crisis is an interesting question, Dr. Greeno noted, and it’s definitely on the table at some hospitals. “But I think it is going to be a tough ask in these times.”

Dr. Harte said he has not offered nor been asked about hazard pay for hospitalists. Cleveland Clinic Akron General made a strategic decision that hazard pay was not going to be part of its response to the pandemic. Other hospital administrators interviewed for this article concur.

Hospitals respond to the fiscal crisis

Hospitals in other parts of the country also report significant fiscal fallout from the COVID-19 crisis, with predictions that 100 or more hospitals may be forced to close. Jeff Dye, president of the New Mexico Hospital Association, told the Albuquerque Journal on May 1 that hospitals in his state have been squeezed on all sides by increased costs, patients delaying routine care, and public health orders restricting elective surgeries. New Mexico hospitals, especially in rural areas, face incredible financial strain.

The University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville, recently announced 20% reductions in total compensation for its providers through July 31, along with suspension of retirement contributions. Those changes won’t affect team members caring for COVID-19 patients. And the Spectrum Health Medical Group of 15 hospitals in western Michigan, according to Michigan Public Radio, told its doctors they either needed to sign “contract addendums” giving the system more control over their hours – or face a 25% pay cut, or worse.

Cheyenne (Wyo.) Regional Medical Center issued a statement April 24 that it expected losses of $10 million for the month of April. “CRMC, like every other hospital in Wyoming, is certainly feeling the financial impact that COVID-19 is having,” CEO Tim Thornell told the Cowboy State Daily on April 24. That includes a 30% reduction in inpatient care and 50% reduction in outpatient care, while the hospital has only had a handful of COVID-19 patients at any time. Capital projects are now on hold, overtime is limited, and a hiring freeze is in effect.

“We’re certainly prepared for a larger surge, which hasn’t come yet,” Mr. Thornell said in an interview. CRMC’s ICU was split to create a nine-bed dedicated COVID-19 unit. Intensivists see most of the critical care patients, while the hospital’s 15 directly-employed hospitalists are treating all of the non-ICU COVID-19 patients. “Among themselves, the hospitalists volunteered who would work on the unit. We’ve been fortunate enough to have enough volunteers and enough PPE [personal protective equipment],” he said.

Preparing for the COVID-19 pandemic has strengthened the medical center’s relationship with its hospitalists, Mr. Thornell explained. “Hospitalists are key to our operations, involved in so much that happens here. We’re trying to staff to volume with decreased utilization. We’ve scaled back, which only makes fiscal sense. Now, how do we reinfuse patients back into the mix? Our hospitalists are paid by the number of shifts, and as you distribute shift reductions over 15 providers, it shouldn’t be an intolerable burden.” But two open hospitalist positions have not been filled, he noted.

CRMC is trying to approach these changes with a Lean perspective, Mr. Thornell said. “We had already adopted a Lean program, but this has been a chance to go through a life-altering circumstance using the tools of Lean planning and applying them instantaneously.”
 

Providers step up

At Emory Healthcare in Atlanta, a major center for COVID-19 cases, communication has been essential in the crisis, said Bryce Gartland, MD, SFHM, Emory’s hospital group president and cochief of clinical operations. “Our group was prepared for a significant influx of patients. Like every other institution, we made the decision to postpone elective care, with a resulting plummet in volume,” he said.

As COVID-19 patients entered the Emory system, frontline hospitalists stepped up to care for those patients. “We’ve had ample providers in terms of clinical care. We guaranteed our physicians’ base compensation. They have flexed teams up and down as needed.” Advanced practice professionals also stepped up to bridge gaps.

With regard to the return of volumes of non–COVID-19 patients, the jury’s still out, Dr. Gartland said. “None of us has a crystal ball, and there are tremendous variables and decision points that will have significant impact. We have started to see numbers of time-sensitive and essential cases increase as of the first week of May.”

What lies ahead will likely include some rightsizing to future volumes. On top of that, the broader economic pressures on hospitals from high rates of unemployment, uninsured patients, bad debt, and charity care will push health care systems to significantly address costs and infrastructure, he said. “We’re still early in planning, and striving to maintain flexibility and nimbleness, given the uncertainties to this early understanding of our new normal. No hospital is immune from the financial impact. We’ll see and hear about more of these conversations in the months ahead.”

But the experience has also generated some positives, Dr. Gartland noted. “Things like telehealth, which we’ve been talking about for years but previously faced barriers to widespread adoption.” Now with COVID-19, the federal government issued waivers, and barriers – both internal and external – came down. “With telehealth, what will the role and deployment of hospitalists look like in this new model? How will traditional productivity expectations change, or the numbers and types of providers? This will make the relationship and partnership between hospitalist groups and hospital administrators ever more important as we consider the evolution toward new care models.”

Dr. Gartland said that “one of the great things about hospital medicine as a field is its flexibility and adaptability. Where there have been gaps, hospitalists were quick to step in. As long as hospital medicine continues to embrace those kinds of behaviors, it will be successful.” But if the conversation with hospitals is just about money, it will be harder, he acknowledged. “Where there is this kind of disruption in our usual way of doing things, there are also tremendous opportunities for care model innovation. I would encourage hospitalist groups to try to be true value partners.”

Command center mode

Like other physicians in hospital C-suites, Chad Whelan MD, FACP, SFHM, chief executive officer of Banner–University Medicine in Tucson, Ariz., led his two hospitals into command center mode when the crisis hit, planning for a surge of COVID-19 cases that could overwhelm hospital capacity.

“In terms of our hospitalists, we leaned in to them hard in the beginning, preparing them to supervise other physicians who came in to help if needed,” he said. “Our [non–COVID-19] census is down, revenues are down, and the implications are enormous – like nothing we’ve ever seen before.”

“We’re fortunate that we’re part of the Banner health system. We made a decision that we would essentially keep our physicians financially protected through this crisis,” Dr. Whelan said. “In return, we called on them to step up and be on the front lines and to put in enormous hours for planning. We asked them to consider: How could you contribute if the surge comes?”

He affirmed that hospital medicine has been a major part of his medical center’s planning and implementation. “I’ve been overwhelmed by the degree to which the entire delivery team has rallied around the pandemic, with everybody saying they want to keep people safe and be part of the solution. We have always had hospitalist leaders at the table as we’ve planned our response and as decisions were made,” said Dr. Whelan, a practicing hospitalist and teaching service attending since 2000 until he assumed his current executive position in Arizona 18 months ago.

“While we have kept people whole during the immediate crisis, we have acknowledged that we don’t know what our recovery will look like. What if [non–COVID-19] volume doesn’t return? That keeps me awake at night,” he said. “I have talked to our physician leadership in hospital medicine and more broadly. We need to ask ourselves many questions, including: do we have the right levels of staffing? Is this the time to consider alternate models of staffing, for example, advanced practice providers? And does the compensation plan need adjustments?”

Dr. Whelan thinks that the COVID-19 crisis is an opportunity for hospital medicine to more rapidly explore different models and to ask what additional value hospitalists can bring to the care model. “For example, what would it mean to redefine the hospitalist’s scope of practice as an acute medicine specialist, not defined by the hospital’s four walls?” he noted.

“One of the reasons our smaller hospital reached capacity with COVID-19 patients was the skilled nursing facility located a few hundred feet away that turned into a hot spot. If we had imported the hospital medicine model virtually into that SNF early on, could there have been a different scenario? Have we thought through what that would have even looked like?” Dr. Whelan asked.

He challenges the hospital medicine field, once it gets to the other side of this crisis, to not fall back on old way of doing things. “Instead, let’s use this time to create a better model today,” he said. “That’s what we’re trying to do at a system level at Banner, with our hospital medicine groups partnering with the hospital. I want to see our hospitalists create and thrive in that new model.”

Oleandrin, a toxic cardiac glycoside found in the poisonous oleander plant, is making headlines as a potential treatment for COVID-19, raising concerns that uninformed people may eat the leaves of the plant and become ill or die.

CANCER CIFTCI/Getty Images

“Though renowned for its beauty and use in landscaping, this Mediterranean shrub is responsible for cases of accidental poisoning across the globe. All parts of the plant are poisonous,” Cassandra Quave, PhD, ethnobotanist and herbarium curator at Emory University, Atlanta, cautioned in an article in The Conversation, an independent, not-for-profit publication.

Oleandrin has properties similar to digoxin; the onset of toxicity occurs several hours after consumption.

The first symptoms of oleandrin poisoning may be gastrointestinal, such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea (which may contain blood), and loss of appetite.

After these first symptoms, the heart may be affected by tachyarrhythmia, bradyarrhythmia, premature ventricular contractions, or atrioventricular blockage. Xanthopsia (yellow vision), a burning sensation in the eyes, paralysis of the gastrointestinal tract, and respiratory symptoms may also occur.

Oleandrin poisoning may affect the central nervous system, as evidenced by drowsiness, tremors, seizures, collapse, and coma leading to death. When applied to the skin, oleander sap can cause skin irritations and allergic reactions characterized by dermatitis.

Diagnosis of oleandrin poisoning is mainly made on the basis of a description of the plant, how much of it was ingested, how much time has elapsed since ingestion, and symptoms. Confirmation of oleandrin in blood involves fluorescence polarization immunoassay, digoxin immunoassay, or liquid chromatography-electrospray tandem mass spectrometry.

Neither oleander nor oleandrin is approved by regulatory agencies as a prescription drug or dietary supplement.
 

In vitro study

Oleandrin for COVID-19 made headlines after President Trump met in the Oval Office with Andrew Whitney, vice chairman and director of Phoenix Biotechnology, along with Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, MD, and MyPillow founder/CEO Mike Lindell, a strong supporter of Trump and an investor in the biotech company, to learn about oleandrin, which Whitney called a “cure” for COVID-19, Axios reported.

In an in vitro study, researchers from Phoenix Biotechnology and the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, tested oleandrin against SARS-CoV-2 in cultured Vero cells.

“When administered both before and after virus infection, nanogram doses of oleandrin significantly inhibited replication by 45 to 3000-fold,” the researchers said in an article posted on bioRxiv, a free online archive and distribution service for unpublished preprints in the life sciences. The study has not been peer reviewed.

On the basis of these in vitro findings, the researchers said the plant extract has “potential to prevent disease and virus spread in persons recently exposed to SARS-CoV-2, as well as to prevent severe disease in persons at high risk.”

But it’s a far cry from test tube to human, one expert cautioned.

“This is an understatement: Care must be taken when inferring potential therapeutic benefits from in vitro antiviral effects,” Harlan Krumholz, MD, cardiologist and director, Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Connecticut, told Medscape Medical News.

“There is a chasm between a single in vitro study and any use in humans outside of a protocol. People should be cautioned about that distance and the need [to] avoid such remedies unless part of a credible research project,” said Krumholz.

Yet Lindell told Axios that, in the Oval Office meeting, Trump expressed enthusiasm for the Food and Drug Administration to allow oleandrin to be marketed as a dietary supplement or approved for COVID-19.

“This is really just nonsense and a distraction,” Jonathan Reiner, MD, of George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC, said on CNN.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oleandrin, a toxic cardiac glycoside found in the poisonous oleander plant, is making headlines as a potential treatment for COVID-19, raising concerns that uninformed people may eat the leaves of the plant and become ill or die.

CANCER CIFTCI/Getty Images

“Though renowned for its beauty and use in landscaping, this Mediterranean shrub is responsible for cases of accidental poisoning across the globe. All parts of the plant are poisonous,” Cassandra Quave, PhD, ethnobotanist and herbarium curator at Emory University, Atlanta, cautioned in an article in The Conversation, an independent, not-for-profit publication.

Oleandrin has properties similar to digoxin; the onset of toxicity occurs several hours after consumption.

The first symptoms of oleandrin poisoning may be gastrointestinal, such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea (which may contain blood), and loss of appetite.

After these first symptoms, the heart may be affected by tachyarrhythmia, bradyarrhythmia, premature ventricular contractions, or atrioventricular blockage. Xanthopsia (yellow vision), a burning sensation in the eyes, paralysis of the gastrointestinal tract, and respiratory symptoms may also occur.

Oleandrin poisoning may affect the central nervous system, as evidenced by drowsiness, tremors, seizures, collapse, and coma leading to death. When applied to the skin, oleander sap can cause skin irritations and allergic reactions characterized by dermatitis.

Diagnosis of oleandrin poisoning is mainly made on the basis of a description of the plant, how much of it was ingested, how much time has elapsed since ingestion, and symptoms. Confirmation of oleandrin in blood involves fluorescence polarization immunoassay, digoxin immunoassay, or liquid chromatography-electrospray tandem mass spectrometry.

Neither oleander nor oleandrin is approved by regulatory agencies as a prescription drug or dietary supplement.
 

In vitro study

Oleandrin for COVID-19 made headlines after President Trump met in the Oval Office with Andrew Whitney, vice chairman and director of Phoenix Biotechnology, along with Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, MD, and MyPillow founder/CEO Mike Lindell, a strong supporter of Trump and an investor in the biotech company, to learn about oleandrin, which Whitney called a “cure” for COVID-19, Axios reported.

In an in vitro study, researchers from Phoenix Biotechnology and the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, tested oleandrin against SARS-CoV-2 in cultured Vero cells.

“When administered both before and after virus infection, nanogram doses of oleandrin significantly inhibited replication by 45 to 3000-fold,” the researchers said in an article posted on bioRxiv, a free online archive and distribution service for unpublished preprints in the life sciences. The study has not been peer reviewed.

On the basis of these in vitro findings, the researchers said the plant extract has “potential to prevent disease and virus spread in persons recently exposed to SARS-CoV-2, as well as to prevent severe disease in persons at high risk.”

But it’s a far cry from test tube to human, one expert cautioned.

“This is an understatement: Care must be taken when inferring potential therapeutic benefits from in vitro antiviral effects,” Harlan Krumholz, MD, cardiologist and director, Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Connecticut, told Medscape Medical News.

“There is a chasm between a single in vitro study and any use in humans outside of a protocol. People should be cautioned about that distance and the need [to] avoid such remedies unless part of a credible research project,” said Krumholz.

Yet Lindell told Axios that, in the Oval Office meeting, Trump expressed enthusiasm for the Food and Drug Administration to allow oleandrin to be marketed as a dietary supplement or approved for COVID-19.

“This is really just nonsense and a distraction,” Jonathan Reiner, MD, of George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC, said on CNN.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oleandrin, a toxic cardiac glycoside found in the poisonous oleander plant, is making headlines as a potential treatment for COVID-19, raising concerns that uninformed people may eat the leaves of the plant and become ill or die.

CANCER CIFTCI/Getty Images

“Though renowned for its beauty and use in landscaping, this Mediterranean shrub is responsible for cases of accidental poisoning across the globe. All parts of the plant are poisonous,” Cassandra Quave, PhD, ethnobotanist and herbarium curator at Emory University, Atlanta, cautioned in an article in The Conversation, an independent, not-for-profit publication.

Oleandrin has properties similar to digoxin; the onset of toxicity occurs several hours after consumption.

The first symptoms of oleandrin poisoning may be gastrointestinal, such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea (which may contain blood), and loss of appetite.

After these first symptoms, the heart may be affected by tachyarrhythmia, bradyarrhythmia, premature ventricular contractions, or atrioventricular blockage. Xanthopsia (yellow vision), a burning sensation in the eyes, paralysis of the gastrointestinal tract, and respiratory symptoms may also occur.

Oleandrin poisoning may affect the central nervous system, as evidenced by drowsiness, tremors, seizures, collapse, and coma leading to death. When applied to the skin, oleander sap can cause skin irritations and allergic reactions characterized by dermatitis.

Diagnosis of oleandrin poisoning is mainly made on the basis of a description of the plant, how much of it was ingested, how much time has elapsed since ingestion, and symptoms. Confirmation of oleandrin in blood involves fluorescence polarization immunoassay, digoxin immunoassay, or liquid chromatography-electrospray tandem mass spectrometry.

Neither oleander nor oleandrin is approved by regulatory agencies as a prescription drug or dietary supplement.
 

In vitro study

Oleandrin for COVID-19 made headlines after President Trump met in the Oval Office with Andrew Whitney, vice chairman and director of Phoenix Biotechnology, along with Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, MD, and MyPillow founder/CEO Mike Lindell, a strong supporter of Trump and an investor in the biotech company, to learn about oleandrin, which Whitney called a “cure” for COVID-19, Axios reported.

In an in vitro study, researchers from Phoenix Biotechnology and the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, tested oleandrin against SARS-CoV-2 in cultured Vero cells.

“When administered both before and after virus infection, nanogram doses of oleandrin significantly inhibited replication by 45 to 3000-fold,” the researchers said in an article posted on bioRxiv, a free online archive and distribution service for unpublished preprints in the life sciences. The study has not been peer reviewed.

On the basis of these in vitro findings, the researchers said the plant extract has “potential to prevent disease and virus spread in persons recently exposed to SARS-CoV-2, as well as to prevent severe disease in persons at high risk.”

But it’s a far cry from test tube to human, one expert cautioned.

“This is an understatement: Care must be taken when inferring potential therapeutic benefits from in vitro antiviral effects,” Harlan Krumholz, MD, cardiologist and director, Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Connecticut, told Medscape Medical News.

“There is a chasm between a single in vitro study and any use in humans outside of a protocol. People should be cautioned about that distance and the need [to] avoid such remedies unless part of a credible research project,” said Krumholz.

Yet Lindell told Axios that, in the Oval Office meeting, Trump expressed enthusiasm for the Food and Drug Administration to allow oleandrin to be marketed as a dietary supplement or approved for COVID-19.

“This is really just nonsense and a distraction,” Jonathan Reiner, MD, of George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC, said on CNN.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As forensic evaluators, we are often asked to review and assess the cognition of aging colleagues. The premise often involves a minor mistake, a poor choice of words, or a lapse in judgment. A physician gets reported for having difficulty using a new electronic form, forgetting the dose of a brand new medication, or getting upset in a public setting. Those behaviors often lead to mandatory psychiatric evaluations. Those requirements are often perceived by the provider as an insult, and betrayal by peers despite many years of dedicated work.

Interestingly, we have noticed many independent evaluators and hospital administrators using this opportunity to send many of our colleagues to pasture. There seems to be an unspoken rule among some forensic evaluators that physicians should represent some form of apex of humanity, beyond reproach, and beyond any fault. Those evaluators will point to any mistake on cognitive scales as proof that the aging physician is no longer safe to practice.¹ Forgetting that Jill is from Illinois in the Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination test or how to copy a three-dimensional cube on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment can cost someone their license.² We are also aware of some evaluators even taking the step further and opining that physicians not only need to score adequately but also demonstrate cognition significantly above average to maintain their privileges.

There is certainly significant appeal in setting a high bar for physicians. In many ways, physicians are characterized in society by their astuteness, intelligence, and high ethical standards. Patients place their lives in the hands of physicians and should trust that those physicians have the cognitive tools to heal them. It could almost seem evident that physicians should have high IQs, score perfectly on screening tools for dementia, and complete a mandatory psychiatric evaluation without any reproach. Yet the reality is often more complex. Dismissing a physician after making any fault actually might reveal anxiety in an evaluator who is more concerned about not being blamed for any future mistakes the physician might make.

We have two main concerns about the idea that we should be intransigent with aging physicians. The first one is the vast differential diagnosis for minor mistakes. An aging physician refusing to comply with a new form or yelling at a clerk once when asked to learn a new electronic medical record are inappropriate though not specific assessments for dementia. Similarly, having significant difficulty learning a new electronic medical record system more often is a sign of ageism rather than cognitive impairment. Subsequently, when arriving for their evaluation, forgetting the date is a common sign of anxiety. A relatable analogy would be to compare the mistake with a medical student forgetting part of the anatomy while questioning by an attending during surgery. Imagine such medical students being referred to mandatory psychiatric evaluation when failing to answer a question during rounds.

In our practice, the most common reason for those minor mistakes during our clinical evaluation is anxiety. After all, patients who present for problems completely unrelated to cognitive decline make similar mistakes. Psychological stressors in physicians require no introduction. The concept is so prevalent and pervasive that it has its own name, “burnout.” Imagine having dedicated most of one’s life to a profession then being enumerated a list of complaints, having one’s privileges put on hold, then being told to complete an independent psychiatric evaluation. If burnout is in part caused by a lack of control, unclear job expectations, rapidly changing models of health care, and dysfunctional workplace dynamics, imagine the consequence of such a referral.

The militant evaluator will use jargon to vilify the reviewed physician. If the physician complains too voraciously, he will be described as having signs of frontotemporal dementia. If the physician comes with a written list of rebuttals, he will be described as having memory problems requiring aids. If the physician is demoralized and quiet, he will be described as being withdrawn and apathetic. If the physician refuses to use or has difficulty with new forms or electronic systems, he will be described as having “impaired executive function,” an ominous term that surely should not be associated with a practicing physician.

The second concern arises from problems with the validity and use of diagnoses like mild cognitive impairment (MCI). MCI is considered to be a transition stage when one maintains “normal activities of daily living, and normal general cognitive function.”³ The American Psychiatric Association Textbook of Psychiatry mentions that there are “however, many cases of nonprogressive MCI.” Should a disorder with generally normal cognition and unclear progression to a more severe disorder require one to be dispensed of their privileges? Should any disorder trump an assessment of functioning?

It is our experience that many if not most physicians’ practice of medicine is not a job but a profession that defines who they are. As such, their occupational habits are an overly repeated and ingrained series of maneuvers analogous to so-called muscle memory. This kind of ritualistic pattern is precisely the kind of cognition that may persist as one starts to have some deficits. This requires the evaluator to be particularly sensitive and cognizant that one may still be able to perform professionally despite some mild but notable deficits. While it is facile to diagnose someone with MCI and justify removing their license, a review of their actual clinical skills is, despite being more time consuming, more pertinent to the evaluation.

In practice, we find that many cases lie in a gray area, which is hard to define. Physicians may come to our office for an evaluation after having said something odd at work. Maybe they misdosed a medication on one occasion. Maybe they wrote the wrong year on a chart. However, if the physician was 30 years old, would we consider any one of those incidents significant? As a psychiatrist rather than a physician practicing the specialty in review, it is particularly hard and sometimes unwise to condone or sanction individual incidents.

Evaluators find solace in neuropsychological testing. However the relevance to the safety of patients is unclear. Many of those tests end up being a simple proxy for age. A physicians’ ability to sort words or cards at a certain speed might correlate to cognitive performance but has unclear significance to the ability to care for patients. Using such tests becomes a de facto age limit on the practice of medicine. It seems essential to expand and refine our repertoire of evaluation tools for the assessment of physicians. As when we perform capacity evaluation in the hospital, we enlist the assistance of the treating team in understanding the questions being asked for a patient, medical boards could consider creating independent multidisciplinary teams where psychiatry has a seat along with the relevant specialties of the evaluee. Likewise, the assessment would benefit from a broad review of the physicians’ general practice rather than the more typical review of one or two incidents.

We are promoting a more individualized approach by medical boards to the many issues of the aging physician. Retiring is no longer the dream of older physicians, but rather working in the suitable position where their contributions, clinical experience, and wisdom are positive contributions to patient care. Furthermore, we encourage medical boards to consider more nuanced decisions. A binary approach fits few cases that we see. Surgeons are a prime example of this. A surgeon in the early stages of Parkinsonism may be unfit to perform surgery but very capable of continuing to contribute to the well-being of patients in other forms of clinical work, including postsurgical care that doesn’t involve physical dexterity. Similarly, medical boards could consider other forms of partial restrictions, including a ban on procedures, a ban on hospital privileges, as well as required supervision or working in teams. Accumulated clinical wisdom allows older physicians to be excellent mentors and educators for younger doctors. There is no simple method to predict which physicians may have the early stages of a progressive dementia, and which may have a stable MCI. A yearly reevaluation if there are no further complaints, is the best approach to determine progression of cognitive problems.

Few crises like the current COVID-19 pandemic can better remind us of the importance of the place of medicine in society. Many states have encouraged retired physicians to contribute their knowledge and expertise, putting themselves in particular risk because of their age. It is a good time to be reminded that we owe them significant respect and care when deciding to remove their license. We are encouraged by the diligent efforts of medical boards in supervising our colleagues but warn against zealot evaluators who use this opportunity to force physicians into retirement. We also encourage medical boards to expand their tools and approaches when facing such cases, as mislabeled cognitive diagnoses can be an easy scapegoat of a poor understanding of the more important psychological and biological factors in the evaluation.

References

1. Tariq SH et al. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006;14:900-10.

2. Nasreddine Z. mocatest.org. Version 2004 Nov 7.

3. Hales RE et al. The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry. Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2014.

Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Among his writings in chapter 7 in the book “Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019). He has no disclosures.

Dr. Abrams is a forensic psychiatrist and attorney in San Diego. He is an expert in addictionology, behavioral toxicology, psychopharmacology and correctional mental health. He holds a teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego. Among his writings are chapters about competency in national textbooks. Dr. Abrams has no disclosures.

As forensic evaluators, we are often asked to review and assess the cognition of aging colleagues. The premise often involves a minor mistake, a poor choice of words, or a lapse in judgment. A physician gets reported for having difficulty using a new electronic form, forgetting the dose of a brand new medication, or getting upset in a public setting. Those behaviors often lead to mandatory psychiatric evaluations. Those requirements are often perceived by the provider as an insult, and betrayal by peers despite many years of dedicated work.

Interestingly, we have noticed many independent evaluators and hospital administrators using this opportunity to send many of our colleagues to pasture. There seems to be an unspoken rule among some forensic evaluators that physicians should represent some form of apex of humanity, beyond reproach, and beyond any fault. Those evaluators will point to any mistake on cognitive scales as proof that the aging physician is no longer safe to practice.¹ Forgetting that Jill is from Illinois in the Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination test or how to copy a three-dimensional cube on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment can cost someone their license.² We are also aware of some evaluators even taking the step further and opining that physicians not only need to score adequately but also demonstrate cognition significantly above average to maintain their privileges.

There is certainly significant appeal in setting a high bar for physicians. In many ways, physicians are characterized in society by their astuteness, intelligence, and high ethical standards. Patients place their lives in the hands of physicians and should trust that those physicians have the cognitive tools to heal them. It could almost seem evident that physicians should have high IQs, score perfectly on screening tools for dementia, and complete a mandatory psychiatric evaluation without any reproach. Yet the reality is often more complex. Dismissing a physician after making any fault actually might reveal anxiety in an evaluator who is more concerned about not being blamed for any future mistakes the physician might make.

We have two main concerns about the idea that we should be intransigent with aging physicians. The first one is the vast differential diagnosis for minor mistakes. An aging physician refusing to comply with a new form or yelling at a clerk once when asked to learn a new electronic medical record are inappropriate though not specific assessments for dementia. Similarly, having significant difficulty learning a new electronic medical record system more often is a sign of ageism rather than cognitive impairment. Subsequently, when arriving for their evaluation, forgetting the date is a common sign of anxiety. A relatable analogy would be to compare the mistake with a medical student forgetting part of the anatomy while questioning by an attending during surgery. Imagine such medical students being referred to mandatory psychiatric evaluation when failing to answer a question during rounds.

In our practice, the most common reason for those minor mistakes during our clinical evaluation is anxiety. After all, patients who present for problems completely unrelated to cognitive decline make similar mistakes. Psychological stressors in physicians require no introduction. The concept is so prevalent and pervasive that it has its own name, “burnout.” Imagine having dedicated most of one’s life to a profession then being enumerated a list of complaints, having one’s privileges put on hold, then being told to complete an independent psychiatric evaluation. If burnout is in part caused by a lack of control, unclear job expectations, rapidly changing models of health care, and dysfunctional workplace dynamics, imagine the consequence of such a referral.

The militant evaluator will use jargon to vilify the reviewed physician. If the physician complains too voraciously, he will be described as having signs of frontotemporal dementia. If the physician comes with a written list of rebuttals, he will be described as having memory problems requiring aids. If the physician is demoralized and quiet, he will be described as being withdrawn and apathetic. If the physician refuses to use or has difficulty with new forms or electronic systems, he will be described as having “impaired executive function,” an ominous term that surely should not be associated with a practicing physician.

The second concern arises from problems with the validity and use of diagnoses like mild cognitive impairment (MCI). MCI is considered to be a transition stage when one maintains “normal activities of daily living, and normal general cognitive function.”³ The American Psychiatric Association Textbook of Psychiatry mentions that there are “however, many cases of nonprogressive MCI.” Should a disorder with generally normal cognition and unclear progression to a more severe disorder require one to be dispensed of their privileges? Should any disorder trump an assessment of functioning?

It is our experience that many if not most physicians’ practice of medicine is not a job but a profession that defines who they are. As such, their occupational habits are an overly repeated and ingrained series of maneuvers analogous to so-called muscle memory. This kind of ritualistic pattern is precisely the kind of cognition that may persist as one starts to have some deficits. This requires the evaluator to be particularly sensitive and cognizant that one may still be able to perform professionally despite some mild but notable deficits. While it is facile to diagnose someone with MCI and justify removing their license, a review of their actual clinical skills is, despite being more time consuming, more pertinent to the evaluation.

In practice, we find that many cases lie in a gray area, which is hard to define. Physicians may come to our office for an evaluation after having said something odd at work. Maybe they misdosed a medication on one occasion. Maybe they wrote the wrong year on a chart. However, if the physician was 30 years old, would we consider any one of those incidents significant? As a psychiatrist rather than a physician practicing the specialty in review, it is particularly hard and sometimes unwise to condone or sanction individual incidents.

Evaluators find solace in neuropsychological testing. However the relevance to the safety of patients is unclear. Many of those tests end up being a simple proxy for age. A physicians’ ability to sort words or cards at a certain speed might correlate to cognitive performance but has unclear significance to the ability to care for patients. Using such tests becomes a de facto age limit on the practice of medicine. It seems essential to expand and refine our repertoire of evaluation tools for the assessment of physicians. As when we perform capacity evaluation in the hospital, we enlist the assistance of the treating team in understanding the questions being asked for a patient, medical boards could consider creating independent multidisciplinary teams where psychiatry has a seat along with the relevant specialties of the evaluee. Likewise, the assessment would benefit from a broad review of the physicians’ general practice rather than the more typical review of one or two incidents.

We are promoting a more individualized approach by medical boards to the many issues of the aging physician. Retiring is no longer the dream of older physicians, but rather working in the suitable position where their contributions, clinical experience, and wisdom are positive contributions to patient care. Furthermore, we encourage medical boards to consider more nuanced decisions. A binary approach fits few cases that we see. Surgeons are a prime example of this. A surgeon in the early stages of Parkinsonism may be unfit to perform surgery but very capable of continuing to contribute to the well-being of patients in other forms of clinical work, including postsurgical care that doesn’t involve physical dexterity. Similarly, medical boards could consider other forms of partial restrictions, including a ban on procedures, a ban on hospital privileges, as well as required supervision or working in teams. Accumulated clinical wisdom allows older physicians to be excellent mentors and educators for younger doctors. There is no simple method to predict which physicians may have the early stages of a progressive dementia, and which may have a stable MCI. A yearly reevaluation if there are no further complaints, is the best approach to determine progression of cognitive problems.

Few crises like the current COVID-19 pandemic can better remind us of the importance of the place of medicine in society. Many states have encouraged retired physicians to contribute their knowledge and expertise, putting themselves in particular risk because of their age. It is a good time to be reminded that we owe them significant respect and care when deciding to remove their license. We are encouraged by the diligent efforts of medical boards in supervising our colleagues but warn against zealot evaluators who use this opportunity to force physicians into retirement. We also encourage medical boards to expand their tools and approaches when facing such cases, as mislabeled cognitive diagnoses can be an easy scapegoat of a poor understanding of the more important psychological and biological factors in the evaluation.

References

1. Tariq SH et al. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006;14:900-10.

2. Nasreddine Z. mocatest.org. Version 2004 Nov 7.

3. Hales RE et al. The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry. Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2014.

Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Among his writings in chapter 7 in the book “Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019). He has no disclosures.

Dr. Abrams is a forensic psychiatrist and attorney in San Diego. He is an expert in addictionology, behavioral toxicology, psychopharmacology and correctional mental health. He holds a teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego. Among his writings are chapters about competency in national textbooks. Dr. Abrams has no disclosures.

As forensic evaluators, we are often asked to review and assess the cognition of aging colleagues. The premise often involves a minor mistake, a poor choice of words, or a lapse in judgment. A physician gets reported for having difficulty using a new electronic form, forgetting the dose of a brand new medication, or getting upset in a public setting. Those behaviors often lead to mandatory psychiatric evaluations. Those requirements are often perceived by the provider as an insult, and betrayal by peers despite many years of dedicated work.

Interestingly, we have noticed many independent evaluators and hospital administrators using this opportunity to send many of our colleagues to pasture. There seems to be an unspoken rule among some forensic evaluators that physicians should represent some form of apex of humanity, beyond reproach, and beyond any fault. Those evaluators will point to any mistake on cognitive scales as proof that the aging physician is no longer safe to practice.¹ Forgetting that Jill is from Illinois in the Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination test or how to copy a three-dimensional cube on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment can cost someone their license.² We are also aware of some evaluators even taking the step further and opining that physicians not only need to score adequately but also demonstrate cognition significantly above average to maintain their privileges.

There is certainly significant appeal in setting a high bar for physicians. In many ways, physicians are characterized in society by their astuteness, intelligence, and high ethical standards. Patients place their lives in the hands of physicians and should trust that those physicians have the cognitive tools to heal them. It could almost seem evident that physicians should have high IQs, score perfectly on screening tools for dementia, and complete a mandatory psychiatric evaluation without any reproach. Yet the reality is often more complex. Dismissing a physician after making any fault actually might reveal anxiety in an evaluator who is more concerned about not being blamed for any future mistakes the physician might make.

We have two main concerns about the idea that we should be intransigent with aging physicians. The first one is the vast differential diagnosis for minor mistakes. An aging physician refusing to comply with a new form or yelling at a clerk once when asked to learn a new electronic medical record are inappropriate though not specific assessments for dementia. Similarly, having significant difficulty learning a new electronic medical record system more often is a sign of ageism rather than cognitive impairment. Subsequently, when arriving for their evaluation, forgetting the date is a common sign of anxiety. A relatable analogy would be to compare the mistake with a medical student forgetting part of the anatomy while questioning by an attending during surgery. Imagine such medical students being referred to mandatory psychiatric evaluation when failing to answer a question during rounds.

In our practice, the most common reason for those minor mistakes during our clinical evaluation is anxiety. After all, patients who present for problems completely unrelated to cognitive decline make similar mistakes. Psychological stressors in physicians require no introduction. The concept is so prevalent and pervasive that it has its own name, “burnout.” Imagine having dedicated most of one’s life to a profession then being enumerated a list of complaints, having one’s privileges put on hold, then being told to complete an independent psychiatric evaluation. If burnout is in part caused by a lack of control, unclear job expectations, rapidly changing models of health care, and dysfunctional workplace dynamics, imagine the consequence of such a referral.

The militant evaluator will use jargon to vilify the reviewed physician. If the physician complains too voraciously, he will be described as having signs of frontotemporal dementia. If the physician comes with a written list of rebuttals, he will be described as having memory problems requiring aids. If the physician is demoralized and quiet, he will be described as being withdrawn and apathetic. If the physician refuses to use or has difficulty with new forms or electronic systems, he will be described as having “impaired executive function,” an ominous term that surely should not be associated with a practicing physician.

The second concern arises from problems with the validity and use of diagnoses like mild cognitive impairment (MCI). MCI is considered to be a transition stage when one maintains “normal activities of daily living, and normal general cognitive function.”³ The American Psychiatric Association Textbook of Psychiatry mentions that there are “however, many cases of nonprogressive MCI.” Should a disorder with generally normal cognition and unclear progression to a more severe disorder require one to be dispensed of their privileges? Should any disorder trump an assessment of functioning?

It is our experience that many if not most physicians’ practice of medicine is not a job but a profession that defines who they are. As such, their occupational habits are an overly repeated and ingrained series of maneuvers analogous to so-called muscle memory. This kind of ritualistic pattern is precisely the kind of cognition that may persist as one starts to have some deficits. This requires the evaluator to be particularly sensitive and cognizant that one may still be able to perform professionally despite some mild but notable deficits. While it is facile to diagnose someone with MCI and justify removing their license, a review of their actual clinical skills is, despite being more time consuming, more pertinent to the evaluation.

In practice, we find that many cases lie in a gray area, which is hard to define. Physicians may come to our office for an evaluation after having said something odd at work. Maybe they misdosed a medication on one occasion. Maybe they wrote the wrong year on a chart. However, if the physician was 30 years old, would we consider any one of those incidents significant? As a psychiatrist rather than a physician practicing the specialty in review, it is particularly hard and sometimes unwise to condone or sanction individual incidents.

Evaluators find solace in neuropsychological testing. However the relevance to the safety of patients is unclear. Many of those tests end up being a simple proxy for age. A physicians’ ability to sort words or cards at a certain speed might correlate to cognitive performance but has unclear significance to the ability to care for patients. Using such tests becomes a de facto age limit on the practice of medicine. It seems essential to expand and refine our repertoire of evaluation tools for the assessment of physicians. As when we perform capacity evaluation in the hospital, we enlist the assistance of the treating team in understanding the questions being asked for a patient, medical boards could consider creating independent multidisciplinary teams where psychiatry has a seat along with the relevant specialties of the evaluee. Likewise, the assessment would benefit from a broad review of the physicians’ general practice rather than the more typical review of one or two incidents.

We are promoting a more individualized approach by medical boards to the many issues of the aging physician. Retiring is no longer the dream of older physicians, but rather working in the suitable position where their contributions, clinical experience, and wisdom are positive contributions to patient care. Furthermore, we encourage medical boards to consider more nuanced decisions. A binary approach fits few cases that we see. Surgeons are a prime example of this. A surgeon in the early stages of Parkinsonism may be unfit to perform surgery but very capable of continuing to contribute to the well-being of patients in other forms of clinical work, including postsurgical care that doesn’t involve physical dexterity. Similarly, medical boards could consider other forms of partial restrictions, including a ban on procedures, a ban on hospital privileges, as well as required supervision or working in teams. Accumulated clinical wisdom allows older physicians to be excellent mentors and educators for younger doctors. There is no simple method to predict which physicians may have the early stages of a progressive dementia, and which may have a stable MCI. A yearly reevaluation if there are no further complaints, is the best approach to determine progression of cognitive problems.

Few crises like the current COVID-19 pandemic can better remind us of the importance of the place of medicine in society. Many states have encouraged retired physicians to contribute their knowledge and expertise, putting themselves in particular risk because of their age. It is a good time to be reminded that we owe them significant respect and care when deciding to remove their license. We are encouraged by the diligent efforts of medical boards in supervising our colleagues but warn against zealot evaluators who use this opportunity to force physicians into retirement. We also encourage medical boards to expand their tools and approaches when facing such cases, as mislabeled cognitive diagnoses can be an easy scapegoat of a poor understanding of the more important psychological and biological factors in the evaluation.

References

1. Tariq SH et al. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006;14:900-10.

2. Nasreddine Z. mocatest.org. Version 2004 Nov 7.

3. Hales RE et al. The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry. Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2014.

Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Among his writings in chapter 7 in the book “Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019). He has no disclosures.

Dr. Abrams is a forensic psychiatrist and attorney in San Diego. He is an expert in addictionology, behavioral toxicology, psychopharmacology and correctional mental health. He holds a teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego. Among his writings are chapters about competency in national textbooks. Dr. Abrams has no disclosures.

The abrupt transition to online learning for American children in kindergarten through 12th grade has left educators and parents unprepared, but virtual learning can be a successful part of education going forward, according to a viewpoint published in JAMA Pediatrics. However, schools also can reopen safely if precautions are taken, and students would benefit in many ways, according to a second viewpoint.

monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock

“As policy makers, health care professionals, and parents prepare for the fall semester and as public and private schools grapple with how to make that possible, a better understanding of K-12 virtual learning options and outcomes may facilitate those difficult decisions,” wrote Erik Black, PhD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville; Richard Ferdig, PhD, of Kent State University, Ohio; and Lindsay A. Thompson, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville.

“Importantly, K-12 virtual schooling is not suited for all students or all families.”

In a viewpoint published in JAMA Pediatrics, the authors noted that virtual schooling has existed in the United States in various forms for some time. “Just like the myriad options that are available for face-to-face schooling in the U.S., virtual schooling exists in a complex landscape of for-profit, charter, and public options.”
 

Not all virtual schools are equal

Consequently, not all virtual schools are created equal, they emphasized. Virtual education can be successful for many students when presented by trained online instructors using a curriculum designed to be effective in an online venue.

“Parents need to seek reviews and ask for educational outcomes from each virtual school system to assess the quality of the provided education,” Dr. Black, Dr. Ferdig, and Dr. Thompson emphasized.

Key questions for parents to consider when faced with online learning include the type of technology needed to participate; whether their child can maintain a study schedule and complete assignments with limited supervision; whether their child could ask for help and communicate with teachers through technology including phone, text, email, or video; and whether their child has the basic reading, math, and computer literacy skills to engage in online learning, the authors said. Other questions include the school’s expectations for parents and caregivers, how student information may be shared, and how the virtual school lines up with state standards for K-12 educators (in the case of options outside the public school system).

“The COVID-19 pandemic offers a unique challenge for educators, policymakers, and health care professionals to partner with parents to make the best local and individual decisions for children,” Dr. Black, Dr. Ferdig, and Dr. Thompson concluded.
 

Schools may be able to open safely

Children continue to make up a low percentage of COVID-19 cases and appear less likely to experience illness, wrote C. Jason Wang, MD, PhD, and Henry Bair, BS, of Stanford (Calif.) University in a second viewpoint also published in JAMA Pediatrics. The impact of long-term school closures extends beyond education and can “exacerbate socioeconomic disparities, amplify existing educational inequalities, and aggravate food insecurity, domestic violence, and mental health disorders,” they wrote.

Dr. Wang and Mr. Bair proposed that school districts “engage key stakeholders to establish a COVID-19 task force, composed of the superintendent, members of the school board, teachers, parents, and health care professionals to develop policies and procedures,” that would allow schools to open safely.

The authors outlined strategies including adapting teaching spaces to accommodate physical distance, with the addition of temporary modular buildings if needed. They advised assigned seating on school buses, and acknowledged the need for the availability of protective equipment, including hand sanitizer and masks, as well as the possible use of transparent barriers on the sides of student desks.

“As the AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] guidance suggests, teachers who must work closely with students with special needs or with students who are unable to wear masks should wear N95 masks if possible or wear face shields in addition to surgical masks,” Dr. Wang and Mr. Bair noted. Other elements of the AAP guidance include the creation of fixed cohorts of students and teachers to limit virus exposure.

“Even with all the precautions in place, COVID-19 outbreaks within schools are still likely,” they said. “Therefore, schools will need to remain flexible and consider temporary closures if there is an outbreak involving multiple students and/or staff and be ready to transition to online education.”

The AAP guidance does not address operational approaches to identifying signs and symptoms of COVID-19, the authors noted. “To address this, we recommend that schools implement multilevel screening for students and staff.”

“In summary, to maximize health and educational outcomes, school districts should adopt some or all of the measures of the AAP guidance and prioritize them after considering local COVID-19 incidence, key stakeholder input, and budgetary constraints,” Dr. Wang and Mr. Bair concluded.
 

Schools opening is a regional decision

“The mission of the AAP is to attain optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents, and young adults,” Howard Smart, MD, said in an interview. The question of school reopening “is of national importance, and the AAP has a national role in making recommendations regarding national policy affecting the health of the children.”

“The decision to open schools will be made regionally, but it is important for a nonpolitical national voice to make expert recommendations,” he emphasized.

“Many of the recommendations are ideal goals,” noted Dr. Smart, chairman of the department of pediatrics at the Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group in San Diego. “It will be difficult, for example, to implement symptom screening every day before school, no matter where it is performed. Some of the measures may be quite costly, and take time to implement, or require expansion of school staff, for which there may be no budget.”

In addition, “[n]ot all students are likely to comply with masking, distance, and hand-washing recommendations. One student who is noncompliant will be able to infect many other students and staff, as has been seen in other countries.” Also, parental attitudes toward control measures are likely to affect student attitudes, he noted.

“I have interviewed many families at recent checkups, and most have felt that the rush to remote learning that occurred at the end of the last school year resulted in fairly disorganized instruction,” Dr. Smart said. “They are hoping that, having had the summer to plan ahead, the remote teaching will be handled better. Remote learning will certainly work best for self-motivated, organized students with good family support, as noted in the Black, Ferdig, and Thompson article,” he said.

Pediatricians can support the schools by being a source of evidence-based information for parents, Dr. Smart said. “Pediatricians with time and energy might want to volunteer to hold informational video conferences for parents and/or school personnel if they feel they are up to date on current COVID-19 science and want to handle potentially contentious questions.”

The decision parents make to send their children back to school comes down to a risk-benefit calculation. “In some communities this may be left to parents, while in other communities this will a public health decision,” he said. “It is still not clear whether having students attend school in person will result in increased spread of COVID-19 among the students, or in their communities. Although some evidence from early in the pandemic suggests that children may not spread the virus as much as adults, more recent evidence suggests that children 10 years and older do transmit the virus at least as much as adults.”

“The risk to the students and the community, therefore, is unknown,” and difficult to compare with the benefit of in-person schooling, Dr. Smart noted.

“We will learn quite a bit from communities where students do go back to in-person class, as we follow the progression of COVID-19 over the weeks following the resumption of instruction.” Ultimately, advice to parents will need to be tailored to the current conditions of COVID-19 transmission in the community, he concluded.
 

It’s not just about education

“The AAP released its guidance to ensure that as school districts were contemplating reopening they were considering the full array of risks for children and adolescents. These risks included not only those related to COVID-19, but also those related to the impact of not reopening in-person,” Nathaniel Beers, MD, president of the HSC Health Care System in Washington, said in an interview.

“Students and families are dependent on schools for much more than just an education, and those [elements] need to be factored into the decisions to reopen,” the pediatrician said.

However, “[t]he major barrier for schools is resources to safely reopen,” said Dr. Beers. “The additional staffing and supplies will require additional funding. There are increased demands regardless of whether students are learning in-person or virtually or through hybrid models.”

“Another significant barrier is ensuring that parents and staff are actively engaged in planning for the type of model being used,” he said.

“All of the models require buy-in by staff and parents. This will require significant outreach and strong communication plans. Schools also need to ensure they are planning not just for how to return students to schools, but what will happen when staff or students test positive for COVID-19. Students, families, and staff all will need to know what these plans are up front to feel confident in returning to school,” he emphasized.

“There are students who can thrive in a virtual learning environment,” Dr. Beers said. “There are also students who benefit from the virtual learning environment because of their own risk, or because of a family member’s risk for COVID-19 or the complications from it.”

“However, many children with disabilities have struggled in a virtual environment,” he said. “These students struggle to access the educational services without the adequate supports at home. They often receive additional services in school, such as speech, occupational therapy or physical therapy, or nursing services, that may not have transitioned to home but are critical for their health and development. Many students with disabilities are dependent on family members to successfully access the educational services they need.”

“Pediatricians can play a role in providing feedback on recommendations related to physical distancing and face coverings in particular,” said Dr. Beers. “In addition, they can be helpful in developing plans for children with disabilities as well as what the response plan should be for students who become sick during the school day.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a decision tool for parents who are considering whether to send their child to in-person school, and pediatricians can help parents walk through these questions, Dr. Beers noted. “In addition, pediatricians play an important role in helping patients and families think about the risks of COVID for the patient and other family members, and this can be helpful in addressing the anxiety that parents and patients may be experiencing.”

Further information can be found in Return to School During COVID-19, which can be located at HealthyChildren.org, by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The authors of the viewpoints had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smart, a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board, had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Beers has served on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News in the past, but had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCES: Black E, Ferdig R, Thompson LA. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3800. Wang CJ and Bair H. JAMA Pediatr. Aug 11. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3871.
 

The abrupt transition to online learning for American children in kindergarten through 12th grade has left educators and parents unprepared, but virtual learning can be a successful part of education going forward, according to a viewpoint published in JAMA Pediatrics. However, schools also can reopen safely if precautions are taken, and students would benefit in many ways, according to a second viewpoint.

monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock

“As policy makers, health care professionals, and parents prepare for the fall semester and as public and private schools grapple with how to make that possible, a better understanding of K-12 virtual learning options and outcomes may facilitate those difficult decisions,” wrote Erik Black, PhD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville; Richard Ferdig, PhD, of Kent State University, Ohio; and Lindsay A. Thompson, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville.

“Importantly, K-12 virtual schooling is not suited for all students or all families.”

In a viewpoint published in JAMA Pediatrics, the authors noted that virtual schooling has existed in the United States in various forms for some time. “Just like the myriad options that are available for face-to-face schooling in the U.S., virtual schooling exists in a complex landscape of for-profit, charter, and public options.”
 

Not all virtual schools are equal

Consequently, not all virtual schools are created equal, they emphasized. Virtual education can be successful for many students when presented by trained online instructors using a curriculum designed to be effective in an online venue.

“Parents need to seek reviews and ask for educational outcomes from each virtual school system to assess the quality of the provided education,” Dr. Black, Dr. Ferdig, and Dr. Thompson emphasized.

Key questions for parents to consider when faced with online learning include the type of technology needed to participate; whether their child can maintain a study schedule and complete assignments with limited supervision; whether their child could ask for help and communicate with teachers through technology including phone, text, email, or video; and whether their child has the basic reading, math, and computer literacy skills to engage in online learning, the authors said. Other questions include the school’s expectations for parents and caregivers, how student information may be shared, and how the virtual school lines up with state standards for K-12 educators (in the case of options outside the public school system).

“The COVID-19 pandemic offers a unique challenge for educators, policymakers, and health care professionals to partner with parents to make the best local and individual decisions for children,” Dr. Black, Dr. Ferdig, and Dr. Thompson concluded.
 

Schools may be able to open safely

Children continue to make up a low percentage of COVID-19 cases and appear less likely to experience illness, wrote C. Jason Wang, MD, PhD, and Henry Bair, BS, of Stanford (Calif.) University in a second viewpoint also published in JAMA Pediatrics. The impact of long-term school closures extends beyond education and can “exacerbate socioeconomic disparities, amplify existing educational inequalities, and aggravate food insecurity, domestic violence, and mental health disorders,” they wrote.

Dr. Wang and Mr. Bair proposed that school districts “engage key stakeholders to establish a COVID-19 task force, composed of the superintendent, members of the school board, teachers, parents, and health care professionals to develop policies and procedures,” that would allow schools to open safely.

The authors outlined strategies including adapting teaching spaces to accommodate physical distance, with the addition of temporary modular buildings if needed. They advised assigned seating on school buses, and acknowledged the need for the availability of protective equipment, including hand sanitizer and masks, as well as the possible use of transparent barriers on the sides of student desks.

“As the AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] guidance suggests, teachers who must work closely with students with special needs or with students who are unable to wear masks should wear N95 masks if possible or wear face shields in addition to surgical masks,” Dr. Wang and Mr. Bair noted. Other elements of the AAP guidance include the creation of fixed cohorts of students and teachers to limit virus exposure.

“Even with all the precautions in place, COVID-19 outbreaks within schools are still likely,” they said. “Therefore, schools will need to remain flexible and consider temporary closures if there is an outbreak involving multiple students and/or staff and be ready to transition to online education.”

The AAP guidance does not address operational approaches to identifying signs and symptoms of COVID-19, the authors noted. “To address this, we recommend that schools implement multilevel screening for students and staff.”

“In summary, to maximize health and educational outcomes, school districts should adopt some or all of the measures of the AAP guidance and prioritize them after considering local COVID-19 incidence, key stakeholder input, and budgetary constraints,” Dr. Wang and Mr. Bair concluded.
 

Schools opening is a regional decision

“The mission of the AAP is to attain optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents, and young adults,” Howard Smart, MD, said in an interview. The question of school reopening “is of national importance, and the AAP has a national role in making recommendations regarding national policy affecting the health of the children.”

“The decision to open schools will be made regionally, but it is important for a nonpolitical national voice to make expert recommendations,” he emphasized.

“Many of the recommendations are ideal goals,” noted Dr. Smart, chairman of the department of pediatrics at the Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group in San Diego. “It will be difficult, for example, to implement symptom screening every day before school, no matter where it is performed. Some of the measures may be quite costly, and take time to implement, or require expansion of school staff, for which there may be no budget.”

In addition, “[n]ot all students are likely to comply with masking, distance, and hand-washing recommendations. One student who is noncompliant will be able to infect many other students and staff, as has been seen in other countries.” Also, parental attitudes toward control measures are likely to affect student attitudes, he noted.

“I have interviewed many families at recent checkups, and most have felt that the rush to remote learning that occurred at the end of the last school year resulted in fairly disorganized instruction,” Dr. Smart said. “They are hoping that, having had the summer to plan ahead, the remote teaching will be handled better. Remote learning will certainly work best for self-motivated, organized students with good family support, as noted in the Black, Ferdig, and Thompson article,” he said.

Pediatricians can support the schools by being a source of evidence-based information for parents, Dr. Smart said. “Pediatricians with time and energy might want to volunteer to hold informational video conferences for parents and/or school personnel if they feel they are up to date on current COVID-19 science and want to handle potentially contentious questions.”

The decision parents make to send their children back to school comes down to a risk-benefit calculation. “In some communities this may be left to parents, while in other communities this will a public health decision,” he said. “It is still not clear whether having students attend school in person will result in increased spread of COVID-19 among the students, or in their communities. Although some evidence from early in the pandemic suggests that children may not spread the virus as much as adults, more recent evidence suggests that children 10 years and older do transmit the virus at least as much as adults.”

“The risk to the students and the community, therefore, is unknown,” and difficult to compare with the benefit of in-person schooling, Dr. Smart noted.

“We will learn quite a bit from communities where students do go back to in-person class, as we follow the progression of COVID-19 over the weeks following the resumption of instruction.” Ultimately, advice to parents will need to be tailored to the current conditions of COVID-19 transmission in the community, he concluded.
 

It’s not just about education

“The AAP released its guidance to ensure that as school districts were contemplating reopening they were considering the full array of risks for children and adolescents. These risks included not only those related to COVID-19, but also those related to the impact of not reopening in-person,” Nathaniel Beers, MD, president of the HSC Health Care System in Washington, said in an interview.

“Students and families are dependent on schools for much more than just an education, and those [elements] need to be factored into the decisions to reopen,” the pediatrician said.

However, “[t]he major barrier for schools is resources to safely reopen,” said Dr. Beers. “The additional staffing and supplies will require additional funding. There are increased demands regardless of whether students are learning in-person or virtually or through hybrid models.”

“Another significant barrier is ensuring that parents and staff are actively engaged in planning for the type of model being used,” he said.

“All of the models require buy-in by staff and parents. This will require significant outreach and strong communication plans. Schools also need to ensure they are planning not just for how to return students to schools, but what will happen when staff or students test positive for COVID-19. Students, families, and staff all will need to know what these plans are up front to feel confident in returning to school,” he emphasized.

“There are students who can thrive in a virtual learning environment,” Dr. Beers said. “There are also students who benefit from the virtual learning environment because of their own risk, or because of a family member’s risk for COVID-19 or the complications from it.”

“However, many children with disabilities have struggled in a virtual environment,” he said. “These students struggle to access the educational services without the adequate supports at home. They often receive additional services in school, such as speech, occupational therapy or physical therapy, or nursing services, that may not have transitioned to home but are critical for their health and development. Many students with disabilities are dependent on family members to successfully access the educational services they need.”

“Pediatricians can play a role in providing feedback on recommendations related to physical distancing and face coverings in particular,” said Dr. Beers. “In addition, they can be helpful in developing plans for children with disabilities as well as what the response plan should be for students who become sick during the school day.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a decision tool for parents who are considering whether to send their child to in-person school, and pediatricians can help parents walk through these questions, Dr. Beers noted. “In addition, pediatricians play an important role in helping patients and families think about the risks of COVID for the patient and other family members, and this can be helpful in addressing the anxiety that parents and patients may be experiencing.”

Further information can be found in Return to School During COVID-19, which can be located at HealthyChildren.org, by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The authors of the viewpoints had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smart, a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board, had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Beers has served on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News in the past, but had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCES: Black E, Ferdig R, Thompson LA. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3800. Wang CJ and Bair H. JAMA Pediatr. Aug 11. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3871.
 

The abrupt transition to online learning for American children in kindergarten through 12th grade has left educators and parents unprepared, but virtual learning can be a successful part of education going forward, according to a viewpoint published in JAMA Pediatrics. However, schools also can reopen safely if precautions are taken, and students would benefit in many ways, according to a second viewpoint.

monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock

“As policy makers, health care professionals, and parents prepare for the fall semester and as public and private schools grapple with how to make that possible, a better understanding of K-12 virtual learning options and outcomes may facilitate those difficult decisions,” wrote Erik Black, PhD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville; Richard Ferdig, PhD, of Kent State University, Ohio; and Lindsay A. Thompson, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville.

“Importantly, K-12 virtual schooling is not suited for all students or all families.”

In a viewpoint published in JAMA Pediatrics, the authors noted that virtual schooling has existed in the United States in various forms for some time. “Just like the myriad options that are available for face-to-face schooling in the U.S., virtual schooling exists in a complex landscape of for-profit, charter, and public options.”
 

Not all virtual schools are equal

Consequently, not all virtual schools are created equal, they emphasized. Virtual education can be successful for many students when presented by trained online instructors using a curriculum designed to be effective in an online venue.

“Parents need to seek reviews and ask for educational outcomes from each virtual school system to assess the quality of the provided education,” Dr. Black, Dr. Ferdig, and Dr. Thompson emphasized.

Key questions for parents to consider when faced with online learning include the type of technology needed to participate; whether their child can maintain a study schedule and complete assignments with limited supervision; whether their child could ask for help and communicate with teachers through technology including phone, text, email, or video; and whether their child has the basic reading, math, and computer literacy skills to engage in online learning, the authors said. Other questions include the school’s expectations for parents and caregivers, how student information may be shared, and how the virtual school lines up with state standards for K-12 educators (in the case of options outside the public school system).

“The COVID-19 pandemic offers a unique challenge for educators, policymakers, and health care professionals to partner with parents to make the best local and individual decisions for children,” Dr. Black, Dr. Ferdig, and Dr. Thompson concluded.
 

Schools may be able to open safely

Children continue to make up a low percentage of COVID-19 cases and appear less likely to experience illness, wrote C. Jason Wang, MD, PhD, and Henry Bair, BS, of Stanford (Calif.) University in a second viewpoint also published in JAMA Pediatrics. The impact of long-term school closures extends beyond education and can “exacerbate socioeconomic disparities, amplify existing educational inequalities, and aggravate food insecurity, domestic violence, and mental health disorders,” they wrote.

Dr. Wang and Mr. Bair proposed that school districts “engage key stakeholders to establish a COVID-19 task force, composed of the superintendent, members of the school board, teachers, parents, and health care professionals to develop policies and procedures,” that would allow schools to open safely.

The authors outlined strategies including adapting teaching spaces to accommodate physical distance, with the addition of temporary modular buildings if needed. They advised assigned seating on school buses, and acknowledged the need for the availability of protective equipment, including hand sanitizer and masks, as well as the possible use of transparent barriers on the sides of student desks.

“As the AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] guidance suggests, teachers who must work closely with students with special needs or with students who are unable to wear masks should wear N95 masks if possible or wear face shields in addition to surgical masks,” Dr. Wang and Mr. Bair noted. Other elements of the AAP guidance include the creation of fixed cohorts of students and teachers to limit virus exposure.

“Even with all the precautions in place, COVID-19 outbreaks within schools are still likely,” they said. “Therefore, schools will need to remain flexible and consider temporary closures if there is an outbreak involving multiple students and/or staff and be ready to transition to online education.”

The AAP guidance does not address operational approaches to identifying signs and symptoms of COVID-19, the authors noted. “To address this, we recommend that schools implement multilevel screening for students and staff.”

“In summary, to maximize health and educational outcomes, school districts should adopt some or all of the measures of the AAP guidance and prioritize them after considering local COVID-19 incidence, key stakeholder input, and budgetary constraints,” Dr. Wang and Mr. Bair concluded.
 

Schools opening is a regional decision

“The mission of the AAP is to attain optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents, and young adults,” Howard Smart, MD, said in an interview. The question of school reopening “is of national importance, and the AAP has a national role in making recommendations regarding national policy affecting the health of the children.”

“The decision to open schools will be made regionally, but it is important for a nonpolitical national voice to make expert recommendations,” he emphasized.

“Many of the recommendations are ideal goals,” noted Dr. Smart, chairman of the department of pediatrics at the Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group in San Diego. “It will be difficult, for example, to implement symptom screening every day before school, no matter where it is performed. Some of the measures may be quite costly, and take time to implement, or require expansion of school staff, for which there may be no budget.”

In addition, “[n]ot all students are likely to comply with masking, distance, and hand-washing recommendations. One student who is noncompliant will be able to infect many other students and staff, as has been seen in other countries.” Also, parental attitudes toward control measures are likely to affect student attitudes, he noted.

“I have interviewed many families at recent checkups, and most have felt that the rush to remote learning that occurred at the end of the last school year resulted in fairly disorganized instruction,” Dr. Smart said. “They are hoping that, having had the summer to plan ahead, the remote teaching will be handled better. Remote learning will certainly work best for self-motivated, organized students with good family support, as noted in the Black, Ferdig, and Thompson article,” he said.

Pediatricians can support the schools by being a source of evidence-based information for parents, Dr. Smart said. “Pediatricians with time and energy might want to volunteer to hold informational video conferences for parents and/or school personnel if they feel they are up to date on current COVID-19 science and want to handle potentially contentious questions.”

The decision parents make to send their children back to school comes down to a risk-benefit calculation. “In some communities this may be left to parents, while in other communities this will a public health decision,” he said. “It is still not clear whether having students attend school in person will result in increased spread of COVID-19 among the students, or in their communities. Although some evidence from early in the pandemic suggests that children may not spread the virus as much as adults, more recent evidence suggests that children 10 years and older do transmit the virus at least as much as adults.”

“The risk to the students and the community, therefore, is unknown,” and difficult to compare with the benefit of in-person schooling, Dr. Smart noted.

“We will learn quite a bit from communities where students do go back to in-person class, as we follow the progression of COVID-19 over the weeks following the resumption of instruction.” Ultimately, advice to parents will need to be tailored to the current conditions of COVID-19 transmission in the community, he concluded.
 

It’s not just about education

“The AAP released its guidance to ensure that as school districts were contemplating reopening they were considering the full array of risks for children and adolescents. These risks included not only those related to COVID-19, but also those related to the impact of not reopening in-person,” Nathaniel Beers, MD, president of the HSC Health Care System in Washington, said in an interview.

“Students and families are dependent on schools for much more than just an education, and those [elements] need to be factored into the decisions to reopen,” the pediatrician said.

However, “[t]he major barrier for schools is resources to safely reopen,” said Dr. Beers. “The additional staffing and supplies will require additional funding. There are increased demands regardless of whether students are learning in-person or virtually or through hybrid models.”

“Another significant barrier is ensuring that parents and staff are actively engaged in planning for the type of model being used,” he said.

“All of the models require buy-in by staff and parents. This will require significant outreach and strong communication plans. Schools also need to ensure they are planning not just for how to return students to schools, but what will happen when staff or students test positive for COVID-19. Students, families, and staff all will need to know what these plans are up front to feel confident in returning to school,” he emphasized.

“There are students who can thrive in a virtual learning environment,” Dr. Beers said. “There are also students who benefit from the virtual learning environment because of their own risk, or because of a family member’s risk for COVID-19 or the complications from it.”

“However, many children with disabilities have struggled in a virtual environment,” he said. “These students struggle to access the educational services without the adequate supports at home. They often receive additional services in school, such as speech, occupational therapy or physical therapy, or nursing services, that may not have transitioned to home but are critical for their health and development. Many students with disabilities are dependent on family members to successfully access the educational services they need.”

“Pediatricians can play a role in providing feedback on recommendations related to physical distancing and face coverings in particular,” said Dr. Beers. “In addition, they can be helpful in developing plans for children with disabilities as well as what the response plan should be for students who become sick during the school day.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a decision tool for parents who are considering whether to send their child to in-person school, and pediatricians can help parents walk through these questions, Dr. Beers noted. “In addition, pediatricians play an important role in helping patients and families think about the risks of COVID for the patient and other family members, and this can be helpful in addressing the anxiety that parents and patients may be experiencing.”

Further information can be found in Return to School During COVID-19, which can be located at HealthyChildren.org, by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The authors of the viewpoints had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smart, a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board, had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Beers has served on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News in the past, but had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCES: Black E, Ferdig R, Thompson LA. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3800. Wang CJ and Bair H. JAMA Pediatr. Aug 11. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3871.
 

Most residents who were asked whether their training prepared them for COVID-19 in a Medscape survey said it had not or they weren’t sure.

Whereas 40% said they felt prepared, 30% said they did not feel prepared and 31% answered they were unsure. (Numbers were rounded, so some answers pushed above 100%.)

One quarter have $300,000 or more in student debt

The Medscape Residents Salary & Debt Report 2020, with data collected April 3 to June 1, found that nearly one in four residents (24%) had medical school debt of more than $300,000. Half (49%) had more than $200,000.

The data include answers from 1,659 U.S. medical residents.

For the sixth straight year, female residents were more satisfied with their pay than were their male colleagues. This year the satisfaction gap was 45% female compared with 42% male. That imbalance came despite their making nearly the same pay overall ($63,700 for men and $63,000 for women).

Among practicing physicians, the pay gap is much wider: Men make 25% more in primary care and 31% more in specialties.

More than a third of residents (34%) said they felt residents should make 26%-50% more than they do. Ten percent thought they should earn 76%-100% more.

For those not satisfied with pay, the top reasons were feeling the pay was too low for the hours worked (81%) or too low compared with other medical staff, such as physician assistants (PAs) or nurses (77% chose that answer).

As for hours worked, 31% of residents reported they spend more than 60 hours/week seeing patients.

The top-paying specialties, averaging $69,500, were allergy and immunology, hematology, plastic surgery, aesthetic medicine, rheumatology, and specialized surgery. The lowest paid were family medicine residents at $58,500.

In primary care, overall, most residents said they planned to specialize. Only 47% planned to continue to work in primary care. Male residents were much more likely to say they will subspecialize than were their female colleagues (52% vs. 35%).

More than 90% of residents say future pay has influenced their choice of specialty, though more men than women felt that way (93% vs. 86%).

Good relationships with others

Overall, residents reported good relationships with attending physicians and nurses.

Most (88%) said they had good or very good relationships with attending physicians, 10% said the relationships were fair, and 2% said they were poor.

In addition, 89% of residents said the amount of supervision was appropriate, 4% said there was too much, and 7% said there was too little.

Relationships with nurses/PAs were slightly less positive overall: Eighty-two percent reported good or very good relationships with nurses/PAs, 15% said those relationships were fair, and 3% said they were poor.

One respondent said: “Our relationships could be better, but I think everyone is just overwhelmed with COVID-19, so emotions are heightened.”

Another said: “It takes time to earn the respect from nurses.”

Seventy-seven percent said they were satisfied with their learning experience overall, 12% were neutral on the question, and 11% said they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

Work-life balance is the top concern

Work-life balance continues to be the top concern for residents. More than one-quarter (27%) in residency years 1 through 4 listed that as the top concern, and even more (32%) of those in years 5 through 8 agreed.

That was followed by demands on time and fear of failure or making a serious mistake.

The survey indicates that benefit packages for residents have stayed much the same over the past 2 years with health insurance and paid time off for sick leave, vacation, and personal time most commonly reported at 89% and 87%, respectively.

Much less common were benefits including commuter assistance (parking, public transportation) at 24%, housing allowance (8%), and child care (4%).

The vast majority of residents reported doing scut work (unskilled tasks): More than half (54%) reported doing 1-10 hours/week and 22% did 11-20 hours/week. Regardless of the number of hours, however, 62% said the time spent performing these tasks was appropriate.
 

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

Most residents who were asked whether their training prepared them for COVID-19 in a Medscape survey said it had not or they weren’t sure.

Whereas 40% said they felt prepared, 30% said they did not feel prepared and 31% answered they were unsure. (Numbers were rounded, so some answers pushed above 100%.)

One quarter have $300,000 or more in student debt

The Medscape Residents Salary & Debt Report 2020, with data collected April 3 to June 1, found that nearly one in four residents (24%) had medical school debt of more than $300,000. Half (49%) had more than $200,000.

The data include answers from 1,659 U.S. medical residents.

For the sixth straight year, female residents were more satisfied with their pay than were their male colleagues. This year the satisfaction gap was 45% female compared with 42% male. That imbalance came despite their making nearly the same pay overall ($63,700 for men and $63,000 for women).

Among practicing physicians, the pay gap is much wider: Men make 25% more in primary care and 31% more in specialties.

More than a third of residents (34%) said they felt residents should make 26%-50% more than they do. Ten percent thought they should earn 76%-100% more.

For those not satisfied with pay, the top reasons were feeling the pay was too low for the hours worked (81%) or too low compared with other medical staff, such as physician assistants (PAs) or nurses (77% chose that answer).

As for hours worked, 31% of residents reported they spend more than 60 hours/week seeing patients.

The top-paying specialties, averaging $69,500, were allergy and immunology, hematology, plastic surgery, aesthetic medicine, rheumatology, and specialized surgery. The lowest paid were family medicine residents at $58,500.

In primary care, overall, most residents said they planned to specialize. Only 47% planned to continue to work in primary care. Male residents were much more likely to say they will subspecialize than were their female colleagues (52% vs. 35%).

More than 90% of residents say future pay has influenced their choice of specialty, though more men than women felt that way (93% vs. 86%).

Good relationships with others

Overall, residents reported good relationships with attending physicians and nurses.

Most (88%) said they had good or very good relationships with attending physicians, 10% said the relationships were fair, and 2% said they were poor.

In addition, 89% of residents said the amount of supervision was appropriate, 4% said there was too much, and 7% said there was too little.

Relationships with nurses/PAs were slightly less positive overall: Eighty-two percent reported good or very good relationships with nurses/PAs, 15% said those relationships were fair, and 3% said they were poor.

One respondent said: “Our relationships could be better, but I think everyone is just overwhelmed with COVID-19, so emotions are heightened.”

Another said: “It takes time to earn the respect from nurses.”

Seventy-seven percent said they were satisfied with their learning experience overall, 12% were neutral on the question, and 11% said they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

Work-life balance is the top concern

Work-life balance continues to be the top concern for residents. More than one-quarter (27%) in residency years 1 through 4 listed that as the top concern, and even more (32%) of those in years 5 through 8 agreed.

That was followed by demands on time and fear of failure or making a serious mistake.

The survey indicates that benefit packages for residents have stayed much the same over the past 2 years with health insurance and paid time off for sick leave, vacation, and personal time most commonly reported at 89% and 87%, respectively.

Much less common were benefits including commuter assistance (parking, public transportation) at 24%, housing allowance (8%), and child care (4%).

The vast majority of residents reported doing scut work (unskilled tasks): More than half (54%) reported doing 1-10 hours/week and 22% did 11-20 hours/week. Regardless of the number of hours, however, 62% said the time spent performing these tasks was appropriate.
 

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

Most residents who were asked whether their training prepared them for COVID-19 in a Medscape survey said it had not or they weren’t sure.

Whereas 40% said they felt prepared, 30% said they did not feel prepared and 31% answered they were unsure. (Numbers were rounded, so some answers pushed above 100%.)

One quarter have $300,000 or more in student debt

The Medscape Residents Salary & Debt Report 2020, with data collected April 3 to June 1, found that nearly one in four residents (24%) had medical school debt of more than $300,000. Half (49%) had more than $200,000.

The data include answers from 1,659 U.S. medical residents.

For the sixth straight year, female residents were more satisfied with their pay than were their male colleagues. This year the satisfaction gap was 45% female compared with 42% male. That imbalance came despite their making nearly the same pay overall ($63,700 for men and $63,000 for women).

Among practicing physicians, the pay gap is much wider: Men make 25% more in primary care and 31% more in specialties.

More than a third of residents (34%) said they felt residents should make 26%-50% more than they do. Ten percent thought they should earn 76%-100% more.

For those not satisfied with pay, the top reasons were feeling the pay was too low for the hours worked (81%) or too low compared with other medical staff, such as physician assistants (PAs) or nurses (77% chose that answer).

As for hours worked, 31% of residents reported they spend more than 60 hours/week seeing patients.

The top-paying specialties, averaging $69,500, were allergy and immunology, hematology, plastic surgery, aesthetic medicine, rheumatology, and specialized surgery. The lowest paid were family medicine residents at $58,500.

In primary care, overall, most residents said they planned to specialize. Only 47% planned to continue to work in primary care. Male residents were much more likely to say they will subspecialize than were their female colleagues (52% vs. 35%).

More than 90% of residents say future pay has influenced their choice of specialty, though more men than women felt that way (93% vs. 86%).

Good relationships with others

Overall, residents reported good relationships with attending physicians and nurses.

Most (88%) said they had good or very good relationships with attending physicians, 10% said the relationships were fair, and 2% said they were poor.

In addition, 89% of residents said the amount of supervision was appropriate, 4% said there was too much, and 7% said there was too little.

Relationships with nurses/PAs were slightly less positive overall: Eighty-two percent reported good or very good relationships with nurses/PAs, 15% said those relationships were fair, and 3% said they were poor.

One respondent said: “Our relationships could be better, but I think everyone is just overwhelmed with COVID-19, so emotions are heightened.”

Another said: “It takes time to earn the respect from nurses.”

Seventy-seven percent said they were satisfied with their learning experience overall, 12% were neutral on the question, and 11% said they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

Work-life balance is the top concern

Work-life balance continues to be the top concern for residents. More than one-quarter (27%) in residency years 1 through 4 listed that as the top concern, and even more (32%) of those in years 5 through 8 agreed.

That was followed by demands on time and fear of failure or making a serious mistake.

The survey indicates that benefit packages for residents have stayed much the same over the past 2 years with health insurance and paid time off for sick leave, vacation, and personal time most commonly reported at 89% and 87%, respectively.

Much less common were benefits including commuter assistance (parking, public transportation) at 24%, housing allowance (8%), and child care (4%).

The vast majority of residents reported doing scut work (unskilled tasks): More than half (54%) reported doing 1-10 hours/week and 22% did 11-20 hours/week. Regardless of the number of hours, however, 62% said the time spent performing these tasks was appropriate.
 

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

Less than a year ago, I wrote a column on retirement strategies; but that was before COVID-19 took down the economy, putting millions out of work and shuttering many of our offices. Add extraordinary racial tensions and an election year like no other, and 2020 has generated fear and uncertainty on an unprecedented level.

Not surprisingly, my e-mail has been dominated for months by questions about the short- and long-term financial consequences of this annus horribilis on our practices and retirement plans. Most physicians have felt the downturn acutely, of course. Revenues have declined, non-COVID-19-related hospital visits plunged, and only recently have we seen hospitals resuming elective procedures. As I write this, my practice is approaching its prepandemic volume; but many patients have been avoiding hospitals and doctors’ offices for fear of COVID-19 exposure. With no real end in sight, who can say when this trend will finally correct itself?

Long term, the outlook is not nearly so grim. I have always written that downturns – even steep ones – are inevitable; and rather than fear them, you should expect them and plan for them. Younger physicians with riskier investments have plenty of time to rebound. Physicians nearing retirement, if they have done everything right, probably have the least to lose. Ideally, they will be at or near their savings target and will have transitioned to less vulnerable assets. And remember, you don’t need to have 100% of your retirement money to retire; a sound retirement plan will continue to generate investment returns as you move through retirement.

In short, the essentials of postpandemic financial planning remain the same as before: Make a plan and stick to it.

By way of a brief review, the basics of a good plan are a budget, an emergency fund, disability insurance, and retiring your debt as quickly as possible. All of these have been covered individually in previous columns.

An essential component of your plan should be a list of long-term goals – and it should be more specific than simply accumulating a pile of cash. What do you plan to accomplish with the money? If it’s travel, helping your grandkids with college expenses, hobbies, or something else, make a list. Review it regularly, and modify it if your goals change.

Time to trot out another hoary old cliché: Saving for retirement is a marathon, not a sprint. If the pandemic has temporarily derailed your retirement strategy – forcing you, for example, to make retirement account withdrawals to cover expenses, or raid your emergency fund – no worries! When things have stabilized, it’s time to recommit to your retirement plan. Once again, with so many other issues to deal with, retaining the services of a qualified financial professional is usually a far better strategy than going it alone.

Many readers have expressed the fear that their retirement savings would never recover from the COVID-19 hit – but my own financial adviser pointed out that as I write this, in August, conservative portfolio values are about level with similar portfolios on Jan. 1, 2020. “Good plans are built to withstand difficult times,” she said. “Sometimes staying the course is the most difficult, disciplined course of action.”

“If your gut tells you that things will only get worse,” writes Kimberly Lankford in AARP’s magazine, “know that your gut is a terrible economic forecaster.” The University of Michigan’s Index of Consumer Sentiment hit rock bottom in 2008, during the Great Recession; yet only 4 months later, the U.S. economy began its longest expansion in modern history. The point is that it is important to maintain a long-term approach, and not make changes based on short-term events.

COVID-19 (or whatever else comes along) then becomes a matter of statement pain, not long-term financial pain. The key to recovery has nothing to do with a financial change, an investment strategy change, or a holding change, and everything to do with realigning your long-term goals.

So, moving on from COVID-19 is actually quite simple: Fill your retirement plan to its legal limit and let it grow, tax-deferred. Then invest for the long term, with your target amount in mind. And once again, the earlier you start and the longer you stick with it, the better.

 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Less than a year ago, I wrote a column on retirement strategies; but that was before COVID-19 took down the economy, putting millions out of work and shuttering many of our offices. Add extraordinary racial tensions and an election year like no other, and 2020 has generated fear and uncertainty on an unprecedented level.

Not surprisingly, my e-mail has been dominated for months by questions about the short- and long-term financial consequences of this annus horribilis on our practices and retirement plans. Most physicians have felt the downturn acutely, of course. Revenues have declined, non-COVID-19-related hospital visits plunged, and only recently have we seen hospitals resuming elective procedures. As I write this, my practice is approaching its prepandemic volume; but many patients have been avoiding hospitals and doctors’ offices for fear of COVID-19 exposure. With no real end in sight, who can say when this trend will finally correct itself?

Long term, the outlook is not nearly so grim. I have always written that downturns – even steep ones – are inevitable; and rather than fear them, you should expect them and plan for them. Younger physicians with riskier investments have plenty of time to rebound. Physicians nearing retirement, if they have done everything right, probably have the least to lose. Ideally, they will be at or near their savings target and will have transitioned to less vulnerable assets. And remember, you don’t need to have 100% of your retirement money to retire; a sound retirement plan will continue to generate investment returns as you move through retirement.

In short, the essentials of postpandemic financial planning remain the same as before: Make a plan and stick to it.

By way of a brief review, the basics of a good plan are a budget, an emergency fund, disability insurance, and retiring your debt as quickly as possible. All of these have been covered individually in previous columns.

An essential component of your plan should be a list of long-term goals – and it should be more specific than simply accumulating a pile of cash. What do you plan to accomplish with the money? If it’s travel, helping your grandkids with college expenses, hobbies, or something else, make a list. Review it regularly, and modify it if your goals change.

Time to trot out another hoary old cliché: Saving for retirement is a marathon, not a sprint. If the pandemic has temporarily derailed your retirement strategy – forcing you, for example, to make retirement account withdrawals to cover expenses, or raid your emergency fund – no worries! When things have stabilized, it’s time to recommit to your retirement plan. Once again, with so many other issues to deal with, retaining the services of a qualified financial professional is usually a far better strategy than going it alone.

Many readers have expressed the fear that their retirement savings would never recover from the COVID-19 hit – but my own financial adviser pointed out that as I write this, in August, conservative portfolio values are about level with similar portfolios on Jan. 1, 2020. “Good plans are built to withstand difficult times,” she said. “Sometimes staying the course is the most difficult, disciplined course of action.”

“If your gut tells you that things will only get worse,” writes Kimberly Lankford in AARP’s magazine, “know that your gut is a terrible economic forecaster.” The University of Michigan’s Index of Consumer Sentiment hit rock bottom in 2008, during the Great Recession; yet only 4 months later, the U.S. economy began its longest expansion in modern history. The point is that it is important to maintain a long-term approach, and not make changes based on short-term events.

COVID-19 (or whatever else comes along) then becomes a matter of statement pain, not long-term financial pain. The key to recovery has nothing to do with a financial change, an investment strategy change, or a holding change, and everything to do with realigning your long-term goals.

So, moving on from COVID-19 is actually quite simple: Fill your retirement plan to its legal limit and let it grow, tax-deferred. Then invest for the long term, with your target amount in mind. And once again, the earlier you start and the longer you stick with it, the better.

 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Less than a year ago, I wrote a column on retirement strategies; but that was before COVID-19 took down the economy, putting millions out of work and shuttering many of our offices. Add extraordinary racial tensions and an election year like no other, and 2020 has generated fear and uncertainty on an unprecedented level.

Not surprisingly, my e-mail has been dominated for months by questions about the short- and long-term financial consequences of this annus horribilis on our practices and retirement plans. Most physicians have felt the downturn acutely, of course. Revenues have declined, non-COVID-19-related hospital visits plunged, and only recently have we seen hospitals resuming elective procedures. As I write this, my practice is approaching its prepandemic volume; but many patients have been avoiding hospitals and doctors’ offices for fear of COVID-19 exposure. With no real end in sight, who can say when this trend will finally correct itself?

Long term, the outlook is not nearly so grim. I have always written that downturns – even steep ones – are inevitable; and rather than fear them, you should expect them and plan for them. Younger physicians with riskier investments have plenty of time to rebound. Physicians nearing retirement, if they have done everything right, probably have the least to lose. Ideally, they will be at or near their savings target and will have transitioned to less vulnerable assets. And remember, you don’t need to have 100% of your retirement money to retire; a sound retirement plan will continue to generate investment returns as you move through retirement.

In short, the essentials of postpandemic financial planning remain the same as before: Make a plan and stick to it.

By way of a brief review, the basics of a good plan are a budget, an emergency fund, disability insurance, and retiring your debt as quickly as possible. All of these have been covered individually in previous columns.

An essential component of your plan should be a list of long-term goals – and it should be more specific than simply accumulating a pile of cash. What do you plan to accomplish with the money? If it’s travel, helping your grandkids with college expenses, hobbies, or something else, make a list. Review it regularly, and modify it if your goals change.

Time to trot out another hoary old cliché: Saving for retirement is a marathon, not a sprint. If the pandemic has temporarily derailed your retirement strategy – forcing you, for example, to make retirement account withdrawals to cover expenses, or raid your emergency fund – no worries! When things have stabilized, it’s time to recommit to your retirement plan. Once again, with so many other issues to deal with, retaining the services of a qualified financial professional is usually a far better strategy than going it alone.

Many readers have expressed the fear that their retirement savings would never recover from the COVID-19 hit – but my own financial adviser pointed out that as I write this, in August, conservative portfolio values are about level with similar portfolios on Jan. 1, 2020. “Good plans are built to withstand difficult times,” she said. “Sometimes staying the course is the most difficult, disciplined course of action.”

“If your gut tells you that things will only get worse,” writes Kimberly Lankford in AARP’s magazine, “know that your gut is a terrible economic forecaster.” The University of Michigan’s Index of Consumer Sentiment hit rock bottom in 2008, during the Great Recession; yet only 4 months later, the U.S. economy began its longest expansion in modern history. The point is that it is important to maintain a long-term approach, and not make changes based on short-term events.

COVID-19 (or whatever else comes along) then becomes a matter of statement pain, not long-term financial pain. The key to recovery has nothing to do with a financial change, an investment strategy change, or a holding change, and everything to do with realigning your long-term goals.

So, moving on from COVID-19 is actually quite simple: Fill your retirement plan to its legal limit and let it grow, tax-deferred. Then invest for the long term, with your target amount in mind. And once again, the earlier you start and the longer you stick with it, the better.

 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].