MDedge Neurology

Under a new Medicare pilot program that will begin in 2024, the federal government will pay clinicians to coordinate at-home dementia support services, including respite care for family members.

A Department of Health & Human Services initiative, part of the aim of the Guiding an Improved Dementia Experience (GUIDE) program is to help Medicare beneficiaries with dementia stay in the community for as long as possible. It is estimated that there are 6.7 million Americans living with Alzheimer’s disease or some other form of dementia, said HHS.

The program is voluntary and will be open to Medicare-enrolled clinicians and other providers who can assemble an interdisciplinary care team and meet the program’s participation criteria.

“Our new GUIDE Model has the potential to improve the quality of life for people with dementia and alleviate the significant strain on our families,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, in a statement.

“Not only is dementia care management a proven way to improve the quality of care and quality of life for those living with Alzheimer’s and other dementia, but now we know that it would also save the federal government billions of dollars,” Robert Egge, Alzheimer’s Association chief public policy officer and Alzheimer’s Impact Movement (AIM) executive director, said in a statement.

Mr. Egge cited a recent analysis commissioned by AIM that found that dementia care management would save the federal government nearly $21 billion over 10 years.

“People living with dementia and their caregivers too often struggle to manage their health care and connect with key supports that can allow them to remain in their homes and communities,” said Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, in the HHS statement.

“Fragmented care contributes to the mental and physical health strain of caring for someone with dementia, as well as the substantial financial burden,” she said, adding that Black, Hispanic, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander populations have been especially disadvantaged.

The GUIDE Model will provide new resources and greater access to specialty care to those communities, said Ms. Brooks-LaSure.

Care teams that seek to participate in the GUIDE model must have a care navigator who has received required training in dementia, assessment, and care planning.

The teams also must have a clinician with dementia proficiency as recognized by experience caring for adults with cognitive impairment; experience caring for patients aged 65 years old or older; or specialty designation in neurology, psychiatry, geriatrics, geriatric psychiatry, behavioral neurology, or geriatric neurology.

Medicare beneficiaries will be eligible if they are not residing in a nursing home; are not enrolled in hospice; and have a confirmed dementia diagnosis.

Beneficiaries who receive care from GUIDE participants will be placed in one of five “tiers,” based on a combination of disease stage and caregiver status. Beneficiary needs, and care intensity and payment, increase by tier.

GUIDE teams will receive a monthly, per-beneficiary amount for providing care management and coordination and caregiver education and support services. They can also bill for respite services – up to an annual cap – for Medicare beneficiaries who have an unpaid caregiver.

Clinicians seeking to participate in GUIDE can apply beginning in the fall. The program will run for 8 years beginning July 1, 2024.

Alzheimer’s Association President and CEO Joanne Pike, DrPH, said in a statement that the organization had “advocated for this approach for years, believing it [to be] the key to addressing systemic challenges faced by those with dementia, their families and those who provide them with care and support.”

The John A. Hartford Foundation noted that it also had long pushed for a comprehensive dementia care program. “Comprehensive dementia care supports both the medical and nonmedical needs of patients and their family caregivers,” said Foundation President Terry Fulmer, PhD, RN, FAAN, in a statement.

“Notably and necessarily, the model will help improve equity in access to care for underserved communities by addressing unpaid caregiver needs, including respite services and screening for health-related social needs,” added Dr. Fulmer.

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

Under a new Medicare pilot program that will begin in 2024, the federal government will pay clinicians to coordinate at-home dementia support services, including respite care for family members.

A Department of Health & Human Services initiative, part of the aim of the Guiding an Improved Dementia Experience (GUIDE) program is to help Medicare beneficiaries with dementia stay in the community for as long as possible. It is estimated that there are 6.7 million Americans living with Alzheimer’s disease or some other form of dementia, said HHS.

The program is voluntary and will be open to Medicare-enrolled clinicians and other providers who can assemble an interdisciplinary care team and meet the program’s participation criteria.

“Our new GUIDE Model has the potential to improve the quality of life for people with dementia and alleviate the significant strain on our families,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, in a statement.

“Not only is dementia care management a proven way to improve the quality of care and quality of life for those living with Alzheimer’s and other dementia, but now we know that it would also save the federal government billions of dollars,” Robert Egge, Alzheimer’s Association chief public policy officer and Alzheimer’s Impact Movement (AIM) executive director, said in a statement.

Mr. Egge cited a recent analysis commissioned by AIM that found that dementia care management would save the federal government nearly $21 billion over 10 years.

“People living with dementia and their caregivers too often struggle to manage their health care and connect with key supports that can allow them to remain in their homes and communities,” said Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, in the HHS statement.

“Fragmented care contributes to the mental and physical health strain of caring for someone with dementia, as well as the substantial financial burden,” she said, adding that Black, Hispanic, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander populations have been especially disadvantaged.

The GUIDE Model will provide new resources and greater access to specialty care to those communities, said Ms. Brooks-LaSure.

Care teams that seek to participate in the GUIDE model must have a care navigator who has received required training in dementia, assessment, and care planning.

The teams also must have a clinician with dementia proficiency as recognized by experience caring for adults with cognitive impairment; experience caring for patients aged 65 years old or older; or specialty designation in neurology, psychiatry, geriatrics, geriatric psychiatry, behavioral neurology, or geriatric neurology.

Medicare beneficiaries will be eligible if they are not residing in a nursing home; are not enrolled in hospice; and have a confirmed dementia diagnosis.

Beneficiaries who receive care from GUIDE participants will be placed in one of five “tiers,” based on a combination of disease stage and caregiver status. Beneficiary needs, and care intensity and payment, increase by tier.

GUIDE teams will receive a monthly, per-beneficiary amount for providing care management and coordination and caregiver education and support services. They can also bill for respite services – up to an annual cap – for Medicare beneficiaries who have an unpaid caregiver.

Clinicians seeking to participate in GUIDE can apply beginning in the fall. The program will run for 8 years beginning July 1, 2024.

Alzheimer’s Association President and CEO Joanne Pike, DrPH, said in a statement that the organization had “advocated for this approach for years, believing it [to be] the key to addressing systemic challenges faced by those with dementia, their families and those who provide them with care and support.”

The John A. Hartford Foundation noted that it also had long pushed for a comprehensive dementia care program. “Comprehensive dementia care supports both the medical and nonmedical needs of patients and their family caregivers,” said Foundation President Terry Fulmer, PhD, RN, FAAN, in a statement.

“Notably and necessarily, the model will help improve equity in access to care for underserved communities by addressing unpaid caregiver needs, including respite services and screening for health-related social needs,” added Dr. Fulmer.

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

Under a new Medicare pilot program that will begin in 2024, the federal government will pay clinicians to coordinate at-home dementia support services, including respite care for family members.

A Department of Health & Human Services initiative, part of the aim of the Guiding an Improved Dementia Experience (GUIDE) program is to help Medicare beneficiaries with dementia stay in the community for as long as possible. It is estimated that there are 6.7 million Americans living with Alzheimer’s disease or some other form of dementia, said HHS.

The program is voluntary and will be open to Medicare-enrolled clinicians and other providers who can assemble an interdisciplinary care team and meet the program’s participation criteria.

“Our new GUIDE Model has the potential to improve the quality of life for people with dementia and alleviate the significant strain on our families,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, in a statement.

“Not only is dementia care management a proven way to improve the quality of care and quality of life for those living with Alzheimer’s and other dementia, but now we know that it would also save the federal government billions of dollars,” Robert Egge, Alzheimer’s Association chief public policy officer and Alzheimer’s Impact Movement (AIM) executive director, said in a statement.

Mr. Egge cited a recent analysis commissioned by AIM that found that dementia care management would save the federal government nearly $21 billion over 10 years.

“People living with dementia and their caregivers too often struggle to manage their health care and connect with key supports that can allow them to remain in their homes and communities,” said Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, in the HHS statement.

“Fragmented care contributes to the mental and physical health strain of caring for someone with dementia, as well as the substantial financial burden,” she said, adding that Black, Hispanic, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander populations have been especially disadvantaged.

The GUIDE Model will provide new resources and greater access to specialty care to those communities, said Ms. Brooks-LaSure.

Care teams that seek to participate in the GUIDE model must have a care navigator who has received required training in dementia, assessment, and care planning.

The teams also must have a clinician with dementia proficiency as recognized by experience caring for adults with cognitive impairment; experience caring for patients aged 65 years old or older; or specialty designation in neurology, psychiatry, geriatrics, geriatric psychiatry, behavioral neurology, or geriatric neurology.

Medicare beneficiaries will be eligible if they are not residing in a nursing home; are not enrolled in hospice; and have a confirmed dementia diagnosis.

Beneficiaries who receive care from GUIDE participants will be placed in one of five “tiers,” based on a combination of disease stage and caregiver status. Beneficiary needs, and care intensity and payment, increase by tier.

GUIDE teams will receive a monthly, per-beneficiary amount for providing care management and coordination and caregiver education and support services. They can also bill for respite services – up to an annual cap – for Medicare beneficiaries who have an unpaid caregiver.

Clinicians seeking to participate in GUIDE can apply beginning in the fall. The program will run for 8 years beginning July 1, 2024.

Alzheimer’s Association President and CEO Joanne Pike, DrPH, said in a statement that the organization had “advocated for this approach for years, believing it [to be] the key to addressing systemic challenges faced by those with dementia, their families and those who provide them with care and support.”

The John A. Hartford Foundation noted that it also had long pushed for a comprehensive dementia care program. “Comprehensive dementia care supports both the medical and nonmedical needs of patients and their family caregivers,” said Foundation President Terry Fulmer, PhD, RN, FAAN, in a statement.

“Notably and necessarily, the model will help improve equity in access to care for underserved communities by addressing unpaid caregiver needs, including respite services and screening for health-related social needs,” added Dr. Fulmer.

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

Taking folic acid supplements before conception and in the first trimester of pregnancy continues to be a major line of defense against neural tube defects.

In a statement published in JAMA, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that all people planning on becoming pregnant or who could become pregnant take a daily supplement of 0.4-0.8 mg (400-800 mcg) of folic acid to prevent neural tube defects. 

The task force also found that folic acid is not associated with maternal cancer or autism, which were the concerns of some researchers. The current findings regarding potential harm align with earlier evidence examining possible risks.

The recommendation also aligns with previous recommendations from the USPSTF and is supported by 12 more recent observational studies. Neural tube defects occur in an estimated 3,000 pregnancies per year.

Folic acid deficiency is common due to diet, impaired folate metabolism, and poor nutrient uptake as a result of medications or bariatric surgery. 

“As much as we’ve been trying to get the word out there, we still need to get it out there even more,” Wanda Nicholson, MD, MPH, MBA, vice chair of the USPSTF, told this news organization. “It’s so simple and straightforward and can be so impactful for the health of the baby.”

Neural tube formation occurs 26-28 days after fertilization. Folic acid supplementation is essential for all people who may become pregnant, considering half of the pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, according to the USPSTF.

“In many cases, neural tube formation has already occurred, or not occurred appropriately, before someone realizes that they’re pregnant,” Dr. Nicholson said. “That’s why it’s so important to start taking folic acid one month prior to conception if you’re planning on becoming pregnant, and if you’re capable of being pregnant but not planning pregnancy, yes, we’re advocating that you also proceed with folic acid supplementation.”

Primary care physicians play a key role in patient education and ensuring that all patients receive adequate folic acid, according to Spencer McClelland, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Denver Health, who was not involved in the statement. Dr. McClelland advised that clinicians recommend patients who are or could get pregnant take a multivitamin, because most brands will contain the recommended dosage of folic acid.

“There’s some confusion about folic acid,” he said. “Many patients know that they should be on a prenatal vitamin, but most don’t know that the reason we’re recommending a prenatal vitamin is almost entirely because of the value of folic acid, and everything else in the prenatal vitamin is kind of icing on the cake.”

For patients trying to get pregnant, the risk for neural tube defects “is one of many examples of the importance of preconception counseling,” Dr. McClelland said.

Dr. Nicholson noted that the recommended 0.4-0.8 mg of folic acid per day is for patients without heightened deficiency due to medications or bariatric surgery. At-risk patients should receive counseling from their physician to determine the correct amount to take.

The authors report no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.

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

Taking folic acid supplements before conception and in the first trimester of pregnancy continues to be a major line of defense against neural tube defects.

In a statement published in JAMA, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that all people planning on becoming pregnant or who could become pregnant take a daily supplement of 0.4-0.8 mg (400-800 mcg) of folic acid to prevent neural tube defects. 

The task force also found that folic acid is not associated with maternal cancer or autism, which were the concerns of some researchers. The current findings regarding potential harm align with earlier evidence examining possible risks.

The recommendation also aligns with previous recommendations from the USPSTF and is supported by 12 more recent observational studies. Neural tube defects occur in an estimated 3,000 pregnancies per year.

Folic acid deficiency is common due to diet, impaired folate metabolism, and poor nutrient uptake as a result of medications or bariatric surgery. 

“As much as we’ve been trying to get the word out there, we still need to get it out there even more,” Wanda Nicholson, MD, MPH, MBA, vice chair of the USPSTF, told this news organization. “It’s so simple and straightforward and can be so impactful for the health of the baby.”

Neural tube formation occurs 26-28 days after fertilization. Folic acid supplementation is essential for all people who may become pregnant, considering half of the pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, according to the USPSTF.

“In many cases, neural tube formation has already occurred, or not occurred appropriately, before someone realizes that they’re pregnant,” Dr. Nicholson said. “That’s why it’s so important to start taking folic acid one month prior to conception if you’re planning on becoming pregnant, and if you’re capable of being pregnant but not planning pregnancy, yes, we’re advocating that you also proceed with folic acid supplementation.”

Primary care physicians play a key role in patient education and ensuring that all patients receive adequate folic acid, according to Spencer McClelland, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Denver Health, who was not involved in the statement. Dr. McClelland advised that clinicians recommend patients who are or could get pregnant take a multivitamin, because most brands will contain the recommended dosage of folic acid.

“There’s some confusion about folic acid,” he said. “Many patients know that they should be on a prenatal vitamin, but most don’t know that the reason we’re recommending a prenatal vitamin is almost entirely because of the value of folic acid, and everything else in the prenatal vitamin is kind of icing on the cake.”

For patients trying to get pregnant, the risk for neural tube defects “is one of many examples of the importance of preconception counseling,” Dr. McClelland said.

Dr. Nicholson noted that the recommended 0.4-0.8 mg of folic acid per day is for patients without heightened deficiency due to medications or bariatric surgery. At-risk patients should receive counseling from their physician to determine the correct amount to take.

The authors report no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.

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

Taking folic acid supplements before conception and in the first trimester of pregnancy continues to be a major line of defense against neural tube defects.

In a statement published in JAMA, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that all people planning on becoming pregnant or who could become pregnant take a daily supplement of 0.4-0.8 mg (400-800 mcg) of folic acid to prevent neural tube defects. 

The task force also found that folic acid is not associated with maternal cancer or autism, which were the concerns of some researchers. The current findings regarding potential harm align with earlier evidence examining possible risks.

The recommendation also aligns with previous recommendations from the USPSTF and is supported by 12 more recent observational studies. Neural tube defects occur in an estimated 3,000 pregnancies per year.

Folic acid deficiency is common due to diet, impaired folate metabolism, and poor nutrient uptake as a result of medications or bariatric surgery. 

“As much as we’ve been trying to get the word out there, we still need to get it out there even more,” Wanda Nicholson, MD, MPH, MBA, vice chair of the USPSTF, told this news organization. “It’s so simple and straightforward and can be so impactful for the health of the baby.”

Neural tube formation occurs 26-28 days after fertilization. Folic acid supplementation is essential for all people who may become pregnant, considering half of the pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, according to the USPSTF.

“In many cases, neural tube formation has already occurred, or not occurred appropriately, before someone realizes that they’re pregnant,” Dr. Nicholson said. “That’s why it’s so important to start taking folic acid one month prior to conception if you’re planning on becoming pregnant, and if you’re capable of being pregnant but not planning pregnancy, yes, we’re advocating that you also proceed with folic acid supplementation.”

Primary care physicians play a key role in patient education and ensuring that all patients receive adequate folic acid, according to Spencer McClelland, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Denver Health, who was not involved in the statement. Dr. McClelland advised that clinicians recommend patients who are or could get pregnant take a multivitamin, because most brands will contain the recommended dosage of folic acid.

“There’s some confusion about folic acid,” he said. “Many patients know that they should be on a prenatal vitamin, but most don’t know that the reason we’re recommending a prenatal vitamin is almost entirely because of the value of folic acid, and everything else in the prenatal vitamin is kind of icing on the cake.”

For patients trying to get pregnant, the risk for neural tube defects “is one of many examples of the importance of preconception counseling,” Dr. McClelland said.

Dr. Nicholson noted that the recommended 0.4-0.8 mg of folic acid per day is for patients without heightened deficiency due to medications or bariatric surgery. At-risk patients should receive counseling from their physician to determine the correct amount to take.

The authors report no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.

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

Chronic pain, and back pain in particular, is among the most frequent concerns for patients in the primary care setting. Roughly 8% of adults in the United States say they suffer from chronic low back pain, and many of them say the pain is significant enough to impair their ability to move, work, and otherwise enjoy life. All this, despite decades of research and countless millions in funding to find the optimal approach to treating chronic pain.

As the United States crawls out of the opioid epidemic, a group of pain specialists is hoping to identify effective, personalized approaches to managing back pain. Daniel Clauw, MD, professor of anesthesiology, internal medicine, and psychiatry at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, is helping lead the BEST trial. With projected enrollment of nearly 800 patients, BEST will be the largest federally funded clinical trial of interventions to treat chronic low back pain.

In an interview, Dr. Clauw spoke about the ongoing trial and the state of research into chronic pain generally. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

What are your thoughts on the current state of primary care physicians’ understanding and management of pain?

Primary care physicians need a lot of help in demystifying the diagnosis and treatment of any kind of pain, but back pain is a really good place to start. When it comes to back pain, most primary care physicians are not any more knowledgeable than a layperson.

What has the opioid debacle-cum-tragedy taught you about pain management, particular as regards people with chronic pain?

I don’t feel opioids should ever be used to treat chronic low back pain. The few long-term studies that have been performed using opioids for longer than 3 months suggest that they often make pain worse rather than just failing to make pain better – and we know they are associated with a significantly increased all-cause mortality with increased deaths from myocardial infarction, accidents, and suicides, in addition to overdose.

Given how many patients experience back pain, how did we come to the point at which primary care physicians are so ill equipped?

We’ve had terrible pain curricula in medical schools. To give you an example: I’m one of the leading pain experts in the world and I’m not allowed to teach our medical students their pain curriculum. The students learn about neurophysiology and the anatomy of the nerves, not what’s relevant in pain.

This is notorious in medical school: Curricula are almost impossible to modify and change. So it starts with poor training in medical school. And then, regardless of what education they do or don’t get in medical school, a lot of their education about pain management is through our residencies – mainly in inpatient settings, where you’re really seeing the management of acute pain and not the management of chronic pain.

People get more accustomed to managing acute pain, where opioids are a reasonable option. It’s just that when you start managing subacute or chronic pain, opioids don’t work as well.

The other big problem is that historically, most people trained in medicine think that if you have pain in your elbow, there’s got to be something wrong in your elbow. This third mechanism of pain, central sensitization – or nociplastic pain – the kind of pain that we see in fibromyalgia, headache, and low back pain, where the pain is coming from the brain – that’s confusing to people. People can have pain without any damage or inflammation to that region of the body.

Physicians are trained that if there’s pain, there’s something wrong and we have to do surgery or there’s been some trauma. Most chronic pain is none of that. There’s a big disconnect between how people are trained, and then when they go out and are seeing a tremendous number of people with chronic pain.
 

What are the different types of pain, and how should they inform clinicians’ understanding about what approaches might work for managing their patients in pain?

The way the central nervous system responds to pain is analogous to the loudness of an electric guitar. You can make an electric guitar louder either by strumming the strings harder or by turning up the amplifier. For many people with fibromyalgia, low back pain, and endometriosis, for example, the problem is really more that the amplifier is turned up too high rather than its being that the guitar is strummed too strongly. That kind of pain where the pain is not due to anatomic damage or inflammation is particularly flummoxing for providers.

Can you explain the design of the new study?

It’s a 13-site study looking at four treatments: enhanced self-care, cognitive-behavioral therapy, physical therapy, and duloxetine. It’s a big precision medicine trial, trying to take everything we’ve learned and putting it all into one big study.

We’re using a SMART design, which randomizes people to two of those treatments, unless they are very much improved from the first treatment. To be eligible for the trial, you have to be able to be randomized to three of the four treatments, and people can’t choose which of the four they get.

We give them one of those treatments for 12 weeks, and at the end of 12 weeks we make the call – “Did you respond or not respond?” – and then we go back to the phenotypic data we collected at the beginning of that trial and say, “What information at baseline that we collected predicts that someone is going to respond better to duloxetine or worse to duloxetine?” And then we create the phenotype that responds best to each of those four treatments.

None of our treatments works so well that someone doesn’t end up getting randomized to a second treatment. About 85% of people so far need a second treatment because they still have enough pain that they want more relief. But the nice thing about that is we’ve already done all the functional brain imaging and all these really expensive and time-consuming things.

We’re hoping to have around 700-800 people total in this trial, which means that around 170 people will get randomized to each of the four initial treatments. No one’s ever done a study that has functional brain imaging and all these other things in it with more than 80 or 100 people. The scale of this is totally unprecedented.
 

Given that the individual therapies don’t appear to be all that successful on their own, what is your goal?

The primary aim is to match the phenotypic characteristics of a patient with chronic low back pain with treatment response to each of these four treatments. So at the end, we can give clinicians information on which of the patients is going to respond to physical therapy, for instance.

Right now, about one out of three people respond to most treatments for pain. We think by doing a trial like this, we can take treatments that work in one out of three people and make them work in one out of two or two out of three people just by using them in the right people.
 

How do you differentiate between these types of pain in your study?

We phenotype people by asking them a number of questions. We also do brain imaging, look at their back with MRI, test biomechanics, and then give them four different treatments that we know work in groups of people with low back pain.

We think one of the first parts of the phenotype is, do they have pain just in their back? Or do they have pain in their back plus a lot of other body regions? Because the more body regions that people have pain in, the more likely it is that this is an amplifier problem rather than a guitar problem.

Treatments like physical therapy, surgery, and injections are going to work better for people in whom the pain is a guitar problem rather than an amplifier problem. And drugs like duloxetine, which works in the brain, and cognitive-behavioral therapy are going to work a lot better in the people with pain in multiple sites besides the back.
 

To pick up on your metaphor, do any symptoms help clinicians differentiate between the guitar and the amplifier?

Sleep problems, fatigue, memory problems, and mood problems are common in patients with chronic pain and are more common with amplifier pain. Because again, those are all central nervous system problems. And so we see that the people that have anxiety, depression, and a lot of distress are more likely to have this kind of pain.

Does medical imaging help?

There’s a terrible relationship between what you see on an MRI of the back and whether someone has pain or how severe the pain is going to be. There’s always going to be individuals that have a lot of anatomic damage who don’t have any pain because they happen to be on the other end of the continuum from fibromyalgia; they’re actually pain-insensitive people.

What are your thoughts about ketamine as a possible treatment for chronic pain?

I have a mentee who’s doing a ketamine trial. We’re doing psilocybin trials in patients with fibromyalgia. Ketamine is such a dirty drug; it has so many different mechanisms of action. It does have some psychedelic effects, but it also is an NMDA blocker. It really has so many different effects.

I think it’s being thrown around like water in settings where we don’t yet know it to be efficacious. Even the data in treatment-refractory depression are pretty weak, but we’re so desperate to do something for those patients. If you’re trying to harness the psychedelic properties of ketamine, I think there’s other psychedelics that are a lot more interesting, which is why we’re using psilocybin for a subset of patients. Most of us in the pain field think that the psychedelics will work best for the people with chronic pain who have a lot of comorbid psychiatric illness, especially the ones with a lot of trauma. These drugs will allow us therapeutically to get at a lot of these patients with the side-by-side psychotherapy that’s being done as people are getting care in the medicalized setting.
 

Dr. Clauw reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Tonix, Theravance, Zynerba, Samumed, Aptinyx, Daiichi Sankyo, Intec, Regeneron, Teva, Lundbeck, Virios, and Cerephex.

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

Chronic pain, and back pain in particular, is among the most frequent concerns for patients in the primary care setting. Roughly 8% of adults in the United States say they suffer from chronic low back pain, and many of them say the pain is significant enough to impair their ability to move, work, and otherwise enjoy life. All this, despite decades of research and countless millions in funding to find the optimal approach to treating chronic pain.

As the United States crawls out of the opioid epidemic, a group of pain specialists is hoping to identify effective, personalized approaches to managing back pain. Daniel Clauw, MD, professor of anesthesiology, internal medicine, and psychiatry at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, is helping lead the BEST trial. With projected enrollment of nearly 800 patients, BEST will be the largest federally funded clinical trial of interventions to treat chronic low back pain.

In an interview, Dr. Clauw spoke about the ongoing trial and the state of research into chronic pain generally. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

What are your thoughts on the current state of primary care physicians’ understanding and management of pain?

Primary care physicians need a lot of help in demystifying the diagnosis and treatment of any kind of pain, but back pain is a really good place to start. When it comes to back pain, most primary care physicians are not any more knowledgeable than a layperson.

What has the opioid debacle-cum-tragedy taught you about pain management, particular as regards people with chronic pain?

I don’t feel opioids should ever be used to treat chronic low back pain. The few long-term studies that have been performed using opioids for longer than 3 months suggest that they often make pain worse rather than just failing to make pain better – and we know they are associated with a significantly increased all-cause mortality with increased deaths from myocardial infarction, accidents, and suicides, in addition to overdose.

Given how many patients experience back pain, how did we come to the point at which primary care physicians are so ill equipped?

We’ve had terrible pain curricula in medical schools. To give you an example: I’m one of the leading pain experts in the world and I’m not allowed to teach our medical students their pain curriculum. The students learn about neurophysiology and the anatomy of the nerves, not what’s relevant in pain.

This is notorious in medical school: Curricula are almost impossible to modify and change. So it starts with poor training in medical school. And then, regardless of what education they do or don’t get in medical school, a lot of their education about pain management is through our residencies – mainly in inpatient settings, where you’re really seeing the management of acute pain and not the management of chronic pain.

People get more accustomed to managing acute pain, where opioids are a reasonable option. It’s just that when you start managing subacute or chronic pain, opioids don’t work as well.

The other big problem is that historically, most people trained in medicine think that if you have pain in your elbow, there’s got to be something wrong in your elbow. This third mechanism of pain, central sensitization – or nociplastic pain – the kind of pain that we see in fibromyalgia, headache, and low back pain, where the pain is coming from the brain – that’s confusing to people. People can have pain without any damage or inflammation to that region of the body.

Physicians are trained that if there’s pain, there’s something wrong and we have to do surgery or there’s been some trauma. Most chronic pain is none of that. There’s a big disconnect between how people are trained, and then when they go out and are seeing a tremendous number of people with chronic pain.
 

What are the different types of pain, and how should they inform clinicians’ understanding about what approaches might work for managing their patients in pain?

The way the central nervous system responds to pain is analogous to the loudness of an electric guitar. You can make an electric guitar louder either by strumming the strings harder or by turning up the amplifier. For many people with fibromyalgia, low back pain, and endometriosis, for example, the problem is really more that the amplifier is turned up too high rather than its being that the guitar is strummed too strongly. That kind of pain where the pain is not due to anatomic damage or inflammation is particularly flummoxing for providers.

Can you explain the design of the new study?

It’s a 13-site study looking at four treatments: enhanced self-care, cognitive-behavioral therapy, physical therapy, and duloxetine. It’s a big precision medicine trial, trying to take everything we’ve learned and putting it all into one big study.

We’re using a SMART design, which randomizes people to two of those treatments, unless they are very much improved from the first treatment. To be eligible for the trial, you have to be able to be randomized to three of the four treatments, and people can’t choose which of the four they get.

We give them one of those treatments for 12 weeks, and at the end of 12 weeks we make the call – “Did you respond or not respond?” – and then we go back to the phenotypic data we collected at the beginning of that trial and say, “What information at baseline that we collected predicts that someone is going to respond better to duloxetine or worse to duloxetine?” And then we create the phenotype that responds best to each of those four treatments.

None of our treatments works so well that someone doesn’t end up getting randomized to a second treatment. About 85% of people so far need a second treatment because they still have enough pain that they want more relief. But the nice thing about that is we’ve already done all the functional brain imaging and all these really expensive and time-consuming things.

We’re hoping to have around 700-800 people total in this trial, which means that around 170 people will get randomized to each of the four initial treatments. No one’s ever done a study that has functional brain imaging and all these other things in it with more than 80 or 100 people. The scale of this is totally unprecedented.
 

Given that the individual therapies don’t appear to be all that successful on their own, what is your goal?

The primary aim is to match the phenotypic characteristics of a patient with chronic low back pain with treatment response to each of these four treatments. So at the end, we can give clinicians information on which of the patients is going to respond to physical therapy, for instance.

Right now, about one out of three people respond to most treatments for pain. We think by doing a trial like this, we can take treatments that work in one out of three people and make them work in one out of two or two out of three people just by using them in the right people.
 

How do you differentiate between these types of pain in your study?

We phenotype people by asking them a number of questions. We also do brain imaging, look at their back with MRI, test biomechanics, and then give them four different treatments that we know work in groups of people with low back pain.

We think one of the first parts of the phenotype is, do they have pain just in their back? Or do they have pain in their back plus a lot of other body regions? Because the more body regions that people have pain in, the more likely it is that this is an amplifier problem rather than a guitar problem.

Treatments like physical therapy, surgery, and injections are going to work better for people in whom the pain is a guitar problem rather than an amplifier problem. And drugs like duloxetine, which works in the brain, and cognitive-behavioral therapy are going to work a lot better in the people with pain in multiple sites besides the back.
 

To pick up on your metaphor, do any symptoms help clinicians differentiate between the guitar and the amplifier?

Sleep problems, fatigue, memory problems, and mood problems are common in patients with chronic pain and are more common with amplifier pain. Because again, those are all central nervous system problems. And so we see that the people that have anxiety, depression, and a lot of distress are more likely to have this kind of pain.

Does medical imaging help?

There’s a terrible relationship between what you see on an MRI of the back and whether someone has pain or how severe the pain is going to be. There’s always going to be individuals that have a lot of anatomic damage who don’t have any pain because they happen to be on the other end of the continuum from fibromyalgia; they’re actually pain-insensitive people.

What are your thoughts about ketamine as a possible treatment for chronic pain?

I have a mentee who’s doing a ketamine trial. We’re doing psilocybin trials in patients with fibromyalgia. Ketamine is such a dirty drug; it has so many different mechanisms of action. It does have some psychedelic effects, but it also is an NMDA blocker. It really has so many different effects.

I think it’s being thrown around like water in settings where we don’t yet know it to be efficacious. Even the data in treatment-refractory depression are pretty weak, but we’re so desperate to do something for those patients. If you’re trying to harness the psychedelic properties of ketamine, I think there’s other psychedelics that are a lot more interesting, which is why we’re using psilocybin for a subset of patients. Most of us in the pain field think that the psychedelics will work best for the people with chronic pain who have a lot of comorbid psychiatric illness, especially the ones with a lot of trauma. These drugs will allow us therapeutically to get at a lot of these patients with the side-by-side psychotherapy that’s being done as people are getting care in the medicalized setting.
 

Dr. Clauw reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Tonix, Theravance, Zynerba, Samumed, Aptinyx, Daiichi Sankyo, Intec, Regeneron, Teva, Lundbeck, Virios, and Cerephex.

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

Chronic pain, and back pain in particular, is among the most frequent concerns for patients in the primary care setting. Roughly 8% of adults in the United States say they suffer from chronic low back pain, and many of them say the pain is significant enough to impair their ability to move, work, and otherwise enjoy life. All this, despite decades of research and countless millions in funding to find the optimal approach to treating chronic pain.

As the United States crawls out of the opioid epidemic, a group of pain specialists is hoping to identify effective, personalized approaches to managing back pain. Daniel Clauw, MD, professor of anesthesiology, internal medicine, and psychiatry at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, is helping lead the BEST trial. With projected enrollment of nearly 800 patients, BEST will be the largest federally funded clinical trial of interventions to treat chronic low back pain.

In an interview, Dr. Clauw spoke about the ongoing trial and the state of research into chronic pain generally. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

What are your thoughts on the current state of primary care physicians’ understanding and management of pain?

Primary care physicians need a lot of help in demystifying the diagnosis and treatment of any kind of pain, but back pain is a really good place to start. When it comes to back pain, most primary care physicians are not any more knowledgeable than a layperson.

What has the opioid debacle-cum-tragedy taught you about pain management, particular as regards people with chronic pain?

I don’t feel opioids should ever be used to treat chronic low back pain. The few long-term studies that have been performed using opioids for longer than 3 months suggest that they often make pain worse rather than just failing to make pain better – and we know they are associated with a significantly increased all-cause mortality with increased deaths from myocardial infarction, accidents, and suicides, in addition to overdose.

Given how many patients experience back pain, how did we come to the point at which primary care physicians are so ill equipped?

We’ve had terrible pain curricula in medical schools. To give you an example: I’m one of the leading pain experts in the world and I’m not allowed to teach our medical students their pain curriculum. The students learn about neurophysiology and the anatomy of the nerves, not what’s relevant in pain.

This is notorious in medical school: Curricula are almost impossible to modify and change. So it starts with poor training in medical school. And then, regardless of what education they do or don’t get in medical school, a lot of their education about pain management is through our residencies – mainly in inpatient settings, where you’re really seeing the management of acute pain and not the management of chronic pain.

People get more accustomed to managing acute pain, where opioids are a reasonable option. It’s just that when you start managing subacute or chronic pain, opioids don’t work as well.

The other big problem is that historically, most people trained in medicine think that if you have pain in your elbow, there’s got to be something wrong in your elbow. This third mechanism of pain, central sensitization – or nociplastic pain – the kind of pain that we see in fibromyalgia, headache, and low back pain, where the pain is coming from the brain – that’s confusing to people. People can have pain without any damage or inflammation to that region of the body.

Physicians are trained that if there’s pain, there’s something wrong and we have to do surgery or there’s been some trauma. Most chronic pain is none of that. There’s a big disconnect between how people are trained, and then when they go out and are seeing a tremendous number of people with chronic pain.
 

What are the different types of pain, and how should they inform clinicians’ understanding about what approaches might work for managing their patients in pain?

The way the central nervous system responds to pain is analogous to the loudness of an electric guitar. You can make an electric guitar louder either by strumming the strings harder or by turning up the amplifier. For many people with fibromyalgia, low back pain, and endometriosis, for example, the problem is really more that the amplifier is turned up too high rather than its being that the guitar is strummed too strongly. That kind of pain where the pain is not due to anatomic damage or inflammation is particularly flummoxing for providers.

Can you explain the design of the new study?

It’s a 13-site study looking at four treatments: enhanced self-care, cognitive-behavioral therapy, physical therapy, and duloxetine. It’s a big precision medicine trial, trying to take everything we’ve learned and putting it all into one big study.

We’re using a SMART design, which randomizes people to two of those treatments, unless they are very much improved from the first treatment. To be eligible for the trial, you have to be able to be randomized to three of the four treatments, and people can’t choose which of the four they get.

We give them one of those treatments for 12 weeks, and at the end of 12 weeks we make the call – “Did you respond or not respond?” – and then we go back to the phenotypic data we collected at the beginning of that trial and say, “What information at baseline that we collected predicts that someone is going to respond better to duloxetine or worse to duloxetine?” And then we create the phenotype that responds best to each of those four treatments.

None of our treatments works so well that someone doesn’t end up getting randomized to a second treatment. About 85% of people so far need a second treatment because they still have enough pain that they want more relief. But the nice thing about that is we’ve already done all the functional brain imaging and all these really expensive and time-consuming things.

We’re hoping to have around 700-800 people total in this trial, which means that around 170 people will get randomized to each of the four initial treatments. No one’s ever done a study that has functional brain imaging and all these other things in it with more than 80 or 100 people. The scale of this is totally unprecedented.
 

Given that the individual therapies don’t appear to be all that successful on their own, what is your goal?

The primary aim is to match the phenotypic characteristics of a patient with chronic low back pain with treatment response to each of these four treatments. So at the end, we can give clinicians information on which of the patients is going to respond to physical therapy, for instance.

Right now, about one out of three people respond to most treatments for pain. We think by doing a trial like this, we can take treatments that work in one out of three people and make them work in one out of two or two out of three people just by using them in the right people.
 

How do you differentiate between these types of pain in your study?

We phenotype people by asking them a number of questions. We also do brain imaging, look at their back with MRI, test biomechanics, and then give them four different treatments that we know work in groups of people with low back pain.

We think one of the first parts of the phenotype is, do they have pain just in their back? Or do they have pain in their back plus a lot of other body regions? Because the more body regions that people have pain in, the more likely it is that this is an amplifier problem rather than a guitar problem.

Treatments like physical therapy, surgery, and injections are going to work better for people in whom the pain is a guitar problem rather than an amplifier problem. And drugs like duloxetine, which works in the brain, and cognitive-behavioral therapy are going to work a lot better in the people with pain in multiple sites besides the back.
 

To pick up on your metaphor, do any symptoms help clinicians differentiate between the guitar and the amplifier?

Sleep problems, fatigue, memory problems, and mood problems are common in patients with chronic pain and are more common with amplifier pain. Because again, those are all central nervous system problems. And so we see that the people that have anxiety, depression, and a lot of distress are more likely to have this kind of pain.

Does medical imaging help?

There’s a terrible relationship between what you see on an MRI of the back and whether someone has pain or how severe the pain is going to be. There’s always going to be individuals that have a lot of anatomic damage who don’t have any pain because they happen to be on the other end of the continuum from fibromyalgia; they’re actually pain-insensitive people.

What are your thoughts about ketamine as a possible treatment for chronic pain?

I have a mentee who’s doing a ketamine trial. We’re doing psilocybin trials in patients with fibromyalgia. Ketamine is such a dirty drug; it has so many different mechanisms of action. It does have some psychedelic effects, but it also is an NMDA blocker. It really has so many different effects.

I think it’s being thrown around like water in settings where we don’t yet know it to be efficacious. Even the data in treatment-refractory depression are pretty weak, but we’re so desperate to do something for those patients. If you’re trying to harness the psychedelic properties of ketamine, I think there’s other psychedelics that are a lot more interesting, which is why we’re using psilocybin for a subset of patients. Most of us in the pain field think that the psychedelics will work best for the people with chronic pain who have a lot of comorbid psychiatric illness, especially the ones with a lot of trauma. These drugs will allow us therapeutically to get at a lot of these patients with the side-by-side psychotherapy that’s being done as people are getting care in the medicalized setting.
 

Dr. Clauw reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Tonix, Theravance, Zynerba, Samumed, Aptinyx, Daiichi Sankyo, Intec, Regeneron, Teva, Lundbeck, Virios, and Cerephex.

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

A petition demanding an end to maintenance of certification (MOC) requirements from the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) gained traction among oncologists in late July, garnering nearly 7,500 signatures in 10 days.

The MOC program, “originally intended to uphold the standards of medical practice and promote lifelong learning, has evolved into a complex and time-consuming process that poses significant challenges to practicing physicians,” according to the petition launched on July 21 by hematologist-oncologist Aaron Goodman, MD. The MOC “has become burdensome, costly, and lacks evidence to support its effectiveness in improving patient care or physician competence.”

Dr. Goodman, assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego, is scheduled to debate the matter with ABIM President and Chief Executive Officer Richard J. Baron, MD, during a Healthcare Unfiltered podcast recorded and hosted by Chadi Nabhan, MD. In the August 3 podcast, Dr. Goodman and Dr. Baron will respond to questions posed via tweets, Dr. Goodman said.

A Twitter survey posted by Dr. Nabhan in advance of the debate asked physicians whether the cost of the MOC, the time required for testing, or data sharing by ABIM is most bothersome. Of 158 respondents, 71% selected “all of the above.”
 

ABIM touts MOC ‘values’  

The ABIM requires an initial certification assessment that costs thousands of dollars and must be repeated every 10 years. The annual MOC requirements, which were tacked on within the last decade, involve tests that cost $220 for the first certificate a physician holds and about $120 for each subsequent one.

Over the course of his career, Dr. Goodman estimates he will spend over $40,000 to maintain his three ABIM boards in medicine, hematology, and oncology.

The ABIM did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the petition and debate, but a page on the ABIM website touts the “values of MOC” and says there is “compelling evidence” that the MOC improves the value of care without sacrificing quality and that board-certified physicians earn more.

According to the website, the MOC program “provides doctors with a pathway to know that they are staying current in the medical knowledge they use to treat patients and make important care decisions daily.” The ABIM also says that the “program has evolved to include new assessment options and an increased recognition of the work doctors do every day” and that the ABIM “continuously collaborates with doctors to increase the relevance of exams.”

Aniruddha Singh, MD, also weighed in on the value of MOC in a July 13 ABIM blog post. Dr. Singh is a member of this year’s Cardiovascular Disease Traditional, 10-Year MOC Exam Approval Committee and program director for the General Cardiovascular Fellowship at Drexel University College of Medicine, Reading, Pa.

In his post, Dr. Singh states that the MOC “facilitates a broader perspective on a range of topics [and] enables me to delve deeper into relevant areas, fostering a comprehensive understanding that enhances my quality of care.”
 

Growing resistance

Although Dr. Goodman acknowledged the merit of board testing every decade or so, physicians already do continuing medical education (CME) to keep up-to-date on their specialties. Dr. Goodman believes that most physicians, other than those who work for ABIM, would agree that MOC is a waste of time and money.

“It’s a pain-in-the-ass module that you sit at home and Google – it’s not really any sort of assessment,” nor does it help protect the public, said Goodman. The MOC is ultimately “just a money grab.”

According to the ABIM’s website, the nonprofit has net assets of more than $73.2 million as of June 30, 2022. Last year, the ABIM’s revenue hit $71.9 million, with more than half coming from MOC fees and 48% from certification.

The ABIM also says it spent $58 million in 2022. A breakdown shows about 63% of that money went to administering (28%), researching (13%), overseeing (4%), and developing (18%) the certification and MOC exams and program. ABIM’s CEO Dr. Baron makes about $1.2 million a year, according to recent tax filings. The COO makes about $550,000 from the ABIM and “related” organizations.

Fed up with the requirements and cost, Dr. Goodman decided to launch the petition to see if others agreed and how many.

His petition, addressed to the ABIM, expresses “deep dissatisfaction” with the ABIM MOC program and “respectfully request[s] that the ABIM take immediate action to eliminate the MOC program and adopt alternative, less burdensome methods of ensuring physician competence and continuous professional development.” Dr. Goodman, alongside Vinay Prasad, MD, a hematologist-oncologist and professor at the University of California, San Francisco, reiterated these points in a piece highlighting the petition.

Shortly before the petition went public but after he had been vocal on Twitter about issues with the MOC, Dr. Goodman said he received an invitation to join the ABIM Board of Governors. “My hypothesis is they are trying to ‘friend’ me, so I get credentialed, and they get me to stop yelling. It just made me more pissed off. I don’t want to be any part of that,” he said.

H. Jack West, MD, a thoracic oncologist and associate professor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, signed the petition without hesitation.

Dr. West agreed with Dr. Goodman that the 10-year ABIM recertification is sufficient. He also denounced the ABIM testing process, costs, and content, saying he found the questions “so ambiguous that even knowing everything about the subject, I found the assignment of the ‘best’ answer to be a Talmudic interpretation.”

“The questions seem to have a sadistic level of complexity and ambiguity baked into them, rather than being a direct assessment of knowledge,” he explained.

The ABIM is also “completely opaque” about their process of developing questions and defining answers, Dr. West said. And “the ABIM offers no data to support that their processes improve any clinical outcomes.”

Yet, the MOC “forces physicians to spend several hundred dollars every year as well as an incredible amount of their time jumping through hoops at the behest of ABIM to satisfy these imposed requirements,” Dr. West said. The time spent satisfying these requirements is also “strip-mining physician morale” by taking time away from families and personal lives.

As for ABIM finances, Dr. West said the organization offers no justification for “the extortionate costs imposed by this de facto monopoly.”

The glimpses we do see, however, “indicate an organization spending on a lavish condominium and offering conspicuously generous remuneration to its own leadership. The only thing that is assured by the ABIM’s MOC program is that it is wildly profitable for the ABIM,” he added.

In a tweet, he called on physicians to take a stand: “If you think MOC is good, say it. Otherwise, if you don’t sign [the petition], ask yourself why you don’t have the courage & character to do so.”
 

Next steps?

Dr. Goodman’s petition lays out potential alternatives to the MOC that “would better support physician competence and continuing education without imposing unnecessary hurdles.”

Alternatives include encouraging voluntary, accessible, and evidence-based CME programs to promote lifelong learning among physicians, establishing a system for peer evaluation and feedback, encouraging self-assessment, and fostering a culture of continuous quality improvement.

Dr. Goodman’s goal is to garner at least 10,000 signatures and reach out to credentialing committees around the country with the results to promote alternatives to MOC. As of the morning of August 1, the petition had more than 7,900 signatures.

He also gives Dr. Baron credit for his willingness to have a conversation about the MOC and intends for that conversation to be a civil, respectful debate.

“I can’t think of anything he could say that will convince me [MOC] is the right thing to do, but we’ll see what he has to say,” Dr. Goodman said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A petition demanding an end to maintenance of certification (MOC) requirements from the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) gained traction among oncologists in late July, garnering nearly 7,500 signatures in 10 days.

The MOC program, “originally intended to uphold the standards of medical practice and promote lifelong learning, has evolved into a complex and time-consuming process that poses significant challenges to practicing physicians,” according to the petition launched on July 21 by hematologist-oncologist Aaron Goodman, MD. The MOC “has become burdensome, costly, and lacks evidence to support its effectiveness in improving patient care or physician competence.”

Dr. Goodman, assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego, is scheduled to debate the matter with ABIM President and Chief Executive Officer Richard J. Baron, MD, during a Healthcare Unfiltered podcast recorded and hosted by Chadi Nabhan, MD. In the August 3 podcast, Dr. Goodman and Dr. Baron will respond to questions posed via tweets, Dr. Goodman said.

A Twitter survey posted by Dr. Nabhan in advance of the debate asked physicians whether the cost of the MOC, the time required for testing, or data sharing by ABIM is most bothersome. Of 158 respondents, 71% selected “all of the above.”
 

ABIM touts MOC ‘values’  

The ABIM requires an initial certification assessment that costs thousands of dollars and must be repeated every 10 years. The annual MOC requirements, which were tacked on within the last decade, involve tests that cost $220 for the first certificate a physician holds and about $120 for each subsequent one.

Over the course of his career, Dr. Goodman estimates he will spend over $40,000 to maintain his three ABIM boards in medicine, hematology, and oncology.

The ABIM did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the petition and debate, but a page on the ABIM website touts the “values of MOC” and says there is “compelling evidence” that the MOC improves the value of care without sacrificing quality and that board-certified physicians earn more.

According to the website, the MOC program “provides doctors with a pathway to know that they are staying current in the medical knowledge they use to treat patients and make important care decisions daily.” The ABIM also says that the “program has evolved to include new assessment options and an increased recognition of the work doctors do every day” and that the ABIM “continuously collaborates with doctors to increase the relevance of exams.”

Aniruddha Singh, MD, also weighed in on the value of MOC in a July 13 ABIM blog post. Dr. Singh is a member of this year’s Cardiovascular Disease Traditional, 10-Year MOC Exam Approval Committee and program director for the General Cardiovascular Fellowship at Drexel University College of Medicine, Reading, Pa.

In his post, Dr. Singh states that the MOC “facilitates a broader perspective on a range of topics [and] enables me to delve deeper into relevant areas, fostering a comprehensive understanding that enhances my quality of care.”
 

Growing resistance

Although Dr. Goodman acknowledged the merit of board testing every decade or so, physicians already do continuing medical education (CME) to keep up-to-date on their specialties. Dr. Goodman believes that most physicians, other than those who work for ABIM, would agree that MOC is a waste of time and money.

“It’s a pain-in-the-ass module that you sit at home and Google – it’s not really any sort of assessment,” nor does it help protect the public, said Goodman. The MOC is ultimately “just a money grab.”

According to the ABIM’s website, the nonprofit has net assets of more than $73.2 million as of June 30, 2022. Last year, the ABIM’s revenue hit $71.9 million, with more than half coming from MOC fees and 48% from certification.

The ABIM also says it spent $58 million in 2022. A breakdown shows about 63% of that money went to administering (28%), researching (13%), overseeing (4%), and developing (18%) the certification and MOC exams and program. ABIM’s CEO Dr. Baron makes about $1.2 million a year, according to recent tax filings. The COO makes about $550,000 from the ABIM and “related” organizations.

Fed up with the requirements and cost, Dr. Goodman decided to launch the petition to see if others agreed and how many.

His petition, addressed to the ABIM, expresses “deep dissatisfaction” with the ABIM MOC program and “respectfully request[s] that the ABIM take immediate action to eliminate the MOC program and adopt alternative, less burdensome methods of ensuring physician competence and continuous professional development.” Dr. Goodman, alongside Vinay Prasad, MD, a hematologist-oncologist and professor at the University of California, San Francisco, reiterated these points in a piece highlighting the petition.

Shortly before the petition went public but after he had been vocal on Twitter about issues with the MOC, Dr. Goodman said he received an invitation to join the ABIM Board of Governors. “My hypothesis is they are trying to ‘friend’ me, so I get credentialed, and they get me to stop yelling. It just made me more pissed off. I don’t want to be any part of that,” he said.

H. Jack West, MD, a thoracic oncologist and associate professor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, signed the petition without hesitation.

Dr. West agreed with Dr. Goodman that the 10-year ABIM recertification is sufficient. He also denounced the ABIM testing process, costs, and content, saying he found the questions “so ambiguous that even knowing everything about the subject, I found the assignment of the ‘best’ answer to be a Talmudic interpretation.”

“The questions seem to have a sadistic level of complexity and ambiguity baked into them, rather than being a direct assessment of knowledge,” he explained.

The ABIM is also “completely opaque” about their process of developing questions and defining answers, Dr. West said. And “the ABIM offers no data to support that their processes improve any clinical outcomes.”

Yet, the MOC “forces physicians to spend several hundred dollars every year as well as an incredible amount of their time jumping through hoops at the behest of ABIM to satisfy these imposed requirements,” Dr. West said. The time spent satisfying these requirements is also “strip-mining physician morale” by taking time away from families and personal lives.

As for ABIM finances, Dr. West said the organization offers no justification for “the extortionate costs imposed by this de facto monopoly.”

The glimpses we do see, however, “indicate an organization spending on a lavish condominium and offering conspicuously generous remuneration to its own leadership. The only thing that is assured by the ABIM’s MOC program is that it is wildly profitable for the ABIM,” he added.

In a tweet, he called on physicians to take a stand: “If you think MOC is good, say it. Otherwise, if you don’t sign [the petition], ask yourself why you don’t have the courage & character to do so.”
 

Next steps?

Dr. Goodman’s petition lays out potential alternatives to the MOC that “would better support physician competence and continuing education without imposing unnecessary hurdles.”

Alternatives include encouraging voluntary, accessible, and evidence-based CME programs to promote lifelong learning among physicians, establishing a system for peer evaluation and feedback, encouraging self-assessment, and fostering a culture of continuous quality improvement.

Dr. Goodman’s goal is to garner at least 10,000 signatures and reach out to credentialing committees around the country with the results to promote alternatives to MOC. As of the morning of August 1, the petition had more than 7,900 signatures.

He also gives Dr. Baron credit for his willingness to have a conversation about the MOC and intends for that conversation to be a civil, respectful debate.

“I can’t think of anything he could say that will convince me [MOC] is the right thing to do, but we’ll see what he has to say,” Dr. Goodman said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A petition demanding an end to maintenance of certification (MOC) requirements from the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) gained traction among oncologists in late July, garnering nearly 7,500 signatures in 10 days.

The MOC program, “originally intended to uphold the standards of medical practice and promote lifelong learning, has evolved into a complex and time-consuming process that poses significant challenges to practicing physicians,” according to the petition launched on July 21 by hematologist-oncologist Aaron Goodman, MD. The MOC “has become burdensome, costly, and lacks evidence to support its effectiveness in improving patient care or physician competence.”

Dr. Goodman, assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego, is scheduled to debate the matter with ABIM President and Chief Executive Officer Richard J. Baron, MD, during a Healthcare Unfiltered podcast recorded and hosted by Chadi Nabhan, MD. In the August 3 podcast, Dr. Goodman and Dr. Baron will respond to questions posed via tweets, Dr. Goodman said.

A Twitter survey posted by Dr. Nabhan in advance of the debate asked physicians whether the cost of the MOC, the time required for testing, or data sharing by ABIM is most bothersome. Of 158 respondents, 71% selected “all of the above.”
 

ABIM touts MOC ‘values’  

The ABIM requires an initial certification assessment that costs thousands of dollars and must be repeated every 10 years. The annual MOC requirements, which were tacked on within the last decade, involve tests that cost $220 for the first certificate a physician holds and about $120 for each subsequent one.

Over the course of his career, Dr. Goodman estimates he will spend over $40,000 to maintain his three ABIM boards in medicine, hematology, and oncology.

The ABIM did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the petition and debate, but a page on the ABIM website touts the “values of MOC” and says there is “compelling evidence” that the MOC improves the value of care without sacrificing quality and that board-certified physicians earn more.

According to the website, the MOC program “provides doctors with a pathway to know that they are staying current in the medical knowledge they use to treat patients and make important care decisions daily.” The ABIM also says that the “program has evolved to include new assessment options and an increased recognition of the work doctors do every day” and that the ABIM “continuously collaborates with doctors to increase the relevance of exams.”

Aniruddha Singh, MD, also weighed in on the value of MOC in a July 13 ABIM blog post. Dr. Singh is a member of this year’s Cardiovascular Disease Traditional, 10-Year MOC Exam Approval Committee and program director for the General Cardiovascular Fellowship at Drexel University College of Medicine, Reading, Pa.

In his post, Dr. Singh states that the MOC “facilitates a broader perspective on a range of topics [and] enables me to delve deeper into relevant areas, fostering a comprehensive understanding that enhances my quality of care.”
 

Growing resistance

Although Dr. Goodman acknowledged the merit of board testing every decade or so, physicians already do continuing medical education (CME) to keep up-to-date on their specialties. Dr. Goodman believes that most physicians, other than those who work for ABIM, would agree that MOC is a waste of time and money.

“It’s a pain-in-the-ass module that you sit at home and Google – it’s not really any sort of assessment,” nor does it help protect the public, said Goodman. The MOC is ultimately “just a money grab.”

According to the ABIM’s website, the nonprofit has net assets of more than $73.2 million as of June 30, 2022. Last year, the ABIM’s revenue hit $71.9 million, with more than half coming from MOC fees and 48% from certification.

The ABIM also says it spent $58 million in 2022. A breakdown shows about 63% of that money went to administering (28%), researching (13%), overseeing (4%), and developing (18%) the certification and MOC exams and program. ABIM’s CEO Dr. Baron makes about $1.2 million a year, according to recent tax filings. The COO makes about $550,000 from the ABIM and “related” organizations.

Fed up with the requirements and cost, Dr. Goodman decided to launch the petition to see if others agreed and how many.

His petition, addressed to the ABIM, expresses “deep dissatisfaction” with the ABIM MOC program and “respectfully request[s] that the ABIM take immediate action to eliminate the MOC program and adopt alternative, less burdensome methods of ensuring physician competence and continuous professional development.” Dr. Goodman, alongside Vinay Prasad, MD, a hematologist-oncologist and professor at the University of California, San Francisco, reiterated these points in a piece highlighting the petition.

Shortly before the petition went public but after he had been vocal on Twitter about issues with the MOC, Dr. Goodman said he received an invitation to join the ABIM Board of Governors. “My hypothesis is they are trying to ‘friend’ me, so I get credentialed, and they get me to stop yelling. It just made me more pissed off. I don’t want to be any part of that,” he said.

H. Jack West, MD, a thoracic oncologist and associate professor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, signed the petition without hesitation.

Dr. West agreed with Dr. Goodman that the 10-year ABIM recertification is sufficient. He also denounced the ABIM testing process, costs, and content, saying he found the questions “so ambiguous that even knowing everything about the subject, I found the assignment of the ‘best’ answer to be a Talmudic interpretation.”

“The questions seem to have a sadistic level of complexity and ambiguity baked into them, rather than being a direct assessment of knowledge,” he explained.

The ABIM is also “completely opaque” about their process of developing questions and defining answers, Dr. West said. And “the ABIM offers no data to support that their processes improve any clinical outcomes.”

Yet, the MOC “forces physicians to spend several hundred dollars every year as well as an incredible amount of their time jumping through hoops at the behest of ABIM to satisfy these imposed requirements,” Dr. West said. The time spent satisfying these requirements is also “strip-mining physician morale” by taking time away from families and personal lives.

As for ABIM finances, Dr. West said the organization offers no justification for “the extortionate costs imposed by this de facto monopoly.”

The glimpses we do see, however, “indicate an organization spending on a lavish condominium and offering conspicuously generous remuneration to its own leadership. The only thing that is assured by the ABIM’s MOC program is that it is wildly profitable for the ABIM,” he added.

In a tweet, he called on physicians to take a stand: “If you think MOC is good, say it. Otherwise, if you don’t sign [the petition], ask yourself why you don’t have the courage & character to do so.”
 

Next steps?

Dr. Goodman’s petition lays out potential alternatives to the MOC that “would better support physician competence and continuing education without imposing unnecessary hurdles.”

Alternatives include encouraging voluntary, accessible, and evidence-based CME programs to promote lifelong learning among physicians, establishing a system for peer evaluation and feedback, encouraging self-assessment, and fostering a culture of continuous quality improvement.

Dr. Goodman’s goal is to garner at least 10,000 signatures and reach out to credentialing committees around the country with the results to promote alternatives to MOC. As of the morning of August 1, the petition had more than 7,900 signatures.

He also gives Dr. Baron credit for his willingness to have a conversation about the MOC and intends for that conversation to be a civil, respectful debate.

“I can’t think of anything he could say that will convince me [MOC] is the right thing to do, but we’ll see what he has to say,” Dr. Goodman said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Who owns your genes? The assumption of any sane person would be that he or she owns his or her own genes. I mean, how dumb a question is that?
 

Yet, in 2007, Dov Michaeli, MD, PhD, described how an American company had claimed ownership of genetic materials and believed that it had the right to commercialize those naturally occurring bits of DNA. Myriad Genetics began by patenting mutations of BRCA. Dr. Michaeli issued a call for action to support early efforts to pass legislation to restore and preserve individual ownership of one’s own genes. This is a historically important quick read/watch/listen. Give it a click.

In related legislation, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), originally introduced by New York Rep. Louise Slaughter in 1995, was ultimately spearheaded by California Rep. Xavier Becerra (now Secretary of Health & Human Services) to passage by the House of Representatives on April 25, 2007, by a vote of 420-9-3. Led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, it was passed by the Senate on April 24, 2008, by a vote of 95-0. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on May 21, 2008.

GINA is a landmark piece of legislation that protects Americans. It prohibits employers and health insurers from discriminating against people on the basis of their genetic information, and it also prohibits the use of genetic information in life insurance and long-term care insurance.

Its impact has been immense. GINA has been indispensable in promoting progress in the field of human genetics. By safeguarding individuals against discrimination based on genetic information, it has encouraged broader participation in research, built public trust, and stimulated advancements in genetic testing and personalized medicine. GINA’s impact extends beyond borders and has influenced much of the rest of the world.

As important as GINA was to the field, more was needed. National legislation to protect ownership of genetic materials has, despite many attempts, still not become law in the United States. However, in our system of divided government and balance of power, we also have independent courts.

June 13, 2023, was the 10th anniversary of another landmark event. The legal case is that of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, a Salt Lake City–based biotech company that held patents on isolated DNA sequences associated with breast and ovarian cancer. The AMP, joined by several other organizations and researchers, challenged Myriad’s gene patents, arguing that human genes are naturally occurring and, therefore, should not be subject to patenting. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that naturally occurring DNA segments are products of nature and therefore are not eligible for patent protection.

This was a pivotal decision in the field of human genetics and had a broad impact on genetic research. The decision clarified that naturally occurring DNA sequences cannot be patented, which means that researchers are free to use these sequences in their research without fear of patent infringement. This has led to a vast increase in the amount of genetic research being conducted, and it has also led to the development of new genetic tests and treatments.

The numbers of genetic research papers published in scientific journals and of genetic tests available to consumers have increased significantly, while the cost of genetic testing has decreased significantly. The AMP v. Myriad decision is likely to continue to have an impact for many years to come.

In 2023, Americans do own their own genes and can feel secure in them not being used against us. Thank you, common sense, activist American molecular pathologists, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court for siding with the people.Dr. Lundbert is editor in chief of Cancer Commons. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Who owns your genes? The assumption of any sane person would be that he or she owns his or her own genes. I mean, how dumb a question is that?
 

Yet, in 2007, Dov Michaeli, MD, PhD, described how an American company had claimed ownership of genetic materials and believed that it had the right to commercialize those naturally occurring bits of DNA. Myriad Genetics began by patenting mutations of BRCA. Dr. Michaeli issued a call for action to support early efforts to pass legislation to restore and preserve individual ownership of one’s own genes. This is a historically important quick read/watch/listen. Give it a click.

In related legislation, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), originally introduced by New York Rep. Louise Slaughter in 1995, was ultimately spearheaded by California Rep. Xavier Becerra (now Secretary of Health & Human Services) to passage by the House of Representatives on April 25, 2007, by a vote of 420-9-3. Led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, it was passed by the Senate on April 24, 2008, by a vote of 95-0. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on May 21, 2008.

GINA is a landmark piece of legislation that protects Americans. It prohibits employers and health insurers from discriminating against people on the basis of their genetic information, and it also prohibits the use of genetic information in life insurance and long-term care insurance.

Its impact has been immense. GINA has been indispensable in promoting progress in the field of human genetics. By safeguarding individuals against discrimination based on genetic information, it has encouraged broader participation in research, built public trust, and stimulated advancements in genetic testing and personalized medicine. GINA’s impact extends beyond borders and has influenced much of the rest of the world.

As important as GINA was to the field, more was needed. National legislation to protect ownership of genetic materials has, despite many attempts, still not become law in the United States. However, in our system of divided government and balance of power, we also have independent courts.

June 13, 2023, was the 10th anniversary of another landmark event. The legal case is that of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, a Salt Lake City–based biotech company that held patents on isolated DNA sequences associated with breast and ovarian cancer. The AMP, joined by several other organizations and researchers, challenged Myriad’s gene patents, arguing that human genes are naturally occurring and, therefore, should not be subject to patenting. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that naturally occurring DNA segments are products of nature and therefore are not eligible for patent protection.

This was a pivotal decision in the field of human genetics and had a broad impact on genetic research. The decision clarified that naturally occurring DNA sequences cannot be patented, which means that researchers are free to use these sequences in their research without fear of patent infringement. This has led to a vast increase in the amount of genetic research being conducted, and it has also led to the development of new genetic tests and treatments.

The numbers of genetic research papers published in scientific journals and of genetic tests available to consumers have increased significantly, while the cost of genetic testing has decreased significantly. The AMP v. Myriad decision is likely to continue to have an impact for many years to come.

In 2023, Americans do own their own genes and can feel secure in them not being used against us. Thank you, common sense, activist American molecular pathologists, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court for siding with the people.Dr. Lundbert is editor in chief of Cancer Commons. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Who owns your genes? The assumption of any sane person would be that he or she owns his or her own genes. I mean, how dumb a question is that?
 

Yet, in 2007, Dov Michaeli, MD, PhD, described how an American company had claimed ownership of genetic materials and believed that it had the right to commercialize those naturally occurring bits of DNA. Myriad Genetics began by patenting mutations of BRCA. Dr. Michaeli issued a call for action to support early efforts to pass legislation to restore and preserve individual ownership of one’s own genes. This is a historically important quick read/watch/listen. Give it a click.

In related legislation, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), originally introduced by New York Rep. Louise Slaughter in 1995, was ultimately spearheaded by California Rep. Xavier Becerra (now Secretary of Health & Human Services) to passage by the House of Representatives on April 25, 2007, by a vote of 420-9-3. Led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, it was passed by the Senate on April 24, 2008, by a vote of 95-0. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on May 21, 2008.

GINA is a landmark piece of legislation that protects Americans. It prohibits employers and health insurers from discriminating against people on the basis of their genetic information, and it also prohibits the use of genetic information in life insurance and long-term care insurance.

Its impact has been immense. GINA has been indispensable in promoting progress in the field of human genetics. By safeguarding individuals against discrimination based on genetic information, it has encouraged broader participation in research, built public trust, and stimulated advancements in genetic testing and personalized medicine. GINA’s impact extends beyond borders and has influenced much of the rest of the world.

As important as GINA was to the field, more was needed. National legislation to protect ownership of genetic materials has, despite many attempts, still not become law in the United States. However, in our system of divided government and balance of power, we also have independent courts.

June 13, 2023, was the 10th anniversary of another landmark event. The legal case is that of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, a Salt Lake City–based biotech company that held patents on isolated DNA sequences associated with breast and ovarian cancer. The AMP, joined by several other organizations and researchers, challenged Myriad’s gene patents, arguing that human genes are naturally occurring and, therefore, should not be subject to patenting. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that naturally occurring DNA segments are products of nature and therefore are not eligible for patent protection.

This was a pivotal decision in the field of human genetics and had a broad impact on genetic research. The decision clarified that naturally occurring DNA sequences cannot be patented, which means that researchers are free to use these sequences in their research without fear of patent infringement. This has led to a vast increase in the amount of genetic research being conducted, and it has also led to the development of new genetic tests and treatments.

The numbers of genetic research papers published in scientific journals and of genetic tests available to consumers have increased significantly, while the cost of genetic testing has decreased significantly. The AMP v. Myriad decision is likely to continue to have an impact for many years to come.

In 2023, Americans do own their own genes and can feel secure in them not being used against us. Thank you, common sense, activist American molecular pathologists, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court for siding with the people.Dr. Lundbert is editor in chief of Cancer Commons. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Here are 10 ways to improve health communication with patients. These tips will place patients at ease, increase their adherence to recommendations, and make the doctor’s visit a lot more enjoyable for them.
 

No. 1: Be an active listener

The first tip is to be an active listener and help guide the history-taking process by asking for clarification when needed.

Quickly figure out the patient’s chief complaint. Which symptom is the most severe?

Ask them for symptom-modifying factors, such as onset, duration, frequency, and a pain description. Is the abdominal pain sharp or crampy, dull and achy, or pressure-like? What makes the symptoms better or worse?

As many of us were taught in medical school, 80% of the diagnosis is in a patient’s history and description.
 

No. 2: Ask questions that resonate with patients

What can we do to help elicit an accurate history from the patient when they’re not providing the needed information or being helpful enough?

The easiest way is to ask your patient in a completely different way but one that resonates with them. For instance, ask how the abdominal pain is affecting their quality of life. That will help focus the history taking and encourage the patient to share details.

Does the pain keep them awake at night? Are they able to eat a normal-sized meal? Or are they forced to eat tiny snacks? Is the pain interfering with work or school?

By providing a framework, the patient will be more passionate about sharing the details of their history.
 

No. 3: Help patients organize their story

Sometimes, patients provide details in a nonchronological order, jumping all over the place.

A super helpful technique is to explain to the patient that you have a story to write for your computer note, and for them to think back to when they first started noticing their abdominal pain or rectal bleeding symptoms. When were the most-severe episodes? How frequent are the episodes? What’s the volume of their rectal bleeding?

If the patient realizes that you’re trying to write a story synopsis, they will provide information in a much more organized way.
 

No. 4: Determine patient’s language preference

Quickly determine the patient’s language preference. We want patients to feel extremely comfortable.

Whenever possible, use a certified interpreter. Language phone lines, in-person interpreters, and video conferencing are widely available today. It’s worth investing in this technology so that we can provide the best possible care to immigrants and refugees.

Conversely, avoid using family members as interpreters because they may not be adequately trained in medical vocabulary.
 

No. 5: Use simple language

When providing explanations, use simple language that your patient can understand and identify with.

For example, use analogies like “the heart is a pump” or the diverticula are thin areas of the colon that can bleed if the blood vessel is too close to the surface.
 

No. 6: Determine level of medical literacy

Determine your patient’s level of medical literacy. Some of our patients did not graduate from high school. Some patients can’t read very well. Therefore, your discharge instructions and handouts should sometimes be written on a third-grade level.

If patients can’t read, write medication instructions with symbols. Draw a sun for medications that are supposed to be taken in the morning and draw a moon if a medication is supposed to be taken at night.

Always very carefully review the instructions with the patient.
 

No. 7: Check in with the patient

During the visit, frequently check in with the patient to make sure that they understand what you’re asking or what you’re trying to explain to them.

No. 8: Include family member as patient advocate

If the patient is accompanied by a family member, help them serve in the important role as a patient advocate.

If the family member wants to take notes, encourage them because that provides an awesome value.

Sometimes patients can forget clinic and hospital medical conversations, and that family member might be the key to improving your patient’s health.
 

No. 9: Follow-up with the patient

If your clinic has the capability, follow up with a patient the next day to make sure that they understood everything.

Check to make sure the patient was able to pick up all of the medications that you prescribed.

Check that laboratory tests are arranged or completed.

Check that important procedures, such as esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy, and imaging, such as ultrasounds and CTs, are scheduled.
 

No. 10: Identify barriers to care

Have fun talking with a patient. Find out what they do for a living. Build a rapport. Listen to their stressors in life.

Try to identify any barriers to care or external stressors, like taking care of a sick parent, which might interfere with their scheduling an important diagnostic colonoscopy for rectal bleeding.

Good luck incorporating these communication strategies into your clinic and hospital work. Together, we can help improve the delivery of health care.
 

Dr. Levy is a gastroenterologist at the University of Chicago. In 2017, Dr. Levy, a previous Fulbright Fellow in France, also started a gastroenterology clinic for refugees resettling in Chicago. His clinical projects focus on the development of colorectal cancer screening campaigns. Dr. Levy, who recently gave a TEDx Talk about building health education campaigns using music and concerts, organizes Tune It Up: A Concert To Raise Colorectal Cancer Awareness with the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). He frequently publishes on a variety of gastroenterology topics and serves on ACG’s Public Relations Committee and FDA-Related Matters Committee. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Here are 10 ways to improve health communication with patients. These tips will place patients at ease, increase their adherence to recommendations, and make the doctor’s visit a lot more enjoyable for them.
 

No. 1: Be an active listener

The first tip is to be an active listener and help guide the history-taking process by asking for clarification when needed.

Quickly figure out the patient’s chief complaint. Which symptom is the most severe?

Ask them for symptom-modifying factors, such as onset, duration, frequency, and a pain description. Is the abdominal pain sharp or crampy, dull and achy, or pressure-like? What makes the symptoms better or worse?

As many of us were taught in medical school, 80% of the diagnosis is in a patient’s history and description.
 

No. 2: Ask questions that resonate with patients

What can we do to help elicit an accurate history from the patient when they’re not providing the needed information or being helpful enough?

The easiest way is to ask your patient in a completely different way but one that resonates with them. For instance, ask how the abdominal pain is affecting their quality of life. That will help focus the history taking and encourage the patient to share details.

Does the pain keep them awake at night? Are they able to eat a normal-sized meal? Or are they forced to eat tiny snacks? Is the pain interfering with work or school?

By providing a framework, the patient will be more passionate about sharing the details of their history.
 

No. 3: Help patients organize their story

Sometimes, patients provide details in a nonchronological order, jumping all over the place.

A super helpful technique is to explain to the patient that you have a story to write for your computer note, and for them to think back to when they first started noticing their abdominal pain or rectal bleeding symptoms. When were the most-severe episodes? How frequent are the episodes? What’s the volume of their rectal bleeding?

If the patient realizes that you’re trying to write a story synopsis, they will provide information in a much more organized way.
 

No. 4: Determine patient’s language preference

Quickly determine the patient’s language preference. We want patients to feel extremely comfortable.

Whenever possible, use a certified interpreter. Language phone lines, in-person interpreters, and video conferencing are widely available today. It’s worth investing in this technology so that we can provide the best possible care to immigrants and refugees.

Conversely, avoid using family members as interpreters because they may not be adequately trained in medical vocabulary.
 

No. 5: Use simple language

When providing explanations, use simple language that your patient can understand and identify with.

For example, use analogies like “the heart is a pump” or the diverticula are thin areas of the colon that can bleed if the blood vessel is too close to the surface.
 

No. 6: Determine level of medical literacy

Determine your patient’s level of medical literacy. Some of our patients did not graduate from high school. Some patients can’t read very well. Therefore, your discharge instructions and handouts should sometimes be written on a third-grade level.

If patients can’t read, write medication instructions with symbols. Draw a sun for medications that are supposed to be taken in the morning and draw a moon if a medication is supposed to be taken at night.

Always very carefully review the instructions with the patient.
 

No. 7: Check in with the patient

During the visit, frequently check in with the patient to make sure that they understand what you’re asking or what you’re trying to explain to them.

No. 8: Include family member as patient advocate

If the patient is accompanied by a family member, help them serve in the important role as a patient advocate.

If the family member wants to take notes, encourage them because that provides an awesome value.

Sometimes patients can forget clinic and hospital medical conversations, and that family member might be the key to improving your patient’s health.
 

No. 9: Follow-up with the patient

If your clinic has the capability, follow up with a patient the next day to make sure that they understood everything.

Check to make sure the patient was able to pick up all of the medications that you prescribed.

Check that laboratory tests are arranged or completed.

Check that important procedures, such as esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy, and imaging, such as ultrasounds and CTs, are scheduled.
 

No. 10: Identify barriers to care

Have fun talking with a patient. Find out what they do for a living. Build a rapport. Listen to their stressors in life.

Try to identify any barriers to care or external stressors, like taking care of a sick parent, which might interfere with their scheduling an important diagnostic colonoscopy for rectal bleeding.

Good luck incorporating these communication strategies into your clinic and hospital work. Together, we can help improve the delivery of health care.
 

Dr. Levy is a gastroenterologist at the University of Chicago. In 2017, Dr. Levy, a previous Fulbright Fellow in France, also started a gastroenterology clinic for refugees resettling in Chicago. His clinical projects focus on the development of colorectal cancer screening campaigns. Dr. Levy, who recently gave a TEDx Talk about building health education campaigns using music and concerts, organizes Tune It Up: A Concert To Raise Colorectal Cancer Awareness with the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). He frequently publishes on a variety of gastroenterology topics and serves on ACG’s Public Relations Committee and FDA-Related Matters Committee. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Here are 10 ways to improve health communication with patients. These tips will place patients at ease, increase their adherence to recommendations, and make the doctor’s visit a lot more enjoyable for them.
 

No. 1: Be an active listener

The first tip is to be an active listener and help guide the history-taking process by asking for clarification when needed.

Quickly figure out the patient’s chief complaint. Which symptom is the most severe?

Ask them for symptom-modifying factors, such as onset, duration, frequency, and a pain description. Is the abdominal pain sharp or crampy, dull and achy, or pressure-like? What makes the symptoms better or worse?

As many of us were taught in medical school, 80% of the diagnosis is in a patient’s history and description.
 

No. 2: Ask questions that resonate with patients

What can we do to help elicit an accurate history from the patient when they’re not providing the needed information or being helpful enough?

The easiest way is to ask your patient in a completely different way but one that resonates with them. For instance, ask how the abdominal pain is affecting their quality of life. That will help focus the history taking and encourage the patient to share details.

Does the pain keep them awake at night? Are they able to eat a normal-sized meal? Or are they forced to eat tiny snacks? Is the pain interfering with work or school?

By providing a framework, the patient will be more passionate about sharing the details of their history.
 

No. 3: Help patients organize their story

Sometimes, patients provide details in a nonchronological order, jumping all over the place.

A super helpful technique is to explain to the patient that you have a story to write for your computer note, and for them to think back to when they first started noticing their abdominal pain or rectal bleeding symptoms. When were the most-severe episodes? How frequent are the episodes? What’s the volume of their rectal bleeding?

If the patient realizes that you’re trying to write a story synopsis, they will provide information in a much more organized way.
 

No. 4: Determine patient’s language preference

Quickly determine the patient’s language preference. We want patients to feel extremely comfortable.

Whenever possible, use a certified interpreter. Language phone lines, in-person interpreters, and video conferencing are widely available today. It’s worth investing in this technology so that we can provide the best possible care to immigrants and refugees.

Conversely, avoid using family members as interpreters because they may not be adequately trained in medical vocabulary.
 

No. 5: Use simple language

When providing explanations, use simple language that your patient can understand and identify with.

For example, use analogies like “the heart is a pump” or the diverticula are thin areas of the colon that can bleed if the blood vessel is too close to the surface.
 

No. 6: Determine level of medical literacy

Determine your patient’s level of medical literacy. Some of our patients did not graduate from high school. Some patients can’t read very well. Therefore, your discharge instructions and handouts should sometimes be written on a third-grade level.

If patients can’t read, write medication instructions with symbols. Draw a sun for medications that are supposed to be taken in the morning and draw a moon if a medication is supposed to be taken at night.

Always very carefully review the instructions with the patient.
 

No. 7: Check in with the patient

During the visit, frequently check in with the patient to make sure that they understand what you’re asking or what you’re trying to explain to them.

No. 8: Include family member as patient advocate

If the patient is accompanied by a family member, help them serve in the important role as a patient advocate.

If the family member wants to take notes, encourage them because that provides an awesome value.

Sometimes patients can forget clinic and hospital medical conversations, and that family member might be the key to improving your patient’s health.
 

No. 9: Follow-up with the patient

If your clinic has the capability, follow up with a patient the next day to make sure that they understood everything.

Check to make sure the patient was able to pick up all of the medications that you prescribed.

Check that laboratory tests are arranged or completed.

Check that important procedures, such as esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy, and imaging, such as ultrasounds and CTs, are scheduled.
 

No. 10: Identify barriers to care

Have fun talking with a patient. Find out what they do for a living. Build a rapport. Listen to their stressors in life.

Try to identify any barriers to care or external stressors, like taking care of a sick parent, which might interfere with their scheduling an important diagnostic colonoscopy for rectal bleeding.

Good luck incorporating these communication strategies into your clinic and hospital work. Together, we can help improve the delivery of health care.
 

Dr. Levy is a gastroenterologist at the University of Chicago. In 2017, Dr. Levy, a previous Fulbright Fellow in France, also started a gastroenterology clinic for refugees resettling in Chicago. His clinical projects focus on the development of colorectal cancer screening campaigns. Dr. Levy, who recently gave a TEDx Talk about building health education campaigns using music and concerts, organizes Tune It Up: A Concert To Raise Colorectal Cancer Awareness with the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). He frequently publishes on a variety of gastroenterology topics and serves on ACG’s Public Relations Committee and FDA-Related Matters Committee. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Babe Ruth was arguably the greatest athlete in American history.

Certainly, there have been, and always will be, many great figures in all sports. But none of them – Michael Jordan or LeBron James or Tom Brady – have ever, probably will never, dominate sports AND society in the way Babe Ruth did.

Ruth wasn’t an angel, nor did he claim to be. But he was a center of American life the way no athlete ever was or will be.

He was a remarkably good baseball player. In an era where home runs were rarities, he hit more than the entire rest of Major League Baseball combined. But he wasn’t just a slugger, he was an excellent play maker, fielder, and pitcher. (He was actually one of the best pitchers of his era, something else mostly forgotten today.)

Ruth retired in 1935. He never entirely left the limelight, with fans showing up even to watch him play golf in celebrity tournaments. In 1939 he spoke on July 4 at Lou Gehrig appreciation day as his former teammate was publicly dying of ALS.

In 1946 Ruth began having trouble swallowing and developed pain over his right eye. He was found to have nasopharyngeal carcinoma spreading down into his skull base and neck.

Even today surgery to remove cancer from that area is tricky. In 1946 it didn’t exist. An experimental treatment of combined radiation and chemotherapy – today standard – was tried, including a new folic acid derivative called teropterin. He improved somewhat – enough that he was an unnamed case study presented at a medical meeting – but had lost 80 pounds. After a brief respite he continued to go downhill. On June 13, 1948, he appeared at Yankee Stadium – the house that Ruth built – for the last time, where he was honored. He had difficulty walking and used a baseball bat as a cane. His pharynx was so damaged his voice could barely be heard. He died 2 months later on Aug. 16, 1948.

Nathaniel Fein/Wikimedia Commons/public domain

This isn’t a sports column, I’m not a sports writer, and this definitely ain’t Sport Illustrated. So why am I writing this?

Because Babe Ruth never knew he had cancer. Was never told he was dying. His family was afraid he’d harm himself if he knew, so his doctors were under strict instructions to keep the bad news from him.

Now, Ruth wasn’t stupid. Wild, unrepentant, hedonistic, and a lot of other things – but not stupid. He certainly must have figured it out with getting radiation, or chemotherapy, or his declining physical status. But none of his doctors or family ever told him he had cancer and was dying (what they did tell him I have no idea).

Let’s look at this as a case history: A 51-year-old male, possessed of all his mental faculties, presents with headaches, dysphonia, and dysphagia. Workup reveals advanced, inoperable, nasopharyngeal cancer. The family is willing to accept treatment, but understands the prognosis is poor. Family members request that, under no circumstances, he be told of the diagnosis or prognosis.

The fact that the patient is probably the biggest celebrity of his era shouldn’t make a difference, but it does.

I’m sure most of us would want to tell the patient. We live in an age of patient autonomy. People who are mentally competent have a right to know their diseases and participate in treatment plans. But what if the family has concerns that the patient would hurt himself, as Ruth’s family did?

This summer is 75 years since the Babe died. Medicine has changed a lot, but some questions never will.

What would you do?

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Babe Ruth was arguably the greatest athlete in American history.

Certainly, there have been, and always will be, many great figures in all sports. But none of them – Michael Jordan or LeBron James or Tom Brady – have ever, probably will never, dominate sports AND society in the way Babe Ruth did.

Ruth wasn’t an angel, nor did he claim to be. But he was a center of American life the way no athlete ever was or will be.

He was a remarkably good baseball player. In an era where home runs were rarities, he hit more than the entire rest of Major League Baseball combined. But he wasn’t just a slugger, he was an excellent play maker, fielder, and pitcher. (He was actually one of the best pitchers of his era, something else mostly forgotten today.)

Ruth retired in 1935. He never entirely left the limelight, with fans showing up even to watch him play golf in celebrity tournaments. In 1939 he spoke on July 4 at Lou Gehrig appreciation day as his former teammate was publicly dying of ALS.

In 1946 Ruth began having trouble swallowing and developed pain over his right eye. He was found to have nasopharyngeal carcinoma spreading down into his skull base and neck.

Even today surgery to remove cancer from that area is tricky. In 1946 it didn’t exist. An experimental treatment of combined radiation and chemotherapy – today standard – was tried, including a new folic acid derivative called teropterin. He improved somewhat – enough that he was an unnamed case study presented at a medical meeting – but had lost 80 pounds. After a brief respite he continued to go downhill. On June 13, 1948, he appeared at Yankee Stadium – the house that Ruth built – for the last time, where he was honored. He had difficulty walking and used a baseball bat as a cane. His pharynx was so damaged his voice could barely be heard. He died 2 months later on Aug. 16, 1948.

Nathaniel Fein/Wikimedia Commons/public domain

This isn’t a sports column, I’m not a sports writer, and this definitely ain’t Sport Illustrated. So why am I writing this?

Because Babe Ruth never knew he had cancer. Was never told he was dying. His family was afraid he’d harm himself if he knew, so his doctors were under strict instructions to keep the bad news from him.

Now, Ruth wasn’t stupid. Wild, unrepentant, hedonistic, and a lot of other things – but not stupid. He certainly must have figured it out with getting radiation, or chemotherapy, or his declining physical status. But none of his doctors or family ever told him he had cancer and was dying (what they did tell him I have no idea).

Let’s look at this as a case history: A 51-year-old male, possessed of all his mental faculties, presents with headaches, dysphonia, and dysphagia. Workup reveals advanced, inoperable, nasopharyngeal cancer. The family is willing to accept treatment, but understands the prognosis is poor. Family members request that, under no circumstances, he be told of the diagnosis or prognosis.

The fact that the patient is probably the biggest celebrity of his era shouldn’t make a difference, but it does.

I’m sure most of us would want to tell the patient. We live in an age of patient autonomy. People who are mentally competent have a right to know their diseases and participate in treatment plans. But what if the family has concerns that the patient would hurt himself, as Ruth’s family did?

This summer is 75 years since the Babe died. Medicine has changed a lot, but some questions never will.

What would you do?

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Babe Ruth was arguably the greatest athlete in American history.

Certainly, there have been, and always will be, many great figures in all sports. But none of them – Michael Jordan or LeBron James or Tom Brady – have ever, probably will never, dominate sports AND society in the way Babe Ruth did.

Ruth wasn’t an angel, nor did he claim to be. But he was a center of American life the way no athlete ever was or will be.

He was a remarkably good baseball player. In an era where home runs were rarities, he hit more than the entire rest of Major League Baseball combined. But he wasn’t just a slugger, he was an excellent play maker, fielder, and pitcher. (He was actually one of the best pitchers of his era, something else mostly forgotten today.)

Ruth retired in 1935. He never entirely left the limelight, with fans showing up even to watch him play golf in celebrity tournaments. In 1939 he spoke on July 4 at Lou Gehrig appreciation day as his former teammate was publicly dying of ALS.

In 1946 Ruth began having trouble swallowing and developed pain over his right eye. He was found to have nasopharyngeal carcinoma spreading down into his skull base and neck.

Even today surgery to remove cancer from that area is tricky. In 1946 it didn’t exist. An experimental treatment of combined radiation and chemotherapy – today standard – was tried, including a new folic acid derivative called teropterin. He improved somewhat – enough that he was an unnamed case study presented at a medical meeting – but had lost 80 pounds. After a brief respite he continued to go downhill. On June 13, 1948, he appeared at Yankee Stadium – the house that Ruth built – for the last time, where he was honored. He had difficulty walking and used a baseball bat as a cane. His pharynx was so damaged his voice could barely be heard. He died 2 months later on Aug. 16, 1948.

Nathaniel Fein/Wikimedia Commons/public domain

This isn’t a sports column, I’m not a sports writer, and this definitely ain’t Sport Illustrated. So why am I writing this?

Because Babe Ruth never knew he had cancer. Was never told he was dying. His family was afraid he’d harm himself if he knew, so his doctors were under strict instructions to keep the bad news from him.

Now, Ruth wasn’t stupid. Wild, unrepentant, hedonistic, and a lot of other things – but not stupid. He certainly must have figured it out with getting radiation, or chemotherapy, or his declining physical status. But none of his doctors or family ever told him he had cancer and was dying (what they did tell him I have no idea).

Let’s look at this as a case history: A 51-year-old male, possessed of all his mental faculties, presents with headaches, dysphonia, and dysphagia. Workup reveals advanced, inoperable, nasopharyngeal cancer. The family is willing to accept treatment, but understands the prognosis is poor. Family members request that, under no circumstances, he be told of the diagnosis or prognosis.

The fact that the patient is probably the biggest celebrity of his era shouldn’t make a difference, but it does.

I’m sure most of us would want to tell the patient. We live in an age of patient autonomy. People who are mentally competent have a right to know their diseases and participate in treatment plans. But what if the family has concerns that the patient would hurt himself, as Ruth’s family did?

This summer is 75 years since the Babe died. Medicine has changed a lot, but some questions never will.

What would you do?

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

A Washington state hospital will pay the government $240,000 to resolve a data privacy investigation after nearly two dozen security guards were caught snooping through medical records without a job-related purpose.

Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital agreed to the voluntary settlement after an investigation into the actions of 23 emergency department security guards who allegedly used their login credentials to access the patient medical records of 419 patients.

The information accessed included names, dates of birth, medical record numbers, addresses, certain notes related to treatment, and insurance information, according to a release by the U.S .Department of Health & Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR). A breach notification report alerted OCR to the snooping.

As part of the agreement, OCR will monitor Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital for 2 years and the hospital must conduct a thorough risk analysis as well as develop a risk management plan to address and mitigate identified security risks and vulnerabilities. The settlement is not considered an admission of guilt by the hospital.
 

Is such snooping common?

The incident highlights the frequent practice of employees snooping through medical records and the steep consequences that can result for providers, said Paul Redding, vice president of partner engagement and cybersecurity at Compliancy Group, a company that offers guided HIPAA compliance software for healthcare providers and vendors.

“I think the problem is absolutely growing,” he said. “What’s crazy about this case is it’s actually a really small HIPAA violation. Less than 500 people were affected, and the hospital still must pay a quarter-of-a-million-dollar settlement. If you take the average HIPAA violation, which is in the thousands and thousands of [patients], this amount would be magnified many times over.”

In general, employees snoop through records out of curiosity or to find out information about people they know – or want to learn about, said J. David Sims, a cybersecurity expert and CEO of Security First IT, a company that provides cybersecurity solutions and IT support to health care businesses.

Mr. Sims says he has heard of cases where health professionals snooped through records to find information about the new love interests of ex-partners or to learn about people on dating websites whom they’re interested in dating.

“Most of the time, it’s people being nosy,” he said. “In a lot of cases, it’s curiosity about famous people. You see it a lot in areas where you have football players who come in with injuries or you have an actor or actress who come in for something.”

“Data breaches caused by current and former workforce members impermissibly accessing patient records are a recurring issue across the health care industry. Health care organizations must ensure that workforce members can only access the patient information needed to do their jobs,” OCR director Melanie Fontes Rainer said in a June statement. “HIPAA-covered entities must have robust policies and procedures in place to ensure patient health information is protected from identify theft and fraud.”

Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital did not return a message seeking comment.

According to OCR’s latest report to Congress, complaints about HIPAA violations increased by 39% between 2017 and 2021. Breaches affecting fewer than 500 individuals rose by 5% during the same time period, and breaches impacting 500 or more individuals increased by 58%.
 

Common reasons employees snoop

The OCR announcement does not specify why the 23 security guards were accessing the medical records, but the incident raises questions about why the security guards had access to protected health information (PHI) in the first place, Mr. Redding said.

“I have yet to have anyone explain to me why the security guards would have access to PHI at all, at any level,” he said. “Was it by design or was it by error?”

In 2019 for instance, dozens of employees at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago were fired for accessing the health records of former Empire actor Jussie Smollett. In another high-profile case, nearly a dozen emergency medical service employees were caught snooping through 911 records connected to the treatment and, later, death of Joan Rivers.

“Sadly, there is a lack of education around what compliance really means inside the medical industry as a whole,” Mr. Redding said. “There is a lack of employee training and a lack of emphasis on accountability for employees.”
 

Privacy breaches fuel lawsuits

Health professionals caught snooping through records are frequently terminated and employers can face a range of ramifications, including civil and criminal penalties.

A growing trend is class action lawsuits associated with privacy violations, Mr. Redding adds.

Because patients are unable to sue in civil court for HIPAA breaches, they frequently sue for “breach of an implied contract,” he explained. In such cases, patients allege that the privacy documents they signed with health care providers established an implied contract, and their records being exposed constituted a contract breach.

“Class action lawsuits are starting to become extremely common,” Mr. Redding said. “It’s happening in many cases, even sometimes before Health & Human Services issue a fine, that [providers] are being wrapped into a class action lawsuit.”

Mayo Clinic, for example, was recently slapped with a class action suit after a former employee inappropriately accessed the records of 1,600 patients. Mayo settled the suit in January 2023, the terms of which were not publicly disclosed.

Multiple patients also filed a class action suit against San Diego–based Scripps Health after its data were hit with a cyberattack and subsequent breach that impacted close to 2 million people. Scripps reached a $3.5 million settlement with the plaintiffs in 2023.

Some practices and employers may also face state penalties for data privacy breaches, depending on their jurisdiction. In July, Connecticut became the fifth state to enact a comprehensive data privacy law. The measure, which creates a robust framework for protecting health-related records and other data, includes civil penalties of up to $5,000 for violations. Other states, including California, Virginia, Utah, and Colorado, also have state data privacy laws on the books.
 

How can practices stop snooping?

A first step to preventing snooping is conducting a thorough risk assessment, said David Harlow, a health care attorney and chief compliance and privacy officer for Insulet Corporation, a medical device company. The analysis should address who has access to what data and whether they really need such access, he said.

“Then it’s putting in place the proper controls to ensure access is limited and use is limited to the appropriate individuals and circumstances,” Mr. Harlow said.

Regulators don’t expect a giant academic medical center and a small private physician practice to take an identical HIPAA compliance approach, he stressed. The ideal approach will vary by entity. Providers just need to address the standards in a way that makes sense for their operation, he said.

Training is also a critical component, adds Mr. Sims.

“Having training is key,” he said. “Oftentimes, an employee might think, ‘Well, if I can click on this data and it comes up, obviously, I can look at it.’ They need to understand what information they are and are not allowed to access.”

Keep in mind that settings or controls might change when larger transitions take place, such as moving to a new electronic health record system, Mr. Sims said. It’s essential to reevaluate controls when changes in the practice take place to ensure that everything is functioning correctly.

Mr. Sims also suggests that practices create a type of “If you see something, say something,” policy that encourages fellow physicians and employees to report anything that looks suspicious within electronic logs. If an employee, for instance, is suddenly looking at many more records than usual or at odd times of the day or night, this should raise red flags.

“It’s great to stop it early so that it doesn’t become a bigger issue for the practice to deal with, but also, from a legal standpoint, you want to have a defensible argument that you were doing all you could to stop this as quickly as possible,” he said. “It puts you in a better position to defend yourself.”

The snooping security guards case holds an important lesson for all health providers, Mr. Harlow said.

“This is a message to all of us, that you need to have done the assessment up front,” he said. You need to have the right controls in place up front. This is not a situation where somebody managed to hack into a system for some devious means. This is someone who was given keys. Why were they given the keys?”

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

A Washington state hospital will pay the government $240,000 to resolve a data privacy investigation after nearly two dozen security guards were caught snooping through medical records without a job-related purpose.

Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital agreed to the voluntary settlement after an investigation into the actions of 23 emergency department security guards who allegedly used their login credentials to access the patient medical records of 419 patients.

The information accessed included names, dates of birth, medical record numbers, addresses, certain notes related to treatment, and insurance information, according to a release by the U.S .Department of Health & Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR). A breach notification report alerted OCR to the snooping.

As part of the agreement, OCR will monitor Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital for 2 years and the hospital must conduct a thorough risk analysis as well as develop a risk management plan to address and mitigate identified security risks and vulnerabilities. The settlement is not considered an admission of guilt by the hospital.
 

Is such snooping common?

The incident highlights the frequent practice of employees snooping through medical records and the steep consequences that can result for providers, said Paul Redding, vice president of partner engagement and cybersecurity at Compliancy Group, a company that offers guided HIPAA compliance software for healthcare providers and vendors.

“I think the problem is absolutely growing,” he said. “What’s crazy about this case is it’s actually a really small HIPAA violation. Less than 500 people were affected, and the hospital still must pay a quarter-of-a-million-dollar settlement. If you take the average HIPAA violation, which is in the thousands and thousands of [patients], this amount would be magnified many times over.”

In general, employees snoop through records out of curiosity or to find out information about people they know – or want to learn about, said J. David Sims, a cybersecurity expert and CEO of Security First IT, a company that provides cybersecurity solutions and IT support to health care businesses.

Mr. Sims says he has heard of cases where health professionals snooped through records to find information about the new love interests of ex-partners or to learn about people on dating websites whom they’re interested in dating.

“Most of the time, it’s people being nosy,” he said. “In a lot of cases, it’s curiosity about famous people. You see it a lot in areas where you have football players who come in with injuries or you have an actor or actress who come in for something.”

“Data breaches caused by current and former workforce members impermissibly accessing patient records are a recurring issue across the health care industry. Health care organizations must ensure that workforce members can only access the patient information needed to do their jobs,” OCR director Melanie Fontes Rainer said in a June statement. “HIPAA-covered entities must have robust policies and procedures in place to ensure patient health information is protected from identify theft and fraud.”

Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital did not return a message seeking comment.

According to OCR’s latest report to Congress, complaints about HIPAA violations increased by 39% between 2017 and 2021. Breaches affecting fewer than 500 individuals rose by 5% during the same time period, and breaches impacting 500 or more individuals increased by 58%.
 

Common reasons employees snoop

The OCR announcement does not specify why the 23 security guards were accessing the medical records, but the incident raises questions about why the security guards had access to protected health information (PHI) in the first place, Mr. Redding said.

“I have yet to have anyone explain to me why the security guards would have access to PHI at all, at any level,” he said. “Was it by design or was it by error?”

In 2019 for instance, dozens of employees at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago were fired for accessing the health records of former Empire actor Jussie Smollett. In another high-profile case, nearly a dozen emergency medical service employees were caught snooping through 911 records connected to the treatment and, later, death of Joan Rivers.

“Sadly, there is a lack of education around what compliance really means inside the medical industry as a whole,” Mr. Redding said. “There is a lack of employee training and a lack of emphasis on accountability for employees.”
 

Privacy breaches fuel lawsuits

Health professionals caught snooping through records are frequently terminated and employers can face a range of ramifications, including civil and criminal penalties.

A growing trend is class action lawsuits associated with privacy violations, Mr. Redding adds.

Because patients are unable to sue in civil court for HIPAA breaches, they frequently sue for “breach of an implied contract,” he explained. In such cases, patients allege that the privacy documents they signed with health care providers established an implied contract, and their records being exposed constituted a contract breach.

“Class action lawsuits are starting to become extremely common,” Mr. Redding said. “It’s happening in many cases, even sometimes before Health & Human Services issue a fine, that [providers] are being wrapped into a class action lawsuit.”

Mayo Clinic, for example, was recently slapped with a class action suit after a former employee inappropriately accessed the records of 1,600 patients. Mayo settled the suit in January 2023, the terms of which were not publicly disclosed.

Multiple patients also filed a class action suit against San Diego–based Scripps Health after its data were hit with a cyberattack and subsequent breach that impacted close to 2 million people. Scripps reached a $3.5 million settlement with the plaintiffs in 2023.

Some practices and employers may also face state penalties for data privacy breaches, depending on their jurisdiction. In July, Connecticut became the fifth state to enact a comprehensive data privacy law. The measure, which creates a robust framework for protecting health-related records and other data, includes civil penalties of up to $5,000 for violations. Other states, including California, Virginia, Utah, and Colorado, also have state data privacy laws on the books.
 

How can practices stop snooping?

A first step to preventing snooping is conducting a thorough risk assessment, said David Harlow, a health care attorney and chief compliance and privacy officer for Insulet Corporation, a medical device company. The analysis should address who has access to what data and whether they really need such access, he said.

“Then it’s putting in place the proper controls to ensure access is limited and use is limited to the appropriate individuals and circumstances,” Mr. Harlow said.

Regulators don’t expect a giant academic medical center and a small private physician practice to take an identical HIPAA compliance approach, he stressed. The ideal approach will vary by entity. Providers just need to address the standards in a way that makes sense for their operation, he said.

Training is also a critical component, adds Mr. Sims.

“Having training is key,” he said. “Oftentimes, an employee might think, ‘Well, if I can click on this data and it comes up, obviously, I can look at it.’ They need to understand what information they are and are not allowed to access.”

Keep in mind that settings or controls might change when larger transitions take place, such as moving to a new electronic health record system, Mr. Sims said. It’s essential to reevaluate controls when changes in the practice take place to ensure that everything is functioning correctly.

Mr. Sims also suggests that practices create a type of “If you see something, say something,” policy that encourages fellow physicians and employees to report anything that looks suspicious within electronic logs. If an employee, for instance, is suddenly looking at many more records than usual or at odd times of the day or night, this should raise red flags.

“It’s great to stop it early so that it doesn’t become a bigger issue for the practice to deal with, but also, from a legal standpoint, you want to have a defensible argument that you were doing all you could to stop this as quickly as possible,” he said. “It puts you in a better position to defend yourself.”

The snooping security guards case holds an important lesson for all health providers, Mr. Harlow said.

“This is a message to all of us, that you need to have done the assessment up front,” he said. You need to have the right controls in place up front. This is not a situation where somebody managed to hack into a system for some devious means. This is someone who was given keys. Why were they given the keys?”

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

A Washington state hospital will pay the government $240,000 to resolve a data privacy investigation after nearly two dozen security guards were caught snooping through medical records without a job-related purpose.

Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital agreed to the voluntary settlement after an investigation into the actions of 23 emergency department security guards who allegedly used their login credentials to access the patient medical records of 419 patients.

The information accessed included names, dates of birth, medical record numbers, addresses, certain notes related to treatment, and insurance information, according to a release by the U.S .Department of Health & Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR). A breach notification report alerted OCR to the snooping.

As part of the agreement, OCR will monitor Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital for 2 years and the hospital must conduct a thorough risk analysis as well as develop a risk management plan to address and mitigate identified security risks and vulnerabilities. The settlement is not considered an admission of guilt by the hospital.
 

Is such snooping common?

The incident highlights the frequent practice of employees snooping through medical records and the steep consequences that can result for providers, said Paul Redding, vice president of partner engagement and cybersecurity at Compliancy Group, a company that offers guided HIPAA compliance software for healthcare providers and vendors.

“I think the problem is absolutely growing,” he said. “What’s crazy about this case is it’s actually a really small HIPAA violation. Less than 500 people were affected, and the hospital still must pay a quarter-of-a-million-dollar settlement. If you take the average HIPAA violation, which is in the thousands and thousands of [patients], this amount would be magnified many times over.”

In general, employees snoop through records out of curiosity or to find out information about people they know – or want to learn about, said J. David Sims, a cybersecurity expert and CEO of Security First IT, a company that provides cybersecurity solutions and IT support to health care businesses.

Mr. Sims says he has heard of cases where health professionals snooped through records to find information about the new love interests of ex-partners or to learn about people on dating websites whom they’re interested in dating.

“Most of the time, it’s people being nosy,” he said. “In a lot of cases, it’s curiosity about famous people. You see it a lot in areas where you have football players who come in with injuries or you have an actor or actress who come in for something.”

“Data breaches caused by current and former workforce members impermissibly accessing patient records are a recurring issue across the health care industry. Health care organizations must ensure that workforce members can only access the patient information needed to do their jobs,” OCR director Melanie Fontes Rainer said in a June statement. “HIPAA-covered entities must have robust policies and procedures in place to ensure patient health information is protected from identify theft and fraud.”

Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital did not return a message seeking comment.

According to OCR’s latest report to Congress, complaints about HIPAA violations increased by 39% between 2017 and 2021. Breaches affecting fewer than 500 individuals rose by 5% during the same time period, and breaches impacting 500 or more individuals increased by 58%.
 

Common reasons employees snoop

The OCR announcement does not specify why the 23 security guards were accessing the medical records, but the incident raises questions about why the security guards had access to protected health information (PHI) in the first place, Mr. Redding said.

“I have yet to have anyone explain to me why the security guards would have access to PHI at all, at any level,” he said. “Was it by design or was it by error?”

In 2019 for instance, dozens of employees at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago were fired for accessing the health records of former Empire actor Jussie Smollett. In another high-profile case, nearly a dozen emergency medical service employees were caught snooping through 911 records connected to the treatment and, later, death of Joan Rivers.

“Sadly, there is a lack of education around what compliance really means inside the medical industry as a whole,” Mr. Redding said. “There is a lack of employee training and a lack of emphasis on accountability for employees.”
 

Privacy breaches fuel lawsuits

Health professionals caught snooping through records are frequently terminated and employers can face a range of ramifications, including civil and criminal penalties.

A growing trend is class action lawsuits associated with privacy violations, Mr. Redding adds.

Because patients are unable to sue in civil court for HIPAA breaches, they frequently sue for “breach of an implied contract,” he explained. In such cases, patients allege that the privacy documents they signed with health care providers established an implied contract, and their records being exposed constituted a contract breach.

“Class action lawsuits are starting to become extremely common,” Mr. Redding said. “It’s happening in many cases, even sometimes before Health & Human Services issue a fine, that [providers] are being wrapped into a class action lawsuit.”

Mayo Clinic, for example, was recently slapped with a class action suit after a former employee inappropriately accessed the records of 1,600 patients. Mayo settled the suit in January 2023, the terms of which were not publicly disclosed.

Multiple patients also filed a class action suit against San Diego–based Scripps Health after its data were hit with a cyberattack and subsequent breach that impacted close to 2 million people. Scripps reached a $3.5 million settlement with the plaintiffs in 2023.

Some practices and employers may also face state penalties for data privacy breaches, depending on their jurisdiction. In July, Connecticut became the fifth state to enact a comprehensive data privacy law. The measure, which creates a robust framework for protecting health-related records and other data, includes civil penalties of up to $5,000 for violations. Other states, including California, Virginia, Utah, and Colorado, also have state data privacy laws on the books.
 

How can practices stop snooping?

A first step to preventing snooping is conducting a thorough risk assessment, said David Harlow, a health care attorney and chief compliance and privacy officer for Insulet Corporation, a medical device company. The analysis should address who has access to what data and whether they really need such access, he said.

“Then it’s putting in place the proper controls to ensure access is limited and use is limited to the appropriate individuals and circumstances,” Mr. Harlow said.

Regulators don’t expect a giant academic medical center and a small private physician practice to take an identical HIPAA compliance approach, he stressed. The ideal approach will vary by entity. Providers just need to address the standards in a way that makes sense for their operation, he said.

Training is also a critical component, adds Mr. Sims.

“Having training is key,” he said. “Oftentimes, an employee might think, ‘Well, if I can click on this data and it comes up, obviously, I can look at it.’ They need to understand what information they are and are not allowed to access.”

Keep in mind that settings or controls might change when larger transitions take place, such as moving to a new electronic health record system, Mr. Sims said. It’s essential to reevaluate controls when changes in the practice take place to ensure that everything is functioning correctly.

Mr. Sims also suggests that practices create a type of “If you see something, say something,” policy that encourages fellow physicians and employees to report anything that looks suspicious within electronic logs. If an employee, for instance, is suddenly looking at many more records than usual or at odd times of the day or night, this should raise red flags.

“It’s great to stop it early so that it doesn’t become a bigger issue for the practice to deal with, but also, from a legal standpoint, you want to have a defensible argument that you were doing all you could to stop this as quickly as possible,” he said. “It puts you in a better position to defend yourself.”

The snooping security guards case holds an important lesson for all health providers, Mr. Harlow said.

“This is a message to all of us, that you need to have done the assessment up front,” he said. You need to have the right controls in place up front. This is not a situation where somebody managed to hack into a system for some devious means. This is someone who was given keys. Why were they given the keys?”

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

Daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, by 38% among healthy older people with no history of cardiovascular events, and did not help prevent ischemic stroke, according to results from a large randomized trial.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, bolster recommendations published in 2022 by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force against daily aspirin for primary prevention of stroke in older adults and add to a mounting consensus that it should be avoided in the healthy elderly, for whom bleeding risks outweigh potential benefits.

Stroke was a preplanned secondary outcome of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, which randomized 19,114 community-living people in Australia and the United States (56% women, 91% White) to 100 mg. daily aspirin or placebo. Participants were aged 70 and older, with the exception of U.S. Black and Hispanic individuals, who could be as young as 65. Participants did not have disability or known cardiovascular disease at baseline, and blood pressure was adequately controlled.
 

ASPEE findings

In 2018 the ASPREE authors, led by John McNeil, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, published their findings that aspirin did not reduce mortality or cardiovascular events (including stroke) in the same large cohort.

The new analysis, led by Geoffrey Cloud, MB, BS, of Monash University, focuses on stroke and intracranial bleeding outcomes. At 5 years’ follow up, the ASPREE investigators saw no significant reduction in ischemic stroke incidence associated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.11), while incidence of all types of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, was significantly increased (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.03-1.84).

Altogether 108 of participants taking aspirin (1.1%) experienced some form of intracranial bleeding (subdural, extradural, and/or subarachnoid), compared with 79 (0.8%) in the placebo group. Aspirin-treated patients also saw more hemorrhagic stroke (0.5% vs. 0.4%). As the ASPREE investigators had reported in an earlier paper, upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in significantly more aspirin-treated patients than those on placebo (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.32-2.66).

“These outcomes may alter the balance of risks and benefits of an antiplatelet drug, especially if given to individuals at low risk in a primary prevention setting. This concern is relevant given the high stroke risk in older individuals, worldwide increases in populations of older individuals, and the importance of evaluating preventive strategies in this age group,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators cited the study’s large size as a strength while noting among its weaknesses that fewer stroke and bleeding events occurred during follow-up than expected, and that not all ischemic stroke events among older participants were thoroughly investigated.
 

Patients need to know their risk

In an interview, Shlee Song, MD, director of the stroke center at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said that the new ASPREE findings underscore the importance of careful communication with patients and their families, who may be confused about which risk group they belong to and either cease taking aspirin when it is in fact indicated, or take it when it could harm them.

“We need to be clear for our patients whether these results are relevant to them or not,” Dr. Song said. “People with a history of ischemic stroke need to know aspirin therapy is helpful in reducing risk of another stroke.”

Some patients may come to believe that because their stroke occurred a long time ago, they are in a lower-risk group. “But people need to understand that with a history of a heart attack or stroke, you’re always a separate group,” Dr. Song said. “Our job is also surveillance screening – have you had a fall this past year? Have you had a change in bowel movements? The bleeding events seen in ASPREE include bleeding in the head and bleeding in the gut.”

A key issue to stress with patients, Dr. Song said, is blood pressure management. “Patients might take aspirin because a family member had a stroke, without controlling blood pressure first. That could be the perfect storm for a head bleed: uncontrolled hypertension and an antiplatelet agent.”

The ASPREE study was funded by the National Institutes of Health in the United States and Monash University and the Victorian Cancer Agency in Australia. Three coauthors reported receiving funding or fees from drug manufacturers. Dr. Song disclosed no financial conflicts related to her comments.

Daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, by 38% among healthy older people with no history of cardiovascular events, and did not help prevent ischemic stroke, according to results from a large randomized trial.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, bolster recommendations published in 2022 by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force against daily aspirin for primary prevention of stroke in older adults and add to a mounting consensus that it should be avoided in the healthy elderly, for whom bleeding risks outweigh potential benefits.

Stroke was a preplanned secondary outcome of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, which randomized 19,114 community-living people in Australia and the United States (56% women, 91% White) to 100 mg. daily aspirin or placebo. Participants were aged 70 and older, with the exception of U.S. Black and Hispanic individuals, who could be as young as 65. Participants did not have disability or known cardiovascular disease at baseline, and blood pressure was adequately controlled.
 

ASPEE findings

In 2018 the ASPREE authors, led by John McNeil, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, published their findings that aspirin did not reduce mortality or cardiovascular events (including stroke) in the same large cohort.

The new analysis, led by Geoffrey Cloud, MB, BS, of Monash University, focuses on stroke and intracranial bleeding outcomes. At 5 years’ follow up, the ASPREE investigators saw no significant reduction in ischemic stroke incidence associated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.11), while incidence of all types of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, was significantly increased (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.03-1.84).

Altogether 108 of participants taking aspirin (1.1%) experienced some form of intracranial bleeding (subdural, extradural, and/or subarachnoid), compared with 79 (0.8%) in the placebo group. Aspirin-treated patients also saw more hemorrhagic stroke (0.5% vs. 0.4%). As the ASPREE investigators had reported in an earlier paper, upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in significantly more aspirin-treated patients than those on placebo (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.32-2.66).

“These outcomes may alter the balance of risks and benefits of an antiplatelet drug, especially if given to individuals at low risk in a primary prevention setting. This concern is relevant given the high stroke risk in older individuals, worldwide increases in populations of older individuals, and the importance of evaluating preventive strategies in this age group,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators cited the study’s large size as a strength while noting among its weaknesses that fewer stroke and bleeding events occurred during follow-up than expected, and that not all ischemic stroke events among older participants were thoroughly investigated.
 

Patients need to know their risk

In an interview, Shlee Song, MD, director of the stroke center at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said that the new ASPREE findings underscore the importance of careful communication with patients and their families, who may be confused about which risk group they belong to and either cease taking aspirin when it is in fact indicated, or take it when it could harm them.

“We need to be clear for our patients whether these results are relevant to them or not,” Dr. Song said. “People with a history of ischemic stroke need to know aspirin therapy is helpful in reducing risk of another stroke.”

Some patients may come to believe that because their stroke occurred a long time ago, they are in a lower-risk group. “But people need to understand that with a history of a heart attack or stroke, you’re always a separate group,” Dr. Song said. “Our job is also surveillance screening – have you had a fall this past year? Have you had a change in bowel movements? The bleeding events seen in ASPREE include bleeding in the head and bleeding in the gut.”

A key issue to stress with patients, Dr. Song said, is blood pressure management. “Patients might take aspirin because a family member had a stroke, without controlling blood pressure first. That could be the perfect storm for a head bleed: uncontrolled hypertension and an antiplatelet agent.”

The ASPREE study was funded by the National Institutes of Health in the United States and Monash University and the Victorian Cancer Agency in Australia. Three coauthors reported receiving funding or fees from drug manufacturers. Dr. Song disclosed no financial conflicts related to her comments.

Daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, by 38% among healthy older people with no history of cardiovascular events, and did not help prevent ischemic stroke, according to results from a large randomized trial.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, bolster recommendations published in 2022 by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force against daily aspirin for primary prevention of stroke in older adults and add to a mounting consensus that it should be avoided in the healthy elderly, for whom bleeding risks outweigh potential benefits.

Stroke was a preplanned secondary outcome of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, which randomized 19,114 community-living people in Australia and the United States (56% women, 91% White) to 100 mg. daily aspirin or placebo. Participants were aged 70 and older, with the exception of U.S. Black and Hispanic individuals, who could be as young as 65. Participants did not have disability or known cardiovascular disease at baseline, and blood pressure was adequately controlled.
 

ASPEE findings

In 2018 the ASPREE authors, led by John McNeil, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, published their findings that aspirin did not reduce mortality or cardiovascular events (including stroke) in the same large cohort.

The new analysis, led by Geoffrey Cloud, MB, BS, of Monash University, focuses on stroke and intracranial bleeding outcomes. At 5 years’ follow up, the ASPREE investigators saw no significant reduction in ischemic stroke incidence associated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.11), while incidence of all types of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, was significantly increased (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.03-1.84).

Altogether 108 of participants taking aspirin (1.1%) experienced some form of intracranial bleeding (subdural, extradural, and/or subarachnoid), compared with 79 (0.8%) in the placebo group. Aspirin-treated patients also saw more hemorrhagic stroke (0.5% vs. 0.4%). As the ASPREE investigators had reported in an earlier paper, upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in significantly more aspirin-treated patients than those on placebo (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.32-2.66).

“These outcomes may alter the balance of risks and benefits of an antiplatelet drug, especially if given to individuals at low risk in a primary prevention setting. This concern is relevant given the high stroke risk in older individuals, worldwide increases in populations of older individuals, and the importance of evaluating preventive strategies in this age group,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators cited the study’s large size as a strength while noting among its weaknesses that fewer stroke and bleeding events occurred during follow-up than expected, and that not all ischemic stroke events among older participants were thoroughly investigated.
 

Patients need to know their risk

In an interview, Shlee Song, MD, director of the stroke center at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said that the new ASPREE findings underscore the importance of careful communication with patients and their families, who may be confused about which risk group they belong to and either cease taking aspirin when it is in fact indicated, or take it when it could harm them.

“We need to be clear for our patients whether these results are relevant to them or not,” Dr. Song said. “People with a history of ischemic stroke need to know aspirin therapy is helpful in reducing risk of another stroke.”

Some patients may come to believe that because their stroke occurred a long time ago, they are in a lower-risk group. “But people need to understand that with a history of a heart attack or stroke, you’re always a separate group,” Dr. Song said. “Our job is also surveillance screening – have you had a fall this past year? Have you had a change in bowel movements? The bleeding events seen in ASPREE include bleeding in the head and bleeding in the gut.”

A key issue to stress with patients, Dr. Song said, is blood pressure management. “Patients might take aspirin because a family member had a stroke, without controlling blood pressure first. That could be the perfect storm for a head bleed: uncontrolled hypertension and an antiplatelet agent.”

The ASPREE study was funded by the National Institutes of Health in the United States and Monash University and the Victorian Cancer Agency in Australia. Three coauthors reported receiving funding or fees from drug manufacturers. Dr. Song disclosed no financial conflicts related to her comments.

Children’s intelligence quotient scores are not significantly different in the first months after concussion, compared with before concussion, data suggest.

In a multicenter study of almost 900 children with concussion or orthopedic injury, differences between groups in full-scale IQ (Cohen’s d = 0.13) and matrix reasoning scores (d = 0.16) were small.

“We draw the inference that IQ scores are unchanged, in the sense that they’re not different from [those of] kids with other types of injuries that don’t involve the brain,” said study author Keith Owen Yeates, PhD, Ronald and Irene Ward Chair in Pediatric Brain Injury and a professor of psychology at the University of Calgary (Alta.).

The study was published in Pediatrics.
 

A representative sample

The investigators analyzed data from two prospective cohort studies of children who were treated for concussion or mild orthopedic injury at two hospitals in the United States and five in Canada. Participants were aged 8-17 years and were recruited within 24 hours of the index event. Patients in the United States completed IQ and performance validity testing at 3-18 days after injury. Patients in Canada did so at 3 months after injury. The study used the short-form IQ test. The investigators included 866 children in their analysis.

Using linear modeling, Bayesian analysis, and multigroup factor analysis, the researchers found “very small group differences” in full-scale IQ scores between the two groups. Mean IQ was 104.95 for the concussion group and 106.08 for the orthopedic-injury group. Matrix reasoning scores were 52.28 and 53.81 for the concussion and orthopedic-injury groups, respectively.

Vocabulary scores did not differ between the two groups (53.25 for the concussion group and 53.27 for the orthopedic-injury group).

The study population is “pretty representative” from a demographic perspective, although it was predominantly White, said Dr. Yeates. “On the other hand, we did look at socioeconomic status, and that didn’t seem to alter the findings at all.”

The sample size is one of the study’s strengths, said Dr. Yeates. “Having 866 kids is far larger, I think, than just about any other study out there.” Drawing from seven children’s hospitals in North America is another strength. “Previous studies, in addition to having smaller samples, were from a single site and often recruited from a clinic population, not a representative group for a general population of kids with concussion.”

The findings must be interpreted precisely, however. “We don’t have actual preinjury data, so the more precise way of describing the findings is to say they’re not different from kids who are very similar to them demographically, have the same risk factors for injuries, and had a similar experience of a traumatic injury,” said Dr. Yeates. “The IQ scores for both groups are smack dab in the average range.”

Overall, the results are encouraging. “There’s been a lot of bad news in the media and in the science about concussion that worries patients, so it’s nice to be able to provide a little bit of balance,” said Dr. Yeates. “The message I give parents is that most kids recover within 2-4 weeks, and we’re much better now at predicting who’s going to [recover] and who isn’t, and that helps, too, so that we can focus our intervention on kids who are most at risk.”

Some children will have persisting symptoms, but evidence-based treatments are lacking. “I think that’ll be a really important direction for the future,” said Dr. Yeates.
 

Graduated return

Commenting on the findings, Michael Esser, MD, a pediatric neurologist at Alberta Children’s Hospital, Calgary, and an associate professor in pediatrics at the University of Calgary, said that they can help allay parents’ concerns about concussions. “It can also be of help for clinicians who want to have evidence to reassure families and promote a graduated return to activities. In particular, the study would support the philosophy of a graduated return to school or work, after a brief period of rest, following concussion.” Dr. Esser did not participate in the study.

The research is also noteworthy because it acknowledges that the differences in the design and methodology used in prior studies may explain the apparent disagreement over how concussion may influence cognitive function.

“This is an important message,” said Dr. Esser. “Families struggle with determining the merit of a lot of information due to the myriad of social media comments about concussion and the risk for cognitive impairment. Therefore, it is important that conclusions with a significant implication are evaluated with a variety of approaches.”

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. Dr. Yeates disclosed relationships with the American Psychological Association, Guilford Press, and Cambridge University Press. He has received grant funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institutes of Health, Brain Canada Foundation, and the National Football League Scientific Advisory Board. He also has relationships with the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, National Pediatric Rehabilitation Resource Center, Center for Pediatric Rehabilitation, and Virginia Tech University. Dr. Esser had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Children’s intelligence quotient scores are not significantly different in the first months after concussion, compared with before concussion, data suggest.

In a multicenter study of almost 900 children with concussion or orthopedic injury, differences between groups in full-scale IQ (Cohen’s d = 0.13) and matrix reasoning scores (d = 0.16) were small.

“We draw the inference that IQ scores are unchanged, in the sense that they’re not different from [those of] kids with other types of injuries that don’t involve the brain,” said study author Keith Owen Yeates, PhD, Ronald and Irene Ward Chair in Pediatric Brain Injury and a professor of psychology at the University of Calgary (Alta.).

The study was published in Pediatrics.
 

A representative sample

The investigators analyzed data from two prospective cohort studies of children who were treated for concussion or mild orthopedic injury at two hospitals in the United States and five in Canada. Participants were aged 8-17 years and were recruited within 24 hours of the index event. Patients in the United States completed IQ and performance validity testing at 3-18 days after injury. Patients in Canada did so at 3 months after injury. The study used the short-form IQ test. The investigators included 866 children in their analysis.

Using linear modeling, Bayesian analysis, and multigroup factor analysis, the researchers found “very small group differences” in full-scale IQ scores between the two groups. Mean IQ was 104.95 for the concussion group and 106.08 for the orthopedic-injury group. Matrix reasoning scores were 52.28 and 53.81 for the concussion and orthopedic-injury groups, respectively.

Vocabulary scores did not differ between the two groups (53.25 for the concussion group and 53.27 for the orthopedic-injury group).

The study population is “pretty representative” from a demographic perspective, although it was predominantly White, said Dr. Yeates. “On the other hand, we did look at socioeconomic status, and that didn’t seem to alter the findings at all.”

The sample size is one of the study’s strengths, said Dr. Yeates. “Having 866 kids is far larger, I think, than just about any other study out there.” Drawing from seven children’s hospitals in North America is another strength. “Previous studies, in addition to having smaller samples, were from a single site and often recruited from a clinic population, not a representative group for a general population of kids with concussion.”

The findings must be interpreted precisely, however. “We don’t have actual preinjury data, so the more precise way of describing the findings is to say they’re not different from kids who are very similar to them demographically, have the same risk factors for injuries, and had a similar experience of a traumatic injury,” said Dr. Yeates. “The IQ scores for both groups are smack dab in the average range.”

Overall, the results are encouraging. “There’s been a lot of bad news in the media and in the science about concussion that worries patients, so it’s nice to be able to provide a little bit of balance,” said Dr. Yeates. “The message I give parents is that most kids recover within 2-4 weeks, and we’re much better now at predicting who’s going to [recover] and who isn’t, and that helps, too, so that we can focus our intervention on kids who are most at risk.”

Some children will have persisting symptoms, but evidence-based treatments are lacking. “I think that’ll be a really important direction for the future,” said Dr. Yeates.
 

Graduated return

Commenting on the findings, Michael Esser, MD, a pediatric neurologist at Alberta Children’s Hospital, Calgary, and an associate professor in pediatrics at the University of Calgary, said that they can help allay parents’ concerns about concussions. “It can also be of help for clinicians who want to have evidence to reassure families and promote a graduated return to activities. In particular, the study would support the philosophy of a graduated return to school or work, after a brief period of rest, following concussion.” Dr. Esser did not participate in the study.

The research is also noteworthy because it acknowledges that the differences in the design and methodology used in prior studies may explain the apparent disagreement over how concussion may influence cognitive function.

“This is an important message,” said Dr. Esser. “Families struggle with determining the merit of a lot of information due to the myriad of social media comments about concussion and the risk for cognitive impairment. Therefore, it is important that conclusions with a significant implication are evaluated with a variety of approaches.”

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. Dr. Yeates disclosed relationships with the American Psychological Association, Guilford Press, and Cambridge University Press. He has received grant funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institutes of Health, Brain Canada Foundation, and the National Football League Scientific Advisory Board. He also has relationships with the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, National Pediatric Rehabilitation Resource Center, Center for Pediatric Rehabilitation, and Virginia Tech University. Dr. Esser had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Children’s intelligence quotient scores are not significantly different in the first months after concussion, compared with before concussion, data suggest.

In a multicenter study of almost 900 children with concussion or orthopedic injury, differences between groups in full-scale IQ (Cohen’s d = 0.13) and matrix reasoning scores (d = 0.16) were small.

“We draw the inference that IQ scores are unchanged, in the sense that they’re not different from [those of] kids with other types of injuries that don’t involve the brain,” said study author Keith Owen Yeates, PhD, Ronald and Irene Ward Chair in Pediatric Brain Injury and a professor of psychology at the University of Calgary (Alta.).

The study was published in Pediatrics.
 

A representative sample

The investigators analyzed data from two prospective cohort studies of children who were treated for concussion or mild orthopedic injury at two hospitals in the United States and five in Canada. Participants were aged 8-17 years and were recruited within 24 hours of the index event. Patients in the United States completed IQ and performance validity testing at 3-18 days after injury. Patients in Canada did so at 3 months after injury. The study used the short-form IQ test. The investigators included 866 children in their analysis.

Using linear modeling, Bayesian analysis, and multigroup factor analysis, the researchers found “very small group differences” in full-scale IQ scores between the two groups. Mean IQ was 104.95 for the concussion group and 106.08 for the orthopedic-injury group. Matrix reasoning scores were 52.28 and 53.81 for the concussion and orthopedic-injury groups, respectively.

Vocabulary scores did not differ between the two groups (53.25 for the concussion group and 53.27 for the orthopedic-injury group).

The study population is “pretty representative” from a demographic perspective, although it was predominantly White, said Dr. Yeates. “On the other hand, we did look at socioeconomic status, and that didn’t seem to alter the findings at all.”

The sample size is one of the study’s strengths, said Dr. Yeates. “Having 866 kids is far larger, I think, than just about any other study out there.” Drawing from seven children’s hospitals in North America is another strength. “Previous studies, in addition to having smaller samples, were from a single site and often recruited from a clinic population, not a representative group for a general population of kids with concussion.”

The findings must be interpreted precisely, however. “We don’t have actual preinjury data, so the more precise way of describing the findings is to say they’re not different from kids who are very similar to them demographically, have the same risk factors for injuries, and had a similar experience of a traumatic injury,” said Dr. Yeates. “The IQ scores for both groups are smack dab in the average range.”

Overall, the results are encouraging. “There’s been a lot of bad news in the media and in the science about concussion that worries patients, so it’s nice to be able to provide a little bit of balance,” said Dr. Yeates. “The message I give parents is that most kids recover within 2-4 weeks, and we’re much better now at predicting who’s going to [recover] and who isn’t, and that helps, too, so that we can focus our intervention on kids who are most at risk.”

Some children will have persisting symptoms, but evidence-based treatments are lacking. “I think that’ll be a really important direction for the future,” said Dr. Yeates.
 

Graduated return

Commenting on the findings, Michael Esser, MD, a pediatric neurologist at Alberta Children’s Hospital, Calgary, and an associate professor in pediatrics at the University of Calgary, said that they can help allay parents’ concerns about concussions. “It can also be of help for clinicians who want to have evidence to reassure families and promote a graduated return to activities. In particular, the study would support the philosophy of a graduated return to school or work, after a brief period of rest, following concussion.” Dr. Esser did not participate in the study.

The research is also noteworthy because it acknowledges that the differences in the design and methodology used in prior studies may explain the apparent disagreement over how concussion may influence cognitive function.

“This is an important message,” said Dr. Esser. “Families struggle with determining the merit of a lot of information due to the myriad of social media comments about concussion and the risk for cognitive impairment. Therefore, it is important that conclusions with a significant implication are evaluated with a variety of approaches.”

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. Dr. Yeates disclosed relationships with the American Psychological Association, Guilford Press, and Cambridge University Press. He has received grant funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institutes of Health, Brain Canada Foundation, and the National Football League Scientific Advisory Board. He also has relationships with the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, National Pediatric Rehabilitation Resource Center, Center for Pediatric Rehabilitation, and Virginia Tech University. Dr. Esser had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.