On Sept. 5, Rashid Buttar, DO, posted on Twitter that COVID-19 “was a planned operation” and shared an article alleging that most people who got the COVID vaccine would be dead by 2025.

His statement is a recent example in what has been a steady stream of spurious claims surrounding the COVID vaccines and treatments that swirl around the public consciousness. Others include testimony in June by Sherri Jane Tenpenny, DO, before Ohio state legislators that the vaccine could cause people to become magnetized. Clips from the hearing went viral on the Internet. On April 9, 2020, Joseph Mercola, DO, posted a video titled “Could hydrogen peroxide treat coronavirus?” which was shared more than 4,600 times. In the video, Dr. Mercola said inhaling hydrogen peroxide through a nebulizer could prevent or cure COVID.

These physicians are identified as members of the “Disinformation Dozen,” a group of top superspreaders of COVID vaccine misinformation on social media, according to a 2021 report by the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate. The report, based on an analysis of antivaccine content on social media platforms, found that 12 people were responsible for 65% of it. The group is composed of physicians, antivaccine activists, and people known for promoting alternative medicine.

The physician voices are of particular concern because their medical credentials lend credence to their unproven, often dangerous pronouncements. All three continue to hold medical licenses and have not faced consequences for their COVID-related statements.

But leaders of professional medical organizations increasingly are calling for that to change and urging medical oversight boards to take more aggressive action.

In July, the Federation of State Medical Boards, the national umbrella organization for the state-based boards, issued a statement making clear that doctors who generate and spread COVID misinformation could be subject to disciplinary action, including the suspension or revocation of their licenses. The American Board of Family Medicine, American Board of Internal Medicine, and American Board of Pediatrics issued a joint statement Sept. 9 in support of the state boards’ position, warning that “such unethical or unprofessional conduct may prompt their respective board to take action that could put their certification at risk.”

And the superspreaders identified by the center’s report are not alone. KHN identified 20 other doctors who have made false or misleading claims about COVID by combing through published fact checks and other news coverage.

For example, at an Indiana school board meeting in August, Dan Stock, MD, claimed the surge in covid cases this summer was due to “antibody mediated viral enhancement” from people receiving covid vaccines. PolitiFact rated his claim “Pants on Fire” false.

Stella Immanuel, MD, a member of a group America’s Frontline Doctors, which has consistently made false statements about COVID, said in a video that went viral in July 2020 that masks weren’t needed because covid could be cured by hydroxychloroquine. Dr. Immanuel’s website currently promotes a set of vitamins, as well as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, as COVID treatments.

Two of the doctors mentioned by name in this article responded to requests for comment. Dr. Mercola offered documents to rebut criticisms of his hydrogen peroxide COVID treatment and took issue with the center’s “Disinformation Dozen” report methodology. Dr. Buttar defended his positions, saying via email that “the science is clear and anyone who contests it, has a suspect agenda at best and/or lacks a moral compass.” He also pointed to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Recording System, considered inconclusive by many experts.

Since the onset of the COVID pandemic, misinformation has been widespread on social media platforms. And many experts blame it for undermining efforts to curb the coronavirus’s spread. A recent poll showed that more than 50% of Americans who won’t get vaccinated cited conspiracy theories as their reasons – for example, saying the vaccines cause infertility or alter DNA.

Some physicians have gained notoriety by embracing COVID-related fringe ideas, quack treatments and falsehoods via social media, conservative talk shows, and even in person with patients. Whether promoting the use of ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug for animals, or a mix of vitamins to treat COVID, doctors’ words can be especially powerful. Public opinion polls consistently show that Americans have high trust in doctors.

“There is a sense of credibility that comes with being a doctor,” said Rachel Moran, PhD, a researcher who studies COVID misinformation at the University of Washington. “There is also a sense they have access to insider info that we don’t. This is a very confusing time, and it can seem that if anyone knows what I should be doing in this situation, it’s a doctor.”

While COVID is a novel and complicated infectious disease, physicians spreading misinformation generally have no particular expertise in infectious diseases. Scott Atlas, MD, who endorsed former President Donald Trump’s unproven statements about the course of the pandemic, is a radiation oncologist.

Traditionally, the responsibility of policing physicians has fallen to state medical boards. Beyond overseeing the licensing process, these panels investigate complaints about doctors and discipline those who engage in unethical, unprofessional or, in extreme cases, criminal activity. Any member of the public can submit a complaint about a physician.

“The boards are relatively slow and weak and it’s a long, slow process to pull somebody’s license,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, founding head of the department of medical ethics at New York University. “In many states, they have their hands full with doctors who have committed felonies, doctors who are molesting their patients. Keeping an eye on misinformation is somewhat down on the priority list.”

To date, only two doctors have reportedly faced such sanctions. In Oregon, Steven LaTulippe, MD, had his license suspended in December 2020 for refusing to wear a face mask at his clinic and telling patients that masks were ineffective in curbing the spread of COVID, and even dangerous. Thomas Cowan, MD, a San Francisco physician who posted a YouTube video that went viral in March 2020 stating that 5G networks cause COVID, voluntarily surrendered his medical license to California’s medical board in February 2021.

Humayun Chaudhry, DO, president of the Federation of State Medical Boards, however, said it’s possible some doctors could already be the subject of inquiries and investigations, since these actions are not made public until sanctions are handed down.

KHN reached out to the medical and osteopathic boards of all 50 states and the District of Columbia to see if they had received COVID misinformation complaints. Of the 43 that responded, only a handful shared specifics.

During a 1-week period in August, Kansas’ medical board received six such complaints. In all, the state has received 35 complaints against 20 licensees about spreading covid misinformation on social media and in person. Indiana has received about 30 in the past year. South Carolina said it had about 10 since January. Rhode Island didn’t share the number of complaints but said it has taken disciplinary action against one doctor for spreading misinformation, though it hasn’t moved to suspend his license. (The disciplinary measures include a fine, a reprimand on the doctor’s record and a mandate to complete an ethics course.) Five states said they had received only a couple, and 11 states reported receiving no complaints regarding COVID misinformation.

Confidentiality laws in 13 states prevented those boards from sharing information about complaints.

Social media companies have also been slow to take action. Some doctors’ accounts – specifically those among the Disinformation Dozen – have been suspended, but others are still active and posting misinformation.

Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, said social media platforms often don’t consistently apply their rules against spreading misinformation.

“Even when it’s the same companies, Facebook will sometimes take posts down, but Instagram will not,” Mr. Ahmed said, referring to Facebook’s ownership of Instagram. “It goes to show their piecemeal, ineffective approach to enforcing their own rules.”

A Facebook spokesperson said the company has removed over 3,000 accounts, pages and groups for repeatedly violating COVID and vaccine misinformation policies since the beginning of the pandemic. Dr. Buttar’s Facebook and Instagram pages and Tenpenny’s Facebook page have been removed, while Dr. Mercola’s Facebook posts have been demoted, which means fewer people will see them. Dr. Tenpenny and Dr. Mercola still have Instagram accounts.

Part of the challenge may be that these doctors sometimes present scientific opinions that aren’t mainstream but are viewed as potentially valid by some of their colleagues.

“It can be difficult to prove that what is being said is outside the range of scientific and medical consensus,” said Dr. Caplan. “The doctors who were advising Trump – like Scott Atlas – recommended herd immunity. That was far from the consensus of epidemiologists, but you couldn’t get a board to take his license away because it was a fringe opinion.”

Even if these physicians don’t face consequences, it is likely, experts said, that the public health will.

“Medical misinformation doesn’t just result in people making bad personal and community health choices, but it also divides communities and families, leaving an emotional toll,” said Dr. Moran. “Misinformation narratives have real sticking power and impact people’s ability to make safe health choices.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

On Sept. 5, Rashid Buttar, DO, posted on Twitter that COVID-19 “was a planned operation” and shared an article alleging that most people who got the COVID vaccine would be dead by 2025.

His statement is a recent example in what has been a steady stream of spurious claims surrounding the COVID vaccines and treatments that swirl around the public consciousness. Others include testimony in June by Sherri Jane Tenpenny, DO, before Ohio state legislators that the vaccine could cause people to become magnetized. Clips from the hearing went viral on the Internet. On April 9, 2020, Joseph Mercola, DO, posted a video titled “Could hydrogen peroxide treat coronavirus?” which was shared more than 4,600 times. In the video, Dr. Mercola said inhaling hydrogen peroxide through a nebulizer could prevent or cure COVID.

These physicians are identified as members of the “Disinformation Dozen,” a group of top superspreaders of COVID vaccine misinformation on social media, according to a 2021 report by the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate. The report, based on an analysis of antivaccine content on social media platforms, found that 12 people were responsible for 65% of it. The group is composed of physicians, antivaccine activists, and people known for promoting alternative medicine.

The physician voices are of particular concern because their medical credentials lend credence to their unproven, often dangerous pronouncements. All three continue to hold medical licenses and have not faced consequences for their COVID-related statements.

But leaders of professional medical organizations increasingly are calling for that to change and urging medical oversight boards to take more aggressive action.

In July, the Federation of State Medical Boards, the national umbrella organization for the state-based boards, issued a statement making clear that doctors who generate and spread COVID misinformation could be subject to disciplinary action, including the suspension or revocation of their licenses. The American Board of Family Medicine, American Board of Internal Medicine, and American Board of Pediatrics issued a joint statement Sept. 9 in support of the state boards’ position, warning that “such unethical or unprofessional conduct may prompt their respective board to take action that could put their certification at risk.”

And the superspreaders identified by the center’s report are not alone. KHN identified 20 other doctors who have made false or misleading claims about COVID by combing through published fact checks and other news coverage.

For example, at an Indiana school board meeting in August, Dan Stock, MD, claimed the surge in covid cases this summer was due to “antibody mediated viral enhancement” from people receiving covid vaccines. PolitiFact rated his claim “Pants on Fire” false.

Stella Immanuel, MD, a member of a group America’s Frontline Doctors, which has consistently made false statements about COVID, said in a video that went viral in July 2020 that masks weren’t needed because covid could be cured by hydroxychloroquine. Dr. Immanuel’s website currently promotes a set of vitamins, as well as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, as COVID treatments.

Two of the doctors mentioned by name in this article responded to requests for comment. Dr. Mercola offered documents to rebut criticisms of his hydrogen peroxide COVID treatment and took issue with the center’s “Disinformation Dozen” report methodology. Dr. Buttar defended his positions, saying via email that “the science is clear and anyone who contests it, has a suspect agenda at best and/or lacks a moral compass.” He also pointed to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Recording System, considered inconclusive by many experts.

Since the onset of the COVID pandemic, misinformation has been widespread on social media platforms. And many experts blame it for undermining efforts to curb the coronavirus’s spread. A recent poll showed that more than 50% of Americans who won’t get vaccinated cited conspiracy theories as their reasons – for example, saying the vaccines cause infertility or alter DNA.

Some physicians have gained notoriety by embracing COVID-related fringe ideas, quack treatments and falsehoods via social media, conservative talk shows, and even in person with patients. Whether promoting the use of ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug for animals, or a mix of vitamins to treat COVID, doctors’ words can be especially powerful. Public opinion polls consistently show that Americans have high trust in doctors.

“There is a sense of credibility that comes with being a doctor,” said Rachel Moran, PhD, a researcher who studies COVID misinformation at the University of Washington. “There is also a sense they have access to insider info that we don’t. This is a very confusing time, and it can seem that if anyone knows what I should be doing in this situation, it’s a doctor.”

While COVID is a novel and complicated infectious disease, physicians spreading misinformation generally have no particular expertise in infectious diseases. Scott Atlas, MD, who endorsed former President Donald Trump’s unproven statements about the course of the pandemic, is a radiation oncologist.

Traditionally, the responsibility of policing physicians has fallen to state medical boards. Beyond overseeing the licensing process, these panels investigate complaints about doctors and discipline those who engage in unethical, unprofessional or, in extreme cases, criminal activity. Any member of the public can submit a complaint about a physician.

“The boards are relatively slow and weak and it’s a long, slow process to pull somebody’s license,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, founding head of the department of medical ethics at New York University. “In many states, they have their hands full with doctors who have committed felonies, doctors who are molesting their patients. Keeping an eye on misinformation is somewhat down on the priority list.”

To date, only two doctors have reportedly faced such sanctions. In Oregon, Steven LaTulippe, MD, had his license suspended in December 2020 for refusing to wear a face mask at his clinic and telling patients that masks were ineffective in curbing the spread of COVID, and even dangerous. Thomas Cowan, MD, a San Francisco physician who posted a YouTube video that went viral in March 2020 stating that 5G networks cause COVID, voluntarily surrendered his medical license to California’s medical board in February 2021.

Humayun Chaudhry, DO, president of the Federation of State Medical Boards, however, said it’s possible some doctors could already be the subject of inquiries and investigations, since these actions are not made public until sanctions are handed down.

KHN reached out to the medical and osteopathic boards of all 50 states and the District of Columbia to see if they had received COVID misinformation complaints. Of the 43 that responded, only a handful shared specifics.

During a 1-week period in August, Kansas’ medical board received six such complaints. In all, the state has received 35 complaints against 20 licensees about spreading covid misinformation on social media and in person. Indiana has received about 30 in the past year. South Carolina said it had about 10 since January. Rhode Island didn’t share the number of complaints but said it has taken disciplinary action against one doctor for spreading misinformation, though it hasn’t moved to suspend his license. (The disciplinary measures include a fine, a reprimand on the doctor’s record and a mandate to complete an ethics course.) Five states said they had received only a couple, and 11 states reported receiving no complaints regarding COVID misinformation.

Confidentiality laws in 13 states prevented those boards from sharing information about complaints.

Social media companies have also been slow to take action. Some doctors’ accounts – specifically those among the Disinformation Dozen – have been suspended, but others are still active and posting misinformation.

Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, said social media platforms often don’t consistently apply their rules against spreading misinformation.

“Even when it’s the same companies, Facebook will sometimes take posts down, but Instagram will not,” Mr. Ahmed said, referring to Facebook’s ownership of Instagram. “It goes to show their piecemeal, ineffective approach to enforcing their own rules.”

A Facebook spokesperson said the company has removed over 3,000 accounts, pages and groups for repeatedly violating COVID and vaccine misinformation policies since the beginning of the pandemic. Dr. Buttar’s Facebook and Instagram pages and Tenpenny’s Facebook page have been removed, while Dr. Mercola’s Facebook posts have been demoted, which means fewer people will see them. Dr. Tenpenny and Dr. Mercola still have Instagram accounts.

Part of the challenge may be that these doctors sometimes present scientific opinions that aren’t mainstream but are viewed as potentially valid by some of their colleagues.

“It can be difficult to prove that what is being said is outside the range of scientific and medical consensus,” said Dr. Caplan. “The doctors who were advising Trump – like Scott Atlas – recommended herd immunity. That was far from the consensus of epidemiologists, but you couldn’t get a board to take his license away because it was a fringe opinion.”

Even if these physicians don’t face consequences, it is likely, experts said, that the public health will.

“Medical misinformation doesn’t just result in people making bad personal and community health choices, but it also divides communities and families, leaving an emotional toll,” said Dr. Moran. “Misinformation narratives have real sticking power and impact people’s ability to make safe health choices.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

On Sept. 5, Rashid Buttar, DO, posted on Twitter that COVID-19 “was a planned operation” and shared an article alleging that most people who got the COVID vaccine would be dead by 2025.

His statement is a recent example in what has been a steady stream of spurious claims surrounding the COVID vaccines and treatments that swirl around the public consciousness. Others include testimony in June by Sherri Jane Tenpenny, DO, before Ohio state legislators that the vaccine could cause people to become magnetized. Clips from the hearing went viral on the Internet. On April 9, 2020, Joseph Mercola, DO, posted a video titled “Could hydrogen peroxide treat coronavirus?” which was shared more than 4,600 times. In the video, Dr. Mercola said inhaling hydrogen peroxide through a nebulizer could prevent or cure COVID.

These physicians are identified as members of the “Disinformation Dozen,” a group of top superspreaders of COVID vaccine misinformation on social media, according to a 2021 report by the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate. The report, based on an analysis of antivaccine content on social media platforms, found that 12 people were responsible for 65% of it. The group is composed of physicians, antivaccine activists, and people known for promoting alternative medicine.

The physician voices are of particular concern because their medical credentials lend credence to their unproven, often dangerous pronouncements. All three continue to hold medical licenses and have not faced consequences for their COVID-related statements.

But leaders of professional medical organizations increasingly are calling for that to change and urging medical oversight boards to take more aggressive action.

In July, the Federation of State Medical Boards, the national umbrella organization for the state-based boards, issued a statement making clear that doctors who generate and spread COVID misinformation could be subject to disciplinary action, including the suspension or revocation of their licenses. The American Board of Family Medicine, American Board of Internal Medicine, and American Board of Pediatrics issued a joint statement Sept. 9 in support of the state boards’ position, warning that “such unethical or unprofessional conduct may prompt their respective board to take action that could put their certification at risk.”

And the superspreaders identified by the center’s report are not alone. KHN identified 20 other doctors who have made false or misleading claims about COVID by combing through published fact checks and other news coverage.

For example, at an Indiana school board meeting in August, Dan Stock, MD, claimed the surge in covid cases this summer was due to “antibody mediated viral enhancement” from people receiving covid vaccines. PolitiFact rated his claim “Pants on Fire” false.

Stella Immanuel, MD, a member of a group America’s Frontline Doctors, which has consistently made false statements about COVID, said in a video that went viral in July 2020 that masks weren’t needed because covid could be cured by hydroxychloroquine. Dr. Immanuel’s website currently promotes a set of vitamins, as well as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, as COVID treatments.

Two of the doctors mentioned by name in this article responded to requests for comment. Dr. Mercola offered documents to rebut criticisms of his hydrogen peroxide COVID treatment and took issue with the center’s “Disinformation Dozen” report methodology. Dr. Buttar defended his positions, saying via email that “the science is clear and anyone who contests it, has a suspect agenda at best and/or lacks a moral compass.” He also pointed to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Recording System, considered inconclusive by many experts.

Since the onset of the COVID pandemic, misinformation has been widespread on social media platforms. And many experts blame it for undermining efforts to curb the coronavirus’s spread. A recent poll showed that more than 50% of Americans who won’t get vaccinated cited conspiracy theories as their reasons – for example, saying the vaccines cause infertility or alter DNA.

Some physicians have gained notoriety by embracing COVID-related fringe ideas, quack treatments and falsehoods via social media, conservative talk shows, and even in person with patients. Whether promoting the use of ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug for animals, or a mix of vitamins to treat COVID, doctors’ words can be especially powerful. Public opinion polls consistently show that Americans have high trust in doctors.

“There is a sense of credibility that comes with being a doctor,” said Rachel Moran, PhD, a researcher who studies COVID misinformation at the University of Washington. “There is also a sense they have access to insider info that we don’t. This is a very confusing time, and it can seem that if anyone knows what I should be doing in this situation, it’s a doctor.”

While COVID is a novel and complicated infectious disease, physicians spreading misinformation generally have no particular expertise in infectious diseases. Scott Atlas, MD, who endorsed former President Donald Trump’s unproven statements about the course of the pandemic, is a radiation oncologist.

Traditionally, the responsibility of policing physicians has fallen to state medical boards. Beyond overseeing the licensing process, these panels investigate complaints about doctors and discipline those who engage in unethical, unprofessional or, in extreme cases, criminal activity. Any member of the public can submit a complaint about a physician.

“The boards are relatively slow and weak and it’s a long, slow process to pull somebody’s license,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, founding head of the department of medical ethics at New York University. “In many states, they have their hands full with doctors who have committed felonies, doctors who are molesting their patients. Keeping an eye on misinformation is somewhat down on the priority list.”

To date, only two doctors have reportedly faced such sanctions. In Oregon, Steven LaTulippe, MD, had his license suspended in December 2020 for refusing to wear a face mask at his clinic and telling patients that masks were ineffective in curbing the spread of COVID, and even dangerous. Thomas Cowan, MD, a San Francisco physician who posted a YouTube video that went viral in March 2020 stating that 5G networks cause COVID, voluntarily surrendered his medical license to California’s medical board in February 2021.

Humayun Chaudhry, DO, president of the Federation of State Medical Boards, however, said it’s possible some doctors could already be the subject of inquiries and investigations, since these actions are not made public until sanctions are handed down.

KHN reached out to the medical and osteopathic boards of all 50 states and the District of Columbia to see if they had received COVID misinformation complaints. Of the 43 that responded, only a handful shared specifics.

During a 1-week period in August, Kansas’ medical board received six such complaints. In all, the state has received 35 complaints against 20 licensees about spreading covid misinformation on social media and in person. Indiana has received about 30 in the past year. South Carolina said it had about 10 since January. Rhode Island didn’t share the number of complaints but said it has taken disciplinary action against one doctor for spreading misinformation, though it hasn’t moved to suspend his license. (The disciplinary measures include a fine, a reprimand on the doctor’s record and a mandate to complete an ethics course.) Five states said they had received only a couple, and 11 states reported receiving no complaints regarding COVID misinformation.

Confidentiality laws in 13 states prevented those boards from sharing information about complaints.

Social media companies have also been slow to take action. Some doctors’ accounts – specifically those among the Disinformation Dozen – have been suspended, but others are still active and posting misinformation.

Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, said social media platforms often don’t consistently apply their rules against spreading misinformation.

“Even when it’s the same companies, Facebook will sometimes take posts down, but Instagram will not,” Mr. Ahmed said, referring to Facebook’s ownership of Instagram. “It goes to show their piecemeal, ineffective approach to enforcing their own rules.”

A Facebook spokesperson said the company has removed over 3,000 accounts, pages and groups for repeatedly violating COVID and vaccine misinformation policies since the beginning of the pandemic. Dr. Buttar’s Facebook and Instagram pages and Tenpenny’s Facebook page have been removed, while Dr. Mercola’s Facebook posts have been demoted, which means fewer people will see them. Dr. Tenpenny and Dr. Mercola still have Instagram accounts.

Part of the challenge may be that these doctors sometimes present scientific opinions that aren’t mainstream but are viewed as potentially valid by some of their colleagues.

“It can be difficult to prove that what is being said is outside the range of scientific and medical consensus,” said Dr. Caplan. “The doctors who were advising Trump – like Scott Atlas – recommended herd immunity. That was far from the consensus of epidemiologists, but you couldn’t get a board to take his license away because it was a fringe opinion.”

Even if these physicians don’t face consequences, it is likely, experts said, that the public health will.

“Medical misinformation doesn’t just result in people making bad personal and community health choices, but it also divides communities and families, leaving an emotional toll,” said Dr. Moran. “Misinformation narratives have real sticking power and impact people’s ability to make safe health choices.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Basal cell carcinomas (BCCs), the most common form of skin cancer, are generally slow-growing tumors that occur in older patients.

Given the low rates of metastasis and mortality associated with BCC, some patients do not require treatment. However, there have been no evidence-based recommendations on who may benefit from a watch-and-wait approach.

Now, a study published on Sept. 8 in JAMA Dermatology sheds light on which patients with BCC may be appropriate candidates for watchful waiting.

The investigators found that, for older people with low-grade BCCs and limited life expectancy, the risks associated with surgery – bleeding, infection, and wound dehiscence – appeared to outweigh the advantages. According to the authors, these patients “might not live long enough to benefit from treatment.”

This finding mirrors oncologists’ observations regarding low-risk prostate cancer, for which watchful waiting is now the standard of care.

“At present, however, procedure rates [for patients with BCC] increase with age, and many basal cell carcinomas are treated surgically regardless of a patient’s life expectancy,” Eleni Linos, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, and Mary-Margaret Chren, MD, chair of dermatology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., write in a viewpoint article published in August in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Considering the current treatment patterns for BCC, patients would “benefit from the existence of an evidence-based standard of care that includes active surveillance,” Mackenzie Wehner, MD, assistant professor at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex., writes in an editorial that accompanies the article in JAMA Dermatology.
 

Insights from the Dutch study

The article in JAMA Dermatology presents a cohort study conducted at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. The study included 89 patients who were managed with watchful waiting. The patients received no treatment for at least 3 months following their diagnoses.

The median age of the patients was 83 years. The patients had a total of 280 BCCs. The median initial diameter of the BCCs was 9.5 mm. Just over half of the patients were men, and about half of the BCCs were in the head and neck region.

The median follow-up was 9 months; the maximum follow-up was 6.5 years. Remarkably, the investigators say, more than half the tumors (53.2%) did not grow, and some even shrank. The majority of patients were asymptomatic at presentation, and fewer than 10% developed new symptoms, such as bleeding and itching, during follow-up.

Among the tumors that did grow, 70% were low-risk superficial/nodular tumors, which only increased in size by an estimated 1.06 mm over a year. Thirty percent were higher-risk micronodular/infiltrative tumors, which grew an estimated 4.46 mm over a 12-month period.

About two-thirds of patients eventually chose to have at least one of their BCCs removed after a median of about 7 months. Only three BCCs (2.8%) needed more extensive surgery – reconstructive surgery, rather than primary closure, for instance – than would have been necessary with an earlier excision.

No deaths from BCC were reported in the study.

The investigators tracked the reasons patients opted for watchful waiting. Many understood that their tumors likely would not cause problems in their remaining years. Others prioritized dealing with more pressing health or family problems. Logistics came into play for some, such as not having reliable transportation for hospital visits.

“In patients with [limited life expectancy] and asymptomatic low-risk tumors, [watchful waiting] should be discussed as a potentially appropriate approach,” the investigators, led by Marieke E. C. van Winden, MD, a dermatology resident at Radboud University, conclude.

For patients who wish to pursue a watchful waiting approach, the Dutch team recommends conducting follow-up visits every 3-6 months to see whether patients wish to continue with watchful waiting and to determine whether the risk-to-benefit ratio has shifted.

These recommendations are in line with criteria Dr. Linos and Dr. Chren propose in their viewpoint article in JAMA Internal Medicine. They characterize low-risk BCCs as asymptomatic, smaller than 1 cm in diameter, and located on the trunk or extremities in immunocompetent patients. They note that details regarding active surveillance for BCCs need to be worked out.

“Active surveillance should be studied as a management option because it is supported by the available evidence, congruent with the care of other low-risk cancers, and in accord with principles of shared decision-making,” Dr. Linos and Dr. Chren write.

No funding source was reported. Dr. Wehner, Dr. van Winden, Dr. Linos, and Dr. Chren have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Two of Dr. van Winden’s coauthors report ties to several companies, including Sanofi Genzyme, AbbVie, Novartis, and Janssen.

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

Basal cell carcinomas (BCCs), the most common form of skin cancer, are generally slow-growing tumors that occur in older patients.

Given the low rates of metastasis and mortality associated with BCC, some patients do not require treatment. However, there have been no evidence-based recommendations on who may benefit from a watch-and-wait approach.

Now, a study published on Sept. 8 in JAMA Dermatology sheds light on which patients with BCC may be appropriate candidates for watchful waiting.

The investigators found that, for older people with low-grade BCCs and limited life expectancy, the risks associated with surgery – bleeding, infection, and wound dehiscence – appeared to outweigh the advantages. According to the authors, these patients “might not live long enough to benefit from treatment.”

This finding mirrors oncologists’ observations regarding low-risk prostate cancer, for which watchful waiting is now the standard of care.

“At present, however, procedure rates [for patients with BCC] increase with age, and many basal cell carcinomas are treated surgically regardless of a patient’s life expectancy,” Eleni Linos, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, and Mary-Margaret Chren, MD, chair of dermatology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., write in a viewpoint article published in August in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Considering the current treatment patterns for BCC, patients would “benefit from the existence of an evidence-based standard of care that includes active surveillance,” Mackenzie Wehner, MD, assistant professor at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex., writes in an editorial that accompanies the article in JAMA Dermatology.
 

Insights from the Dutch study

The article in JAMA Dermatology presents a cohort study conducted at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. The study included 89 patients who were managed with watchful waiting. The patients received no treatment for at least 3 months following their diagnoses.

The median age of the patients was 83 years. The patients had a total of 280 BCCs. The median initial diameter of the BCCs was 9.5 mm. Just over half of the patients were men, and about half of the BCCs were in the head and neck region.

The median follow-up was 9 months; the maximum follow-up was 6.5 years. Remarkably, the investigators say, more than half the tumors (53.2%) did not grow, and some even shrank. The majority of patients were asymptomatic at presentation, and fewer than 10% developed new symptoms, such as bleeding and itching, during follow-up.

Among the tumors that did grow, 70% were low-risk superficial/nodular tumors, which only increased in size by an estimated 1.06 mm over a year. Thirty percent were higher-risk micronodular/infiltrative tumors, which grew an estimated 4.46 mm over a 12-month period.

About two-thirds of patients eventually chose to have at least one of their BCCs removed after a median of about 7 months. Only three BCCs (2.8%) needed more extensive surgery – reconstructive surgery, rather than primary closure, for instance – than would have been necessary with an earlier excision.

No deaths from BCC were reported in the study.

The investigators tracked the reasons patients opted for watchful waiting. Many understood that their tumors likely would not cause problems in their remaining years. Others prioritized dealing with more pressing health or family problems. Logistics came into play for some, such as not having reliable transportation for hospital visits.

“In patients with [limited life expectancy] and asymptomatic low-risk tumors, [watchful waiting] should be discussed as a potentially appropriate approach,” the investigators, led by Marieke E. C. van Winden, MD, a dermatology resident at Radboud University, conclude.

For patients who wish to pursue a watchful waiting approach, the Dutch team recommends conducting follow-up visits every 3-6 months to see whether patients wish to continue with watchful waiting and to determine whether the risk-to-benefit ratio has shifted.

These recommendations are in line with criteria Dr. Linos and Dr. Chren propose in their viewpoint article in JAMA Internal Medicine. They characterize low-risk BCCs as asymptomatic, smaller than 1 cm in diameter, and located on the trunk or extremities in immunocompetent patients. They note that details regarding active surveillance for BCCs need to be worked out.

“Active surveillance should be studied as a management option because it is supported by the available evidence, congruent with the care of other low-risk cancers, and in accord with principles of shared decision-making,” Dr. Linos and Dr. Chren write.

No funding source was reported. Dr. Wehner, Dr. van Winden, Dr. Linos, and Dr. Chren have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Two of Dr. van Winden’s coauthors report ties to several companies, including Sanofi Genzyme, AbbVie, Novartis, and Janssen.

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

Basal cell carcinomas (BCCs), the most common form of skin cancer, are generally slow-growing tumors that occur in older patients.

Given the low rates of metastasis and mortality associated with BCC, some patients do not require treatment. However, there have been no evidence-based recommendations on who may benefit from a watch-and-wait approach.

Now, a study published on Sept. 8 in JAMA Dermatology sheds light on which patients with BCC may be appropriate candidates for watchful waiting.

The investigators found that, for older people with low-grade BCCs and limited life expectancy, the risks associated with surgery – bleeding, infection, and wound dehiscence – appeared to outweigh the advantages. According to the authors, these patients “might not live long enough to benefit from treatment.”

This finding mirrors oncologists’ observations regarding low-risk prostate cancer, for which watchful waiting is now the standard of care.

“At present, however, procedure rates [for patients with BCC] increase with age, and many basal cell carcinomas are treated surgically regardless of a patient’s life expectancy,” Eleni Linos, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, and Mary-Margaret Chren, MD, chair of dermatology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., write in a viewpoint article published in August in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Considering the current treatment patterns for BCC, patients would “benefit from the existence of an evidence-based standard of care that includes active surveillance,” Mackenzie Wehner, MD, assistant professor at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex., writes in an editorial that accompanies the article in JAMA Dermatology.
 

Insights from the Dutch study

The article in JAMA Dermatology presents a cohort study conducted at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. The study included 89 patients who were managed with watchful waiting. The patients received no treatment for at least 3 months following their diagnoses.

The median age of the patients was 83 years. The patients had a total of 280 BCCs. The median initial diameter of the BCCs was 9.5 mm. Just over half of the patients were men, and about half of the BCCs were in the head and neck region.

The median follow-up was 9 months; the maximum follow-up was 6.5 years. Remarkably, the investigators say, more than half the tumors (53.2%) did not grow, and some even shrank. The majority of patients were asymptomatic at presentation, and fewer than 10% developed new symptoms, such as bleeding and itching, during follow-up.

Among the tumors that did grow, 70% were low-risk superficial/nodular tumors, which only increased in size by an estimated 1.06 mm over a year. Thirty percent were higher-risk micronodular/infiltrative tumors, which grew an estimated 4.46 mm over a 12-month period.

About two-thirds of patients eventually chose to have at least one of their BCCs removed after a median of about 7 months. Only three BCCs (2.8%) needed more extensive surgery – reconstructive surgery, rather than primary closure, for instance – than would have been necessary with an earlier excision.

No deaths from BCC were reported in the study.

The investigators tracked the reasons patients opted for watchful waiting. Many understood that their tumors likely would not cause problems in their remaining years. Others prioritized dealing with more pressing health or family problems. Logistics came into play for some, such as not having reliable transportation for hospital visits.

“In patients with [limited life expectancy] and asymptomatic low-risk tumors, [watchful waiting] should be discussed as a potentially appropriate approach,” the investigators, led by Marieke E. C. van Winden, MD, a dermatology resident at Radboud University, conclude.

For patients who wish to pursue a watchful waiting approach, the Dutch team recommends conducting follow-up visits every 3-6 months to see whether patients wish to continue with watchful waiting and to determine whether the risk-to-benefit ratio has shifted.

These recommendations are in line with criteria Dr. Linos and Dr. Chren propose in their viewpoint article in JAMA Internal Medicine. They characterize low-risk BCCs as asymptomatic, smaller than 1 cm in diameter, and located on the trunk or extremities in immunocompetent patients. They note that details regarding active surveillance for BCCs need to be worked out.

“Active surveillance should be studied as a management option because it is supported by the available evidence, congruent with the care of other low-risk cancers, and in accord with principles of shared decision-making,” Dr. Linos and Dr. Chren write.

No funding source was reported. Dr. Wehner, Dr. van Winden, Dr. Linos, and Dr. Chren have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Two of Dr. van Winden’s coauthors report ties to several companies, including Sanofi Genzyme, AbbVie, Novartis, and Janssen.

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

THE COMPARISON

A A 27-year-old Hispanic woman with comedonal and inflammatory acne. Erythema is prominent around the inflammatory lesions. Note the pustule on the cheek surrounded by pink color.

B A teenaged Black boy with acne papules and pustules on the face. There are comedones, hyperpigmented macules, and pustules on the cheek.

C A teenaged Black girl with pomade acne. The patient used various hair care products, which obstructed the pilosebaceous units on the forehead.

Epidemiology

Acne is a leading dermatologic condition in individuals with skin of color in the United States.¹

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:

• erythematous or hyperpigmented papules or comedones
• hyperpigmented macules and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH)
• increased risk for keloidal scars.²

Worth noting

• Patients with darker skin tones may be more concerned with the dark marks (also referred to as scars or manchas in Spanish) than the acne itself. This PIH may be viewed by patients as the major problem.
• Acne medications such as azelaic acid and some retinoids (when applied appropriately) can treat both acne and PIH.³
• Irritation from topical acne medications, including retinoid dermatitis, may lead to more PIH. Using noncomedogenic moisturizers and applying medication appropriately (ie, a pea-sized amount of topical retinoid per application) may help limit irritation.^4,5
• One type of acne seen more commonly, although not exclusively, in Black patients is pomade acne, which principally appears on the forehead and is associated with use of hair care and styling products (FIGURE C).

Health disparity highlight

Disparities in access to health care exist for those with dermatologic concerns. According to one study, African American (28.5%) and Hispanic patients (23.9%) were less likely to be seen by a dermatologist solely for the diagnosis of a dermatologic condition compared to Asian and Pacific Islander patients (36.7%) or White patients (43.2%).¹ Noting that isotretinoin is the most potent systemic therapy for severe cystic acne vulgaris, Bell et al⁶ reported that Black patients had lower odds of receiving isotretinoin compared to White patients. Hispanic patients had lower odds of receiving a topical retinoid, tretinoin, than non-Hispanic patients.⁶

THE COMPARISON

A A 27-year-old Hispanic woman with comedonal and inflammatory acne. Erythema is prominent around the inflammatory lesions. Note the pustule on the cheek surrounded by pink color.

B A teenaged Black boy with acne papules and pustules on the face. There are comedones, hyperpigmented macules, and pustules on the cheek.

C A teenaged Black girl with pomade acne. The patient used various hair care products, which obstructed the pilosebaceous units on the forehead.

Epidemiology

Acne is a leading dermatologic condition in individuals with skin of color in the United States.¹

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:

• erythematous or hyperpigmented papules or comedones
• hyperpigmented macules and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH)
• increased risk for keloidal scars.²

Worth noting

• Patients with darker skin tones may be more concerned with the dark marks (also referred to as scars or manchas in Spanish) than the acne itself. This PIH may be viewed by patients as the major problem.
• Acne medications such as azelaic acid and some retinoids (when applied appropriately) can treat both acne and PIH.³
• Irritation from topical acne medications, including retinoid dermatitis, may lead to more PIH. Using noncomedogenic moisturizers and applying medication appropriately (ie, a pea-sized amount of topical retinoid per application) may help limit irritation.^4,5
• One type of acne seen more commonly, although not exclusively, in Black patients is pomade acne, which principally appears on the forehead and is associated with use of hair care and styling products (FIGURE C).

Health disparity highlight

Disparities in access to health care exist for those with dermatologic concerns. According to one study, African American (28.5%) and Hispanic patients (23.9%) were less likely to be seen by a dermatologist solely for the diagnosis of a dermatologic condition compared to Asian and Pacific Islander patients (36.7%) or White patients (43.2%).¹ Noting that isotretinoin is the most potent systemic therapy for severe cystic acne vulgaris, Bell et al⁶ reported that Black patients had lower odds of receiving isotretinoin compared to White patients. Hispanic patients had lower odds of receiving a topical retinoid, tretinoin, than non-Hispanic patients.⁶

THE COMPARISON

A A 27-year-old Hispanic woman with comedonal and inflammatory acne. Erythema is prominent around the inflammatory lesions. Note the pustule on the cheek surrounded by pink color.

B A teenaged Black boy with acne papules and pustules on the face. There are comedones, hyperpigmented macules, and pustules on the cheek.

C A teenaged Black girl with pomade acne. The patient used various hair care products, which obstructed the pilosebaceous units on the forehead.

Epidemiology

Acne is a leading dermatologic condition in individuals with skin of color in the United States.¹

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:

• erythematous or hyperpigmented papules or comedones
• hyperpigmented macules and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH)
• increased risk for keloidal scars.²

Worth noting

• Patients with darker skin tones may be more concerned with the dark marks (also referred to as scars or manchas in Spanish) than the acne itself. This PIH may be viewed by patients as the major problem.
• Acne medications such as azelaic acid and some retinoids (when applied appropriately) can treat both acne and PIH.³
• Irritation from topical acne medications, including retinoid dermatitis, may lead to more PIH. Using noncomedogenic moisturizers and applying medication appropriately (ie, a pea-sized amount of topical retinoid per application) may help limit irritation.^4,5
• One type of acne seen more commonly, although not exclusively, in Black patients is pomade acne, which principally appears on the forehead and is associated with use of hair care and styling products (FIGURE C).

Health disparity highlight

Disparities in access to health care exist for those with dermatologic concerns. According to one study, African American (28.5%) and Hispanic patients (23.9%) were less likely to be seen by a dermatologist solely for the diagnosis of a dermatologic condition compared to Asian and Pacific Islander patients (36.7%) or White patients (43.2%).¹ Noting that isotretinoin is the most potent systemic therapy for severe cystic acne vulgaris, Bell et al⁶ reported that Black patients had lower odds of receiving isotretinoin compared to White patients. Hispanic patients had lower odds of receiving a topical retinoid, tretinoin, than non-Hispanic patients.⁶

The federal government is taking “steps in the right direction” to help control this pandemic, but there have been many hard lessons learned, according to a new report from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

The report’s authors call for “coordinated federal leadership to improve the nation’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

This is among 10 recommendations that address what AAMC views as systemic inadequacies in the nation’s COVID-19 response that can help advise policy makers on how to better prepare for the next pandemic.

The recommendations are:

• The White House must lead the charge and ensure coordination among departments and agencies.
• The federal government must engage industry and research universities at the outset, commit to purchasing needed supplies and therapeutics in advance.
• The federal government must ensure an effective supply chain for critical goods and materials.
• Congress must appropriate needed funding to meet public health needs.
• Federal and state governments must relax regulatory restrictions on clinical care during a national emergency.
• Both government and the private sector must invest in needed data infrastructure.
• Federal and state policies must increase supply and well-being of physicians and other health professionals.
• Congress must continue to commit to basic and clinical research.
• Federal government should expand and improve health insurance coverage.
• Stakeholders must commit to improving equity and patient-centered care through community engagement.

Current crisis ‘avoidable’

Although the Biden administration’s COVID-19 strategy is moving in the right direction, says Atul Grover, MD, PhD, executive director of the AAMC Research and Action Institute, the branch of the association that prepared the report, “the severity of this phase of the COVID-19 pandemic was avoidable.”

According to the report, only the federal government can provide the level of coordination that is needed across states and international borders to fight the virus successfully. “The response should not rely on a piecemeal approach that varies by locality and region.”

In the absence of clear federal leadership during the pandemic’s earlier phase, the report states, “key policies were either absent or conflicting across states, counties, and municipalities. Without federal direction and coordination, states were forced to compete against each other (and, sometimes, against the federal government) for supplies.”

As a recent Kaiser Health News report shows, the states are still falling short on the COVID-19 front: For example, at least 26 states have restricted the ability of their public health authorities to take action against COVID in various ways.

In an interview, William Schaffner, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., agrees on the need for the federal government to lead the COVID fight.

Noting that the cooperation of states with each other and with the national government is voluntary, Dr. Schaffner asserted that “subcontracting [the COVID response] to the states doesn’t work. That results in chaos and a crazy quilt of responses that persists to this day.”
 

Inadequate control of COVID effort

Within the federal government, the AAMC report maintains, the White House must be directly in charge of coordinating the fight against the pandemic. The AAMC calls for the establishment of a top-level office or a coordinating team to lead the COVID effort, similar to what was done during the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak.

Earlier this year, President Biden appointed Jeffrey Zients as White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, succeeding Deborah Birx, MD, in that role. Dr. Grover was asked in an interview why that doesn’t meet AAMC’s requirements.

“Jeff and his team are doing a good job,” Dr. Grover said. “But the reason I think we could be doing a better job is that the messaging has not been consistent across agencies and across the federal government.”

“Jeff may not have the authority to overrule individual decisions and to ensure that all decisions are integrated across organizations. Maybe that is happening, but it’s not clear to those of us who are not in the meetings every day. At a minimum, we’ve got to get the messaging right, and it needs to be more transparent.”

Dr. Grover cites a recent press conference by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about the national strategy for vaccine booster shots. “No one from the FDA was there,” he said. “Theoretically, [the] FDA has signed off on boosters, but their scientists were caught off guard. The administration’s messaging needs to be consistent, and that would be more likely if someone were in charge of these agencies overall,” Dr. Grover said.

Dr. Schaffner said he prefers not to comment on this point, “but I won’t argue with the observation.”
 

Supplies still not adequate

In light of the medical supply shortages that have plagued the COVID-19 response, the AAMC report recommends that the federal government ensure an effective supply chain for all critical goods and materials, starting with the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS), which was created in 1999 to supplement state and local medical supplies during public health emergencies.

“The SNS should enable the nation to support care for a minimum number of critically ill patients until the federal government can assure an adequate functional supply chain for a short period of time,” the AAMC report states.

The SNS was not replenished after the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and wasn’t prepared for the COVID-19 emergency, according to the report. “Despite having built up the supply over the last year, the nation is just one major outbreak or incident away from another monumental shortage of very basic needs such as gloves, masks, and gowns.”

Dr. Grover said the national stockpile now has more gowns and gloves than it did at the pandemic’s start. But he’s concerned about what might happen if a new type of pathogen emerged. “If we were to face the same kind of COVID surge we’re now facing in the unvaccinated communities more broadly across the U.S. – for example, if we got another variant that was even more infectious or deadly – I’m not sure we’d be prepared.”
 

Just-in-time purchasing

Hospitals were caught short when COVID struck because of their just-in-time supply chain approach, which relied on punctual deliveries of new supplies and equipment, the report states. Of course, when demand soared and every provider was competing for scarce supplies, that didn’t happen.

Now, Dr. Grover pointed out, there is still no central system to keep track of where PPE, ventilators, oxygen tanks, and other critical items are in the supply chains of hospitals and physician practices.

So, even if policymakers determined that the nation should use both the SNS and private locations to stockpile enough supplies to care for a certain number of patients for a period of time, there wouldn’t be any way to determine what was on hand or where it was stored.

Moreover, while hospitals have built up their stockpiles to prepare for new COVID surges, he expects them to go back to just-in-time purchasing when the pandemic wanes. Although health care organizations want to take good care of patients, they have financial and physical constraints on how many supplies they can store, Dr. Grover said.
 

Testing conundrum

An analogous challenge exists for companies that make COVID-19 tests, Dr. Grover said. “The testing companies don’t want to produce more than they’re going to be able to sell. They’re a for-profit industry.” Partly as a result, the nation has never had as many tests as it needs, according to the report.

To solve this problem, the report authors suggest that the federal government take an approach similar to that of the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed (OWS), which used advance funding and vaccine prepurchases to spur development.

“The CDC is unlikely to meet testing demands in future outbreaks and pandemics using existing public health lab partnerships, even under the best conditions. Industry was reluctant to mass produce testing kits for fear demand would fail to materialize; an OWS-like advance purchasing strategy and investment in private production could have reduced the spread of COVID-19 and will be critical in mitigating a future outbreak or pandemic.”
 

Public health infrastructure

The report also calls for Congress to appropriate “robust and continuous funding for public health infrastructure … Chronic underfunding of public health has hurt the nation’s emergency preparedness framework and contributes to health inequity.”

This applies not only to federal funding but also to state and local funding, which has primarily been allocated on a crisis-response basis, the report states.

Dr. Grover is glad that the fiscal 2022 budget legislation includes $15 billion to finance this infrastructure, but that’s only a start, he said.

Dr. Schaffner stresses the importance of improving the IT infrastructure of public health agencies. “We need a better, higher-quality mechanism for quickly gathering critical data from doctors’ offices and hospitals and sending that information through a public health stream so it can be gathered.”

“Today, data come in at the national level, sometimes slowly, sometimes in fragmented fashion, from different jurisdictions around the country, and it’s very difficult to make secure statements and plan effectively.”

Dr. Schaffner agrees with the report’s emphasis on the need for long-term planning to prepare for the next pandemic but is pessimistic about the odds of it occurring.

“This challenges us as Americans. We have notoriously short attention spans. And we like to put difficult things behind us and look to the future,” he said.

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

The federal government is taking “steps in the right direction” to help control this pandemic, but there have been many hard lessons learned, according to a new report from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

The report’s authors call for “coordinated federal leadership to improve the nation’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

This is among 10 recommendations that address what AAMC views as systemic inadequacies in the nation’s COVID-19 response that can help advise policy makers on how to better prepare for the next pandemic.

The recommendations are:

• The White House must lead the charge and ensure coordination among departments and agencies.
• The federal government must engage industry and research universities at the outset, commit to purchasing needed supplies and therapeutics in advance.
• The federal government must ensure an effective supply chain for critical goods and materials.
• Congress must appropriate needed funding to meet public health needs.
• Federal and state governments must relax regulatory restrictions on clinical care during a national emergency.
• Both government and the private sector must invest in needed data infrastructure.
• Federal and state policies must increase supply and well-being of physicians and other health professionals.
• Congress must continue to commit to basic and clinical research.
• Federal government should expand and improve health insurance coverage.
• Stakeholders must commit to improving equity and patient-centered care through community engagement.

Current crisis ‘avoidable’

Although the Biden administration’s COVID-19 strategy is moving in the right direction, says Atul Grover, MD, PhD, executive director of the AAMC Research and Action Institute, the branch of the association that prepared the report, “the severity of this phase of the COVID-19 pandemic was avoidable.”

According to the report, only the federal government can provide the level of coordination that is needed across states and international borders to fight the virus successfully. “The response should not rely on a piecemeal approach that varies by locality and region.”

In the absence of clear federal leadership during the pandemic’s earlier phase, the report states, “key policies were either absent or conflicting across states, counties, and municipalities. Without federal direction and coordination, states were forced to compete against each other (and, sometimes, against the federal government) for supplies.”

As a recent Kaiser Health News report shows, the states are still falling short on the COVID-19 front: For example, at least 26 states have restricted the ability of their public health authorities to take action against COVID in various ways.

In an interview, William Schaffner, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., agrees on the need for the federal government to lead the COVID fight.

Noting that the cooperation of states with each other and with the national government is voluntary, Dr. Schaffner asserted that “subcontracting [the COVID response] to the states doesn’t work. That results in chaos and a crazy quilt of responses that persists to this day.”
 

Inadequate control of COVID effort

Within the federal government, the AAMC report maintains, the White House must be directly in charge of coordinating the fight against the pandemic. The AAMC calls for the establishment of a top-level office or a coordinating team to lead the COVID effort, similar to what was done during the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak.

Earlier this year, President Biden appointed Jeffrey Zients as White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, succeeding Deborah Birx, MD, in that role. Dr. Grover was asked in an interview why that doesn’t meet AAMC’s requirements.

“Jeff and his team are doing a good job,” Dr. Grover said. “But the reason I think we could be doing a better job is that the messaging has not been consistent across agencies and across the federal government.”

“Jeff may not have the authority to overrule individual decisions and to ensure that all decisions are integrated across organizations. Maybe that is happening, but it’s not clear to those of us who are not in the meetings every day. At a minimum, we’ve got to get the messaging right, and it needs to be more transparent.”

Dr. Grover cites a recent press conference by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about the national strategy for vaccine booster shots. “No one from the FDA was there,” he said. “Theoretically, [the] FDA has signed off on boosters, but their scientists were caught off guard. The administration’s messaging needs to be consistent, and that would be more likely if someone were in charge of these agencies overall,” Dr. Grover said.

Dr. Schaffner said he prefers not to comment on this point, “but I won’t argue with the observation.”
 

Supplies still not adequate

In light of the medical supply shortages that have plagued the COVID-19 response, the AAMC report recommends that the federal government ensure an effective supply chain for all critical goods and materials, starting with the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS), which was created in 1999 to supplement state and local medical supplies during public health emergencies.

“The SNS should enable the nation to support care for a minimum number of critically ill patients until the federal government can assure an adequate functional supply chain for a short period of time,” the AAMC report states.

The SNS was not replenished after the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and wasn’t prepared for the COVID-19 emergency, according to the report. “Despite having built up the supply over the last year, the nation is just one major outbreak or incident away from another monumental shortage of very basic needs such as gloves, masks, and gowns.”

Dr. Grover said the national stockpile now has more gowns and gloves than it did at the pandemic’s start. But he’s concerned about what might happen if a new type of pathogen emerged. “If we were to face the same kind of COVID surge we’re now facing in the unvaccinated communities more broadly across the U.S. – for example, if we got another variant that was even more infectious or deadly – I’m not sure we’d be prepared.”
 

Just-in-time purchasing

Hospitals were caught short when COVID struck because of their just-in-time supply chain approach, which relied on punctual deliveries of new supplies and equipment, the report states. Of course, when demand soared and every provider was competing for scarce supplies, that didn’t happen.

Now, Dr. Grover pointed out, there is still no central system to keep track of where PPE, ventilators, oxygen tanks, and other critical items are in the supply chains of hospitals and physician practices.

So, even if policymakers determined that the nation should use both the SNS and private locations to stockpile enough supplies to care for a certain number of patients for a period of time, there wouldn’t be any way to determine what was on hand or where it was stored.

Moreover, while hospitals have built up their stockpiles to prepare for new COVID surges, he expects them to go back to just-in-time purchasing when the pandemic wanes. Although health care organizations want to take good care of patients, they have financial and physical constraints on how many supplies they can store, Dr. Grover said.
 

Testing conundrum

An analogous challenge exists for companies that make COVID-19 tests, Dr. Grover said. “The testing companies don’t want to produce more than they’re going to be able to sell. They’re a for-profit industry.” Partly as a result, the nation has never had as many tests as it needs, according to the report.

To solve this problem, the report authors suggest that the federal government take an approach similar to that of the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed (OWS), which used advance funding and vaccine prepurchases to spur development.

“The CDC is unlikely to meet testing demands in future outbreaks and pandemics using existing public health lab partnerships, even under the best conditions. Industry was reluctant to mass produce testing kits for fear demand would fail to materialize; an OWS-like advance purchasing strategy and investment in private production could have reduced the spread of COVID-19 and will be critical in mitigating a future outbreak or pandemic.”
 

Public health infrastructure

The report also calls for Congress to appropriate “robust and continuous funding for public health infrastructure … Chronic underfunding of public health has hurt the nation’s emergency preparedness framework and contributes to health inequity.”

This applies not only to federal funding but also to state and local funding, which has primarily been allocated on a crisis-response basis, the report states.

Dr. Grover is glad that the fiscal 2022 budget legislation includes $15 billion to finance this infrastructure, but that’s only a start, he said.

Dr. Schaffner stresses the importance of improving the IT infrastructure of public health agencies. “We need a better, higher-quality mechanism for quickly gathering critical data from doctors’ offices and hospitals and sending that information through a public health stream so it can be gathered.”

“Today, data come in at the national level, sometimes slowly, sometimes in fragmented fashion, from different jurisdictions around the country, and it’s very difficult to make secure statements and plan effectively.”

Dr. Schaffner agrees with the report’s emphasis on the need for long-term planning to prepare for the next pandemic but is pessimistic about the odds of it occurring.

“This challenges us as Americans. We have notoriously short attention spans. And we like to put difficult things behind us and look to the future,” he said.

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

The federal government is taking “steps in the right direction” to help control this pandemic, but there have been many hard lessons learned, according to a new report from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

The report’s authors call for “coordinated federal leadership to improve the nation’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

This is among 10 recommendations that address what AAMC views as systemic inadequacies in the nation’s COVID-19 response that can help advise policy makers on how to better prepare for the next pandemic.

The recommendations are:

• The White House must lead the charge and ensure coordination among departments and agencies.
• The federal government must engage industry and research universities at the outset, commit to purchasing needed supplies and therapeutics in advance.
• The federal government must ensure an effective supply chain for critical goods and materials.
• Congress must appropriate needed funding to meet public health needs.
• Federal and state governments must relax regulatory restrictions on clinical care during a national emergency.
• Both government and the private sector must invest in needed data infrastructure.
• Federal and state policies must increase supply and well-being of physicians and other health professionals.
• Congress must continue to commit to basic and clinical research.
• Federal government should expand and improve health insurance coverage.
• Stakeholders must commit to improving equity and patient-centered care through community engagement.

Current crisis ‘avoidable’

Although the Biden administration’s COVID-19 strategy is moving in the right direction, says Atul Grover, MD, PhD, executive director of the AAMC Research and Action Institute, the branch of the association that prepared the report, “the severity of this phase of the COVID-19 pandemic was avoidable.”

According to the report, only the federal government can provide the level of coordination that is needed across states and international borders to fight the virus successfully. “The response should not rely on a piecemeal approach that varies by locality and region.”

In the absence of clear federal leadership during the pandemic’s earlier phase, the report states, “key policies were either absent or conflicting across states, counties, and municipalities. Without federal direction and coordination, states were forced to compete against each other (and, sometimes, against the federal government) for supplies.”

As a recent Kaiser Health News report shows, the states are still falling short on the COVID-19 front: For example, at least 26 states have restricted the ability of their public health authorities to take action against COVID in various ways.

In an interview, William Schaffner, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., agrees on the need for the federal government to lead the COVID fight.

Noting that the cooperation of states with each other and with the national government is voluntary, Dr. Schaffner asserted that “subcontracting [the COVID response] to the states doesn’t work. That results in chaos and a crazy quilt of responses that persists to this day.”
 

Inadequate control of COVID effort

Within the federal government, the AAMC report maintains, the White House must be directly in charge of coordinating the fight against the pandemic. The AAMC calls for the establishment of a top-level office or a coordinating team to lead the COVID effort, similar to what was done during the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak.

Earlier this year, President Biden appointed Jeffrey Zients as White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, succeeding Deborah Birx, MD, in that role. Dr. Grover was asked in an interview why that doesn’t meet AAMC’s requirements.

“Jeff and his team are doing a good job,” Dr. Grover said. “But the reason I think we could be doing a better job is that the messaging has not been consistent across agencies and across the federal government.”

“Jeff may not have the authority to overrule individual decisions and to ensure that all decisions are integrated across organizations. Maybe that is happening, but it’s not clear to those of us who are not in the meetings every day. At a minimum, we’ve got to get the messaging right, and it needs to be more transparent.”

Dr. Grover cites a recent press conference by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about the national strategy for vaccine booster shots. “No one from the FDA was there,” he said. “Theoretically, [the] FDA has signed off on boosters, but their scientists were caught off guard. The administration’s messaging needs to be consistent, and that would be more likely if someone were in charge of these agencies overall,” Dr. Grover said.

Dr. Schaffner said he prefers not to comment on this point, “but I won’t argue with the observation.”
 

Supplies still not adequate

In light of the medical supply shortages that have plagued the COVID-19 response, the AAMC report recommends that the federal government ensure an effective supply chain for all critical goods and materials, starting with the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS), which was created in 1999 to supplement state and local medical supplies during public health emergencies.

“The SNS should enable the nation to support care for a minimum number of critically ill patients until the federal government can assure an adequate functional supply chain for a short period of time,” the AAMC report states.

The SNS was not replenished after the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and wasn’t prepared for the COVID-19 emergency, according to the report. “Despite having built up the supply over the last year, the nation is just one major outbreak or incident away from another monumental shortage of very basic needs such as gloves, masks, and gowns.”

Dr. Grover said the national stockpile now has more gowns and gloves than it did at the pandemic’s start. But he’s concerned about what might happen if a new type of pathogen emerged. “If we were to face the same kind of COVID surge we’re now facing in the unvaccinated communities more broadly across the U.S. – for example, if we got another variant that was even more infectious or deadly – I’m not sure we’d be prepared.”
 

Just-in-time purchasing

Hospitals were caught short when COVID struck because of their just-in-time supply chain approach, which relied on punctual deliveries of new supplies and equipment, the report states. Of course, when demand soared and every provider was competing for scarce supplies, that didn’t happen.

Now, Dr. Grover pointed out, there is still no central system to keep track of where PPE, ventilators, oxygen tanks, and other critical items are in the supply chains of hospitals and physician practices.

So, even if policymakers determined that the nation should use both the SNS and private locations to stockpile enough supplies to care for a certain number of patients for a period of time, there wouldn’t be any way to determine what was on hand or where it was stored.

Moreover, while hospitals have built up their stockpiles to prepare for new COVID surges, he expects them to go back to just-in-time purchasing when the pandemic wanes. Although health care organizations want to take good care of patients, they have financial and physical constraints on how many supplies they can store, Dr. Grover said.
 

Testing conundrum

An analogous challenge exists for companies that make COVID-19 tests, Dr. Grover said. “The testing companies don’t want to produce more than they’re going to be able to sell. They’re a for-profit industry.” Partly as a result, the nation has never had as many tests as it needs, according to the report.

To solve this problem, the report authors suggest that the federal government take an approach similar to that of the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed (OWS), which used advance funding and vaccine prepurchases to spur development.

“The CDC is unlikely to meet testing demands in future outbreaks and pandemics using existing public health lab partnerships, even under the best conditions. Industry was reluctant to mass produce testing kits for fear demand would fail to materialize; an OWS-like advance purchasing strategy and investment in private production could have reduced the spread of COVID-19 and will be critical in mitigating a future outbreak or pandemic.”
 

Public health infrastructure

The report also calls for Congress to appropriate “robust and continuous funding for public health infrastructure … Chronic underfunding of public health has hurt the nation’s emergency preparedness framework and contributes to health inequity.”

This applies not only to federal funding but also to state and local funding, which has primarily been allocated on a crisis-response basis, the report states.

Dr. Grover is glad that the fiscal 2022 budget legislation includes $15 billion to finance this infrastructure, but that’s only a start, he said.

Dr. Schaffner stresses the importance of improving the IT infrastructure of public health agencies. “We need a better, higher-quality mechanism for quickly gathering critical data from doctors’ offices and hospitals and sending that information through a public health stream so it can be gathered.”

“Today, data come in at the national level, sometimes slowly, sometimes in fragmented fashion, from different jurisdictions around the country, and it’s very difficult to make secure statements and plan effectively.”

Dr. Schaffner agrees with the report’s emphasis on the need for long-term planning to prepare for the next pandemic but is pessimistic about the odds of it occurring.

“This challenges us as Americans. We have notoriously short attention spans. And we like to put difficult things behind us and look to the future,” he said.

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

When I was in Florida a few weeks ago, I met a friend outside who approached me wearing an N-95 mask. He said he was wearing it because the Delta variant was running wild in Florida, and several of his younger unvaccinated employees had contracted it, and he encouraged me to get a COVID booster shot. In the late summer, although the federal government recommended booster shots for anyone 8 months after their original vaccination series, national confusion still reigns, with an Food and Drug Administration advisory panel more recently recommending against a Pfizer booster for all adults, but supporting a booster for those ages 65 and older or at a high risk for severe COVID-19.

At the end of December, I was excited when the local hospital whose staff I am on made the Moderna vaccine available. I had to wait several hours but it was worth it, and I did not care about the low-grade fever and malaise I experienced after the second dose. Astoundingly, I still have patients who have not been vaccinated, although many of them are elderly, frail, or immunocompromised. I think people who publicly argue against vaccination need to visit their local intensive care unit.

While less so than some other physicians, dermatologists are also vulnerable to COVID exposure. You can’t look in someone’s throat, or examine facial skin if they are wearing a mask – and you must lean in to see anything. We take all reasonable precautions, wearing masks, wiping down exam rooms and door handles, keeping the waiting room as empty as possible, using HEPA filters, and keeping exhaust fans going in the rooms continuously. My staff have all been vaccinated (I’m lucky there).

Still, if you are seeing 30 or 40 patients a day of all age groups and working in small unventilated rooms, you could be exposed to the Delta variant. While breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated immunocompetent individuals may be rare, if you do develop a breakthrough case, even if mild or asymptomatic, CDC recommendations include quarantining for at least 10 days. Obviously, this can be disastrous to your practice as a COVID infection works through your office.

This brings us to back to booster shots. Personally, I think all health care workers should be eager to get a booster shot. I also think individuals who have wide public exposure, particularly indoors, such as teachers and retail sales workers, should be eager to get one too. Here are some of the pros, as well as some cons for boosters.
 

Arguments for booster shots

• Booster shots should elevate your antibody levels and make you more resistant to breakthrough infections, but this is still theoretical. Antibody levels decline over time – more rapidly in those over 56 years of age.
• Vaccine doses go to waste every month in the United States, although specific numbers are lacking.
• Vaccinated individuals almost never get hospitalized and die from COVID, presumably even fewer do so after receiving a booster.
• You could unwittingly become a vector. Many of the breakthrough infections are mild and without symptoms. If you do test positive, it could be devastating to your patients, and your medical practice.

Arguments against booster shots

• These vaccine doses should be going to other countries that have low vaccination levels where many of the nasty variants are developing.
• You may have side effects from the vaccine, though thrombosis has only been seen with the Astra-Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines. Myocarditis is usually seen in younger patients and is almost always self limited.
• Breakthrough infections are rare.

This COVID pandemic is moving and changing so fast, it is bewildering. But with a little luck, COVID could eventually become an annual nuisance like the flu, and the COVID vaccine will become an annual shot based on the newest mutations. For now, my opinion is, get your booster shot.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].

When I was in Florida a few weeks ago, I met a friend outside who approached me wearing an N-95 mask. He said he was wearing it because the Delta variant was running wild in Florida, and several of his younger unvaccinated employees had contracted it, and he encouraged me to get a COVID booster shot. In the late summer, although the federal government recommended booster shots for anyone 8 months after their original vaccination series, national confusion still reigns, with an Food and Drug Administration advisory panel more recently recommending against a Pfizer booster for all adults, but supporting a booster for those ages 65 and older or at a high risk for severe COVID-19.

At the end of December, I was excited when the local hospital whose staff I am on made the Moderna vaccine available. I had to wait several hours but it was worth it, and I did not care about the low-grade fever and malaise I experienced after the second dose. Astoundingly, I still have patients who have not been vaccinated, although many of them are elderly, frail, or immunocompromised. I think people who publicly argue against vaccination need to visit their local intensive care unit.

While less so than some other physicians, dermatologists are also vulnerable to COVID exposure. You can’t look in someone’s throat, or examine facial skin if they are wearing a mask – and you must lean in to see anything. We take all reasonable precautions, wearing masks, wiping down exam rooms and door handles, keeping the waiting room as empty as possible, using HEPA filters, and keeping exhaust fans going in the rooms continuously. My staff have all been vaccinated (I’m lucky there).

Still, if you are seeing 30 or 40 patients a day of all age groups and working in small unventilated rooms, you could be exposed to the Delta variant. While breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated immunocompetent individuals may be rare, if you do develop a breakthrough case, even if mild or asymptomatic, CDC recommendations include quarantining for at least 10 days. Obviously, this can be disastrous to your practice as a COVID infection works through your office.

This brings us to back to booster shots. Personally, I think all health care workers should be eager to get a booster shot. I also think individuals who have wide public exposure, particularly indoors, such as teachers and retail sales workers, should be eager to get one too. Here are some of the pros, as well as some cons for boosters.
 

Arguments for booster shots

• Booster shots should elevate your antibody levels and make you more resistant to breakthrough infections, but this is still theoretical. Antibody levels decline over time – more rapidly in those over 56 years of age.
• Vaccine doses go to waste every month in the United States, although specific numbers are lacking.
• Vaccinated individuals almost never get hospitalized and die from COVID, presumably even fewer do so after receiving a booster.
• You could unwittingly become a vector. Many of the breakthrough infections are mild and without symptoms. If you do test positive, it could be devastating to your patients, and your medical practice.

Arguments against booster shots

• These vaccine doses should be going to other countries that have low vaccination levels where many of the nasty variants are developing.
• You may have side effects from the vaccine, though thrombosis has only been seen with the Astra-Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines. Myocarditis is usually seen in younger patients and is almost always self limited.
• Breakthrough infections are rare.

This COVID pandemic is moving and changing so fast, it is bewildering. But with a little luck, COVID could eventually become an annual nuisance like the flu, and the COVID vaccine will become an annual shot based on the newest mutations. For now, my opinion is, get your booster shot.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].

When I was in Florida a few weeks ago, I met a friend outside who approached me wearing an N-95 mask. He said he was wearing it because the Delta variant was running wild in Florida, and several of his younger unvaccinated employees had contracted it, and he encouraged me to get a COVID booster shot. In the late summer, although the federal government recommended booster shots for anyone 8 months after their original vaccination series, national confusion still reigns, with an Food and Drug Administration advisory panel more recently recommending against a Pfizer booster for all adults, but supporting a booster for those ages 65 and older or at a high risk for severe COVID-19.

At the end of December, I was excited when the local hospital whose staff I am on made the Moderna vaccine available. I had to wait several hours but it was worth it, and I did not care about the low-grade fever and malaise I experienced after the second dose. Astoundingly, I still have patients who have not been vaccinated, although many of them are elderly, frail, or immunocompromised. I think people who publicly argue against vaccination need to visit their local intensive care unit.

While less so than some other physicians, dermatologists are also vulnerable to COVID exposure. You can’t look in someone’s throat, or examine facial skin if they are wearing a mask – and you must lean in to see anything. We take all reasonable precautions, wearing masks, wiping down exam rooms and door handles, keeping the waiting room as empty as possible, using HEPA filters, and keeping exhaust fans going in the rooms continuously. My staff have all been vaccinated (I’m lucky there).

Still, if you are seeing 30 or 40 patients a day of all age groups and working in small unventilated rooms, you could be exposed to the Delta variant. While breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated immunocompetent individuals may be rare, if you do develop a breakthrough case, even if mild or asymptomatic, CDC recommendations include quarantining for at least 10 days. Obviously, this can be disastrous to your practice as a COVID infection works through your office.

This brings us to back to booster shots. Personally, I think all health care workers should be eager to get a booster shot. I also think individuals who have wide public exposure, particularly indoors, such as teachers and retail sales workers, should be eager to get one too. Here are some of the pros, as well as some cons for boosters.
 

Arguments for booster shots

• Booster shots should elevate your antibody levels and make you more resistant to breakthrough infections, but this is still theoretical. Antibody levels decline over time – more rapidly in those over 56 years of age.
• Vaccine doses go to waste every month in the United States, although specific numbers are lacking.
• Vaccinated individuals almost never get hospitalized and die from COVID, presumably even fewer do so after receiving a booster.
• You could unwittingly become a vector. Many of the breakthrough infections are mild and without symptoms. If you do test positive, it could be devastating to your patients, and your medical practice.

Arguments against booster shots

• These vaccine doses should be going to other countries that have low vaccination levels where many of the nasty variants are developing.
• You may have side effects from the vaccine, though thrombosis has only been seen with the Astra-Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines. Myocarditis is usually seen in younger patients and is almost always self limited.
• Breakthrough infections are rare.

This COVID pandemic is moving and changing so fast, it is bewildering. But with a little luck, COVID could eventually become an annual nuisance like the flu, and the COVID vaccine will become an annual shot based on the newest mutations. For now, my opinion is, get your booster shot.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at [email protected].

The Oregon Medical Board has revoked the license of a doctor who didn’t follow COVID-19 guidelines in his office and even told some patients that wearing face masks could lead to carbon-dioxide poisoning.

Steven Arthur LaTulippe’s advice to patients about face masking amounted to “gross negligence” in the practice of medicine and was grounds for discipline, the medical board said in a report.

Mr. LaTulippe, who had a family practice in Dallas, was fined $10,000, Insider reported. The board also said he’d overprescribed opioids for some patients.

The medical board report said Mr. LaTulippe and his wife, who ran the clinic with him, didn’t wear face masks while treating patients from March to December 2020.

Mr. LaTulippe told elderly and pediatric patients that mask wearing could hurt their health by exacerbating COPD and asthma and could contribute to heart attacks and other medical problems, the report said.

“Licensee asserts masks are likely to harm patients by increasing the body’s carbon dioxide content through rebreathing of gas trapped behind a mask,” the report said.

The report noted that “the amount of carbon dioxide rebreathed within a mask is trivial and would easily be expelled by an increase in minute ventilation so small it would not be noticed.”

The report said Mr. LaTulippe told patients they didn’t have to wear a mask in the clinic unless they were “acutely ill,” “coughing,” or “congested,” even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Oregon governor had recommended masks be worn to prevent the spread of the virus.

Before coming into the office, patients weren’t asked if they’d had recent contact with anybody who was infected or showed COVID symptoms, the report said.

The medical board first suspended his license in September. He said he would not change his conduct concerning face masks.

“Licensee has confirmed that he will refuse to abide by the state’s COVID-19 protocols in the future as well, affirming that in a choice between losing his medical license versus wearing a mask in his clinic and requiring his patients and staff to wear a mask in his clinic, he will, ‘choose to sacrifice my medical license with no hesitation’ ” the medical board’s report said.

Mr. LaTulippe told the medical board that he was “a strong asset to the public in educating them on the real facts about this pandemic” and that “at least 98% of my patients were so extremely thankful that I did not wear a mask or demand wearing a mask in my clinic.”

The medical board found Mr. LaTulippe engaged in 8 instances of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, 22 instances of negligence in the practice of medicine, and 5 instances of gross negligence in the practice of medicine.

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

The Oregon Medical Board has revoked the license of a doctor who didn’t follow COVID-19 guidelines in his office and even told some patients that wearing face masks could lead to carbon-dioxide poisoning.

Steven Arthur LaTulippe’s advice to patients about face masking amounted to “gross negligence” in the practice of medicine and was grounds for discipline, the medical board said in a report.

Mr. LaTulippe, who had a family practice in Dallas, was fined $10,000, Insider reported. The board also said he’d overprescribed opioids for some patients.

The medical board report said Mr. LaTulippe and his wife, who ran the clinic with him, didn’t wear face masks while treating patients from March to December 2020.

Mr. LaTulippe told elderly and pediatric patients that mask wearing could hurt their health by exacerbating COPD and asthma and could contribute to heart attacks and other medical problems, the report said.

“Licensee asserts masks are likely to harm patients by increasing the body’s carbon dioxide content through rebreathing of gas trapped behind a mask,” the report said.

The report noted that “the amount of carbon dioxide rebreathed within a mask is trivial and would easily be expelled by an increase in minute ventilation so small it would not be noticed.”

The report said Mr. LaTulippe told patients they didn’t have to wear a mask in the clinic unless they were “acutely ill,” “coughing,” or “congested,” even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Oregon governor had recommended masks be worn to prevent the spread of the virus.

Before coming into the office, patients weren’t asked if they’d had recent contact with anybody who was infected or showed COVID symptoms, the report said.

The medical board first suspended his license in September. He said he would not change his conduct concerning face masks.

“Licensee has confirmed that he will refuse to abide by the state’s COVID-19 protocols in the future as well, affirming that in a choice between losing his medical license versus wearing a mask in his clinic and requiring his patients and staff to wear a mask in his clinic, he will, ‘choose to sacrifice my medical license with no hesitation’ ” the medical board’s report said.

Mr. LaTulippe told the medical board that he was “a strong asset to the public in educating them on the real facts about this pandemic” and that “at least 98% of my patients were so extremely thankful that I did not wear a mask or demand wearing a mask in my clinic.”

The medical board found Mr. LaTulippe engaged in 8 instances of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, 22 instances of negligence in the practice of medicine, and 5 instances of gross negligence in the practice of medicine.

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

The Oregon Medical Board has revoked the license of a doctor who didn’t follow COVID-19 guidelines in his office and even told some patients that wearing face masks could lead to carbon-dioxide poisoning.

Steven Arthur LaTulippe’s advice to patients about face masking amounted to “gross negligence” in the practice of medicine and was grounds for discipline, the medical board said in a report.

Mr. LaTulippe, who had a family practice in Dallas, was fined $10,000, Insider reported. The board also said he’d overprescribed opioids for some patients.

The medical board report said Mr. LaTulippe and his wife, who ran the clinic with him, didn’t wear face masks while treating patients from March to December 2020.

Mr. LaTulippe told elderly and pediatric patients that mask wearing could hurt their health by exacerbating COPD and asthma and could contribute to heart attacks and other medical problems, the report said.

“Licensee asserts masks are likely to harm patients by increasing the body’s carbon dioxide content through rebreathing of gas trapped behind a mask,” the report said.

The report noted that “the amount of carbon dioxide rebreathed within a mask is trivial and would easily be expelled by an increase in minute ventilation so small it would not be noticed.”

The report said Mr. LaTulippe told patients they didn’t have to wear a mask in the clinic unless they were “acutely ill,” “coughing,” or “congested,” even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Oregon governor had recommended masks be worn to prevent the spread of the virus.

Before coming into the office, patients weren’t asked if they’d had recent contact with anybody who was infected or showed COVID symptoms, the report said.

The medical board first suspended his license in September. He said he would not change his conduct concerning face masks.

“Licensee has confirmed that he will refuse to abide by the state’s COVID-19 protocols in the future as well, affirming that in a choice between losing his medical license versus wearing a mask in his clinic and requiring his patients and staff to wear a mask in his clinic, he will, ‘choose to sacrifice my medical license with no hesitation’ ” the medical board’s report said.

Mr. LaTulippe told the medical board that he was “a strong asset to the public in educating them on the real facts about this pandemic” and that “at least 98% of my patients were so extremely thankful that I did not wear a mask or demand wearing a mask in my clinic.”

The medical board found Mr. LaTulippe engaged in 8 instances of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, 22 instances of negligence in the practice of medicine, and 5 instances of gross negligence in the practice of medicine.

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

To view the abstracts and poster from this year's AVAHO 2021 meeting Click Here or on the cover image.

To view the abstracts and poster from this year's AVAHO 2021 meeting Click Here or on the cover image.

To view the abstracts and poster from this year's AVAHO 2021 meeting Click Here or on the cover image.

The pandemic was more disruptive to the home life of female primary care doctors who had children than that of those who did not have children, suggests a new survey’s results.

The survey, conducted by the Robert Graham Center and the American Board of Family Medicine from May to June 2020, examined the professional and personal experiences of being a mother and a primary care physician during the pandemic.

“The pandemic was hard for everyone, but for women who had children in the home, and it didn’t really matter what age, it seemed like the emotional impact was much harder,” study author Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, said in an interview.

The results of the survey of 89 female physicians who worked in the primary care specialty were published in the Journal of Mother Studies.

Dr. Jabbapour and her colleagues found that 67% of female physicians with children said the pandemic had a great “impact” on their home life compared with 25% of those without children. Furthermore, 41% of physician moms said COVID-19 greatly affected their work life, as opposed to 17% of their counterparts without children.

“Women are going into medicine at much higher rates. In primary care, it’s becoming close to the majority,” said Dr. Jabbarpour, a family physician and medical director of the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies. “That has important workforce implications. If we’re not supporting our female physicians and they are greater than 50% of the physician workforce and they’re burning out, who’s going to have a doctor anymore?”
 

Child care challenges

Researchers found that the emotional toll female physicians experienced early on in the pandemic was indicative of the challenges they were facing. Some of those challenges included managing anxiety, increased stress from both work and home, and social isolation from friends and family.

Another challenge physician mothers had to deal with was fulfilling child care and homeschooling needs, as many women didn’t know what to do with their children and didn’t have external support from their employers.

Child care options vanished for many people during the pandemic, Emily Kaye, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“I think it was incredibly challenging for everyone and uniquely challenging for women who were young mothers, specifically with respect to child care” said Dr. Kaye, assistant professor in the department of oncology at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. “Many women were expected to just continue plugging on in the absence of any reasonable or safe form of child care.”

Some of the changes physician-mothers said they were required to make at home or in their personal lives included physical changes related to their family safety, such as decontaminating themselves in their garages before heading home after a shift. Some also reported that they had to find new ways to maintain emotional and mental health because of social isolation from family and friends.

The survey results, which were taken early on in the pandemic, highlight the need for health policies that support physician mothers and families, as women shoulder the burden of parenting and domestic responsibilities in heterosexual relationships, the researchers said.

“I’m hoping that people pay attention and start to implement more family friendly policies within their workplaces,” Dr. Jabbarpour said. “But during a pandemic, it was essential for [female health care workers] to go in, and they had nowhere to put their kids. [Therefore], the choice became leaving young children alone at home, putting them into daycare facilities that did remain open without knowing if they were [safe], or quitting their jobs. None of those choices are good.”
 

Community support as a potential solution

Dr. Kaye said she believes that there should be a “long overdue investment” in community support, affordable and accessible child care, flexible spending, paid family leave, and other forms of caregiving support.

“In order to keep women physicians in the workforce, we need to have a significant increase in investment in the social safety net in this country,” Dr. Kaye said.

Researchers said more studies should evaluate the role the COVID-19 pandemic had on the primary care workforce in the U.S., “with a specific emphasis on how the pandemic impacted mothers, and should more intentionally consider the further intersections of race and ethnicity in the experiences of physician-mothers.”

“I think people are burning out and then there’s all this anti-science, anti-health sentiment out there, which makes it harder,” Dr. Jabbarpour said. “If we did repeat this study now, I think things would be even more dire in the voices of the women that we heard.”

Dr. Jabbarpour and Dr. Kaye reported no disclosures.

The pandemic was more disruptive to the home life of female primary care doctors who had children than that of those who did not have children, suggests a new survey’s results.

The survey, conducted by the Robert Graham Center and the American Board of Family Medicine from May to June 2020, examined the professional and personal experiences of being a mother and a primary care physician during the pandemic.

“The pandemic was hard for everyone, but for women who had children in the home, and it didn’t really matter what age, it seemed like the emotional impact was much harder,” study author Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, said in an interview.

The results of the survey of 89 female physicians who worked in the primary care specialty were published in the Journal of Mother Studies.

Dr. Jabbapour and her colleagues found that 67% of female physicians with children said the pandemic had a great “impact” on their home life compared with 25% of those without children. Furthermore, 41% of physician moms said COVID-19 greatly affected their work life, as opposed to 17% of their counterparts without children.

“Women are going into medicine at much higher rates. In primary care, it’s becoming close to the majority,” said Dr. Jabbarpour, a family physician and medical director of the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies. “That has important workforce implications. If we’re not supporting our female physicians and they are greater than 50% of the physician workforce and they’re burning out, who’s going to have a doctor anymore?”
 

Child care challenges

Researchers found that the emotional toll female physicians experienced early on in the pandemic was indicative of the challenges they were facing. Some of those challenges included managing anxiety, increased stress from both work and home, and social isolation from friends and family.

Another challenge physician mothers had to deal with was fulfilling child care and homeschooling needs, as many women didn’t know what to do with their children and didn’t have external support from their employers.

Child care options vanished for many people during the pandemic, Emily Kaye, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“I think it was incredibly challenging for everyone and uniquely challenging for women who were young mothers, specifically with respect to child care” said Dr. Kaye, assistant professor in the department of oncology at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. “Many women were expected to just continue plugging on in the absence of any reasonable or safe form of child care.”

Some of the changes physician-mothers said they were required to make at home or in their personal lives included physical changes related to their family safety, such as decontaminating themselves in their garages before heading home after a shift. Some also reported that they had to find new ways to maintain emotional and mental health because of social isolation from family and friends.

The survey results, which were taken early on in the pandemic, highlight the need for health policies that support physician mothers and families, as women shoulder the burden of parenting and domestic responsibilities in heterosexual relationships, the researchers said.

“I’m hoping that people pay attention and start to implement more family friendly policies within their workplaces,” Dr. Jabbarpour said. “But during a pandemic, it was essential for [female health care workers] to go in, and they had nowhere to put their kids. [Therefore], the choice became leaving young children alone at home, putting them into daycare facilities that did remain open without knowing if they were [safe], or quitting their jobs. None of those choices are good.”
 

Community support as a potential solution

Dr. Kaye said she believes that there should be a “long overdue investment” in community support, affordable and accessible child care, flexible spending, paid family leave, and other forms of caregiving support.

“In order to keep women physicians in the workforce, we need to have a significant increase in investment in the social safety net in this country,” Dr. Kaye said.

Researchers said more studies should evaluate the role the COVID-19 pandemic had on the primary care workforce in the U.S., “with a specific emphasis on how the pandemic impacted mothers, and should more intentionally consider the further intersections of race and ethnicity in the experiences of physician-mothers.”

“I think people are burning out and then there’s all this anti-science, anti-health sentiment out there, which makes it harder,” Dr. Jabbarpour said. “If we did repeat this study now, I think things would be even more dire in the voices of the women that we heard.”

Dr. Jabbarpour and Dr. Kaye reported no disclosures.

The pandemic was more disruptive to the home life of female primary care doctors who had children than that of those who did not have children, suggests a new survey’s results.

The survey, conducted by the Robert Graham Center and the American Board of Family Medicine from May to June 2020, examined the professional and personal experiences of being a mother and a primary care physician during the pandemic.

“The pandemic was hard for everyone, but for women who had children in the home, and it didn’t really matter what age, it seemed like the emotional impact was much harder,” study author Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, said in an interview.

The results of the survey of 89 female physicians who worked in the primary care specialty were published in the Journal of Mother Studies.

Dr. Jabbapour and her colleagues found that 67% of female physicians with children said the pandemic had a great “impact” on their home life compared with 25% of those without children. Furthermore, 41% of physician moms said COVID-19 greatly affected their work life, as opposed to 17% of their counterparts without children.

“Women are going into medicine at much higher rates. In primary care, it’s becoming close to the majority,” said Dr. Jabbarpour, a family physician and medical director of the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies. “That has important workforce implications. If we’re not supporting our female physicians and they are greater than 50% of the physician workforce and they’re burning out, who’s going to have a doctor anymore?”
 

Child care challenges

Researchers found that the emotional toll female physicians experienced early on in the pandemic was indicative of the challenges they were facing. Some of those challenges included managing anxiety, increased stress from both work and home, and social isolation from friends and family.

Another challenge physician mothers had to deal with was fulfilling child care and homeschooling needs, as many women didn’t know what to do with their children and didn’t have external support from their employers.

Child care options vanished for many people during the pandemic, Emily Kaye, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“I think it was incredibly challenging for everyone and uniquely challenging for women who were young mothers, specifically with respect to child care” said Dr. Kaye, assistant professor in the department of oncology at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. “Many women were expected to just continue plugging on in the absence of any reasonable or safe form of child care.”

Some of the changes physician-mothers said they were required to make at home or in their personal lives included physical changes related to their family safety, such as decontaminating themselves in their garages before heading home after a shift. Some also reported that they had to find new ways to maintain emotional and mental health because of social isolation from family and friends.

The survey results, which were taken early on in the pandemic, highlight the need for health policies that support physician mothers and families, as women shoulder the burden of parenting and domestic responsibilities in heterosexual relationships, the researchers said.

“I’m hoping that people pay attention and start to implement more family friendly policies within their workplaces,” Dr. Jabbarpour said. “But during a pandemic, it was essential for [female health care workers] to go in, and they had nowhere to put their kids. [Therefore], the choice became leaving young children alone at home, putting them into daycare facilities that did remain open without knowing if they were [safe], or quitting their jobs. None of those choices are good.”
 

Community support as a potential solution

Dr. Kaye said she believes that there should be a “long overdue investment” in community support, affordable and accessible child care, flexible spending, paid family leave, and other forms of caregiving support.

“In order to keep women physicians in the workforce, we need to have a significant increase in investment in the social safety net in this country,” Dr. Kaye said.

Researchers said more studies should evaluate the role the COVID-19 pandemic had on the primary care workforce in the U.S., “with a specific emphasis on how the pandemic impacted mothers, and should more intentionally consider the further intersections of race and ethnicity in the experiences of physician-mothers.”

“I think people are burning out and then there’s all this anti-science, anti-health sentiment out there, which makes it harder,” Dr. Jabbarpour said. “If we did repeat this study now, I think things would be even more dire in the voices of the women that we heard.”

Dr. Jabbarpour and Dr. Kaye reported no disclosures.